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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 35

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor  (Read 96340 times)

0 Members and 26 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #145 on: August 03, 2026, 12:51:20 PM »
https://truerestoration.org/patrick-henry-omlor-the-robber-church-online-exclusive/
Patrick Henry Omlor: The Robber Church – Book Review
by Theresa · December 5, 2018
THE ROBBER CHURCH
by Patrick Henry Omlor
The Collected Writings 1968-1997

THE ROBBER CHURCH
by Patrick Henry Omlor
The Collected Writings 1968-1997
"From the words of Father Lawrence S. Brey in the Foreword:
“In my Foreword (dated March 12, 1968) to Patrick Henry Omlor’s Questioning The Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon (commonly abbreviated as 'QTV') I spoke of a new era of darkness launched on Sunday, October 22, 1967. On that 'Black Sunday' the new, all-English canon -- produced by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) -- made its debut in the United States. It was, as it were, the 'et tenebrae facta sunt' of Calvary once again. It is now 1997, the 30th Year of Darkness, truly an unhappy anniversary, a tragic milestone.”
“In QTV the author demonstrated the ICEL’s destructive mutilation of the sacramental form by rendering “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” as “for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven.” It was the 'pro multis' argument that is now so well known."


"Within a short time after the initial appearance of Questioning The Validity..., it would be found in the hands of priests and laymen, families and youths, all of whom, by the way, went through a great re-learning process at the time. Previously many of us hardly ever thought about or even knew about Quo Primum, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, De Defectibus, or St. Thomas’s Summa Theologica and its discussion of the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist. QTV became a handbook, a vade mecuм, for those who now hoped to expose and inform others about the ICEL’s forgery of Christ’s Words in the wine-consecration.”

“It should be kept in mind that QTV, Omlor’s early pamphlet Has The Church The Right?, and the majority of the issues of his journal Interdum dealt with the 'pro multis' invalidity problem in the all-English Canon of October 1967. It was not until about eighteen months later (April 1969) that Paul VI promulgated his Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of the Mass).”

“In his subsequent writings Mr. Omlor addressed the invalidating defect of intention of the FRAMERS of the Novus Ordo Missae, based on principles laid down by Pope Leo XIII in his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896). And in his recent short book. No 'Mystery of Faith' : No Mass, he demonstrated the invalidating effect of Paul VI’s deletion of the words 'the mystery of faith' from the wine-consecration form, simultaneously pointing out the inescapable corollary that a true, bona fide successor of St. Peter could not possibly promulgate and officially approve a 'Mass' that is patently invalid.”

“Perusing the pages of this Opera Omnia will enable the reader to trace through and analyze the assault upon the Mass and the concomitant tide of destruction wreaked upon Catholicism by the agents of the Robber Church. Doubtless this golden handbook of ad rem theological hammering will serve as an antidote against the damage already inflicted and continuing to be inflicted daily by the onslaughts of the Modernist Innovators. May it also serve as a beacon of light and hope by opening many more eyes to the brutal realities of the bogus 'New Mass' and the other crimes of the Robber Church.”

"More than twenty years later, we are now past the 50th Year of Darkness - an even more tragic anniversary and milestone has come and gone!  Though Patrick Henry Omlor has passed into the next life, let the light of his research and writings shine through once again to a new generation of Catholics to pierce the veil and break the spell, for once and for all, of this unspeakable tenebrosity!"


Logged

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #146 on: August 03, 2026, 01:17:19 PM »
Quote from: ContraMundum on August 03, 2026, 01:08:40 PM
Well, Mr. Omlor was definitely wrong about that, since "mystery of faith" is not found in the words of consecration of most approved rites of the Church.  In fact, I don't believe it is in any of the Eastern Rites. It was in the Gallican Rite (which some consider to be of Eastern origin), but that was suppressed by Pius V in 1570.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Catechism_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Part_2:_The_Holy_Eucharist
The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly states the following about the Mystery of Faith:
#153
"The form of the consecration of the wine, the other element of this Sacrament, is, for the reasons assigned with regard to the bread, necessary to be accurately known, and clearly understood by the priest. It is firmly to be believed that the form of consecrating the chalice is comprehended in these words: " 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 TO THE REMISSION OF SINS." [48] These words are for the most part taken from Scripture. Some of them, however, have been preserved in the Church by apostolic tradition. The words "this is the chalice" are taken from St. Luke, [49] and are also mentioned by the Apostle. [50] The words that immediately follow. " of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you, and for many to the remission of sins," are taken in part from St. Luke, [51] and in part from St. Matthew. [52] The words " and eternal," and also the words "the mystery of faith," have been transmitted to us by holy tradition, the interpreter and guardian of Catholic unity. Of the legitimacy of this form we cannot entertain a shadow of doubt, if we attend to what has been already said of the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used in the consecration of this element, should, confessedly, consist of words signifying that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord: this the words already cited clearly declare; and therefore, they alone exclusively constitute the form."
Logged

