Anglican Use

Until I investigated the Anglican Use, I was under the impression that the Novus Ordo [in translation] was the only Liturgy ever recognized by the Catholic Church that made the claim that Christ said He would shed His Blood "for all men". Now I have to be more careful, and state that no pre-Vatican II Liturgy ever made that claim, since there are now two post-Vatican II Liturgies that use the words "for all", at least when translated into English.
-------

My comments from Jonathan Bennett's blog:

I can see why you like the Anglican-use liturgy. It is beautiful. But with all due respect to Charles, I do see the influence of the Novus Ordo.

Out of curiosity, I went to the website of Our Lady of the Atonement, the parish Charles mentioned. On the website, you can read the Anglican Order of the Mass. The words of consecration are at http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1-5.html.
As with the English translation of the Novus Ordo, the priest here claims that Our Lord said he would shed His blood "for all" for the forgiveness of sins. This cannot be blamed on the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1928/HC.htm).
That book states that Our Lord said His blood is shed "for many". Getting the consecration right, in my opinion, is the most important part of the Mass. The traditional Mass says "for many"; the Bible says "for many"; even the Novus Ordo, in its official Latin form says "for many".

I have started work on a website (http://www.pro-multis.org/) where I hope to gather arguments as to why the words of the consecration should be returned to their traditional meaning. Right now, the page is little more than an echo of the arguments presented by Philip Goddard at http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm, but I hope to add to the page with arguments from tradition, from linguistic arguments based on Latin and Aramaic as well as Greek, and from ecumenical considerations.

I welcome comments from anyone who wants to help me with arguments either pro or con.