Joint Declaration On Justification By Faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter Protestant101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Protestant101

Guest
I have read news reports about Anglicans and Lutherans signing onto this joint declaration with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, I am interested in researching this document; but first, I need to know where to read a copy of it online so that we can hopefully discuss same.

Can anyone help me out here? :confused:
**“One Lord, one faith, one baptism,” **Ephesians 4:5
Click to expand...
 
Hello.

I don’t know about Anglicans joining in but here’s the Catholic.Lutheran declaration:

On a Catholic Website

On a Lutheran Website

The document isn’t a matter of full agreement. It gives all the points that the Lutheran and Catholic churches agree on and discusses both perspectives on the points not agreed on.

Apparently the Methodists have adopted the declaration too.

Of course not all Lutherans like the document. And there are some Catholic detractors too scattered round the web. And many protestants think it’s a dreadful thing.

The document is not an end point, a unifying of catholics and lutherans. But it is a step in the right direction providing at least mutual understanding and solidarity on various points, the understanding being essential for further dialogue.

As for me, I haven’t read or studied it so don’t want to comment any more until I’ve had time (hopefully) to do so.
 
asteroid said:
Hello.

I don’t know about Anglicans joining in but here’s the Catholic.Lutheran declaration:

On a Catholic Website

On a Lutheran Website

The document isn’t a matter of full agreement. It gives all the points that the Lutheran and Catholic churches agree on and discusses both perspectives on the points not agreed on.

Apparently the Methodists have adopted the declaration too.

Of course not all Lutherans like the document. And there are some Catholic detractors too scattered round the web. And many protestants think it’s a dreadful thing.

The document is not an end point, a unifying of catholics and lutherans. But it is a step in the right direction providing at least mutual understanding and solidarity on various points, the understanding being essential for further dialogue.

As for me, I haven’t read or studied it so don’t want to comment any more until I’ve had time (hopefully) to do so.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are right…It was Methodists that I read of, along with the Lutherans. I was under the impression that this document was the same for all groups that sign it. is this what you meant too?
 
Remember though that the Vatican has issued an official response to the Declaration, which expresses its reservations over the theology of the document:

Response to JDDJ

So caution: the Declaration is NOT fully representative of Catholic theology.
 
adventistnomore said:
Remember though that the Vatican has issued an official response to the Declaration, which expresses its reservations over the theology of the document:

Response to JDDJ

So caution: the Declaration is NOT fully representative of Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
I don’t see any reservations about the theological statements found in the document. I see reservations about whether the agreement acknowledged in the document is sufficient. In other words, the response seems to accept the Catholic position set forth in the JDDJ as orthodox (though in need of some further expansion and clarification), but it’s dubious about the Lutheran position.

Edwin
 
adventistnomore said:
Remember though that the Vatican has issued an official response to the Declaration, which expresses its reservations over the theology of the document:

Response to JDDJ

So caution: the Declaration is NOT fully representative of Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
What do you see here as the “specific reservations” expressed by the Pope?
 
Contarini said:
I don’t see any reservations about the theological statements found in the document. I see reservations about whether the agreement acknowledged in the document is sufficient. In other words, the response seems to accept the Catholic position set forth in the JDDJ as orthodox (though in need of some further expansion and clarification), but it’s dubious about the Lutheran position.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Agreed. Poor choice of words on my part; the issue is whether the agreement is sufficient to satisfy the condemnations of the Council of Trent. The Catholic theology expressed is orthodox.
 
What are these “condemnations of the Council Of Trent?”

I would be interested to learn more about that.

Thanks.
 
Hello Protestant101,

I have read the document.

My priest has warned us that the document must not be used to answer the question what must we do to go to heaven. The document is only an ecumenical tool, he said.

St. Paul is quoted or refferenced in the document about 13 times more often than Jesus. All of Jesus’ answers to what we must do to go to heaven are intentionally left out of the document. Be careful when you read the document. Do not get confused into thinking that following this document is what you must do to go to heaven rather than what Jesus teaches we must do to go to heaven.

Jesus, What Must I Do To Share In Everlasting Life?

