Great post, but with regard to that last sentence above, to quote something Father Schmidberger once told me, "I not so sure as you are."

Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here.  French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.

I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.

I do not like St Peregrine's version either.

You Mr. Lad sure love to digress. I have not decided on my position about Fr. Robinson's book but merely posted the replies available so far. If you would care to recall, I would love to listen to a debate between the two sides. As a sede, you don't have any Magisterium to guide you, you easily brush off pre-conciliar books with imprimaturs that goes against what you taught, you cast aspersions on pre-conciliar clergy that wasn't condemned by pre-conciliar Popes. What is a simple Catholic like me to do? Obviously it would be more believable for a simple Catholic to trust non-condemned priests and clergy in good faith than to trust a lay person who did not complete seminary and acts like he's the Pope.

Great post, but with regard to that last sentence above, to quote something Father Schmidberger once told me, "I not so sure as you are."

Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here.  French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.

I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.

There is no doubt about it, at least in France.  At St. Nicollet du Chardonnet, most women are unveiled, the dialogue mass is ubiquitous everywhere, and in some places, the Fraternity says the gospels in the vernacular at the altar (and has been for 25+ years).

But this progressiveness has been exported from France to America since the replacement of Msgr. Williamson in Winona with Abbe LeRoux, who quickly changed Mass postures for the seminarians (and the faithful followed suit).  A few years later, the seminarians got ordained and implemented these Francophile preferences in their assigned chapels. 

In time, it seems the Americains will "catch up" to France in this way.

Great post, but with regard to that last sentence above, to quote something Father Schmidberger once told me, "I not so sure as you are."

Some of the European Trad chapels are even worse than anything we've had here.  French are much more into promoting things like the Dialog Mass, and frown much more in the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites.

I actually feel as though the Europeans are more "progressive" than the American Traditionalists in many ways.

There is no possible circuмstance in the future that will make me excuse or justify the EVIL of the Dimond brothers. They are NOT just accidental home aloners ("I don't have a Traditional Chapel within driving distance to attend for Sunday Mass."). Is that what you think?

No, they are DOGMATIC. They have cut themselves off from the rest of the Catholic Church, they are therefore Schismatic. They have set themselves up as the Pope and the "last 10 Catholics on earth". I am tempted to say "They can go to hell!" but that's precisely where they're headed already!

You seem to be rather confused and uninformed about what exactly I (and many others) have against the Dimond Brothers.

They excommunicate all and sundry who disagree with them. How is that Catholic? How is that excusable, under ANY circuмstances? Even the Crisis in the Church is no excuse for their evils.