Not relevant (per se) as to validity, but it exemplifies very well how annoying (to put it very, very mildly) is the "Conciliar" Church:

"This mistranslation always troubled me for another reason, a most important one.      Before the words of consecration are uttered by the priest, he says over the host: “And [Jesus] said . . .”   This is how the account reads of the consecration of the wine in the Gospel of Saint Matthew: “Jesus . . . took the chalice, giving thanks, and gave to them saying: Drink this all of you  . . .”

Do you see how grave is this mistranslation? In Persona Christi, the priest is saying that Jesus is saying something He did not say, namely, that this Blood of the “New Testament” is to be shed for “all.” I do not want to raise the issue of the universal sufficiency of Christ’s Blood to save all men, which all Catholics affirm. I do not even raise the contrasting issue of efficacious saving grace here, which benefits only the elect (“the many”), which so many brilliant theologians have done who objected to the mistranslation. Nor am I questioning the validity of the consecration with the vernacular Novus Ordo’s use of the term “all.” I accept its validity. I must accept it.

No! What I am highlighting here with these comments is very simple, and disturbing, perhaps more disturbing on account the New Mass’s validity. It is this: At the most solemn moment of the vernacular Mass, the priest, in the Name of Christ, is saying that Jesus said something that He did not say.

Thank you, Pope Benedict, for mandating this correction."

http://catholicism.org/thank-you-holy-father-for-many-must-replace-for-all-in-the-consecration.html

The fact that you think it is "certainly" invalid only demonstrates that you haven't looked into the matter sufficiently.

FWIW, the majority of trads who argue in favor the short form seem to think it is certainly valid -- which is clearly NOT the case.

In such a situation, the wiser and safer course is to presume, until the matter is definitively settled, that the long form is necessary.

The sacrifice is not effective for ALL, nor is it a question of "maybe" where the remission of sins is concerned (and these are just two of the issues that help demonstrate that a substantial change in meaning has, in fact, been introduced).

It doesn't substantially change the meaning of the form.  To whom the application of the fruits of redemption are applied need not even be signified to confect a valid Sacrament.  I am perfectly certain that this mistranslation does not affect the validity of the Sacrament, its impiety notwithstanding.      

This is a very interesting thread, if kind of pointless, since the new rite of consecration certainly does not signify the effect of the grace of the sacrament and is certainly invalid, thus rendering most Novus Ordo masses invalid, as they aren't celebrated by true priests.

But it's still fun to mull over this antiquated question about the "for all." At first I was with Gladius all the way, then felt that Caminus made some good points.  The first quote from St. Alphonsus, at the very least, shows there is more grey area here than Eamon is acknowleding.  Then another one of Caminus' quotes from St. Alphonsus threw me for another loop --

Caminus quoting St. Alphonsus said:

"And even the negative opinion, which is upheld mainly by the Salmanticenses and by Maurice de la Taille,34 does not maintain that the following words of the liturgical form must for validity be spoken exactly as they are written in the traditional text of the Roman Rite, but rather that the "formal sense" of the full sentence must be preserved "with words expressly signifying the Passion of Christ" (the Salmanticenses), or that "the action or deed (opus) be designated as propitiatory: to wit, that it be understood that the Body bleeds for us, that the death has value before God unto the remission of sins, or something else of this kind" (de la Taille).35 Hence, even this negative opinion differs greatly from the view that even a casual deviation from the entire wording of the Latin-rite liturgical form would render the sacrament null.

"The action or deed ( opus )" must be "designated as propitiatory," in other words the form of the sacrament must signify "that the death has value before God unto the remission of sins."  This would seem to counter your claim, Eamon, that what must be signified is the unity of the Mystical Body.  Isn't this signified in many places throughout the Mass? Why does it have to be signified during the consecration of the wine?  But I'm blanking out and can't remember if this question has to do with the short form controversy, or the "for all" controversy.

Concering the "for all" controversy, it seems that what must be signified during the consecration of the wine specificially is the efficacy of Christ's blood for the remission of sins, as the repetition of this sacrifice takes place in an unbloody manner on the altar.  

Manifestly, the "for all" mistranslation retains that sense.  Though we know that Christ knew His sacrifice would NOT save all, no doubt why he chose the words "for many," He still wills all to be saved --  another loophole for the Novus Ordo tinkerers to exploit.

So at the moment, it looks to me like Caminus is onto something here.  The Novus Ordo Mass with the "for all" translation, if celebrated by a true priest, is illicit and impious but valid.  However, as someone who believes the VII nopes are Popes, he runs into a problem here, since he's implying that the Church can promote an impious Mass -- this is a heresy.  

In my last post I anticipated his reply, that the Church never officially promulgated the "for all" translation, which is legalistic bunk.  The SSPX always seems to fall for the legalistic Pharisaic arguments that the Novus Ordo wolves want them to fall for.  Other examples are that encyclicals can contain errors dangerous to the faith, or the idea that VII was a "pastoral" Council that isn't binding, or that the traditional Mass was never officially abrogated.  Caminus, you would have people believe that the true Church promoted a Council that really is optional, that the Magisterium can be ignored whenever there's a heresy or error in it, and that they can force an illicit, impious Mass down the throats of practically the whole world but, as long as there's some kind of "pure" Novus Ordo rubric sitting in a vault somewhere in Rome, that makes it all okay...
 

I don't think it's outrageous to hold that clerics and Bishops can either become so negligent as to allow our religion to become infested with errors and impieties or that they can actually contribute to impiety or the corruption of the Faith.  The Novus Ordo simply does not qualify, either canonically or otherwise to be said that it is "of the Church."  Experiments by committee simply do not merit any such recognition.  It is truly a great facade, it is mere pretense as is evident by their government of the Church.  The Church, as tradition manifests her wisdom, can never lead one astray.  The Church, as vouchsafed by divine authority can never err.  Negligent fools who occupy the Church's positions of authority, who are shamelessly disobedient to both the papal magisterium and tradition as a whole, who are infected with all sorts of false opinions, for a short period of time can certainly mislead Catholics.

There is a very specific reason why every single word or action, from Vatican II on, has lacked the stamp of divine authority exercised by careful and prudent Bishops.  There is a very specific reason why John Paul, for example, used the personal pronoun "I" instead of the Roman commanding "We".  There is a very specific reason why God saw to it that Vatican II did not issue any dogmatic definitions and that the Popes have practically abdicated their authority.  Conservative sychophants like to claim the same thing that SV's claim, but it is simply unrealistic.  

The restoration of the Church will come about from within a recognized jurisdiction.  There is no other possible way for a Catholic to ascertain the concrete existence of the Church.  SVism leads to a spiritualistic notion of the Church and relies upon fanciful futuristic events that lull any personal responsibility in the present moment.

When a strong and faithful Pope ascends to the Throne of Peter, the heretics and schismatics will be truly manifested and they will thus formalize their sins.  The Church will be greatly reduced in size, but much more vigorous.  This renewed vigor will bring about great persecutions for true Catholics are not on friendly terms with the world.  They will reassert once again that great truth that salvation is found alone within the Catholic Church and they will be despised for it.  

I think that SV's have simply jumped the gun and end up causing an even graver crisis, one which touches upon the dogmatic foundations of the Church.  They want to prune the Church before God's time and end up causing needless division.  

     
 

 To take Eamon's assertion that the union of the Mystical Body must be signified during the consecration, isn't it signified simply by "THIS IS MY BODY" ?

No, it is not so signified.  I will explain tomorrow (or when I am able).

To take Eamon's assertion that the union of the Mystical Body must be signified...

FWIW, it is not MY assertion. It is what is taught in Apostolicae Curae, among other places.