What will you do if Pope Francis decides to do any or all of the following:
1. allows the divorced and remarried to receive Communion
2. allows gay couples to receive Communion
3. allows any baptized Catholic to receive Communion on the basis of their own judgment of conscience
4. teaches that women can be ordained as deacons, and allows their ordination
5. appoints lay women as Cardinals
6. decides that parishes may not refuse to baptize the children of gay couples
7. teaches that atheists and non-Christian believers can be saved without converting
I don’t know what Pope Francis will decide at the Synod. It’s a hypothetical. The question is essentially this: Will you leave the Church, or accuse Pope Francis of heresy, or decide that he is not a valid Pope? He’s not going to change and become a conservative. Can you stand to be in a Church led by a liberal Pope?
In your opinion, can a Pope ever possibly commit the sin of heresy or teach material heresy?
Readers, please post your response in the comments below.
by
Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian and translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible.
Please take a look at this list of my books and booklets, and see if any topic interests you.
the reproach of Christ 
No Pope can change a dogma, because Jesus entrusted His Church to this shepherd; so I’ll remain faithful.
1. Of course, without the first Marriage being a valid Sacrament.
2. any baptized Catholic can receive communion in the state of grace.
3. yes, remain I remain faithful.
4. yes
5. yes
6. this is about the salvation of the child’s soul, so yes.
7. yes.
Interestingly, from this week’s bible readings: 1 Corinthians 11:
23
* For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you,k that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”l
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.*
28
A person should examine himself,* and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment* on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.
31
If we discerned ourselves, we would not be under judgment;
32
but since we are judged by [the] Lord, we are being disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
Although I think points 1 and 2 would be framed by some as being a change in Church doctrine, it seems to me that Pope Francis is telling us to let God sort everything out.
I would separate the issues there. Points 4-7 don’t even touch Church doctrine. We don’t know if deaconesses can be ordained, so it would be no violation of dogma. Cardinals aren’t necessarily clergymen, so I don’t see why there couldn’t be valid cardinals from the laity or, even better, from the diaconate, as far as the priesthood is not touched (that would be heresy and a Pope will never commit to heresy). I don’t see any problem in baptizing the child of a gay couple, but in that case I would stress the role of the godparent, who should be a straight and devout Catholic – religious education should be his business. Atheists and non-Christians can and are already saved under certain circumstances and I’m sure there are many more the Church might find out in the future. As for the first points, I would find myself cheated. Point 3 is very subjective, because you don’t necessarily harm the others with a bad witness – after all, God will be our ultimate judge. The first two points are much more painful. Fortunately, Pope Francis just stated that Catholic “divorce” doesn’t exist and is defending the traditional family, so I don’t see this coming under Pope Francis. I don’t see my faith threatened by this Synod or by any decision Pope Francis will take. The Church is in safe hands as she was during the pontificates of his predecessors back in time down to St. Peter himself.
Great post, Alessandro. Ron’s points 1-7 are not consistent. If by points 1 and 2 Ron means to imply “what will you do if Pope Francis allows Communion to be received by those who are objectively living in objectively grave sin,” then Ron is asking us what we will do if Pope Francis changes doctrine (as opposed to some of his other points, which may be merely regarding discipline), at which point my reply to Ron is simple: “What will you do if Pope Francis reverses the Church teaching on abortion?”
In other words — Simple answer: he can’t, so he won’t. The question is as meaningful as “What will you do if 2 + 2 equals 5 someday?”
I don’t agree that it would be a change of doctrine. If he does permit reception by them, then you would have to conclude that it is discipline, not doctrine.
Ron — all current Church happenings and future hypotheticals aside, I am just curious to hear more about why you think that Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1415 isn’t doctrinal. It uses the word “must” twice — and it is not qualified in any way, shape, or form. I am unaware of any merely disciplinary item mentioned in the Catechism with language even remotely similar. (For comparison, see CCC paragraphs 1387, 1580)
CCC 1415 “Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.”
Again, the state of grace is lost only by actual mortal sin. But you are assuming that everyone guilty of an objective mortal sin is also guilty of actual mortal sin. Perhaps the divorced and remarried person is in a state of grace. There is no doctrine saying that mere objective mortal sin, with the state of grace, prohibits reception. Also, the second sentence in CCC 1415 is discipline, since it admits of the exception with perfect contrition and a grave reason.
Okay, fair enough. But even granting your argument for now, I don’t think that a justified conclusion to draw from it would be “people living in and committing objectively grave sins of sodomy or adultery are now admissible to Holy Communion.” Rather it would be “Only God knows whether one is in a State of Grace with respect to *any* external observation of sin, therefore there are no longer any Communion requirements outside baptism so long as you feel clear in your conscience.” There is a subtle but absolutely essential difference between those two conclusions (and I am only saying this for the sake of argument, I am not granting either) — the former conclusion is an implicit (if not perhaps an explicit) ratification of intrinsic evil (adultery/sodomy). The latter conclusion is a mere acknowledgement that God alone knows who is in a State of Grace.
My preference is for a strict discipline that forbids anyone guilty of objective mortal sin from reception of Communion. But if the Pope wishes to allow reception for any baptized person who is not conscious of unrepented actual mortal sin, he can do so. I think such a decision is imprudent, but it does not imply a denial of doctrine.
It’s also a serious problem to forbid some persons guilty of objective mortal sin, and not others. The divorced and remarried currently may not receive, but we all know that many Catholics who use contraception, or commit various sexual sins, receive without repentance or confession. I heard a sermon once by a priest who said: “As a priest who hears confessions, I can tell you that seldom does anyone confess the sin of contraception. But I know that many of you are using contraception.” And he went on to speak against that sin.
This is more a reply to Ron than to myself, of course… You wrote: “I don’t agree that it would be a change of doctrine. If he does permit reception by them, then you would have to conclude that it is discipline, not doctrine.” Well, I don’t agree. Doctrine says since time immemorial that Communion must be received in a state of grace. If the recipient is not in a state of grace, we should apply the principle stated by St. Paul in his letters: reception of the Eucharist becomes a sacrilege. Now, homosexuality has consistently been stated to be an immoral disorder and an objective mortal sin. Many mystics have point out how the sin of the Sodomites is an abomination in God’s eyes. If the Pope admits a homosexual couple to Communion without forcing them to live as brothers or sisters, he is either changing the doctrine (ie. homosexuality is good) or inviting those people to commit sins and add sacrilege to it (wouldn’t that be evil?). I think on the matter of married couples we might give at least find a different solution that would be, anyway, a new doctrine: ie. the Pope may have the power to dispense a person from his/her obligation of faithfulness after a civil divorce. If this premise isn’t added by the Pope, it’ll be like saying that marriage can be dissolved or that we aren’t obliged to conjugal fidelity, entering the same category as homosexual couples. Fortunately, I’m sure the Pope believes in indissolubility (he just repeated this on his plane back from the USA) so either he adopts a solution such as mine, or he just lives the matter unsolved as it is. On homosexuality I’m even more confident that nothing will change.
You fail to distinguish between objective mortal sin and actual mortal sin. Anyone unrepentant from actual mortal sin cannot receive Communion because they are not in a state of grace. That is doctrinal. Whether a person can or should receive Communion if they are in a state of grace but guilty of mere objective mortal sin (oms that is not also ams) is either of discipline, or at least an unresolved question of doctrine.
I’m sorry, Ron, but I don’t think the objective mortal sin/actual mortal sin really matters in this case. The Church has the obligation to teach all truth. If the Church didn’t teach the homosexual people that they are in an objective mortal sin to such a point that they give them the Eucharist, the gay couple may go to heaven, but the Church leaders allowing it would go to hell as they didn’t witness the truth commanded them by God himself. The Pope would be evil for dissecrating the Eucharist itself.
Again, arrogance. You presume to decide this issue for the Church, and you presume to judge the Pope — if he decides to permit reception of Communion by them. You can opine, as I have, that the most prudent discipline is to forbid reception for all objective mortal sin. But you should not judge that the Pope would be evil and would be desecrating the Eucharist. Of course, this is presently a hypothetical. You don’t think the Pope will make that choice. But what if he does? You are out on a dangerously thin limb.
Too bad we don’t have more priests like that
I would not leave the Church if Pope Francis decides any of the items listed above. Pope Francis would still remain a valid Pope, even if he makes errors in discipline or non-infallible teachings, because he is currently a valid Pope and he will remain so until either he dies or he voluntarily resigns from the Papacy.
In this modern day hedonistic culture, any one or more of these changes you listed will actually trigger a revival in Catholic Church attendance. I don’t see any apostasy. Conservatives may leave but cafeteria Catholics will come back much more regularly.
I might question the wisdom of such a decision at this time primarily due to the fact that the laity is so poorly catechized, but I have already decided that I will accept it and I hope to help others do the same.
Within my own parish, a scenario like the one you predict regarding Popes has been playing out on a very small scale, except in reverse order. We seem to be a “training” parish for new arrivals to the diocese. First, an orthodox pastor was assigned who preached against birth control and other sexual sins. After 3 years, he was reassigned, and we immediately received a very liberal pastor who preached from the pulpit in favor of same-sex “marriage.” (he said the Church would eventually okay it). With each new arrival, the shakeup in the pews has been amazing to watch. The second pastor drew in the largest numbers by far. Now, God has sent us a third pastor and the pews are nearly empty… the crowd seems to have left with the liberal pastor. So I expect if this was in any way prophetic in terms of the Popes, then the next one after Francis will trigger a far greater apostasy. I will follow the reigning Pope.
Interesting. That does sound similar to the process that leads to the schism.
No he cannot.
I will support him and encourage others to so too. I know it’s the Holy Spirit at work in His Church.
I stand with Francis, as I stood with Benedict XVI and all of his predecessors. None of those things you mentioned violate any Church dogma, so even though some are difficult, the challenge is on *me* to understand, not on the Holy Father.
Because of the promise made by Christ that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church, I do not believe that a Pope can commit nor teach heresy.
Hi Ron ,because of your clear teachings and explanations I understand where my place is – to be completely obedient and accepting of our Pope’s decisions whether we agree or disagree. Thank you for all the information you provide, otherwise I would be lost and not sure how to react. God bless you.