Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 215921 times)

Persto · « **Reply #210 on:** September 29, 2026, 06:26:37 PM »

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

8. What Is Meant By "The Entire Form

Up till now we have been frequently using the expression, "the entire form." It is
essential to understand exactly what we mean when we say the entire form is
necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, and, perforce, for the validity of the
Mass. We do not mean necessary in an absolutely universal sense (relating to
all rites), but in the limited sense, that is, with respect to our own Latin Rite. For
what is essential in one of the rites of the Church is not necessarily essential in
another rite. This important idea will be developed.

First, let us examine the entire form, as translated literally from the Latin of the
Roman Missal:

"FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL
TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU
AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

To begin with, the word 'for' ('enim') is considered by no one to be an essential
part of the form. However, St. Thomas does mention that this word "is set in the
form according to the custom of the Roman Church, which derived it from Peter
the Apostle". Nevertheless it is "not part of the form." (Summa Th., Ill, Q. 78, A.
2, ad 5). Elsewhere (in Q.60, A. 8) he states that one who would omit this word,
'for,' would perhaps in so doing sin from negligence or contempt.

It is erroneously believed by some that transubstantiation is the only thing that is
necessary to be signified in the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist. This
mistaken belief leads to the false theory that "This is My blood" is sufficient for
the sacramental form. On the contrary, there are in fact four things that must be
signifed, namely: (1) transubstantiation; (2) propitiation; (3) sacrifice; (4) the
effect of the Sacrament (called its "Res Sacramenti”), which is the union of the
Mystical Body of Christ.

(1) Transubstantiation. As is evident, transubstantiation is clearly denoted by
the first words of the form, "This is the chalice of My blood." It is denoted, but it
does not yet occur once these words have been uttered, for the essential
additional determinations of this statement have not yet been expressed.

Just as the washing away of sin and the imprinting of the indelible sacramental
character of Baptism do not occur just as soon as the words, "I baptize thee,"
have been uttered (as all will admit), but these effects await the completion of the
sacramental form with those necessary additional words, "in the Name of the
Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." So the words "I baptize thee," as
is easily seen, are not true as soon as they are pronounced, because the
recipient in very fact at that moment is not baptized. Similarly the words, "This is
My Blood," are not true until the recitation of the entire form has been completed.

(2) Propitiation. With Christ's propitiatory sacrifice on Calvary the Old Law
was permanently abrogated, as is so beautifully expressed by the words of St.
Thomas in the "Tantum Ergo" : "Et antiquum docuмentum novo cedat ritui." The
sacrifices of the Old Law, though pleasing to God, were not true sacrifices of
propitiation -- that is, truly expiatory or atoning in nature -- for, it goes without
saying, the blood of animals has no power to expiate sins. The Passion and
Death of the Man-God, the True Unique Atonement for the sins of man by the
Son of God made man, was required.

Hence we see this necessary concept of propitiation is denoted in the
sacramental form by the words, "of the new and eternal testament," meaning that
the Blood of Christ is that of God's new testament with man, in contradistinction
to the impotent blood of animals as shed under the the Old Law. 55 As we read
in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "As may be gathered from the words of
consecration of the Chalice, Christ established the New Testament in His Blood,
just as the Old Testament had been established in the typical blood of animals
(cf. Ex., xxiv, 8; Heb., ix, 11 sqq.)."56

(3) Sacrifice. The Holy Eucharist is both Sacrament and Sacrifice. As
Maurice de la Taille points out, 57 had Christ so willed it, He could have left us
the Sacrament of His Body and Blood completely apart from His Sacrifice on
Calvary, simply by giving his priests the power of transubstantiating. However,
He in fact did will to leave us this Holy Sacrament in the context of His Sacrifice
on the Cross. None of the words of the sacramental form considered thus far
bring out the idea of sacrifice. Because the words, "This is the Chalice of My
Blood," denote only transubstantiation; and the words, "of the new and eternal
testament" denote only propitiation. Therefore we see that the words "which
shall be shed" are the necessary words that fulfill the role of signifying the
shedding of Christ's blood; ie., sacrifice.

(4) The Union of the Mystical Body. This is 'the effect" of the Sacrament of
the Holy Eucharist, which was defined as such by the Council of Florence in
these words: "The effect of this sacrament, which is brought about in the soul of
him who receives it worthily, is to unite him to Christ. And since through this
grace [the grace proper of the sacrament] a man becomes incorporated into
Christ and is united with His members ... ".58

As is so well known, a sacrament must signify what it effects, especially its chief
effect (the effect). Consequently it is evident that this principal effect, the Res
Sacramenti or the "grace proper" of the Sacrament, which is the union of the
Mystical Body of Christ, must necessarily be signified in the sacramental form.
The words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," provide this
essential signification in the sacramental form. 59

These four things must be expressed, and they are in fact expressed, in the
sacramental wine consecration forms of the various liturgies presently used in all
those diverse Eastern rites of the Catholic Church, although the precise wordings
in all these various forms are not all identically the same. The forms used in
these eight Oriental rites can be found in Eastern Catholic Worship, by Donald
Attwater, The Devin-Adair Co., New York, 1945, on pages 35, 58-59, 85, 107,
126-127, 151, 175-176 and 202.60

Moreover, we always find these same four things signified in all the ancient rites
that we know for certain were valid (which excludes, of course, those used by
known heretical or schismatic sects, and also excluding those patently invalid
forms once used by the Ethiopians, and also excluding those of doubtful
authenticity, such as that form found in the "Canons of Hippolytus," of which
there is no evidence whatever that it was ever actually used, except perhaps in
Ethiopia). 61 On pages 730-750 of Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chretienne et de
Liturgie one can find the texts (in Latin) of some eighty-five of these ancient
forms, many of which, as we have said, are categorically invalid or of very
doubtful validity. Nevertheless, even most of those forms used by the various
schismatical Syrian sects do in fact contain these four essential signifying
elements.

As alluded to earlier, when we speak of the entire form being necessary for
validity, we do not mean that the form of words, exactly as laid down in the
Roman Missal, must be used verbatim. This point is so obvious from an
examination of the various Oriental liturgies that it hardly needs mentioning. An
historical example, however, will be useful to illustrate how this fundamental fact
can be misunderstood. After Pope Leo XIII had declared Anglican Orders to be
categorically invalid because of a defective form of words (via his Bull
Apostolicae Curae, 1896), the Anglican Hierarchy argued that there are Oriental
liturgies which Rome has always acknowledged to be valid, but which do not
employ the exact sacramental form of words for Holy Orders as is used in the
Latin Rite.

This objection was answered by the Catholic Bishops of England in the famous
Vindication of the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae 1 :

"But you are also mistaken in thinking that matters have been left by Our Lord in
such uncertainty, and that there is no one definite form which has prevailed in the
Catholic Church, both in the East and in the West. If, indeed, you mean merely
that no identical form of words has always and everywhere been in use... you say
what all will admit, and the Bull nowhere denies. ... The Bull, however ... is
requiring, not that the form should always consist of the same words, but that it
should always be conformed to the same definite type." (Emphasis in the original
text).

Now according to de la Taille some of those who opposed the opinion of St.
Thomas labored under a similar misunderstanding, thinking that the Angelic
Doctor was insisting that the exact entire form of words used in the Latin Rite is
required for validity in an absolute sense, that is to say, universally in all rites.
"Suarez, however," writes de la Taille, "interpreted the mind of the holy Doctor
too narrowly, as though St. Thomas meant that the actual words used by the
Roman Church are necessary in their actual grammatical tenor, and not merely
in this or some other form equivalent in sense. Scotus, however, noted well that
equivalence of sense would suffice (4, D. 8, 2; cf. Reportata 4, D.8, 2). "62

Other opponents, in order to "exculpate" the Angelic Doctor for having "erred,"
alleged that he was ignorant of the Greek liturgies (the expression "Greek
liturgies" is a generic term that includes the various Oriental liturgies), and that if
he had been familiar with them he would not have held his view that the entire
form is required. To that theory the Salmanticenses replied that it deserves not
to be attacked but to be laughed at (non impugnationem sed risum meretur),
going on to point out that the Holy Doctor was not ignorant of those Greek
liturgies and rites, for he wrote a most brilliant minor work against their errors.
(Turn quia S. Doctor non ignoravit Graecorum Liturgias, et ritus, qui
luculentissimum opusculum scripsit contra illorum errores).63
The following is taken from a letter I received, dated April 23 1990. It is from one
of the seasoned Adversarii of about twenty years' standing, who also happens to
be an American priest of the Society of St. Pius X.

"It seems to me that your basic error is that you treat the opinions of St. Thomas
as if they were dogmas. We know that St. Thomas was wrong in some of his
opinions, notably about the Immaculate Conception. So why could he not be
wrong in other areas? Did St. Thomas have the same detailed knowledge of
Scripture - and of the Hebrew and Greek languages used in it -that scholars have
today? There has been no progress at all in the past seven centuries? ... And,
since it is known that St. Thomas was not at all familiar with Greek or Hebrew,
we can hardly expect him to have the depth of reference on this point that
modern scholars have. "64

The widely circulated claim (which I regard as nothing more than a canard) of the
Angelic Doctor's supposed ignorance of Greek is based primarily, if not solely, on
the fact that he at one time persuaded a Belgian Dominican, William of
Moerbeke, who was one of the foremost Greek scholars of his time, to undertake
a complete translation of the works of Aristotle into Latin. Which, of course, in
itself proves nothing. What should most logically be inferred is simply that St.
Thomas committed this laborious task to a specialist who would be able to do the
job more speedily and efficiently. The episode furnishes no real evidence
whatever that St. Thomas was "not at all familiar with Greek."65

Now I, appearing on the scene seven centuries later, am no more able to prove
that St. Thomas knew Greek than others (for example, my correspondent)
removed equally far away in time, can prove that he did not. No biographies of
the Holy Doctor comment with certainty or give any conclusive proof on this
particular issue one way or the other. Our Adversarius, this priest of the Society
of St. Pius X, who apparently prefers the "depth of reference" of the "modern
scholars" to that of St. Thomas, asks: "Did St. Thomas have the same detailed
knowledge of Scripture ... that scholars have today?" We shall let his own St.
Pius X reply:

"To hear them [the Modernists] talk about their works on the Sacred Books ...
one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the
pages of Scripture; whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of doctors,
infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, and in sanctity, have sifted them;
and the deeper they have gone into them, the more and more have they thanked
God for His Divine Bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men." (From
the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis).

Persto · « **Reply #211 on:** **Yesterday** at 05:40:29 PM »

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

9. The Words "The Mystery of Faith"

By way of prologue, let us now revert to our earlier remarks on the important idea
that what is absolutely essential for the validity of a sacramental form in one rite
or liturgy of the Church may not necessarily be essential in a universally absolute
sense; that is, may not be essential for all, or even for any, of the other rites.

This notion, which at first might seem to be revolutionary or astonishing, is in fact
quite valid and true, as we shall see later from the lucid exposition thereof by
Raymond Capisuccus. First of all, however, let us, by way of ground work,
consider a certain significant parallelism. For two of the other requisites for the
validity of a sacrament besides the form -- namely, the matter and the proper
minister -- it is easily seen by examples that what is necessary for validity in the
Latin Rite is in some cases quite clearly not necessary in the Eastern Rites.

Minister. We need only consider the Sacrament of Confirmation, as a start. In
the Latin Rite the ordinary minister of Confirmation, and the only valid minister
(with the exceptions noted immediately below) is a bishop. The extraordinary
minister of Confirmation is a priest to whom the faculty to confirm has been given
either by common law or by a general or special indult of the Holy See,
(according to Canon 782). However, such extraordinary ministers of the Latin
Rite (under the same Canon 782), can validly confirm only Catholics of the Latin
Rite. Ergo, it is certain that ordinary Latin Rite priests cannot validly administer
this Sacrament. Whereas it is a well known fact that in the Oriental rites any
priest at all confirms validly and licitly, even Catholics of the Latin Rite.

Matter. In the Eastern rites the ordinary valid matter for the Consecration of the
Body of Christ is leavened bread. But in contrariety to this we know that: "In the
Latin Church hosts must be unleavened and circular in form."66 A Latin Rite
priest cannot consecrate using leavened bread, except under one extraordinary
condition: "Leavened bread may be used in the Latin Rite only to complete the
Sacrifice already begun."67

Matter. Now let us consider the Sacrament of Holy Orders. In the Oriental rites
the matter of this Sacrament (for the order of presbyterate) is and always has
been simply the bishop's imposition of hands. Up until Nov. 30, 1947, the matter
of this Sacrament (for ordination to the priesthood) in the Latin Rite was twofold;
namely, the aforesaid imposition of hands and the "bestowal of the instruments,"
that is, the touching by the candidate of a chalice containing wine and a few
drops of water, and a paten with host. Both elements of this twofold matter were
considered to be essential for validity. On the aforementioned date Pope Pius
XII issued the Apostolic Constitution "Sacramentum Ordinis," in which the Pontiff
determined that thereafter the valid matter for the Latin Rite would consist of only
the first imposition of hands by the bishop, and not the bestowal of the
instruments also.

Pius XII distinctly implied, nevertheless, that not only was the bestowal of the
instruments considered necessary for validity previously, but that it was in fact
necessary: "(B)y Our Apostolic Authority We do ... decide that the bestowal of
the instruments at least for the future ("saltern in posterum") is not necessary for
the validity. ..".noting that "this Our Constitution does not have retroactive force."
He also granted the possibility that the Church might even in the future revert to
maintaining that the bestowal of the instruments is necessary for validity: "But if,
according to the will and prescription of the Church, the same should some day
be held necessary for validity also, all would know the Church is able even to
change and to abrogate what She has established. "68
[Note: The Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII had both the power and the right to
determine further the matter of Holy Orders, since that Sacrament was instituted
by Christ "in genere." Contrariwise, no agency on earth, neither pope nor council
nor all the bishops of the world collectively, can alter the substance -- i.e., the
matter and the form -- of the Holy Eucharist, which Christ instituted "in specie."
For a fuller development of these ideas see the pamphlet, Has The Church The
Right?].

Having thus seen that certain things or qualifications necessary for validity as
regards matter and minister in the Latin Rite are sometimes not necessary in the
Oriental Churches, by parallelism it should not be repugnant to the intellect to
entertain the probability that similar disparities may exist regarding what is
essential for validity with respect to the sacramental forms in the different rites.

For example, we find the words, "the mystery of faith," in the Latin Rite form for
the wine consecration; but we find those same words in none of the Oriental
rites, save those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans and the Malabarites. From this
only one thing can be deduced with certainty, namely, that those words are not
essential for those rites that do not use them. It cannot be deduced that they are
not essential for the consecrations in the Latin, Maronite, Chaldean and
Malabarite rites, which do use them.

All the words in the Latin Rite wine consecration form are taken from Holy
Scripture, with the exceptions of (a) "and eternal" and (b) "the mystery of faith". In
a letter to a certain John, Archbishop of Lyons, who had asked who it was that
added the words, "the mystery of faith," to the consecration form, since they are
found nowhere in Holy Scripture, Pope Innocent III replied that no one had added
them, but that they had been there from the beginning. Said Innocent, "Surely
we find many such things omitted by the Evangelists from the words as well as
from the deeds of the Lord, which things the Apostles supplied by word or
expressed by deed. ... Therefore we believe that the form of words, as is found in
the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ, and their successors from
them. "69

"Now while the Latin Church uses the entire form as laid down in the Roman
Missal," observes Capisuccus, "and whereas the other rites, of the Greek and of
other Churches, do not have all those words in the form, it may be reasonably
said that all those other forms were likewise instituted by Christ for the
consecration of the wine, and that the Apostles and their successors had them
from Christ. Hence James Goar, in the Greek Ritual which he annotated, says:
'As to the question whence there arose a certain diversity between the Greeks
and the Latins regarding the words of the Gospel requisite for the consecration, it
is abundantly clear that this diversity arose from the traditions handed down by
the different Apostles'. "70

"And this does not change the fact that all those words which the Latin Church
uses in the consecration of the wine are of the essence of that form. For it is one
thing to say that all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, and it
is another thing to say that they are not of the essence of the form that the Latin
Church uses. Therefore we say that although all those words are not of the
essence of the form as such, they are of the essence of the form in which they
are found, such as that form which the Latin Church uses. "71

"Hence from the fact that the Latin Church does use all those words, we may
gather that Christ the Lord, although He did not require that all [rites] use the
same identical words in the Consecration of the Blood, nevertheless He wished
that they who do use all those words use them as being essential. Moreover He
gave to those words the power to consecrate His Blood, provided that those
words are in fact used. And consequently those words, seeing that they are in
fact all pronounced, are of the essence of this form in which they are used. "72

"In confirmation of the foregoing," continues Capisuccus, "we can adduce an
example very suited to our statements. For the Apostles in the early Church
baptized in the name of Christ (Acts, ch. 8), and St. Thomas teaches (111, Q. 66,
A. 6, ad 1), and others with him, that the form of Baptism consisted only in these
words, "I baptize thee in the Name of Christ." But there was also another form, "I
baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
Now who, unless he has lost his reason, will say that these words of this second
form, "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," are not
essential for that form, simply because of the fact that the Apostles used for
Baptism that other form in which these words are not found?
"Certainly each form sufficed and was licit at that time for Baptism. And although
the Apostles were able to baptize and sometimes did baptize with only these
words, "I baptize thee in the name of Christ," nevertheless they were also able to
baptize with those other words, "I baptize thee in the Name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Ghost." And in those cases where they did use this
latter form, all those words efficiently contributed to the Baptism, and all of them
were therefore of the essence of that form.

"Thus in our case -- that is, the form for the Eucharist -- the Greeks validly
consecrate the blood of Christ through the form they use, in which the following
words are not found: 'and eternal 1 and 'the mystery of faith.'... Now those of the
Latin Rite consecrate validly through the form in which those words are in fact
found; and in this case wherein the Latins use all those words, all those words
are of the essence of the form which they use. "73

Earlier we quoted Father Michael Forrest, who said that De Lugo "appealed
prolifically in abundant quotations to numerous liturgies, showing that these
words [viz., 'This is My Blood'] were the only consecrating words common to all
liturgies." Provided that De Lugo did in fact go through such an exercise, and if
he had been careful to consider only those liturgies that are valid beyond doubt
(which the Salmanticenses proved was not the case), nevertheless to glean only
those words "common to all liturgies" would prove nothing, as we have just
demonstrated by quoting at length from the brilliant and unanswerable exposition
given by Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P.

As was discussed back in Section 8, there are four things that must be signified
in the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist, viz., transubstantiation,
propitiation, sacrifice and the union of the Mystical Body. We then went through
the words of the wine-consecration form showing how each one of the various
phrases and clauses signifies one of these four things. In so doing, we passed
over these words, "the mystery of faith." Having just expounded the foregoing
important ideas concerning the differences that occur in the phraseologies of the
divers rites of the Church, we are now ready to discuss those words, "mysterium
fidei."

"The mystery of faith." In their context in the form of consecration what is the
precise meaning or signification of these words? The Roman Catechism
teaches:

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

And Pope Innocent III teaches likewise that the significance of these words in the
sacramental form lies in the fact that they express the doctrine of the Real
Presence:

"Yet 'mysterium fidei' is mentioned, since something is believed there other than
what is perceived; and something is perceived other than what is believed. For
the species of the bread and wine is perceived there, but what is believed is the
truth of the Body and Blood of Christ and the power of unity and love."74
In that the doctrine of the Real Presence is already implicitly signified in those
words that denote transubstantiation -- to wit: "This is My Body; This is the
Chalice of My Blood" -- and therefore the words, "The Mystery of Faith," would
appear to be superfluous here; and inasmuch as we find the words, "The Mystery
of Faith," in no other consecration form other than that of the Latin Rite and only
three of the Oriental rites, it would appear that those words, "The Mystery of
Faith," are not essential and could be omitted without endangering the validity of
the Mass.

To this I reply simply: I deny! St. Thomas clearly teaches that all the words
following "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are necessary. We admit that those
words, "mysterium fideil," are not necessary in an absolute sense (which is self-
evident by virtue of their absence from many of the liturgies), but we affirm that
they are necessary for those rites in which God has willed that they be included.
For according to the Divine Dispensation, the inscrutable wisdom of which no
man can comprehend, and according to what was so evidently willed by Our Lord
when He handed these words down to the Apostles to be used among certain
peoples of certain traditions and cultures, we must insist with the Angelic Doctor,
whose teaching has been so lucidly expounded by Cardinal Capisuccus, that
even the words, "The Mystery of Faith," are of the essence of those consecration
forms in which they occur.

"Hence from the fact that the Latin Church does use all those words, we may
gather that Christ the Lord, although He did not require that all [rites] use the
same identical words in the Consecration of the Blood, nevertheless He wished
that they who do use all those words use them as being essential. Moreover He
gave to those words the power to consecrate His Blood, provided that those
words are in fact used. And consequently those words, seeing that they are in
fact all pronounced, are of the essence of this form in which they are used."
(The words of Capisuccus quoted earlier).

And therefore our Ancient Enemy Satan, who being our "adversary the devil, as a
roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet., 5, 8) inspired his
terrestrial agents, those Masonic members of his own 'Mystical Body 1 who
devised the "Novus Ordo Missae," to delete these words, "The Mystery of Faith,"
from the consecration form, thus doubly jeopardizing the validity of those
"Masses" they had already vitiated earlier in 1967 by means of their "for all men,
etc." corruption.

"In 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. "75

Not only did they delete those words, but they made a mockery of them. For
they were retained, not in the form of consecration, but in a subsequent
acclamation, to which the people respond: "Christ has died, Christ is risen,
Christ will come again." Inasmuch as these three truths that are expressed --
orthodox as they are -- have nothing whatever to do with the true meaning of "the
mystery of faith" in this place, this response to the acclamation suppresses this
true meaning, which, as we have seen, is to affirm our belief in the Real
Presence, and substitutes a false construction on the words "the Mystery of
Faith." And therefore this response, by its suppression of the Real Presence
doctrine, implicitly but effectively and in very truth denies it. What is here
manifest is the mark of the Father of Lies, the supreme expert in the art of
denying truth by affirming what is true.

Here is my own theory why in the Divine Dispensation the words, "The Mystery of
Faith," were handed down in the Latin Rite and not in the majority of the Eastern
rites. Through God's Infinite Wisdom, Providence, design and foreknowledge of
all things, it has turned out that only in the Western Church has the doctrine of
the Real Presence been assailed. We know this to be true from the striking
testimony of history. Berengarius, Tanchelmus of Antwerp, who in the 12th
century was resisted and vanquished by St. Norbert, Wyclif, the
"Sacramentarians,"76 Calvin, Zwingli, the whole host of 16th-century Protestant
Revolutionaries, etc. -all these deniers of the Real Presence arose in the West.

With one notable known exception, the doctrine of the Real Presence has never
been attacked by heretics in the Eastern churches; on the contrary, it has always
been believed and upheld, even by the schismatics since the 11th century and by
the early Oriental heretics. "In fact," we read in the Catholic Encyclopedia, "even
the Nestorians and Monophysites, who broke away from Rome in the fifth
century, have, as is evident from their literature and liturgical books, preserved
their faith in the Eucharist as unwaveringly as the Greeks, and this in spite of the
dogmatic difficulties which, on account of their denial of the hypostatic union,
stood in the way of a clear and correct notion of the Real Presence. "77

Staining this glorious banner of constant faithfulness in the Orient is the sole
ignominious blot of Cyrillos Lucaris (1572-1637). In his younger days having
come under the influence of Calvinistic errors while studying in Geneva, he
published in 1629 his famous Confessio espousing Calvinistic doctrines,
including, of course, the denial of the Real Presence. At that time Lucaris was
Patriarch of Constantinople. The publication of his Confessio set off in the
Orthodox churches a fierce and fiery controversy -a la byzantine.

The "schism within a schism" lasted over sixty years, ending in 1691 when the
Synod of Jerusalem affirmed all the Orthodox doctrines, including the Real
Presence, thus condemning the Calvinistic errors of Cyril Lucaris. The errors,
but not Lucaris. As Fortescue observes, "The Fathers, however, are anxious to
save Lukaris's reputation." In the byzantine style that is so typical of the
Orthodox schismatics even today, the Fathers of the Synod attacked the "wicked
attempts of the Calvinists to poison the Orthodox Church with heresy," and
staunchly defended Lucaris, denying that he ever wrote the Confessio (which, of
course, was the very thing for which he was singularly known), and moreover
anathematizing "anyone who shall ever say that he was its author."78

The Maronites, one of those few groups of Eastern rite Catholics that have "The
Mystery of Faith" in their consecration form, were literally forced to have these
words included in the form. When many Maronites became reunited with the
Church of Rome after having been for a long time in schism, the Sovereign
Pontiff Clement VIII for the sake of uniformity ordered to be discarded their
various manuscript Missals, many of which in any case had corrupted and invalid
consecration forms. (Schismatics in general, especially those of the Arab world,
have always tended to tamper with established liturgical forms, as have the
Ethiopian Catholics.)79

By Clement's mandate a new Maronite Missal, a printed version, was issued in
Rome in 1592; and all priests of the Maronite Rite were required thereafter to use
this Missal. Its wine-consecration form, which is still in use today, is identical to
that of the Latin Rite, with the words 'mysterium fidei 1 included. 80
There is no evidence (at least none known by this author) that any of the
Maronite groups while in schism denied or attacked the doctrine of the Real
Presence. This, however, cannot be affirmed with absolute certitude, for the
conflicting accounts of early Maronite history (one of which strongly avers that
they fell into heresy) accomplish nothing for the reader but the strengthening of
his own uncertainty. 81 Nevertheless it is interesting to note that the "Profession
of Faith" which Benedict XIV subsequently prescribed to be accepted by all
returning Maronites does in fact include an affirmation of belief in the Real
Presence. 82

While it is true that the words, "This is My Body, This is My Blood," to the faithful
Catholic imply the doctrine of the Real Presence, and consequently the stressing
of this doctrine by the more explicit words, "The Mystery of Faith," would not
appear to be absolutely necessary for such orthodox Catholics, nevertheless
heretics have construed (as is well known) "This is My Body, This is My Blood" to
mean only a "spiritual" or "symbolic" presence. Such a supposed symbolic
presence of Christ in the Eucharist involves no "mystery of faith" at all; no great
mystery requiring no great faith. Hence to these heretics the words, "The
Mystery of Faith," in the consecration form defy rational explanation.

We know from the teaching of Pope Innocent III, which we cited earlier (the letter
cuм Marthae Circa), that the words, "The Mystery of Faith," were included in our
wine-consecration from the beginning, having been handed down by the
Apostles who received them from Our Lord. My aforesaid theory therefore
concludes that these words are an essential part of the Latin Rite consecration
form, having in God's Providence been placed there as a bulwark in defense of
the doctrine of the Real Presence, and as a stumbling block and most potent
rebuke against those many deniers of this teaching who have sprung up from
time to time to attack it, such onslaughts deriving virtually exclusively from the
rationalism of the West that has for so long a time infested and infected our Latin
Church.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 215921 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor