There have been many books on the subject. The words of the consecration were changed by the ICEL in 1967 and translations into other languages (except Polish and the original Latin) followed suit. Today it still has many defenders.
This is interesting because even the most Protestant translations of the Bible don’t have Christ saying “for you and for all.” It would change the Christian theology a lot and it’s a point those that simply counter with “the Mass is still valid” statements completely miss.
It is impossible to hold the English NO consecration as an invalid consecration without also holding Pope Paul VI as an invalid pope. Because disciplinary infallibility prevents a pope from promulgating or approving an invalid rite.
To say that the English NO consecration is invalid and at the same time maintain that Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI are valid popes is exactly like saying that a pope can make an error in an ex cathedra pronouncement and at the same time maintaining the doctrine of papal infallibility. In other words, it’s a contradiction; you can’t do it.
Either both the English NO consecration and the post-VII popes are valid, or they are both are invalid. You can’t have both at the same time.
At best it’s still several years away as there are still more changes that need to have the bishops’ approval. What has been approved is the most significant set of changes, but not the only changes. My guess would be a minimum of four more years and probably closer to eight years.
Lettter to all bishops conferences oct. 17, 2006 by francis cardinal arinze, prefect directive to use the term “pro multis” in line with the instructions of “liturgiam authenticam.” "effort should be made to be more faithful to the latin texts in the typical editions."
4.) …"precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g.“for many” , per molti,etc.in the next translationof the roman missal that the bishops andtheholy see will approve for use in their country.
all-ready a done deal. have a good year. (alih)
In my opinion, if you’re following the letter of the law, then yes it would be disobedience, but in light of Arinze’s comments, it would definitely follow the spirit of the law.
But we must take into account that the true letter of the law is the Latin which does say “for many”. Strange that one would be technically disobedient for saying one thing in english, yet be perfectly in-line when saying the same in Latin.
Anyways, I think it’s the spirit of the law that matters, so it wouldn’t be disobedience if a priest were to use “for many” even though the new missal with the correct translation hasn’t been released yet.
You’d have to qualify the probable action.
If he was a conservative, he may be excommunicated in 72hrs, the time alloted for publicly repenting.
If he was deeply involved in say, embezzlement or Homo behavior, it might never be brought up.
That would not give him any supernatural expertise in translating words from one language to another, nor give protection to underlings working under his authority.
The new Mass was promulgated in Latin, anyway, not in English. The Latin version of the Mass gets our Lord’s words right. The English version says something different. I’ll trust the official promulgated version over the mangled translated version.