Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 190060 times)

Persto · « **Reply #195 on:** September 15, 2026, 05:34:40 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt

7. Monsignor McCarthy's Case

Msgr. McCarthy observes, "First of all, Omlor's case for the invalidity of the ICEL
form for the consecration of the wine does not appear convincing to me," but he
does acknowledge elsewhere in his article that I have written a "highly
docuмented treatise," that my quoted sources are "impressive in their own right,"
and that "Omlor quotes an array of authorities," etc.

What do appear convincing to him are his own jerry-built theological theories. In
propounding them he appeals to no higher authority. He offers no quotations
from any Father or Doctor of the Church, nor does he cite any recognized
theologian, or catechism, or dogmatic theology text. Neither does he invoke the
Magisterium of the Church through dicta or acta of the Sovereign Pontiffs,
ecuмenical councils, etc. Throughout the entire presentation of his case (which
begins at the bottom of page 4 of the journal and takes up most of page 5) he
quotes one, and only one, supposed authority to support his theories. This
authority is, of all people, Omlor! The amateur!

He commences his case thus; "But Our Lord, in the ICEL translation of the form,
is referring only to members (present or future) of the Mystical Body where He
says 'for you.' Therefore, from this aspect, the essential sense of the proper form
is preserved. Omlor himself admits this (on page 65 of his treatise), where he
says that 'even simply the words for you would suffice to signify the members of
the Mystical Body.' And therefore, this part of his argument falls."

Great balls o' fire! Never, on page 65 or in any other place have I admitted that
the ICEL version preserves the essential sense of the proper form. For that is
the very antithesis of my position! Monsignor McCarthy has failed utterly to
perceive the context in which I made the remark he cites, the purpose of which
was simply to show that all the Scriptural accounts of the Institution of the Holy
Eucharist contain words that refer to the Mystical Body. Below is the mere half-
sentence he has quoted (the part in bold print), followed by the remainder of my
explanation on page 65 of QTV, which clearly shows the overall context:

...even simply the words "for you' would suffice to signify the
members of the Mystical Body. And it is important to note well that
all Scriptural accounts [Note: these italics are in the original text of
QTV] of the institution of the Holy Eucharist contain this
signification of the members of the Mystical Body.

Thus Sts. Matthew and Mark record "for many." St. Luke records:
"This is my body, which is given for you," and also "This is the
chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for
you."...

St. Thomas has explained that not all the essential elements of this sacramental
form can be found in any single account from the Scriptures: "The Evangelists
did not intend to hand down the forms for the sacraments, which in the primitive
Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book
on the ecclesiastical hierarchy: their object was to write the story of Christ."
( Summa Th., Ill, Q.78, a. 3, ad 9).

From my comments on p. 65 of QTV it cannot be inferred that the words, "for
you," and these words alone (which appear in St. Luke's Gospel), would suffice
to signify the Mystical Body in the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist.

The crux of Msgr. McCarthy's case, upon which his whole argument depends, is
that the mere words, "for you," suffice to denote the entire Mystical Body in the
ICEL form. And therefore the presence of these two words, "for you," preserves
validity, despite the addition of "and for all," and despite the further addition of the
clause of purpose, "so that sins may be forgiven." The cornerstone of his case
hinges on the great authority Omlor, whom he quotes as saying, "even simply the
words 'for you' would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical Body."

There is a subtle, yet chasmal, difference between the "for you" in St. Luke's
Gospel I cited, standing alone by itself, and these same words "for you" taken
from St. Luke and made part of the sacramental form, "for you and for many unto
the remission of sins." When incorporated into the sacramental form, these
words "for you" do not signify the entire Mystical Body, but only a part thereof.
This mysterious signification now contained in the sacramental form is wrought
through the incomprehensible design and operation of the Holy Ghost, as is
explained by the Roman Catechism in these words:

'But those words which are added, "For you and for many," are
taken severally from S. Matthew and S. Luke, which
notwithstanding Holy Church, taught by the Spirit of God, has joined
together. ...

When therefore He said, "For you", He signified either them that
were then present, or those whom He had chosen out of the Jєωιѕн
people, such as were His Disciples, except Judas, with whom He
spake. But when He added, "For many," He would have the rest
that were elected [i.e., the REMAINDER of the Elect] either Jews or
Gentiles, to be understood.'

Ergo, Monsignor McCarthy's key assumption, the cornerstone on which his entire
case rests, namely, that the mere words "for you" allegedly denote the Mystical
Body in toto (thus supposedly preserving the essential sense of the form) is
absolutely unsound, as I have just shown, quoting the original 1687 English
version of the Roman Catechism.

Furthermore, contrary to Monsignor McCarthy's theory, the simple fact that the
words "for you" were retained in the ICEL's form does not and cannot take care
of the invalidity problem. These words "for you" in no way nullify or counteract
the false signification of the ICEL's additional spurious words, "and for all men."
This is an important point, and it seems appropriate to reproduce what I wrote
some twenty years ago in the article, " Res Sacramenti".

Since 'all men' do not, never have, and never will belong to Christ's
Mystical Body, it is evident that these words substituted in the form
cannot possibly designate the res sacramenti (the union of the
Mystical Body). On the contrary, they contain a false signification;
they are in opposition to the special grace of the Eucharist. "For all
men" works against the purpose for which Christ instituted the Holy
Eucharist, namely, the unity of His Mystical Body. As long as these
words are present, mutilating the form, the Sacrament and the
Mass must, in our opinion, be considered invalid ...

In another place Msgr. McCarthy states, "And so Omlor is constrained to argue
that the addition of the words 'and for all men' changes the essential sense of the
form from that of efficacy to that of sufficiency." Not in the derogatory sense that
is implied am I constrained to argue thus; but I am constrained in the sense that
principles of sacramental theology and simple English rhetoric force me to this
conclusion. Examine the ICEL's bogus form. Look at the words themselves,
"shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven." Do they denote even a
whit of efficacy?

Monsignor McCarthy seemingly does not pay sufficient attention to the overall
contexts in which words appear. He claims, "... but, when the words 'for you' are
retained, the sense of efficacy is already conveyed." Now, to assert, albeit
erroneously, that "for you" denotes the entire Mystical Body is one thing. But to
claim these words "for you" in themselves denote efficacy is absurd. Even
more so when they are followed by the clause of purpose: "so that sins may be
forgiven." His other theory that "the aspect of efficacy recedes from 'for many' to
'for you'" smacks of semantic sleight of hand.

When reading his many arguments (cited earlier) that presume ambiguity in the
ICEL form, I was struck particularly by this one:

"The Latin preposition in plus the accusative case sets up a
direction leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning
situation of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for
some."

It was deja-vu!

Back in 1968, Father Most claimed, "One can with equal ease think of the fact
that the redemption was sufficient to forgive all sins, or the fact that it actually or
efficaciously leads to forgiveness only in some men, in those who accept its
fruits."

My reply to this was as follows:

Though it is not the case, let us assume (for argument's sake) that
the new "form" actually does convey both sufficiency and efficacy.

The "form" would then be automatically wrong, for the proper form
should denote efficacy only. In explaining why "all men" should not
be used, the Trent Catechism gives this reason: "in this place the
fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did
His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." (Emphasis added).

Secondly, if the new "form" does convey these two entirely different
concepts, it is, by definition, ambiguous. Hence it cannot be a valid
form, which must be definite as stated above in Reply to Objection
C.

But, finally, the new "form" actually denotes sufficiency only (as
explained in par. 72 and in pars. 80-82 earlier in this monograph),
because the phrase "all men," by its universality, cannot possibly
denote "the elect only." (QTV, 3rd edition, pp. 118-11 9).

The good news is that the ICEL form is not ipso facto invalid owing to some
ambiguity, simply because the actual words don't signify more than one thing;
they clearly signify sufficiency only. It is solely in the imaginings of Father Most
and Monsignor McCarthy that both sufficiency and efficacy are signified. The bad
news is that my case for invalidity remains unrefuted.

Another plank in Msgr. McCarthy's case is that "The validity of the ICEL
translation is bolstered in the new Sacramentary by the addition of the words in
the consecration of the bread, 'which will be given up for you.' It is the same
'you,' the members of the Mystical Body, that appears again in the consecration
of the wine." (He has an idee fixe about those words "for you".)

One dictionary definition of "bolster*' is "To support, hold up, or maintain; esp. to
support with difficulty or effort." Another dictionary gives: "Support so as to keep
from falling." What is unshakeable needs no bolstering. During the long period
before the new Sacramentary became finally "approved", with the updated bread
consecration form, what was the status of the English "Mass"? Invalid, or
doubtfully valid, or merely unbolstered? This plank in the Monsignor's case is so
mournfully weak it is beyond bolstering.

First, the words that were added to the bread consecration, "which will be given
up for you," do not denote efficacy any more than do the words "for you" in the
ICEL wine consecration. The formulae in the various Eastern rite liturgies
contain additional words in the consecration of the bread (which, it must be
noted, are not necessary for validity), but these additional words denote efficacy.
For example, in the Byzantine Rite we find: "This is My Body which is broken for
you unto the remission of sins." The ICEL's form does not have "unto the
remission of sins," or any other equivalent words which would denote efficacy.

In comparing our Latin Rite with the Eastern rites, however, some caution must
be observed. Some elements that are fittingly contained in the Oriental liturgies
are not to be found in our Latin Rite. Vice versa, the words, "the Mystery of
Faith," (for example), that are part of the Latin Rite formula, do not fittingly appear
in any of the Eastern rite liturgies, except those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans,
and the Malabarites.

Second, therefore, words to commemorate Our Lord's Passion, such as the
ICEL's "which will be given up for you," are not appropriate in the Latin Rite form
for the consecration of the bread. The Roman Catechism explains this inaptness
in the passage quoted below, which is excerpted from the same 1687 edition, all
italics being in the original text. Concerning the wine consecration:

'Wherefore fitly in this place, rather than in the Consecration of the
Body, is the Passion of the Lord commemorated in these words
'which shall be shed for the remission of sins.' For the Blood being
separately consecrated by it self, with relation to the Passion of the
Lord, has greater force and power to lay before the eyes of all, both
the Death and kind of suffering.'

Third, the words, "This is My Body", and these words alone, suffice for the valid
consecration of the bread. After nearly two thousand years the Innovators
decide to append "which will be given up for you." This meddling, this pointless
innovation, would seem to accomplish nothing. However, whenever seemingly
harmless, though also seemingly pointless, things are done by conspirators,
there is always purpose behind them. They are called machinations.

Persto · « **Reply #196 on:** September 16, 2026, 07:05:42 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt

8. If At First You Don't Succeed
To date the Innovators have violated the sacred consecration form by means of
at least six distinct changes, on three separate occasions. This "trial and error"
tinkering would be farcical if it regarded any ordinary matter, instead of the most
holy of things, the words of Jesus Christ.

(1) The original despoiled version of 1967 introduced the "for all men so that
sins may be forgiven" change, which is the invalidating mutilation of the form we
have been discussing in depth.

(2) In the same 1967 version the consecration form for the wine was broken
up into two separate sentences; the first sentence ending with the words, "the
mystery of faith," and the second beginning with the words, "This blood is to be
shed for you and for all men ... etc." As was pointed out as far back as May 1970
in the article Res Sacramenti, this unprecedented innovation in itself is yet
another probable source of invalidity. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that all the
words following "This is the chalice of My Blood" are determinations of the
predicate; that is, they determine the essential signifying elements of the
Sacrament by means of the uninterrupted recitation by the priest of the words of
Christ. Consequently the discontinuity of the ICEL form, caused by stopping the
recitation after several determinations have been expressed (that is, up through
the words "the mystery of faith"), and then resuming with a new sentence,
interferes with the integrity of the entire expression. In all other sacraments the
essential form is expressed in a single statement, wherein all the necessary
signifying elements of the sacrament are contained in the one uninterrupted
utterance.

(3) In the "New Order" of the Mass ( Novus Ordo Missae) that was first
promulgated several years later in 1969, the vitiated form comprising the two
separate sentences was retained. However, the sentences themselves were
changed in wording once again! The first now completely omits the words "the
mystery of faith," and ends with the words "new and everlasting covenant." The
second sentence was changed from "This blood is to be shed for you and for all
men... etc." to "It will be shed for you and for all men... etc.". Observe the trivial
alterations: "It" instead of "This blood"; "will be shed" instead of "is to be shed."
Such seemingly foolish fiddling, apparently just for the sake of fiddling, was really
not foolish at all. These changes and the ones mentioned just below in Nos. (4)
and (5) all served the very useful purpose of diverting attention away from the
real issue, namely the serious and invalidating change, "for all men so that sins
may be forgiven."

(4) In the same Novus Ordo of 1969, the words "the Mystery of Faith" were
deleted from the actual consecration form, as was mentioned above, only to
reappear afterwards outside the consecration itself, in the form of an acclamation
by the priest, to which the congregation replies, "Christ has died, Christ is risen,
Christ will come again." These three truths have nothing whatsoever to do with
the mystery of faith of the Holy Eucharist, to wit, what was formerly wine and still
has all the physical and chemical properties of wine is not wine, but It is now the
Precious Blood and the Body, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. 0 res mirabilis
The acclamation, "the mystery of faith," followed by the wholly inappropriate reply
by the congregation, suppresses the dogma of the Real Presence and thereby
implicitly but in fact denies it. For the true meaning of those words, "Mystery of
Faith," in this place, is explained lucidly and succinctly by the Roman Catechism:

"for it is called the mystery of Faith, because by Faith we perceive
Christ's Blood hid under the Species of Wine."

(5) The appending to the form for the consecration of the bread of the words,
"which will be given up for you," (which was already discussed in the previous
section) was also a feature of the Novus Ordo.

(6) The reader has perhaps noticed that I have sometimes referred to the "for
all men" change, and sometimes simply to "for all." Only a few years ago (1985)
the ICEL changed their original "for all men" to "for all." The change was an
official and mandatory one. The reason? Because political pressure was
exerted by vociferous, left wing, so-called "feminist" creatures! Lest we forget,
we are talking about the supposed sacred words of Jesus Christ in the supposed
Catholic Mass.

But the sacred words of Christ and the safeguarding of a valid Mass mean
absolutely nothing to those vile wreckers. They are like automobile mechanics
adjusting a carburetor until the mixture seems right. They treat those sacred
words as toys, to be played with, taken apart and experimented upon again and
again until they finally come up with something "acceptable," at least for the time
being.

Persto · « **Reply #197 on:** September 17, 2026, 02:33:41 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt

9. Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James
In one edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary the first definitions given for
"conspiracy' are "Combination of persons for an evil purpose; a plot." In this
section I shall show that the invalidating "for all men" vitiation of the Catholic
Mass was prearranged and carried out by the perpetrators of what I hereby
designate as the 'For All Men' International Conspiracy.

As Monsignor McCarthy so capably demonstrated, never was there the slightest
explicit approval or "go ahead" officially given, not even by the Vatican 1 1
Council of the Robber Church, for anyone to render the Canon of the Mass into
the vernacular tongues. Archbishop Robert J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, stated
at the time: "The ICEL has performed its task so poorly as to raise serious
questions as to its competence. Never was there the slightest consultation with
the bishops of the English-speaking world ; here is a signal instance of
bureaucracy inflicting its will by methods which can only be described as high-
handed." (Quoted in Twin Circle, June 21, 1970, with my italics added). The
Archbishop's first statement is quite incorrect, for the ICEL performed its
assigned task magnificently with consummate competence, all according to plan.

The conspirators knew exactly what they were doing, their execution of the
scheme was deft, and everything went as smoothly as clockwork, at least at first.

These words of Danton come to mind: "In order to overcome them, Messieurs,
we need audacity, more audacity, always audacity, and France is saved." Mrs.
Nesta Webster described the modus operand! of the conspiratorial French
Revolutionists as "effrontery, an insolent contempt for public opinion, the mutual
resolution to bring off a coup and brazen out the consequences" ( The French
Revolution, p. 305).

During 1967-68 vernacularized liturgies started popping up "spontaneously" in a
multitude of languages all over the globe, all at about the same time and all, as
we have seen, without official approbation. Now, if the phony "translation" of "pro
multis" into "for all men" had slipped by only in the English version, then one
might possibly have attributed such a blatant blunder to the deplorable ignorance
of Latin and sacramental theology that was then prevalent among most bishops
of the English-speaking world, whose proficiency in those areas of learning, as is
now quite clear, was (and is) somewhat less remarkable than that of, say, the
Negrillo pygmies of Central Africa.

However, the bogus words, for all men, did not appear only in the English
version. With very few exceptions (e.g., in the Polish, Japanese and Viet
namese translations) the very same falsified words, for all, or for all men also
occurred in all those vernacular renditions that popped up so spontaneously. As
examples: in Italian, per tutti; in German, fur Alle; in Spanish, por todos\ in
Portuguese, por todos os homens, etc. Departing from the various versions of
the French New Testament (Matthew 26,28), which have either pour un grand
nombre or pour une multitude (both of which mean literally "for many"), the
vernacularized French liturgy has pour la multitude. There is a difference
between the correct " une multitude" and "la multitude," for the latter does not
mean many, but rather "the masses." It is equivalent literally to the Greek hoi
polloi, which has become part of the English language. "La multitude" certainly
does not satisfactorily signify the Mystical Body, the "many" that Christ intended.

To anyone who has no inkling that a preconcerted plan of conspirators was afoot
this spontaneous incorrect rendering of " pro multis" on a virtually universal basis
must seem most astounding, for two reasons. (1) In all those countries and in all
those languages the New Testament sources of these words (Matt. 26,28) all
have the word which is the equivalent of "many" in English. Moreover,
presumably these same equivalents of "many" appeared in the vernacular
versions of the wine consecration form in all the laymen's missals that were in
use in all those countries. (2) Every schoolboy knows that "pro multis" means
"for many"; and "for all" would be "pro omnibus".

Those vernacularized liturgies that started popping up "spontaneously" in 1967-
68, in a multitude of languages all over the globe, all at about the same time and
all without official approbation, were all produced by various national or
international "Committees on the Liturgy," which were the counterparts of the
English-speaking ICEL. This orchestrated global operation was directed and
controlled by the Vatican's now defunct "Sacred Congregation for the Divine
Cult," that nefarious creation of Montini which supplanted the Sacred
Congregation of Rites. At the time of the 'For All Men' International Conspiracy
the Secretary of this "Sacred" Congregation was Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who
was later (1972) made an archbishop. He died in 1982 at the age of seventy.

The reader will recall that Bugnini, the ringleader of the conspiracy, was publicly
exposed in 1976 as having been secretly a Freemason since April 23, 1963,

Code Number 1365-75, and Code Name "BUAN". Pope Leo XIII (encyclical
Humanum Genus, 1884) declared Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ to be of "the kingdom of Satan";
and eighteen years later in "A Review of His Pontificate'' (March 19, 1902), the
same Pontiff spoke again of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as "Full of the spirit of Satan." Now I
ask, can any person of sound mind conceivably suppose that Annibale Bugnini,
that most talented operative of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which is of the "mystical body of
Satan'' would be taking pains to preserve the validity of the Catholic Mass and
would be making sure that the Mystical Body of Christ was being properly
signified in the words of the consecration form?

Catholics all over the world -- the victims of "audacity, more audacity, always
audacity" -- were supposed to believe that this ubiquitous occurrence of "all men"
resulted from the universally acknowledged fact that "for all men" is indeed
correct. As there was supposedly no complicity or connivance between the
various national liturgical groups, all those linguistic scholars in different parts of
the world worked on their translations all by themselves, totally without any
outside influences, and all those experts came up with the very correct
translation "for all." Least of all (we must supposedly conclude) would there have
been any secret Masonic clique masterminding the whole concerted operation of
those various national groups, all acting so absolutely independently and
individually, for that would smack of conspiracy!

There are two, and only two, possible explanations of what happened. Either
there was a brilliantly executed conspiracy, "the mutual resolution to bring off a
coup and brazen out the consequences," or else there was in the years 1967-68
a world-wide, mysterious dearth of schoolboys able to give advice on the correct
translation of "pro multis".

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the
result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers,
different portions of which we know have been gotten out at
different times and places, and by different workmen - Stephen,
Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance - and when we see these
timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a
house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all
the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted
to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, -not
omitting even scaffolding- or, if a single piece be lacking, we see
the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such
a piece in - in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that
Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one
another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or
draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. ( From the speech,
"The House Divided Against Itself," delivered at Springfield, Illinois,
June 17, 1858, by Abraham Lincoln).

At this point the reader is possibly wondering why the international gangsters
were so hellbent on getting "for all" firmly implanted in virtually all the liturgies
throughout the world. A little later on I shall elucidate this point.

Persto · « **Reply #198 on:** September 18, 2026, 02:49:55 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt

10. Perversity of Intention

In declaring Anglican Orders to be categorically invalid, Pope Leo XIII (Bull
Apostolicae Curae, 1896) averred that the invalidity arises from two sources,
namely, defect of form and defect of intention. Defect of form because the form
of words for the Sacrament of Holy Orders that the Protestant Revolutionaries
concocted fails to provide the necessary sacramental signification; thus on this
count the Anglicans' "sacrament" is utterly null. They have no priests at all.

By defect of intention the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII meant that the Anglicans'
"sacrament" is, moreover, likewise null because of the depraved intentions of the
framers of the bogus rite. Pope Leo furthermore made it clear that either one of
these defects, of form or of intention, alone by itself, would have been sufficient
to render the sacrament invalid; both defects were not required.

The intention in another's mind is at times difficult to know, but it is not always
impossible to discover it. Leo determined that the intentions of those Protestant
Revolutionaries, clearly and unmistakably ascertainable from their own words
and writings, were to invent a new rite for a new type of ministry that is totally
different from the Catholic Church's, and perforce from Christ's, concept of the
priesthood.

We have thus far focused attention on the defect of form of the Sacrament of the
Holy Eucharist and the Mass resulting from the "for all men ... etc." falsification.

In the preceding section we also adverted to the Masonic animus that inspired
this falsification. Therefore it would seem unnecessary to press the invalidity
issue any further. However, it seems appropriate to touch upon, though only
very briefly, the defect of intention of the framers of the new liturgy. Their
perverse intentions have already been most skillfully exposed by a group of
eminent Roman theologians.

The "New Order of the Mass" ( Novus Ordo Missae) was originally promulgated in
April of 1969; and it is important to note that its authors were the very same
Masonic subversives, still directed and controlled by Annibale Bugnini, who had
earlier brazened out the "for all men" conspiracy. Shortly after the Novus Ordo
was released a theological tract appeared that bore the title, Roman Theologians
Take a Look at the New Order of the Mass.

This brilliant treatise is replete throughout with the most damning evidence,
quoted from the very lips of the criminals themselves through their published
words, showing conclusively their perverse intentions to invent a new liturgy that
is totally different from the Catholic Mass. Bearing in mind the proverb, "Qui
nimis probat nihil probat,'' (he who proves too much proves nothing), I shall cite
but one passage from this tract in which the Roman Theologians reproduce,
verbatim, the very definition of "Mass" furnished by the criminals, followed by the
analysis of this definition. The passage is from pages 5-6, and all the italics
shown are in the original text:

Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in para. 7, that is
at the beginning of the second chapter of the Novus Ordo, "De
structura missae": "Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis
seu congregatio populi De/in unum convenientis, sacerdote
praeside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum. Quare de sanctae
ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi
'Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio
eorum.' (Mt. 18,20)."

[Author's note: an English translation of the foregoing definition of Mass is, "The
Lord's Supper or Mass is the gathering together as one of the holy assembly or
the congregation of the People of God, with a priest as President, to celebrate
the memorial of the Lord." The Roman Theologians' analysis of this definition
continues below.]

The definition of Mass is thus limited to that of "supper," which is
constantly repeated (Nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56); this "supper" is,
moreover, characterised by the congregation presided over by the
priest, and by the act of remembrance of our Lord, recalling what
He did on Holy Thursday. None of this implies either the Real
Presence or the reality of the Sacrifice or the sacral character of the
officiating priest or the intrinsic worth of the eucharistic Sacrifice
independently of the presence of the congregation. In a word, it
does not imply a single one of the dogmatic values essential to the
Mass, and constituting its true definition. Their deliberate omission
here suggests that they are "out of date" and amounts, at least in
practice, to their denial.

Roman Theologians Take a Look at the New Order of the Mass continues with
page after page of similar self-incriminating evidence provided by the inventors of
the new "Mass." The Roman Theologians' concluding comments include the
following: "We have limited ourselves to a summary examination of the Novus
Ordo at those points where it departs from the theology of the Catholic Mass" (p.
18); "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the faith as
taught by the Council of Trent" (p. 19). Note well the words, "no longer intends."
Defect of intention of the FRAMERS of the rite as well as defect of form. No
Mass at all on two counts.

G.B. Montini promulgated the Novus Ordo on April 3, 1969, whereas Pope Leo
XIII, a true Vicar of Christ, would have anathematized it in a flash! The Council of
Trent, in fact, did anathematize it in advance, as shall be seen. My purpose now
is not to continue demonstrating the invalidity of the Bogus Ordo, but merely to
cite one example of the incredible impudence of the conspirators.

The Conspirators: "Since the Eucharistic celebration is a Paschal banquet,
according to the command of the Lord, his body and blood are taken as
SPIRITUAL FOOD." (Quoted from par. 56 of "General Instruction on the Roman
Missal"). Commenting on yet another place where this same heretical view is
expressed (namely, in par. 28 of the same "General Instruction"), the Roman
Theologians remarked on p. 14 of their devastating treatise: "So Christ is indeed
present, but ONLY SPIRITUALLY."

"His body and blood are taken as SPIRITUAL FOOD": even Danton would have
blushed at such audacity! For the Conspirators poached this condemned
phraseology from Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer (1549): "Thou
has vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries with the SPIRITUAL FOOD of
the most precious body and blood of thy Son." The Holy Council of Trent (Canon
8, Session XIII) condemned this heresy of Cranmer and of all those who would
ever dare to follow in his footsteps: "If anyone says that Christ received in the
Eucharist is received ONLY SPIRITUALLY and not also sacramentally and really,
let him be anathema."

Persto · « **Reply #199 on:** September 19, 2026, 04:49:58 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt
11. A Travelogue of Apostasy

Some fundamental Catholic principles must be recalled before we come to the
gist of this present section. It is essential that these few selected vital teachings
of Catholicism, set side by side (mosaicked), become crystallized in the reader's
mind, so that the realization of what has happened and is still happening today
may become emblazoned upon his intellect. What for some has thus far been
mere suspicion must now be confirmed as being reality. The reality is not
gladsome. But instead of becoming timorous we should perhaps reflect upon
these words of the immortal patriot Patrick Henry: "For my part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the
worst, and to provide for it." (From the speech, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me
Death," delivered at Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775).

(1) The Catholic Church is not "first among equals." It is the UNIQUE, True,
Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
This Catholic Church, known also as the Mystical Body of Christ, is the one and
only ARK OF SALVATION, outside which there is naught but spiritual shipwreck.

(2) Apostasy, which is defined as the "abandonment of the Catholic faith,"
automatically severs a person -- totally -- from the Church, Christ's Mystical
Body, the Ark of Salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas ( Summa Th., 11-11,0. 12, a. 3)
gives this example of apostasy: "Moreover if anyone were ... to worship at the
tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate." Concerning an apostate
the Angelic Doctor remarks, "The result is that he sows discord, endeavoring to
sever others from the faith even as he severed himself."

(3) Pope Pius XI deemed ecuмenism to be "tantamount to abandoning the
religion revealed by God." In his encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928), he taught
authoritatively: "With this object congresses, meetings and addresses are
arranged... where all without distinction ... are invited to join in the discussion.
Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. They
presume the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and
praiseworthy. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the
true idea of religion, and thus they reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and
atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is
tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God." The last six words that
were quoted constitute the precise definition of apostasy. (Italics added in the
above).

In the magisterial words just cited the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XI spoke only of
mere meetings with those outside the Faith for the purpose of theological
discussions, since that in itself presupposes the erroneous view that false sects
are "more or less good and praiseworthy"; and such ecuмenism furthermore
dares to presume also that the words of Christ, "An evil tree cannot bring forth
good fruit," are false. Man's only real and ultimate good is the possession of the
Beatific Vision; no false church, or sect, or religious movement, or pagan cult can
possibly lead thereto. On the contrary, such as these are but harmful
impedimenta.

(4) Even more serious a crime than the ecuмenism described above -- which
involves mere meetings, but is nevertheless tantamount to apostasy -- is the
worshipping together with those outside the Catholic Faith. This crime is known
as "communicatio in sacris," and it is expressly condemned by CANON LAW
(Canon 1258, CJC). As every Catholic surely knows, communicatio in sacris is
mortally sinful; it is a flagrant act of apostasy.

The interpretation of CANON 1258 is expounded by the noted Jesuit authors,
Bouscaren and Ellis, in Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, (Bruce, Milwaukee,
1951). In the following comment (from p. 704) the authors are referring to merely
passive presence, that is, the mere physical presence at a non-Catholic service;
let alone active participation, which is what constitutes communicatio in sacris.

"It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by
an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic
worship; if that were true it would be formal co-operation in an evil act, and
forbidden by the natural law." (Emphasis added).

(5) A well know axiom, "Lex Credendi : Lex Orandf' should also be called to
mind:

"What people already believe is automatically and necessarily
mirrored in the very words of the prayers they recite. This truism is
one part of the principle: Lex Credendi : Lex Orandi- the law of
belief is the law of prayer. This principle works reversely also: that
is to say, people can be led towards certain beliefs by means of the
very prayers they are accustomed to saying (and hearing). And
that is why parents teach their small children The Hail Mary, for
example, and The Apostles' Creed, even though these little ones
do not yet fully understand everything they are praying. Now,
whether or not these parents are familiar with the phrase, lex
credendi : lex orandi, they are nevertheless putting this principle
into practice, for they are teaching their children to pray those
things that they will ultimately come to believe." (From pp. 97-98
QTV).

Having defined apostasy and having given some theoretical examples, such as
ecuмenism and communicatio in sacris, I shall now provide a few specific
examples. From several dozen that readily come to mind I have selected the
following as being good hypothetical illustrations.

EXAMPLE 1 . If any Catholic (for example, one known as 'Pope') were to enter a
Lutheran place of worship in Rome (let us say, just for example, on Dec. 11,
1983) in order to participate in the Lutherans' celebration of the 500th
anniversary of Martin Luther's birth;-- and if this hypothetical Catholic were to join
in the Lutherans' worship, and, moreover, were even to preach a sermon eulogizing
Martin Luther; then this hypothetical Catholic (or, rather, ex-Catholic) would thereby
in effect be publicly proclaiming that Martin Luther was not the very incarnate
personification of consummate hatred and enmity towards Catholicism which,
of course, he was.

In a hypothetical situation such as the one we are describing, this ex-Catholic (for
example, a pope) would have clearly and publicly demonstrated his betrayal of
Jesus Christ and His Church, thus becoming an apostate, for such behaviour
would be "tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God," as the
Catholic Church so forcibly teaches through the words of the Sovereign Pontiff
Pius XI, cited above.

EXAMPLE 2. If any Catholic (for example, one known as 'Pope') were to go into a
"sacred forest" of tribal animists at Lake Togo in Africa (I realize this must sound
like a wholly preposterous hypothetical example, but please bear with me) on,
say, August 11, 1985 (which will serve as a reasonable hypothetical date);

-- and if this hypothetical Catholic were to pray at a place in this sacred forest
consecrated to the worship of false gods and then actually perform pagan rites,
such as the sprinkling on the ground of a mixture of flour and water, which is a
ritual of ancestor worship;

-- and if the entirely hypothetical French periodical La Croix on, say, Aug. 13,
1985, were to quote our hypothetical Catholic (for example, a pope) as saying,
"The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking.
There I prayed for the first time with animists.";-- and if the Vatican newspaper
L'Osservatore Romano in its Italian edition of, say, August Nth, (page 5, for example),
were to report: "On John-Paul 11's arrival at the place, a sorcerer began to invoke
the spirits: 'Power of water, I invoke you; Ancestors, I invoke you. 1 "; then in such
a hypothetical case as the one we're studying the hypothetical ex-Catholic, namely
the entirely fictitious "John-Paul II", would be the most hideous apostate.
For such odious, atavistic behaviour would be the ultimate violation of CANON 1258;
unnatural worshipping with heathens is certainly "formal cooperation in an evil act,
and forbidden by the natural law," as stated by the canon lawyers Bouscaren and Ellis.

EXAMPLE 3. If any Catholic (for example, one known as 'Pope') were to travel
across the Tiber River from the Vatican (on, say, April 13, 1986, hypothetically) in
order to visit the Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυє in Rome,- and if (as would perhaps be reported
via Reuters news service the same day -this is all hypothetical) "he offered prayers
in the ѕуηαgσgυє with Rabbi Elio Toaff during a religious service in the afternoon,"
then such a traitorous ex-Catholic (for example, a pope) would thereby perform
an act of supreme apostasy, namely, communicatio in sacris with an anti-Christian
Jєωιѕн rabbi. Such a betrayal of Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church,
would be not merely "tantamount to," but brazenly abandoning the religion revealed by God.

EXAMPLE 4. If any Catholic (for example, one known as 'Pope') were personally
to organize an assembly in a certain city (the Italian city famous as that of St.
Francis will serve as a hypothetical location) of sundry and motley non-Catholic,
anti-Catholic and pagan personages, including (hypothetically) Anglican Runcie,
Greek Orthodox Methodios, Buddhist Dalai Lama, Methodist Emilio Castro,
Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoists, Jainists, tribal animists from Africa, Moslems,
Zoroastrians, Jєωιѕн rabbis, and the Crow Indian medicine man from Montana,
Mr. John Pretty-on-Top;-- and if this hypothetical menagerie were to be assembled
on, say, Oct. 27, 1986, so that it could be hypothetically reported in the Nov. 10th
edition of Time magazine that our hypothetical ex-Catholic, a most humble and
unpretentious traitor, travelled to the venue in "a bus with thirty other representatives,
and quietly took a place at the rear of the procession through the town's cobble-stone
streets"; then the hypothetical ex-Catholic (for example, a hypothetical apostate
pope) would thereby be proving - audaciously proving -- that he is apostate par
excellence! World-wide statistics on renegade priests, fallen away Catholics,
apostate nuns, decreasing numbers of priestly and religious vocations,
decreasing numbers of converts to the Faith, increasing unbelief in even the
most essential Catholic dogmas such as the divinity of Christ and the existence
of hell, etc., -all these statistics would verify that our hypothetical apostate pope
has been and is being most successful, because he would effectively confirm
these words of St. Thomas, "The result is that he sows discord, endeavoring to
sever others from the faith even as he severed himself."

We must move along to consider other matters, so our little travelogue must now
come to an end. In a way that is disappointing, for I have a plethora of wonderful
hypothetical examples, all very interesting and instructive. These hypothetical
examples could be set in many exotic geographical locations, such as Fiji, New
Delhi, Cameroon, Taize (France), Tokyo, Seoul, Mainz (Germany), World
Council of Churches Headquarters (Geneva), Canterbury Cathedral, Kinshasa
(formerly Leopoldville, Belgian Congo), Bangkok, Bombay, Westminster
Cathedral, Masonic Lodge of B'nai B'rith, Port Moresby, Morocco, Istanbul,
Manila, Madras, etc.

I do hope the four hypothetical examples I selected for presentation have served
adequately as illustrations of apostasy; and I also hope that certain things are
crystallizing in the reader's mind.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 190060 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor