I agree - valid absolutely.
Charity…
Sacraments are valid or invalid… not masses.
Yes, its valid. The priest would have to significantly change the words of consecration for it to be invalid. He’d either have to skip it completely or change it to such an extend its no longer recognized as the consecration or its meaning.
Hmmm. Did the Church say it was valid after Nov 26th?
Definitely have to notify the Bishop on this one. They painstakingly retranslated the English Mass, especially pro multis, for a reason. FWIW, there were papers written in the 60’s (before the New Mass) questioning the validity of the all-English canon with the “for all men” verbiage. Just saying.
The Mass ‘contains’ the sacrament of the Eucharist. He said those words during the Eucharistic prayer. It’s a sacrament to me.
I think you are getting a little carried away here. OP says he’s heard it *twice *only, presumably he’s been to Mass more often than that since Nov 26. The priest probably just slipped into autopilot at that point. The priests have quite a bit more of the new translation than we do, and in many places it is just a word or two different. As NewEnglandPriest said, it’s easy to have the old words roll off your tongue. How many times have we accidentally said “And also with you”?
A Mass can be invalid too, for example, if the priest does not receive Communion under both Species, even if the Consecration was valid (the Sacrifice is not complete).
Hi Mrs. Sally, We have five priests who say Mass at our parish, so it’s the second time I’ve heard this particular priest say it (the other priests have said “for many” at the other Masses I have been at).
He’s on the younger side (for a priest anyway). I’d say in his mid-40s?
I still think it’s likely that he just slipped up. Unless you know for sure that he is saying this deliberately, there is no point in talking to the pastor or bishop about this. And really there isn’t much to say to him either.
That’s what I thought, that the “For Many” words were a real sticking point for some regarding the new translation. So I am wondering if he is deliberately saying “For All.” (The petitions tend to brush up against liberal politics a bit as well, although not in an alarming way or anything that isn’t in line with church teaching).
Really? I thought we have the new translation for a reason.
Fair point. But then the question remains how much of this can be tolerated before it is indeed invalid? Something still needs to be said to the bishop, I would think.
And I agree. However, you don’t know he is. You say you’ve only heard it twice. Unless you get the priest’s schedule and only attend this man’s Masses for awhile, you won’t know that he isn’t tripping over his words.
Of course. I’ve only heard him say it two times like that. If it’s five times or more, I would say that he is doing it on purpose. But to be honest, it kind of doesn’t matter. If he is just messing up, it’s still not the right way to say it, regardless of his intentions.
Considering that Aramaic doesn’t have a word that strictly means “all,” and therefore there is no distinction between “many” and “all,” I really don’t see why people make such a big deal about this.
Secondly, don’t be too sure he’s being deliberate. I’ve accidentally said “take this all of you and eat it” instead of “take this all of you and eat of it” on several occasions over these past few weeks. I’d hate to think someone out there thought I was being disobedient rather than stupid…
We lay people can hardly imagine how much more difficult the changes are to get used to for the priests than they are for us. 
The Church has already spoken on the issue of misspoken consecrations and changing a couple of words does not invalidate it.
The CDWDS already weighed in on this issue and found nothing theologically wrong with “for all.”