Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 60995 times)

Persto · « **Reply #130 on:** July 14, 2026, 02:55:38 PM »

https://web.archive.org/web/20120321150713/http://sedevacantist.org/newmass/precis.html
Continued:

Sufficiency Aspect vis-à-vis Efficacy Aspect

In order to comprehend clearly that the ICEL's "form" involves a basic change in the theological meaning of the ancient and proper form, it is necessary to consider two distinct aspects of the Passion and Death of Our Divine Lord. The first aspect is that of sufficiency; that is, for what and for whom did Christ's Passion suffice? The second aspect is that of efficacy; that is, for what and for whom is Christ's Passion effective or efficacious?

The distinction between these two aspects was stated in one brief sentence of the Council of Trent: "But, though He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His Passion is communicated" (Session VI, "Decree concerning Justification," Chap. 3).

Many theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Th., III, q. 78, art. 3, ad 8 and Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum, dist. 8, q. 2, art. 2, q. 3 ad 7), the Authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, also known as the Roman Catechism (part II, chap. IV, § XXIV), St. Alphonsus (Treatise on the Holy Eucharist, p. 44), Pope Innocent III (De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, book IV, chap. XLI), and Pope Benedict XIV (De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, book II, chap. XV, § 11) have expounded this distinction between the sufficiency aspect and the efficacy aspect of Our Lord's Passion and Death. In the course of their explanations of "sufficiency vs. efficacy" they have all taught that the correct theological meaning in the wine-consecration of the words "pro multis" is "for many" and not "for all." This is the very heart of our argument. It will suffice here to examine two of these explanations.

First, St, Alphonsus: "The words pro vobis et pro multis (`For you and for many') are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (sufficienter) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (efficaciter) it does not save all -- it saves only those who co-operate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV."

Second, the Roman Catechism: "For if we look at the vertue of it, it must be confess'd, that our Savior shed his Blood for the salvation of all men. But if we look at the fruit which men gather from thence, we may easily understand that it comes not to all to advantage, but only to some. When therefore he said, `For you,' he signifi'd 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, either Jews or Gentiles, to be understood."

Continuing, the Catechism explicitly singles out the ICEL's false substitution "for all" in the wine-consecration form as being contrary to "the design of the discourse"; that is, contrary to the Mind of Christ, when in instituting the Holy Sacrament He expressly said "for many," meaning not all men, but only the members of His Church, the Mystical Body, the elect, who are the only ones who actually benefit ultimately from the "fruits of the Passion," namely, the "Fruit of Salvation":

"Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said `for all,' seeing that in this place the design of the discourse extends only to the fruits of the Passion, which brought the Fruit of Salvation only to the Elect."

The foregoing excerpts are from p. 207 of the first translation of the Roman Catechism into English, published at London in 1687, under the Catholic King James II. Hence the archaic expressions and spelling (e.g. "vertue").

The ecuмenical Council of Florence (1438-1445) taught:

"But since in the above written decree of the Armenians there was not set forth the form of words, which in the consecration of the body and blood of the Lord the holy Roman Church, confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, has always been accustomed to use, we have deemed that it should be inserted here. In the consecration of the Body the Church uses this form of words: `For this is my body'; and for the consecration of the Blood: `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.'" (From "Decree for the Greeks and Armenians").

The Significance of the Aforesaid Changes in Theological Meaning

In addition to these arguments from authority it is expedient here to explain briefly why, from the standpoint of sacramental theology, this mutilated ICEL form, "shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," necessarily invalidates the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and, perforce, the "Masses" in which it is used. This is now to be explained in eight steps.

[1] Apostolicae Curae: Pope Leo XIII in his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896) authoritatively laid down the principle of sacramental theology of which we speak. He taught that in any Sacrament the essential sacramental grace proper to that Sacrament must be explicitly signified in the form of words used in bringing about the Sacrament:

"All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, must both signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite -- that is to say, in the matter and in the form -- yet it pertains chiefly to the form; since the matter is a part which is not determined by itself, but which is determined by the form." And also: "That form consequently cannot be apt or sufficient for a Sacrament which omits what it must essentially signify." (Sec. 8).

[2] Grace of the Sacrament: Here the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII is teaching infallibly that the forms of the various Sacraments ("it still pertains chiefly to the form") must signify the grace which they effect. That is, the "grace proper" to a Sacrament, which is the sacramental grace of that Sacrament, which is also known as "the effect" of the Sacrament, and, moreover is also known as "the reality" of the Sacrament, which in Latin is the "res sacramenti" or the "res tantum." All these expressions -- grace proper, sacramental grace, the effect, the reality, "res sacramenti," "res tantum" -- mean exactly the same thing. It is this grace that the words of the sacramental form must signify, as Pope Leo XIII so clearly teaches.

[3] Unambiguous signification required: On p. 31 of the aforementioned Vindication of the Bull `Apostolicae Curae' we find the following reinforcement of the teaching that the form of a Sacrament must signify the grace of the Sacrament, which must not be confused with grace in general or other kinds of grace:

"Moreover, the signification must not be ambiguous, but so far definite as to discriminate the grace effected from graces of a different kind; as, for instance, the graces of other Sacraments." And on p. 40: "The definite signification, as has already been explained, must be found in the essential part [emphasis in the original text], in the matter and form morally united together."

[4] The `Grace Proper' of the Holy Eucharist: Now what is this sacramental grace, this grace proper, this effect, this reality, this res sacramenti of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist? What is this grace that must be so definitely signified in the sacramental form that it must not be confused with graces of a different kind? As is so well known and docuмented so exhaustively, the res sacramenti or grace proper or special sacramental grace of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ. And it is this union of the Mystical Body which must be signified somewhere in the sacramental form, that is, in the Words of Consecration. That the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the Mystical Body is acknowledged by all theologians.

[5] The words of the Consecration that signify this: Now where in the Words of Consecration is this reference to the union of the Mystical Body to be found? Is this signification contained in the mere words, "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood"? These words signify the True Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, which become present through transubstantiation, not the Mystical Body, and to claim otherwise or to claim that both Christ's True Body and His Mystical Body are signified by these words would be heretical. Some Protestant theologians have in fact claimed this (see, for example, the reference to Dorner and Loofs on p. 106 of The Necessary Signification...). The words which signify the res sacramenti are found in the final phrase of the Consecration of the Wine: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins."

[6] Proof of the foregoing: "For you and for many unto the remission of sins" are the words of the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist that provide this vital signification of the res sacramenti, for the words "you" and "many" are the only words of the form that explicitly designate the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. Moreover, the final phrase, "unto the remission of sins," signifies the union of the members, as will now be shown.

Now, it is through reception of the Holy Eucharist that we, the members of the Mystical Body in the branch known as the Church Militant, become more closely and firmly united to Jesus Christ -- the Head of the Mystical Body -- and also to one another, and also to our fellow-members in the other two branches; viz., the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant. The very principle of existence and origin of this aforesaid union is sanctifying grace. Any person living in the state of sanctifying grace is automatically within Christ's Mystical Body.

But since sanctifying grace is the principle of existence and origin of the union of the Mystical Body, which is the res sacramenti of the Holy Eucharist, it must then be acknowledged that the essential and absolute prerequisite -- the sine qua non -- of this union is the remission of sins. It is by means of the Sacrament of Baptism that we first receive sanctifying grace; thus through the remission of original sin and actual sin (in the case of adult baptisms) we first become members of the Mystical Body, as the bull Exultate Deo of Pope Eugene IV teaches: "Holy Baptism, which is the gateway (janua) to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church."

We retain our status as living members of the Mystical Body by remaining in the state of sanctifying grace. A member who has become spiritually dead, through mortal sin, though not severed from the Mystical Body, can be reinstated as a living member and again become a vital part of the union of the Mystical Body only by the remission of his sins, through what St. Jerome calls "the second plank after shipwreck," namely, the Sacrament of Penance.

From all the foregoing it is evident that the remission of sins -- that is, the actual and efficacious remission of sins; or in other words "in remissionem peccatorum" (unto the remission of sins) -- is the necessary prerequisite for: (a) our initial incorporation in the Mystical Body; and (b) the reinstatement as living members, through the Second Plank After Shipwreck, of those who have lost sanctifying grace. Consequently, the remission of sins can be said to cause the union of the members of the Mystical Body.

Hence the final phrase of the form for the Consecration of the Wine in its entirety -- to wit: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" -- comprises the essential words signifying the grace of the Sacrament -- to wit: the union of the Mystical Body. The words "you" and "many" designate the members; the words "unto the remission of sins" signify the cause underlying the principle of existence of their unity, without which there is no vital unity, namely, their living in the state of sanctifying grace.

[7] ICEL form signifies falsely: The ICEL's corrupted form, "for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven," by saying "all" fails to designate the members of the Mystical Body since not all men are members of the Mystical Body, but only "many" are members. Moreover, the words, "so that sins may be forgiven," do not signify the efficacious remission of sins, since they do not convey the idea that any sins actually are or have been remitted, but only "may be forgiven."

Incredulous · « **Reply #131 on:** July 14, 2026, 05:49:23 PM »

This doctrine, `For you and for many' is fascinatingly explained in the book, "The Mystical City of God, The Transfixion, Part II" in the prayer Our Lord made while in the Garden of Gethsemane:

Ven. Mary of Jesusof Agreda (1602 - 1665):

501 He prostrated Himself with His Divine face upon the ground and prayed to the eternal Father:

My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from Me.

502  "... I must state that on this occasion Jesus our Redeemer conferred with the eternal Father about the arduous affair between them, namely how human Redemption and the fruit of His Passion and Death of the cross would affect the predestination of the saints. In this prayer, Christ offered on his part to the eternal Father his torments, his precious blood, and his death for all men as an abundant price for all mortals and for each one of the human race. He presented the sins, infidelities, ingratitude and contempt which the wicked for whom He suffered, were to commit in wasting his frightful Passion and Death, the effect of which would be their condemnation to eternal punishment for not having availed themselves of his clemency.

Though to die for his friends and for the predestined was agreeable as if were appealing to our Savior, yet to suffer and die for the reprobate was very bitter and painful, for regarding them the ultimate reason for suffering and death was lacking.

503  Therefore I understood that in this prayer Christ our Lord besought his Father to let this most
bitter chalice of dying for the reprobate pass from Him. Since now his death was inevitable He asked that no one, if possible, would be lost. He pleaded that as his Redemption would be superabundant for all it thus be applied to all in such a way as to make all, if possible profit by it in an efficacious manner, yet if this was not possible, He would resign Himself to the will of his eternal Father. Our Savior repeated this prayer three times at different intervals (Mt. 26:24), pleading the longer in his agony (Lk. 22:43) due to the importance and immensity of the object in question.

According to our way of understanding, in this meditation there was as it were a contention or altercation between the most holy humanity of Christ and the Divinity; for the humanity, with personal love for men who were of his own nature, desired all to attain eternal salvation through his Passion, while the Divinity represented that by his most exalted judgements and the number of the predestined was fixed, and in accordance with the equity of justice He could not concede this benefit. to those who despised it so much, and who of their own free will made themselves unworthy of the Life of souls, resisting Him who procured and offered it to them. From this conflict resulted the agony of Christ and his prolonged prayer, pleading the power of his eternal Father, and that all things were possible to his infinite majesty and grandeur (Mk. 14:36).

504 This agony of Christ our Savior grew in proportion to the greatness of his charity and the certainty of his knowledge that men would persist in neglecting to profit by his Passion and Death. His agony increased to such an extent that great drops of bloody sweat were pressed from Him which flowed to the very earth (Lk. 22:44). Although this prayer was uttered subject to a condition and failed in regard to the reprobate who fell under this condition, yet He gained by it greater and more frequent helps for all mortals, and their multiplication for those who would accept them and place no obstacle to them.

Through his prayer the just and the saints would participate in the fruit of the Redemption with greater abundance and many gifts and graces of which the reprobate made themselves unworthy were applied to the elect. The human will of Christ, conforming itself to the divine will, then accepted the Passion for each one respectively: for the reprobate as sufficient, since they would be given sufficient helps if they desired to avail themselves of them, and for the predestined as efficacious, since they would cooperate with grace.

Thus was set in order and as it were realized the salvation of the Mystical Body of the holy Church, under its Head and Architect, Christ our Good (Col. 1:18).

Persto · « **Reply #132 on:** July 15, 2026, 04:51:54 PM »

https://web.archive.org/web/20120321150713/http://sedevacantist.org/newmass/precis.html

Continued:
Three Examples to Illustrate and Prove All the Foregoing Points

Investigating the eight consecration forms currently in use in the Oriental rites reveals that all, without exception, contain the words, "for you and for many" and "unto the remission of sins," thereby having the necessary signification of the union of the Mystical Body. But let me give three illustrations (from among many that could be cited) of ancient liturgies which are no longer in use, which do not contain the precise words, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," but nevertheless have words that are equivalent in meaning and thus "conform to the same definite type."

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of St. Cyril: "This is my blood, which seals the Testament of my death; for it prepares you and the many faithful for eternal life." ("Hic est sanguis meus, qui obsignat Testamentum mortis meae; vos autem, et multos fideles praeparat ad vitam aeternam.") Since this form must be of the same definite type as our Latin Rite form, the words "the many faithful" (multos fideles) demolish the argument advanced by some of our opponents that the words "pro multis" should be interpreted as meaning not just many, but all men. For fideles is a technical term used by the Catholic Church in order exclusively to denote her members. And it would be absurd to claim that the meaning conveyed by the sacramental form in one liturgy would be different from that of another liturgy. That is, in the present-day vernacularized liturgies "multis" means "all men," while in this ancient liturgy "multos" modified by "fideles" clearly means Catholics only!

Moreover, not only does "you and the many faithful," contain the necessary signification of the members of the Mystical Body, the words, "prepares ... for eternal life," beautifully signify their union, for The Church Triumphant consummates, nay is, this union. It is also seen from this example that the words "unto the remission of sins" are not per se essential words; they are essential only in those rites where they appear and fill the role of signifying the union of the Mystical Body.

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of St. James: "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for the many faithful (pro multis fidelibus effunditur), and is given unto the remission of sins and eternal life."

(_) The Syrian Liturgy of Moses Bar-Cephas: "This is my blood, which is shed and given for you and for those who believe in me, preparing for eternal life all those who receive it." Again a form that conforms to the same definite type, inasmuch as "those who believe in me" surely is equivalent to "many," and cannot conceivably mean "all men."

[8] GRACE is that which must be signified: Some have argued that since the words, "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood," signify the True Body and Blood of Christ, Whose Real Presence is brought about through the Consecration, and since Christ is true God, the Author of all grace, these words alone suffice to satisfy Pope Leo's teaching that the form must signify the grace of the Sacrament! This argument is fatuous to the extreme, and it is on a par with arguing that in the form for Baptism the only essential words are, "in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," because these words signify the Holy Trinity, God, and since God is the Author of all grace these words automatically signify the grace of the Sacrament! God is the Author of all grace, but He is not grace; least of all is He the sacramental grace (the res sacramenti) of the Holy Eucharist, the union of the Mystical Body, which is what the sacramental form must signify.

THE END

Persto · « **Reply #133 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:50:48 PM »

https://web.archive.org/web/20120321150705/http://sedevacantist.org/newmass/denplish.htm
"DENOTES" DOES NOT IMPLY "ACCOMPLISHES"

Some persons erroneously believe that transubstantiation is the only thing that must necessarily be signified, or denoted, in the sacramental form for the wine-consecration. This mistaken belief plants in their minds the false notion that the first few words of the form, namely, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," which denote the transubstantiation of the wine into the Precious Blood, would suffice as a valid (though not licit) form for consecrating the wine. They assume that these few introductory words of the form, since they denote the conversion of the wine into Christ's Blood, automatically accomplish this conversion just as soon as they have been pronounced by the priest.

No one (at least, no Catholic) will deny that the words, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," do in fact denote transubstantiation. Although St. Thomas holds that the entire form is necessary for validity, he does acknowledge that "by the first words, This is the Chalice of My Blood, the change of the wine into blood is denoted" (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 78, Art. 3). In the same Summa (III, Q. 60, Art. 3) he also teaches: "In the Sacrament of the Altar two things [emphasis added] are signified, viz., Christ's true body and Christ's Mystical Body, as Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.)."

The final words of the form, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," are the words that denote, or signify, the union of the Mystical Body of Christ. This union of the Mystical Body is the effect or grace proper (the res sacramenti) of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; and these signifying words, namely, "for you and for many unto the remission of sins," are therefore essential for the validity of the Sacrament, and, perforce, for the validity of the Mass.

Although transubstantiation is clearly denoted by the first words of the form, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," it is not brought about, or accomplished, just as soon as these words have been uttered. The remaining words of the form, namely, "of the new and eternal testament ... for you and for many unto the remission of sins," which have not yet been pronounced by the priest, contain essential determinations of the statement "This is the Chalice of My Blood."

Analyzing the sacramental form for baptism brings home the distinction between "denotes" and "accomplishes." The words "I baptize thee" denote the washing away of sin. But the cleansing from sin, the infusion of sanctifying grace, as well as the imprinting of the indelible sacramental character of baptism are not brought about, or accomplished, just as soon as the words "I baptize thee" have been uttered, as all will admit. On the contrary, 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." The statement "I baptize thee" is not true at the moment those three words are pronounced, because the recipient of the sacrament in very fact at that precise moment has not yet been validly baptized.

Similarly, upon the utterance of the mere statement, "This is the Chalice of My Blood," nothing as yet happens. The additional words of the form, which are essential "determinations of the predicate" (as St. Thomas puts it), have not yet been expressed. Hence the statement "This is the Chalice of My Blood" does not become true until the recitation of the entire form has been completed.

Patrick Henry Omlor
March 10, 1995
The Forty Holy Martyrs of Sebaste

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 60995 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Incredulous

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor