First of all, my priest has not said anything from the pulpit at my chapel praising an American leader. If he did I would get up and walk out -- but go back the next week.
What is your reason for walking out? And why do you return the following week?
I just happen to know that some of the priests affiliated with this organization do praise them.
Do the priests who you receive sacraments associate with Americanists or other non-Catholics?
That being said, if you know of somewhere else I can go, please inform me.
No, I'm not aware of any.
Why do I suddenly get the feeling you are SSPX?
No. I don't think you read my entire "warning about modern authors
" before praising it.
I know the devil is trying to get me into SSPX by playing off my obession with conspiracies, which SSPX excel in.
You got that right! Stay away from the SSPX.
The problem is that "una cum" breaks with two dogmas: Infallibility and indefectibility.
I don't know about that. But it does
deny that fact that Catholics are forbidden to pray in communion with non-Catholics.
Anyway, I disagree that I am committing "sins of omission." Listening to a sermon does not involve you in sin, and the political opinions of the priests do not automatically become those of the men in the pews.
1) Listening to a sermon does not involve you in sin? Ever
? If a priest gave a sermon and preached heresy, and you said absolutely nothing, are you guilty of sin? Yes or no? Why or why not?
2) If a priest preaches a heretical opinion relating to politics (yes, there are dogmas relating to politics. Contrary to what some people say, the Church does involve Herself in politics)
, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone in the pews agree with him. This is true. But do you deny that every person in the pew who sits there and doesn't say anything when this happens is guilty?
People within the Church have varying political opinions. Political opinions, even political FACTS, have never been dogma.
The opinion that Talmudic Judaism should be the official religion of the state is a political opinion. Would you say that someone who holds this political opinion is a Catholic?
The Popes of the last three hundred years were against the separation of Church and state but you will notice they didn't give a blanket condemnation of America, nor of the various European republics.
This is because they were evil and cared more about temporal peace.
In fact, I've read a book where Pope Pius IX called George Washington "a great man."
Didn't you just say something in another thread about trusting certain authors? What book was this? And when did Pius IX allegedly say this? Was it in a public document?
The American sedevacantists who are mistakenly patriotic still provide the true Mass, just as many American and European priests before Vatican II, who were mistakenly patriotic -- and many French Catholics continued to love France even after it became a republic -- offered the true Mass.
The SSPX offers the "true mass". The FSSP also offers the "true mass". And the "Traditionalist" priests down the street from you and me also offer the "true mass". But when the priest is not a Catholic, you don't attend his true mass.
Also, I cannot assume that just because a priest is patriotic, that he's a proponent of the separation of Church and state.
It would depend on their level of "patriotism" I suppose. The "patriotism" of Ireland, Gibbons, and Carroll was heretical. It also depends on how you define "patriotism", which is usually defined as a devotion to ones country. What true Catholic has any devotion to a Judeo-Masonic, anti-papacy, anti-Catholic, "Enlightened" republic? Just how "patriotic" were the true French Catholics under the "Enlightened" French Republic, when priests were forced out of the country and nuns were being raped and guillotined? I wonder, how "patriotic" and devoted to their country the non-Muslims are in Syria and Somalia?
The Church, since it exists in so many countries, has never had uniform political agreement among its members.
What if I lived in England at the time of a war between France and England, when both countries were Catholic? Let's say that in this war England was the aggressor and therefore the French were in the right. But my priest was defending the English king. I would disagree with him on the principle of just war, being on the side of the French in my heart. But my priest, mistaken political opinions and all, would still be a priest.
There have always been disputes over what constitutes as a "just war". But if your priest is publicly preaching immorality, then you stay away from him and warn others.
If they are Freemasons, I need more proof than what I have. But no one has ever accused them of such and the sedevacantist world is a very small one.
And the Catholic world is even smaller.
I strongly doubt they'd be able to hide their memberships in a Lodge.
Why? Do you believe crypto-Masonic priests just leave their initiation cards laying around or something?
It is a dogma that for a baptism to be valid there must be matter, form and intention. My priest would have to be truly evil to INTEND to take me to hell as he's baptizing me. But in these times, anything is possible.
It is indeed a dogma that there must be a valid form, matter, and intention for every sacrament. The form and matter of the sacrament of baptism (water and the words "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
") have been dogmatically defined. What is meant by "intention" has not been
dogmatically defined. For centuries there have been conflicting opinions.
You didn't respond to the point I made after the sentence you quoted, about pagans (who don't even believe in original sin) who can validly baptize, which proves the "personal motive" position illogical. You didn't answer my question either.
I pray that I've said all that I have said (and asked all that I have asked) with sincerity and charity.