JPII and Dante

Some may have heard of the recent Dan Brown novel, Inferno, which is based on the first volume of Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy. In it, Robert Langdon travels about Italy to finally discover that the Catholic Church is ruining the world by encouraging overpopulation! Once again, Dan Brown drops "secret knowledge" on millions of unenlightened westerners (stay tuned for another post on JPII vs. The Da Vinci Code).

Instead of giving Dan Brown undeserved attention in this post, my focus is much moreso on Dante Alighieri, JPII, and the Virgin Mary. Most notably from JPII's comments and meditations on Dante in placing Mary as the apex of the Divine Comedy, especially in his Address: "At a Reading of Dante's Divine Comedy 08/31/97". Rather than focus on hell, as Brown does in his Inferno, JPII chooses to emphasize "Paradiso", and more specifically, Mary's overarching influence from heaven:

In the grand scene presenting man’s search for salvation, the Poet assigns a central place to Mary, 'humble and higher than creation', the familiar and sublime image of the woman who sheds light on the parable of the final ascent, after having supported the traveler’s tiring journey. What a consoling vision! Almost seven centuries later, Dante’s art evokes lofty emotions and the greatest convictions, and still proves capable of instilling courage and hope (http://www.fjp2.com/us/john-paul-ii/online-library/speeches/13833-at-a-reading-of-dante-alighieris-qdivine-comedyq-august-31-1997)

"Vision" is the word used to describe Mary in Paradiso, much like that of St. John the Evangelist in the book of Revelation. Furthermore, it is a "consoling vision", in stark contrast to the despair of the Inferno and difficult climb of Purgatorio.

Recall that just prior to Paradiso, Dante presents Beatrice as the crown of beauty, truth, and goodness. In a way, Beatrice prepares Dante to meet Mary, helping him to repent of his sins in the last few cantos before his ascent to "Paradiso". JPII captures Dante's joy to finally meet the Virigin Mother, calling her both "familiar and sublime" as Dante finishes his "tiring journey". It is as though Dante had already encountered aspects of Mary in Beatrice, explaining the 'familiarity'. Likewise, the 'sublimity' requires purity of heart to behold, which is why Dante had to repent of all that was not worthy of meeting the Theotokos. In notes on this topic, the University of Texas at Austin provides a detailed explanation of Dante's painful purification in his Purgatorio:

Examples of chastity and lust are provided by the penitents themselves as they walk within a raging fire on the seventh and final terrace of Purgatory. The spirits--at least those who desired partners of the opposite sex--cry out words spoken by Mary at the 'annunciation' when she asks how, not having sexual relations with a man (virum non cognosco [I know not man]), she will give birth to Jesus (25.127-8; Luke 1:34) [http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/purgatory/09lust.html].

Mary is understood to be the example par excellence of those who upheld chastity and temperance in their lifetimes. In turn, Mary gives way to the rightful Lordship of her Son, as was so often communicated by JPII with his motto "totus tuus". His intention in devoting himself to Mary was precisely to be given over to Jesus, and although not explicitly stated by Dante in the Divine Comedy, this same theme is implied in the text.

Perhaps that is what is so effective in Dante's work, namely, the implication of God's presence throughout the epic poem but in such a hidden and surprising way as to attract both believers and non-believers into reading it. I remember friends reading, by their own free will, the Inferno in highschool because they said it was both "scary and fascinating". Little did they know that it touched on the faith and virtue needed for them to meet their Maker at the end of their days! Furthermore, the poem humbly places readers within the worldview of 'man's search for salvation', making some mistakes with Limbo and political judgments, but by and large staying true to Catholic understanding of the afterlife, especially in regard to the purification for sins before the beatific vision of God. Lastly, it successfully synthesized all of classic literature prior to Christ into a common patrimony (personified by Virgil) pointing to the revelation of the Blessed Trinity and salvation.

I want to fill in a bit about Dante's political life, to help explain some of the mistakes he made with the poem--but not so as to discount its relevance and rightful place in Catholic history. The condensed biography of Dante Alighieri is simply the following list (exerpted from New Advent--http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04628a.htm):

1) He fell in love with a child-hood friend, Beatrice, at nine. She was his muse even after her death in 1290, inspiring his first poem in 1294.
2) He began a military/political career in 1295 with the pro-papal Guelf party
3) He marries and has four children
4) The Guelfs split in two in 1300, into "whites" (pro-papal) and "blacks" (anti-papal) with Dante joining the latter
5) He is exiled from Florence, but later hailed poet laurete of Italy
6) Dies at Ravenna, 1321

Compare Dante's life choices amidst political upheaval, war, and papal corruption with Karol Wojtyla! In some ways they are similar: poets, citizens of countries at war, etc. Yet, they are very different as well: married man vs. priest, soldier vs. laborer, anti-papal vs. pro-papal. Imagine if Wojtyla had been outspoken in his criticism of Pope Pius XII for being neutral during WWII! Or for not doing more for refugees in the Vatican! It wasn't as though there were insufficient reasons to question/accuse the Church during the second world war. He certainly had his "Virgil" to thank in both his father, captain Wojtyla, and mentor: Cardinal Sapieha. Yes, Karol Wojtyla took a narrower road to Paradise than Dante Alighieri--and that "made all the difference!"

To conclude then, in Dante Alighieri we have a Catholic genius not to be confused with Dan Brown's depiction in Inferno, but more appropriately ranked with the caliber of JPII. Likewise, we have two men with lifelong devotions to the Blessed Virgin Mary, meeting precisely in their love of her as the crown of creation.

I deeply hope that Dante is resting in peace with the assurance of an ecstatic gaze on the beatific vision, including the beauty that created his beloved Beatrice.

*Update (This from a series on Purgatorio by Dreher):
Dante, like all the medieval intellectuals, believed in what you might call “number mysticism.” In the premodern metaphysical vision —a vision still embraced by philosophical Traditionalism; a very good, easily accessible presentation of this is in Prince Charles’s book Harmony — anyway, in the premodern metaphysical vision, the entire cosmos is shot through with divinely given order, and meaning. We can read the order and harmony of the world, and see in this the expression of God’s nature. This is a topic that is far too rich and complex to get into in this blog series. The important thing to know is that Dante incorporated this understanding deeply into the bones of the Commedia. Writes Prue Shaw:

Dante’s is a world where the number three seems to be a key to understanding reality in many of its fundamental aspects. The numerical pattern three-in-one is built into the very structure of things, a medieval version of what modern thinkers call a “fractal.” (Fractals are self-similar patterns: at whatever degree of magnification one uses, one sees the same pattern reappearing.) It is perhaps not surprising that Dante used the principle of three-in-one to structure his imagined world and the poem which celebrates it. What is astounding is how successfully he did so.

The Commedia as a product of human making — a man-made work of verbal art — was designed by Dante to embody the three-in-one principle. With satisfying symmetry, it does so both in its overall structure and in its individual component parts. The poem has three sections — Inferno, Purgatorio, Paradiso — which constitute one poem, the Commedia. The basic building black from which it is constructed is the terzina, or tercet, a single metrical unit consisting of three lines. Dante invented this metrical scheme, and by so doing made three-in-oneness a part of the very fabric of his poem.

There’s more. The tercet form Dante invented goes like this: aba bcb cdc. The entire poem is written this way; you can’t tell it in the English translations, but in the Italian original, the entire poem is linked in a chain of verse — this to express Dante’s metaphysical view that all reality is linked in a great chain of being. The pilgrim is learning how important it is to pray for the souls of the dead in Purgatory because we are all part of one community, one reality, in God. By extension, he’s learning how the human community is supposed to be united in harmony, by love, because we really are all brothers.

But there’s more to Dante’s structuring. Again, Prue Shaw:

The mirroring of patterns in the poem from overall structure to individual metrical unit goes even further. Because each line of the poem has eleven syllables, each tercet has thirty-three syllables, matching the thirty-three cantos in Purgatorio and Paradiso. Inferno has an extra canto, which functions as a preface to the whole work, making a total for the poem of one hundred cantos, the perfect number. (The perfect number is ten squared, ten itself being a perfect number, or so medieval mathematicians thought, because it is the sum of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4. So the poem is not just a verbal artifact but a mathematical one as well.

