Driving an hour hour or more each way is something of a badge of honor. The one in Dallas, is that in Irving? FSSP is in group three. Its founders broke away from SSPX and reaffirmed their communion with Rome. Their church in Irving is their oldest outpost in the US, dating back to 1991.
That it is! Mater Dei Latin Mass Perish. I'd be interested in attending knowing that, but one of the reasons I left Catholic out during my church experimentation phase, was because I felt like they would be the least cool with non-member casual visitors. That probably goes double in this case.
I have thought about attending church again, though, for community purposes. Not catholic; probably UU.
The United Methodist Church at a recent meeting reaffirmed narrowly the definition of marriage as between men and women. The SJWs were not happy and have gone forward with efforts to undermine things locally. I read somewhere an opinion piece about how the Methodists should look at what happened to the Episcopal Church and the Lutherans and realize separating peacefully is better than fighting it out for control.
I can tell you my Methodist church felt liberal at the time, considering it was a mainstream Christian church. That was most likely why I liked it; so this doesn't surprise me. I would have reccomended to them to simply maintain status quo. It really is only a matter of time before homosexuals are welcomed in the majority of Christiandom, maybe in the same way other sinners are, perhaps more so.
Mainstream Catholic churches run the gamut of stuff like this based on the preferences of the parish priest and the local bishop. In one place, heaven and hell and sin could be on the menu in a sermon, and across the river in a different diocese, it could be all feel-good "Jesus loves us" talk with little substance. Traditional groups stick to heaven and hell and sin sermons. The SSPX and the fringe groups have freedom of course to criticize the institutional Church's progressive tilt as they don't have any oversight. FSSP and groups like it operate under the local bishops, so they have to toe the line.
Well, Catholicism probably was never for me then. I'd prefer the "Jesus loves us" talk, and I think the substance depends on the minister. The problem with the focus on sin, is the inherent judgement involved. Also, the shift from commandments to individual pieces of scripture when discussing it, because then you subject whatever it is to a plethora if interpretations. "Hell" also has a lot of problems.
Truth be told, I'm burnt out on Abrahamic religions in general. Buddhism changed my life. I've always found branches of Christianity and Judaism to be alluring, but I think that's mostly historical interest and my draw towards that. I see the same thing with me and Paganism. If I think Christian society can be draconian, man, what would I think of Pagan ones?
I've always been firmly Catholic, so have never gone around to check out other groups, aside from when i was a kid and went to church with my Lutheran grandparents. My shift to traditional thinking happened after I graduated from university and discovered stuff on the Web to go along with my already-present disillusionment with the mainstream Church. I always perceived something was wrong, but after university, I learned specifics about the loss of Catholic identity in the wake of Vatican II.
What about you SOLDIER? Same? I'm curious.
I might convert to Catharism if that was a thing that still existed. I also like the Paulicians: my favorite heresy. I love a good counter-culture. Unfortunately, and I know you don't like this word Seph, I feel like it's a more conservative version of a religion that is already too conservative for me. I do respect though, that such an action represents thinking for yourself and not simply taking what's handed to you.
Do you have a favorite Catholic heresy?
It spends our money horribly. The feds are raking in more tax revenue than ever before and we still have public debt north of twenty trillion and a budget deficit that only grows with each omnibus spending package. The GOP establishment in Congress, despite all the talk of small government, has done absolutely nothing. It has instead aided and abetted the debt spiral. Trump has never made the budget and the debt an issue, so I can't hold it against him, but if he is so big on economic matters, he has to realize he's going to have to do something eventually. My Catholic friends and I agree that regardless, it will be too little, too late.
I have seen a commercial or two and looked at his website since you mentioned him here. You're explaining him fine. As he tells it, if it were to all come off in an ideal world, it would be great, I'm sure. But it's not an ideal world and I just don't think government could ever pull off such things in an efficient manner that didn't end up screwing things up even more.
I agree; the government does not effectively spend our money. This is why it's even more essential that we start taking it back. (I understand you would just do tax cuts; UBI prepares us for the future.)
One thing the government does well, is write checks to large amounts of people. I would say that's actually a core competency of the U.S. government that we would be leaning into.
I don't know that anyone, other than a total outsider like Yang, cares to do something about the deficit. Trump might have, but it seems pretty clear that he's been co-opted now by the GOP as a whole.
I read a headline the other day about how Biden is the pupular choice among world leaders due to his foreign policy connections from the Senate and as VP. They are looking for someone who will push back against Trump's nationalist economic policies. That won't help him with grassroots voters, but I bet the big donors pay attention.
I just can't imagine progressive fervor for Biden. I'm seeing it now this way: the primary mainstream candidates are O'Rourke, Biden, Harris, I think in that order. The primary progressive candidates are Sanders, Gabbard, Yang/Warren.
I say Warren is the compromise candidate, because she burned us in 2016, when she didn't endorse Bernie even though we all knew she agreed with him more, and then later endorsed Hillary. And so she's viewed as a fundamental progressive by us, but low on integrity.
I think Bernie sits atop a ticket with Tulsi, if the progressives win. Yang's a total offshoot, I know that in my heart-of-hearts. And no one wants to compromise.