Could it really be true that Rome misunderstood the Reformers teaching on grace and faith in what they wrote at the Council of Trent?
One evangelical respondent to the blog that sparked my initial interest in preparing this series of posts put the common view of so many quite well: “What is needed from the Catholic Church is repentance so shouldn’t the Church formally renounce what it said at Trent?”
Isn’t this really the bottom line? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church “repent” or we cannot trust a single thing that they now say about justification and the gospel?
The answer of many anti-Catholic apologists to this question is very simple. They say something like this: “The Catholic Church cannot change by its own confession about itself never changing so whatever they now say has no bearing on the fundamental issue of justification unless they recant, repent and remove the teaching of the Council of Trent on this central issue.”
My first response to this is to ask you another question: “What church removes the past and unconfesses what it once strongly confessed?” And, “What would the Catholic Church do, given how it develops dogma and reflects upon its own teaching by new dogmatic ways of expression, to make you actually believe that it really does teach salvation by grace through faith?”
A theologian once used an illustration with me that compared this matter to “blue laws” in America’s legal history. They are still on the books but the present circumstances and legal opinions clearly override them in a way that reconsiders these laws and, in some cases, makes them of less importance to the present situation in history. This illustration may help but it doesn’t quite go far enough. The Joint Declaration says what happened far better than this approach can put it.
So what does The Joint Declaration actually say?
This declaration is shaped by the conviction that in their respective histories our churches have come to new insights.
That is clear and staggering if you take it seriously. Only a person on the outside, willingly hoping that this was not what they said or meant, could miss this. Here is section 2 of the same document:
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, with the result that this Joint Declaration is able to formulate a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification. In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner.
In section 27 we read this from the Catholic contributors:
The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it. The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him.[14] This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God’s graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasizes the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God’s unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God (Rom 3:27). [See Sources for section 4.3].
Related Posts
Comments
My Latest Book!
Use Promo code UNITY for 40% discount!
John, what do you think about the pope having the Koran read at the Vatican? Is that report true? Where both the scriptures and the Koran read at a mass with the approval of the pope?
I’d have to know more and understand the context to respond intelligently. Does anyone else know the question and have a thoughtful response not a simple assumption. Seriously I am not able to respond unless I can get a better feel for what happened.
It was not at Mass. It was in the Vatican Gardens during a prayer for peace between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. So yes the Muslims were allowed to read out of their holy book.
It has been on national news and on facebook. I do not always trust what is reported in the news.
Here is what seems to be the most complete explanation of the meetings. It does not include mention of the Quran being read but does mention prayers. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-prays-for-peace-with-israeli-and-palestinian-presidents/ ………. I have heard many evangelicals rail against this decrying the Muslim involvement as heretical because they believe the Islamic god is demonic. As I understand it, the arabic people are decendants of Ishmael and Islam claims the God of Abraham and Moses…… I think we need to knock down the rhetoric and pray……
John Byung Lee liked this on Facebook.
John The understanding on blue laws is clearly wide spread.
Other than what I have learned from you ,I had no idea that the position of the Catholic church had changed.
My perception is that a very small percentage of the Evangelical population understands this shift.
You are doing your part.
What is the Catholic church doing to widely communicate on this issue?
As I understand it, the facts of the matter are that, in the context of seeking reconciliation in the Middle East, Pope Francis invited Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders from Israel and Palestine to meet in the Vatican gardens to read texts from their traditions, including from each tradition an invocation for thanksgiving, a request for forgiveness and prayers for peace. La Stampa Vatican Insider has an article here: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/news/detail/articolo/francis-34578/
First of all it was not at mass and not in St. Peters. It was in the Vatican gardens and the three men, Jewish, Muslim and Christian prayed in their own faith traditions. The HF prayed to the God of Abraham and the prophets. He acknowledge that man has made a mess of the situation in Palestine and begged the Lord to intervene and bring peace. Who in the world would criticize such a prayer gathering.
While the question may be open as to whether or not Trent, correctly understood, really condemned current LWF teaching, is it possible to honestly maintain (not implying that you do) that Trent did not anathematize traditional Baptist soteriology (and that of other baptistic evangelicals) and that this anathema is still in force?
Traditional baptist theology did not exist at the time of Trent and if Baptists are faithful to their confessional standards of the 17th century then I do not think this theology is anathamatized. Historically many Baptists have globally not been received or understood on this point by Catholics in this manner.
Nothing about Trent has changed.
Trent has not been changed and I clearly said so. What has changed is how we understand one another and now relate to one another in the 21st century. Vatican II and subsequent ecumenical documents have very much changed these misunderstandings. See St. John Paul II’s Ut Unum Sint to see how as one example.
Ray Prigodich liked this on Facebook.
Trent has not been changed and I clearly said so. What has changed is how we understand one another and now relate to one another in the 21st century. Vatican II and subsequent dagger documents have very much changed these misunderstandings. See St. John Paul II’s Ut Unim Sint to see how as one example. http://johnharmstrong.com/?p=6675#comment-82409
Yes, John, I was referencing David’s question.
“Understand and relate” to one another; yes. Bring it on John 17. We have a theological neurosis that keeps us up at night, sharpening our doctrinal weapons, and getting way too little sleep. I say, go ahead and rest because King Jesus is the only High Priest who can ask the Father to send a fresh Holy Spirit wave of unity on the catholic church; for which he continually intercedes.
The anathemas (solemn excommunications) of Trent and other General Councils were aimed at those members of the Catholic Church who persisted in erroneous teaching, etc. A modern day Baptist can’t be “anathema’d” because he or she isn’t a member of the Catholic Church in the first place.
That being said, the doctrinal content of Trent’s decrees are still all relevant today, but shouldn’t be read in isolation from, say, the documents of Vatican II and post-conciliar documents like Dominus Iesus. They all go together.
And more than that, we go together
The more difficult thing is working hard to make sure participants in doctrinal dialogue are on the same page with respect to word usage with respect to the underlying doctrinal concepts. Surprise! Trent’s usage of some theological terms is not apples-to-apples with that of Luther, Calvin, etc. I’d say 90% of the time, Protestant criticisms of Trent end up being “strawman” arguments for that very reason.
Dr. Cross has written various pieces on Trent in recent years, looking at common Protestant objections. Here’s one from last month:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/trent-and-the-gospel-a-reply-to-tim-challies/
Hi Everyone,
People ought to read Hans Kung’s dissertation on justification which shows a gross misunderstanding between Catholics and Protestants. Like I said before, unless someone believes in salvation without Jesus Lordship or a cheap easy believism, Trent probably does not apply to you. I was at a Baptist Bible study just recently where one lady joked that maybe Pope Francis was the Anti-Christ. I think the poor attitudes and misunderstandings weigh more heavily among Protestants. Its time for the church to grow up. We are our own worst enemies.
Really good counsel my friend. Thanks for the excellent reminder of how we speak and do not speak well in these misunderstood conflicts.
I do not have time today to read this entire blog Michael Bradley but it looks about right so far. Your point is,m of course, as is that of Peggy Tasler, correct. Trent is not denied or changed. What is happening if that we are talking and listening in new ways. Both sides are gaining fresh understanding which is what ecumenism is about at this level, not condemning and finding new ways to turn the screws (no pun intended) on old arguments that had specific context centuries ago.
Agreed John. We need to find new ways to where we find common ground. For people who like to stir up old debates, all one has to do is for both sides to bring up the polemics and name calling of the seventeenth and eighteenth century for example for the conversation to turn ugly. Maybe not all of us but I would like to believe most of us are past all that . . .