Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 236465 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:** September 25, 2026, 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:** September 26, 2026, 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

Persto · « **Reply #208 on:** September 27, 2026, 06:33:32 PM »

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

6. The Mind of St. Thomas

Albeit the matter concerning which words of the wine-consecration form are
essential cannot be settled conclusively by any theologian, nevertheless one
cannot minimize the importance of the opinion of St. Thomas. He is and always
has been the one central figure, not only in this dispute, but in all theological
questions. To begin to appreciate the unique role of the Angelic Doctor in the
affairs of the Church one should read Pope Leo Xlll's encyclical Aeterni Paths.

In that docuмent we find, among others, the following exceptional tributes to the
Angelic Doctor:

The ecuмenical councils have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in
singular honor. In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican one
might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and
decrees of the Fathers.'

'But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of
the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the
conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of sacred Scripture and the
decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to
seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.'

The view of St. Thomas on the essential words of the wine-consecration form is
stated in three different places: (1) Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum; (2) In I
Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3) The Summa Theologica.

(1) In Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum (dist. 8, Q. 2, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3)
we read: "And therefore those words which follow [that is, which follow
'This is the chalice of My Blood] are essential to the blood, inasmuch as
it is consecrated in this sacrament; and therefore they must be of the
substance of the form. "44

(2) In I Cor. XI, (lect. 6) has the following: "In regard to these words which
the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not
all of them are necessary for the form, but the words 'This is the chalice
of My Blood only, not the remainder which follows, 'of the new and
eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for
many unto the remission of sins.' But it would appear that this is not said
correctly, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate [the
predicate being 'This is the chalice of my blood'] : hence those subsequent words
belong to the meaning or signification of the same pronouncement. And because,
as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of sacraments have their
effect, hence all of these words appertain to the effecting power of the form. "45

(3) In Summa Theologica (1 1 1 , Q. 78, A. 3) St. Thomas again lucidly
expounds his view:

"I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have
maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the
substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems
incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the
predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of its
[ie, the forms] recitation.

"And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow
are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this,
which belong to the use of the sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the
substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words
under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. "46

Persto · « **Reply #209 on:** September 28, 2026, 02:17:13 PM »

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

7. Our Wishful Thinking Adversarii

There are three types of Adversarii. First, we have those who are able to read
and who honestly concede that they have the Angelic Doctor against them. All of
the earlier theologians who espoused the "short form" theory up through the time
of Cajetan, and including Cajetan himself, fell into this category. Earlier we
quoted the words of Suarez, who affirmed that the opinion of St. Thomas, though
opposed to his own, "is very probable and of great authority, and Scotus himself
did not venture to contradict it, but left it as a doubtful matter." Most of our
present-day Adversarii are of this first type.

The second class of Adversarii includes those who claim it is not clear what the
Angelic Doctor really taught, or that he wrote ambiguously, or that he
contradicted himself, or that he was unsure of himself. Or that he changed his
mind from one of his writings to the next! That ludicrous claim was actually made
by Billuart, who for so doing was derisively accused by Doronzo of "flying to the
extreme. "47 To all those confused Adversarii of this class we reply in the words
of Capisuccus to De Lugo: "The opinion of St. Thomas is not difficult if it is
properly understood. "48

These first two categories do not at present capture our attention. With the first
group we have no quarrel: we see eye to eye with them, at least regarding what it
was that St. Thomas actually held. To the second group I say merely that what
confuses me is that anyone could be so confused as to think the Angelic Doctor
was confused.

About four centuries ago there was a certain argument of the "short form"
apologists making the rounds, and occasionally (but fortunately not very often)
some of the present-day Adversarii haul it out and attempt to expound it, at least
to the degree they are able to understand it. St. Alphonsus does not think much
of this particular argument, remarking that how such a theory squares with the
mind of St. Thomas is not at all apparent. 49 That remark is a polite
understatement. For the argument to which we are here referring is that St.
Thomas indeed supports the "short form" position! Which is surely a quaint
theory, and one which therefore brings us to the third class, namely, the
Adversarii Cogitationis Cupidae.

Before examining this painfully tortuous argument of those wishful thinkers, let us
in anticipation of it recall a few facts that have already been presented. In the first
work of St. Thomas that we considered (Script. Sup. Lib. IV Sent.) he says that
the entire sacramental form is essential (essentialia) and also in the very same
sentence he uses the equivalent phraseology 'of the substance 1 (de substantia)
of the form. In the second source cited (In I Cor. XI) St. Thomas uses different
phraseology, namely, necessary (de necessitate), referring of course to the form
in its entirety. Finally, in the Summa he reverts to the word substantia (the
substance of the form).

Now sometime after the Council of Trent, certain "short form" exponents devised
the theory that St. Thomas in the Summa did not mean by the word 'substantia'
what everyone up to that time had always thought he meant, namely, a term
synonymous with 'essentia' or with 'necessitas'. They claimed that by substance
he did not mean necessary for validity, but only necessary for the integrity or
completeness of the form. 50 From the Angelic Doctor's statement that the words
following 'This is the chalice of my blood' are "determinations of the predicate,"
they erroneously inferred that he meant those additional words of the form are
necessary only to express the properties of the blood; that is to say, to make the
form one single complete utterance that neatly links together all these
(supposedly unnecessary) determinations of the predicate. That is the argument
in a nutshell.

After this bit of seeming sophistry had surfaced, many sound theologians,
including Capisuccus and the Salmanticenses, painstakingly and methodically
refuted it point by point, as does Doronzo (all of these commentators exhibiting a
laudable patience in the face of foolishness, it would seem).

The first thing that comes to mind that would seem to torpedo this argument is
that it was not advanced until about three hundred years after the death of St.
Thomas. As we saw earlier, Salmanticenses mentioned that all the earlier
Thomists, unanimously, up to Cajetan taught that the entire form is necessary.
And as we read in de la Taille, St. Pius V ordered the expunging of Cajetan's
contrary opinion "as being opposed to the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, "51
which is exactly what Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus said in the passage quoted
earlier (see text associated with footnote 30). It would seem that the
contemporaries of St. Thomas and those who followed soon thereafter -- not only
those who agreed with him, but also those who opposed his view -- must be
considered more reliable interpreters of the mind of St. Thomas than those who
came upon the scene much later, coming as they did after the fashion of
innovators, entertaining such entirely revolutionary (and patently unsound)
theories.

The second thing that comes to mind is that those wishful thinking bearers of
novelties were evidently employing what Mgr. Pierre Batiffol has called la
methode regressive:

"This is a cuмbrous and uncomfortable method. The theory comes first, and
then the evidence. Sometimes it refuses to go in; and there is nothing for it but to
show that the author says the opposite elsewhere, and is therefore inconsistent,
or else to prove that the passage or the whole work is not genuine. "52

Finally what comes to mind is the fact that in the very same Summa Theologica
where this supposed difficult or problematical word "substance" (substantia) is
used, St. Thomas actually defines what he means by substance. In his section
on the sacraments in general he establishes principles that are to apply to all the
sacraments individually when he will be discussing them later in the work. Ergo,
in his Summa Th., (1 1 1 , Q. 60, A. 8) he avers:

"Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form
would be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words;
and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished." ("Manifestum est
quod si diminuatur aliquid eorum, quae sunt de substantia formae sacramentalis,
tollitur debitus sensus verborum: et ideo non perficitur sacramentum.").

On p. 151 of his classic work Doronzo adverts to this claim of certain Pars
Affirmativa ("short form") advocates that St. Thomas allegedly supports their
position, and comments dryly, "so they say" (ut dicunt). Later (on p. 153) he
writes: "Furthermore a special probability is given to the negative [entire form]
opinion by the authority of Pope Innocent III, the more obvious interpretation
of the words of St. Thomas, and the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent
and of the Roman Missal"53

Here is Emmanuel Doronzo's full elucidation of the "substance as opposed to
essence" theory:

"There is no use objecting that the holy Doctor does not teach that all these
words are of the essence of the form, but only 'of the substance of the form'; as
though the words 'This is My blood 1 are of the substance as an essential part,
and the other words are of the substance as an integral part ...

[To support and to bring out even more clearly what Doronzo is saying here, we
interrupt his exposition and interpolate this cogent clarification by Cardinal
Capisuccus from p. 214 of his work that was cited earlier (footnote 29). "And
then the reasoning of St. Thomas holds," says Capisuccus, "because inasmuch
as all those words are determinations of the predicate, the predicate being the
Blood of Christ itself, they all belong to the same identical theme and the
utterance of it ... Therefore some of the words of the entire form may not be
dropped in such a way as to imply that some of these words concur to confect
the Blood of Christ while certain others would not concur in confecting the Blood
of Christ. For this would be the same as saying that the very same cause
applied to bring about a given effect partly concurs to bring about that effect and
partly does not do so, which involves a contradiction."]

We proceed with Doronzo's exposition:

"For although the expression 'to be of the substance of the form' may be
interpreted [by some] in the alleged double sense, nevertheless they are not thus
meant here by St. Thomas. For in Q. 60, Art. 8, in handing down the general
doctrine on the sacraments (which he intends to apply in this place), he says:
'Now it is clear that if anything that is of the substance of the sacramental form
would be suppressed, then that would destroy the essential sense of the words;
and consequently the sacrament would not be accomplished.' ...

"From all this we gather that for St. Thomas these four expressions have the
same meaning (a) to have reference not to the use of the sacrament, but to the
sacrament itself, (b) to be of the substance of the form; (c) to be of the necessity
of the form; (d) to be that by which the sacrament is performed or accomplished.

"Besides, St. Thomas does not say that these words pertain 'to the integrity of
the form,' but rather 'to the integrity of the recitation of the form,' which is itself the
very substance or essence of the form." 54

Although I have the greatest admiration for the Reverend Doctor Emmanuel
Doronzo, I do have one criticism of him: he is far too benevolent. Let us recall
his "concluding remarks" that were quoted much earlier. After affirming that he is
strongly moved to judge the "entire form" position as being the more probable
(because of the authority of St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism), he then
awards "equal probability" to the opposite opinion solely because it is the view of
some benighted persons that the mind of St. Thomas is not clearly evident! This,
mind you, after his own devastating rebuttal of those confused individuals (which
we have seen just above), in which he himself brilliantly demonstrates what is
clearly the mind of St. Thomas!

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 236465 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