Not only was it wrong, but it was actually* heretical* according to what those words actually man. The words “for you”, and “for many” in the consecration of the sine have a meaning of their own. One place you can find this talked about is the Catechism of Trent, under the section titled Explanation of the form used in the Consecration of the wine.
LOL, he forgot about the rest of the world.
Yes! Do not walk, run from the evil! Do not assume the priest made a mistake. Simply take it for granted that he is heretical and is seeking the ruin of souls! Do not question him or ask him why he used the term or where the term came from! He is obviously the spawn of Satan! Do not have faith that the Holy Spirit is present in that church or among those who attended that “NO MASS”, for it is clear from the priest’s particular use of the term you heard that the Holy Spirit has been banned from that place and God’s grace cannot compensate for whatever good intentions are held by the (dare I say it?) faithful, who attended that . . . gathering. Avoid the priest as you (and presumably Jesus himself) would avoid a leper! Lepers (and politically correct priests - whatever they may be) are obviously beyond redemption. Stay close to your coffee cup, do not look beyond your donut, huddle among the frozen! That’s what you should do!
There is no excuse for changing the words of consecration, or tampering with the FORM of any of the sacraments. To do so is not only a mortal sin, but a sacrilege that probably invalidates the sacrament. Here’s a quote that all Catholics living today should memorize, especially since there are so many heretical and wicked Priests.
Of course there is an excuse for changing the words of consecration. It’s called being human and making a mistake. Shouldn’t we overlook such mistakes assuming the priest is doing the best he can. Now, if you believe the priest did not make a mistake and changed the words on purpose to make some sort of point, then you have the right to seek an explanation from him and ask him to return to the original words of the consecration or you will report him to his Bishop. If you wish to join a different parish with a different priest, then do so, but for goodness sakes, to assume the absolute worst of anyone without giving them the opportunity to explain themselves or apologize for any misunderstanding they have given, is not a very Christian attitude. I’m sure the good Dom Chautard, who knows something of sanctity, would agree.
You would suggest that we overlook an error that makes that Mass illicit or potentially invalid?
As a caveat, I have no idea of the individual situation here, but given the fact that the priest added (rather than omitted) a word, this tends to suggest that he did so purposefully and knowingly as opposed to doing so accidentally.
No, I’m suggesting that we not be so quick to jump to conclusions and assume the worst of someone who may have simply made a mistake. Perhaps the priest in this instance didn’t make a mistake, but it would seem natural to me to find out if this was the case before making any other decision. If the priest did make a mistake, then yes, we should be charitable and his mistake should be overlooked.
Yes, you’re right. It may have been a change made in error or it may have been one made purposefully. If you wish, you may read my previous posts to see the advice I have given regarding the incident.