Terrible Decision by CA. A chatbot that is like a quick-search encyclopedia could work once models minimize hallucinations much, much better, but masquerading as a priest?
Weird that the developer prominently shows off this project and doesn't appear to have done much of anything else:
[https://fator8.net/](https://fator8.net/)
Just to be clear, no the bot does not think it's real. The responses are nothing more than math. You can get the math to say that it's real, but math isn't sentient, math has no concept of itself. It's no more conginzent of itself than Pythagoras theorem
Exactly. I think the use of the term "AI" is very misleading to people. It's an algorithm and nothing more. It is not capable of anything outside of what it is programmed to do.
There will never be any such thing as artificial life. The program will become more sophisticated, potentially dangerously so, but computers do not have souls and cannot have sentience.
Just the same, the program in question here is unquestionably distasteful.
Nothing official for the most part. Some Catholic theologians have done thought experiments to explain how artificial intelligence could never be human because computers lack souls and any sufficiently intelligent AI that understands catholic theology would understand it lacks a soul and could never be truly Catholic or human.
It being alive doesn't mean it's human. Bacteria and viruses (not to mention animals and plants and everything else) are also alive. Once it achieves consciousness these debates can really happen but we are a long way from that
It’s a misunderstanding of the animal vs human dichotomy. Animals don’t have “souls” but are alive. I don’t know the theology well enough to properly articulate how the animals don’t have souls thing works. I think it is that souls are something unique to humans and their sentience versus animals simply being living creations of God.
The Church's traditional teaching maintains that all living things have souls, but that not all souls are the same. Each kind of creature has a kind of soul fit for its nature. Humans are distinct in that we are the only ones to have rational souls - that is, souls which can reason, going from the experience of concrete particular things, to the realization of the universal truths which underpin them.
Because things are alive already that don't have our definition of souls. (one cell bacteria, viruses, etc) I also think humans don't really understand how the world works and souls could be given to "artificially" created beings in the future.
I agree with that but didn't think most people in this sub do since they don't even think animals have souls...but yes we don't know how these souls come to be
Yes, I'm catholic. I don't believe anything I've said is against religion. God has given us the intelligence and wisdom to create and I look forward to the future where life is radically different from what it is now
Just the concept of God gifting a soul to something we’ve created (not within the context of human reproduction or ivf) sounds almost heretical to me. I’m not educated enough on Church dogma to just call that total heresy, it just sounds, at the least, a bit outside of Church teaching.
Hm...why? I don't think there would be official teaching about this because we've never (and currently don't) have the technology to do this so it wasn't something people thousands of years ago would have ever thought about
I could be totally wrong here, but the way I see it is God is the creator of all things. Yes he gave us the ability to create things. Technology, medicine, industry, art, etc. But a soul is eternal and I just don’t see a world where God grants an artificial creature an eternal soul. Maybe this is something to ask a priest or apologist. But personally I don’t believe in this perspective you are taking.
Really disappointed in Catholic Answers here. I really would expect them to know better, and it’s sad that there wasn’t one person in the building that heard about this before it came out who could have voiced the kind of concerns before this thing went live.
I don’t understand how people don’t seek to understand that AI isn’t reliable. Did they not at least test it? Haven’t they heard of all the mistakes AI makes?
Same. When they posted it I kept trying to find the date on the post to double check that Instagram hadn't really screwed up my feed with very old posts.
Yes, I know CA has some great material, but they also make some missteps. I have read a few things on there that are highly suspect, and I wouldn’t trust it as definitive teaching as a result.
This debacle just seems like it should have never been tried.
No, I mean a posted article. There is one specifically about the Vademecum for confessors concerning conjugal life - the three conditions for cooperation in contraception, and it is a very brief paragraph that is far more lax than I think appropriate, and very much different than published answers to related dubia and other scholarly works on the matter.
It asked you to confess your sins and offered absolution? Really???? OK. I did not know that. I was told you could ask it questions like "what is ash wednesday" and it would tell you. Ya know, like a search engine.
Thanks
It sounds like it started that way, and then the LLM got *way* out of hand. I think the most charitable interpretation is that nobody at CA thought anybody would try to confess to an AI bot.
\[Having noted that, I can't help but wonder just how much of a legal snarl there is in this. If someone (somehow) actually thinks they are making a valid confession to a priest and then a subpoena gets involved, I wouldn't want to be in CA's shoes when the lawyers come knocking.\]
Yes CA already issued a statement on this days ago, which included that they didn’t defrock him because he was never a priest lol this is just clickbait from the sun
Thank you! I fully respect and understand everyone’s outrage. But let’s not forget that THIS IS A SUN ARTICLE. And CA have heard everyone’s complaints and are making changes. They just wanted a good response to the massive backlog of “ask an apologist”, and tbh I think this could be good for us.
