Author Topic: Short Basic Checklist for evaluating a Trad Chapel (Read 1218 times)

Matthew · « **on:** October 20, 2015, 02:45:18 PM »

Here is the old thread and discussion:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/This-is-ALL-YOU-NEED-when-evaluating-a-chapel

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. 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 priest/chapel fails either of these tests, it must be RED-LIGHTED and avoided, even for occasional, bare-bones Mass attendance (that is, attending Mass and then taking off right away without socializing, etc.)

There are three more tests (and possibly others) which would require a YELLOW-LIGHT or cautious stance. You could attend a Mass which violates one or all of these, but there WILL BE CONSEQUENCES for you and your family with long-term, regular attendance. Failing any one of these tests would mean a chapel is NOT a safe place to park your family to preserve your Faith during this Crisis in the Church. Deciding to avoid chapels that "fail" one of these tests is a question of prudence that the father of the family needs to decide, based on the particular dangers at hand.

3. 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?

4. Is the chapel schismatic/sectarian: do they excommunicate other Traditional groups who disagree with them on an unresolved or disputed theological position (Baptism of Desire/Feeneyism, Sedevacantism, etc.)?
In short, is the chapel a de-facto cult?

5. Is the priest a bad priest? This can be hard to determine sometimes, but if a priest has a defective or defunct prayer life, if he is an alcoholic, if he doesn't like being a priest anymore, if he doesn't have a love for the Faith anymore, if he takes the cassock off as soon as Mass is over, etc. it will not be a good chapel to frequent.

On the other hand, if it passes tests #1 and #2, the chapel is AT LEAST YELLOW LIGHT material. A Yellow-light means USUALLY SAFE ENOUGH FOR OCCASIONAL/REGULAR MASS ATTENDANCE with a "yellow light" level of caution (yellow light means you might, out of prudence, and depending on the circuмstances, have to avoid it altogether).

If you're looking for a place to ATTEND WITH CONFIDENCE (green light), then you would want a favorable answer to tests 3, 4, and 5 as well.

If you want a place you can donate your life to, swear lifetime allegiance to, send them your son or daughter to join the religious life, buy T-Shirts for, etc. you might want to add other points as well.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** October 20, 2015, 02:51:06 PM »

The first category has BASIC NECESSITIES -- without which, it is not a Traditional Chapel at all, and not suitable for Mass attendance.

The second category are things that, if present, are 100% CERTAIN to have bad consequences if you attend the chapel month in, month out and year in, year out.

But the third category, dubbled "Do I <heart> this chapel?", there are too many questions to list, and they vary by person!

But the fundamental difference is that these items have NO certainty of ill effects, but are merely matters of opinion or convenience. Or at most, they are nice extras, in the sense of "good, better, best".

Of course it is BEST for a chapel to have a communion rail with a cloth over it, or a decent choir, but a chapel without one will not harm your Faith, even long term.

The questions you look at to determine your "dream chapel" will depend on your own personality, opinions, needs, preferences, etc.

* How good is their choir
* Do they ever have High Mass and how do they sound?
* What nationality is the priest?
* Does the priest have an accent?
* Is the priest young or old?
* Is the priest holy in my opinion?
* Is the priest smart and/or experienced?
* Is the chapel convenient to my house?
* How many disputed theological points do I agree with my priest on?
* How many of the parishioners do I agree with?
* How many of the parishioners are nice people, or good Catholics?
* Is the chapel big enough?
* Does the chapel have a cry room, and is it adequate?
* How well is the chapel cooled in the summer, and heated in the winter?
* Is there a strong or vibrant parish life?
* Are the parishioners largely informed about the Faith and secular matters?
* How does the chapel treat new people/visitors?
* How many children are there for my kids to make friends with?
* Do they have a school?
* And a hundred others.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2015, 03:15:18 PM »

IMO chapels with conditions 3-5 (depending on severity) might warrant regular Sunday attendance if relatively mild or perhaps only an OCCASIONAL visit to fulfill one's obligation if more severe. Depending on how bad these are, regular attendance might be harmful to one's spiritual life. #4 in particular can be absolutely toxic. If in #3 the priest teaches/encourages errors or bad morals, that could shift to red. If in #5 the priest is molesting altar boys, then that obviously shifts to red.

But that might be what you mean by yellow light. Except that at the end you state categorically that even chapels laboring under 3-5 would warrant regular Mass attendance. I might go there just to get the Sacraments, but that would be about it. Get there just on time, conveniently need to use the bathroom during the sermon, and then leave before everyone starts chatting after Mass. And that would be if I had no reasonable alternative. So, for instance, if 3-5 were happening before Vatican II even, I would try to attend at a nearby parish instead, go there only if there were no alternative, and then subject myself to as little of the pernicious influence as possible.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2015, 03:25:49 PM »

I said this in the other thread, but since it will die the death of locked threads, I'll say it again. : )

I think it's perfectly reasonable to support your priest or group of choice in many ways even if your location prevents you from actual attendance. I have had a person on another continent try to convince me to support a priest who is relatively close to me (only 3 hours away!). As long as you're not keeping yourself from other undoubtedly valid sacraments as a result of your enthusiasm, I say, "go for it!" The more support they receive in any and all forms, the more likely they'll grow to the point that they may someday be able to have a presence in your area as well.

LucasL · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2015, 03:30:17 PM »

How many Bishops do we have that were consecrated in the Old Rite? (only the ones who didn't make a deal with the Novus Ordo like Dom Fernando Rifan)

Has Bishop Faure ordained any priests so far?

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2015, 03:31:59 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

But that might be what you mean by yellow light. Except that at the end you state categorically that even chapels laboring under 3-5 would warrant regular Mass attendance. I might go there just to get the Sacraments, but that would be about it. Get there just on time, conveniently need to use the bathroom during the sermon, and then leave before everyone starts chatting after Mass. And that would be if I had no reasonable alternative. So, for instance, if 3-5 were happening before Vatican II even, I would try to attend at a nearby parish instead, go there only if there were no alternative, and then subject myself to as little of the pernicious influence as possible.

Thanks for your response.

You're right, that's what I mean by yellow light -- "caution". Some yellow light situations must be prudently avoided. It depends on the particular circuмstances. Local men will have to make the call for themselves and their own families, taking full responsibility for the decisions they make.

SOME "bad priests" (maybe they just stopped praying, or they like to socialize with wealthy married women too much) won't hurt you by mere Mass attendance, but other "bad priests" (i.e., child molesters) will. So you have to look further into the particulars, under the soft glow of the yellow light that chapel is under.

But a doubtful priest (i.e. Ambrose Moran) is something everyone should red-light in every case. Catholic doctrine teaches that a doubtful priest should be treated as no priest at all -- just to be safe. Ditto for the Mass. We are obligated to go with a certain Mass over a doubtful one. Enter the Traditional movement.

That's why we're allowed to be SO IRREGULAR by attending independent chapels, etc. -- all because it's such a grave thing to have doubtful priests/sacraments. The Church apparently thinks certainty regarding priests/Mass is an important thing: she gives us permission and provides the necessary authority to leave our regular parishes and appointed authorities to attend Mass in hotels, garages, and workshops if need be.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2015, 03:35:38 PM »

Quote from: irirfleo

How many Bishops do we have that were consecrated in the Old Rite? (only the ones who didn't make a deal with the Novus Ordo like Dom Fernando Rifan)

Has Bishop Faure ordained any priests so far?

A bunch of Sedevacantist and Thuc-line bishops.

The 4 bishops ordained by Abp. Lefebvre
+Rifan, ordained by some Lefebvre-line bishops (I'm not sure which ones)

And now +Faure.

+Williamson has promised to consecrate more in the future.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2015, 03:43:23 PM »

Quote from: irirfleo

How many Bishops do we have that were consecrated in the Old Rite? (only the ones who didn't make a deal with the Novus Ordo like Dom Fernando Rifan)

Has Bishop Faure ordained any priests so far?

Yes, here in Brazil he ordained the Guatemalan Fr. André a week after the consecration.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2015, 03:46:40 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

I might go there just to get the Sacraments, but that would be about it. Get there just on time, conveniently need to use the bathroom during the sermon, and then leave before everyone starts chatting after Mass. And that would be if I had no reasonable alternative. So, for instance, if 3-5 were happening before Vatican II even, I would try to attend at a nearby parish instead, go there only if there were no alternative, and then subject myself to as little of the pernicious influence as possible.

Exactly. Mass is what you're there for. Go for God and then go home. : )

If all 5 conditions are met, then stay for donuts, sign up to volunteer, etc.

Someone suggested in the other thread that this would leave you with just a couple of dozen priests world-wide and that's not the case at all. A good number of SSPX priests still meet all five, but thanks to the shifted leadership, you now have to talk to them to see where they stand.

LucasL · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2015, 04:20:19 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: irirfleo
How many Bishops do we have that were consecrated in the Old Rite? (only the ones who didn't make a deal with the Novus Ordo like Dom Fernando Rifan)

Has Bishop Faure ordained any priests so far?

Yes, here in Brazil he ordained the Guatemalan Fr. André a week after the consecration.

Where is Fr. Andre located? Is he under Faure's jurisdiction then?

Ok one more name to add:
Bishop Kelly

So excluding the Thuc line (and those we made deal with Rome) we have
Bishop Williamson
Bishop Faure
Bishop Clarence Kelly
Bishop Joseph Santay

Which ones Am I missing?

ihsv · « **Reply #10 on:** October 21, 2015, 11:32:55 AM »

Quote from: irirfleo

Where is Fr. Andre located? Is he under Faure's jurisdiction then?

For clarity's sake, +Faure has no jurisdiction. Neither do any of the other bishops mentioned.

Carry on.