Dear TIA,

I have a problem. Which Mass should I attend?

One Mass is a Novus Ordo Mass said nearby by an old "conservative" priest, so things are not too wild and I'm sure he believes in the True Presence and Transubstantiation so the Sacrament is probably valid. But I know that this New Mass was written - at least in part - by Protestants, promotes heresy, and I know that this Mass is a fruit of the evils brought by Vatican II.

The other Mass is the Old Mass with just the few changes of the 1962 Missal (which, I believe, marked the beginning of the big changes). I'm guessing that the 1962 Mass was the one said during Vatican II since that Council lasted from 1962-1965. Another point, this Old Mass is said by the SSPX whose official organ in the USA - The Angelus - has promoted Leftist, Distributivist and Socialist/Communist causes such as the Catholic Worker Movement.

After reading a letter by Fr. Peter Scott - a member of the SSPX who writes for The Angelus - which someone sent you about the "Lesser of Two Evils," I am confused. Allow me explain. For the 2008 elections, he told Catholics they are not obliged to vote. Fr. Scott instructed that "the moral obligation to vote can only exist when the candidate is worthy of a Catholic vote. Neither candidate is. Hence there is no obligation to vote for either." So, it doesn't matter whether the candidate is a 'lesser evil' or a 'greater evil.' I am only obliged to vote if one of the choices is "worthy of a Catholic vote."

If I apply Fr. Scott's teachings to my problem, it seems I should not choose either one of these Masses. Before, I always thought that going to the Novus Ordo Mass was the 'greater evil' and that going to the Old Mass, even though it uses the slightly changed 1962 Missal said by a priest whose Society promotes Socialism, was the 'lesser evil,' and as a Catholic resisting Progressivism while trying to receive the Sacraments, I thought it best - "the lesser of two evils" - to attend the 1962 Missal Mass by the SSPX, and put money in the collection basket. But in truth, both situations promote in some way something evil and, therefore, are not "worthy of a Catholic vote." Therefore, it seems that according to the reasoning of Fr. Scott, I should avoid both.

This seems absurd to me. I believe Fr. Scott's 'reasoning' is upside down, pathetic, and even betrays the Catholic Cause.

     Yours in Christ,

     G.J.

Dear friends,

I read the letter posted by Fr. Peter Scott on your website regarding voting. My opinion is that he is a very confused individual. If, in fact, indirect voluntary is in se the lesser of two evils; and if, in fact, there is moral guilt here, it opens up a Pandora box of problems.

Although I am not a student of this subject, it would seem to end in a case of reductio ad absurdum [of proving something is wrong by showing it is an absurd]. Let me do it.

Does indirect voluntary apply to every warrior that fought against Communism in Vietnam? The soldier had to go to war to serve his country and obey the constituted authorities. But he could disagree with the war, with killing other people, etc. Nonetheless, he went because it was a lesser evil.

According to Fr. Scott every soldier did wrong. Since he expressed his opposition to the war in Iraq, also in today's war every soldier would be doing a morally evil thing. I believe these moral applications are completly absurd. The Church teaches us that a soldier in these conditions does not commit any sin, but instead he is accomplishing his duty, even if the war is unjust. Thus, Fr. Scott's reasoning about lesser evil is wrong and puts us into a muddy circle.

Perhaps this priest should be seeking, rather than giving advice in moral theology. Fr. Scott is not someone I would take advice from in moral theology, or maybe anything else.

This is just a cursory thought on his letter.

Thank you for your work. You are in my prayers,

     In Mary,

     L.A.J.

Dear TIA,

Thank you for all of the wonderful work you are doing in defense of the Faith and true evangelization.

You have been clear on your position with the full spectrum of traditionalist groups. You represent this spectrum to run from the SSPV on the right to the FSSP on the left. Clearly there are difficulties with each of these groups, and you have given documentation, for instance, on the SSPX positioning to "compromise" with the Vatican.

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Fraternity [St. Peter], Fr. Bisig, the founding Superior General of the Fraternity and current Rector of Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary in Lincoln, NE, claimed that there was no compromise with Tradition when his movement reunited with Rome, and that the Fraternity had what Archbishop Lefebvre wanted and asked for - the experiment of Tradition in the Church. I have never seen any documentation to support the claim to the contrary. Are you aware of any?

Thank you and please be assured of our continued prayers for you individually and for your apostolate.

     In Jesu et Maria,

     J.S.

Modesty, the flower of manners, the honor of our bodies, the grace of the sexes, the integrity of the blood, the guarantee of our race, the basis of sanctity, the pre-indication of every good disposition; rare though it is, and not easily perfected, and scarce ever retained in perpetuity, will yet up to a certain point linger in the world, if nature shall have laid the preliminary groundwork of it, discipline persuaded to it, censorial rigor curbed its excesses - on the hypothesis, that is, that every mental good quality is the result either of birth, or else of training, or else of external compulsion. - Tertullian



TIA responds:

Dear J.S.,

Having warm support like yours is very important to us. We appreciate your kind words and prayers.

Instead of asking us - who have never been linked to Archbishop Lefebvre - if we have any document proving whether Fr. Bisig is right or wrong, it seems that the correct order to proceed in this investigation is, first, to ask Fr. Bisig himself to produce the documents backing his statement.

The second step would be to ask the Society of St. Pius X, which claims to be the true follower of the late Archbishop, how to explain the evidence Fr. Bisig will produce.

Only in the third step should the observers of this debate, in which group we would place ourselves, give an opinion.

If this is the correct procedure, as we believe it is, we encourage you to invite Fr. Bisig to start the ball rolling.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

JMJ    Greetings,

In reading The Keys of This Blood, Malachi Martin states on p. 633 that "The Secret [of Fatima] had to be buried, as Cardinal Ottaviani said in 1957, in the most hidden, the deepest, the most inaccessible place on earth."

Pius XII requested the third secret in 1957 and left it for 1960. In light of the quote above, Pius XII must have read the third secret in the presence of Cardinal Ottaviani, or Ottaviani read it and resealed it under Pius XII's request. Pius XII then decided to leave it until 1960 and make a decision then. He passed away in 1958.

Is the 1957 reading a possibility? Especially in light of Communist revolution in 1956 in Hungary and other Communist advances in Europe which confirm the second part of the secret and Russia's errors [being spread around the world].

Worried about America and other capitalist countries,

     M.R.



TIA responds:

Greetings M.R.,

We have heard mention to that saying of Card. Ottaviani from several sources, but always referring to John XXIII - not to Pius XII - who would have told him to hide the third secret in a well so deep that no one could find it.

As time has passed, it has become clear that the real third secret is still hidden.

To investigate what probably would be the content of that secret, you may follow the wise reasoning of Prof Plinio here, read the comments of Card. Pacelli, future Pius XII here, and the declaration of Card. Oddi, here.

We hope this will help you.

     Cordially,

     TIA correspondence desk

Follow us

  When Does a Heretical Pope Become an Invalid Pope?

  Card. Oddi: Vatican II Was the Revolution in the Church

  Traditionalist Issues

  The Progressivist Challenge to Fatima

  Our Lady of Fatima and the Third Secret

  Papal Silence on the 91st Anniversary of the Fatima

  Pius XII Saw Miracle of the Sun