The church has approved of many consecration forms among Catholic eastern rites, and in doing so has in no way changed, the substance of the sacrament. Notice 5th and 6th.

1. The anaphora according to the order of the Holy Catholic and Roman Church, the mother of all the churches.  
"For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith: which for you and for many shall be poured forth for the remission of sins.”
 
2. The anaphora of St. Peter, head of the apostles.  
"This is my body, which for you and for many is broken and is given for the expiation of crimes, the remission of sins, and life eternal".  

3. The anaphora of the Twelve Apostles.  
"For this is the new testament in my blood, which for you and for many is poured forth for the expiation of sins and life eternal".

4. The anaphora of St. James.  
"This is my blood of the new testament, which for you and for many is shed and distributed for the remission of sins".

5. The anaphora of St. John the apostle and evangelist.  
"This is the chalice of my blood of the new testament: take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins to all that believe in him for ever and ever.

6. The anaphora of St. Mark the evangelist.  
"This is my blood of the New Testament; take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of all the true faithful, and for eternal life".

7. The anaphora of St. Xystus, the pope of Rome.  
"For this is the chalice of my blood of the new testament, which for you and many is given for the expiation of crimes, and hath given to us the remission of eternal life".  

8. The anaphora of St. John Chrysostom.  
"This is my blood which confirms the testament of my death: which for you is poured forth, and for many is given and divided, to the propitiation of transgression, the remission of sins, and life eternal".

9. The anaphora of St. Basil.  
"This is that my blood which for you and for many is poured forth and sprinkled, for the expiation of transgressions, and remission of sins, and for life eternal".

10. The anaphora of St. Cyril.  
"This is my blood which seals the testament of my death, and prepares you and many of the faithful to eternal life".

11. The anaphora of St. Dionysius.  
"This is my blood of the new testament, which for you and for many is poured forth and given for the expiation of transgressions, the remission of sins, and life eternal".



The form for some of the other rites are as follows:  

For the Byzantine (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom):  
"This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".

For the Armenian:  
"This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for you and for many for the expiation and forgiveness of sins".

For the Coptic:  
"For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".

For the Ethiopic:  
“This is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be poured out and offered for the forgiveness of sins and eternal life of you and many".

For the Chaldean:  
"this is my blood of the new covenant, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins".

For the Malabar:  
"For this is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins".

(Taken from: “The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St. Clement, St. Chrysostom and the church of malabar," 1859; by father j. m. neale)  

This shows that the Consecration validity is not bond to every word the priest says. As long as the substance of the Sacrament does not change.

The Novus Ordo rite of Mass in itself is not the enemy. The modernist heresy with its denial of the salutary dogma of EENS is.

Dear Sunbeam, Father offers some proofs both from Tradition and from reason.

...there is a difficulty, namely, Whether St. Thomas wished to say that these words alone “This is the chalice of my blood,” do not suffice for validity? ...

Thirdly, it is proved by theological reason: Those words alone are essential which signify the real presence of the blood of Christ. But the aforesaid words independently from those following signify this real presence, no less than “this is my body,” in dependently from the following, that is handed over for you. Therefore the last words of the consecration of the wine are not for it’s essence, but for it’s integrity.

Lastly, St. Thomas himself, in our question, a. 1 c. et ad 4 says, “if the priest would mention only the aforesaid words (this is my body and this is my blood), with the intention of confecting the sacrament, this sacrament would be accomplished.”

Indeed, in our article 3, St. Thomas says “through the first words ‘this is the chalice of my blood’ the very conversion into blood is signified. But through the words following, the power of the blood poured out in the passion is designated.” Therefore through the last words the very conversion is not signified, which was already effected by the prior words which signify it.

Vatican I infallibly declared in Pastor Aeternus that whatever the Church puts forth is “to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church” . This is known as the supplied Catholic understanding of terms and clauses (Sensus Fidei).

Therefore, we are to understand the new sacramental form of the Novus Ordo rite, not according to our own judgement (which may be biased because of our reaction to the modernist heresy) but "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church".
 
So the words "for all" must be understood in an orthodox manner as meaning for the Elect only. This is "ALL" the members of the Body of Christ, not those oustide the Church, which implies the heresy of universal salvation. It is clear that the Sacrament is only given for those upon whom the Blood of Jesus is efficacious.

The only problem with your grasping at anything to attempt to prove your conclusion is that the very people who created the invalidating "translation" of the Form in the Novus Ordo have never given this answer.  In fact, the first reason they gave was the absurd explanation that Jesus would have spoken the words in Aramaic and that language has no word for "many"; a claim that was debunked almost as soon as it was [seriously] put forth.

In short, your Novus Ordo masters do not agree with you.

Y'all are barking up the wrong tree.  The issue isn't the form.  It's the intention.  Exactly what was the intention of the reformers?  To do what the Holy Roman Catholic Church does?  And if not, how could the product of such reformers be valid?

Read Work of Human Hands by Father Cekada.  

 

Agreed. Once infallible always infallible.

At a valid Mass, the bread and wine change into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Consecration, and at an invalid Mass no such miraculous change occurs.

Does transubstantiation occur in the Novus Ordo Mass? Yes, it does, because the New Order is a valid rite approved and promulgated by the Pope. Unless one think that Paul VI is an anti-Pope, this is the reality.

Is it a mortal sin for a Catholic to attend a Novus Ordo Mass? No, it is not, because it is a valid rite of Mass where transubstantiation occur. Unless one is a dogmatic sedevacantist, this is just the way it is.  

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Cantarella

Vatican I infallibly declared in Pastor Aeternus that whatever the Church puts forth is “to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church” . This is known as the supplied Catholic understanding of terms and clauses (Sensus Fidei).

Therefore, we are to understand the new sacramental form of the Novus Ordo rite, not according to our own judgement (which may be biased because of our reaction to the modernist heresy) but "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church".
 
So the words "for all" must be understood in an orthodox manner as meaning for the Elect only. This is "ALL" the members of the Body of Christ, not those oustide the Church, which implies the heresy of universal salvation. It is clear that the Sacrament is only given for those upon whom the Blood of Jesus is efficacious.

The only problem with your grasping at anything to attempt to prove your conclusion is that the very people who created the invalidating "translation" of the Form in the Novus Ordo have never given this answer.  In fact, the first reason they gave was the absurd explanation that Jesus would have spoken the words in Aramaic and that language has no word for "many"; a claim that was debunked almost as soon as it was [seriously] put forth.

In short, your Novus Ordo masters do not agree with you.

Because they, as well as everyone else, have been infected by the modernist heresy of universal salvation and indifferentism. Not because the rite itself is invalid. Pope Paul VI was exercising his proper authority when introducing and approving a new rite. Unless of course, one happens to adopt the sedevacantist position in which, well, everything is possible...

Then it is certainly a good thing that all those Church officials have Cantarella here to correct them.