Now, a priest, under extreme circuмstances, COULD just say the words of Consecration and have the Consecration be valid. So this was Cub's way of clumsily arguing short-form theory, that as long as the essential words remain intact, the Mass is valid. But, as Pax points out, Cub conflates validity with whether the Mass pleases God. Secondly, in most vernacular versions of the NOM, they DID touch the essential words of consecration ... so that short-form theory had to become much shorter. If you say that the form goes past "this is the chalice of My Blood...", then the essential words have been tampered with.