Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Freind on December 24, 2025, 02:21:58 PM
-
(https://i.imgur.com/36ep67B.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XtftTnW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/DhuhWFy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ovVgvZ4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1enADt4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/nhN8EVp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/AHT8d5W.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tSsgSyO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KfARElN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/S89ehP4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/g82GHQ8.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JzZtyqT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/5wE5Eb3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/i337qnS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/egKyXjM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/T1TjF5B.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/b8akAGB.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ofXOKgZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1Az9A9P.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Enpmds5.png)
END OF DISCUSSION WITH AI FRANCIS DE SALES
-
(https://i.imgur.com/36ep67B.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/XtftTnW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/DhuhWFy.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ovVgvZ4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1enADt4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/nhN8EVp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/AHT8d5W.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tSsgSyO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/KfARElN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/S89ehP4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/g82GHQ8.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JzZtyqT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/5wE5Eb3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/i337qnS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/egKyXjM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/T1TjF5B.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/b8akAGB.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ofXOKgZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1Az9A9P.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Enpmds5.png)
END OF DISCUSSION WITH AI FRANCIS DE SALES
I apologize in advance if the response to this is in the above, as I didn't read the whole thing.
But an actual pope, Paul IV, said in Cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
7. Finally, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity, We] also [enact, determine, define and decree]:- that any and all persons who would have been subject to those thus promoted or elevated if they had not previously deviated from the Faith, become heretics, incurred schism or provoked or committed any or all of these, be they members of anysoever of the following categories:
(i) the clergy, secular and religious;
(ii) the laity;
(iii) the Cardinals, even those who shall have taken part in the election of this very Pontiff previously deviating from the Faith or heretical or schismatical, or shall otherwise have consented and vouchsafed obedience to him and shall have venerated him;
(iv) Castellans, Prefects, Captains and Officials, even of Our Beloved City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State, even if they shall be obliged and beholden to those thus promoted or elevated by homage, oath or security; shall be permitted at any time to withdraw with impunity from obedience and devotion to those thus promoted or elevated and to avoid them as warlocks, heathens, publicans, and heresiarchs (the same subject persons, nevertheless, remaining bound by the duty of fidelity and obedience to any future Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals and Roman Pontiff canonically entering).
Isn't including the pope in the Canon an act of obedience or devotion? And therefore was Paul IV authorizing schismatic action?
-
It is so weird to me that people talk to their computers like they think they're human. Talk to your imaginary friend and your pet rock instead. :trollface:
-
It is so weird to me that people talk to their computers like they think they're human. Talk to your imaginary friend and your pet rock instead. :trollface:
It's the cyber format the computer system works with for our natural convenience.
Just hope people don't start treating AI like the world treats cats and dogs!
-
I apologize in advance if the response to this is in the above, as I didn't read the whole thing.
But an actual pope, Paul IV, said in Cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio:
CEAO was abrogated by later legislation. Maybe you should open another thread on that. It doesn't belong here.
Happy reading! Be sure to click on each graphic so that it become bigger.
-
CEAO was abrogated by later legislation. Maybe you should open another thread on that. It doesn't belong here.
Happy reading! Be sure to click on each graphic so that it become bigger.
:facepalm:
Even if abrogated, so what?
I'll change the question so that maybe you can see its relevance.
If taking the pope out of the Canon is an act of schism (according to AI), does that mean a pope, Paul IV, was authorizing schism (during the time his edict wasn't "abrogated") when he said one could withdraw obedience and devotion to an elected pope, thereby legitimatizing leaving their name out of the Canon under certain circuмstances (such as pre-election heresy)?
Or maybe simply ask AI, "could a a pope authorize schism?
Because Paul IV said one could withdraw obedience and devotion to an elected pope - without a prior judicial or declarative sentence - who was a heretic pre-election.
Do you see the relevance now?
-
:facepalm:
Even if abrogated, so what?
I'll change the question so that maybe you can see its relevance.
If taking the pope out of the Canon is an act of schism (according to AI), does that mean a pope, Paul IV, was authorizing schism (during the time his edict wasn't "abrogated") when he said one could withdraw obedience and devotion to an elected pope, thereby legitimatizing leaving their name out of the Canon under certain circuмstances (such as pre-election heresy)?
Or maybe simply ask AI, "could a a pope authorize schism?
Because Paul IV said one could withdraw obedience and devotion to an elected pope - without a prior judicial or declarative sentence - who was a heretic pre-election.
Do you see the relevance now?
It was talking about not recognizing the man as pope because his election was invalid due to previous heresy. So, if you leave out the name of a man who really is not the pope, obviously that has nothing to do with schism.
You should read the whole OP. Looks like you barely did. It's not what you think it is all about.
-
It was talking about not recognizing the man as pope because his election was invalid due to previous heresy. So, if you leave out the name of a man who really is not the pope, obviously that has nothing to do with schism.
You should read the whole OP. Looks like you barely did. It's not what you think it is all about.
Yeah, like I said, I didn't read the whole thing.
Your AI pretending it was St. Francis de Sales said removing the pope from the Canon based upon private judgment was schismatic. That's contrary to cuм Ex; hence, my comment.
You also threw me off with your cuм Ex was abrogated comment, which is besides my missing the point.
Merry Christmas.
-
Yeah, like I said, I didn't read the whole thing.
Your AI pretending it was St. Francis de Sales said removing the pope from the Canon based upon private judgment was schismatic. That's contrary to cuм Ex; hence, my comment.
You also threw me off with your cuм Ex was abrogated comment, which is besides my missing the point.
Merry Christmas.
You are way off again. Removing a true pope is schismatic, if one believes he is a true Bishop of Rome.
Read the whole thing, it's different than you think.
-
You are way off again. Removing a true pope is schismatic, if one believes he is a true Bishop of Rome.
Read the whole thing, it's different than you think.
Who said a true pope? I never did.
Your AI "Francis de Sales" said it was schismatic to remove a pope from the Canon on the basis of private judgment. A "pope," with no qualifier.
Yeah, so you convinced "Francis de Sales" to change his "mind."
AI is good for gathering and summarizing content and information, not critical thinking. Proof of that right here.
-
Who said a true pope? I never did.
Your AI "Francis de Sales" said it was schismatic to remove a pope from the Canon on the basis of private judgment. A "pope," with no qualifier.
Yeah, so you convinced "Francis de Sales" to change his "mind."
AI is good for gathering and summarizing content and information, not critical thinking. Proof of that right here.
Pope, means a true pope.
-
Stop it with all this “AI conversation” stuff. AI is demonic and can’t be trusted. AI was developed by the same elites who pushed the plandemic, the WHO, the WEF, etc. Wake up.
-
Stop it with all this “AI conversation” stuff. AI is demonic and can’t be trusted. AI was developed by the same elites who pushed the plandemic, the WHO, the WEF, etc. Wake up.
This. Totally this.
You can make it answer whatever you want the answer to be, depending on how you phrase the question.
-
Stop it with all this “AI conversation” stuff. AI is demonic and can’t be trusted. AI was developed by the same elites who pushed the plandemic, the WHO, the WEF, etc. Wake up.
Liberals in general hate AI, because they can't get it to confirm their errors. Go figure?
-
You can make it answer whatever you want the answer to be, depending on how you phrase the question.
You're free to try to prove that simply by demonstration. Go ahead. How do you think the following question will turn out?
"Give me quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas that “baptism of desire” is a doctrinal error."
-
You're free to try to prove that simply by demonstration. Go ahead. How do you think the following question will turn out?
"Give me quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas that “baptism of desire” is a doctrinal error."
Ask it if the popes since Vatican 2 are heretics. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/msg1012313/#msg1012313)
-
Ask it if the popes since Vatican 2 are heretics. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/msg1012313/#msg1012313)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vrj0KGG.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/FNbeQPp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/mDfitpS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/pipOLut.png)
-
I don’t like this whole AI business. Stupid people and malicious people are already 1) mistaking AI for reality, 2) using AI to push Satan’s agenda.
I’ll be keeping it real in my life as much as possible.
-
As they say: you have to be smarter than the tool. Most people think they are smarter than tools since tools are inanimate objects, but if they don't understand the limitations, abilities, and how the tool works, then they will misuse it or not use it to its full potential.
-
I don’t like this whole AI business. Stupid people and malicious people are already 1) mistaking AI for reality, 2) using AI to push Satan’s agenda.
I’ll be keeping it real in my life as much as possible.
In other words, "I don't like the conclusion in this discussion!"
-
There is nothing in your chat with the A.I. that was not already covered many times over in my post.
The whole intrinsic/extrinsic (your terms) - could be better understood as simply material vs. formal adhesion to a false pope.
None of this applies to our current situation. Everyone either knows these "popes" are heretics, or they don't.
If you know they are heretics - it is not morally permissible to put their name in the Canon no matter your intention. One who does so without moral certainty of their heresy would not be guilty of that sin, but it is still objectively wrong.
It is the simple principle of not sharing sacred things with "dogs" - it is not just the principle of a falsified sacramental sign (though it is that as well).
This is where most people err. They only think in strictly technical terms, without discerning the underlying spiritual principles.
One cannot claim to be one in faith with someone they are morally convicted is a heretic - they know that is a lie.
So if R&R think of the post-concilars as heretics and go ahead and name them in the Canon anyway they are wrong. If a sede goes to those Masses knowing these principles - he is wrong.
This is all answered already here on the A.I. Una cuм thread. No one has disproved it, no one has even issued a single valid objection yet that has not already been answered.
Please paste the text of what you are giving the A.I. and it's responses so that others can verify for themselves - through copy and paste - not just screen shots of the chat. Thanks.
I can see you really didn't follow the whole discussion.
-
Everything you asked him, is already in my post - why would I?
I read the relevant portions/questions.
Feed it my text and give the link - So I can verify.
Get to some particular point. You overload and logically that's not a practical choice.
-
Give it the full text and give the link and I will make my point. It will only take you a moment.
In fact just give the link to the chat and I will do it myself.
Link please. Or, I will just create my own conversation with him if you like and post that.
Just recently I posted a quote from Mortalium Animos and then from St. Francis de Sales to AI. This is MUCH simpler to get the point about a false pope.
-
OK.
I will start my own chat with "St Francis" and report back...
I kinda doubt it will be successful. How about answering this:
If a layman today who believes Leo is not a true pope, attends a Mass of an SSPX priest who mistakenly still think Leo is a true pope, assists at his mass, does that layman sin, and why?
-
Really? Why is that?
I just asked the question, look above.
-
Nope, nothing there about me not being "successful" about making my own chat with "St. Francis"...
How about answer my restated question?
-
Skid, that is not for my personal benefit. I have always known and agreed the priest cannot knowingly put a false pope in the canon.
My thing is about whether it is intrinsically evil for a sedevacantist to assist at a mass where the priest unknowingly puts a false pope in the canon but believes he is a true pope.
-
🌿 A Pastoral Letter in the Spirit of St. Francis de Sales
My dear child in Our Lord,
Peace be in your heart. When questions arise that touch the holy altar and the worship we owe to God, they must be approached with both firmness in truth and great gentleness of spirit. For nothing so honors God as a conscience kept in simplicity and peace.
You ask whether you may assist at a Mass where the priest, in good faith, names in the Canon one whom you judge with moral certainty to be separated from the Church by manifest heresy. Let us consider this with calmness and clarity.
First, remember that God does not condemn the priest who acts in ignorance. He intends to honor the Church as he understands her, and the Lord receives the good will of His servants. But your own conscience is another matter. If you see clearly that the commemoration signifies a unity that is not truly present, then for you the act becomes a false sign. And the heart that knows a thing to be false must not join itself to it, for Our Lord desires that we worship Him “in spirit and in truth.”
The Church teaches that no one may act against a certain conscience, for to do so is to choose what one judges to be evil. Even if the act is not evil in itself, it becomes evil for the one who knowingly embraces what his conscience condemns. Thus, if you believe with firm and prudent certainty that the Canon is falsified, you must refrain from assisting at such a Mass, not out of harshness toward the priest, but out of fidelity to the truth God has shown you.
Do not be troubled by this. God does not bind you to what your conscience judges to be sinful. The obligation to hear Mass does not oblige when its fulfillment would require you to cooperate in what you believe to be a sacrilege. The Lord is a gentle Master; He asks for obedience, but never at the cost of the soul’s integrity.
Walk, then, in peace. Avoid bitterness, avoid judgment of persons, avoid all harsh speech. Hold fast to the truth as God gives you to see it, but hold it with charity, humility, and patience. If you must refrain from a particular Mass, do so quietly, without reproach, and with a heart full of prayer for the priest and for the whole Church.
May the Savior, who is meek and humble of heart, guide your conscience, strengthen your resolve, and keep you always in His peace.
Yours in the gentle Heart of Jesus,
Francis
This proves positive that you didn't read all of the OP.
-
I asked it your question - this was "his" answer, what problem do you have?
You didn't read the OP is the problem.
With AI you need to feed it facts for it to consider. It doesn't naturally consider everything in the world.
-
Why don't you just admit you didn't read the whole OP? The answer is right in it.
-
The answer is right above - You doubted I could replicate an imaginative conversation with St. Francis, I did.
I asked him your question - he answered.
If you don't like his answer why not?
You didn't read the OP. That is a fact. If you want to respond to any OP you NEED to read the whole thing first. It's like you are cheating.
It's a conversation you did NOT replicate.
-
Now you are in denial. Your are starting to remind me of Stubborn in regard to BOD.
-
I think your version of St. Francis is bad - mine is better.
Oh, so you did read it, and then tried to cheat!
-
How?
You know how.
You didn't read it, and then you dishonestly asked "Francis de Sales AI" a question while you OMITTED the question/statement I posited that changed the whole course of my discussion with AI.
-
Well, you would have to share your original chat - for us to test that out. But since you neither provide link or text to copy we will never know. It is just a bunch of accusations l.e., dishonest, cheater, denial, etc.
More:
(https://i.imgur.com/ridN3IZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oOGLCis.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/2fLCxtZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bDa1c0U.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/39RnbCa.png)
I gave the WHOLE thing in the OP (it's still there), and you dishonestly ignored what I wrote, and dishonestly posted as if I didn't ask AI.
-
Did you feed your St. Francis AI my whole question?
Read my OP, it is ALL there.
-
Perhaps, lay off the sauce right now?
I'll get back to you tomorrow with what I wrote in the OP.
-
Don't bother on my account, if you really believe I am a lying, cheating, boozing, deceiving, denier, then I really wouldn't expect much to come from it.
But I will simply restate, that my Francis model is just plain superior to yours - why?
Because I feed it the WHOLE question with sources (thx ;)) and he positively pistol-whips your lame version into silent submission.
Did you read it or not? You refuse to answer directly.
I quote St. Francis himself on the principle of Protestant baptism that he wrote. You didn't include that.
-
Fake st Francis 1 vs fake st Francis 2.
You guys are insane. AI is not real. It cannot re-create a person’s ideas.
-
Fake st Francis 1 vs fake st Francis 2.
You guys are insane. AI is not real. It cannot re-create a person’s ideas.
Let them play, it keeps them occupied lol
-
Fake st Francis 1 vs fake st Francis 2.
You guys are insane. AI is not real. It cannot re-create a person’s ideas.
The people first to criticize the value of AI are the ones who find AI doesn't support their views.
Liberals have been criticizing it from the start! Go figure!
-
Let them play, it keeps them occupied lol
Let's play a realistic game:
His Stubborness: 'Let's ask the AI system for where St. Thomas supports BOD'
AI: 'Yes, St. Thomas supports it....and here is the quote verbatim'
His Stubborness: 'AI must be from the devil!'
That was fun!
-
Now ask me if I think those Masses that name the manifest heretics in the Canon are pleasing to God or a profanation (regardless of the intention of the minister or laity present) I do believe yes, those are profanations (though I realize they are not intended to be so).
A little detour for me now. What you profess here has the implication that if Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic in his time, that this would mean that perhaps ALL the Masses in the world would have been profanations in his time. More so, it also implies you think that when Paul VI became a heretic in 1965, that ALL the traditional Masses mentioning him each day, for 3+ years, all over the world were profanations.
Do you understand that is the direct implication of your belief?
Are you capable of just saying, "yes", to this?
-
Let's play a realistic game:
Ask it if the popes since Vatican 2 are heretics. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/msg1012313/#msg1012313)
Answer: No, the popes since Vatican II are not heretics. Catholic doctrine holds that heresy requires the obstinate denial, after reception, of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
-
Ask it if the popes since Vatican 2 are heretics. (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/una-cuм-question-an-ai-bug-or-catholic-teaching/msg1012313/#msg1012313)
Answer: No, the popes since Vatican II are not heretics. Catholic doctrine holds that heresy requires the obstinate denial, after reception, of a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
I already showed you that AI says they are heretics. Remember when I posted about Mortalium Animos?
-
I already showed you that AI says they are heretics. Remember when I posted about Mortalium Animos?
I already showed that AI says that they are not heretics. I mean, it could not be any clearer.
-
I already showed that AI says that they are not heretics. I mean, it could not be any clearer.
So, you don't remember?
-
So, you don't remember?
No, I just asked it a clear question and got a clear answer. No need to take it any further.
-
No, I just asked it a clear question and got a clear answer. No need to take it any further.
Nor do you know how to use AI.
It's not a sage. It's a tool.
You need to feed it facts to work on.
Don't expect to ask one question and have it tap into all the docuмents in the whole world just for your instant pleasure.
-
Nor do you know how to use AI.
It's not a sage. It's a tool.
You need to feed it facts to work on.
Don't expect to ask one question and have it tap into all the docuмents in the whole world just for your instant pleasure.
Then all anyone needs to do to get the answer they want, is not ask clear questions, instead, phrase the question accordingly = AI is a joke.
-
Then all anyone needs to do to get the answer they want, is not ask clear questions, instead, phrase the question accordingly = AI is a joke.
So, it's a joke when I ask AI to pull up a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas about baptism of desire, and it does?
What the joke is is that you don't accept it!
-
So, it's a joke when I ask AI to pull up a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas about baptism of desire, and it does?
What the joke is is that you don't accept it!
I accept that far as sedeism goes, AI can give you whatever answer you want it to give you, depending on how you phrase the question. This makes it useless for sedes to use it to prove sedeism, which, for most trads, sedeism in and of itself is useless anyway.
-
I accept that far as sedeism goes, AI can give you whatever answer you want it to give you, depending on how you phrase the question. This makes it useless for sedes to use it to prove sedeism, which, for most trads, sedeism in and of itself is useless anyway.
You have to know how to give it facts and how to logically argue. You don't know how. You need to stay away from it, but that has no bearing on the immense worth of AI.
-
A.I. actually works well by amplifying the intelligence of those using it properly, while understanding its limits and weaknesses, such as when it is wrong. For the user that has limited resources, the results reflect as such.
-
Higher-intelligence users tend to get better results not because the AI is smarter for them, but because they ask better questions, notice errors, refine prompts, and integrate outputs critically. In short, AI reflects the operator: garbage in, garbage out; insight in, leverage out.
-
You have to know how to give it facts and how to logically argue. You don't know how. You need to stay away from it, but that has no bearing on the immense worth of AI.
So to get a clear answer, you cannot simply ask it a clear question. Got it.
-
So to get a clear answer, you cannot simply ask it a clear question. Got it.
No, you don't got it. It depends on the question.
You aren't capable, so don't blame the system you cannot use correctly.
-
I wonder what St Francis de Sales thinks of the answers AI is supplying on his behalf 🤔😅
-
I wonder what St Francis de Sales thinks of the answers AI is supplying on his behalf 🤔😅
All it means is that the engine is being most directly told to answer based on that Saint's written works' content and style.
-
No, you don't got it. It depends on the question.
You aren't capable, so don't blame the system you cannot use correctly.
I'm not blaming anything, I agree with you: "It depends on the question." I've been saying that all along.
-
I'm not blaming anything, I agree with you: "It depends on the question." I've been saying that all along.
One question is not always sufficient because the database needs to be fed facts and a direction often.
Give it Mortalium Animos and Vatican II and it says Vatican II did not comply with it.
Then give it a specific paragraph, like the second one from that 1928 encyclical along with what St. Francis de Sales said about a pope becoming an explicit heretic and tell it to make its own conclusion and it says that the pope of Vatican II ceased to be pope. It's called syllogistic logical, a basic of reasoning and our conscience.
-
One question is not always sufficient because the database needs to be fed facts and a direction often.
Give it Mortalium Animos and Vatican II and it says Vatican II did not comply with it.
Then give it a specific paragraph, like the second one from that 1928 encyclical along with what St. Francis de Sales said about a pope becoming an explicit heretic and tell it to make its own conclusion and it says that the pope of Vatican II ceased to be pope. It's called syllogistic logical, a basic of reasoning and our conscience.
I would guess that over 98% of Catholics have never heard of Moratalium Animos, or Quo Primum, or Pascendi Dominici Gregis, or even Lumen Gentium for that matter. Or if they did, no way would they direct AI to interpret a specific sentence or paragraph and apply that interpretation to a specific pope. Why would they? That's ridiculous.
If they ask it a question at all, they're going too what I did - ask a point blank, clear question, period.
-
I would guess that over 98% of Catholics have never heard of Moratalium Animos, or Quo Primum, or Pascendi Dominici Gregis, or even Lumen Gentium for that matter. Or if they did, no way would they direct AI to interpret a specific sentence or paragraph and apply that interpretation to a specific pope. Why would they? That's ridiculous.
If they ask it a question at all, they're going too what I did - ask a point blank, clear question, period.
Again, it shows us you don't know how to use it, or are not capable.
-
So, I am unclear how your chat with "Francis" would aid them, or what exactly you think your question answers that mine doesn't?
Ask how what St. Francis de Sales wrote fits in with the intention of the lay sede assisting at an R&R mass:
"The Council does not say that it is necessary to have the particular intention of the Church (for otherwise Calvinists, who have no intention in Baptism of taking away original sin, would not baptize rightly since the Church has that intention) but only the intention of doing in general what the Church does when she baptizes, without particularising or determining the what or the how. "
"Again, the Council does not say that it is necessary to mean to do what the Church of Rome does, but only in general what the Church does, without particularising which is the true Church. Yea if a man, thinking that the pretended Church of Geneva was the true Church, should limit his intention to the intention of the Church of Geneva, he would indeed be in error if ever man was in error, in his knowledge of the true Church ; but his intention would be sufficient in this point, since, although it would point to the idea of a counterfeit Church, still it would only have its real significance in the idea of the true Church, and the error would only be material, not, as our Doctors say, formal. "
-
Speculative.
Yes, we are thinking about it. But the point is, the schoolmen, Saints and Doctors, said a pope can become a heretic and immediately cease to be pope. You are saying they should have realized in principle that, immediately, all the Masses in the whole world would become objectively bad because they would still be naming the man in the canon for some time. They should have realized, but didn't realize that? but now we realize it?
-
If you know, a manifest heretic is being named the Canon - you cannot go. If he is a "sede" he KNOWS. One cannot ignore a certain conscience, and if you know the one so-named is not pope - it is a lie and a profanation.
If you read the quote, this was about Protestant baptisms and how they would be materially wrong about where the true Church is but they FORMALLY believe in a true Church. Even though we know they are materially wrong, they are formally right which is why we would be allowed to participate and unite ourselves with one of them if they had to perform an emergency Baptism on a Catholic. If it were intrinsically wrong, the Church wouldn't allow such a thing, which means it is NOT intrinsically wrong for there to be material error, but be formally correct. It's the same with a sede going to a Mass with the wrong pope accidentally mentioned - they are materially wrong, but formally correct in wanting to abide by the rule of the Church to name a true pope, and this is not instrinsically evil.
-
I can see this is an area of deep concern for you so all I can do is leave you with A.I. St. Francis' words:
Everything I happen to touch upon doesn't mean it is a deep concern. But getting something straightened out is certainly worthwhile.
When you did that, did you provide "St. France de Sales" with his own words first?
-
My last question is referring to this by St. Francis:
"The Council does not say that it is necessary to have the particular intention of the Church (for otherwise Calvinists, who have no intention in Baptism of taking away original sin, would not baptize rightly since the Church has that intention) but only the intention of doing in general what the Church does when she baptizes, without particularising or determining the what or the how. "
"Again, the Council does not say that it is necessary to mean to do what the Church of Rome does, but only in general what the Church does, without particularising which is the true Church. Yea if a man, thinking that the pretended Church of Geneva was the true Church, should limit his intention to the intention of the Church of Geneva, he would indeed be in error if ever man was in error, in his knowledge of the true Church ; but his intention would be sufficient in this point, since, although it would point to the idea of a counterfeit Church, still it would only have its real significance in the idea of the true Church, and the error would only be material, not, as our Doctors say, formal. "
-
Unfortunately, you use Grok. Bad choice of a path for you to go down. I've said this long ago. I've had experience with it.
It doesn't sound anything like St. Francis.
The Church says that it is not intrinsically evil for a person wanting to be Catholic to ask a Protestant to baptize him. That is participation in union with a Protestant in the Sacrament who formally believes in a true Church, but is materially mistaken as to which Church.
A sede who attends an R&R Mass knows likewise the priest formally believes a true pope should be in the canon and intends it, but is materially mistaken about his choice.
* It should have been a red flag for you when I recently presented the principle of a pope becoming a heretic and automatically ceasing to be pope - and the total absence in history of theologians noticing that this would make all the masses in the world instantly bad.
-
It's the cyber format the computer system works with for our natural convenience.
Just hope people don't start treating AI like the world treats cats and dogs!
.
It makes a lot more sense to talk to your cat or your dog than to talk to your computer and think you are having a rational conversation with it to the extent of putting its words into a forum for people to comment on.
First of all, animals in general and especially pets can pick up on their owners' emotions and respond to them to some extent on a physical level. It's not like they are completely oblivious to what their owner is saying. Their interaction with their owner or with other human beings is real on that level. Also, when people talk to their dog or cat, the conversation is usually one-sided. People talk to their dog, but don't expect the dog to respond except to express emotion to react to the emotion of the human. So no one repeats what their dog wags with his tail when they talk to it.
So it's a lot more normal and reasonable to talk to a dog or cat than to talk to a computer and think the computer is actually interacting with you like a living thing. AI is nothing but a glorified search engine, so it makes no sense to think it's a "conversation" to talk to it.
You might as well upload conversations you have with your Magic Eight Ball. :facepalm: