Is a Continuation of
Patrick Henry Omlor
You should read Questioning the Validity of McCarthy’s Case, because it is a Reply to Monsignor John F. McCarthy, which demonstrates that the New “Mass” in the Vernacular is Invalid and therefore is not a Mass at all. Also, that because of its Masonic animus, it has led, and continues to lead, Roman Catholics into Apostasy!
Brief Biography of Patrick Henry Omlor
Patrick Henry Omlor, R.I.P. [b. in Amarillo, Texas, on June 13, 1931 - d. in Perth, Australia, on May 2, 2013] was a Roman Catholic. On May 10, 1956, he married Mary Victoria Adelo in Albuquerque, New Mexico and then they moved to Menlo Park, California. In late 1973, he resigned his position at Stanford Research Institute in Northern California, and they moved their large family of three Sons and seven Daughters to Perth, in Western Australia.
Mr. Omlor was faithful to the unchangeable Catholic Traditional Faith, Mass, and Sacraments. He is a well-known author of various publications, including his best known 1967 book “Questioning The Validity of the Masses using the New, All English Canon”.
Patrick Henry Omlor, along with other well-known Roman Catholics, e.g. the Canonist, Father Gommar DePauw, Father James Wathen who wrote “The Great Sacrilege”, and a number of Roman Catholic Bishops and Priests, both in the U.S.A., Mexico, Australia, etc., who have remained faithful to the unchangeable Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, is renowned for his rejection of Synod Vatican 2, as well as all of the anti-Catholic changes to everything “Catholic”, such as the anti-Catholic liturgical rites of the automatically excommunicated heretics and apostates, which includes all of the Synod Vatican 2 pseudo-popes, e.g. Roncalli (2nd John 23rd), Montini (Paul 6), etc., for his contribution to the development of Sedevacantism which was originally taught by Father Joaquin Sáenz y Arriaga, S.J., PhD. (Philosophiæ Doctor - Doctor of Philosophy), Th. D. (Doctor Theologiæ - Doctor of Theology), J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor - Doctor of Canon Law) [b. on Thursday, October 12, 1899 A.D. - d. Wednesday, April 28, 1976 A.D.] in his famous book entitled “Sede Vacante”. He also wrote a series of eight journals, or newsletters, between 1970 - 1971, entitled “Interdum”, i.e. “Intermittent”, as well as other works including the work on this web page entitled: “Questioning the Validity of McCarthy’s Case”, “The Ventriloquists” Exposing the Aramaic language fraud, that falsifies Our Lord’s words, “The Robber Church” (in 3 parts) Interdum issues # 6 - 8, and several others such as “No Mysterium Fidei, No Mass”, plus “The Sky Grows Darker Yet”, his Speech to the Latin Mass Society of Australia, in October, 1973.
Here is a brief example of his position
“Let no one delude himself any longer. That ecumenical organization out there with its lying propaganda organs all over the world, called euphemistically the ‘diocesan press’, or the ‘Catholic press’, or the ‘Vatican Guidelines’, for this and that; that new Church with its cardinals and bishops dedicated to ‘interfaith’, and with its faithless priests who think of themselves as nothing more than ‘presiders of the assembly’, or ‘ministers of the word’, and with its craven and bamboozled ‘People of God’, robbed of their birthright. All that is simply not the true Catholic Church. No, that ecumenical nightmare, mired in chaos, is Satan’s own Ark of Perdition. Just as Pope St. Leo I rightfully referred to a certain bogus ‘ecumenical council’ as the Robber Council - ‘Latrocinium’, so likewise what now confronts us is nothing more nor less than a ‘Robber Church’.” (“The Robber Church”, p. 164).
Just a few days after his death, We were saddened when We accidentally learned of his death and Offered the Catholic Traditional Requiem Mass for him with Our 1941 Missal. Patrick Henry Omlor, R.I.P.
[This Web Page Editor’s Note: In order to distinguish Our “Editor’s Notes” from others, We will use the initials after the Note - JMD.]
A Reply to Monsignor John F. McCarthy, which demonstrates that the New “Mass” in the Vernacular is Invalid and therefore is not a Mass at all. Also, that because of its Masonic animus, it has led, and continues to lead, Roman Catholics into Apostasy!
1. Synopsis of the Monograph:
Issue No. 24 of the journal “Living Tradition” (July 1989) is devoted to a commentary on my monograph, “Questioning The Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon”, first published in March of 1968. For the sake of brevity, it will hereinafter be referred to as simply “QTV”. The Editor of “Living Tradition” , is Monsignor John F. McCarthy, J.C.D., S.T.D.; and he is also the author of its featured critique of QTV.
Because some readers of this present booklet may not be familiar with QTV, it is expedient to give here a concise synopsis of its central points. Always we were taught that the FORM, the necessary words for a sacrament, must not be altered, or else the sacrament is not produced.
“In our sacraments,” teaches the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null.” Concerning the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist (the wine consecration at Mass) this same Catechism clearly states: “We are firmly to believe that it consists of the following words:
‘THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.’”
In the English “Mass” (that is, the vernacularized [English] version of the so-called “Novus Ordo Missae”) this sacramental form is altered substantially, in several ways, but principally by the substitution of the words “for all” in place of “for many.”  [A1]
In his “Catena Aurea in Quatuor Evangelia” (In Matth. Evan., Chap. XXVI, par. 8) St. Thomas Aquinas quotes Remigius of Auxerre as follows: “And it must be noted that He [Our Lord] did not say “pro paucis” [for a FEW], nor “pro omnibus” [for ALL], but pro multis [for MANY]; for He had not come to redeem only one nation (race), but MANY from among all the nations.”
In explaining why Christ said “for many” instead of “for all” the Catechism of the Council of Trent continues: “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.”
And so we see that those words “for all,” which according to vital principles of sacramental theology are NOT to be used in the form for the consecration of the wine, are in very fact the precise words the ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy) chose to be used in this place!
2. Sufficiency (All Men) Vs. Efficacy (Mystical Body)
In his “Living Tradition” article Monsignor McCarthy summarizes my position thus:
“Let us examine his [Omlor’s] argument, which is as follows on page 48 [of QTV]:
‘The ancient and PROPER form for the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist uses Christ’s own words and conveys the latter truth; namely, that of EFFICACY. The new ‘form’ uses men’s words and conveys the former truth; namely, that of SUFFICIENCY. And thus the Innovators, the authors of this change, have destroyed the essential sense of the proper form.’”
There are, of course, other theological principles and salient facts that enter into my treatise. Monsignor McCarthy does acknowledge many of these throughout his article; hence the foregoing brief summary of my case will serve as an adequate starting point for this present discussion. Having quoted the above passage from p. 48 of QTV, Msgr. McCarthy remarks: “For Omlor,  sufficiency regards all men, while efficacy regards only the members of the Mystical Body of Christ”. I will get back to this puzzling remark a little later.
The distinction between the efficacy aspect and the sufficiency aspect of Christ’s Passion and Death is indeed one of the fundamentals in my argumentation against the validity of the ICEL version of the wine consecration, which is presently used in the Novus Ordo “Masses” throughout the English-speaking world.
In the final words of the ancient and proper form (“for you and for many unto the remission of sins”) the words “you” and “many” refer TO THE ELECT ONLY, those who attain eternal salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this very clearly in “Summa Th.”, III, Q. 78, a. 3, ad 8; and also in “Book IV of Sentences”, Dist. 8, Q. 2, a. 2, ad 7. Holding fast to these explanations of the Angelic Doctor, “The Catechism of the Council of Trent”, also known as “The Roman Catechism”, expounds the same idea in the following words:
‘For if we look at the VERTUE [Note: a noun; “vertue” is the archaic spelling of “virtue”. - JMD] of it, it must be confessed, that our Savior shed his BLOOD for the salvation of ALL MEN. But if we look at the FRUIT which men GATHER FROM THENCE, we may easily understand that it comes NOT TO ALL to advantage, but only to SOME. When therefore he said, “FOR YOU, he signified either them that were then PRESENT, or those whom he had chosen out of the JEWISH 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 foregoing is a faithful transcription from page 207 of the first translation of the “Trent Catechism” into the English language, published at London in 1687, under the Catholic King James II. The emphasized words and phrases shown above are as they appear in the original text. In this excerpt just cited the wording “for all” is explicitly singled out as being contrary to the “design of the discourse,” that is, contrary to the Mind of Christ when He said, “for many,” meaning not all men, but only the elect who are the only ones who actually benefit from the fruits of the Passion, namely, “the Fruit of Salvation.”
As will be demonstrated later, the final prepositional phrase, “unto the remission of sins” (“in remissionem peccatorum”), denotes RESULT or efficacy, inasmuch as with the elect the remission of their sins ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE. This concept is quite different from that of PURPOSE or sufficiency, which is what is conveyed by these final words of the despoiled ICEL version: “for you and for all so that sins MAY be forgiven.”
Coupled with the condemned substitution of “all” for “many” is the additional corruption of meaning in the ICEL’s final (mistranslated) words, “so that sins may be forgiven.”
Such a clause is known grammatically as a clause of PURPOSE (beginning with ‘so that’); it fails to convey the theologically demanded sense of RESULT or efficacy, as explained by the Roman Catechism, St. Thomas, and other theologians (including saints, popes and doctors of the Church).
In QTV and in subsequent writings I have presented abundant documentation from many learned authorities to elucidate the distinction between efficacy (result) and sufficiency (purpose). The following passage (as only one example) illustrates this important idea very well. It is from Treatise on THE HOLY EUCHARIST, by St. Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, a Doctor of the Church whose writings display the most profound learning and piety. The passage is from p. 44 of the translation by Rev. Eugene Grimm, C.Ss.R.
The words “pro vobis et pro multis” (“For you and for many”) are used to distinguish the virtue of the blood of Christ from its fruits; for the blood of our Saviour is of sufficient value to save all men, but its fruits are applicable only to a certain number and not to all, and this is their own fault. Or, as the theologians say, this precious blood is (in itself) sufficiently (“sufficienter”) able to save all men, but (on our part) effectually (“efficaciter”) it does not save all - it saves only those who cooperate with grace. This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.
Moreover, I have in one place or another also quoted passages in the same vein from the Roman Catechism, St. Thomas Aquinas, Popes Innocent Ill and Benedict XIV. Consequently it is puzzling that Monsignor McCarthy would remark that it is “for Omlor” that the distinction between sufficiency and efficacy is a tenet.
Another very important theological principle in my case against the validity of the English “Mass” is that the “res sacramenti” (a term that theologians use for the principal fruit, “THE EFFECT”) of the Holy Eucharist -- namely, the union of the Mystical Body of Christ -- MUST NECESSARILY BE SIGNIFIED in the words of the form for this Sacrament. 
This point is verified by many weighty theological authorities I have frequently quoted, including Pope Leo XIII who laid down specific criteria for valid sacramental signification (in the Bull “Apostolicae Curae”, 1896). 
“For you and for many unto the remission of sins” are the words of the sacramental form for the Holy Eucharist that provide this vital signification of the “res sacramenti”), for the words “you” and “many” are the only words of the form that explicitly designate the members of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. 
Moreover, the final phrase, “unto the remission of sins,” signifies the UNION of the members, as shall be demonstrated later in Section 5.
The words “you” and “many” (not “you” by itself nor “many” by itself, but the two words in conjunction with each other) are said to designate the elect, and they are also said to designate the Mystical Body. There is no ambiguity in this, because “in termino” [Note: in the end - JMD] they are one and the same thing. 
For the sake of clarity, however, it should be remarked that at any given moment on earth the elect and the Mystical Body do not exactly coincide, and this is readily understood by Catholics. For there are always some persons who at one time are not yet in the Church, but who will eventually become incorporated among the “fideles” [Note: Faithful - JMD] through Baptism.
Similarly, there are some who once were members of the Mystical Body, the Church, but who will not be counted among the elect. That is, those who become “dead members” through mortal sin and then, tragically, die in that state. Also those who surrender membership in the Mystical Body through heresy, apostasy, schism or excommunication will not be among the elect, though at one time in their lives they were members of the Mystical Body. They will not be counted among the elect, that is, unless they repent and become restored to grace in the bosom of their Holy Mother the Church.
We therefore speak of the elect and the Mystical Body interchangeably in the context of the consecration form, because they come to the same thing “in termino” [Note: in the end - JMD]: at the end of time they will exactly coincide. The elect are those, and only those, who profit from the efficacy aspect of Our Lord’s Passion and Death through the remission of their sins, and who die as LIVING members of the Mystical Body. After the Last Judgment the “finalized” Mystical Body (namely, the Church Triumphant) and “The Elect” will be one and the same thing.
3. A Mosaic of Sacramental Theology
Msgr. McCarthy writes:
“First of all, Omlor’s case for the invalidity of the ICEL form of the consecration of the wine does not appear convincing to me. The quotations which he produces to support his case are impressive in their own right, but they do not prove the invalidity of the ‘for all men’ translation.” And in another place he states, “and Omlor quotes an array of authorities who have raised doubts about the use of ‘for all.’ But none of these authorities says explicitly that the addition of ‘for all’ would invalidate the sacrament. This is Omlor’s own conclusion.”
After the first edition of QTV appeared twenty-two years ago, Father William G. Most, (the first person to oppose QTV in public print), posed a similar objection. 
Appendix 3 of the third edition of QTV was devoted to presenting Fr. Most’s arguments and my replies to them. The following appears on page 116 of QTV (3rd edition, March 1969):
“His [Omlor’s] appeal to St. Thomas and the Catechism of the Council of Trent is insufficient by far to prove his case ... Neither one explicitly states the invalidity of the English form of consecration.”
My lengthy reply (pp. 116-117) begins thus: “No one could be expected to enumerate EXPLICITLY all INvalid forms, since there is an infinitude of INvalid forms. There is, however, only one VALID form for any given sacrament.”
May one reasonably conjecture that nitro-glycerine [Note: Today it is spelled without the hyphen, thus: “nitroglycerin”. JMD] is possibly valid matter for Baptism merely because not a single dogmatic theologian has ever EXPLICITLY ruled it out?
This argument advanced by both Monsignor McCarthy and Father Most does, however, serve admirably as a model; it is the paragon of fuzzy logic. Consider this: if “for all” had already been EXPLICITLY declared invalid, then the issue would have been settled in advance -- case closed (“causa finita est”)!
Under such circumstances I would have had neither the occasion nor the reason to write “Questioning The Validity ...” in the first place; consequently, in the second place, Father Most and Monsignor McCarthy would not have entered the picture to oppose QTV (since it would not have even existed); and, finally, I would not be writing this now! Therefore it is entirely illogical to argue against me on the grounds that “all men” had not been explicitly ruled invalid.
Up until 1967 no one had ever attempted any innovation in the form for the Holy Eucharist, least of all such a brazen innovation as “for all men so that sins may be forgiven.”
Consequently none of my “array of authorities” would have had the occasion to single out explicitly as invalid this particular phraseology. For no one would have imagined (and I dare say this would have included Monsignor John F. McCarthy prior to 1967) that anyone would ever presume even to suggest such a villainous violation of the form of a sacrament as the one of which we are speaking.
The ICEL subversives were living and breathing testimonials to the truth of the sardonic Italian aphorism “Traduttori: Traditori” (Translators: Traitors)!
When the authors of the Roman Catechism taught: “Rightly therefore was it done, that it was not said ‘for all’ ... etc.”, they were expounding the theology underlying the distinction between sufficiency and efficacy.
Now, it would be supreme lunacy to suppose the theologians who wrote this profound disquisition WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY DEEMED TO BE VALID a form that contains the very words, “for all,” WHICH THEY HAD SINGLED OUT AS BEING CONTRARY TO CHRIST’S DESIGN in the words He spoke when instituting the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper!
Least of all would those renowned exegetes have considered to be valid a form that so evidently violates the fundamental principle of sacramental theology they so emphatically taught elsewhere in the same Catechism: “In our sacraments ... the form is so definite that any, EVEN A CASUAL DEVIATION FROM IT, renders the sacrament null.” 
Though none of my cited authorities explicitly declared “for all” to be an invalidating substitution, all of them implicitly did so. Each of these respected authorities has furnished valuable jewels of evidence, theological principles that are certain beyond question, all of which if taken as a whole form one harmonious mosaic of sacramental theology. I am only the mosaicist [Note: A person who makes a mosaic. JMD]. If all these brilliant facets are considered in their magnificent totality, the one supporting and enhancing the other, and the overall panorama is beheld, then my conclusion that the vernacular “Mass” is no Mass at all is the only conclusion that can reasonably be reached. Such a scientific approach to philosophy and theology is of the essence of Scholasticism. 
“But none of those authorities [cited by Omlor] says explicitly that the addition of ‘for all’ would invalidate the sacrament. This is Omlor’s own conclusion.” Here we detect two polemical subterfuges: the “suppressio veri” and the “suggestio falsi” [Note: false suggestion - JMD]. “Suppressio veri” (suppression of the truth) is the stating of something that is true in itself, while suppressing something that has an essential bearing on the overall truth.
Thus Monsignor McCarthy correctly says that no authority of mine explicitly avers “for all” is invalid, but he suppresses the impact, the dynamic force, of the mosaic of their teachings, the formidable ensemble of those truths, which implicitly but RELENTLESSLY drives towards that conclusion.
“Suggestio falsi” is the stating of something that in itself is not false, while suggesting to the reader’s mind an idea that is false. After referring to the “array of authorities” who do not explicitly say “for all” is invalid, Omlor (the amateur) is contrasted with them in these words, “This is Omlor’s own conclusion.” Although he does not expressly say so, he falsely suggests my judgment must be wrong SOLELY BECAUSE it is mine.
4. Some Latin, Greek and English Grammar
Monsignor McCarthy writes:
“Omlor contends that the Latin preposition “in” followed by the accusative case means ‘unto the remission of sins,’ and ‘thus this word UNTO in itself conveys the sense of effectiveness or efficacy.’ But Omlor’s explanation is not exact. The Latin preposition “in” plus the accusative sets up a direction leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning situation of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for some. Therefore, Omlor’s reasoning is not conclusive.”
Here, in its entirety, is my par. 71 from QTV: “A first observation is that the word ‘unto’ -- (which in Latin is the preposition ‘in’ followed by a noun in the accusative case) -- means ‘to, towards, or leading up to’; and thus this word ‘unto’ in itself conveys the sense of effectiveness or efficacy.”
The charge that my “explanation is not exact” is meaningless, for I gave no explanation at all. My paragraph begins, “A first observation is ... etc.,” and I concluded this short, one-sentence paragraph with the bare assertion, “this word unto in itself conveys ... etc.” It was an “ipse dixit” on my part, a bold “take it from me” declaration. I gave no reasoning at all to support my assertion, and therefore the remark that my “reasoning is not conclusive” is likewise meaningless.
When I wrote that sentence I did not elaborate, for I frankly didn’t expect so rudimentary a point to be challenged. As it has now been challenged, I will present some of the grammatical rules and “reasoning” underpinning my assertion. In this section, then, what is to be defended is my “ipse dixit” that not only do the words “for many” convey the correct restrictive sense of efficacy, but the final phrase, “in remissionem peccatorum,” which in English is “unto the remission of sins,” IN ITSELF also conveys the sense of efficacy or result.
The Latin preposition “in” with the accusative case is used to denote physical motion, and it is also used in an abstract or conceptual sense. Certain parallels can be drawn between these two usages. Firstly, as regards PHYSICAL MOTION the effective reaching of a destination is nearly always indicated. Thus “Caesar in Galliam venit” means that Caesar came into Gaul; he effectively arrived in Gaul.
I said “nearly always” because one finds occasional examples in classical Latin where in with the accusative fails to denote efficacy, as, for instance, in the phrase, “in meridiem fugit” (he fled towards the south), which does not imply an effective arrival at a destination. However it must be noted that to use “in” with the accusative case in such a manner is to do so “idiomatically or less exactly,” according to Allen & Greenough (New Latin Grammar, 1903 edition, p. 133, par. 221.12c).
Secondly, and more to our point, are instances in which in with the accusative is used in the CONCEPTUAL sense, such as in the phrase we are discussing, “in remissionem peccatorum.” The analogy between the physical motion usage and the conceptual usage will become apparent, in that the notion of efficacy or result is common to both. Consulting the text “An Introduction to Ecclesiastical Latin” (by Rev. H. P. V. Nunn, Cambridge University Press, 1927), we find on page 111 the paragraph 234, under the heading “In With the Accusative,” where the author illustrates the “pregnant sense” giving the RESULT of the action of the verb, and also the use “in a predicate” TO EXPRESS RESULT; i.e., efficacy.
It was St. Jerome who gave us the Latin phrase in the Vulgate, “in remissionem peccatorum,” the words of Jesus in instituting the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, as recorded in St. Matthew’s Gospel (26, 28).
The Greek text for this phrase is “eis aphesin hamartion,”  using the preposition “eis,” which St. Jerome translated into Latin as “in.” This in turn was rendered into English as “unto” by Father Gregory Martin, the scholarly linguistics master appointed by the saintly Cardinal William Allen to translate the New Testament at Rheims (1578-82).  It is therefore important to discover the meaning contained in the first link of the chain, namely, this Greek preposition “eis.”
We may consult “An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek” by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge University Press, 1960. On p. 70 the author discusses “eis” and its connotation RESULTING IN; and he furnishes several passages from the New Testament to illustrate this point of grammar. One of these examples is from Romans (5, 18), which contains two “eis” prepositional phrases: “eis katakrima” and “eis dikaiosin.” Investigating these two phrases proves to be most enlightening.
Romans (5,18) reads thus in St. Jerome’s Vulgate: “Igitur stout per unius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius justitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitae.”
Thus we find the two “eis” prepositional phrases (“eis katakrima” and “eis dikaiosin”) translated by St. Jerome into two corresponding Latin prepositional phrases; to wit: “in condemnationem” and “in justificationem.” These would be rendered literally into English simply by “unto condemnation” and “unto justification.”
Nevertheless the translators of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine New Testament (1941) did not limit themselves to the mere phrases “unto condemnation” and “unto justification.” Rather, for the sake of even greater clarity, they explicitly spelled out “THE RESULT WAS unto condemnation” and “THE RESULT IS unto justification.” Here is the complete passage:
‘Therefore as from the offense of the one man the result was unto condemnation to all men, so from the justice of the one the result is unto justification of life to all men.’
When Father Gregory Martin at Rheims translated Matthew (26, 28) into English, he rendered “eis aphesin hamartion” or “in remissionem peccatorum” into a corresponding simple prepositional phrase. Of the possible choices of an English preposition (from among “to, for, towards,” etc.) he selected “unto” -- the one that best denotes the required sense of result.  The word “unto” (which is now classified by some dictionaries as archaic) is of Middle English origin (circa 1150-1500), and its etymology derives from “up to + to”; hence “sick unto death” means so sick that death results.
The word “unto” can have other entirely different meanings, as in “do unto others.” Also “faithful unto death” would not necessarily mean that fidelity results in death (though it could be argued that such was certainly the case with the martyrs).
Exactly the same phrase, “in remissionem peccatorum” (eis aphesia hamartion), is found in the “Credo” of the Mass: I confess one baptism UNTO the remission of sins. “FOR the remission of sins” (as is often found) would seem to indicate purpose only and would thus fail to impart the idea of result or efficacy. “For the remission of sins” is not faithful to the true sense of “eis aphesia hamartion” intended by the Fathers at Constantinople, who incorporated this article in the Creed (A.D. 381). I confess one baptism UNTO the remission of sins, a baptism that RESULTS in the remission of sins, a baptism that HAS EFFICACY, that DOES something! Not just a baptism “so that sins may be forgiven,” as the ICEL would undoubtedly put it.
What I have been attempting to prove in this section is that in addition to the aspect of efficacy or result being necessarily denoted by the restrictive wording “for many,” this same sense of efficacy is also contained in the very words of the final prepositional phrase “unto the remission of sins.” This was the “ipse dixit” in par. 71 of QTV, which was challenged by Msgr. McCarthy.
In my foregoing demonstration I trust I have shown that, purely from the standpoint of Latin, Greek and English grammar, the true meaning of the words of Jesus in the consecration of the wine is contained in these words: This is My Blood which shall be shed for you and for many RESULTING IN (unto) the remission of their sins. This conveys the notion of efficacy, or result, that is insisted upon by the Roman Catechism, St. Thomas, St. Alphonsus, Innocent III and Benedict XIV.  The ICEL’s “shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven” is so immeasurably different from this correct notion that even a certified clod would be able to detect the discrepancy.
When the Innovators replaced Christ’s word ‘many’ by their own words ‘all men’, they necessarily had to change also the final phrase, UNTO THE FORGIVENESS, OF SINS. For to say that Christ died for ALL men UNTO the forgiveness of sins is, in effect, to say that His Passion actually brought about the forgiveness of the sins of all men. And this, of course, clearly is undiluted heresy.
And therefore the entire meaning, or ‘essential sense’ of Christ’s own words was changed when the Innovators made their ‘form’ read: For you and for ALL men so that sins MAY be forgiven.” What is conveyed by these words is the idea of the potential forgiveness of the sins of all men, which idea is opposed to the original meaning Christ clearly intended to convey which is that of the actual forgiveness of the sins of ‘many’. (From QTV, pp. 149-150). 
5. “Raison d’etre” of The Union of the Mystical Body
As has been stated above, the principal fruit or effect of the Holy Eucharist -- that is, its “res sacramenti” -- is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ.  Now, it is through reception of the Holy Eucharist that we, the members of the Mystical Body in the branch known as the “Church Militant,” become more closely and firmly united to Jesus Christ -- the Head of the Mystical Body -- and also to one another, and also to our fellow-members in the other two branches; viz., the Church Suffering and the Church Triumphant.  This truth is closely related to the Church’s teaching on the Communion of Saints (which we profess in the Ninth Article of the Apostles’ Creed), whereby the different members of the Mystical Body participate in one another’s spiritual goods.
The very PRINCIPLE OF EXISTENCE and origin of this aforesaid union is sanctifying grace. Any person living in the state of sanctifying grace is AUTOMATICALLY within Christ’s Mystical Body. 
But if sanctifying grace is the “raison d’etre” of the union of the Mystical Body, which is the “res sacramenti”) of the Holy Eucharist, it must then be acknowledged that the essential and absolute prerequisite -- the “sine qua non” -- of this union is the REMISSION OF SINS.
It is by means of the Sacrament of Baptism that we first receive sanctifying grace, and through the remission of original sin and actual sin (in the case of adult baptisms) we first become members of the Mystical Body. The Bull “Exultate Deo” of Pope Eugene IV  teaches: “Holy Baptism, which is the gateway (“janua”) to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church.”
We retain our status as LIVING members of the Mystical Body by remaining in the state of sanctifying grace. And a member who has become spiritually dead through mortal sin can be reinstated as a living member only by the REMISSION OF SIN(S), through what St. Jerome calls “the second plank after shipwreck,” namely, the Sacrament of Penance. Concerning the Sacrament of Penance, the Council of Trent teaches:
“Besides, it is clear that this sacrament is in many respects different from Baptism. For apart from the fact that in matter and form, which constitute the essence of a sacrament, it differs very widely, ... the fruit of Baptism is one thing, that of Penance another. For by Baptism we put on Christ (Gal. 3:27) and are made in Him an entirely new creature, receiving a full and complete remission of all sins; to which newness and integrity, however, we are by no means able to arrive by the sacrament of Penance without many tears and labors on our part, divine justice demanding this, so that Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers a laborious kind of Baptism. This sacrament of Penance is for those who have fallen after Baptism necessary for salvation, as Baptism is for those who have not yet been regenerated.” 
“If anyone, confounding the sacraments, says that Baptism is itself the sacrament of Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct, and that Penance therefore is not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck, let him be anathema.” 
From all the foregoing it is evident that the REMISSION OF SINS -- that is, the ACTUAL AND EFFICACIOUS remission of sins; or in other words “in remissionem peccatorum” (UNTO the remission of sins) -- is the necessary prerequisite for: (a) our initial incorporation in the Mystical Body; and (b) the reinstatement as living members, through the Second Plank After Shipwreck, of those who have lost sanctifying grace. Consequently, the REMISSION OF SINS CAN BE SAID TO CAUSE THE UNION of the members of the Mystical Body.
THEREFORE, inasmuch as this union is the very “res sacramenti”) of the Holy Eucharist, WHICH MUST BE SIGNIFIED IN THE WORDS OF THE SACRAMENTAL FORM, it is likewise evident that the final phrase of the form for the Consecration of the Wine in its entirety -- to wit: “for you and for many unto the remission of sins” -- comprises these essential words. The words “you” and “many” designate the members; the words, “unto the remission of sins”, signify the principle of their unity. “O vinculum caritatis!”
6. Ambiguity in Sacramental Forms
The dictionary definition of “ambiguous” is: “Capable of being understood in two or more possible senses; equivocal.” The seven examples below are all excerpts taken verbatim from Monsignor McCarthy’s article. They were selected for presentation because they all contain the inherent assumption or the forthright admission that the ICEL form is ambiguous.
1) The Latin preposition “in” plus the accusative sets up a direction leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning situation of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for some.
2) What I do want to point out is that “for all men” does not invalidate the form, if the aspect of efficacy recedes from “for many” to “for you” and the following words “for all” become an expression of the salvific will of Christ towards all men.
3) Was the ICEL translation made and presented in awareness of this contrary theological and doctrinal position? Was due attention paid to the need to keep the form of the sacrament clear and unambiguous ... ?
4) And so Omlor is constrained to argue that the addition of the words “and for all men” changes the essential sense of the form from that of efficacy to that of sufficiency. Now, this might be true if the words, “for you” did not precede the words “for all,” but, when the words “for you” are retained, the sense of efficacy is already conveyed, so that the succeeding words “and for all” simply express the background of the salvific will of Christ on the Cross. Thus, the sense of efficacy of the form may be weakened and obscured, but it is not destroyed.
5) While this translation does not clearly invalidate the sacrament, as Omlor maintains, it does seem to confuse and obscure its integral form.
6) Note also that the form of the Holy Eucharist both looks to the future and looks to the past ... Similarly, the words of the form for the Holy Eucharist, even as they refer primarily to the efficacious graces that will flow from the Mass, refer also in a secondary sense to all the graces that were to come from the sacrifice on Calvary. To make this secondary sense explicit in a secondary way would not necessarily invalidate the form, but it does effect a partial change of emphasis which does not seem very consistent with the original meaning of the words.
7) Martin Luther contended that, since Christ died once and for all and thereby redeemed all men, there was no need for the Mass. The emphasis upon the salvific will in the words “for all” could suggest a Lutheran misunderstanding of the Mass, and its reduction in the minds of some to a mere communion service.
The foregoing excerpts all reveal that Monsignor McCarthy believes the ICEL form, “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven,” can be understood in two or more possible senses. NOW, A SACRAMENTAL FORM THAT IS AMBIGUOUS IS “IPSO FACTO” INVALID. “In our sacraments,” teaches the Catechism of the Council of Trent, “the form is so definite that any, even a casual deviation from it, renders the sacrament null.
Hence the form is expressed in the clearest terms, such as exclude the possibility of doubt.” “Moreover, the signification must not be ambiguous, but so far definite as to discriminate the grace effected from graces of a different kind ...,” noted Cardinal Vaughan on the same subject. 
Here I should make an important clarification. From the above it must not be thought that the form of a sacrament cannot signify more than one thing. The “Respondeo” [Note: literally: “I Respond”. The English translation of the “Summa Theologica”, by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benziger Bros. edition, 1947, translates it: “I answer that” - JMD] of St. Thomas in “Summa Th.,” III, Q. 78, a. 3, explains the various things that are designated or signified in the consecration of the wine by the various parts of the form: “This is the chalice of My Blood,” “of the new and eternal testament,” “the mystery of faith,” “for you and for many unto the remission of sins,” etc.
(Also, in “Res Sacramenti”, an article published in May 1970, as Issue No. 3 of “Interdum,” I discussed four things that are signified in the form for the Holy Eucharist, namely, transubstantiation, sacrifice, propitiation, and the “res sacramenti”), which is the union of the Mystical Body of Christ).
When we say an ambiguous sacramental form is “ipso facto” invalid, we mean that A SINGLE WORD OR GROUP OF WORDS cannot be understood in more than one way. Thus, for example, were one to claim “This is My Body” refers both to Christ’s true body and also to His Mystical Body, he would be asserting that those words are ambiguous.
Therefore it is evident that Monsignor McCarthy’s opinions that were cited above all presume the ICEL form is ambiguous in the “ipso facto invalid” sense, because they all claim the same phrase, “for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven,” is to be understood as meaning more than one thing.
7. Monsignor McCarthy’s Case
Msgr. McCarthy observes, “First of all, Omlor’s case for the invalidity of the ICEL form for the consecration of the wine does not appear convincing to me,” but he does acknowledge elsewhere in his article that I have written a “highly documented treatise,” that my quoted sources are “impressive in their own right,” and that “Omlor quotes an array of authorities,” etc.
What do appear convincing to him are his own jerry-built [Note: This is an adjective which means something built cheaply and flimsily; something rickety, shoddy, slipshod. Sometimes it is confused with “jerry-rigged” which is an adjective which means something that is patched or cobbled or hooked-up. - JMD] theological theories.
In propounding them he appeals to no higher authority. He offers no quotations from any Father or Doctor of the Church, nor does he cite any recognized theologian, or catechism, or dogmatic theology text.
Neither does he invoke the Magisterium of the Church through dicta or acts of the Sovereign Pontiffs, ecumenical councils, etc. Throughout the entire presentation of his case (which begins at the bottom of page 4 of the journal and takes up most of page 5) he quotes one, and only one, supposed authority to support his theories. This authority is, of all people, Omlor! The amateur!
He commences his case thus: “But Our Lord, in the ICEL translation of the form, is referring only to members (present or future) of the Mystical Body where He says ‘for you.’ Therefore, from this aspect, the essential sense of the proper form is preserved. Omlor himself admits this (on page 65 of his treatise), where he says that ‘even simply the words “for you” would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical Body. ‘ And therefore, this part of his argument falls.”
Great balls o’ fire! NEVER, on page 65 or in any other place have I admitted that the ICEL version preserves the essential sense of the proper form. For that is the very antithesis of my position! Monsignor McCarthy has failed utterly to perceive the context in which I made the remark he cites, the purpose of which was SIMPLY TO SHOW THAT ALL THE SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNTS of the Institution of the Holy Eucharist contain words that refer to the Mystical Body. Below is the mere half-sentence he has quoted (the part in bold print), followed by the remainder of my explanation on page 65 of QTV, which clearly shows the overall context:
... EVEN SIMPLY THE WORDS “FOR YOU” WOULD SUFFICE TO SIGNIFY THE MEMBERS OF THE MYSTICAL BODY. And it is important to note well that all Scriptural accounts [Note: my emphasis is in the original text of QTV] of the institution of the Holy Eucharist contain this signification of the members of the Mystical Body.
Thus Sts. Matthew and Mark record “for many.” St. Luke records: “This is my body, which is given FOR YOU,” and also “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed FOR YOU.” ...
St. Thomas has explained that not all the essential elements of this sacramental form can be found in any single account from the Scriptures: “The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms for the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy: their object was to write the story of Christ.” (“Summa Th.”, III, Q. 78, a. 3, ad 9).
From my comments on p. 65 of QTV it cannot be inferred that the words, “for you,” AND THESE WORDS ALONE, (which appear in St. Luke’s Gospel), would suffice to signify the Mystical Body IN THE SACRAMENTAL FORM for the Holy Eucharist.
The crux of Msgr. McCarthy’s case, upon which his whole argument depends, is that the mere words, “for you,” suffice to denote the entire Mystical Body in the ICEL form. And therefore the presence of these two words, “for you,” preserves validity, despite the addition of “and for all,” and despite the further addition of the clause of purpose, “so that sins may be forgiven.” The cornerstone of his case hinges on the great authority Omlor, whom he quotes as saying, “even simply the words ‘for you’ would suffice to signify the members of the Mystical Body.”
There is a subtle, yet chasmal [Note: a huge difference - JMD], difference between the “for you” in St. Luke’s Gospel I cited, standing alone by itself, and these same words “for you” taken from St. Luke and made part of the sacramental form, “for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” When incorporated into the sacramental form, these words “for you” do not signify the entire Mystical Body, BUT ONLY A PART THEREOF. This mysterious signification now contained in the sacramental form is wrought through the incomprehensible design and operation of the Holy Ghost, as is explained by the Roman Catechism in these words:
“But those words which are added, “For you and for many,” are taken severally from S. Matthew and S. Luke, which notwithstanding Holy Church, taught by the Spirit of God, has joined together. ...
When therefore He said, “For you”, He signified either them that were then present, or those whom He had chosen out of the Jewish 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 [i.e., the REMAINDER of the Elect] either Jews or Gentiles, to be understood.”
ERGO, Monsignor McCarthy’s key assumption, the cornerstone on which his entire case rests, namely, that the mere words “for you” allegedly denote the Mystical Body “IN TOTO” (thus supposedly preserving the essential sense of the form) is absolutely unsound, as I have just shown, quoting the original 1687 English version of the Roman Catechism.
Furthermore, contrary to Monsignor McCarthy’s theory, the simple fact that the words “for you” were retained in the ICEL’s form does not and cannot take care of the invalidity problem. These words “for you” in no way nullify or counteract the FALSE SIGNIFICATION of the ICEL’s additional spurious words, “and for all men.” This is an important point, and it seems appropriate to reproduce what I wrote some twenty years ago in the article, “Res Sacramenti”.
Since ‘all men’ do not, never have, and never will belong to Christ’s Mystical Body, it is evident that these words substituted in the form cannot possibly designate the “res sacramenti” (the union of the Mystical Body). On the contrary, they contain a FALSE signification; they are IN OPPOSITION to the special grace of the Eucharist. “For all men” works against the purpose for which Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist, namely, the unity of His Mystical Body. AS LONG AS THESE WORDS ARE PRESENT, mutilating the form, the Sacrament and the Mass must, in our opinion, be considered invalid... 
In another place Msgr. McCarthy states:
“And so Omlor is constrained to argue that the addition of the words ‘and for all men’ changes the essential sense of the form from that of efficacy to that of sufficiency.”
Not in the derogatory sense that is implied am I constrained to argue thus; but I am constrained in the sense that principles of sacramental theology and simple English rhetoric force me to this conclusion. Examine the ICEL’s bogus form. Look at the words themselves, “shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” Do they denote even a whit of efficacy?
Monsignor McCarthy seemingly does not pay sufficient attention to the overall contexts in which words appear. He claims, “... but, when the words ‘for you’ are retained, the sense of efficacy is already conveyed.” Now, to assert, albeit erroneously, that “for you” denotes the entire Mystical Body is one thing. But to claim these words “for you” IN THEMSELVES DENOTE EFFICACY IS ABSURD. Even more so when they are followed by the clause of PURPOSE “so that sins may be forgiven.” His other theory that “the aspect of efficacy recedes from ‘for many’ to ‘for you”’ smacks of semantic sleight of hand.
When reading his many arguments (cited earlier) that presume ambiguity in the ICEL form, I was struck particularly by this one:
“The Latin preposition “in” plus the accusative case sets up a direction leading to efficacy and can include both the beginning situation of redemption for all and the final situation of salvation for some.”
It was deja-vu!
Back in 1968, Father Most claimed:
“One can with equal ease think of the fact that the redemption was SUFFICIENT to forgive ALL sins, or the fact that it actually or EFFICACIOUSLY leads to forgiveness only in SOME men, in those who accept its fruits.”
My reply to this was as follows:
Though it is not the case, let us assume (for argument’s sake) that the new “form” actually does convey BOTH sufficiency and efficacy. The “form” would then be automatically wrong, for the PROPER form should denote EFFICACY ONLY. In explaining why “all men” should not be used, the Trent Catechism gives this reason: “in this place the fruits of the Passion ARE ALONE SPOKEN OF, AND TO THE ELECT ONLY did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.” (Emphasis added).
Secondly, if the new “form” does convey these two entirely different concepts, it is, by definition, AMBIGUOUS. Hence it cannot be a valid form, which MUST BE DEFINITE, as stated above in Reply to Objection C.
But, finally, the new “form” actually denotes SUFFICIENCY ONLY (as explained in par. 72 and in pars. 80-82 earlier in this monograph), because the phrase “all men,” by its universality, cannot possibly denote “the elect only.” (QTV, 3rd edition, pp. 118- 119).
The good news is that the ICEL form is not “ipso facto” invalid owing to some ambiguity, simply because the actual words don’t signify more than one thing; they clearly signify sufficiency only. It is solely in the imaginings of Father Most and Monsignor McCarthy that both sufficiency and efficacy are signified. The bad news is that my case for invalidity remains unrefuted [Note: unable to refute - JMD].
Another plank in Msgr. McCarthy’s case is that “The validity of the ICEL translation is bolstered in the new Sacramentary by the addition of the words in the consecration of the bread, ‘which will be given up for you.’ It is the same ‘you,’ the members of the Mystical Body, that appears again in the consecration of the wine.” (He has an “idee fixe” about those words “for you”.)
One dictionary definition of “bolster” is “To support, hold up, or maintain; esp. to support with difficulty or effort.” Another dictionary gives: “Support so as to keep from falling.” What is unshakeable needs no bolstering. During the long period before the new Sacramentary became finally “approved”, with the updated bread consecration form, what was the status of the English “Mass”? Invalid, or doubtfully valid, or merely unbolstered [Note: unsupported; not supported - JMD]? This plank in the Monsignor’s case is so mournfully weak it is beyond bolstering.
First, the words that were added to the bread consecration, “which will be given up for you,” do not denote efficacy any more than do the words “for you” in the ICEL wine consecration. The formulae in the various Eastern rite liturgies contain additional words in the consecration of the bread (which, it must be noted, are not necessary for validity), but these additional words denote efficacy. For example, in the Byzantine Rite we find: “This is My Body which is broken for you unto the remission of sins.” The ICEL’s form does not have “unto the remission of sins,” or any other equivalent words which would denote efficacy.
In comparing our Latin Rite with the Eastern rites, however, some caution must be observed. Some elements that are fittingly contained in the Oriental liturgies are not to be found in our Latin Rite. Vice versa, the words, “the Mystery of Faith,” (for example), that are part of the Latin Rite formula, do not fittingly appear in any of the Eastern rite liturgies, except those of the Maronites, the Chaldeans, and the Malabarites.
Second, therefore, words to commemorate Our Lord’s Passion, such as the ICEL’s “which will be given up for you,” are not appropriate in the Latin Rite form for the consecration of the bread. The Roman Catechism explains this inaptness in the passage quoted below, which is excerpted from the same 1687 edition, all italics (shown capitalized below) being in the original text. Concerning the wine consecration:
“Wherefore fitly in this place, rather than in the Consecration of the BODY, is the PASSION of the Lord commemorated in these words ‘which shall be shed for the remission of sins.’ For the BLOOD BEING SEPARATELY CONSECRATED by itself, with relation to the PASSION of the Lord, has greater FORCE and POWER to lay BEFORE THE EYES OF ALL, both the DEATH and KIND of suffering.”
Third, the words, “This is My Body”, and these words alone, suffice for the valid consecration of the bread. AFTER NEARLY TWO THOUSAND YEARS the Innovators decide to append “which will be given up for you.” This meddling, this pointless innovation, would seem to accomplish nothing. However, whenever SEEMINGLY harmless, though also SEEMINGLY pointless, things are done by conspirators, there is ALWAYS purpose behind them. They are called machinations.
8. If At First You Don’t Succeed
To date the Innovators  have violated the sacred consecration form by means of at least six distinct changes, on three separate occasions. This “trial and error” tinkering would be farcical if it regarded any ordinary matter, instead of the most holy of things, the words of Jesus Christ.
(1) The original despoiled version of 1967 introduced the “for all men so that sins may be forgiven” change, which is the invalidating mutilation of the form we have been discussing in depth.
(2) In the same 1967 version the consecration form for the wine was broken up into two separate sentences; the first sentence ending with the words, “the mystery of faith,” and the second beginning with the words, “This blood is to be shed for you and for all men ... etc.” As was pointed out as far back as May 1970 in the article “Res Sacramenti,” this unprecedented innovation in itself is yet another probable source of invalidity. 
St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that all the words following “This is the chalice of My Blood” are determinations of the predicate; that is, they determine the essential signifying elements of the Sacrament by means of the uninterrupted recitation by the priest of the words of Christ.
Consequently the discontinuity of the ICEL form, caused by stopping the recitation after several determinations have been expressed (that is, up through the words “the mystery of faith”), and then resuming with A NEW SENTENCE, interferes with the integrity of the entire expression. In all other sacraments the essential form is expressed in a single statement, wherein all the necessary signifying elements of the sacrament are contained in the one uninterrupted utterance.
(3) In the “New Order” of the Mass (“Novus Ordo Missae”) that was first promulgated several years later in 1969, the vitiated form comprising the two separate sentences was retained. However, the sentences themselves were changed in wording once again! The first now completely omits the words “the mystery of faith,” and ends with the words “new and everlasting covenant.” The second sentence was changed from “This blood is to be shed for you and for all men ... etc.” to “It will be shed for you and for all men ... etc.”.
Observe the trivial alterations: “It” instead of “This blood”; “will be shed” instead of “is to be shed.” Such seemingly foolish fiddling, apparently just for the sake of fiddling, was really not foolish at all. These changes and the ones mentioned just below in Nos. (4) and (5) all served the very useful purpose of diverting attention away from the real issue, namely, the serious and invalidating change, “for all men so that sins may be forgiven.”
(4) In the same “Novus Ordo” of 1969, the words “the Mystery of Faith” were deleted from the actual consecration form, as was mentioned above, only to reappear AFTERWARDS outside the consecration itself, in the form of an acclamation by the priest, to which the congregation replies, “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”
These three truths have nothing whatsoever to do with the mystery of faith OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST; to wit, what was formerly wine and still has all the physical and chemical properties of wine is not wine, but It is now the Precious Blood and the Body, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. “O res mirabilis!”
The acclamation, “the mystery of faith,” followed by the wholly inappropriate reply by the congregation, suppresses the dogma of the Real Presence and thereby implicitly but in fact denies it. For the true meaning of those words, “Mystery of Faith,” in this place, is explained lucidly and succinctly by the Roman Catechism:
For it is called the mystery of Faith, because by Faith we perceive Christ’s Blood hid under the Species of wine.”
(5) The appending to the form for the consecration of the bread of the words, “which will be given up for you,” (which was already discussed in the previous section) was also a feature of the “Novus Ordo”.
(6) The reader has perhaps noticed that I have sometimes referred to the “for all men” change, and sometimes simply to “for all.” Only a few years ago (1985) the ICEL changed their original “for all men” to “for all.” The change was an official and mandatory one. The reason? Because political pressure was exerted by vociferous, left wing, so-called “feminist” creatures! Lest we forget, we are talking about the supposed sacred words of Jesus Christ in the supposed Catholic Mass.
But the sacred words of Christ and the safe-guarding of a valid Mass mean absolutely nothing to those vile wreckers. They are like automobile mechanics adjusting a carburetor until the mixture seems right. They treat those sacred words as toys, to be played with, taken apart and experimented upon again and again until they finally come up with something “acceptable,” at least for the time being.
9. Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James
In one edition of Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary the first definitions given for “conspiracy” are “Combination of persons for an evil purpose; a plot.” In this section I shall show that the invalidating “for all men” vitiation of the Catholic Mass was prearranged and carried out by the perpetrators of what I hereby designate as the ‘For All Men’ International Conspiracy.
As Monsignor McCarthy so capably demonstrated, never was there the slightest explicit approval or “go ahead” officially given, not even by the Vatican II Council of the Robber Church, for anyone to render the Canon of the Mass into the vernacular tongues. Archbishop Robert J. Dwyer of Portland, Oregon, stated at the time:
“The ICEL has performed its task so poorly as to raise serious questions as to its competence. NEVER WAS THERE THE SLIGHTEST CONSULTATION WITH THE BISHOPS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING WORLD; here is a signal instance of bureaucracy inflicting its will by methods which can only be described as high-handed.” (Quoted in “Twin Circle”, June 21, 1970, with my emphasis added).
The Archbishop’s first statement is quite incorrect, for the ICEL performed its assigned task magnificently with consummate competence, all according to plan. The conspirators knew exactly what they were doing, their execution of the scheme was deft, and everything went as smoothly as clock-work, at least at first.
These words of Danton  come to mind:
“In order to overcome them, Messieurs, we need audacity, more audacity, always audacity, and France is saved.” Mrs. Nesta Webster described the “modus operandi” [Note: method of operation - JMD] of the conspiratorial French Revolutionists as “effrontery, an insolent contempt for public opinion, the mutual resolution to bring off a coup and brazen out the consequences” (“The French Revolution”, p. 305).
During 1967-68 vernacularized liturgies started popping up “spontaneously” in a multitude of languages all over the globe, all at about the same time and all, as we have seen, without official approbation. Now, if the phony “translation” of “pro multis” into “for all men” had slipped by only in the English version, then one might possibly have attributed such a blatant blunder to the deplorable ignorance of Latin and sacramental theology that was then prevalent among most bishops of the English-speaking world, whose proficiency in those areas of learning, as is now quite clear, was (and is) somewhat less remarkable than that of, say, the Negrillo pygmies of Central Africa. [Note: The word “Negrito” is the Spanish diminutive of “Negro”, i.e. “a little black person”, which refers to their small stature, and was coined by early Western European explorers. Likewise, some “Negritos” are referred to as “Negrillos” (pygmies), which associates them with the peoples of similar physical stature in Central Africa. So also, the term “Negrito” was previously occasionally used to refer to African Pygmies. - JMD]
However, the bogus words, “for all men,” did not appear only in the English version. With very few exceptions (e.g., in the Polish, Japanese and Vietnamese translations) the very same falsified words, “for all” or “for all men” also occurred in all those vernacular renditions that popped up so spontaneously. As examples: in Italian, “per tutti”; in German, “fur Alle”; in Spanish, “por todos”; in Portuguese, “por todos os homens”, etc.
Departing from the various versions of the French New Testament (Matthew 26, 28), which have either “pour un grand nombre” or “pour une multitude” (both of which mean literally “for many”), the vernacularized French liturgy has “pour la multitude.”
There is a difference between the correct “une multitude” and “la multitude, “for the latter does not mean many, but rather “the masses.” It is equivalent literally to the Greek “hoi polloi”, which has become part of the English language. “La multitude” certainly does not satisfactorily signify the Mystical Body, the “many” that Christ intended.
To anyone who has no inkling that a preconcerted plan of conspirators was afoot this spontaneous incorrect rendering of “pro multis” on a virtually universal basis must seem most astounding, for two reasons. (1) In all those countries and in all those languages the New Testament sources of these words (Matt. 26, 28) all have the word which is the equivalent of “many” in English. Moreover, presumably these same equivalents of “many” appeared in the vernacular versions of the wine consecration form in all the laymen’s missals that were in use in all those countries. (2) Every schoolboy knows that “pro multis” means “for many”; and “for all” would be “pro omnibus”.
Those vernacularized liturgies that started popping up “spontaneously” in 1967-68, in a multitude of languages all over the globe, all at about the same time and all without official approbation, were all produced by various national or international “Committees on the Liturgy,” which were the counterparts of the English-speaking ICEL. This orchestrated global operation was directed and controlled by the Vatican’s now defunct “Sacred Congregation for the Divine Cult,” that nefarious creation of Montini which supplanted the Sacred Congregation of Rites. At the time of the ‘For All Men’ International Conspiracy the Secretary of this “Sacred” Congregation was Msgr. Annibale Bugnini who was later (1972) made an archbishop.  He died in 1982 at the age of seventy.
The reader will recall that Bugnini, the ringleader of the conspiracy, was publicly exposed in 1976 as having been secretly a Freemason since April 23, 1963, Code Number 1365-75, and Code Name “BUAN”. Pope Leo XIII (encyclical “Humanum Genus”, 1884) declared Freemasonry to be of “the kingdom of Satan”; and eighteen years later in “A Review of His Pontificate” (March 19, 1902), the same Pontiff spoke again of Freemasonry as “Full of the spirit of Satan.”
Now I ask, can any person of sound mind conceivably suppose that Annibale Bugnini, that most talented operative of Freemasonry, which is of the “mystical body OF SATAN,” would be taking pains to preserve the validity of the Catholic Mass and would be making sure that the Mystical Body OF CHRIST was being properly signified in the words of the consecration form? 
Catholics all over the world -- the victims of “audacity, more audacity, always audacity” -- were supposed to believe that this ubiquitous occurrence of “all men” resulted from the universally acknowledged fact that “for all men” is indeed correct. As there was supposedly no complicity or connivance between the various national liturgical groups, all those linguistic scholars in different parts of the world worked on their translations all by themselves, totally without any outside influences, and all those experts came up with the very correct translation “for all.” Least of all (we must supposedly conclude) would there have been any secret Masonic clique masterminding the whole concerted operation of those various national groups, all acting so absolutely independently and individually, for that would smack of conspiracy!
There are two, and only two, possible explanations of what happened. Either there was a brilliantly executed conspiracy, “the mutual resolution to bring off a coup and brazen out the consequences,” or else there was in the years 1967-68 a world-wide, mysterious dearth of schoolboys able to give advice on the correct translation of “pro multis”.
“We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert [Note: being arranged in advance - JMD]. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen - Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance - and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, - not omitting even scaffolding - or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such a piece in - in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.” (From the speech, “The House Divided Against Itself,” delivered at Springfield, Illinois, June 17, 1858, by Abraham Lincoln).
At this point the reader is possibly wondering why the international gangsters were so hellbent on getting “for all” firmly implanted in virtually all the liturgies throughout the world. A little later on I shall elucidate this point.
10. Perversity of Intention
In declaring Anglican Orders to be categorically invalid, Pope Leo XIII (Bull “Apostolicae Curae”, 1896) averred that the invalidity arises from two sources, namely, defect of form and defect of intention. DEFECT OF FORM because the form of words for the Sacrament of Holy Orders that the Protestant Revolutionaries concocted fails to provide the necessary sacramental signification; thus on this count the Anglicans’ “sacrament” is utterly null. They have no priests at all.
By DEFECT OF INTENTION the Sovereign Pontiff Leo XIII meant that the Anglicans’ “sacrament” is, moreover, likewise null because of the depraved intentions of the FRAMERS  of the bogus rite. Pope Leo furthermore made it clear that either one of these defects, of form or of intention, alone by itself, would have been sufficient to render the sacrament invalid; both defects were not required.
The intention in another’s mind is at times difficult to know, but it is not always impossible to discover it. Leo determined that the intentions of those Protestant Revolutionaries, CLEARLY AND UNMISTAKABLY ASCERTAINABLE FROM THEIR OWN WORDS AND WRITINGS, were to invent a new rite for a NEW TYPE OF MINISTRY that is totally different from the Catholic Church’s, and perforce from Christ’s, concept of the priesthood.
We have thus far focused attention on the defect of form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and the Mass resulting from the “for all men ... etc.” falsification. In the preceding section we also adverted to the Masonic animus that inspired this falsification. Therefore it would seem unnecessary to press the invalidity issue any further. However, it seems appropriate to touch upon, though only very briefly, the defect of intention of the framers of the new liturgy. Their perverse intentions have already been most skillfully exposed by a group of eminent Roman theologians.
The “New Order of the Mass” (“Novus Ordo Missae”) was originally promulgated in April of 1969; and it is important to note that its authors were the very same Masonic subversives, still directed and controlled by Annibale Bugnini, who had earlier brazened out the “for all men” conspiracy. Shortly after the “Novus Ordo” was released a theological tract appeared that bore the title, “Roman Theologians Take a Look at the New Order of the Mass”. 
This brilliant treatise is replete throughout with the most damning evidence, quoted from the very lips of the criminals themselves through their published words, showing conclusively their perverse intentions to invent a new liturgy that is totally different from the Catholic Mass. Bearing in mind the proverb, “Qui nimis probat, nihil probat”, (he who proves too much proves nothing), I shall cite but one passage from this tract in which the Roman Theologians reproduce, verbatim, the VERY DEFINITION of “Mass” furnished by the criminals, followed by the analysis of this definition. The passage is from pages 5-6, and all the italics shown (which are capitalized below) are in the original text:
“Let us begin with the definition of the Mass given in para. 7, that is at the beginning of the second chapter of the NOVUS ORDO, “De structure missae”: “Cena dominica sive Missa EST SACRA SYNAXIS SEU CONGREGATIO POPULI DEI in unum convenientis, SACERDOTE PRAESIDE, AD MEMORIALE DOMINI CELEBRANDUM. Quare de sanctae ecclesiae locali congregatione eminenter valet promissio Christi ‘Ubi sunt duo vel tres congregati in nomine meo, ibi sum in medio Forum.’ (Mt. 18, 20).”
[Author’s note: an English translation of the foregoing definition of Mass is, “The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the gathering together as one of the holy assembly or the congregation of the People of God, with a priest as President, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” The Roman Theologians’ analysis of this definition continues below.]
“The definition of Mass is thus limited to that of “supper,” which is constantly repeated (Nos. 8, 48, 55d, 56); this “supper” is, moreover, characterized by the congregation presided over by the priest, and by the act of remembrance of our Lord, recalling what He did on Holy Thursday.
None of this implies either the Real Presence or the reality of the Sacrifice or the sacral character of the officiating priest or the intrinsic worth of the eucharistic Sacrifice independently of the presence of the congregation. In a word, it does not imply a single one of the dogmatic values essential to the Mass, and constituting its true definition. Their deliberate omission here suggests that they are “out of date” and amounts, at least in practice, to their denial.”
“Roman Theologians Take a Look at the New Order of the Mass” continues with page after page of similar self- incriminating evidence provided by the inventors of the new “Mass.” The Roman Theologians’ concluding comments include the following: “We have limited ourselves to a summary examination of the “Novus Ordo” at those points where it departs from the theology of the Catholic Mass” (p. 18); “It is clear that the “Novus Ordo” no longer intends to present the faith as taught by the Council of Trent” (p. 19). Note well the words, “no longer intends.” Defect of intention OF THE FRAMERS OF THE RITE AS WELL AS defect of form. No Mass at all on two counts.
G. B. Montini promulgated the Novus Ordo on April 3, 1969,  whereas Pope Leo XIII, a true Vicar of Christ, would have anathematized it in a flash! The Council of Trent, in fact, did anathematize it IN ADVANCE, as shall be seen. My purpose now is not to continue demonstrating the invalidity of the Bogus Ordo, but merely to cite one example of the incredible impudence of the conspirators. 
The Conspirators: “Since the Eucharistic celebration is a Paschal banquet, according to the command of the Lord, his body and blood are taken as SPIRITUAL FOOD.” (Quoted from par. 56 of “General Instruction on the Roman Missal”). Commenting on yet another place where this same heretical view is expressed (namely, in par. 28 of the same “General Instruction”), the Roman Theologians remarked on p. 14 of their devastating treatise: “So Christ is indeed present, but ONLY SPIRITUALLY.”
“His body and blood are taken as SPIRITUAL FOOD”: even Danton would have blushed at such audacity! For the Conspirators poached this condemned phraseology from Thomas Cranmer’s “Book of Common Prayer” (1549): “Thou has vouchsafed to feed us in these holy mysteries with the SPIRITUAL FOOD of the most precious body and blood of thy Son.” The Holy Council of Trent (Canon 8, Session XIII) condemned this heresy of Cranmer and of all those who would ever dare to follow in his footsteps: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received ONLY SPIRITUALLY and not also sacramentally and really, let him be anathema.”
(All emphases in the preceding two paragraphs were added by the author.).
11. A Travelogue of Apostasy
Some fundamental Catholic principles must be recalled before we come to the gist of this present section. It is essential that these few selected vital teachings of Catholicism, set side by side (mosaicked) [Note: Although technically mosaicked is a verb, which is used with an object, and means “to make a mosaic of or from”, the author denotes his usage in this instance means “set side by side”. - JMD], become crystallized in the reader’s mind, so that the realization of what has happened and is still happening today may become emblazoned upon his intellect. What for some has thus far been mere suspicion must now be confirmed as being reality. The reality is not gladsome. But instead of becoming timorous we should perhaps reflect upon these words of the immortal patriot Patrick Henry:
“For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.” (From the speech, “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” delivered at Richmond, Virginia, March 23, 1775).
(1) The Catholic Church is not “first among equals.” It is the UNIQUE, True, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. This Catholic Church, known also as the Mystical Body of Christ, is the one and only ARK OF SALVATION, outside which there is naught but spiritual shipwreck.
(2) Apostasy, which is defined as the “abandonment of the Catholic faith,” automatically severs a person -- totally -- from the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body, the Ark of Salvation. St. Thomas Aquinas (“Summa Th.”, II-II, Q. 12, a. 3) gives this example of apostasy: “Moreover if anyone were ... to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.” Concerning an apostate the Angelic Doctor remarks, “The result is that HE SOWS DISCORD, endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.”
(3) Pope Pius XI deemed ecumenism to be “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God.” In his encyclical “Mortalium Animos” (1928), he taught authoritatively:
“With this object congresses, meetings and addresses are arranged ... where all without distinction ... are invited to join in the discussion. Now, such efforts can meet with no kind of approval among Catholics. THEY PRESUME THE ERRONEOUS VIEW THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE MORE OR LESS GOOD AND PRAISEWORTHY. Those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus they reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings is TANTAMOUNT TO ABANDONING THE RELIGION REVEALED BY GOD.”
The last six words that were quoted constitute the precise definition of apostasy. (Italics (shown as capitalized words) added in the above).
In the magisterial words just cited the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XI spoke only of MERE MEETINGS with those outside the Faith for the purpose of theological discussions, since that IN ITSELF presupposes the erroneous view that false sects are “more or less good and praiseworthy”; and such ecumenism furthermore dares to presume also that the words of Christ, “An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit,” are false. Man’s only real and ultimate good is the possession of the Beatific Vision; no false church, or sect, or religious movement, or pagan cult can possibly lead thereto. On the contrary, such as these are but harmful impedimenta.
(4) Even more serious a crime than the ecumenism described above -- which involves mere meetings, but is nevertheless tantamount to apostasy -- is the WORSHIPPING TOGETHER with those outside the Catholic Faith. This crime is known as “communicatio in sacris”, and it is expressly condemned by CANON LAW (Canon 1258, CJC).  As every Catholic surely knows, “communicatio in sacris” is mortally sinful; it is a flagrant act of apostasy.
[Note: “Codex Iuris Canonici” (Code of Canon Law), Canon 1258, is the famous “Communicatio in Sacris” Canon. Here is the actual text of Canon 1258 in both its original Latin and in English translation:The interpretation of CANON 1258 is expounded by the noted Jesuit authors, Bouscaren and Ellis, in “Canon Law, A Text and Commentary”, (Bruce, Milwaukee, 1951). In the following comment (from p. 704) the authors are referring to merely PASSIVE presence, that is, the mere physical presence at a non-Catholic service; let alone ACTIVE PARTICIPATION, which is what constitutes “communicatio in sacris”. “It is conceivable that even merely passive presence might be accompanied by an internal intention to approve, assent to, or encourage the non-Catholic worship; if that were true it would be FORMAL COOPERATION IN AN EVIL ACT, AND FORBIDDEN BY THE NATURAL LAW.” (Emphasis added).“Canon 1258. § 1. Haud licitum est fidelibus quovis modo active assistere seu partem habere in sacris acatholicorum.
It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics.
§ 2. Tolerari potest praesentia, passiva seu materialis, civilis officii, vel honoris causa, ob graven rationem ab Episcopo in casu dubii probandam, in acatgholicorum funeribus, nuptiissimilibusque sollemniis, dummodo perversionis et scandali periculum absit.
A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reaons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provded no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop.”
Commentary on Canon 1258:“This is the so-called ‘communicatio in sacris active cum acatholicis’. The reason why the Church has always forbidden such participation in the religious services of non-Catholics is the intimate conviction that she herself is the only true Church of Christ. Secondary reasons for this prohibition are: the ‘quasi-approbation’ of ‘non-Catholic’ worship, which lies in a Catholic’s participation therein and which at the same time is an external profession of faith. The other reason is ‘scandal’, which may be given to Catholics who see the mixture of worship and the deference paid to non-Catholic ministers and functions. Finally there is the ‘danger of perversion’, or of gradually increasing religious indifference when the faithful freely and indiscriminately participate in heretical religious services. Even the simulation of false religion is incompatible with the purity of the Catholic faith. (S.O., Aug. 28, 1780; S.C.P.F., 1729 [“Coll. nn. 546, 311”]”. (Rev. P. Charles Augustine Bachofen, O.S.B., D.D., Professor of Canon Law, “A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law”, Volume VI, Administrative Law, Canon 1258, pp. 192-193; B. Herder Book Company, Imprimatur by John J. Glennon, Archbishop of Saint Louis, Monday, November 22, 1920). - JMD]
(5) A well know axiom, “Lex Credendi: Lex Orandi” should also be called to mind:
“What people already believe is automatically and necessarily mirrored in the very words of the prayers they recite. This truism is one part of the principle: “Lex Credendi: Lex Orandi” -- the law of belief is the law of prayer. This principle works reversely also: that is to say, people can be LED towards certain beliefs by means of the very prayers they are accustomed to saying (and hearing). And that is why parents teach their small children The Hail Mary, for example, and The Apostles’ Creed, even though these little ones do not yet fully understand everything they are praying. Now, whether or not these parents are familiar with the phrase, “lex credendi: lex orandi”, they are nevertheless putting this principle into practice, for they are teaching their children to pray those things that they will ultimately come to BELIEVE.” (From pp. 97-98 QTV).
Having defined apostasy and having given some theoretical examples, such as ecumenism and “communicatio in sacris”, I shall now provide a few specific examples. From several dozen that readily come to mind I have selected the following as being good hypothetical illustrations.
EXAMPLE 1. If any Catholic (for example, one known as “Pope”) were to enter a Lutheran place of worship in Rome (let us say, just for example, on Dec. 11, 1983) in order to participate in the Lutherans’ celebration of the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s birth;
-- AND IF this hypothetical Catholic were to join in the Lutherans’ worship, and, moreover, were even to preach a sermon eulogizing Martin Luther; then this hypothetical Catholic (or, rather, ex-Catholic) would thereby in effect be publicly proclaiming that Martin Luther was not the very incarnate personification of consummate hatred and enmity towards Catholicism which, of course, he was. In a hypothetical situation such as the one we are describing, this ex-Catholic (for example, a pope) would have clearly and publicly demonstrated his betrayal of Jesus Christ and His Church, thus becoming an apostate, for such behaviour would be “tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God,” as the Catholic Church so forcibly teaches through the words of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XI, cited above.
EXAMPLE 2. If any Catholic (for example, one known as “Pope”) were to go into a “sacred forest” of tribal animists at Lake Togo in Africa (I realize this must sound like a wholly preposterous hypothetical example, but please bear with me) on, say, August 11, 1985 (which will serve as a reasonable hypothetical date);
-- AND IF this hypothetical Catholic were to pray at a place in this sacred forest consecrated to the worship of false gods and then actually perform pagan rites, such as the sprinkling on the ground of a mixture of flour and water, which is a ritual of ancestor worship;
-- AND IF the entirely hypothetical French periodical “La Croix” on, say, Aug. 13, 1985, were to quote our hypothetical Catholic (for example, a pope) as saying, “The prayer meeting in the sanctuary at Lake Togo was particularly striking. There I prayed for the first time with animists.”;
-- AND IF the Vatican newspaper “L’Osservatore Romano” in its Italian edition of, say, August 11th, (page 5, for example), were to report: “On John-Paul II’s arrival at the place, a sorcerer began to invoke the spirits: ‘Power of water, I invoke you; Ancestors, I invoke you.’”; then in such a hypothetical case as the one we’re studying the hypothetical ex-Catholic, namely the entirely fictitious “John-Paul II”, would be the most hideous apostate. For such odious, atavistic behaviour would be the ultimate violation of CANON 1258; UNNATURAL worshipping with heathens is certainly “formal cooperation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law,” as stated by the canon lawyers Bouscaren and Ellis.
EXAMPLE 3. If any Catholic (for example, one known as “Pope”) were to travel across the Tiber River from the Vatican (on, say, April 13, 1986, hypothetically) in order to visit the Jewish synagogue in Rome,
-- AND IF (as would perhaps be reported via Reuters news service the same day -- this is all hypothetical) “he offered prayers in the synagogue with Rabbi Elio Toaff during a religious service in the afternoon,” then such a traitorous ex-Catholic (for example, a pope) would thereby perform an act of supreme apostasy, namely, “communicatio in sacris” with an anti-Christian Jewish rabbi. Such a betrayal of Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church, would be not merely “tantamount to,” but brazenly abandoning the religion revealed by God.
EXAMPLE 4. If any Catholic (for example, one known as “Pope”) were personally to organize an assembly in a certain city (the Italian city famous as that of St. Francis will serve as a hypothetical location) of sundry and motley non-Catholic, anti-Catholic and pagan personages, including (hypothetically) Anglican Runcie, Greek Orthodox Methodios, Buddhist Dalai Lama, Methodist Emilio Castro, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintoists, Jainists, tribal animists from Africa, Moslems, Zoroastrians, Jewish rabbis, and the Crow Indian medicine man from Montana, Mr. John Pretty-on-Top;
-- AND IF this hypothetical menagerie were to be assembled on, say, Oct. 27, 1986, so that it could be hypothetically reported in the Nov. 10th edition of “Time” magazine that our hypothetical ex-Catholic, a most humble and unpretentious traitor, travelled to the venue in “a bus with thirty other representatives, and quietly took a place at the rear of the procession through the town’s cobble-stone streets”; then the hypothetical ex-Catholic (for example, a hypothetical apostate pope) would thereby be proving -- audaciously proving -- that he is apostate par excellence! World-wide statistics on renegade priests, fallen away Catholics, apostate nuns, decreasing numbers of priestly and religious vocations, decreasing numbers of converts to the Faith, increasing unbelief in even the most essential Catholic dogmas such as the divinity of Christ and the existence of hell, etc., -- all these statistics would verify that our hypothetical apostate pope has been and is being most successful, because he would effectively confirm these words of St. Thomas, “The result is that he sows discord, endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.”
We must move along to consider other matters, so our little travelogue must now come to an end. In a way that is disappointing, for I have a plethora of wonderful hypothetical examples, all very interesting and instructive. These hypothetical examples could be set in many exotic geographical locations, such as Fiji, New Delhi, Cameroon, Taize (France), Tokyo, Seoul, Mainz (Germany), World Council of Churches Headquarters (Geneva), Canterbury Cathedral, Kinshasa (formerly Leopoldville, Belgian Congo), Bangkok, Bombay, Westminster Cathedral, Masonic Lodge of B’nai B’rith, Port Moresby, Morocco, Istanbul, Manila, Madras, etc. 
I do hope the four hypothetical examples I selected for presentation have served adequately as illustrations of apostasy; and I also hope that certain things are crystallizing in the reader’s mind.
12. Ecumenical 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 Freemasonry’s shibboleths. For the “universal brotherhood of all men” philosophy is one of the animating principles of Freemasonry, 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 ecumenism and Freemasonry’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 documentation (“Bulletin de L ‘Occident Chretien”, No. 12, July 1976), Virgilio Noe was initiated into Freemasonry 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” [Note: Liturgical Mafia - JMD], 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 tutty”, 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 “Ecumenical 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 “aggiornamentoed” [Note: updated - JMD] 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, Jewish 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 Freemasonry’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).
“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.
The Freemasons’ penetration of the Vatican, by having secret members placed in influential positions, has been cited or documented 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 Harrison (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 Harrison, 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” [Note: Italian police. JMD] 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. Harrison) 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 Freemasonry.” 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!”
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 suicide, but you have also exposed the cancer that is destroying the civilization of the West.
/s/ 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).
 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.
 In Summa Th., III, 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, Q. 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).
“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.”
 “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).
 Father Most was then with the Dept. of Latin and Greek at Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa. His first attempt to refute QTV 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.
 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.
 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.
 “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.
 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.”
[the exact, appropriate word - JMD]
 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.
 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.”
 “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).
 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 published 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.
 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: “Hic 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, emphasis added). -- L.S.B.
 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.
 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.”
 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.
 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.”
 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.
 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 ...”.
 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.’” (From “La riforma Liturgica” (1948-1975), A. Bugnini, p. 23: “Fu un’ audacia. E quella volta si verifico il proverbio AUDACES FORTUNE IUVAT.”). And then in the very next line he doth protest that it involved “no underhanded manoeuvre” [Note: Primarily a British term for “ maneuver”. JMD]. (“nessuna manovra nascosta”). He forgot to add: “Just kidding!”.
 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.
 From “L’Osservatore Romano” (May 28, p. 11, 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.
 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.
[*] See “The Ventriloquists,” which first appeared as Issue No. 2 of “Interdum” (Feb. 24, 1970), for a thorough exposure of this fraud.
“The Ottaviani Intervention”, including the Roman Theologians’ statement on the “Novus Ordo Missae”.
“The Salmanticenses vs. De Lugo”, English translation from the Latin original by Rev. L. S. Brey. (Scholarly refutation of the claim that “This is My Blood” suffices for the Wine Consecration.).
Rev. L. S. Brey -- “An Answer to the Defenders of the New English Canon”
Rev. L. S. Brey -- “On the New Ordo” (from “THE VOICE”)
Rev. L. S. Brey -- “More on ‘Pro Multis’”
Rev. L. S. Brey -- “Reply to Fr. C. Healy” (On the “for all men” mutilation)
Omlor -- “Has the Church the Right?” Concerning the Church’s self-imposed ban on innovating anything regarding the substance of a sacrament.
Omlor -- “The Ventriloquists” Exposing the Aramaic language fraud, that falsifies Our Lord’s words.
Omlor -- “INTERDUM” (Eight journals published in 1970-71)
Omlor -- “The Robber Church” (in 3 parts) Interdum Nos. 6-8.
Omlor`-- “The Sky
Grows Darker Yet” Speech to the Latin Mass Society of Australia, Oct. 1973.
Note: To the best of Our knowledge the above work is now in the Public Domain since the untimely death of Patrick Henry Omlor.