The Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification About a year ago, I wrote an article for Our Sunday Visitor's "The Catholic Answer" on the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification. Since then, there have been a few significant developments, one being the addition of an "Annex" which changed some of the wording of the Joint Declaration, and second, the signing of the Joint Declaration (JD) and its Annex on October 31, 1999 by officials from both the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. This present article will give an update on the issues and offer a few opinions as to the significance of the signing. My goal in this article is to give a fair and honest assessment of the Joint Declaration, both its good points and its not-so-good points; what it is and what it is not.

Preliminary Conclusions

First, some perspective on two major goals of this Declaration: (1) "a consensus of basic truths on the doctrine of justification" (JD, paragraph 5), and (2) "In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today's partner..." (JD, paragraph 13). The "doctrinal condemnation of the sixteenth century" refers to the 33 canons of the Council of Trent on Justification, finalized in 1563. We can understand the two goals of the Joint Declaration by viewing them through the actual purpose of the condemnations of the Council of Trent. Trent's anathemas single out no one, for in all the 33 canons, no one non-Catholic person or group is named. Each of the canons simply declare, in conditional language, "If anyone says...let him be anathema." Hence, these canons and their anathemas can apply to Catholics, Protestants, or anyone else who knowingly and deliberately says that the canons are false. All others, most of which fall into the category of "invincible ignorance," are not culpable, or at least not fully culpable, for the errors that were passed down to them and which most non-Catholics learned as children. In fact, the only Lutheran who was ever formally excommunicated over these issues was Martin Luther in the year 1520.

Today, those who knowingly and deliberately deny the canons of Trent are informally excommunicated in that they excommunicate themselves. Of course, the principle of excommunication is also true of Catholics who knowingly and deliberately deny any dogma of the Catholic Church. All the Church can do is stipulate the dogmas. The Church cannot know, for certain, the heart of the individual. Outside of formal excommunication, it is between the individual and God as to whether one believes the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church can neither force its beliefs on an individual nor can it judge whether the individual will ultimately be saved.

In light of Pope Pius IX's teaching on "invincible ignorance" in 1864, Pope Paul VI had already relaxed some of the force of the conciliar condemnations upon the non-Catholic world at large, since it was understood that they could not be held fully responsible for the beliefs that were passed down to them, unless, of course, an individual out of that group knowingly and deliberately rejected the dogmas of the Catholic Church. But since people, even scholars, are so influenced by their culture and upbringing as to what they believe, there is a large degree of misinformation and ignorance which subjects them to the views they hold, sometimes in spite of their claims that they are not influenced by such external factors.

The relaxation of condemnations is even more appropriate when a specific Protestant group, such as the Lutheran World Federation, (a) seeks to dialogue with the Catholic Church, (b) desires to form a basic consensus on the truths of Justification, and (c) actually surrenders some of its prior beliefs. These efforts are far from the "knowing and deliberate" heresies which would be cause for a formal excommunication. Thus today, the Catholic Church considers the anathemas of Trent as "salutary warnings" rather than as specific excommunications of those who hold in ignorance beliefs contrary to its dogmatic teachings.

In all this, however, the Catholic Church has not changed the anathemas of Trent, nor does it have the power to change them. Even the infallible Pope or Council has no authority to change the canons of Trent. All the Church can do is tell us, based on her wisdom and knowledge, to whom the anathemas formally apply, whether to specific individuals or groups at large. In the opinion of the Church today, those who want to dialogue with her and come to consensus on basic points are not formally deserving of the anathemas, whether or not all can agree on specific points. The mere fact that a group wants to dialogue with the Catholic Church, which has been the case for the last 30 years with the Lutheran World Federation, suggests that a "knowing and deliberate" attempt to circumvent Catholic dogma does not exist in their collective hearts. If certain individuals within these dialogues secretly wish to circumvent Catholic dogma, they will ultimately answer to God, who is the only One who can judge the hearts of men (Hebrews 10:26-31).

Analysis of the Media Reports on the Joint Declaration

In saying these things, let us now look closer at the documents of the Joint Declaration themselves. The first thing we need to point out is that although the media has displayed continual excitement over the Joint Declaration, newspaper reports have been notorious in exaggerating and sometimes distorting the areas of agreement between Lutherans and Catholics, so much so that the Catholic side has had to issue a statement warning of the "various erroneous interpretations by the communications media" (June 22, 1999). Thus, it is not the documents and their purpose which is our first concern, rather the interpretation of the documents. Here's a sample of the kind of distortion that still takes place: From the Scripps Howard News Service, on October 12, 1999, columnist Thomas Hargrove wrote:

"The great 482-year dispute between Catholics and Protestants is about to end. In three weeks, representatives of Pope John Paul II and the Lutheran World Federation will meet in Augsburg, Germany, to sign a theological declaration that salvation comes only through faith in God." (emphasis added).

Unfortunately, Mr. Hargrove's assessment is an exaggeration verging on misrepresentation. The "great 482-year old dispute between Catholics and Protestants" is not "about to end."

First, there are thousands of "Protestant" denominations who have not even begun to talk with the Catholic Church, let alone settle the disputes stemming from the Reformation.

Second, within the Lutheran World Federation there remain denominations who oppose any joint declaration with the Catholic Church, such as the more conservative Missouri and Wisconsin Synods.

Third, many disputes that the Lutheran World Federation has with the Catholic Church have not even been addressed, and certainly not resolved, e.g., the Mass, the priesthood, the papacy, authority, tradition, Scripture, indulgences, purgatory, confession, contraception, Mary, the saints, to name a few. To illustrate the point, Luther wrote of the Catholic Mass: "No other sin, manslaughter, theft, murder or adultery is so harmful as this abomination of the popish Mass" (Weimar edition, 15, 774). Lutherans of today, including those of the Lutheran World Federation, have given no indication they have discarded Luther's opinion on the Mass, nor was this, nor any of the other dogmas listed above, part of the recent dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics. The significance? The Mass, confession, indulgences and purgatory are all part and parcel with Catholic justification. According to Church dogma, those who knowingly and deliberately refuse to accept them are under anathema.

The second matter of concern is Mr. Hargrove's conclusion that the signing of the Joint Declaration means that both sides agree "that salvation comes only through faith in God." It is precisely for such sweeping generalizations that the Vatican issued the press release titled "Clarification to the Doctrine of Justification" on June 22, 1999, which pointed out the "various erroneous interpretations by the communications media." In its clarification, the Vatican said: "Together we confess that the sinner is justified through faith in the salvific action of God in Christ," which appears to be a deliberate preemption of the qualifier "alone" in the Annex to the Joint Declaration. Despite the June 22 clarification, there still seems to be some misunderstanding as to where the Catholic Church stands on the issue of Justification.

On a recent radio program of the Catholic Family Network, Jeffrey Gros, a spokesman from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, was interviewed about the meaning of the Joint Declaration. When asked if Catholics can now say that individuals are justified by faith alone, Brother Gros said:

" Yes, in fact the text says that very clearly. If one looks very closely at the Council of Trent, its understanding, its definition of faith is somewhat different than the one that emerged in the Reformation texts. But as you look at the texts closely together and look back at St. Paul's letter to the Romans at grace and faith and what God does for us in Jesus Christ, we see that what Lutherans mean by faith alone is total reliance on the grace of God."

A similar statement is made by Nancy Frazier O'Brien of the Catholic New Service: "The signing marked the end of a long, sometimes difficult journey from mutual Lutheran-Catholic condemnations to agreement that justification and salvation come by faith alone." Ms. O'Brien's sweeping conclusion is made even more egregious when she equates her opinion "that justification and salvation come by faith alone" with a statement in the Joint Declaration that "the doctrine of justification set forth in this declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics." Is this correct? Does the Catholic Church now teach that men are justified by faith alone? Does the historic Lutheran phrase "faith alone" mean that one totally relies on the grace of God, and does this imply that those, such as Catholics, who only use the word "faith" are in some fashion relying on themselves?

Preliminary Analysis of the Joint Declaration

For those who are not aware, the documents coming out of the October 31 agreement are: (1) The Joint Declaration, consisting of 44 numbered paragraphs, (2) the Annex, consisting of 9 paragraphs numbered and lettered, (3) the Clarification on the Doctrine of Justification written by the Catholic Church and issued on June 22, 1999, and (4) the Presentation of the Joint Declaration, which is composed of a few paragraphs of introduction by Cardinal Cassidy, head of the Pontifical Commission on Ecumenism.

In the 44 paragraphs of the Joint Declaration (JD), as noted above, the phrase "faith alone" is not used, except one time in paragraph 26 to explain that Lutherans understand "faith alone" to be a "distinction but not a separation...between justification itself and the renewal of one's way of life that necessarily follows from justification and without which faith does not exist." This is significant in light of the fact that the JD mentions the word "faith" 43 times (e.g., para. #5: "justification by God's grace through faith in Christ"; para, #9: "by God's grace through faith"; para. #11: "by grace through faith"; para. #25: "sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God"; etc); and the word "alone" 6 times (e.g., para. #15: "by grace alone in faith"; para. #16: "Christ alone in faith"; para. #32: "the mercy of God which alone justifies them"), but never together in a joint Lutheran/Catholic proposition, such as a "We confess together..." statement.

Curiously, in all the documents, the only time the phrase "faith alone" appears as an actual statement of belief is in paragraph 2C of the Annex, which states: "Justification takes place ‘by grace alone' (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified ‘apart from works' (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25)." There are four interesting facts about this statement:

(1) the Annex uses the word "faith" 8 times. Two of the more prominent usages appear in paragraph 2: "Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work..." In this instance, the mere fact that the word "alone" was coupled with "grace" but not added to "faith" shows a deliberate effort to exclude "alone" from "faith." The next instance is paragraph 2A: "Since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God (Rom 5:1)." Here drafters are more or less forced to exclude "alone" since they are quoting from Romans 5:1, which does not use "alone."

(2) Notice that the Annex makes reference to "JD 15 and 16" in paragraph 2C after it mentions "by grace alone," and makes reference to "JD 25" after it mentions "the person is justified ‘apart from works' (Rom 3:28)," but it makes no reference to the JD after it uses the phrase "by faith alone." Why? Because, as noted above, there is no joint-statement of the phrase "faith alone" in the Joint Declaration. Paragraph 25 of the Joint Declaration only says, "We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ."

(3) The discrepancy between the Joint Declaration and the Annex becomes even more puzzling since paragraph 31 of the Joint Declaration also makes reference to Romans 3:28, but it does not use the word "alone." It states: "We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel ‘apart from works prescribed by the law' (Rom 3:28)." Hence, in reference to Romans 3:28, the Annex, in opposition to the Joint Declaration, has given two versions of this very crucial issue: one version specifying "faith alone" (paragraph 2C), the other version specifying "faith" without the qualifier "alone" (paragraphs 2 and 2A), the latter usage being the only one agreeing with the language of the Joint Declaration. One can only conclude that the duplicity and/or ambiguity created in the Annex is deliberate. The drafters were well aware of the extreme historical volatility of the word "alone" as a qualifier of faith, and thus we wonder how the word "alone" suddenly slipped into the discussion, more or less, at the last minute, in only one part of an "Annex."

(4) The most egregious fact about the presence of "faith alone" in the Annex is that no explanation is given for its sudden appearance. The Catholic side does not delineate what "faith alone," as opposed to "faith," means, in spite of the fact that its sudden appearance in the Annex leaves the impression that they agree with the Lutherans on the usage of "faith alone" in order to describe the mechanics of Justification. Since the Catholics lack an explanation or definition for the use of "faith alone" in 2C of the Annex, the only recourse the reader has is to refer back to paragraph 26 of the Joint Declaration where the phrase "faith alone" is used, but paragraph 26 is clearly the historic Lutheran understanding of "faith alone," not the Catholic understanding.

The Catholic statement in the following paragraph, #27, neither uses the phrase "faith alone," nor does it accept, reject or comment on the Lutheran use of "faith alone." Paragraph 27 explains the traditional doctrine of Catholicism, that is, that faith, hope and love are infused into the individual at the moment of Justification, but paragraph 27 does not state or imply that this infusion can be described by the words "faith alone." Conversely, the Lutheran description of "faith alone" in paragraph 26 never directly concedes to the Catholic doctrine that faith, hope and love are infused into the individual at the moment of Justification. The closest the Lutherans come to the Catholic doctrine is the statement "Thereby the basis is indicated from which the renewal of life proceeds, for it comes forth from the love of God imparted to the person in justification," wherein the reference to "impart" could possibly be construed as akin to the concept of infusion, but this, unfortunately, is not specified by either the Lutherans or the Catholics. Hence, without the proper explanation in the Annex, the implication is that the Catholic side has favored the language of "imparting" love, as opposed to the traditional teaching of "infusing" love, since they give no contrary explanation to the use of "faith alone," nor do they use the word "infused" in paragraph 27 of the Joint Declaration.

This problem is compounded, since in the rest of paragraph 26 the Lutherans speak only in terms of love and renewal as results of justification by faith, not simultaneous with faith in justification. Apparently, these issues created a severe problem between both sides. No doubt, it is one of the reasons why the Catholic side issued the "Clarification" to the Annex on June 22, 1999, which did not include the word "alone" in reference to faith. It simply stated: "Together we confess that the sinner is justified through faith in the salvific action of God in Christ. This salvation is given to him by the Holy Spirit in baptism which is the foundation of his whole Christian life." We can also understand why the Lutheran/Catholic dialogue almost collapsed prior to this statement. It was saved only by some last minute behind the scenes negotiations by Cardinal Ratzinger. It appears that the Vatican issued the "Clarification" to represent the correct interpretation of the Joint Declaration, which opposes the conclusion by Jeffrey Gros of the NCCB, and anyone else who promotes the "faith alone" formula.

In effect, the Annex's equivocation between "faith" and "faith alone" gives at least one indication of the nature of the Joint Declaration: it is an effort, however indecisive, to combine Lutheran and Catholic beliefs in such a fashion so as not to deny either side's opposing beliefs or offend the opposing side. Each side can extract statements from the Joint Declaration with which it agrees and interpret them the way it sees fit. This sentiment is evident in Cardinal Cassidy's summation of the efforts at a Joint Declaration: "What we have tried to do in the dialogue has not been to pass judgment, neither on the Council of Trent nor Martin Luther." Instead, Cassidy stated, the two churches wanted to "say what are Lutherans and Catholics able to say together today." What was said "yesterday," or what will be said "tomorrow," then, remains to be seen.

1 2 3