Benedict and Sarah hater Andrea Grillo says: “Transubstantiation is not a dogma”

The New catholic Red Guards do not rest.  They are marching and sloganeering up and down Twitter, pumping the air with their Little Red Books.  The cadres are giving their morning orders to the useful idiot lib masses about whom to attack today and in weeks to come.

The other day I posted the names of some of the New catholic Red Guards.  HERE.  A lot is going on, so it has already scrolled off the front page.

In any event, one of those names is an inveterate hater (especially of Pope Benedict and Card. Sarah), Andrea Grillo.  This fellow is a true hater useful for study so that you can understand better how haters really hate.  If it’s Catholic and it’s older than, say, 40 year or so, this guy probably hates it.

This morning my phone whimpers to life with an SMS from Roman friends with a quote from Brachytrupes via Marco Tosatti.

“Transubstantiatio non è un dogma e come speigazione ha i suoi limiti. Ad esempio contraddice la metafisica.”

“Transubstantiation is not a dogma and, as an explanation, it has its limits. For example, it contradicts metaphysics.”

I think we will all agree that any attempt to explain in human language what Christ did at the Last Super and what God does through every priest at every Mass “has its limits”. Transubstantiation is a mystery.

However, “Transubstantiation is not a dogma….”

?!?

It is unthinkable that Brachytrupes has never read what the Council of Trent taught, against the Protestant Revolt.

And he teaches at a Pontifical Athenaeum in Rome, Sant’Anselmo… the liturgy school.

BISHOPS… SEMINARIANS… if you are in Rome for studies, or thinking about what to… this is the sort of thing you will get at Sant’Anselmo.

Meanwhile….

Ch. 4 of Session 13 of the Council of Trent taught infallibly:

And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.

And in the canons that followed the teaching:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

How ironic that Grillo writes that “”Transubstantiation is not a dogma” precisely when he and others are celebrating LutherFest.  What Grillo wrote is precisely what the heretic Luther thought.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats this:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

Moreover, the fact that the Church teaches transubstantiation as a dogma of the faith, which Catholics are obliged to believe, is in every book of fundamental theology.  For example, a screenshot of Ludwig Ott’s indispensible volume [US HERE – UK HERE]:

It is, frankly, heresy to deny the dogma of transubstantiation.

I can’t believe that I have to do this!

In his 1965 Encyclical Mysterium fidei, on the Eucharist, Paul VI wrote:

10. For We can see that some of those who are dealing with this Most Holy Mystery in speech and writing are disseminating opinions on Masses celebrated in private or on the dogma of transubstantiation that are disturbing the minds of the faithful and causing them no small measure of confusion about matters of faith, just as if it were all right for someone to take doctrine that has already been defined by the Church and consign it to oblivion or else interpret it in such a way as to weaken the genuine meaning of the words or the recognized force of the concepts involved.

Andrea Grillo, giving the Church the finger from his blog.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, New catholic Red Guards, The Drill, You must be joking! and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Benedict and Sarah hater Andrea Grillo says: “Transubstantiation is not a dogma”

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    Benedict and Jesus lover JabbaPapa says: “Andrea Grillo is not orthodox”

  2. nine man morris says:

    The USCCB has promoted the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence for quite a while now. While I agree with you, Ott and the Council of Trent, and believe in transubstantiation, since Vatican II we have heard increasingly about the Lutheran real presence, Karl Rahner’s transignification (a fancy way of saying the Eucharist is just a symbol), and so on. The Church has basically generalized the allowed ideas so much, that for all practical purposes, Transubstantiation is not a dogma upheld in the New Church. You of all people should recognize the Lutheran “real presence” doctrine. The extra communion ministers, the irreverent taking in the hand, etc etc are all due to the elimination of the doctrine of transubstantiation. If the laity were expected to believe that the Eucharist is literally, physically, entirely God, with no other substance present whatsoever, there would not be all the behaviors and rites of the new mass, which are clearly based on the idea that the Eucharist is a shared symbol. Grillo is obviously seeing the reality of the doctrinal statements and practices of the last 50 years with less denial than you. If traditionalists would admit that doctrine has changed, and yet nothing true can change, then the denial would finally break, and true faith could return.

  3. Midwest St. Michael says:

    To add to this great defense of the infallibility of the Dogma of Transubstantiation, Fr. Z – we have this gem from the Catechism in paragraph 891:

    “. . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” *above all in an Ecumenical Council.* When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.” [stars added… since I do not know how to do the italics thingy] =)

    It is fairly clear liberals like Mr. Grillo do not read, or make up some silly & nonsensical reason not to, Ecumenical Council documents, papal encyclicals or, much less, Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.”

    Besides, all of that is for rigid fundamentalists who have not been… *enlightened*, you see. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    MSM

  4. Pingback: Benedict and Sarah hater Andrea Grillo says: “Transubstantiation is not a dogma” | Fr. Z’s Blog | Deaconjohn1987's Blog

  5. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    Anathema sit

  6. TonyO says:

    It is fairly clear liberals like Mr. Grillo do not read, or make up some silly & nonsensical reason not to, Ecumenical Council documents, papal encyclicals

    The Nouvelle Théologie made a habit of trotting out hypotheses that basically amounted to “what would happen if we said X stable teaching was ‘not necessary’ in terms of doctrine”, sometimes for the sake of novelty itself (hence the name of the movement) and sometimes because they actively despised the received doctrine. And then treating the hypothesis as if it were “real theology” just because they could string a couple of Bible passages into it. I love this website’s (glowing) by-line description of the movement:

    Inheritor of Modernism, Precursor of Vatican II

    Well, since modernism was explicitly declared a heresy by Pope St. Pius X, I think we can safely say that any movement of theology born of that heresy is not so great. It kind of lets the cat out of the bag.

  7. Rich says:

    So, transubstantiation “contradicts metaphysics”..?

    To which, Pope Francis responds:

    “It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God.” (Laudato Si’, 236)

  8. Pingback: MONDAY CATHOLICA EDITION – Big Pulpit

  9. JabbaPapa says:

    Rich :

    So, transubstantiation “contradicts metaphysics”..?

    Yes, I spotted this very dodgy philosophical claim too, liberally oozing in naïveté …

    Transubstantiation might contradict some theories of metaphysics, but the Discipline of Metaphysics itself is not predicated by the posits of this or that metaphysical theory. Only those falsely believing that the particular philosophy that they believe in is the be-all and end-all of Philosophy — much as some very naïve atheists & secularists believe that some very limited understanding of scientific methodology is the be-all and end-all of Science — could propose anything of the sort ; which amounts to not much more than a declaration of their own incompetence in even General Philosophy.

    The only be-all and end-all philosophically is God Himself, but we mortals can simply seek towards that perfection, in a broken and necessarily incomplete and partial manner — as such, an orthodox Christian must recognise that philosophies and metaphysics will be devised by others that contradict the transcendental Truths of the Revelation.

    But to claim that Metaphysics itself might “contradict” any metaphysical claim is intrinsically false, and simply presumes that one particular man-made metaphysics is Metaphysics itself.

    An Error which BTW constitutes a fundamental basis of religious sectarianism, factionalism, and heresies. The claim is therefore intrinsically and inherently anti-Catholic, not excluding a broader sense including the use of the word ????????? by the Eastern Orthodox as they intend it …

  10. Kathleen10 says:

    Faith is a gift. Jesus explained the reality of His Body and His Blood, and this truth was too hard for some of his followers. They left Him, not understanding it at all. We have some very hard truths to accept about what has happened within and without our church.

    Thank you for all you do, Fr. Z. I feel sad I missed your birthday. Happy Birthday!