Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 116008 times)

Persto · « **Reply #180 on:** **Today** at 04:52:37 PM »

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

OUR CASE IN THE BRIEFEST TERMS

In as few words as possible, this is our case. Always we were taught that the
form, the necessary words, for a sacrament must not be altered, or else the
sacrament is not produced. "In our sacraments," teaches the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, "the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it,
renders the sacrament NULL." Concerning the sacramental form for the Holy
Eucharist (the wine consecration at Mass) this same Catechism clearly states:
"We are firmly to believe that it consists of the following 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
UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.'"

The "English Mass' alters this form substantially, in several ways, but principally
by using the words "FOR ALL MEAT instead of "FOR MANY." In explaining that
these words "for many" refer to the elect only, and not to all men, the Trent
Catechism explicitly affirms: "With reason, therefore were the words 'for
ALL (men)' NOT used, as in this place the fruit of the Passion are alone spoken
of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation." And so we
see that these very words "for all men" which, according to the resolute and clear
teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, must not be used, are in very
fact being used in the "English Mass."

There are many other details and aspects of our position, and other important
principles of sacramental theology enter in. Many additional and very forceful
pronouncements of the Magisterium, and of learned and holy theologians, such
as St. Thomas Aquinas, can be cited to support our arguments, but the foregoing
is the case condensed as briefly as possible.

During the past five and a half years we have encountered only five main
counter-arguments that have been brought forth against our thesis. (1 ) That the
words spoken in the Aramaic language by Our Lord at the Last Supper really
meant "for all men" and not "for many." (2) That in Holy Scripture the word
"many" is often to be taken as meaning "all." (3) That Christ indeed died for all,
and not just for many. (4) That in the consecration of the wine the mere words
"This is My Blood" are sufficient for a valid consecration, just as the words "This
is My Body" suffice for the consecration of the bread.

To be continued

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 116008 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor