Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 189899 times)

Persto · « **Reply #200 on:** September 20, 2026, 03:53:53 PM »

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

12 Ecuмenical Movement Equals Universal Apostasy
It is not coincidental that the words "for all men" are part of the bogus
consecration form as well as being one of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's shibboleths. For the
"universal brotherhood of all men" philosophy is one of the animating principles
of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which underpins its anticipated one-world, universal religion.

At one place in his article Monsignor McCarthy made the following very
perspicacious observation: "What seems to have prompted the 'for all men
translation was not the exigencies of the words themselves [i.e., pro multis), but
rather a theological framework in the minds of the translators, to which these
words were made to conform."

Here the Monsignor is apparently questioning the motives of the "translators,"
and therein lies his perspicacity. However, he probably assumes the "theological
framework" to which the words "for all men" were made to conform is somehow
related to the Catholic teaching on the sufficiency aspect of Christ's Passion.
While the words "for all men" do in fact conform to the sufficiency aspect, that is
NOT the theology to which these words were made to conform.

On the contrary, the "theology" to which the Masonic operatives made "for all
men" conform is the theology of apostate ecuмenism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's
envisaged universal religion. It must constantly be kept in mind that Freemason
Annibale ("BUAN") Bugnini was the leader of the 'For All Men' International
Conspiracy. Another influential "Special Consultant on the Commission for the
Liturgy" at the time was Msgr. Virgilio Noe, who subsequently became the
Secretary of the "Sacred" Congregation for the Divine Cult, which was the same
position that Bugnini had held previously.

According to published docuмentation ( Bulletin de L'Occident Chretien, No. 12,
July 1976), Virgilio Noe was initiated into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ on April 3, 1961, Code
Name "VINO", and Code No. 43652-21 .

In Issue No. 53 (April 1970) of Notitiae, the official organ of Mafia Liturgica, under
the Godfather Bugnini, there appeared an article written by Professor Max
Zerwick, S.J. Its subject matter was the "for all men" controversy which by then
was receiving considerable international attention. Zerwick concluded that "for
many" must yield to "for all men" for the following reason: "because of the
accidental but real unsuitableness of the words, 'for many.'" (Page 140, Notitiae,
No. 53).

No doubt the reader will recall that in 1961 Max Zerwick was removed from his
professorship at the Biblical Institute on the grounds of "suspicion of teaching
heresy." But that fact has no bearing on the value of his opinion I just quoted,
which from the viewpoint of the conspirators is quite correct, because the words
"for many" are utterly unsuitable for their purposes, as will now be shown.

The "President" of the Congregation (which in the Robber Church's argot means
"priest-celebrant") stands behind the table, facing the congregation. At one very
propitious moment during his performance, when all are paying close attention,
the President says clearly and audibly so that everyone can hear, these words:
"for you and for all" (or if the President and the congregation should happen to be
Italians, for example, the words would be "per voi e per tutti", etc.).

St. Paul writes (Rom. 10,17): "Faith then cometh by hearing." Destruction of faith
can likewise come by hearing. Hearing these same words every Sunday (or
Saturday evening), repeatedly, time and time again, the congregation will
eventually, but inevitably, come to understand what "for all" is all about. Things
will begin to click for them; the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle will start fitting neatly
into place; they will develop "theological insights"; a clear picture will finally
emerge. In a word: they will be hit with the full force of "Lex Credendi : Lex
Orandi" They hear and they will be led to believe. Now they will see the full
significance of the "Ecuмenical Movement." Now they will understand what deep
meanings underlie this new form of worship, this new liturgy and the new
communion rite, in fact the whole new streamlined and "aggiornamento"
Robber Church. They will realize that the old teaching about the Mystical Body
was too narrow and parochial, because our new church and our new "eucharist"
aren't just for Catholics. As the "President" has been saying, while holding up the
cup:"for you and for ALL!"

"Lex Credendi : Lex Orandi" will also enable them to understand why the See of
Peter is vacant, at least a good part of the time. That is, why K. Wojtyla is nearly
always on the go, travelling hither, thither and yon, earnestly endeavoring to
worship together with all men, that is to say, with specimens of every conceivable
class of heretics, schismatics and pagans: Anglican Runcie, Greek Orthodox
Methodios, Buddhist Dalai Lama, Methodist Emilio Castro, Hindus, Sikhs,
Shintoists, Jainists, tribal animists from Africa, Moslems, Zoroastrians, Jєωιѕн
rabbis, and Mr. John Pretty on Top, the Crow Indian medicine man from Montana
(and my apologies if I have overlooked any other notable Assisi freak).