Cont'd
The medievals believed in the concept of habitus, which is to say the personal culture and worldview one carries in one’s head as a result of how, where, and among whom one lives. Our habitus shapes us; even when we have left people in our habitus behind in our journeys through life — and indeed, in the Commedia, Dante is propelled relentlessly forward, and repeatedly told in Purgatorio not to look back — the people from Dante’s habitus as a Tuscan of the High Middle Ages are unavoidably part of his habitus, even if they define the sins he’s trying to overcome. Dante the pilgrim has to go down into Hell so he can go up into Heaven. We pilgrims may have to go back to our past in some sense, to confront our personal histories, so we can go forward to a future that is more holy and peaceful.

Cont'd
"What Virgil offers us, symbolically, is a circle instead of Dante’s line, with man’s soul trapped in an inexorable cycle of births and deaths, undergoing an endless chain of one 'inferno' and 'purgatorio' after another. 167
Michael C. J. Putnam Materiali e discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici No. 20/21 (1988), pp. 165-202
I will look most closely at Dante’s version of Anchises, as they take shape in Paradiso 15 and especially in Purgatorio 30, in the characters of Cacciaguida and Virgil. Dante’s Virgil, like Aeneas’ father, can accompany his protégé only so far in this complex quest. I will examine in particular the parallels and differences in these limitations set to the father-figure as guide. 169

The irony is, of course, that Aeneas’ action is one of the most Illiadic moments of the epic with Turnus wearing Pallas’ sword-belt standing in for Hector in Patroclus’ armor…The ending of the Aeneid lacks the fulfillments that bring the Illiad to a conclusion, the ransoming of Hector’s body and the lamentations and funeral that complete at once a life and a poem. 177

As we move from Aeneas’ epic and Virgil’s text to the Divina Commedia we change from tragedy of pagan darkness (and, I would add, from the dissonances implicit in Virgil’s pessimistic cyclicality) to the ‘comedy’ of Christian revelation (the Commedia as a type of Novum Testamentum) and the grace of its splendid acts of completion, in the concentrated focus on the Paradisal rose. We make the larger transitions metonymically in the smaller textual metamorphoses of Cacciaguida from Anchises (and, in part, the Sibyl) to God the Father, and of the pilgrim from Aeneas, entrapped finally in resentment, to a Christ figure who will suffer immediate earthly ‘inferno’ only to perform his own act of redemption for Florence by the endurance of his poetry." 190

October 22nd Memorial

Some good information from Dr. Mulholland of Benedictine College on Blessed John Paul II:

Oct. 22, the liturgy offers us the memorial of Blessed John Paul II. It will be the last time this optional memorial is celebrated before his canonization this April...John Paul II’s first encyclical, “The Redeemer of Man,” was central to his thought and his whole trajectory as Pope. The pastoral initiatives of the Jubilee Year of the Redemption, the Jubilee of the New Millennium, the encounters with young people and so many papal trips and visits, all revolve around the understanding of human beings in their greatness and in the mystery of sin and the Fall. At the core of John Paul’s writings is the deep truth of the reality of man’s plight and his radical need for a Redeemer...John Paul the Great’s second encyclical was an extended meditation on God the Father as “rich in mercy.” His canonization date, Divine Mercy Sunday, recalls his push for this feast day, (as had been requested by St. Faustina whom he canonized) and his dying on the eve of Divine Mercy Sunday in 2005. God, “rich in mercy” is mentioned in the opening prayer of the Mass celebrated for Blessed John Paul...John Paul’s encyclical which followed upon the fall of communism, Centesimus Annus, has a whole chapter on man as “the way of the Church.” The missionary impulse goes way beyond preaching sermons. God’s Word must become flesh as well in just political and economic systems. In October 1978, the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla had begun his pontificate telling all “Be not afraid” of opening wide the doors to Christ, the doors of our hearts but also the doors of political and economic systems. For Blessed John Paul II, living a life where we all help everyone we meet to be better is both a virtue and a social principle: solidarity...(zenit.org/articles/blessedjohnpauliislegacy/)

All in all, a few snippets to back up my posts on Karol Wojtyla's legacy. For more information on the above from my own blog, please search "JPII and Redemption", and "JPII vs Liberation Theology"

Blessed John Paul II, ora pro nobis!

