wfn.org | DOCUMENTATION -- Elucidations to the Vatican's answer to Declaration

[FRANK_IMHOFF.parti@ecunet.org (FRANK IMHOFF)]

Elucidations to the Vatican's answer to the Joint Declaration on the
                  Doctrine of Justification
Letter from Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy to Ishmael Noko, General
          Secretary of the Lutheran World Federation
                            E Civitate Vaticana, die 30. 7.1998

 ...I take the occasion to offer some reflections which seem necessary in
view of certain misreadings of the Catholic response that have appeared
since my presentation.

Little attention seems to have been paid to the very important distinction
in the Catholic response between the Declaration and the Clarifications
that followed. As His eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has pointed out in
a letter to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and published in that paper
on July 14th last, only the Declaration is to be considered strictly as a
response to the question raised in the Joint Declaration, and this response
is clear and totally unequivocal: "there is a consensus in basic truths of
the doctrine of justification".

The second part of the Catholic response has a completely different value
to that of the Declaration. The points made in this section of the response
are entitled Clarifications, and as Cardinal Ratzinger mentions in the
letter referred to above, could have been presented as "explanations",
since they deal with some of the questions that are considered as such in
the Joint Declaration. The Joint Declaration - and the resolution approved
by the Lutheran World Federation in response to the Joint Declaration -
state that the dialogue needs to continue in respect of certain questions.
The Vatican response goes a little further and indicates those points
requiring some further dialogue.

It must be clear to all, from the long and difficult discussions concerning
the Joint Declaration, in both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World
Federation that, notwithstanding the fundamental agreement reached in that
document, further study is called for in the case of a few single points.
This cannot, however, be seen as going back in any way on the consent
expressly stated on fundamental truths of the doctrine of justification.
This consensus, especially as regards the Third Part of the Joint
Declaration on the common understanding of justification, is an enormous
step forward in Lutheran Catholic dialogue and understanding. The consensus
covers the whole range of fundamental truths dealt with in the Joint
Declaration.

As regards the second part of the Catholic response, there seems to have
been a very one-sided reading of the document on the part of some Lutheran
commentators. Apart from overlooking the essential distinction already
made, statements have appeared referring the to "the many reservations"
made in the Catholic response. In fact, there are no "reservations" and
just a very few clarifications, about which I submit for your consideration
the following reflections.

As was obvious from the discussions preceding the responses to the Joint
Declaration, the point that continued to attract the most attention was
that concerning the justified as sinner. The Catholic response does not
question the agreement stated in Nø 28, but focuses on one very precise
point, namely the Lutheran teaching as presented in the Joint Declaration
that postbaptismal concupiscence is properly called sin. It remains
difficult for a Catholic to see how this can be reconciled with the Council
of Trent's teaching that in baptism everything that is really sin is taken
away. There are consequences here also for the common understanding of the
nature of the renewal and sanctification of the interior man. For the
Catholic doctrine the word "sin" is accepted as having the meaning used in
everyday life and defined by the Oxford dictionary as a "wilful violation"
or "transgression" of God's law and not simply as the continuing taint of
wrong desire against which one must struggle constantly.

Elsewhere in the Joint Declaration (Nø 15), Lutherans declare with
Catholics that "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". Hence our difficulty comes from a presentation of doctrine that
seems to contradict itself. For that reason the Catholic response does not
state that the relative condemnation of Trent remains, but that it is
difficult to see how in the present presentation the doctrine on "simul
iustus et peccator" is not touched by the anathemas of the Tridentine
decree on original sin and justification. Could this important point not be
resolved by a Lutheran presentation that explains the unusual use of sin in
this context, by which the word loses its normal character of being a
willed and voluntary opposition to God? In this case, there would be no
real problem and the question of the condemnation would no longer exist.

The second point raised in the Clarifications should not be cause of
concern for Lutherans, since it merely sets out the Catholic understanding
that justification has to be organically integrated into the fundamental
criterion of the "regula fidei", that is confession of the one God in three
persons, christologically centred and rooted in the living Church and its
sacramental life. We were assured before making our response, and this has
since been repeated, that this clarification of ours was perfectly in line
with Lutheran doctrine as set out in the Augsburg Confession, in the
Smalcald Articles and in other Lutheran doctrinal statements. In view,
however, of the many discussions on this point in the Lutheran World
Federation at Hong Kong and elsewhere, it was thought well to state the
Catholic position clearly here for a more precise presentation of the
Catholic doctrine in this connection. It would not seem necessary to study
this question further.

The third and last clarification concerns again a difficulty on the part of
the Catholic Church to feel comfortable with the lack of a clear
explanation of the Lutheran insistence on the phrase "mere passive" when
elsewhere in the Joint Declaration and in official Lutheran writings such
as the Formula of Concord it is clearly affirmed that the justified person
is able to refuse grace (JD Nø 21) and "though still in great weakness can
by the power of the Holy Spirit cooperate and must so cooperate" (Formula
of Concord par. 65).

It should be obvious in view of the above that there can be no difficulty
for the Catholic Church to affirm and sign the Joint Declaration, since it
accepts without reservation its conclusion that "a consensus on basic
truths of the doctrine of justification has been reached". The
Clarifications do not negate that consensus and would not seem to create
major problems for further study and a more complete presentation.

Some questions have been raised about the Catholic understanding of the
part of the Joint Declaration that deals with "the significance and the
scope of the Consensus reached". That is stated well in Nø 40 and the
Catholic response endorses this fully. Similarly, on Nos 42, 43 and 44
there is no difficulty. The response to Nø 41 from the Lutheran World
Federation and the Catholic Church does differ slightly. While asking for
further study on some points, the Lutheran response has declared, that "the
Condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of
the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration". The Catholic
response states that where a consensus has been reached, namely on the
fundamental truths of the doctrine of justification, the condemnations of
the Council of Trent no longer apply - and as we have seen that includes
all that is said in Nø 40.

The Catholic response does not state that any condemnation of the Council
of Trent still applies to the teaching of the Lutheran Churches as
presented in the Joint Declaration. It does, however, point out in the
Clarifications that the Catholic Church cannot without further study and
clarifications affirm categorically that the doctrine on "simul iustus et
peccator" no longer incurs the condemnation. As indicated above, it remains
difficult to see how, in the current state of the presentation, given in
the Joint Declaration, we can say that this doctrine is not touched by the
anathemas of the Tridentine Decree on original sin and justification. I do
not see this as a negation of Nø 41, but as hesitation to affirm it
categorically, pending further study.

Hence, in accord with common procedure in such cases, frequent particularly
in respect of solemn agreements in the international sphere, I believe that
the agreement reached and the nature of the clarifications allow the
Catholic Church to sign the Joint Declaration without delay and in its
integrity. It is my fervent hope, and that of His Eminence Cardinal
Ratzinger, that this signing may take place in the coming months. We feel
that a significant achievement, of great importance for the ecumenical
movement, has taken place. Pope John Paul has expressed his joy and
satisfaction at this "important ecumenical acquisition" and has extended
his "gratitude to all, both Catholics and Lutherans, who have contributed
to this important outcome". It is particularly your responsibility and mine
not to allow this historical moment to lose any of its significance.

In conclusion, I regret that the point made in the Catholic response
concerning the authoritative nature of the approval of the Joint
Declaration by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation has
resulted in some difficulty for a number of Lutheran commentators. As you
will observe, the Catholic response recognizes the great effort made by the
Lutheran World Federation, through a worldwide consultation with the Synods
of the member Churches, to reach a consensus that would be truly
meaningful. There is no intention of calling into question the authority of
the Lutheran consensus. It was felt, however, that even with such an
overwhelming approval as the Joint Declaration received from these Synods,
there still remain important differences concerning the understanding by
the two partners of authority in the Church, which leave unanswered certain
questions. The whole question of authority in the Church is involved here
indirectly and so it seemed necessary to indicate this as a matter for
further study in the on-going dialogue.

With the expression of my high regard and personal esteem,
Yours sincerely,
Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy
President

*       *       *
Lutheran World Information
Editorial Assistant: Janet Bond-Nash
E-mail: jbn@lutheranworld.org
http://www.lutheranworld.org/