Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 161870 times)

Persto · « **Reply #185 on:** September 07, 2026, 06:36:55 PM »

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

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

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

The Crucial Salmanticenses Paragraphs
(30-32, Disp. IX, dub. 3)

(NOTE: Having just refuted a certain argument by Cajetan, the Salmanticenses
now discuss De Lugo's thesis. Sectional headings and line numberings added
by translator).

Alleged "Precedence" of "Short Form" Usage
Paragraph 30

Of no better standing (than Cajetan's argument) is another argument derived
from Lugo (disp. 1 1 , sect. 4), namely, that although in the liturgies we have
adduced one finds those subsequent words which we have just discussed (i.e.,
'novi et aeterni... pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum), nevertheless
in other liturgies one finds only the five prior words (i.e. , 'Hie est calix sanguinis
mei) consequently from the aforesaid liturgies of this type it is evident that those
words suffice. But in our considered opinion it is apparent that certainly if such
five words should suffice, then God would have provided that the Church
somehow would consummate the consecration form of the chalice by means of
those same words, and no additional words. For indeed according to this
argument (Lugo's) we arrive at that conclusion. That author (Lugo) claims that
this is indeed the case. Here are his words: "Certainly in some liturgies" (such as
used by the Maronites) "namely, of St. John the Evangelist, of the holy Apostles,
of St. Eustasius, St. John the Patriarch, the words are: 'Hoc est corpus meum.
Hie est sanguis meus'. In the liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist: 'Corpus meum
est hoc: Sanguis meus est hoc 1 . In the liturgy of St. Matthew the Pastor: 'Hoc
earn mea est: Hoc sanguis meus est. These forms from the manuscript Missal
of the Maronites, which was sent from Mt. Libanus to Rome, were given to me by
an erudite man, Victorius Scialach, Abbot of St. Gregory, a Maronite from birth,
and for many years a public interpreter of languages in the city of Rome." (End of
quotation from Lugo.)

Based on Questionable Sources

This argument, we say, does not in the least demolish the fundamental position
laid down by us; because our position assuredly relies only upon Scriptures,
liturgies, or Masses of some certain (certae) authority and approbation. Those
sources which do not have this certain authority and approbation ought to be
spurned and reputed as nought. And of that ilk are those which Lugo adduces in
the quotation just cited. For indeed, in the first place, Peter de Soto, Arauxo,
Labat, and other men no less learned than he, testify that at first the Greeks and
the Maronites used the same words in consecrating the chalice as those used by
the Roman Church, or at least their equivalent. However, after the Greeks and
their adherents became schismatics, just as they corrupted many canons of the
Councils, as all Catholics recognize, so also they perverted not a few liturgies.
Besides the malice of the schismatics and the heretics, there was at one time
added towards the growth of this erroneous position the ignorance and
carelessness of the transcribers; at another time the great catastrophe of the era,
bringing the Greeks and the Maronites under the power of the Turks; at another
time the distance and a diminishing commerce with the Romans; at another time,
finally, the self-love and the excessive attachment to one's own opinions of those
who did not neglect this means of overlooking the ancient form, in order to show
that the prior words suffice. And from all these factors it came about that in the
manuscript Missals of the Maronites prior to the year 1592 one may find some
forms for consecrating the chalice that do not have the final words which we
Latins use, and which it is certain that the Church of the Greeks once used.

Persto · « **Reply #186 on:** September 08, 2026, 06:08:12 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt
THE SALMANTICENSES 1 RESPONSE TO DE LUGO
ON THE FORM OF CONSECRATION OF THE WINE (Continued)

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

Vitiated Missals - Pope Intervened.

Consequently whatever is culled from such Missals, thus vitiated to that extent,
has no firmness and authority. Secondly, because as N. Franciscus relates ( loc .
cit., no. 42), the most learned consultants among the Maronites at Rome replied
that generally in almost all their liturgies (namely, of St. Peter, of the Twelve
Apostles, St. John Chrysostom, St, Cyril, St. Eustasius, St. John the Patriarch,
Pope Julius, and others) they have the same consecration form as the Latins,
albeit with one word or another transposed, or if not explicitly expressed
nevertheless implicitly contained in other words. Wherefore the Supreme Pontiff
ordered the manuscript Missals of the Maronites that were in any manner
corrupted to be corrected. And in accord with this mandate a Maronite Missal
was printed at Rome in the year 1592 in the Medici printery. That Missal has in
practically all the liturgies one and the same form for the consecration of the
chalice. This form faithfully translated into Latin from the Syriac text reads: 'Hie
autem est calix sanguinis mei, testamenti novi, et aeterni, mysterium fidei, qui
quo vobis, et multis effunditur in remissionem peccatorum.' ('This is the Chalice
of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which is
poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins.') And it is to such
liturgies, of clearly certain authority, that one must direct one's attention, not
indeed to those corrupted ones and apocrypha, not a few of which were cited by
Lugo. For truly those must be estimated of no more value than the Scriptures
perverted by the English, and others, in times of heresy and schism. For just as
among those there were many Catholics who took pains to preserve the
authentic Scriptures, there were also many heretics who strove diligently to
corrupt them, distorting them into false meanings. So also among the Maronite
inhabitants of Mt. Libanus there were many Catholics; nevertheless there were at
the same time many schismatics and those addicted to the errors of the Greeks.
For which reason along with the legitimate liturgies and forms found in those
manuscript codices there are not a few spurious ones of no authority, namely,
those foisted by the schismatics. And of that ilk are those forms which lack the
latter words (namely, ‘novi et aeterni... pro multis effundetur in remissionem
peccatorum), and in this respect they differ from other forms of universal and
approved faith, which we reviewed in no. 28 supra. And for this reason the
strength of our fundamental position cannot be nullified through this avenue of
argument, just as the Catholic position neither can nor must be undermined by
the Scripture versions corrupted by the English and other heretics.

If Some Maronites Used the "Short Form", Then What?

Paragraph 31

Perhaps one might contend that the Maronites at one time consecrated the
chalice with only those words, 'Hie calix est sanguinis Dei,' (This is the chalice of
the Blood of God'), or 'Hie est sanguis meus', ('This is My Blood'), and that it is
contrary to reason that they would not actually have consecrated, i.e. , by
changing the wine into Christ's Blood; because from that it would follow that they
adored and exposed for adoration something which was not worthy of adoration;
and likewise they would not have completed the Sacrifice, along with "a thousand
and one" other absurdities. If anyone should contend all the foregoing, we shall
reply first of all that the Maronites do not in fact consecrate
in that way, but rather in accord with the mandate and the correction of the form
ordered by the Supreme Pontiff, as stated earlier. Just as in times past the
Armenians were consecrating with other words and other formulas, but
subsequently in the Council of Florence Pope Eugene ordered them to use the
common form, i.e., the one used by the Latins, so also de facto the same case
prevails with the Maronites as with the Armenians.

Persto · « **Reply #187 on:** September 09, 2026, 06:38:48 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt
THE SALMANTICENSES 1 RESPONSE TO DE LUGO
ON THE FORM OF CONSECRATION OF THE WINE (Continued)

No "Ecclesia Supplet" For Defective Consecration Form

However, granting the contrary supposition that at some time they in
consecrating used only the five prior words, one could respond that they
confected a valid sacrament, not because such a form would be sufficient
according to the Institution of Christ, but by reason of some extraordinary
dispensation. For just as the Church gives jurisdiction to those who act with a
probable opinion, or in "common error", so also can it be piously believed that
God supplies whatever is lacking for the validity of the sacraments in the case of
those who act with a probable opinion, which sort of matter is generally
adjudicated in the Church; and similarly not a few believe that God supplies for a
defect of intention on the part of a minister, as is evident from what we stated in
an earlier tract (disp. 7, no. 37). But setting aside these predicated theories
(which we do not approve of, for the reasons already stated), we do admit that
the Maronites, or at least some of them, at one time (reportedly) used that form,
'Hie sanguis est meus' but consequently we say that by no means did they
confect the Consecration and the Sacrament (emphasis added). That such a
thing befell them we do not deem absurd. One may say that this would not seem
fitting according to the disposition of Divine Providence, on account of a certain
remarkable Divine Government that is universal in all respects. However, it would
be by no means unfitting for Providence to permit the aforesaid error and its
effects in some small part of the world peopled by the Maronites of Mt. Libanus,
and among some of its inhabitants, especially the ignorant and the schismatics,
as some of them were. And that can be demonstrated by an example: for the
Ethiopians sometimes used this form in consecrating: 'Hie panis est corpus
meum' (This bread is my body'), as Verricelli observes in de Missionibus, tit. 15,
q.265, and nevertheless that form is plainly invalid, as all theologians concede.
Therefore, just as it is not improper to admit that the Ethiopians (even though
Catholics) did not validly consecrate in their extremely vast regions; so neither is
it absurd to say that some few Maronites (especially schismatics or the ignorant,
or those associated with schismatics), living in their small territory by sufferance
of the Turks, had or endured a similar error, in consecrating the chalice with only
those words, 'Hie est sanguis meus' and that other absurdities ensued from this
error.

De Lugo Argument Proves Nothing, Is Untenable in Practice
Paragraph 32

From which it follows, firstly, that our adversaries (who are wont to prize so highly
this argument from the Maronite liturgies and other similar evidence) actually
demonstrate nothing; but they are even weighed down by difficulty. Because,
even granting that their opinion might be probable, they nevertheless cannot
deny that our opinion is most probable and of great authority, as Suarez said
(quoted by us supra in no. 22). According to this our opinion, a consecration of
the chalice expressed in these few words, Hie est sanguis meus, is invalid. And
consequently whoever would attempt to consecrate using only those words
would place himself in manifest danger of not consecrating, and therefore of
adoring and exposing for adoration that which is not worthy of adoration. And the
Maronites were guilty of all those things, if it be true (as Lugo and certain others
think) that they were employing those few words in consecrating the chalice. And
consequently this conduct of theirs is incapable of establishing any authority; but,
what is far more important, as it is so fraught with danger it should not even be
spoken of approvingly. Particularly so, since our Most Holy Father Innocent XI,
on March 2, 1679, condemned the following proposition: "In conferring the
sacraments it is not illicit to follow a probable opinion concerning what pertains to
the validity of the sacrament, while forsaking a safer opinion; unless law,
convention, or the grave danger of incurring harm would prohibit it. Hence it is
only in the conferring of Baptism and sacerdotal or episcopal orders that a
probable opinion must not be used." Wherefore the Maronites cannot use that
form, nor were they formerly able to use it licitly, unless ignorance might have
excused them: for in using that form one places oneself in manifest danger of not
consecrating, and of suffering the other consequences arising therefrom.

Secondly, it so happens that our opinion and that of the Doctor St. Thomas is, on
the one hand, most probable, from a speculative point of view; and on the other
hand it is the safer opinion and the one that must be wholly followed in practice.
Whereas in reality our adversaries' opinion is solely speculative, and "probable"
from, as it were, a metaphysical point of view only, but it is totally devoid of any
practical value, since it cannot be reduced to practice because of the danger of
not consecrating.

Thirdly, it so happens that what we have said about the Maronites liturgies and
similar rites of uncertain authority must be applied a fortiori to a certain liturgy by
the name of "St. Peter", in which precisely these words, 'Hie est sanguis meus',
are set down as the consecration form for the chalice. For this liturgy is appraised
as being wholly apocryphal, and it was first brought out (made public) by
Lindanus, Bishop of Ghent, there being no evidence of it in the preceding
centuries.

Fourthly, it so happens that they err, those who say (as we insinuated in no. 23)
that the Doctor St. Thomas taught our opinion by virtue of the fact that he had not
been aware of those other liturgies, and that if he had seen them he would not
have opposed himself to them, but would have been prepared to teach
otherwise. They are deceived, we say, and they are lacking in the reverence due
to St. Thomas. First, because in the liturgies of any authority there is nothing that
does not favor the opinion of the holy Doctor (as we considered in no. 28). And
he himself encompassed all these in the liturgy of the most excellent Mass of all,
namely that of the Roman Church, which to his credit he expounded in his
dissertation, "Sed Contra ". Also because in the other liturgies he sees nothing of
importance that he would have found necessary to exclude. And, finally, because
they are believed not to have existed at his time, but later were fabricated either
by schismatics or by certain partisans, and those who were most diligent in
promoting their own opinions. Just as there were those who, in the recent
editions of the "Fathers" took the trouble to excise and remove certain passages
from the fathers, which were least favorable to their cause, and especially certain
homilies of St. John Chrysostom, so also, conversely, there were those who
somehow concerned themselves with adding to the liturgies whatever might
more favorably further their purposes.

(End of Salmanticenses Text)

Persto · « **Reply #188 on:** September 10, 2026, 12:21:10 PM »

https://archive.org/stream/huttongibson_robberchurch_book/huttongibson_robberchurch_book_djvu.txt
THE SALMANTICENSES 1 RESPONSE TO DE LUGO
ON THE FORM OF CONSECRATION OF THE WINE (Continued)

Translator's Comments
Special thanks are due to Patrick H. Omlor for locating the authoritative
Salmanticenses treatise and calling attention to the extremely significant above
passages and the desirability of their being rendered into English, as an added
contribution to the study and clarification of the "for all men" invalidity
controversy of the "New mass" problem. Similar thanks are due to Walter L. Matt
and The Remnant Press for their instrumentality in the publication of this
important docuмent.

I have endeavored to make this translation, from the original Latin, as faithful as
possible, and in cases of difficult idiomatic rendering, giving priority to the sense
of the text in a manner strictly compatible with or equivalent to the original. I am
also indebted to Mr. Omlor for his further suggestions and modifications that
were incorporated into the finalized translation. While we feel that the translation
is accurate and more than adequate, especially as regards the substance of the
Salmanticenses argument, the rendering, needless to say, remains open to any
responsible and warranted correction or modification. There were, admittedly,
some difficult passages, but apparently not in critical areas.

The gist of the Salmanticenses' refutation of De Lugo is this: (1 ) De Lugo cites
certain Maronite missals as "proof" for the acceptability and sufficiency of the
mere words, "This is My Blood", simply because these or similar abbreviated
forms were found in those missals. (2) But those particular missals were actually
corrupt and vitiated, products of a heretical and schismatic situation, hence have
no value whatsoever as evidence on behalf of the "short form" argument. On the
other hand, the missals of the non-schismatic Maronites and all other bona fide
Eastern traditions, incorporated the entire proper form, including the words
equivalent to "pro multis". (3) Moreover, the Roman Pontiff himself ordered the
correction of the corrupted missals, and the insertion of the proper complete
Form. (4) If some of the Maronites used the corrupted forms, those particular
Masses are considered invalid, despite theoretical pious beliefs that perhaps
God's Providence would "supply" for the defect (which hardly can be presumed
and seems not in accord with the Will of Christ in instituting the Eucharist and its
absolute requirements); while "ecdesia supplet' would not apply at all, as it
regards jurisdictional, not sacramental defects. (5) The De Lugo short-form-
sufficiency concept (whose probability was already outweighed by the teaching of
St. Thomas and arguments of the Salmanticenses later) is forbidden in actual
practice, as it exposes such consecrations to the danger of invalidity, and
counters the Church's directive that safer opinions must be followed in confecting
the Sacraments.

Thus, in but a few pointed and well-measured passages, these Spanish
theologians, highly esteemed in Rome as authoritative Thomists, as Mr. Omlor
pointed out, have pulled the props from under a specious and seemingly
"clinching" argument in defense of the validity of the "abbreviated form" (and
implicitly of the "for all men" mutilation or any similar corruption of the latter words
of the form): i.e. , the alleged evidence that certain Catholic missals once
incorporated the abbreviated form, omitting the latter words which include "which
shall be shed for you and for many..."

Even very recent papal docuмents, by the way, testify to the use of "for many" in
the Divine Eucharistic Words. One not too well known is Pope John XXIll's
Apostolic Letter on the Precious Blood, in which he speaks of " the religious
worship of the Most Precious Blood of the Word Incarnate, which is shed 'for
many unto the remission of sins'" (June 30, 1960, AAS 52-545). As is well
known, these papally-affirmed Divine Words were soon to be swapped for the
"for all men" distortion; just as the same Pontiff's Veterum Sapientia (on the
importance of Latin) was replaced by runaway vernacularism!

The idea of God or the Church "supplying" for the defect is worthy of special
comment, in view of widespread misconceptions about the role of Divine Inter-
vention, "good intention", and "ecdesia supplet'. While these considerations are
comforting and do fill some well-defined roles, it is wishful thinking, without
theological basis, to hold that any possible sacramental irregularity or defect is
"covered" or "saved" by one or the other of these. In regard to a defective
sacramental form, for example, while Divine power could provide for a valid effect
in such a case, this could not be gratuitously presumed as a matter of course,
and in fact would not seem to be in accord with the ordinary disposition of Divine
Providence nor with Christ's Will and requirements governing the Sacraments He
instituted. (On the other hand, regarding the overall universal situation, including
the subversion of the Mass, there is no doubt that Divine Intervention, direct or
indirect, will rectify things In God's due time; perhaps after the apostasy reaches
its apogee and the "Son of Perdition" has had his day, if these are indeed the
apocalyptic times). As for "good intention", no amount of a priest's "good
intention" can rectify or validate an objectively defective sacramental form -
unless the priest carry that good intention into action, by himself correcting the
form to its proper wording! But a thousand "good intentions" by themselves will
never make up for or validate an uncorrected form.

As for "ecdesia supplet ("the Church supplies"), this canonical provision (Canon
209, C.J.C.) regards the Church's supplying, "automatically", ecclesiastical
jurisdiction in certain cases where it is lacking and needed (in cases of "common
error" and "doubt of law or fact"), mainly in connection with the Sacrament of
Penance and certain other priestly functions requiring jurisdiction. It does not
(and cannot) supply for any defect of sacramental matter or form, nor does it
supply any power of Orders (as distinct from power of Jurisdiction); nor does it
give one a "blank check" covering "everything", even in an "emergency situation".
In cases of danger of death there is a similar canonical provision. "Ecclesia
supplet", somewhat like the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, is often wrongly
understood, or misapplied, or overextended; whereas in reality each of these is
limited to well defined functions. The Salmanticenses, in the above docuмent,
cite the role of " ecclesia supplet' and conclude that no such supplying validates a
defective or incomplete Consecration form.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent states: "In our sacraments. . . the form is
so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it renders the Sacrament null."
Consequently if the wine-consecration-form, with the "for all men" mutilation, is
intrinsically defective to the extent of rendering the Sacrament and the Mass
invalid, then neither " ecclesia supplet', nor the "good and proper" intention of the
priest, nor any other force or argument can come to the rescue and make it valid.
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted the seven Sacraments. Several of
these, including the Holy Eucharist, were instituted ''in specie ', that is, Christ
determined in detail and minutely their matter and form. Would it not seem
incongruous for the same Divine Lord to so prescribe, and nevertheless "supply"
for flagrant deviations from His sacred prescription? We can see the wisdom of
the above teaching of the Trent Catechism!

Finally, the Salmanticenses concede that there were at times cases of invalid
Consecration forms being used (and hence, invalid Masses!), in both a limited
area (the Maronites of Mt. Libanus), and also in extensive regions (among the
Ethiopians). In the former case, the invalid forms for consecrating the wine
resulted, at least partly, from the atmosphere of heresy and schism prevailing at
the time, and were used not only by the schismatics, but even by "the ignorant"
and those "associated with schismatics". Now, remembering the prophetic
words of Pope St. Pius X, written in 1910, concerning the ''universal apostasy '
that even then crept "insidious and hidden in the very veins of the Church", one
can easily concede the distinct possibility of invalid Masses in our present day,
on a far more extensive, Indeed universal, scale. In accord with the dispositions
of an all-wise and all-just Divine Providence, such an ominous situation would not
at all be "unthinkable", but rather might be a logical result of the present climate
of heresy, schism, and apostasy that is infinitely more far-reaching and
widespread than that which affected the Maronites of Mt. Libanus! In our present
circuмstances, which clearly are those of a "universal apostasy" or the closest
thing to it imaginable, could we not apply and extend the conclusion expressed
by the Salmanticenses: "However, it would be by no means unfitting for
Providence to permit the aforesaid error and its effects" in virtually the entire
world?

Fr. Lawrence S. Brey
July 1,1976

Feast of the Most Precious Blood.

Persto · « **Reply #189 on:** September 11, 2026, 05:04:21 PM »

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

QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF MCCARTHY'S CASE

1 . Synopsis of the Monograph: Questioning The Validity of the Masses using the New,
All-English Canon

Issue No. 24 of the journal Living Tradition (July 1989) is devoted to a
commentary on my monograph, Questioning The Validity of the Masses using
the New, All-English Canon, first published in March of 1968. For the sake of
brevity it will hereinafter be referred to as simply "QTV". The Editor of Living
Tradition is Monsignor John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.; and he is also the
author of its featured critique of QTV.

Because some readers of this present booklet may not be familiar with QTV, it is
expedient to give here a concise synopsis of its central points. 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."

In the English "Mass" (that is, the vernacularized [English] version of the so-
called Novus Ordo Missae) this sacramental form is altered substantially, in
several ways, but principally by the substitution of the words "for all" in place of
"for many." In his Catena Aurea in Quatuor Evangelia (in Matth. Evan., Chap.
XXVI, par. 8) St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Remigius of Auxerre as follows: "And
it must be noted that He [Our Lord] did not say pro paucis [for a FEW], nor pro
omnibus [for ALL], but pro multis [for MANY]; for He had not come to redeem
only one nation (race), but MANY from among all the nations."

In explaining why Christ said "for many" instead of "for all" the Catechism of the
Council of Trent continues: "Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said 'for
all,' seeing that in this place the design of the discourse extends only to the fruits
of the Passion, which brought the fruit of salvation only to the elect." And so we
see that those words "for all," which according to vital principles of sacramental
theology are NOT to be used in the form for the consecration of the wine, are in
very fact the precise words the ICEL (International Committee on English in the
Liturgy) chose to be used in this place!

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 161870 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