Dies Domini, "Lord of the Sabbath" and JPII

To preface this post, it's necessary to point out that I have lived with my new family in a Jewish Orthodox neighborhood for the past year. There, a rabbi lives a few blocks away from us, and we are surrounded by young families who routinely set aside Friday evening to Saturday evening as their "shabbat".

Interestingly, Karol Wojtyla grew up in Wadowice with similar circumstances as my family's current neighborhood described above (please see my previous post: Catholics and Jews for further reference). Suffice it to say, that the Catholic/Jewish neighbohood Wojtyla grew up in made a major impression on him, shaping his understanding of Judeo-Christianity worldwide. Again, not because he went out of his way to seek such a worldview, but because the relationships he was involved in with friends like Jerzy Kluger formed him as such.

The Apostolic Letter on the Lord's Day or "Dies Domini" explores the Church's need to re-discover the cultural catalyst of celebrating the Lord's resurrection each Sunday! I will draw largely from the text of Dies Domini, as well as a Master's thesis for Sacred Heart Seminary written by Nico Angleys on the same topic. Together, these sources do not merely conclude that the jewish understanding of Sabbath in anticipation of the messiah is enough. Instead, they conclude that the Messiah has already come in the Person of Jesus who rose from the dead three days after celebrating the passover, wherein he instituted the Eucharist, and the day on which he rose is the same Sunday we celebrate! Therefore, Sunday has replaced Saturday as sabbath, and ultimately become "the day of the Lord".

Within the first few paragraphs of his letter, JPII admits to such a strong impression of "the Lord's Day" from his early days as a Bishop in Poland:
Many of the insights and intuitions which prompt this Apostolic Letter have grown from my episcopal service in Krakow. I see this Letter as continuing the lively exchange which I am always happy to have with the faithful, as I reflect with you on the meaning of Sunday and underline the reasons for living Sunday as truly "the Lord's Day", also in the changing circumstances of our own times. (Dies Domini #3)

He goes on to point out that for numerous reasons, including: economic instability, secularism, persecution, etc. the practice of observing the holiness of Sunday has been gradually declining since the early 1900s. The fact that the early Church, he says, had to literally shed blood for the sake of observing the Lord's Day on Sunday should make us grateful for the little persecution we have in the same regard today. JPII says of Justin Martyr and others under the persecution of Diocletian: "many were courageous enough to defy the imperial decree[banning Eucharistic assembly] and accepted death rather than miss the Sunday Eucharist." (ibid, #46) As for the history and logic behind Sunday as the given day for celebrating the Lord's Resurrection, I will summarize his points below:
1) Jesus rose from the tomb on Sunday, "first day after the sabbath" (Mk 16:2;Lk 24:1;Jn 20:1)
2) "Sunday" was originally named by the Romans as 'day of the sun'; Christianized by the early Church (and met with persecution)
3) Accoring to St Gregory of Nyssa and Maronite Liturgy, the early Christians of Jerusalem viewed the Jewish "shabbat" and Christian Sunday as two "brother days" (De Castiatione 46), with Sunday taking the highest place on account of the Lord's resurrection on that day
4) The necessity of conscience to participate in Eucharist on Sunday

Late in the Apolostolic Letter, JPII references the "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28) as the authoritative principle in transferring the Jewish day of rest to the day of the Lord's Resurrection on Sunday. That is to say, Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, has the authority to be "Lord of the Sabbath" on Sunday, rather than Saturday, because he proved his authority by rising from the dead on that day! Nico Angleys' thesis brings this idea to the fore in his introductory paragraphs of "Keeping the Lord's Day Holy" by linking the decalogue, the new evangelization, and the authority of Jesus:
Time belongs to God. In his eternal and infinite wisdom, he gave us a command pertaining to time: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). Jesus upholds this command and is given the title “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28, Matthew 12:8, and Luke 6:5). In the Great Commission, Jesus tells his disciples: “teach them [the disciples of all nations] to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20). Thus, in our day, the work of evangelization involves teaching the third commandment and declaring the blessing of sanctified time to a culture fixated on time. (part 1, Introduction to "Keeping the Lord's Day Holy")

