Lutherans and Grace

[Qwikness]

My neighbor is Lutheran. She said the Catholic Church admits that it was wrong about Grace and accepts Martin Luther’s view of Grace through faith. The Church did come out and say something like Grace through faith is important but Good Works are important too. She says “No, the Catholic Church now accepts Martin Luther’s view completely” Everytime we talk it comes up and she seems so proud as if she has trumped me. I’m left without any defense and nothing in writing to point to. What can I show or say to her in simple English to explain it to her?
Also does Good Works mean prayer or does it mean doing good stuff like helping the poor.

 

[DallasCatholic]

My neighbor is Lutheran. She said the Catholic Church admits that it was wrong about Grace and accepts Martin Luther’s view of Grace through faith. The Church did come out and say something like Grace through faith is important but Good Works are important too. She says “No, the Catholic Church now accepts Martin Luther’s view completely” Everytime we talk it comes up and she seems so proud as if she has trumped me. I’m left without any defense and nothing in writing to point to. What can I show or say to her in simple English to explain it to her?
Also does Good Works mean prayer or does it mean doing good stuff like helping the poor.

Well, since the Catholic Church’s teaching on grace and works has never changed I would say that your neighbor is sadly mistaken. Next I would go to the Catechism and show her exactly what the Catholic Church teaches regarding grace. Luther, to my knowledge, never challenged the Church’s teaching on grace. Maybe she is confusing grace with faith? As in salvation through faith alone?

 

[Mommyof02green]

My neighbor is Lutheran. She said the Catholic Church admits that it was wrong about Grace and accepts Martin Luther’s view of Grace through faith. The Church did come out and say something like Grace through faith is important but Good Works are important too. She says “No, the Catholic Church now accepts Martin Luther’s view completely” Everytime we talk it comes up and she seems so proud as if she has trumped me. I’m left without any defense and nothing in writing to point to. What can I show or say to her in simple English to explain it to her?
Also does Good Works mean prayer or does it mean doing good stuff like helping the poor.

Your neighbor might be refering to the JOINT DECLARATION
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION.

here is just one link about it:

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Jun2000/feature2.asp

Also this might help:
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

You can buy a copy of Pillar of Fire; Pillar of Truth for $1.00
You then can give it to your neighbor…

God Bless.

 

[BlestOne]

This is what the joint council says:
*The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification essentially says that Lutherans and Catholics explain justification in different ways but share the same basic understanding. The central passage reads, “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 us and calling us to good works.” The declaration acknowledges that good works are a genuine response to God’s grace—not the cause of it. The declaration also rescinds the formal condemnations of both the Catholic and Lutheran Churches against one another.
*

 

[Nita]

Hi Qwickness,

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued an official Response to the Joint Declaration… which stated some objections to certain areas in the Joint Declaration. As an example, here is the first stated objection:

*1. The major difficulties preventing an affirmation of total consensus between the parties on the theme of Justification arise in paragraph 4.4 The Justified as Sinner (nn. 28-1,0 ). Even taking into account the differences, legitimate in themselves, that come from different theological approaches to the content of faith, from a Catholic point of view the title is already a cause of perplexity. According, indeed, to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in baptism everything that is really sin is taken away, and so, in those who are born anew there is nothing that is hateful to God (3). It follows that the concupiscence that remains in the baptised is not, properly speaking, sin. For Catholics, therefore, the formula “at the same time righteous and sinner”, as it is explained at the beginning of n. 29 (“Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament …Looking at themselves … however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them…”), is not acceptable.

This statement does not, in fact, seem compatible with the renewal and sanctification of the interior man of which the Council of Trent speaks (4). The expression “Opposition to God” (Gottwidrigkeit) that is used in nn. 28-30 is understood differently by Lutherans and by Catholics, and so becomes, in fact, equivocal. In this same sense, there can be ambiguity for a Catholic in the sentence of n. 22, “… God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love”, because man’s interior transformation is not clearly seen. So, for all these reasons, it remains difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine on “simul iustus et peccator” is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine decree on original sin and justification. *

(Underlining is mine)
You can read the official Response on the following website:

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

I don’t know if any corrections were made to the original Declaration in response to the objections, or whether the Response was added on to the Declaration. If anyone knows the answer to that, I’d appreciate hearing about it.

Nita

 

[Nita]

I don’t know if any corrections were made to the original Declaration in response to the objections, or whether the Response was added on to the Declaration. If anyone knows the answer to that, I’d appreciate hearing about it.

Decided to check out the Joint Declaration and found the answer to my question. A lengthy appendix was added to the Declaration. You might want to check the appendix portion out Qwickness; possibly even run a copy of it to show your friend.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Nita

 

[Qwikness]

Thank You All Very Much. This is great information! Though I haven’t read it all yet, I will now be very well prepared for my next encounter. Thanks again. Peace.

 

[Qwikness]

I guess the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification didn’t solve anything. Many of the posts on this forum concern themselves with that very topic of Salvation through Good Works or Faith.

 

[lak611]

I guess the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification didn’t solve anything. Many of the posts on this forum concern themselves with that very topic of Salvation through Good Works or Faith.

I would suspect that most of the Protestants who are debating these issues are not Lutheran, so the Joint Declaration is not something they are familiar with. I have never had a debate or argument with a Lutheran about those issues. Although the language is different in Catholic and Lutheran teachings, I have found that Lutherans agree with Catholics once the language is explained.

 

[Erich]

Canon 1 of the Council of Trent’s canons concerning justification (session 6) says this (emphasis mine):

If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

That was back in January 1547

 

[Qwikness]

Well I read the JDDJ and the Vatican’s response. Seems to me that it is not that big of a deal. Nothing has changed! I appreciate y’alls help. I can only imagine trying to explain this stuff to my neighbor. She’s going to short circuit.I even got the response from the Missouri Synod’s FAQ. They didn’t even sign it, citing that the WLF has made a mistake and the JDDJ didn’t define important terms such as Grace, Sin etc. (It seemed that is exactly what it did, but you can lead a horse to water…) Its good to have this as a community. PAX