Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 194155 times)

Persto · « **Reply #150 on:** August 07, 2026, 06:58:25 AM »

https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol_i.htm

THE ROBBER CHURCH (Part I) PATRICK HENRY OMLOR
(Interdum, No. 6, March 6, 1971)

Is this the same Church?

The French have a paradoxical proverb: "The more something changes, the more it stays the same." Of course, in most situations in life, this isn't true. Cigar ash filling an ashtray isn't a cigar. And a church that has been reduced to rubble or converted into a dining hall is no longer a church. Let no one delude themselves any longer. This ecuмenical organization, with its lying, worldwide propaganda organs, euphemistically referred to as the "diocesan press" or the "Catholic press" or the "Vatican Guidelines" for this and that; This new church, with its cardinals and bishops devoted to "interfaith" causes, and its perfidious clergy who consider themselves nothing more than "presidents of the assembly" or "servants of the word," along with its cowardly and deceived "People of God" robbed of their birthright—all this is simply not the true Catholic Church. No, this ecuмenical nightmare entangled in chaos is Satan's Ark of Doom. Just as Pope St. Leo I rightly called a certain false "ecuмenical council" a Robber Council (Latrocinium), so too what we now face is nothing less than a Robber Church.

How many "changes" could the Catholic Church possibly undergo and still remain the Church? The frenzied efforts of the new robbers to destroy all connection and link with the past, to completely erase from memory all remnants of the ancient, true, traditional Church, are fully apparent to all. Can anyone think that the new Robber Church is the Catholic Church when it so deliberately and meticulously attempts to erase everything Catholic from memory? Absurdity of absurdities! What are the characteristic hallmarks of the Robber Church? We can enumerate the following characteristics: it has abandoned most of the essential laws, disciplines, and practices of the true Church; it possesses new "Holy Scriptures" that are falsified alterations of Holy Scripture; it disregards true Catholic Tradition; it despises the venerable customs of the Catholic Church; its new "prayers" are modifications of old Catholic prayers, tailored to the heresies of the new Robber Church; it disregards and discourages many pious practices and prayers that the true Catholic Church has always encouraged; It possesses a liturgy, sacramental rites, and a "New Mass" devoid of all that is true, good, and beautiful in the liturgy, rites, and Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Church; it has little love for the Saints, as demonstrated by denying some, "demoting" others, and hoping that many others will soon be forgotten.

Let us move on. The Robber Church has perverse doctrines and innovations that contradict true Catholic teaching; its "People of God" imbibe these teachings by listening to sermons and reading "Catholic" literature; the new "catechisms" for children are filled with the same treacherous doctrines, suggestions, and theories that contain poison and are intended to ensure that these children mature into good, rebellious "robbers." The new morality, with its "updated" views on "sin," is a denial of the Catholic Church's moral code. And finally, it is argued that the structure of the new church itself is not monarchical, as in the case of the Catholic Church, but rather "collegial" and democratic.

If, then, the teachings and doctrines, the laws and rules of discipline, the moral code, the practices, the prayers, the liturgy, the Mass itself, and—yes, even the structure—are all different, in what respect, then—please answer—can this new church be identical to the Catholic Church?

You may claim that nothing fundamental has actually changed, that the "essence" of the Church remains unchanged. You may argue that none of the teachings of faith or morals are truly different from what they were before. But this is merely wishful thinking on your part, because the teachings presented for belief and the morality proposed for practical application are no longer the same. It is accepted that the Church can change laws, rules of discipline, and practices (some of them) without losing its identity, because it has the authority and right to change only human institutions. (Of course, the Church in Her long history has never changed them wantonly and on a massive scale, for that would be madness!). However, that is not the problem we are dealing with; the point is that the changes go beyond permissible reform of law, discipline, etc.; it is the "beliefs" and moral standards of the Robber Church that are new and different.

To demonstrate the truth of this last statement, it suffices to present even one example. For if even one fundamental teaching—that is, concerning revealed faith or a matter related to faith and necessary for its defense—that the Catholic Church has taught were to be rejected, then those who reject it could in no way claim to represent the true Church. This statement is confirmed by the following sources:

(1) "If we were to disagree on even one of these truths, it would be as if we had rejected all of them" (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae).

(2) "The strength and nature of the Catholic faith are such that nothing can be added or subtracted from it: either it is professed in its entirety or it is rejected in its entirety. 'This is the Catholic faith, which, unless one professes faithfully and firmly, cannot be saved' (Creature of St. Athanasius). Therefore, there is no need to make additions to mark the profession of the Catholic faith; let the profession suffice for everyone: 'My name is Christian, my surname Catholic'; let only one strive to be truly what one claims to be" (Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi).

(3) "The duty of those who listened to Jesus was not only to accept His teaching in its entirety, but also to accept with their minds the individual things He had taught, if they wanted to be saved, for it was absurd not to believe God even in one thing... Therefore, it was not right to exclude a single commandment from the teaching of the Apostles, nor to reject anything from the teaching of the Apostles, any more than to reject anything from the teaching of Christ Himself" (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum).

(4) "And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define as utterly false any proposition that contradicts the truth of revealed faith" (Fifth Lateran Council, Bull Apostolici regiminis).

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #151 on:** August 07, 2026, 07:27:38 AM »

Fr. Gommar DePauw started the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964. A sede priest told me many years ago that Fr. DePauw had five doctorates. His motto was "tenete traditiones," hold the traditions. I don't not know if any priest started a traditional movement prior to 1964. If there is such a priest, he has escaped my notice. I have one of Fr. Depauw's pamphlets and there is the phrase, "A fight for truth and tradition since 1964."

Persto · « **Reply #152 on:** August 07, 2026, 05:59:30 PM »

https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol_i.htm
THE ROBBER CHURCH (Part I) PATRICK HENRY OMLOR
(Interdum, No. 6, March 6, 1971)
The beginning of The Robber Church starts with Post #146 and #148

New Teaching on "Ecuмenism"

Here we have an example of a change in doctrine. In Vatican II's "Decree on Ecuмenism," we read the following: "To achieve this, meetings, with the participation of both sides, for the discussion of primarily theological questions, are highly helpful, with each presenting himself as an EQUAL AMONG EQUALS..." (emphasis added). This Vatican II teaching refers to so-called "ecuмenical dialogue" between Catholics and non-Catholics. It contains the following three points: (1) meetings, gatherings, etc., between Catholics and non-Catholics should be held; (2) at these meetings, Catholics not only can but should treat non-Catholics equally; (3) it is stated, and very clearly, that such "equal treatment" is to apply during theological discussions.

First of all, regarding point (1), should such meetings be held at all? Regarding similar efforts made in the past, Pope Pius XI taught as follows: "For this purpose they organize meetings, gatherings, and lectures... and invite everyone to them, without distinction, to discuss this matter... Catholics cannot by any means approve of such attempts, because they are based on the erroneous notion that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy... Those who hold this idea are not only mistaken and deceived, but they also depart from the true faith, distorting its concept and falling step by step into naturalism and atheism. From this it is clear that whoever supports such ideas and endeavors completely departs from the religion revealed to us by God" (encyclical Mortalium Animos; emphasis added). Not only the above-quoted passage from the "Decree on Ecuмenism," but the decree itself, from beginning to end and in its entirety, is indeed quite clearly "based on the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy." Numerous passages from the decree could be cited to illustrate this. For example: "Furthermore, among the elements or goods by which, taken together, the Church itself is built up and given life, some, and even many and illustrious ones, can exist outside the visible bounds of the Catholic Church"...; the liturgical ceremonies of non-Catholics "must be recognized as capable of opening entrance to the community of salvation"; "For the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using them (separated churches and communities) as means of salvation..." (!); ...they claim to be "true heirs of Jesus Christ"; etc., etc. If the separated churches allegedly possess a great many illustrious elements and goods, etc.; if they allegedly are capable of opening entrance to the community of salvation; Even if they are "means of salvation" (allegedly); then one must admit that they are at least "more or less good and praiseworthy." Such a notion—and this is the spirit that animates the "Decree on Ecuмenism" from beginning to end—is, according to Pius XI, "erroneous," "distorts the true concept of faith," and "is tantamount to apostasy from the religion revealed by God."

