I was discussing the new English translation of the Roman Missal with a Priest friend the other day and he made a startling suggestion. He had recently attended a talk on this issue by a theologian of impeccable orthodoxy. This theologian asserted that the deliberate alteration of the words of institution so as to change their meaning would invalidate the consecration. The only reason, he argued, that the translation of ‘pro multis’ as ‘for all’ did not invalidate the consecration was that the words were pronounced by the priest under obedience. Were it not for this factor the alteration of the Lord’s words would vitiate the intention to do what the Lord had instituted, to ‘do this in memory of me’.
>
Certainly, the change of ‘many’ to ‘all’ is far from theologically neutral as the Roman Catechism teaches.
“The additional words ‘for you and for many’, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.”
>
The implications of this are quite disturbing. It seems really very likely that many liberal priests will refuse to use the corrected words of institution come November. If the above claims are correct this will mean that many liberal priests may soon be offering invalid masses.
Laodicea 
July 16, 2011 at 6:24 am
Our Lady at Fatima told Lucia that “…souls are falling [into Hell] like snowflakes…” Another time Our Lady clarified that sins of the flesh are the most-common cause for the loss of Paradise for man. Now we will have sins of the “Divine flesh” to add to those already existing!
Maranatha! Come! Lord Jesus, come!
July 19, 2011 at 11:04 pm
This is wrong; the Church has already stated that “for all” is valid. If “for all” is invalid not under obedience, it is invalid under obedience. Obedience does not make a sacrament valid if the matter is not present. If a Bishop asks a priest to baptize a child with tomato juice, the child will not be baptized because the priest is obeying the Bishop; on the contrary, he will not be baptized at all.
It will, however, be illicit.
July 19, 2011 at 11:20 pm
You miss the point. The reasoning is as follows: The substitution of ‘for all’ for ‘for many’ does not compromise the matter or the form. It compromises the intention. The Lord did not say and He did not mean ‘for all’. The competent authority, with great unfittingness, authorised this false translation and thus the priest when using it was not making a personal decision to alter the Lord’s words but submitting to (misused) authority. Once that authority is withdrawn the decision to use the words ‘for all’ becomes a personal decision on the part of the priest to reject the words and the meaning employed by the Lord Himself and to defy the Church. Such a decision is incompatible with the intention necessary to confect the sacrament.
July 20, 2011 at 3:22 am
Interesting angle, and plausible. Has anything been published on the matter?
August 23, 2013 at 8:17 pm
[…] decided to say “for all” and not “for many” in the words of consecration making it impossible to go and receive communion. It seemed likely from the tone of the priest’s invented orations and semonettes that his use […]