Abstract
This chapter describes one disputed aspect of the agreement in the Joint Declaration, the anthropology of the baptized Christian, which will serve as a test case for the claim that the JDDJ defines a real consensus. While Lutherans have traditionally asserted that the Christian is simul iustus et peccator, at the same time justified and sinner, Catholics have argued that this statement is both nonsensical and brings the efficacy of the sacraments into question. They have argued that concupiscence in the baptized must not be understood as sin, unless it receives the consent of the will and produces actual sin. This example provides a test case for the rest of the book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1984), 16.
- 2.
See Lowell G. Almen and Richard J. Sklba, eds., The Hope of Eternal Life: Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue XI, (Minneapolis, Lutheran University Press, 2011); and LWF and PCPCU, The Apostolicity of the Church: Study Document of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity [of] The Lutheran World Federation [and the] Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, (Minneapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2006).
- 3.
JDDJ §26-27; JF §103-4; OC §20; CRE, 53.
- 4.
Rom 8:19.
- 5.
JF provides a brief, clear introduction to the sixteenth century dispute over justification, including the imputation/impartation of justice. See §§21–63.
- 6.
JDDJ I, §26. In GER−DER, A.3.
- 7.
JDDJ, section 4.4, §§28–30.
- 8.
Desire has a complicated history in both western philosophy and Christian thought. It is therefore unsurprising that concupiscentia has a history of equivocal use. As merely one example, consider Thomas’ use of the term within one question of the Summa, IaIIa.Q9.a2. In the sed contra, he quotes James saying “unusquisque tentatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus et illectus.” The ad tertium reads “sicut philosophus dicit in I Polit., ratio, in qua est voluntas, movet suo imperio irascibilem et concupiscibilem, non quidem despotico principatu, sicut movetur servus a domino; sed principatu regali seu politico, sicut liberi homines reguntur a gubernante, qui tamen possunt contra movere.”
- 9.
Augustine, nupt. et conc., PL:44 I:414.
- 10.
Timo Nisula, “Continuities and Discrepancies in Augustine’s View on Concupiscence and Baptism (410–30)” Studia Patristica 49(2007): 22–23.
- 11.
I.e., his theory d because the soul is generated from the souls of the parents, and it therefore contracts original sin from them in this manner.
- 12.
Peter Lombard, Sent., lib II dist. 31, cap 4. “quae concipitur in vitiosa concupiscentia, pollitur et corrumpitur.”
- 13.
Ibid., cap 6, p508 11.7–12
- 14.
Anselm, De Conc Virg et de Orig Pecc, ch 2, 7.
- 15.
ST I–II q.82 art 1, ad 3. This is a problem with both the traducian and the contaminative models.
- 16.
Ibid., q.81 art 2, resp.
- 17.
Ibid., q.82, art 3, resp. He admits that original sin can be called concupiscence, but only because he understands it to be “the chief passion, … including all the others in a fashion.” Ibid., Rep 2. Likewise, original sin is concupiscence, but only materially. It is the privation of original justice formally. Ibid., resp.
- 18.
Trent 5th session. June 17, 1546. Canon 5. “Manere autem in baptizatis concupiscentiam vel fomitem, haec sancta synodus fatetur et sentit; quae cum ad agonem relicta sit, nocere non consentientibus et viriliter per Christi Iesu gratiam repugnantibus non valet. … Hanc concupiscentiam, quam aliquando Apostolus peccatum appellat, sancta synodus declarant, ecclesiam catholicam nunquam intellexisse, peccatum appellari, quod vere et proprie en renatis peccatum sit, sed quia ex peccator est et ad peccatum inclanat.” In Tanner, II: 667.
- 19.
Martin Chemnitz, An Examination of the Council of Trent, translated by Fred Kramer, (St. Louis: Concordia, 1971), 345–49.
- 20.
