BASIC AGREEMENT REACHED

What will be taking place today, and particularly tomorrow on Reformation Day, may without exaggeration be referred to as an historic occasion. On the threshold of the third millennium, the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church will demonstrate that the separated Churches can make joint statements on the Doctrine of Justification, which in its time was the starting point, and ultimately the cause, of the fragmentation of the Western Church. If this is accepted, the condemnations surrounding the Doctrine of Justification no longer divide us.

 

1. The signing as an event

This cannot mean that the act of signing per se is the definitive breakthrough in the search for the unity of the Church. We will not be guilty of complacency in celebrating a milestone event. That said, it is possible that we have already become too modest in describing what has been achieved. We must understand and honour the events taking place today and tomorrow in the city of religious peace in the whole breadth and depth of church reality, namely in our churches and parishes, and in our theology. We must all help to make the formal signing something better than a missed opportunity.

This day gives reason to rejoice and give thanks. Perhaps you will see this better if you really look back into history to consider the deep rifts between our Churches. In that way you may be better able to judge the achievements of the past few decades concerning our present unity in basic truths of the Doctrine of Justification. We have to look at this overall development, which places the "Joint Declaration" in a new light. It is particularly difficult to reach an agreement on this issue because the contradictory doctrines were applied particularly placatively at an early stage, and were for centuries emphasised uncompromisingly and inexorably. We should not therefore be surprised that these aggravations have not simply faded away, in spite of sterling efforts. There is however no alternative to carefully working through the fundamental differences which led to the separation in the 16th Century. It may be frustrating at times for lay persons and committed Christians to see how much historical learning and intellectual effort was and is needed to overcome this task. If, however, it were to be impossible to reach an understanding concerning this central tenet of our belief and of our theological convictions, any other consensus would be built on sand. This may go some way towards explaining the fierceness of the current disagreements.

It would however be a travesty to treat the Joint Declaration and its Appendices in isolation and exaggerate their importance. It has been repeatedly pointed out that we are able to reap the fruits not only of long-term ecumenical efforts, but in particular of the repeated, internationally widespread and increasingly intensified research results of at least the past forty years. The Joint Declaration can only be so concise because we have spent decades working on the problems in both larger treatises and in short thesis form. This is why it is vital to study the concentrated sources referred to in the "Appendix" demonstrating this long process of a joint endeavour with the larger, complete documents. These underpin the Joint Declaration with the wording which they contain, which has repeatedly proven its worth. I do not have the impression that the importance of the consensus, and the potential to reach a consensus inherent in these sources, has been sufficiently taken note of as yet.

 

2. The signing as an encouragement

This occasion is a major encouragement for ecumenical theological work. We know the long years of complaint that the results of theological dialogues were not taken sufficiently seriously by the Church Authorities, that the ecumenical movement was suffering from these delaying tactics, that theologians were tired and resigned. Now at last we can assimilate the preliminary stages and partial results, worked out with so much effort in many countries, in a concentrated and re-structured form. This also proves that sound theological research will make itself heard eventually. We naturally must learn from this process that, in particular, professional ecumenists from both theoretical and practical spheres, as well as theologians and the Church Authorities, usually overestimate the impact of consensus-building documents of this kind. Even if they are academically well thought out and spiritually impressive, they are not yet filled with life and spirituality. It takes longer than that for the hundreds of years of attitudes and behaviour to be removed and for a new language, sometimes alien to all concerned, to prove itself. In this sense, the theologians have also been awakened by the Declaration, which is intended to be binding, because it is evident that relatively little attention has been paid in many parts to the internal trends and numerous proofs provided by decades of ecumenical work. Official ecumenism had not correctly assessed the tempo, breadth and depth of the necessary reception.

This is why we should not allow ourselves to be robbed of our joy at what has now been achieved. We have good reason to be thankful for the many building blocks which have come together to form the "Joint Declaration", which are carefully explained in the Additional Documents. We would like to thank especially all those who have unresignedly, confidently and selflessly done what was asked of them, in spite of sometimes professionally unproductive and personally hurtful attacks. Theology certainly needs the critical objections which have been put forward by individual experts. However, it also needs the somewhat hidden, but no less important, loyalty to a mandate from the Church.

 

3. Consensus and foundation

It is however the result of the consensus process of the Joint Declaration which is vital. The result is perhaps disappointing for many because they expected a more comprehensive consensus to be reached. They consider the text to be too cautious and still burdened with too many unsolved, contentious questions. Perhaps we have also had, at times, a questionable definition of consensus in mind. Consensus is frequently idealistically imagined to be an unrestricted agreement on all aspects of an issue which was previously a bone of contention. Here and there, our texts still show traces of this kind of idea, like egg shells. The definition of consensus is strongly characterised by an underlying emotional and perhaps even logical trend towards uniformity. This kind of understanding overtaxes us because it necessitates removing every difference between Catholics and Lutherans which is related to our understanding of Justification.

Moreover, in both Churches, classical theology has always drawn a line between what is required by consensus and what is not necessarily subject to consensus. The interpretation of this distinction was particularly broadly spread between the area of the Doctrine of Faith and that of church rites, customs and discipline. Additionally, a distinction has always been made between fundamental and non-fundamental doctrines. Let us simply consider the creeds and the catechisms. The Second Vatican Council speaks of "a 'hierarchy' of truths …in Catholic doctrine" and states that "they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith." (Unitatis Redintegratio, Art. 11). In spite of their differences, the Christian Churches are therefore able to be one in the fundamentals of their faith. On the Catholic side, two important complementary illustrations were used. John Paul II said in his address on the 450th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession in 1980 that "major pillars of the bridge have been saved from the storm of time" and that we have rediscovered "how broad and strong are the common foundations of our Christian faith". Cardinal Jan Willebrands said on the same occasion "that the rift at that time did not go down to the shared roots, and what unites us is much greater and deeper than what separates us" (Roman Catholic/Lutheran discussions on the Augsburg Confession, Documents 1977 - 1981, published by H. Meyer = LWB Report 10, August 1982, pp. 56 et seq. and 54).

 

4. "Differentiated consensus"

For a wide variety of reasons, Protestant, and even more so Catholic, theologians are sceptical about the concept of the fundamental articles and an ecumenical application of the "hierarchia veritatum". Instead, the term "differentiated consensus" has become accepted. In any case, the word consensus was always defined in ecumenical conversations by the use of qualifying adjectives: "broad consensus", "consensus in rem", "growing convergence", "fundamental common ground". This is intended to mean that the agreement needed for the community of Churches is certainly achieved in the contentious problems, but that the type of agreement needs to be given more concrete form. A stage of consensus, once achieved, is still not unity. Thus, consensus in the process of reaching an agreement is a preliminary form of full, visible community.

In the "Joint Declaration", we coined a phrase for the specific structure of the agreement reached, namely "consensus in basic truths of the Doctrine of Justification" (cf. No. 5 (40)). Two elements are especially important. For one thing, it is a matter of "basic truths". Agreement on this is still not full consensus, as in the development of the whole Doctrine of Justification, but there is an agreement with regard to the fundamentals and the convictions on which they are based. If there are still differences, this commonality will not be simply rendered null and void. The words were chosen with care, i.e. not "consensus in the basic truths". There is no definite article: "consensus in basic truths". There could well be, therefore, other basic truths with regard to which no consensus has (yet) been reached. This finding is repeatedly described in a variety of forms, for instance "a large degree of common orientation and judgment", "a shared understanding of our justification".

The conclusion to which this leads reduces the difficulties faced. The Joint Declaration "does not cover all that either church teaches about Justification" (No. 5); but it does show "that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations" (No. 5). "…the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it (i.e. with a consensus on basic truths)" (No. 14). There are still questions "of varying importance which need further clarification", but there is the even more important conviction "that the consensus which we have reached offers a solid basis for this clarification" (No. 43). In spite of all commonality, questions therefore remain within the Doctrine of Justification and beyond. However, even if they are important, they do not nullify the unity achieved by the Churches so far. There are therefore legitimate differences within the commonality. They are not fundamental in nature, and do not in necessarily constitute shortcomings, but they are always characterised by the Church being a unity with variety. The extent of the differences in such a "differentiated consensus" must certainly be clarified.

 

5. The legitimacy of the theological approach

Many still mistrust. Do we take seriously the truth lying in the creed, for which many people have given their all, their homes and their lives? Are we not too quickly turning to arbitrariness and manipulation, as you might twist a wax nose in all directions? Repeatedly, inadequate models are shaped and clumsy answers are tried. Many people therefore take the view that accepting the Joint Declaration also means giving up the decisions of the Council of Trent. However, this would be an unacceptable misunderstanding of the situation.

Thanks to exegetical/historical and hermeneutic/theological knowledge, we see the texts of that time in a continuum and in a more comprehensive context. Therefore, we do not rise arrogantly above the decisions of the Fathers, but we may understand some things more profoundly. It is easier now to distinguish between the intention and the linguistic form in which it is cloaked. We can recognise a limited intention which has subsequently been misinterpreted. In the hard fight and in the polemics which may reduce our understanding of the opposing position, in the end we begin to speak at cross purposes, as we still see today in some disputes. By recognising such limitations, and sometimes also deformations, it is possible to reinterpret individual texts. Moreover, we can discover that the individual partners in a debate do not always speak the same language. There are different concepts and approaches, as well as other ways of approaching justification. This concerns, for instance, fundamental terms such as sin, concupiscence, certainty of Salvation and merit or works. Today, we can sometimes recognise with a greater certainty that these different interpretations do not exclude each other per se, but may frequently complement one another. Perhaps this is not always sufficiently clearly recognised during an argument. Many studies carried out over the past decades show unmistakably that such alienations from one another can occur when polemics make people blinkered. Perhaps one needs to personally experience this type of recognition to trust it completely. However, it naturally also entails dangers, which, on the other hand, need not necessarily occur. For instance, it is not possible to reduce everything merely to various forms of language and thought. There are content-related aspects containing differences which cannot be denied (cf. No. 18 - 39 and 43).

The Joint Declaration is however much more modest. It does not attempt to adjudicate on the objective truth of earlier statements with the benefit of hindsight, but asks whether the former condemnations apply to today's partners. Thus it says: "The teaching of the Lutheran Churches presented in the Declaration does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration." This important passage is also quoted prominently in the "Official Common Statement". In this sense, the Declaration has a two-fold aim, to prove both the agreement on "basic truths of the Doctrine of Justification" and further that the mutual condemnations of the 16th Century no longer affect today's partners. The twin approaches of academic research and ecumenical discussion have paved the way for this "Joint Declaration".

 

6. The way forward

Where do we go from here? It seems to me to be inappropriate to move on immediately to completely different topics. We have in any case become much too modest in describing what we have achieved. Perhaps it was a little too enthusiastic to speak of a "breakthrough" at the start. Talking about the "first step" nevertheless still indicated an intention to move forward. If it is now frequently the case that only a "significant rapprochement" is presumed to have taken place in central doctrinal matters, the binding commonality has shrunk considerably. I would prefer to speak of the Declaration as a boundary stone, and as a milestone for ourselves and our posterity, marking both the way forward and the path which lies behind us.

Particularly in light of the hesitation of a great number of Protestant theologians, the further discussion of the statements themselves must be strongly encouraged. 243 critical signatures by university lecturers jeopardise our claim to have reached a "consensus in basic truths". As a Catholic theologian, I regard the Joint Declaration as an "authentic interpretation" of the decree on Justification of the Council of Trent, which should not be lacking in any lesson on the doctrine of grace and on theological anthropology, and especially at the level of ecumenical discussion, and should be included, for instance, in the coming editions of the collections of decisions of courts on state-church relations such as by Denzinger - Schönmetzer - Hünermann, "Kompendium der Glaubensbekenntnisse und kirchlichen Lehrentscheidungen". We expect in various passages of these texts intensive treatments of the joint witness of the Doctrine of Justification in a language to attract the attention of the people of today.

Finally, the Joint Declaration is to give considerable impetus to the further ecumenical work on the topics which remain open in the area of the sacraments, the Church and the question of offices because the corresponding condemnations are still largely undealt with in light of an agreed understanding. The ecumenical working party of Protestant and Catholic theologians has long since made the preparations for this, as is also the case with the Doctrine of Justification. Here, certainly the question which will play a central role is, in which sense is the Doctrine of Justification a critical benchmark for the understanding of and form taken by, in particular, the sacraments, the Church and the offices. Perhaps one might be allowed to say that, presumably, it is only with the latter topic that the true commonality will undergo what may prove to be a particularly difficult test. If this is hurdle can be taken, it is no longer far towards intercommunion, and the path will soon be open. However, in spite of our longing for this, we should avoid falling foul of premature expectations. The Eucharist is at the pinnacle of life in the church, for the Catholic Church indeed, but not only for the Catholic Church. It is the spiritual common good of the whole Church and gathers a large number of individual and social structures in the body of the Church. I am aware of the heightened expectations, but I am also aware of the damage which would be done, both now and later, by making (as yet) fulfillable ecumenical promises which need not only the passion of an understandable longing, but also the laborious patience of ripening.

31 October 1999 is an indispensable and most important step which must not halt us, but which can fill us with courage and confidence on our path towards the unity of Church. I wish, for all of us, a confirmation of this hope, which is blessed by God's Spirit, the implementation of which has been mandated to us by the Lord as a particularly important intention of his Will: "that they may all be one" (Jn 17:21). Augsburg 1999 is therefore a major opportunity, perhaps a unique kairos. This is not an everyday event. Augsburg 1530 unmistakably reminds us of this.