Oh these "poor parish priests" that will have to say this mess with the new translation and explain to the people that JUST MAYBE they've been saying it wrong all along.

I looked at some of the 23 odd changes that the NCCB has "approved" to the English translation. The most notable change being the "For Many" instead of "For all," in the canon of their mess.

What do I think? I think this is backpedaling, and it's just a mask to try to cover up the fact that most of these "ministers of the banquet" and "presidents of the assembly" aren't really Priests in the Order of Melchizedec at all.

Also, I think that the Lutherans have "for many" in their translation too, but does that make it valid?  :confused1: Um, no.

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal

Specifically, look at this:

http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/RomanCanon.pdf

^ PDF.

I want the Mass of St. Pope Pius V, and St. Pope Pius X.
No other mass will be acceptable to me.

A reform of a turd is still a tured, if if Pro Multis is substitued back for the many...reform of lawlessness is still lawlessness....

Things like this convince me.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/06Jul/jul28tre.htm

If you put the anglican rite beside the novus ordo rite of ordination, they are almost identical, and I would venture to say, that the novus ordo rite is even worse than the anglican rite.

The anglican rite was condemned as totally null and void by Leo XIII.

Here's a good article by Father Trinchard also.

http://www.trueromancatholic.com/files/AmIaPriest.pdf

^ pdf

Thanks for these articles.  I have downloaded them and will read them.