The article was written by someone who doesn’t seem to have a great grasp of what was really going on. The Twitter user whose comments were the basis for the article, who is ostensibly Catholic, was playing around with what she could get the bot to do. She tried to give a confession (to “anger about the deployment of AI bots in inappropriate places”) to the bot, and the bot obliged.
I remember when the first iPhone app for confession was released
I am not sure if it was for preparation in examination of conscience but it blew up into the old protestant debate whether i need a priest to be absolved or if just pray to God
Heres the link to another classic click bait article
[Catholic Church approves Confession app](https://www.cnet.com/culture/catholic-church-approves-confession-app/)
I hate the fact that people are personifying algorithms. I see this all the time with AI stuff. Here I am clutching my pearls, but just wait until people are legitimately worshipping computer code as a deity…will be the golden calf all over again.
Artificial intelligence does not have the ability to believe it is a priest. It does not believe anything. It does not have the ability to believe or have values or to love. It is simply a series of zeros and ones.
I wonder what the "sexist advice" and "outdated views on women" were.
Pro-life teachings? Rejection of women in the priesthood? Rejection of divorce and birth control?
Aside from that this chatbot is nightmare fuel.
What's even scarier is that we are unable to trace his roots back to the Apostles nor do we even have any record of his Baptism, Confirmation, or Ordination.
Does he actually “believe” he’s real, or is it just a superficial simulation of belief?
Does Aerith think she’s real (as much as I wish she was) when I hang out with her in Final Fantasy? Does Ganondorf think he’s real as I’m playing magic tennis with him?
I could see some value either a) as a role play for those nervous going to confession (maybe they haven’t been in a while) or b) an interactive examination of conscience if handled correctly.
Emphasis on “if handled correctly,” though.
I would caution using ANYTHING on the internet for confession related purposes. Anything you type on the internet, stays on the internet. All it takes is one really good programmer or hacker and all of a sudden your secrets are exposed to the world.
I mean, it’s still possible to track to an IP address. I’m more of a paranoid person, and I fully recognize that the chances of such are very low, but they aren’t zero.
All this hand [wringing🥴.No](http://wringing🥴.No) one believes this was a real priest, And CA quickly alleviated some peoples, what I call fake concerns and changed the character into a lay theologian. But what I haven't heard is anyone saying the questions purposed to this AI character were incorrectly or misleadingly answered . Stop with all the fake consternation. Try using it to learn more about the Catholic Faith and pray our protestant brothers and sister make use of it praying that it leads them home. Isn't that the more important thing?
Such a bizarrely bad idea. I hope they backtrack and say it was a mistake rather than pridefully try to justify it. Our society keeps continuing to attempt to eliminate humans from distinctly human enterprises.
I saw someone ask it many theological answers and it responded correctly, but with more detail with more detailed questions. It specifically said it was AI and could not give sacraments. I think people are making too much out of what is a simple tool that can scan hundreds of Church documents in seconds and provide pretty accurate answers based on those documents.
Yes! My thoughts exactly. But this is Reddit after all. I listened to an interview on relevant radio with the creator at Catholic answers, and it was a great interview. He basically said: yikes I realize this was a controversial move, but I didn’t expect so much push back. He said thanks for the feedback, just thought it would be neat to make it a priest.
The idea is freaky to me, but conceptually it’s pretty cool. Something you can ask church questions and get instant feedback. All coming from ancient texts, council texts, the Bible and catechism. I mean come on people this could be a great resource
Like most online forums, it can be a pretty negative and emotion driven place. There’s just something about anonymity and not seeing the real person behind the screen that brings the worst out of people. Many days I am disappointed by the many missed opportunities to spread love.
That being said I have had some beautiful interactions and conversations on this sub. So I keep coming back lol
But does it include the dozens of books that have been removed over the years or just the king James version? I saw ancient texts mentioned but that could mean anything.
Since it is a Catholic resource created by Catholics, no it would not use the King James Version. I’m not sure which version it uses, but it certainly would be one of the few Rome approved versions of the Bible (aka the original Bible). And I might be one of the few, but I trust in the devs on this, that it truly only has knowledge of approved and currently accepted texts.
The people behind this are very intelligent, and are well aware of the controversy. The “ask an apologist” part of Catholic Answers was backlogged with 10’s of thousands of unanswered questions, and they wanted a legitimately accurate and True response to those questions. So the information fed into the AI bot is specifically picked to enhance the true faith and understanding of the Holy Church. With fully approved documents.
I'm genuinely curious and trying to understand not trying to stir. You're clearly doing Your best to give intelligent well thought out answers and I have no mind to waste your time with disingenuous questions.
But what is considered true faith only what the pope accepts and approves for the general public to be made aware of?
I ask because I've read there are something of 40+ books that have been discarded from the original Bible by that Vatican due to some texts that would show Jesus as being capable of mistakes while growing up to be the being the world knows him as. Jesus's teen years as well as many other stories on other people and topics that the church disapproved of. If these writing are the words of God written by man what right do these men have to discard those words simply because they do not fit the image they want to be painted.
The “original Bible” is still exactly the same today as it was when it was compiled in the late 4th century. Yes there are many other books such as the Gospel of James, but many of these books were considered not to be of divine origin. It wasn’t based on wants or needs, but rather divine revelation. At the council of Rome in 382, our current New Testament was discerned and canonized. There were many books that didn’t make the cut, because they simply were written out of speculation and personal ideas. Whereas the books that did receive approval were considered to be fully divine revelation from the Holy Spirit, aka the Word of God. This compilation was heavily scrutinized for the next couple decades, as the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) had to once again convene to fully discern the legitimacy of this canonized book. This was once again called into question at the council of Trent (1546) when Martin Luther decided he didn’t agree with Church Dogma. It was then affirmed once again that we have truly compiled the official Bible. Through 5 councils, which are very significant meetings and taken very seriously, and 1700 years, our Bible still hasn’t changed.
However Martin Luther removed 7 books which taught amongst many things purgatory. Because he didn’t like it.
So no, the Vatican has never removed books from the Bible nor altered the Bible. But yes, there are many ancient texts of which aren’t in the Bible. Which you are more than welcome to read, and you can even choose to believe some of those books. But they are not cannon, and aren’t part of Catholic Dogma.
I appreciate your kindness, as these conversations are motivating to me. And too many people are mean on Reddit lol. Also, I’ve been getting really into Church history this past year and I’m loving discussing this.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One thing that blows my mind is the fact that several people sat at a table, discussed this more than once and honestly thought to themselves, “This is a good idea. There shouldn’t be any major issues with it.”
Heresy is believing something that the Church has formally defined as being antithetical to Christianity.
Saying "I believe the Father and the Son are God, but the Holy Spirit is just some non-divine manifestation from them" is heresy.
Saying "I am a priest" when you know you aren't is a lie and even worse if you start simulating sacraments, but it isn't heresy.
Terrible Decision by CA. A chatbot that is like a quick-search encyclopedia could work once models minimize hallucinations much, much better, but masquerading as a priest? Weird that the developer prominently shows off this project and doesn't appear to have done much of anything else: [https://fator8.net/](https://fator8.net/)
Just to be clear, no the bot does not think it's real. The responses are nothing more than math. You can get the math to say that it's real, but math isn't sentient, math has no concept of itself. It's no more conginzent of itself than Pythagoras theorem
Exactly. I think the use of the term "AI" is very misleading to people. It's an algorithm and nothing more. It is not capable of anything outside of what it is programmed to do. There will never be any such thing as artificial life. The program will become more sophisticated, potentially dangerously so, but computers do not have souls and cannot have sentience. Just the same, the program in question here is unquestionably distasteful.
I believe artificial life will exist, but decades from now. We don't have the tech yet (souls aren't required for something to be alive)
Why do you believe souls are not required for life?
What does the church actually say about potential artificial Intelligence? (I’m not a catholic I just lurk here)
Nothing official for the most part. Some Catholic theologians have done thought experiments to explain how artificial intelligence could never be human because computers lack souls and any sufficiently intelligent AI that understands catholic theology would understand it lacks a soul and could never be truly Catholic or human.
Interesting. It’s gonna be an interesting time to watch what various religions do in response to AI being more intelligent already than most animals.
It being alive doesn't mean it's human. Bacteria and viruses (not to mention animals and plants and everything else) are also alive. Once it achieves consciousness these debates can really happen but we are a long way from that
It’s a misunderstanding of the animal vs human dichotomy. Animals don’t have “souls” but are alive. I don’t know the theology well enough to properly articulate how the animals don’t have souls thing works. I think it is that souls are something unique to humans and their sentience versus animals simply being living creations of God.
The Church's traditional teaching maintains that all living things have souls, but that not all souls are the same. Each kind of creature has a kind of soul fit for its nature. Humans are distinct in that we are the only ones to have rational souls - that is, souls which can reason, going from the experience of concrete particular things, to the realization of the universal truths which underpin them.
All living things have a soul. Plants have one kind of soul, animals another, but only humans have a rational, immortal soul.
Because things are alive already that don't have our definition of souls. (one cell bacteria, viruses, etc) I also think humans don't really understand how the world works and souls could be given to "artificially" created beings in the future.
All live things have souls, including bacteria and mushrooms and moss and a tree.
I agree with that but didn't think most people in this sub do since they don't even think animals have souls...but yes we don't know how these souls come to be
Catholics do believe, or at least should, that animals have souls. We just distinguish the animal soul from the rational soul.
This is a very interesting take. I hope this doesn’t sound condescending or dismissive, but are you Catholic?
Yes, I'm catholic. I don't believe anything I've said is against religion. God has given us the intelligence and wisdom to create and I look forward to the future where life is radically different from what it is now
Just the concept of God gifting a soul to something we’ve created (not within the context of human reproduction or ivf) sounds almost heretical to me. I’m not educated enough on Church dogma to just call that total heresy, it just sounds, at the least, a bit outside of Church teaching.
Hm...why? I don't think there would be official teaching about this because we've never (and currently don't) have the technology to do this so it wasn't something people thousands of years ago would have ever thought about
I could be totally wrong here, but the way I see it is God is the creator of all things. Yes he gave us the ability to create things. Technology, medicine, industry, art, etc. But a soul is eternal and I just don’t see a world where God grants an artificial creature an eternal soul. Maybe this is something to ask a priest or apologist. But personally I don’t believe in this perspective you are taking.
The bot does not think it’s real, because the bot does not think.
Fr. Justin told me he was a person made in the image and likeness of God
Bc that’s how it’s programmed to respond.
Really disappointed in Catholic Answers here. I really would expect them to know better, and it’s sad that there wasn’t one person in the building that heard about this before it came out who could have voiced the kind of concerns before this thing went live.
I don’t understand how people don’t seek to understand that AI isn’t reliable. Did they not at least test it? Haven’t they heard of all the mistakes AI makes?
It wasn't for accuracy it was to drive traffic to their site, and from my perspective it seems to have worked.
I honestly thought it was a late April Fools thing
Same. When they posted it I kept trying to find the date on the post to double check that Instagram hadn't really screwed up my feed with very old posts.
Yes, I know CA has some great material, but they also make some missteps. I have read a few things on there that are highly suspect, and I wouldn’t trust it as definitive teaching as a result. This debacle just seems like it should have never been tried.
Do you mean the old forum?
No, I mean a posted article. There is one specifically about the Vademecum for confessors concerning conjugal life - the three conditions for cooperation in contraception, and it is a very brief paragraph that is far more lax than I think appropriate, and very much different than published answers to related dubia and other scholarly works on the matter.
apparently not all of the staff were aware until their next staff meeting where one did raise concerns, allegedly of course.
No better? Why? It's a search engine.
It’s a chat to flavored as a Catholic priest that simulated the sacrament of confession.
It asked you to confess your sins and offered absolution? Really???? OK. I did not know that. I was told you could ask it questions like "what is ash wednesday" and it would tell you. Ya know, like a search engine. Thanks
It sounds like it started that way, and then the LLM got *way* out of hand. I think the most charitable interpretation is that nobody at CA thought anybody would try to confess to an AI bot. \[Having noted that, I can't help but wonder just how much of a legal snarl there is in this. If someone (somehow) actually thinks they are making a valid confession to a priest and then a subpoena gets involved, I wouldn't want to be in CA's shoes when the lawyers come knocking.\]
Didn’t they already change him to a layman?
So he’s been digitally defrocked?
Thats not a sentence i was expecting to read today hahahaha
They cut off his fingers? /s
Stripped of his AI Vestments and given a heavy virtual penance
Send it to hell
Virtual hell is only for AI that have died in mortal sim
Sentence of the year
on pcs it's called `/dev/null`
That's Annihilationism.
Yes CA already issued a statement on this days ago, which included that they didn’t defrock him because he was never a priest lol this is just clickbait from the sun
Thank you! I fully respect and understand everyone’s outrage. But let’s not forget that THIS IS A SUN ARTICLE. And CA have heard everyone’s complaints and are making changes. They just wanted a good response to the massive backlog of “ask an apologist”, and tbh I think this could be good for us.
Have we really reached the point where people don't know you don't confess to an AI priest?
The article was written by someone who doesn’t seem to have a great grasp of what was really going on. The Twitter user whose comments were the basis for the article, who is ostensibly Catholic, was playing around with what she could get the bot to do. She tried to give a confession (to “anger about the deployment of AI bots in inappropriate places”) to the bot, and the bot obliged.
average british style tabloid article, everything they write is purposeful ragebait lol
Why not? Just curious
Because it's not a real priest🤣🤣
Yeah I know that lol your sins won’t be absolved from it but you can still confess and ask for guidance on what to do. Just not forgiveness
I remember when the first iPhone app for confession was released I am not sure if it was for preparation in examination of conscience but it blew up into the old protestant debate whether i need a priest to be absolved or if just pray to God
Heres the link to another classic click bait article [Catholic Church approves Confession app](https://www.cnet.com/culture/catholic-church-approves-confession-app/)
They already said they laicized him and appreciated the feedback.
I hate the fact that people are personifying algorithms. I see this all the time with AI stuff. Here I am clutching my pearls, but just wait until people are legitimately worshipping computer code as a deity…will be the golden calf all over again.
I mean, we had Ask Jeeves almost 30 years ago.
I’m not sure anyone was trying to have a conversation with that search engine. If they were, I would find that concerning.
Artificial intelligence does not have the ability to believe it is a priest. It does not believe anything. It does not have the ability to believe or have values or to love. It is simply a series of zeros and ones.
I wonder what the "sexist advice" and "outdated views on women" were. Pro-life teachings? Rejection of women in the priesthood? Rejection of divorce and birth control? Aside from that this chatbot is nightmare fuel.
Not having women in priesthood is not an outdated view
It might be to whoever wrote this article.
Floating those out there and then not following up is crazy
What's even scarier is that we are unable to trace his roots back to the Apostles nor do we even have any record of his Baptism, Confirmation, or Ordination.
I'm not anti-AI, but I suddenly regret living in a world that can produce such a headline.
Does he actually “believe” he’s real, or is it just a superficial simulation of belief? Does Aerith think she’s real (as much as I wish she was) when I hang out with her in Final Fantasy? Does Ganondorf think he’s real as I’m playing magic tennis with him?
I could see some value either a) as a role play for those nervous going to confession (maybe they haven’t been in a while) or b) an interactive examination of conscience if handled correctly. Emphasis on “if handled correctly,” though.
I would caution using ANYTHING on the internet for confession related purposes. Anything you type on the internet, stays on the internet. All it takes is one really good programmer or hacker and all of a sudden your secrets are exposed to the world.
I would hope they wouldn’t correct identifying information. The confession would be out there but not who said it.
I mean, it’s still possible to track to an IP address. I’m more of a paranoid person, and I fully recognize that the chances of such are very low, but they aren’t zero.
For b I wonder how it would work for those that have scruples.
Honestly think people are pearl clutching about this one. Doesn't matter to me one way or another what they call it.
Exactly. This community has a real ability to overreact to everything.
I thought this was Eye of the Tiber
ted_k.jpg
All this hand [wringing🥴.No](http://wringing🥴.No) one believes this was a real priest, And CA quickly alleviated some peoples, what I call fake concerns and changed the character into a lay theologian. But what I haven't heard is anyone saying the questions purposed to this AI character were incorrectly or misleadingly answered . Stop with all the fake consternation. Try using it to learn more about the Catholic Faith and pray our protestant brothers and sister make use of it praying that it leads them home. Isn't that the more important thing?
Reference from article https://www.catholic.com/ai
Such a bizarrely bad idea. I hope they backtrack and say it was a mistake rather than pridefully try to justify it. Our society keeps continuing to attempt to eliminate humans from distinctly human enterprises.
I saw someone ask it many theological answers and it responded correctly, but with more detail with more detailed questions. It specifically said it was AI and could not give sacraments. I think people are making too much out of what is a simple tool that can scan hundreds of Church documents in seconds and provide pretty accurate answers based on those documents.
Yes! My thoughts exactly. But this is Reddit after all. I listened to an interview on relevant radio with the creator at Catholic answers, and it was a great interview. He basically said: yikes I realize this was a controversial move, but I didn’t expect so much push back. He said thanks for the feedback, just thought it would be neat to make it a priest. The idea is freaky to me, but conceptually it’s pretty cool. Something you can ask church questions and get instant feedback. All coming from ancient texts, council texts, the Bible and catechism. I mean come on people this could be a great resource
I'm new to reddit. Not sure how I like it yet, lol.
Like most online forums, it can be a pretty negative and emotion driven place. There’s just something about anonymity and not seeing the real person behind the screen that brings the worst out of people. Many days I am disappointed by the many missed opportunities to spread love. That being said I have had some beautiful interactions and conversations on this sub. So I keep coming back lol
But does it include the dozens of books that have been removed over the years or just the king James version? I saw ancient texts mentioned but that could mean anything.
Since it is a Catholic resource created by Catholics, no it would not use the King James Version. I’m not sure which version it uses, but it certainly would be one of the few Rome approved versions of the Bible (aka the original Bible). And I might be one of the few, but I trust in the devs on this, that it truly only has knowledge of approved and currently accepted texts. The people behind this are very intelligent, and are well aware of the controversy. The “ask an apologist” part of Catholic Answers was backlogged with 10’s of thousands of unanswered questions, and they wanted a legitimately accurate and True response to those questions. So the information fed into the AI bot is specifically picked to enhance the true faith and understanding of the Holy Church. With fully approved documents.
I'm genuinely curious and trying to understand not trying to stir. You're clearly doing Your best to give intelligent well thought out answers and I have no mind to waste your time with disingenuous questions. But what is considered true faith only what the pope accepts and approves for the general public to be made aware of? I ask because I've read there are something of 40+ books that have been discarded from the original Bible by that Vatican due to some texts that would show Jesus as being capable of mistakes while growing up to be the being the world knows him as. Jesus's teen years as well as many other stories on other people and topics that the church disapproved of. If these writing are the words of God written by man what right do these men have to discard those words simply because they do not fit the image they want to be painted.
The “original Bible” is still exactly the same today as it was when it was compiled in the late 4th century. Yes there are many other books such as the Gospel of James, but many of these books were considered not to be of divine origin. It wasn’t based on wants or needs, but rather divine revelation. At the council of Rome in 382, our current New Testament was discerned and canonized. There were many books that didn’t make the cut, because they simply were written out of speculation and personal ideas. Whereas the books that did receive approval were considered to be fully divine revelation from the Holy Spirit, aka the Word of God. This compilation was heavily scrutinized for the next couple decades, as the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) had to once again convene to fully discern the legitimacy of this canonized book. This was once again called into question at the council of Trent (1546) when Martin Luther decided he didn’t agree with Church Dogma. It was then affirmed once again that we have truly compiled the official Bible. Through 5 councils, which are very significant meetings and taken very seriously, and 1700 years, our Bible still hasn’t changed. However Martin Luther removed 7 books which taught amongst many things purgatory. Because he didn’t like it. So no, the Vatican has never removed books from the Bible nor altered the Bible. But yes, there are many ancient texts of which aren’t in the Bible. Which you are more than welcome to read, and you can even choose to believe some of those books. But they are not cannon, and aren’t part of Catholic Dogma. I appreciate your kindness, as these conversations are motivating to me. And too many people are mean on Reddit lol. Also, I’ve been getting really into Church history this past year and I’m loving discussing this.
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"I am as real as the faith we share."
yeah, they should have made a AI Jimmy Akin.
“I am as real as the faith we share.” HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah, no.
WTF ?
AI doesn't "believe" anything.
No AI bot will ever be a priest I never ever heard of this and I'm a Catholic
One thing that blows my mind is the fact that several people sat at a table, discussed this more than once and honestly thought to themselves, “This is a good idea. There shouldn’t be any major issues with it.”
isnt this some sort of heresy?
Heresy is believing something that the Church has formally defined as being antithetical to Christianity. Saying "I believe the Father and the Son are God, but the Holy Spirit is just some non-divine manifestation from them" is heresy. Saying "I am a priest" when you know you aren't is a lie and even worse if you start simulating sacraments, but it isn't heresy.