The next prayer given by Shawn is the Consecration for the wine. To cite it: Priest: When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave
the cup to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS
IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR
YOU AND FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IS MEMORY OF ME. (Matt. 26:27-28) In the first place, the Scripture citation given above by Shawn is taken out of context
and cannot be used to refer to the Novus
Ordo consecration. To provide the portion cited: Matthew 26:27 [DR] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying:
Drink ye all of this. Matthew 26:28 [DR] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for
many unto remission of sins. In the first place, I ask the reader to note that the above citation states quite
explicitly that Christ’s Blood "shall be shed for many unto the remission of
sins." As it is, this statement does not refer - as Shawn and the creators of the Novus Ordo Missae would have
us believe - to the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice, but to the efficacy. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent
unambiguously states: "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… When He (Christ) added, 'and for many', He wished to be understood to
mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore,
were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion alone are
spoken of, and to the elect only did this Passion bring the fruit of salvation."13
The next prayer given by Shawn is the Consecration for the wine. To cite it:
Priest: When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. IT WILL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL SO THAT SINS MAY BE FORGIVEN. DO THIS IS MEMORY OF ME. (Matt. 26:27-28)
In the first place, the Scripture citation given above by Shawn is taken out of context and cannot be used to refer to the Novus Ordo consecration. To provide the portion cited:
Matthew 26:27 [DR] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this.
Matthew 26:28 [DR] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
In the first place, I ask the reader to note that the above citation states quite explicitly that Christ’s Blood "shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." As it is, this statement does not refer - as Shawn and the creators of the Novus Ordo Missae would have us believe - to the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice, but to the efficacy. As the Catechism of the Council of Trent unambiguously states:
"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… When He (Christ) added, 'and for many', He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion alone are spoken of, and to the elect only did this Passion bring the fruit of salvation."13
For this is My Body.
For 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.
Who, the day before He suffered, took bread
into His Holy and venerable hands, and having
lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His
Almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed
it +, broke it, and gave it to His disciples,
saying: Take and eat ye all of this:
Notice, that this is found absolutely nowhere in any of the New Testament citations. And even in the Trent Catechism’s citation, we see that the Church added the words together. Some from Mark and Some from Luke. In fact the Tridentine Mass even added words that are nowhere found anywhere in the New Testament in reference to the Eucharist. You can’t even say it is a bad translation. Some words don’t even exist!!! In fact they even more than added the words together, they added new words. The words “Mystery of Faith” are not found in any of the Consecrations found in Scripture at all. If you impugn the Pauline Mass because it is not the exact words of Scripture, you also impugn the Tridentine Mass. Your whole case falls like a deck of cards.
In like manner, after He had supped, taking also into His holy and venerable hands this goodly chalice, again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it +, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of this:
For this is My Body.
For 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.
The above citation also makes it quite clear why the words "for all" cannot
be used in the Consecration formula. Hence, the Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae can have two meanings.
The above citation also makes it quite clear why the words "for all" cannot
be used in the Consecration formula. Hence, the Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae can have two meanings.
In the first place, universal salvation - that the fruits of the Passion are applicable to everyone, a heresy.
This is the most common ignorant Ultra-Traditionalist charge. Absolutely nowhere here in this consecration where the words “For All” are translated is there any indication at all that this is talking about universal salvation. Absolutely nowhere. This is pure silliness. The only place where I hear this charge is from Ultra-Traditionalists bent on attacking the Mass.
In the second place, the sufficiency of Christ’s Sacrifice - that Christ died for all. Either way, we see a change in theology in the very core and center of the Holy Sacrifice - even at the expense of the Words of Our Lord Himself -, the Consecration itself. The innovators have trampled even their own Second Vatican Council in order to bring this change about. To cite the Second Vatican Council:
Again, we have seen that the Tridentine Rite clearly adds words to what Our Lord said, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent says that!! So how that attacks the credibility of the Pauline Mass but not the Tridentine Mass I have no idea whatsoever.
Here I want to deal with the issue of their attacks on Vatican II. BTW, the first thing that these heretics can do to retain credibility among Catholics is, instead of linking to an attack on Vatican II, they would actually link to the documents of Vatican II itself. Of course they link only to direct attacks on the Magisterium in reference to Vatican II. The 2nd Vatican Council is for all Catholics, just as Trent is. Their rebellion against the Church is shown by their links. While they pretend to ‘hold to Trent” while attacking Vatican II, these people are doing exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger warns against:
It is impossible (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism”, at least in its extreme forms. Second: It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. . And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.” Cardinal Ratzinger believes that Trent and Vatican II are compatible, and true Catholics must hold them to be so. Remember when you see our opponents use the word for themselves ‘traditionalists’, the Prefect of the Highest Office in Catholicism that defends the Faith termed our opponents ‘so-called traditionalists.’ The words ‘so-called traditionalists’ came not from me, but from the Prefect of the Highest Office in defense of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger. In other words, they are not really Traditionalists. Next Cardinal Ratzinger goes on to say something that our Schismatic leaning opponents don’t seem to understand:
To defend the true tradition of the Church today means to defend the Council. It is also our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the ‘right’ and left’ alike) to view Vatican II as a ‘break’ and abandonment of the tradition. There is, instead a continuity that allows neither a return to the past nor a flight forward, neither anachronistic longings nor unjustified impatience. We must remain faithful to the today of the Church, not the yesterday or tomorrow. And this today of the Church is the documents of Vatican II, without reservations that amputate them and without arbitrariness that distorts them.” Our opponents show that they are in false tradition as they attack the Council and the Mass that came out of it. Real Catholics defend Ecumenical Councils, not attack them. They are anything but Catholic. Then they try to take what they can get out of Vatican II in order to use it against the Mass.
Of course there are some things subject to change, even in the canon of the prayer itself, as the Roman Rite, changed wholesale many things in the Liturgy itself, as has been documented by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Many items are unchangeable including the fact of the Consecration, even if it has been done in many different ways. An unchangeable is the fact of the Sacrifice of the Mass, even if done in different ways. Holy Mother Church indeed did a restoration of the Liturgy, and it is Holy Mother Church who has the divinely instituted authority to decide on how to restore that liturgy. ‘Pope’ Hammer and others have no such authority to declare that the Church does not have that authority.
In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. (14)
In the second place, I would like to point out to the reader yet another change in the theology behind the Consecration formula. The Traditional Consecration states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "remission of sins," while the Consecration formula give above states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "forgiveness of sins."
In the second place, I would like to point out to the reader yet another change in the theology behind the Consecration formula. The Traditional Consecration states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "remission of sins," while the Consecration formula give above states that the Sacrifice is being offered up for the "forgiveness of sins."Ok. What is the charge here? The Old Translation has it as remission of sins. The new translation is forgiveness. Let us see what is the difference. Is Forgiveness an antonym or homonym?. Our opponents apparently think they have totally different meanings that oppose each other. Vines dictionary of Old and New Testament words gives us a definition of words. Here the subject in question is forgiveness or remission - Nouns
In the Biblical language, Forgiveness is used as a noun it is used: aphesis It is used of the remission of sins, and translated “forgiveness in Mark 3:29; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14 and in the KJV of Acts 5:31; 13:38; 26:18, in each of which the RV has “remission.”Notice that the translation in the Dictionary has aphesis sometimes translated as Remission, and other times translated as Forgiveness. Ok, in the Biblical language what is the translation for Forgiveness in relation to Sin? Oh, it is Remission of Sins. Ok, in the Biblical language what is the translation for Remission? Oh, it is Forgiveness. Thus, these words basically mean the same thing! Yet our opponents say because the translation is different, even though they mean the same thing, it gives us a totally new theology!!! Oh, please spare me!!!
Remissionaphesis ‘a dismissal, release” , is used of the forgiveness of sins and translated “remission” in Matt. 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31 (KJV, forgiveness”); 10:43; 13:38, RV (forgiveness”)
In the third place, the Consecration formula for the wine in the Novus Ordo Missae contains a lie. Yes, you heard correctly. A lie. The reader may well ask "What lie is that?" and I have no problem with answering this question. The Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae attributes the following words to Christ Himself:
"Take this all of you, and drink form it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."
Christ never said those words! When He instituted the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, He did not say that His Blood was going to be shed "for all men," so that sins "may be forgiven"! The Words of Christ are as follows:
Ok, that is the ticket! What our opponents are reduced to saying is “I really can’t get them on anything else so let us raise the bar some and call the Mass instituted in the Pauline Rite as a lie.” Let us examine the consistency of this claim. Now, the way we address this charge as the Pauline Rite being a lie, is by likewise examining the consecration of the Tridentine Rite. We will see that if the Pauline Rite falls because it lies, so does the Tridentine Rite:
Matthew 26:27-28 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.
(Consecration of the Host)
Who, the day before He suffered, took bread into His Holy and venerable hands, and having lifted up His eyes to heaven, to Thee, God, His Almighty Father, giving thanks to Thee, blessed it +, broke it,and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and eat ye all of this:
For this is My Body. In like manner, after He had supped, taking also into His holy and venerable hands this goodly chalice, again giving thanks to Thee, He blessed it +, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of this:
For 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.
Ok. Let us examine our opponents charge one more time about the Pauline Mass:
“The Consecration formula for the wine in the Novus Ordo Missae contains a lie. Yes, you heard correctly. A lie. The reader may well ask "What lie is that?" and I have no problem with answering this question. The Consecration formula for the Novus Ordo Missae attributes the following words to Christ Himself:”---
These guys are really stuck on this issue aren’t they? I have to repeat my demolition of their argument, I guess. Ok, the reason they give that the Pauline Rite Mass is a lie is because it says in its English Translation Consecration, it uses the word ‘all’. Since Jesus did not use the word ‘for all’ the Pauline Mass is a lie. Not only will I show that the translation of the words used in the consecration ‘for all’ is indeed a legitimate translation, but the fact is that these opponents either don’t know what they are talking about or they are hypocritical liars. Why in the world do I say that? Well, the above Tridentine translation shows this. Notice that in the consecration of both the bread and wine the Tridentine consecration formula explicitly says that these words are the words of Jesus. Yet what are the words that we see? The issue of for many or for all is actually secondary to this charge. The charge is that the Pauline Rite Mass adds the word “For All” and attributes that to Jesus. The same holds true for the Tridentine Mass. However, if you look at Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul’s rendition in 1 Corinthians, absolutely nowhere is the term ‘Mystery of Faith” used. This is not even a question of a translation, which can be legitimately debated. So which is worse? Thus, if the Pauline Rite is a lie (when the only question concerned is whether it is legitimate to translate it “For All or For Many”), how much more is the Tridentine Rite a lie when the words “Mystery of Faith” (or any translation of it) were clearly not spoken by Jesus. Actually, I don’t consider either of the Masses a lie, as the words do not have to be an exact repeat of Christ’s words, in order to be valid, as there have been numerous consecrations at numerous different rites, and they were all approved by the Church as valid. Nowhere did Jesus say “In order for this to be valid, you must say it in this exact formula of words.” However, for those folks who insist on calling the Pauline Rite a lie because they feel that the words are not exactly the same as Jesus Christ’s words, they have dug their own graves with hypocrisy by ignoring the fact the words ‘Mystery of Faith’ was absolutely never a part of Christ’s words. They by their own criteria have rendered the Tridentine Rite a lie. The Church, thankfully does not operate by our opponent’s criteria, and both the Tridentine Rite and the Pauline Rite are valid and true Masses.
Pope Paul VI has ruled that this is a valid translation, in 1970. We will see that below. He did not direct that it absolutely had to be translated for many, and directly ruled opposite. That should settle the issue for any True Catholics, of which I am afraid our opponents are not.]
The theology behind them is the exact same as that in the Traditional Mass. Whereas, in the Novus Ordo Missae, they have changed both the theology behind the Words of Christ, and the Words of Christ Himself, contrary to the wishes and directions of Pope Paul VI in the very Apostolic Constitution. from which they derive their legitimacy - as we shall see further on. Are these the actions of people who are 1) faithful to the Traditions of the Church, 2) faithful to the Teachings and Words of Christ, and 3) obedient to the Pope? Obviously not.
Lastly, I would like to point out the fact that the Consecration formula for the wine - as given by Shawn - is a mistranslation from the Latin. According to the 1973 "Sacramentary," the Latin of the Consecration is as follows:
hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.
Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins." The fact that this is still the official position, is verified by the following citation from the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of Pope Paul VI, which is used by the Reformers - and their comrades - to justify this hatchet job of the Traditional Mass:
For pastoral reasons, however, and to facilitate concelebration, we have directed that the words of the Lord be identical in each form of the canon. Thus, in each eucharistic prayer, we wish that the words be as follows: .... over the chalice: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.
Therefore, any attack on the validity of the Novus Ordo Missae is not an attack upon the Papacy, for Pope Paul VI himself officially "directed" that the Consecration formula for the wine remain the same - with the exception of the words "mysterium fidei" - as is found in the Traditional Mass. Hence, the English translation of the Novus Ordo - as given above and defended by Shawn - is in direct contradiction to the "directions" and "wishes" of His Holiness, Pope Paul VI. This, in turn, means that the Consecration formula cannot - by any stretch of the imagination - be considered to be covered by any form of papal infallibility, and an attack upon the new form is not, in and of itself, an attack upon any direction or order of the Pope - whereas the English version is in direct disobedience to the directions and wishes of Pope Paul VI.
Next, who is doing a hatchet job of what? Besides doing a hatchet job on Pope Paul VI intentions on the issue of “For Many” or “For All”, we already have seen some hatcheting on your side when you make a big thing about supposed differences between ‘remission of sins’ and ‘forgiveness of sins’ when the meaning is the same.
The Latin version of the Pauline Rite Mass does have this translation, so I don’t know how this is a repudiation of Pope Paul VI. The gall of someone trashing his Holiness Pope Paul VI all the while bashing him as a heretic on the one hand, while at the same time pretending to defend him by saying “Oh, you mistranslated the Latin, aren’t you guys terrible” (when Pope Paul VI directly ruled otherwise). Remember, ‘remission’ of sins and ‘forgiveness’ of sins are synonymous. Next, we need to go to the “For Many” and “For All” issue on the translation aspect of this issue.
Pope Paul VI in fact did rule on the issue of “For Many” and “For All”. Here is what Pope Paul VI ruled on the translation issue, on whether ‘for all’ is a legitimate translation, in 1970: A question on this issue was brought up to the Holy See, in 1970, while Pope Paul was still in office:
In certain vernacular versions of the text for consecrating wine, the words pro multis are translated thus: English, for all; Spanish, por todos, Italian, per tutti. Query:Note, that the Pope specifically says that “For All” is a legitimate translation. It is not inaccurate, and he specifically contradicts our opponents again. For Catholics, this settles the issue. Of course for our opponents, who disregard the Holy See when it doesn’t suit them (which as we have seen, seems to be alot of the time), this is not enough, so we will look further into the issue.
a. Is there a sufficient reason for introducing this variant and if so, what is it?
b. Is the pertinent traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Council of Trent to be considered superseded?
c. Are all other versions of the Biblical passage in question to be regarded as less accurate?
d. Did something inaccurate and needing correction or emendation in fact slip in when the approval was given for such a version?
Reply: The variant involved is fully justified:
a. According to exegetes the Aramaic word translated in Latin by pro multis has as its meaning “for all”; the many for whom Christ died is without limit; it is equivalent to saying “Christ has died for all.” The words of Saint Augustine are apposite: “See what he gave and you will discover what he bought. The price is Christ’s Blood. What is it worth but the whole world? What, but all peoples? Those who say either that the price is so small that it has purchased only Africans are ungrateful for the price they cost; those who say that they are so important that has been given for them alone are proud” [Enarr. in Ps. 95, 5].
b. The teaching of the Catechism (Trent’s Catechism) is in no way superseded: the distinction that Christ’s death is sufficient for all but efficacious for many remains valid.
c. In the approval of this vernacular variant in the liturgical text nothing inaccurate has slipped in that requires correction or emendation. 
In fact, in many cases the use of many, and for all, in the Bible are interchangeable. For example, in Rom. 5:15, Paul writes:
For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
If Christ died only for many, and could not mean all, we would have Scripture contradicting Trent, which as faithful Catholics understand, is not possible. The Church teaches as dogma that original sin effects all, not many. Not only does Scripture not contradict Trent, Paul also uses the word for all in the very same section Paul wrote in Romans 5:12:
Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.
The words in the way they are used by Paul are interchangeable. As Kenneth Whithead and James Likoudis relate:
Orthodox Biblical scholars have explained the apparent discrepancy, by pointing out that Hebrew and Aramaic words for “many,” familiar to the Apostles, had a common meaning of “the all who are many” or an “undefined multitude.” In other words the Bible on occasion uses the words many and all interchangeably. That is to say, the expression “for man” has a Semitic meaning that is equivalent in some cases to “for all men.” The original Hebrew or Aramaic words came into the Greek New Testament simply as polloi, which in turn was perhaps somewhat simplistically translated into the Latin “multis” rather than “omnibus.” In our day, there has been a greater awareness of the various meanings of all the words involved - and of the Semitic nuances underlying them. The Church has accordingly found no contradiction in doctrine in approving “for all men” in English - or “per tutti” in Italian - as a valid translation of the Latin “pro multis.” Some scripture scholars believe “for all men” might even be a more faithful translation of the Holy Scriptures. Whitehead continues by quoting a renowned Biblical scholar Pierre Benoit, O.P., who writes as follows of the meaning of the word “many” in Scriptures:
The word which we translate as ‘many’ stresses the sense of a great number and does not exclude anyone...Jesus certainly makes this fullness of salvation his own and it is the whole of mankind of the end of space and time that he includes in this ‘many’ for whom he was going to give his life as a ‘ransom’” (Mt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45). Next, we have yet another scholar, Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. who independently finds that:
The Semitic phrase ‘for many’ stands for a totality and not for a multitude in contrast to the whole. Hence it indicates the universality of Christ’s redemptive work. Thus, the translation “For All” is indeed a valid translation. Our opponents throwing a big hullabaloo about it being a horrid translation to have “For All” instead of “For Many” amounts to absolutely nothing. Another argument down the tube.
In fact, our opponents have someone (Mike Malone) who has written articles that they have linked to from their own web-pages, and is a ‘real’ Catholic according to them, i.e., Feeneyite, (unlike Pope John Paul II, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII, etc. who are heretic ‘Catholics’), in an email that John Loughnan received, when writing of the issue ‘for all’:
In fact, this translation, although Scripturally inaccurate, may well be considered an approximation of the actual words of Consecration as given to us by the Evangelist St. Luke: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood, which shall be shed for you" (22:20). The final word of this formula (you) is in the plural, and might more accurately be translated "for you all" (especially if you are from San Antonio, Texas!) ~ precisely as St. Jerome rendered it in his Vulgate, the solitary translation of Holy Writ ever authorized by the Catholic Church in her entire history. Nevertheless, the best codices of Scripture demonstrate that it is not the formulary Our Lord Jesus Christ actually recited at the Last Supper, despite the fact that it clearly suffices for a valid confection of the Sacrament according to the most common and traditional theology, including that of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica III, Q.78, Art 2, 4). The prolific St. Alphonsus Maria observes that there was once even a Consecration of the Host in the ancient Catholic Coptic Mass ~ brought by the Evangelist St. Mark to Egypt ~ which rendered the words of the transubstantiation of the host: "This is the Body"(!) It seems, therefore, that the Catholic Church has always supplied the proper understanding of the various thoughts expressed in our poor human idiom, even in her most sacrosanct ceremony. As the ancient dictum puts it: "Ecclesia Supplicet" ~ The Church supplies. Not even the venerable Tridentine Rite, codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, is capable of escaping this judgment, considering that its own Catechism was called upon to explain, at length and in detail, why its Mass continues to call "bread" what has already been transubstantiated into the Body of Jesus Christ. In the liturgies of virtually every Rite, therefore, a genuinely Catholic understanding must necessarily be supplied in certain instances, in order that misconstructions be curtailed and any affected ambiguity be overcome. Thus, a person who normally goes along with our (and certainly of what I have read from him I wouldn’t agree with him on many matters) opponents admits that the translation “For All” is valid, and certainly doesn’t effect the validity of the consecration. The Church supplies the meanings of the words, and nowhere has the translation ‘for all’ ever meant or implied universal salvation. Malone even admits that there is ambiguity in the Tridentine Rite because it continues to call the consecrated Host ‘bread.’ This admission about ambiguity in the Tridentine Rite also undermines the attack we will see launched by our opponents on sacrificial terminology in the Pauline Rite Mass. In any sense, our opponents’ arguments have been found duly wanting.
Our opponents argue that it is absolutely necessary for a valid consecration to have the translation, “For Many” and “For All” thus invalidate the consecration. Is this a fact? We just saw that an ally of our opponents has admitted that it is a legitimate translation and it certainly doesn’t effect the consecration. But, hey, UltraTrads argue with each other all the time (Since they reject the authority of the Magisterium they become their own Popes or at least followers of other ‘Popes’ like Archbishop Lefebvre), so I am sure that they will argue that “Here, this Fellow UltraTrad is wrong.”
Have all the valid consecrations in the past included the phrase “For Many”? Again, their argument falls by the wayside. What is the Eucharistic Prayer of the ancient St. Hippolytus?
Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you. And likewise also the cup, saying: This is my blood, which is shed for you. As often as you perform this, you perform my memorial.
Notice that here, this prayer has no mention at all of “For Many”. There is no mention of “Mystery of Faith”. No mention of “Remission of Sins”. All necessary, according to our opponents. Thus, unless our opponents will argue that the most ancient Liturgy that we have record of is an invalid consecration, their argument is totally false. Remember what our opponent argued? That:
Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins."Not only is there no mention of the words “For Many” but there is not even a mention of the words “For the remission of sins”. And ‘Mystery of Faith’ was not used either. This Mass, which is the most ancient Roman Rite that we have record of, is 0 for 3 for our opponents, but there is no record of anyone anywhere attacking the validity of this Mass. Yet, no one has ever argued that this was an invalid consecration and I challenge my opponents to prove, since they said that, either the Roman Church or the Catholic Church as a whole condemned this (Consecrations that do not use “For Many”. If their arguments hold true, there should have been condemnations of this Mass. Surely there must have condemnations from the ‘Pope’ Hammers of the time!!!! Of course it would only be valid if the Magisterium of the time condemned it. I have a feeling we will get an “Anabaptist’ answer, that, ‘well, I am sure that they condemned it, I just happen to have no names or quotations of anybody who believed as I do, but you can sure trust me on history on this one!’. Just as Anabaptist arguments fall by the wayside, so do our opponent’s arguments. If they can not provide proof, their arguments are totally baseless.
Of course no Church Fathers at the time condemned this supposed corruption, which was the Liturgy of St. Hippolytus. They should have been outraged, according to our opponents, that this Liturgy did not use the phrase, “For Many” or “For the Remission of Sins”. Let us assume that all the Fathers were asleep and the ‘Pope’ Hammers of the time were just looking the other way, and didn’t quite catch it. Surely, all the other Liturgies used the phrase “For Many” and “The Remission of Sins”, right? Remember, according to our opponents they must say those things in order for those consecrations to be valid. Maybe it was just a fluke with the St. Hippolytus canon.
Unfortunately for our opponents they are wrong again. Many Liturgies did not use the consecratory formula that our opponents said that must be used in order for there to be a valid consecration.
Here are a couple of Old Liturgies finds of recent history of Egyptian liturgies. The Sacramentary of Serapion, written about 353-356 AD by Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis, a colleague of both St. Athanasius, and of St. Anthony gives us an ancient liturgical text, and following that a Deir Balizeh manuscript that goes back to the third century:
We have offered also the cup, the likeness of the blood, because the Lord Jesus Christ, taking a cup after supper, said to his disciples, ‘Take ye, drink, this is the new covenant, which is my blood, which is being shed for you for remission of sins.’”The following Oriental Liturgies in use today (and also way before Vatican II ) have the following consecrations, the Catholic Ethiopian Rite and the Liturgy of the Abyssinian Jacobites:
Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had blessed it and had drunk, he gave it to them saying, Take, drink all of it. This is my blood which is being shed for you unto remission of sins.” 
And likewise also the cup giving thanks, he blessed it, and hallowed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said unto them, Take, drink, this is my blood (pointing and bowing profoundly), which is shed for you for the remission of sins.”
Take, drink this cup: my blood it is, which is shed for you for the remission of sin.
Whitehead and Likoudis in the same book give us further points:
A study done by Dom Leclerq finds that there have been no fewer than 89 variations in the formulas for consecration in the history of the Church. Of these variations there are a number where not only the phrase "for many' but other words of the "Tridentine' form of the consecration are not to be found.What are the valid words of institution, then, with all these variations allowed in the Church? There has never been a definitive ruling from the Church on the matter. However, with all the variations allowed, it seems most likely to be the phrase, “This is my Body” or “This is the cup (or chalice) of my Blood” are the phrases essential to the consecration. That is what most theologians will infer. No theologian worth his theological salt would ever make the phrase that our opponents have made:
Scholars studying the Eastern rites can point to many anaphoras, or Eucharistic prayers, which do not include the “for many.” The “For many” is included in the contemporary liturgy of almost all of the Eastern rites or churches today (except the Ethiopian); but the fact that it has not always and everywhere been included in rites whose validity the Catholic Church has never questioned or doubted, amply demonstrates that it is not essential for validity. And whether it is essential has been precisely the question we are concerned with there. 
Hence, officially, the Consecration formula must contain the words "and for many," and not "for all," that last words in the Consecration are "for the remission of sins," not "for the forgiveness of sins."
The fact is, if this was true, many Christians for centuries in the past and present, were unknowingly just worshipping bread and wine, thus committing sacrilege and were not even partaking of the Real Body and Blood of Christ. They didn’t fit ‘Pope’ Hammer’s supposedly authoritative ruling on the matter. The mere thought of this is laughable, were it not so pitiful of a thought.
Dr. Ludwig Ott, in the authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, gives us the true Catholic view on the matter:
The words of institution demonstrate, at least with a high degree of probability, that at the Last Supper Jesus effected the transmutation by the words: “This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,” and not by a mere act of will, or by the blessing or thanksgiving, as many theologians, notably of the early period of Scholasticism, for example Innocent III (De sacro altaris mysterio IV 6) assumed. According to the mandate of Christ: “Do this in commemoration of Me,” The Church must similarly complete the consecration, as did Christ, by the words of consecration.I wonder if pre-Vatican II Ludwig Ott is a ‘Catholic’ heretic because he wrote such a thing? The only thing is, that he documents, using Church Tradition on the matter, as he continues on the issue:
The old Christian tradition teaches that Christ consecrated with the words of institution. Tertullian remarks: “He took bread...and made it into His Body, by speaking: “This is my Body” (Adv. Marcionem IV 40). As far as the consecration effected by the Church is concerned, the Fathers ascribed this either to the whole prayer of thanksgiving, which is contained in the narrative of the institution, or expressly to the words of institution. According to St. Justin, the consecration occurred “by words of prayer stemming from Him =Christ)” (Apol. II 66). According to St. Irenaeus, the bread assumes the “invocation of God” or “the Word of God” and thereby becomes the Eucharist (Adv. Haer. IV 18, 5: V 2, 3). According to Origen the bread, which is offered “with thanksgiving and prayer” becomes “through the prayer” the Body of Christ (C. Celsum VIII 33); the Eucharistic nourishment is sanctified” by God’s words and prayer” (In Matt. comm. 11, 14). St. Ambrose, Ps.-Eusebius of Emesa, St. John Chrysostem expressly teach that the transmutation is effected by the words of institution of Christ. St. Ambrose explains: “The words of Christ complete therefore this Sacrament” (De sacr. IV 4, 14). St. John Chrysostem says: “The priest stands there and sets up the outward sign, while speaking these words; but the power and the grace are of God. ‘This is My Body’ he says. These words transmute the gifts” (De proditione Judas hom. 1, 6). St. John of Damascus mention both the words of institution and the Epiclesis (De fide orth. IV 13).
Maybe all those Liturgists of the Early Church, and Church Fathers were ‘Catholic’ heretics who just didn’t get it? ‘Pope’ Hammer was surely needed in those days to correct all those Church Fathers and the Liturgies. Well, how about St. Thomas Aquinas, who did in fact mention the importance of using the phrase “For Many”. At least he agreed with our opponents on its necessity for a valid consecration, right? As shown by Shawn in Url 6 of his Treatise, who quotes from St. Thomas Aquinas himself. Let us See:
"In this Sacrament something is present by force of conversion, and something by natural concomitance. By force of conversion there is present that which is the immediate term into which conversion is made. Such under the species of bread is the Body of Christ, into which the substance of bread is converted by the words, This is my body. Such again under the species of wine is the Blood of Christ, when it is said, This is the chalice of my blood." Finally, we do have a consecration that was valid, not only not using the phrase “For Many”, but also using the translation “For All”. To cap off the matter, one of the approximately 20 anaphoras used by the Maronites up until their re-incorporation within the Roman Church used the equivalent to "for all" in the consecration of the wine - and THERE WAS NEVER ANY SUGGESTION THEN OR AFTER OF INVALIDITY.
Thus, it is not the Consecration done at a Pauline Rite Mass that is invalid, it is the arguments of the opponents that are invalid.
 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger with Vittorio Messori, The Ratzinger Report, Ignatius Press, San Francisco. 1985, pp. 28-29.
 ibid., p. 31.
 Vines’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words Thomas Nelson, Inc Publishers
 Notitiae 6(1970) 39-40, no 28, Documents on the Liturgy (Collegeville, Minnesota Liturgical Press, 1983), as cited in Akin, James, Mass Confusion, Catholic Answers, Inc., San Diego, Ca., pp. 120-121.
 The Pope, The Council and the Mass, ibid., p. 101
 ibid., p. 101, quoting “Benoit, Pierre, O.P., “The Accounts of the Institution and What they Imply “ in The Eucharist in the New Testament: A Symposium, Helicon Press, Baltimore and Dublin, 1964, page 80.
 ibid., p. 101, quoting Kilmartin, Edward J., S.J., “The Sacrificial Meal of the New Covenant,” in Paulist Press Doctrinal Pamphlet series, 1965, page 4.
 Email forwarded to me by John Loughnan, whose author is Mike Malone, July 2, 2000.
 The Pope, The Council, and the Mass, p, 111, quoting from Kucharek, Casimir, The Byzantine Slavic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostem, Alleluia Press, Allendale, New Jersey, 1971, pages 97-98.
 The Pope, The Council and the Mass, pp. 109, 111.
 Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., Rockford, Il. , 1974, p. 393.
 ibid., p. 393.
 St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles _ Book IV Section 63 (circa AD 1260)