Now, if the President of the Congregation were saying "for many," rather than "for
all," some of those nice people just mentioned might get left out. (In fact, they
would all be left out. The "many," Christ's Mystical Body, was not represented at
the Assisi "pantheon," nor could it have been.). Saying "for many" would surely
mess up the whole plan, wouldn't it? Yes, Professor Max Zerwick wrote with
wisdom, because those words "for many" are absolutely "unsuitable" and they
definitely must yield to "for all." Another thing: if the priest were facing towards
God in the tabernacle and praying a silent Canon of the Mass, that would
REALLY mess things up! "BUAN", "VINO", Zerwick, and the ICEL with its many
international counterparts did all the necessary paper work; the ubiquitous
Wojtyla now does the necessary leg work. As St. Thomas observed, apostates
always endeavor to sever others from the faith even as they have severed
themselves. The apostasy is rapidly becoming universal, which is Satan's and
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's plan for all men.

Pope St. Pius X long ago foretold what is now happening. "Their real aims, their
plots, the line they are following are well known to all of you. ... What they
propose is universal apostasy... it creeps insidious and hidden in the very veins
of the Church ... the ways are hidden and darksome ... Truly a spectacle full of
sadness for the present and of menace for the future." (Encyclical Editae Saepe,
May 26, 1910).

Persto · « **Reply #201 on:** **Yesterday** at 04:49:16 PM »

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

13. Epitaph
"The real issue is not so much the validity or invalidity of the translation as it is its
correctness and opportuneness." This remark of Monsignor McCarthy's exhibits
two characteristics. First of all, it is euphemistic; it is not the validity of the
translation that is at stake, but the validity of the Mass itself. Secondly, it
illustrates the familiar debating flaw known as "Ignoratio Elenchi," that is, arguing
for something other than the issue actually proposed for discussion.
Opportuneness? Ridiculous! Knowledgeable Catholics who avoid the bogus
vernacular "Mass" do not do so just because it isn't nice and its inopportune
wording is offensive. On the contrary, they seek out the True Mass, the ancient
Latin Mass, because they want to be sure it IS Mass. Our enemy, The Robber
Church, doubtless knows well that the real issue is validity, which is why its so-
called "Indult Mass" is available only for the purblind and the pusillanimous who
are willing to concede that the invalid "New Order Mass" is "valid." The real
issue is validity, not some airy-fairy "correctness and opportuneness." If
Monsignor McCarthy truly believes otherwise, then why did he attempt to refute
"Questioning the Validity...?

The autopsy is finished. It is now time to write the epitaph for Msgr. McCarthy's
article. I propose that it should read simply: 100-to-1. Although the "New Order"
is presumably neither "correct" nor "opportune," the Monsignor nevertheless
insists it Is valid. To put it in the proverbial nutshell: he would have it that
Freemason No. 1365-75 and Freemason No. 43652-21 and the whole gang of
ICEL outlaws (none of whom cared a feather or a fig about validity anyway)
inadvertently and despite their very best efforts and contrary to their stated
intentions came up with a winner," with something that somehow turned out to be
a valid Catholic Mass, at bookmakers' odds of 100 to 1.

POSTSCRIPT 1

The Freemasons' penetration of the Vatican, by having secret members placed in
influential positions, has been cited or docuмented or at least commented upon
by several writers, groups and publications, including International Committee of
Defense of Catholic Tradition, David Yallop, Bulletin de L'Occident Chretien, Tito
Casini, the Italian Government, Stephen Knight, Martin Short, Faithful and True
(Plympton, South Australia), Michael Davies and, of course, the perennially
entertaining Father Brian hαɾɾιson (letter printed in AD 2000, Aug. 1989).

A list giving the names of 117 Catholic clerics, all allegedly secret Masons, first
appeared in 1976; and it is still being circulated, with new names being added
from time to time. Father Brian hαɾɾιson, who deplores "crackpot conspiracy
theorists," for some reason thinks the list is "absurdly long." I fail to see his point.
One-hundred-some-odd masterminding inside operatives represent an
infinitesimal percentage of the total number of "Catholic" churchmen who
presently are laboring like Hercules to destroy the faith of Catholics. Perhaps the
"absurdly long" list, even with its subsequent additions, is still missing quite a
few.

