Justification: A Reformed-Catholic Dialogue

In the following dialogue, Horace, a Catholic, and Manfred, a Reformed Protestant, are having a discussion on the doctrine of justification.

The Catholic doctrine of justification is summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1987-1992:

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism: . . . 

Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ's Passion by dying to sin, and in his Resurrection by being born to a new life; we are members of his Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the vine which is himself: . . . 

The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man. 

Justification detaches man from sin which contradicts the love of God, and purifies his heart of sin. Justification follows upon God's merciful initiative of offering forgiveness. It reconciles man with God. It frees from the enslavement to sin, and it heals. 

Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. 

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:  (Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1987-1992, retrieved from the Vatican website at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm at 10:48 AM on 2/23/18 [footnotes removed])

Here is a helpful summary of the Reformed Protestant doctrine of justification:

Justification is a forensic, judicial act of pardoning, accepting, and accounting, not a transformative work by which a sinner is made subjectively holy through an infusion of grace. According to this definition, justification is a blessing granted to sinners, those who have fallen short of God’s righteous requirements and stand condemned before him. In response to our sin, God, by his free grace, does two things for our justification: he pardons all our sins and accepts and accounts us righteous in his sight. God not only wipes away the guilt of sinners, but he also credits righteousness to them. In justification, God declares that we are innocent of ever sinning against him and credits us with keeping his law perfectly. The ground for this great work . . . is nothing that is wrought within us or done by us. Instead, its ground is the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, imputed to us. In other words, Christ’s perfect obedience to God’s law is credited to us, so that we stand before God as if we ourselves had kept that law perfectly. And Christ’s perfect sacrifice of atonement is imputed to us, so that we stand before God as if we had atoned for our law-breaking.  (Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Justification: Report of the Committee to Study the Doctrine of Justification [Willow Grove, PA: The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2007], 11-12)

__________________________________________

Manfred:  Hello, Horace!  I was just looking for you.  I appreciate your invitation to the ecumenical prayer group, but I'll have to decline.

Horace:  Oh, that's too bad.  Other plans?

Manfred:  No, it's just that I don't think it is appropriate to pray with other people, such as Catholics, who don't believe in the gospel.

Horace:  Why would you say we Catholics don't believe in the gospel?  We hold the gospels to be the Word of God.  We worship the Holy Trinity, and acknowledge Christ as our God and our Savior, who, by his life, death, and resurrection, has saved us from our sins and opened the way to eternal life.  Is this not the gospel?

Manfred:  Well, the devil is in the details, as they say.  My main concern is that you Catholics don't believe in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, or, as we like to call it for short, Sola Fide.

Horace:  What is the doctrine of Sola Fide?

Manfred:  It's the doctrine that we are justified--or made right with God--solely on the basis of the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ imputed to us.  You see, we are sinners who have deserved God's wrath.  Christ suffered and died for our sins, paying their penalty, and he also lived a life of righteousness which merited the Father's favor.  When we trust in Christ alone (by the power of his grace), the satisfaction he made to the Father for our sins and his perfect righteousness are counted to our credit, and in that righteousness alone we are enabled to stand reconciled before the Father.

Horace:  We Catholics accept this.  We acknowledge that we are sinners, and that Christ died for our sins, and that we can only be saved through the merit of his satisfaction and through the righteousness he gives to us as a free gift.

Manfred:  But you don't accept that we are justified only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, or credited legally to our account.  You say we are justified by righteousness being infused into us, making us inwardly holy.

Horace:  Well, it's both, isn't it?  Christ's righteousness is credited to our account--that is, it is given to us as a free gift--but it must also be infused into us by the Holy Spirit, cleansing us from sin and making us holy.

Manfred:  That is where you Catholic go wrong.  We are justified only by Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, and not at all by righteousness being infused into us or making us inwardly holy.

Horace:  So you don't think that God makes us holy by his grace?

Manfred:  Yes, God does make us holy by his grace.  But this is not what makes us justified.  God both justifies us (makes us right with himself and his moral law) and sanctifies us (makes us inwardly holy), but sanctification is not a part or ground of justification.  We are made right with God solely on the basis of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, not infused within us.

