It is sometimes common to hear from some modern Catholic and Protestant apologists and scholars to argue that the Council of Trent did not condemn the understanding of “Faith Alone” (Sola Fide) as proposed by the Reformers themselves, only more aberrant forms thereof (e.g., antinomianism). However, as the late Catholic scholar Paul Hacker (1913-1979) noted about Luther’s debate with Cardinal Cajetan and the subsequent anathemas of Trent:
A second issue, however, was the decisive one for both Cajetan and Luther. This was Luther’s new concept of faith. While preparing himself for the hearing, Cajetan stated briefly Luther’s point, namely “that the sacraments being damnation to the contrite person if he does not believe that he is being absolved.” Cajetan’s terse comments on this were his prophetical words: “This implies building a new Church (Hoc enim est novam Ecclesiam construere).” Luther, in his turn, composed a report on his encounter with Cajetan, known as the Acta Augustana. Here he recounts that the Cardinal criticized as “a new erroneous theology” this view that it was the “indispensable condition” of justification that man “believe with certitude (certa fide) in his being justified, not doubting of his receiving grace.” Thus, Luther’s account of Cajetan’s preparatory notes perfectly agree as to what formed the chief issue. Twenty-eight years later, the Council of Trent declared the doctrine in question to be heretical, in stating: “If anyone says that a man is absolved from his sins and justified by his believing with certitude that he is being absolved and justified; or that no one is really justified unless he believe that he has been justified; and that through this faith alone justification and absolution are perfected: let him be anathema” (DS 824). It is necessary today to recall this canon of the council because there are contemporary scholars who contend that Luther’s conception of faith is not contrary to the Catholic faith, or even assert that the Council of Trent did not “understand” the German Reformer. (Paul Hacker, Faith in Luther: Martin Luther and the Origins of Anthropocentric Religion [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2017], 52-53, emphasis added)
Elsewhere, on Luther’s understanding of faith and the reception of forgiveness, Hacker also correctly notes:
Nowhere in Holy Scripture, neither in the Synoptics, nor in other writings of the New Testament, nor in the Old Testament, can any instance be found of a person obtaining remission of sin because of his firm belief in the sin being forgiven.
The sins of the paralytic of Matthew 9:2 are forgiven although he and those who have brought him to Jesus seek only his bodily recovery. It is in expectation of this recovery that they have faith in Jesus. Remission of sin is quite outside the range of their hopes. But the trust in the Lord’s person makes possible the gift that is infinitely more important than bodily recovery.
The sinful woman of Luke 7 comes to Jesus and serves him silently in acts expressive of reverence and humility and love, and, probably, repentance. There is no word in the text to indicate that she is sure of receiving forgiveness. But Jesus does forgive her sins, “for she loved much”; and the mental attitude expressed by her silent and humble service is interpreted by the Lord as the faith that has saved her. Her faith (v. 50) and her love (v. 47) are one.
The story of the centurion of Capernaum does not expressly speak of remission of sin. It is, however, relevant to our inquiry that the centurion does not consider himself worthy of inviting Jesus to come to him, and according to St. Luke’s version of the story he does not even presume to approach the Lord in person (Lk 7:7). There is no trace of the cheerful audacity and bold confidence which, according to Luther’s teaching, should characterize true faith. Nevertheless, the centurion is praised by Jesus for his unparalleled faith—a faith full of humility and reverence and trust.
The most important example is, of course, the tax collector in the parable of Luke 18:9ff. He does not even expressly ask for remission of sin. Overwhelmed by shame and fear, he keeps his distance and does not dare to raise his eyes up to heaven. It is inconceivable that he believed, as Luther’s doctrine would have it, that his sins were forgiven, in order that they might be forgiven. It is not even said that he was sure that God had heard his prayer, “O God, have mercy on me, sinner that I am,” whereas according to Luther’s teaching, lack of certitude would be equivalent to certitude of damnation. But the Lord says; “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other,” namely, the Pharisee.
The result of this inquiry seems devastating to Luther’s position . . . We must therefore conclude that Luther has misinterpreted the passages he adduced. He overstrains the instrumentality of trusting faith. Faith is the way to, or the prerequisite of, salvation, but Luther makes it coincide with salvation itself. (Ibid., 67-69, 71)
