Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[JonNC]

This is a strange statement to me since, I am unaware of any real change in Rome’s understanding of justification from the Council of Trent. Perhaps you can share what issues you have in mind and provide Reformation-era and recent sources to document this change.

I’m not sure there really is any real change in Rome’s position, and as Don said, no real change in Lutheran position. I think what we’re seeing in Lutheran / Catholic dialogue is a greater understanding of each other’s position, and an ability to express the Doctrine of Justification in ways that acknowledge the very real similarities in our beliefs. This is not 1500’s Germany anymore. The animosities are fading, the misunderstandings no longer relevant, and the challenges of the 21st century to the Church such that we must look to the Holy Spirit to bring us together.
I particularly like James Akin’s article, and often link it to these discussions. I think he very well expresses where the convergences between Lutheran and Catholic thought are.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1784967/posts

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Sorry, Don, confusing to a simple Catholic mind. You mean that even though churches are constituent members of the LWF and are happy to accord the label of ‘Lutheran’ to each other, they are not deemed in communion? So, a Lutheran can regard another Lutheran as a Lutheran even while not convinced that the other person holds valid Lutheran faith?

I’m sure you are familiar with the term, “Cafeteria Catholic”. From a confessional Lutheran perspective, there are parts of orthodox Lutheranism that we belief some synods, a number of them members of the LWF, have drifted away from. One might call them “Lunch-counter Lutherans” .
For example, the ELCA and other synods now ordain women. In our view, that is contrary not only to scripture, but also to the confessions and the history of the whole Church.
One can basically divide Lutherans into two groups, a “quia subscription”, a viewing of the confessions to be a right reflection of scripture, and a ‘quatenus subscription’ a holding that the confessions are true “in so far as” one thinks they reflect scripture. The latter leaves room to change, or ignore the historic meaning of the confessions. So, when the Augsburg Confession says about ordination that, “…no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called”, the confessional Lutheran says this reflects scripture, and the quatenus view says this reflects a historical, cultural perspective that doesn’t necessarily apply to today.

Jon

 

[GKC]

Sorry, Don, confusing to a simple Catholic mind. You mean that even though churches are constituent members of the LWF and are happy to accord the label of ‘Lutheran’ to each other, they are not deemed in communion? So, a Lutheran can regard another Lutheran as a Lutheran even while not convinced that the other person holds valid Lutheran faith?

Think “Anglican”.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Hi EvangelCatholic. I hear this “we believe the same” language quite a lot – including many times from fellow Catholics. But what’s really noteworthy is that most people who say that would also, if they were “open books”, say “Union is to take place on my terms.” (Not that I’m a mind-reader of course, but if that isn’t an accurate description of you, then you are very unusual.)

I yield to what has actually occurred between Catholics and Lutherans. These Declarations and Dialogues / From Conflict to Communion speak louder and more clearly than any one individual. Frankly, the conclusion are incredible.

But, it is also clear that many on this forum remain cautious and even opposed to ecumenical efforts, so the momentous ramifications of the reunion of Lutherans back into the Roman Catholic Church is, perhaps, frightening and confusing for both Christians.

I believe Pope Francis is the holy Father of the Church; his own words related to ideology are both humbling and prophetic.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I’m not sure there really is any real change in Rome’s position, and as Don said, no real change in Lutheran position. I think what we’re seeing in Lutheran / Catholic dialogue is a greater understanding of each other’s position, and an ability to express the Doctrine of Justification in ways that acknowledge the very real similarities in our beliefs. This is not 1500’s Germany anymore. The animosities are fading, the misunderstandings no longer relevant, and the challenges of the 21st century to the Church such that we must look to the Holy Spirit to bring us together.
I particularly like James Akin’s article, and often link it to these discussions. I think he very well expresses where the convergences between Lutheran and Catholic thought are.
freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1784967/posts

Yes, I agree that the real issues have been, at least for most laypeople, obscured by polemical rhetoric. Thanks to the internet, information is more readily accessible, and we can evaluate things more objectively. For example, one concern repeated throughout the Augsburg Confession is that justification is not because of our own merits. However, this taken by itself could give an overly simplistic understanding. For example, how do we reconcile the a “justfication without merit” of Lutheranism and the statements of Scripture that we are “justified by faith” (which inheres in the person) and speaking of salvation as a reward? Roman Catholic theology has a good answer to these questions. The Council of Trent declared that neither faith nor works prior to justifcation merit itself the grace of justification. Nevertheless, God changes the inner man, infusing faith and the other virtues, such that we can truthfully be called just on the basis of our “participation in the Divine Nature.” Similarly, without saying that grace itself is merited, we have a concept of “condign merit” whereby man elevated by grace can merit his reward. The way I see it, the Lutheran Reformers got so caught up in one question, they failed to allow room for more subtle distinctions. Now that time has passed, perhaps dialogue will show that we are much closer than history would lead one to think.

 

[Genesis315]

Just to add, the Catholic Church does not accept the Joint Declaration in total either. As a preliminary note, here is the value of such declarations:
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-xvi_spe_20120127_dottrina-fede_en.html

Here is the Catholic Church’s official response to the Joint Declarations, including the problems we have with it:

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

 

[JonNC]

Just to add, the Catholic Church does not accept the Joint Declaration in total either. As a preliminary note, here is the value of such declarations:

Here is the Catholic Church’s official response to the Joint Declarations, including the problems we have with it:

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

Yes,
I think the LWF/ELCA dialogue members were rather stunned by this, but they should not have been. It is also my belief that this is the exact road the LCMS should have taken - accept with caveats. In fact, we did that with the more recent release of “The Hope of Eternal Life”, though the caveats were minor, and the convergence in this document are, in my view remarkable considering the topic included Purgatory.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes, I agree that the real issues have been, at least for most laypeople, obscured by polemical rhetoric. Thanks to the internet, information is more readily accessible, and we can evaluate things more objectively. For example, one concern repeated throughout the Augsburg Confession is that justification is not because of our own merits. However, this taken by itself could give an overly simplistic understanding. For example, how do we reconcile the a “justfication without merit” of Lutheranism and the statements of Scripture that we are “justified by faith” (which inheres in the person) and speaking of salvation as a reward? Roman Catholic theology has a good answer to these questions. The Council of Trent declared that neither faith nor works prior to justifcation merit itself the grace of justification. Nevertheless, God changes the inner man, infusing faith and the other virtues, such that we can truthfully be called just on the basis of our “participation in the Divine Nature.” Similarly, without saying that grace itself is merited, we have a concept of “condign merit” whereby man elevated by grace can merit his reward. The way I see it, the Lutheran Reformers got so caught up in one question, they failed to allow room for more subtle distinctions. Now that time has passed, perhaps dialogue will show that we are much closer than history would lead one to think.

The bolded may be the case. Of course, Rome was rather caught up in things, too, not the least of which being the building of St. Peter’s, and the threat of the “Turks”.

You are right, however, that we are much closer. So close that I often have said here that my biggest concern is not soteriology, but ecclesiology.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

But, it is also clear that many on this forum remain cautious and even opposed to ecumenical efforts, so the momentous ramifications of the reunion of Lutherans back into the Roman Catholic Church is, perhaps, frightening and confusing for both Christians.

I actually think you could say that all Catholics here are in favor of ecumenism … although for some that means “ecumenism of return”.

 

[JonNC]

I yield to what has actually occurred between Catholics and Lutherans. These Declarations and Dialogues / From Conflict to Communion speak louder and more clearly than any one individual. Frankly, the conclusion are incredible.

But, it is also clear that many on this forum remain cautious and even opposed to ecumenical efforts, so the momentous ramifications of the reunion of Lutherans back into the Roman Catholic Church is, perhaps,** frightening and confusing for both Christians**.

I believe Pope Francis is the holy Father of the Church; his own words related to ideology are both humbling and prophetic.

I suspect one of the more frightening things for some Lutherans is “development of doctrine”.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I suspect one of the more frightening things for some Lutherans is “development of doctrine”.

Jon

Better take cover.

 

[JonNC]

Better take cover.

I wasn’t necessarily speaking for me.

But, :knight1:

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I suspect one of the more frightening things for some Lutherans is “development of doctrine”.

Jon

Jon, are you suggesting that the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue/ JDDJ/ From Conflict to Communion was the work of those who you now consider in need of doctrinal development?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, are you suggesting that the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue/ JDDJ/ From Conflict to Communion was the work of those who you now consider in need of doctrinal development?

No. I was referring to a fear of future development, were we to come into full reconciliation. For example - Co-Redemptrix as an additional marian doctrine.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

No. I was referring to a fear of future development, were we to come into full reconciliation. For example - Co-Redemptrix as an additional marian doctrine.

Jon

Good point.

Here are the conclusions of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue regarding the blessed Virgin Mary and Communion of Saints [1990].

The document states some “church-uniting convergences” :

“1. We reiterate the basic affirmation that ‘our entire hope of justification and salvation rests on Christ Jesus and the gospel whereby the good news of God’s merciful action in Christ is made known; we do not place our trust in anything other than God’s promise and saving work in Christ.’ (§103)

“2. We now further assert together that Jesus Christ is the sole Mediator in God’s plan of salvation (I Tim. 2:5). Christ’s saving work and role in God’s design thus determine not only the content of the gospel and its communication but also all Christian life, includ*ing our own and that of Mary and the saints who are now in heaven…

“8. The term ‘saint’ is used in both our traditions for all those justified by the grace of Christ, and, to one degree or another, for certain individuals among them, marked by holiness, who live the life of faith in devotion toward God and love toward the neighbor in exemplary ways, call*ing forth praise to God…

“10. The fellowship of those sanctified, the ‘holy ones’ or saints, includes believers both living and dead. There is thus a solidarity of the church throughout the world with the church triumphant…

“13. In the fellowship of the living and departed saints, believers are inspired by others, as examples of God’s grace, to greater faith, to good works, and to thanksgiving for one another.

“14. Christians honor saints in at least three ways: by thanking God for them; by having faith strengthened as a result of the saints’ response to God’s grace; and by imitating in various situa*tions their faith and other virtues.

“15. Among the saints who have played a role in God’s plan of salvation for humanity, Mary, who bore Christ, is in particular to be honored, as ‘God-bearer’ (theotokos) and as the pure, holy, and ‘most blessed Virgin’ (laudatissima virgo)…

“17. Saints on earth ask one another to pray to God for each other through Christ. They are neither commanded nor forbidden to ask departed saints to pray for them.

“18. Devotion to the saints and Mary should not be practiced in ways that detract from the ulti*mate trust that is to be placed in Christ alone as Mediator.”

gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/saints-and-mary-what-lutherans-and-roman-catholics-agree-on-about-them/

Augsburg Confession:

Article XXI of the Apology, reflecting a piety toward the saints which is appreciative.
“Our Confession approves giving honor to the saints. This honor is threefold. The first is
thanksgiving…. The second honor is the strengthening of our faith…. The third honor
is…imitation.”

 

[JonNC]

Good point.

Here are the conclusions of the Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue regarding the blessed Virgin Mary and Communion of Saints [1990].

gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/saints-and-mary-what-lutherans-and-roman-catholics-agree-on-about-them/

Nothing I would disagree with.

Jon

 

[KyrieEleison17]

It wasn’t the nature of justification that was the litmus test of orthodoxy. I can’t think of a single papal document or Church Council before Trent that brought up the issue, controversial for a long time in theological schools and amongst doctors. It was the existence of Purgatory and the indulgence system that represented the doctrine that ran afoul of Church dogma.

In the Catholic mind of the day, especially in Northern Europe, to separate from the doctrine of Purgatory was simply to separate yourself from the universal Church. The commandment to honour father and mother included the dead. Both Catholics and Lutherans generally have lost and are losing that sense entirely, though of course not in the form of denial or deliberate separation but more as a consequence of the Zeitgeist of our times.

Caricatures of the concept of Purgatory and the system of indulgences aside, it was a powerful concept, especially in the ages of the plague and too many miscarriages, stillborn children or women dying in childbirth where death appeared much more present. These sorts of attachments are of course powerful and will naturally be emotional TNT.

Shakespeare in his Hamlet, for example, very much teases and plays with his contemporaries’ Protestant anxieties about Purgatory. Even still in Shakespeare’s day the concept had awesome power and a sort of magnetism that today it simply does not. The dead are not a crucible for us.

For many then, failing to pray for the dead or refusing to do so was a sign of gross negligence, the most base barbarism/backwardness and rudeness. Protestantism was emphatic that it wasn’t necessary to specifically pray for the dead not because the dead did not live on in some sense, but rather because the dead were not actually in need of our prayers and praying for them would be offensive to God. Protestantism did not dare deny that it was good and wholesome to remember and honour the dead. Still, the Catholic critique was that you were one step toward doing just that (forgetting the dead) in the Protestant conception and contemporarily you probably would have got a lot more internal traction with an individual by bringing up their very real sense of obligation to the deceased than by arguing what formula best represented the nature of justification.

If you admit Purgatory, then the whole Catholic “system” becomes perfectly logical and sensible and follows immediately. Convincing a Protestant of Purgatory would make him Catholic. Arguing about the nature of justification and “winning” might get you a point but for many other reasons besides the Mass might still seem to be or represent idolatrous superstition.

 

[jimkhong]

I actually think you could say that all Catholics here are in favor of ecumenism … although for some that means “ecumenism of return”.

It depends. This Catholic sees ecumenism and church union as a pot-luck rather than inviting impoverished Protestant street urchins to a Catholic buffet. I expect other churches to bring something to enrich the united church - especially to re-orientate the centralising tendency of the church. If it only serves to reinforce the triumphalist view that ‘we’ have been right all along and ‘they’ have have finally waken to the Catholic inerrancy in every area of Christian life, then thanks but I can do without ecumenism.