No, there is no defect with the Form (the intention may be dubious - if a priest intends to perform a 'celebratory meal' then no consecration happens).
But although many people have claimed that the Novus Ordo is invalid, if we examine the new Words of Consecration we find no actual defect which invalidates the Mass.
According to St. Thomas, a Mass is rendered invalid:
i) if words are added or taken away so that the essential sense of what is being said at the Consecration is destroyed, and this includes removing words from what St. Thomas calls the "substance of the form" [S.T. III.60.8]
ii) if the words are changed so that the intention of what is being effected by the sacrament is changed, thus affecting the intention of the minister [S.T. III.64.8]
On the other hand, a Mass is not rendered invalid:
iii) if words are added or taken away that do not add to or take away from the essential sense of what is being done [S.T. III.60.8 ad 2]
The Consecration of the bread is valid, even though the words 'quod pro vobis tradetur' ('which will be given up for you') have been added. St. Thomas says that words can be added to the form of Consecration as long as the words added do not alter the essential sense of the form [S.T. III.60.8 ad 2]. Furthermore, in the Byzantine and Armenian Rites, similar words are placed after the words 'this is my Body'
The Consecration of the wine, however, seems to have some problems. The words 'mysterium fidei' (the mystery of faith) have been removed from the Consecration. While this might seem to invalidate the Mass, the Eastern Rites do not contain the words 'the mystery of faith' either, and they are valid.
However, a much more serious case arises in the words "pro multis" ('for many') being translated as "for all" in all but three vernacular translations of the Novus Ordo (French, Polish and Chinese all say 'for many' or 'for the multitude'). But if we examine gramatically the Words of Consecration, we find that it does not in fact invalidate the Consecration.
| | Main Clause | Appositive Phrases | Subordinate Clause |
| Words of Consecration | "This is the chalice of My Blood" | "of the new and eternal testament"
"the mystery of faith" | "which will be shed for you, and for many, for the forgiveness of sins" |
| Grammatical Purpose of the Words | To state what is on the altar; in this case it is Christ's Blood | To help remove all doubt whose Blood is on the altar | To show the power of the Blood
[S.T. III.78.3] |
| What these words say about the Blood | What Blood is shed | What Blood is shed | Why the Blood is shed |
| Does a change in these words change the meaning of the words of the main clause? | Yes, but only if the change makes it plain that the Blood is not Christ's Blood | Yes, but only if the change makes it plain that the Blood is not Christ's Blood | No, because a change in something's purpose why doesn't necessarily change what the thing is |
| Example of a change in the words that changes the meaning of the words of the main clause | "This is not the chalice of my Blood" | Adding these words:
"the blood of Fr. Joe Smith"
OR
"but not the Blood of Christ" | |
| Example of a change in the words that DOES NOT change the meaning of the words of the main clause | "This is the cup of my Blood" | Adding these words:
"also known as the Precious Blood"
OR
"shed upon Calvary" | "which will be shed for you, and for all men, for the forgiveness of sins |
The Form of a Sacrament is, strictly speaking, what it is, not why it is. A change in something's why doesn't change what it is. As St. Thomas says "the purpose [why] is not part of the substance of the act [what]" [S.T. I-II.7.4 ad 2]. Hence, although the subordinate clause "which will be shed for you and for many..." is included in the form of the sacrament to comprise the "integrity of the expression," it is by definition not truly part of the form, and furthermore it is metaphysically impossible that a change to the purpose of a thing (why the thing exists) will automatically change the form of the thing (what the thing is), unless a contrary intention is indicated by the change of the purpose, and we have already shown this not to be the case.
Thus, translating "pro multis" as "for all" does not invalidate the Mass, but it is a grave error. We know from the Holy Gospels according to Sts. Matthew (26:27-28) and Mark (14:23-24) that Jesus said that His Blood would be shed "for many". Now either the Gospels are wrong and the New Mass is right, or the Gospels are right and the New Mass is wrong. The Church has declared the Bible free from error, so we know that Jesus said "for many" at the Last Supper.
Chart showing the words of Jesus according to the Gospels and according to the New Mass
| According to
the Gospel of St. Matthew | According to
the Gospel of St. Mark | According to
the New Mass |
| The Words of Jesus | And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: "Drink ye all of this. For this is My Blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." | And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And He said to them: "This is My Blood of the new testament,
which shall be shed for many." | He gave the cup to His Disciples and said:
"This is the cup of My Blood, the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven." |
| Did Jesus really say these words? | Yes. | Yes. | No |
So every time a priest celebrates the New Mass he is telling lie, because he is claiming that Jesus said something that He didn't say. St. Thomas teaches that if anything false is signified by outward worship, this worship will be pernicious [S.T. II-II.93.1]. God has condemned telling lies in sacred matters: "Thou shalt not live: because thou best spoken a lie in the name of the Lord" (Zacharias 13:3).
Therefore, the Words of Consecration in the Novus Ordo are valid, but illicit. You should try to attend the Traditional Mass only, as it is free from all error.
