Co-Redemptrix
and Sola Fide: The Ecumenical Fortunes
of
Two Theological Controversies
by
Philip Blosser
Three
years after the ground-breaking initiative, “Evangelicals and Catholics
Together,” or “ECT” (1994), another evangelical-Catholic joint statement,
“The Gift of Salvation,” appeared in print for the first time last fall in Christianity
Today (12/8/97). This happened
within weeks of the hullabaloo sparked by Newsweek’s
irresponsible feature speculating that the Pope was preparing to infallibly
declare Mary co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces.
The near coincidence of these two events got me thinking about the
ecumenical concerns at issue in each of them.
Both involve matters of intense sensitivity and concern to evangelical
Protestants and Catholics, issues that evoke tenacious loyalties and have proven
historically divisive—questions which ecumenically-minded members of both
traditions are eager to see settled in interest of Christian unity.
Both the question of justification and the question of Mary pose similar
challenges and rewards to ecumenical progress and mutual understanding—and
fates that could turn out to be as much alike as their concerns are different.
“The
Gift of Salvation” was seen as a necessary follow-up to ECT after it was
determined (two years later in 1996) that further evangelical-Catholic
rapprochement depended upon a firm agreement on the meaning of salvation, and
especially justification. In many
ways the statement is a remarkably ambitious undertaking, which aims to cut
through to the basic essentials and resolve in a few short paragraphs the
theological conflicts of several centuries.
A key passage is one in which the authors define faith as “not merely
intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the
will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life.”
This is immediately followed by the assertion: “We understand that what
we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant
by justification by faith alone (sola fide).”
The
document quite naturally garners Protestant support, not only by its notable
affirmation (for Catholics) of “sola
fide,” but by clearly and repeatedly affirming the basic Reformation
principle that justification, like salvation itself, is from first to last a
work of God’s grace—an affirmation, by the way, that should surprise no one
who recalls the Council of Trent’s own statement that “nothing that precedes
justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification”
(session 6, ch. 8). Furthermore,
the document recalls an observation made in the “Common Statement” that
emerged from the joint Lutheran/Catholic dialogues on justification by faith
(1978-83): “The Tridentine decree on justification, with its own way of
insisting on the primacy of grace . . . is not necessarily incompatible with the
Lutheran doctrine of sola fide, even
though Trent excluded this phrase” (§ 56).
But
what is really exceptional about “The Gift of Salvation” is that it avoids
the chief traditional Catholic objection to sola
fide by defining “faith alone” in such a way that it is not “alone”
in the sense of being “merely intellectual assent.”
Neither is it the faith that is without works and therefore dead (James
2:17), nor the faith of demons who “believe and shudder” (James 2:19), nor
the faith that is just one of the three theological virtues, to which hope and
charity may be added (1 Corinthians 13:13).
The concept of “justification by faith alone” does not here mean what
it means in the canons of Trent, for example, where it is declared anathema.
Rather it the faith that Paul links with justification, involving not
“merely intellectual assent,” but also repentance, faith, hope and
charity—or what he calls “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6).
In short, this brief
document—the product of much study, discussion, and prayer—is a model of
ecumenical good-will and imagination, a tremendous gift to evangelical
Protestants and Catholics sincerely seeking healing and unity in our day, and an
invitation to reconsider the historically sensitive issues involved in the
doctrine of justification in a new, kinder, gentler light.
Against this background, it will be illuminating to see what may be
learned from examining the recent controversy surrounding the role of Mary,
before revisiting the question of justification with a further analysis.
Turning
to the question of Mary, the near-panic created by Newsweek’s big splash about the possibility of new Marian dogmas
was caused as much (for Catholics) by the misinformation and misunderstanding
fostered by the media’s rumor-mongering and theologically misinformed
speculations, as (for evangelicals) by the apparent scandal of the very
suggestion of calling Mary “co-redemptrix,” “advocate,” or “mediatrix
of all graces.”
While
certain of these titles may be of relatively late invention, such as “co-redemptrix,”
which seems to have first appeared, in print anyway, in the fourteenth century,
any well-informed student of Mariology would be hard-pressed to deny that the
ideas behind the titles are well-grounded in Catholic tradition, with precedents
going back even to the patristic period. Various
Mariologists have also noted that magisterial support for this understanding of
Mary’s roles has been on-going. For
example, Mark Miravalle, head of Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (Voice of the
People for Mary Mediatrix), the international group promoting the definitions,
has observed that popes such as Pius XI and John Paul II have used the title
“co-redemptrix” repeatedly during their pontificates, and that the Second
Vatican Council used the titles and roles of “Mediatrix” and “Advocate”
in referring to Mary. Indeed,
anyone following the Pope’s Wednesday audience addresses over the past year
will have noticed that he devoted considerable time to clarifying the Church’s
understanding of Mary’s cooperative, mediative role, not only as mother of the
Redeemer, but in her spiritual maternity as intercessor and mother of the
Church.
Yet significant concerns have also
been voiced, even by those who acknowledge that the proposed definitions are not
heterodoxy. Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus
wrote last fall, “I believe a theological case can be made for the
appropriateness of such Marian titles.” He
then immediately proceeded to add: “As Cardinal Newman and others said of
another definition of dogma in the nineteenth century, however, I also believe
such a step would be ‘inopportune,’ in the extreme” (First
Things, 11/97, p. 77).
What do Catholics see as the problem?
Some have expressed the concern that Catholics themselves could be
confused by a dogmatic definition of the titles at this time. It is true, certainly, that the Catholic press has done very
little to educate and offer them a balanced and objective presentation of the
theological discussion. But
“confused Catholics” are nothing new. Many
are confused about Church teaching on contraception, abortion, women priests,
and the like. A dogmatic definition
would seem to offer an occasion for clarifying rather than confusing the issue.
More likely is the claim that certain persisting ambiguities in the
titles themselves might be confusing. Fr.
Avery Dulles, for example, who has been reported widely as voicing his
opposition to calls for a new Marian dogma, points out that it remains unclear
whether declaring Mary “mediatrix of all graces” would mean all prayers must
be channeled through Mary. Yet even
Dulles admits that denying Mary the title of “advocate” altogether would
mean rejecting the well-established doctrine of the intercession of the saints.
In any case, the existence of
ambiguities and possibilities of misunderstanding have not prevented many
reputable Church leaders, including Cardinal John O’Connor of New York and
Archbishop Christoph Schönborn of Vienna (general editor of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church), from endorsing the call for a new dogmatic
definition—indeed, apparently along with more than 500 other bishops,
including 42 cardinals, and 4.5 million Catholics from over 155 countries.
The persistence of popular support, even after the Vatican commission’s
recommendation against dogmatic definition, indicates the special fervor with
which many Catholics adhere to the body of traditional beliefs signified by the
Marian titles.
The
most serious problem seems to be, rather, that giving Mary these titles by
dogmatic definition would provoke, in Dulles’ words, “great ecumenical
dismay.” Since the Second Vatican
Council, of course, ecumenism has become a major item on the Church’s agenda.
In fact, one of the pronounced and defining undercurrents of the Vatican
Council II documents is precisely the desire to promote ecumenical unity and
reconciliation. A significant
purpose of the liturgical renewal mandated by the council, for example, was
“to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ,” so
that the liturgy might be “a sign under which the scattered children of God
may be gathered together until there is one fold and one shepherd.” (Sacrosanctum
Concilium, 1, 2). This same
intention animates the council’s treatment of Mary, which stressed that the
proper course of Marian devotion is not to heap up additional privileges and
exemptions that distinguish her from other Christians but to incorporate our
understanding of Mary every more fully into the life of discipleship as the icon
of the Church.
Even the composition of the
theological commission called to discuss the proposed titles during the 12th
International Mariological Congress in Czestochowa, Poland (1996), underlined
the Vatican’s concern with ecumenism: the panel of fifteen theologians
included an Anglican, a Lutheran, and three Orthodox members.
The commission stated, among other things, that its members,
“especially the non-Catholics, were sensitive to the ecumenical difficulties
which would be involved in such a definition” (L’Osservatore
Romano, 6/4/97).
In
short, a major problem with these Marian titles is that they scandalize most
Protestants. Calling Mary
“co-redemptrix” sounds as if Mary is being put on equal footing with Christ,
usurping his exclusive title as Redeemer. Calling
her “advocate” or “mediatrix” looks like a direct contradiction of the
scripture that declares: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5), or the one that says:
“we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ” (1 John 2:1).
Never mind that no such confusion is
intended by the Marian titles. Never
mind that Jesus is never envisioned as a “co-redeemer” alongside Mary, since
he alone is the Redeemer (and her
Redeemer!), whereas she merely participates in his work to the extent that God
allows his whole plan of redemption to hinge upon her willing cooperation.
Never mind that none of these titles signifies more than a highly
elevated sense of such cooperation as we, too, may exercise by participating in
Christ’s redemptive work, by sharing in his ministry of healing,
reconciliation, evangelism, and intercessory prayer, by leading others to
Christ, by praying for them, serving as mediators of God’s grace in their
lives as God’s “co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9).
Despite all of this, the problem is that the Marian language remains
confusing for the vast majority of Protestants.
It simply sounds wrong to them, or at least confusing.
And in light of the ecumenical progress made on various other fronts
since the Second Vatican Council, the prospect of a dogmatic definition of the
titles seems, as Fr. Neuhaus says, borrowing Cardinal Newman’s term,
“inopportune.”
By
way of summary, the following may be noted.
On the one hand, despite opposition, reputable Church leaders and groups
of lay proponents have rallied in support of the proposed definition of Marian
titles, often with considerable fervor. Even
Catholic theologians who are opposed to it admit that a theological case can be
made for the appropriateness of the titles.
On the other hand, the proposal has provoked the opposition, not only of
Protestants, but of Catholics, because of alleged ambiguities, possible
confusions, and especially the “great ecumenical dismay” that the titles
would engender because of their prima facie offensiveness to Protestants.
With these observations in view, it will be instructive to revisit the
question of justification, focusing particularly on the language of “faith
alone” (sola fide) agreed upon in “The Gift of Salvation.”
Returning to “The Gift of
Salvation,” it is apparent that the Catholic signers of the document believed
that, whatever the difficulties involved, a theological case could be made for
affirming justification in the language of “faith alone.”
As we have seen, the “Common Statement” from the Lutheran/Catholic
dialogues of 1978-83 on justification provides an important precedent in terms
of a Catholic concession that Trent’s decree on justification “is not
necessarily incompatible with the Lutheran doctrine of sola
fide.” So whatever problems may be found in the “faith alone”
formula, it is evidently capable of being understood in a manner compatible with
traditional Catholic teaching. This
was also affirmed, at least implicitly, in the joint declaration on the doctrine
of justification drafted in Geneva in 1995 between The Lutheran World Federation
and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and in the similar
Lutheran/Catholic statements of 1997 and since, as well as in the mutual
assertion that differences on justification by faith are not
“church-dividing.”
The breakthrough represented by
“The Gift of Salvation” doubtless came as a considerable relief and cause
for rejoicing among ecumenically-minded evangelicals for whom sola
fide remained the chief sticking point in discussions with Catholics.
Accordingly, when “The Gift of Salvation” was first published in Christianity
Today, it appeared together with an introduction written for the
magazine’s evangelical readership by its senior advisor, Timothy George, which
included the words: “We rejoice that our Roman Catholic interlocutors have
been able to agree with us that the doctrine of justification set forth in this
document agrees with what the Reformers meant by justification by faith alone (sola
fide)” (Christianity Today, 12/8/97).
“Faith
alone,” of course, was one of the three rallying points of the Protestant
Reformation—along with “scripture alone” (sola
scriptura) and “grace alone” (sola
gratia). Even today, religious
leaders and theologians within the evangelical Protestant community will rally
in defense of the “faith alone” language if they perceive that their
historic, Reformation principles are being jeopardized, either by external
incursion or internal erosion. One
of the chief reasons for the initiative behind “The Gift of Salvation” was
precisely the jeopardy perceived by some evangelicals to lie in the lack of a
clear affirmation of sola fide in the
ECT statement of 1994. A prominent
evangelical, R.C. Sproul, went so far as to personally contact one of signers of
ECT, noted Reformed theologian, J.I. Packer, to try to change his decision about
signing the statement. Packer later
defended his decision in an article, “Why I Signed It,” in Christianity Today (12/12/94).
Sproul also says he contacted Charles Colson. In his editorial column in Tabletalk
(11/94), he concludes about the matter: “The Colson-Neuhaus document did not
cause disunity but exposed a serious rift within evangelicalism.”
There are, of course, even more tenacious opponents of ETC in
conservative, fundamentalist circles. Dave
Hunt, for example, writing in Voice:
Journal of the Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America (July/August
1994), declares that “the document represents the most devastating blow
against the gospel in at least 1,000 years.”
None of this should surprise us when we remember that it was not in the
theological backwaters of fundamentalism but the mainstream of the Protestant
Reformation that sola fide was
declared to be the articulus stantis et
cadentis ecclesiae (the doctrine by which the Church stands or falls).
Yet the theology of sola
fide has provoked controversy within the ranks of the Protestant tradition
itself. Noted Lutheran theologian,
Carl Braaten, citing the milestone work Iustitia
Dei by Anglican Alister McGrath, writes: “McGrath’s discussion of the
history of the doctrine of justification in the periods of the Reformation,
orthodoxy, and pietism makes it clear that those who have adhered to the formula
‘justification by faith alone’ have sometimes understood opposite things by
it. It seems ironic and even
embarrassing that the very theological tradition which has affirmed the article
by which the church stands or falls has been so confused and void of inner
harmony on this doctrine . . . It
is no wonder that, weary of all such controversies, theologians sought formulae
of concord that only served to conceal a fatal flaw lurking in the understanding
of justification” (Justification: The
Article By Which The Church Stands or Falls, pp. 21-23).
Protestant discord over the meaning
of “faith alone” is by no means a merely historical matter.
The latest incarnation of the conflict among evangelicals is the
“Lordship Salvation” controversy ignited by Dallas Theological Seminary
professor Zane Hodges’ book, The Gospel Under Siege (1981), which claimed that the pure gospel of
justification by faith alone was under
siege by fellow-evangelicals who insisted that justification requires accepting
Christ as Lord, and not merely as Savior. Writing
from the Dispensational, Arminian tradition popularized by Lewis Sperry Chafer,
Charles Ryrie and the Scofield Reference
Bible, Hodges argued that justification is unconditionally free, involving
“no spiritual commitment whatsoever,” and that any insistence upon
repentance, discipleship, change of life, or growth in sanctification as
necessary for salvation results in the Gospel getting lost in legalism.
This provoked a sharp Calvinist
response from John MacArthur Jr. in The
Gospel According to Jesus (1988). A
strongly-worded book with forewords by James Montgomery Boice of Tenth
Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia and J.I. Packer, it attacked Hodges’ view
as antinomian, dangerous, and heretical. It
insisted that faith that is “alone”—in the sense of a faith that doesn’t
“work,” a faith without repentance, discipleship, or sanctification—cannot
be considered justifying faith. Hodges
fired back a response in another book, Absolutely
Free! (1989), attacking the “Lordship salvation” of MacArthur and his
Calvinist associates for its “legalism” and “works-righteousness.”
This in turn called forth further rebuttals by J.I. Packer, MacArthur,
and James Montgomery Boice, as summarized in R.C. Sproul’s monthly, Tabletalk
(6/91).
In
some ways, the language of “faith alone” seems prone to certain
misunderstandings and conflicting interpretations, as does the language of the
Marian titles. The difficulty here,
however, is not only that of formulating a theological rationale so as to avoid
historical misunderstandings by Catholics, but that of lacking any clear
consensus among Protestants themselves. One
problem, to be sure, is that the language superficially does seem to suggest
that the only decisive thing in our being accepted by God is our belief
in him, and that repentance and a life of obedience are of secondary or
negligible importance. It may be no
accident that the Lutheran martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, felt pressed during the
Nazi era to caution his fellow-Lutherans about the cost
of discipleship and dangers of “cheap grace.”
In our own day, the antinomian temptation tugs at us from every side, not
only in the sophistical subjectivizing of the faith in many mainline Protestant
institutions, but also in the pedestrian libertinism of fraternity boys heading
off for weekends of naughtiness with bravado cries, echoing Luther’s behest to
“sin boldly.”
But
even where Protestantism avoids such egregious abuses in the name of retrieving
the Gospel of grace from the shackles of abusive sixteenth-century legalism,
there is far from being any clear consensus even as to the importance of “justification by faith alone.”
In a notable article a few years ago entitled “Protestant Reformation
and Universal Church” (First Things, 3/95, pp. 68-70), Fr. Neuhaus responded to a complaint
in Christianity Today by Alister
McGrath concerning the new Catholic Catechism’s silence about this central
tenet of the Reformation. Neuhaus
replied: “The claim that ‘justification by faith alone’ is the articulus
stantis et cadentis ecclesiae (the doctrine by which the Church stands or
falls) is a distinctly minority position among Protestants who call themselves
evangelicals.” Evangelicals in
the various Holiness, Wesleyan, and Arminian traditions are, he suggested, much
closer to the Catholic understanding of the relationship between justification
and sanctification than they are to “the relatively small number” of
Lutheran and Calvinist theologians “who are exercised by a sixteenth-century
dispute over ‘justification by faith alone.’”
In
other words, the concept of sola fide
registers almost no significance whatsoever in the lives and theology of the
vast majority of Christians throughout the world. C.S. Lewis’s Mere
Christianity, for example, never once refers to the “faith alone”
formula. Catholic tradition hardly
takes notice of it. Neuhaus
continued: “the fact is that—historically and theologically—the disputes
with Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, and others in the sixteenth century is
far from being the most formative experience in the Church’s understanding of
her faith, life, and worship.” While
the sixteenth century may be the defining moment in the identity of Lutherans
and Calvinists as Protestants, to be a
Catholic is not not to be a
Protestant. Furthermore, he noted,
“formulations such as ‘justification by faith alone’ are no part of
Orthodox experience,” that is, of the experience of the second-largest
configuration of Christians in the world today.
In summary, the following may be
noted concerning the sola fide formulation of “The Gift of Salvation.”
On the one hand, it is now a matter of public record that Catholics
believe sola fide is capable of being
interpreted in a manner compatible with Catholic teaching.
On the other hand, it is also a matter of public record that Protestants
have no clear consensus as to what they mean by it, have sometimes understood
conflicting and even contradictory things by it, and are divided even as to its
doctrinal importance. Finally, it
plays a negligible role in the history of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
This
leads to a number of concluding observations.
First, if it turns out that Rome continues to find persistent reasons
against the proposed dogmatic definition of Marian titles, it should come as no
surprise that Rome may find little warrant for ever considering a dogmatic
definition of sola fide.
Whatever “ecumenical dismay” the Marian titles may engender, at least
they are comparatively unproblematic for Catholics in that they are grounded in
a relatively coherent Catholic tradition of Marian theology by means of which
Protestant misunderstandings can be explained and confusions corrected—and the
Catholic Church has an authoritative Magisterium for that purpose.
The same cannot be said for the checkered past of sola
fide in the history of Protestant interpretation.
Second, there is a tremendous irony
in the Catholic posture towards the two issues in question.
Just as the desire to avoid causing “great ecumenical dismay” appears
to be the strongest motive behind Catholic opposition
to the Marian titles, so it also seems to be the chief
motive behind Catholic willingness to accommodate the Protestant formula of “sola fide.” In each
case, the motive in question has led Catholics to seek a broader common ground
with evangelical Protestants, at the cost of holding in abeyance or
reformulating uniquely and traditionally Catholic theological positions for the
sake of ecumenical unity. Catholics
may think this laudable in one respect: ecumenical progress sometimes seems
possible only when each side is willing to risk some uprooting and reconfiguring
of its own traditional formulations. Yet
there is an enormous irony in how the Catholic side is going about this.
On the one hand, it is downplaying the Marian issues in interest of
promoting ecumenical unity, even though the difficulties involved in them are
comparatively negligible within the Catholic context, and perfectly capable of
being explained.
On the other hand, it is bending over backwards to accommodate a
Protestant formulation, “sola fide,” which is fraught with difficulties, which not even
Protestants are agreed upon, and which has no recognized place whatsoever in the
history of Catholic and Orthodox teaching.
It is not entirely clear what is
gained by such accommodations. If a
joint statement such as “The Gift of Salvation” brings each side to see that
the other does not deny but affirms a definite article of faith that it holds to
be essential, this represents a considerable breakthrough.
One positive result is the fraternal good will and unanimity of at least
those ecumenically-minded participants in the joint endeavor and their
supporters and constituents. Yet no
group of Protestants can, by the very nature of the case, speak for the whole of
Protestantism, and it is clear from the foregoing discussion that not even all
evangelicals are agreed upon what sola
fide means. Hence, the positive
result of securing unanimity with one group of evangelical Protestants may be
achieved at the cost of alienating others.
Still another danger is that such
accommodations may have the unintended effect of papering-over unresolved
historical differences in the minds of various constituencies. The evangelical
readers of Christianity Today, for
example, were introduced to “The Gift of Salvation” by Timothy George’s
remark, “We rejoice that our Roman Catholic interlocutors have been able to
agree with us that the doctrine of justification set forth in this document
agrees with what the Reformers meant by justification by faith alone (sola
fide).” One wonders what this means to the readers of Christianity
Today. They could easily
conclude that the Catholics finally had seen the light and come around to the
Protestant view. This supposition
would be relatively harmless, even if not quite accurate, were it only a matter
of the breakthrough in understanding that evidently had been achieved.
After all, the Catholics had
agreed with them on certain basic evangelical truths.
But they would be under a serious misapprehension and possibly in for a
rude awakening if they assumed that the Catholics, in assenting to this
statement, had abandoned their Church’s traditional teaching on the subject,
including the importance of the “obedience of faith” and of “works” in
justification (James 2:24). The
prospect of such misunderstanding presents serious difficulties, if for no other
reason, because there is probably no disappointment so profound as that of the
party which believes, even mistakenly, that it has been precipitously romanced
into an ecumenical relationship under false pretenses.
Evidence of Catholic good will and
eagerness to be accommodating for the sake of ecumenical unity must be
accompanied by evidence of Catholic concern for complete candor and
truthfulness. This is not merely a
matter of avoiding compromise. All
will agree that truth must never be sacrificed for unity.
Evangelicals are in dead earnest about this; as is Pope John Paul II, who
wrote in his encyclical on ecumenism, Ut
Unum Sint (That They May Be One): “In matters of faith, compromise is in
contradiction with God, who is Truth.” But
the problem involves more than avoiding compromise, because those involved in
ecumenical dialogue can avoid compromise, strictly speaking, and still leave the
impression that they are being less than forthright by brushing aside
controversial details and settling on agreeable generalities.
But as noted Presbyterian theologian Cornelius Van Til used to tell his
students at Westminster Theological Seminary, genuine progress in doctrinal
development comes only with movement in the direction of greater detail and
refinement, not in the direction of greater generalization
and condensation. The same
is no less true in ecumenical discussion. Even
without intending to do so, it is possible to mislead by settling for
oversimplifying generalities.
Addressing the question of Marian
doctrine, the Vatican II fathers warned theologians to carefully refrain from
whatever might “lead the separated brethren or any others whatsoever into
error about the true doctrine of the Church” (Lumen
Gentium, 67). The same warning
is well-taken in consideration of every aspect and every theme of ecumenical
discussion. For symbolic unanimity
to grow into substantial unanimity over time, it will be necessary for those
concerned with the theological substance of the discussions to probe beneath the
amalgamations of the latest joint-declarations and to sift through the
implications and work out the details. To
assert this is not to throw a damper on the enthusiasm of the ecumenical
avant-garde. Rather, it is to
remind ourselves that the promise of our Lord was that his Holy Spirit would
guide us into “all truth,” and that submitting to that guidance requires
humility, patience, discernment, and a lot of hard work.
Copyright © 1998 Philip Blosser.
All rights reserved.
A revised version of this article was published under the title, “Walking
the Ecumenical Tightrope" in
This Rock 9, No. 10 (Oct. 1998),
pp. 13-18.