INTRODUCTION

POINT I: All vs. Many
             - Signification and essential sense;
             - "All" and "Many" used interchangeably in Sacred Scripture
             - The use of “all” in other rites of the Church;

POINT II: Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding
             - Catholic use and understanding;
             - Examples from traditional rites;
             - Signification is not lost, but maintained

POINT III: Principle of Logical Necessity
             - Logic works in one direction;
             - Principle of necessity missing from "anti-valid" position;
             - The Leonine Principle

POINT IV: Papal Authority
             - Quo Primum and other documents;
             - Sacred Scripture
             - Councils of Florence and Trent
             - A new Rite?

POINT V: Specific Refutations of Points Found in “The Robber Church”
             - Questioning the Validity of the Mass using the All-English Canon
             - Has the Church the Right?
             - Res Sacramenti
             - Questioning the Validity of McCarthy’s Case
             - No Mystery of Faith: No Mass?

POINT VI: Was the New Mass Legally Promulgated?

       To be sure, it is sometimes alleged on grounds of moral theology, that Catholics with any doubt about the validity of a particular sacrament cannot in good conscience participate in it. However, such works which address this matter are dealing only with the occasion of when an individual priest or some group makes changes to the sacramental form of the particular rite being used, and not to that which has been promulgated and approved for universal use by the Roman Pontiff himself, as is the case with the Mass of Pope Paul VI. (We address this point in Part VI.) In truth, as laymen we have no business “doubting” anything in regard to the Sacred Mysteries of the Sacraments. Further, when the Church promulgates and pronounces a particular sacramental rite to be a sufficient and proper vehicle for conferring a particular sacrament, not simply is it valid and are the faithful obliged to accept it as such, but no layman has a moral rite (let alone duty) to cause others to doubt because of his own subjective mental state of doubt. Besides being proud and impertinent, it is scandalous to call into question the validity of sacraments approved by the Church and to cause others to do the same. Unfortunately, many Catholics have become confused over the numerous arguments put forth by Patrick H. Omlor and others as to the validity of the new Rite of Mass promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

       The purpose of the present work is to examine, critique, and refute questions (and conclusions) that have cast doubt on the validity and legality of the Novus Ordo Missae: New Order of Mass (N.O.M. for short) promulgated by Pope Paul VI. This work should be approached more as a study than as simply reading material, for to benefit fully the reader must be studiously attentive to the arguments herein.

   • not a critique of the entire N.O.M. in general. In other words, this is not a critique of the ceremonies surrounding it, which can often contribute to a loss of the sense of the sacred; not a critique of the offertory prayers, which have deleted nearly all references to propitiatory sacrifice; not a critique of the other prayers (Propers, etc.) which omit much Catholic theology/teaching;

   • not an examination of the abuses that occur in many N.O. Masses;

   • not a defense of the N.O.M. in preference over the traditional Latin/Roman Rite;

   • A critical and detailed examination of the critiques of the new sacramental form of the N.O.M. offered by Patrick Henry Omlor and others;

   • A refutation of the arguments denying the validity of the N.O.M.;

   • A refutation of the arguments denying the legality of the N.O.M.;

   • A defense only of the fact that the N.O.M. can be said validly, even with the use of the words “for all” in the Consecration of the wine.

Patrick Henry Omlor: The Robber Church:

       The Robber Church (Ontario, Canada; Silvio Mattachione & Co., 1998) is a compilation of the works of Patrick Henry Omlor. Mr. Omlor has presented a substantial amount of arguments and documentation to buttress his position, putting forth the position that the validity of the N.O.M., particularly in its various vernacular translations, is at best highly doubtful, at worst it is null and void, and thus invalid. The more significant works pertinent to the validity or invalidity of the N.O.M. within this compilation are:

   • “Questioning The Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon” (pp. 13-81);

   • “Interdum” (eight issues: 91- 215)

   • “Questioning the Validity of McCarthy’s Case” (233-266) and “Excerpts from Monsignor McCarthy Again!” (323-330);

   • “The Necessary Signification in the Sacramental Form of the Holy Eucharist” (267-322)

   • “The Charlatans” (331-344);

   • “No Mystery of Faith: No Mass” (354-374)

   • “Denotes Does Not Imply Accomplishes” (375-376)

       Many ill-informed and/or radical traditionalist Catholics have been influenced by and use his arguments to cause others to doubt the validity of the N.O.M. I will state now, in summary form, Patrick H. Omlor’s Position: Mr. Omlor states that IF the new form “involves an essential change in meaning,” and he believes that it does, THEN “the sacrament has clearly been rendered invalid” (page 28, #35). He claims that he shall prove this to be the case, and will use St. Thomas Aquinas as his authority. Mr. Omlor holds that the new “sacramental form,” particularly in the all-English translation of the new Canon, signifies an essential change in meaning (p.28), and that it suppresses what is essential and signifies falsely (pp. 39ff); hence "invalidity through defect of form" (see p. 218-219: "Our Case in the briefest Terms").

       Defect of form is defined as a change in signification, a change in the essential meaning of the words. Omlor argues that the change of "for many" into "for all" in the new consecration formula is a change that does not signify the same reality (nor the same theology) as do the words "for many.” According to Mr. Omlor and others, the words “FOR ALL”:

    1. fail to convey the sense of efficacy (i.e. the effective application of Christ's shed blood upon many, but not all men), and denote only the sense of sufficiency (i.e. that Christ simply died for all men, with no reference to the actual application of His Precious Blood to believers), even though the constant teaching of the Church is that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the efficacious application of the graces and merits of Christ’s shed Blood. Thus the new form, “… is to be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven,” destroys the true sense of the proper form (pp. 31-34);

    2. if not conveying the sense of sufficiency, but still referring to the efficacy of the Sacrifice, then the heresy of universal salvation is signified, thus invalidating the new rite (i.e. Christ's shed blood is effectively applied to ALL men, thus all men will be saved - which is contrary to Divine Revelation and Church dogma);

    3. signify all men of all time, not the Elect, or the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, or those upon whom the shed blood is efficacious. This means that the new form confuses, if not denies, the effect of the Sacrament as not signifying the union of the Mystical Body (the reality or effect of the Sacrament). Thus the words “for you and for all (men)” not only fail to convey this essential signification of the Mystical Body, but on the contrary, they signify falsely! (pp. 39-42)

       This means, according to Mr. Omlor and others, that the substance of the sacrament has been changed, for there is a DEFECT IN FORM, hence the invalidity of the N.O.M. (The “substance” of a sacrament involves two realities: 1: that which makes it what it is, and without which the Sacrament would not be and, 2: those things which Christ the Lord Himself prescribed must be maintained in the sacramental signs.) Mr. Omlor states that his concern is with the substitution of the form: “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” with “for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins” (p.29). Later on, Mr. Omlor admits that: "EVERYTHING is at stake on THIS point" (p. 222; capitals are my addition). Taking Mr. Omlor at his word, this is what we shall concentrate upon. The burden of proof, to determine that the new consecration formula of the wine does in fact signify an essential change in meaning, is upon Mr. Omlor.

       Another point to be mentioned is that Mr. Omlor admits that his position concerning the short form of the Consecration as being insufficient for validity is only an opinion, and even then that his opinion is only probable. He also recognizes (p. 355, # 5) that the matter concerning whether the short form (“This is the chalice of my Blood”) or the long form (entire consecration form) suffices for validity has not been decided definitively by the Church. Thus, Mr. Omlor can only offer an opinion on this point, though it is one that has some historical backing. (See St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q.78, Art.3)