Traditional Catholic Pioneer Patrick Omlor – An Appreciation

Omlor QTV       P Omlor

If a Counter-Conciliar movement is ever going to coalesce and expunge the usurpers, perverts, and crooks which have taken over Christ’s once Holy Church, it must first acknowledge and learn from the forefathers of modern traditional Catholicism. An indispensable place to begin would be the study of the works of Patrick Omlor (1931-2013), in particular his seminal monograph written a half century ago, Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon (QTV). A collection of studies, essays, and columns including QTV can be found in the Robber Church.


The outcome of Vatican II and the New Mass has been, to say the least, a catastrophe as millions have left the Church, converted to Protestantism or other non-Christian sects, or have mistakenly stayed with the Novus Ordo.

Published shortly after the close of the Second Vatican Anti-Council, 1962-65, and prior to the Paul VI/Bugnini-inspired New Mass of 1970, Omlor was one of the few who understood and had the temerity to challenge its validity. Very few at the time, especially among the Catholic intelligentsia, who should have known better, opposed in any meaningful way the revolution which was taking place before their very eyes. The Buckleys, Bozells, and Buchanans all eventually went along (albeit grudgingly) with the changes and accepted the Novus Ordo as legitimate. It is puzzling that learned Catholics did not see the handwriting on the wall since the Conciliar revolutionaries used similar arguments and methods which Protestant reformers employed centuries before to achieve their diabolical ends.

Omlor’s Argument

With concise, pointed, and unassailable reasoning, Omlor demonstrates that the English Canon of the New Mass invalidates it as a Catholic Sacrament. The New Mass’s Canon is not a mere “mistranslation,” but a new form – deliberately conceived which changes the very words of Christ. “Now if a specific, determined matter is required for the validity of a sacrament,” Omlor writes, “greater still is the necessity of a specific, determinate form.” [26] He then quotes St. Thomas on a sacrament’s form:

And therefore in order to insure the perfection of

sacramental signification it was necessary to

determine the signification of the sensible things

(i.e., the matter) by means of certain words . . .

[I]n the sacraments the words are as the form, and

sensible things are as the matter. Now in all things

composed of matter and form, the determining

principle is on the part of the form. . . .   [I]n the

sacraments . . . much more is there need in them

of a determinate form of words. [26-27]

Pope Pius IX when asked about the inclusion of St. Joseph’s name in the Mass rejected the idea and reportedly said: “I am only the Pope. What power have I to touch the Canon.” Omlor rightly admonishes that no one has the right to alter a sacrament:

And so . . . mere men may not dare usurp the right

to change the proper form of a sacrament. [27]

According to the Angelic Doctor, the proper form for the consecration of the bread is:

This is My Body.

Prior to the introduction of the all English Canon, the words for the consecration of the bread were:

For this is My Body.

The new Canon omits “for” which deliberately tampers with Tradition as St. Thomas explains: “[For this is My Body] is set in this form according to the custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the Apostle.” [27] While the omission of “for” does not invalidate the sacrament, Omlor rightly contends that the Liturgical Innovators “exhibit a callous disregard for a Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, a Tradition dating from the very beginnings of Christianity. Indeed a Tradition ‘derived from Peter the Apostle.’” [28]

In his discussion of the Consecration of the Wine, Omlor quotes from the Council of Trent, published by “command” of Pope St. Pius V. The form Consecration of the Wine is as follows:

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, to the

remission of sins. [28]

Omlor then compares the dogmatic formula with the all-English Canon:

This is my body. This is the cup of my blood,

the blood of the new and ever-lasting

covenant – the mystery of faith. This blood is

to be shed for you and for all men so that

sins may be forgiven. [32]

He notes the new phraseology and the substitution of words in the English Canon “cup” for “chalice” and “is to be shed” for “shall be shed.”

While disturbing and probably sinful, these subtle changes are not as grievous as the final words of the new rite: For you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. This clearly connotes a different meaning (universal salvation) than the original: For you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins.

While the omission of words may not invalidate a sacrament, Omlor asserts that “it goes without saying that if the substance of the form is altered by the omission, then the sacrament is invalidated.” [33] He bases his claim on St. Thomas who says:

Now it is clear, if any substantial part of the

sacramental form be suppressed, that the

essential sense of the words is destroyed;

and consequently the sacrament is invalid. [33-34]

The Importance of QTV Today

Conservative and semi-traditional Catholics have willfully ignored the essential point of Omlor’s argument. They understand that if they agree with his reasoning, they will be ostracized, attacked, possibly “ex-communicated” from the New Order, and may incur the wrath of the Argentine heretic who will heap upon them all sorts of nasty invectives.

The question that must be asked is who cares what the Conciliar Church authorities think, say, or do? Why would anyone of sound mind want to be affiliated in any way with the Novus Ordo? Not only are its sacraments graceless, but it is a criminal organization, populated by paedophiles and their protectors from Bergoglio on down all of whom are responsible for the destruction of the lives and souls of thousands of children along with the embezzlement of millions of dollars.

Once conservatives and semi-traditional Catholics concede that the New Mass and Sacraments are legitimate, they are then left fighting secondary battles: abortion, “same-sex marriage,” or trying to decipher the “secrets” of apparitions. While abortion and homosexual marriage are certainly abominable, the fact that the Novus Ordo Mass and Newchurch Sacraments are not valid is a far worse offense to Almighty God. If the time and energy spent on the “pro-life” movement was instead directed in defense of the Traditional Mass, the Conciliar Church authorities may have been defeated long ago.


Neoconservative Catholics who are outraged at the actions of the Conciliar popes lost the battle long ago. For their efforts are grounded on the acceptance of the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and capable of producing sanctifying grace. Omlor’s treatise shows that it is clearly not.

The only approach, therefore, to take if things are ever to be turned around is to reject everything that took place at Vatican II and in its aftermath along with the often overlooked, but troubling Modernist activities and changes that occurred under Pius XII/Pacelli which, in many cases, laid the groundwork for Vatican II. Newchurch should not only be rejected, but the entire rotten edifice needs to be burned to the ground! It cannot, nor should there be any attempts to salvage it.

There is no better place to start the counter revolution and eventual destruction of the Novus Ordo Church than with a wide dissemination of Patrick Henry Omlor’s Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon and his other magnificent uncompromising works . Those who read them with an open mind will be led to renounce the Conciliar Church forever. This, of course, is Omlor’s greatest legacy, for there have undoubtedly been thousands awakened by his writing and have abandoned, for the good of their immortal souls, the New Mass.

editors/Christus Rex / posted 3-12-’19 Feast Day of St. Gregory the Great





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s