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.
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.
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.