Old Errors And Old Catholics

 

An old error is enjoying a resurgence of sorts. The R&R is attempting to "prove" that a pope can be a heretic. Having been frustrated that their position is refuted over and over by Catholic theology, some former R&R now take a new tack. They claim Traditional Catholic teaching regarding the papacy is itself heretical. Pope Pius IX was allegedly a Freemason and false pope. The teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870 was heretical, imposed by "Ultramontanists." This enabled the Masons to orchestrate Vatican II and no one could call the pope a heretic. Here is a recent comment I received on my post of 1/12/26, "Recognizing And Resisting The Errors of R&R:"

You're all ridiculous. Old Catholicism is the only thing that actually makes sense. Pius IX was a Freemason, on the books as such in their ledgers, and could not be Pope. The robber council of Vatican I forced things in such a way that Pastor Aeternus could never be denied by the gathering of bishops. Pius IX is even recorded as saying that if the Council didn't agree to the "dogma" that he would "clarify" it himself as he did the Immaculate Conception!

The first rupture was Vatican I. Holding the council in a place where the older, more infirm bishops could not stay or participate for the entire length of the event was a calculated move to make sure only Ultramontanists could get in, then they with their Masonic collaborators could create the chimeric abomination that is the Vatican II pseudo-church we see today.

Taking the statements and actions of the Pian Popes in-line, it's obvious to see that they were all for the reform, and establishing an ever firmer Papal power structure that nobody could resist and still call themselves Catholic. Pius X taught very clearly that if you are not in complete agreement with the rites and teachings of the Pope, you are no longer Catholic.

Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, Paragraph 58:

"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, which involve the religious life of Christian society, the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; nor may they be allowed to set up customs that may lead to the introduction of theological errors, or a tendency to a separate sect, or any other deviation highly harmful to the faith."

Pope Leo XIII says as much, in his Sapientiae Christianae:

"In settling how far the limits of obedience extend, let no one imagine that the belief that the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops must be obeyed only in those matters which the Church has decreed by solemn definition...

"For, in the making of a Christian, after the necessity of believing, there comes next the obligation of being in complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.

"...Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect... and must be such as no one can even call in question."

As does Pius XII, in Humani Generis:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me'; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

"But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question free for discussion among theologians."

Since the "Popes" defined these matters as to leave zero room for calling them heretics, and those who proclaim their Catholicism in light of Vatican I agree to all the above at least tacitly — if not explicitly, as shown in your article — all Sedevacantists are Protestants by their own judgment.

Therefore, Old Catholicism "makes sense" and sedevacantists are "Protestants." 

In this post, I will refute the contentions as expressed by the commenter. (N.B. The material herein was taken from many sources, both online and in print. I take no credit for the information. All I did was condense it into a terse and readable post. I also wish to credit Mr. Mario Derksen of the amazing Traditionalist website Novus Ordo Watch for having done top-notch research on the topic of Pope Pius IX and his alleged Masonic membership. I was able to find and use some of the excellent works he cited.---Introibo). 

Was Pope Pius IX a Freemason?

In a word: NO! This calumny has been around way before certain people decided to revive the evil accusations against a good and holy pope.  I will examine three aspects: (a) the cause of the accusation; (b) who started the accusations; (c) the demonstrated falsity of the accusations.

(a) Why was Pope Pius IX accused of Freemasonry?

Pope Pius IX was frequently called a "liberal," and the following incident earned him that appellation by some, as cited in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

In 1831 when 4000 Italian revolutionists fled before the Austrian army and threatened to throw themselves upon Spoleto, the archbishop [Mastai-Ferretti] persuaded them to lay down their arms and disband, induced the Austrian commander to pardon them for their treason, and gave them sufficient money to reach their homes…. His great charity and amiability had made him beloved by the people, while his friendship with some of the revolutionists had gained for him the name of liberal. (See entry "Pope Pius IX"). 

According to journalist and historian Yves Chiron:

[There were] three different currents of thought. 1) The ‘Austrian’ party, which favored the extension of Austrian rule over all the Legations. 2) The ‘papal’ or ‘sanfedist’ party (which defended the pope and the ‘holy faith’), which not only sought to preserve the pope’s temporal authority in these territories, but also favored the domination of the clergy in social and political areas. 3) The ‘liberal’ party, which wanted to see the end of the pope’s temporal power or, at least, wide reforms in all areas. At that time the term ‘liberal’ included a great diversity of political doctrines and programs…. Msgr. Mastai did not support any of these three parties, in spite of what has been said by some of his contemporaries who, when he was elected to the Sovereign Pontificate, presented him as a "liberal." Some months after he arrived in Imola, in a letter to his friend and neighbor Cardinal Falconieri, Archbishop of Ravenna, he gave a very description of his ‘golden mean’ approach: ‘I detest and abominate, in the very marrow of my bones, the liberals’ ideas and actions; but I have no sympathy, either, for the fanaticism of the so-called ‘papalist’ party. The golden mean, the Christian golden mean — and not the diabolical golden mean which is fashionable today — is the path I would like to follow, with the Lord’s help. But shall I succeed in this?’ [Letter of June 3, 1833]” (See Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth, [2005], pgs. 558-59; Emphasis mine). 

The accusation is clearly inaccurate and false. "Liberal" did not signify "Freemason." Rather, it was a calumny leveled at him by his enemies.

(b) Freemasons started the accusations:

Pius IX had given an allocution on September 25, 1865, entitled Multiplices Inter Machinationes, in which he severely condemned Masonry and the Masons’ wicked secret scheming. It reads in part:

In this situation, fearing that imprudent men, and especially the youth, allow themselves to be misled, and that Our silence occasion anyone to protect error, We have resolved, Venerable Brethren, to raise Our apostolic voice; and, confirming here, before you, the constitutions of Our predecessors, by Our apostolic authority, We reprove and condemn this Masonic society and the others of the same kind, which, while differing in appearance, gather every day for the same goal, and conspire either openly or clandestinely against the Church and the legitimate authorities; and We order under the same penalties as those specified in the preceding constitutions of Our predecessors all Christians of every condition, every rank, every dignity, and every country, to regard these same societies as proscribed and condemned by Us. Now there only remains for Us, in order to satisfy the desires and solicitude of Our paternal heart, to warn and exhort the faithful who would associate themselves with sects of this kind of the necessity to obey wiser inspirations and to abandon these baneful secret meetings, so that they not be led into the abyss of eternal ruin. 

The Freemasons were enraged:

In the months that followed this public condemnation of Freemasonry, several Masonic publications in France and Italy, intent on revenge, propagated the story that Pius IX himself, in his youth, had been a Freemason. Apparently it was the Lodge of Palermo that first put out the accusation… In France, the journal Le Monde Maçonnique immediately went into print with this information (See Chiron, Ibid, pgs. 217-218). 

(c) Falsity of the Masonic claims against His Holiness Pope Pius IX:

From the book A Study in American Freemasonry, edited by Arthur Preuss, [1908], pgs. 267-272, it describes in detail how the enemies of the pope began the calumny against him:

“It started in Germany,” says John Gilmary Shea, in his Life of Pope Pius IX, pp. 291, 292, “and they thought that by putting the scene in America, they would escape detection. They declared positively that Pius IX had been received into a Masonic lodge in Philadelphia, cited his discourses, and declared that a number of his autographs were preserved in the lodge. Unfortunately for the story, Philadelphia is in the civilized world. People there could read and write. They examined and found that there was no Masonic lodge in that city by the name given; they found that no lodge in Philadelphia had ever received John Mary Mastai [Pius IX’s baptismal name]; they could find no trace of his ever having been there, as he never was; no lodge had any of his autograph letters; Masons themselves attested that the whole was a pure invention. The slander thus refuted has been revived from time to time, but in later versions, care is taken not to specify the lodge or city too distinctly.”

Did the 1870 Vatican Council Teach Heresy?

Once more, the answer is a resounding NO! The "Ultramontanists" (i.e., those who believed in the supremacy of the pope on matters of faith, morals, and governance. The term originates from "beyond the mountains" [referring to the Alps], as Rome was viewed from northern Europe) were just Catholics while the Gallicans (who denigrated papal authority) were heretics. 

 The idea that the definition of papal supremacy and infallibility were "invented," or not the dogmatic view of the Church, is simply wrong. It was taught from the beginning of the Church. The commenter is a Vacancy Pusher, claiming that all popes since at least Pope Pius IX were false popes. So what of these pontiffs below? 

1302 Pope Boniface VIII: Unam Sanctam (ex cathedra):

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If submission to the pope is necessary for salvation, then the pope must be the standard of faith whereby we can be safely guided to Heaven. If he could teach heresy, there's no difference between a sect (e.g., Lutherans) that lead people to Hell, and the Catholic Church with a "heretical pope." 

There are numerous actions taken by the popes far prior to the 1800s that show the development of the doctrine:

• Therefore, we ask first: if you believed, do you believe, or are you prepared to believe with the Armenian Church that obeys you, that blessed Peter received the most complete power of jurisdiction over all faithful Christians from the Lord Jesus Christ, and that all the power of jurisdiction that Jude Thaddeus and the other Apostles had in certain lands and provinces and different parts of the world in a special and particular way was subject to the most complete authority and power that blessed Peter received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself over all believers in Christ in all parts of the world, and that no apostle or anyone else received the most complete power over all Christians except Peter alone? (Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, 1351)

• Secondly : if you have believed, have held, or are you prepared to believe and hold, with the Armenians subject to you, that all the Roman Pontiffs who have canonically entered and will canonically enter succeeding Blessed Peter, have succeeded and will succeed Blessed Peter the Roman Pontiff in the same fullness of jurisdiction and power that Blessed Peter himself received from the Lord Jesus Christ over the whole and entire body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)

• Third: if you and the Armenians subject to you believed and still believe that the Roman Pontiffs who were and We who are the Roman Pontiff and those who will be successively in the future, as legitimate and most powerful Vicars of Christ, received all the potentative jurisdiction that Christ as the conformed Head had in human life, immediately from Christ Himself over the whole and entire Body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)

• That blessed Peter the Apostle had no more authority than the other Apostles had nor was he the head of the other apostles. Likewise that God did not send forth any head of the Church, nor did He make anyone His vicar. (Pope John XXII condemning the errors of Marsilius of Padua, 1327)

• We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons. (Council of Florence, 1439)

For anyone interested in a complete refutation of the Gallican heretics at the Vatican Council of 1870, read Anti-Janus by theologian Hergenrother. It was a defense against a tract by the Gallicans entitled The Pope and the Council ---written by an apostate theologian Ignaz von Dollinger, under the pseudonym "Janus."  Those minority of prelates and theologians who were against Pastor Aeternus fell into two categories: those who thought the time was "inopportune" as it would agitate anti-Catholic bias, and those who claimed it "went too far" and was "not taught from the beginning of the Church" were heretics. St. Anthony Mary Claret, a Council Father, did not hesitate to call them such.  There's no way around the definition of Florence. Papal infallibility was so proximate to the Faith, there was no way to deny it without committing a mortal sin. 

Objection: If the Vatican Council of 1870 taught the truth, and its development subsequent to 1870 is true, then we have "zero room for calling them [V2 "popes"] heretics," as the commenter wrote, and sedevacantists are "Protestants" for picking and choosing which popes are heretics. 

Reply:

False. At the Vatican Council of 1870, Archbishop John B. Purcell related the following:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(See McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII, [1903], pg. 241). 

A famous R&R "boogeyman": Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter the R&R is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened.

So a true pope cannot be a heretic. The converse is also true, a heretic cannot be a true pope. Even laymen  can and should recognize heresy. Theologian Sarda y Salvany clearly teaches this in his theological work entitled Liberalism is a Sin. The book was published in 1886. It was endorsed and praised by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII. Here's what Chapter 32, "Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases" has to say:

Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions. (Emphasis mine).

Who are "Old Catholics"

"Old Catholics" 

General name for various national churches that at different times separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Three main segments are distinguishable.

The Church of Utrecht in Holland, which separated from Rome in 1724. The immediate occasion for the break was the Jansenism of some of the Dutch Catholics, notably their archbishop, Petrus Codde (1648-1710).

The German, Austrian, and Swiss Old Catholics were organized after certain leaders in these countries rejected the two dogmas of papal infallibility and the universal ordinary magisterium, defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Their principal intellectual leader was John Joseph Ignatius Dollinger (1799-1890), Bavarian priest and Church historian. (N.B. Dollinger is pictured at the top of this post---Introibo). 

Slavic Old Catholic Churches, mainly Polish, Croat, and Yugoslav, came into existence in America and elsewhere because of alleged discrimination by Anglo-Saxon bishops, but also because of clerical celibacy.

The doctrinal basis of the Old Catholic Churches is the Declaration of Utrecht in 1889. Its main provisions are the rejection of the papal primacy and obligatory auricular confession; married clergy; and in general acceptance of the first seven ecumenical councils as adequate statements of the Christian faith.

In 1925 the Old Catholic communion formally recognized Anglican ordinations, and in 1932 entered into full communion with the Church of England, based on the Bonn Agreement of July 2, 1931.

(See Modern Catholic Dictionary by Hardon; a V2 sect source with the most terse and correct explanation).

Any examination of their beliefs and practices will show that they:

• Ordain women as "priests" and consecrate them as "bishops" 
• Accept sodomites as "normal" and not being sinful
• Have optional celibacy 
• All but eliminated Confession
• Are ecumenists 

Sounds like an even more advanced Vatican II sect. Yet the commenter praises the Old Catholics while denouncing the Vatican II sect; not too coherent. The Vatican II sect and Old Catholic sect are exactly what you get without a "ultramontane" pope. 

Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII condemned Masonry and worked against it tirelessly thus preventing Vatican II and the Modernist takeover. No Mason would ever condemn the Lodge as Pope Pius IX did in his amazing Syllabus of Errors. 

Conclusion

The idea that Pope Pius IX was a Mason and pushed for stronger papal authority so that Vatican II could transpire 84 years after his death, can now be seen for what it is---nonsense on stilts. To think that this is how far (low?) people will go to avoid the inescapable conclusion of sedevacantism since the death of Pope Pius XII. Pray for them. 

"Fr." Richard Rohr: An Occult Heretic

 

In Traditional Catholic theology, an "occult heretic" is one who denies one or more dogmas of the Faith but does not reveal it publicly. So if a cleric denied, e.g., the Immaculate Conception, but never let it be known to anyone such that only he and God are aware, that cleric is a secret ("occult") heretic. In the Vatican II sect, "occult heretic" takes on a whole new meaning.

"Fr." Richard Rohr (b. 1943) was invalidly ordained a Franciscan priest in 1970. He is a prolific writer on spirituality, and in 2011 was called by one source "one of the most popular spirituality authors and speakers in the world" (See pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/11/11/november-11-2011-richard-rohr/9902/).

Rohr's book, The Universal Christ made the New York Times Bestseller List in 2019. 

Rohr is an "occult heretic;" he denies multiple dogmas of the faith (he's an apostate actually) and he is heavily involved in the occult. However, the Vatican II sect denies these accusations. In an interview, Rohr stated that a group of "conservative" Vatican II sect laity had recorded his "homilies" and gave them to Joseph Bernardin (then Abp. of Cincinnati prior to becoming "Cardinal Abp." of Chicago) asking for Rohr to be excommunicated. Bernardin declared Rohr's teachings "within the bounds of the Church’s teachings," yet the sect's Archdiocese of Cincinnati claims to have no knowledge of the incident. (See newyorker.com/news/on-religion/richard-rohr-reorders-the-universe).

Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Rohr was endorsed by Bergoglio himself. He met with the Argentinian apostate on July 1, 2022. Rohr reports that:

I brought him a copy of Universal Christ, my end-of-life book, but he said he had already read it!

He shared three times very directly, “I want you to keep doing what you’re doing, keep teaching what you’re teaching.” For this Catholic boy from Kansas, that is a wonderful, hard-to-believe affirmation coming from the Pope himself, for the whole Christian contemplative movement. 

(See cac.org/news/statement-from-fr-richard-rohr-ofm-after-meeting-pope-francis; Emphasis mine). 

Rohr has an incredible following among millennials and even Gen Z. His "Center for Action and Contemplation" website is extremely popular, and he has published 32 books in addition to having given numerous retreats. His appeal is not limited to the Vatican II sect, but extends to Protestants, Eastern pagan religions, and those who are "spiritual but not religious." 

So, who's correct? Is Rohr an occultist and apostate, or are his teachings "within the bounds of the Church's teachings" as the Vatican II sect declares? He is a "priest" in good standing. Should he "keep doing" what he's doing and "keep teaching" what he's teaching, as "Pope" Francis stated? 

I'll set forth the facts about Rohr in this post; you can decide who's right. 

Rohr: A Universalist Who Proclaims a "Universal Christ"

In 2019, Rohr wrote a book, The Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For, and Believe. This book will reveal the heretical and occult teachings of "Fr." Richard Rohr:

• Rohr is a panentheist, believing  God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. He makes a distinction between Jesus and Christ. Rohr writes: “Christ . . . was clearly not just Jesus of Nazareth, but something much more immense”(pg. 3). Since for Rohr, everything in the universe is a manifestation of God, to call Jesus a manifestation of God is to merely say that Jesus is part of the universe. Hence, the title of the book: "The Universal Christ."

• God is a subjective term that denotes a way people look at the world. “Anything that drives you out of yourself in a positive way . . . is operating as God for you” (pg. 52).

• Revelation is not a distinct, self-disclosure of God, occurring in history. “This book . . . [seeks] to reground Christianity as a natural religion and not one simply based on a special revelation, available only to a few.” (pg. 7).

• Christ is more a process than a Divine Person.  “The Christ Mystery is not a one-time event, but an ongoing process throughout time—as constant as the light that fills the universe," and so not “limiting the Creator’s presence to just one human manifestation, Jesus” (pgs. 14, 16). He goes so far as to dedicate the book to his deceased dog Venus "whom...without fear of heresy, I can appropriately say that Venus was also Christ for me."

• The Crucifixion and Death of Jesus Christ did not save anyone. The sacrificial death of Christ was “not some bloody transaction ‘required’ by God’s offended justice in order to rectify the problem of human sin.”(pg. 140). Sin is a failure to put away our "false self." Original Sin does not exist. 

• Christ did not rise from the dead but was transformed into "beams of light." “If a video camera had been placed in front of the tomb of Jesus, it wouldn’t have filmed a lone man emerging from a grave . . . [but] something like beams of light extending in all directions” (pg. 177). 

Rohr: Spiritual Guru for Bono

In his above cited interview with The New Yorker magazine, it is noted: He is also revered by Melinda Gates and is close to Bono. “He’ll just drop me a little love note,” Rohr said. “He’s a very loving person.” (See newyorker.com/news/on-religion/richard-rohr-reorders-the-universe; Emphasis mine). 

Paul Hewson aka "Bono" (b. 1960) is the lead singer of the wicked rock group U2. Paul Hewson received his world-famous moniker "Bono" from his friend Gavin Friday who called him "Bono Vox" an alteration of the Latin "Bonavox" roughly translated as "Good Voice." Hewson liked it and dropped the "vox," hence being known as "Bono" ever since. Bono was raised by a Catholic father and Protestant mother. His father was a nominal Catholic and (sinfully) agreed with his wife that their first child would be raised Anglican, and their second Catholic. Even though Bono was the second child he was taken to both Catholic Churches and Anglican services growing up. 

Bono professes to be "Catholic" but the facts speak differently. 

• He founded the ONE Campaign, aimed at fighting extreme poverty and incurable diseases especially in Africa. How does Bono envision helping in this cause? Contraception and abortion! U2 performed concerts for the Contraception Action Campaign and the Irish Family Planning Association. Christ said, "For the poor you have always with you..." (St. Matthew 26:11) and "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God..." (St. Matthew 6:33). 

• In the Communist rag, Mother Jones Magazine of May 1, 1989, Bono was asked, "How do you feel, for instance, about abortion?" He responded, "I just have my own ideas. I believe that it’s a woman’s right to choose. Absolutely."

• He urged Ireland to legalize sodomite "marriage" and celebrated when they did make it legal, during a concert back in 2015. He said, "It’s a moment for us to thank the people who brought peace to our country, who had the courage to compromise in Ireland..."We have peace in Ireland today, and — in fact, on this very day — we have true equality in Ireland," he added. "Millions turned up to vote yesterday to say love is the highest law in the land. ...If God loves us, whoever we love, wherever we come from, then why can’t the state?" He also changed the lyrics to their smash 1984 hit Pride (In the Name of Love)--about Dr. Martin Luther King's murder--to say "They could not take away your gay pride" in place of "they could not take your pride." (See https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/u2-ireland-gay-marriage-_n_7442984.html). 

• Liberal Protestant sects and their colleges/seminaries are openly considering making U2's lyrics and Bono's ideas part of the curriculum! In the book Get Up Off Your Knees, several contributing authors, including Eugene Peterson, author of The Message Bible translation, praise Bono and U2 as a "prophetic voice." In fact, Calvin College offered a class which analyzed U2′s influence on Christians. (See "Calvin College on U2," Christianity Today, February 23, 2005). 

• While wearing the cross, he will sing the song I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." Not exactly the message you'd expect to hear from one who allegedly follows Our Lord! In that same Mother Jones interview, Bono said, "...we don't have any answers...I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. How much more clear can you make it?"

This is the man who sends "love notes" to Rohr and sees him as his "spiritual guide." 

Rohr: Praising Sins Against Nature

The website Soulforce describes itself thus:

Soulforce works to end the religious and political oppression of LGBTQI people by breaking open the ideologies of Christian Supremacy and healing our communities’ spirits from Spiritual Violence.

Soulforce was co-founded by two men, Mel White and Gary Nixon, who also happen to be “Christian” sodomite lovers. (See soulforce.org/about/who-we-are).

In 2000, Rohr wrote the following endorsement:

October 8, 2000

Brothers and Sisters of the Church:

What is more important than to follow Jesus? Is that not our final and fundamental authority for everything that we do, either as leadership or membership in the church?

Apart from understandable disagreements on specifics, details, how, when, and where, we all the know the WHAT. Jesus came to draw us all into union with God, whom he called his Father. How sad if the public image of our church continues to be a group of people that judge first, exclude easily, and use theological arguments to cover basic "political" stances of power, image, and management of constituency. These seem to be things that Jesus cared about very little, in fact, he flaunted them. This is clear in the Gospels which we all proclaim with joy.

At last we have a group of dedicated Christians who are willing to use disciplined and Christian means of nonviolent protest against its church’s failure to live the Gospel. Christians outside the mainstream did this in the abolitionist movement against slavery, in the civil rights movement against racism, and in the antiwar movement. Eventually, in each case, the church, like Peter running late to the tomb, acknowledged that these were indeed Gospel positions.

SOULFORCE must take the role of John the Beloved, who runs swiftly to the tomb, because that is what love always does. But both of us will find there the Risen Christ who always reigns and transforms human history, but never without our "let it be." Our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters have been left outside of his realm of grace for far too long. We can do so much better, and we will. I thank SOULFORCE for its courage, dedication, and proclamation of Christian nonviolence in the pursuit of justice and truth.

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Fr. Richard Rohr, O.F.M. 

(See web.archive.org/web/20160303213325/http://www.archives.soulforce.org/2000/10/08/fr-richard-rohrs-letter-of-endorsement; Emphasis mine).

From Rohr's "Daily Meditation" of 11/9/17, he writes:

Binary genders (male and female) are more an imposition of our dualistic minds than the nature of reality.” He went on to say, “When Christians label LGBTQIA individuals as “other,” sinful, or “disordered,” we hurt these precious people and the larger community, and we actually limit ourselves. Fear of difference creates a very constricted, exclusive, and small religion and life, the very opposite of what God invites us into (See cac.org/daily-meditations/identity-and-desire-2017-11-09; Emphasis mine). 

Rohr: His Occult Practices and Teachings

The Enneagram

Rohr wrote a best seller with Andreas Ebert entitled The Enneagram: A Christian Perspective (1990) claiming it was an "ancient Christian tool" used by the "Desert Fathers." The most popular book on how to use the enneagram, The Road Back to You: An Enneagram Journey to Self-Discovery, by Ian Morgan Cron and Suzanne Stabile (2016) is based off of Rohr's teachings. On pg. 24, we are told:

The Enneagram teaches that there are nine different personality styles in the world, one of which we naturally gravitate toward and adopt in childhood to cope and feel safe. Each type or number has a distinct way of seeing the world and an underlying motivation that powerfully influences how that type thinks, feels and behaves.

Once you take the test to identify your personality type, you will come to realize:

The true purpose of the Enneagram is to reveal to you your shadow side and offer spiritual counsel on how to open it to the transformative light of grace. (pg. 31; Emphasis mine).

Then you work to rid yourself of your "old self" and become your "True Self" and the person God wants you to be. Rohr and his heretical, occult disciples are spreading this throughout the Vatican II sect through retreats and parish "spirituality courses" or "workshops." Many Vatican II sect clergy give "homilies" on it. 

The enneagram is not an ancient Christian tool that has been around for ages but was invented in the 1970s by Oscar Ichazo and Claudio Naranjo from automatic writing. What is automatic writing? Automatic writing is a form of spirit contact where you allow a spirit to write through you. You become, in effect, a medium. As I've written before, mediums are condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). Imagine if you were told to use a Ouija Board to "understand yourself better" and "grow closer to God." That is as blasphemous as the use of the enneagram for "spiritual growth in God." The enneagram is inspired by the forces of Hell.

To state that something which originated with the automatic writing of two occultists was really something used by early Christians, was a fable told to Rohr by a New Ager. Rohr now happily perpetuates this false narrative. Moreover, you cannot make something "Christian" which has no scientific validity, and is inimical to genuine Catholic spirituality. There can be no "Catholic Tarot Cards." Yet Rohr will continue to make the ludicrous claim that the enneagram is now "Christianized" since its alleged use by "Desert Fathers" for which he has no credible sources.  

Rohr also claims we are not all born sinners, as he denies Original Sin in particular and redefines personal sin. We need to put off our “false selves” and discover the divine ("True Self") within ourselves. Rohr promotes the enneagram as a great tool to do that. He has gained a huge following, especially among millennials, but his teachings are heretical and must be rejected. 

Retreats in the Nude with "Healing Touch" Rituals

According to researcher Stephanie Block, Rohr fills his five-day men's retreats with rituals. "Usually on the last night of the old retreats — the Quest retreats, and the Hero retreats — I would have about an hour talk on sexuality and touch and embodiment. Then we would have a healing ceremony — several of you in this room have done that. Of all the things that happen, it reveals to me the power of ritual, or the power of touch over the power of just concepts . . . when I can let go of those and hand it over to ritual, that's when the real transformation seems to happen."  

"I give [the men] a talk on the body and I tell them to go alone and do a compassionate meditation on their body from head to foot. I give them all a foot and a half of red tape and wherever their body is holding a memory, a shame, a fear, a guilt, an anger — whatever — to wrap a little piece of that on their body. And then they come back and they sit in a big circle and I always say they look like a field of wounded soldiers. They're always very quiet when they come back. You can feel, like a self-massage almost. The pain came out when they touched each of those spots, I guess.

"And then beginning with the elders I lead them through an extended meditation. . . . I invite them to lie down in what is, for the male, the most vulnerable position — on his back. Then the other men surround them and cradle their bodies and especially touch and lay hands on and pray over those places where the man holds wounds...."

Given the high percentage of homosexuals at his retreats, it is conceivable that a good number of the participants' "wounds" are of a sexual nature. The listener is intrigued to consider the ramifications of this ritual. "[It] sounds like a rather simple, innocuous ritual — well, it blows them out of the water. It usually goes on the whole night. They don't want to stop. The man becomes their father that they never had; their father that they could never touch; their grandfather who died when they were a boy; their brother that they wanted to be friends with.

"Then when the older men are doing it to the younger men, it all, of course, reverses. But the tears just astound me. This readiness to cry and the readiness and the tears seem not be evoked by my words but by the touch itself, by the laying on of hands, by the communion, the connection that seems to happen there. And again, without any unnecessary encouragement from me, many of the men will invariably take off their shirts to expose the red tape, maybe on their chests." (As originally reported in The Wanderer of May 22, 1997; Emphasis mine). 

This is pure pagan/occult/demonic ritual. See, e.g., nakedhealingtouch.com/naked-healing/

Conclusion

There is no need to tape record Rohr's "homilies" to know he's non-Catholic and demonic. He's not "occult" in the sense of being "secret." I have set forth the facts on Richard Rohr. Do you believe he's within the teaching of the Church? Do you think he should keep on doing what he does and teaching what he teaches? If your answer is "no," then you must consider the question, "How can 'Pope" Francis and all the other members of the hierarchy, who see nothing wrong with Rohr, and encourage him to continue his teaching and actions be Catholic?" Answer that question honestly and it's "Welcome to Sedevacantism." 

Recognizing And Resisting The Errors Of R&R

 

Every now and again, it becomes necessary to revisit certain obstinate errors that continue to arise. One such error is the idea that you can recognize the Conciliar "popes" from Roncalli (John XXIII) to Prevost (Leo XIV) and yet decide what you will and won't obey/believe when he teaches. Recently, one of my readers was perturbed over this site: catholiccandle.org/2025/12/29/all-catholics-are-in-communion-with-the-pope/#sdfootnote19anc. 

I have addressed the errors of this particular site before. It's more of the same, tired, rehashed and refuted arguments. Nevertheless, those new to the One True Faith, or those who have not had the time to look more deeply into the issues might be understandably upset. Therefore, I will present some of these arguments from "Catholic Candle" to show the "light" of this candle comes from the deceptive flames of Hell. I've written on these issues in the past, but it never hurts to refresh the reasons that the "R&R" is not the Catholic position.

Catholic Candle: A 67 Year Interregnum is Impossible 

Catholic Candle (CC): Sedevacantists generally hold that Pope Pius XII has had no successors during the last 67 years.  In an attempt to avoid the contradiction between Vatican I’s infallible teaching and their own (false) theory, the sedevacantists simply label the last 67 years as a “papal interregnum”.

But if a sedevacantist would examine his position objectively, he would see that the supposed “facts” he asserts would not constitute a real interregnum but rather would be in an interruption in papal (monarchical) succession.  The sedevacantists assert that there will be a pope in some future time.  But their theory (viz., no pope now, but there will be a future pope) really supposes there would be (what historians call) a restoration of the (papal) monarchy which had been interrupted.

Reply: According to theologian Dorsch: "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, theologian Van Noort pondered it as late as 1956 (See Dogmatic Theology 2: 276).

 Theologian Cajetan wrote: "...by exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism."  (See De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Theologian Billot wrote: "When it would be necessary to  proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See De Ecclesia Christi).

It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the papacy must last until the end but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter.  Furthermore, having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors. There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, he brings home this important point. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

So an interregnum of a long duration does nothing to affect the monarchial constitution of the One True Church. 

CC: Sedevacantism Cannot Be True Because The Church Must be Visible and Have Unity

CC: Because the Church will always be visible, and because unity of government is an element of the Mark of Unity by which the Church can always be known, the Church will always have a visible government, so that the true Church can be recognized by this Mark of Unity of Government.  

Because the Church’s government is visible and monarchical, “the Church, being a visible body, must have a visible head and centre of unity.” This is obviously true.  For the Church is not one, with a visible government, if it is unknown “who is in charge”.  In fact, governing authority is the efficient cause giving unity as one body to any society of men. 

For there is not one visible society if it consists of men united only by ideas and not by a unified, visible government.  That is why even basic catechisms teach us that the Catholic Church is “under one visible head.”

Reply: According to theologian Van Noort, "[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity...unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original). 

1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith

"The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church's teaching office." (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, "Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ...Furthermore...it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles" (Ibid:128). 

2. Communion

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession." (Ibid:128)

3. Government

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority." (Ibid:130)  

Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don't have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order. 

In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)

According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

CC: The Pope Can Be Resisted Like a "Bad Dad"

CC: Pope Leo is a bad pope and a bad father. We must oppose the evil he does but must avoid the sedevacantists’ (objective) mortal sins of rashly judging his interior culpability and of denying that he is the pope or is even Catholic.

Here, it is alleged that just as a child can refuse to obey the evil command of his father, so too can Catholics refuse to obey "bad teachings" of the Conciliar "popes."

The pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues.

Extinguishing The R&R Candle: If Prevost is Pope You Must Obey

According to the eminent theologians McHugh and Callan these are the moral principles regarding the assent owed by Catholics:

760. Many tenets of the Church, indeed, have not the prerogative of infallibility—for example, decrees of the Popes not given ex cathedra, decisions of Congregations made with Papal approval, teachings of Bishops to particular members of the Church, doctrines commonly held by Catholics as theological truths or certain conclusions. These decrees, decisions, etc., receive not the assent of Catholic faith, but what is called religious assent, which includes two things, viz., external and internal assent.

(a) External assent should be given such teachings—that is, the homage of respectful silence due to public authority. This does not forbid the submission of difficulties to the teaching authority, or the scientific examination of objections that seem very strong.

(b) Internal assent should be given such teaching—that is, the submission of the judgment of the individual to the judgment of the teacher who has the authority from Christ and assistance from the Holy Spirit. This internal assent differs, however, from the assent of faith, inasmuch as it excludes fear of error, but not of the possibility of error, and it may later on be suspended, called into doubt, or even revoked. Pope Pius X in his Motu proprio, "Praestantia scripturae Sacrae" (Nov. 18, 1907), indicated the binding force of the decrees both of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and of all doctrinal decrees:

 All are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees which appertain to doctrine, issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Supreme Pontiff; nor can they escape the stigma both of disobedience and temerity, nor be free from grave guilt as often as they impugn their decisions either in word or writing; and this over and above the scandal which they give and the sins of which they may be the cause before God by making other statements on these matters which are very frequently both rash and false. (Reaffirmed by the Biblical Commission on Feb. 27, 1934.)

761. The objects, therefore, which formally or reductively pertain to the virtue of faith, are as follows:

(a) Divine faith has for its object all the truths revealed by God as contained in the Canonical scriptures approved by the Church, and in the teachings received by the Apostles from Christ or the Holy Spirit and handed down to the Church as Tradition. Private revelations in exceptional cases may also be the object of divine faith.

(b) Catholic faith has for its object all the truths formally revealed in scripture and Tradition that have been defined as such by the Church. The definitions of the Church are either solemn (e.g., those given in the Creeds, ex cathedra definitions of the Popes, decisions of Ecumenical Councils) or ordinary (e.g., those contained in the universal preaching, practice or belief of the Church, encyclical letters [see Humani Generis, n.20]). Equivalent to definitions are the condemnations of error opposed to revealed truths.

(c) According to some theologians ecclesiastical faith has for its object all infallible decisions of the Church about matters not revealed, but connected with revelation, or necessary for the exercise of the teaching office of the Church. Such are: (i) definitions, that is, definitive declarations of theological conclusions or of dogmatic facts, disciplinary laws made for the entire Church, canonization of the saints, solemn approbation of religious Orders, express or special recognition of Doctors of the Church, declaration of the relation of private revelations to the public revelation; and (ii) censures, that is, condemnations of teachings, on account of falsity, as heretical, near to heresy, savoring of heresy, erroneous, rash, etc.; on account of their expression, as equivocal, ambiguous, presumptuous, captious, suspected, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, etc.; on account of their tendency, as scandalous, schismatical, seditious, unsafe, etc. Examples: The definitions concerning the sense of the book Augustinus, the suitability of the terms "consubstantial" and "transubstantiation," the agreement of the Vulgate with the original scriptures, the lawfulness of the insertion of the Filioque.

(d) Religious assent has for its object all doctrinal pronouncements of the Church that are not infallible, but are yet official and authoritative. Examples are ordinary instructions and condemnations given by Pontifical Congregations and Commissions. The Syllabus of Modern Errors issued by Pius IX was most likely not an infallible or definitive document, although many of the errors it rejects are contrary to dogma, and hence, even apart from the Syllabus, they are to be rejected as opposed to Catholic faith. Likewise, many of its tenets are drawn from encyclical letters. Papal allocutions, radio addresses, and the doctrinal parts of Apostolic Constitutions, in themselves, are in this class.

(e) Respect is due to the judgment of the Church even in non-doctrinal matters and where no obligation is imposed by her, on account of her position and the careful examination given before decision. Example: It would be disrespectful to reject without good reason a pious belief which the Church after mature deliberation has permitted to be held.

762. Though the truths of faiths are many, the duty of believing imposes no great burden on the believer. Thus: (a) it is not required that explicit belief be given to all the teachings of faith; (b) it is not required that one distinguish the particular kind of assent in case of uncertainty, but it suffices to yield assent according to the mind and intention of the Church. Example: When a group of propositions is condemned under various censures, no indication being made of the censure that applies to particular propositions, it suffices to hold that all of them are false, and that to each of them applies one or more of the censures listed.

(Source: Fr. McHugh, John A. and Fr. Callan, Charles J. (May 24, 1958) “Part II. Special Moral Theology: Art. 1. The Virtue of Faith – The Object of Faith.” Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities. New York City: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc. para. 760-762. Italics in original).

CC repeats the Feeneyite/Dimondite error of "you only need to obey infallible teachings." They state: Popes can err in any other teachings, unless those teachings are themselves a faithful repetition of truth contained in infallible Catholic Tradition. No pope (or anyone else) can err when faithfully repeating the teachings of Catholic Tradition. The Church has condemned this very idea. 

• Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."

• Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis [1950]).

Conclusion

Consider this post another one of my "refresher courses" on why the R&R position makes no sense and contradicts Church teaching on the papacy. I could go on and on with that false and misleading website, but I hope the point has been made. Join the Vatican II sect and follow Prevost as a Catholic should if you recognize his "papacy." Otherwise, embrace sedevacantism--true Catholicism--to have the hope of saving your soul. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 47

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

AI: Can a Machine Be Conscious?

To My Readers: This is my second installment on the dangers and challenges of AI. My first installment was in "Contending For The Faith---Part 45." (N.B.  This post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take  absolutely no credit for any of the information herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).

It’s commonplace to hear the language of consciousness applied to computing technology, especially AI. Neural networks, machine learning, artificial intelligence, automated reasoning, knowledge engineering, emotion AI. This isn’t surprising, though, given AI’s (seeming) ability to approximate various functions of human consciousness. No harm, no foul. After all, we use language figuratively all the time. The problem arises when people believe AI literally has consciousness in the same sense in which human persons are conscious. People often point to Turing tests to support this idea. Contrary to popular belief, though, passing a Turing test does not establish that AI is conscious (or much else of interest). This should matter to Traditionalists, because to attribute genuine consciousness to AI is seriously to demean humans who were created in the image and likeness of God. 

What is a "Turing Test"?

Alan Turing (1912–1954) was a British mathematician, widely recognized as the father of modern computer science. His famous article, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950), asks the question, “Can machines think?” 

(See doi.org/10.1093/mind/LIX.236.433). 

To get at an answer, Turing proposes the “imitation game.” (See Ibid, pg. 433). 

The game itself is simple. We have two rooms. In the first room we place a person and a machine, and in the second room we place an investigator. Unable to see into the first room, the investigator knows the other person and the machine simply as ‘X’ and ‘Y.’ The investigator passes questions into the first room, directed to X or Y. For example, “Does X play chess?” The other person aims to help the investigator correctly identify which of X or Y is the machine, while the machine’s aim is to trick the investigator into mistaking machine for human. The object of the game is for the investigator to identify correctly, on the basis of the answers returned, whether X is the person or the machine. Hence, for the machine (or AI) to “pass the Turing test” is for it so to function in such a way that humans cannot recognize it as non-human.

For his part, Turing believed “that in about fifty years’ time it will be possible to programme (sic) computers…to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent. chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning.”

(See Ibid, pg. 442). 

Was Turing right? More or less. One recent study, conducted by researchers at the University of California San Diego, evaluated three systems (ELIZA, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4). The report, published under the title “People Cannot Distinguish GPT-4 from a Human in a Turing Test,” claims to provide the first serious empirical proof that any artificial system passes an interactive Turing test. The study found that human participants “were no better than chance at identifying GPT-4 after a five minute conversation, suggesting that current AI systems are capable of deceiving people into believing that they are human.” (See arxiv.org/html/2405.08007). 

What is Consciousness?

However, even given the above information, who cares? Suppose we stipulate that AI is regularly mistaken for human consciousness. Would that establish that AI is, in fact, conscious in the same way as humans? Not at all. To see why, let’s reflect briefly on human consciousness.

Considerations of consciousness (and the philosophy of mind generally) can get fairly technical, so I'll keep this simple. Each of us, as persons, are directly familiar with our own individual consciousness. I experience my consciousness, but obviously I cannot experience yours--- and vice versa. I am directly familiar with what it is like to be me, but I am not — indeed, cannot be — directly familiar with what it is like to be you. And again, vice versa. This is because access to what it is like to be one is available only via one’s first-person, inner perspective. We each are the unique subjects of our conscious experiences, and in the absence of subjects there cannot be consciousness.

Each of us knows via first-person experience that there are various states of consciousness. We refer colloquially to being in a “semi-conscious state” when we’re half asleep or distracted, but that’s not the sort of state I mean. I’m referring instead to what philosophers call mental states. We experience sensations — being in pain, for example (“My toe hurts”). We also experience desires (“I’d really like to get out of attending that meeting”), beliefs (“I believe the party is at 6:00 P.M.”), thoughts (“I love my wife”), understanding, and others, all of which are impossible for AI.

Let’s focus on thoughts. Thoughts are about something (perhaps even something fictitious); they can be true or false; and they can logically imply further thoughts. As I type this, I can form thoughts about what I’m typing. I notice I can form thoughts about the appearance of the letters on the screen (“Gee, I meant 'there' not 'their'”), but I can also form thoughts about the meaning conveyed by what I’m typing (this paragraph is about one’s thoughts). We can use thoughts to have the mental state of understanding, and that’s pretty extraordinary. Again, these states are mental; they are not physical (e.g., brain) states.

The "Chinese Room" Thought Experiment

The suggestion that AI can form thoughts and have understanding depends on a radically different view: that humans’ (physical) brains are what have mental states; humans do not have (nonphysical) minds (the soul). “Mental,” on this suggestion, does not mean nonphysical. The suggestion is that mental states are to be understood as functions, and AI can certainly exhibit functions. To get the idea, think in terms of input = programming (plus enormous data, if you like) = output. That is fundamentally how AI works; humans’ minds are to brains what programming is to AI. (See John R. Searle, “Minds, Brains, and Programs,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, no. 3 [1980], pg. 421). When fed input AI produces output indistinguishable from that of human consciousness, and so AI is said to have understanding (consciousness). In a word, AI is a “mind” in the same sense you are.

Yet, as (atheist) philosopher John Searle explains, the input = programming  = output model cannot establish understanding. No matter how sophisticated the programming may be, functioning in a certain way is not identical to understanding. To see why, let’s imagine what Searle calls "the Chinese room." 

Suppose you have no knowledge of the Chinese language. Chinese characters are, to you, “just so many meaningless squiggles. Now suppose you’re given a handful of Chinese writings and then locked in a room. Shortly, a second batch of Chinese writings are slid into the room beneath the door. Meantime, the room contains a rulebook, written in English. The rulebook tells you how to correlate symbols (e.g., when you see squiggle symbol, put it with a squoggle symbol). You’ve no idea what the symbols mean, but you find you’re able to locate symbols in the writings that match these squiggles and squoggles and get on with the correlations. Later a third batch of Chinese writings appear beneath the door, along with further English instructions. These instructions enable you to correlate this batch with the first two batches, and then to pass your latest correlations back under the door. Unbeknownst to you, the people giving you these writings “call the first batch ‘a script,’ they call the second batch ‘a story,’ and they call the third batch ‘questions.’ Furthermore, they call the symbols [you] give them back in response to the third batch ‘answers to the questions,’ and the set of rules in English…they call ‘the program.’

(See Ibid, pg. 418). 

It’s easy to imagine that after a while you’d become really good at following the instructions for manipulating the Chinese symbols and the programmers would become so good at writing programs that someone outside the room would be unable to distinguish your answers from those of a native Chinese speaker. You passed the Turing test. Except you still don’t understand Chinese.

If you still don’t understand Chinese, then what exactly have you become really good at in the Chinese room? The answer is that you’ve become good at a certain syntactical operation, namely manipulating the symbols based purely on syntax. Your manipulations of the symbols, in other words, are based entirely on the shape of the Chinese symbols (e.g., squiggle and squoggle) and the order in which they appear. The instructions in the rulebook concern nothing beyond this syntax. 

Can AI perform this syntactical operation? Yes, perhaps even better than you can. In following the rulebook, though, are you not thinking “about” the Chinese symbols? Yes, in a sense you are — but only in the sense in which I formed thoughts about not liking the word on my computer screen. The manipulation of symbols in keeping with a syntax, after all, has (literally) no meaning. In order to understand Chinese (or anything else), you must be able to think “about” the meaning of the symbols.

(See E. J. Lowe, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, [2000], pgs. 214-217). This is what Searle calls “semantic” understanding, and this cannot be done merely through complicated syntactical operations.

In the Chinese room experiment, you are in the place of AI. If you can follow the formal rules spelled out in the rulebook, after all, then surely an AI can, too. You’ve got the batches of writing (inputs); you’ve got ideal programming; and you’ve generated the expected outputs. Yet you lack any understanding whatsoever of Chinese. As Searle concludes, since “the program is defined in terms of computational operations on purely formally defined elements” (i.e., input = programming = output, which is how AI functions), the experiment reveals that mere program functioning cannot yield understanding. (See “Minds, Brains, and Programs,”pg. 418). AI can make an impressive simulation indeed of human consciousness. However, an impressive simulation of understanding is no more conscious than a computer simulation of rainstorms is wet.

Conclusion

AI will never be human. It will always be an "it;" a thing without a soul. St.  Thomas Aquinas explains: “Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God.” (See Summa Theologica Ia q. 93 a. 4). Aquinas goes on to explain that “only in rational creatures is there found a likeness of God which counts as an image….As far as a likeness of the divine nature is concerned, rational creatures seem somehow to attain a representation of [that] type in virtue of imitating God not only in this, that he is and lives, but especially in this, that he understands.” (Ibid, Ia q. 93 a. 6). 

A real problem arises when people believe AI has consciousness in the same sense in which human persons are conscious. Such a view diminishes what it means to be a human and demeans the image of Almighty God. Don't fall for it.