On
October 31, 1999, the date annually celebrated by Lutherans as Reformation
Day, a historic event occurred. Gathered at Augsburg, Germany, the
city where Lutherans and Catholics first divided in 1530, representatives
of the Catholic and Lutheran churches, commissioned by the highest
authorities in their respective communions, signed a Joint
Declaration on the subject of justification.(1) The two culprits responsible for splitting
the unity of the Church in the West saw fit to publish a common statement
speaking to the key issue that provoked the division in the sixteenth
century: justification. For Lutherans the doctrine of justification
is the very heart of the gospel. Luther himself is frequently quoted
as calling it "the article on which the Church stands or falls."
Catholics agree that justification is of central importance, because
it means being rightly related to God, being on the road of salvation.
Without having been justified, no one can be saved.
The common action at Augsburg has very broad ecumenical implications,
since the theme is of interest to Christians of every tradition. Most
Protestant churches hold positions heavily influenced by Luther, if
not quite the same as his. Generalizing, we may put the differences
between Protestants and Catholics very simply. Protestants generally
look on justification as a forensic act by which God imputes to sinners
the righteousness of Christ, while Catholics maintain that justification
is a transformative act by which God imparts to sinners a share in
the righteousness of Christ. Protestants hold that justification is
received by faith alone, whereas Catholics contend that faith does
not justify unless it is vivified by hope and charity. The Catholic
and Protestant positions appear, on the surface, to be contradictory,
so that it is impossible to agree with both. Unity, it would seem,
could be achieved only through a conversion by which at least one
party recognized that it had been wrong and corrected its teaching.
After centuries of hostile confrontation, Lutherans and Catholics
made fresh efforts to find common ground in the ecumenical climate
after World War II. The discussion began in Germany in the 1950s and
was then taken up in several international and national dialogues.
The United States Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue in the years 1978-1983
elaborated on a sixty-page consensus statement that expressed surprising
unanimity on the central issues, while recognizing that there were
a number of secondary questions on which agreement had thus far eluded
the parties. The statement also suggested that in view of the substantive
agreements on the gospel, the secondary questions might no longer
have to be considered as church-dividing, but rather as theological
differences that could be accommodated within a single communion,
were Lutherans and Catholics ever to reunite.
The United States dialogue attracted great interest in Germany. During
the 1980s a German dialogue proposed that the condemnations of the
Reformation era pertaining to justification could be declared inapplicable
to the partner churches today. Then in 1994 the Lutheran World Federation
(LWF) and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity appointed
a small committee of theologians and church officials to gather up
the fruits of the dialogues and draw up a consensus statement on justification.
In 1997 this group came up with a final text of the Joint Declaration,
which was then circulated among the member churches.
The LWF sought authorization from its 124 member churches. Of these,
thirty-five did not respond; five refused to subscribe; and four responded
so ambiguously that they seemed to be opposed. A solid majority, 80
member churches, expressed satisfaction.(2) Many Lutheran theologians responded favorably, but
251 German Protestant theology professors signed a statement to the
effect that the consensus claimed by the Joint
Declaration did not exist.(3) After pondering the responses, the LWF,
through its governing council, unanimously approved the Joint
Declaration on June 18, 1998.
