CathInfo.com

Doing so at a wedding is probably imprudent not only because it is a more private thing to be affectionate with one's spouse and odd to display it in front of everyone, but also because it would normally induce others to desire to dance as well, and many unwary souls would probably dance with people they shouldn't.

I find dancing between the newly married couple at a wedding highly problematic also. The courtships today (even in tradition) are far longer than they were 100 years ago.

It is inconceivable to me that a couple wait 365 days or more in an occasion of sin which courtship is that even if it is necessary. Then they get married and following that at their wedding reception, 100 people are staring at them as their passions are surely enflamed as their prolonged physical contact will no doubt make this self restraint literally unbearable. I have a difficult time believing that is NOT a mortal sin to partake in such activity at a reception.

Traditional Catholics are wedded to modern customs. There is no reason why dancing should be obligatory especially in public.

Just to disrupt my own thread, but following the substack links it took me here

https://oblatesofstaugustine.org/

Does this mean they are OLD Catholic heretics/schismatics? Obviously I can separate article on dancing from their other beliefs but I think I need to point this out for others to be careful.

No, these are Old ROMAN Catholics ... who, while they also derived from the See of Utrecht, actually split from them when the latter rejected Vatican I and papal infallibility.  Now, since the original bishops were consecrated without approval, they went into schism, but then Utrecht claimed that they Pope had given them a certain amount of autonomy.  In any case, the Old Romans actually were about to shut down operations, believing they had no more reason to continue ... but then Vatican II happened, and so they took on the mantle of preserving Tradition.  Many Trad Catholics went to the Old Romans at V2 when they didn't have any other options, before +Lefebvre established SSPX and +Thuc consecrated bishops.  Daniel Q Brown, the one who ordained/consecrated +Schuckhardt was an Old Roman.  Now, the SSPV et al., apart from not knowing the difference between Old Catholics and Old Romans, smear those Catholics are being schismatics and heretics simply for receiving Orders from the Old Romans, but that's a farce, since in Canon Law you could get ordained or consecrated by an Orthodox bishop, and it would render you suspended ... unless you had solid reasons for going ahead with it, but schism and heresy are not contagious.  On top of that +Browns repudiated Old Catholicism (rejected any of their errors) and professed the Catholic faith before conferring Orders on +Schuckhardt.

At this time, given that all Trads are irregular, the Old Romans (Caer Glow) are in the same boat as everyone else and they believe everything the Church has taught, and they say they'll submit to a legitimate Traditional pope.

So Bishop Meikle and those around him are decent Traditional Catholics.  I mentioned to +Meikle that he should consider dropping the "See of Caer Glow" thing, since it could give the impression of their being schismatic, and he said he's thought about it ... but feels it's more historical / honorific than that it has anything to do with jurisdiction.