Are all Catholics bound to know at all times WHO is the Pope? Is it a sin to not know? Is it a sin to be fooled by an anti-pope?
No.
No.
No.
To all three.
Lay people depend on the canonically appointed leaders to tell them who is the Pope. Even if lay people are being deceived by their leaders about that, or a pope is being deceptive (such as behaving like an antipope), it is still not incuмbent upon the laity to figure it out. That's because such determinations in a definitive sense require much more information than simply what seems obvious or apparent (or may be much less than obvious).
#1: It's not the station of laity to figure it all out regarding position.
#2: Ultimately, "knowing" does not determine how the laity is required to conform ourselves to the moral law, the settled doctrine of the Church, and our confession of the unchanged elements of that faith.
If we think we "know" that a given pope is true....
We are required to follow divine law and believe according to Sacred Tradition.
If we think we "know" that a given pope is not true...
We are required to follow divine law and believe according to Sacred Tradition.
If we are unsure of the trueness of the papal seat...
We are required to follow divine law and believe according to Sacred Tradition.
If any member of the Magisterium tries to unilaterally, arbitrarily, imply or state that Tradition has now been abrogated and V2 ushered in a rupture to which the laity are bound, that member would be out of order. Such a pronouncement does and would not qualify as "formal teaching." Furthermore, that member would be in error as to the nature of the V2 docuмents (their reach and force).
How would you, a laywoman, know they were in error with respect to the nature of Vatican II?
That is true she asserts, as a laywomen, that we can't know anything in regards to the papacy. It does not matter what they bind and maintain on the Church we simply can't know according to her. She has yet to produce an authoritative docuмent on this. She makes alot of assertions as a layperson but does not back any of it up with supporting docuмentation.
Again, LoT, the onus is on you to produce docuмents, Church docuмents, that state that lay people are bound to authoritatively confirm or contradict the objective trueness of the Chair.
That is the way moral theology works in the Roman Church. It does not operate on the basis of lay people believing they have made logical arguments about ecclesial appointments and elections, creating their own moral theology about that, and then binding other lay people to that as if we are your subjects.
All you have produced so far is a statement that members of the Church are bound to submit to their Pontiff. Submit. Not know. Knowledge requires certitude, and if the trueness of the Pontiff is uncertain, the Church does not bind them to know whether the man to whom they are submitting (or against whom they are not rebelling) is true before the Church declares that pontiff to be the valid Pope.
And by the way, what has Francis commanded, so far, that we must "submit" to? He has produced two rambling, incoherent encyclicals, both of which are rants. I don't see to what, on a binding moral level in my personal behavior, I must "submit" to in those. Nor have I heard anything from any trad pulpit (or even N.O. communications),or officially from anyone in the episcopate or cardinaliate that describe either of those docuмents as producing new moral law (which would take much more than an encyclical if we're talking about sin here), the non-submission of which would be some confessable sin.
A lay person is not bound to "submit" to a pope's mere opinions and political positions and generalized language. We don't submit to generalities and personality factors. The Church has always been very specific about what is morally binding on lay people in terms of commission and omission. And by the way, merely not liking the man and refusing to listen to his rants against traditionalists is not an example of "not submitting" to him.
So far, Francis has told us all about, without much specificity:
~his personal distastes, which appear to be legion
~his preferences, very broadly, insofar as public policy is concerned. He certainly hasn't said anything that would direct a lay person never to vote for a free market capitalist. In other words, he has spoken both formally and off the cuff about matters
not pertaining to faith and morals but pertaining to secular areas of life;
~his priorities --some of them-- in great generalities, and mostly about just "the Church" in general. "We" should be "of mercy," etc.
~how we wants to govern in Rome, including his style (Synods, etc.)
~some of his priorities regarding that Roman operation, including the Curia.
~some broad, provocative, shocking statements which appear to contradict orthodox systematic theology, such as the nature of the Trinity, the purity and consistency of Our Lady's faith, and loose interpretations of salvation and who is "in" the Church or participates with the Catholic Church while being actually outside of it.
None of the above is infallible and concerns lay "submission." I have both read that and heard that, even from Francis' staunchest supporters. And my theological training also accords with what those Church officials have said.
Because he makes a fool of himself and "receives a blessing" from some protestant cleric does not mean that you and I now have to approve of that as a wonderful thing and go and do likewise. It might mean that he does not believe in the Catholic Church as distinct from other Christian religions, but he has not formally and explicitly stated that in any way that would be binding on Catholic belief.
A Pope's mere gestures and actions do not bind the faithful to imitate him or to consider that such gestures might be new theology to which we must "submit."
If you're going to say that "una cuм" vs. no "una cuм" indicates submission, that is a more complicated issue and I'm not going to get into that here.
Topic: Is Francis Pope? (Read 3423 times)