Here’s the LifeSiteNews article, a Q and A in which Dr. John Rist accuses Pope Francis of heresy and discusses how Pope Francis might be removed from office.

I have already presented the teaching of Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium on the papal charisms, including the charism of truth and never-failing faith. Those articles can be found on this blog and at Catholicism.io So in my reply to Rist, I will mainly focus on his claims and specific reasons why they are false. But it is a matter of faith that Peter and his successors have a never-failing faith, and therefore they cannot fail gravely in faith by apostasy, heresy, schism, idolatry, nor can they err gravely on doctrine or discipline.

When asked if Pope Francis is a heresiarch, Rist replied: “In my view he is both heretic himself and by his calculated ambiguity encourages heresies in others.” A heresiarch is a heretic who leads many others into heresy, e.g. Arius, who founded and led the Arian heresy.

Rist is speaking and acting as if he were superior to the Roman Pontiff, to judge and condemn him. Rist has no such role; neither does any theologian or member of the clergy. He asserts that Pope Francis is a heretic, while never considering that he himself might be guilty of heresy or schism.

This is a pervasive problem in the Church today: scholars who assume, on every one of many points where they disagree with the Pope, they must be right and the Vicar of Christ must be wrong. This assumption is seen in the opponents of Pope Francis; it is prideful and indefensible. Suppose, for example, that an eminent theologian and a devout elderly laywoman had a discussion over many points of disagreement in theology. The theologian would not always be right. That is how theology works; both the theologian and the devout believer are fallible. Neither will be right on every point. And when we apply this to the Pope, who has the special help of God in teaching and guiding the Church, it is even more absurd for anyone to assume that the Pope would be wrong on every point where some Catholics disagree with him. Yet that is the position of the papal accusers.

Vatican I taught that the Roman Pontiffs have the help of God at all times in teaching and leading the Church.

“1. The Son of God, redeemer of the human race, our Lord Jesus Christ, promised, when about to return to his heavenly Father, that he would be with this Church militant upon earth all days even to the end of the world. Hence never at any time has he ceased to stand by his beloved bride, assisting her when she teaches, blessing her in her labors and bringing her help when she is in danger.” [Vatican I, Dei Filius]

This help of God to the Church includes special assistance to the Roman Pontiff.

“1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.

“2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.

“3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.

“4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.” [Vatican I, Dei Filius]

This assistance to the Church, in Peter and his successors, never fails.

The infallible teachings of the Pope are free from all error; the non-infallible teachings and decisions of discipline of the Pope are free from all grave error. And no other individual on earth has the protection. The body of Bishops, led by the Pope, when they are teaching or ruling non-infallibly, have that protection, but only as a body, not as individuals. And this is true even though the individual Bishops are each successors to the Apostles. So no matter how eminent or scholarly a theologian is (or is claimed to be), even if he is also a Bishop or Cardinal, he does not have the protection from grave error given to the Pope teaching non-infallibly, nor the protection of papal infallibility.

We are fallen sinners, whose minds and hearts are obscured by concupiscence; even the Saints and Doctors erred in theology from time to time. But they are Saints and Doctors because they always submitted their minds and hearts to the teaching of the Church, as a matter of faith, regardless of what their own reasoning told them. So when someone presents an argument as to why the Pope has erred gravely on doctrine or discipline, they are the ones who err, by their lack of faith in the help of God given to every Pope and to the body of Bishops.

Does Rist think that Pope Francis is the true Roman Pontiff? That is not clear. He said the election of Pope Francis was valid, but he called the conclave “scandalously irresponsible” because “the electors did not know the character of the man they elected and did not bother to find out.” Note that belief that the papal election was valid does not imply belief that the Pope is valid, as some persons wrongly think that a Pope can lose his validity and office by heresy and other grave errors.

As for the complaint that the electors did not bother to find out the character of Cardinal Bergoglio, i.e. Pope Francis, there is no such requirement of the electors in a papal conclave. They are not required to “know the character” of a person. The electors are led by the providence and grace of God. It is sinful to treat the Church, the Apostolic See, a papal conclave, or an Ecumenical Council, or a Synod as if it were a merely human political body. Christ has two natures, human and Divine. The Church is His Body, and is both human and divine.

As for knowing the character of the person in a conclave, Pope Francis was, at the time, a Cardinal. There are thousands of Bishops in the Church, but only 135 Cardinal-electors and 241 Cardinals total. Certainly, some of the Cardinals knew him, and they must have discussed his character among themselves, as he was one of the leading candidates. Rist accuses the body of the Cardinal-electors of culpable ignorance for not bothering to find out Cardinal Bergoglio’s character. But he cites only one Cardinal, who spoke out after the conclave, as the basis for this accusation. That is not sufficient evidence to convict the entire body of Cardinal electors of some type of sinful negligence. It also is very difficult to believe, since voting for Pope is one of the highest responsibilities and powers of the Cardinal-electors. What reason does Rist think that the Cardinals had to vote for Bergoglio, if they did not know his character or enquire about him?

Then, in any case, we must trust the guidance of God over the Church. The Popes have long had an expression, which can be found in the documents of the Council of Trent among many other places: “by Divine providence, Pope”. Certainly, the grace of God also guides the decision as to whom the Cardinals will choose as the Vicar of Christ. Then, once the elected candidate accepts his office (and after he is consecrated a Bishop if he is not already so), he is immediately the true Roman Pontiff and successor of Peter. No scholar or individual Bishop or group of clergy or laity can remove him from office. No argument, rhetorical or scholarly, can prevail over the election of the new Pontiff, as it is confirmed in Heaven. For Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head of the one Church, and each Roman Pontiff is the Rock on which the Church is founded. Therefore, the First See is judged by no one but God.

Dr. John Rist has no authority to judge the papal conclave, or to accuse the body of Cardinal-electors of the sin of being “scandalously irresponsible” in choosing a Pope. And there seems to be no substantial evidence to support this claim.

Rist was asked “How does Bergoglio’s heresy show itself up most clearly?” And his reply was as follows:

Rist: “In his contempt for those who attempt to correct his behaviour.  A good example was his response to Cardinal Mueller when challenged about a decision: ‘I am the pope and do not have to give reasons for my actions’. Can we imagine St. Peter behaving in that fashion when corrected by St Paul about non-Jewish Christians (a matter discussed admirably by St Cyprian)?”

First, heresy is the denial or obstinate doubt of a magisterial teaching which requires divine and catholic faith (i.e. a formal dogma). Contempt toward persons who attempt to correct your behavior is not heresy. Also, Rist assumes that “those who attempt to correct” Pope Francis are right in their theological position, and that the Pope is wrong. This is one of the main false assumptions by the papal accusers, in order to accuse a Pope of heresy or other grave errors, they must assume that their understanding of the doctrine and of the meaning of the Pope’s words or deeds is necessarily correct. But such persons cannot exercise infallibility; even the entire body of Bishops, apart from the Pope, cannot exercise infallibility. Then the protection given to the non-infallible teachings of the Pope does not apply also to the entire body of Bishops, unless the Pope joins them in that teaching.

So those who “attempt to correct” the Pope pridefully assume that they themselves cannot be heretics and cannot have erred gravely in any way, while they further assume that the Pope can teach heresy or be a heretic. They implicitly attribute to themselves a protection from God that they deny to the Vicar of Christ.

But we know of many historical examples of Cardinals, Bishops, priests, deacons, religious, and laypersons, who fell into heresy individually or in various groups. At the same time, there are no indisputable cases of any valid Roman Pontiff teaching or committing heresy. And as the Popes, Councils, Fathers, Doctors, and Saints have taught throughout Church history, no Pope can teach or commit heresy. See my defense of Pope Honorius I here.

So the refusal of Pope Francis to accept correction is not contempt or arrogance. Rather, the Roman Pontiff exercises the authority of Christ, with the protection of the Holy Spirit against grave errors in what is non-infallible and against all errors in what is infallible. Those who would correct the Pope, alleging that the Pope has erred gravely, are in effect denying this protection of the Pope, implicitly attributing the same protection to themselves, and are rebelling against this authority.

Pope Leo XIII: “And so He made that remarkable promise to Peter and to no one else: ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church’ ”

Pope Leo XIII quoting Origen approvingly: “neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” [Satis Cognitum 11, 12]

Rist cites the example of a conflict between Pope Francis and Cardinal Mueller, who was at that time the Prefect of the CDF: “A good example was his response to Cardinal Mueller when challenged about a decision: ‘I am the pope and do not have to give reasons for my actions’.” The conflict was that the Pope told Cardinal Mueller to dismiss two of the staff at the CDF. Mueller refused, and insisted on an explanation. But the Supreme Pontiff was absolutely correct in the answer that he gave, as reported by Mueller: “I am the pope and do not have to give reasons for my actions.” What the Pope binds on earth, is bound even in Heaven; and what the Pope looses on earth, is loosed even in Heaven — just as Christ himself taught us (Mt 16:18-19).

Not long after that conflict, the Pope dismissed Mueller from the CDF (later renamed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, DDF). And since that time, Mueller has openly opposed Pope Francis.

I should also point out that the Pope’s refusal to give an explanation as to why he wished to dismiss two staff at the CDF does not really fit Rist’s complaint about those who attempt to correct his behavior. Mueller asked for an explanation, and the Pope rightly stated that he need give none. And whoever claims otherwise denies the teaching of Christ:

{16:19} And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound, even in heaven. And whatever you shall release on earth shall be released, even in heaven.”

The Pope holds the keys of Peter. I think that a large part of the motivation of those who vehemently oppose Pope Francis is simply that they are jealous that he has the Keys and they do not. Despite accusing Pope Francis of heresy, most of their complaints are simply that he doesn’t speak and act the way that they would prefer, the way that they would speak and act if they were pope. Some of these papal accusers have been teaching their own version of the Faith online for many years. And along came Pope Francis, contradicting them and teaching with greater breadth and depth, making them look like false or incompetent teachers. So they oppose him, just as the Pharisees opposed Jesus.

The third point that Rist raises in the quote above is as follows: “Can we imagine St. Peter behaving in that fashion when corrected by St Paul about non-Jewish Christians (a matter discussed admirably by St Cyprian)?”

That point is quite a non sequitur. Pope Francis merely asserted that he can dismiss Vatican staff if he wishes, without giving an explanation. Paul corrected Peter for eating meals only with the Christians who converted from Judaism, and who were keeping to the Jewish dietary practices. Peter was not accused of any error in his teaching, nor in his rulings on discipline. What Pope Francis is accused of is grave errors in his teaching on faith and morals, as well as in discipline (e.g. the restrictions on the Latin Mass). So this does not apply.

Tertullian, 155-220: “But if Peter was reproved because, after having lived with the Gentiles, he separated himself from their company out of respect for persons, surely this was a fault in his conversation, not in his preaching.”

Dr. John Rist was asked what are the “basic errors” of Pope Francis?

Risit: “By correcting the teaching of Jesus on remarriage after divorce and by encouraging absolution (and reception of Holy Communion) without repentance or intent to mend one’s ways, he holds in effect that Jesus is not the whole truth, and indeed that His teachings must be improved.”

Wow. What a ridiculously bad argument Rist presents. First, Rist offers a severely distorted explanation of the words of Pope Francis on divorce/remarriage, absolution in Confession, and reception of Communion. Then he draws a malicious accusatory conclusion, not based on anything the Pope has said or done.

The Pope never corrected the teaching of Jesus on divorce/remarriage. The Pope never permitted remarriage after divorce, i.e. a second reception of the Sacrament of Marriage while the first spouse is alive (unless there is an annulment, which means that the first reception was not valid, and so the second attempted marriage would be the first valid one). Rather, Pope Francis chose a more lenient discipline for the treatment of persons in irregular situations, and the term “irregular” indicates that their current relationship is not a valid marriage. Leniency toward sinners is not approval for sin.

Jesus was lenient toward the woman caught in adultery. This does not mean that Jesus approved of sin. But the Pharisees wanted harsh punishment of sinners, while refusing to acknowledge their own sins. It is the same today with the papal accusers. They are guilty of public formal heresy and schism, and of gravely scandalizing the faithful by attacking the Pope at every turn. Yet they call themselves the “most faithful” and think to take a position judging Popes and Councils.

Pope Francis never encouraged “absolution (and reception of Holy Communion) without repentance or intent to mend one’s ways”. He simply chose a discipline for the Confessional which is more lenient, and which gives the penitent the benefit of any doubt by the confessor as to whether the penitent is contrite and has a resolution to avoid sin. Most important is the uncharitable and unwarranted assumption by conservative commentators that sinners who fall into the same grave sins, again and again, can’t have true contrition, which includes the intention to mend one’s ways. These critics of the Pope seem to have abandoned the teaching of Christ:

{18:21} Then Peter, drawing near to him, said: “Lord, how many times shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Even seven times?”
{18:22} Jesus said to him: “I do not say to you, even seven times, but even seventy times seven times.

A divorced and remarried couple might stay together for the sake of the children, and remain continent (no sex). It is uncharitable to assume that every such couple continues to have sex outside of a valid marriage. Many validly married couples no longer have sexual relations, for a range of different reasons. Pope Francis recommended persons in irregular situations to their pastor, and he stated that it would be possible for such couples to receive the Sacraments of Confession and Communion, in some cases.

Then nothing that the Pope said encourages Confession without repentance, nor without the resolve to avoid grave sin. And his instruction to confessors not to withhold absolution is within his authority as the Supreme Judge of all the faithful, and as the Father and Teacher of all Christians. The Roman Pontiff absolutely has the authority to tell confessors to give absolution, and to refrain from judging that a penitent is not contrite, or does not intend to try to avoid such sins in the future. Such a judgment by the confessor is fallible, even if the confessor is a Saint.

There is a famous story about Saint John Vianney who heard the confessions of Melanie and Maximin, the child visionaries from La Salette. We don’t know the specifics from their confessions, but the point is that the Saint misunderstood what one or both children had said. Even saintly confessors can misjudge in the confessional.

It is dangerous to the salvation of souls for a confessor to withhold absolution simply based on his judgment that a person is not interiorly contrite or lacks the resolve to avoid sin. However, it is certainly possible, even given the Pope’s instruction to confessors, for a confessor to withhold absolution, in an egregious and blatant particular case. Such a decision would not be disobedience.

Then Rist concludes, from the above complaints against Pope Francis that I have refuted, that the Vicar of Christ “holds in effect that Jesus is not the whole truth, and indeed that His teachings must be improved.” What should I say about such a wicked baseless accusation against the visible head of the Church and Rock on which the Church is founded? The conclusion does not follow from the utter lack of evidence. Pope Francis said nothing even remotely like what Rist is claiming.

Rist is using a type of argument, like so: The Pope said “A”, but A really means B, and B implies C, and C is heresy; therefore, the Pope is a heretic. This is a common approach used by those who accuse Popes and Ecumenical Councils of grave error. The argument fails because the assertion of “A” by the Pope does not mean B, and neither A nor B implies C.

Rist continues: “Unless Bergoglio thinks (as do some exegetes) that Jesus never said what is recorded of Him – an idea which destroys Christianity altogether – that implies a denial of Christ’s divinity, or at least a ‘Nestorian’ view of the relationship between Christ’s human and divine natures.  It would seem that Bergoglio is an Arian at best, but more likely an Adoptionist at worst.”

Pope Francis never said anything like what Rist is claiming. Rist is guessing that perhaps Pope Francis thinks Jesus never said what the Gospels claim He said, without basis. He then concludes that this first baseless accusation implies one of several severe heresies. Nothing found in the words or deeds of Pope Francis supports any of these heresies alleged against him. How can anyone make such a severe accusation against the Vicar of Christ and head of the Church, on such a ridiculoius basis? How can Rist say things like “unless Bergoglio thinks” or “It would seem” that the Pope is one type of heretic, or “more likely” another type? The very accusation itself admits a lack of evidence for the charge. This behavior goes well beyond rash judgment, and is essentially a patently false accusation, which is against one of the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

When asked what should happen with Pope Francis, Rist replies: “At least one pope has been condemned (rightly or wrongly) for heresy before: namely Honorius I, by an Ecumenical Council.” So Rist admits that perhaps Honorius was wrongly condemned for heresy. And by saying “At least one”, Rist admits that perhaps no Pope has ever been condemned for heresy before (since he says Honorius may have been wrongly condemned). See this article defending Pope Honorius I. Please note also that the Ecumenical Council in question did not condemn Honorius, as nothing is “of a Council” unless approved by the Pope. This accusation of heresy against Honorius was rejected by Pope Saint Agatho, who ruled over the Council, and by Pope Francis Leo II, who changed the sentence against Honorius from heresy to negligence.

Rist continues: “Bergoglio should be challenged and, if identified as a heretic, removed from the Chair of Peter for which he would have been shown to be incapable of holding due to heresy. Canon law does not speak of how a pope may be removed, but it seems not unreasonable to propose that those who elected him, that is the College of Cardinals, would, if heresy were proved, have the obligation to remove him.”

Rist proposes that the College of Cardinals could remove the Roman Pontiff — if heresy were proved. But he does not even propose how heresy would be proved. Despite accusing Pope Francis of heresy, Rist says that “Bergoglio should be challenged and, if identified as a heretic, removed”. So he does not have a suggestion as to who would challenge the Pope and how they would decide if the Pope were a heretic.

The body of Bishops has supported Pope Francis throughout his Pontificate, as has the college of the Cardinals. Currently, 98 of the 135 Cardinal-electors were created Cardinal by Pope Francis. That is over 72% of the Cardinal-electors, and over half of the total number of Cardinals. Neither group is going to accuse Pope Francis of heresy, let alone put him on trial, convict him and attempt to remove him from office. So while Rist suggests that the Cardinals could remove a Pope, I think he is well aware that the Cardinals and the Bishops, with very few exceptions, do not believe the Pope to be a heretic.

As for Dr. John Rist, his public accusations of heresy against Pope Francis constitute the sin of public formal schism. No one submits themselves, in mind and heart, in faith and obedience, to a Pope whom they accuse of multiple heresies. Rist refuses to refer to the Vicar of Christ as “Pope Francis”, instead calling him “Bergoglio”. And while he says that the election of Pope Francis was valid, and so he is the Pope, his accusations of heresy bring up the question as to whether Rist thinks that an heretical Pope automatically loses his office. That is a controversial question. However, what is not controversial is the provision of Canon law giving the penalty of automatic excommunication for persons who commit formal schism, as Rist has publicly done.

Ronald L Conte Jr