@P N F
Saint Pius V in De Defectibus is not that radical, not that precise, and not wholly pertinent outside the Ancient Roman Rite.''V - Defects of the form
20. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating".
Notice that he doesn't say WILL ARISE.
Then there's the wording in the Ancient Roman Rite. Of course, the other Rites are not concern by this formulation.
De defectibus: "Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:
HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM,
and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM”
Again, there is more than one Rite in the Church!
For example, the Words of Consecration in the Byzantine Ukrainian Catholic Rite that are approved by the Catholic Church:Pr: Take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you,
for the remission of sins.
Pr: Drink of this all of you, this is My Blood of the New
Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for
the remission of sins.
Pr: We offer to You Yours of Your own, on behalf of all
and for all.
1 Corinthian 11: 24-26 has another version: “Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.
In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come”.
I could go on, but you get the picture. A lot of wordings had been used, and many are today.
The Apostles and their successors didn’t want to recreate the Last Supper because inspired by the Holy Ghost, they knew that the Words of the Rite of the New Covenant are ‘’This is My Body
” and “This is (the Cup of) My Blood
It implies that when a priest says these words, the Transubstantiation occurs at this very moment. Even before he starts the additional wording.
For the pro multis
or pro omnibus,
both can be used but in a time when the heresy of systematic salvation is on trend, I understand that some people want the pro multis in the Mass as a protection, but there are other occasions to announce the true Gospel.
Even if many will be deprived from the benefit of Salvation in Hell, the fact that the Work of Redemption is for everyone and that the Son of God suffers for all men is strongly et repeatedly affirmed in the Divinely inspired Holy Scriptures:
1 Timothy 2:5-6 “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times”.
1 Timothy 4:10 “... we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”
John 1:29 “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”
1 John 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1 John 4:14 “And we have seen and do testify that the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world.”
Anyhow, Fr Pfleger is obviously not using the Ancient Roman Rite.
He is using his own wording, he should use the New Roman Rite but he illicitly doesn't.
As we can see in the writings of the antiquity nearly everything was improvised around the Consecration before the coming of partial liturgical books. That doesn't mean that the Mass was invalid in the time of the early Church.
Saint Justin Martyr [100-165] in his First Apology wrote:“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs [letters] of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read…Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given….And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined…For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, This is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone.”
Going back to De defectibus:If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament.
I provided a good example for that in my post above:
“1º Removing the Words of Consecration -This is my Body - This is my Blood or -This is the chalice of my Blood.
Like saying '' this represents my body'' would be absolutely invalid.
De defectibus continues with this important addition:If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.