Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 201837 times)

Persto · « **Reply #205 on:** September 24, 2026, 04:51:44 PM »

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

3. A Digression : The Robber Catechism

There are many other introductory "background" points that need to be covered.
We must furnish some concrete examples that reveal the caliber of scholarship
of the Adversarii. However, this present section comprises a brief digression
from our main theme, in order to examine yet one more desperate effort by The
Robber Church (whose miscreants are not to be confused with our sincere but
lamentably ignorant and, therefore, reckless Adversarii). That it would happen
was almost predictable with certainty and, yes, eventually The Robber Church
did make its belated attempt to torpedo one of the most authoritative and
devastating bulwarks of our invalidity thesis, namely, the Catechism of the
Council of Trent, also known as the Roman Catechism.

A new English "translation" of the Roman Catechism appeared in 1984, which
date is quite appropriate inasmuch as parts of this opus are written in Orwellian
"Newspeak". In the first place, there was no genuine need at all for a new
translation, because those many earlier editions translated by Dr. Jeremy
Donovan and the later version by the Dominican scholars John McHugh and
Charles Callan (not to mention the first English translation printed at London in
1687) all are first-rate, very clearly expressed in elegant English prose and, with
a very few notable exceptions in several places, entirely faithful to the Latin text.

Nevertheless The Robber Church, for unmistakable reasons my present readers
will easily discern, did find it necessary to retranslate -- rather rewrite - certain
parts. The new work is entitled simply (and erroneously) The Roman Catechism;
and it is subtitled, "Translated and Annotated in Accord with Vatican II and Post-
Conciliar Docuмents and the New Code of Canon Law". Published by St. Paul
Editions, Boston, the "translators" are Robert I. Bradley, S.J., and Msgr. Eugene
Kevane. A laudatory "Presentation" written by Cardinal Oddi graces its
introductory pages.

Let us examine a few excerpts from this 1984 "Orwellian" edition of the Roman
Catechism.

The earlier translators McHugh & Callan render quite correctly and fluently the
following passage from Part II, Chap. I, Q. XVII: "In this the Sacraments of the
New Law excel those of the Old that, as far as we know, there was no definite
form of administering the latter, and hence they were very uncertain and obscure.
In our Sacraments, on the contrary, the form is so definite that any, even a
casual deviation from it, renders the Sacrament null, ..."17 (Emphasis added).

Here is the Robbers' Newspeak version of this text: "In this regard the
sacraments of the New Law far excell [sic] those of the Old. There was, as far as
we know, no definite form for administering the sacraments of the Old
Testament; and because of this they remained very uncertain and obscure.

Under the New Law, however, the verbal form is so important ["praescriptam"
means prescribed, or "definite" as McHugh & Callan render it; not "important!"]
that its omission -- even if accidental --renders the sacrament null. "18 (Emphasis
added).

The Roman Catechism was not written for kindergartners. Imagine its erudite
16th-century authors supposedly informing parish priests (for whom the
Catechism was primarily written) that in effectuating a sacrament the
sacramental form is not to be omitted! (The Latin 'ab ea discedatur' means
'departed from or 'deviated from,' as McHugh & Callan correctly so translate).

The phrase, "even if accidental," makes it sound even more ridiculous, as though
any sane priest would accidentally omit the entire form. What comes through
here is that all those Robber Church priests - correction: "Presidents of the
Assembly of the People of God" -- had better not forget to say something!

Now there is a certain passage in the Roman Catechism that most convincingly
damns the purported authenticity of the phony "for all men" mutilation and
annihilates all claims for its validity. It is that well known passage that explicitly
condemns the wording "for all men," as being destructive of the correct
theological meaning in this place in the sacramental form, and therefore
categorically unacceptable. The slightly different renderings of this passage by
Donovan and by McHugh & Callan are both quite competently penned and, of
course, representative of the correct meaning of the original Latin text. However,
what is reproduced below is the equally excellent version that appears on page
207 of the very first English translation of the Catechism, published at London in
1687, under the Catholic King James II.

'When therefore He said, 'For you,' He signified either them that were then
present, or those whom He had chosen out of the Jєωιѕн people, such as were
His Disciples, except Judas, with whom He spake. But when He added, "For
many," He would have the rest that were elected, either Jews or Gentiles to be
understood. 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.'

