Conference on the 500th Anniversary of Martin Luther’s Posting of the
Ninety–Five Theses
Catholic University of America, Washington, 30 May 2017
Martin Luther’s Reformation and the Unity of the Church:
A Catholic Perspective in Light of the Lutheran˗Catholic Dialogue
“While we are profoundly thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation, we also confess and lament before Christ that Lutherans and Catholics have wounded the visible unity of the Church”. With these words in the Joint Declaration they signed during the ecumenical prayer service on the occasion of the Catholic and Lutheran commemoration of the Reformation in the Lutheran Cathedral in Lund on 31 October 2016,[1] Pope Francis and Bishop Munib Younan, the President of the Lutheran World Federation, gave expression to what we can jointly say today from an ecumenical perspective about the 16th century Reformation. In the foreground, one finds on the one hand gratitude for all that the Reformation brought about as regards positive religious and theological insights and which Lutherans and Catholics can jointly testify today, and on the other hand confession of guilt and repentance in view of the fact that the Reformation did not at that time lead to the renewal of the Church but to schism. The accents can certainly be placed differently here: Lutheran Christians will in the first instance connect the Reformation with the rediscovery of the gospel of mankind’s justification solely through God’s grace and its acceptance in faith. Catholic Christians are accustomed to associate the Reformation particularly with schism and the lost unity of the church. But even if the accents are placed differently, both accents belong indissolubly together in any Reformation commemoration today. This is also expressed in the title of the document drafted by the Lutheran–Roman Catholic Commission on Unity with a view to the joint Reformation commemoration in 2017, bearing the significant title “From Conflict to Communion”.[2] A joint Reformation commemoration must take the conflict as seriously as the communion, and above all make a contribution towards enabling Lutheran and Catholic Christians to progress along the path from conflict to communion.
1. Rediscovered community in the faith
In the first place we must express a word of gratitude, especially since in 2017 we commemorate not only 500 years of the Reformation but also 50 years of intensive dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics, in which we have been privileged to discover how much we have in common. This dialogue is not only the first that the Catholic Church commenced immediately after the Second Vatican Council but also the one that over the past half century has proved very fruitful. It has facilitated on the Catholic side a more positive view of the Reformation and on the Lutheran side a more nuanced view of the circumstances of western Christianity in the late Middle Ages.
a) Revision of the Catholic image of Luther
The path from conflict to communion began above all with a critical reappraisal overcoming the traditional negative image of Martin Luther in the Catholic Church.[3] An extremely polemical image had been presented and propagated already in his lifetime by Johannes Cochläus, who in his “Commentaria de actis et scriptis Martini Lutheri” in 1549 – just three years after Luther’s death – incriminated Luther as destroyer of the unity of the Church, corrupter of morals and impudent revolutionary “who had through his heresies plunged countless souls into ruin and brought unending misery to Germany and the whole of Christendom”.[4] This negative view remained one of the most important references of the Catholic image of Luther for centuries. Its after–effects were still evident at the beginning of last century in the work of the Dominican Heinrich Suso Denifle, who did in fact locate Luther in a positive perspective in the context of scholastic theology, but still raised the old polemics once more, claiming above all that Luther had invented the doctrine of justification through faith and not through works – which certainly forms the crux of his theological thought – solely for the purpose of “being able to feel all the more carefree and secure while living his dissolute life”.[5]
The historic breakthrough to a more positive and at least more nuanced image of Luther within Catholic research on him was achieved by the Church historian Joseph Lortz, who has rendered a great service through his thorough historical research into the Reformation in Germany in particular,[6] which has been well–received in ecumenical discussion.[7] In the light of the biblical, liturgical and ecumenical movement between the two World Wars, Lortz described the great religious impulses by which Luther was guided; he characterised Luther as a monk who took his Christian life and his life in orders very seriously. Against the background of the crisis of the Church and theology in the late Middle Ages he responded with great theological understanding to Luther’s critique, and on that basis formulated his now famous thesis that “Luther had in his own person wrestled into submission a Catholicism that was not Catholic.”[8] This view can be understood as a decisive turning point in the struggle for an historically adequate and theologically appropriate image of Luther in the Catholic Church. Closely connected with this is the perception of Luther as deeply rooted within Catholic
thinking, and thence the rediscovery of the “Catholic Luther”[9] as it were, and the unlocking of his ecumenical significance.[10] On the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth in 1983, in conjunction with an evaluation of the essential concerns of the Reformer, the Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission in ecumenical communion gave expression to this positive view with the conviction: “Christians, whether Lutheran or Catholic, cannot disregard the person and the message of this man.” Luther’s particular ecumenical significance was honoured with the title “Witness to the gospel”.[11]
This new view of Martin Luther also received official ecclesial affirmation when the second president of the then Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, spoke very positively of Martin Luther in his keynote address to the fifth General Assembly of the Lutheran World Federation in Evian-les-Bains in 1970, in the conviction that “a more just assessment of the person and work of Martin Luther” on the Catholic side was a necessary path “towards restoring lost unity”. In this basic attitude Cardinal Willebrands acknowledged the Reformer as a “teacher of the faith”: “He may be a shared teacher for us in the fact that God must always be the Lord and that our most important human response has to remain absolute trust and reverence of God.”[12]
This positive estimation of Luther has subsequently been taken up by various popes. In his message on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth, Pope John Paul II referred to the scholarly endeavours of Lutheran and Catholic researchers in which “Luther’s deep religiosity, driven by a burning passion for the question of eternal salvation” has been convincingly demonstrated.[13] And in the year of the 450th anniversary of the death of the Reformer, Pope John Paul II paid a special tribute to Luther’s “attentiveness towards the word of God and the high value of his demand for a scriptural theology and his will for a spiritual renewal of the Church”.[14] Pope Benedict XVI went even further during his visit to the former Augustinian Convent in Erfurt where Luther had studied theology and been ordained to the priesthood, in highlighting the passionate search for God in the life and work of Martin Luther: “What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey.”[15] Pope Benedict at the same time stressed that Luther was not simply searching for any God, but believed in the God who has shown us his face in the man Jesus of Nazareth, and that he therefore expressed his concrete and profound passionate search for God in the Christocentrism of his spirituality and theology. This emphasis on the centrality of the question of God and on Christocentrism as the heart’s concern of the Christian, theologian, and Reformer Martin Luther, rounds out the image of Luther in the Catholic Church. We would therefore be happy to endorse Cardinal Walter Kasper’s opinion when he calls the decision to celebrate the Reformation commemoration as a “joint celebration of Christ” as the “best ecumenical idea I know of for the year 2017.”[16]
b) The more nuanced Protestant view of the late Middle Ages
The positive endeavours on the Catholic side are matched by welcome developments on the Lutheran side, above all towards a more nuanced evaluation of the late Middle Ages and the situation of the Catholic Church at that time. In the first instance, of course, we must remember that the negative and polemical image of Luther in the tradition of the Catholic Church is also to be understood as a reaction to the mirror–image heroic view of Luther in the Protestant tradition, as it came to light in the Reformation celebrations in particular.[17] That is especially true of the first centennial celebration of the beginning of the Reformation in 1617, which was imbued with a spirit of anti–Catholic polemics and aggressive rhetoric, as Luther was seen above all as the champion against Rome and in particular the papacy, from which he had liberated Christianity. Pietism revered Luther as the great religious genius, and in the age of Enlightenment he was glorified as the liberator from the gloom of the Middle Ages and the founder of the modern period. During the Reformation celebration in 1917 Luther was not only celebrated as the creator of the German language, but also as the personification of the authentic German. Even in the immediate aftermath of the European catastrophe of the First World War the Protestant theologian Adolf von Harnack was able to claim outright that modernity had begun in Germany and had radiated throughout the world from there: “Modernity began with Luther’s Reformation, and indeed it was the hammer blows on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on the 31st of October 1517 which initiated it.”[18]
Such characterisations of Luther as a heroic figure in the most diverse contexts are no longer possible today even in Protestant history writing. For it has become clear on the one hand that Martin Luther himself was far more deeply rooted in the feeling and thinking of the medieval world than has previously been admitted. This location is evident in his life, above all in his predominantly apocalyptic tone, in which he saw himself placed in the midst of the final eschatological battle between Christ and the Antichrist, and therefore not only discovered the Antichrist in the Pope but also saw the devil at work in most of his opponents.[19] Against this background it has finally become possible even for Protestant history writing to objectively put a name to the dark sides in the life and work of Martin Luther, such as his demeaning and spiteful utterances about Jews,[20] his vehement attacks against the peasants during the Peasant War, and his advocacy and theological justification of the persecution of the Anabaptists by the Lutheran authorities, with the result that the Free Church traditions see themselves not as subjects of the Lutheran Reformation but as its victims.[21] Finally, one must not forget his increasingly crude attacks against the Catholic Church and above all against the papacy, such as his invective against the Council of Trent, which sinks to a nadir which can hardly be rivalled: “We should take him – the pope, the cardinals, and whatever riffraff belongs to His Idolatrous and Papal Holiness – and (as blasphemers) tear out their tongues from the back, and nail them on the gallows in the order in which they hang their seals on the bulls … Then one could allow them to hold a council, or as many as they wanted, on the gallows, or in hell among all the devils.”[22]
At this point however, the accent is to be placed on the fact that it has become clear in Protestant history writing that Luther himself was deeply grounded both existentially and theologically in the Middle Ages, and indeed within the mystical and monastic tradition of the late Middle Ages. This is true above all with respect to Bernard of Clairvaux, in whose work Luther’s interpretation of Holy Scripture as the encounter between Christ and mankind and even his theology of justification by grace are already prefigured.[23] Together with the discovery of Luther’s profound roots in the late Middle Ages has come the more sensitive perception that the Middle Ages were by no means as dark as they have been painted so willingly and for so long. For on the one hand the late Middle Ages developed an authentic theology of piety for the laity, so that the Protestant church historian Bernd Moeller was able to judge that the 15th century could be appraised as one of the most ecclesially pious periods of the Middle Ages.[24] On the other hand, it has been rediscovered that in the late Middle Ages diverse and far–reaching reforms did take place, and that church reform was on the whole one of the great themes of the late Middle Ages. Thus the internal Church reform movement intended by Luther did not stand in isolation in the landscape of the time but must be seen within this broader context.
A reminder of the ecclesial situation in Spain at the beginning of the 16th century serves as a striking example of where the real impulses to religious reforms in the Catholic Church originated, above all from a number of reform orders strongly influenced by the spirituality of the devotio moderna from the Netherlands. Such reform endeavours were substantially advanced by the promotion of book printing by the then Archbishop of Toledo, Francisco Jimenez de Cisneros, who had already in 1517 enabled the publication of the first polyglot edition of the whole Sacred Scripture. In view of this religious and ecclesial reform potential in Spain the Berlin historian Hans Schilling judges rightly that in Luther’s day the Iberian Peninsula already “achieved precursors to reforms” which were “elsewhere only enforced by the Reformation revolt and the subsequent Tridentine reform”. From that he draws the conclusion: “That had like nothing else made Spain impervious to the Lutheran ‘heresy’.”[25] Or to formulate it more positively: If a similar ecclesial reform to that in Spain had been able to prevail throughout the whole church, and if Martin Luther’s call to reform and repentance had found open ears among the bishops of the time and of the Pope in Rome, the reform intended and initiated by him would not have become the Reformation. For the fact that the original reform of the Church became instead a Church–dividing Reformation the Catholic Church of the time must bear its share of the blame, as the Catholic ecumenist Wolfgang Thönissen expressed in the concise formula: “Because the reform of the church and the Empire did not succeed, the Reformation was the result.”[26]
2. Church reform and Church schism
On the other hand however we are compelled to conclude that the Catholic Church at that time was not only extremely in need of reform but also capable of reform. The Lutheran Reformation of the 16th century therefore cannot be considered the only response to the need for reform of the Church, and can therefore not stake an exclusive claim to the reform of the Church as a whole; with his original concern for reform Luther stood in a long and great tradition of Catholic renewal before him, which in crisis situations in the Church had always reiterated that in its life and in its mission the word of God must be accorded primacy. We could recall the two founders of the mendicant orders, Saint Francis and Saint Dominic, who in the first instance did not at all intend to found new orders but to renew the Church from within, and indeed by daring to live the Gospel in the evangelical form of life sine glossa, in its literal totality. Or we could think of Saint Carlo Borromeo who, on taking possession of his episcopal seat in the Lombard metropolis of Milan, diagnosed the most widespread failings of the clergy in the absence of preaching, and saw his primary mission as bishop to be “a witness, to proclaim the mysteries of Christ, to preach the gospel to every creature”.[27] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has rightly claimed of the great bishop of Milan that his “last great echo” in our century was the figure of John XXIII, who intended with his Council above all to renew that impulse to renewal “which had lit up in Borromeo”.[28] The Second Vatican Council may therefore be acknowledged as a reform Council which was intended to once more restore to the word of God the centrality due to it in the life and mission of the Church.[29] By taking up and fulfilling important demands made by Martin Luther, such as the rediscovery of the common priesthood of all the baptised, the celebration of divine worship in the language of the people and the option of distribution of the cup to the laity, the Second Vatican Council has even prompted the assessment that in the Council, Martin Luther had in fact “found his Council”,[30] which he had called for in his lifetime and which was convoked in Trent only when the unity of the Church could no longer be saved.
