So there it is. As was to be expected: no “explicating” at all from the participants, of what had never been clearly set out in the first section. The whole purpose of our effort is that people get the distinct impression that the only explanations that make sense are those that came from our analysis. But, as has been made so clear from their gravely defective presentation, it is not our fault that this so necessary input explains their “Joint Declaration” away.

The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.

          As this commentary has so clearly brought to light from the very words used in this JD, not only the basic understanding of the Lutheran “doctrine on justification”, but also its ramifications are incompatible with the Catholic understanding and with its subsidiary teaching. The “remaining differences” are still the basic ones! The Lutheran position is not open to the Catholic one. It was maintained unexpurgated throughout.

Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent.

          Who says?... The Lutheran position as it came out in the body of this JD was accurately grasped by the Council of Trent. There is no “new light” in which to view the Council of Trent in the year 2000. Like all Councils of the Catholic Church, Trent is for all times and forever. The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration has been handed over and passed on unaltered since the 16th century. Only by a genuine conversion away from the Lutheran position will Lutherans and their ‘catholic’ defenders escape the rejections pronounced by Trent.

Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification. Some were not simply pointless. They remain for us "salutary warnings" to which we must attend in our teaching and practices.

          The final contradictions in the closing chapters of this agreement. How can the contributers say in 41: “The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent”, and in the same breath say in 42: “Nothing is thereby taken away from the seriousness of the condemnations related to the doctrine of justification?” Which of these two statements do the contributers want us to believe??? Do the rejections by Trent no longer apply as seen in “the new light”? Or are they still in place when viewed in the ‘old light’? As a careful analysis of this JD reveals to any attentive reader, the ‘basics’ have not changed.

Our consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification must come to influence the life and teachings of our churches. Here it must prove itself. In this respect, there are still questions of varying importance which need further clarification. These include, among other topics, the relationship between the Word of God and church doctrine, as well as ecclesiology, ecclesial authority, church unity, ministry, the sacraments, and the relation between justification and social ethics. We are convinced that the consensus we have reached offers a solid basis for this clarification. The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church will continue to strive together to deepen this common understanding of justification and to make it bear fruit in the life and teaching of the churches.

          The ‘covering’ and the gloss are now complete. A lot of non-justification topics are being mentioned here, but how can they be resolved if the basics of justification as grasped so accurately by the Council of Trent are still not resolved, as this JD brings out so clearly if studied seriously? The modernist ‘catholic theologians’ were either dumb and duped and had no grasp of the Lutheran faith, or they were deceivers themselves.

We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ's will.

          Vatican II, who gave us the “Decree on Ecumenism”, the “Declaration on Religious Liberty”, and “the Nature of the Church” in “Lumen Gentium” #8, clearly distinguishes between “separated brethren” and “the members of the Catholic Church”. [See Comment 27].

          These Notes, from (1) to (21), refer mainly to Protestant books or documents of earlier agreements. They have no standing in the Catholic Church and are totally useless for people who have no access to them. So they are left out here to save space.

          As is to be expected from all the foregoing, no Catholic sources can be quoted in support of this “Joint Declaration”. The few Catholic resources quoted in this large Section add to the confusion because, twisted from their authentic Catholic sense, they are being used to underpin Reformed doctrine to make it appear that a consensus with the Lutherans has actually been achieved. Since they are not available, they cannot be checked for accuracy. Or if they are merely referred to as Catholic sources as was the constant practice in the JD, without being quoted in full, they cannot be checked for accurate interpretation or for their accurate application.

          By far the bulk of these Resources are used to hammer home relentlessly the Lutheran ideas on justification, grace, merit, good works, etc. So, because the Catholic position cannot be verified for interpretation or application, and because the undiluted Lutheran doctrine does not interest any robust Catholics, these Resources too will be left out. I will send a photocopy of them to anyone on request.

          These ‘resources’ give a true indication of how the “One-World Church” will come into being.

On the basis of the agreements reached in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: "The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics" (JD 40). On the basis of this consensus the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church declare together: "The teaching of the Lutheran Churches presented in the Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from 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" (JD 41).

With reference to the Resolution on the Joint Declaration by the Council of the Lutheran World Federation of 16 June 1998 and the response to the Joint Declaration by the Catholic Church of 25 June 1998 and to the questions raised by both of them, the annexed statement (called "Annex") further substantiates the consensus reached in the Joint Declaration; thus it becomes clear that the earlier mutual doctrinal condemnations do not apply to the teaching of the dialogue partners as presented in the Joint Declaration.

          There is no genuine conversion in Card. Cassidy in relation to wrangles over doctrine when he signed a large part of the Deposit of Faith away with his above signature. But Card. Cassidy is not the Catholic Church as is so boldly claimed here. Ecumenism never consists in Catholics being hounded by non-Catholics and their modernist supporters who were never grounded in the Everlasting Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. This Joint Declaration does not “chime in, as by a pre-established harmony, with Divine Revelation.”
[Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, 1950]

The following elucidations underline the consensus reached in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD) regarding basic truths of justification; thus it becomes clear that the mutual condemnations of former times do not apply to the Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of justification as they are presented in the Joint Declaration.

          Before any “elucidations” have been given, it is already taken for granted that we accept one of their conclusions (“thus”): that “mutual condemnations” no longer hold. This shows how anxious these people are that we all agree that a genuine consensus has indeed been brought about. As all the foregoing has made so forcefully clear: no consensus even on the basic truths of justification has been reached.

"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works" (JD 15).

          If we go back to (15) we see that the wording used by the Lutherans is such that it must lead to that firm plank in their platform: arbitrariness in God, as in their faith (“passive acceptance”, 21) there is no criterion why God should give that grace to one and not to another, the most severe stumbling block for Catholic acceptance. 2 above echoes this arbitrariness in God. With his muddy feet Card. Cassidy walks all over that, obliterating the so necessary distinctions in his eagerness to be known as the first Cardinal in history to receive the honour of having signed the first “Joint Declaration”.

"We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin's enslaving power (...)" (JD 22). Justification is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous, through which God "imparts the gift of new life in Christ" (JD 22). "Since we are justified by faith we have peace with God" (Rom 5:1). We are called children of God; and that is what we are" (I Jn 3:1). We are truly and inwardly renewed by the action of the Holy Spirit, remaining always dependent on his work in us. "So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2 Cor 5:17). The justified do not remain sinners in this sense.

          This flatly contradicts the Lutheran doctrine of remaining “total sinners” after justification (29). What is being said here under A is not Lutheran doctrine. Meanwhile, these Catholic-sounding phrases fall far short of ‘covering’ the Lutheran fallacies, let alone correcting them, and the Lutherans know it! They know how far all these contributing Catholics have compromised themselves and Catholic doctrine while not yielding one inch themselves.

Yet we would be wrong were we to say that we are without sin (1 Jn 1:8-10, cf. JD 28). "All of us make many mistakes" (Jas 3:2). "Who is aware of his unwitting sins? Cleanse me of many secret faults" (Ps 19:12). And when we pray, we can only say, like the tax collector, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner" (Lk 18:13). This is expressed in a variety of ways in our liturgies. Together we hear the exhortation "Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions" (Rom 6:12). This recalls to us the persisting danger which comes from the power of sin and its action in Christians. To this extent, Lutherans and Catholics can together understand the Christian as simul justus et peccator, despite their different approaches to this subject as expressed in JD 29-30.

The concept of "concupiscence" is used in different senses on the Catholic and Lutheran sides. In the Lutheran Confessional writings concupiscence is understood as the self-seeking desire of the human being, which in light of the Law, spiritually understood, is regarded as sin. In the Catholic understanding concupiscence is an inclination, remaining in human beings even after baptism, which comes from sin and presses towards sin. Despite the differences involved here, it can be recognised from a Lutheran perspective that desire can become the opening through which sin attacks. Due to the power of sin the entire human being carries the tendency to oppose God. This tendency, according to both Lutheran and Catholic conception, "does not correspond to God's original design for humanity" (JD 30). Sin has a personal character and, as such, leads to separation from God. It is the selfish desire of the old person and the lack of trust and love toward God.

          This is wishy-washy stuff employed here to paper over the deep split that exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In 29 the Lutherans categorically declare that “they recognise that they remain also totally sinners” precisely because they declare of concupiscence that “this contradiction to God is as such truly sin”. Here Card. Cassidy makes out that “they don’t really mean it so strong. If we water their statements down a bit and we do the same with Catholic doctrine, we can meet each other half-way”. And that is precisely what has been going on right throughout this whole JD. The Lutherans have not watered down their doctrine, but their ‘catholic’ apologists have watered down both.

The reality of salvation in baptism and the peril from the power of sin can be expressed in such a way that, on the one hand, the forgiveness of sins and renewal of humanity in Christ by baptism is emphasized and, on the other hand, it can be seen that the justified also "are continuously exposed to the power of sin still pressing its attacks (cf. Rom 6:12-14) and are not exempt from a life-long struggle against the contradiction to God (...)" (JD 28).

          Catholics are gravely mistaken if they believe that the above is a true representation of Lutheran belief. There can be no talk of a truly “inward renewal” if people profess that they remain “totally sinners” after justification. Under those circumstances “belief in justification” only makes some sense if the believer “passively accepts” justification as being covered by Christ’s merits. Only then can such a human being remain “totally sinner” and “totally justified”(21, 29). Totality can never be watered down to only a part. If a Lutheran looks at Christ’s merit covering him, he believes himself as being “totally justified” There is no half measure in Christ. But if he looks at himself underneath that covering, he professes that at the same time he truly remains “totally sinner”. “In faith alone” and “mere passive” have come to be accepted in Lutheran belief as having the same meaning. This was never grasped by the ‘catholic supporters’ of this JD. Nor was the fact that, when both were talking about “inward renewal”, they were talking at cross purposes. Neither was it appreciated that there could be no consensus over this insurmountable hurdle no matter how far the ‘contributing catholics’ were prepared to overlook Lutheran belief and water down Catholic doctrine, as will come out now.

Justification takes place "by grace alone" (JD 15 and 16), by faith alone, the person is justified apart from works" (Rom 3:28, cf. JD 25). "Grace creates faith not only when faith begins in a person but as long as faith lasts" (Thomas Aquinas, S. Th. II/II 4, 4 ad , 3). The working of God's grace does not exclude human action: God effects everything, the willing and the achievement, therefore, we are called to strive (cf. Phil 2:12 95). "As soon as the Holy Spirit has initiated his work of regeneration and renewal in us through the Word and the holy sacraments, it is certain that we can and must cooperate by the power of the Holy Spirit..." (The Formula of Concord, FC SD II, 64f; BSLK 897, 37ff).

         For what does the Scripture say?

• “Abraham put his faith in Yahweh who counted this as making him justified.” (Gen. 15: 6)

• “Abraham put his faith in God and this faith was considered as justifying him.”(Rom. 4: 3)

• “Take Abraham for example: he put his faith in God and this faith was considered as justifying him.”(Gal. 3: 6)

          Now all these testimonies clearly speak of the one essential act that had to be performed: “Abraham put his faith in God,” an act he could have refused to perform. This is not a purely human act about which he could boast as having earned, merited justification for himself as his due, (wages), but is a supernatural act to which God had raised him up in order to obliterate any arbitrariness in God: that justification is granted by a merely passive faith. Faith is and remains a human act on the supernatural level. Nowhere in this JD is this clearly stated as being the Lutheran faith. On the contrary!

• “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.” (Hebr. 11:31)

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” [James 2:21-26].

          It is not this one, necessary, supernatural act of Faith which is condemned by St. Paul as useless, since a human being can refuse to perform this so necessary act on the refusal of which no “mere passive” justification takes place. God does not arbitrarily give “mere passive” faith, “mere passive” justification to one and not to another. And once this one, necessary, supernatural act of Faith has been made, then as Scripture says, God counts this (act of Faith) as making him justified. And not without it.

Grace as fellowship of the justified with God in faith, hope and love is always received from the salvific and creative work of God (cf. JD 27). But it is nevertheless the responsibility of the justified not to waste this grace but to live in it. The exhortation to do good works is the exhortation to practice the faith (cf. BSLK 197, 45). The good works of the justified "should be done in order to confirm their call, that is, lest they fall from their call by sinning again" (Apol. XX, 13, BSLK 316, 18?24, with reference to 2 Pet 1:10. Cf. also FC SD IV 33, BSLK 948, 9?23). In this sense Lutherans and Catholics can understand together what is said about the "preservation of grace" in JD 38 and 39. Certainly, whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it" (JD 25).

          This is dishonest talk to hide the fact of Catholic doctrine that good works must be done in order to grow in Faith, not only to just live in it, gathering mere passively-growing fruits. Faith without the good works to grow in it and make it stronger is dead.

By justification we are unconditionally brought into communion with God. This includes the promise of eternal life "If we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Rom 6:5, cf. Jn 3:36, Rom 8:17). In the final judgement, the justified will be judged also on their works (cf. Mt 16:27; 25:31-46; Rom 2:16; 14:12; 1 Cor 3:8; 2 Cor 5:10 etc.). We face a judgement in which God's gracious sentence will approve anything in our life and action that corresponds to his will. However, everything in our life that is wrong will be uncovered and will not enter eternal life. The Formula of Concord also states: "It is God's will and express command that believers should do good works which the Holy Spirit works in them, and God is willing to be pleased with them for Christ's sake and he promises to reward them gloriously in this and in the future life" (FC SD IV, 38). Any reward is a reward of grace, on which we have no claim.

          And so the double talk goes on and on until the great majority of human beings on earth has been gathered (coerced) into the “One-World Church”, ready for Anti-christ. If the above and what follows next would find their way into newspapers around the world (which eventually they will), the vast majority of their readers would not think twice to declare it to be an adequate description of St. Paul’s teaching. And why? Because they do not know enough Catholic doctrine, enough history, enough morality, enough Scripture to understand it properly, especially if bishops and cardinals go along with it as is the case here.

The doctrine of justification is measure or touchstone for the Christian faith. No teaching may contradict this criterion. In this sense, the doctrine of justification is an "indispensable criterion which constantly serves to orient all the teaching and practice of our churches to Christ" (JD 18). As such, it has its truth and specific meaning within the overall context of the Church's fundamental Trinitarian confession of faith. We "share the goal of confessing Christ in all things, who is to be trusted above all things as the one Mediator (I Tim 2:5-6) through whom God in the Holy Spirit gives himself and pours out his renewing gifts" (JD 18).

          90% of Catholics the world over no longer believe this just as it is no longer believed by Card. Edward I. Cassidy.

The Response of the Catholic Church does not intend to put in question the authority of Lutheran Synods or of the Lutheran World Federation. The Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation began the dialogue and have taken it forward as partners with equal rights (par cum Paris). Notwithstanding different conceptions of authority in the church, each partner respects the other partner's ordered process of reaching doctrinal decisions.