1. The Roman Pontiff has supreme authority over doctrine and discipline; he may exercise that authority alone or with the body of Bishops (dispersed in the world or gathered in a Council). The individual Bishops, as local ordinaries each in his See, have authority over their dioceses to teach and rule, under the Apostolic See led by the Pope. They have some authority in communion with the Pope within certain limits.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, chapter 3: “8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

“9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

The Roman Pontiff has the authority to decide the discipline for Communion and whether a proposed discipline is or is not in conformity with doctrine. His judgment on doctrine and discipline is not subject to revision by anyone on earth, is not subject to appeal (even if all the other Bishops were to gather in a Council apart from the Pope), and no one may licitly pass judgment against such a decision of the Roman Pontiff.

So a collection of a small subset of the Cardinals and Bishops, supported by a small subset of the clergy, religious, and laity, may not judge, revise, appeal, or condemn the decision of the Roman Pontiff, Pope Francis, on the discipline of holy Communion, on matters of doctrine regarding Communion, and on other decisions of the Pope on doctrine and discipline. The recent public statements by various persons and groups declaring that the Pope has gone astray from Tradition, Scripture, and/or past magisterial teachings is illicit, as the First See is judged by no one but God.

2. Saint Peter the Apostle and every one of his valid successors, the Roman Pontiffs, have been given by Christ, the Son of God, the charism of truth and never-failing faith. This has been the constant teaching of the Church from the time of Luke 22:32, through every century, up to and including the present. [This teaching of the ordinary universal magisterium is well documented at Catholicism.io here.]

Due to this charism, every Roman Pontiff is kept secure in the divinely-conferred gift (from prevenient grace, which no one can resist) of truth and of never-failing faith. While non-infallible teachings and decisions on discipline of a Pope may err, such errors have a limit. Non-infallible decisions of the Roman Pontiff under the Keys of Peter, which is his authority over doctrine and discipline, can never contradict or gravely harm the indefectibility of the Church, nor lead the faithful astray, nor teach grave error on faith or morals, nor institute a discipline that leads the faithful astray or inculcates grave errors into their lives.

Due to the same charism of never-failing faith, no valid Roman Pontiff can possibly fall into heresy, apostasy, schism, idolatry, nor fail in faith in any grave way whatsoever. If a manifest obstinate heretic, such as the antipope Vigilius, were to become the valid Roman Pontiff, as did happen in the case of Vigilius, then, from the time of the validity of his pontificate such a pope would certainly be converted by God to have a firm, pure, and never-failing faith and so as to be free from grave errors on doctrine and discipline, as did happen in the case of Pope Vigilius, who approved the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople.

Therefore, anyone who claims that a Roman Pontiff has himself failed gravely in faith or has erred gravely in his exercise of the Keys of Peter over doctrine or discipline is making an heretical claim, contrary to the perennial teaching of Popes, Saints, Fathers, Doctors, and Councils. No Roman Pontiff can teach heresy nor in any way be heretical.

3. The Church is indefectible and apostolic. Therefore, God never permits the body of Bishops to go astray following a false Roman Pontiff. For then the Church would lose Her apostolic character and Her indefectibility, since the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles. The Church can never lose Her essential characteristics, which includes faithful Shepherds over a faithful flock. While individual Bishops can err gravely or fail gravely in faith, as can individual members of the faithful, and small groups of clergy or laity, neither the Roman Pontiff alone, nor the body of Bishops as a body, nor the body of the faithful as a body can fail in faith. For the Church can never be Shepherds without a flock, nor a flock without Shepherds.

Therefore, when it is clearly seen that either the body of Bishops or the body of the faithful (or both) has accepted a man as the Roman Pontiff, this clear sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church confirms, as a dogmatic fact, that said man is the true and valid Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the Vicar of Christ. For the Holy Spirit cannot fail to prevail within the body of Christ, which has Jesus the Lord, Son of God, as Her eternal Head. The Church cannot fail to be apostolic and indefectible. And the Lord Jesus never permits the gates of Hell to prevail over the Church in any manner.

If anyone claims that, in particular historical case, it is not now clear whether the body of Bishops or the body of faithful accepted a particular Pope in past times, this has no effect on the validity of that Roman Pontiff, now accepted by the Church as a valid Roman Pontiff. We do not always have sufficient information on the Church in the distant past. But we can always put our faith in the promises of Jesus that the Church has always and will always remain indefectible, having been founded on Peter and his successors and on the Apostles and their successors, and that every Roman Pontiff has the charism of truth and never-failing faith.

Since Pope Francis has been accepted by the body of Bishops and by the faithful of every diocese in the world, it is a dogmatic fact that he is the true Roman Pontiff, who has the charism of truth and never-failing faith, who can never go astray nor lead astray, who can never err gravely when exercising the Keys of Peter non-infallibly, and who can never err at all when exercising the Keys of Peter infallibly (dogma or dogmatic facts).

4. Therefore, the discipline for holy Communion chosen by the Roman Pontiff Pope Francis, and his teachings on the same, cannot be gravely erroneous and cannot lead the faithful astray. This is a matter of faith. All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

5. Each of us fallen sinners cannot be certain whether or not we are in the state of grace, whether or not a grave sin has the full culpability of actual mortal sin, and whether or not we are truly repentant with imperfect or perhaps perfect contrition. So while persons in a state of unrepented actual mortal sin should not and must not receive holy Communion, no one can be certain in his own case, nor certainly in the case of other persons, whether the sin is actual mortal sin or whether the person is in the state of grace (having avoided full culpability or being repentant with perfect contrition).

The Council of Trent permitted priests who find themselves, in conscience, to have committed perhaps an actual mortal sin, and who do not have access to another priest for Confession, to say Mass and receive Communion, confessing at their next opportunity. So it cannot be claimed that no one who commits grave sin can receive Communion without prior Confession, in any case. Then Canon Law permits the faithful generally, only in grave circumstances, to receive Communion, after grave sin followed by an act of perfect contrition, and then to Confess at a later time. These points establish that the Church has the authority to allow Communion to the faithful who in good conscience believe that they are in the state of grace: not being conscious of grave sin, or believing themselves not to have the full culpability of actual mortal sin, or, having sinned mortally, made an act of perfect contrition, intending to confess later.

6. It is reprehensible for persons to claim that everyone who is divorced and remarried is an unrepentant adulterer who is not in the state of grace due to unrepented actual mortal sin. No one can know that another person is guilty to the extent of actual mortal sin. No one can know if a person is repentant from their past sins. And other persons do not generally know if another person has been to Confession, if a couple in the parish has an annulment, or if a couple in the parish is living chastely. In addition, many validly married Catholic couples, especially when older, no longer have marital relations. So it is entirely possible that some divorced and remarried persons, whose marriage is not valid, might be living in continence (without sexual relations). It is also possible that such a couple might resolve to live in continence, might fail in this resolve and fall into sin, and then subsequently repent and confess. It is also possible that an objectively grave sin might not have the full culpability of actual mortal sin.

So Pope Francis has not erred by permitting a merciful lenient discipline in which some persons in challenging moral situations, having consulted with their pastor, to have recourse to Confession and Communion.

Instead, they err gravely who judge others to be guilty of adultery, without knowing their situation, who judge others to be in a state of unrepented actual mortal sin, who judge others to be not in the state of grace, and who seek to deny to those other persons, as a group in their entirety, reception of holy Communion as permitted by the Roman Pontiff.

7. If the discipline of the papal opponents on holy Communion were applied to themselves, they would not be permitted to receive Communion, due to grave public sins of schism, heresy, and scandalizing the faithful by their opposition to the Roman Pontiff. They are harsh with others, and exceedingly lenient with themselves.

Some of the papal opponents have obstinately publicly refused submission to the authority of the Pope, and some have falsely accused the Pope of heresy, apostasy, and idolatry. The perennial teaching of the Church on the papal charisms proves that the Pope is innocent of grave failings of faith and innocent of grave error on doctrine and discipline. The perennial teaching of the Church against schism, as well as current Canon law, condemns as schismatics those who reject the authority of the Pope, or who refuse submission to the Pope. Such persons may or may not be guilty to the extent of actual mortal sin.

When these papal opponents condemn the divorced and remarried, seeking to deny them Communion, they commit a prideful Pharisaical hypocrisy. For certain papal opponents are guilty of manifest formal schism and some are guilty of manifest formal heresy, at least objectively. But while they assume that all the divorced and remarried are not in the state of grace, they do not even consider, in their own cases, that they themselves might be guilty of schism or heresy, and so might not be worthy to receive Communion until they repent.

Anyone guilty of formal schism or formal heresy is automatically excommunicated, and may not receive Communion.

8. WHAT IF the Church were to change Her discipline for holy Communion, hypothetically, to deny Communion to anyone guilty of an objectively grave sin, until after that person has made a good Confession, without exception.

First, priests might be unable to say Mass. In declining to say Mass, it would be known that they had sinned gravely, and the faithful would be scandalized.

Second, any Catholic guilty of any objectively grave sin, could not receive holy Communion; such sins include but are not limited to: contraception, any sexual act other than natural marital relations open to life, supporting same-sex marriage, supporting abortion rights, voting against Catholic teaching, schism for opposing a Pope or Ecumenical Council, heresy for rejecting any Catholic dogma, the grave sin of scandalizing the faithful by various public sins, and many other sins that are unfortunately common in the world today.

Third, the number of persons who could receive Communion under the strictest possible discipline would be a small percentage of Mass-going Catholics. Such a strict discipline might cause very many Catholics to cease to attend Mass. If most Catholics in a diocese cease to go to Mass, they might also cease to support their parishes financially and in other material and also spiritual ways. Instead of a paucity of priests, the Church would have a paucity of laity. This would gravely harm the salvation of the baptized faithful.

A more lenient discipline is necessary because the baptized faithful are fallen sinners, living in a very sinful world, who unfortunately tend to fall into at least objectively grave sins. Those who prefer a strict discipline for Communion might find that if they apply that discipline to themselves, they themselves would be unable to receive Communion. Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Ronald L Conte Jr