Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor  (Read 73578 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #145 on: August 04, 2026, 07:45:14 PM »
Those words aren't required for validity. If they were, numerous approved rites of the Church would be invalid. 
Those words are required for validity in the Latin Rite according to the Council of Trent.  

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #146 on: Yesterday at 04:38:59 PM »
https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol_i.htm 
THE ROBBER CHURCH
(Part I) 
PATRICK HENRY OMLOR 
(Interdum, No. 6, March 6, 1971)
Number π and Vatican II
 
The story below is presented, although it may sound absurdly, it actually happened nonetheless. One time an attempt was made officially determining the value of the number π. As every student knows, π is a certain fixed constant – one could say "constant of nature" – determining the ratio of the length of the circuмference of a wheel to its diameter. Approximate value π, given to seven decimal places, is 3.1415927. We are talking about an "approximate" value because it is impossible to provide an exact value the value of this number. For this reason, for calculation purposes you must use some approximation of π, e.g. 22/7 or 3.14 or 3.1416, etc. Therefore, we can calculate the approximate circuмference of a given circle by multiplying π by its diameter d – taking (for example) 3.1416 as the value of π – according to of the formula o = π d.
 
In 1897, Congressman T. I. Record from Posey County, Indiana, filed this great and sovereign State famous bill No. 246. This project provided that it will be officially established that the value of π is 4 or 3.2 or it will be some other nice, more convenient number to use. Although the acceptance that π = 4 could have made some arithmetic calculations easier, then results of all mathematical calculations involving the number π would be untrue, although "from a legal point of view" they would be correct. Undeterred by his considerations, Mr. Record claimed in the project that "because the rule in current use does not work... in connection with this should be rejected as completely inappropriate and misleading in practical applications" (!!).Although the project – for some mysterious reason – presented initially for consideration by the Swamp Lands Commission, this eventually it went to the Education Committee. The Commission, after examining project sent it back to the House of Representatives with approval recommendation. And indeed, the Indiana House of Representatives voted adopted unanimously Project No. 246 (67 votes in favour). Then the bill was sent to the Senate and although the first reading passed very Okay, but in the second reading the Senate rejected it. In this way this innovation was finally torpedoed, intended to be a turning point in history and intended to bring relief to the citizens of Indiana by freeing them from this long an established rule that "does not work" and is "completely inadequate."
 
They prompted us to recall this story me my final reflections on the achievements of Vatican II. However where the congressman's project failed, Vatican II achieved success, although in both cases the same thing was essentially attempted. A few subversive council delegates introduced a completely new value, and the whole the council voted for it and approved it. Then everyone started pretending that this is about the same value as before and they still defined it as hitherto, the old name, namely "Catholic Church". Fact is, however, that this completely new value, this new ecuмenical church of theirs, in no way is the same as the true Catholic Church, exactly like that just like π is not equal to 4.






Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #147 on: Yesterday at 08:10:49 PM »
Those words are required for validity in the Latin Rite according to the Council of Trent. 

If it was required for validity in the Latin rite, then the Latin rite received from the Apostles would have been invalid, since mysterium fide was not in there.  It is not in the oldest Liturgies of any rite. The following is the form taken from the Apostolic Tradition of Hyppolitus (AD215), which is the Latin rite he said was received from the Apostles:

Quote
"When he gave himself up willingly to suffering to destroy death, to break the fetters of the devil, to trample hell under his feet, to spread his light abroad over the just, to establish the Covenant and manifest his Resurrection, he took bread, he gave thee thanks and said: Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you.”

"Likewise for the chalice, he said: “This is my blood which is poured out for you. When you do this, do (it) in memory of me.”

Do you really think non of the liturgical scholars in the Church would have said something when the NO was promulgated if mysterium fide was required for validity? 

Hippolytus also give the form for episcopal consecration that was received from the Apostles, and it is identical to the form of the new rite promulgated by Paul VI.  Here's  link if you'd like to read it: http://www.rore-sanctifica.org/bibilotheque_rore_sanctifica/12-pretendue_tradition_apostolique_d_hippolyte/hippolyte_de_rome_(texte_anglais-latin-grec)/Hippolyte_Latin_-_Grec.pdf