Nico Angleys effectively points to Christ as central to the Lord's Day, fittingly celebrated on Sunday as stated above. He quotes from Dies Domini in regard to the linkage between Jerusalem of the old covenant and the New Jerusalem under the Messianic reign of Jesus:
In one of the concluding paragraphs of Dies Domini, he writes that “Sunday has the additional value of being a testimony and a proclamation” and then launches into an inspiring crescendo of reasons for this proclamation that culminates in the unending Sunday of the heavenly Jerusalem described in Revelation 21. (Part 1, #2 "Proclamation" of "Keeping the Lord's Day Holy")

Lastly, both JPII and Nico Angleys agree that Jesus completes the old covenant remembrance of the sabbath by A)Instituting the Eucharist on the night of Passover [the event where God delivered his people with the blood of a lamb] B) re-creating the order of nature by rising from the dead on Sunday [restoring to grace the fallen creation of God's creation account in Genesis].

What does that all mean practically? Or how does the layperson incoporate the practice of keeping Sunday (Saturday night through Sunday evening) holy besides going to Mass? JPII gives a few examples:
1) recitation of Saturday evening Vespers in family homes or local parish
2) dialogue between parents and children, especially thankfully remembering God's work in their lives
3) Catechesis for preparation to enter into the Mass, receive the Eucharist
4) family meal
5) Pilgrimage to nearby shrine

In today's culture, these examples go a long way with evangelization. "Fighting for Sunday" may become more intense as things continue to disintegrate, but having the teaching in place from JPII and others will strongly reinforce efforts to live God's law of love.

JPII vs Modernism

Due to the upcoming canonization of Blessed John Paul II, some suspect him of having invested himself in the heresy of 'modernism' as refuted by St. Pius X in "Pascendi Dominici Gregis". In fact, it is suspected that all of the Second Vatican Council fathers, including John XXIII (who will be canonized soon) and BXVI, were invested in modernism to such a degree that they were consciously allowing the gates of hell to prevail over the Church.  {Please see my previous post on the Tridentine Mass for background of the schism that occurred during JPII's reign}.  I want to simply refute the already refuted heresy of modernism by St. Pius X in the life and teachings of Karol Wojtyla.

It is essential to define exactly what 'Modernism' is, as it has become a rather popular term among traditionalists to critique Church leaders of the past fifty years. What St. Pius X means by 'Modernism' is more or less the following:

Laymen and clergy who lack the protection of sound philosophy and theology are setting themselves up as would-be reformers of the Church and her faith. Typically, they are men of erudition and strict moral probity. But they also, in his words, ‘double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error’. They know perfectly well at what they are aiming which is a total ‘make-over’ (in our contemporary parlance) of revelation as hitherto understood.[1]

Right off the bat, does this sound like the man who--together with Joseph Ratzinger--compiled the most thorough Catechism of the Catholic Church in light of the Nicene Creed that the Church has yet seen? Riddled throughout that Catechism, unlike the former Baltimore Catechism of happy memory, are footnotes upon footnotes of St Thomas Aquinas as well as early Church Fathers.

Granted, St. Pius X's definition of "Modernist" would seem to apply to Wojtyla's use of phenomenology and scientific method in some instances to research controversial issues like the morality of stem cells, IVF, sexual morality and fertility, etc. But, did not Cardinal Wojtyla, and later JPII himself, have the good of the faithful and glory of God in mind when publishing works like Love and Responsibility? Did he not merely use the means of reason and philosophy to aid the faithful in the inevitable fight between the culture of death and the culture of life?

The real question is, and is sadly misunderstood by many who would too quickly dismiss Wojtyla's genius, were the methods of philosophical inquiry used by Karol Wojtyla "protected by sound philosophy and theology"? The answer is resoundingly, "Yes, they were sound and rooted in Catholic tradition".

Here is why the above answer is true: not only did Karol Wojtyla rely on St. Thomas Aquinas as a basis for objective reality and absolute moral truth, he also relied upon St. Augustine for inquiry into the 'intersubjectivity' of man--that is, the 'immanence' of the follower of Christ both consciously active in the Church and unconsciously (see my post on JPII vs. solipsism for further notes on subjectivity).

