Movimento ecumenico e Giubileo               

Ritorna al testo, parte I

Note alle sette sezioni del testo testo:    

 I ( 1 - 31) * II ( 32 - 50) * III ( 51 - 75) * IV ( 76 -100)  

  V (101 - 120) * VI (121 - 165) * VII (166 - 225)  

Note alla sezione IV del testo: 76 - 100

84^]      G. Calvino, in V. Vinay, Il catechismo di Ginevra del 1537, Torino 1983, pp. 36-37: *Perché noi siamo tutti peccatori, e vi sono in noi parecchi residui di peccato, dobbiamo venir giustificati da qualche cosa fuori di noi, cloè abbiamo sempre bisogno di Cristo, aflinché dalla sua perfezione venga ricoperta la nostra imperfezione, dalla sua purezza venga lavata la nostra impurità, dalla sua obbedienza sia cancellata la nostra iniquità; e infine affinché dalla sua giustizia ci venga imputata giustizia gratuitamente, cioè senza considerazione alcuna delle nostre opere, che non sono di tal valore che possano reggere al giudizio di Dio. Ma quando le nostre macchie, che nel cospetto di Dio potrebbero contaminare le nostre opere, vengono in tal modo coperte, il Signore non vede più in esse se non una completa purezza e santità. Perciò le onora con grandi titoli e lodi, e le chiama e le reputa giuste e promette loro una buona remunerazione. Insomma, dobbiamo affermare che la compagnia di Cristo ha un tal valore, che per essa noi non solo veniamo reputati giusti gratuitamente, ma le stesse opere nostre vengono considerate giuste e ricompensate con una retribuzione eterna 1+.

1 Come abbiamo udito, Calvino afferma biblicamente che l'uomo è salvato per fede e non per opere, cioè consegue la vita eterna non perché riesca in qualche modo a conquistarla o meritarla, ma perché gli è donata da Dio in Cristo. Abbiamo già visto qual è la nostra impotenza a compiere le opere della legge. II volerci salvare, ceme si suol dire, facendo il bene, sarebbe un pò il tentativo di chi immerso fino alla gola in una palude e non avendo nessun punto d'appoggio cerchi di trarsi in salvo tirandosi per i capelli con le proprie mani. Ma il Vangelo e altro. Noi non siamo salvati perche buoni, ma perché Dio e buono verso di noi. È Cristo che ci afferra e ci salva. T utto è fatto da lui. E a noi non è richiesta che la fede. Come dice Calvino: *la vostra salvezza e fondata sulla sola misericordia di l)io, e su nessun'altra dignita né su alcunché altro di nostro e perciò tutta la speranza dev'essere ri posta in questa misericordia e come profondamente infissavi e non possiamo più riguardare alle nostre opere, né attendere da esse un qualsiasi aiuto+. (Ist., 1536,1, p. 60).

85^]      P. Tillich, Theology of Culture, Oxford 1968, p. 123: *Second, it was a rediscovery of the meaning of the word "sin" which had become entirely unintelligible by the identification of sin with sins, and by the identification of sins with certain acts that are not conventional or not approvable. Sin is something quite different. It is universal, tragic estrangement, based on freedom and destiny in all human beings, and should never be used in the plural. Sin is separation, estrangement from one's essential being. That is what it means; and if, this is the result of depth psychological work, then this of course is a great gift that depth psychology and existentialism have offered to theology+.

86^]      R. Bultmann, Glauben und verstehen, Müchen 1965, B. I, S. 23: *Und der Glaube ist deshalb kein Akt, der einmal vollzogen sein kann, mit dem die Rechtfertigung erledigt ist. Auch nicht ein wiederholbarer Akt, so daß Gericht und Gnade, Sünde und Vergebung sich im Menschenleben abwechseln könnten. Was Gnade ist, kann nur der Mensch wissen, der sich als Sünder weiß. Als Sünder weiß er sich nur, sofern er vor Gott steht; er kann also auch von Sünde nur wissen, wenn er von Gnade weiß. Der Blick auf Gottes Gericht und Gottes Gnade in einem macht das Wesen des Glaubens aus. Es gibt keine Gnade als für den Sünder, keine Gnade als im Gericht. Und wie der Menseh nur sinnvoll von Sünde reden kann, wenn er sich vor Gott sieht, so auch von Gnade nur als von Gnade für den Sünder. Es gibt keinen Standpunkt auf einer einmal erreichten Einsicht, in einer einmal errungenen Haltung+.

87^]      Erasmo da Rotterdam / Martin Lutero, Il libero arbitrio / il servo arbitrio, Torino 1984, pp. 214-215: *(Erasmo da Rotterdam, Saggio o discussione sul libero arbitrio) n1 720. Qual è, infatti, lo scopo che Paolo persegue nella sua epistola? Quello di far vedere che noi non possiamo far nulla, anche quando sembriamo fare il bene... Insomma, la Diatriba tratta questi testi paolinici con tanto timore ed esitazione che la sua coscienza sembra essere in disaccordo con le sue parole. Là dove essa potrebbe e dovrebbe continuare e concludere la sua dimostrazione, si interrompe quasi sempre dicendo: *ma ora basta ... oppure: non esaminerò questo punto nei suoi particolari+... essa lascia la questione in sospeso... Siamo poi costretti ad ammirare l'eleganza con la quale la Diatriba cerca di salvare capra e cavoli, cioè la libertà e la necessità, dicendo: *ogni necessità non è detto che escluda il libero arbitrio: così il Padre genera il Figlio necessariamente e tuttavia liberamente e volontariamente. Ma -dico io- stiamo parlando di necessità o di forza maggiore, cioè di violenza? Non abbiamo noi forse, in tante pubblicazioni, dimostrato che si tratta per noi di necessità immutabili e non di forza maggiore, cioè di violenza 1? Noi sappiamo che il Padre genera volontariamente e sappiamo che Giuda ha tradito il Cristo volontariamente; ma noi diciamo che questa volontà doveva manifestarsi in Giuda in modo certo ed infallibile dal momento che Dio l'aveva previsto...+.

88^]      BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH STAFF, What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism (March, 1985, Revised March, 1998), in *Internet+ 1999, http://www.desiringGod.org/resources/tulip.htm: *Total Depravity When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man. There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God. Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace. The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity. Man's depravity is total in at least four senses.

(4) Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment. Ephesians 2:3 goes on to say that in our deadness we were "children of wrath." That is, we were under God's wrath because of the corruption of our hearts that made us as good as dead before God. The reality of hell is God's clear indictment of the infiniteness of our guilt. If our corruption were not deserving of an eternal punishment God would be unjust to threaten us with a punishment so severe as eternal torment. But the Scriptures teach that God is just in condemning unbelievers to eternal hell (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9; Matthew 5:29f; 10:28; 13:49f; 18:8f; 25:46; Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10). Therefore, to the extent that hell is a total sentence of condemnation, to that extent must we think of ourselves as totally blameworthy apart from the saving grace of God. In summary, total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, our inability to submit to God or reform ourselves is total, and we are therefore totally deserving of eternal punishment. It is hard to exaggerate the importance of admitting our condition to be this bad. If we think of ourselves as basically good or even less than totally at odds with God, our grasp of the work of God in redemption will be defective. But if we humble ourselves under this terrible truth of our total depravity, we will be in a position to see and appreciate the glory and wonder of the work of God discussed in the next four points+

89^]      THE LUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNOD, The Joint Lutheran/Roman Catholic Declaration on Justification. A Response Prepared by the Department of Systematic Theology Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, (Indiana The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod), in *Internet+ 1999, http://www.lcms.org/president/catholic.html, screen pages 9-10: *4. Original Sin? Behind the Lutheran-Roman Catholic differences on justification are equally fundamental differences on how original sin is understood. Differences on one doctrine mirror differences in others. Lutherans hold that original sin is really sin and that it remains after Baptism. Roman Catholic doctrine holds that original sin is eradicated by Baptism and that concupiscence is not really sin. Avery Dulles raises the issue in his cautionary piece: "Can unjustified sinners, with the help of grace, freely dispose themselves to receive the grace of justification, as affirmed in Trent's canon 4 on justification? Or are sinners so radically corrupted that they cannot, even with the help of actual grace, prepare themselves for justification?"1 The issue came to a head in Trent's Decree Concerning Original Sin (Fifth Session), which calmly anathematized St. Paul: "This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin [Rom. 6-8; Col. 3] the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema."2 Hubert Jedin, the great modern Roman Catholic authority on Trent, acknowledges that problem: "The Council was now brought up against the very basis of the Lutheran teaching on justification, and one of the most difficult points of controversy, because Luther's view seemingly found support in St. Paul and St. Augustine… The teaching of canon 5 on concupiscence laid the foundation of the subsequent decree on justification."3 An earlier version of the Joint Declaration contained this bald statement: "Properly speaking, [concupiscence] therefore is not sin." This was criticized in some detail, particularly by the Finnish response, which suggested "that the last sentence ('Properly speaking, it therefore is not sin') be eliminated." The final version complies technically, but safeguards the Tridentine substance by having paragraph 30 say that baptismal grace takes away all that is sin "in the proper sense" and that is "worthy of damnation" (Romans 8:1). There does, however, remain in the person an inclination (concupiscence) that comes from sin and presses toward sin. Since, according to Catholic conviction, human sin always involves a personal element and since this element is lacking in this inclination, Catholics do not see this inclination as sin in an authentic sense. Although this inclination is "objectively in contradiction to God," it "does not merit the punishment of eternal death and does not separate the justified person from God." Here excuses for sin are substituted for forgiveness and justification!4+.

90^]      P. Tillich, The Eternal Now, London 1963, p. 42: *Those, however, who have experrenced in their hearts that sin is more than the trespassing of a list of rules, know that all sins are manifestations of Sin, of the power of estrangement and inner confiict. Sin dwells in us, it controls us, and makes us what we don't want to do. It produces a split in us that makes us lose identity with ourselves+.

91]      P. Tillich, The Shaking of the Foundations, Harmondworth 1964, p. 157: *Separation which is fate and guilt constitutes the meaning of the word 'sin'. It is this which is the state of our entire existence, from its very beginning to its very end. Such separation is prepared in the mother's womb, and before that time, in every preceding generation. It is manifest in the special actions of our conscious life. It reaches beyond our graves into all the succeeding generations. It is our existence itself. Existence is separation! Before sin is an act, it is a state+.

92]      J. Calvin, Institution de la Religion chrestienne, Vol. I, Paris 1961, pp. 46-47, (in francese arcaico): *Finalement, nous sommes envelopez de tant d'erreurs et meschantes opinions que ceste estincelle de verité, laquelle nous escléroit pour nous conduire à contempler la majesté de Dieu, est couverte et estaincte, tellement, qu'elle ne nous maine point jusques à droicte congnoissance, seulement en demeure la première semence, qui ne peut estre jamais du tout arrachée: c'est à sçavoir de congnoistre qu'il y a quelque divinité, Et encores icelle semence est tellement corrompue qu'elle ne produict que très mauvais fruictz. Et en ceste endroict on pèche principalement en deux sortes. La première est que les paovres hommes, pour chercher la verité de Dieu, n'outrepassent point leur nature, comme il estoit convenable, mais mesurent sa grandeur selon la rudesse de leurs sens et ne le comprenent point tel qu'il se donne à congnoistre, mais l'imaginent comme ilz l'ont forgé par leur outrecuydance. En ce faisant, ilz ouvrent un goufre, lequel ouvert, il est nécessaire, de quelque costé qu'ilz se tournent, qu'ilz tresbuchent toujours en damnation. Car quelque chose qu'ilz s'efforcent à faire puis aprez pour servir à Dieu, ilz ne luy peuvent mettre en compte, d'autant qu'ilz ne l'honorent point, mais, en son lieu, l'imagination de leur cœur+.

93]      J. Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, London 1966, p. 62: *At this point it is appropriate to introduce the word "sin." It will be remembered that one part of the purpose of this philosophical theology is to describe the situations in which theological or religious words and assertions have their meaning. So far we have been discussing the hurnan condition in secular terms. "Sin" is a religious term, and it has connotations that differentiate it from notions like "guilt" or "wrongdoing," though presumably "sin" includes these notions. What is distinctive in sin, however, is the last point to which we came in our discussion of models of human disorder Cthe notion of "lostness," of being alienated not only from oneself and from other existents but, at a still deeper level, from all being+.

94]      J. Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, London 1966, pp. 62-63: *That sin can be understood as "separation" or "missing the mark" or "falling away" in respect of one's relation to oneself or to one=s neighbor would perhaps be universally conceded. That it. is understood as alienation at a still deeper level is what is asserted in the distinctively religious connotation of the word, and I have tried to show that this religious connotation is firmly grounded in a common and widely recognizable element in man's awareness of his own existence in the world, or, more briefly, in his self-understanding. There is of course much that has still to be unfolded and examined before this as yet vague awareness of being cut off at the deepest level can be properly evaluated+.

95]      J. Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, London 1966, p. 60: *The disorder of human existence can be defined more precisely as imbalance, and in calling it "pathological" I have implicitly compared it to imbalances in the physical organism. But here we are thinking of existential imbalance. The tension between the polar opposites in existence is not maintained, but one overcomes the other and pulls it out of place, so to speak, so that the whole structure is thrown out of joint. The possibilities for such distortion are presumably infinite. In general, however, we can perceive two main directions in which the imbalance takes place, though both may well be present together in a single person or in a single society, in different regards or alternating with each other. On the one hand are such disorders, individual or social, as pride, tyranny, angelism, utopianism, with all their variations and intermixings. Individualism belongs here too+.

96]      G. Calvino, in V. Vinay, Il catechismo di Ginevra del 1537, Torino 1983, p. 54: *Non c'indurre in tentazione, ma liberaci dal maligno. Amen. Con questo non chiediamo di non provare nessuna tentazione, della quale piuttosto abbiamo molto bisogno per essere risvegliati, stimolati e agitati, per timore che il riposo troppo prolungato non ci renda troppo molli e pigri, come anche il Signore giornalmente tenta i suoi eletti ammaestrandoli, esponendoli a ignominia, povertà, tribolazione e altre croci. Ma questa è la nostra richiesta che il Signore ci dia con le tentazioni pure il modo d'uscirne, affinché non veniamo da esse vinti e oppressi, ma anzi resi fermi e robusti dalla sua forza possiamo resistere di continuo all'urto con tutte le potenze dalle quali siamo combattuti. Di più, essendo da lui guardati e protetti, santificati dalle sue grazie spirituali, retti dal suo governo, rimaniamo invincibili di fronte al diavolo, alla morte e a tutte le offese dell'inferno. Questo vuol dire esser liberati dal maligno+.

97]      J. Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology, London 1966, pp. 61-62: *Can something be said to define more closely the character of the disorder that afflicts our existence? It has already been described as an "imbalance," in terms of the polarities of existence, and perhaps this model of imbalance is the best available and, as we shall see, one that can be further developed in connection with the idea of selfhood. But other models are useful in lighting up aspects of the disorder. It can be described as falling, and although this particular term has its origins in religion and myth, it has been brought into secular philosophy by Martin Heidegger 1 and has an obvious usefulness. It suggests failure to attain, falling short of actualization, or falling away from an authentic possibility, without of course implying that one had first arrived there, and this only subsequently fallen away. Another model is that of "alienation," also used by Heidegger and by many other writers. The description of the various modes of imbalance showed these as a turning away from one or other of the poles of human existence, so that this imbalance becomes an alienation within existence itself+.
1 Being and Time, p. 175.

98]      LUTHERAN - ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED STATES, Justification by Faith, in *Origins+, 1983 n1 17, p. 282 n1 25: *Justification by faith without the works of the law led Luther to a mode of thinking about Christian life and experience markedly different from traditional Augustinian and medieval transformationist models. Instead of a progressive transformation under the power of grace, the imputation of an alien righteousness received in faith implies a simultaneity; the justification is complete in the imputing of it so tha the believer is "simultaneously a righteous person and a sinner" (simul iustus et peccator). All notions of "change" and "growth" in the life of the Christian therefore receive a quite different cast. The very imputation of Christ's righteousness also reveals to the believer the depth and persistence of sin. Sin, however, is then not merely the failure to do "good works" or the despair over such failure, but is, above all. the human propensity to trust in one's own righteousness. The imputed alien righteousness of Christ creates a new situation in which sin is exposed as both presumption and despair and is attack ed in its totality. Only when so exposed and confessed can sin no longer reign+.

99]      L. Volken, The Lutheran World Federation Assembly in Helsinki, in *Unity+, 1963 n1 3, S. 191-192: *For Helsinki and its Assembly the established theme was: * Christ Today +. The choice of a theme was important because it had to give to the life of worship and to the discussion activity its true sense. It had to stimulate the true concern of preserving the evangelical kerygma in a time when it is so strongly in danger, especially through the tendency toward self-justification. It had to awaken the conscience of pastoral responsibility to the actual situation of Christians and men in general; to promote the present ecumenical attitude and the readiness to go new ways in the changed situation of the world and its behavior regarding the Church. With this theme the LWF wanted to confess the presence of Our Lord in the existence of the Christian and the Church+.
S. 195: *The Assembly also added some new elements in listing what Justification was not. Not only are * Roman + works like pigrimages, indulgences, ceremonies etc. opposed to Justification, but also the self-justification of communists, of western philanthropists, of those zealous orthodox Lutherans who, in spite of their defense of the pure doctrine, their regularity in worship and their enthusiasm for a world mission, are in danger of making of their theology the way to a heaven where they already seem to have an account. +

100]      LUTHERAN - ROMAN CATHOLIC DIALOGUE IN THE UNITED STATES, Justification by Faith, in *Origins+, 1983 n1 17, p. 290 n1 93: *While this hermeneutical interpretation of the doctrine of justification is suggested especially by Luther's early writings, it was largely forgotten in later Lutheranism and even now is often not understood. Yet it is important for our purposes because, while it conflicts with Scholastic approaches, whether Catholic or Lutheran, it also converges in part with certain recent trends in Catholic sacramental and kerygmatic theology (cf. nos. 77 and 80, above)+.

itorna al testo che stai studiando

Note al testo ( 101 - 120 )

Note alle sette sezioni del testo:

 I ( 1 - 31) * II ( 32 - 50) * III ( 51 - 75) * IV ( 76 -100)  

  V (101 - 120) * VI (121 - 165) * VII (166 - 225)  

ritorna all'inizio