H. Conclusion
H. Conclusion
Breaking with their medieval past at significant points, the magisterial Reformers forged a specific understanding of the doctrine of justification. They distinguished justification from sanctification, stressing an initial forensic declaration that changes the sinner’s relationship to God, and specified its formal cause as an imputed form of righteousness. With this, clear blue water flowed between the Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant positions—or at least that seemed to be the case. Despite these differences, Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants share more common ground than is ordinarily recognized. We find, for example, a common commitment to union with Christ by the Holy Spirit, a union that imparts the remission of sins and internal renewal by divine initiative. This righteousness grows in an internal disposition of grace, producing virtue as it reaches toward holiness. Such works are a necessary part of justification, which pleases God and receives his favor in the form of rewards.
Such commonalities have implications for ecumenical dialogue. For starters, they help us to recognize the inadequacy of popular conceptions that caricature the Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant doctrines as diametric opposites. As we have observed, both traditions consider justification to comprise the forgiveness of sins and righteous transformation (a duplex iustitia)—God’s work pro nobis and in nobis—albeit in different ways. Yes, Reformed Protestants continue to differentiate justifying righteousness from sanctifying righteousness, but since the Christian possesses a union with Christ by the Spirit, these two forms of righteousness are inseparably connected, and, if one follows Vermigli, may in some sense be held together beneath the banner of “justification.”1145
A second implication concerns common ground for conversations between Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants. In view of the above, there is good reason to begin ecumenical discussion with a pneumatological focus, recognizing humanity’s need for the Holy Spirit to address original sin and for the Spirit’s impartation of spiritual life (what is often called regeneration)—a focus that we observed in Newman and Vermigli. In both of their doctrines, the Spirit functions as the active agent who initiates faith by simultaneously liberating sinners from condemnation and unifying them to the living Christ. Therefore, just as the work of the Spirit is the beginning of the actual reception of justification according to the Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant positions, the doctrine of the Spirit is a promising starting point in ecumenical dialogue.
Closely related to a focus upon the Spirit’s indwelling is the activity of the Triune God in justification, since the Father who pronounces judgment imparts the Spirit, as does the Son. Moreover, the Spirit unites a man to Christ and enables him to find favor with the Father. Such interconnections are but a sample of the Trinitarian commitments that Catholics and Reformed Protestants share. Therefore, instead of starting conversation with the Protestant view of forensic imputation or the Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness, an examination of the Trinitarian economy in justification offers a broader context in which to observe a range of commonalities (and also see more clearly the reasons why we differ).1146 An example of how this approach potentially narrows the gap between Catholics and Protestants is found in Dulles’s reflection on the validity of uncreated grace in justification.
The “uncreated grace” whereby we are justified, because it consists primarily in God’s personal self-communication, relates us to each of the divine persons. As Son, Christ communicates to his members the filial and servant character of his own existence. Because we are mystically identified with the second person of the Holy Trinity we become, in the memorable phrase of Emile Mersch, “sons in the Son” (filii in Filio). In relation to the Father we become adopted sons and daughters. The Holy Spirit, as the subsistent love uniting the Father and the Son, inwardly attunes us so that we are able to accept in loving freedom the self-communication of the Father in his incarnate Son.1147
In addition to ecumenical implications, the above conclusions illumine the significance of the doctrine of justification for Christian ministry, providing impetus to move beyond a passive experience of faith (to which Protestants are susceptible with the doctrine of sola fide) or an ultra-ecclesial focus (which may occur for Catholics who overemphasize the reception of sacramental grace). In Oswald Bayer’s words, “The new human is no grotesque caricature who spends his life in a darkened room, reciting with closed eyes, “I am justified by faith alone, I am justified by faith alone.”1148 Rather, in this moment in history—with all its hopelessness and despair—we are called to actively reach out to the world by embodying and proclaiming the good news of justifying grace. Such grace provides motivation for the task of preaching even as it is the leading edge of our message.
The Church not only proclaims the good news of justification to the world, she also embraces it for herself as a stimulus for her own sanctification. After all, we are debtors of grace before we are dispensers of grace, and we remain debtors throughout our lives. The justifying word shines the light of grace into the darkness of condemnation. As Caroline J. Simon poignantly states: “The gospel of justification in Christ rests on the alchemy of grace—the power of grace to transform enemies into friend, to take the ungodly and put them on the road to godliness.”1149 Such is the power that we invoke in the doctrine of justification.
Finally, an informed perspective on common commitments puts Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants in a position to recognize the valuable gifts that our traditions offer one another, gifts that (ought to) extend to the parish level. In the face of what some have labeled “Catholic guilt,” the Protestant notion of a forensic declaration may not lead Catholics to embrace a doctrine of imputation, but it should help them to recognize that their standing before God is predicated on their participation in Christ, a participation that follows from divine grace.1150 Likewise, Reformed Protestants should find in the Catholic teaching on internal righteousness a healthy reminder that Scripture envisions a real manifestation of righteousness, and not simply a forensic declaration. Such works may not be the ultimate ground of one’s acceptance, but they are crucial nonetheless.
Just as areas of agreement have implications for ecumenical dialogue, we also find practical significance in our differences, starting with the most significant of all: the disagreement over justification’s formal cause. In light of this difference—whether divine forgiveness is fundamentally rooted in an internal work of the Spirit or on the basis of Christ’s forensically imputed righteousness—it is likely that Catholics will continue to find the extrinsic character of the Reformed Protestant position ultimately unsatisfying. Insistence upon the works of a believer as part of the ground of one’s acceptance, such that one volitionally participates in justification, will continue to be the Catholic vision.1151 On the other hand, Reformed Protestants will find the Catholic insistence upon meritorious works off-putting, even if “merit” is a Catholic (Augustinian) way of emphasizing that such works merit divine reward. These differences will always keep the door ajar for Protestant suspicions that the Catholic tradition is overly indebted to human volition and a Catholic impression that Reformed Protestants are tolerant of cheap grace.
The Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant difference over justification’s formal cause has direct bearing upon the way these traditions view eternal security. For the Reformed, perseverance of faith is a logical deduction from locating full acceptance in efficacious divine grace. Since the volition of the regenerate contributes nothing to acceptance, volition can do nothing to jeopardize that acceptance. From a Catholic point of view, however, this position is not only questionable, it is troubling. The problem is not so much with the logic, but with the assumption on which it stands, namely, the notion that acceptance is exclusively based on divine activity without human co-operation. It is precisely at this point that Catholics insist that the believer has more active participation in justification. To argue for eternal security, from a Catholic point of view, is to minimize the importance of virtue, which not only departs from the Church’s teaching on justification, but also runs aground on the Christian’s calling to manifest a life of moral substance. These concerns are not likely to go away anytime soon.
No, the Reformation is not over. But thankfully the conversation on justification has progressed in a direction that encourages honest dialogue. Indeed, more than simply listening to the other side, we have proven that such conversation can produce declarations of mutual understanding, which did not previously exist. So although the Council of Trent rejected the phrase “faith alone” a total of five times in her Decree on Justification (eleven times overall),1152 the JD affirms that there is a legitimate use of the formula. Roman Catholic teaching may not “change” in the sense of revoking previously established dogma, but it obviously has the ability to adapt to new circumstances. This reality should encourage further dialogue.
With these conclusions, our research makes no pretense to the reconciliation of the Roman Catholic and Reformed Protestant positions; much less have we eliminated the crux theologorum associated with interpreting the biblical teaching of Paul and James on the subject. But we have hopefully offered insight into places where lines of similarity and difference fall, so that the challenge is a little less burdensome.
1040. DeVries, “Justification,” 197–211 (209).
1041. DeVries uses the language of “double grace” or “two graces” instead of duplex iustitia, but it is the same concept that she has in view. Ibid., 198, 201.
1042. JD, 1–3.
1043. JD, 6.
1044. Lane, Justification by Faith, 120–22; Blocher, “The Lutheran-Catholic Declaration,” 198–99; Radano, Lutheran & Catholic Reconciliation, 146–65.
1045. The JD consists of a Preamble (1–7) providing historical prologue, the “Biblical Message of Justification (8–12), followed by a brief section entitled, “The Doctrine of Justification as Ecumenical Problem,” which addresses the application of the sixteenth century condemnations (13). Thirdly, “The Common Understanding of Justification” identifies mutual commitments (14–18), followed by the largest section, “Explicating the Common Understanding of Justification (19–39), which analyses seven key issues: “Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification” (4.1), “Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous” (4.2), “Justification by Faith through Grace” (4.3), “The Justified as Sinner” (4.4), “Law and Gospel” (4.5), “Assurance of Salvation” (4.6), “The Good Works of the Justified” (4.7). The fifth section, “The Significance and Scope of the Consensus Reached” (40–44), is quite brief, and it is followed by the “Sources for the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” a sampling of materials from previous dialogues that support conclusions drawn in the JD. Finally, following the “Official Common Statement,” is the “Annex” which seeks to address issues concerning which the preceding had failed to produce sufficient consensus.
1046. Lane, Justification by Faith, 124.
1047. JD, 41–44.
1048. Ibid., 42.
1049. Therefore, it is called the “Joint Declaration” (Gemeinsame Erklärung) and not the “Common Confession of Our Faith.”
1050. JD, 40.
1051. Dulles notes that the English text differs from the German, in which the word “tragbar” (tolerable) is used instead of “annehmbar” (acceptable). Dulles, “Justification and the Unity of the Church,” 127.
1052. The World Methodist Council officially associated with the JD in Seoul (South Korea), on July 23, 2006. For a Reformed perspective on the JD in the context of assessing contemporary Lutheran and Reformed approaches to justification, see Fackre, “Affirmations and Admonitions: Lutheran and Reformed,” 1–26.
1053. Concerning the nature and purpose of the Catechism, it says of itself: “This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries.” CCC, para. 11.
1054. Confessions such as The Belgic Confession (1561), The Heidelberg Confession (1563), and The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), have enduring value, but there is no single Reformed confession that has a binding nature quite like the CCC.
1055. The Second Vatican Council offered little explicit attention to the doctrine of justification; however, it indirectly addresses the subject in its teaching on such themes as grace, faith, salvation, and the ministrations of the church.
1056. “Decree on Original Sin,” Tanner, vol. 2, 665–67; CCC, 1849–50, 1871–73.
1057. “Decree on Justification,” Tanner, Decrees, 2:671.
1058. Ibid., 672.
1059. Ibid.
1060. Trent teaches that adults are required to prepare themselves for justification by co-operating with “the light of the Holy spirit” prior to baptism. Decree on Justification, ch. 5.
1061. Vermigli, Romanos, 1249–50 [156–57].
1062. Ibid.
1063. Ibid. Vermigli conveys this same concern are found in Romanos, 1216 [123], 1218–20 [125–26]. Vermigli grants and approves other kinds of preparation, that is, experiences that lead to faith. However, he is emphatic that salvation should not be ascribed to such experiences. “Indeed,” he writes, “they are instead enemies of our salvation.” 1219–20 [126].
1064. Contra the medieval notion of congruent merit, the Council of Trent asserted the idea that anything preceding justification is incapable of meriting the impartation of justifying grace (Decree on Justification, chs. 5, 6, and 8; Tanner, ed., Decrees, 2:671–72). In chapter eight, it states that nothing prior “promeretur” to justification can merit the grace of justification. Certain Franciscans of the period argued that using “promeretur” rather than “meretur” excludes meriting justification by condign merit, but not by congruous merit (this argument is predicated on the belief that mereri and promereri equate to congruous and condign merit). However, in light of chapters 5 and 6 of Trent’s Decree on Justification, which underscores the need for a divinely imparted predisposing grace, such an interpretation seems highly unlikely. Heiko Oberman offers a detailed examination of the history of interpretation surrounding promeretur in his volume, The Dawn of the Reformation, 222–33. In the words of the CCC, “God brings to completion in us what he has begun.” CCC, 2001.
1065. “Decree on Justification,” Tanner, Decrees, 2:673–74.
1066. CCC, 1989. This point is also made in 1987 and 1988. Along this line, Lumen Gentium 14 asserts that, “All the sons of the Church should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ.”
1067. JD, 19, see also 17: “[The New Testament] tells us that because we are sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.”
1068. This is assuming that the Catholic Newman’s doctrine of justification vis-à-vis gratia increata (as expressed in the third edition of his Lectures from 1874) remained consistent with the via media of the original 1838 version.
1069. Concerning the forensic nature of this work, we have noted Newman’s assertion that justification is the “glorious Voice of the Lord’ declaring us to be righteous. That it is a declaration not a making, is sufficiently clear from this one argument that it is the justification of a sinner, of one who has been a sinner; and the past cannot be reversed except by accounting it reversed.” Newman, Jfc. 67 [71–72]).
1070. So Luther writes about the righteousness of justification, “It is a great thing so to lift oneself up and to walk in a foreign [literally “alien”] righteousness, one that lies outside yourself, one you neither see nor understand but hear in the Word alone.” Plass, What Luther Says, An Anthology, vol. 3, 1229.
1071. CCC, 1997.
1072. CCC, 1999.
1073. CCC, 2009.
1074. “Decree on Justification,” Tanner, Decrees, 2:673–74
1075. CCC, 2000.
1076. Newman, Jfc., 178 [207].
1077. Morales, “Newman and the Problems of Justification,” 143–64.
1078. Newman, Jfc., 65 [70].
1079. Newman, Jfc., [170–71].
1080. Newman, Jfc. first edition, (1838) [170–71].
1081. Newman, Jfc., (1874), 154.
1082. Newman, Jfc. (1874), 381–82.
1083. Lane, Justification by Faith, 85.
1084. CCC, 2011.
1085. Dulles, “Contemporary Catholic Theology,” 258.
1086. Ibid.
1087. The verb “to impute” only appears in 22 (“God no longer imputes to them their sin”) regarding the non-imputation of guilt. The word “reckoned” appears in 10. A “declaration of forgiveness” is mentioned in 23, in summarizing the Lutheran position.
1088. Lane makes this point in Justification by Faith, 167.
1089. Vermigli, Romanos, 1248–49 [156].
1090. Chapter eight of the Council’s Decree on Justification explicitly states that justification comes as a “free gift,” and does so on the perennial consent of the Catholic Church, on the basis of faith, “without which ‘it is impossible to please God’” (Heb 11:6). Tanner ed., Decrees, 2:674.
1091. Vermigli, Romanos, 1252 [159].
1092. Ibid., 1182 [88]; 1251–52 [159].
1093. Ibid., 1182 [88]; 1252 [159].
1094. For instance, Martyr makes this point from the Lord’s Prayer, “Moreover, the Son of God commanded believers to say in their prayers, ‘Forgive us our trespasses.’ This shows that the faithful also need forgiveness for the things they do, for our works are not perfect nor are they able to satisfy.” Ibid., 1207 [113].
1095. From the beginning of his locus, Martyr asserts that “‘to justify’ comes by way of judging or accounting, to ascribe righteousness to someone and not make him just in reality.” Vermigli, Romanos, 1183 [88–89]. More explicitly, he states “justification cannot consist in that righteousness and renewal by which we are created anew by God. For it is imperfect because of our corruption, so that we are not able to stand before the judgment of Christ.” Ibid., 1252 [159].
1096. “Decree on Original Sin,” Tanner (ed.), Decrees, 2:665–67
1097. CCC, 1426.
1098. Newman, Jfc., 101.
1099. Ibid.
1100. Dulles, “In Contemporary Catholic Theology,” 269.
1101. James, “The Complex of Justification,” 51–52.
1102. JD, 30.
1103. JD, 29.
1104. JD, Annex, 2.A.
1105. CCC, 1427.
1106. Vermigli, Romanos, 1251 [158].
1107. Newman, Jfc., 226 [259].
1108. Ibid.
1109. Vermigli, Romanos, 1321 [227].
1110. Ozment, The Age of Reform, 374.
1111. This is true in Catholic biblical studies and theology alike. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, for instance, argues in his exegesis of Romans 3:28 that “in this context Paul means [to teach justification] ‘by faith alone.’” Fitzmyer also provides support for sola fide from patristic and medieval interpreters. Fitzmyer, Romans, 360–63. Then in Pope Benedict’s sermon on justification in Saint Peter’s Square on November 19, 2008 he said, “Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: ‘faith alone’ is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity in love.” Pope Benedict XVI, Saint Paul, 82. A week later, on November 26 in the Paul VI Audience Hall, the pontiff continued this emphasis: “Following Saint Paul, we have seen that man is unable to ‘justify’ himself with his own actions, but can only truly become ‘just’ before God because God confers his ‘justice’ upon him, uniting him to Christ his Son. And man obtains this union through faith. In this sense, Saint Paul tells us: not our deeds, but rather faith renders us ‘just’” (84). Finally, there is the annex (2.C.) to the JD, which states that “Justification takes place ‘by grace alone’ . . . by faith alone; the person is justified ‘apart from works.’” JD, 45.
1112. CCC, 2017.
1113. “Decree on Justification,” Tanner, Decrees, 2:674
1114. Ibid.
1115. It was in his Romans commentary that Vermigli started to feature faith as fiducia (trust).Vermigli, Romanos, 1183 [89]. In this development, Martyr did not jettison assensus, but simply broadened his definition to include the volitional nature of justifying faith. Ibid., 1188 [94].
1116. Ibid., 1262 [170]: “apprehendimus promissiones Dei.”
1117. Ibid., 1183 [89], 1187 [93], 1285–86 [192], 1271 [179], 1188 [93], 1266 [174].
1118. Ibid., 1183 [89]: “id est, ut nunquam sit nuda, sed trahat secum semper multos ac varios animi motus.”
1119. Dei Verbum 5 describes faith as one “by which man entrusts his whole self freely to God offering ‘the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals’ [Vatican I] and freely assenting to the truth revealed by Him.”
1120. Instead, Newman prefers to speak of the personal inhabitation of the Spirit as the agent of actual righteousness (i.e., good works).
1121. Vermigli quotes Augustine with approval regarding “the righteousness that adheres in us” (Augustinum sensisse de iustitia inhaerente). Vermigli, Romanos, 1320 [226]; CCC, 2000.
1122. Vermigli, Romanos, 1289 [195].
1123. Ibid., 1318 [224]: “[W]e grant that Christ requires more of us than faith, for who doubts that he wants those who are justified to live uprightly and to practice virtue of all kinds.”
1124. According to Vermigli, the future “not yet” dimension of justification requires believers to pursue a greater apprehension of love. Vermigli, Romanos, 1305–7 [210–12]. Quoting Augustine, Martyr asserts that by producing virtuous works, justified ones fulfill the law by the grace of the gospel. Ibid., 1239 [146]. Such works are required by the final judgment. Ibid., 1228–29 [135]; CCC, 1821, 2006, 2024.
1125. “Decree on Justification,” Tanner, Decrees, 2:676; see also “Canon 15,” Tanner, Decrees, 2:680.
1126. Ibid., Canon 22.
1127. Ibid., Canon 23.
1128. CCC, 1855. For Newman there was also no perseverance. Just as possessing the Spirit amounts to justification, losing the Spirit means that one has jeopardized justification. Newman, Jfc., 151 [168].
1129. Vermigli, Romanos, 1278 [186].
1130. Lane, Justification by Faith, 215.
1131. JD, 34.
1132. JD, 36.
1133. Ibid.
1134. Thus, the closing sentence of the Catholic position says, “Recognizing [the justified person’s] own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation,” Ibid.
1135. Newman, Jfc., 151–52 [168–69]. Because justification and sanctification are united in Newman’s doctrine and grow together in proportion to God’s manifest presence, the believer’s meritorious works likewise grow.
1136. Ibid., 73.
1137. “Decree on Justification,” Tanner, Decrees, 2:673–74.
1138. CCC, 2027.
1139. Vermigli, Romanos, 1289 [195], 1321 [227], 1274 [182], 1227–28 [134], 1288 [195].
1140. JD, 25, 27.
1141. JD, 37.
1142. JD, 38.
1143. JD, 38. See also Annex 2.E: “Any reward is a reward of grace, on which we have no claim.”
1144. So the Lutheran position in JD, 39.
1145. Robert Ives sheds light on this duality (without respect to Vermigli) when he raises the helpful question: “Is justification the forensic action of being made right with God or is the whole salvation process involved?” The answer, according to a duplex iustitia understanding, is “yes.” Both activities belong to justification. The challenge, as we have observed, is to precisely define how these movements function in relation to one another and to other elements of soteriology. Ives, “An Early Effort toward Protestant-Catholic Conciliation,” 99–110 (99).
1146. In the words of the JD, “In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. . . . Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father.” JD, 15.
1147. Dulles, “Justification in Contemporary Catholic Theology,” 260–61.
1148. Bayer, Living by Faith, trans. Bromiley, 27.
1149. Simon, “The Alchemy of Grace,” 160–65.
1150. Two excellent examples of this Christological participation from Catholic writers are the above quotation by Dulles on uncreated grace, and the previously cited prayer of Thérèse of Lisieux in the Catholic Catechism. CCC, 2011.
1151. As the CCC states, “Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for other all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.” CCC, 2027.
1152. Trent’s repudiation of sola fide occurs five times in Session Six, four times in Session Seven, one time in Session 13 and once in Session 14.