Horace:  So if we have that imputation, we have everything we need to be right with God?

Manfred:  Yes.

Horace:  Sanctification adds nothing to this?

Manfred:  Right.

Horace:  I'm a little confused.  If imputation is all we need, and God is completely satisfied with this, then what is the point of sanctification?

Manfred:  Sanctification follows justification as its inevitable fruit.

Horace:  OK, but is it just an unnecessary side effect, or does it have any importance in itself?

Manfred:  It is important.  It makes us fit for heaven.

Horace:  What does that mean?  How does sanctification make us fit for heaven?

Manfred:  Well, if we were unsanctified and left in a wicked condition inwardly, we would not enjoy heaven, for only the righteous can enjoy heaven.  The unrighteous hate God, and heaven is all about being with God.

Horace:  So sanctification is important to us, but not to God?

Manfred:  No, our sanctification is important to God as well.  He will not allow us into his presence until we are cleansed of sin.

Horace:  Why not?

Manfred:  Because he hates sin.  Sin is contrary to his nature and his moral law.  He cannot abide it in his presence.

Horace:  I'm confused.  I thought you said earlier that when Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, we're made entirely right with God and his moral law, and that sanctification adds nothing to this.

Manfred:  Yes, that's right.

Horace:  Well then, why does he have a problem with inward sin being in his presence?  Let's take a concrete example.  If Stan has Christ's righteousness imputed to him, but he is not sanctified, why should that matter to God in terms of letting him into heaven if imputation by itself is completely sufficient to make him perfectly right with God?  If imputation does this, then God would no longer have any problem with Stan's sin.  He's perfectly reconciled with Stan.  Stan's sin doesn't bother God anymore.  Isn't that the whole point of imputation?  So I still don't see, if this is true, why God would care whether or not Stan is inwardly sanctified.  I don't get what the point of sanctification is from God's point of view.

Manfred:  Imputation wipes out Stan's sin, so that Stan stands perfectly righteous before God and his moral law.  God and his law require nothing more.  Stan has perfectly satisfied all the demands of the moral law.  But still, if he is unsanctified, then his inward sin makes him unclean and thus unfit to stand in God's presence.

Horace:  What?!  That sounds like a complete contradiction to me.  Imputation wipes out all of Stan's sin so that God's law is perfectly satisfied, and yet . . . apparently God's law isn't really fully satisfied, for God still regards Stan as unclean because of his remaining inward sin!

Manfred:  It is difficult to explain.  But the main point is that this is the biblical gospel.  The Bible teaches that we are justified solely by the imputation of Christ's righteousness.  The Apostle Paul teaches this very plainly, for example, in Romans 1-5.

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Romans 4:1-8).

Horace:  I certainly agree that the Scriptures teach us that we are saved by grace through the righteousness of Christ being given to us as a free gift, as St. Paul says here.  But that is not the point in dispute between us.  The dispute is whether this gift of righteousness involves only imputation, or if infusion of righteousness into us and inward transformation are also necessary to make us fully right with God.  It seems to me that the Bible, and St. Paul in particular, is quite clear in teaching that both imputation and inward transformation are necessary.  You mentioned Romans 1-5.  Don't forget he continues his teaching in chapters 6-8 as well.

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 6:1-23).

Manfred:  Yes, we Reformed know that God makes us inwardly holy.  We just say that that has nothing to do with our being made right with God and his moral law.

Horace:  Really?  The Scriptures do not seem to me to draw anything like such a sharp distinction.  They speak of our inward sanctification as being important to make us right with God.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live (Romans 8:5-13).

The Scriptures emphasize this theme a lot.  One big example is the teaching of the Scriptures on the final judgment.  We will be judged according to our works, whether good or bad.  How is this consistent with your idea that our inward sanctification--and the works that flow from that--has nothing at all to do with our being in a state of right standing before God and his moral law?

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God (2 Corinthians 5:8-11).

I just don't think you've got the Scriptures on your side on this one.

Manfred:  Yes, we know that we will be judged according to our works.  But this doesn't mean that God will actually give to us what our works (even our works done in grace) really deserve.  All our works, even our best works, deserve nothing but hell.  But God rewards them with eternal life anyway, because he judges them graciously, in view of the merits of Christ.

Horace:  So it is like a child taking a math test.  The child's work, viewed objectively, deserves a failing grade, but the teacher gives the child a passing grade anyway because someone else took the test for her and got a passing grade and the teacher imputes that other person's test score to the child?

Manfred:  Yes, that's a helpful analogy.

Horace:  But that is to say that, in reality, the child is not graded according to her own work at all, but according to someone else's work.  But the Scriptures don't say we will be judged on the basis of what Christ has done, but on the basis of what we have done.  In the Scriptural view (and the Catholic view), the analogy would be better if we imagine the child being somehow united to a wiser person such that that person's wisdom is infused into her, so that the child herself is enabled to take the test and receive a passing grade.  This is what Christ does for us.  He gives us a share in his own righteousness and power by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit.  We sinners have no righteousness of our own to merit God's favor.  But Christ gives to us his righteousness and makes us inwardly holy by the power of his grace so that we can become truly pleasing to God, thus doing works that truly warrant his good pleasure and his reward.

Manfred:  But the Scriptures say that God does not judge us strictly according to our works, but rather has mercy on us.

He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.  For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.  As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us (Psalm 103:10-12).

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.  For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment (James 2:12-13).

Horace:  That is true.  Instead of holding our sins against us, he forgives our sins and offers us the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ.  And when he judges us, he judges us with mercy, taking into account our weaknesses, our efforts, our repentance, etc.  But none of this negates the insistence of the Scripture that we will in fact be judged not in spite of, or with no regard to, but according to our works.  Scripture insists on this over and over and over again.  (From just the New Testament, not even taking into consideration the Old Testament, see, for example, Romans 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Galatians 5:6,21; Ephesians 5:5; James 2:14-26; Hebrews 12:14; Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 10:25-28; Revelation 20:13; Revelation 22:12; Matthew 16:27; John 5:28-29; Galatians 6:7-9; Matthew 25; etc.)  If our works, even those done in grace, merit hell, but God rewards us with heaven, then we are judged not according to our works in any way but in fact quite literally opposite to our works--the exact reversal of what Scripture repeatedly teaches.  God is certainly a merciful judge, but he is still a judge.  Sinners "shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal" (Matthew 25:46).

Manfred:  But the Scriptures are crystal-clear that we are saved by grace and not by our own merits!

Horace:  Yes, and we are agreed on this point.  But this doesn't require your ideas about imputation.  God may require the righteousness of Christ to be both imputed to us and infused within us to make us acceptable, but that doesn't change the fact that it is Christ's righteousness and not our own that makes us acceptable.  Whether imputed to us or infused within us, the righteousness that justifies us is an unmerited gift of free grace.  So we are justified by grace.  That is why the Scriptures can say both that we are saved by grace and that we will be judged according to our works.  Both are true, and they are not contradictory, because the works that God will judge us by in the final judgment are the fruits of God's gift of righteousness to us in Christ.  As St. Augustine famously put it, "When God crowns our merits, he is crowning his own gifts."  If someone gives me $100 as a free gift, and then I go out and buy groceries with that $100, even though the $100 has purchased the groceries, it doesn't follow from this that I have earned the groceries myself by my own resources.  The groceries should still be regarded as a gift, for they were purchased with money that was a gift.  Similarly, Christ has given us his righteousness, and that righteousness bears fruit in our works, and God is truly pleased with these works and considers them fit to reward with eternal life.  But that reward is still a total gift of grace, because God is only crowning his own gifts in us.

You accuse us, Manfred, of denying the gospel of grace because we don't buy into the Reformed ideas about imputation alone making us right with God.  But you can see that the Reformed ideas about imputation are not at all necessary to preserve the gracious character of justification.  All these ideas do is cloud up other Scriptural teaching regarding the importance and place of works.  By limiting justification solely to imputation, you turn sanctification--which Scripture emphasizes as being of great importance to God's acceptance of us--into nothing but an unnecessary add-on, at least in terms of our standing before God.  You still haven't told me why God even cares about our sanctification, if imputation gives us all we need by itself to bring us into good standing before God.

