Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 239319 times)

Persto · « **Reply #180 on:** August 31, 2026, 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

Persto · « **Reply #181 on:** September 01, 2026, 06:05:01 PM »

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

CHURCH TRULY COULDN'T HAVE APPROVED

Once these four counter-arguments have been decisively answered, and they
are easily rebutted; and once logic, reason and sound theology have backed our
opponents into a corner, invariably they will resort to the fifth and final argument,
which is supposedly the very last word. All discussion must come to an end, so
they suppose, when they solemnly proclaim: (5) "It has been approved!" And,
needless to say, by inference we are being disobedient to lawful authority by
daring to question what has "been approved."

How do we answer that one? Once again we have sound papal authority on our
side. In the ensuing discussion we shall see proof that the altered form
containing "for all men" cannot have been lawfully approved. It is important to
bear in mind that we are referring only to the change in the Words of
Consecration, and that the following evidence does not constitute a case for the
Tridentine Mass as a whole, against the "New Order."

Now, on at least four separate occasions Holy Mother Church, speaking through
Her authentic, Magisterium, or teaching authority, has positively declared that no
one has the right or the power to innovate anything whatsoever touching upon
the substance of the sacraments. By "substance of a sacrament" is meant the
matter and the form. Of these four clear-cut pronouncements let us, to serve the
purpose, consider only the two most recent ones.

First: in the letter Ex Quo, Nono, of December 26, 1910, Pope St. Pius X
declared: "It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever
to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments." Thus even
the Church Herself has no power or authority to alter the words in the form of a
sacrament.

The second ruling we will cite is that of Pope Pius XII in his apostolic constitution
Sacramentum Ordinis, of November 30, 1947. Said Pius XII: "As the Council of
Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by
Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the 'substance of the
sacraments'." The Church has no power! No bishop, no council, no Pope, no
one at all can change or even tamper with the essential matter or form of a
sacrament.

By the very fact that these pronouncements were made one thing is quite
evident. It is evident that the Church, always guided by the Holy Ghost,
envisaged and foresaw the possibility at least, that at some future time someone
(or ones) calling themselves "the legitimate authority of the Church" - but in fact
abusing authority - just might actually presume to attempt to change the form of a
sacrament. Now it might be thought by some that certainly our very shepherds,
the ones whose chief business should be defending the Faith, would not and
could not ever do such a thing. But if such a possibility were entirely out of the
question, then St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII (both of whom we have just quoted) -
and before them the Council of Trent and also Clement VI - would not have
bothered to issue their solemn admonitions. "De rebus parvulis non curat /ex.":
the law does not concern itself with trifles, nor we might add does it concern itself
with impossible situations.

Therefore this change "for all men" - a change in the sacramental form of the
Holy Eucharist, the substance of that Sacrament- simply cannot have been
made validly or legitimately. If you should tell me that all the bishops have
approved this change; if you tell me that a general council has approved it; or if
you should tell me that the Pope himself has approved it, or even, yes, that an
angel sent from Heaven made this change, my reply will be ever the same. It will
be in the words of St. Pius X; "It is well known that to the Church there belongs
no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the
sacraments." Or in these words of Pope Pius XII: "As the Council of Trent
teaches,... the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments."

Consequently any so-called "approval", regardless of the alleged source, must
have been necessarily null and void at the very outset. And, moreover, null and
void in a manner totally beyond the control or powers of any would-be innovators.
And that is the firm and resounding stand we must take against those who would
claim that it is we who are being disobedient! Name for me those who have
made and "approved" this change, and I'll name for you the disobedient ones.

Persto · « **Reply #182 on:** September 04, 2026, 07:09:09 PM »

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

A BISHOP DID SPEAK OUT

At one point during this "for all men" controversy in the United States, Bishop
Sylvester Treinen of Boise, Idaho, had a letter published in the Homiletic and
Pastoral Review, a magazine widely read by the clergy. Bishop Treinen pointed
out that there is no Scriptural basis whatever for this change. In the accounts of
the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, both St. Matthew and St. Mark record in their
Gospels that Our Lord said "for many," and not "for all men."

Moreover the Bishop enumerated many Bible editions - Catholic and Protestant,
very old, editions as well as the newest versions - and he claimed that there isn't
now nor has there ever been a single edition of the New Testament that has
those words "for all men" in this place. He might have added that this holds true
not only in English, but in all the Greek texts, ancient and modern, in the Peshito
Bible translated into the Syriac language in the fifth century, in the Latin Vulgate,
and without doubt in all the Bibles ever printed in any language.

Clearly, then, there is a discrepancy between the "English Mass" and Holy Writ
itself. No one seems to deny that. Now perhaps the "Modernist" or "progressive"
would claim that all those Bibles are deficient, and that now the I.C.E.L. has
finally got it right! But the point is that no one will deny that there is indeed a
discrepancy. Please bear that in mind while we ponder these words of St.
Teresa: "The Holy Ghost never inspires anything that is not conformable to Holy
Writ. If there were the slightest divergence, that alone by itself would prove so
evidently the work of the Evil One, that were the whole world to assure me it was
the Holy Ghost, I would never believe it."

Persto · « **Reply #183 on:** September 05, 2026, 04:36:42 PM »

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

FACING UP TO UNPLEASANT REALITIES

As you know, there are those who do not agree that the "English Mass" is most
probably invalid. Some do not even concede that it might possibly be invalid.
Consider, for example, the pamphlet entitled, "Why The Tridentine Mass?' The
author is at pains to assert most confidently that the "English Mass" is certainly
valid. This he does in at least three different places. Yet on page 25 he cites a
decree from the Roman Missal which states: "If anyone removes or changes
anything in the Form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change
of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect
the Sacrament." In short, this decree avers that if any words in the form are
changed, and this involves a change of meaning, the Holy Eucharist is not
produced and hence there is no Mass. Now, immediately after quoting this
decree, the author of this said pamphlet goes on to say (and I certainly agree,
with him here) that the "for all men" change is "a most serious mutilation of the
meaning of the words of the Consecration of the wine, at the very least." And in
the very next breath he proclaims: "We must firmly reaffirm our belief that it does
not, perse, make the new Mass in English invalid"(SICI). No further comment!

