Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 34186 times)

Persto · « **Reply #20 on:** May 28, 2026, 09:22:03 AM »

https://web.archive.org/web/20131127162633/http://sedevacantist.org/newmass/newmass.htm

The Novus Ordo Missae

The Catholic Church has celebrated Holy Mass in the Western (or "Latin") Rite using essentially the same ceremonies since at least the sixth century. Possibly there were substantial changes in the rite of Mass prior to that period, but with the lack of surviving docuмents it is difficult to come to any secure conclusion about what, if any, changes may have been made up until then. What we do know is that from the Patristic Era the Holy Catholic Church has never established a "new" rite of Mass. And yet in the latter part of the nineteen sixties Paul VI commissioned Annibale Bugnini to literally write a new "Mass" from scratch. This we know as the "Novus Ordo" or "New Mass".

There have been many and varied criticisms of this docuмent since, including that visible protest made by those who simply refuse to participate in it. Undoubtedly this is the most eloquent of all criticisms which a faithful Catholic can make. Many took this action, which in many cases meant they could not attend Holy Mass at all, because they doubted the validity of this new thing which had been imposed so ruthlessly by "rome" and the bishops.

This section chiefly contains docuмents by Patrick Henry Omlor proving that the "New Mass" is no such thing. That is, it may be new, but it is not a Mass.

The Invalidity of the Novus Ordo, in Brief

A philological response to Michael F. Duddy

A Precis of the Invalidity Thesis

Questioning the Validity of Masses Using the New, All-English Canon

Questioning the Validity of McCarthy's Case

Monsignor McCarthy Again : Another Fiasco

Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 78, Article 1

The Necessary Signification in the Sacramental Form of the Holy Eucharist

No "Mystery of Faith" : No Mass

"Denotes" Does Not Imply "Accomplishes"

Persto · « **Reply #21 on:** May 28, 2026, 09:46:57 AM »

https://web.archive.org/web/20120321152651/http://sedevacantist.org/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

BLACK SUNDAY: OCTOBER 22, 1967
THE DAY THE TRADITIONAL MASS WAS INVALIDATED
From the FOREWORD by Rev. Lawrence S. Brey:

Was October 22, 1967 the most ominous and frightening day in the two-thousand-year history of the Catholic Church, and certainly in the history of the Church in the United States of America? Did that day see a legalized contradiction of hitherto inviolate decrees and norms guarding the Canon of the Mass? Did it possibly even bring a new era of darkness into the world, the extinguishing of the true sacrificial and sacramental Eucharistic Christ from the majority of our churches?

From all appearances, a real mutilation has indeed been incorporated into the form of consecration in the new English Canon, a mutilation that conveys an apparent mutilation of meaning and concept.  BUT, THE CHURCH NEVER CONTRADICTS HERSELF! The Church never contradicts herself, as Christ never contradicts Himself. For some ominous reason, present ecclesiastical developments, highlighted by the introduction of the new English Canon, seem to have slipped out of the hands of the Church's Magisterium! Was October 22, 1967, the beginning of an age of new darkness on the earth, and the harbinger of an unprecedented crisis within the Church? Was the Blessed Virgin's indication that the Rosary and Her Immaculate Heart would be our "last and final weapons" a hint that somehow the Holy Mass would at some point become no longer available to most Catholics?

     The very fact that a question (let alone a certainty has been raised concerning the validity of the new English Canon and consecration form thoroughly vindicates the Church's traditional, absolute insistence that the essential forms of the sacraments always be pronounced only in the original Latin, as they appear inviolably in the Roman Ritual, Roman Missal, and Roman Pontifical. This insistence was aimed at preventing the very crisis which has now arisen! That is to say, it was aimed at safeguarding absolutely the integrity, essence and intent of the forms from the danger of invalidating mutilations.

Persto · « **Reply #22 on:** May 29, 2026, 12:56:29 PM »

https://web.archive.org/web/20120321152651/http://sedevacantist.org/newmass/qtvjmcn.htm

EPILOGUE by Rev. Lawrence S. Brey:
The author of this book has invited me to add a few words by way of "Epilogue" to this new, enlarged third edition. But indeed, what is there to add? Certainly, in the way of argumentation and evidence there is virtually nothing I can add. As the Latin proverb says, Qui nimis probat, nihil probat ("he who proves too much proves nothing"). Therefore I will utilize this space allotted me to make but an observation, a suggestion, a reaffirmation and a supplication.

The observation is this: It should be pointed out that the English versions of the three "new canons" (the "Anaphoras" introduced in the United States in January, 1969) all have the same mutilated consecration "form" as the original English "canon" (introduced in October, 1967): for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Consequently all the facts, arguments and evidence in this present monograph also apply with equal force against these three recently-introduced "English Canons."

Secondly, my suggestion is that the readers of this monograph restudy it carefully, particularly the key, critical issues raised in Part 12. More and more it should become apparent that the essential concept of the Mystical Body is not signified in the words "for all men." It is undisputed that "the reality" of a sacrament must be signified in the sacrament, and it must be signified chiefly by the words of the form. If this signification should be deleted, then the sacrament cannot signify properly and it cannot be valid.

"The reality" of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, being the union of the Mystical Body, is signified in these words: "for you and for many." As St. Thomas says, "Now, in the celebration of this sacrament words are used to signify ... things pertaining to Christ's Mystical Body, which is signified therein." (Summa Th., III, Q. 83, Art. 5). And elsewhere, citing the authority of St. Augustine, the same Angelic Doctor states: "In the Sacrament of the Altar, two things are signified, viz, Christ's true Body, and Christ's Mystical Body;" as St. Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper) (op. cit., Q. 60, Art. 3). As was clearly demonstrated earlier in this monograph, "all men" are not members of Christ's Mystical Body, and hence these very words all men are contrary to the concept of the Mystical Body.

My reaffirmation is in regard to what I wrote (about a year ago) in the Foreword of this book. My conviction about the probable invalidity of these "English masses" has but grown stronger with each succeeding month. I cannot use a more forceful word than "probable," for no mortal (save by virtue of a private revelation) can say with categorical certainty whether they are valid or not. Yet the evidence indicates that the degree of probability in this case is extremely high and could conceivably lead to practical certainty. God alone knows precisely whether we are now entering those times spoken of by Abbe Charles Arminjon in 1881, citing the prophecy of Daniel:

"Daniel, speaking of the signs which will announce the end of the justice of God and the fall of kingdoms, ... tells us: 'You will recognize the great calamities are near, when you will see the abomination of desolation in the holy place and when the perpetual sacrifice will cease.' At the time of the final desolation, there will be a certain period then the unbloody sacrifice will no longer be celebrated over the entire extension of the earth. Then there will no longer be a mediator between the justice of God and man. The crimes and blasphemy will no longer have a counterbalance; this will be the moment when the skies will be filled like a tent which no longer has a traveler to shelter." -- From Conference Eight.

Although it is true that God alone knows, it is also true that He has given each of us an intellect with which to reason. And not one scintilla of evidence or proof of the validity of the changed, mutilated "form" has been thus far advanced to oppose and counterbalance the mountain of still unrefuted evidence that it is invalid. Finally, in all honesty, since the "new words" are so patently contrary to the words of Christ as found in Scripture, in 2000 years of liturgical usage and in the solemnly defined Form; and since the "new words" likewise delete a profound mystery (the Mystical Body) so intimately bound up with and expressed in the essence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice - how could they conceivably constitute the valid Form, and how, indeed, could the Innovators and their accomplices escape "the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul," invoked by St. Pius V on anyone who would ever have the audacity to change the Roman Missal or the Holy Mass, let alone tamper with its very heart and essence, the Canon and Consecration?

"Take away the Mass: take away the Church" (tolle missam, tolle ecclesiam) has ever been the program of the Ancient Enemy. As more and more clearly we recognize that the Mass is the heart at which Christ's present-day crucifiers aim, we should likewise realize that the Heart of the solution is Mary. In the midst of the present almost universal apostasy foretold by Pope St. Pius X, the key to our perseverance in the days ahead is the Ever Virgin Mary and in our living in absolute consecration to her Immaculate Heart. Thus, finally, my supplication is to her, our "sole refuge" and our last and "final weapon!" REGNET JESUS PER REGNUM MARIAE!

Rev. Lawrence S. Brey

February 19, 1969
Ash Wednesday

Persto · « **Reply #23 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:24:02 PM »

Summary (Of: Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All English Canon)

158. We have seen that in instituting the Holy Eucharist Christ could not have said "for all men," for this would totally contradict His very last discourse to His Apostles, in which he expounded the doctrine of His Mystical Body and in which He said, I pray not for the world.

159. Also we have seen (par. 132) that the form for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist must contain some essential signification of the whole Mystical Body, Head and members. That the matter of the Sacrament contains this symbolism was pointed out.

160. The author expressed his opinion that in the Roman Rite this vital signification of the members of the Mystical Body is to be found in the words, for you and for many. But by saying, for you and for all men, the new, all-English Canon thwarts this essential signification and at the same time actually conveys a false signification.

161. Against the opinion of those who aver that the words This is My Body. This is My Blood, taken alone, suffice for the sacrament, the following evidence was submitted: (a) These words do not signify the Mystical Body, but Christ's true Body; (b) Every scriptural account of the Eucharist's institution contains some additional words referring to the Mystical Body; (c) No authentic and valid consecration form, anywhere, contains only the words This is My Body. This is My Blood; and (d) All consecration forms accepted as valid contain words with signification of the Mystical Body. Numerous examples from different liturgies were cited as examples.

Conclusion

162. It is impossible for me to prove that my opinion, stated above, is correct. Neither can those in opposition to it prove the correctness of their opinions. The sacraments are great mysteries. God alone knows what is really essential for effecting them. But for our salvation He has made known to us certain things, sufficient things. And that is why there is such supreme wisdom in this warning given by the Catholic Bishops of England: "(I)n adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential." (Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae'; emphasis added.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20120321152703/http://sedevacantist.org/newmass/mystfide.htm

DecemRationis · « **Reply #24 on:** **Yesterday** at 08:10:13 PM »

Among the other proofs a bit more subtle, this one in neon lights shows the Conciliar Church to be Motel Hell: the direct repudiation of Scripture and altering of the form of the sacrament that Our Lord gave in specie in the first Mass . . . "for all" is not "for many."
A Church whose worship centered on a lie for over 40 years, a lie it put in Our Lord's mouth no less.

Proverbs 30:6 Add not any thing to his words, lest thou be reproved, and found a liar:

Ne addas quidquam verbis illius, et arguaris, inveniarisque mendax.

Apoc. 21:27 There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb.

Non intrabit in eam aliquod coinquinatum, aut abominationem faciens et mendacium, nisi qui scripti sunt in libro vitae Agni.

Thanks for the reminder for this weary traveler. This is a neon light on the road reminding me to avoid the vacancies in the Conciliar Church of Motel Hell.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 34186 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

DecemRationis

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor