Skip to content

Novus Ordo Watch calls the Masses said with the 1967 English Canon invalid. The Holy See has said there is “no doubt whatsoever” of their validity

Marking the anniversary of the first all-English Canon in the United States on 22 October 1967, Novus Ordo Watch calls them “the first invalid Masses”, because the words of consecration rendered pro multis as “for all”. The Congregation for Divine Worship wrote in 2006, at Benedict XVI’s direction, that the validity of Masses with an approved “for all” formula is beyond doubt, as the doctrinal congregation had declared in 1974.

By TradWatch™ staff

3 min read

Share this piece

Verdicts at a glance

  1. Inaccurate

    Masses said with the 1967 English Canon, whose words of consecration rendered pro multis as “for all”, were invalid. · Novus Ordo Watch

In this brief · 7 sections
  1. 01What was said
  2. 02Context
  3. 03The record
  4. 04Bottom line
  5. 05The original
  6. 06Sources
  7. 07Corrections

On 21 October 2026 Novus Ordo Watch marked the anniversary of 22 October 1967, when the new English translation of the Roman Canon came into general use in the United States, as “Black Sunday”. The site, which holds that the popes since Vatican II are not true popes, argues that the new English words of consecration made those Masses invalid.

What was said

The statement under review, quoted verbatim, with a link to the moment it was made.

Statement 1: Novus Ordo Watch

Novus Ordo Watch · October 21, 2026

Remembering ‘Black Sunday’ 1967: The First Invalid Masses in the United States

— Novus Ordo Watch, Novus Ordo Watch

In brief: Masses said with the 1967 English Canon, whose words of consecration rendered pro multis as “for all”, were invalid.

Our verdict: InaccurateThe record contradicts the claim.

See the record
Remembering ‘Black Sunday’ 1967: The First Invalid Masses in the United Statesnovusordowatch.org

This content is embedded for purposes of commentary, criticism, and news reporting. TradWatch is not affiliated with Novus Ordo Watch. Views quoted are those of the speaker.

Context

The 1967 English Canon was replaced by later translations; the English Missal of 2011 renders pro multis “for many”. The article’s date for the change, 22 October 1967, matches the contemporary newspaper report it quotes.

The record

What the sources show, statement by statement.

Verifiable factcan be checked against the sources cited.TradWatch analysisis our interpretation, clearly labelled.
1

Statement 1 · Novus Ordo Watch

Masses said with the 1967 English Canon, whose words of consecration rendered pro multis as “for all”, were invalid.

  1. Verifiable fact

    What the Holy See has said

    In a letter of 17 October 2006 to all bishops' conferences, written at Benedict XVI's direction, the Congregation for Divine Worship said: “There is no doubt whatsoever regarding the validity of Masses celebrated with the use of a duly approved formula containing a formula equivalent to ‘for all’ as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already declared”, citing the doctrinal congregation's declaration of 25 January 1974. It added that “for all” “would undoubtedly correspond to a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention” (letter, via the USCCB).

    Source

    • 2

      Official Church source

      Congregation for Divine Worship, Prot. no. 467/05/L

      Letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze on the Translation of Pro Multis

      United States Conference of Catholic Bishops · October 17, 2006

      Read source

  2. Verifiable fact

    Why the wording was later changed

    The same letter asked bishops to restore a more literal rendering, “for many”, for biblical and liturgical reasons, not because of any doubt about validity. Benedict XVI wrote in 2012 that rendering pro multis as “for all” “was not merely a translation but an interpretation, a well-founded interpretation then as now” (letter to the German bishops).

    Source

    • 3

      Official Church source

      Benedict XVI

      Letter to the President of the German Episcopal Conference

      Holy See (vatican.va) · April 14, 2012

      Read source

  3. TradWatch analysis

    A minority view, even among the Canon’s critics

    The article’s own historical source, Fr. Lawrence Brey’s 1968 foreword, says that the charge of invalidity “is not shared by many or most of the Canon’s critics”. Novus Ordo Watch’s position rests on its view that the Holy See since Vatican II has no authority; the Church itself, through the bodies charged with judging sacramental formulas, has said the opposite. Criticism of the 1967 translation’s accuracy is legitimate, and the Holy See later revised it; the claim that the Masses were invalid is not supported by the Church’s teaching.

    Source

    • 1

      Journalism

      quoting Fr. Lawrence Brey, 12 March 1968

      Remembering ‘Black Sunday’ 1967: The First Invalid Masses in the United States

      Novus Ordo Watch · October 21, 2026

      Read source

Bottom line

Inaccurate: the Holy See has said there is “no doubt whatsoever” about the validity of Masses with an approved “for all” formula. The later change to “for many” was about accuracy, not validity.

The original

The full episode we checked, as Novus Ordo Watch published it.
Remembering ‘Black Sunday’ 1967: The First Invalid Masses in the United StatesNovus Ordo Watch · Opens the original

Sources

3 sources: 1 primary source, 2 Church sources. Every source is linked; where pages may change we link an archived copy.
  1. 2.
    Official Church sourceCited in statement 1

    Congregation for Divine Worship, Prot. no. 467/05/L — Letter from Cardinal Francis Arinze on the Translation of Pro Multis

    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops · October 17, 2006

    usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/le…

Corrections & updates

We fix errors openly. Every change is dated here and in our corrections log.

No corrections have been made to this brief. Spotted an error? Request a correction.

We invite the people and outlets discussed here to respond. Submit a response and we’ll publish it alongside this brief.

Help us keep the record straight

If we’ve made a mistake, tell us — we correct errors openly and log every change. People and outlets we write about can respond, and we publish their replies here.

Share this analysis