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #147 on: August 04, 2026, 04:32:16 PM »
Mr. Omlor was referring specifically to the Latin Rite ONLY, and the invalidating changes that were being implemented in 1967, and were NOT according to the proper form specified by the Council of Trent.  Our Latin Rite traditional missals all have the proper form:

" 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 TO THE REMISSION OF SINS."

The Novus Ordo "mass" omits the words: "the Mystery of Faith" in the words of consecration, thereby invalidating the consecration.
Logged

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #148 on: August 04, 2026, 07:45:14 PM »
Quote from: ContraMundum on August 04, 2026, 05:17:56 PM
Those words aren't required for validity. If they were, numerous approved rites of the Church would be invalid. 
Those words are required for validity in the Latin Rite according to the Council of Trent.  
Logged

Offline Persto

  • Supporter
Re: Patrick Henry Omlor
« Reply #149 on: August 06, 2026, 04:38:59 PM »
https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol_i.htm 
THE ROBBER CHURCH
(Part I) 
PATRICK HENRY OMLOR 
(Interdum, No. 6, March 6, 1971)
Number π and Vatican II
 
The story below is presented, although it may sound absurdly, it actually happened nonetheless. One time an attempt was made officially determining the value of the number π. As every student knows, π is a certain fixed constant – one could say "constant of nature" – determining the ratio of the length of the circuмference of a wheel to its diameter. Approximate value π, given to seven decimal places, is 3.1415927. We are talking about an "approximate" value because it is impossible to provide an exact value the value of this number. For this reason, for calculation purposes you must use some approximation of π, e.g. 22/7 or 3.14 or 3.1416, etc. Therefore, we can calculate the approximate circuмference of a given circle by multiplying π by its diameter d – taking (for example) 3.1416 as the value of π – according to of the formula o = π d.
 
In 1897, Congressman T. I. Record from Posey County, Indiana, filed this great and sovereign State famous bill No. 246. This project provided that it will be officially established that the value of π is 4 or 3.2 or it will be some other nice, more convenient number to use. Although the acceptance that π = 4 could have made some arithmetic calculations easier, then results of all mathematical calculations involving the number π would be untrue, although "from a legal point of view" they would be correct. Undeterred by his considerations, Mr. Record claimed in the project that "because the rule in current use does not work... in connection with this should be rejected as completely inappropriate and misleading in practical applications" (!!).Although the project – for some mysterious reason – presented initially for consideration by the Swamp Lands Commission, this eventually it went to the Education Committee. The Commission, after examining project sent it back to the House of Representatives with approval recommendation. And indeed, the Indiana House of Representatives voted adopted unanimously Project No. 246 (67 votes in favour). Then the bill was sent to the Senate and although the first reading passed very Okay, but in the second reading the Senate rejected it. In this way this innovation was finally torpedoed, intended to be a turning point in history and intended to bring relief to the citizens of Indiana by freeing them from this long an established rule that "does not work" and is "completely inadequate."
 
They prompted us to recall this story me my final reflections on the achievements of Vatican II. However where the congressman's project failed, Vatican II achieved success, although in both cases the same thing was essentially attempted. A few subversive council delegates introduced a completely new value, and the whole the council voted for it and approved it. Then everyone started pretending that this is about the same value as before and they still defined it as hitherto, the old name, namely "Catholic Church". Fact is, however, that this completely new value, this new ecuмenical church of theirs, in no way is the same as the true Catholic Church, exactly like that just like π is not equal to 4.




Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 35
« previous next »