Regarding points (2) and (3), that is, theological discussions on equal footing, the teaching of Vatican II is intrinsically erroneous. Allowing any "equal" treatment of the Church of Christ and its teachings with error, heresy, and unbelief is a crime against truth, contrary to reason, and constitutes a betrayal of Christ. Pope Leo XIII states that "it is contrary to reason that evil and good should have the same right" (encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum). Moreover, the doctrine presented in the "Decree on Ecuмenism" is naturalistic and Masonic, as the same Pope Leo teaches: "[Masons and naturalists believe that] there are different religious denominations, but there is no reason to give any one of them priority over others; all should occupy the same place"; and furthermore: "[Masons] propagate the great modern error... that there is no difference between the various denominations. Such a course of action leads to the downfall of all religions, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, being the only true religion among all, cannot be equated with others without the greatest dishonor" (encyclical Humanum Genus). Is this about equality? Needless to say, non-Catholics have nothing against "equality of rights," since "they declare that they wish to negotiate with the Roman Church, but with equal rights, that is, as equals. However, if they could negotiate, they would undoubtedly strive for an agreement that would enable them to cling to those views that still keep them outside the one fold of Christ" (Mortalium Animos). Continuing, Pope Pius XI then explains the fundamental nature of the teaching set forth in Mortalium Animos: "Under these circuмstances, it is clear that neither the Apostolic See can participate in their meetings, nor can the faithful speak out or support such activities. If they did so, they would attach importance to a false Christian religion,
completely different from the one Church of Christ. Can we allow—and this would be unjust and unfair—that truth, namely, truth revealed by God, become the subject of negotiations? IT IS ABOUT THE PROTECTION OF REVEALED TRUTH" (emphasis added). This new teaching of Vatican II is therefore a direct inversion of the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church regarding revealed faith, because the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius XI, while repeating what the Church has always held, are absolutely necessary for the defense of the faith. The robber Church is not the Catholic Church.

Not only do they subvert doctrine, but in doing so they use, word for word, the very phraseology the Church has condemned. Compare their words about "equality" with the following teaching of Leo XIII: "Indeed, the Church considers it unlawful to equate different confessions with true religion..." (encyclical Immortale Dei).

Persto · « **Reply #153 on:** August 08, 2026, 12:23:12 PM »

https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol_i.htm
THE ROBBER CHURCH (Part I) PATRICK HENRY OMLOR
(Interdum, No. 6, March 6, 1971)

The New Morality of "Ecuмenism"
Taking the "Decree on Ecuмenism" as an example, let us next consider how the new Ecuмenical Church has overturned the moral teaching of the true Catholic Church. According to the Code of Canon Law (canon 1258), any "active" form of participation in ceremonies with non-Catholics is completely and simply forbidden under pain of mortal sin. Such participation in shared religious services is called "communicatio in sacris." Every priest was taught and drilled into his head in seminary that communicatio in sacris is absolutely forbidden—no "ifs, ands, ors"—under pain of mortal sin; and all Catholics were aware, or certainly should have been aware, of this teaching. To fully and clearly understand the teaching on communicatio in sacris, it is necessary to grasp the difference between active and passive participation in non-Catholics' ceremonies.

Mere physical presence or passive participation is (according to Code of Canon Law 1258, paragraph 2) only tolerated, provided that: (1) there is a grave reason for physical presence at a non-Catholic rite; (2) if there is doubt as to whether such a reason exists, the bishop must grant approval; and (3) participation in the non-Catholic rite will not create a risk of scandal for the Catholic or of compromising his or her own faith. Given the above-mentioned conditions, it is clear that the Church intends to discourage even passive participation. Furthermore, regarding passive participation, to meet the conditions it requires, the person concerned must not participate in any positive act of worship and must refrain from any positive action. It is obvious that even "passive" participation can equally pose a threat to some Catholics. In "Canon Law" by Bouscaren and Ellis (one of the best available commentaries on Canon Law), we read on p. 704: "It is possible that even purely passive participation may be accompanied by the inner intention of accepting, consenting to, or supporting non-Catholic worship; if this were true, it would be formal participation in a sinful act, prohibited by natural law" (emphasis added).

If a Catholic, beyond physical presence, were to participate in worship through any positive act in common with non-Catholics, such an act would be active participation. This is the meaning of "communicatio in sacris." Communicatio in sacris is mortally sinful because it is "formal participation in an evil act prohibited by natural law." Consider the so-called "communicatio in sacris" so widespread today. "Interfaith" activity, visiting Protestant churches and Jєωιѕн ѕуηαgσgυєs, exchanging clergy, etc. To claim that such practices fall under "passive cooperation" would be a blatant lie. There is not the slightest "grave reason" for them to take place, and it is impossible to believe that there is "no threat of scandal or endangerment of the faith." Indeed, the only one of the three conditions required by canon law that is literally met is that bishops often permit all of this!

Here's an example. In the "Parish News Report" of the parish of St. Aloysius Church in Palo Alto, California (January 1971) reads: "The Mass to celebrate the Octave of Church Unity (January 24th) will have an ecuмenical emphasis. Our neighbors across the street from the Wesley Methodist Church have been invited, and their pastor, the Reverend Bob Schlager, will participate by giving a short address at the end of the Mass. Our parish community has been invited to join the Wesley Methodist service next Sunday, January 31st, at 11:00 a.m. Father McGuiness will give a short address to the congregation during the service." Does this seem like "passive participation"? "Joining the Wesley Methodist service at 11:00 a.m."? Is a Catholic priest "addressing" a Protestant congregation "during the service" merely a "passive" act? Examples like this one, from my area, multiply everywhere every week. All these "ecuмenical" and "interfaith" practices constitute active participation, fall under communicatio in sacris, and are mortally sinful, being formal cooperation in an evil act forbidden by natural law.

All this is not only permitted but also encouraged by Vatican II. In the "Decree on Ecuмenism," we read: "However, participation in sacred actions (communicatio in sacris) [communicatio in sacris – this is the exact wording used in the Latin text of this decree] cannot be considered a means to be used without reservation for restoring Christian unity. This participation depends in particular on two principles: the need to emphasize the unity of the Church and participation in the means of grace." Elsewhere in the same decree, referring to Orthodox schismatic communities, Vatican II urges: "some participation in sacred actions (communicatio in sacris), in appropriate circuмstances and with the consent of the ecclesiastical authority [i.e., the Robber Church], is not only possible but also advisable."

How can one "witness the unity of the Church" – that is, the unity of the Catholic Church – by praying at a non-Catholic service? How can one "participate in the means of grace" by participating in an assembly that rejects all the ordinary channels of grace given to us by Christ? How can a Catholic "participate in the means of grace" by committing an act forbidden by natural law; that is, formal participation in an evil act? How, after all, can one "participate in the means of grace" by committing a mortal sin? "People... have a strict obligation," says Pope Leo XIII, "to worship God in the way in which God himself has taught that he wishes to be worshipped" (Immortale Dei).

That's how it is. Don't try to convince us that nothing fundamental has changed, that the "essence" of the Catholic Church resides in the Robber Church. Let no one say that the rules of morality, the definition of what sin is and what it isn't, have not been changed. The new doctrines proposed for belief and the new "code of morality" are in open conflict with the teaching and morality of the true Catholic Church. The new ecuмenical church is to the true Catholic Church as 4 is to the number π.