I would actually go a little further here.  I think you have hinted that perhaps you do not even believe your own system.  You have said that sanctification makes us somehow fit to be in God's presence, that he could not tolerate an unsanctified person to live with him in heaven without first being cleaned up.  In saying this, I think you are subconsciously acknowledging the Catholic position that recognizes that sanctification is an important part of what brings us into good standing with God.  For you are quite right.  Sanctification is necessary to make us fit to dwell with God, for we cannot be acceptable to him unless righteousness is not merely imputed to us but is also infused within us and bears its fruit in our lives.

Manfred:  OK, I do see the point you are making.  You are right in your concern that we should not formulate our doctrines of justification and sanctification in such a way as to negate any moral importance attached to sanctification.  God does care not just about our legal status but also about our inward condition.  Sanctification is important to make us fit to dwell with God.

Perhaps we can say this:  Justification (consisting of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us) provides us legally with what we need to satisfy God's moral law, but we will not experientially stand right with God until we are also sanctified (which consists of righteousness being infused within us and bearing its fruit in our lives).  Perhaps an analogy can help.  Consider purchasing a book on Amazon.  Legally, the book is yours once you've purchased it, but it doesn't provide any benefit to you until you actually receive it in the mail.

Horace:  That sounds good to me.  I think we Catholics can get behind that.  I like your distinction between legally being made right with God and experientially being made right with God.  I would want to add that the legal status is nothing but a dead letter without the experiential realization.  If God were to impute righteousness to Stan but refrain from infusing it into him, he would give with one hand what he takes back with the other, for Stan would continue to stand unreconciled before God, displeasing to him in his moral corruption and fit only for hell and not for heaven.  Imputation would make no difference to his actual standing before God in practice, and so would be merely a legal fiction.

Manfred:  Yes, just as the person who buys a book but never has it delivered is, in practice, in no different position from the person who never buys it.  It doesn't do him any good.

Horace:  Yes, exactly.

So where does this leave us?  I am perfectly happy with your new formulation of your position.  I think it addresses all my concerns, and I think it brings your view into harmony with the Catholic view.  Perhaps the only difference remaining between us on this point is terminological.  We both recognize the importance of both imputation and infusion in bringing about our moral reconciliation with God, but you use the term justification to refer to only the imputation component and we Catholics use the term justification to cover the whole process.

Manfred:  But don't you believe that we have to cooperate with God's grace?  God's grace doesn't make us righteous inwardly unless we cooperate with it of our own free will?  Doesn't that mean it's really us doing the good works and not God?

Horace:  Certainly we have to cooperate with God's grace of our own free will.  But our good will itself is also a gift of grace, so all of it comes from grace.  We make no independent contribution.  When we say "yes" to God, that "yes" itself is a gift of grace, a fruit of Christ's righteousness applied to our hearts by the Holy Spirit.  Just take a look at what the Catholic Church taught at the Second Council of Orange to see how deeply rooted in grace our whole salvation is.

Manfred:  Well, I must be going now.  Thank you for this conversation.  It's given me a lot to think about.  I'm still uncomfortable with the Catholic view.  The Reformation was all about recovering the gospel of grace that had been lost by the medieval Church.  Certainly, however, I must grant that the issues are more complex than I have previously realized, and I must continue to ponder these things.  Have a good day!

Horace:  You too, until next time!

For further critique of the Reformed Protestant doctrine of justification, see here, here, and here.  For an exegesis of Romans 1-8 with particular attention to St. Paul's doctrine of justification, see here.  For some articles attempting to show how the gap between the Catholic view and the Reformed view might be bridged, see here, here, and here.  See also the chapter on justification in my book, No Grounds for Divorce.  For more on the Catholic doctrine of salvation in general, see here.

Published on the feast of St. Christopher Magallanes and Companions, Martyrs

Some Thoughts on the Recent Open Letter against Pope Francis

Some conservative teachers and theologians have recently put out an open letter in which they accuse Pope Francis of heresy.  I'm sure there will be a ton of responses to this in coming days and weeks.  What I would like to do here is simply provide a few brief thoughts and point out what I take to be some of the fundamental problems with this letter.  You can find the letter itself here.  I don't intend to point out every problem I might have with the letter, but just to focus some attention on a few major concerns.

