Sinkspur has apologized to you at your insistence. It is not the first time that he and I have disagreed although his apologies are his business. The mere assertion that where you attend Mass is irrelevant without actual proof that it is (rather impossible to provide proof of such a thing) does not require apologies.
The schism is in constant full attack mode on all actually Catholic authority. Consuming a steady diet of revolutionary sermons seems quite likely to be relevant because it undermines the credibility of arguments of even fully Catholic persons on matters in institutions that are the responsibility of actual Catholics in communion with Rome. Any necessity of attending masses said by priests attached to the schism does not mean that their sermons are any sounder than their attachments to the schism.
I think I have taken great care not to consciously post anything on this subject which might be expected to offend your sensibilities. Your post to which I am responding is, forgive me, a bit hysterical in tone. I respect you individually whether or not I might make different decisions. I will not be intimidated, however, into ignoring what I deem as relevant to the argument on any thread.
For the record, I also do not particularly care where you attend Mass (why should I?) except insofar as it may be relevant to the argument. You are not like another who imagines that people are trying to literally stalk the schismatics by finding out what specific Church they may attend.
You normally seem not as offended by the schism itself as I am and you do not have to be. Nor do I have to be less offended by it than I am.
When we post here, we understand that there is a certain freewheeling nature to the argument as there should be. Also the didactic and imperative tone of your post is a bit misplaced.
"The schism is in constant full attack mode on all actually Catholic authority."
Which schism do you refer? It is quite confusing when you use the word "schism" because you so aptly describe the NO revolution. The USSCB just decided they don't need to obey Canon Law when distributing Holy Communion - who is attacking authority? You claim SSPX priests teach revolution in their sermons - if anything they are teaching about the NO revolution hell-bent on destroying the Catholic faith. How many examples of the NO revolution do you need to see to qualify it? You are noting a pinhole in the wall while the house is engulfed in flames. Paul VI said "The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church." October 13, 1977. JPII also recently stated there is a "silent apostasy" in the church - will you accept their opinion there is a revolution?
Consuming a steady diet of revolutionary sermons seems quite likely to be relevant because it undermines the credibility of arguments of even fully Catholic persons on matters in institutions that are the responsibility of actual Catholics in communion with Rome. Ninenot on the topic of, oh, Rembert Weakland.
Here we have a conundrum, eh?