Neither are MCs needed for a Missa Cantata. At those Masses an MC is likewise a distraction. Save them for Solemn and Pontifical High Masses.

Yes, especially when they're doing the clicking/clapping thing to coordinate movements, such as genuflections.  It's a small enough contingent of servers where that's unnecessary and distracting.

Has anyone here seen "3 within a 3" before V2? If there is any legitimate claim to being "traditional," I'd like to hear it.

If you're talking about *ring* for the genuflection, 3x *ring* for the elevation, and then *ring* for the second genuflection --

Tom Nelson did it this way at his independent chapel which he started in the early 70's. Tom Nelson was the founder of TAN Books and was a pioneer of the Traditional Movement. I'd certainly describe Thomas A. Nelson as a "pre-Vatican II" Traditional Catholic. And that's how he trained me to serve, so...

So all I can say is -- don't get dogmatic about it, don't let your personal preference(s) intrude TOO far into the "dogma and true Tradition" department of your brain.

We all have our personal preferences. Some like a quiet Low Mass, some would go out of their way for a good High Mass. Neither is WRONG.

As an aside, I'd call receiving something in person from your ancestors as LITERALLY tradition in action. What is more traditional than a line-of-sight, person to person handing down of something? We're talking an unbroken line here, not something a dude looked up in a manual or read about on the Internet. I find that many modern-day Traditional Catholics, especially in the Indult, often flail about, because they have to *re-discover* Tradition. They have to re-start Tradition, jump start a dead car -- the line HAS been broken for them. There's something special about an UNBROKEN line, like we received from +ABL for example.

I know one Indult couple who showed a picture of their steak dinner on Ash Wednesday (it was Valentine's Day this year) -- the same couple had a Catholic feast day party, at which they prayed the Rosary IN LATIN. Not something most Trads do. See the problem? They make a big show of praying the Rosary in Latin (once), but meanwhile do they say the Rosary regularly as a family in private? Do they fast and abstain like Trads? Like I said: they flail about. They're all over the place.

Even with my puny brain, I can understand something of God's wisdom in having a LIVE human being be in charge of His Church (the Pope). You need that kind of individual monarch to make decisions, to apply common sense, to decide disputes, to judge and rule. And to personally oversee the passing on of Tradition as a whole bundle. "Tradidi quot et accepi".

Your consolation is well-intentioned and appreciated, but is it not the case that the rubrics of  the Mass are prescribed in detail by authority? If this custom was juridically accepted from a canonical authority, I'd like to know of it. It's not too much to ask.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.  The Holy Trinity is "three-in-one," not "three-within-three."

I don't have Fortescue or other manuals of Liturgical rubrics handy, but I realize that's what you're looking for.

Actually, although I'm not an expert, I do seem to recall that "it's a matter of custom" -- i.e., NOT IN THE RUBRICS. It's not something the priest does, so it's not written in red! (Our word rubrics derives from the Latin word for RED.)

As for me personally, I'm going to go with trusting the men who personally passed the Faith on to me in the first place, that they weren't just innovating or pulling stuff out of their butt.

It's a rational thing to trust them. If they wanted to innovate or improvise the Liturgy, no one was forcing them to make such great sacrifices to be Traditional Catholics in the first place...

Exactly.

The priest holds up Jesus Christ for adoration -- three bells, to signify that He is God. God is a Holy Trinity.

3-in-1. Exactly. So 3 bells!

This is a perfect example of how Trads squabble over the most USELESS things that DON'T MATTER.

Some say "THREE in one. Three rings!" Others say "three in ONE. One ring!"

If there was ever something we could point to, that Trads argue about that doesn't matter, this would be it.

It's like the Kyrie/Christe Eleison ... 3 sets of 3.  I don't think anyone's making a dogmatic issue about either of these, just talking about things they don't like, e.g. the flapping at the front of the church.  Obviously has little-to-no impact on Catholic doctrine, nor affects the validity of the Mass, but still annoying.  I also don't care for the 1-3-1 bell ringing, but I'm not going to stop attending a chapel over it.