First Problem - The Reliability of the Ordinary Papal Magisterium

The first problem with this letter is that the writers fail to recognize the unfailing reliability of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and particularly of the Pope.  They point out rightly that the Pope cannot err (and therefore certainly cannot teach heresy) when teaching infallibly or definitively.  They obviously believe, however, that the Pope can teach heresy when he is teaching authentically but non-definitively.  The problem with this is that this is contrary to Church teaching.  The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope, and the bishops as a whole, can teach with various levels of definitiveness, but that Catholics are bound to submit with mind and will to all magisterial teaching according to the intention of the magisterial teacher.  So if the Pope teaches something and intends it to be a definitive pronouncement, Catholics are to submit to it as the final word on the subject and irreformably and forever true.  If the Pope teaches something which he intends the people to believe, but it is not intended as necessarily the final word on the subject, then Catholics are bound to accept that teaching, but not necessarily as the final word on the subject.  All magisterial teaching is to be regarded as inherently reliable, for it all comes with the authority of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We can never be led astray by following magisterial teaching, although non-definitive teaching can lead us to provisional conclusions that may later turn out to be augmented or even corrected.  The fact that non-definitive teaching is not necessarily irreformable is not contrary to its reliability, for the reformable nature of such teaching does not come from any unreliability in the teaching but in the non-definitiveness of the magisterial intention.  If the Pope teaches us that X is the best position to hold right now and that we ought to hold position X, but that this is not necessarily the final word on the subject, if later on we find that X is false we cannot be said to have been led astray by the Pope's teaching, for that teaching did not teach us that X would never be overturned.  But the reliability of the Pope's ordinary teaching obviously precludes that teaching from including heresy--that is, from including ideas that contradict what the Church has previously affirmed definitively to have been revealed by God.  For we already know that such teachings cannot be true and that we should not hold them.  It would be contrary to the justice and truth of God for legitimate authority appointed by him to legitimately bind us to teaching that it would be wrong to hold.

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.  (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, #25, found here at the Vatican website)

I have made a thorough case documenting this teaching of the Church in this article, so I won't duplicate that case here.

So if the Pope cannot teach heresy in his authentic magisterium, even when he teaches non-definitively, then Pope Francis cannot have taught heresy in any of his authentic magisterial teachings, such as those found in Amoris Laetitia.  Rather, all Catholics are bound to submit to all that Pope Francis has taught the Church to believe.  The writers of the open letter are in violation of the teaching and laws of the Church on this point, as Canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law points out:

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.  (Catholic Church, Code of Canon Law, Canon 752, embedded links removed, found here on the Vatican website)

Second Problem - Nothing Pope Francis Has Taught Can Be Shown to Conflict with Catholic Doctrine

If it could be shown that a Pope has taught something in his authentic, ordinary magisterium, intended as binding on the Church, that is contrary to previous definitive Catholic teaching, this would be a serious problem for Catholic epistemology.  As with claims of biblical contradictions, we have to look at alleged errors and contradictions in papal teaching to determine if a contradiction can truly be proved.

I'm not going to attempt to do a thorough analysis of this here.  But I see nothing in anything that Pope Francis has taught that contradicts previous Catholic doctrine.  The biggest set of objections mentioned in the open letter have to do with Pope Francis's teaching in Amoris Laetitia.  They allege that Pope Francis has contradicted previous Catholic teaching on the illicitness of adultery, the indissolubility of marriage, and the inappropriateness of someone in mortal sin being admitted to communion, because, in Amoris Laetitia and in subsequent teaching, he has said that it might be permissible in some cases, as judged by a pastor on a case-by-case basis, for some people who are in "irregular unions" (read: objectively adulterous relationships) to be admitted to communion to some degree and in some way.  Pope Francis's basis for saying this is, at least in part, his recognition that some people who find themselves in objectively adulterous relationships might be legitimately confused about what they should do.  For example, imagine a person who, through a series of events, finds herself in a "marriage" with a man who is not her canonical husband.  They have children.  She wants to do the right thing, which would seem to involve at least no longer engaging in sexual activity within her current "marriage" relationship.  But she is not sure this is really the right thing to do.  Perhaps she is aware that her husband will not accept this situation and will leave the relationship, or that one or both of them might be tempted to adultery.  In such cases, the relationship could be destroyed, which would lead to great harm to the children.  Now, Pope Francis isn't saying that such a person should continue engaging in sexual relations within her current relationship.  He is only saying that it might be that such a person might be confused in conscience about how she ought to proceed, even if she knows in her mind what the objective rules of the Church require.  He envisions that this person's pastor might get to know and understand this person and the nature of her relationship, and while attempting to help her get into a better objective situation, he might recognize that she is truly trying to do what is right but is confused, and that she seems to be truly in a state of grace, and so, if scandal can be sufficiently avoided, he might allow her to receive Holy Communion, at least to some degree.

So Pope Francis's critics are saying that this contradicts previous Catholic teaching.  But it doesn't.  It doesn't contradict the indissolubility of marriage.  It doesn't contradict the illicitness of adultery.  It doesn't contradict the idea that those in mortal sin should not take communion or be allowed to do so.  So there is simply no basis here for any charge of heresy.

(For more on Amoris Laeititia, I would recommend the excellent writings of Stephen Walford, some of which can be found here,  He has written a book-length treatment of this as well which is very helpful.  Pope Francis himself wrote a letter to be used as a preface to the book.)

The other arguments the authors of the letter make are equally vacuous, so far as I can see.  They accuse the Pope of buying into Luther's doctrine of justification.  Pope Francis has indeed expressed that he thinks Luther got justification right.  But he hasn't expressed which aspects of Luther's views he agrees with, nor has he shown with any clarity or depth of nuance what he thinks Luther's views really were.  He has not expressed any intention to overturn the doctrines of the Council of Trent.  It seems from context that he has simply meant to say that he thinks Luther's idea that we are saved by God's grace and not by our own works or merits was fundamentally correct--and, of course, Catholic theology has always agreed with this.  One might argue that Pope Francis might have spoken on this subject more carefully and with greater clarity.  But it cannot be shown that he has intended anything heretical by anything he has said.

The authors of the letter say that Pope Francis teaches that it is impossible to obey all the commandments of God, contrary to Church teaching at Trent, against the Jansenists, etc.  But they have misunderstood him, and they have oversimplified the doctrine of the Church.  What the Church has taught is that grace makes it possible for us to do what the law of God requires of us.  This was against the Jansenists and others who would say that God might command of us actual impossibilities--which would be absurd, because then we could not be guilty for disobeying, which would make sin to be no sin.  But the Church has never taught that all people at all times and all places can obey all the objective commands of God.  For example, there are people who literally cannot get baptized.  There are people who, through invincible ignorance, don't know they ought to get baptized, or join the Church, or who haven't heard the gospel command to believe in Christ, etc.  All of us are subject to errors, inabilities, and confusion from time to time.  But here is the key point:  God does not require people to do what they cannot do.  He requires all people to be baptized, but, speaking with stricter accurately, we should really say that he commands all people to get baptized who know and understand that command and who are capable of fulfilling it.  He commands all others to do the best they can to figure out what they ought to do and to try to do it to the best of their ability.  God commands all people to avoid adultery.  But if a person legitimately doesn't know or understand that command, or is truly confused or ignorant about what they should do in some particular situation, what they are commanded to do is to follow God's will as best they can.  They cannot be blamed for not doing what they truly cannot do.  What the Church has taught is that grace removes all impediments to people being able to be truly righteous--to love God, love their neighbors, and choose to fulfill the commands of God.  This is all the law of God requires of any person.  Grace does not make it so that all people in any situation can, instantaneously, live up to every general objective command that God has given.  So it is Pope Francis's critics, not Pope Francis, who have distorted Church teaching on this subject.  Pope Francis's teaching explores a nuance related to personalized pastoral care, but it doesn't contradict anything the Church has previously taught about the efficacy of grace.

Later on in their letter, the authors try to argue that Pope Francis has implicitly promoted various heresies by means of his actions.  Here, the letter slides into the realm of the more obviously implausible and even absurd.  For example, they allege that Pope Francis has not adequately rooted out certain prelates known to promote homosexual behavior, or that he has put some of these prelates into high positions in the Church, and they argue that this suffices to show that Pope Francis promotes the view that homosexual sexual behavior is morally acceptable.  But this is absurd.  Even if it is granted that Pope Francis has done what the authors say he has done, we cannot infer from this what his theological and moral views are.  Perhaps Pope Francis is simply very imprudent when it comes to how he deals with Church discipline.  Perhaps he is negligent.  But we cannot take such actions and, against what he has said explicitly or even without any explicit statement either way, impute to him heretical views that we construe his actions as implying.  Now, I don't accept that Pope Francis is guilty of the things the authors say he is.  I think they have distorted and oversimplified the facts.  I don't want to get into this now.  My main point here is that even if all their facts were correct, accurately interpreted, and complete, there would be no case from things of this sort to show that Pope Francis holds or teaches the heretical views they attribute to him.

Third Problem - Who Gets to Decide When a Pope is a Heretic, and What To Do With a Heretical Pope?

So far, the Church has yet to define with any definitiveness, clarity, or precision, whether a Pope can be a heretic, when he might be able to be a heretic, and what should be done with a heretical Pope.  So the authors have developed their own theories, without magisterial support, and without any substantial foundation at all to a great degree.

The questions surrounding the idea of a"heretical Pope" have been discussed and debated throughout Church history, as the authors of the letter point out.  While there is no Church teaching which nails down all the answers to all of these questions, there are some things we can say with reasonable safety.  We can rule out a Pope being able to teach heresy in his official magisterial capacity, for reasons discussed above.  Can the Pope be a heretic in his personal beliefs or in his private--that is, non-binding--teaching?  Some Catholic theologians have held that he can, and I am not aware of anything in Church teaching that rules it out.

What would we do if we found ourselves with a Pope who was a private heretic?  There is no authoritative answer to this question.  On this point, the authors of the letter pick their preferred answer without any substantial evidence and put it forward as if it were a justified and settled conclusion.  In reality, no one really knows what should be done in such a hypothetical case.  But we can say this:  In the context of a Catholic epistemology, it is the Church, and not private theologians, who has the authority to answer these questions.  It is the Magisterium of the Church--that is, the bishops in communion with the Pope--which has the authority to decide whether or not there can be a heretical Pope, whether there is a heretical Pope at any given time, and what should be done about it if there is.  The route chosen by the authors of our letter has no foundation, and it is evident that it is a route that, if followed through on, could only lead to schism.  They say that if a Pope were to manifest himself as a heretic, it would be the job of the Church (if it is anyone's job) to authoritatively declare him such.  So far they say well.  But then they say that this authoritative pronouncement need not be made "by all the bishops of the Catholic Church, or even by a majority of them. A substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church would have the power to take these actions."  What in the world does this mean?  Who gets to determine what constitutes a "substantial and representative part of the faithful bishops of the Church"?  The only thing this could mean in practice is that some sizable group of bishops in the Church can decide that they think a Pope is a heretic and then, even against the objections of the Pope and the rest of the bishops, they can authoritatively declare him such, from which follows automatically, according to the authors, his loss of papal office.  What happens then?  What if the rest of the Church refuses to go along with this, maintaining the legitimacy of the current Pope?  Does the "faithful" group get to elect a new Pope?  Do they have to wait for the cardinals?  How long do they have to wait?  Who gets to decide all of this?  Anyone with any reasonable degree of perceptiveness should be able to see that this is nothing but a recipe for disastrous schism in the Church.

The Catholic way is different.  The Church teaches that bishops do not have authority except in communion with the Pope.  (See, for example, Can. 336 and CCC #883.)  One of the main functions of the papal office is to prevent schism.  If bishops disagree with each other, we are to follow the See of Rome.  It is not for a private theologian, or a single bishop. or a group of theologians, or a group of bishops, to decide that a Pope can be a heretic, or that a certain Pope is a heretic, or that a certain course of action should be followed with regard to alleged papal heresy, without the approval of the Pope.  No such action could be legitimate.  We can envision all sorts of hypothetical possibilities that may or may not be possible or that may or may not ever happen, but none of them are legitimate possibilities if they contradict the fundamental structures of authority in the Catholic Church.

Sometimes it is alleged that there have been heretical Popes in the past.  I don't want to get into this now in any thoroughness.  There have been interesting cases in the past, but none of them provide any justification for the authors' point of view or for departing from the Church's views on Church authority.  Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and by later Popes for what he said to the Bishop of Constantinople about Christ only having one will.  But there are two things to notice here.  One is that nobody declared the Pope a heretic without papal approval.  If papal approval had not been given to the council's decisions, they would have had no authority from the Catholic point of view.  Also, it is not clear that Honorius intended to teach false doctrine authoritatively, or that later Popes ever claimed that he did.  The later Pope Leo II condemned Honorius for failing to stand up against heretical doctrine and thereby abetting it.  Honorius's comments themselves seem to suggest that he was not intending to affirm the doctrine of "one will" that was later condemned.  It is quite possible to understand Honorius's crime not as intending to teach authoritatively a false view, but as speaking unclearly in a way that negligently avoided attacking the sprouting heresy in the bud.  Other complexities of this situation could be noted as well.  But however we construe it, we cannot prove from it that Popes can be heretical in their authentic magisterial teaching (though they can be negligent and fail to fulfill all their duties adequately) or that individual bishops or groups of bishops can declare Popes heretical without the consent of papal authority.

Another historical case is that of Pope John XXII, who taught as a private theologian that saints who die don't get to experience the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment.  But when controversy erupted over his teaching, he clarified that he was teaching as a private teacher.  Also, his position had not yet been condemned by the Church.  (It was condemned by his successor.)  So there is no help here for the authors of our letter.

We could go on, but you get the picture.  There is nothing in history which justifies the positions taken by the authors of our letter.  They mention a provision of early canon law, also found in the teaching of some Popes, which seems to say that Popes cannot be judged by the Church except in cases of heresy or deviations from the faith.  But these statements are historically obscure, and it is not clear what they meant in any detail.  They have been subject to different interpretations.  Modern canon law has no such provision, and, as the authors of our letter themselves point out, the Church has made it abundantly clear that no one can judge the Pope as his superior, and that there is no recourse beyond the judgment of the Pope to a higher ecclesiastical authority.  At best (and I think this goes beyond what can be proved by the evidence), we might say that the Church has taught in the past that Popes might be private heretics and so might be judged to be such (or to have been such) by the Church (that is, by the Magisterium of the Church--the bishops in communion with the Pope).   [Note 4/1/23:  Here is an article with my updated and more full views on this subject.]  But this doesn't help our authors, who allege a Pope to have taught heresy in his official public teaching and who say that a "substantial and representative" group of bishops smaller than the majority have competence to authoritatively declare a Pope a heretic, thereby causing him to lose papal office, even without papal approval.

(If you want an example of theologians commenting on these issues in Church history, you might check out this selection from St. Francis de Sales.)

Much more could be said regarding this letter.  It is lamentable that these authors have taken a course of action that will tend to result in confusion among the members of the Church, without any good reason.  To the extent that they are successful in gaining a significant hearing, it can only lead to more confusion, dissent, and even to schism in the Church.  One positive thing I can envision coming out of this is that they might provoke the Pope and the CDF to come out with a new statement clearly smacking down this little movement of conservative dissent which has been yipping and yapping against Pope Francis for the past few years, with increasingly shrill yips and yaps.  But it may be that this little dissenting movement might be too small and insignificant to get much response from the Holy See.  Hopefully, in that case, it will simply fizzle out of its own accord over time, as so many dissenting movements throughout the history of the Church have done, some of which were much larger and lasted far longer.  But we can be sure that, whatever happens, all things are under the wise providence of God.

Published on the feast of St. Athanasius of Alexandria