The Robber Catechism's version of the above-cited passage reads thus: "When,
therefore, he said, 'for you,' he meant those only who were present at the Supper
except Judas; or he may also have meant all the disciples whom he had chosen
along with the Twelve. And when he added, 'for many,' he was including all the
other elect from among the Jews and the Gentiles until the end of time. The
alternative expression, 'for all,' was properly omitted, because here it is only the
fruit of the Passion which is spoken of; and for the elect only does the Passion
bear the fruit of salvation. "

Observe how they euphemistically term the wording for all an "alternative
expression," one that was simply "properly omitted," rather than one expressly
rejected by Our Lord. Rightly therefore did Jesus not say 'for all' is what the
Catechism states. Do Catholics speak about possible alternatives for Divinely
spoken words? Furthermore "for all" was not, in point of fact, "omitted" at all,
because it was never there in the first place.

And lo! We even find a footnote subjoined to this carnage wreaked upon the
Roman Catechism. Verily the piece de resistance:

"This disjunction in meaning between 'many' and 'all,' although valid on the terms
of the theological distinction made in the text, is unnecessary on purely
philological and historical terms."

[Unnecessary? It is absolutely necessary to make the clear distinction between
'many' and 'all.' 'Disjunction' is their slippery word that avoids saying that these
two words 'many' and 'all' are directly related correspondingly to the two different
ideas in the 'theological distinction' to which they refer. 'All' is wrong not only on
'philological and historical terms,' but also, more importantly, theologically; and
finally, most importantly, because it is not what Our Lord said].

Continuing, then, with the footnote:

"The 'polloi' of the original New Testament text means both 'many' and 'all'
interchangeably. Taken as an exact equivalent of that Greek word, the Latin
'multi' can - and should -- convey both senses. And therefore both equivalents in
English, 'many' and 'all,' are justified. "

Apparently these new Robbers have now abandoned the original ploy, which was
to try to justify the bogus 'for all' on the basis of an ambiguity or peculiarity
allegedly inherent in the Aramaic language. With good reason do they abandon
it, for when that deceitful maneuver by the International Committee on English
in the Liturgy (ICEL) came to light, it was exposed as the colossal fraud that it
most plainly and assuredly is. This new generation of Robbers now tries to
justify the bogus words "for all" by alleging a supposed peculiarity in the Greek
language, which is a complete turnabout, as we shall now see.

In the course of their prevaricating "explanation" of the phony Aramaic language
business, the ICEL Robbers did manage to admit (and in this they were correct)
that in the Greek as well as in the Latin the word in question does in fact mean
"many" rather than "all". Moreover, to substantiate this they even quoted their
guru, the late Dr. Joachim Jeremias, who stated quite clearly and correctly:

"While 'many' in Greek (as in English) stands in opposition to 'all', and therefore
has the exclusive sense ('many, but not all') ... etc."

But now we find these erudite translators of the 1984 "Roman Catechism" (so-
called) forswearing the true doctrine of their ICEL forebears (on one of the few
occasions those chronic crooks were actually truthful), by now turning around
180 degrees and claiming that the Greek word 'polloi' means "both [their
emphasis] 'many' and 'all' interchangeably" and therefore "the Latin 'multi' can --
and should -- convey both senses." "And," in conclusion, "therefore both
equivalents in English, 'many' and 'all,' [which are not equivalents at all, but
contrary concepts] are justified"! Those pesky Robbers -- foiled earlier and
proved to be liars on the "Aramaic hoax," and now again foiled on the "Greek
hoax," this time in advance by the 1968 testimony of the ICEL itself. We eagerly
await the next installment.

Persto · « **Reply #206 on:** **Yesterday** at 02:03:07 PM »

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

4. Cajetan and De Lugo

Said Doronzo: "The Negative Position [i.e., the 'entire form 1 position] is taught by
the majority of theologians and Thomists up to the Council of Trent, and
afterwards by very many ('a pluribus'), Thomists as well as non-Thomists."
The Salmanticenses, moreover, remarked, "All the earlier Thomists up to
Cajetan, who rejected it, taught the same [i.e., the 'entire form 1 position]
unanimously."

Apparently therefore it was Cajetan, Tommaso De Vio Gaetani, baptized
Giacomo (1469-1534), a Dominican cardinal, who was the first "Thomist" to
oppose the mind of St. Thomas on this matter. Cajetan had been called a "lamp
of the Church" by Pope Clement VII, and it was said that he could quote
almost the entire Summa of St. Thomas from memory. Now, in his
commentaries on the Summa, Cajetan contradicted the teaching of the Angelic
Doctor by emphatically declaring that for the consecration of the Precious Blood
nothing more is required than these four words: "This is my blood." ("Inveniemus
non esse necessaria ad consecrationem sanguinis nisi quatuor verba haec, 'Hie
est sanguis meus 1 .") Continuing with excessive self-assurance, he asserted:
"Although Scotus and many others doubt this is true, it seems to me that there is
no basis for doubting it to be probable; but it must be considered as beyond
question, as I have said."

This opinion of Cajetan's appeared in the edition of his "Commentaries"
published at Venice in 1533. But subsequently the Sovereign Pontiff St. Pius
V, also a Dominican, proved to be one of those who certainly did not consider
Cajetan's opinion to be "beyond question," for when he authorized Cajetan's
commentaries to be published in a Roman edition in 1570 he also explicitly
commanded this particular opinion to be expurgated! As Cardinal Capisuccus
notes, "They are in error who try to maintain that this was expurgated only
because Cajetan downgraded St. Thomas's opinion too much. For Cajetan here
does not merely downgrade the opinion of St. Thomas; he departs from it. Just
as he departs from him on other matters, but those other divergences were not
ordered to be dropped from the Roman edition. It is evident that Pope Pius V did
not agree with this opinion of Cajetan [the one which he expunged]. "

John De Lugo (1583-1660), the noted Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, and an
adamant "short form" promoter, once claimed to have come across some
previously used Maronite Catholic liturgies that employed only the words "This is
My Blood" as the complete form for the wine-consecration. He argued that the
very existence of such liturgies proves beyond doubt that the "short form" opinion
is not just probable, but certain. In a word, he claimed in effect that by his
discovery of those "short form" liturgies the controversy now had been settled
once and for all.

Even today some persons still cite the De Lugo "findings" as "proof" that the short
form, 'This is My blood,' is sufficient for validity. Such persons are apparently
unaware that De Lugo's evidence is now of historical interest only as a noble but
futile effort, for even in his own day it was weighed and analyzed and thoroughly
rejected by many of his contemporaries. Perhaps the best and most thoroughly
devastating rebuttal was made by the renowned 17th-century Thomists of
Salamanca, Spain, that group of learned Discalced Carmelites known as the
Salmanticenses, who showed that the De Lugo findings consisted of either
spurious liturgies or liturgies used by schismatics and/or heretics, which fact
automatically disqualifies them as credible evidence.

Every person who thinks he knows something about the "pro multis" invalidity
issue and the "short form versus entire form" controversy should at least realize
that De Lugo surely did not settle and could not possibly have settled the matter
once and for all; for if he had, then recent experts, such as Doronzo in 1947,
would not have still been writing on this issue as an open question.

Now a quite remarkable aspect of the Salmanticenses' writings is that although
they poured forth from the pens of many different Carmelite Thomists over a
period of nearly a century, they do not contain a single self-contradiction.

Back in 1976, Father Lawrence S. Brey translated the Salmanticenses' entire
disputation against De Lugo, which comprises sections 30-32 of Disp. IX, dub. 3 of
Cursus Theologicus, Vol. XVIII, 'De Eucharistiae Sacramento,' from the edition
published at Paris, 1882. This translation, the first (and only) ever made into
English, was published in The Remnant, issue of July 31, 1976, pages 8-12,
under the title, "The Salmanticenses' Response To De Lugo On The Form Of
Consecration Of The Wine". No scholar or even casual student of the "pro
multis" invalidity issue should fail to read and thoroughly digest this most
comprehensive and brilliant polemical treatise, so capably and faithfully
translated by our intrepid and illustrious Father Lawrence S. Brey.

Persto · « **Reply #207 on:** **Today** at 08:01:49 PM »

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

5. Our Temerarious Adversarii
Very many great theologians, including Saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church,
have claimed that the words "This is (the chalice of) My blood," alone by
themselves, are not sufficient for the validity of the wine-consecration, but that
the entire form including "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" is
absolutely essential.

Among these "Pars Negativa" exponents we may include St. Thomas Aquinas,

St. Antoninus, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Innocent III, the authors of the Catechism
of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., those brilliant
Thomists, the renowned Discalced Carmelites of Salamanca known as the
Salmanticenses, Herveus, Capreolus, Sylvester, Tabiena, Armilla, Peter de Soto,
Viguerius, Bartholomeus Spina, Arauxo, Marcus Huertos, John Nicolai, Gonet,
John Vincent Asturicensis, John Gonzalez, N. Franciscus, Thomas Argentina,
Richardus, N. Philippus, N. Cornejo, John Gerson, Aegidius Columna, Andrew
Victorellus, Lorca, Thomas Hurtado, Pasqualigo, Petrus de Palude, Henry
Henriquez, S.J., Francis Amicus, S.J., John of Freiburg, Jacobus de Graffiis,
O.S.B., F. Macedo, O.M., and Pere Maurice de la Taille, S.J.

THEREFORE, the entire form is absolutely necessary for validity, and the words
"This is My blood" alone do not suffice. This is proved conclusively by the
authority of the theologians just named.

The claim in the last sentence of the above paragraph is absurd! It does not in
the least represent my view, nor that of anyone I know. Although the
comprehensive list of authorities I presented is quite accurate, everyone must
realize by now that even if I had cited 10,000 theologians, that would still not
settle the issue definitively. Because the one and only ultimate verdict, namely,
"Roma locuta est, Causa finita est," remains lacking. This matter can be
conclusively resolved only by our Holy Mother the Church. The Adversarii (many
of whom have "settled" the matter for their readers so self-confidently and so
facilely) would do well to keep this fact in mind.

One of the early Adversarii, Father Daniel Lyons, S.J. , was able to settle the
matter conclusively for the readers of Twin Circle (Jan. 4, 1970). He wrote: "The
translation of the consecration of the Precious Blood as 'all men 1 is perfectly
valid. The matter has been checked out theologically.... One good source is an
old but very scholarly manual of Dogmatic Theology, more rigorous than many
modern treatises. ... Fr. Tanquerey says that for validity ... these words are
sufficient: 'Hoc est corpus meum. Hie est calix sanguinis mei'." So! We can all
rest easily now; there is no problem; Tanquerey has spoken. And Father Lyons
has ratified!

To attempt thus to settle that centuries-old controversy by appealing to a single
theologian bespeaks a deplorable and culpable ignorance and an incredible
temerity. Moreover Fr. Lyons's alleged "facts" are even in error. Here is what
Tanquerey actually says in his Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae: "It is
certain (Certum est) that for the valid consecration of the bread the words of
Christ are required: 'This is my body'; and for the consecration of the wine the
words: 'This is the chalice of my blood'; or 'This is my blood'. "33

What Tanquerey is saying here is that it is certain that at least those words are
essential, not that they alone suffice. Which is evident from what he says next:
"There is a dispute as to whether the words: 'of the new and eternal testament ...
etc.' are required for a valid consecration. Many of the Thomists say that they
are required because ... etc. Other theologians say that they are not required
because ... etc. "34

And again Tanquerey: "For the valid consecration of the blood of Christ; the
words 'this is the chalice of my blood 1 or 'this is my blood' are required; rather,
with much probability they are sufficient. In practice, however, the form, as it is in
the Missal, must always be pronounced; for when validity is at stake, the safer
opinion must be followed. "35

Writing in The Remnant (15 Feb. 1971), the late Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand gave
his readers this simplistic soporific: "since a great many theologians (among
them the Franciscan Duns Scotus) had stated that the strictly essential words for
the validity of the Consecration are, 'This is My Body' and 'This is My Blood,' we
need not worry about the validity." So! Now we have Scotus and von Hildebrand
finally deciding the matter. All our worries are over. For the Adversarii it is all
such a simple matter!

Scotus? John Duns Scotus, the Franciscans' eminent "Subtle Doctor"?? Ouite
to the contrary, Scotus36 did not advance the "short form" theory. 37 In fact, one
of the noted "short form" exponents, the redoubtable Suarez (disp. 60, sect. 1, n.
3), 38 in referring to the contrary doctrine of St. Thomas that the entire form is
necessary, admitted: "This teaching [ie., that the short form does not suffice] is
very probable and of great authority [ie., St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism,
et al.j and Scotus himself did not venture to contradict it, but left it as a doubtful
matter." The reason Suarez remarks that "Scotus himself" did not dare to
contradict St. Thomas on this matter is that Scotus was notorious for so very
frequently impugning the Angelic Doctor, choosing exactly the opposite
opinion. 39

Most of the reputable theologians of the past who advanced the "short form"
opinion were honest enough and careful enough to point out that their opinion is
only "probable," and that the opposite view has great weight. Thus, for example,
Suarez, who held the "short form" position, conceded that the "entire form"
opinion contrary to his is very probable and of great authority ("Haec opinio est
valde probabilis, et magnae auctoritatis").40

But some of our present-day Adversarii adopt a completely different attitude, as
is indicated in the examples just given. Now that the matter has become one of
clear and present danger - that is, now that we are faced with a "consecration
form" (so-called) that actually contains a mutilation in the mooted final words--,
they vehemently insist on its validity, superficially and temerariously citing as
"conclusive proof" speculative opinions of a few theologians of far lesser
authority than St. Thomas, who moreover (as we have seen) do not even hold
those opinions our pitiable Adversarii so ignorantly ascribe to them!

I have in my files a four-page docuмent entitled, "Two Letters of Father Forrest
Concerning The English Mass". It contains excerpts from some personal
correspondence of the late Father Michael D. Forrest, M.S.C., to a Mr. Chester D.
Mann of Tustin, California.41 Here are several of Fr. Forrest's statements:

(1) "As to the All-English Canon now used in this country ... However,
defective and bad as the translation of the Canon is, I emphatically
defend that it does not invalidate the Mass."

(2) "The entire valid form of consecration is simply: This is My Body;
this is My Blood,' or 'this is the chalice (cup) of My Blood'."

(Underscoring in Fr. Forrest's original letter).

(3) "No, Chester, you can be sure that Mass celebrated according to the
new badly worded Canon is VALID." (Emphasis is Fr. Forrest's).

(4) "However, this is my definite view: It is morally certain [my empha-
sis] that the only essential [Fr. Forrest's underscoring] form of conse-
cration are the words: Hoc est corpus meum; hie est sanguis meus."

(5) "When I was teaching theology (long ago in Australia), I had at my dis-
posal a magnificent library. I treasured two large, pig-skin covered
volumes of Cardinal John de Lugo ... (who) stoutly defended that the
only essential form of consecration of the wine is HIC EST SANGUIS
MEUS, and he appealed prolifically in abundant quotations to numer-
ous Liturgies [many of which were proved conclusively by the
Salmanticenses to be either spurious or those of schismatics, as we
have noted], showing that these were the only consecrating words
COMMON TO ALL LITURGIES."

Father Forrest claimed the view that the short form "This is My Blood" suffices for
validity to be a morally certain view. Father Felix Cappello, S.J., earlier made the
same rash asseveration. Now "morally certain" certainly sounds terribly definite.
To many readers those words "morally certain" must surely convey a sense of
finality. If they can be "morally certain" there is no invalidity problem with the
English "Mass," then the matter is no doubt more or less settled in their minds.
This is certainly morally dangerous. If trusted advisors (who are so positive in
asserting their opinions) are in fact fatally wrong on the "invalidity issue," - as we
believe they are - then they are leading many Catholics to accept a "Mass" that
is very possibly an idolatrous performance, and therefore imperiling to their
eternal salvation.

What exactly does the phrase "morally certain" mean? Well, it is defined in
Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged). The first part of the
definition is: "Supported by the evidence of reason or probability." If we consider
only that part of the definition, then it can with equal justification be said that the
view that the entire consecration form is essential is also morally certain.

The second part of the definition of "morally certain" is: "founded on experience
of the ordinary course of things." Here the claim that the short form opinion is
"morally certain" disintegrates, while the moral certainty of the entire form
position would be thoroughly vindicated. For if we base the verdict on
experience, all experience shows that there is not a single example of an
unquestionably valid liturgy that uses or has ever used only the mere words "This
is My Blood." (From the foregoing demonstration it must not be inferred that I am
now being so bold as to claim our opinion to be morally certain, I hasten to add.)

Cappello had written, "Whatever may be the opinion of the Holy Doctor [St.
Thomas] and of other theologians, the opposite opinion is common and morally
certain. "42 To conclude this discussion on "morally certain," I would point out
that the fair-minded Doronzo, a man of apparent equanimity, quotes those words
of Cappello with displeasure and upbraids him for writing far too frivolously
("nimis leviter scribit") on so important a matter.43

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 201837 times)

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor

Persto

Re: Patrick Henry Omlor