A Traditional Catholic is defined as: a person who deals with the Crisis in the Church by leaving the Conciliar Church and seeking out true (valid, properly formed) priests and true Sacraments/Mass (the Tridentine Mass) and not asking anyone's permission to do so.

This is my honest attempt at an accurate, objective definition of what a Traditional Catholic is. The definition is as inclusive as possible, yet captures the essence of Traditional Catholicism. Whatever the best definition is, it would have to apply to Catholics from 1970 to the present, since the Traditional Movement has been around that long.

For example, in the earliest days, Traditional Catholics existed all over the world, but none of them were concerned with permission from Rome. The first step was people walking out of the Novus Ordo, never to return. They instinctively gathered (like eagles) around any priest who wanted to stay Catholic (Traditional) and offer the Tridentine Mass. They knew that the salvation of souls came first, and that the Catholic Church herself supplied any jurisdiction that was needed for things like confession, marriage, etc.

Furthermore, Traditional Catholics all believed that the Mass was important. That is why they drove long distances to be where the Tridentine Mass was. They knew that the Catholic Faith was a habit of life, and that raising children Catholic meant having a place to attend Mass on a regular basis, even if it was not in an ornate cathedral building.

Therefore, I don't think I'm being too mean or sectarian by excluding Home-Aloners and attendees of the Indult (including Diocesan and any Roman-approved group).

In this context, by "Home Aloners" I mean those who hate the Novus Ordo and Conciliar religion, and have nothing to do with it, but they also believe that the Traditional Movement is not legitimate. So they fail to "seek out true Mass and Sacraments".  They ignore all the valid, Traditional priests and Masses available. They are aloof from the world of Tradition, even if they seem to oppose the Novus Ordo with all the Traditional Catholics.

Indult-attendees should be excluded because they believe that permission from Rome is useful or even required, in order to resort to the Tridentine Mass and pre-Vatican II Catholic Faith. This also goes against the basic tenets of the Traditional Movement as it has always existed. Any real Traditional Catholic knows that we have a right by our Baptism to sacraments/Mass which are 100% sure and priests that are 100% sure. The sheep of the flock have a right to be fed good nutritious food, not dung.

My definition for traditional Catholics is wider. I consider it anyone who believes what was taught before Vatican II and goes to the Latin Mass or one of the eastern rites to get away from the Novus Ordo. So if one rejects the Vatican II errors and goes to the indult because it is approved and he doesn't want to be "excommunicated", then I would consider him to be a traditional Catholic also.

One point you're missing though --

It's about your PRINCIPLES, not where you end up driving to Mass. Someone could be a real Traditional Catholic, avoiding the Novus Ordo and seeking out a Tridentine Mass without permission of the Conciliar Church, but out of prudence/fear/necessity they might go somewhere far from ideal, like an Indult, neo-SSPX, or Eastern Rite.

Or they might stay home alone -- not out of choice, but because there are no options available to them locally.

A man who attempts to cheat on his wife, but is rejected by his would-be paramour, is still an adulterer. Likewise a Traditional Catholic who has been placed in a location with no options is still a Traditional Catholic.

But if he stays home alone because he believes "Trad Chapels are not legit", because they have no jurisdiction from Rome -- then he's not a Trad Catholic.

I'm going to have to insist on that clause about "without permission", though, because it's true. Even if it cuts off a bunch of people from the designation "Traditional Catholic".

A shorter definition of Trad Catholic would be: "Those who deal with the Crisis in the Church by siding with Truth rather than Authority." Anyone who says we need permission from Conciliar Church officials (bishop, Pope, etc.) is siding with authority over truth. They are conservative Catholics, not Traditional Catholics.

Let's look at it from another angle: to be a Traditional Catholic, you have to recognize the Traditional Catholic movement, and the multitude of Trad Catholic chapels out there, as legitimate. Some Indult attendees really do think they need permission. They would consider SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantist and Independent chapels as illegitimate, non-options for them. So even though you only want to be nice, it really isn't fair to call those who require permission from Rome "Traditional Catholic". 

One point you're missing though --

It's about your PRINCIPLES, not where you end up driving to Mass. Someone could be a real Traditional Catholic, avoiding the Novus Ordo and seeking out a Tridentine Mass without permission of the Conciliar Church, but out of prudence/fear/necessity they might go somewhere far from ideal, like an Indult, neo-SSPX, or Eastern Rite.

Or they might stay home alone -- not out of choice, but because there are no options available to them locally.

A man who attempts to cheat on his wife, but is rejected by his would-be paramour, is still an adulterer. Likewise a Traditional Catholic who has been placed in a location with no options is still a Traditional Catholic.

But if he stays home alone because he believes "Trad Chapels are not legit", because they have no jurisdiction from Rome -- then he's not a Trad Catholic.

I'm going to have to insist on that clause about "without permission", though, because it's true. Even if it cuts off a bunch of people from the designation "Traditional Catholic".

A shorter definition of Trad Catholic would be: "Those who deal with the Crisis in the Church by siding with Truth rather than Authority." Anyone who says we need permission from Conciliar Church officials (bishop, Pope, etc.) is siding with authority over truth. They are conservative Catholics, not Traditional Catholics.

Let's look at it from another angle: to be a Traditional Catholic, you have to recognize the Traditional Catholic movement, and the multitude of Trad Catholic chapels out there, as legitimate. Some Indult attendees really do think they need permission. They would consider SSPX, Resistance, Sedevacantist and Independent chapels as illegitimate, non-options for them. So even though you only want to be nice, it really isn't fair to call those who require permission from Rome "Traditional Catholic".

Okay, thanks, I have a better understanding of what you're saying. I do agree, for the most part. It just doesn't seem like such a black-and-white situation. I'm probably wrong about that. There was a time when I thought I needed permission, too. I was wrong, but only realized it after studying the Resistance, through this forum.

It does seem like the SSPX reconciliation thing has gained momentum because there are so many Catholics (including Bp. Fellay) who believe that the SSPX has to be reconciled to Rome before they're really considered legitimate. Bp. Fellay has himself said that he's worried that the SSPX will go into schism if they don't reconcile, or words to that effect. Of course he also believes that the SSPX will help save the church. There seems  to be a false sense or understanding about why trad chapels have to exist in the first place, among mainstream trads, be they NO or indult.

This is a really good subject to bring up, btw.

Countrychurch,

One other thing I should have mentioned is that you are talking about something different than what Matthew is, I think. You seem to be referring to Tradition in general, but Matthew is describing the situation which is specific to traditional chapels that are not in communion with Modernist Rome. Hope that makes sense.

FWIW. This 2001 open letter reply to a conservative canon lawyer, IMO is worth the read. It goes into the differences between liberal, conservative and traditional Catholics.

http://saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/reply_to_a_conservative_canon_lawyer.htm