¹ Texts from Luther's writings containing the simul (gerecht und Sünder zugleich) are assembled in: Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), pp. 242–45;Google ScholarPesch, Otto Hermann, Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas von Aquin (Mainz: Griinewald, 1967), pp. 109–22Google Scholar, and “Existential and Sapiential Theology—The Theological Confrontation Between Luther and Thomas Aquinas” in Wicks, Jared, ed., Catholic Scholars Dialogue with Luther (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1970), pp. 62–82, at 69.Google Scholar I have used the English translation of the simul in Althaus' Introduction.

² Hermann, Rudolf, Luthers These, “Gerecht und Sunder zugjeich” (2nd. ed.; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1950[1930]), pp. 7, 9.Google Scholar On the other hand, Pesch, O. H., Gerechtfertigt aus Glauben (Freiburg: Herder, 1982), p. 135Google Scholar, emphasizes that “it is in any case [only] one summary of Luther's teaching on justification.”

³ DS 1515, 1524, 1528-30, 1561-62.

⁴ Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 135.Google Scholar

⁵ On all this, see Kress, Robert, “Leise Treten: An Irenic Ecumenical Hermeneutics,” Theological Studies 44 (1983), 407–37, esp. 411–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ However dominant the sola in Luther's theology, the “et … et” is not completely absent, as Pesch, notes in Gerechtfertigt, pp. 72–78.Google Scholar Also to be consulted in this regard is the classic article of Althaus, Paul, “Sola Fide Numquam Sola: Glaube und Werke in ihrer Bedeutung für das Heil bei Martin Luther,” Una Sancta 16 (1961), 227–35.Google Scholar

⁷ In regard to the difficulty of understanding Luther, this point is well made by McCue, James F. in a book review in Theological Studies 44 (1983), 511CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “And the long-standing debates within Lutheranism over the right interpretation of Luther suggests that it may be more than scholastic habits of mind or lack of sympathy that make a balanced understanding of Luther difficult.”

⁸ Wulf, H., “Simul Justus et peccator,” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 9 (Freiburg: Herder, 1964), pp. 778–80.Google Scholar

⁹ That, however, the Pauline and the Lutheran positions do not simply and perfectly coincide has been amply shown by Joest, Wilhelm, “Paulus und das Luthersche simul Justus et peccator,” Kerygma und Dogma 1 (1965), 269–320.Google Scholar

¹⁰ That Luther's “individualism” was not essentially and irretrievably anti-ecclesial is amply documented by Kinder, Ernst, Der evangelische Glaube und die Kirche (Berlin: Lutherisches Verlagshaus, 1960), pp. 59–64.Google Scholar

¹¹ Theology, p. 244.

¹² Theology, p. 243.

¹³ Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 127;Google ScholarTheologie, pp. 114, 118; “Existential,” p. 70; “Gottes Gnadenhandeln als Rechtfertigung des Menschen” in Feiner, Johannes and Löhrer, Magnus, eds., Mysterium SaJutis 4/2 (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1973), p. 889.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Pesch, “Existential,” pp. 70–71.

¹⁵ Rahner, K., “Grundentwurf einer theologischen Anthropologie” in Arnold, F. X.et al., eds., Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie 2/1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1966), pp. 34–37.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The “unrestrictedness” asserted here is not intended to assert ultimate universal salvation, about which Luther was reluctant. In regard to Luther's interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4-6, see Pfnür, Vinzenz, Einig in der Rechtfertigungsiehre (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1970).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Hermann, , Luthers These, p. 50.Google ScholarPesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 127Google Scholar, speaks of “the theological definition as the events [Ereignissse; my emphasis] of the relationship to God. …”

¹⁸ “Gottes,” p. 887; Theologie, p. 120.

¹⁹ This point is emphasized by Kösters, Reinhard, “Luthers These ‘Gerecht und Sünder zugleich’ zu dem gleichnamigen Buch von Rudolf Hermann,” Catholica 18 (1964), 48–77, 193–217;Google Scholar 19(1965), 138-62, 171-85.

²⁰ Pesch, “Existential,” p. 70.

²¹ Althaus, , Theology, p. 244.Google Scholar

²² Pesch, , Theologie, pp. 115, 120–21.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid., p. 120.

²⁴ Ibid., p. 115.

²⁵ Pesch, O. H., Twenty Years of Catholic Luther Research (Geneva: Lutheran World, 1966), p. 15.Google Scholar

²⁶ More recent developments have been summarized by Kösters, “Luthers These” and in the latest book of Pesch, O. H., Hinführung zu Luther (Mainz: Griinewald, 1982), pp. 189–202.Google Scholar

²⁷ Grosche, Robert, “Simul peccator et justus,” Pilgernde Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1938), pp. 147–58.Google Scholar

²⁸ Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 144.Google Scholar

²⁹ Rahner, K., Theological Investigations 6 (Baltimore: Helicon, 1969), pp. 218–30;Google ScholarBrandenburg, Albert, Martin Luther gegenwtirtig (Paderborn: Bonifatius, 1969), p. 109.Google Scholar

³⁰ Pesch, , Gerechtfertigt, p. 135;Google ScholarGottes, p. 886; “unvollziebar.”

³¹ Rahner, Karl, “Observations on the Doctrine of God in Catholic Dogmatics,” Theological Investigations 9 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972), p. 140.Google Scholar

³² Pesch, , Gottes, p. 890;Google Scholar “Existential,” p. 73.

³³ I have used the version of Abbott, Walter, ed., The Documents of Vatican II (New York: America, 1966).Google Scholar

³⁴ Moeller, Charles, “History of Lumen Gentium's Structure and Ideas” in Miller, John, ed., Vatican II: An Interfaith Appraisal (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966), p. 127.Google Scholar

³⁵ Leeming, Bernard, The Vatican Council and Christian Unity (London: Darton, Longmann & Todd, 1966), p. 28.Google Scholar The complete list of emendations if given on pp. 251-54.

³⁶ Becker, Werner, “Einführung—Dekret über den Ökumenismus” in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Lexikon für Theoiogie und Kirche. Das zweite Vatikanische Konzil 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1967), p. 39.Google Scholar

³⁷ Johannes Feiner, “Kommentar” (as in note 36), pp. 124–25, 51.

³⁸ Jaeger, Lorenz, Stand on Ecumenism (New York: Kenedy, 1964), p. 87.Google Scholar

³⁹ The document is in Origins 13/17 (Oct. 6, 1983), 277–304.Google Scholar My references are not to the pagination, but to the paragraph enumeration.

⁴⁰ According to Joseph Burgess, Director of Theological Studies for the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. He continues, “but it's not yet a full consensus,” although the document itself speaks of “consensus” (1964). See Austin, Charles, “Lutherans and Catholics in U.S. Agree on Key Salvation Doctrine,” New York Times (Sept. 20, 1983), A21.Google Scholar

⁴¹ von Balthasar, Hans Urs, “Casta Meretrix,” Sponsa Verbi (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1961), pp. 203–305.Google Scholar

⁴² Daniélou, Jean, Sacramentum Futuri (Paris: Beauchesne, 1950) pp. 217–32, at 221.Google Scholar

⁴³ von Balthasar, Hans Urs, Karl Barth (Cologne: Jakob Hegner, 1951), pp. 278–79.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ ARCIC, The Final Report (Washington: USCC, 1982), 1.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Vodopivec, G., “Ecclesiologia anglicana,” Humanitas 20 (1965), 131–36.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Pawley, Bernard, “An Anglican Views the Council” in O'Brien, John, ed., Christian Unity (London: Collins, 1965), p. 117.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Vodopivec, pp.133-34.

⁴⁸ Tomkins, Oliver, “The Church—From the Point of View of an Anglican Theologian” in Bäumer, Reimigius and Dolch, Heimo, eds., Volk Gottes (Freiburg: Herder, 1967), p. 192.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Congar, Yves, La Sainte Eglise (Paris: Cerf, 1963), p. 135.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ ARCIC, “Authority in the Church II (1981),” Final, 32;Google Scholar on indefectibility, 23.

⁵¹ Kress, Robert, “Systematics” in Tekippe, Terry, ed., Papal Infallibility (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), pp. 270–306.Google Scholar

⁵² van de Pol, W. H., World Protestantism (London: Sheed and Ward, 1964), p. 196.Google Scholar

⁵³ Neill, Stephen, Anglicanism (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1965), p. 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Vogel, Arthur, “The Second Vatican Council on the Nature of the Church and Ecumenism,” Anglican Theological Review 49 (1967), 253.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Kelly, J. N. D., “Il punto di visto anglicano sullar Constituzione” in Baruana, Guilherne, ed., La Chiesa del Vaticano II (Firenze: Vallechi, 1965), p. 1211.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Littell, Franklin H., “Some Free Church Remarks on the Concept, the Body of Christ” in Pelton, Robert, ed., The Church as the Body of Christ (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963), p. 132.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Littell, pp. 127-28, 137.

⁵⁸ Kress, Robert, The Church: Communion, Sacrament, Communication (New York: Paulist, 1984), pp. 71–73.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Durnbaugh, Donald F., The Believers' Church (New York: Macmillan, 1970).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Novak, Michael, “The Free Churches and the Roman Church,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 2/3 (Fall 1965), 444–48.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Congar, Yves, Vraie et fausse reforme dans 1'église (Paris: Cerf, 1969), p. 278;Google ScholarLa Sainte Eglise, p. 152. The L/RC document, Justification by Faith (120), seems to recognize this typology, at least implicitly.

⁶² Meyendorff, John, The Orthodox Church rev. ed., London: Darton, Longmann & Todd, 1962), pp. 221–22.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1967), p. 248.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ “Here is realized the gold rule of all Patristic thought, ‘God becomes man in order that man might become God’; here is the heart of all Orthodox spirituality, ‘Man becomes by grace what God is by nature.’” Evdokimov, Paul, L'Orthodoxie (Paris: Neuchatel, 1959), p. 94.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Basic Questions in Theology 1 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970), p. 122.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Most recently, see Rahner, Karl, “Hierarchie der Wahrheiten,” Diakonia 13 (1982), 376–82.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ On Roman Catholic-Orthodox relations, see Congar, Yves, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University Press, 1959).Google Scholar For Protestant-Orthodox, see Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), pp. 270–98.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Nissiotis, Nikos A., “Orthodox Reflections on the Decree on Ecumenism,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 3/2 (Spring 1966), 329–42.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Congar, Yves, I Believe in the Holy Spirit: Lord and Giver of Life 2 (New York: Seabury, 1983), p. 66.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Lanne, Emmanuel, “Die Kirche als Mysterium und Institution in der orthodoxen Theologie” in Holböck, and Sartory, , eds., Mysterium Kirche, pp. 891, 922–23.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Evdokimov, p. 128f.; Lanne, p. 612.

⁷² See Evdokimov, pp. 156-58; Lanne, pp. 907, 912, 920.

⁷³ Scrima, Andre, “Das II. Vatikanum in orthodoxer Sicht” in Danhardt, A., ed., Theologisches Jahrbuch 1966 (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1966), p. 493.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Lanne, p. 924, referring to George Florovsky.

⁷⁵ Scrima, A., “Semplici reflessioni di un ortodosso sulla Costituzione,” La Chiesa del Vaticano II, p. 1194;Google ScholarCongar, Yves, “Ecclesiological Awareness in the East and in the West from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century” in Sherwood, Polycarp, ed., The Unity of the Churches of Goe (Baltimore: Helicon, 1963), pp. 137–38.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ La Sainte Eglise, p. 135; see also Lanne, p. 917.

⁷⁷ Evdokimov, pp. 155 (quoting Khomiakoff), 128, 158.

⁷⁸ Ware, , The Orthodox Church, pp. 248 and 269Google Scholar, where he cites Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d. 733).

⁷⁹ Evdokimov, p. 123; Scrima, “Semplici,” pp. 1194, 1199-1200, and “Das II. Vatikanum,” p. 494.

⁸⁰ Ahlbrecht, Ansgar, “Neuere Katholische Versuche zur Würdigung der theologischen Anliegen Luthers,” Una Sancta 18 (1963), 177–82.Google Scholar Also von Balthasar, , Karl Barth, pp. 378–86.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Evdokimov, p. 154; see also pp. 144, 161.

⁸² See Congar, Yves, La Sainte Eglise, p. 135.Google Scholar

⁸³ Schmemann, Alexander, “The Orthodox Tradition” in O'Brien, Elmer, ed., The Convergence of Traditions (New York: Herder, 1967), pp. 13–16.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Lossky, V., Théologie mystique de l'Eglise d'Orient (Paris: Aubier, 1944), pp. 176–77.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Cited by Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Cork: Mercier, 1954), p. 199.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ von Balthasar, “Casta,” p. 297.

⁸⁷ Bobrinskoy, Boris, “Pour les orthodoxes uns miséricorde infinie,” L'actualité religieuse dans le monde 4 (Sept. 15, 1983), 37–40.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Ware, p. 248.

⁸⁹ Would to deny this not require flight to a ploy once very popular in the West, the distinction, namely, between Church (holy) and members (sinful). This discredited and now abandoned approach has been described as reducing the Church to “eine rein ideologische Grosse, die beinahe mythologischen Charakter hätte” by Rahner, Karl, Schriften zur TheoIogie 6 (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1965), p. 344.Google Scholar This distinction would reduce the real, actual Church to a “Zwischenwesen, irgendwo schwebund zwischen Gott und den Menschen,” according to Küng, Hans, Die Kirche (Freiburg: Herder, 1967), p. 563.Google Scholar The English translation (The Church [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1967], p. 481Google Scholar) has lost the flavor of Küng's rhetoric.

⁹⁰ Kress, Robert, “Leise Treten: An Irenic Ecumenical Hermeneutics,” Theological Studies 44 (1983), 407–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹¹ I have found support for my approach in Fries, Heinrich and Rahner, Karl, Einigung der Kirche— Reale Möglichkeit (Freiburg: Herder, 1983).Google Scholar I have also found support for it in the L/RC Dialogue's Justification by Faith, which distinguishes “theology as well as piety” (22), “theology and spiritual … theology and piety” (29), “dogmatics in practical theology” (65), “experiential impact … rather than with systematic description” (70). Similar distinctions can be found in 23, 38, 79, 85, 92, 102, 118, 121, 148, 150-53.

⁹² George Tavard's term, on the occasion of the release of the Lutheran/Roman Catholic Bilateral Dialogue on Justification; see National Catholic News Service (Sept. 19, 1983), p. 17.Google Scholar

⁹³ Rahner, Karl, “On the Spirituality of the Easter Faith,” Theological Investigations 17 (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 8.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ratzinger, Joseph, “Prognosen für die Zukunkt des Okumenismus,” Bausteine 17 (1976), 10.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Cullmann, Oscar, Sind die Erwartungen Erfülit? (Munich: Huber, 1966), p. 60;Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, E., Vatican II: The Red Achievement (London: Sheed and Ward, 1967), p. 89.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See the texts in Althaus, , The Theology of Martin Luther, pp. 66–70, 149, 153.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ratzinger, Joseph (with Rahner, Karl), Reveiation and Tradition (New York: Herder, 1965), pp. 26–31, 60–63.Google Scholar See also Kress, Robert, “The Roman Catholic Reception of the Augsburg Confession,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 11 (1980), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁸ C. P. (six), “Ecclesiologia protestante,” Humanitas 20 (1965), 1300.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Is this not the fundamental significance of Pius X's anti-Modernist insistence that the sacrament of penance did not gradually evolve, but was present in the Church from the beginning (DS 3446, 3447).

¹⁰⁰ von Ivanka, Endor, “Die Ausformung der Orthodoxie” in von Ivanka, Endoret al., eds., Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1971), p. 37.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Lossky, , La théologie, p. 177.Google Scholar

¹⁰² L/RC Dialogue, Justification by Faith, 161. See also Rahner, Karl, “On the Theology of the Ecumenical Discussion,” Theological Investigations 11 (New York: Seabury, 1974), pp. 24–67, esp. 59–67Google Scholar, and “A Basic Interpretation of Vatican II,” Theological Studies 40 (1979), 716–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰³ A favorite idea of the L/RC Dialogue, Justification by Faith; for example, 24, 101.

¹⁰⁴ Schneider, B., “Bemerkungen zur Kritik an der Kirche” in Vorgrimler, Herbert, ed., Gott in Welt 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 1964), p. 249.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Ratzinger, Joseph, “Heilsgeschichte und Eschatologie” in Ratzinger, J. and Neumann, J., eds., Theologie im Wandel (Munich: E. Wewel, 1967), p. 82.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ J. B. Metz has spoken of the “katholisches simul fidelis et infidelis” in “Der Unglaube als theologische Problem,” Concilium 6 (1970), 484–92.Google Scholar