No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
The Lutheran formula “simul Justus et peccator” originally applied to the individual Christian believer. However, it can also apply to the ecclesial community of believers and it can also have ecumenical dimensions and consequences. This article investigates these dimensions and consequences in view of the discussions which were occasioned by Vatican II.
1 Texts from Luther's writings containing the simul (gerecht und Sünder zugleich) are assembled in: Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), pp. 242–45;Google ScholarPesch, Otto Hermann, Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas von Aquin (Mainz: Griinewald, 1967), pp. 109–22Google Scholar, and “Existential and Sapiential Theology—The Theological Confrontation Between Luther and Thomas Aquinas” in Wicks, Jared, ed., Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), pp. 62–82, at 69.Google Scholar I have used the English translation of the simul in Althaus' Introduction.
2 Hermann, Rudolf, Luthers These, “Gerecht und Sunder zugjeich” (2nd. ed.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1950[1930]), pp. 7, 9.Google Scholar On the other hand, Pesch, O. H., Gerechtfertigt aus Glauben (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), p. 135Google Scholar, emphasizes that “it is in any case [only] one summary of Luther's teaching on justification.”
3 DS 1515, 1524, 1528-30, 1561-62.
4 Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 135.Google Scholar
5 On all this, see Kress, Robert, “Leise Treten: An Irenic Ecumenical Hermeneutics,” Theological Studies 44 (1983), 407–37, esp. 411–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 However dominant the sola in Luther's theology, the “et … et” is not completely absent, as Pesch, notes in Gerechtfertigt, pp. 72–78.Google Scholar Also to be consulted in this regard is the classic article of Althaus, Paul, “Sola Fide Numquam Sola: Glaube und Werke in ihrer Bedeutung für das Heil bei Martin Luther,” Una Sancta 16 (1961), 227–35.Google Scholar
7 In regard to the difficulty of understanding Luther, this point is well made by McCue, James F. in a book review in Theological Studies 44 (1983), 511CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “And the long-standing debates within Lutheranism over the right interpretation of Luther suggests that it may be more than scholastic habits of mind or lack of sympathy that make a balanced understanding of Luther difficult.”
8 Wulf, H., “Simul Justus et peccator,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1964), pp. 778–80.Google Scholar
9 That, however, the Pauline and the Lutheran positions do not simply and perfectly coincide has been amply shown by Joest, Wilhelm, “Paulus und das Luthersche simul Justus et peccator,” Kerygma und Dogma 1 (1965), 269–320.Google Scholar
10 That Luther's “individualism” was not essentially and irretrievably anti-ecclesial is amply documented by Kinder, Ernst, Der evangelische Glaube und die Kirche (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1960), pp. 59–64.Google Scholar
11 Theology, p. 244.
12 Theology, p. 243.
13 Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 127;Google ScholarTheologie, pp. 114, 118; “Existential,” p. 70; “Gottes Gnadenhandeln als Rechtfertigung des Menschen” in Feiner, Johannes and Löhrer, Magnus, eds., Mysterium SaJutis 4/2 (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1973), p. 889.Google Scholar
14 Pesch, “Existential,” pp. 70–71.
15 Rahner, K., “Grundentwurf einer theologischen Anthropologie” in Arnold, F. X.et al., eds., Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie 2/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), pp. 34–37.Google Scholar
16 The “unrestrictedness” asserted here is not intended to assert ultimate universal salvation, about which Luther was reluctant. In regard to Luther's interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4-6, see Pfnür, Vinzenz, Einig in der Rechtfertigungsiehre (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1970).Google Scholar
17 Hermann, , Luthers These, p. 50.Google ScholarPesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 127Google Scholar, speaks of “the theological definition as the events [Ereignissse; my emphasis] of the relationship to God. …”
18 “Gottes,” p. 887; Theologie, p. 120.
19 This point is emphasized by Kösters, Reinhard, “Luthers These ‘Gerecht und Sünder zugleich’ zu dem gleichnamigen Buch von Rudolf Hermann,” Catholica 18 (1964), 48–77, 193–217;Google Scholar 19(1965), 138-62, 171-85.
20 Pesch, “Existential,” p. 70.
21 Althaus, , Theology, p. 244.Google Scholar
22 Pesch, , Theologie, pp. 115, 120–21.Google Scholar
23 Ibid., p. 120.
24 Ibid., p. 115.
25 Pesch, O. H., Twenty Years of Catholic Luther Research (Geneva: Lutheran World, 1966), p. 15.Google Scholar
26 More recent developments have been summarized by Kösters, “Luthers These” and in the latest book of Pesch, O. H., Hinführung zu Luther (Mainz: Griinewald, 1982), pp. 189–202.Google Scholar
27 Grosche, Robert, “Simul peccator et justus,” Pilgernde Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1938), pp. 147–58.Google Scholar
28 Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 144.Google Scholar
29 Rahner, K., Theological Investigations 6 (Baltimore: Helicon, 1969), pp. 218–30;Google ScholarBrandenburg, Albert, Martin Luther gegenwtirtig (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1969), p. 109.Google Scholar
30 Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 135;Google ScholarGottes, p. 886; “unvollziebar.”
31 Rahner, Karl, “Observations on the Doctrine of God in Catholic Dogmatics,” Theological Investigations 9 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), p. 140.Google Scholar
32 Pesch, , Gottes, p. 890;Google Scholar “Existential,” p. 73.
33 I have used the version of Abbott, Walter, ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: America, 1966).Google Scholar
34 Moeller, Charles, “History of Lumen Gentium's Structure and Ideas” in Miller, John, ed., Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p. 127.Google Scholar
35 Leeming, Bernard, The Vatican Council and Christian Unity (London: Darton, Longmann & Todd, 1966), p. 28.Google Scholar The complete list of emendations if given on pp. 251-54.
36 Becker, Werner, “Einführung—Dekret über den Ökumenismus” in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Lexikon für Theoiogie und Kirche. Das zweite Vatikanische Konzil 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1967), p. 39.Google Scholar
37 Johannes Feiner, “Kommentar” (as in note 36), pp. 124–25, 51.
38 Jaeger, Lorenz, Stand on Ecumenism (New York: Kenedy, 1964), p. 87.Google Scholar
39 The document is in Origins 13/17 (Oct. 6, 1983), 277–304.Google Scholar My references are not to the pagination, but to the paragraph enumeration.
40 According to Joseph Burgess, Director of Theological Studies for the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. He continues, “but it's not yet a full consensus,” although the document itself speaks of “consensus” (1964). See Austin, Charles, “Lutherans and Catholics in U.S. Agree on Key Salvation Doctrine,” New York Times (Sept. 20, 1983), A21.Google Scholar
41 von Balthasar, Hans Urs, “Casta Meretrix,” Sponsa Verbi (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1961), pp. 203–305.Google Scholar
42 Daniélou, Jean, Sacramentum Futuri (Paris: Beauchesne, 1950) pp. 217–32, at 221.Google Scholar
43 von Balthasar, Hans Urs, Karl Barth (Cologne: Jakob Hegner, 1951), pp. 278–79.Google Scholar
44 ARCIC, The Final Report (Washington: USCC, 1982), 1.Google Scholar
45 Vodopivec, G., “Ecclesiologia anglicana,” Humanitas 20 (1965), 131–36.Google Scholar
46 Pawley, Bernard, “An Anglican Views the Council” in O'Brien, John, ed., Christian Unity (London: Collins, 1965), p. 117.Google Scholar
47 Vodopivec, pp.133-34.
48 Tomkins, Oliver, “The Church—From the Point of View of an Anglican Theologian” in Bäumer, Reimigius and Dolch, Heimo, eds., Volk Gottes (Freiburg: Herder, 1967), p. 192.Google Scholar
49 Congar, Yves, La Sainte Eglise (Paris: Cerf, 1963), p. 135.Google Scholar
50 ARCIC, “Authority in the Church II (1981),” Final, 32;Google Scholar on indefectibility, 23.
51 Kress, Robert, “Systematics” in Tekippe, Terry, ed., Papal Infallibility (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), pp. 270–306.Google Scholar
52 van de Pol, W. H., World Protestantism (London: Sheed and Ward, 1964), p. 196.Google Scholar
53 Neill, Stephen, Anglicanism (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1965), p. 7.Google Scholar
54 Vogel, Arthur, “The Second Vatican Council on the Nature of the Church and Ecumenism,” Anglican Theological Review 49 (1967), 253.Google Scholar
55 Kelly, J. N. D., “Il punto di visto anglicano sullar Constituzione” in Baruana, Guilherne, ed., La Chiesa del Vaticano II (Firenze: Vallechi, 1965), p. 1211.Google Scholar
56 Littell, Franklin H., “Some Free Church Remarks on the Concept, the Body of Christ” in Pelton, Robert, ed., The Church as the Body of Christ (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963), p. 132.Google Scholar
57 Littell, pp. 127-28, 137.
58 Kress, Robert, The Church: Communion, Sacrament, Communication (New York: Paulist, 1984), pp. 71–73.Google Scholar
59 Durnbaugh, Donald F., The Believers' Church (New York: Macmillan, 1970).Google Scholar
60 Novak, Michael, “The Free Churches and the Roman Church,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 2/3 (Fall 1965), 444–48.Google Scholar
61 Congar, Yves, Vraie et fausse reforme dans 1'église (Paris: Cerf, 1969), p. 278;Google ScholarLa Sainte Eglise, p. 152. The L/RC document, Justification by Faith (120), seems to recognize this typology, at least implicitly.
62 Meyendorff, John, The Orthodox Church rev. ed., London: Darton, Longmann & Todd, 1962), pp. 221–22.Google Scholar
63 Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1967), p. 248.Google Scholar
64 “Here is realized the gold rule of all Patristic thought, ‘God becomes man in order that man might become God’; here is the heart of all Orthodox spirituality, ‘Man becomes by grace what God is by nature.’” Evdokimov, Paul, L'Orthodoxie (Paris: Neuchatel, 1959), p. 94.Google Scholar
65 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Basic Questions in Theology 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), p. 122.Google Scholar
66 Most recently, see Rahner, Karl, “Hierarchie der Wahrheiten,” Diakonia 13 (1982), 376–82.Google Scholar
67 On Roman Catholic-Orthodox relations, see Congar, Yves, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University Press, 1959).Google Scholar For Protestant-Orthodox, see Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), pp. 270–98.Google Scholar
68 Nissiotis, Nikos A., “Orthodox Reflections on the Decree on Ecumenism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 3/2 (Spring 1966), 329–42.Google Scholar
69 Congar, Yves, I Believe in the Holy Spirit: Lord and Giver of Life 2 (New York: Seabury, 1983), p. 66.Google Scholar
70 Lanne, Emmanuel, “Die Kirche als Mysterium und Institution in der orthodoxen Theologie” in Holböck, and Sartory, , eds., Mysterium Kirche, pp. 891, 922–23.Google Scholar
71 See Evdokimov, p. 128f.; Lanne, p. 612.
72 See Evdokimov, pp. 156-58; Lanne, pp. 907, 912, 920.
73 Scrima, Andre, “Das II. Vatikanum in orthodoxer Sicht” in Danhardt, A., ed., Theologisches Jahrbuch 1966 (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1966), p. 493.Google Scholar
74 Lanne, p. 924, referring to George Florovsky.
75 Scrima, A., “Semplici reflessioni di un ortodosso sulla Costituzione,” La Chiesa del Vaticano II, p. 1194;Google ScholarCongar, Yves, “Ecclesiological Awareness in the East and in the West from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century” in Sherwood, Polycarp, ed., The Unity of the Churches of Goe (Baltimore: Helicon, 1963), pp. 137–38.Google Scholar
76 La Sainte Eglise, p. 135; see also Lanne, p. 917.
77 Evdokimov, pp. 155 (quoting Khomiakoff), 128, 158.
78 Ware, , The Orthodox Church, pp. 248 and 269Google Scholar, where he cites Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 733).
79 Evdokimov, p. 123; Scrima, “Semplici,” pp. 1194, 1199-1200, and “Das II. Vatikanum,” p. 494.
80 Ahlbrecht, Ansgar, “Neuere Katholische Versuche zur Würdigung der theologischen Anliegen Luthers,” Una Sancta 18 (1963), 177–82.Google Scholar Also von Balthasar, , Karl Barth, pp. 378–86.Google Scholar
81 Evdokimov, p. 154; see also pp. 144, 161.
82 See Congar, Yves, La Sainte Eglise, p. 135.Google Scholar
83 Schmemann, Alexander, “The Orthodox Tradition” in O'Brien, Elmer, ed., The Convergence of Traditions (New York: Herder, 1967), pp. 13–16.Google Scholar
84 Lossky, V., Théologie mystique de l'Eglise d'Orient (Paris: Aubier, 1944), pp. 176–77.Google Scholar
85 Cited by Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Cork: Mercier, 1954), p. 199.Google Scholar
86 von Balthasar, “Casta,” p. 297.
87 Bobrinskoy, Boris, “Pour les orthodoxes uns miséricorde infinie,” L'actualité religieuse dans le monde 4 (Sept. 15, 1983), 37–40.Google Scholar
88 Ware, p. 248.
89 Would to deny this not require flight to a ploy once very popular in the West, the distinction, namely, between Church (holy) and members (sinful). This discredited and now abandoned approach has been described as reducing the Church to “eine rein ideologische Grosse, die beinahe mythologischen Charakter hätte” by Rahner, Karl, Schriften zur TheoIogie 6 (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1965), p. 344.Google Scholar This distinction would reduce the real, actual Church to a “Zwischenwesen, irgendwo schwebund zwischen Gott und den Menschen,” according to Küng, Hans, Die Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1967), p. 563.Google Scholar The English translation (The Church [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967], p. 481Google Scholar) has lost the flavor of Küng's rhetoric.
90 Kress, Robert, “Leise Treten: An Irenic Ecumenical Hermeneutics,” Theological Studies 44 (1983), 407–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91 I have found support for my approach in Fries, Heinrich and Rahner, Karl, Einigung der Kirche— Reale Möglichkeit (Freiburg: Herder, 1983).Google Scholar I have also found support for it in the L/RC Dialogue's Justification by Faith, which distinguishes “theology as well as piety” (22), “theology and spiritual … theology and piety” (29), “dogmatics in practical theology” (65), “experiential impact … rather than with systematic description” (70). Similar distinctions can be found in 23, 38, 79, 85, 92, 102, 118, 121, 148, 150-53.
92 George Tavard's term, on the occasion of the release of the Lutheran/Roman Catholic Bilateral Dialogue on Justification; see National Catholic News Service (Sept. 19, 1983), p. 17.Google Scholar
93 Rahner, Karl, “On the Spirituality of the Easter Faith,” Theological Investigations 17 (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 8.Google Scholar
94 Ratzinger, Joseph, “Prognosen für die Zukunkt des Okumenismus,” Bausteine 17 (1976), 10.Google Scholar
95 Cullmann, Oscar, Sind die Erwartungen Erfülit? (Munich: Huber, 1966), p. 60;Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, E., Vatican II: The Red Achievement (London: Sheed and Ward, 1967), p. 89.Google Scholar
96 See the texts in Althaus, , The Theology of Martin Luther, pp. 66–70, 149, 153.Google Scholar
97 Ratzinger, Joseph (with Rahner, Karl), Reveiation and Tradition (New York: Herder, 1965), pp. 26–31, 60–63.Google Scholar See also Kress, Robert, “The Roman Catholic Reception of the Augsburg Confession,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 11 (1980), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
98 C. P. (six), “Ecclesiologia protestante,” Humanitas 20 (1965), 1300.Google Scholar
99 Is this not the fundamental significance of Pius X's anti-Modernist insistence that the sacrament of penance did not gradually evolve, but was present in the Church from the beginning (DS 3446, 3447).
100 von Ivanka, Endor, “Die Ausformung der Orthodoxie” in von Ivanka, Endoret al., eds., Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971), p. 37.Google Scholar
101 Lossky, , La théologie, p. 177.Google Scholar
102 L/RC Dialogue, Justification by Faith, 161. See also Rahner, Karl, “On the Theology of the Ecumenical Discussion,” Theological Investigations 11 (New York: Seabury, 1974), pp. 24–67, esp. 59–67Google Scholar, and “A Basic Interpretation of Vatican II,” Theological Studies 40 (1979), 716–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103 A favorite idea of the L/RC Dialogue, Justification by Faith; for example, 24, 101.
104 Schneider, B., “Bemerkungen zur Kritik an der Kirche” in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Gott in Welt 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1964), p. 249.Google Scholar
105 Ratzinger, Joseph, “Heilsgeschichte und Eschatologie” in Ratzinger, J. and Neumann, J., eds., Theologie im Wandel (Munich: E. Wewel, 1967), p. 82.Google Scholar
106 J. B. Metz has spoken of the “katholisches simul fidelis et infidelis” in “Der Unglaube als theologische Problem,” Concilium 6 (1970), 484–92.Google Scholar