NAB MAR 10:17

"Good Teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?" Jesus answered, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments:
’You shall not kill;
You shall not commit adultery;
You shall not steal;
You shall not bear false witness;
You shall not defraud;
Honor your father and your mother.’"
NAB LUK 10:25

"Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?" Jesus answered him: "What is written in the law? How do you read it?" He replied:
"You shall love the Lord your God
with all your heart,
with all your soul,
with all your strength,
and with all your mind;
and your neighbor as yourself."
Jesus said, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.” **NAB ROM 2:4 **

Do you not know that God’s kindness is an invitation to you to repent? In spite of this, your hard and impenitent heart is storing up retribution for that day of wrath when the just judgment of God will be revealed, when he will repay every man for what he has done: eternal life to those who strive for glory, honor, and immortality by patiently doing right; wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
NAB MAT 25:31

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 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 REV 22:12

“Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! **Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life **and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood.”
 
Thanks Steven

This is a good post. I will take a little time to study it and look up the link you gave and then get back to you.👍
 
Protestant101 said:
What are these “condemnations of the Council Of Trent?”

I would be interested to learn more about that.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You must remember these were written specifically addressing the Protestant “reformation” and the errors that the Church declared therein.

Here is a link to the most commonly cited canons.

Canons Concerning Justification

However, in this same article is the rest.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Hope this helps.

Maria
 
Protestant101 said:
When it says: “Let him be anathema” what exactly does that mean?
Click to expand...
Anathema is, more or less, a form of excommunication - Gal 1:8 talks about it. It basically sets the bounds of “being Catholic”, so if someone does not teach what truth is described they are no longer Catholic. As a side-note, the formal ceremony of placing an anathema on a person was abolished with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law - people can still “be” anathema, but there’s no ceremony by which to do so anymore under Canon Law.

Here’s an article by the Director of Apologetics for Catholic Answers - specificially, he’s addressing the difference between “anathema” and “anathema sit”, but there’s some good info in there for you:
Some things that it’s important to note:
Click to expand...
  1. These anathemas were not thought of as damning a person to hell. That’s something only God can do. (Though the fact someone needed to be excommunicated was not considered a good sign for the state of his soul.)
Click to expand...
  1. The penalty of anathema did not take effect automatically. In fact, there was a special ceremony that the bishop had to perform, and the mere fact that someone in his diocese has uttered an awful heresy does not magically compel the bishop to get up and perform the ceremony.
Click to expand...
  1. The penalty of anathema, like all excommunications, was medicinal and meant to prompt the person to repent. Thus there was also a special ceremony for lifting the anathema and receiving him back into fellowship once he did.
Click to expand...
  1. The penalty was only applied to Catholics. If someone ain’t part of the Catholic Church then there’s no point excommunicating them. (Bishops got better things to do with their time than a bunch of ceremonies excommunicating folks who don’t make any pretense of being Catholic.)
Click to expand...
  1. The penalty was so infrequently used (typically for people like priests who had committed major crimes) that it was eventually abolished when the 1983 Code came out, so nobody today is under a sentence of anathema.
Click to expand...
  1. The canons from the ecumenical councils that use the formula “anathema sit” continue to express theological truths in an infallible manner, and you can still get excommunicated for teaching heresy. The special, ceremonial form of excommunication known as “anathema” is what’s gone.
Click to expand...
Hope that clears some things up.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Protestant101 said:
Thanks Maria! I appreciate that.

When it says: “Let him be anathema” what exactly does that mean?
Click to expand...
Ryan L explained that quite well:) .

But I just wanted to remind you that this list is not written to the “separated bretheren” who through no fault of their own, do not know the truth of Christ as found in the Catholic Church.

In other words, it is written directly to the reformers who rejected these truths found in the Catholic Church.

It does leave open the question of where it puts a person who becomes aware of this issue, but that would be a different thread as well as up to the judgement and mercy of God.

God Bless,
Maria
 
MariaG said:
Ryan L explained that quite well:) .

But I just wanted to remind you that this list is not written to the “separated bretheren” who through no fault of their own, do not know the truth of Christ as found in the Catholic Church.

In other words, it is written directly to the reformers who rejected these truths found in the Catholic Church.

It does leave open the question of where it puts a person who becomes aware of this issue, but that would be a different thread as well as up to the judgement and mercy of God.

God Bless,
Maria
Click to expand...
Hi Maria

I have to say first here, that I really like your signature! That’s quite a mouthful; but very compelling too.

Because I have been away for a while; I need to just re-clarify a bit, if I may?

Are you, then, telling us that this Counsel Of Trent was written to/about the “Reformers?”

It might be interesting to explore what the definition of “Reformer” should be too; but to me it’s a bit confusing to try and picture where this Counsel Of Trent stands in authority, as opposed to say the Catholic Church Catechism? I find all the different “Counsels” that the Catholic Church has as puzzling for the general public to sort through, and to decide just what applies to who.

Perhaps, as we explore this; I will understand it better.
 
Protestant101 said:
Hi Maria

I have to say first here, that I really like your signature! That’s quite a mouthful; but very compelling too.

Because I have been away for a while; I need to just re-clarify a bit, if I may?

Are you, then, telling us that this Counsel Of Trent was written to/about the “Reformers?”

It might be interesting to explore what the definition of “Reformer” should be too; but to me it’s a bit confusing to try and picture where this Counsel Of Trent stands in authority, as opposed to say the Catholic Church Catechism? I find all the different “Counsels” that the Catholic Church has as puzzling for the general public to sort through, and to decide just what applies to who.

Perhaps, as we explore this; I will understand it better.
Click to expand...
It was written as a direct result of the heresy of Luther. I don’t think it was written “to” them, but it did directly address issues “about” them.

As to where it stands in authority, the is no opposition or ranking of that authority. It all stems from the authority of the Church.

But just as when we read scripture we need to understand “context” of cultural times and language, we need to understand the “context” of the Council of Trent.

I think the Catechism does a good job of bringing “context” to the declarations of the Council of Trent.

If we were to look at the council of Trent in a vacuum, we might come to the conclusion that all who are not card carrying Catholics are going to hell. But as seen in the Catechism, it tells us that our separated brethren, who through no fault of their own do not know the Catholic Church, may be saved also.

How do we reconcile these two? It means that the Church emphatically teaches that a Catholic who leaves the Catholic Church is in greater danger of going to hell than a southern Baptist whose parents, parents were baptists.

In the first case, as with the “reformers”, Catholics chose to walk away from the Truth. In the second case, the baptists are living the only truth they have been taught. And even though in the Catholic view, it is not the fullness of truth as found in the Catholic Church, it does contain the truth of Christ and therefore they may be saved.

Does this help a little?

God Bless,
Maria
 
Protestant101 said:
I am interested in researching this document
Click to expand...
For your research:

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod statement against the document."…What you probably have not heard is that the JDDJ very carefully avoid precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification…"
 
Angainor said:
For your research:

Lutheran Church Missouri Synod statement against the document."…What you probably have not heard is that the JDDJ very carefully avoid precise definitions of the words grace, faith, sin, etc. That is no accident. Careful definition of those terms would have shown how far apart our two churches actually are on the doctrine of justification…"
Click to expand...
Problem with this is that it is an inaccurate representation of Catholic beliefs.
The Roman Catholic Church is very careful to state that even this “something other” is made possibly only because God has given us the “initial” grace to desire more grace. But in practical reality, it is apparent that the Roman Catholic Church is finally throwing people back on relying on what they are doing, or can do, to merit eternal life. When we mix in our works in the picture of our salvation, the glory and merit of Christ always end up becoming obscured.
Click to expand...
The bolded statement is false. And it also contradicts the previous statement that made by themselves in the beginning of the document.

“Rome historically has always taught that we are saved by grace, and grace alone.”

The only thing that is obscured in this picture is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod trying to obscure the fact that Christ is and always has been the center of Catholic worship. Another fancy way of others saying Catholics are trying to earn their way to heaven despite the initial admission that Rome has always taught that we are saved by grace and grace alone.
 
MariaG said:
“Rome historically has always taught that we are saved by grace, and grace alone.”
Click to expand...
It is hard to know how to respond. When a Lutheran says God saves us by grace alone, we mean it. God simply saves us. By grace. End of story.

It is apparent to us that a Roman Catholic is expected to bring something else to the table.

I don’t know what else to say.
 
Angainor said:
It is hard to know how to respond. When a Lutheran says God saves us by grace alone, we mean it. God simply saves us. By grace. End of story.

It is apparent to us that a Roman Catholic is expected to bring something else to the table.

I don’t know what else to say.
Click to expand...
No, Catholics are not expected to bring anything to the table, only to eat what God has brought to the table (metaphorically speaking). We must respond. This response is not meriting or earning salvation in the slightest because we have no ability to respond to His grace without grace!

Catholic salvation is 100% grace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top