After encountering a virtual unending stream of gross errors of fact from you in multiple posts, I have ceased accepting statements from you without documentation, and I would recommend others in this forum to do likewise.
Here's another one
Cardinal Ratzinger's amendments to the JDDJ at that last moment raised the hair on many a good Lutheran scholar's neck. It created a fine fuss both inside the ELCA and among other Lutherans world wide. Here's a very good synopsis of the central issue, though the paper is much much longer, here:www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=339
Failures of the Declaration:
A Confessional Lutheran Perspective
1. Justification: Forensic or Transformational?
The foremost defect of the document is that it does not come
clean on the most glaring conflict between Augsburg and Trent.
For Lutherans, justification is essentially forensic, that is, God
declares the sinner righteous on account of and in Christ. Roman
Catholics define justification as an internal transformation of the
believer, a “process,” which Lutherans place in the area of sanctification,
about which too there are different understandings.
Roman Catholics have understood grace as if it were almost a
substance, gratia infusa, which is poured into the soul initially by
Lutherans, with Paul, see justifying grace as the favor
Dei, God’s gracious attitude whereby He accepts sinners. The title
of paragraph 4.2, “Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making
Righteous,” to be sure, could be understood in a Lutheran way.
The famous paragraph 72 of Apology IV makes it clear that faith
“being made righteous” in justification means only receiving “the
forgiveness of sins.”12 Clearly this is not what is meant in the Joint
Declaration. However, the Formula of Concord expressly rejects
the view that justifying righteousness “consists of two pieces or
parts, namely, the gracious forgiveness of sins and, as a second
element, renewal or sanctification” (SD, III, 48). We are not
alone in our concerns. So also the six ELCA theologians:
The fundamental problem with JDDJ is that it seems to subsume
the Lutheran understanding of justification under a
Roman Catholic understanding of justification as a process
whereby the soul is progressively transformed through “grace.”.
The document presents an understanding of justification in
terms of the soul’s progressive internal transformation by
infused grace, and never refers in a vital or critical way to the
Lutheran insistence on justification by faith alone (sola fide) in
God’s Word of promise, no doubt because such insistence
would undermine the entire structure of the doctrine of justification
proposed by JDDJ (emphases in original).
This objection does come a bit late! For years the ELCA compromised
itself in various ecumenical dialogues. Lutheran acceptance
of the Roman Catholic position on justification should
come as no surprise.
H. George Anderson, now Presiding Bishop
of the ELCA, co-chaired the U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue
on Justification by Faith, which concluded: “156 (5). . . . By
justification we are both declared and made righteous . . . 158 . .
. [God’s saving work] can be expressed in the imagery of God as
judge who pronounces sinners innocent and righteous, . . . and
also in a transformist view, which emphasizes the change wrought
in sinners by infused grace.”13 On this point the Lutherans
...but Rome was not required to reform her
traditional definition, which was officially restated in the 1994
Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Justification includes the
remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner
man” (498). The characteristic Roman Catholic fusion of “forensic”
and “transformist” views of justification has been wrongly
attributed to Luther by such prominent scholars as Alister
McGrath and Tuomo Mannermaa, as will be shown below.14