Now to address Appendix 4 in brief and summarize this project formally (but not materially).

In response to the "Mark of Shiva" lie commonly espoused by ignorant Integrists (like these webmasters), we direct you to the following article by our good friend F. John Loughnan. He speaks not only of this topic but the overall topic of inculturation that Catholicism has always done throughout her history and is the primary reason she was able to evangelize whole nations and continents before (and is why she will do so again). Since Integrists are stunted in their ability to understand this phenomenon (seemingly), this link is especially relevant to the subjects at hand:

http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/the_pope_shiva_and_nudity.htm

To address their lies about the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (an approved order which licitly offers the Tridentine Mass and the pre-Vatican II Sacramental norms*) concerning the claim that Rome is trying to force FSSP to say the Pauline Mass. This is FSSP’s response to the claim that they are being "forced" to offer the Pauline Mass:

http://www.unavoce.org/fsspstatement.htm

The link to Una Voce is not to be construed as an endorsement of that organization.

While we do not fully agree with everything they say at this link, we do feel that carefully reading "Rumour 6" and "Rumour 7" (especially #6) will show the mature outlook of FSSP and how it differs from the immature and Luther-esque attitudes of the Integrist groups who think like the authors of this sadly pathetic excuse for a "refutation" at 3 so-called Catholic sites.

Also, the Appendix (4) spoke of the licitness and illicitness of the Indult, the Pauline Mass (erroneously called the "Novus Ordo"), and other areas that these authors (and Fr. Brown) have no competence whatsoever to judge on. That is the point we harp on over and over in this response because maybe (God willing) if we beat these stubborn obstinate proximate-to-heresy schismatics over the head hard enough and often enough then maybe…just MAYBE…they might get the hint that they are in error.

As for the Indult, and the status of SSPX and the 'traditionalists' and who is and is not in schism, we present the following which is part of a letter from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. This was covered this a bit in Appendix 3 but we want to make sure there is NO DOUBT on the position of the Church on these matters. Notice dear reader who appeals to the Church (us) and who appeals to their own private judgment ala the various heretical groups of history (such as Integrists like the Machabeus trio). That alone should show who is not afraid of the judgment of the Church on these matters:

http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/excommunication.htm

 
Our good friend F. John Loughnan wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger on the status of a group (the SSPX) that these three Integrists praise and whom are decisively refute in this writer's treatise along with every other illegitimate self-styled 'traditionalist' group around. Here is the official word from Rome on these matters so that you better understand the company these people both praise and keep (and the mind of the Church on these matters: Roma Locuta Est causa Finita Est):

http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/perltoloughnan.htm
 

The following link is an article on the Old Catholics written by Fr. Anthony Cedaka when he was part of the SSPX before the SSPX went into formal schism. We post it because the attitudes and positions taken by these 3 Integrists webmasters are like the Jansenists and Protestants (as we have pointed out in several places of this rebuttal). Pay special attention to the section titled "Old Catholic Sects: General Observations" because the arguments there apply to the "Machebeus trio" in spades along with all those who think as they do:

http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/oldcatholics.htm
 
Our good friend Stephen Hand (who runs the very pro-Tridentine Mass site TCR: a very orthodox site with excellent articles) spoke recently about some of the distant cousins of the "Hammer triplets" who run Remnant magazine. (In a pathetic article of which was decisively refuted in the Refutation of Appendix 1 of the sorry Integrists refutation falsely so-called.) Here is what Stephen had to say on the matter of the Remnant and their latest slide into heresy and schism. They join the three so-called "Catholics" who are too scared to sign their names to the parts of the so-called "superb" work that they have no problem praising yet refuse to sign their names to (John 8:54 comes to mind: the first part of it anyway).

http://www.geocities.com/romcath1/joan.html

Notice that Stephen Hand and Jack Benedict are real men of integrity and are not afraid of accountability. They signed their names by their work to thus be accountable for it. These Integrists refused to do this. This author would like to point out quickly that he always signs his name to the work he does without hesitation.  You will notice also that Matt1618* puts his name on the sections he wrote and also has his email address available if anyone has questions about what he has written. You will notice that Dr. Art Sippo is man enough to sign his name on the dotted line also and provide an email address for those who have questions as to what he has written. Our opponents are fearful of being accountable and we will not retract this statement until we see who wrote what of that essay and some email addresses so they can avoid running (to some extent) from criticism. What is interesting is that we do not see anyone praising their work except themselves. They are the ones making the flattering comments about their work (John 8:54). They are the ones that aped Matt’s advertisement for thiis present writer's treatise and advertised theirs the same way before they had even written it (with minor modifications to fit their own subject of address of course). How self-absorbed and arrogant of their abilities can they possibly be??? This author was not praising the work he did, Matt was and he was not compelled (or even asked) to do it. Yet these fellows are the ones praising their own work!!! They did it with their finished response in the introduction too (or to quote them):

"This constant state of improvement will mean that this already superb prescription will keep getting better and better - and yet more and more of the errors of the Novus Ordo will be exposed!"

The reader can judge based on our meticulous rebuttal if their work was really "superb" or not. If anyone other then those 3 thinks that the work they did was "superb" after reading our rebuttal then might we suggest some electro-shock therapy???

We merely note that our work is a decisive refutation of their sorry response. We are not arrogant and presuming that what we write is "superb" or not. That is for the reader to judge. It is a bit salty but Matt explained why in the Introduction that this approach was necessary. This writer noted that they mocked Matt’s advertisement for the treatise at Matt's web-site with their response. It was also noted that they aped the project's title and appropriated it for themselves. This is standard protocol for those who have no valid contributions to make whatsoever. Endlessly debating to attempt to justify their profoundly erroneous and soul-destroying views with anyone who will listen. Reading and quoting the fatally flawed works of Integrist pseudo-scholars who are so pathetically erroneous in history, Development of Doctrine, the functions of the Magisterium (especially what is and is not definitive teaching), and Catholic dogmatics that they make Reformed Baptist James White look like St. Cardinal Cajetan by comparison!!!

Also, our friend F. John Loughnan was unable due to other commitments to help with this project. However, his writings are linked to this refutation of Appendix 4/Summary to flesh out our arguments even further. Here is his Open Letter to Confused Traditionalists which was quoted a bit in the treatise.

http://home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/confusedtraditionalists.htm
 
The Appendix by this "Fr. Brown" person (obviously not the Fr. Brown of G K Chesterton fame) is an exercise in people who have no faith. To understand just how far these people have fallen away from the teaching of the Church and made shipwreck of the Faith, we recommend the following sermon delivered by Fr. John H. Newman to a mixed congregation of both Catholics and Protestants in 1847 - long before anyone had even heard of Vatican II:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse10.html

 
Finally, these Integrists to read the entire treatise conjointly with the following masterpiece by possibly the most brilliant theologian of the nineteenth century: Ven. Cardinal John Henry Newman. This is a subject that every Christian needs to understand better ESPECIALLY Fundamentalists AND self-styled ‘traditionalists’: two groups that are Siamese Twins of one another. Here is the link:

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

No Catholic can deny the unassailable evidences that the Cardinal raises in this work (written interestingly enough when he was an Anglican Protestant: he argued himself into the Catholic Church with this writing). Bearing in mind the phenomenon of Development and its ancient pedigree (attested to indirectly by many Fathers and Doctors most notably St. Vincent of Lerens and St. Thomas Aquinas), if these Integrists look at the subjects addressed by Vatican II and the Popes before and after Vatican II (especially with regards to EENS and Religious Liberty), they will discover that these are doctrines that have undergone development and conform to Newman’s 7 notes of legitimate developments perfectly. Likewise, the Integrists views of EENS and other issues fail this test much as the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide do. If this essay is read conjointly with the treatise (which also covers development of doctrine a bit in a couple spots), these fellows can be led to the Truth if they are open to God’s leading.

In summary, our opponents fail not only to prove their case but they overwhelmingly refute the very notion that they are loyal Catholics at all. They cannot be nor can they be said to have faith as Newman noted in the discourse on Faith and Private Judgment (linked to above). We exhort them to ponder the words of the Doctor of Grace who addressed people of a similar mindset as these 3 Integrist authors and people who think as they do:
 

"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved?" [C. Julian 1:7, 34 (c. AD 400)]

Additional Notes:
 

* The sacraments have not changed and there will be a special place in hell for people who fabricate false charges
such as these to deceive others and do not repent of them.

** "Matt1618" is not Matt’s real name (nor is Matt for that matter) but instead is the pseudonym that he titles everything he writes with: that is straight shooting in my book since Matt never runs from a fight and does not hide from what he has written. In short Matt1618 has more integrity in his pinky finger then Charles Machebeus Goldstein and his two cohorts in crime do in their combined bodies. Oh and unlike the latter three the former is in communion with the Catholic Church and submits to her judgment.
 

©2003, 2000, "Detection and Overthrow of the 'Traditionalist Catholics' Falsely So-Called" (Refutation of Appendix 4 and Summary of Project), written by I. Shawn McElhinney. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.

 
Page created by: Matt1618. Send email with questions on this Treatise to I. Shawn McElhinney ismac@lycos.com