1. 天主教和世界信義宗經過長時間的討論，最近在「因信成義／稱義」的課題上達成共識，並於31/10/1999簽署了「成義」教會的聯合聲明，並撇除了在馬丁路德宗教改革時代互相加諸對方身上的譴責－－即天主教脫利騰大公會議（亦稱「天特會議」）對信義宗教導的譴責，及信義宗信條對天主教教導的譴責（聲明第41號，詳見下面的附註）。在四個多月的討論中，誤解者則常說全球第二大信義會（LCMS）反對這項聲明，藉此減低這聲明的認受性。小弟對此謹作出一些回應。
2. 世界信義宗（包括路德會在內）這麼大，小弟不排除某些（或個別）信徒或團體對「因信稱義」聯合聲明有不同的看法。在草簽聯合聲明過程中信義宗教會內其中一名主要人物－－世界信義宗聯會合一研究中心主任迪特爾（Theodor Dieter）曾接受香港公教報兩次訪問，17/9/2000公教報第21版就報導說：「聲明的草案初稿於1995年120個成員教會（按：指信義宗教會）發出，並於96年在收回初步反應，及至1997年公布了聲明的最後建議稿，留待信義宗成員教會表決。…即使是信義宗教會，彼此對聲明也有不同意見，…信義宗聯會的決定對個別成員教會沒約束力，成員教會有權自行決定接納聲明與否，…迪特爾亦提及，在97年陸續收到信義宗教會的回覆，有的贊成，有的反對，有的贊成之餘附加意見，有的可不容易去理解。當中有四分三成員教會回覆，約90間，它們代表了信義宗信總人數的九成。…」
3. 由此可見，即使有全球第二大信義會（LCMS）反對聲明，但最後仍是通過並簽署，這就反映出接受聲明的內容是信義宗教會內主流（及大多數）的意見，該聲明被信義宗教會普遍接納和承認。
4. 在「天主教資訊小集」（http://www.cathlinks.org/）內的「合一的…」一項，有此聯合聲明的中文及英文譯本，英譯本亦可見於www.elca.org/ea/jddj/jddj.html。
附註
5. 「因信成義」聯合聲明第41號：「因此由十六世紀以來,兩教教會就稱義的部分而彼此作出教義上的譴責，有了新的亮光:在這聲明中，信義宗教會的教導，不再受天特會議的譴責；同樣，天主教的教導，在這聲明裏不再受信義宗信條的譴責。」（以上聲明內容，譯自信義宗戴浩輝牧師）
6. 其英文內容如下（第40及41號）：
7. 40. The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paragraphs 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding basic truths.
8. 41. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.
9. 以下是「因信成義」聯合聲明第40及41號的英文註釋／commentary（取自“JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION．A Commentary by the Institute for Ecumenical Research, Strasbourg” Published for the Institute for Ecumenical Research, Strasbourg, by the Lutheran World Federation, Office for Communication Services）：
10. JD 40 and 41 summarize the conclusions to be drawn from what is confessed together in the Declaration and from what is said there individually by Lutherans and Catholics. The conclusion is two-fold: first, the claim of a consensus in the basic truths of the doctrine of justification (JD 40); and second, the judgment that the doctrinal condemnations of the Reformation era do not touch the teachings of the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches here described (JD 41). These two conclusions go together.
11. On the one hand, the assertion of a consensus is more far-reaching and comprehensive than the judgment that certain condemnations do not apply to the teaching of the other church. Persons might forgo condemning the teaching of another group without wishing or being able to say that they are in consensus with the other group. The statement that a consensus exists, however, would be senseless if the condemnations remain in place. Consensus and condemnation are mutually exclusive.
12. On the other hand, the declaration that the sixteenth century condemnations do not apply to the contemporary teaching of the other church in a certain sense presupposes the consensus. Precisely because we have discovered so much in common between the differently shaped Lutheran and Catholic teachings on justification, we need not and cannot continue in the judgment that the other’s doctrine corrupts the gospel and so is church-dividing.
13. To speak of consensus is not to deny the existing differences, but the insight into the extensive commonalities do make possible a new estimate of their significance. It is thus of great importance that this “consensus in fundamentals” is not located in a pre-linguistic depth but is described in a differentiated way. Spiritual content is never without linguistic form. The Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of justification do speak partially different languages, sometimes using different concepts, sometimes using the same word in different ways, sometimes drawing different distinctions. Nevertheless, that which is common and fundamental is expressed in the JD in a common language (cp. Especially JD 15-18, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 37).
14. Since it would be self-contradictory to claim a consensus without also stating that the past condemnations of each other’s teachings are no longer applicable, the explicit statement of this non-applicability (as in JD 41) is an essential aspect of establishing that a consensus exists. Conversely, the declaration of non-applicability presupposes the consensus claimed in JD 40. JD 40 and JD 41 thus condition each other.
本文最後修改日期：２００１年９月１２日