You put money in the collection for the support of the priest.

He gave up his life so YOU could have the sacraments, by the way. Not just in the abstract, but YOU personally. Your precious "anti-Una cuм" Cekadite priests don't seem to be taking very good care of your soul, are they now?

A traditional priest is a priest 24/7, and forever. He has zero chance of being able to marry and experience the joys of family life. He DID make a substantial and permanent sacrifice for God. Priests aren't allowed to work a job to earn money. They earn their living by the Gospel, and they can't directly charge money for anything they do. They live off the generosity of the Catholic Faithful.

You are not giving money to an Antipope and/or Francis I. Or any part of the Conciliar Church for that matter. 100% of the money in that collection basket goes to the organization which purchased and maintains the chapel and the support of the priest who says Mass there.

Please don't look for an excuse, let alone a "righteous" one, to be a stingy Jєω and not put anything in the collection.

You can also give money directly to the priest, if you have scruples about the organization.

So your second question is a moot point. But to answer that point, a priest can only withhold communion from a PUBLIC (notorious) sinner. Anything else is over-stepping their authority, and giving in to cultism and jingoism, "Groupism", rah-rah my team-ism.

It’s got nothing to do with being stingy or “not being taken good care of”.

It’s a matter of principle. I would not like my family members to listen to their anti-sspx/una cuм sermons, for instance, because I believe they’re dead wrong and it’s actually extremely harmful for those who only have sspx available. There’s a chance they could mislead them and make the fall into that error etc. 

So in a sense I feel somewhat guilty financing such a place. But at the same time, I don’t want to be deprived of the sacraments either just because they have wacky views on certain things. 

This is not a sede anti una-cuм thing only, by the way. It would be the same for any other traditionalist clergy that espouses deadly errors. 

The fact is, they do not officially represent the Church despite having valid sacraments. You wouldn’t have been put in this situation before Vatican 2 because the clergy would not have been preaching and spreading deadly errors. 

So actually, I think the closest historial example to answer this question would be to look at what happened anytime a Catholic priest/bishop fell into heresy and the faithful were left without access to a fully Catholic priest. 

Were they never allowed to receive the sacraments from such heretics? If yes, we’re they obliged/allowed to tithe?

You’re right. 

If the priest isn't so bad you should avoid his Mass, you need to contribute to his support.

Agreed.  It's not that hard.  It he were that bad, you shouldn't go there at all.

And of course I had thought about that scenario before. I just told myself
A) I wouldn’t tell anyone else not to give, this would be for my particular case only
B) The place was doing well before I ever got there, so it doesn’t really need my assistance
C) Of course in the situation where my assistance WOULD really impact the place remaining in operation, then yes I would give

But yes, I grant that you’re right and I’m wrong about this

I've considered those justifications/rationalizations myself. However, this exact argument could be applied to stealing from a physical store. Let me rephrase your statements slightly, to apply to physical theft:

"I wouldn't promote shoplifting to anyone else"
"The store is doing great; they won't go under just because I'm stealing $500 of goods per month"
"If the store would go out of business due to my theft, I wouldn't do it"

See how it's the exact same argument?

Another way of looking at it: why should all the parishioners (minus you) support the chapel, instead of ALL of you, or all of you minus ANOTHER parishioner? Why do YOU get to keep your money, while the other parishioners carry the place? After all, you all receive the same "goods" or benefit from the chapel. See the justice issues here? "A laborer is worthy of his hire."

PS. Of course, all normal rules apply as to how much you should contribute. For purposes of this discussion, let's say each parishioner should contribute "100% of what THEY should, before God, given THEIR specific circuмstances" In other words, let's pass over the issue of "how much should I contribute". That's why I'm keeping it generic "your contribution". We're talking principles here, not dollars and cents.

Why is this any of your business and how is this relevant to the question at hand?

If your won't do your part then I can't help you. 

It’s got nothing to do with being stingy or “not being taken good care of”.

It’s a matter of principle. I would not like my family members to listen to their anti-sspx/una cuм sermons, for instance, because I believe they’re dead wrong and it’s actually extremely harmful for those who only have sspx available. There’s a chance they could mislead them and make the fall into that error etc.

So in a sense I feel somewhat guilty financing such a place. But at the same time, I don’t want to be deprived of the sacraments either just because they have wacky views on certain things.

This is not a sede anti una-cuм thing only, by the way. It would be the same for any other traditionalist clergy that espouses deadly errors.

The fact is, they do not officially represent the Church despite having valid sacraments. You wouldn’t have been put in this situation before Vatican 2 because the clergy would not have been preaching and spreading deadly errors.

So actually, I think the closest historial example to answer this question would be to look at what happened anytime a Catholic priest/bishop fell into heresy and the faithful were left without access to a fully Catholic priest.

Were they never allowed to receive the sacraments from such heretics? If yes, we’re they obliged/allowed to tithe?

Not necessarily, there has always been heretic priests who publicly denied dogma, a certain pre Vatican 2 bishop of boston comes to mind.