Now, 'immanence' is a potentially bad word among traditionalists, and St. Pius X has almost no tolerance for experiential believers and Pentecostalism divorced from the true and reasonable parameters of conscience described by St. Augustine in his Confessions. Allow me, then, to draw a line between the two types of 'immanence' that St. Pius X describes in "Pascendi", with the help of Fr. Nichols and St. Augustine:

Pius admits that an appeal to immanence can have an acceptable sense. Semi-quoting Augustine, it can be a way of saying God works in a way even more intimately present to me than I am to myself. But Modernists mean more than this: they mean that divine action always invests itself in the activity of nature: so revelatory divine action doesn’t differ in principle from any other manner in which creative processes have divine causality behind them. The implication, thinks the pope, is pantheism.[2]

To pinpoint exactly where Fr. Nichols is drawing his information in the letter of Pius X, it is in paragraph 19, the section titled "The Modernist as Theologian". Another way of saying Fr. Nichol's summary of the nineteenth paragraph is that the Christian is allowed to recognize God as closer to him than he is to himself, but he is not allowed to insist on changes in revelation based on his own feelings, sentiments, or subconscious desires. Believe it or not, this is one of the main dangers that Pius and every Pope since his time has made clear to both be wary of and to balance with objectively acceptable absolute truths identified by St. Thomas Aquinas, namely, natural law and the doctrine of the Magisterium.

At this point, is there any inconsistency between JPII and St. Thomas Aquinas, or St. Augustine for that matter? Let us use Wojtyla's own words:

It is for this reason that the Church has given preference to the method and doctrine of the Angelic Doctor. Quite other than exclusive preference, this deals with an exemplary preference that permitted Leo XIII to declare him to be inter Scholasticos Doctores, omnium princeps et magister. And truly such is St Thomas Aquinas, not only for the completeness, balance, depth and clarity of his style, but still more for his keen sense of fidelity to the truth which can also be called realism: fidelity to the voice of created things so as to construct the edifice of philosophy; fidelity to the voice of the Church so as to construct the edifice of theology.[3]

And again on St Augustine, drawing largely from Leo XIII's "Aeterni Patris":

Pope Leo XIII praised his philosophical teachings in the Encyclical Aeterni Patris; later, Pius XI made a brief synthesis of his virtues and teachings in the Encyclical Ad salutem humani generis, declaring that, of those who have flourished from the beginnings of the human race down to our own days, none—or, at most, very few—could rank with Augustine, for the very great acuteness of his genius, for the richness and sublimity of his teachings, and finally for his holiness of life and defense of Catholic truth. Paul VI later affirmed: 'Indeed, over and above the shining example he gives of the qualities common to all the Fathers, it may be said that all the thought-currents of the past meet in his works and form the source which provides the whole doctrinal tradition of succeeding ages.[4]

Is this just lip-service from one modernist to another? Or, is this the truly prayed over material of the Slavic Pope who found in himself the continuation of these great Catholic thinkers? I strongly suggest the latter.

In conclusion, I have argued the following:
1) JPII is far from being a Modernist heretic, but is profoundly rooted in Tradition
2) St. Pius X allows for the teachings of Vatican II in his letter
3) St Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine are the objective and subjective litmus tests for true continuity with Tradition


For more info, please see JPII's "Fides et Ratio", section "The Magisterium's discernment as diakonia of the truth" in paragraphs# 54-56

And, a helpfully simple Peter Kreeft list against Modernism:
1) Is God a transcendent, supernatural, personal, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, providential, loving, just Creator? Or is God an immanent cosmic force evolving in nature and man?
2) Do miracles really happen? Or has science refuted them? A transcendent God can perform miracles; a merely immanent, naturalistic God cannot. The three great miracles essential to orthodox Christianity are the Incarnation, the Resurrection and the new birth.
3) Is there a heaven? Or is heaven just all the good on earth?
4) Does God really love me? Or is that just a helpful sentiment?
5) Does God forgive my sins through Christ? Or is sin an outdated concept? In other words, is Christ a mere human example or a Savior from sin?
6) Is Christ divine, eternal, from the beginning? Or is he only divine “as all men are divine”?
7) Did he physically rise from the dead? Or is the Resurrection only a myth, a beautiful symbol?
8) Must we be born again from above to be saved, to have God as our Father? Or is everyone saved automatically? Does everyone have God as Father simply by being born as a human being, or by being reasonably nice during life?
9) Is Scripture God’s word to us? Or is it human words about God? Does it have divine or human authority behind it? And can an ordinary Christian understand its true meaning without reading German theologians?
10 )Most important of all, can I really meet God in Christ? If I ask him to be my Lord, the Lord of my life, will he really do it? Or is this just a “religious experience”? This question is really one with the question: Did Christ really rise from the dead? That is, is he alive now? Can I say: “You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart!”?[5]

---

[1] Aidan Nichols O.P., “Modernism a Century On" Crisis Magazine

[2] Ibid. & https://archive.org/details/popepiusx_1409_librivox

[3] POPE JOHN PAUL’S ADDRESS TO THE EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL THOMISTIC CONGRESS––13 th September 1980.

[4] Apostolic Letter to the bishops, priests, religious families and faithful of the whole Catholic Church on the occasion of the 16th centenary of the conversion of St. Augustine, Bishop and Doctor, 28 August 1986.

[5] http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/toward-reuniting.htm

JPII and Redemption

Throughout his life, Karol Wojtyla wrote extensively on Divine Mercy, but more personally, the Redeemer. As a powerful title for Christ, 'Redeemer' had specific meaning to JPII and can be found in most of his speeches, letters, and other works. Why did he refer to Christ under this title so often? How did JPII hope for members of the Church to identify with the Redeemer?

Three encyclicals that prove his affinity for the Redeemer, and his conviction that (in addition to Divine Mercy) redemption was the message for the modern world are: Remptor Hominis, Redemptoris Missio, and Redemptoris Mater. All three refer to the mystery of Redemption and its implications for man (both individually and collectively). I want to largely draw from the first two of these encyclicals in order to illustrate the profound relationship JPII had with the Redeemer, who paid for the Church with the gift of his own blood.

The 'mystery' of the Redemption is precisely that, a mystery, but it is still worth mining for truth, goodness, and beauty under the guidance of the Slavic Pope who explored the mystery so thoroughly. That is to say that the mystery is very much accessible to the layman with the help of the wisdom of the holy father. Therefore, it is safe to proceed with the basic understanding of Redemption as the price paid for man to be reconciled to God.

As the Redeemer, Jesus paid the price of his blood on the cross without reservation, and once dead, was raised on the third day in victory over sin and death. I want to emphasize, as does the Pope, that the Resurrection justified the price of Jesus' blood on the cross with inestimable value, efficaciousness, and life-giving centrality to the Church. JPII's very first encyclical began with these words: "THE REDEEMER OF MAN, Jesus Christ, is the center of the universe and of history" (Redemptor Hominis, ch. 1). Furthermore, in the sacraments, especially of baptism and the eucharist, we encounter the power of the Redemption firsthand:

By celebrating and also partaking of the Eucharist we unite ourselves with Christ on earth
and in heaven who intercedes for us with the Father, but we always do so
through the redeeming act of his Sacrifice, through which he has
redeemed us, so that we have been "bought with a price". The "price" of
our redemption is likewise a further proof of the value that God himself
sets on man and of our dignity in Christ. (ibid, ch. 20)

This statement in itself, comprises the whole of the message of Redemption which JPII wished to impart to the world. It was as though the Redeemer urged him to "tell my people that I value them to such a degree that I entirely spent my priceless blood for each of them". The message is very much in line with scriptural and traditional understanding of redemption as 'purchasing', and demands to be delivered with a particular urgency in a world where human dignity has all but been reduced to mere numeric value. Further evidence from Scripture for this same understanding of redemption appears in the books of Ruth and Exodus in particular, foreshadowing Christ as Bridegroom in the former and Christ as Redeemer from slavery in the latter.

Karol Wojtyla saw the worst of ideological indignity in nazism and communism. Yet, he found himself being led by the Redeemer, in the midst of both catastrophes, to communicate the message of Redemption to the world threatened by the allurement of such inhumanity. He challenges man, so strongly influenced by the likes of Freud, Nietzche, and Marx to adopt the "Ethos of Redemption" (Theology of the Body) to combat the "masters of suspicion" already mentioned. He does not settle for the excuse, 'we are only human flesh'. That is why, in Redemptor Hominis, he deals with the truth of redemption in a human dimension and in a divine dimension--as Christ united both in himself:

We can and must immediately reach and display to the world our
unity in proclaiming the mystery of Christ, in revealing the divine
dimension and also the human dimension of the Redemption, and in
struggling with unwearying perseverance for the dignity that each human
being has reached and can continually reach in Christ, namely the dignity
of both the grace of divine adoption and the inner truth of humanity, a
truth which—if in the common awareness of the modern world it has been
given such fundamental importance—for us is still clearer in the light of
the reality that is Jesus Christ. (Redemptor Hominis ch.11)

It is not enough for humanity to come to some greater appreciation of itself as reasonable, industrious, etc. Rather, man has to be raised to his crucial relationship of covenant with God in Christ in order to fully grasp his dignity and worth--and in humility, to acknowledge God as its source and summit. Revolutions like the Enlightenment and Marxism drastically fall short of this call. So too does any technological advancement invented by man that promises to alleviate suffering for a time. JPII covers all of these substitutes for the Redeemer in his writings. Furhtermore, he notes that the need for a redeemer is written on the human conscience ever since the first sin.

The need for a redeemer is clearly seen throughout Scripture. Especially one who could definitively reunite God and man. If we look at the depictions of bloodshed in the earliest recorded Judeo-Christian history, we see that Abel ends up to be the first martyr and victim of familial violence. His death is mentioned in the Letter to the Hebrews "the blood of Christ speaks more eloquently than that of Abel"(Heb 12), and is directly compared to the redemptive blood of the Son of God whose life continued beyond death. Just as the message of the Redeemer 'speaks' to JPII, so too does Abel's blood 'speak' of a need for the Redeemer. Abel's blood, like every innocent victim of violence since himself, demands an answer from God. Even God says, soon after the murder of Abel by Cain, "Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground!" (Gen 4). So too, the blood of the martyrs 'speaks' of the past, present, and future need for the blood of the Redeemer to restore life to man's mortality, and JPII captures the pulse of this communication in Redemptoris Missio (ch. 1):

Although participated forms of mediation of different kinds and
degrees are not excluded, they acquire meaning and value
only from Christ's own mediation

That is to say, that the blood of the martyrs does not suffice as redemptive unless Christ is raised from the dead! Abel's blood would have no answer from God had not Christ poured out his blood on the cross. Not only die, but rise to see his blood forever re-gain its vitality and 'speak eloquently'. This is exactly what JPII is writing about in his reference to the Eucharist as the living body and blood, or lifeblood, of the Redeemer. The dignity and value of man, paid for by the priceless and living blood of Christ, is nearly ineffable. In the Eucharist too, this price remains with man as enduring proof of his redemption. None can say that he is far from them or distant from one's suffering, dying, or loneliness. The answer to all of man's wounds is in the redemption!

That is why, as the first Slavic pope, Karol Wojtyla so strongly identified with the Redeemer. He had experienced firsthand, the extent to which Christ had taken on the human condition and with Divine Mercy raised it up to God. He explains (Redemptor Hominis ch.1):

In its penetrating analysis of "the modern world", the Second Vatican
Council reached that most important point of the visible world that is
man, by penetrating like Christ the depth of human consciousness and by
making contact with the inward mystery of man, which in Biblical and
non-Biblical language is expressed by the word "heart". Christ, the
Redeemer of the world, is the one who penetrated in a unique
unrepeatable way into the mystery of man and entered his "heart"

JPII goes as far as saying that Vatican II was an initiative of the Redeemer to more thoroughly influence wayward man! How great an emphasis he places on redemption, as to afford the council a special mission and goal toward this end of proving to man that Jesus loved him to death and beyond. Redemptor Hominis, as his first encyclical, effectively communicates JPII's burden for accurately instituting the teachings of the council and to bring the Church into year of Jubilee, 2000. Wojtyla lived to see that day, having done exactly what he proposed in the opening years of his reign.

picture: blood of JPII preserved as relic

Update "Unequal Exchange":
It is not as though the life of the Redeemer for our life is an equally valid and contractual exchange, no it is completely gratuitous. Pope BXVI says, "The mystery of the Covenant expresses this relationship between God who calls man with his word, and man who responds, albeit making clear that it is not a matter of a meeting of two peers; what we call the Old and New Covenant is not a
contract between two equal parties, but a pure gift of God." (Verbum Domini #22)