a) The necessity of the Church’s renewal in the light of the Gospel
Only against this broader background is it possible to properly acknowledge Martin Luther’s actual intention. He in no way intended a breach with the Catholic Church or the founding of a new church; his goal was instead a thoroughgoing renewal of the whole of Christianity in the spirit of the Gospel and not a reformation in the sense of the ultimately shattered unity of the Church, as the Protestant ecumenist Wolfhart Pannenberg has repeatedly pointed out: “Luther intended a reform of the whole of Christendom; his goal was anything but a separate Lutheran Church.”[31] The Lutheran Reformation of the 16th century is therefore to be understood and acknowledged as a process of the reform of the Church through the rediscovery of the Gospel as its foundation, or more precisely of the Gospel of the justification of sinful mankind not through works but through faith in Jesus Christ. Accordingly “justice” no longer means or implies a “doing” – as in the Aristotelian tradition by which a person becomes righteous through right action – but rather a “being, precisely being through God: a gift of God in faith in Jesus Christ”.[32] Martin Luther and his Wittenberg Reformation give clear evidence of the fact that a true reform of the Church can only be realised through the concentration of Christian existence and ecclesial life on the person of Jesus Christ as the living word of God, in whom the Church finds its true identity.”[33]
These crucial concerns of Luther can also and especially be grasped in the events of 1517, more precisely on the 31st of October, to which this Reformation commemoration of 2017 refers, in remembrance of the so–called posting of the 95 Theses on indulgences on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg by the monk and professor Martin Luther. This date is generally considered as the beginning of the Reformation in Germany. But already in 1962 the Catholic Church historian Erwin Iserloh judged this so–called posting of the theses to be a legend;[34] and since then many historians support the conviction that the nailing of Luther’s 95 Theses did not take place at all in the manner that has been traditionally handed down, which is by the way substantiated by the fact that Luther himself at no time in his life spoke of posting the theses, although the 31st of October remained in his memory as the day on which he moved against indulgences. In this sense the Protestant church historian Volker Leppin sums up the current state of research in the words: “If one wants to take Luther at his word, one can hardly claim for the date of the 31st of October anything more than: The posting of the theses did not take place”.[35] From the historical perspective therefore we can most likely assume that Luther sent his theses on indulgences to Archbishop Albrecht and to his local bishop Hieronymus Schulz and at the same time understood the publication of his theses as an invitation to an academic disputation, with which theses, as the Protestant church historian Thomas Kaufmann states, he primarily wished to confront “the loss of credibility of his beloved Church”, and rescue “the Roman papal Church he loved”.[36] With regard to the intent of his action, the publication of his theses is in no way to be understood as the beginning of the Reformation in the sense of the ultimately broken unity of the Church, and even the theses themselves can in no way be considered a revolutionary document: they present a thoroughly Catholic issue and remain within the bounds of acceptability in the Catholic theology of the time.[37] With his theses Luther did not in any case wish to break with the Catholic Church but to renew it.
The events of 1517 demonstrate, on the one hand, that the momentous conflict that erupted regarding the practice of indulgences involved not only theological questions in the narrow sense but also divergent spiritualities and piety–related attitudes. It is surely no coincidence that Luther’s conflict with the Catholic Church was sparked by the common indulgence piety practice of the time, which Luther was unable to reconcile with his own spiritual experience centred on the gospel of justification by grace alone accepted in faith. On the other hand, it is equally clear that it did not result in a breach between Luther and the Catholic Church in 1517, that the unity of the Church was at that time not yet destroyed, and Martin Luther was still living and working in communion with the Catholic Church. Since the 2017 Reformation commemoration refers back to this time involves Lutherans and Catholics to the same extent, this must be seen as a further reason why the Reformation commemoration today cannot be celebrated other than in ecumenical communion.
The controversy over Luther’s theses on indulgences subsequently focussed increasingly on the question of the Church and the question of the ecclesial ministry which can speak and act in the name of the Church. In Luther’s Augsburg Disputation with Cajetan in 1518 and in the Leipzig Disputation with Eck in 1519, the understanding of the Church, and more precisely the question of the authority of Councils and the Pope, formed the crux of the disputes.[38] While Luther in his early period shared the Catholic understanding of the Church to a great extent,[39] in the later phase of his life and work he fundamentally called into question the Catholic understanding of church and ministry, above all in his reforming treatise “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation” of 1520,[40] with its pointed emphasis of the common priesthood of all believers. And in his second treatise “De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae”,[41] also in 1520, he also rejected the sacramental order of the Catholic Church, at least in the manner in which he had encountered it at that time. With these and other writings he had, as rightly stated by Cardinal Walter Kasper, initiated “a breach with the Catholic understanding of the Church”.[42]
In this sense the Reformation of the 16th century led to the formation of a different type of church characterised by the fact that the churches derived from the Reformation want to be church in a different way: “As they themselves insist, it is precisely not the same mode in which the Churches of the great tradition of antiquity are Churches, but is based on a new understanding”.[43] That this judgement does not simply represent a Catholic outsider’s view but represents the Protestant churches’ understanding of themselves is demonstrated for example by the basic text of the Evangelical Church in Germany for the Reformation commemoration in 2017 entitled “Justification and Freedom”, in which it is emphatically stressed that the insights of the Reformers had led to a “complete restructuring of the church’s essence”. This new polity is further heightened to the extent that pastors, male and female, exist “only for the sake of order”, since in principle “every Christian can administer the sacraments, i.e., impart baptism and dispense the Lord’s Supper.”[44]
In the Reformation period the disputes between Luther and his Catholic adversaries on the all–important question of the nature of the Church were unfortunately unable to lead to a satisfactory conclusion. In view of that, this question must today constitute a key element on the agenda in ecumenical dialogues between the Catholic Church and the churches which emerged from the Reformation. It is therefore to be hoped that 500 years later the Reformation commemoration today will lead to further clarification of this ecclesiological question.
b) The schism of the Church and its fateful consequences
The renewal of the whole Church originally intended by Martin Luther with his rediscovery of the biblical message of justification by grace alone was not able to attain fulfilment at that time but instead led in schism. This historical paradox was expressed already in 1950 by the Catholic church historian and ecumenist Joseph Lortz in the memorable words: “The Reformation set out to reform the head and the members of the one Church that belongs to all Christians. That was not achieved, and what has happened instead was the rupture that split the church and Christendom apart.[45] That this schism occurred is not least due also to political factors. While Luther was originally intent on an internal ecclesial movement of the renewal of Christianity in its entirety in the spirit of divine truth, the splitting of the Church and the resulting establishment of a separate new Lutheran church structure were primarily the result of political decisions, whereby Luther himself to an extent sought refuge and support from political powers and was over time increasingly manipulated by certain princes for their own interests.
We must furthermore recall with shame that in the 16th and 17th centuries the schism resulted in cruel confessional conflicts, above all the Thirty Years War which transformed Europe into a Red Sea of blood. In particular, the first centennial celebration of the beginning of the Reformation in 1617 was overshadowed by such warlike conflicts. At the time it was clear that Europe was moving towards a momentous conflict and even a cruel religious war. The first centenary celebration of the Reformation – which was at the same time the origin of Reformation Day – was characterised by anti–Catholic polemics and aggressive rhetoric, as the Lutheran pastor and General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, Olav Fykse Tveit, states frankly: “The first celebration in memory of 1517 was the prelude to a series of destructive religious wars, the 30 Years War, which turned the remembrance of Luther’s courageous deed in 1517 into a weapon.”[46]
It is impossible to suppress the fatal consequences of the schism in the Western church and the subsequent bloody confessional wars of the 16th and 17th centuries in the life of European society.[47] Because as a consequence of the confessional wars Christianity was historically tangible only in the form of various confessions that were fighting against one another to the death, this historical constellation had to have the inevitable consequence that confessional peace could only be bought at the costly price of disregarding confessional differences – and in the long term Christianity itself – in order to give the social peace a new foundation. Modern secularisation – or more precisely the process of depriving the Christian faith of its mandate for social peace, and as a consequence its privatisation – is to be judged as an unwanted and unintended but tragic ramification of the splitting of the Western church and thus to a large extent the fault of Christianity itself, as the Protestant ecumenist Wolfhart Pannenberg above all has rightly diagnosed: “Where the secularisation of the modern world has taken the form of an alienation from Christianity, it did not befall the churches as an external fate, but as the consequence of their own sins against unity, as a consequence of the church division of the 16th century and the indecisive religious wars of the 16th and 17th, which left the people in confessionally mixed territories no choice than to restructure their co–existence upon a common foundation untouched by confessional conflicts.”[48]
Considered in historical retrospect we may judge that the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555 was indeed able to achieve a certain degree of pacification for a time, but the principle “Cuius regio, eius religio”, which was elevated to an Imperial law at that time, led to a political ecclesial system in which the religious freedom of the individual Christian was not guaranteed but placed at the disposal of the ruler of the land, insofar as the possibility of choice between the Catholic or the Lutheran community was not given to individual Christians but to their rulers. The development of secular nation states with strong denominational boundaries must therefore be seen as a consequence of these tragic conflicts and developments, and therefore as a great burden of guilt left from the Reformation era for which both sides in the conflict must bear great responsibility.
When we call to mind these fateful historical developments and above all take cognisance of the fact that Catholics and Lutherans have wounded the one body of Christ in which they have become members through baptism, and have committed violence against one another in the name of faith, they have every reason for self–recrimination and repentance for the misunderstandings, wrongs and hurts that they have perpetrated against one another over the past 500 years. A first step in this direction was taken by Pope Hadrian VI, who was open to the renewal of the Catholic Church, but who was not given the opportunity to prevent the schism. With his message to the Diet of Nuremberg in 1522 he regretted the mistakes and sins of the authorities of the Catholic Church. As his successors the Popes during and after the Second Vatican Council have again and again asked for forgiveness for what Catholics perpetrated against the members of other churches. Here we think of Pope Paul VI, who in his opening address at the beginning of the second session of the Second Vatican Council expressed a plea for forgiveness for all offences that have occurred through the Roman Catholic Church;[49] of Pope John Paul II, who during the celebration of the Holy Year 2000 on the “Day of Pardon” confessed great historical guilt;[50] and Pope Francis, who on his visit to the Waldensian Church in Turin asked for “forgiveness for unchristian-like and even inhuman attitudes and conduct which, historically, we have had against you”.[51]
On the Lutheran side we recall above all the declaration of the Lutheran World Federation at its Fifth General Assembly in Evian in 1970 which declared its readiness to see “how the judgement of the Reformers on the Roman Catholic Church and the theology of the time was not free from polemical distortions which in part remain in effect to this day”, and therefore sincerely regretted “that our Roman Catholic brothers have been offended and misunderstood by such polemical representations”.[52]
3. Renewal of the Church and restoration of unity
Such a joint public act of repentance must today, too, form a significant component of an honest joint Reformation commemoration and it must be accompanied by the purification of historical memory, as Pope Francis has admonished: “We cannot erase what is past, nor do we wish to allow the weight of past transgressions to continue to pollute our relationships. The mercy of God will renew our relationships.”[53] It follows that mercy and reconciliation must be an important guiding perspective on the ecumenical course of the future, to which we will turn our attention in conclusion.
a) Distinction and connection between reform and Reformation
As a result of our reflections thus far, we must distinguish between the reform of the Church in the sense of her always necessary renewal, and the Reformation in the sense of the ultimately shattered unity of the Church, but at the same time the two must be seen in connection with one another. History documents the fact that the concept and the reality of reform have a home within the Catholic Church too, which understands itself as an Ecclesia semper reformanda, and consequently the Reformation does not represent the only response to the necessity for reform in the Catholic Church. Since reform therefore demonstrates a greater radius than Reformation, the question arises even more pertinently of precisely how the constantly necessary reform of the Church and the historical process of the Reformation relate to one another. The historical fact that Martin Luther’s reforming work led to the Reformation and subsequently to church schism and the development of new ecclesial communities prompts us to name the difference between reform and Reformation.
This difference can be defined with the church historian Cardinal Walter Brandmüller that reform “can never have the result that that which has been reformed is no longer identical with that which was previously to be reformed”.[54] Reform involves the concrete appearance and realisation but not the essence of that which is to be reformed. Otherwise it would not represent a reform but a transformation of essence which would make that which is to be reformed into something else with respect to what was before. The word reform however indicates that the Church in the original sense has by means of historical developments lost its form and reveals a deformation, and must be restored to its original and authentic form. True reform of the Church has to be re–form in its original meaning, that is restoration and restitution of the true form of the one Church, or with the apt formula of the Catholic biblical theologian Thomas Söding “restoration of the original, the essential and authentic – or at least the earnest endeavour to that end”.[55] In the light of this definition arises the fundamental question from the perspective of ecumenism, whether the 16th century Reformation understood itself as a reform of the Church or whether it did not in a much more radical sense lead to a transformation of the essence.
In order to approach an answer to this question, it seems appropriate to call to mind the undoubtedly most radical reformer in the history of the Church, namely Saint Francis of Assisi. Historical memory of him brings to light that it was not the mighty Pope Innocence III, who in those troubled times preserved the Church from collapse and renewed it, but the humble and insignificant monk; but also brought to light is the fact that Francis of Assisi reformed the Church not in any way that induced schism, and without or against the Pope, but only in communion with him. Saint Francis of Assisi is the successful example of a radical church reform in unity with the whole Church and with the ecclesial hierarchy, and he shows that reform is a positive word also in the Catholic Church, but that the Catholic principle of a permanent need for reform seeks to avoid any breach with the ecclesial community and the Pope as guarantee of unity. By contrast, the church reforms of the Reformers all led to schism, which in addition continued to lead to further divisions and fragmentations within Protestantism, and indeed already in Luther’s lifetime. It seems therefore that church reform and maintaining unity represented an insurmountable contradiction in the Reformation of the 16th century.
b) Church reform and the endeavour for unity
A significant counter–testimony is provided by the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 and the Augsburg Confession prepared for this important event, with which the reformers wanted to testify that they stood in agreement with the faith of the Catholic Church. The Confessio Augustana is essentially due to the tireless efforts of the great Reformer Philipp Melanchthon,[56] who even in the moment when he perceived that his efforts at the Diet of Augsburg were failing and that unity could no longer be maintained held fast to the unity of the Church right up to the limits of what was possible, in the conviction that the renewal of the Church and maintaining its unity were indissolubly linked. Melanchthon proved to be “the great ecumenist of his age”, who – under the existing historical conditions – sought to “plumb the ultimate possibilities for maintaining the unity of the Church”.[57] The Augsburg Confession drafted by him is not a document of schism, but of the determined intent for reconciliation and maintaining unity, as the Joint Roman Catholic–Evangelical Lutheran Commission claimed in its statement on the Augsburg Confession on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of its publication in 1980: “The express purpose of the Augsburg Confession is to confess the faith of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Its and concern is not with peculiar doctrines nor indeed with the establishment of a new Church (CA 7,1), but with the preservation and renewal of the Christian faith in its purity in harmony with the Ancient Church, and ‘the Church of Rome’ too, and in agreement with the witness of Holy Scripture”.[58]
If one takes the self–understanding of the Confessio Augustana seriously, one must – with the Protestant ecumenist Wolfhart Pannenberg – consider the historical fact that Martin Luther’s reform concerns could not be fulfilled at that time, but instead gave rise to separate evangelical churches which split from the Catholic Church, not as the “success” of the Reformation but its “failure” or at least an emergency measure.[59] The real success of the Reformation will by contrast only be fulfilled when the inherited divisions between Christians are overcome, in the restoration of the unity of the renewed Church in the spirit of the Gospel. To that extent the ecumenical search for the restoration of Christian unity signifies the – even though terribly belated – fulfilment of the Reformation itself.
This envisaged goal was not achieved at the Diet of Augsburg with the Confessio Augustana. It is, as Pope John Paul II emphasised in his address on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana, the “last powerful attempt at reconciliation”, which however by its failure brought about the visible schism.[60] For John Paul II however the Confessio Augustana is explicit testimony to the fact that the constant renewal of the Church in the power of the Gospel and the conserving – or where necessary, restoration – of its unity are indissolubly intertwined.
This constituted the fundamental concern too of the Second Vatican Council, for there were above all two main concerns that moved Saint Pope John XXIII to convene the Council, namely the renewal of the Catholic Church and the restoration of Christian unity. The same fundamental conviction also motivated Pope Paul VI, for whom the ecumenical question was also and indeed especially a leitmotif of the renewal of the Catholic Church, so that one must speak of the essential reciprocity between the ecumenical opening of the Catholic Church and the renewal of its ecclesiology.[61] This reciprocity forms also the foundation for the way the Second Vatican Council identified the ecumenical movement as a conversion movement and viewed conversion as the elixir of life of true ecumenism:[62] “There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from newness of attitudes, from self-denial and unstinted love that yearnings for unity take their rise and grow towards maturity.”[63]
In this light the Confessio Augustana represents in retrospect the determined effort of the Wittenberg Reformation to renew the Church and thereby to rescue its endangered unity. This confession can therefore not be underestimated in its ecumenical significance,[64] as the Ecumenical Working Group of Lutheran and Catholic Theologians rightly judges: “It is possible that the churches of Western Christendom were indeed at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 as close to one another as they have never been since.”[65] On that basis it would be appropriate to celebrate in 2030 the 500th anniversary of the Diet of Augsburg and the Confessio Augustana proclaimed there in at least as intensive ecumenical community as the Reformation commemoration in 2017.
4. On the way to binding ecclesial community
There is an additional reason for the Confessio Augustana retaining its prime significance: for ecumenical dialogues that are to prepare ecclesial decisions, it is ultimately not sufficient for the position of one individual theologian – even if that theologian is the great Reformer Martin Luther – to serve as their foundation; that must instead be perceived in the ecclesial confessional writings. In the same way, for binding statements of ecumenical consensus, documents by ecumenical commissions do not suffice, no matter how deserving they may be. Only those texts can lead us forward into the future that have actually been received by their respective churches and authoritatively accepted by their leaders. Therein we can and must see the particular significance of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”, which was agreed between the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on 31 October 1999 in Augsburg, which represents a milestone in the ecumenical encounter between the Catholic Church and Lutheranism.[66] With this document a wide–ranging consensus was reached in what was surely the most central question leading to the Reformation and the subsequent schism in the 16th century.
The formula “consensus in fundamental truths of the doctrine of justification“ used in the Joint Declaration of course expresses the fact that unity was nevertheless not achieved thereby, since no full consensus has yet been reached above all on the consequences of this doctrine for the understanding of the Church and the question of ministry.[67] Since the still remaining questions converge on the precise understanding of what the Church is, the ecclesiological implications of the consensus that has been reached must be placed on the agenda of ecumenical conversations. Work on this question will form a further important step on the path towards ecumenical agreement between Lutherans and Catholics, which could ultimately issue in the drafting of a future Joint Declaration, analogous to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, on Church, Eucharist and Ministry.[68] I note with gratitude that the national dialogue in Finland is dealing with this subject, and in Lutheran–Catholic dialogue in the USA a “Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry, and Eucharist” has already been drafted on this issue.[69] Such a joint declaration would undoubtedly be a decisive step towards visible church communion, which is the goal of all ecumenical endeavours, and to raise awareness of this goal is an important task of the common commemoration of the Reformation.
It is indeed no coincidence that my reflections have merged into the question of the essential nature of the Church, for this question was also the crux of the 16th century Reformation. Deepening the discussion on this ecumenically urgent issue must be an obligation of the Reformation commemoration. To celebrate it and then to simply accept the status quo or even abandon the goal of unity entirely and rest content with the existing plurality of churches would not do justice either to the intentions of the Reformers or the expectations of the Reformation commemoration. After 500 years of division, of prolonged opposition and juxtaposition, we must strive for a binding communion and put it into effect already today. In this common endeavour Catholics will affirm what the Reformation means to them and what they can learn from it, and Protestant Christians will testify to what they can learn from the Catholic Church today and what enrichment they can receive from it.
A common Reformation commemoration will only represent an ecumenical opportunity if the year 2017 is not the conclusion but a new beginning in the ecumenical struggle for full communion between Lutherans and Catholics, celebrated in the triad chord of gratitude, repentance, and hope – from which no component can be omitted if the Reformation commemoration is to be perceived as a symphony.
[1]. Joint Declaration on the occasion of the joint Lutheran and Catholic commemoration of the Reformation held on 31 October 2016.
[2]. From Conflict to Communion | Lutheran–Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017. Report of the Lutheran–Roman Catholic Commission on Unity (Leipzig and Paderborn 2013).
[3]. Cf. W. Beyna, Das moderne katholische Lutherbild (Essen 1969); D. Blum, Der katholische Luther. Begegnungen – Prägungen – Rezeptionen (Paderborn 2016).
[4]. See the representation of Johannes Cochläus by H. Jedin, Wandlungen des Lutherbildes in der katholischen Kirchengeschichtsschreibung, in: K. Forster (Hrsg.), Wandlungen des Lutherbildes (Würzburg 1966) 80.
[5]. H. Denifle, Luther und Luthertum in ihrer ersten Entwicklung. Zwei Bände (Mainz 1904 / 1909).
[6]. J. Lortz, Die Reformation in Deutschland. Zwei Bände (Freiburg i. Br. 1962).
[7]. Cf. R. Decot und R. Vinke (Hrsg.), Zum Gedenken an Joseph Lortz (1887-1975). Beiträge zur Reformationsgeschichte und Ökumene (Stuttgart 1989).
[8]. J. Lortz, Die Reformation in Deutschland. Erster Band: Voraussetzungen – Aufbruch – Erste Entscheidung (Freiburg i. Br. 1962) 176.
[9]. Cf. J. Brosseder, Der katholische Luther, in: G. Frank / A. Käuflein / T. Licht (Hrsg.), Von der Reformation zur Reform. Neue Zugänge zum Konzil von Trient (Freiburg i. Br. 2015) 65-96; P. Neuner, Luther – katholisch gesehen, in: U. Swarat und Th. Söding (Hrsg.), Heillos gespalten? Segensreich erneuert? 500 Jahre Reformation in der Vielfalt ökumenischer Perspektiven (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 119-135; P. Neuner, Martin Luthers Reformation. Eine katholische Würdigung (Freiburg i. Br. 2017); W. Thönissen, Gerechtigkeit oder Barmherzigkeit? Das ökumenische Ringen um die Rechtfertigung (Leipzig – Paderborn 2016), bes. 177-200: Luther: Implizite Rezeption durch die kirchliche Lehre; W. Thönissen / J. Freitag / A. Sander (Hrsg.), Luther: Katholizität und Reform. Wurzeln – Wege – Wirkungen (Leipzig – Paderborn 2016).
[10]. Cf. H. F. Geisser u. a., Weder Ketzer noch Heiliger. Luthers Bedeutung für den ökumenischen Dialog (Regensburg 1982); U. Hahn / M. Mügge (Hrsg.), Martin Luther – Vorbild im Glauben. Die Bedeutung des Reformators im ökumenischen Gespräch (Neukirchen 1996); K. Lehmann (Hrsg.), Luthers Sendung für Katholiken und Protestanten (München – Zürich 1982); P. Manns – H. Meyer (Hrsg.), Ökumenische Erschliessung Martin Luthers (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 1983); O. H. Pesch (Hrsg.), Lehren aus dem Luther-Jahr. Sein Ertrag für die Ökumene (München – Zürich 1984).
[11]. Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission, “Martin Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ” I.1, in Jeffrey Gros, FSC, Harding Meyer and William G. Rusch (eds), Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level, 1982–1998 (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000), 438.
[12]. J. Cardinal Willebrands, Gesandt in die Welt, in: Willebrands, Mandatum Unitatis. Beiträge zur Ökumene (Paderborn 1989) 112-125, cit. 124.
[13]. John Paul II, Message on 31 October 1983 to Cardinal Johannes Willebrands, President of the then Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.
[14]. John Paul II, Address to the representatives of the Evangelische Kirche and the Working Group of the Christian Churches in Germany, Paderborn 22 June 1996.
[15]. Benedict XVI, Meeting the Council of the EKD in the Augustinian Convent in Erfurt, 23 September 2011.
[16]. W. Cardinal Kasper, Martin Luther. Eine ökumenische Perspektive (Ostfildern 2016) 56.
[17]. Cf. Th. Kaufmann, Reformationsgedenken in der Frühen Neuzeit, in: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 107 (2010) 285-324; P. Neuner, Martin Luthers Reformation. Eine katholische Würdigung (Freiburg i. Br. 2017) 36-49; D. Wendebourg, Vergangene Reformationsjubiläen. Ein Rückblick im Vorfeld von 2017, in: H. Schilling (Hrsg.), Der Reformator Martin Luther 2017. Eine wissenschaftliche und gedenkpolitische Bestandsaufnahme (Berlin 2014) 261-281.
[18]. A. von Harnack, Die Reformation und ihre Vorstellung, in: Ders., Erforschtes und Erlebtes (Giessen 1923) 71-140, zit. 110.
[19]. Cf. H. A. Obermann, Luther. Mensch zwischen Gott und Teufel (Berlin 1981); H. Schilling, Martin Luther. Rebell in einer Zeit des Umbruchs. Eine Biographie (München 2012).
[20]. Cf. H. Kremers, Die Juden und Martin Luther – Martin Luther und die Juden. Geschichte – Wirkungsgeschichte – Herausforderung (Neukirchen 1985).
[21]. Cf. W. Spangenberg (Hrsg.), Luther und die Reformation in freikirchlicher Sicht (Göttingen 2013).
[22]. M. Luther, Wider das Papsttum in Rom, vom Teufel gestiftet. (Luther’s Works, American Edition, Fortress Press/Philadelphia, 1966, volume 41:308, translated by Eric W Gritsch).
[23]. Cf. F. Posset, Luther und der letzte der Kirchenväter, Bernhard von Clairvaux. Der Bernhardfaktor in Luthers Leben und Werken, in: W. Thönissen / J. Freitag / A. Sander (Ed.), Luther: Katholizität und Reform. Wurzeln – Wege – Wirkungen (Leipzig – Paderborn 2016) 29-59.
[24]. B. Moeller, Frömmigkeit in Deutschland um 1500, in: Ders., Die Reformation und das Mittelalter. Kirchenhistorische Aufsätze (Göttingen 1991) 73-85, zit. 81.
[25]. H. Schilling, Luther und die Reformation 1517-2017, in: U. Swarat und Th. Söding (Hrsg.), Heillos gespalten? Segensreich erneuert? 500 Jahre Reformation in der Vielfalt ökumenischer Perspektiven (Freiburg i. Br. 2016) 17-28, zit. 22.
[26]. W. Thönissen, Gerechtigkeit oder Barmherzigkeit? Das ökumenische Ringen um die Rechtfertigung (Leipzig – Paderborn 2016) 40.
[27]. Cited by G. Alberigo, Karl Borromäus, Geschichtliche Sensibilität und pastorales Engagement (Münster 1995) 39-40.
[28]. J. Ratzinger, Opfer, Sakrament und Priestertum in der Entwicklung der Kirche, in.Ratzinger., Theologische Prinzipienlehre. Bausteine zur Fundamentaltheologie (München 1982) 263-281, zit. 279.
[29]. Cf. K. Koch, Was bedeutet heute „Reform“ der katholischen Kirche in der Schweiz?. Zur Lage der Konzilsrezeption, in: M. Delgado / M. Ries (Hrsg.), Karl Borromäus und die katholische Reform. Akten des Freiburger Symposiums zur 400. Wiederkehr der Heiligsprechung des Schutzpatrons der katholischen Schweiz (Freiburg / CH –Stuttgart 2010) 365-394.
[30]. A. Brandenburg, Martin Luther gegenwärtig. Katholische Lutherstudien (Paderborn 1969) 146.
[31]. W. Pannenberg, Problemgeschichte der neueren evangelischen Theologie in Deutschland (Göttingen 1997) 25.
[32]. Ch. Schad, Rechtfertigung: Gottes Ja zu uns, in: H. Schwier / H.-G. Ulrichs (Hrsg.), Nötig zu wissen. Heidelberger Beiträge zum Heidelberger Katechismus (Heidelberg 2012) 103-107, zit. 105.
[33]. Cf. K. Kardinal Koch, Die identitätsstiftende Kraft des Wortes Gottes im Licht des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, in: P. Klasvogt / B. Neumann (Hrsg.), Reform oder Reformation? Kirchen in der Pflicht (Leipzig – Paderborn 2014) 71-100.
[34]. E. Iserloh, Luthers Thesenanschlag – Tatsache oder Legende? (Wiesbaden 1962).
[35]. V. Leppin, Der „Thesenanschlag“ – viel Lärm um nichts? in: U. Wolff, Iserloh. Der Thesenanschlag fand nicht statt (Münster 2016) 239-245, zit. 245.
[36]. Th. Kaufmann, Reformation und Reform – Luthers 95 Thesen in ihrem historischen Zusammenhang, in: P. Klasvogt / B. Neumann (Hrsg.), Reform oder Reformation? Kirchen in der Pflicht (Leipzig – Paderborn 2014) 23-41, zit. 26. Vgl. auch Ders., Der Anfang der Reformation (Tübingen 2012).
[37]. In the reverse direction the Protestant church historian Berndt Hamm has established astonishing coherencies between the proclamation of indulgences in the late medieval Church and the message of grace favoured by the Reformation, so that he not only speaks of the “gospel of the Reformation“, but also of the “gospel of the indulgence”. Cf. B. Hamm, Ablass und Reformation. Erstaunliche Kohärenzen (Tübingen 2016) 5.
[38]. Cf. E. Iserloh, Die protestantische Reformation, in: Iseloh, J. Glazik, H. Jedin (Hrsg.), Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Band IV: Reformation, Katholische Reform und Gegenreformation (Freiburg i. Br. 1979) 56 ff. und 64 ff.
[39]. Cf. Th. Dieter, Die Eucharistische Ekklesiologie Joseph Ratzingers – eine lutherische Perspektive, in: Ch. Schaller (Hrsg.), Kirche – Sakrament und Gemeinschaft. Zu Ekklesiologie und Ökumene bei Joseph Ratzinger = Ratzinger-Studien. Band 4 (Regensburg 2011) 276-316, esp. 288-299: Kirche als Gemeinde bei Luther.
[40]. M. Luther, WA 6, 381-469.
[41]. M. Luther, WA 6, 497-573
[42]. W. Kardinal Kasper, Martin Luther. Eine ökumenische Perspektive (Ostfildern 2016) 31.
[43]. Benedict XVI, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times. A Conversation with Peter Seewald (London–San Francisco 2010) 95.
[44]. Rechtfertigung und Freiheit. 500 Jahre Reformation 2017. Ein Grundlagentext des Rates der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD) (Gütersloh 2014) 90-91. Justification ans Freedom, foundational text of the EKD, 2014
[45]. J. Lortz, Wie kam es zur Reformation? (Einsiedeln 1950) 8.
[46]. O. F. Tveit, Das Erbe der Reformation und seine Bedeutung für die ökumenische Bewegung heute, in: P. Bosse-Huber, S. Fornerod, Th. Gundlach, G. W. Locher (Hrsg.), 500 Jahre Reformation. Bedeutung und Herausforderungen. Internationaler Kongress der EKD und des SEK auf dem Weg zum Reformationsjubiläum 2017 vom 6. bis 10. Oktober 2013 in Zürich (Zürich-Leipzig 2014) 109-124, zit. 110.
[47]. Cf. K. Koch, Christsein in einem neuen Europa. Provokationen und Perspektiven (Freiburg/Schweiz 1992), bes. 137-166: Ökumenische Herausforderung: Tragik oder Befreiung der Reformation? Unzeitgemässe Überlegungen aus ökumenischer Sicht.
[48]. W. Pannenberg, Einheit der Kirche als Glaubenswirklichkeit und als ökumenisches Ziel, in: Ders., Ethik und Ekklesiologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen 1977) 200-210, zit. 201. On the question as a whole see Pannenberg., Christentum in einer säkularisiierten Welt (Freiburg i. Br. 1988).
[49]. Ench. Vat. Vol I Documenti del Concilio Vaticano II, 104 f.
[50]. John Paul II, Homily during the Holy Mass on the Day of Pardon in the Holy Year 2000 on 12 March 2000.
[51]. Francis, Address at the Waldensian Temple on 22 June 2015.
[52]. Erklärung der Fünften Vollversammlung des LWB zum Besuch Kardinal Willebrands, in: Chr. Krause / W. Müller-Römheld (Hrsg.), Evian 1970. Offizieller Bericht der Fünften Vollversammlung des Lutherischen Weltbundes (Witten – Frankfurt – Berlin 1970) 207f.
[53]. Francis, Homily at the Vespers for the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul held in the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls on 25 January 2016.
[54]. W. Brandmüller, Die Reformation Martin Luthers in katholischer Sicht, in: Ders., Licht und Schatten. Kirchengeschichte zwischen Glaube, Fakten und Legenden (Augsburg 2007) 102-120, zit. 108.
[55]. Th. Söding, Umkehr der Kirche. Wegweiser im Neuen Testament (Freiburg i. Br. 2014)
[56]. Cf. G. Frank (Hrsg.), Der Theologe Melanchthon (Stuttgart 2000); J. Haustein (Hrsg.), Philipp Melanchthon. Ein Wegbereiter für die Ökumene (Göttingen 1997); St. Rein und J. Weiss (Hrsg.), Melanchthon - neu entdeckt (Stuttgart 1997).
[57]. W. Thönissen, Gerechtigkeit oder Barmherzigkeit? Das ökumenische Ringen um die Rechtfertigung (Leipzig-Paderborn 2016) 138.
[58]. All Under One Christ. Report of the Roman Catholic/Lutheran Joint Commission on the Augsburg Confession, 1980, in: H. Meyer / H. J. Urban / L. Vischer (Hrsg.), Dokumente wachsender Übereinstimmung. Sämtliche Berichte und Konsenstexte interkonfessioneller Gespräche auf Weltebene 1931-1982 (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 1983) 323-328, zit. 325. Growth n Agreement, All under one Christ
[59]. W. Pannenberg, Reformation und Einheit der Kirche, in: Ders., Ethik und Ekklesiologie. Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen 1977) 254-267, zit. 255.
[60]. John Paul II, Address on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana, 25 June 1980.
[61]. Cf. H. J. Pottmeyer, Die Öffnung der römisch-katholischen Kirche und die ekklesiologische Reform des 2. Vaticanums. Ein wechselseitiger Einfluss, in: Paolo VI e l’Ecumenismo. Colloquio Internationale di Studio Brescia 1998 (Brescia – Roma 2001) 98-117.
[62]. Cf. K. Koch, Innere Reform und Umkehr als Voraussetzung von Ökumene, in: E. Dieckmann / K. Kardinal Lehmann (Hrsg.), Blick zurück nach vorn. Das Zweite Vaticanum aus der Perspektive der multilateralen Ökumene (Würzburg 2016) 161-186.
[63]. Unitatis redintegratio, 7.
[64]. Cf. Confessio Augustana. Bekenntnis des einen Glaubens. Gemeinsame Untersuchung lutherischer und katholischer Theologen (Paderborn – Frankfurt a. M. 1980); H. Fries u. a., Confessio Augustana. Hindernis oder Hilfe? (Regensburg 1979); B. Lohse und O. H. Pesch (Eds.), Das Augsburger Bekenntnis von 1530 damals und heute (München – Mainz 1980); H. Meyer, H. Schütte and H.–J. Mund (Eds.), Katholische Anerkennung des Augsburgischen Bekenntnisses. Ein Vorstoss zur Einheit zwischen katholischer und lutherischer Kirche (Frankfurt a. M. 1977). Cf. also K. Koch, Die Confessio Augustana – Ein katholisches Bekenntnis? in: Koch, Gelähmte Ökumene. Was jetzt noch zu tun ist (Freiburg i. Br. 1991) 65-106.
[65]. V. Leppin und D. Sattler (Hrsg.), Reformation 1517-2017. Ökumenische Perspektiven (Freiburg i. Br. – Göttingen 2014) 67.
[66]. Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigungslehre (Frankfurt a. M. – Paderborn 1999). Vgl. auch Lutherischer Weltbund und Päpstlicher Rat zur Förderung der Einheit der Christen (Hrsg.), 10 Jahre Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigungslehre (Frankfurt a. M. – Paderborn 2011); W. Klaiber (Hrsg.), Biblische Grundlagen der Rechtfertigungslehre. Eine ökumenische Studie zur Gemeinsamen Erklärung zur Rechtfertigungslehre (Leipzig – Paderborn 2012).
[67]. Cf. B. J. Hilberath / W. Pannenberg (Hrsg.), Zur Zukunft der Ökumene. Die „Gemeinsame Erklärung zur Rechtfertigungslehre“ (Regensburg 1999); E. Pulsfort / R. Hanusch (Hrsg.), Von der „Gemeinsamen Erklärung“ zum „Gemeinsamen Herrenmahl“? Perspektiven der Ökumene im 21. Jahrhundert (Regensburg 2002).
[68]. Cf. K. Koch, Auf dem Weg zur Kirchengemeinschaft. Welche Chance hat eine gemeinsame Erklärung zu Kirche, Eucharistie und Amt? in: Catholica 69 (2015) 77-94.
[69]. Bishop’s Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs – United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist (2015).