I wish to acknowledge the following who have contributed to this project either in the form of inspiration, material used, editing, ideas for content, prayers, or other support.
God: For everything (John 15:5).
To the following for their contributions in divers ways to the original version of the work:
‘Matt 1618’, Dr. Art Sippo, F. John Loughnan, Fr. Gary Campbell, Fr.
John Rizzo, Joe Gallegos, Deacon Ed Faulk, William P. Grossklas, Fr. Anthony
Fisher OP, Lane Core Jr, E. Michael Jones, Larry Nolte, John Beaumont,
Dr. Jeffrey Mirus, David Armstrong, Stephen Hand, Susan Stein, Richard
McElhinney, Marge McElhinney, Teresa McElhinney
To the following for their advice - directly or indirectly - concerning the second version of the work:
Pete Vere, Albert Cipriani, Miki Tracy
To the following for their advice - directly or indirectly - or assistance concerning the third version of the work:
My father Richard McElhinney (d. 6/12/01 RIP), whose prayers I am sure played no small part in motivating me to finish this project and do so properly.
Dr. Art Sippo for his meticulous examination of the reformatted and revised texts and for key suggestions which have improved the presentation of this work.
'Matt1618' for his patience in replacing templates every time I either found a mistake or thought of a better way to phrase an argument, structure a template, etc. (And of course for hosting this work to begin with.)
David Armstrong whose critique of a few section attempts at a revision
in early 2002 (which were subsequently lost in my harddrive crash of May
2002) was nonetheless influential in my approach to this third edition.
(And of course being linked to Dave's ubersite the past few years:
a tremendous circumstance that undoubtedly widened the viewing audience
of this work.)
While originally dedicated "Ad Majorem Dei Gloria", I want to amend
that dedication a bit. This third edition is dedicated to my Heavenly Father
and my earthly father - the latter of which has gone on to glory. (May
he rest in peace.)
Foreword - by 'Matt1618'
In response to some very real problems that have infiltrated the Church, there has been a response from people who call themselves "Traditionalists". These are generally well-meaning people who believe that the Magisterium has not responded sufficiently to the threats from modernists. They look for someone to blame, and more often than not, Vatican II and all the Popes subsequent to Pope Pius XII (who died in 1958) are criticized for 'caving in' to modernists in both doctrine and worship. These people will in effect go by the theory of 'Sola Traditio'. In essence, decisions on what should and should not be done are placed outside the realm of the living Magisterium of the Church, and put into the realm of their own personal interpretation of past papal decrees and Councils. It has been my experience that many "Traditionalists" love to selectively quote from past Magisterial documents. They will often be very uncompromising in their interpretation of one part of a past Council (like Trent), while simultaneously ignoring or explaining away what the same Council teaches elsewhere (including Trent). Quotes of the past Councils and other Magisterial documents are often taken out of context. The "Traditionalist" (in doing this) implies that the current Pope is somehow betraying the faith, and in effect they become their own Magisterium while at the same time maintaining that they are "More Catholic than you are." I have personally been labeled as a heretic by some people with this "Traditionalist" mindset.
Taking these divers factors into account, how does one faithful to the Magisterium respond to charges that the Church is betraying the faith in both doctrine and rituals? Here is where Shawn McElhinney gives a through response to practically all the arguments that "Traditionalists" make on these matters. He shows quite convincingly that the "Traditionalist" in many cases acts like a Protestant in sheep's clothing. Why is that? How could one make the charge that one who is 'trying to be more Catholic than the Pope', actually acts more like a Protestant? Just as Protestants do not really go by the Bible alone (even though some Protestants have a higher view of Church authority in interpreting Scripture than others, they ultimately go by their personal interpretation of the Scripture), the "Traditionalist" likewise goes by his personal interpretation of tradition.
Protestants will of course not come to their conclusions on the meaning of Scripture based on a thoroughly unbiased reading of the text, but will instead be influenced by people with a particular interpretation of Scripture whether they admit to this or not. Then after agreeing with the conclusions of those who they are partial to, Protestants will say, "That is what Scripture says'. In essence they are saying, "Whatever you say, I will examine in light of Scripture (or perhaps better stated "my personal interpretation which has been influenced by somebody else's interpretation"). The same holds true for "Traditionalists" who will be influenced by others who give them their interpretation of selective quotations of past papal decrees and conciliar declarations. "Traditionalists" in essence are saying, "This is what this means, and if the current Pope strays from this (or what the "Traditionalists" interpretation of these declarations is), it is Ok to ignore him." They will be told this by someone who influences them that this is so.
Aren't these people just attempting to maintain what Catholicism really stands for? Shawn McElhinney in the following treatise shows that this is not true at all. Using extensively both Scripture and Tradition, Shawn exposes the errors of those in the "Traditionalist" movement. Shawn is a former member of the Society of St. Pius X. Of course, there is a wide spectrum of people who call themselves "Traditionalists." These people (despite their title) still possess a diversity of views in reference to how much to submit to the Pope: some will listen to him more than others. No matter the range, however, this detailed treatise carefully examines most of the areas that are of concern to "Traditionalists." The work as a whole will be the one that any "Traditionalist" who is so quick to ignore the Magisterium when its pronouncements don't line up with his/her outlook, must examine.
In this work you will see the use of terms such as ‘traditionalist’ and 'traditionalism' used oftentimes. As these terms and others like them have been so badly abused by many groups, I wish to quantify my use of them and their derivatives throughout this essay. I am in using the terms ‘traditionalist’ or 'traditionalism' going to usually preface them with qualifiers such as 'self-styled' or 'so-called' to indicate that I am referring to those who fraudulently apply these terms to themselves. In other situations I will simply refer to 'traditionalists' or some derivative in that manner and when I do that the same principle applies. Any and all attempts to refer to people or organizations who appropriate that term for themselves but who can do so honestly will be referred to either as 'Traditionalists' (note the capitalization) or as 'Tridentine Catholics'.
When I refer to 'traditionalists' I am most assuredly NOT speaking of any society or organization that has received the approval of the Roman Pontiff to offer the Old Roman Rite of Mass (aka Tridentine) and receive the sacraments in the norms which they were prevalent from approximately the fifteenth century until 1975. My reference is to those groups which claim to be ‘independent chapels’ or possess ‘independent priests’ and who in schism from the Apostolic See offer the Tridentine Mass illicitly and administer most of the sacraments illicitly (and some of them invalidly). These groups are not in communion with the Catholic Church although many of them lie and claim that they are to deceive the laity. Individually those properly referred to as self-styled 'traditionalists' would be those whom it could be reasonably deduced were formally adherent to these kinds of groups. (Judged based on their actions, attitudes, and of course their words.) The organizations that fall into my cross hairs with this work are more than likely in or affiliated with the following summary of groups:
As this work will unambiguously demonstrate,
authentic Traditionalism does not depend on what rite of Mass you attend,
what devotional prayers you use, what theological positions you espouse,
or what disciplines you follow. Authentic 'Traditionalism' is much more
integral then that and it applies to a frame of mind and a certain attitude.
It is not and cannot be found in externals - even those which may have
the hallowed sanction of time. Nonetheless there are those who have a preference
for the older rite of Mass and that in and of itself is of course just
fine. The problem lies in how this preference is handled for it can be
handled in an authentically Traditional manner or in a false serpentine
'traditionalist' way. This treatise will make the demarcation of these
two terms clear for the reader. For before you can come to understand this
distinction, there are many lies and half truths that need to be exposed
and rooted out. God willing this work will assist you in coming to both
recognize and adhere to the truth.
Pride is the falsification of fact by the introduction of self. To learn, a man must subtract himself from the study of any solid and objective thing. - GK ChestertonThe initial goal of this treatise was to vanquish a demon. The demon was in the authors conscience and it started developing in the late 1990's when he begin having problems with the 'traditionalist' movement in general and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX/Society) in particular. There was a lie that needed to be faced up to and that lie is what is known as 'Traditional Catholicism'. There are many elements to the criticisms of self-styled 'traditionalists' but there are some in particular that form a backbone if you will. Those are the ones which will be examined within this treatise - along with a few related side issues - for the Scripture tells us that Samson collapsed the pagan temple by taking out the "pillars which support the whole house" (cf. Judges 13:26ff). In like manner this work has been formulated into seven main points or "pillars" to be addressed in collapsing 'traditionalism' as a viable Catholic philosophy. To briefly summarize them, it will be demonstrated:
The dominant theme throughout this treatise in essence is one of unity. As God is one and God is Truth, truth is logically one also. These days the truth is too often sugar-coated so it is not "offensive" to those who are opposed to it. The truth must be spoken bluntly in spots because it is what is important. However, presenting the truth in a charitable manner is also (1 Cor. 13) and that is the goal of this treatise. This author prays that the grace of the Lord may enlighten his loved ones and all of good will reading this work who are estranged from the Church. May He guide them home to help those inside in renewing the Church and overcoming the Culture of Death. Only our unity properly manifested in adherence to the same creed while retaining liturgical, theological, and devotional diversity (within acceptable boundaries) will aid in giving a firm witness to the words of Our Lord and His saving message in this increasingly skeptical world.
Modern Parallels to Ancient Dissidents
Men who are plunged in the pursuits of active life, are no judges of its course and tendency on the whole. They confuse great events with little, and measure the importance of objects, as in perspective, by the mere standard of nearness or remoteness. It is only at a distance that one can take in the outlines and features of the whole country. It is but holy Daniel, solitary among princes, or Elijah, the recluse of Mount Carmel, who can withstand Baal, or forecast the time of God's providences among the nations. To the multitude all things continue to the end, as they were from the beginning of the creation....Thus the world proceeds till wrath comes upon it and there is no escape. Prologue:
The author of Ecclesiastes was traditionally referred to as "Solomon" by the early Church Fathers much as they did with the books of Wisdom and Song of Songs in the Bible (in all 3 cases the author was unknown). Along with Proverbs and Sirach, the Church Fathers referred to these 5 books as "the 5 books of Solomon" when listing them together for they make up what is called the "Old Testament Wisdom Literature." Ecclesiastes is mentioned here because a passage from that book is relevant to the work in this treatise in providing an analysis of the many errors of those in the movement self identified as 'traditionalists':
All things are hard, man cannot explain them by word. The eye is not filled with seeing, neither the ear with hearing. What is that hath been? The same that shall be. What is it that hath been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new; for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. There is no remembrance of former things; nor indeed of those things which hereafter are to come, shalt there be any remembrance with them that shalt be in the latter end. The essential claims and protestations of the self-styled 'traditionalists' are certainly nothing new and the root of the problem is that of pride. Pride is discussed in the following manner by the inspired author Jesus Ben Sirach:
The beginning of the pride of man is to fall off from God, because his heart is departed from him that made him: for pride is the beginning of all sin: he that holdeth it shalt be filled with maledictions, and it shalt ruin him in the end. In showing that "nothing under the sun is new", in this section a brief accounting will be given of two tragic figures from the early Church showing their contrast with a couple of modern ones familiar to varying degrees amongst most people in the 'traditionalists' movement.
I - An Example From Antiquity:
Our first example was born in the mid second century to pagan parents. This man became a lawyer and a jurist in the Roman courts with an impressive reputation who later on became a convert to the Church. By the time of his conversion he was in the middle years of his life but very opinionated: a strong persuasive writer whose use of logic and reason was put to work defending a faith he had previously vilified. This man possessed quite possibly the keenest intellect of his era (rivalled only by the second example) and among the most gifted of all time. The earliest of his Christian writings was delivered in the form of an apology to the Romans approximately four years after his conversion. Many excellent points are made and they could be directed to people today not only at those who do not understand the mysteries of Catholicism but also to those who claim to understand the Church but show by their statements and conduct an ignorance of what they profess to understand. An excerpt from the aforementioned apology reads as follows:
Rulers of the Roman Empire, if, seated for the administration of justice on your lofty tribunal, under the gaze of every eye, and occupying there all but the highest position in the state, you may not openly inquire into and sift before the world the real truth in regard to the charges made against the Christians; if in this case alone you are afraid or ashamed to exercise your authority in making public inquiry with the carefulness which becomes justice; if, finally, the extreme severities inflicted on our people in recent private judgments, stand in the way of our being permitted to defend ourselves before you, you cannot surely forbid the truth to reach your ears by the secret pathway of a noiseless book...
One thing, meanwhile, she [the Faith] anxiously desires of earthly rulers--not to be condemned unknown. What harm can it do to the laws, supreme in their domain, to give her a hearing? Nay, for that part of it, will not their absolute supremacy be more conspicuous in their condemning her, even after she has made her plea? But if, unheard, sentence is pronounced against her, besides the odium of an unjust deed, you will incur the merited suspicion of doing it with some idea that it is unjust, as not wishing to hear what you may not be able to hear and condemn….The proof of their ignorance, at once condemning and excusing their injustice, is this, that those who once hated Christianity because they knew nothing about it, no sooner come to know it than they all lay down at once their enmity. From being its haters they become its disciples. By simply getting acquainted with it, they begin now to hate what they had formerly been, and to profess what they had formerly hated; and their numbers are as great as are laid to our charge… A couple of years later, he penned his crowning masterpiece: an analysis and refutation against heretics that is as effective today as it was at the time he wrote it. However, within fifteen years after writing it, this man gradually drifted apart from the Church and began following a heretical group which conformed to the same criteria that he condemned so eloquently and masterfully earlier on (in the aforementioned treatise). Quentin Septimus Florens Tertullinus - better known as Tertullian (c.160-240) authored numerous volumes of theology and was influential on many later Fathers, Doctors, and Scholastics (most notably in the West) including St. Cyprian, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. He was also heavily involved in the development of doctrine in general most notably Apostolic Succession, the theology of the Soul, the humanity of Christ (contra the Docetists who believed he was a phantom), and other areas. Probably no ante-Nicene Father had a better understanding of the Trinity then did Tertullian. But despite these accolades he died outside of the Church as both a formal schismatic as well as a formal heretic. (A distinction with a difference.) Though these areas will be dealt with in detail later on, a brief distinction between heresy and schism would be beneficial at this time for the reader.
Tertullian was objectively speaking a formal schismatic because he denied explicitly the Pope’s Apostolic power to bind and loose disciplinary and ecclesiastical regulations (Matt. 16:19) thus refusing in practice to submit to his authority. (As a Montanist he also did not hold communion with other Catholics.) His formal heresy (objectively speaking) sprung from the denial by the Montanists of the Apostolic power conferred upon the ministers of the Church to forgive sins (John 20:21-23). This goes to show that if intellectual giants in the faith can fall, so too can those who are not as great. (Which should serve as a sober warning for all of us.)
II - The Second Example and St. Vincent of Leren’s Commentary:
The second example which will be outlined here is that of Origen (c.185-254) who was the Tertullian of the East. Like his contemporary in the West, Origen was brilliant and an influence on many a Father (especially in the East) including such notables as St. Athanasius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and St. Jerome - who though a Western Father spent a lot of time in Palestine where our second example was quite influential. Like Tertullian, Origen authored numerous influential volumes of theology and contributed to the development of the Church's theology. Like Tertullian he authored treatises on the Soul. He also utilized the Old Testament to flesh out the developing understanding of the Church on the nature of the priesthood. And among other accomplishments he was among the first to utilize allegory in unlocking some of the more hidden messages of the Scriptures. (Unfortunately most of Origen's writings are no longer extant.) These men’s descent from the Church were by different paths in that Origen created a heresy of his own while Tertullian fell into an existing (but growing) heresy of his time. Because of this, the Fathers themselves were kinder to Origen when speaking of him personally than they were of Tertullian. St. Vincent of Lerens in his Commonitaries wrote the following about them roughly 200 years after their respective deaths:
The Error of Origen a great Trial to the Church.
WE said above that in the Church of God the teacher's error is the people's trial, a trial by so much the greater in proportion to the greater learning of the erring teacher. This we showed first by the authority of Scripture, and then by instances from Church History, of persons who having at one time had the reputation of being sound in the faith, eventually either fell away to some sect already in existence, or else founded a heresy of their own…
My belief is, that among many instances of this sort of trial which might be produced, there is not one to be compared with that of Origen, in whom there were many things so excellent, so unique, so admirable, that antecedently any one would readily deem that implicit faith was to be placed in all his assertions. For if the conversation and manner of life carry authority, great was his industry, great his modesty, his patience, his endurance; of his descent or his erudition, what more noble than his birth of a house rendered illustrious by martyrdom? Afterwards, when in the cause of Christ he had been deprived not only of his father, but also of all his property, he attained so high a standard in the midst of the straits of holy poverty, that he suffered several times, it is said, as a Confessor. Nor were these the only circumstances connected with him, all of which afterwards proved an occasion of trial. He had a genius so powerful, so profound, so acute, so elegant, that there was hardly any one whom he did not very far surpass. The splendour of his learning, and of his erudition generally, was such that there were few points of divine philosophy, hardly any of human which he did not thoroughly master. When Greek had yielded to his industry, he made himself proficient in Hebrew. What shall I say of his eloquence, the style of which was so charming, so soft, so sweet, that honey rather than words seemed to flow from his mouth!…
Time would fail me to recount, even in a very small measure, the excellencies of this man, all of which, nevertheless, not only contributed to the glory of religion, but also increased the magnitude of the trial. For who in the world would lightly desert a man of so great genius, so great learning, so great influence, and would not rather adopt that saying, That he would rather be wrong with Origen, than be right with others. What shall I say more? The result was that very many were led astray from the integrity of the faith, not by any human excellencies of this so great man, this so great doctor, this so great prophet, but, as the event showed, by the too perilous trial which he proved to be. Hence it came to pass, that this Origen, such and so great as he was, wantonly abusing the grace of God, rashly following the bent of his own genius, and placing overmuch confidence in himself, making light account of the ancient simplicity of the Christian religion, presuming that he knew more than all the world besides, despising the traditions of the Church and the determinations of the ancients, and interpreting certain passages of Scripture in a novel way, deserved for himself the warning given to the Church of God, as applicable in his case as in that of others, "If there arise a prophet in the midst of thee," ... "thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet," ... "because the Lord your God doth make trial of you, whether you love Him or not."…
Tertullian a great Trial to the Church.
For as Origen holds by far the first place among the Greeks, so does Tertullian among the Latins. For who more learned than he, who more versed in knowledge whether divine or human ? With marvelous capacity of mind he comprehended all philosophy, and had a knowledge of all schools of philosophers, and of the founders and upholders of schools, and was acquainted with all their rules and observances, and with their various histories and studies. Was not his genius of such unrivalled strength and vehemence that there was scarcely any obstacle which he proposed to himself to overcome, that he did not penetrate by acuteness, or crush by weight? As to his style, who can sufficiently set forth its praise? It was knit together with so much cogency of argument that it compelled assent, even where it failed to persuade. Every word almost was a sentence; every sentence a victory. This know the Marcions, the Apelleses, the Praxeases, the Hermogeneses, the Jews, the Heathens, the Gnostics, and the rest, whose blasphemies he overthrew by the force of his many and ponderous volumes, as with so many thunderbolts. Yet this man also, notwithstanding all that I have mentioned, this Tertullian, I say, too little tenacious of Catholic doctrine, that is, of the universal and ancient faith, more eloquent by far than faithful, changed his belief, and justified what the blessed Confessor, Hilary, writes of him, namely, that "by his subsequent error he detracted from the authority of his approved writings." He also was a great trial in the Church."
What we ought to learn from these Examples.
It behooves us, then, to give heed to these instances from Church History, so many and so great, and others of the same description, and to understand distinctly, in accordance with the rule laid down in Deuteronomy, that if at any time a Doctor in the Church have erred from the faith, Divine Providence permits it in order to make trial of us, whether or not we love God with all our heart and with all our mind… In analyzing the movement founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a principle laid down by Tertullian must be recognized: "Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for classification". Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was the founder of modern 'traditionalists' in general and the SSPX in particular. (The SSPX to some extent being the genesis of the majority of all 'traditionalist' splinter groups since 1970.) Archbishop Lefebvre’s beliefs and principles are the foundation of the Society's stated beliefs and his books are prominent on the book counters of SSPX churches. He is looked at for the most part in the ‘traditionalist’ movement as a modern day Athanasius of Alexandria. The irony is that St. Athanasius the Great and Archbishop Lefebvre have nothing in common except for their sharing in the rank of the episcopate. The former was a brilliant theologian and a zealous defender of orthodoxy. The latter on the other hand was a theologically inept rebel against the very Church St. Athanasius was a defender of. Only a very facile understanding of Church history would even give someone the idea that the two can be linked together as pillars of orthodoxy.
Another figure that retains a similar (although not as extensive) status among 'traditionalists' is Fr. Leonard Feeney. Fr. Feeney was a very intelligent man who was in some ways was of the mould of Tertullian in coupling a brilliant mind with an extreme rigorism. (Included in the latter classification was Tertullian’s extreme legalism: reflected in Fr. Feeney’s profound misunderstanding of the dogma Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus.) Archbishop Lefebvre would more closely approximate Origen in all manners except with regard to theological learning. To paraphrase St. Lerens with words that could rightfully be applied to Archbishop Lefebvre: "great was his industry, great his modesty, his patience, his endurance". Nevertheless, conversation and manner of life do not carry any authority when they are illegitimately opposed to the Magisterium of the Church. A critique of 'traditionalism' is a critique on these and others like them today by extension which is to some extent unavoidable. However, a few important points need to be made.
It is possible that many people with a fondness for Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr. Feeney, or others with a similar outlook - basically that they are modern day prophets of the Elijah or Jeremiah mould - will view this work as an indictment of not only 'traditionalism' in general but of the individuals personally. So that all doubt may be removed on this matter, the inner persons of Marcel Lefebvre (nor that of Leonard Feeney) is not in any way being questioned in this examination. They were profoundly in error but of their personal piety, inner devotion, and conviction (however misguided) should not be called into question (James 2:1, 9). Like Origen and Tertullian, Marcel Lefebvre and Leonard Feeney had many qualities that denote a saintly character but also a fatal flaw that needs to be noted for a proper understanding of them and why they fell. They claimed to know better what was and was not the truth than the Magisterium of the Church under the Successor of Peter whom alone was promised indefectibility in the promulgation of the faith (Matt. 16:18; Luke 22:31-32).
It is important to keep this in mind at all times because if Church history teaches us any lessons at all, it is this: all heresies and schisms of history are principally the result of misunderstandings amongst sinful mankind. This is even the case when those involved believe they are doing what is in the best interests of the Church. At no time do those not vested with authority from God have the right to interpret anything for themselves - be it Scripture or magisterial documents - in manners independent of or in contradiction to the living Magisterium of the Church. To challenge the authority (as opposed to the prudence at times*) of God's ministers, to set oneself up as judge against those appointed by God is to "perish in the contradiction of Korah" as the Apostle noted in his epistle. (Jude 1:10-13 referencing Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16.) There have been many heresies throughout history (some major and some minor) but all of them either have been or are in the process of being overcome because error shall not prevail. To believe Our Lord at His word despite appearances to the contrary (at times) is the mark, indeed the very definition of a saving faith; anything else is to demonstrate a lack of faith in the promises of Our Lord. Errors and heresy will always exist but at no time will the gates of sheol (hell) prevail. We have the promise of Our Lord Himself who is incapable of telling a lie. If we cannot take Him at His word, we have no business calling ourselves Christians.
* The author is NOT endorsing rebellion against the Magisterium with this statement. Instead he is pointing out that provided obedience is rendered on matters of discipline and government, the laity have a right to voice disagreement or to question the prudence in which the Magisterium handles matters of discipline and government. (Provided that this is done out of respect and with a mind of deference to authority.) However, refusing to follow lawful authorities or ‘suspending obedience’ either de facto or de jure is unacceptable and clearly schismatic. The author will go over this in detail when the subject of Canon Law is brought up later on in this examination.
 John Henry Newman: Parochial and Plain Sermons, II, 112- 113 (c. 1839-1845)
 Ecclesiastes 1:8-11
 Sirach 10:14-15
 Tertullian: Apology (c. 197 AD)
 Vincent of Lerens: A Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies (c. 434 AD)
The citation from Ven. John H. Newman's "Parochial and Plain Sermons" was obtained at the following link: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume2/sermon10.html
The biblical citations were originally taken from
an online Douay-Rheims Bible no longer available on the Internet. However,
the Douay Rheims Bible located at the following site is similar in many
ways to the one originally used:
The citation from Tertullian's treatise "An Apology"
was obtained at the following link:
The citations from St. Vincent of Lerens' treatise
"A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic
Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies" were obtained at the following link:
©2003, 2000, "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (Part
1), written by I. Shawn McElhinney (with the exception of the Foreword
which was written by Matt1618). 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.