After the list had become fairly widely disseminated, stories and theories about it
abounded (and today some of them still survive). The speculations and the tales
concerned the original sources of the information, its accuracy or lack thereof,
and the motives behind its disclosure. Perhaps we shall never know the exact
original source of the data or the reasons for making it public, but we do have
some substantiating proof of its probable accuracy.

Later, In 1981 , the raid on Gelli's premises by the Italian "gendarmeria" turned up
many names --of undeniably actual Masons (but not all clerics, of course) -- of
the members of the Lodge Propaganda Massonica Due, known familiarly as
simply "P2". Vindicating the putative reliability of the original list, Martin Short
observes that "it is remarkable how it [the 1976 list] named several men deeply
implicated in the P2 scandal nearly five years later ( Inside The Brotherhood,
Grafton Books, 1989, p. 117, emphasis added).

Never dreaming that four cardinals named on the "controversial" 1976 list --
namely, Casaroli, Villot, Macchi and Poletti - would five years later be irrefutably
identified as Masons through the corroborating evidence found by the Italian
authorities, L'Osservatore Romano in its issue of October 10, 1976 (quoted by Fr.
hαɾɾιson) matter-of-factly proffered this barefaced lie: "Not one, we say, not one
of the accused Vatican prelates has ever had anything to do with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ."
Not only a lie, it was a clearly unprovable, grossly audacious asseveration. It
merely confirms the wisdom in the advice that no one should believe even the
page numbers of L'Osservatore Romano without verifying by actually counting.

Even if Bugnini and Noe had never been exposed publicly, the telltale Masonic
stamp on "for all men" and on the Novus Ordo's various "anaphoras" is in itself
ample proof of the workings of Satan's Masonic "hidden hand." The subsequent
unmasking as actual Masons of the key figures in the "liturgical revolution" has
such a high probability of being valid testimony that it would be foolhardy to decry
it. The most rational comment would be, "Well, it figures!

POSTSCRIPT 2

I hope no critic of mine will be tempted to resurrect the hackneyed "Aramaic
language" argument. That fraud was first advanced by Dr. Joachim Jeremias.
It then got parroted, with occasional embellishments (predictably), by ICEL,
Notitiae In several issues, Max Zerwick, Bishop Thomas Muldoon, and many
other linguistic wizards of even lesser ability.

The "argument" is basically that the Aramaic language spoken by Our Lord had
no word at all meaning "all" and that He was forced to use a "Semitic idiom" like
those found in the Book of Isaias, in order to convey the idea that He really
meant "all men," and not just many. Jesus, then, supposedly used some
ambiguous term that unfortunately might appear to mean "many" when translated
into other languages. But fortunately we now have all these linguistic wizards
who solemnly assure us that Our Lord really meant "all men" when He said
"many" at the Last Supper.

The whole business is 100% polyunsaturated horse feathers.

I have in my files a letter, dated 18 July 1970, that I received from Dr. Revilo P.
Oliver, the distinguished scholar, author and lecturer of international repute, who
at that time was in his 25th year as Professor of the Classics at the University of
Illinois. His letter reads in part:

Dear Mr. Omlor:

Thank you for the copy of your excellent booklet, 'The
Ventriloquists.' I was particularly interested in the subject because
several months ago an acquaintance of mine asked me to check
the critical editions of the Greek text of the New Testament to make
certain that there was no variant reading that would authorize the
words 'for all men.' The inquirer evidently did not know of the
impudent claim that you refute.

The sheer impudence of the claim is almost breathtaking, because
everyone who has even the slightest knowledge of linguistics
knows very well that no language used by a people that has
attained even the rudiments of a culture could fail to distinguish
between 'many' and 'all'. Aramaic was for several centuries the
language in which the business and diplomacy of the Near East
(including Indo-European nations) was conducted.

You were dealing, of course, with a specimen of what I regard as
the ultimate dishonesty, calculated lying by persons who have been
trained as scholars and who use their expert knowledge not only to
swindle the uneducated but to destroy the very civilization that
made scholarship possible.

