What should I say re: validity of Novus Ordo Mass?

[DavidJoseph]

I have a friend from church who is starting to question the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, at least the English version of it. He gives 3 reasons:

1. In the original Latin version of the Novus Ordo, as well as the Tridentine, the consecration of the chalice says that Jesus’ Blood will be shed “for many” (pro multis), but the English version uses “for all.” Of course, Jesus died for all, and my friend knows this, but he still finds “for all” problematic.
2. His second objection is to the lack of the phrase “mystery of faith” (mysterium fidei) during the consecration of the chalice and placing it afterward instead (where we all respond “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again”). He said that it seems to him that the Council of Florence defined that this is part of the necessary form of the Sacrament.
3. Finally, he claims there’s controversy in general as to whether or not Paul VI’s Missale Romanum properly promulgated a Mass at all.

Can anyone help me out here? I’m not sure I know how to answer him!

 

[Genesis315]

First off, as for #2, most of the non-Latin rites (ie Byzantine, etc.) do not have mystery of faith in their words of consecration and I doubt anyone would say their consecrations are invalid.

For #1, many and all have the same meaning in this case. See here:
ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm

I’m not familiar with #3.

 

[Sean_O_L]

Go to “Cheat Sheet” On The Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and other “Integrists”
- scroll down to the “N” section, where you will find “Defenses”. The answers are there. You will have to do the “hard yards” and read. Good luck.

 

[HagiaSophia]

The Pro Multis discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=46483

 

[challenger]

Paul did not include “mysterium fidei” in his list of the words of consecration. Paul does not promulgate invalid words of consecration. Either for many or for all is acceptable- Christ died for all. The Novus Ordo Mass was promulgated.