On the 50th Anniversary of Patrick Omlor's Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon
By Patricius Anthony

                          TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site
                E-mail: traditio@traditio.com, Web: http://www.traditio.com
  Copyright 2019 P. Anthony. Reproduction prohibited without authorization.
                                                     Last revised: 01/10/19

On the 50th Anniversary of Patrick Omlor's Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon

By Patricius Anthony

Patrick Omlor's Book


It has been a half century since the eminent, traditional Catholic author Patrick Henry Omlor (1913-2013) first penned his seminal monograph Questioning the Validity of the Masses Using the New, All-English Canon* (commonly abbreviated as ?QTV?). Written shortly after the close of the Second Vatican Anti-Council 1962-65 and before the promulgation of Paul VI/Montini?s New Mass, Omlor was one of the few who understood and had the temerity to challenge the Church revolutionaries who were transforming Christ?s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church into a Protestant ecumenical monstrosity.

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.

Very few at the time, especially among the Catholic intelligentsia, opposed in any meaningful way the revolution which was taking place and, if they did, they eventually went along (albeit grudgingly) with the changes and accepted the Novus Ordo as legitimate.

The courageous few such as Patrick Omlor, Frs. Gommar DePauw and James Wathen who held to Sacred Tradition were ignored, ostracized, or belittled. Even today, their names get little if any mention by semi-traditional Catholics or the neo-SSPX. Such ingratitude is reprehensible which is just one of the reasons that neo-conservative Catholics have gotten nowhere against the Novus Ordo.

What is still so surprising is that there was not more opposition, especially among learned Catholics to the Novus Ordo at the time since most of the Conciliar revolutionaries employed many of the same methods, arguments, and underhanded deeds that the Protestant ?reformers? used centuries before. Despite this historical precedent and the knowledge of it among Catholic scholars and the clergy, Vatican II and Paul VI/Montini?s Mass were ruthlessly foisted upon the faithful.

Omlor's Argument

With concise, pointed and irrefutable reasoning, Omlor demonstrates beyond doubt that the English Canon of the New Mass invalidates it as a Catholic Sacrament. More specifically, the New Mass? Canon is not a mere ?mistranslation,? but a new form deliberately done which diabolically substitutes and changes the very words of Christ guaranteed by Apostolic certainty. Paul VI/Montini and his henchmen's (most notably Annibale Bugnini) blasphemous act is arguably in the annals of human history mankind?s most abominable sin!

?Now if a specific, determinate 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 the ?form? of a sacrament:

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]

Omlor admonishes that no man, be it a cardinal, bishop, king, emperor, and certainly not a pope 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 the ?command? of Pope St. Pius V. The form of the 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]

The author 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 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 Reverend Lawrence S. Brey concurred with Omlor?s position at the time when he wrote his original foreward to QTV:

[Omlor?s] study, to my knowledge, demonstrate[s] systematically and to document the thesis that the new, English Canon is invalid by reason of defect of form ? specifically, by reason of a mutilation in the English rendering of the Form for the Consecration of the Wine. [12]

Reverend Brey points out that QTV is solidly grounded on the Church?s highest authority ? the Magisterium and the works of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas. He asserts that Omlor?s exposition points to no other conclusion then that the English Novus Ordo Mass is a fraud:

The author demonstrates that these mutilations delete the vital concept of the Eucharist?s relationship to the Mystical Body of Christ, that they delete the intended efficacy and purpose of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, and that they are a falsification of Christ?s words of Institution, which falsification distorts His intention and purposes in instituting and confecting the Sacrifice and Sacrament. He demonstrates that, as a necessary consequence, the form has been substantially or essentially mutilated; and that therefore the form has been rendered invalid; and, finally that therefore any Masses using this new ?English Canon? are invalid. [13-14]

The Importance of QTV Today

Reverend Brey concisely sums up why Omlor?s work was of such vital importance when it first appeared and remains so today:

For in the Sacraments, and above all in the Mass, nothing less than absolute certainty, or the medium certum, must be the norm governing their rites. [13]

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, lose any connection (no matter how tenuous) with the New Order, and will incur the wrath of the Argentine Heretic who will heap upon them all sorts of nasty invectives.

The question that must be asked is why should they care? Why would anyone being of sound mind want to be affiliated in any way with the Conciliar Church? Not only are its sacraments grace-less, but it is a criminal organization, populated by paedophiles and their protectors from Bergoglio on down which has destroyed the lives and souls of thousands of children along with the embezzlement of millions of dollars. The acumen of those who stick with such a vile organization has to be called into question!

Once conservatives and semi-traditional Catholics concede that the New Mass and Sacraments are legitimate, they are then left with 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.


The 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 took place 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. The short treatise will convince those who read it with an open and honest mind to renounce the Conciliar Church forever. This, of course, is Omlor?s greatest legacy, for there have undoubtedly been thousands of souls saved by his work and have abandoned for the good of their immortal souls the New Mass.

*The first edition was released on March 17, 1968.