Tampering with the form of a sacrament - and the Sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist at that - is by far the most serious and the most audacious move the
Innovators have undertaken thus far. Everything is at stake on this point. My
friends, if we are willing to let them get away with this unchallenged, our other
lesser battles are certainly fought in vain.

In all this strife and confusion, in all our efforts and our frustrations, we must at all
costs avoid bitterness. When events don't shape up to our liking, when we seem
to be getting nowhere, when all appears futile and hopeless, let us recall these
lines:

"No more of comfort shall ye get,

Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher."

(End of Speech)

Persto · « **Reply #184 on:** September 06, 2026, 04:22:04 PM »

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

The Remnant

THE SALMANTICENSES 1 RESPONSE TO DE LUGO
ON THE FORM OF CONSECRATION OF THE WINE

(A docuмentary translation by Fr. Lawrence S. Brey,
with Introduction by Patrick Henry Omlor)

INTRODUCTION
Off and on during the seven centuries that have elapsed since the death of St.
Thomas, a quite legitimate theological controversy has been waged, with many
and various theologians and scholars (both the famous and the not-so-famous)
from time to time espousing one side or the other. The mooted question has
been and is: fora valid consecration of the wine during mass do the mere words,
"THIS IS MY BLOOD", suffice as the sacramental form ? Or are the additional
words of the form, which are used by the Western Church (equivalent words
being used, by the way, in the Eastern rites), namely, "OF THE NEW AND
ETERNAL TESTAMENT.. .(ETC.).. .FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE
REMISSION OF SINS," also required for validity ? (Those who are able to read
Latin may wish to consult De Eucharistia, by Immanuel Doronzo, for an
interesting account of this controversy. Doronzo airs both sides, giving the
principal arguments and counter-arguments of each, and he lists the main
theologians of note who, over the centuries, have allied themselves with one side
or the other. His own personal conclusion expressed at the end of his article is
that it comes out a "dead-heat"; that is, that both opinions are "equally probable".)

Until somewhat recently this controversy held interest from an academic point of
view only. But with the first appearance in 1967 of the vernacular liturgies, many
of which have the well-known "for all men" mutilation in the wine-consecration in
place of the words "pro multis" ("for many"), this particular controversy became
revived, and it is no longer of "academic" interest only. For the "for all men"
mutilation occurs in the latter words of the aforesaid sacramental form, that is, in
the part which is disputed regarding its necessity for validity.

This present article hardly purports to resolve this centuries-old controversy. Its
aim is merely to explode one, and only one, specific erroneous theory. John De
Lugo (1583-1660), a Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, and a brilliant theologian
particularly in moral theology, at one time claimed to have discovered certain
ancient oriental liturgies that actually used only the few words, "This is My
Blood", (or a similar short form), as the complete sacramental form for the wine-
consecration. De Lugo argued that the very existence of such liturgies proved
that those few words are enough, for validity, and that ipso facto the additional
words of the form, although used universally in the Church, are not essential.

Such weighty and wholly conclusive evidence ended the great controversy once
and for all; or rather, (to state it correctly), it should have done so, that is, unless
De Lugo's evidence turned out to be in some manner faulty. Of course, everyone
knows that the controversy has not in fact been settled even yet; otherwise
scholars of our times, including Doronzo, would not continue to write about it as
an open question. Occasionally, even nowadays, a rare amateur theologian or
dilettante will chance to discover De Lugo, exclaim to himself "Eureka!", and then
proceed to proclaim that "the ball game is over", the losers being St. Thomas
and his adherents who deny that the short form, "This is My Blood", is sufficient.

In De Lugo's own time, his evidence was weighed, analyzed, and finally rejected
by contemporary theologians on the "other side"; and what is perhaps the best
and most thorough rebuttal was made by the Salmanticenses. These were the
Discalced Carmelites of Salamanca, Spain, whose strict policy was an
unwavering adherence to Thomism. A most remarkable aspect of the
Salmanticenses 1 writings is the fact that they were from the pens of many
different theologians over a period of time spanning nearly a century. According
to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "the Salmanticenses have ever been held in the
highest esteem, particularly at Rome where they are considered a standard work
on Thomistic scholasticism" (Vol. XIII, p. 402, N.Y., 1912-1913).

Their " Cursus Theologicus" (written between 1631 and 1672) contains their reply
against De Lugo; and this reply comprises paragraphs 30-32 of disp. IX, dub. 3,
of the volume De Eucharistia, i.e. Vol. XVIII of the Cursus. An English language
version of this particular text (paragr.30-32) has most probably never been
published. One reason for this would be that even the Latin text is not all that
easy to find; and, secondly, the "Lugo argument" had already been laid to rest
long ago, before theological tracts in English became common. Consequently
the following translation by Fr. Lawrence Brey is in this sense an historical first.
Overriding that important consideration, however, is the vital nature of the subject
matter that is discussed and its current opportuneness. Also, readers of The
Remnant will, no doubt, enjoy and appreciate the Salmanticenses 1 brilliant
polemics. I trust, therefore, that I speak for the majority of Remnant readers in
commending and thanking Fr. Brey for his very able and valuable effort in
preparing the following excellent translation.

Patrick Henry Omlor
June 17, 1976
Feast of Corpus Christi

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 239319 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