But I, for one, am not interested in THAT kind of Traditional Catholicism. I only want to be a simple Traditional Catholic, keeping the Faith during this Crisis in the Church. I don't need a team to root for, or a priest to sign over my Intellect and/or Free Will to.

I think you went a step too far there (besides the point you clarified already). Of course you have a "team" which you root for. What you mean to say is that you don't follow any group blindly and so your "team" may change from time to time (SSPX --> Resistance, for example).

I think it's quite reasonable to expect that many will have strong opinions on things not listed on your short list and will be in search of priests who share their opinions. After all, truth is singular and so someone has to be correct and therefore the other is in error. But, the point here is that when there is not a priest supporting your position of choice in your area, you shouldn't avoid undoubtedly valid sacraments which are available to you.

Yes, keep supporting and building support for your "team", but don't consider yourself to be a de facto home-aloner unless you do not have an option which meets a "short-list" criteria.

Quote from: Matthew

But I, for one, am not interested in THAT kind of Traditional Catholicism. I only want to be a simple Traditional Catholic, keeping the Faith during this Crisis in the Church. I don't need a team to root for, or a priest to sign over my Intellect and/or Free Will to.

I think you went a step too far there (besides the point you clarified already). Of course you have a "team" which you root for. What you mean to say is that you don't follow any group blindly and so your "team" may change from time to time (SSPX --> Resistance, for example).

I think it's quite reasonable to expect that many will have strong opinions on things not listed on your short list and will be in search of priests who share their opinions. After all, truth is singular and so someone has to be correct and therefore the other is in error. But, the point here is that when there is not a priest supporting your position of choice in your area, you shouldn't avoid undoubtedly valid sacraments which are available to you.

Yes, keep supporting and building support for your "team", but don't consider yourself to be a de facto home-aloner unless you do not have an option which meets a "short-list" criteria.

Yes, I was specifically limiting myself to where I should attend Mass. My personal preferences, my observations as to the general spiritual health of the group, who is doing the best job of helping Catholics during this Crisis, etc. are beside the point when it comes to just attending Mass.

Now when it comes to where I send my son to try out a vocation, where I spend hours volunteering, where I pour my heart, soul and resources into, which chapel I advertise on the bumper sticker of my family vehicle -- there are certainly a few more questions that I would want to look into.

And yes, I have a favorite. But if I were on the road and that "favorite" were not available, I would not stay home on Sunday.

My point, precisely, is that people are mixing up their "preference" or "favorite" with being able to attend Mass at all. That is a huge mistake.


Too many Catholics have lost the art of attending Mass for God's sake alone. They have lost the skill of attending a Mass at a chapel (or with a priest) they aren't very wild about.

They either want to stay home on Sunday, or go to a chapel where they can be 100% rah-rah and wear team colors and everything. Sorry, you don't always get that choice.

People are forgetting what Mass is about.

It's not a show of support for your favorite priest of choice. It's to WORSHIP GOD, especially on SUNDAY, the day we are commanded by the Church to keep holy, especially by attendance at Mass.

Which Church are you attending Mass ? Or at least could you give me a hint about good priests in your area?

The reason I'm asking you is to compare good chapels with lists on the web (traditio.com website has a list but I don't know if it's to be trusted).

Matthew is rightly distinguishing between things that are core Catholic dogma accepted by all good Catholics and those things that are lower-level application (theological opinion).  There's no dogma about whether or not the Holy See is currently vacant.  These are conclusions to which various Catholics arrive by reasoning and syllogism and the application of Catholic principles to concrete circuмstances.  Similarly with various brands of "Feeneyism"; there's no dogmatic decree one way or another.  THE MERE FACT that these questions are disputed among people who otherwise show every sign of professing to have the formal motive of faith demonstrates that they are sub-dogmatic.  This is where Matthew's tradcuмenism comes into play.  To go around dogmatically declaring x, y, or z to be outside the Church for disagreeing with your clear-cut dogmatic analysis on some issue or another is borderline schismatic.  You're considering outside the Church someone whom the Church does not consider to be outside the Church.  These lay excommunications are getting really really old and tiresome.  Didn't our Lady of Fatima say that the "dogma" of the faith would always be preserved?  I think that there's a reason that she chose the word "dogma", a reference to a very limited set of core Catholic beliefs, those that it would be heretical in the strict sense to reject.  Could she have implied that everything outside of this core would be up for grabs?

In addition, I have no problem attending a properly-offered Eastern Rite Liturgy (except some that have been tampered with excessively).

Quote from: Matthew

My minimalist, back-to-basics "Trad Checklist" for evaluating a chapel:

1. Is the priest properly ordained in the old rite (by a bishop who himself was ordained/consecrated in the old rite)?
2. Was the priest FORMED in a Traditional seminary, or at least has the priest fully converted to Tradition? Does the priest defend Tradition, and attack Modernism, Vatican II and the Conciliar religion sufficiently to teach/warn his congregation of their severe, grave dangers?
3. Does the priest say the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass in Latin, and only give/recommend the other Sacraments according to the Pre-Vatican II form as well?

If a chapel fails any of these 3 points, it's not a Traditional chapel and is not a safe place for us to park our families during the Crisis.

On the other hand, if it passes these 3 tests, it is SAFE ENOUGH TO TRUST WITH AT LEAST OUR SUNDAY MASS ATTENDANCE.

I personally would add one other test.  Regardless of whatever POSITION the priest/chapel has taken about one or another disputed issue, if they're dogmatic about it, I consider that a red light because the spirit of schism dwells there.  It's like a deep rot that infects the souls of anyone in contact with it.

So, for instance, although I myself lean "Feeneyite", I would generally not go to Mass offered by a priest who adopted a Dimond-like dogmatism, who would declare anyone who believes even in Thomistic BoD to be a heretic and refuse them the Sacraments.  Conversely, I would not go to Mass offered by a priest who refused Sacraments to Feeneyties.  I would not go to the Mass of someone who refused the Sacraments to a Sedevacantist or to an R&R or even to a Novus Ordo Catholic who appears otherwise well disposed, etc.  That's why I would stay away from Boston, KY also -- because they appear to have severed communion with other Catholics for no acceptable reason.  So there too you have the subtle rot of a schismatic sectarianism.

This would sum up Matthew's "cult" test which he's mentioned before, but didn't include on this list. I think I would agree with you if they've reached the point of denying sacraments over their position, but Boston hasn't done that. Nonetheless, from only the information given publicly, Fr. Bitzer or possibly even the local SSPX would seem to be a safer place for receiving sacraments, in my opinion.

And yes, there is a "maybe" number 4 in my list, "Is it a cult", but I decided it doesn't belong alongside the other 3. It's not quite as fundamental.

You don't want to attend Mass even ONCE with a doubtful priest, or a priest not saying the Tridentine Mass.

But you COULD theoretically isolate yourself from the cult mentality, at least for occasional Mass attendance.

I suppose being a solidly "Trad" priest who sufficiently attacks Modernism and Vatican II would also be optional in this way -- you could survive just attending his valid Masses. This item obviously disqualifies the Indult. But what Indult priests aren't also doubtfully ordained by a Novus Ordo bishop? So it's kind of a non-issue.

I suppose it would be an issue for SSPX attendance. The priests say a valid Tridentine Mass and they are validly ordained. But so many of them don't speak out against Vatican II, or they try to warm us up to it. So they must be "yellow lighted" or caution given -- you can attend with caution.

I suppose I'll have to further develop this "checklist".