Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 96249 times)

Persto · « **Reply #155 on:** August 10, 2026, 09:04:17 AM »

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

A Planned Revolt
As it turns out, the Robber Church has a carefully prepared plan, or is making deliberate efforts, to achieve the following goals: (1) Introduce the very same practices that have already been clearly condemned or rejected by the Church in the past. (2) Explain the innovations using the same specious arguments and pretexts that have already been refuted by the Church in the past, and which it has exposed and rejected as audacious, false, subversive, etc. (3) Change precisely those things that have always been considered absolutely immutable (e.g., the Canon of the Mass – the word "canon" comes from a Greek word meaning a rigid rod or rule; thus, something permanent and unchangeable). (4) To teach identically the same erroneous and poisonous doctrines that the Church has repeatedly condemned as actual heresies or views bordering on heresy or favoring heretics, etc.

This planned rebellion is aptly illustrated by the use of the phrase "equal terms" in the "Decree on Ecuмenism," which utterly mocks the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, which deemed it unlawful to place non-Catholic sects "on the same level" with the true Catholic Church. In explaining what constitutes a practice strictly forbidden under pain of mortal sin, the Code of Canon Law uses the phrase "communicatio in sacris." And "communicatio in sacris" is precisely the phrase Vatican II uses to describe religious practices shared with non-Catholics, which it further "encourages." Similarly, the Roman Catechism explicitly singles out the words "for all" as a forbidden substitute for the words "for many" in the form of the consecration of the Blood of Christ. Yes, the Robber Church makes it its goal to violate not only the spirit of the law but, in fact, its very letter, whenever and wherever possible! The following illustration of this tendency is particularly striking.

"The Southern Cross" (the official journal "sponsored by the South African Catholic hierarchy"—to quote the references it cites) runs an article in its July 9, 1969, issue with the full-page headline: "Anglican Islanders May Participate in Catholic Eucharist." The article states: "In Fiji and the Gilbert Islands, Anglicans have been granted permission to receive communion in Catholic churches, in accordance with the 1967 Ecuмenical Directory issued by the Vatican Council for Promoting Christian Unity. This may be done under the following conditions: non-Catholics must request communion in their own free will, profess faith in the Eucharist in accordance with the teachings of the Roman Church, and their own pastor must be unavailable for an extended period of time." Notice carefully that of the three recommended conditions, the only theological one (sandwiched between two conditions intended as a "smokescreen") is that they "profess faith in the Eucharist...". Nothing is said about Anglicans embracing the entire Catholic Faith. Nothing is mentioned about the requirement that Anglicans be in a state of grace before receiving "Communion." Nothing, not a single word about the necessity of the proper state of the soul of the recipient, sacramental confession, etc. (because how could the Robber Church ask Anglicans to go to confession!).

I believe that if someone were looking for a quick and easy way to incur ipso facto excommunication in the Catholic Church, they would not achieve this goal any more easily than the "Church" in Fiji and the Gilbert Islands has done. All members of its hierarchy, clergy and laity, who knowingly and willingly support or agree with the aforementioned ruling regarding Anglicans are, in fact, excommunicated. The Holy Council of Trent, in its 13th session, imposed the following solemn condemnation:

"Canon 11. If anyone says that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, let him be anathema.

And so that such a great Sacrament may not be received unworthily—and therefore unto death and damnation—this same Holy Council decrees and declares that those who are conscious of grave sin, even though they may think they are repentant, should first make sacramental confession, provided they are able to have a confessor. But if anyone dares to teach, preach, stubbornly affirm, or defend otherwise in public discussion, let him be anathema" (emphasis added).

Where can we find stronger or even more unequivocal terms than those contained in this solemn anathema? No questions are asked here; it is not decided whether someone is asking for the Holy Eucharist "voluntarily" or not; And even less does anyone care that the erring followers of some heretical pastor "will not have access to him for a long time." On the contrary, with the full authority of an infallible ecuмenical council, the canon declares that even if someone dares to defend the thesis that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the Holy Eucharist, then such a person is ipso facto, immediately, excommunicated from the Mystical Body of Christ. Could anyone still question the above claim that the "Church" in Fiji and the Gilbert Islands is currently—practically in toto—excommunicated? If so, then fine, but—one thing must be remembered—this is tantamount to treading on shaky ground. Because if a certain argument somehow leads someone ultimately to defend the position that "faith alone is sufficient...", then they themselves fall under the penalty of that same excommunication.

