Is the Joint Catholic Lutheran Doctrine, Fallible?

[Steven_Merten]

When the Joint Declaration on The Doctrine of Justification was signed the Pope was there but did not sign it. When discussing this Doctrine on Justification with a priest, the priest seemed to indicate that it should not be used by Catholics to understand how to go to heaven.

When you read the Doctrine you will see that St. Paul is quoted or referenced at least ten to one over Jesus. Most all of the significant scripture where Jesus tells us what we must do to go to heaven are intentionally left out of the document. We know that favoring St. Paul’s writings and not teaching Jesus gospels pertaining to salvation is a Protestant trait stemming from Luther.

The Justification issue is the “faith alone, not works” vs. “faith through works” that many threads at this site deal with.

Back in the sixteenth century Church leaders fought hard to keep Luther’s teachings on Justification from being accepted by Christians. I imagine Church Leaders condemned Luther’s soul to eternal damnation through excommunication primarily to protect Christians on this issue.

Did papal infallibility fail to protect the Church, in this age, from Luther’s teaching on Justification simply by the Pope not being required to Ex Cathedra check it? Is this faith and morals doctrine a non-imfallible doctrine possibly deceiving people away from Christ’s teachings on what we must do to go to heaven at this very moment? Please comment.

JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

by the Lutheran World Federation
and the Catholic Church

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten

www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[otm]

Steve: Please note that an excommunication is not a “condemnation to eternal damnation”. It is a public statement tht the individual is no longer “in communion” with the Church. The Church has never said that any individual is in Hell; to damn them would be to curse them, and I don’t recall anything about the Church cursing anyone.

Having said that, the statement is a joint statement by theologians on both sides signing an agreement as to theological understanding of, and an explanation of, an issue.

You sound worried that the Pope has not made an ex cathedra statement about it. Most of them don’t; there have only been two acknowledged ex cathedra statements in the history of the Church, and we manage fairly well.

 

[otm]

Oh, and by the way, it is not a doctrine. It is a statement about a doctrine. You are the first person I have ever heard call it a joint Catholic-Lutheran Doctrine.

Doctrines have three sources; a church Council; an ex cathedra statement by the Pope, or the universally held constant teaching of the Church from its inception.

Statements of theologians do not rise to the level of doctine. Thank God.

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

I meant to write “no” but pressed "yes: D’oh!!! I thought this meant is it infallible?

 

[MrS]

It is a weak excuse for ecumenism. And the implications of compromise on the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation with the incorrect Sola Fide of the Reformation are dangerous. No orthodox Catholic should stop discussion and apologetics with our separated brethren… this could do just that.

MrS

 

[Steven_Merten]

otm:

Steve: Please note that an excommunication is not a “condemnation to eternal damnation”. It is a public statement tht the individual is no longer “in communion” with the Church. The Church has never said that any individual is in Hell; to damn them would be to curse them, and I don’t recall anything about the Church cursing anyone.

I asked the question on excommunication in a past thread. 48% of Catholics I polled believe that unrepented excommunication does condemn someone to hell.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8628
If it only meant non-communion with the Church on earth with no after life Spiritual consequences, why would the Church strive so hard to give people the opportunity back into the Church at their hour of death?

otm:

Having said that, the statement is a joint statement by theologians on both sides signing an agreement as to theological understanding of, and an explanation of, an issue.

Then please have Pope John Paul II warn people not to use the document as a definition on what to do to go to heaven. Most of the Protestants I talked to take this as a definition on how to go to heaven. I have even seen Catholics using it to define the difference bettween “faith alone, not works” vs. “faith through works”. Have the Pope tell the faithful the true answer to what they must do to go to heaven which was intentionally left out of the Joint document.

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, "Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’’

www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/5a.htm

otm:

You sound worried that the Pope has not made an ex cathedra statement about it. Most of them don’t; there have only been two acknowledged ex cathedra statements in the history of the Church, and we manage fairly well.

A fellow member claims that Church counsil teachings are also “infallible” and that this would be a very large number of infallible doctrines. TWF says, “Actually there’d be more than 500 things metal1633. Remember, everything that has been defined by any of the councils is also to be considered infallibly true…am I not correct? All our official doctrines are to be considered infallible.”

otm:

Oh, and by the way, it is not a doctrine. It is a statement about a doctrine. You are the first person I have ever heard call it a joint Catholic-Lutheran Doctrine.

Doctrines have three sources; a church Council; an ex cathedra statement by the Pope, or the universally held constant teaching of the Church from its inception.

I now see what you are saying. The name made me think it was a doctrine. Are people told by Church leaders this difference. If this is a relative nothing compared to the real doctrine, this must have been what my preist was talking about? Many Catholics are not Cannon Lawyers. Cannot the Church put a clarification warning at the beginning of this “statement”? Like say, “Do not use this statement to understand what you must do to go to heaven. Use Jesus teachings.”

***JOINT DECLARATION ***
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

---

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

---

---

 

[chrisg93]

Steve,
Great post. Can you tell us more detail about the problems with this docustatedeclartionment.

 

[Steven_Merten]

chrisg93:

Steve,
Great post. Can you tell us more detail about the problems with this docustatedeclartionment.

Hello chrisg93,

Please clarify whether your intent was to humiliate me or not. If not, then please explain what docustatedeclartionment means? Then I will be able to respond to your post. Thank you.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Greg_McPherran]

I think it’s just a typo:

if you have docu ment (document)

then paste “stated declaration” with additional typos you get

docu statedeclartion ment
docustatedeclartionment

I’m faily sure the person just didn’t even notice the typing errors.

 

[The_Augustinian]

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, the heart of the declaration, can be accepted by both Catholics and Lutherans. It reconciles the Augsburg Confession and the Tridentine Decree on Justification. We both confess that salvation comes from grace alone, and not merit (in the sense that merit is apart from grace). However the main contention between Catholics and Lutherans is the relationship between faith and works, which the Declaration discusses in very vague tones. I think the declaration is vague enough to not teach actual heresy. Avery Cardinal Dulles expresses his criticism of the declaration in an article from First Things, here.

 

[Maccabees]

Steve merten

I imagine Church Leaders condemned Luther’s soul to eternal damnation through excommunication primarily to protect Christians on this issue.

As another poster pointed out and I want to emphasize excomunication is not a decree on damanation to any Christian. In fact no one has ever been condemned to hell for certain in church history not even Judas athough the Bible alludes he’s in trouble. The church on anyone else has remained mum. Excommunication merely cuts one off from the true body of Christ in the earliest centuries of the church separatist sects have existed along the catholic church from Montanism, gnosticism,docetism, marcionism and many other sects and breakaway groups have existed but pronounced excounnicated “cut off” from the catholic church but they have never been condemned or judged to hell by the catholic church. The church has never done this nor does she claim any special knowledge of the damned only a selct few saints has she revealed the eternal dstiny of mankind and this is deemd miraculous and the exception and not the rule. The ideas of these sects are plainly heretical and the founder of these sects are heretics as were the founders of protestantism like Lutehr, Calvin and Zwinglii as they were all catholics some priest like Luther and Zwinglii and or some influential churchmen like Calvin who went to seminary. These leaders are deemd heretics becuase they were once in the body of Christ yet turned their back on the truth. However for their eteranl status the church does not Judge. As most biographers notice Luthers behavior would it be diagnosed know might be bipolar, schizhophrentic or both. Luther, Calvin and Zwinglii on the other hand did decree Judgemnts on who was going to hell of course they deemed most Papist to reside there how they have this knowledge is beyond me. Most of this was due to theological differnces would result in sending those who disagreed with them to hell of course Luther not only decreed Papist to hell but Zwinglii whose docrines were from the devil himslef and of course anyone who followed him. Anyway someone who might have mental impairment like Luther may believe in his heart that breaking away from the body of Christ was the right thing to do and be judged differnetly than a person without mental impiedment. If we do that on a secular level in our court system I am sure a merciful God would do the same. Where their times the church would burn heretics and get carried away sure. It was a mistake but its hard to judge through the lens of a modern society much of the thinking was it was better for a few to burn now than to infiltrate the masses which would lead to many people burning in hell forever. It was the right intent but an imperfect carrying out of justice but the numbers of this happening were really rare a few thousand per centenial in the middle ages. Way to many but not the crazy number Jack Chick and secularist claim to be true.

Anyway this document makes explict that those born into protestant sects such as Luteranism are not heretics as they have never experienced the fullness of the truth and never rejected the fullness of the faith. What they have they rejected is a misrepresentation of the church per their tradtion. Which all born protestants are born into a protesting of the true church of Christ by misrepresentation of dogma. Thus making Luther a heretic but not those born into his denomination and surely no one born into that church today. THey are seperated brethren most of which no fault of their own.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Maccabees, I have much trouble in understanding many of the things taught in the Church.

Those who are born into Lutheran faith etc must be as culpable as Luther.

God requires us to know him, thus we must “search” for him, should we search for him he will provide guidance (Holy Spirit) to guide us into the truth, therefor all those who “search” for him receive guidance from him. If they are receiving guidance from God, then he must be guiding them to the Catholic Faith (assuming for the moment that the Catholic Faith is the true faith)

If he is not guiding them to the Catholic Faith then ipso facto, the Catholic Faith is NOT required for salvation.

If he is guiding them to the Catholic Faith and they don’t reach it then we must assume that they turned their back on the guidance offered by God and we know what the result is of that.

Now I am not saying that everysingle person would be thus condemned because obviously note everyone is of sound mind.

Now the above reasoning by me may be wrong, but I cannot see how it is wrong because the first parts are correct in that God requires us to search for him and if we do he provides guidance.

If my reasoning is wrong please provide reasons etc.

In Christ

Tim Hayes

 

[javelin]

Although somewhat difficult to read, Maccabees makes some good points, and I find some difficulty with what Tim Hayes suggests:
Tim Hayes:

Those who are born into Lutheran faith etc must be as culpable as Luther.

Not necessarily. Consider Jesus’ parable of the master and servants in Luke 12. Here, the servant who knows his master’s will and disobeys is beaten severely, while the one who does not know his master’s will and disobeys is beaten less severely. “To whom much is given, much will be expected”. Thus, it can be argued that Luther, an educated priest, was more exposed to the truth of the Catholic Church than the average Lutheran born into the faith today. Parallel it to today: who should understand the Catholic faith more fully today, a Catholic priest or a born and raised Lutheran? Luke 12 makes it clear that the former is held more culpable than the latter if they reject the Truth.
Tim Hayes:

God requires us to know him, thus we must “search” for him, should we search for him he will provide guidance (Holy Spirit) to guide us into the truth, therefor all those who “search” for him receive guidance from him. If they are receiving guidance from God, then he must be guiding them to the Catholic Faith (assuming for the moment that the Catholic Faith is the true faith)

I believe that what you are saying is essentially true, but with some important clarifications. See below…
Tim Hayes:

If he is not guiding them to the Catholic Faith then ipso facto, the Catholic Faith is NOT required for salvation.

Even the Catholic Church teaches that full communion with the Catholic Church is not absolutely necessary for salvation. Every baptised person is at least partially united with the Body of Christ, which is not limited to those professing to be “Catholic”.
Tim Hayes:

If he is guiding them to the Catholic Faith and they don’t reach it then we must assume that they turned their back on the guidance offered by God and we know what the result is of that.

What is the result of that? If you mean damnation then we are virtually all damned because none of us completely comprehend the perfection of Truth that God is leading us to.

Your argument sounds very Protestant to me. Please don’t take offense at that and let me explain. You’re essentially saying that anyone who searches for God will, through the Holy Spirit, come to know the Truth. If they don’t come to the Truth, then they must not be listening to God (rejecting Him). That is almost precisely the argument made to defend sola scriptura. “If I seek God, read the Bible, and have the Holy Spirit in me, then that same Spirit will guide me to Truth. If your understanding of God’s Word then conflicts with mine, since I know my sincerity in seeking God is true, then your sincerity must not be; you must be rejecting God because I think what you believe is untrue.” There are many other discussions in these forums that show sola scriptura to come from faulty reasoning, so I won’t get into it more here unless it is needed. Suffice it to say that sincerity of purpose does not guarantee knowledge of Truth. If that were the case, we would clearly have but one world Church and a clear distinction between members and non-members.

continued in next post…

 

[javelin]

Yes, God calls us to seek Him, learn about Him, and thereby to know Him. Yes, He has given us the Holy Spirit of Truth to guide us on that journey. But to then say that we *must *come to the completeness of that Truth or be damned is not true.

For instance, I know many well-intentioned protestant Christians who I believe right now would most likely go to heaven if they passed away. The reason they do not become Catholic (come to the fullness of Truth, as we have been saying in this discussion), is not because of a lack of sincerity in seeking God, nor a lack of desire to follow His will. It is simply because throughout their lives they have been indoctrinated with Protestant ideology that prevents them from embracing the full Truth. Do they still find some Truth in their seeking? Yes. In some ways, that only makes the problem more difficult. So Yes, the Holy Spirit does lead them on the path to Truth, but they may never quite get all the way there because of *invincible *circumstances that keep them apart. If they only seek God through Protestant venues because they were raised that way, they may never, through little fault of their own, even hear the true Catholic message.
Tim Hayes:

Now I am not saying that everysingle person would be thus condemned because obviously note everyone is of sound mind.

Again, a case where someone would be prevented from hearing the Truth through little fault of their own.
Tim Hayes:

Now the above reasoning by me may be wrong, but I cannot see how it is wrong because the first parts are correct in that God requires us to search for him and if we do he provides guidance.

If my reasoning is wrong please provide reasons etc.

I hope I have demonstrated how your reasoning is not quite correct, at least insofar as I understand what you are saying.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Back to the thread topic, while the joint statement on justification can be misleading in appearing to declare all disagreement about the nature of justification to be superficial, I do believe it falls short of actual heresy. One of the main problems with the document is that it fails to point out the remaining differences surrounding justification that lead to our different understandings of salvation. Most specifically one must look at the Lutheran notion of forensic justification and the way in which it excludes the possibility of our sanctification through cooperation with God’s grace, which is at the heart of Catholic soteriology.

 

[Maccabees]

Andread Hofer you echo my observation on the joint statement. It empazies the points of justification catholics and protestants do agree upon. WIth all of the hyperbole many on both sides fail to see the many agreements we have. WE both believed we are saved by grace alone by faith in Jesus Christ alone in the initila justification. Augustine says this explcitly as Trent echoes that as this document does. However we beleive that salvation is a processs where we cooperate with grace for the Protestant initilal justification is where soterology ends they are declared justired as in a legal declaratory decree. THe document plays this difference down. It is important in our dialoge to emphasize what we do kointly believe. Or we can overemphasize our differences thus we have many catholics thinking we are saved by works and many protestants beleiving this becuase we fail to emphasize where we agree.
Could this document do a better job of emphasizing our differnces, Yes. But maybe the intent was to emphasize we are closer than we think.

 

[Maccabees]

Andread Hofer you echo my observation on the joint statement. It empazies the points of justification catholics and protestants do agree upon. WIth all of the hyperbole many on both sides fail to see the many agreements we have. WE both believed we are saved by grace alone by faith in Jesus Christ alone in the initial justification. Augustine says this explcitly as Trent echoes that as this document does. However we beleive that salvation is a processs where we cooperate with grace for the Protestant initilal justification is where soterology ends they are declared justired as in a legal declaratory decree. THe document plays this difference down. It is important in our dialoge to emphasize what we do kointly believe. Or we can overemphasize our differences thus we have many catholics thinking we are saved by works and many protestants beleiving this becuase we fail to emphasize where we agree.
Could this document do a better job of emphasizing our differnces, Yes. But maybe the intent was to emphasize we are closer than we think.

 

[Maccabees]

Tim Layes
If he is guiding them to the Catholic Faith and they don’t reach it then we must assume that they turned their back on the guidance offered by God and we know what the result is of that.

Well this is not catholic teaching.

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

Catholics themsevles by Church membership have no more right to be saved. “Those who do no persist in charity, even if they remain in the Church body but not in heart cannot be saved.” Think of it this way because we as Catholics have the fullness of the faith and the ability to recieve more grace we are more cupable and responsible than our seperated brethren and non christians. “Therefore if someone does not respond to this grace in thought, in world, and in deeds, not only will that person not be saved he will be even more severly judged” (Lumen Gentium 14)

Pope John Paul 2 in this book Crossing the Threshold of Hope says.
"Besides formal memebership in the church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesaim Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialoge of salvation, which are the same as those indicated by the Councils as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

Andreas Hofer:

One of the main problems with the document is that it fails to point out the remaining differences surrounding justification that lead to our different understandings of salvation.

Hello Andreas Hofer,

I think I agree with you. This declaration, allong with the Protestant thinking, intentionally exclude Christ’s teaching on what we must do to go to heaven. Using the bible to portray a half truth is worse than outright lying about scriptural truths. A person reading the joint declaration would assume that Jesus teachings on justification (salvation) are wrong. The best thing for the Church to do is to add to the begining of the document all of the things that Jesus tells us to do to go to heaven.

Faith in Jesus means doing what He tells us to do.

The way people go to heaven is through Jesus, the reason people go to heaven is because they love God and love for God is accomplished through free from the will of God obedience to the will of God.

NAB MAT 25:31

“He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[tuopaolo]

oops I accidently voted for the wrong option. Maybe a moderator could change my vote to “Yes”