You are not the first person to say that the formula of Consecration "contradicts" the Bible. Theologically, it does not, as explained by Ratzinger.
In terms of the actual text, WHICH 'formula' from the Bible should we use? Matthew? Peter? John? Acts?
I would be very interested in reading what our new Pope wrote on the subject when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. However, I am not saying that the "formula of Consecration" contradicts the Bible. I am saying that it has been mistranslated. Both the traditional Mass and the new Mass use the phrase "pro multis" rather than "pro omnibus", as does Matthew and Mark. I am not aware of the passages in Peter, John or Acts that provide an account of Our Lord's words at the Last Supper, but if you point out where I have missed them, I will read them with sincere gratitude.
By the way, I have no problem saying of Christ that He shed His blood for all men. The question, though, is what did He say when He instituted the Eucharist? The catechism of the Council of Trent, which I referenced in #429, makes it clear that He said "for many", not "for all".
There is no, repeat, ZERO requirement that the text must follow any particular narrative, nor all of them.
If the new Mass entirely omitted "pro multis", in both Latin and English, I would have much less problem with it, since silence about what the gospels say on a particular point is not a contradiction of the gospels. But the creators of the new Mass chose to faithfully follow the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and include Our Lord's statement that He would shed his blood "for many". I see no reason for the translators to claim that He said something else instead.
I suspect you will not find this article quite as persuasive as I do, nonetheless for your consideration I offer http://www.latin-mass-society.org/promult.htm.
There are a number of ICEL errors, some flagrant, some minor, with which I take exception.
So happens that you've identified one of them.
We agree that ICEL is a major suspect and that the translations should be thoroughly repaired (that's in process now, thank God.)