Your booklet is addressed, of course, to members of the Church
that is now committing ѕυιcιdє, but you have also exposed the
cancer that is destroying the civilization of the West.

Sincerely,
Revilo P. Oliver.

Whoever would sincerely attempt to discover the actual Aramaic words that
Jesus spoke and investigate their grammar sense, would do well to start by
consulting the ancient Syriac (Aramaic) texts of the New Testament. For
example, the Peshito (Peschitto), which is the earliest dated Syriac Biblical
manuscript. St. Ephrem, the great Eastern Doctor of the Church, who died in
A.D. 373, wrote exegetical treatises in Syriac and he used the Peshito for his
Scriptural references.

Matt. (26,28) and Mark (14,24) are the two Scriptural sources of the word under
discussion. In both places the Peshito has the word, "saggi‘a," which means
strictly "many," as opposed to the other Aramaic word, "kolla," which
unequivocally means "all men." One can verify these facts by inspecting the
Peshito and then checking an Aramaic-English dictionary. But I suspect that any
given one of our linguistic wizards, selected randomly, would be totally incapable
of recognizing or identifying even a single word of Aramaic, not even if one
should happen to jump up out of his beer stein and land right smack on his
proboscis.

This same ancient Aramaic word, ''saggi‘a,'' (which is pronounced "saa-gee-yeh,"
with hard "g" and accent on the second syllable), meaning "many" and not "all
men," is still often heard today. For it is in the Consecration of the Wine in
Masses of the Maronite Rite, which employs for its Words of Consecration the
ancient Aramaic tongue that Our Saviour spoke.

As a final point of interest, in three small Syrian villages -- Bakha, Jabaadin and
Malula (which is only 35 miles from Damascus) -- the Aramaic language, exactly
as spoken by Our Lord, is still preserved and used as the local tongue,
unchanged through the centuries except for the inclusion of some Arabic words
from time to time, in order to keep abreast of technological change. (See The
Milwaukee Journal, Jan. 13, 1987, p. 1G).

Persto · « **Reply #202 on:** **Today** at 04:27:50 PM »

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

1 Subtitled "Organ of the Roman Theological Forum," Living Tradition is
published at Via Concordia, 1 ; 00183 Rome, Italy.

2 Editor's Note. The "for all" substitution made its debut in the United States
on October 22, 1967, more than a year prior to the promulgation of the

Novus Ordo Missae in 1969. Needless to say, the latter incorporated this
same mutilation in its English vernacular Canons (or "Eucharistic Prayers"). --
L.S.B.

[All footnotes herein that are designated as "Editor's Note" are by Father
Lawrence S. Brey (L.S.B.)].

3 Italics added.

4 In Summa Th., Ill, Q.60, a. 3, St. Thomas teaches: "In the Sacrament of the
Altar, two things are signified, viz. Christ's true body, and Christ's mystical body;
as Augustine says (Liber Sent. Prosper.)." And again in his Respondeo of III,
0.83, a. 5, the Angelic Doctor states: "Now, in the celebration of this sacrament
[the Holy Eucharist] WORDS ARE USED TO SIGNIFY things pertaining to
Christ's Passion, which is represented in this sacrament; or again PERTAINING
TO CHRIST'S MYSTICAL BODY, WHICH IS SIGNIFIED THEREIN." (Emphasis
added).

5 In this Bull, Leo taught: "All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as
sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace
which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify. Although the
signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite -- that is to say, in the
matter and the form -- it still pertains chiefly to the form." And also: "That form
consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient which omits what it ought
essentially to signify."

6 "If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ -- which is
the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church -- we shall find no expression
more noble, more sublime or more divine than the phrase which calls it 'the
Mystical Body of Jesus Christ.'" (Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi, Pope Pius
XII, June 29, 1943).

7 Editor's Note. "In termino" refers to the state of eternity, after the completion
of our "wayfaring" status on earth ("in via"). -- L.S.B.

8 Father Most was then with the Dept, of Latin and Greek at Loras College,
Dubuque, Iowa. His first attempt to refute OTV appeared in The Wanderer

(April 25, 1968) as the feature article on the Editorial Page. My reply thereto
was printed as a "Letter to the Editor" on May 16th, followed immediately below
by Fr. Most's criticisms of it (his second attempt to refute my thesis). In a brief
letter (dated May 22nd) I replied to these latter objections by Fr. Most, but The
Wanderer declined to print it.

9 Editor's Note. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is alternatively known
as the Roman Catechism, and sometimes as simply the Trent Catechism. It is
the Church's official catechism a papally designated norm for other catechisms
and for pastoral instruction. Its authority is unique; some consider it an organ of
the Church's Ordinary Magisterium. -- L.S.B.

10 Editor's Note. What theologian, priest, or even seminarian is not aware of
that indispensable procedure in scholastic theology known as "theological
reasoning," whereby implicit truths and conclusions are made explicit by applying
the principles of logic to major principles and doctrines, also as regards minor
premises and specific cases? -L.S.B.

11 Throughout this section the Greek letter omega is transliterated thus: 6.

12 The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. IX, pp. 727-28, 1913 edition) has an
interesting and edifying article on Martin. It notes that he was "assisted by
several of the other great scholars..., but Gregory Martin made the whole
translation in the first instance and bore the brunt of the work throughout." He
died at Rheims on Oct. 28, 1582, six months after the first printing of his
magnificent translation, which he had begun on Oct. 16, 1578.

13 The prepositions "for" and"to" are (barely) acceptable substitutions for "unto"
in this place, but only provided that the idea of result (efficacy) is understood.

For example, one of the definitions of "to" is: "resulting in" (Funk and Wagnall's
Standard Desk Dictionary, 1974). Likewise in The Concise Oxford Dictionary
(1976) we find the following as one of the definitions of "for": "with the result of".
However, in today's common parlance "for" is generally understood to mean"for
the purpose of," rather than "with the result of." For this reason it is a misleading
and jeopardizing alternative. At the time of the Protestant Revolt the then
existing English version of the Sarum Missal had "unto" in the wine consecration,
which was changed to "for" in the Book of Common Prayer. When Gregory
Martin selected "unto" he, as always, captured the mot juste.

14 Pope Innocent III in De Sacro Altaris Mysterio, Book IV, Chap. XLI; Pope
Benedict XIV in De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, Book II, Chap. XV, par. II.

15 In several places St. Thomas has comments which if not read in their
contexts would seem to say that Christ's blood was shed "in remissionem
peccatorum" not only for many, but also for all. In I Cor. (lect. 6, cap. XI)
furnishes a good example. Here, however, the Angelic Doctor is clearly using
remissionem not in its literal meaning of remission (or forgiveness), but rather in
the less precise sense of propitiation (or expiation). This is evident from the
Scriptural quotation he cites (from I John, 2:2). A discussion on the important
distinction between remission and propitiation can be found in QTV, pp. 145-146
and 148-149.

16 St. Thomas brings this out clearly in these words, which we find in a prayer
before Holy Communion he composed: "Grant, I beseech Thee, that I may
receive not only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, but also the
fruit and effect ["rem et virtutem"; i.e., the res sacramenti] of this Sacrament.
O most indulgent God, grant me so to receive the Body of Thine only-begotten
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, which He took of the Virgin Mary, that I may be
found worthy to be incorporated with His Mystical Body and numbered among
His members.

17 "To be sure, personal piety is given particular consideration in the usual
devotions for Holy Communion, this being, of course, of great value. But the first
and greatest significance of Holy Communion is this: the sublime union with
Christ establishes the most sublime union of the members with one another...

"To regard Holy Communion as a matter of personal private devotion is not
sufficient for the member of the mystical body of Christ who is striving to attain
perfection, for even the greatest spiritual benefit gained therefrom is not the
ultimate goal of his endeavour. The most sublime significance of the Holy
Eucharist lies in the fact that it establishes and fosters the great, incomparable
fellowship of the mystical body, bringing us closer to Christ and to one another. If
books of devotion and even religious instruction indicate that the Holy Eucharist
is almost exclusively a matter of personal piety, overlooking its most admirable
characteristic, they herewith disregard an integral part of Catholic doctrine.
(Friedrich Jurgensmeier, D.D., Rector of the Archiepiscopal Seminary, Paderborn,
THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST as the Basic Principle of Religious Life,
Bruce, Milwaukee, pp. 246-247.).

18 For an exposition of the Church's authoritative interpretation of the teaching,
"No salvation outside the Church," see Interdum #8. (The Robber Church: Part 3 ).

19 This Bull was incorporated in the Acts of the Council of Florence (1438-1445)
as the "Decree for the Armenians" (see Denz. 696).

20 Sess. XIV, Chap. II.

21 Sess. XIV, Canon 2.

22 In the "Vindication of the Bull Apostolicae Curae". After the Bull had been
issued by Pope Leo XIII, the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York pub-
lished an attempted rebuttal of it. The brilliant "Vindication" was then written
by Cardinal Vaughan and the Catholic hierarchy of the Province of Westminster;
it further clarified Apostolicae Curae and it annihilated the Anglicans' counter-arguments.

23 Editor's Note. The res sacramenti, which is the effect or the "grace proper" of
any given sacrament, must be signified in the words of the sacramental form.
This pertains to all sacraments. St. Alphonsus Liguori writes: "Hie
praenotandum quod in omnibus sacramentis tria distinguuntur, nempe
sacramentum tantum, res tantum, et sacramentum ac res." (Theologia Moralis,
V. II, Lib. 6, Tract. 3, Cap. 1, dub. 1, par. 189, italics added). --L.S.B.

24 Editor's Note. In the Church's parlance, "Innovators" (Novatores) is a proper
designation for heretics or those who otherwise depart from Catholic teaching
and tradition; this concept is clearly distinguished from legitimate developments
in conformity with Catholic doctrine and authority. - -L.S.B.

25 This point was first raised in 1970 by Father Robert McKenna, O.P., who was
then at St. Mary's Priory, New Haven, Conn. Here is his explanation: "St.
Thomas, you know, argues for the necessity of the pro multis clause on the
grounds that it belongs to the integrity of the sentence spoken by Our Lord in
consecrating His Blood, being a 'determination of the predicate.' But even apart
from the substitution of 'for all men' in the form, this integrity is broken up by the
period after 'This is the cup of my blood...' (continuing 'It will be shed...'). I think,
then, that even were the form otherwise translated correctly, this might be
enough to invalidate it. At least a doubt would remain, for St. Thomas (at least in
IV Sentences) says that Christ did not consecrate His Blood absolutely, but
insofar as it was (to be) shed on the cross. And this is brought out by the pro
multis clause determining the predicate."

26 In his famous speech to the Assembly of Paris, September 2, 1792.

27 Hannibal (i.e. , Annibale) Bugnini was, I think, christened most aptly (and
perhaps even prophetically!), inasmuch as one of the historically famous
dedicated enemies of Rome was the Carthaginian general Hannibal.

28 Recently Michael Davies (The Remnant, Oct. 15, 1989) made this daft
observation: "I very much regret that the question of Mgr. Bugnini's possible [?!]
Masonic affiliation was ever raised as it tends to distract attention from the
liturgical revolution which he masterminded. The important question is not
whether Mgr. Bugnini was a Mason..." On the contrary, Bugnini's Masonic
membership largely explains the "liturgical revolution," and it would distract the
attention of only the simple-minded.

In a letter to the Editor of The Remnant (dated June 24, 1986), Mr. E.A. Wilson of
Miami, Florida, puts it plainly: "It is a great mystery to many of us why you
have been so fascinated by the writings of Mr. Michael Davies. If we were asked
to characterize his articles in a brief manner, we would be compelled to say that
essentially (aside from his tedious wordiness), he has an uncanny ability for
gathering correct facts and after thoroughly examining these facts, reaching
erroneous conclusions."

29 The defect of intention of which Pope Leo speaks was the failure of the
FRAMERS of the Anglican rite to intend to produce a valid Catholic Sacrament of
Holy Orders. Hence the rite itself as a whole was (and is) devoid of sacramental
power, regardless of the personal intention of any individual minister using that
rite. Defect of intention of the framers must not be confused with defect of
intention on the part of an individual minister of a Sacrament; that is, a failure to
have the personal intention to do what the Church does. The Dominican authors
McHugh and Callan confuse these two types of defect of intention [cf. MORAL
THEOLOGY, A Complete Course, Vol. II, p. 634, #2666, par. (a)]. Moreover,
they also go astray by saying, "The intention not to do what the Church does was
the chief cause of the nullity of Anglican Orders." (Loc. cit.). In Apostolicae
Curae, Leo XIII taught that the nullity derives from defect of form AND defect of
intention (of the framers), not singling out either as being the more important
cause.

30 Translated into English by Mary Ambrose, and published by Ogilvie
Foundation (Lumen Gentium); c/o 3 Magdala Crescent, Edinburgh, Scotland,
second edition, August 1970. Pages 17-18 have a letter to Paul VI by Cardinals
Ottaviani and Bacci, which includes the observation that the Novus Ordo
"represents, as a whole and in detail, a striking departure from the Catholic
theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of
Trent..."

31 By means of the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum.

32 Audacity is a vital tool for all subversive revolutionaries. Referring to one of
his early (1948) schemes, Bugnini himself boasts, "It was an audacious act.
And on that occasion was verified the proverb, 'Fortune helps the audacious." 1
(From La riforma liturgica (1948-1975), A. Bugnini, p.23: "Fu un'audacia. E
quella volta si verifico il proverbio AUDACES FORTUNA IUVAT."). And then in
the very next line he doth protest that it involved "no underhanded manoeuvre"
("nessuna manovra nascosta"). He forgot to add, "Just kidding!".

33 Editor's Note. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, authorized by St. Pius X and
promulgated by Benedict XV. --L.S.B.

34 See throughout its 205 pages the recently (1989) published book, Peter,
Lovest Thou Me?, by Abbe Daniel Le Roux. English translation by Instauratio
Press, P.O. Box 36, Yarra Junction, Victoria 3797, Australia.

35 From L'Osservatore Romano (May 28, p.1 1 , English edition): "The Cardinal
[Benno Gut], who was accompanied [at a papal private audience] by Fr. Annibale
Bugnini, Secretary [of the "Sacred" Cong, for the Div. Cult], and Mons. Virgilio
Noe, Under-secretary for the same Congregation, briefly explained ... some
outstanding points of this highly important publication." The publication referred
to was the text of Bugnini's and Noe's newly revised Masonic-style "Catholic"
liturgy, which the Innovators chose to call "Missale Romanum". It is "highly
important" for Lucifer's cause.

36 As reported in Time (Nov. 10, 1986), Mother Teresa of Calcutta called the
Assisi debacle the "most beautiful gift of God."

37 Editor's Note. In all cases those who attend such Indult Masses must
concede that the "New Mass" is theologically irreproachable, which is implicitly
tantamount to acknowledging its validity. In some instances explicit affirmation of
its validity is required. -- L.S.B.

38 See "The Ventriloquists," which first appeared as Issue No. 2 of Interdum
(Feb. 24, 1970), for a thorough exposure of this fraud.

Persto · « **Reply #203 on:** **Today** at 04:32:46 PM »

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

THE NECESSARY SIGNIFICATION IN THE SACRAMENTAL FORM OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST"

By Patrick Henry Omlor

"PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM" ARE
ESSENTIAL WORDS IN THIS SACRAMENTAL FORM. ESTABLISHED
THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES INDICATE THAT THE FALSIFIED WORDING IN
ENGLISH OF THE WINE-CONSECRATION FORM, "FOR YOU AND FOR ALL
SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN," CANNOT YIELD A TRUE AND VALID
CATHOLIC MASS.

PART I : THE BACKGROUND

1. The Long-standing Dispute

A dispute going back at least as far as the 13th century regarding exactly which
of the words in the Consecration of the Wine printed in the Roman Missal are
absolutely required for the validity of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and,
perforce, for the validity of the Mass itself, has never been settled definitively by
the Church. This unresolved issue we call "the short form versus the entire form"
controversy.

The defenders of the "short form" position hold that these words alone by
themselves, "This is the chalice of My blood," or else "This is My blood" (which
are the first few words of the sacramental form in many of the Oriental liturgies)
suffice for the valid consecration of the Precious Blood. They claim that the
remaining words of the sacramental form, namely, "of the new and eternal
testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto
the remission of sins," although being a part of the form handed down in the Latin
Rite, are nevertheless not necessary for validity. The defenders of the "entire
form" position deny the foregoing supposition, asserting that (with the exception
of the word "enim"), all the words of the sacramental form for the wine-
consecration, exactly as laid down in bold print in Missale Romanum, are
absolutely necessary for bringing about the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and
therefore essential for the celebration of a valid Mass.

A most weighty authority supporting the "entire form" adherents is a preceptive
passage contained in Part V of De Defectibus in Celebratione Missarum
Occurrentibus, which is incorporated in the official rubrics accompanying the
Roman Missal. In his Bull Quo Primum (1570) Pope St. Pius V ordered that this
Missal be used in the Latin Rite "in perpetuity," and the aforementioned "De
Defectibus" always appears in the introductory pages of legitimate altar missals.
This salient passage from Part V of De Defectibus reads thus:

The words of Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are these:

Hoc est enim corpus meum. And: Hie est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et
aeterni testament: mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in
remissionem peccatorum. Now if one were to omit, or to change anything in the
form of the consecration of the Body and Blood, and in that very change of the
words the [new] wording would fail to mean the same thing, he would not
consecrate the Sacrament. If in fact he were to add something that did not
change the meaning, it is true he would consecrate, but he would sin gravely. '1
This precept2 begins by setting forth the consecration form in its entirety. It then
warns that if anything (aliquid) in this form just defined should be altered in any
way whatsoever involving a change in meaning of the originally specified words,
then the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist containing the true Body, Blood, Soul
and Divinity of Jesus Christ would not be produced, and hence the priest-
celebrant would celebrate no Mass at all. De Defectibus does not single out the
introductory words of the form, "This is the chalice of my blood," and state that if
only those words are changed in meaning the consecration is invalid. It therefore
is evident that this official injunction in Missale Romanum supports the "entire
form" position and implicitly denies the claim of the "short form" apologists.

As it would appear that De Defectibus is part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the
Church, its authority is on a level well above that of the speculative opinions
advanced by various theologians. Although one cannot claim the passage cited
from De Defectibus is a definition by the Church on this matter, nevertheless it is
certain from it that the "Mind of the Church" is that the entire form must be
treated as though it is all essential, inasmuch as the penalty of mortal sin
attaches to anyone who would dare to add something to the form, even though
the addition would not nullify or interfere with the meaning of anything contained
in the given proper form.

A thorough and unbiased discussion of the "short form versus entire form"
controversy is presented by Emmanuel Doronzo, O.M.I., Professor of Dogmatic
Theology at Catholic University, Washington, D.C., in his work Tractatus
Dogmaticus DE EUCHARISTIA, Tom. I De Sacramento, Bruce, Milwaukee,

1947. His airing of the controversy is on pp. 150-161, being Article 10 entitled
"Whether Among the Words of Our Lord in the Latin Form of Consecration Only
These Pertain to the Essence of the Sacramental Form: This Is My Body, This
Is My Blood 1 ." The author begins with a section entitled Status Quaestionis,
which includes this sound admonition: "By no means must this controversy be
deemed to be an idle one, but rather it must be diligently attended to by the
theologian 'lest most shameful sins be committed by consecrating priests through
ignorance of the form,' as the Catechism of the Council of Trent warns (Part 1 1 ,
Chap. 4, Q. 19). "3

Doronzo next discusses Pars Negativa (the negative position which denies the
short form is sufficient for validity) and the Pars Affirmativa, (which affirms that
the short form, "This is My Blood," suffices for validity). Many theologians are
cited on both sides, and the various arguments of each are presented along with
the counter-arguments by the opposing side. On page 161 Doronzo summarizes
his exposition as follows:

"Having considered all these foregoing arguments, WE COME TO THIS
CONCLUSION: The authority of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and of St.
Thomas strongly moves us to judge that the Negative Opinion [which denies that
the short form suffices] is the more probable. However, since in the opinion of so
many theologians, especially 'Thomists,' the mind of St. Thomas, which the
authors of the Catechism [of the Council of Trent] evidently intend to follow, is not
clearly evident, we do not venture to deem one of the opinions more probable
than the other, but we judge both to be equally probable. "4

When a theological opinion is said to be probable, it must not be thought that this
means "probable" in the ordinary sense of the word; that is, more than likely to be
true. A theologically probable opinion is simply one that has sound reasons
behind it and is espoused by theologians of high repute, but which lacks
theological certainty and cannot be claimed to be certain. 5 This explains why
commentators (e.g., St. Alphonsus,6 Doronzo, etc.) are able to state that two
diametrically opposed opinions are "equally probable," meaning not that both are
equally likely to be true, but only that both have sound theological foundations
and numerous reputable theologians as adherents.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 189899 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor