“A quasi middle conception of this matter, invented by M. Bucero, was accepted by some important Catholic apologists, like Pigge and Grooper in Germany, Catarinus and especially Seripandus in Italy. According to this explanation, our justification consists not alone in the fact that the justice of Christ is imputed to us extrinsically; but also not alone in the fact that a certain justifying form is given to us intrinsically, that is, our justice. Certainly these doctors thought that both forms of justice are essentially required (both our justice and the justice of Christ) in our justification, and that we are justified formally at the same time by both of them. Surely our justice is required as a certain form inhering intrinsically in us. But because our justice is always imperfect, the justice of Christ is also required, which is imputed to us and so acts as a kind of extrinsic form of our justification. Some theologians at the Council of Trent defended this opinion — especially Seripandus during the general congregation on October 8, 1546. On this occasion, the question for debate was proposed to the official theologians, which Seripandus himself formulated thus: “Whether a justified man before the divine tribunal is to be judged only on the basis of his inherent justice or on the basis of the works done with grace, or whether with this inherent justice he also has need of the mercy of God and the justice of Christ, that is. His merit and His passion, whereby the defect of his own justice is corrected; this justice of Christ is not communicated totally to all, but according to the divine dispensation or according to the measure of each one’s faith and charity.” Some theologians defended the necessity of imputed justice in addition to inhering justice, but most of them rejected it; the leader of the latter group was I. Lainez who totally refuted the theory with twelve arguments: namely, because it would take away merit, pervert true justification, satisfaction and purgatory, the providence of God, inherent justice itself, in addition to the fact that it would be a novel opinion and vitiated by its base origin. After the question had been fully discussed, the theory of the twofold formal justice was rejected by the Council with these words: “the single formal cause is the justice of God, not (that) by which he himself is just, but (that) by which he makes us just” (D 1529).”
- STS IIIB.