CathInfo.com

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.