|
The
"Joint Declaration on Justification"
or:
The Subversion of the immaculate Faith of the See of Peter
by
Fr. François Laisney
On 31 October 1999,
at Augsburg, Cardinal Cassidy signed a "Joint Declaration on Justification"1
with 124 churches of the World Lutheran Federation. This Declaration is
a scandal in the strict sense, a stumbling-block for many people. To grasp
the importance of this Declaration and its murky background, we must first
remind ourselves of the Catholic teaching on justification and the Lutheran
heresies which are opposed to it. Then we shall see what huge ambiguities
are necessary to make such a Joint Declaration; the Declaration will be
clearly shown to be a typical product of that ecumenism which undermines
the Faith and gnaws away at the essence of the Church.
A.
Résumé of the Catholic doctrine of Justification
1)
The true nature of justification: an interior transformation from the
state of sin to the state of grace
Since the first man
was unfaithful to the first grace he received and so stained his human
nature, every man descended from Adam is a "son of darkness" (1 Thess
5:5) and a "child of wrath" (Eph 2:3), in a state of sin, separated from
God. Furthermore, once the age of reason has been reached, each man adds
his quota of sins, either more or less serious. While man can fall by
his own act, he is not able to lift himself up by the power of his nature
alone, nor solely with the help of the Law: he needs the grace of God
who, in his mercy, has sent a Saviour, his only Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is principally by His Passion and the sacrifice of the Cross that Our
Lord Jesus Christ has saved us: He "gave himself up as a redemption for
all men" (1 Tim 2:6). Not all men, however, are saved, for some will be
placed at the Judge’s left hand and will hear these terrible words: "Depart
from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire!" (Matt 25:41). "All have
not obeyed the Gospel" (Rom 10:16). This redemption, which is sufficient
for all, must be "received" by each soul: "To those who received him,
he gave power to become children of God" (Jn 1:12). This reception of
Our Lord Jesus Christ is a genuine new birth, an interior transformation
from the state of sin, of spiritual death, separated from God, to the
state of grace, the state of justice, the life of the child of God, the
member of Jesus Christ. It involves both the remission of sins and the
infusion of sanctifying grace, a true vital union with Christ. That is
justification: "he was dead and he has come to life again; he was lost
and is found!" (Lk 15:32).
2)
Its causes: firstly, divine grace; and secondly, man’s cooperation
"Every good gift,
every perfect gift comes from above from the Father of lights, with whom
there is no alteration, nor the shadow of change" (James 1:17). Justification
is the effect of a divine action upon the soul, which is pure gift, not
merited by the soul in any way: indeed, prior to being justified, the
soul is still in a state of sin and therefore, far from meriting the divine
benefits, it deserves the punishments imposed by the Just Judge! This
divine action is prevenient grace: "He first loved us" (1 Jn 4:19); but,
far from excluding cooperation on our part, this divine action elicits
and demands a response from us. If we fail and do not respond to this
prevenient love of God, the magnificent inner transformation which is
justification will not happen. The Church has called for this cooperation
right from the start, especially in the preparation for Baptism, for without
Baptism--or at least the desire for Baptism--it is impossible to gain
this new birth. This preparation is good because it comes from God, without
being meritorious (because, before we have charity, there can be no question
of merit). This cooperation is a secondary cause of the ultimate effect:
while it is passive as regards the First Cause from whom it receives
its impulse (and it adds nothing to the virtue of this impulse), it is
active as regards the ultimate effect, which is the transformation
of the soul. This active aspect of the preparation is well seen
in the return of the Prodigal Son: he received pardon once he had returned
to his father; if he had not returned, he would not have received pardon,
even though his active return did not strictly merit the pardon.
3)
The first justification
The first element
of this interior transformation is Faith. Since the interior life is essentially
a wholly spiritual life, and since nothing can be in the will without
first being in the intellect, it is clear that this new life must begin
with the reception of supernatural truth by the intellect. Without the
true Faith, i.e., the intellect’s adherence to revealed Truth, it is absolutely
impossible to be justified (Council of Trent, VI, 7). Hence the necessity
of the catechumenate so that the truths of Faith may be learned. First
of all the soul acquires knowledge of God, of his Goodness, and then of
its own miserable state due to sin, then of Christ’s redemptive work,
of the mercy which Our Saviour offers it; then, touched by grace, it repents
of having offended God, hopes in his Mercy and opens itself to "charity
which is poured into our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given to us"
(ROM 5:5). Since Faith is the beginning and foundation of justification,
St. Paul speaks of being "justified by faith" (ROM 5:1); but the same
St. Paul warns us that with Faith alone, without charity, we are nothing
(1 Cor 13:1), and St. James tells us that Faith alone, without the works
of charity, is dead (James 2:17,26).
4) Further
development of justification
Justification is
therefore the beginning of the spiritual life, the life of the children
of God: it is called to grow and become fruitful. Far from exempting the
Christian from the obligation of the Law, the grace received gives him
the means of observing the Law, for "charity is the fulfilling of the
Law" (ROM 13:10). St. Augustine explains that the Christian is not "under
the law" for, since, by Christ’s grace, he observes the law, the latter
no longer crushes him under its condemnations; instead, he is "with the
law" (1 Cor 9:21), because the law is a friendly light (Prov 6:23) showing
him Heaven’s path, along which he runs with an eager heart (see Ps 118:32).
The regular practice of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, linked
with a genuine life of prayer and the works of charity, gives the believer
not only the possibility of faithfully observing the Ten Commandments,
but also of ascending the degrees of sanctity. To those, therefore, who
cause the gifts they have received to bear fruit by the good works of
charity, Heaven is given as a reward; whereas those who do not bring forth
fruit from the gifts received "will go into the outer darkness" (the Parable
of the Talents, Matt 25:14-30). Properly speaking, salvation comes at
the end of the spiritual life ("he who perseveres to the end will be saved",
Matt 24:13); there can be no merit prior to justification, for without
charity there is no merit; but there can be no salvation for adults who
have acquired no merit after justification.
The Christian life
here below is a warfare (Job 7:1), not only against the world (1 Jn 2:15)
and the devil (Eph 6:12), but also against the flesh (Gal 5:17), i.e.,
against the tendencies to sin which remain in us even after our sins have
been forgiven. These tendencies come from sin and lead to sin but, in
themselves, they are not formally sin (Council of Trent V,5). In this
warfare even the just are sometimes slightly wounded and fall into venial
sins, for which they pray daily "forgive us our sins" (Matt 6:12) without,
however, ceasing to be just (Prov 24:16).
Unfortunately this
new life can be lost by any mortal sin subsequent to justification. So
it is necessary to receive justification again by the sacrament of Penance,
which is like a spiritual resurrection, requiring genuine repentance and
hence a cooperation on our part, since the actual "matter" of the sacrament,
without which it would be invalid, are three acts of the penitent, namely,
contrition, confession and satisfaction.
5)
Confidence, but no presumptuous certainty of salvation
The fact that Our
Saviour died on the Cross to save us all is a truth of Faith which no
one is permitted to doubt. But the application of the benefits of His
Sacrifice to our particular soul is not something revealed; we can only
have a sign of it insofar as we are faithful to his Law, as a tree is
judged by its fruits. That cannot give us absolute certainty concerning
our state of grace, and even less certainty about our final perseverance.
So, as St. Paul says, we must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling"
(Phil 2:12), yet having full confidence in the merciful assistance of
our Father in heaven, who supports us as "a mother carries her child at
her breast" (Isa 66:12).
6)
Conclusion
The perfect model
of this new life in Christ Jesus is the Most Holy Virgin Mary, whose cooperation
in Christ’s work is manifest in her fiat and in her compassion
at the foot of the Cross (see Lk 1:38 and ROM 8:17), and who gives all
glory to God (Magnificat, Lk 1:46-55).
The Council of Trent
has fixed for all time this magnificent doctrine in its famous Sixth Session,
when the Decree was approved with perfect unanimity. This unanimity struck
all the Council Fathers most forcibly, and they saw it as a moral miracle
and a tangible sign of the Holy Ghost’s assistance. In its Prologue the
Council says that this is "the doctrine which Christ taught, the Apostles
handed on, and the Catholic Church has always held" (Dz 792a). In its
Conclusion the Council again states that "if anyone does not hold this
doctrine faithfully and firmly, he cannot be justified", and that it is
necessary "not only to hold (this doctrine) but also to avoid and flee
from the (opposite errors)" which are anathematised in the appended canons.
B.
Luther’s heresies
1)
Error concerning the nature of justification: the extrinsic imputation
of Christ’s justice
The fundamental point
of Luther’s heresy is his claim that justification is not an interior
transformation of the sinner, blotting out his sin and making him really
just, but only an exterior imputation of Christ’s merits, in consideration
of which God agrees not to punish the sinner. The comparison given is
that of a thief who, not having the means to pay back what he stole, sees
his punishment remitted by a rich man who pays his debt for him without
the thief having to do anything, simply because he puts his trust in his
rich rescuer. Not succeeding in obeying the Law of Christ, Luther preferred
to claim that he did not need to be changed interiorly, and could continue
in disobedience while being "reputed just" externally, simply because
he trusted in Christ’s promises..
2.
Error concerning the causes: the rejection of all cooperation
Luther thinks that
the damage caused by original sin is such that man’s liberty is rendered
incapable of cooperating in the preparation for justification. Not seeing
how this is opposed to the evangelical practice of that preparation which
is required before Baptism, he claims that this safeguards God’s honour.
For Luther, God’s action excludes man’s: if justice comes from God, it
does not come from man; consequently, anything which comes from man is,
as it were, "stolen" from God’s honour. So Luther concludes that man cannot
merit in any way, nor can he in any way cooperate towards his salvation.
This is to fail to grasp the transcendence of God, who is the First Cause
and who, far from suppressing secondary causes, enables them both to exist
and to operate causally, in dependence on this First Cause.
3.
Error concerning the consequences: the destruction of all Christian life
Man is so corrupt
that he remains a real sinner even after justification. So he is "simul
justus et peccator"--"both just and a sinner": he is just in virtue
of the divine declaration which is external to him, but a sinner because
of the reality of sin which remains in him.
Since he is not really
transformed, he remains incapable of following the Ten Commandments after
justification just as much as before it, nor is he bound to do so: it
is enough for him to continue to trust this rich man who will continue
to pay the debts which he continues to incur.
In this case faith
consists essentially, not in the adherence of the intellect to revealed
truth, but in this confidence of having been saved by Christ’s merits.
This confidence must be absolute, and therefore there must be an absolute
certainty of salvation.
4)
The destruction of the rest of the Catholic Faith
Using this false
principle of a justification that is essentially external as a "criterion"
(JD 18)1, Luther concludes by denying
many points of Catholic dogma. He rejects everything that is a work, uniting
us with Christ; he denies the reality of the Mystical Body of Christ,
the Communion of Saints; he rejects (with a profusion of blasphemies)
the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the efficacity "ex opere operato"
of the sacraments, the power of order and jurisdiction, and so the entire
structure of the Catholic Church (he utters horrible blasphemies against
the Pope), religious vows, the monastic life, indulgences, purgatory,
etc. At the moral level these false principles of the first Reformers
led to a series of conclusions, each of which was more blasphemous than
the other, such as, "Sin boldly, but believe even more boldly", or "all
good works are mortal sins", etc. The Reform produced a tragic record
of the fruits of immorality.
Subsequently some
of his less perverse followers, impressed by the force of the Catholic
arguments, have felt obliged to reintroduce certain elements of Catholic
doctrine (a certain interior sanctification, which they call a consequence
of justification, albeit they do not regard justification as consisting
essentially in this interior transformation), but they have been attacked
by those who wanted to stick to Luther’s line. Others, on the contrary,
following the permissiveness opened up by Luther, have gone on to deny
more and more dogmas, until their liberal Protestantism has disappeared
in a rationalism that leads to complete atheism. Many of the great anti-clericals
of the 19th century were Protestants.
Cardinal Billot rightly
says, regarding this purely extrinsic justification, that it results in
"whitened sepulchres" (Matt 23:27). Our parallel exposition has shown
how radically incompatible these two doctrines are: "What has justice
in common with iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"
(2 Cor 6:14). Only a true conversion, rejecting heresy and fully embracing
Catholic truth, can enable Protestants to re-enter the unity of the Church.
C)
The Joint Declaration on Justification: a feat of ambiguity
However, "shaped
by the conviction that in their respective histories our churches have
come to new insights, developments have taken place which not only make
possible, but also require the churches to examine the divisive questions
and condemnations and see them in a new light" (JD 7). Thus, after thirty
years, the ecumenical effort begun at Vatican II has arrived at this Joint
Declaration. It expresses "a consensus on basic truths of the doctrine
of justification and shows that the remaining differences in its explication
are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations" (JD 5). "The
teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not
fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent" (JD 41). Is
this true?
1)
Luther’s errors are still there
While, on the positive
side, certain points rejected by Luther, such as the existence of an interior
transformation2 and the possibility of
refusing grace, are accepted here (JD 21), we do not find any renunciation
of Luther’s principles themselves. On the contrary, they are affirmed
in the following points:
- Justification
is conceived in a forensic manner3 as
a "declaration of forgiveness" (JD 23), as "acceptance by God" which
is always complete and cannot undergo growth (JD 39); "the righteousness
of Christ is our righteousness" (JD 23), as if the believer’s justice
was not something formally inherent in the soul, as was defined by the
Council of Trent (VI, 7 and canon 10). (See also SJD 4.7).
- The rejection
of all cooperation in justification, since human beings are "incapable
of cooperating in their salvation… and can only receive (mere passive)
justification" (JD 21), since the latter is "free from human cooperation"
(JD 23, 24, 27, SJD 4.1).
- Justification
is by faith alone (JD 26, SJD 3).
- Faith is understood
as trust (JD 25, 26, SJD 4.3); it is even said that "with the Second
Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself
totally to God" (JD 36). The Council of Trent had defined: "If anyone
says that justifying faith is nothing else4
but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ’s sake;
or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let
him be anathema" (VI, canon 12).
- There remains
in the justified person "a contradiction to God" which is "as such truly
sin" (JD 29); and so the believer is "at the same time righteous and
sinner… totally a sinner" (JD 29, AJD 2.A).
- The Law "has
been overcome as a way of salvation" (JD 31); this is a very ambiguous
expression which leaves the door open to the Lutheran heresy according
to which the observance of the Law is no longer obligatory, although
it is still regarded as "an orientation" for the Christian’s conduct.
- The believer
is certain of his salvation (JD 34, 35).
- The doctrine
of justification is "the ruler and judge over all other Christian doctrines"
(JD 1), the "indispensable criterion" (JD 18, SJD 3), the "touchstone"
(AJD 3); if one recalls that the Protestant principle, not rejected
by this Declaration, is at the root of so many denials of Catholic dogmas,
it is totally unacceptable to reaffirm this doctrine as a "criterion".
These points are
often expressed in such a way that it would be possible to give them an
interpretation compatible with Catholic doctrine; but what is quite certain
is that they can also be allowed to retain their original Protestant interpretation.
The terms are carefully calculated so that they do not reject the theses
of Luther, but also so that they do not openly deny Catholic dogma. Such
a feat of ambiguities and calculated silences is very far from satisfying
the requirements of the Council of Trent, which demands not only that
we "faithfully and firmly accept" the doctrine of justification it has
set forth, but also that we "avoid and shun" (Dz 810) the errors condemned
in its canons. The least one can say is that this Declaration neither
avoids nor shuns them. To hide an error under an ambiguous formula is
not to avoid it!
2)
The ambiguity and inadequacy of the "Catholic" explanations
Each point in this
Joint Declaration is given a clarification from the Lutheran position
and a clarification from the Catholic position. Even the latter is very
far from "avoiding and shunning" the errors condemned by the Council of
Trent! Let us give some examples. "Thus justifying grace never becomes
a human possession to which one could appeal over against God"(JD 27);
insofar as this means that sanctifying grace is never something that does
not come from God, it is true; but that suggests that sanctifying grace
is not inherent in the soul (the negation applies directly to the "human
possession" and only "obliquely" to the relative clause). Furthermore,
the expression "appeal over against God" is also ambiguous, as if one
could not pray to God on the basis of gifts already received as a guarantee
of his love for us and as a pledge of further blessings, as the Holy Ghost
Himself has taught us to pray: "Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness
and according to the integrity that is in me" (Ps 7:9). The truth is that
sanctifying grace is a possession of the person, inherent in his
soul, but which is due to the divine Goodness through Our Lord Jesus Christ,
and so it cannot be proud of it "as if it had not received it" (1 Cor
4:7).
Another example:
"The renewal of life by sanctifying grace is always dependent on God’s
unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which
one could boast before God" (JD 27). Always dependent on God’s grace,
yes, but "contributing nothing"? Beware! On the contrary, this renewal
of life does produce a contribution: even before the infusion of
grace, this contribution is required as a preparation for grace, even
though it does not merit it. And after the infusion of grace, this contribution
is required and genuinely merits an augmentation of this sanctifying grace.
Clearly, however, it is not the kind of contribution of which one could
be proud before God or men, for it is itself a gift of God through Christ
Jesus. Moreover, if the first grace is absolutely gratuitous and many
subsequent graces are also absolutely freely given, it is false to say
that all subsequent graces are absolutely gratuitous, as if our good works
could not truly merit an increase of the grace. Who cannot see how such
statements are ambiguous and insufficient?
Another example:
"The divine gift of grace remains in justification, independent of human
cooperation" (JD 24). If one understands "divine gift" as signifying God’s
decision to justify that man, it is true, for "He loved us first" (1 Jn
4: 19). The first cause does not depend upon the second cause; but if
one understands "divine gift" as signifying the benefit given, it is false,
for the last effect depends not only on the first cause, but also on the
second cause.
Another example:
"The Catholics can say that Christ is not a new lawmaker, like Moses"
(JD 33). Hold on! Holy Mother Church has always taught that Christ gave
us the New Law. He is a new lawmaker, but better and superior to Moses,
for not only does He give us a more perfect law (and more particularly
demanding), but He also gives the means to fulfil it (cf. Matt. 5).
3)
The "Lutheran" explanation still deserves the anathemas of Trent.
These four examples
are taken form the "Catholic" clarifications, the Lutheran clarifications
are much farther from the true doctrine, and sometimes absolutely incompatible
with the doctrine of the Council of Trent. The point directly opposed
to the teaching of the Council of Trent is that of "simul justus et
peccator" (at the same time just and a sinner). This expression is
explicitly used, and the Lutheran explanation insists on the fact that
there remains an "aversion to God which is truly sin" in the believer
"justified" in the Lutheran manner. The Council of Trent had defined:
"If anyone... even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and
proper nature of sin is not taken away, but that it is only raised, or
not imputed; let him be anathema" (Session V, canon 5).
In the light of this
anathema it is scandalous that the Catholic representatives should say
that concupiscence "is objectively in contradiction to God"(JD 30), knowing
that the Thomistic definition of sin is "aversion from God by conversion
to the creature". The gravity of this affirmation can be assessed if one
turns to the "Resources" in the Annexe, where it is said that "a considerable
rapprochement is reached when the document Les anathèmes du XVI siècle
calls the concupiscence that remains in the justified a ‘contradiction
to God’ and thus qualifies it as sin"(AJD 4.4).
Furthermore, Catholics
are not always aware of the false definitions of certain words as used
by Protestants. The word "sanctification", for example. The Lutheran,
Professor Gerhard O. Forde, defines it like this: "the best definition
of sanctification, insofar as it means anything different from
[extrinsic] justification, is the art of becoming accustomed to unconditional
justification, which is a work of God’s grace for Jesus’ sake."5
In other words, it is the art of getting used to the idea that one is
"saved" despite the fact that one continues to sin, as he explains in
the rest of the chapter! "Growth in faith" (JD 39), for the Lutheran,
means getting more and more used to this idea, which is absolutely un-Catholic.
For the Lutheran, the "justified" continue to sin: "they remain totally
sinners. Sin still lives in them, for they repeatedly turn to false gods"
(JD 29). This unconditional justification is a feature of the Joint
Declaration: "Whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift
of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it" (AJD 2.D);
this is explicitly contrary to Scripture itself: "We are fellow heirs
with Christ provided we suffer with him in order that we may also
be glorified with him" (ROM 8:17); "... God’s kindness to you, provided
you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (ROM
11:22).
So, if we take, not
the Catholic definitions, but the Lutheran definitions of the words justification,
sanctification, grace, sin, etc., there can be no doubt that the texts
of this Joint Declaration do still fall under the anathemas of the Council
of Trent.
Hundreds of pages
would be needed to demonstrate all the ambiguities of this Declaration;
nonetheless, the examples above give a sufficient illustration of the
ecumenical method. Why are there these ambiguities?
D)
The Joint Declaration: a typical product of modern ecumenism
1) Aim: a different
unity from that which Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to his Church
What constitutes
the unity of a body is the unity of life which animates all the members
of the body. So it is with the unity of the Church, the Mystical Body
of Christ: it is above all the unity of life, the life of Christ in which
his members participate by grace, which animates all the living members
and which once animated its dead members who are not yet separated from
the Body. This interior life is a life of Faith ("the just man lives by
faith", ROM 1:17), a life of hope and of charity, for "God is Charity,
and he who dwells in charity dwells in God and God in him" (1 Jn 4:16).
This interior life of the Church is manifested by the unity of the profession
of Faith, the unity of worship which is a consequence of hope, and specially
by the Sacraments, of which the first (the door) is Baptism, and lastly
by unity in hierarchical obedience, which is a consequence of charity.
The Church’s unity is therefore a unity in the fullness of the life of
Christ, not in a minimum held in common. Anyone who loses sanctifying
grace through mortal sin can still remain a true member of the Church,
but he is a dead member, and hence participates only imperfectly in the
Church’s unity.
To secure this unity
for his Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ has endowed it with a hierarchical
structure by the sacrament of Order, with a visible head, the Pope, to
whom he has given the power of teaching the Faith and the power of sanctifying
through the religious cult. By teaching the true Faith with the fullness
of his infallible magisterium, by "confirming his brethren" in the Faith,
the Pope assures this unity of Faith, protecting souls against the evil
of error by "canons", i.e., defining the rule6
of Faith. To teach the truth is to put a light shining on a hill (Matt
5:14), attracting souls who are thirsty for truth, leading unbelievers
and heretics back to the unity of the Church through conversion, i.e.,
by renouncing their errors and the profession of the true Faith. From
the many converts made during the pontificate of Pius XII we can see how
effective it is to teach the Faith in its entirety in order to bring the
lost sheep back to the one fold of Christ!
Ecumenism considers
that this unity is too difficult to obtain; the dogmatic definitions,
with their anathemas as necessary corollaries, are regarded as "church-dividing"
(sic! JD 1). Ecumenism is trying to find another unity7
to aim at, as if the Catholic Church, ever since her foundation by Our
Lord Jesus Christ, has not possessed that unity which Our Lord has given
her and which she can never lose. Individual souls can fall from this
unity by separating themselves from the Church, but the Church herself
cannot lose it.
Ecumenism wants unity
without any heretics being converted. This is a grave lack of charity,
for how can one lead these erring souls to salvation except by bringing
them back to the one fold of Christ, which is the Holy Catholic Church?
It must be that the ecumenist no longer believes that the Catholic Church
is the one Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of
which there is no salvation.8
What is this other
unity which ecumenism is aiming for? It is definitely not a doctrinal
unity. It is a "unity in diversity", in which "remaining differences would
be ‘reconciled’ and no longer have a divisive force" (AJD 3). A study
of the texts shows that this non-defined unity is envisaged as a unity
in "praxis"; the goal is common action, a "common witness" (AJD 3), something
that will "bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches" (JD 43);
the goal is action which can only be common at the human level "in language
relevant for human beings today" (AJD 3), action for peace and social
justice, and not at the supernatural level of the true salvation of souls.
So, for the ecumenists, the very fact of a joint declaration is much
more important than its content.
2)
Means of ecumenism
At all costs "we
must remove every stone that creates even the shadow of a risk of our
separated brethren stumbling or taking offence".9
This means avoiding all clear and precise presentation of doctrine, such
as Scholastic theology; it means pretending to return to a more biblical
approach10 as a pretext for avoiding
such precision.11 It means dividing revealed
truth into "fundamental truths"--a lowest common denominator--on the basis
of which people claim to have reached a consensus, and "remaining differences"
(JD 5) which are considered of little importance, as if one could deny
the so-called "secondary" points of the Faith (for example, the Immaculate
Conception) without totally forfeiting the virtue of faith. Most of all,
condemnation must be avoided: people must be content to be "in their difference
open to each other" (JD 40). That is why we have these feats of
ambiguity and calculated silences, which are bound to deceive souls: but
how can there be any real unity if both parties understand the same text
in a different way?
Such silence is a
culpable failure in the duty of professing the Faith: "For whoever is
ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when
he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels"
(Lk 9:26). Our Lord Jesus Christ has given a mission to his Apostles to
teach the Faith (Matt 28:19), not to put the light under the bushel (Matt
5:15). To consider teaching the truth in its most solemn form, i.e., the
infallible canons of a dogmatic Council, as "church-dividing" (JD 1),
is a scandal for the faithful: how are they to have a "love for the truth"
if they see their pastors having such scant regard for it? This lack of
love for truth is a great danger for salvation, for St. Paul speaks of
"those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so
be saved" (2 Thess 2:10).
Words are not
assessed for their truth-value, but for their practical usefulness in
pleasing both parties. So, in order to please everybody, this Declaration
does not "disavow" the past, but it speaks of "developments" (JD 7) which
allow us to re-examine the condemnations of the past; here we find the
same style as in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae of the Second
Vatican Council, which says that "it leaves intact the traditional Catholic
teaching" (DH 1) while at the same time formally contradicting it!
The practice of
dialogue is more important than what is said. For the word "dialogue"
implies the equality of the parties. In this Joint Declaration, therefore,
the representatives of the Catholic Church put themselves on an equal
footing with the heretical sects "partners with equal rights" (AJD 4),
and even pretend to have "common faith" (JD 15) with heretics!
E)
Conclusion
This
Joint Declaration on Justification "has the taste of heresy – sapit
haeresim". It is a scandal both for Catholics, who are encouraged
to lose their love of the true doctrine, and for the Lutherans, who are
slumbering in their errors. It will lead to joint practical action and
add to the sacrilegious "inter-communions". It will cause many to lose
the Faith.
Confronted with these
sins against the First Commandment, against the most fundamental of the
virtues, our duty is to strengthen our Faith by devoting more study to
it, by professing it without compromise, and by fervently putting it into
practice. It is also our duty to work for the conversion of those in error,
through prayer, good example and by giving witness to the true Faith.
Whole nations need to be reconverted: pray the Lord of the harvest to
send labourers into his harvest! Let us entrust these intentions to the
Most Holy Virgin Mary, the Faithful Virgin, and to St. Joseph, Patron
of the Church.
NOTES
1. Abbreviation JD
= Joint Declaration on Justification; SJD = Resources of the Declaration;
AJD = Annexe of the Joint Declaration of 11 June 1999; Dz = The Sources
of Catholic Dogma by Henry Denzinger.
2. JD 16, 17, 23,
28. Great care is taken to avoid making this transformation the formula
for justice; it is always presented in a way that is compatible with Protestant
doctrine: it is presented as an interior effect of a justice that is essentially
extrinsic, a justice which remains even if the Christian does not live
in accordance with the Law. This is what underlies expressions such as
"justification… is not dependent on the life-renewing effects of grace
in human beings" (JD 23). This is clearly incompatible with the Catholic
Faith.
3. SJD 3; i.e., like
the declaration of a judge.
4. If Vatican 2 had
added these words "nothing other than" it would fall directly under the
anathema of Trent. By omitting them it avoids the anathema, but it remains
nonetheless a scandal for the faithful by its similarity to the error
condemned. The least one can say is that it does not "avoid and shun"
the condemned error; cf. Dz 810.
5.
Christian spirituality, five views of sanctification, Donald L.
Alexander, Inter-Varsity Press 1988. Dr. Gerhard O. Forde is professor
of theology at Luther-Northwestern Theological Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota.
6. Canon in
Greek means rule.
7. See JD 44.
8. Pius IX says that
it is a dogma of the Faith: Dz 1677.
9. Annibale Bugnini,
in L’Osservatore Romano, 19 March 1965.
10. SJD 4.6: "a biblically
renewed concept of faith". JD 13: "By appropriating insights of recent
biblical studies and drawing on modern investigations of the history of
theology and dogma, the post-Vatican II ecumenical dialogue has led to
a notable convergence concerning justification". Once one is aware that
these three areas of study (biblical studies, history of theology, history
of dogma) were the chosen field of the Modernists, the kind of "convergence"
achieved will be apparent.
11. For example,
1 Jn 1:8 is quoted to the effect that "believers fall into sin" (JD 12),
without distinguishing between venial sin (which does not remove justification)
and mortal sin (which forfeits justification). Compare this with Trent
VI, 11.
|