Exodus 20:17: “Non concupisces domum proximi tui, nec desiderabis uxorem ejus, non servum, non ancillam, non bovem, non asinum, nec omnia quæ illius sunt.”
Deuteronomy 5:21: “Non concupisces uxorem proximi tui: non domum, non agrum, non servum, non ancillam, non bovem, non asinum, et universa quæ illius sunt.” It is interesting that at least in Exodus, concupiscere is applied to the neighbor’s house, while desiderere is applied to his wife, suggesting a decoupling of the concept from sexual desire.
- 21.
Chemnitz, 323.
- 22.
Ulrich Wilckens, “ ‘Simul iustus et peccator’ in Joh 1:5–2:2” in Gerecht und Sünder zugleich: Ökumenische Klärungen, 82–91 inTheodor Schneider and Gunther Wenz, eds. (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001), 82. Emphasis original. “Christen waren ‘einst’ Sünder und sind ‘jetzt’ gerecht, nachdem sie durch die Verkündigung des Evangeliums zum Glauben an Jesus Christus gekommen sind und in der Taufe auf den Namen Jesu Christi Vergebung der Sünden empfangen haben.”
- 23.
Ibid.
- 24.
Thomas Söding, “Die Rechtfertigung der Sünder und die Sünden der Gerechtfertigten” in Schneider and Wenz, 80–81. Interestingly, precisely Romans 7 is cited in the JDDJ section on the simul: “at the same time righteous and sinner.” Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament and grants the righteousness of Christ, which they appropriate in faith. In Christ, they are made just before God. Looking at themselves through the law, however, they recognize that they remain also totally sinners. Sin lives in them (1 Jn 1:8; Rom 7:17, 20), for they repeatedly turn to false Gods and do not love God with that undivided love which God requires as their Creator (Deut 6:5; Mt 22:26–40 par.)” JDDJ §29.
- 25.
Otto Hermann Pesch, “Simul iustus et peccator” in Schneider and Wenz, 147–8.
- 26.
Pesch, “Simul iustus et peccator,” 153. “Der Sinn der Formel, zusammengefasst, ist also hier: den Stolz auf jede eigene Gerechtigkeit zu brechen und die unabgeschlossene Kampfsituation des Christseins herauszustellen: überbrückt durch Gottes total geltende Nicht-Anrechnung und ausgerichtet auf das Hoffnungsgut der endgültigen Überwindung der Sünde durch die eschatologische Gabe der Gerechtigkeit.”
- 27.
The maxim is from Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, 1007β – 15. Thomas affirms it in his Commentary on Metaphysics Book IV, §611. Bonaventure also affirms the maxim, but George Tavard argues that his theology is nevertheless consistent with the intent of the simul. Tavard, From Bonaventure to the Reformers, (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2005), 63–84.
- 28.
This third can also be described as an eschatological reality, or as a tectonic blend.
- 29.
CDF and PCPCU, “Response to the JDDJ,” Clarifications, §1.
- 30.
Ibid., §1.
- 31.
Wolf-Dieter Hauschild , “Die Formel ‘Gerecht und Sünder zugleich’—Eine Entdeckung des 20. Jahrhunderts” in Schneider and Wenz, 304. “die damit ausgesagte Paradoxie besonders treffend den Unterschied zwischen evangelischer und katholischer Rechtfertigungslehre ausdrücke und dass deshalb die simul-Formel für den römischen Katholizismus inakzeptabel sei.”
- 32.
Ibid. and Otto Hermann Pesch , “Simul iustus et peccator: Sinn und Stellenwert ener Formel Martin Luthers Thesen und Kurzkommentare,” in Schneider and Wenz, 146–67.
- 33.
Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine, 15.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rinderknecht, J.K. (2016). The Problem of Differentiated Consensus. In: Mapping the Differentiated Consensus of the Joint Declaration. Pathways for Ecumenical and Interreligious Dialogue. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40099-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40099-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-40098-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-40099-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)