The Catholic response was hesitant. On June 25, 1998, Cardinal Edward
Cassidy, the president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian
Unity, with the concurrence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, issued an "Official Catholic Response" to the
proposed statement.(4) After welcoming
the remarkable convergence registered by the Joint
Declaration, this response
stated that it would be premature to speak of full agreement. It called
for further study of half a dozen important issues on which differences
remain. "Some of these differences," it said, "concern
aspects of substance and [the positions] are therefore not all mutually
compatible, as affirmed to the contrary in No. 40" of the Joint
Declaration.(5)
On at least one point, the continued sinfulness of the justified,
the response asserted that the Joint
Declaration could hardly
escape the anathemas of the Council of Trent in its Decrees on Original
Sin and on Justification.(6)
At this stage it looked as though the Joint
Declaration would never be signed, but a great flurry
of negotiation was mounted to save it. In June 1999, three more documents
were hastily issued: an "Official Common Statement," an
"Annex" to that statement, and a "Note on the Annex"
by Cardinal Cassidy, all explaining how, in spite of the objections
expressed from both sides, the text of the Joint
Declaration could be jointly approved, as it indeed was.(7)
Before I turn to the contents of the statement, let me say a further
word about its scope. In the first place, it does not purport to speak
for all Lutheran churches, but only for a majority of those that belong
to the LWF, as the Missouri and Wisconsin synods in this country do
not. Second, it restricts itself to one issue, the doctrine of justification,
and does not claim to cover all aspects of that doctrine.(8)
It states that the teaching of the two churches on these issues as
presented in the Joint Declaration does not fall under the condemnations issued
by either party in the sixteenth century. It does not deny that the
positions of the respective churches can be, and have been, presented
less irenically. Third, the Joint
Declaration does not present
itself as an authoritative magisterial statement, binding on the faithful
of the respective communions. It states that its purpose is to take
stock of the results of the dialogues on justification so that the
churches may be informed and "be enabled to make binding decisions."(9)
The heart of the Joint Declaration,
as I read it, is contained in paragraph no. 15, which reads in part:
"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving
work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by
God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping
and calling us to good works." This sentence expresses the fundamental
Christian understanding of justification to which both Lutherans and
Catholics adhere today, as they have throughout the centuries.
The pivotal sentence I have quoted is so dense that it needs to be
unpacked. Four elements deserve to be emphasized:
(1) We are brought into God's friendship not by meriting it, but by
God's freely given grace. Lutherans and Catholics agree that in view
of original sin, all men and women are in need of justification. As
sinners we are incapable of winning God's grace. Only God, in his
loving mercy, can reestablish the broken relationship.
(2) God is able to accept us into his friendship because he loves
his Son, Jesus Christ, who died and rose again for our redemption.
This point is not explicit in the sentence I have quoted but is stated
elsewhere in the same paragraph.
(3) The process of justification does not take place only in the mind
of God. The sinner has to receive God's gracious gift, a process that
occurs through faith, in the absence of which justification would
be impossible. By faith those who are justified recognize Jesus Christ
their redeemer.
(4) God pours his Holy Spirit into the hearts of those whom he justifies,
causing them to be interiorly renewed and capable of good works, which
they are obliged to perform. Elsewhere in the Joint
Declaration the gift of the
Spirit is said to be given through word and sacrament, and particularly
through baptism.(10)
These four points are clearly taught in Scripture and were parts of
the Catholic doctrine of justification even before the Reformation.
Luther and other sixteenth-century Protestants agreed with the Catholic
Church on these points, but the theological climate in the sixteenth
century did not lend itself to common statements that bracketed points
of disagreement. Polemicists on both sides focused on the disputed
points, sometimes caricaturing their adversaries.
On the one hand, Lutherans and other Protestants mistakenly accused
Catholics of teaching that sinners justify themselves, meriting justification
by their good works. It is good that Lutherans and Catholics can now
say together that we are freely justified by God's grace, without
our meriting it, and that this justification is received through faith
in God's saving work in Jesus Christ. The Joint
Declaration should put this common misunderstanding to
rest.
On the other hand, Catholics have often depicted Lutherans as teaching
that justification is a mere declaration on God's part that leaves
the justified person as much a sinner as before. They also suspect
Lutherans of holding that the justified are neither required nor able
to perform good works. This, as I understand it, has never been the
position of the Lutheran churches. We may therefore welcome the Joint
Declaration, which makes
it clear that in the Lutheran view of God, when He justifies sinners,
God inwardly renews them. He bestows on them the gift of the Holy
Spirit, who equips them for good works.
Problems, however, still remain. They are traceable, I believe, to
the different perspectives in which Lutherans and Catholics view the
process of justification. Impressed by the depth of human sinfulness,
Lutherans are concerned to avoid anything that might seem to undermine
the sovereign causality of God, to whom alone all glory is due. Catholics,
without denying God's sovereignty and the pervasiveness of sin, adopt
a more humanistic stance. They emphasize the freedom and dignity of
human persons, whom God created in his own image and whom he raises
up in Christ so as to associate them in the work of redemption. These
differences of perspective play out in seven specific points taken
up in chapter four of the Joint
Declaration.
The Problematic Issues
The Nature of Justification
First, the term "justification" itself is differently understood
on both sides. For Lutherans, justification consists essentially in
the action of God whereby God accepts us, or declares us to be his
friends, because Christ has laid down his life for us. Lutherans have
generally understood the gift of the Holy Spirit, enabling us to perform
good works, as a consequence of justification. They therefore distinguish
between two phases: First comes justification, namely the action of
God whereby he declares sinners to be righteous in view of the saving
work of Christ on their behalf; then comes sanctification, whereby
God pours the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers and transforms
them.
Because of their emphasis on how much God has done for us, Catholics
do not limit the term "justification" to God's declaration,
as though it were simply a judicial pronouncement of absolution. For
them, justification includes the action whereby God makes sinners
righteous. The Council of Trent in its Decree on Justification stated:
"Justification itself … is not only the remission of sins but
also the sanctification and renewal of the interior person through
the voluntary reception of grace and of the gifts, whereby from unrighteous
the person becomes righteous, and from enemy a friend, so as to be
'an heir in hope of eternal life' (Ti 3:7)."(11)
It is much debated among Scripture scholars exactly what Paul meant
by the term "justify" (dikaious).
Did he mean to declare righteous or to make righteous? The Latin translation
justificare conveys the idea of making righteous (justum
facere). The Joint
Declaration does not take a position on the meaning of the term,
but it asserts that when God justifies he not only forgives sins but
also imparts the gift of new life in Christ.(12) It acknowledges
that Lutherans distinguish between justification itself and the renewal
that necessarily follows from it.(13) If justification
is understood in this forensic sense, however, God's judicial sentence
must be seen as efficacious in the sense that it brings about what
it declares. The Annex moves closer to the Catholic position. It declares,
in a somewhat clumsy sentence: "Justification is both forgiveness
of sins and being made righteous, through which God 'imparts the gift
of new life in Christ.'"(14)
The Removal of Sin
Granted that justification involves God's healing action, questions
still arise about the extent of the renewal. Catholics, following
the Council of Trent, affirm that in justification we are renewed
to such a degree that we become truly and inwardly righteous. Our
sins are not simply covered over by Christ but are washed away, so
that the stain of sin is removed. Lutherans, as I understand it, do
not go so far, nor does the Joint Declaration.
It seems to endorse the Lutheran view that people after being justified
still remain truly sinners, although their sins are no longer imputed
to them.(15)
As the "Official Catholic Response" pointed out, this position
is very difficult to reconcile with the Council of Trent, which teaches
that the grace of Christ imparted in justification removes all that
is sin "in the proper sense" and all that is "worthy
of damnation."(16)
Notwithstanding the verbal disagreements, Lutherans and Catholics
are both sensitive to the complexity of the problem. Holy Scripture
teaches that the baptized have been reborn in Christ and have been
made heirs of eternal life. They are strengthened by God's loving
presence within them, but experience also teaches that we remain weak
and subject to temptations. We fall into sin so often that in the
Lord's Prayer we ask daily for forgiveness.(17)
Like the Lutheran Confessional Documents, the Council of Trent recognized
that sanctification is a lifelong struggle in which we repeatedly
yield to our selfish desires.
At this point the difference becomes extremely narrow. Catholics recognize
that even the justified remain prone to sin, and often do sin, but
they are convinced that the interior renewal delivers all from any
compulsion to sin further. The Joint
Declaration, describing the
Lutheran position, says that sin no longer rules in the justified,
but is ruled by Christ who is at work in them.(18) This I take to be practically equivalent to the Catholic
position as I have just explained it.
Catholics can therefore admit a large measure of truth in the Lutheran
formula, "Justified and sinner at the same time" (simul
justus et peccator). Our
faith, our hope, and our love are feeble. Catholics continue to hold,
however, with the Council of Trent, that in baptized believers the
moral weakness resulting from original sin (technically called "concupiscence")
is not itself truly sin. It does not make us guilty in God's eyes
and deserving of punishment. On this point, Catholics and Lutherans,
as I understand it, still disagree.
The traditional disagreements, however, have been significantly narrowed.
Some early Lutheran formulations so heavily accented the separation
between justification and sanctification that the first seemed almost
unconnected with the second. The Council of Trent, reacting against
this exaggeration, emphasized the inseparability between justification
and sanctification, but it perhaps paid less attention than it might
have to the imperfect degree to which we are sanctified, and to our
constant need to rely upon God's mercy to make up for our shortcomings.
In the prayers of the saints and in the liturgy, the need of Christians
for forgiveness is a constant theme. The Joint Declaration
can perhaps stimulate Catholic preachers and theologians to reflect
more deeply on the Christian's abiding need for mercy.
Human Cooperation
As you would expect from what I have already said, Lutherans tend
to minimize human cooperation, while Catholics tend to magnify it.
For Catholics the dignity of the human being requires that we be not
manipulated like puppets but invited to accept God's gifts by the
exercise of our free will. Lutherans, evidently fearing that this
would be a cause for boasting and would detract from the sole glory
of God, sometimes speak as though human beings are merely passive
in receiving justification. The Joint
Declaration reports that Lutherans affirm this pure passivity,
but it adds that they do not deny that believers are personally involved
in the reception of God's word.(19) The Annex
says that Lutherans, while insisting that God effects everything,
hold that the working of grace includes human action. It then quotes
the Lutheran Formula of Concord to the effect that we can and must
cooperate -- but this statement has reference not to justification
itself but to the work of sanctification, which the Formula of Concord
treats as a subsequent step.(20)
Here as elsewhere, the Joint
Declaration narrows the divergence
without eliminating it. In view of the limited convergence, we may
perhaps say that the present disagreements on this issue are matters
of theological understanding and do not directly contradict the gospel.
Good Works and Merit
According to Catholic doctrine, no one is in a position to merit without
having first been justified, but when justified persons perform good
works with the help of grace, they truly please God, so that God can
call them "good and faithful servants" and give them the
wages of eternal life. Thus we do merit, even though our merits are
totally dependent on God's gracious assistance. The reward of eternal
life far exceeds all that we could claim apart from God's gracious
promise. The reality of merit, however, should not be denied. Justified
believers who freely cooperate with divine grace may be said to earn
the promised "crown of righteousness" (2 Tim 4:8). If God
were to send saints to hell, he would not be the "righteous judge"
that we, like Paul before us, know him to be.
Lutherans, as I have already indicated, agree that those who are justified
receive the Holy Spirit and thereby become capable of good works,
which are indeed required of them. Luther and Melanchthon occasionally
stated that the justified by their good works merit certain rewards.(21) Most Lutherans today, however, fearing that
any mention of merit might give ground for complacency or boasting,
refrain from saying, as Catholics do, that the righteous can merit
anything in this life or the next. Instead, they usually speak of
good works as fruits and signs of justification.
The Joint Declaration
softens the opposition by teaching that when Catholics speak of merit
they mean that "a reward in heaven is promised."(22)
This is true enough, but it is incomplete because it fails to say
that the reward is a just one. Without reference to justice, the true
notion of merit would be absent.
Sufficiency of Faith
The slogan "by faith
alone" (sola fide)
is a fundamental mark of Lutheranism. Many Christians suppose that
this doctrine is biblical, perhaps because according to some translations,
Paul in Romans 3:28 speaks of justification by "faith alone."
The word "alone," however, is not found in the Greek text;
Luther inserted it in his 1522 translation. The only mention of "faith
alone" in the New Testament is in James 2:24, which says that
"a man is justified ... not by faith alone." Paul, in 1
Corinthians, chapter 13, teaches that faith will not profit a person
for salvation unless it is accompanied by love (1 Cor 13:1-3). Trent,
disavowing the doctrine of "faith alone," taught that faith
cannot justify unless it is accompanied by hope and charity and is
fruitful in good works.(23) "If you would enter into life,"
said Jesus, "keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17).
Why, you may ask, do Lutherans insist on faith alone? The best answer
is not to be found in any biblical texts but in Luther's mystical
theology. Faith, for him, is the means by which believers appropriate
the saving work of Christ on their behalf. Faith lives off its object,
which is Christ the redeemer. It is much more than an intellectual
or theoretical assent. Luther called it the wedding ring that seals
our mystical marriage with Christ, so that his righteousness now belongs
to us.(24) Through a wonderful exchange, Christ takes
on our sins, and we allow ourselves to be drawn into Christ's existence,
so that we live in him and he in us. If faith is understood in this
pregnant sense, it involves much more than imputation. It includes
the indwelling of Christ and leads spontaneously to good works. Catholics
can agree that faith, so understood, is sufficient for justification.
As in the other points we have considered, Lutherans and Catholics,
approaching the problem from different perspectives, use different
concepts and mean different things by the same words. For this reason
it is extremely difficult to sort out the agreements and disagreements.
Catholics, reading the Scriptures through the lens of Scholastic tradition,
delight in making neat distinctions among the theological virtues
of faith, hope, and charity. Protestants, following Luther, often
use the word "faith" in a comprehensive sense that includes
much of what Catholics would assign to the categories of hope and
charity. By "faith alone" Lutherans do not mean faith without
hope and charity but faith that is not earned by prior good works.
If this is meant, the formula "faith alone" should not cause
difficulties.
The Joint Declaration
holds that when Lutherans speak of justification through faith they
mean living faith -- faith that is active through love.(25)
Faith, it goes on to say, brings believers into communion with their
Creator and Lord.(26)
Catholics hold the same with regard to living faith, but the Joint
Declaration adds that according
to Lutherans faith does not exist without renewal and justification.(27)
Trent and the whole Catholic tradition maintain on the contrary that
the gift of faith can exist in the absence of love and repentance.
The Council of Trent taught this under anathema. The Joint
Declaration fails to explain why canon 28 of Trent's
Decree on Justification
does not apply to Lutherans today.
Law and Gospel
Luther drew a sharp opposition between the two. The law, for him,
exacts compliance. By requiring more of us than we can perform, it
disposes us to receive the gospel -- that is to say, to throw ourselves
on God's mercy in Jesus Christ. Catholics hold that God never commands
us to do more than we are capable of doing, at least with his grace.
His commands may be difficult to obey, but never impossible. The law
of Christ is not opposed to the gospel but is an integral part of
the gospel; it provides norms by which Christians are to live.
The Joint Declaration
proposes a position on law and gospel that comes very close to the
standard Catholic doctrine.(28)
It makes no mention of the anathema directed by Trent against those
who hold that God demands the impossible.(29)
Assurance of Salvation
A final point of friction is the assurance of salvation. Lutherans
have commonly held that we do not have faith unless we believe beyond
doubt that we will be saved. Catholics, by contrast, are content to
speak of a well-founded hope of salvation, which is combined with
the sobering realization that we could fall away and be lost. Thus
faith does not include in its object the certainty that we as individuals
will be saved. On this point, as on law and gospel, the Joint
Declaration comes up with
a mediating formulation to which Catholics can hardly object:
| |
We confess together
that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In
spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their
faith, on the strength of Christ's death and resurrection they
can build on the effective promise of God's grace in word and
sacrament and so be sure of this grace.(30) |
|
Centrality of the Doctrine of
Justification
Although I have dealt with all seven issues listed in chapter four of
the Joint Declaration,
I should like to add one final issue mentioned in chapter three: the
relative standing of justification in the hierarchy of Christian doctrine.
Lutherans rather commonly quote Luther to the effect that justification
is "the article on which the Church stands or falls" and the
supreme criterion of all right teaching. Catholics regard adherence
to the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, set forth in the
early Christian rule of faith, as more fundamental. Paragraph no. 18
of the Joint Declaration,
giving a little to both sides, states that, while the doctrine of justification
has special significance, it is interrelated with all other truths of
faith. The "Official Catholic Response" indicated some dissatisfaction
with this compromise.(31)
Strict Lutherans, for their part, feel that the Joint
Declaration did not sufficiently protect the centrality of the
doctrine of justification. Here, as on so many points, the Joint
Declaration builds a shaky
bridge that does not satisfy the guardians of orthodoxy on either side.
The Resulting Situation
As a Catholic, I enthusiastically embrace the basic consensus expressed
in paragraph 15. I also feel that I can live with what the Joint
Declaration says on most
of the disputed points: for example, the transformative character
of justification, justification by faith, law and gospel, the assurance
of salvation, and the normativeness of the doctrine of justification.
The Joint Declaration
registers a promising rapprochement between Lutheran and Catholic
teaching on the issues just named, but I recognize that some Lutherans
are dissatisfied with the Joint
Declaration on these very issues. I understand why they feel that
it has done less than justice to the Lutheran tradition.
Catholics will have their own difficulties with the Joint
Declaration. The "Official Catholic Response"
expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the sinfulness of the
justified, with cooperation, merit, and the criteriological primacy
of the doctrine of justification. It also objected to the omission
of any treatment of the recovery of lost righteousness through the
sacrament of penance. While sharing many of these concerns, I would
add three more difficulties, two of which I have already mentioned.
The Joint Declaration, contrary to Trent, finds no error in the position
that there can be genuine faith that falls short of justifying faith.(32) The Joint
Declaration does not treat
the question of whether God commands the impossible. Third, the Joint
Declaration fails to address
the vast question of satisfaction. According to Catholic doctrine,
reparation may be needed even after the guilt of sin has been forgiven.
Problems about satisfaction underlie many of the Reformation disputes,
such as Purgatory, Ingulgences, penitential practices, and the satisfactory
value of the Mass. The doctrine of satisfaction, I grant, impinges
on many issues besides justification, but it cannot be excluded from
justification, as canon 30 of Trent's decree makes evident.(33)
In view of these unsolved questions, it would be too much to claim
that the inveterate disagreements between Lutherans and Catholics
on justification have been overcome. The Joint
Declaration does not claim that they have. It admits
that it "does not cover all that each church teaches about justification."(34) It claims only that the sixteenth-century
condemnations do not apply to the Catholic and Lutheran churches that
signed the Joint Declaration insofar as their positions are presented
in the Joint Declaration
itself.(35)
Whether a Lutheran can say that the condemnations in the Book
of Concord no longer apply to Catholics is a question
for them to answer. It cannot be denied that Catholics today continue
to hold the doctrines of Trent that the editors of the Book
of Concord cite in footnotes
as being contrary to Lutheran teaching, and the Lutherans with whom
I have spoken generally take positions contrary to the canons of Trent.
Therefore, I wonder how the Joint
Declaration could conclude
that the condemnations pronounced by Trent and the Lutheran confessions,
even on the selected issues treated in the Joint
Declaration, no longer apply.
The reasoning seems to be that in view of the consensus on the basic
doctrine of justification and the convergences achieved in theological
dialogue on the eight disputed issues, the remaining disagreements
can be seen as "differences of language, theological elaboration,
and emphasis," and therefore as not warranting condemnation.
More than this, it indicates that the two communions, while adhering
to the doctrines enshrined in their confessional books, can find the
positions condemned by those books as "acceptable."(36)
Does this mean that the Lutheran teachings may now be preached and
taught in Catholic churches and seminaries, and that Lutherans will
allow the Catholic positions to be taught as true in their pulpits
and theological chairs? I can hardly think so.
Because of problems such as these, I am of the opinion that the Joint
Declaration tried to accomplish too much. It would have
done better to limit itself to the basic consensus of paragraph 15,
which had been carefully worked out in several theological dialogues.
It went beyond the findings of the dialogues in asserting that the
"remaining differences" were "acceptable." No
one should think that we have reached the end of the road. The Joint
Declaration, like most of the dialogues, clings to the
conceptuality and language of the sixteenth-century formulations.
Without infidelity to them, we can perhaps enrich them by rereading
them in the light of Holy Scripture, the Fathers, and the traditions
of Christian worship. Since other Christian communions, such as the
Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, and Reformed, have a long tradition
of reflection about justification, we can perhaps avail ourselves
of their help. In so doing we may hope to achieve what the Joint
Declaration did not achieve: an interpretation of the
biblical message that Lutherans, Catholics, and others can proclaim
together. By setting the existing disagreements in the framework of
a basic consensus on the central truths, the Joint
Declaration paved the way
for the common approach just proposed. The formulations of the Reformation
era, valuable though they undoubtedly are, may need to be nuanced
and completed so as better to convey the meaning imperfectly expressed
in them. In other words, both communions are being summoned to develop
their own doctrine.
Convergence and consensus on the divisive issue of justification will
greatly advance the cause of Christian unity. Since the disagreements
have impeded the Church's missionary effort, progress toward agreement
will contribute to the "new evangelization" for which the
present pope has been calling. Without the slightest compromise in
matters of truth, Christians of different traditions must seek ways
to proclaim together this central article of faith. •
Notes
1. The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic
Church, Joint Declaration
on the Doctrine of Justification
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); also published in Origins
28 (July 16, 1998): 120-127.
2. The figures are variously reported. I here follow
the tally given by Aidan Nichols in his "The Lutheran-Catholic
Agreement on Justification: Botch or Breakthrough?" New
Blackfriars 82 (September
2001): 377-78.
3. The number of signers is likewise variously reported.
I take the total from Nichols, 378. Some of these signatures were
added after the document was issued.
4. Doctrinal Congregation, Unity Council, "Official
Catholic Response to Joint Declaration," Origins
28 (July 16, 1998): 130-132.
5. Ibid., Clarifications, no. 5, p. 131.
6. Ibid., Clarifications, no. 1, p. 130.
7. These three documents may be found in Origins 29 (June 24, 1999): 85-92. The "Official
Common Statement" and the "Annex" are also in the Eerdmans
publication of the Joint Declaration.
8. The "Official Catholic Response" (Clarifications,
no. 4, p. 131) notes that the recovery of lost righteousness in the
sacrament of penance is not adequately treated.
9. Joint Declaration,
no. 4.
10. Joint
Declaration, nos. 16, 25.
11. Chapter 7; DS 1528.
12. Joint
Declaration, no. 22.
13. Joint
Declaration, no. 26.
14. Annex, no. 2A.
15. Joint
Declaration, no. 22, says
that Lutherans and Catholics can confess together that when people
receive new life in Christ through faith, "God no longer imputes
to them their sin." I do not see how Catholics can say this in
fidelity to their magisterial teaching.
16. Joint
Declaration, no. 30, quoting
Trent, DS 1515.
17. Joint
Declaration, no. 28.
18. Joint
Declaration, no. 29.
19. Joint
Declaration, no 21.
20. Annex, no. 2C.
21. Luther, in his 1535 Commentary
on Galatians 3:10, distinguishes between faith in the
abstract and concrete, embodied faith. Of the latter he writes: "It
is no wonder, then, if merits and rewards are promised to this incarnate
faith, such as the faith of Abel, or to faithful works" (Luther's
Works, vol. 26 [St. Louis: Concordia, 1963], 265).
Melanchthon in his Apology
for the Augsburg Confession declares: "We teach that good works
are meritorious -- not for the forgiveness of sins, grace, or justification
(for we obtain these only by faith) but for other physical and spiritual
rewards in this life and in that which is to come" (Apol. 4:194; Book
of Concord [quarto edition]
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959], 133; cf. 4:367, p. 163). In another
edition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), the Book
of Concord states: "Since
therefore works constitute a kind of fulfillment of the law, they
are rightly said to be meritorious, and it is rightly said that a
reward is owed to them" (4:358, p. 171).
22. Joint
Declaration, no. 38.
23. DS 1530-31.
24. See, for example, Luther's "The Freedom
of a Christian," in Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings,
ed. Timothy F. Lull (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 603-604.
25. Joint
Declaration, no. 25.
26. Joint
Declaration, no. 26.
27. Ibid.
28. Joint
Declaration, no. 31.
29. DS 1568.
30. Joint
Declaration, no. 34.
31. "Official Catholic Response," Clarifications,
no. 2, pp. 130-131.
32. Joint
Declaration, no. 26.
33. DS 1580.
34. Joint
Declaration, no. 5.
35. Joint
Declaration, no. 41.
36. Joint
Declaration, no. 40.
|
