The New Mass in English is Invalid Because of Substantial Change in Christ's Words

Compiled by Jim Condit Jr.


This paper shows that the New Mass in English, which contains a blatant and previously condemned falsification of Christ's words in the consecration of the wine at Mass, is both sacrilegious and invalid.

Section #1:

It has often been falsely said that St. Thomas Aquinas taught that “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” were the only words necessary to effect the consecration of the bread and wine in the Mass. He taught just the opposite.

 St. Thomas Aquinas said that the entire form of consecration of bread and the entire form of consecration for the wine were of the essence of the sacrament. He further taught that when the entire form was used, the bread became Christ’s Body at “This is My Body” and the wine became Christ’s Blood at “This is the chalice of My Blood”. St. Thomas did not specifically address what happens when the form is falsified in any essential way. The Council of Florence and Pope St. Pius V did settle this issue, 200 years and 300 years later.

 St. Thomas Aquinas, Question 78, Summa Theologica, written circa 1270 A.D. addresses the subject of the form of the consecration (most relevant parts below, with explanation):

 Here are the key points of this section:

 1. That the form used by the Church in the time of St. Thomas, including “Mystery of Faith” and “for many” in the consecration of the wine – is used by the Church because the Church was instructed to use this form by the Apostles, i.e, it comes to the Latin Church and the other rites from the first century A.D.

2. That when the proper form is used, the transubstantiation of the bread happens at “This is My Body” and the consecration of the wine happens at “For this is the Chalice of the My Blood”.

3. Please note: St. Thomas does NOT address the case where the consecration of the wine is mutilated, omitted, or mistranslated in an essential way. (As we shall see, this was addressed 2 centuries and 3 centuries later to bind the whole Church in the Latin Rite by the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV, the Council of Trent in 1563 under Pope Pius IV, and by Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus in 1570.) Thus St. Thomas’s opinion regarding what he addressed is wholly correct. However, even his opinions do not overrule subsequent solemn rulings by the Pope, either when made ex cathedra, or when made for the universal ordinary magisterium. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas held the opinion that Mary was conceived with original sin, like all the rest of us. The Franciscans held that Mary was conceived without original sin. Both opinions were permissible at the time, as the Holy See had not ruled. This dispute was brought to an end in 1854 when Pope Pius IX solemnly declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Thus the Dominicans and St. Thomas Aquinas were wrong, and the Franciscans were right – but in the 13th century both were free to hold differing opinions on this matter.


Begin Quote from the St. Thomas Aquinas, Q. 78, Summa Theologica:

 Article 3. Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the wine: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc.? . . .

On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.

I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. Consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression.

And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this, etc." which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Lk. 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood."

Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rm. 3:25,26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins."


End of Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas:


Section #2

The form for consecration of the bread and wine using “for many” came from Holy Scripture and from the Apostles, as used up until 1969 in all the Latin Rite parishes of the world. Christ Himself used the word “many” as recorded in Scripture at the Last Supper when instituting the Holy Eucharist.

What is the form of consecration of bread and wine that St. Thomas says came to us from the Apostles:


[Translation: Consecration of the bread: “For this is My Body.” Consecration of the wine: “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 form containing MANY was used from the earliest times until 1969.


Section #3

 Council of Florence 1442 – decrees consecration formula – binding in heaven and on earth.

 The Council of Florence, ratified by Pope Eugene IV, which ended in 1445, decreed the form of consecration of the wine as using “many” exactly as found in all the pre-1969 missals and documents. The Council declared that all priests must use “for many” in the consecration of the wine, of course, just as Christ Himself did. Here is the decree of the Council of Florence, ratified by Pope Eugene IV:

"In the consecration of the body the Church uses this form of the words: 'For this is my body'; but in the consecration of the blood, it uses the following form of the words: 'For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.'" (Council of Florence, Denzinger 715)

Section #4:

Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated circa 1566 by Pope St. Pius V, says that “with reason, therefore, were the words for all not used” in the consecration of the wine.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, compiled and published by order of the Pope immediately after the Council of Trent circa 1563, and under the direction of St. Charles Borromea to explains further the meaning of the teachings of the Council of Trent, teaches the following about the consecration of the wine, and specifically explains why “for many” was used by Christ in the consecration of the wine, and why “for all” was not used in this place: “The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew [26:28], some from Luke [22.20], but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion . . . but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. . . . With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. . . .”

 Section #5:

De Defectibus (Concerning Defects when saying Mass) by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 – states that if the words are changed so that any part of the form of the consecration of the bread or wine is given a different meaning, then the priests “would not be achieving a valid sacrament”:

In 1570, Pope St. Pius V,

“Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:


[Translation: Consecration of the bread: “For this is My Body.” Consecration of the wine: “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.]

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.”


Section #6:

Vatican I declares that once the Church has defined formulas touching on doctrine, that they are not to be weakened under any pretext whatsoever.

Decrees of Vatican Council I, Chapter 4, Faith and Reason (1870):

“Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.” ---- This, as we will see in the next item, is clearly and exactly what Dr. Joachim Jeremias tried to do in his “for all” hoax --- to change the meaning of something the Church had declared and defined in many places and under all previous Popes before 1958, even in the words of Christ and the Holy Scriptures, -- and he tried to urge this change under the pretext of a more profound understanding (exactly what Vatican I under Pope Pius IX condemned 96 years before Jeremias published his paper that has been used to justify “for all.” in the consecration of the wine.)


 Section #7:

 A Dr. Joachim Jeremias writes a pamphlet in 1966 which claims that the consecration of the wine should have said “for all” all along – because there was no word in Aramaic for “for many.”

 Begin quote about Dr. Jeremias and the ICEL from The Great Sacrilege by Fr. James Wathen:

 If you are new to this subject, you will surely be asking, “Well, then, how could they change the words as they did, if this is what the documents say?” Well, dear child, you are not supposed to ask questions like that, or have you not heard? Now, would you like me to tell you what explanation the local authorities will give to such a question? Well, fold your hands, sit very still, and listen:

It so happens that the translation of the English of the “mass” was produced by a crowd who call themselves the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL). Their justification for translating pro multis as “for all men” derives from the curious researches of a rationalist Scripture “scholar” whose name is Joachim Jeremias of the University of Gottingen (Germany). This man’s recondite pontification has it that for lo, these two thousand years, the world of Our Lord at the Last Supper have been misrepresented! And who do you think did the misrepresenting? Why, St. Matthew and St. Mark, who else? Quoting Dr. Jeremias, ICEL explains:

“Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic possess a word for “all”. The word rabbim or multitude thus served also in the inclusive sense for “the whole”, even though the corresponding Greek and the Latin appear to have an exclusive sense, i.e., ‘the many’ rather than ‘the all.” (End quote from ICEL and Jeremias)

The doctor found this out all by himself – I mean, altogether by himself –for absolutely no one else knows about it, not even the Hebrews, nor the Arameans, who could have sworn that they did have words to express the ideas represented in our language by the words “all” and “many”! (Our Lord spoke Aramaic. The word He would have used for all in this language is: kol, or kolla; the word He would have used for many is: ‘saggi’an.)

Even though St. Matthew and St. Mark both spoke Our Lord’s vernacular tongue of Aramaic, they are both supposed to have made the identical error, neither one daring (or knowing enough) to correct the other. Apparently no one in the Apostolic Church caught the mistake. Nor did any of the early Church Fathers, none of the Doctors of the Church, none of the Popes, not one of the great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, no one in the whole wide world except one Joachim Jeremias. In fact, to this very day, he alone knows of this mistake, for his all-but-divine revelation has failed to impress scholars, both true and false. Witness not a single translation of the Bible (the countless ones for which this deeply pious age has suddenly found a need) with all their unheard of, outrageous, and heterodox turns of phrases – not a single one of them, I say – indicates acceptance of this crack-pot theory that since Christ, our God, the “Word made flesh,” did not have a way, could not devise a way, to say “all”, he had to be satisfied with saying “many” and waiting two thousand years for Dr. Jeremias to explain it for Him.

His explanation means, of course, that the word should be “all”, not “many”, in the following scriptural passages: “All are called, but few are chosen.” Matt. 20:16 . . . Speaking of the time of the Great Tribulation, Jesus meant to say, “for all [everybody!] will come in my name saying I am Christ: and they will seduce all [everybody].” Matt 24:5; (My Heavens!)

And are we not fortunate that those who have translated the Latin of the “Novus Ordo” were alert enough to recognize the brilliance of this momentous discovery, if no one else was?

Are you still wondering how “pro multis” came to be mistranslated? Yes, I thought you would be: The reference of the ICEL to the opinion of Dr. Jeremias is all a mendacious ruse. The question at issue has nothing to do with Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Further, all the arguments over Scriptural variations, philological findings, or even the decrees of the Council of Trent, are secondary to the main point, which is, that the Latin text of the Missal states that Christ Our Lord said “for many.” The most important fact is that the translation is false, deliberately, unmistakably, and scandalously. There is no excuse for it. . . .  In their unabashed impudence, the liars have not bothered to get their story straight to this very day. These vernacular garblements (as I said above, this same forgery is found in [almost all the other vernacular] translations, not just in the English one) first appeared in 1967. But the Novus Ordo was introduced in 1969, after loud attention had been called to the error, and its Latin still has “pro multis.” These words remain even though other words in the sacramental form were altered, as we have seen.

This translation error is but another sacrilege of immeasurable proportion. You see that nothing is sacred to the “reformers.” How those things which are the most holy the meddlers must perforce make the most absurd and muddled!”

(End of quote from “The Great Sacrilege” by Fr. James Wathen, pages 100-102)


 Section #8


Aramaic, Greek, Latin, and English have words for “many” and for “all” – Dr. Joachim Jeremias spread falsehood when he said these languages do not have such words.

 Aramaic: many = ‘saggi’an; all = kol, or kolla;

 Greek:   many = polloi; all =olio; all in ancient Greek was also apan;

 Latin: many = multus-a-um; all = omnis, omne;


 Section #9:

The ICEL (International Committee on English in the Liturgy) is constituted in 1966 under an English Bishop, and it adopts Dr. Joachim Jeremias hoax that the consecration of the wine should say “for all men” instead of “for many.” Their new “all English Canon” is published worldwide in 1967.


Section #10:

The ICEL translation is immediately exposed by Fr. Lawrence Brey in 1967 in the nationwide Pastoral and Homiletic Review which went into every parish house in the country, and by Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor of the USA, who by then had moved to Australia, in his booklet, “Questioning the Validity of the New All English Canon.” The original title was “Proving the Invalidity of the new All English Canon”, but was softened at the request of Fr. Brey, who was very cautious. The original title was justified, as we show in this little paper.


Section #11:

Paul VI issues the New Mass in Latin in 1969, which makes other changes in the consecration formula, but maintains “pro multis” in the consecration of the Wine. Three different documents are issued in three separate venues by Paul VI to introduce the New Mass. One says it is a “wish” that it be used, one says that it is a command that it be used, and the other uses language in between. In any case, the New Mass in English is begins to be imposed in every parish in the USA and the English speaking world on October 22, 1969, and the imposition of this “New Mass” in every parish in the USA was completed by 1974. The Latin is in the next section alongside the English mistranslation.


Section #12:


The New Mass in English makes blatant mistranslation of “pro multis”, invalidating the sacrament.

The New Mass in Latin issued by Paul VI in 1969 contained “pro multis” or “for many” in the consecration of the wine – so the Latin version of the New Mass was correct on this point. Here is the Latin version of the New Mass on the right side of the page below, but with the Latin “pro multis” mistranslated as ‘for all” in the English version, on the right side of the page below. The below is from the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI, 1975 edition at – and can be found in any other place dealing with the new mass.:

    Before he was given up to death,          Qui cum Passiňni

    a death he freely accepted,               voluntŕrie traderčtur,

    he took bread, gave you thanks.           accčpit panem

    He broke the bread,                       et grŕtias ŕgnes fregit,

    gave it to his disciples and said:        dedětque discěpulis suis, dicens:



    THIS IS MY BODY                           HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM



    When supper was ended, he took            Sěmili modo, postquam cenŕtum est,

    the cup.  Again he gave you               accěpiens et cŕlicem,

    thanks and praise, gave the cup           ěterum grŕtias ŕgens

    to his disciples, and said:               dedit discěpulis suis, dicens:


    TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU,                    ACCĚPITE ET BIBITE

    AND DRINK FROM IT:                        EX EO OMNES:





    AND FOR ALL MEN                           IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.





Here the New Mass in English with the mistranslation of “pro multis” is repeated in a straight paragraph:

The day before he suffered he took bread in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.  When supper was ended, he took the cup.  Again he gave you 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 in memory of me. (End of quote from New Mass in English). The mistranslation of  “for all men” was changed to “for all” about 1990.

Thus, the New Mass in English blatantly contradicts the traditional mass used from the first century until 1969, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Quo Primum by Pope St. Pius V, and even Paul VI’s New Mass in Latin in 1969.


Section #13

The Council of Trent condemns the idea that anyone can change the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, and this clearly applies to all bishops and priests. And it certainly would apply to antipopes.

Council of Trent on Sacraments in general:

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn [Page 56] administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema.

Pope St. Pius X went further, stating that even the Popes themselves are bound by the forms of the sacraments which the Church was given by Christ and the Apostles:

Pope St. Pius X in the letter Ex quo non (Dec. 26, 1910); "It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the Sacraments".


In the letter, "Super quibusdam" (September 29, 1351), Pope Clement VI taught: "The Roman Pontiff regarding the administration of the sacraments of the Church, can tolerate and even permit different rites of the Church of Christ, always without violating those which pertain to the integrity and necessary part of the sacraments".

The Council of Trent, session XXI, Chapter 2: "The Council declares furthermore that this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the Sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them or for the veneration of the Sacrament, according to the variety of circumstances, times and places."

And finally, on Nov. 30, 1947, Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis which reiterates and clarifies the same principle as the Council of Trent teaches, that "the seven sacraments of the new law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ Our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is over the things which, as the sources of revelation, witness, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign." (Dz. 3857)


Section #14


Catholics after 1969 were faced with an English New Mass, which contradicted even Paul VI New Mass in Latin on “for many”. Those who refused to attend the New Mass in English were following all the decrees of the Church throughout history by Popes and Councils, all the commentary by approved Doctors of the Church and theologians, and even Paul VI’s New Mass in Latin. Those who went along with the mistranslation were following a Committee that was three years old, operating under a bishop, with very ambiguous standing in the Church, i.e., not the Curia, for instance. The ICEL mistranslation was imposed by the national bishops’ conference in each country. There was never a document signed by Paul VI or John Paul II authorizing this mistranslation, but both of these used the mistranslation in New Masses they said, and allowed it to stand for 36 years after the mistranslation was imposed on the entire English speaking world.


Section #15


A review of the weight behind “for many” in the consecration of the wine.

So, the following documents or decrees support that the words “for many” are the proper words of consecration, and in the Latin Rite, the necessary and essential words of consecration:

-- The New Testament

-- Every decree in the history of the Church that has addressed the matter.

-- The Pontificates of all the 261 from the reign of St. Peter to Pope Pius XII which ended in 1958. (The change was imposed in 1969 by Paul VI.)

-- The Council of Florence

-- De Defectibus, (Concerning defects when celebrating mass) issued by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 to elaborate on the decrees of the Council of Trent (which ended in 1563).

The monitum from the Holy Office in 1958. This monitum or warning SPECIFICALLY told priests not to change the words of consecration under any circumstances, meaning a lot of the revolutionaries in the woodwork were already doing their dirty work, requiring such a warning to go out.

In addition, St. Alphonsus de Ligouri, a Doctor of the Church, in his “Treatise on the Holy Eucharist” penned circa 1760, backed up completely the explanation of Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus, as well as the Catechism of the Council of Trent. In doing so, he stated that, “This is the explanation of St. Thomas, as quoted by Benedict XIV.”

To repeat, please note this affirmation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s teaching on the consecration of the wine, for St. Thomas has been often misquoted, as he stated that the entire consecration of the wine was essential to the form of the sacrament.

Also, mentioning other sources which follow “for many” outside of the Catholic Church decrees:

 -- Every Bible in existence;

-- The movie: Jesus of Nazareth;

-- The movie: the Passion of the Christ;

In other words, the only place in the world where the mistranslation happens as “for all” is in the English version of the New Mass, and other vernacular versions.


Section #16

The New Mass in English is a sacrilege because it treats a holy thing with disrespect.

The definition of a sacrilege from Baltimore Catechism #2, 1941:

213. When does a person sin by sacrilege?  

A person sins by sacrilege when he mistreats sacred persons, places, or things. 

They have set thy sanctuary ablaze, they have profaned the dwelling of thy name on the earth. (Psalm 73:7)   (End of passage from the Baltimore Catechism

Needless to say, the institutionalized mistranslation of Christ’s words in the consecration formula of the New Mass in English, (which can be verified by walking into Catholic Church building in the USA and picking up a Missalette), resulting in an invalid sacrament according to the still standing decrees of the Church, is a grave sacrilege, objectively speaking.

We can have no doubt that “all men” is a substantial change in the meaning of Christ’s words “for many” in the consecration of the wine – for the Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us exactly this, complete with the reason, and concludes that “for this reason the words ‘for all” are not used’ in the consecration of the wine. Thus, this malicious change as found in the New Mass in English not only causes the New Mass to be a sacrilege, but also causes the New Mass to be invalid, i.e, no consecration of the bread or wine, as defined by Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum in 1570. None of the post Vatican II Popes have even hinted that the Catechism of the Council of Trent is wrong, or that St. Pius V’s Quo Primum of 1570 is not still in force.


Section #17


The New Mass in English is a sin against the First Commandment, i.e., is false worship, because it mixes error in with the worship of the True God. 

Any theologian could be picked out on the question of False worship, which is either the worship of a false God (Moslems), or mixing in error in the worship of the true God.

One citation: Father Heribert Jone, an eminent Catholic moral theologian, in his famous Handbook of Moral Theology, discussed the sin of "False Worship," which is one of the offenses against the First Commandment. He said that "God is worshipped in a false manner if one mingles religious errors and deception with the worship of the true God" (Newman Press: Westminster MD, 1961, p. 97).

Clearly this is what the New Mass in English does: mingles religious errors and deception with the worship of the true God – by falsifying Christ’s words in the consecration in contradiction to Sacred Scripture and the entire tradition of the Catholic Church throughout 20 centuries.


Section #18 

Regarding the blatant stupidity and dishonesty of the mistranslation of “pro multis” in the consecration of the wine:

A quick Latin lesson. I took Latin for four years at St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati, Ohio, and for three years at Xavier University. From our freshman year, the only translation for pro multis was “for many”. Pro was “for” and multis was the ablative plural form of “many.” The translation for “for all” would have been “pro omnibus.”; pro was “for” and omnibus” was the ablative plural form of “all.” One can check this by looking into any Latin Dictionary. If as a freshman at St. Xavier High School I would have put down “for all” for “pro multis” – I would have the translation of “multis” marked 100% wrong. It’s perfectly clear, and in no way a close call. This is all beside the point, of course, because even if there were two meanings to “multis” (which there is not), the Church had already decided that in the consecration of the wine the words “for many” was to be used, just as Christ used at the Last Supper as recorded in the New Testament – and that the words “for all” were most definitely NOT to be used, as noted above in the quotation from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was authorized by Pope St. Pius V..


Section #19

Has the Vatican said anything about this mistranslation since 1969?

From 1969, when the New Mass in English was imposed in every parish in the United States without any document from Paul VI to back it up – in fact, with the New Mass in Latin from Paul VI actually contradicting the mistranslation – until late 2006 – the Vatican II establishment remained silent on this point, despite numerous, public requests for a correction, and numerous pamphlets and books pointing out how this mistranslation made it impossible for Catholics in good conscience to attend the New Mass in English.

Then, in November 2006, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, “Cardinal” Francis Arinze, issued a statement admitting that the New Mass in English had, in fact, contained this monstrous mistranslation since 1969.  In the December, 2006 issue of Catholic Family News, editor John Vennari wrote an article with this headline: “Post-Conciliar Vatican Finally Tells the Truth about Pro Multis.” Here is part of “Cardinal” Arinze’s written release:

* “The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro-omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.”

* “The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.”

* “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs to catechesis.”

Thus, after 38 years of imposed mistranslation, this incredible admission comes forth. The possible reasons for it and what is going on here is beyond the scope of this paper, but whether one accepts the Vatican II popes as true popes, or not – the conclusion is the same if one accepts that the decrees of the Council of Florence and of Pope St. Pius V in De Defectibus are still binding on earth and ratified in Heaven: because of the mistranslation of our Lord’s words in its consecration, the New Mass in English is and continues to be a sacrilege, as well as invalid, and therefore it is not moral for those who understand these things to attend it.


Section #20


Since the New Mass in English falsifies the Gospel of St. Matthew and St. Mark, we are forbidden by Holy Scripture itself to accept this “New Gospel.” 

This “for all” mistranslation presents the Catholic who knows this with another impossible obstacle to accepting the New Mass in English. For St. Paul commands us in his Epistle to the Galatians, Chapter 1, v 1 through 9:

1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, 2 And all the brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia. 3 Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present wicked world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5 To whom is glory for ever and ever. Amen. 6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (end quote from Galatians.)

The New Mass, by changing Christ’s words in the consecration of the wine, presents us with a New Gospel, which St. Paul tells us we must not accept.


Section #21

This paper has presumed a knowledge that what the Popes and the Councils bind either ex cathedra or in the Church’s universal ordinary magisterium is also bound in Heaven, as taught to us by Christ Himself in Holy Scripture. 

It also presumes that the Church and the Bible have always insisted that accurate language is vital and important to preserve truth and doctrine – for the good of souls.

And these words of Vatican Council I in 1870 reveal that all those who imposed the New Mass in English or the other vernacular languages on the world, could not be true Popes, and could not represent the Catholic Church:

From Vatican I: Session 3: 24 April 1870, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith; Chapter 3, On Faith, section 8:

"Wherefore, by Divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed
- which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition,
- and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed,
- whether by her solemn judgment
- or in her ordinary and universal magisterium."

The constant teaching of the Church is that the Pope cannot lead the faithful into sin in liturgies or in devotions prescribed for general use, because such promulgations are part of the Church's "ordinary and universal magisterium." The "ordinary and universal magisterium" is one aspect of the Pope's infallibility and the Church's indefectability. The other aspect of the Pope's infallibility is the "solemn judgement", or the ex cathedra pronouncements, such as Pope Pius IX declaring in 1854 that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

For vital information and documentation on how it could be that those occupying Rome could impose such evil changes as the New mass in the vernacular (English, French, etc.) upon Catholics worldwide, please see the following documentation and analysis:

See the three articles at:,

and also the articles in the right hand column of entitled:

Pope Leo's Vision of Satan's 100 Years of Increased Power, and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary

False Moral Teaching in Vatican II:  Religious Liberty

Prophecies for Searching Souls regarding the crisis in the Church


The End.