This is part 2 of my analysis on “John Paul II”’s encyclical Redemptor Hominis.
Paragraph 13: The image and likeness of God in all men
This is the most crucial part of the entire encyclical.
“Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the ‘abstract’ man, but the real, ‘concrete’, ‘historical’ man. We are dealing with ‘each’ man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery. Every man comes into the world through being conceived in his mother’s womb and being born of his mother, and precisely on account of the mystery of the Redemption is entrusted to the solicitude of the Church. Her solicitude is about the whole man and is focussed [sic] on him in an altogether special manner. The object of her care is man in his unique unrepeatable human reality, which keeps intact the image and likeness of God himself. The Council points out this very fact when, speaking of that likeness, it recalls that ‘man is the only creature on earth that God willed for itself’.” (RH 13)
The key statement in the paragraph above is the keeping “intact the image and likeness of God himself”.
German theologian Ludwig Ott writes in his well-known work “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, referencing St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas: “Man, who is by nature, in his body, an incorporation of a Divine Idea, a vestigium Dei, and in his spirit, an image of the Divine Spirit, imago Dei, becomes by sanctifiyng [sic] grace similitudo Dei, that is, becomes elevated to a higher supernatural grade of assimilation to God.” (p. 297, see also p. 83)
In other words, when Adam and Eve were first created, they were created in the “image of God” (imago Dei) and in the “likeness of God” (similitudo Dei). The former means that human beings have souls with personality, intellect and free will and the latter means that they had sanctifying grace. When they sinned, the “likeness of God” was lost and the “image of God” was wounded. By claiming that all humans have kept “intact the image and likeness of God”, “John Paul II” insinuates that all people are in a state of grace. Universal salvation clearly follows from this line of reasoning.
Wojtyla speaks in front of the United Nations in 1995, (here)
Paragraph 17: Praising the UN
“Francis” was once called a “UN General Secretary with a pectoral cross”. In this encyclical, “John Paul II” deals with the United Nations in a separate paragraph. He showers it with praise and writes in a worldly style. This is how he begins:
“In any case, we cannot fail to recall at this point, with esteem and profound hope for the future, the magnificent effort made to give life to the United Nations Organization, an effort conducive to the definition and establishment of man’s objective and inviolable rights, with the member States obliging each other to observe them rigorously.” (RH 17)
“John Paul II” mentions the supposed “right to religious freedom”.
“These rights are rightly reckoned to include the right to religious freedom together with the right to freedom of conscience. The Second Vatican Council considered especially necessary the preparation of a fairly long declaration on this subject. This is the document called Dignitatis Humanae, in which is expressed not only the theological concept of the question but also the concept reached from the point of view of natural law, that is to say from the ‘purely human’ position, on the basis of the premises given by man’s own experience, his reason and his sense of human dignity. […] The curtailment and violation of religious freedom are in contrast with man’s dignity and his objective rights.” (RH 17)
This topic is out of scope for this article, however it is appropriate to give a short description of the issue. There is a difference between “religious freedom” and “religious tolerance”. The former means that all human beings have a natural right to practice whatever religion they want free from state interference as long as they don’t disturb the public peace and the other means that the state shouldn’t interfere with the exercise of various religions.
From the Catholic perspective, the problem with “religious freedom vagy liberty” is that it postulates that people have a natural right, that is, a right from God to practice a false religion and that the state should recognize this right. This was condemned by various popes: Pius VII (Post tam diuturnas, 1814), Pius IX (Quanta cura, 1864; Syllabus errorum, 1864) and Leo XIII (Immortale Dei, 1885; Libertas praestantissimum, 1888) Quanta cura is especially notable, since it is clear from the document that it was intended to be an ex cathedra declaration.
“Religious tolerance” was always acceptable to the Catholic Church. Leo XIII explains in Libertas praestantissimum: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess.” (Libertas praestantissimum 42)
Dörmann notes: “The Pope’s remarks on the humanist peace and the new world order, founded on the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, could just as easily have come from the UN General Secretary, with the exception of the last paragraph. In the whole of Article 17, the name of “God” is only mentioned once, in the last paragraph (see above, RH 17,9).” (p. 209)
Paragraph 18: Christ united to every man
“If Christ ‘united himself with each man’ [Gaudium et Spes 22], the Church lives more profoundly her own nature and mission by penetrating into the depths of this mystery and into its rich universal language. It was not without reason that the Apostle speaks of Christ’s Body, the Church. If this Mystical Body of Christ is God’s People […] this means that in it each man receives within himself that breath of life that comes from Christ. In this way, turning to man and his real problems, his hopes and sufferings, his achievements and falls-this too also makes the Church as a body, an organism, a social unit perceive the same divine influences, the light and strength of the Spirit that come from the crucified and risen Christ, and it is for this very reason that she lives her life. The Church has only one life: that which is given her by her Spouse and Lord. Indeed, precisely because Christ united himself with her in his mystery of Redemption, the Church must be strongly united with each man.” (RH 18)
Dörmann observers: “In the Pope’s theology, Christ’s union with each man (through the Incarnation) is the definition of revelation (a priori). In the text above, the mystery of this union is the source from which the Church also draws the deeper knowledge of her own nature and mission. This has notable consequences for the Encyclical’s idea of the Church:
If Christ is united with each person, then all mankind is ‘anonymous Christianity’ or the hidden Church.
The hidden Church, which includes all mankind in an unknown fashion, is distinct from the visible Church ‘as a body, an organism, a social unity.’ (Why is the visible Church not simply referred to as the Catholic Church?)
Thus in the Encyclical there is a twofold idea of the Church: the invisible and the visible Church. The invisible Church is ontologically not only more broad-minded, since it includes all mankind, but also more fundamental, since it emerges a priori from the union of Christ with each man and therefore embraces all mankind from the beginning to the end of the world.” (p. 212)
“Anonymous Christianity” was a heretical idea proposed by the infamous German theologian Karl Rahner (1904-1984). Rahner, a good friend of Ratzinger, proposed that all human beings, or at least all human beings of good will, are somehow members of the Church, even if they are not aware of it.
“This union of Christ with man is in itself a mystery. From the mystery is born ‘the new man’, called to become a partaker of God’s life, and newly created in Christ for the fullness of grace and truth. [cf. Eph 2:10; Jn 1:14, 16.] Christ’s union with man is power and the source of power, as Saint John stated so incisively in the prologue of his Gospel: ‘(The Word) gave power to become children of God’ [Jn 1:12].” (RH 18)
Dörmann: “The text clearly states: From the union of Christ with man, which extends to every man through the Incarnation, the ‘new man’ is born. What St. Paul says of the Christian believer: ‘He who is in Christ is a new creature’ (II Cor. 5:17; cf. also Gal. 6:15), holds in the Encyclical for each man. What St. John says in the Prologue of the Christian believers supernatural birth from God holds in the Encyclical for all persons. From the union of Christ with each man, emerges man redeemed and justified a priori. There are no conditions attached, neither that of faith nor that of baptism. Thus the striking words of St. John: ‘The Word gave power to become children of God,’ appear in the Encyclical – for a good reason — with characteristic omissions. The complete text from the Prologue runs: ‘But to them that received Him, to them He gave power to be come children of God, to them that believe in His name.’ Logically, the Pope leaves out the subjective element of the Redemption: the reception of the Logos and faith in Jesus Christ. Why this omission? Because he teaches universal salvation.” (p. 214)
Screenshot of Wojtyla holding a speech (source)
The final paragraphs
Due to space constraints, I am not going to discuss the final paragraphs (19-22) do not contain much relevant information, besides the “new advent” theme discussed above.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to quote Father Dörmann again. He writes this with regard to RH 3-4, where Wojtyla quotes the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium, paragraph 1: “[T]he Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race […]”. Wojtyla links this to a new “present-day consciousness of the Church” (RH 3):
“If the non-Christian world is ‘anonymous Christianity,’ then there exist [sic] a priori an unconscious union of all persons with Christ and a hidden ‘ontological’ unity of the Church and mankind, then we can regard all mankind as a ‘hidden’ Church. Thus what we call the Church is the ‘sign’ of universal salvation and at the same time the ‘instrument’ for the unity of all mankind, and acts in that capacity by her ‘missionary dynamism,’ whereby she makes all men aware of the unconscious, hidden, yet real unity of all mankind in Christ, and, by proclaiming revelation a posteriori to all mankind, announces the grace of God given to everyone a priori – then the mission of the Church to bring about ‘the unity of all mankind’ in God and in Christ is merely a question of consciousness.
In the present stage of theology, there is a strong consensus: The Council text on the Church as sacrament of unity in Lumen Gentium 1,1 is understood in the sense of universal salvation. That holds also for Cardinal Wojtyla, even as Pope. In Sign of Contradiction [the book with Wojtyla’s speeches, published before his election, see above], his commentary on this Council text is succinct: ‘All men are included in this sacrament of unity’ (p. 37). The new more broad-minded idea of the Church is also defined there: ‘The Church of the living God unites all men’ (p. 27).
We may conclude: The sentence: The Church is ‘a sacrament or sign and means of intimate union with God, and of the unity of all mankind,’ sentence which is essential for the entire ecclesiology of the constitution Lumen Gentium and for the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, is tantamount in the Encyclical to the thesis of universal salvation, to the more broad-minded Christology and ecclesiology. This is how he defines the dogmatic import of the ‘present-day consciousness of the Church.’” (p. 76-77)
In other words: It is claimed that the difference between a pagan and a Christian is a difference of “consciousness”: the Christian knows that he is already redeemed by Christ, the pagan doesn’t know it yet. So the mission of the “new church” is to inform the people that they are already redeemed. Needless to say, this is not Catholic in the slightest.