I read his work on the invalidity of the NOM, and it was quite well done. Yet even there, he made no mention whatsoever of the Offertory. I have a hard time undestanding why so many Traditional Catholics, even he, miss this absolutely crucial point.
That's actually the greatest crime of the reformers and IMO clearly invalidates the NOM, even in Latin (without the faulty translation of the consecration of wine). While the NOM removed most references to "sacrifice", if you look at Eucharistic Prayer I, almost entirely the Roman Canon, there are references to sacrifice and gifts.
But even then those terms are somewhat broad and general. WHAT is being sacrificed and offered as a gift? (gifts here is the Latin munera, the same as in the Bennyvacantist controversy)? What are you doing by reciting the Canon? Are you merely performing a dramatic re-enactment, making the Lord present by the "where two or more are gathered" criterion, and the bread symbolizes that presence of His? Or are you actually PERFORMING the sacrifice? It's not clear even from the Tridentine Canon alone. Stopping there one might agree with the "ambiguous intention" argument from SSPX et al.
But the Traditional Catholic Offertory explicitly stated that in the Canon which follows, the priest is offering / sacrificing the Spotless Victim (Latin Hostia). Hostia is a technical Latin term that means a blood/animal sacrifice. Alas it's sometimes watered down in translation to "Host" which people unfortunately came to call the unconsecrated wafer, by extension. But, no, the Tridentine Offertory is quite explicit that the priest is offering the Spotless Victim in repration for his sins, the sins of the congregation, and the sins of the entire Church.
So what did the NOM replace it with? ... a Jєωιѕн table prayer, where what the priest (and people) are offering now is the "bread and wine", "fruit of the earth" and "work of human hands", so that they might become our spiritual drink. There's no ambiguity here as per SSPX. Here the NO Offertory is declaring that what's taking place in this "Mass" is an offering by us of bread and wine, from our work and our efforts, and hoping that in return God will give us some kind of "spiritual food and drink".
1000% Invalid. Zero room at all for ambiguity.
Recall that any Sacramental Rite, for validity, must declare unequivocally the Sacramental effect, the intention of what it is that you're doing there. This positively declares a non-Catholic intention. God's response: "Well, thanks for that bread and stuff, but it hardly suffices to satisfy for your sins. Cf. St. Anselm's work Cur Deus Homo."
Also, no amount of personal intention by the priest can override or supply for a non-Catholic intention in the Rite, and Leo XIII stated that the Anglicans, even after they had rectified the invalid form, still had invalid Orders since the intention of the RITE was to wipe away the Catholic intention and meaning of the Sacrament, so even with a correct form the intention of the Rite invalidates the entire thing, as Omlor rightly calls out in his reference to invalidity ex adjunctis ... though he inexplicably misses the Offertory, as do most Traditional Catholics.
So, then, to make matters worse, if you recall the story of Cain and Abel, Cain is said to have made his offerings, munera in the Vulgate, exactly the term in the Roman Canon, but his are rejected, while Abel's are accepted and please God. Why? Well, one answer is that Abel had more faith? I think there's more to it, as Cain's dejection sounds like he had enough faith. What did Sacred Scripture say that Cain had offered? Well, the "fruit of the earth". Sound familiar? Yes, the same thing the NOM offers, the fruit of the earth, the break. NOM is in fact the Sacrifice of Cain. It's replacing the (pleasing) Sacrifice of Abel, the Blood Sacrifice of a Spotless Victim (the Tridentine Canon) with Cain's "fruit of the earth" offering. Coincidence? I think not. Done' on purpose.
Now take a step back to Genesis, right after Adam's fall. What was Adam's punishment for Original Sin? God proclaimed that "cursed is the earth in thy work". So the EARTH is cursed in his WORK. So then why does NOM offer the fruit of the EARTH, the WORK of human hands ... that which God had cursed as the punishment for Original Sin. How can something cursed by God as a punishment for sin suffice to make satisfaction for a transgression that we know that only sacrificing the Spotless Victim could atone for?
Marie-Julie Jahenny said that Our Lord appeared to her and stated that those "who crucified Me" were planning a Mass that is odious in His sight and contains "words from the abyss". Well, those who crucified Him are the Jews. So could those words from the abyss be the words inserted by the Jews, being as they are Jєωιѕн table prayers, be those "words from the abyss"? Almost certainly.
Anne Catherine Emmerich spoke of the AntiChurch set up by the evil sect where they had bread but it was not valid, and those who received with good intentions received graces in proportion to their disposition, i.e. ex opere operantis vs. from a valid Sacrament, ex opere operato.
Those who keep running cover for the NOM as valid, or possibly just "ambiguous", and badly implemented, etc. etc. ... please wake up. AN ENEMY HATH DONE THIS. Jews who via Communism and Masonry had infiltrated the Church planned Vatican II and the NOM. This is their work and it's done deliberately to blaspheme and to mock God.
You can put lipstick on this sacrilegous pig all you want, where like at St. John Cantius they have the chant, communion rail, veild ladies modestly dressed, priest facing the atlar, etc. ... but even with all that lipstick it's still a blasphemous non-Catholic pig introduced by the Jews to replace the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Topic: Patrick Henry Omlor (Read 424 times)