Persto · « **Reply #154 on:** August 09, 2026, 08:16:20 PM »

https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol_i.htm
THE ROBBER CHURCH (Part I) PATRICK HENRY OMLOR
(Interdum, No. 6, March 6, 1971)

Some Elementary Logic

The fundamental premise we must accept is that the Catholic Church absolutely cannot be accused of ever contradicting itself on any point of faith or morals, or on any teaching relating to faith or morals that is necessary for their protection. It is an indisputable fact that the "Decree on Ecuмenism"—which is just one of many examples that could be cited—disproves and completely overturns the teaching of the Catholic Church. Therefore, the conclusion that must be drawn from this is that Vatican II and the entire new ecuмenical church it revealed are in no way part of, nor are they identical with, the true Catholic Church. Despite this, for some reason we are expected to accept as irrefutable the fact that the Holy Spirit was there, watching over the discussions and decisions of Vatican II. The same Holy Spirit who has always enlightened, sanctified, and guided His Church? The same Holy Spirit who led His popes—e.g., Leo XIII, Pius XI, etc.—to teach and preach the exact opposite of what Vatican II teaches and preaches? Answer us, has the Holy Spirit perhaps changed his mind?

God permitted Vatican II, that's all! Asserting that the Holy Spirit guided its decisions would be as blasphemous as affirming that He guided and inspired the Protestant revolt. The One Source of Truth cannot create or inspire deception, confusion, and cannot in the slightest assist in devising an actual program for the destruction of His Holy Church! Such are the fruits of Vatican II.

Many devoted and true Catholics have a dilemma with Vatican II. To them, it is something like an ugly duckling or an incorrigible, naughty child. With all their honesty and despite all their strenuous intellectual efforts, they are unable to reconcile its teachings with the true teachings they have always known; Yet, since they sincerely believe that "somehow" or "in some way" Vatican II was the work of the Holy Spirit, they attempt to accept its teachings, or at worst, ignore them, but they cannot imagine rejecting them altogether. They cannot fathom how Vatican II can be reconciled with orthodox Catholicism; it is a "mystery" to them, but they accept the theory that it is possible.

The Council of Basel (1431-1449) was long considered something of an enigma (see, for example, Catholic Encyclopedia, v. 2, p. 334). The question of whether it should be considered universal, or ecuмenical, "has often been the subject of heated debate" (Cath. Encyc., loc. cit.). Some consider the entire council—from beginning to end—to be genuine. Others maintain that it was a true ecuмenical council until Pope Eugene IV issued the bull transferring it to Ferrara (September 18, 1437). Still others reject it completely and claim that it, or any part of it, was in no sense a true ecuмenical council. Among the latter, we find St. Robert Bellarmine. He completely rejected the Council of Basel because of (among other things) the "subsequent rebellious attitude" of the Council Fathers toward the papal decrees attempting to end it. Because of this subsequent rebellion (the visible fruit of the Council Fathers' attitude), St. Robert applied the principle of retroactivity and declared Basel's status as a true ecuмenical council null and void. This is not the opinion of an "amateur theologian"; recall that the Church bestowed upon St. Robert Bellarmine the rare honor of calling him "Doctor of the Church."

As mentioned earlier, there are many true and devoted Catholics who are seeking a way out—an honest and orthodox solution, harmonizing with the teaching of the Church—but try as they might, they cannot find any so-called "legal grounds" for rejecting Vatican II. Therefore, they try to "live with" the doctrine of Vatican II, falling into greater confusion, almost schizophrenia, with each passing day. In reality, there should be no problem at all. Following St. Robert Bellarmine's lead and applying similar principles, Vatican II should be rejected for the clear and simple reason that it erred. This is entirely consistent with Church teaching. Either Vatican II erred, or the Catholic Church erred before 1962. The Vatican II rebellion was not merely "later," "secondary," for this rebellion by the instigators and founders of the Robber Church existed from the day the Council opened. However, throughout the entire flock—from the highest to the lowest ranks—there was a profusion of this later, secondary rebellion, which constitutes circuмstantial evidence. We know the teaching from the lips of Christ himself that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Vatican II can be recognized by its fruits.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 194155 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

OABrownson1876

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor