D.因信成义-靠信德还是靠善行得救? D3.因信称义联合声明被信义宗教会普遍接纳和承认
    天主教和世界信义宗经过长时间的讨论,最近在「因信成义/称义」的课题上达成共识,并于31/10/1999签署了「成义」教会的联合声明,并撇除了在马丁路德宗教改革时代互相加诸对方身上的谴责--即天主教脱利腾大公会议(亦称「天特会议」)对信义宗教导的谴责,及信义宗信条对天主教教导的谴责(声明第41号,详见下面的附注)。在四个多月的讨论中,误解者则常说全球第二大信义会(LCMS)反对这项声明,藉此减低这声明的认受性。小弟对此谨作出一些回应。

    世界信义宗(包括路德会在内)这么大,小弟不排除某些(或个别)信徒或团体对「因信称义」联合声明有不同的看法。在草签联合声明过程中信义宗教会内其中一名主要人物--世界信义宗联会合一研究中心主任迪特尔(TheodorDieter)曾接受香港公教报两次访问,17/9/2000公教报第21版就报导说:「声明的草案初稿于1995年120个成员教会(按:指信义宗教会)发出,并于96年在收回初步反应,及至1997年公布了声明的最后建议稿,留待信义宗成员教会表决。...即使是信义宗教会,彼此对声明也有不同意见,...信义宗联会的决定对个别成员教会没约束力,成员教会有权自行决定接纳声明与否,...迪特尔亦提及,在97年陆续收到信义宗教会的回覆,有的赞成,有的反对,有的赞成之余附加意见,有的可不容易去理解。当中有四分三成员教会回覆,约90间,它们代表了信义宗信总人数的九成。...」

    由此可见,即使有全球第二大信义会(LCMS)反对声明,但最后仍是通过并签署,这就反映出接受声明的内容是信义宗教会内主流(及大多数)的意见,该声明被信义宗教会普遍接纳和承认。

    在「天主教资讯小集」(www.elca.org/ea/jddj/jddj.html" target="_blank">http://www.cathlinks.org/)内的「合一的...」一项,有此联合声明的中文及英文译本,英译本亦可见于www.elca.org/ea/jddj/jddj.html

    附注

    「因信成义」联合声明第41号:「因此由十六世纪以来,两教教会就称义的部分而彼此作出教义上的谴责,有了新的亮光:在这声明中,信义宗教会的教导,不再受天特会议的谴责;同样,天主教的教导,在这声明里不再受信义宗信条的谴责。」(以上声明内容,译自信义宗戴浩辉牧师)

    其英文内容如下(第40及41号):

    40.TheunderstandingofthedoctrineofjustificationsetforthinthisDeclarationshowsthataconsensusinbasictruthsofthedoctrineofjustificationexistsbetweenLutheransandCatholics.Inlightofthisconsensustheremainingdifferencesoflanguage,theologicalelaboration,andemphasisintheunderstandingofjustificationdescribedinparagraphs18to39areacceptable.ThereforetheLutheranandtheCatholicexplicationsofjustificationareintheirdifferenceopentooneanotheranddonotdestroytheconsensusregardingbasictruths.

    41.Thusthedoctrinalcondemnationsofthe16thcentury,insofarastheyrelatetothedoctrineofjustification,appearinanewlight:TheteachingoftheLutheranchurchespresentedinthisDeclarationdoesnotfallunderthecondemnationsfromtheCouncilofTrent.ThecondemnationsintheLutheranConfessionsdonotapplytotheteachingoftheRomanCatholicChurchpresentedinthisDeclaration.

    以下是「因信成义」联合声明第40及41号的英文注释/commentary(取自「JOINTDECLARATIONONTHEDOCTRINEOFJUSTIFICATION.ACommentarybytheInstituteforEcumenicalResearch,Strasbourg」PublishedfortheInstituteforEcumenicalResearch,Strasbourg,bytheLutheranWorldFederation,OfficeforCommunicationServices):

    JD40and41summarizetheconclusionstobedrawnfromwhatisconfessedtogetherintheDeclarationandfromwhatissaidthereindividuallybyLutheransandCatholics.Theconclusionistwo-fold:first,theclaimofaconsensusinthebasictruthsofthedoctrineofjustification(JD40);andsecond,thejudgmentthatthedoctrinalcondemnationsoftheReformationeradonottouchtheteachingsoftheRomanCatholicandLutheranchurchesheredescribed(JD41).Thesetwoconclusionsgotogether.

    Ontheonehand,theassertionofaconsensusismorefar-reachingandcomprehensivethanthejudgmentthatcertaincondemnationsdonotapplytotheteachingoftheotherchurch.Personsmightforgocondemningtheteachingofanothergroupwithoutwishingorbeingabletosaythattheyareinconsensuswiththeothergroup.Thestatementthataconsensusexists,however,wouldbesenselessifthecondemnationsremaininplace.Consensusandcondemnationaremutuallyexclusive.

    Ontheotherhand,thedeclarationthatthesixteenthcenturycondemnationsdonotapplytothecontemporaryteachingoftheotherchurchinacertainsensepresupposestheconsensus.PreciselybecausewehavediscoveredsomuchincommonbetweenthedifferentlyshapedLutheranandCatholicteachingsonjustification,weneednotandcannotcontinueinthejudgmentthattheother'sdoctrinecorruptsthegospelandsoischurch-dividing.

    Tospeakofconsensusisnottodenytheexistingdifferences,buttheinsightintotheextensivecommonalitiesdomakepossibleanewestimateoftheirsignificance.Itisthusofgreatimportancethatthis「consensusinfundamentals」isnotlocatedinapre-linguisticdepthbutisdescribedinadifferentiatedway.Spiritualcontentisneverwithoutlinguisticform.TheCatholicandLutherandoctrinesofjustificationdospeakpartiallydifferentlanguages,sometimesusingdifferentconcepts,sometimesusingthesamewordindifferentways,sometimesdrawingdifferentdistinctions.Nevertheless,thatwhichiscommonandfundamentalisexpressedintheJDinacommonlanguage(cp.EspeciallyJD15-18,19,22,25,28,31,34,37).

    Sinceitwouldbeself-contradictorytoclaimaconsensuswithoutalsostatingthatthepastcondemnationsofeachother’steachingsarenolongerapplicable,theexplicitstatementofthisnon-applicability(asinJD41)isanessentialaspectofestablishingthataconsensusexists.Conversely,thedeclarationofnon-applicabilitypresupposestheconsensusclaimedinJD40.JD40andJD41thusconditioneachother.

    本文最后修改日期:2001年9月12日