The forum has discussed the "bell issue" at least once before, with citations.  It appears that either the 1-3-1 or the 1-1-1 is a time honored practice.
 
Collectio Rerum Liturgicarum  of Rev. Joseph Wuest, C.SS.R. (first Latin edition 1889) translated into English as Matters Liturgical by Rev. Thomas W. Mullaney, C.SS.R., eight edition edited by Rev. William T. Barry, C.SS.R., S.S,L., 1956:
 

160k) At each Elevation after the Consecration the altar bell shall be rung either three times or continuously.  This rubric is variously interpreted.  But a widely accepted practices is to ring the bell, at the genuflection before the Elevation, at the Elevation itself, and at the genuflection after the Elevation.

 
Father Lasance My Prayer Book (1953) says that after each consecration:

The priest kneels, then raises the Sacred Host / chalice (the bell is rung).

 
Blessed Be God (1925):

At the elevation of the Host the bell is rung thrice.  At the elevation of the Chalice the bell is rung thrice.

 
St. Joseph Daily Missal (1951):

After pronouncing the words of Consecration, the Priest genuflects, and adores the Sacred Host.  He then rises, elevates It, and replaces It upon the corporal, genuflecting once again.  The bell rings once for each act of adoration.

After genuflecting and adoring the Precious Blood, he rises, elevates It and replaces the chalice on the corporal, genuflecting once again.  The Bell rings once for each act of adoration.

St. Joseph Daily Missal (1961) shows three bells at the elevation of both the Host and the Chalice.
 
The St. Andrew Daily Missal (1962) does not mention bells at all.
 
And now, for Fortescue: Fr. Adrian Fortescue’s The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described” (First Edition 1917) citing the Eleventh Edition 1960):

At each Elevation he holds up slightly for a moment the end of the chasuble in his left hand, and rings the bell with his right, either continuously or three times.  He may arrange this so that he ring once when the celebrant genuflects, once when he elevates, once again when he genuflects.  Since there are two elevations the bell will be rung altogether six times.

However, in the section on a High Mass (sung Mass with incense) he says about the Elevation:

The thurifer (or M.C.) incenses the Sanctissimum, kneeling on the lowest step at the Epistle side.  He makes three double swings of the thurible at each elevation (in practices, one each time the bell is rung), bowing before and after.

 
One might conclude from Fr. Fortescue that an older practice may have been to ring the bells three times at the elevation, but no bells at the genuflections.  When bells at the genuflection became a common practice (rather than an official addition to the rubrics) is perhaps when it became 1-3-1.  In any case it appears the church allows some divergence in practice, and both Wuest and Fortescue mention situations where ringing the bell is not strictly required.  It does seem the silliest of things to worry about.  It makes a lot of sense to me for there to be three bells at the elevation, as that is distinctively a more solemn moment than the genuflections, and incense is offered at the elevations (3 doubles, fits with 3 bells) but not at the genuflections.
 
Another gem from Fr. Fortescue from the above cited book: “As a general rule … not more servers should attend than those really needed, who have some office to perform.  It does not add to the dignity of a rite that a crowd of useless boys stand about the sanctuary doing nothing.”

A ring during the jenuflections can alert people to the elevation, and indicate to those who can't see what's happening that the elevation is over.

I recall that the first time I served a Tridentine Mass, I was alone, and it was somewhat intimidating.

I had the same experience for my first time serving.

…One might conclude…

As plain as the nose on your face, "one might conclude" is NOT dispositive, but is only speculation.

I do conclude that nowhere in any of the declarative statements is there explicitly a call for a "three-within-three" rubric.

I did not ask for "what makes sense to [you]." I asked for a statement of definitive authority and received… the speculation of someone without jurisdiction. Bait and switch.

If I am silly for being bothered by this, how much sillier is the person who can only offer what "one might conclude"?

"One might conclude" that "three-within-three" is in the same canonical category as clown "Masses."