Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[seeker_of_God]

I found this document yesterday:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

What I gather from it is that though the Council of Trent rejected the Lutherans for their doctrines, the Church says that they no longer do reject them for their particular doctrine of justification.

This confuses me, and this is an obstacle to me, as isn’t the Church infallible, especially in the councils? How can they change something that they decided on 400 years ago?

Your help would be appreciated.

 

[JonNC]

I found this document yesterday:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

What I gather from it is that though the Council of Trent rejected the Lutherans for their doctrines, the Church says that they no longer do reject them for their particular doctrine of justification.

This confuses me, and this is an obstacle to me, as isn’t the Church infallible, especially in the councils? How can they change something that they decided on 400 years ago?

Your help would be appreciated.

Well, the reason the document says that the mutual condemnations of the Reformation era no longer apply in the instances agreed to in the Joint Declaration is because the document indicates that, through prayerful dialogue, there is a level of agreement regarding these aspects of the doctrine of Justification. If there is now agreement, then the mutual condemnations and anathemas would no longer be necessary.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t still disagreements, and those condemnations would still apply.

Jon

 

[ahs]

There is an official response by both the Catholic Church and certain Lutheran communities (the Confessional Lutherans, I think…JonNC, am I remembering this correct? Both responses were posted in that other thread and I’ll try to find them.)

Anyway, seeker of God, the Joint Declaration basically pointed out that there are agreements between the Catholic Church and Lutherans, that some of the disagreements are based on word-usage, but that there are still issues that need to be worked out. More than anything, the Joint Declaration was meant to open the door to communication.

I’ll hunt for that other thread and get the responses posted here for you if I can find it.

 

[seeker_of_God]

There is an official response by both the Catholic Church and certain Lutheran communities (the Confessional Lutherans, I think…JonNC, am I remembering this correct? Both responses were posted in that other thread and I’ll try to find them.)

Anyway, seeker of God, the Joint Declaration basically pointed out that there are agreements between the Catholic Church and Lutherans, that some of the disagreements are based on word-usage, but that there are still issues that need to be worked out. More than anything, the Joint Declaration was meant to open the door to communication.

I’ll hunt for that other thread and get the responses posted here for you if I can find it.

Thank you. It would be helpful.

 

[JonNC]

=ahs;10265918]There is an official response by both the Catholic Church and certain Lutheran communities (the Confessional Lutherans, I think…JonNC, am I remembering this correct? Both responses were posted in that other thread and I’ll try to find them.)

Yes. the difference between the Catholic response (clarification) and that of the LCMS is that the LCMS did not sign on to the JDDJ, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because I find little in the JDDJ that speaks against Lutheran doctrine. As I recall, and in a nutshell, the LCMS claimed that the Catholic Church really didn’t change anything, and that the Lutheran synods that did sign on caved. Again, when I read the JDDJ, I don’t see a caving in in terms of Lutheran doctrine, and I’m unwilling to assume that the Catholic dialogue partners were, somehow, being deceptive (probably too strong a word for the LCMS position). Instead, I see it as a guidance of the Holy Spirit to come to a mutual understanding.

Anyway, seeker of God, the Joint Declaration basically pointed out that there are agreements between the Catholic Church and Lutherans, that some of the disagreements are based on word-usage, but that there are still issues that need to be worked out. More than anything, the Joint Declaration was meant to open the door to communication.

Agreed.

Jon

 

[ahs]

Still have not found the thread, but here is the Catholic Response which details the working points that were not agreed upon, but to which the door to communication with Lutherans has been opened:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

 

[Genesis315]

As has been mentioned, the “Joint Declaration” is not the position of the Catholic Church, but merely the final work product of the commission, which is submitted to the Church for judgment. AHS linked to the Church’s judgment above, which points out the deficiencies in the Joint Declaration. Just to back up what I’ve said, Pope Benedict said the same thing recently:
Pope Benedict XVI:

Today, moreover, one of the fundamental questions is the problem of the methods adopted in the various ecumenical dialogues. These too must reflect the priority of faith. Knowing the truth is a right of the conversation partner in every true dialogue. It is a requirement of love for one’s brother or sister. In this sense, it is necessary to face controversial issues courageously, always in a spirit of brotherhood and in reciprocal respect. It is also important to offer a correct interpretation of that order or “hierarchy” which exists in Catholic doctrine, observed in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio (n. 11), which in no way means reducing the deposit of the faith but rather bringing out its internal structure, the organic nature of this unique structure. The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/january/documents/hf_ben-

 

[seeker_of_God]

As has been mentioned, the “Joint Declaration” is not the position of the Catholic Church, but merely the final work product of the commission, which is submitted to the Church for judgment. AHS linked to the Church’s judgment above, which points out the deficiencies in the Joint Declaration. Just to back up what I’ve said, Pope Benedict said the same thing recently:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/january/documents/hf_ben-

Thank you for this resource. It explains a lot, then.

 

[ericc]

Any chance of other Protestant churches joining the Declaration? Or is Lutheran’s position on salvation so different from the other protestants? How about Anglicans? I’d thought they would be close to the Catholic position. If we can get Salvation doctrine agreed among Catholic/Protestants, that would be a fantastic first step towards unity. We can work on the others at a later stage

Pope
Mary
Eucharist etc