Persto · « **Reply #156 on:** August 11, 2026, 03:25:06 PM »

https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol_i.htm
Return to "Original Practices"

In his book "The Council in Action," Hans Küng calls for a "return to the oldest traditions of the Church" in reforming the liturgy and speaks of modeling the new "reformed" liturgy along the lines of the "earliest Roman Rite." These platitudes about returning to "original rites" and "original customs," restoring the Church to its "ancient purity," etc., are, of course, quite useful to the Robber Church, and so they are constantly repeated like parrots. These particular platitudes have particular advantages for innovators. First, "original customs" are necessarily shrouded in a kind of darkness. This means that only the "very learned" and those "on the inside" know everything about them. The average person has no way of knowing whether such "original customs" are authentic or fabricated. Moreover, this line of argument certainly sounds plausible, doesn't it? Surely, it should at least satisfy the needs of a traditionalist—those "ancient, primitive" terms—isn't that so?

This trick serves as a soporific. The simpletons nod sleepily in agreement, while the gangsters efficiently go about distorting and mutilating the liturgy. And in reality, the only original thing about this whole affair is the fact that heretics use this very pretext! In the 16th century, Cranmer and his co-religionists used this same pretext to sell the common folk the idea of a new "Church of England." Needless to say, the Church long ago debunked and exposed this ruse. Pope Leo XIII, referring to Cranmer's 16th-century followers, said: "Knowing very well the close connection that exists between faith and liturgy, between lex credendi and lex supplicandi, under the pretext of restoring them to their original form, they distorted the liturgical rites in many ways, intending to adapt them to the errors of the innovators" (Bull Apostolicae Curae). Similarly, the Synod of Pistoia (the 18th-century council of Jansenists and their sympathizers, whose decrees were condemned by Pius VI) repeatedly used expressions such as "adherence to ancient rules," "in accordance with ancient customs," "it would be contrary to apostolic practice" to do so and so, "the happy days of the early Church," etc. It is almost axiomatic that whenever organized subversives plan to get their vile hands on the Holy Liturgy, they can be expected to immediately pull out that old cliché about "primitive rites and customs" and polish it back to its former purity. Not only did Pope Leo XIII debunk this hackneyed phrase (in Apostolicae Curae, as mentioned above), but more recently Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Mediator Dei, also condemned liturgical archaeology, i.e., the "mania for restoring antiquity in the liturgy." He also added that "...it is neither wise nor praiseworthy to return to antiquity in everything and at any cost."

The platitudes of the Robber Church often come in pairs, each precisely contradicting the other. Thus, the phrase "original practices" has its counterpart (its contradiction) in another—babble about "updating," "modernizing," "adapting the Church to the modern world," "shaping," and so on. How can one continually "update" and "adapt the Church to the modern world" while simultaneously returning to original practices? But enough is enough! One should not expect consistent statements from liars.

In the "General Introduction" accompanying the "New Order of Mass," the Robber Church specifies that it will now wear red vestments on Easter Sunday and Good Friday (see #308b). The now-famous "Commentary on the New Order," written by a group of learned Roman theologians, calls this "an extraordinary innovation, which can only be psychologically disastrous... (Good Friday) thus becomes similar to the commemoration of some martyr, instead of being a day for the Church to mourn the death of its Founder." While black has always been the customary color associated with mourning, and therefore black vestments were always worn on Good Friday, red, in the Church's customary practice, signifies joy. Red is used on Pentecost Sunday and on the feasts of martyrs. Since martyrdom is considered the greatest blessing bestowed by God, the heavenly birth of those who receive the palm of martyrdom is a special occasion for joy. Red is never associated with mourning, fasting, or penance. Thus, initiating a period of joy, celebration, and rejoicing—that is, in the days immediately following Christmas—the Church celebrates the feasts of the following martyrs: St. Stephen (December 26), the Holy Innocents (December 28), and St. Thomas Becket (December 29). Considering the connection between the liturgical use of red and the spirit of joy, the Robber Church's decision to use red vestments on Good Friday does indeed seem to refer to a certain "primitive practice." The depraved heretics, the utterly corrupt Albigensians, had a habit of holding banquets on Good Friday.

Persto · « **Reply #157 on:** August 11, 2026, 03:33:21 PM »

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

"Simplicity of Rites"

"The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity, short and clear, without unnecessary repetitions, and within the understanding of the faithful, so that they generally do not require much explanation" (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy – Vatican II). "To this end, the rites should be simplified, while faithfully preserving their essence. Whatever has become repetition or addition without great benefit over time should be omitted. However, certain elements, lost over the centuries, should be restored in accordance with the original tradition of the Fathers of the Church, whenever this proves useful or necessary" (Vatican II, ibid.). "So that the liturgical service may express a noble simplicity in harmony with the mentality of our times..." (Instruction on the Liturgy, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, October 16, 1964).

The lack of originality in the Robber Church is extraordinary! This appeal for "simplicity" is precisely the same old trick employed by the Jansenists in Pistoia, when they attempted to free themselves from Latin in the liturgy and "convert everything into the vernacular." One of the theses of the Synod of Pistoia demanded "the restoration (of the liturgy) to greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular and pronouncing it aloud." In the constitution Auctorem Fidei (August 28, 1794), Pope Pius VI condemned this very phrase as "audacious, painful to pious ears, offensive to the Church, and conducive to the accusations of heretics hurled against her" (sec. 6). Regarding this particular Jansenist thesis, Auctorem Fidei says: "As if the present order of the liturgy, received and accepted by the Church, were in some part due to the forgetting of the principles that should regulate it..." (sec. 6). Vatican II should be addressed in a similar way: "As if the sacred liturgy, received and accepted by the Church, were obscure and burdened with unnecessary repetitions; as if it were not adapted to the comprehension of the faithful; as if it contained elements of no great merit – Anathema sit!"

"The assertion (of the Synod of Pistoia)," says Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, "defending the thesis that 'it would be contrary to apostolic practice and the designs of God unless easier ways were presented to the faithful for uniting their voice with the voice of the whole Church'; if it is understood as meaning the introduction of the vernacular into liturgical prayers, it is condemned as false, presumptuous, disturbing the order prescribed for the veneration of the mysteries, and easily capable of bringing about much harm" (sec. 24).

The reader is undoubtedly beginning to understand what I meant when I said earlier that the new Robber Church has a predisposition, a deliberate plan: (1) to introduce precisely the same subversive practices already condemned, and (2) to propose precisely the same platitudes, arguments, and false pretexts for innovations that Holy Church has already exposed as mere tricks and devices used by heretics.

This call for so-called "simplicity" is in direct contradiction to the practices of the Robber Church. The priest (i.e., "pastor" or "president") now requires half a dozen books, inserts, lectionaries, pamphlets, etc., to conduct his service. Whereas there once was—from time immemorial—one Canon of the Mass, now there are four so-called "Eucharistic Prayers." The Vatican's latest "Guidelines for Liturgical Renewal" boasts of "34 Mass formularies." The Mass used to consist generally of two parts, namely, the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the Faithful; the new liturgy is divided into what are called "four parts." There are now three kinds of Mass: (1) with congregation, (2) concelebrated, and (3) without congregation. (There are other kinds as well: with guitars and drums, with nuns dancing, etc.). In keeping with Vatican II's directive [regarding simplicity of rites]—"so that they generally do not require much explanation"—the "General Instruction" for the use of the new missal is a 58-page book! Everything—as you can see—is remarkably simple. (1)

Persto · « **Reply #158 on:** August 12, 2026, 03:19:01 PM »

https://www.ultramontes.pl/zbojecki_kosciol.pdf
THE ROBBER CHURCH
(part II)
PATRICK HENRY OMLOR
(Interdum, No. 7, May 31, 1971)

The "Step by step" Principle
Veterans of revolutionary movements and cօռspιʀαcιҽs know that in life the principle of gradation applies. Sudden, unexpected and radical changes are not ever too readily accepted by "the people". The only reliable technique, psychologically - i.e. apart from physical violence - is a method of "step by step" starting with making a good start.

Introduction
Any drastic change is almost always preceded by several smaller, related changes leading to it. Various allusions made in public and suggestions regarding the possibility of a planned change often serve a purpose- to survey- and are known as "trial balloons". The point is to "release" them and see if anyone wants to shoot them down. This is for investigating the
mood of the "people" or the "trend of public opinion" and if no one shoots at the trial balloon, it is considered safe to go ahead and introduce the innovation. After everything is achieved and a decent period has passed while waiting, you can even afford honest comments, such as: the one uttered by Cardinal Heenan: "You would be shocked if all changes were introduced simultaneously" (The Tablet, London, 11 October 1969, p. 1010).

The step-by-step method has the useful property of making each new step it sets a certain precedent that can be followed later to be used as a justification for more advanced changes. So, after serious and invalidating distortions of the Mass were made, it has become useless to point out to the "new robbers" the decree Quo Primum or insisting on the immutable nature of the Canon of the Mass, because they could very well easily refer to the "good Pope" John, who personally inserted in the Canon the name of Saint Joseph, and became the first person to ever change the Canon. This argument - of course - is considered "irrefutable".

The planned mayhem is part of the Robber Church's program. Currently, in fact, no one from the deceived "People of God" knows what else is possible to expect. It has become a habit to introduce new changes so total that "the people" will accept everything. Zbójecki's main success in the Church achieved quite early in this game was the familiarization of the "People of God" with the concept of the "mystery" of the Church, the dynamic Church, the Church is constantly changing- changing in order to adapt to the needs of the "modern world", a Church on the move. Why do you think we hear about the "Pilgrim Church" so often? What does the word pilgrim mean, anyway? Constantly chasing and following new things is a feature of a frivolous mind, but in this matter even among the former more stable and faithful members of the "People of God" eager for change a most contagious infection has spread. The Robber Church was counting on the development of this phenomenon, so over time there will be potential opposition limited to a minimum. The program, seen as a whole, is focused on dependence of the entire Church - starting from the highest prelate in the hierarchy to the
humblest layman - for the acceptance of a new kind of church, no questions asked. Call it whatever you want: The Robber Church, the Ecuмenical Church, the World Council of Churches, The Universal Church of "Operation 76", etc. Whatever its name, it is the apostate Church of the Antichrist. It was this that St. Pius X predicted and warned against- of which you can easily see "... The task they set before themselves is a general departure from the faith and discipline of the Church; deviation from this the former - which led to the destruction of the era of Charles [Boromeo] - worse because it hides and spreads itself in a more calculated way in the bloodstream of the Church... the same secret and dark path. It is truly a deplorable spectacle for today, and a fearful one for the future..." (Encyclical Editae Saepe, 1910).

Constantly staying in this chaotic atmosphere "anything can happen" causes a person's perceptual abilities to be clouded
to the point that eventually the darkened mind simply cannot distinguish the rightful changes from illegal changes. (Of course, most likely still accompanied by lack of cooperation with grace). Undoubtedly, many of the changes committed by the robbers were – strictly speaking – legitimate; i.e., real. The Church would have the authority and right to carry it out. However the true Church, guided and enlightened by the Holy Spirit, never actually would try to commit such ѕυιcιdє.

Few among the hierarchy and clergy today can distinguish - or tries to distinguish, because it is an "academic" problem - between things that the Catholic Church has authority to change and things that even the Church and the Pope are not allowed to touch, such as for example, the essence (substance) of the sacraments (see: Does the Church Have The Right?– by P. H. Omlor). Sometime in the future – this moment is near because its signs are clear - the "Catholic Church" will join the World Council of Churches. Not so long ago, every Catholic would realize that such a thing is impossible and is tantamount to apostasy. All members of the "People of God" who, when the time comes, do not
become aware of the existence and true nature of the Robber Church, they will be led, consciously or unconsciously, onto the path of universal apostasy prophesied by Saint Pius X. Because the church that will join or will "cooperate" with the World Council of Churches will not and cannot be the true Catholic Church.

What is important in the plans of the Robber Church is to make this happen and seem as if the Catholic Church was contradicting itself, and then approach and in a carefree manner, as if such contradictions were something normal,
routine and expected. A true Catholic can never be reminded enough that the Church cannot contradict itself. The cases of these "denials" are really what the Robber Church is involved in, it is spreading devastation in Catholicism, which was blamed for it; and of course, that's what this game is about. That's what this is all about, perhaps, for many Catholics the most serious danger is that they cannot see that the Robber Church is contrary to the true Church and does not exist. This is not a case of internal contradiction at all. However, when they think it is the Church that is constantly subverting its teachings, this fact alone can be shocking, and seriously undermine their faith.

Persto · « **Reply #159 on:** August 13, 2026, 08:46:07 AM »

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

The following is the original English text- which I post here because the previous post was translated from Polish.

The Law of "Little by Little" 
Veteran revolutionaries and conspirators know that the law of life is the law of 
gradualism. Sudden, unexpected and radical changes are never accepted 
willingly by "the people." The only reliable technique, psychologically, -- that is, 
short of physical violence -- is that of "little by little," starting with the foot in the 
door. 

Prior to the enforcement of some drastic change there are nearly always 
some minor and related changes leading up to it. Often some hints and 
suggestions, made publicly, concerning the possibility of the intended change 
serve as a sounding board, and these are known as "trial balloons." The theory 
is to "send it up" and see whether or not anyone bothers to shoot at it. This 
determines the pulse of - "the people" or the "trend of public opinion," and if there 
is no shooting at the trial balloon then it is considered safe to go ahead with the 
innovation. After all has been accomplished and a respectable waiting period 
has been observed, candid remarks can be made, such as that of Cardinal 
Heenan's: "If all the changes had been introduced together you would have been 
shocked." ( The Tablet, London, Oct. 11, 1969, p.1010). 

