Officials of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in October of 1999, and this event was the culmination of over twenty years of ecumenical dialogue on this topic by representatives of both groups.  The document is intended to show that a consensus now exists between the two groups on the doctrine of justification, and because of this presumed doctrinal consensus, it was also meant to remove the sixteenth century anathemas issued at the time by the two groups in their confessional writings.  In this paper I will examine the Lutheran sections of the Joint Declaration in order to verify whether or not the anathemas of the Council of Trent still apply to the various Lutheran ecclesial bodies that signed the agreement, or whether the present day teaching of the member churches of the Lutheran World Federation is in fact compatible with the Tridentine decrees.  I will focus on the sections 4.1 through 4.4 of the Joint Declaration and try to determine whether the Lutheran teaching contained in those sections is compatible with the Catholic doctrines of justification and original sin as they were defined at Trent.

          When looking at section 4.1 of the Joint Declaration it can be seen that a true consensus on the necessity of grace for justification exists between both groups, but this is not in fact a new consensus, because both sides agreed on this element of the doctrine of justification back in the sixteenth century, and so the present agreement indicated here is not a startling break through, but is simply the recognition of a pre-existing condition.  It is true that in their polemical attacks both sides often overlooked this fact, but nevertheless it is not new.  

          In spite of the agreement on the necessity of grace, there is a problem in the Lutheran explanation found in section 4.1 and that problem centers around the following statement:  “Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace. When they emphasize that a person can only receive (mere passive) justification, they mean thereby to exclude any possibility of contributing to one's own justification, but do not deny that believers are fully involved personally in their faith, which is effected by God's Word.” [1]  This conception of the human person as merely passive in his salvation seems irreconcilable with the Tridentine doctrine of human cooperation in salvation.  As the Fathers of Trent said, “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.” [2]  The fact that the Lutheran paragraph speaks of the believer’s “personal” involvement in justification does not seem to sufficiently take into account the required act of the will on the part of man in his own justification.  This act of the will is of course energized by God’s grace, but it is still a human act, and so the human person is not merely passive in his justification.  The idea that man is merely passive in receiving the grace of justification is also contrary to the principle enunciated by St. Augustine in the fifth century when he said: “He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent.  He made you without your knowledge, but He does not justify you without your willing it.” [3]  So the Tridentine decrees insist that man must actively cooperate in his own salvation, and to say otherwise is contrary to the teaching of the ancient Fathers and the Council of Trent.

          In section three of the Official Roman Response to the Joint Declaration the concept of cooperation with grace is clearly enunciated and the incompatibility of the Lutheran view of man’s passivity in justification is reasserted.  The Annex to the Joint Declaration, which was supposed to clarify the Lutheran view on this issue, does not really address this fundamental problem; in fact, the Annex simply reiterates the Lutheran position as stated in section 4.1 of the Joint Declaration and fails to make the proper theological distinctions between venial and mortal sin, and the nature of concupiscence as a disordered inclination which is not in itself sinful, so the Annex does not really clarify anything.

          After the problems in section 4.1 another apparent problem arises in the Joint Declaration in section 4.2, where the Lutherans, in line with their own theological tradition, say that “. . .the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness, [and in saying this] their intention is above all to insist that the sinner is granted righteousness before God in Christ through the declaration of forgiveness and that only in union with Christ is one's life renewed,” and after this statement they go on to say that, “. . . God's grace is forgiving love (the favor of God).” [4]  This appears to suggest that the righteousness by which one is made just before God is simply the imputed righteousness of Christ given to the believer through faith.  Additionally, the statement about God’s grace as “forgiving love,” that is, as divine favor appears problematic as well, because both the idea of an imputed form of righteousness and the reduction of grace to divine favor were condemned by Trent, when it said, “If anyone saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified is only the favor of God:  let him be anathema.” [5]

          Although the Lutheran understanding of the section of 4.2 of the Joint Declaration does go on to speak of the renewal of the Christian’s life, it is not clear what is meant by this renewal of life and whether it is caused by an infusion of God’s grace into the human person, or whether it is simply referring to a non-imputation of sin and an imputation of Christ’s own righteousness.  If the latter understanding is the Lutheran position, then it is clear that the present Lutheran teaching is still incompatible with Catholic doctrine, and so the censures of Trent would still apply.

          In section 4.3 the Lutheran teaching on justification by faith alone is brought up, and “a distinction but not a separation is made between justification itself and the renewal of one's way of life that necessarily follows from justification.” [6]  As Christopher Malloy in his article on The Nature of Justifying Grace points out, this distinction is problematic from a Catholic perspective because “. . . declaring the simultaneity of these two aspects is not tantamount to affirming their unity in a singular formal cause.” [7]  In other words, the Lutherans appear to be teaching that faith justifies man in such a way that he is not intrinsically made righteous, but instead simply receives an extrinsic imputed righteousness, that is, Christ’s own righteousness is merely imputed to the justified man.  The Council of Trent in canons 9, 10, and 11, clearly condemned this way of understanding justification. [8]

          In reading the sources for the Joint Declaration, it appears that present day Lutheran teaching continues to understand justification as a mere imputation of Christ’s own righteousness without really sanctifying the human person.  As a consequence, the sanctification of the believer is still held to be distinct from the justification that is brought about through faith; and so, in spite of the fact that they insist that there is no separation between justification and sanctification, the Lutheran distinction in itself implies a separation at the causal level.  In other words, man is not made just and righteous through a single formal cause, i.e., sanctifying grace, but is made just through faith that then imputes Christ’s own righteousness to him, without transforming the believer’s inner being.  Clearly, this theological position was condemned by Trent.

          I will now move on to section 4.4 of the document, which in many ways is the most troubling section of all, because the Lutheran teaching contained in this part of the document continues to hold that concupiscence, i.e., the inclination to sin, is itself damnable sin.  This teaching is the logical consequence of Luther’s view of justification as simply Christ’s imputed righteousness and the resulting non-imputation of sin.  The idea that man is still sinful after being justified is normally referred to as the doctrine of simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously just and sinful), and as is quite evident, this theological position is contrary to the teaching of Trent, which said that, “If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only raised, or not imputed; let him be anathema.” [9]

          So, the continued insistence of the Lutheran churches that man is still sinful after he has received the grace of justification is the continuation of one of the core theological disagreements that caused the divisions of the sixteenth century.  The Official Catholic Response to the Joint Declaration states that the Lutherans continue to confuse the concupiscence, that is, the disordered inclination toward sin, that remains after baptism, with sin itself, and this being so, “. . .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.” [10]

          The idea that a man can be justified by grace and still be in a state of mortal sin is clearly contrary to the doctrine of the Council of Trent, and that this is the teaching espoused in the Lutheran paragraph of section 4.4 is undeniable.  The confessional text cited in this section clearly calls concupiscence sin, and goes on to say that this sin  “. . . is not imputed to those who are in Christ, although by nature it is a matter worthy of death where it is not forgiven.” [11]  Now, what is meant by phrase “where it is not forgiven”?  The answer to this question can be found by looking at another Lutheran confessional writing, called the Solid Declaration, which is also found in the Book of Concord, and that document says, “. . . we teach that through the operation of the Holy Ghost we are born anew and justified, the sense is not that after regeneration no unrighteousness clings any more to the justified and regenerate in their being and life, but that Christ covers all their sins which nevertheless in this life still inhere in nature with His complete obedience.” [12]  Thus, the man who is justified is still sinful in his own nature, but he has been covered with Christ’s own righteousness, a righteousness that is extrinsic to his person, and that does not really bring about a renewal of his nature.  This twofold conception, the idea that man is simply covered with Christ’s righteousness while actually remaining sinful, is condemned by the Council of Trent in canon eleven of the decree on justification and section five of the decree on original sin. [13]

          The only defense that can be made for the Joint Declaration rests on the arguments of those who, like Cardinal Dulles, believe that the Catholic and Lutheran explications of the texts are semantically different, but that they are not in any substantial way opposed to each other.  In other words, the defenders of the Joint Declaration hold that the Lutheran and Catholic positions are simply two different ways of looking at the same thing, and that both ways are equally valid.  Cardinal Dulles sees the common confession found in section three of the Joint Declaration as a breakthrough, and that section reads as follows:  “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.” [14]  But as I indicated earlier, there is nothing new in this statement, because both sides have insisted on the necessity of grace for justification since the sixteenth century. [15]  Additionally, it should be noted that this common confession is so vaguely worded that both sides can interpret the text in the light of their own theological tradition to the exclusion of the position of the other side.  So this common confession has little value in the real world, because it only expresses a consensus at a very superficial level.

          The various theological terms used in this common confession; grace, faith, merit and renewal of the heart, are not defined in the text, and so it is possible for the Lutherans to interpret these terms in a way that is contrary to the teaching of the Council of Trent.  Is grace a real participation in the divine life, or is it merely God’s favor bestowed on man?  Is faith a dogmatic reality in which man assents to the truth that has been revealed by God through an act of his own will moved by God through grace, or does faith simply involve trust in God’s forgiving love whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him, while the human person in fact remains sinful?  Does the denial of merit mean that man, after having been made just by God, cannot then merit an increase in the amount of grace he possesses, because if that is what is meant by this text how can it then be reconciled with the teaching of Trent in canon twenty-four?  Finally, what is meant when the text speaks of the renewal of the heart, and is it meant to convey the idea that grace causes a real ontological change in the human person, and as a consequence of this, that man experiences an internal transformation that moves him from a state of mortal sin to a state of grace; in other words, are man’s sins really removed when he is justified, or does justification merely entail a non-imputation of man’s sin for Christ’s sake.  Without defining the terms used in this “common confession” there is no way to really judge the extent to which the two sides actually agree with each other.  Thus, I disagree with Cardinal Dulles when he says:  “If the Joint Declaration had stopped at this point, it would have been a breakthrough of sorts because the two churches have never in the past jointly expressed their shared convictions about justification.” [16]  Does the quotation that Cardinal Dulles is referring to from the Joint Declaration really show a shared conviction, or is it an ambiguous statement that actually avoids answering the tough questions about man’s justification through grace?  I hold that the latter is true, and that it really does not express a common conviction in any substantial sense.  Moreover, both parties could have made this common statement in the sixteenth century, because it is so vaguely worded that it could be given any number of different meanings.  It is easy to come to an agreement when the real issues are ignored.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited:

Avery Robert Dulles.  “Two Languages of Salvation:  The Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration.”  First Things 98 (2000): 25-30.

William A. Jurgens (Editor).  The Faith of the Early Fathers.  Vol. 3.  (Collegeville, MN:  The Liturgical Press, 1979).

Christopher J. Malloy.  “The Nature of Justifying Grace: A Lacuna in the Joint Declaration.”  The Thomist 65 (2001): 93-120.

Philip Schaff (Editor).  The Creeds of Christendom.  (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Book House, 1985).

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.  (Grand Rapids, MI:  William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000).

Official Catholic Response.

     <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_0

    1081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html>

“The Defense of the Augsburg Confession.”  In The Book of Concord.  

     <http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/2_originalsin.html>

“The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord.”  In The Book of Concord.  

     <http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/righteousness.html>

Works Consulted:

Karl Lehmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Editors).  The Condemnations of the Reformation Era:  Do They Still Divide?  Translated by Margaret Kohl.  (Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press, 1990).

Martin Luther.  “Against Latomus.”  In Luther’s Works.  Translated by Dr. George Lindbeck.  32:135-159, 254-260. 

     <http://www.wls.wels.net/students/coursematerial/Reformationhistory/LutherReading

     Project/Chapter%2010%20-%20Junker%20Georg/Against%20Latomus%20-20LW%2032,%20%20133-

     159,%20254-260.doc>

Lewis A. Smith.  “Some Second Thoughts on the Joint Declaration.”  Lutheran Forum 31 (1997):  7-8

Francis A. Sullivan.  “Faith and Works in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.”  Ecumenical Trends 29 (2000): 113-117.

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification:  True Consensus or an Agreement to Disagree

by Steven Todd Kaster

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Theology 514:  Theology of the Church

Dr. Stephen Hildebrand

17 November 2003

_____________________________________

End Notes:

[1]  Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), p. 17.

[2]  Philip Schaff (Editor), The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker Book House, 1985), 2:112.

[3]  William A. Jurgens (Editor), The Faith of the Early Fathers (Collegeville, MN:  The Liturgical Press, 1979), 3:29.

[4]  Joint Declaration, 18.

[5]  Schaff, 2:112-113.

[6]  Joint Declaration, 19

[7]  Christopher J. Malloy, “The Nature of Justifying Grace: A Lacuna in the Joint Declaration,” The Thomist 65 (2001): 93-120.

[8]  Schaff, 2:112-113.

[9]  Schaff, 2:87.

[10]  Official Catholic Response, no. 1, <http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html>; cf., Karl Lehmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg (Editors), The Condemnations of the Reformation Era:  Do They Still Divide? (Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press, 1990), 47.

[11]  “The Defense of the Augsburg Confession,” in The Book of Concord, art. 2:40, 

< http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/2_originalsin.html>

[12]  “The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord,” in The Book of Concord, art. 3:22, <http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-sd/righteousness.html>

[13]  Schaff, 2:87 and 2:112-113.

[14]  Joint Declaration, 15.

[15]  See Lewis A. Smith, “Some Second Thoughts on the Joint Declaration,” Lutheran Forum 31 (1997): 8. 

[16]  Avery Robert Dulles, “Two Languages of Salvation:  The Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration,” First Things 98 (2000): 25-30.

Copyright © 2003-2024 Steven Todd Kaster