“The Church, though certainly achieving full historical actuality only with the association of Christian believers, was already in existence, fundamentally and in germ, and in that sense is a divine creation. For she is the unity of redeemed humanity, a unity made possibly by the Incarnation of the Son of God; she is the kosmos of men, mankind as a whole, the many as one” (Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism).
We see in this quote several non-Catholic propositions that are characteristic of Modernist thinking, of ideologues such as Karl Rahner and Teilhard de Chardin.
The Church attained "historical actuality"--which I take to mean something like "institutional reality"--after the death and resurrection of Jesus "with the association of Christian believers--which I take to mean those who have an explicit faith in Jesus.
However, Adam claims, the Church came into existence as "a divine creation" at the Incarnation.
Why is this so? Because, says Adam, the Church is "is the unity of redeemed humanity, a unity made possibly by the Incarnation of the Son of God."
Does this mean, as Gnostics such as Teilhard would claim, that the redemption occurs not as a result of Calvary but at the Incarnation? That certainly seems to be implied and is explicit in most Modernist or "Nouvelle" theology. In fact, Adam goes on to assert that the Church ("she") is "the kosmos of men, mankind as a whole, the many as one.” In other words, Adam is flatly asserting that the Church is the unity of mankind as a whole, not simply of believers. Why should this be so? Because, Miss Arntz helpfully explains (in true Rahnerian and Teilhardian fashion), all mankind "long[s] to be united to the Savior, Jesus Christ." And so "all mankind" is redeemed and belongs to the Church--and presumably all are saved as well.
From this we see the significance of Adam's use of the word "kosmos". This usage is not merely redundant, not merely a repetition of "mankind as a whole." It is intended to add a flavor to "mankind as a whole." That flavor is the Gnostic concept that the Incarnation is part of a cosmic process by which all men, the "kosmos of men," are united and become one. We see the same idea expressed in liturgical terms by B16 when he extols the notion of the Eucharist as a "cosmic host":
"It's the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host."
Thus, the Eucharist is no longer the non-bloody recreation of Calvary. It is an expression of the Incarnation, by which Man becomes one with the cosmos and offers the cosmos to God--thereby, in a magico-gnostic fashion, becoming One with both God and the cosmos.
I would also like to point out that anyone claiming to be following Apostolic Tradition--rather than the "Nouvelle" theologians whom Miss Arntz follows--should be troubled that Rorate Caeli would publish any article that uncritically cites Cardinal Journet. It is now well known that Journet was a behind the scenes dissenter from Humanae Vitae, along with his good friend Jacques Maritain. This is hardly surprising, given that Journet seems to have never rebuked Maritain for the travesty of marriage that Maritain and his wife lived--they lived as "brother and sister" so as better to pursue what they saw as a higher vocation. Of course, Journet and the Maritains seem to have adopted the Modernist Vatican II view of marriage (as opposed to the Catholic view) as equally a companionate relationship as one designed by God for the procreation of the species.
Naturally this is not to suggest that Journet and Maritain had nothing to say during their lives that was worthwhile. Nevertheless, if their views on a matter so basic to human nature as marriage were so misguided one should approach their views on the Church with great caution.