No ideology can steal someone's soul. We are all free agents with free will.
You can't lose your soul because of ideology? Why, then, do we need salvation?
In another post on this thread, you said "As I have taught my son in homeschool religion class, the first thing you have to do, if you are going to save your soul, is take that thing called "want", dig a hole out in the backyard, and bury it." Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich wrote that when the blood of our Savior spilled upon the ground, the devil lost much of his power to act through the earth. She claimed ancient Egyptian sorcerers used to summon demons out of the ground and absorb them through the sorcerer's mouth to work spells. And there you are, repeating bad advice to essentially renounce one's soul, if only through visualization or metaphor, into the ground. I hope you and everyone who reads this devotes at least a little prayer to God's creation, especially the earth underneath their feet.
I bet the person who led you astray presented themselves as an oh-so-doctrinally-orthodox believer. That is just a guess. Ask the Lord to undo any such foolishness. Pray and read scripture, for if your parish never questioned you, they may have your homeschooling marked for redistribution.
The point of islamization may be submission to rapport or spiritual communion. The word "Islam" means submission.
And just to restate, finding "conditional salvation" in the conditional administration of sacraments where it is doubtful that the sacraments were originally conferred (as in questions of validity of baptism, confirmation, or holy orders) is a distortion of the concept. It is beyond bizarre to imagine that a priest, out of spite or whatever motive, would withhold internal consent and simulate a sacrament, leaving the penitent under the impression that he had received a valid sacrament, and leaving him bereft of the graces and cure of these sacraments. That is not what conditional administration of sacraments means in the definitions provided by the various catechisms.
The protection you claim is spelled out is not in fact spelled out. Providing examples is not the same as spelling out rules. Many say the Lord was a Communist, so they may have decided those who are not are simply not worthy of grace. They may even mean it with every fiber of their being.
And Almighty God is not bound by the sacraments, He can pour out His grace however He sees fit.
I hope everyone prays for his grace independent of a church whose head has made statements embracing Marxism.
But I don't use these things as a "gotcha!" moment, imagining that because I have found something that is problematical, that gives me a justification for leaving the Church (assuming I wished to, which I do not).
I don't care about tattoos either. However, the fact that the priest seemingly has the power to make his sacraments work the way he picks out, at his own discretion, implies they have stopped intending to make the King of Kings and Lord of Lords really present, and are simply praying for whom they will.
Anyway, my main point stands. The fact that praying from the heart is a little similar to Buddhism's Metta is not
prima facie evidence of a melding of two religions or a watering down of Catholic tradition, especially in light of the most important commandment.
Discouragement of the practice may be evidence that some may want to head off the fact that "Almighty God is not bound by his sacraments, He can pour out His grace however He sees fit."