A valuable feature of this technique of gradualism is that at each new step a 
certain precedent is established, one which at a later time can be referred to as a 
support for the more advanced changes. Thus, after the serious and invalidating 
mutilations of the Mass had already been made, it was of no avail to point out to 
the "new robbers" the decree Quo Primum or to insist upon the unchangeable 
nature of the Canon of the Mass, for they could readily refer to good Pope John 
who, by personally inserting the name of St. Joseph in the Canon had been the 
very first person ever to change it. This argument, of course, is supposed to be 
"unanswerable." 

Planned confusion is part of the program of the Robber Church. Nowadays, in 
truth, no one of the bamboozled "People of God" knows what to expect next. 
The conditioning for change has been so thorough that "the people" will accept 
anything. A major success of the Robber Church, one achieved quite early in the 
game, was to accustom the "People of God" to the idea of "the mystery" of the 
Church, a Church in flux, a Church always changing to adapt itself to the needs 
of the "modern world," a Church on the move. Why do you think we hear so 
often the words " Pilgrim Church"? What, after all, is the definition of pilgrim ? 

The continual journeying after novelties is the mark of a frivolous mind, but at this 
point even among the erstwhile more solid and faithful members of the "People of 
God" the itch for change has spread like a most contagious infection. The 
Robber Church banked on this happening, so that with the passage of time the 
potential opposition would be kept to a minimum. The program, viewed as a 
whole, is geared to condition the entire Church, from the highest ranking prelate 
to the lowliest layperson, to accept the brand new Church, no questions asked. 
Call it what you will: the Robber Church, the Ecuмenical Church, the WCC, the 
Universal Church of "Operation 76," etc. Regardless of its name, it is the 
apostate Church of Antichrist. This is what St. Pius X warned of and foretold: 
"Their real aims, their plots, the line they are following are well known to all of 
you, ... What they propose is a UNIVERSAL APOSTASY, worse still than the one 
which threatened the century of Charles (Borromeo), worse from the fact that it 
creeps insidious and hidden in the very veins of the Church ... (O)f both revolts 
the ways are hidden and darksome... Truly a spectacle full of sadness for the 
present and of menace for the future." (Encyclical Editae Saepe, 1910). 

Living daily in this chaotic "anything goes" atmosphere, a person's perceptual 
powers get dimmed, so that eventually the obfuscated mind simply cannot 
discern legitimate change from illegitimate change. (Of course, there is also 
most probably a certain failure to cooperate with grace.) Admittedly, many of the 
robbers' changes were, strictly speaking, legitimate; that is, the true Church 
would have had the power and the right to make them. However, the true 
Church, guided and enlightened by the Holy Ghost, would never have actually 
attempted such ѕυιcιdє. Few today, among the hierarchy and the clergy, can 
distinguish - or care to distinguish, for it is "academic" -- between those things 
which the Catholic Church has the power to change and those things which even 
the Church and the Pope are forbidden to touch, for example, the substance of 
the Sacraments (see Has The Church The Righf? by P.H. Omlor). Later on in 
the future -- this is coming, for the omens are unmistakable clear--the "Catholic 
Church" will join the World Council of Churches. The time was, not too long ago, 
when every Catholic would have understood that such is impossible and is 
tantamount to apostasy. All those of the "People of God" who, when the time 
comes, have not yet realized the existence and true nature of the Robber Church 
will be led, unwittingly or not, on to the path of universal apostasy foretold by St. 
Pius X. For it will not be and canncA be the true Catholic Church which will be 
joining or "working with" the World Council of Churches. 

It is important in the plans of the Robber Church to make it seem as though the 
Catholic Church has contradicted Herself, and then to treat this lightly, as if such 
contradictions are normal, routine and to be expected. That the true Catholic 
Church cannot contradict Herself can not be repeated too often. In these 
instances of "contradiction" what is really happening is that the Robber Church is 
at it again, laying waste to Catholicism; of course, this is what the game is all 
about. In all of this, what is perhaps the gravest danger to many Catholics is 
their failure to recognize that it is the Robber Church which is contradicting the 
true Church, and not at all a case of self-contradiction. But, when it seems to 
them that the Church is reversing Herself continually, this alone tends to shake 
and seriously undermine their faith.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 96249 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor