From a reader:
I was wondering what the mind of Catholics ought to be toward the validity of Masses which are celebrated after the implementation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal by certain Priests who may dare to continue using the Second Edition. [I think what we are talking about is the new, corrected translation v. the 1973 ICEL version.] Namely, in view of the new (happily, more accurate) translation of “pro multis,” and the opinion of some theologians that the only thing which has saved Masses said in English with the “for all” translation of “pro multis” is the virtual intention of the celebrant to said what the Latin says, can Catholics safely judge as valid Masses said by Priests who defiantly continue to use this translation?
No, I don’t think the “virtual intention” argument is the best approach. I think the truth of the matter is that saying “for all” was valid. I don’t think a priest had/has to have the intention along the lines “Lord, I know that I am about to say ‘for all’, but I really mean ‘for many’. Thanks, Lord, and let this be my virtual intention in case I forget to remember.”
Saying “for all” before the implementation of the new translation was valid. The priest says, “This is my Body… this is my Blood”. Saying “for all” after the implementation of the new translation would be valid. I hope no priest does that, but I am sure there will be a few malcontents. I don’t like the focus on the bare minimum for validity, for I think it leads to other abuses. However, when malcontents and dimwits screw around with the form of sacraments and leave people wondering, we have to consider what the bare minimum is for validity.
Were a priest to do this, were a priest to refuse to implement the new translation, I would write a short and polite note to him that his choice not to follow the text of the Roman Missal disturbs and distracts you. Send a copy of your note to the local bishop. If that doesn’t produce results, then send copies to the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome.
