Analysis of the Eucharistic heresy of Andrea Grillo, sworn enemy of the Latin Mass Essay by colleague containing erotic speculations on the Eucharist conveniently disappears.
A professor of Sacramental Theology at the Bergamo Seminary denies Transubstantiation and compares the Holy Eucharist to a button or a bus ticket from Cesare Baronio in 2018
Dogma datur
christianis, quod in carnem transit panis, et vinum in sanguinem.
The dogma given to Christians is that bread passes into
flesh, and wine into blood.
The heretic Andrea Grillo, known for having repeatedly denied the dogma of Transubstantiation, (click on link for shocking essay) published yesterday in Munera the article by the no less heretical Manuel Belli, Professor of Sacramental Theology at the Seminary of Bergamo, entitled Eucharist: body, meal and eros.
An indecent and sacrilegious piece of writing, intended to be the first essay in the New Eucharistic Theology column edited by Grillo himself.
This essay was removed by Grillo when these erotic speculations about the Mass become too embarrassing.
The essay by Belli, who by accident turns out to be a
Catholic priest, is a shameful monument to heretical hypocrisy, which
Pharisaically claims to believe in the doctrine on the Real Presence and at the
same time demonstrates with his own arguments that he challenges it, distorting
its meaning and going so far as to utter real blasphemies against the Blessed
Sacrament.
What is scandalising in this horrid sylloge of theological
blasphemies is the superficiality and irreverence with which the ungodly Levite
treats a subject that should be proposed with humility and sacred fear. Such
irreverence, indeed, is indicative of a no less lack of respect for the august
Sacrament, the heart of the Church and its very raison d'être.
I learnt about this scandalous publication on the blog of
Anonymous of the Cross, and with this comment I wish to denounce it, not
so much because I expect the Hierarchy to take measures, since it itself seems
to share them and promote them, but rather to warn the Catholic faithful, daily
scandalised by propositions that are not only reckless, but definitely
heretical and ungodly.
One notices the constant and deliberate use, by both Grillo
and Belli, of lowercase initials for words referring to the Blessed Sacrament:
Eucharist, Body of Jesus, Mass, Real Presence. This choice, which is debatable
from a merely orthographic point of view, reveals the factiousness of both, who
do not believe they should show respect towards the sacramental Lord, under the
alibi of a detached and pretextually scientific treatment, intending instead to
reduce him to a mere symbol.
In the few introductory lines, Grillo writes: 'In a post a
few weeks ago I identified a series of limitations in the theological language
of the Catholic tradition, linked to a static and abstract understanding of the
presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, his body and blood, in the Eucharistic
supper.
Note that Grillo speaks of a Eucharistic supper, while the
Holy Mass is not a supper, as the Protestants and the Modernists affirm, but
rather the bloodless repetition of the Sacrifice of Calvary, of which the Last
Supper was, on the contrary, a mystical anticipation. Our Lord, on that
occasion, said: “Quod pro vobis tradetur – Qui pro vobis effundetur”, “What
will be offered for you – What will be poured out for you”, using the future
tense, since the Passion would take place the next day.
“From the
historical point of view, the Council responds to the three objections of the
reformers by re-proposing with balance the traditional doctrine on the
Eucharist”.
Belli speaks of Protestant heretics calling them reformers, a title that they arrogantly claim for themselves against the Church, as if the spread of error were a work of reform, and not a cause of damnation for souls, as well as an offense to the Divine Majesty. Discussing the Real Presence by calling reformers those who deny it, reveals from the beginning the true and implicit intentions of the author of the essay.
“Sacrosanctum Concilium reminds us in fact that the categories of theological interpretation are not the only place of understanding the Eucharist, which essentially can be considered “in its rites and in its prayers””.
The blasphemous ravings of this self-styled professor of Sacramental Theology draw strength from conciliar documents; once again it is demonstrated, by the admission of these heretics, that the legitimacy of their errors lies mainly in the texts of Vatican II, and in particular in that Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy that was used as a reference for the subsequent liturgical reform brought forth by Bugnini with the help of Lutheran pastors. Grillo himself, in his essay Real Presence and Transubstantiation: Conjectures and Clarifications (here), cited Sacrosanctum Concilium to support his own statements: “The concentration on the ‘substantial presence under the species’ has profoundly distracted from other forms of the presence of the Lord, in the Word, in prayer, in the assembly (cf. SC 7)”, without wanting to consider that the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is not in the least comparable to the spiritual presence in the proclamation of the Word of God, in prayer, nor even in the assembly. And it is significant that he does not mention the ministerial presence of Christ in the person of the priest, with the clear intent of overshadowing the ordained Priesthood to privilege the common priesthood of the faithful theorized by Lumen Gentium.
Belli continues: “It is not then a question of “saying differently” or even “against” the classical contents of the treatise on the Eucharist, but of starting to say “other””.
It is evident that if saying something differently about the Eucharist is reckless, saying something else is heretical, when this other must overshadow – if not even deny – the principal and essential aspect of the Eucharistic Sacrament and the Mass.
“These are not reflections “against” any classical doctrine… if anything they are “against a theology of the against” which, if it tries to venture into new terrain, immediately reads polemic and heterodoxy”.
The affirmation of the Catholic Truth also imposes, by logic and coherence, the formulation of condemnations of the errors that oppose it. This attitude of Don Belli presupposes the intention of not wanting to consider as the primary task of true Charity – understood as theological Virtue – not only to instruct the ignorant, but also to admonish the errant, showing the error so that the one does not fall into it and the other abandons it. In this sense, these arguments against the theology of the counter – coincidentally always winking at Protestant errors – sound like polemics against the doctrine taught by the Church and as clearly heterodox.
“However, we would like to stick to a level of observation: it is not difficult to founder in semi-magical considerations: «The priest says “this is my body”; I do not see and touch any body but only bread and wine; let's take it for granted!» We must not hide it: often in tradition we have risked placing so much emphasis on the idea that that bread and wine are no longer such but the body and blood of Jesus and on the fact that the senses must not deceive even if they only see bread and wine that we have risked thinking in a somewhat magical way about the reality of the presence of the body of Christ”.
Attributing a magical value to the action of the validly ordained minister who consecrates with right intention the species of bread and wine means humiliating the most holy Miracle of the Catholic Faith, accepting that the ineffable prodigy performed by the priest by order of Our Lord – “Every time you do this, you will do it remembering Me” – can be judged with the criterion of the unbeliever or the wicked. And when in the course of history the celebrant himself or other people had to question the validity of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, hundreds of miracles occurred (here) aimed precisely at confirming the Faith in the most holy dogma jealously guarded by the Church.
Don Belli's statements are disturbingly reminiscent of that horrible Protestant toy that, during the persecution of Catholics in England, was deemed so offensive that it was even banned by the Sovereign, head of the Anglican sect. That infernal toy, still known today as Jack on the box, consisted of a box from which a clown operated by a spring mechanism would emerge when the words "Hocus pocus" (an infamous distortion of the consecratory formula) were pronounced, to mock the Catholics' faith in Transubstantiation. Protestants have handed down those blasphemous words to this day, as a magic formula for sorcerers: it is disconcerting that Belli should recognize any seriousness in an inconsistent objection, the fruit of the impiety that characterizes heretics and enemies of the Church. “A somewhat sad story might help us understand better. A father was deported to a concentration camp with his daughter, who, however, did not survive the terrible journey. Before separating from his daughter’s body, the father tore a button from his coat and took it with him. When he had to undress himself and the guards ordered him to open the hand that was holding the button, he refused and paid for this refusal with his life. The guard took the button from his hand and threw it away with contempt. Now, what was that button for that father, if not the body of his daughter? Perhaps, without evoking such a dramatic case, we all have in our drawers or in our diaries that bus ticket, that object, that letter that reminds you of that person you are fond of. Isn’t it a bit like her body, what binds you to her while waiting for a meeting?”
These similarities are absolutely unacceptable, because they confuse two completely different levels: on the one hand, there is the attribution of an emotional and symbolic value to an object, transferring onto it the attention and affections of the person whom it recalls to the memory of the living. Without resorting to questionable arguments evocative of the Nazi extermination - which sound cloying and not free from that easy captatio benevolentiae towards the Jewish people that presumes to cloak everything in sacred reverential fear - it can be said that a similar feeling is recognized by the Church for the relics of the Saints, which are preserved and venerated because they remind us of the virtues with which they shone in life, sometimes to the point of martyrdom. Strangely, the reference to the cult of relics, not so distant from the anecdote cited by Belli, is scrupulously silenced, since it is out of hatred for the heretics whose theses he surreptitiously tries to defend. Thus Belli prefers to compare the Most Holy Eucharist to a button or a bus ticket, blaspheming God and scandalizing the simple.
But in the Most Holy Sacrament we do not venerate a relic, nor an evocative symbol. Instead, we adore the divine presence of Our Lord perpetuated in the Mass on this earth, after His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven: a divine presence that is real, and not merely symbolic. The Eucharistic bread does not represent the Body of Christ, it is, while Belli adopts the heretical doctrine of transignification (change of meaning) in place of Transubstantiation (change of substance). It is not surprising that the followers of this heresy do not believe they must genuflect before the august Sacrament, nor that the conciliar reform suppressed the genuflection that precedes the Elevation, almost as if to signify that the presence of Christ is realized by virtue of the approval of the faithful, and not by the words of the priest themselves.
“With the eye of love, at least what happened with that father and his daughter’s button can happen. That’s all we have of the body of Jesus, and that’s no small thing. Only an empty intellectualism could think that a symbol is just a second-rate reality.”
If it were by virtue of the eye of love that the prodigious conversion of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurs, one would have to infer that its absence renders the priest’s words ineffective: this would be magic and superstition, unless this presence of Christ is understood in a merely symbolic sense, so that at least what happened with that father and his daughter’s button can happen. No one can fail to see that this doctrinal aberration implies a radical distortion of doctrine, according to the typical procedure of the neo-church, which disowns in pastoral practice what it has not yet managed to officially deny in theory.
Don Belli's statement makes the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament useless and senseless, which is due not by virtue of a debatable and personal feeling of the faithful, but for the reality of the entire substantial Presence, in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.. I repeat: it is not the subjective attitude of the believer that creates a symbolic reality, but rather the power of the Sacrament instituted by God which, through the priest, actually changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, while maintaining their sensible appearances. On the other hand, what act of faith would the believer perform if he were moved not by the humble submission of the intellect and will to the authority of God, but by the evidence of the senses? If we saw the host change into a piece of flesh, and the wine into blood, our faith would still be moved by the miracle, but it would not have the purity that it has when it recognizes the fallibility of the senses and entrusts itself entirely to what the Lord has taught us and commanded us to believe. Obviously, where faith is understood in a modernist sense as a vague religious sentiment, all this would be meaningless, and it would be necessary to demystify the medieval inventions and superstructures of the Church, bringing them back to a presumed original purity. “It is difficult to imagine what we will see when we can truly contemplate the body of the Lord, but perhaps we will not see anything very different from a broken bread and a good cup of wine”.
Here we are at blasphemy, especially with that indecent expression “a good cup of wine”, as if it were a tasting or a toast in a tavern. And this shamefully horizontal and sacrilegious vision of the Blessed Sacrament is the direct result of the concept of “supper” that comes from the heretical art. 7 of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani promulgated by Paul VI, and then modified without changing the rite that was informed and shaped by that heretical conception:
“The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred synaxis or assembly of the people of God, presided over by the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. Therefore, the promise of Christ applies eminently to this local assembly of the Holy Church: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt. XVIII, 20)”.
It is worth remembering that it was later corrected as follows, precisely because of its erroneous formulation of the very concept of the Mass:
"At the Mass, or Lord's Supper, the people of God gather under the presidency of the priest who represents Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or Eucharistic sacrifice. Consequently, for this local assembly of the Holy Church, the promise of Christ applies: "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Mt. XVIII 20). In fact, at the celebration of the Mass, in which the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated, Christ is really present in the assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word substantially and uninterruptedly under the Eucharistic species".
As can be seen, the definition of the Mass as the Lord's Supper remains, and that unfortunate reference to the presence of Christ in the assembly gathered in his name, in the person of the minister, in his word, but at least it is specified that in it the sacrifice of the Cross is perpetuated.
“A gaze like that of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, John Paul II or Brother Roger of Taizé are not out of place next to the Eucharist”.
Note the blasphemous juxtaposition between creatures (including a heretic like Brother Roger Schutz, founder of an ecumenical community) and the Creator, and the obstinate use of the lowercase letter in the word “Eucharist”.
“The Mass is a ritualized meal. True: we can do much better in the celebration so that this dimension becomes particularly evident” […] “At Mass, first of all we eat”.
The Mass (with a capital M!) is a ritualized sacrifice, not a meal. The sacrum convivium occurs when the priest and the faithful feed on the Bread of Angels. And note that, according to Catholic doctrine, the consumption of the Sacrifice is performed by the celebrant alone, while the communion of the faithful is accessory (although praiseworthy), but not essential to the Mass. Significantly, the Council has in fact abolished the practice of communion outside of Mass, because considering the Mass a supper, it has no meaning if the guests do not eat. But the Mass is not a supper, and whoever affirms this is a heretic. Communion outside of Mass, moreover, emphasizes the permanence of the Real Presence in the Most Holy Sacrament even after the end of the rite, something that the Protestants deny together with the Modernists: this is why Lutheran churches do not have the tabernacle; this is why in modern churches it is no longer found in a central position, on the altar, under the Cross, but is confined to a corner.
I would also like to emphasize the subversive scope of the words “we can do much better in the celebration so that this dimension becomes particularly evident”: they reveal the intention to proceed, even more than the Novus Ordo did, in the direction of the convivial conception of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, a necessary premise for the promulgation of the ecumenical rite now officially announced. In fact, if the Mass were to maintain its sacrificial value, it could not be accepted by Protestants; vice versa, by replacing or weakening this aspect in favor of the Lutheran conception, there would be no obstacles to its sharing with non-Catholics. Even the doctrine that the Mass is applied in suffrage for the deceased is repugnant to heretics: a dinner certainly cannot feed the souls in purgatory, nor serve to atone for the sins committed in life. As can be seen, tampering with the truths about the Mass and the Eucharist undermines the entire Catholic edifice from its foundations. “In the Middle Ages, the fundamental precepts of the Church were codified, including going to Mass at least on Sundays. The idea of the precepts was to indicate a minimum below which faith was seriously in danger. The risk is that in history they have become “what you have to do” to say you have faith, even something to offer to God. The inversion would be consummated: from the invitation to sit at the table where God offers himself, the Eucharist would become what we owe to God”.
It is not clear why Belli considers the duty of the faithful to worship God as negative: the obligation to sanctify the feasts descends directly from the Commandment of God, and is an act of the virtue of Religion to which man is obliged towards Him.
While on the one hand Don Belli maintains that it makes no sense to sit at the table to avoid eating (and consequently it makes no sense to celebrate a Mass if there are no faithful), on the other hand the Catholic believes that at Mass one kneels to contemplate Christ who, on behalf of the Church of which He is the Head, offers himself in sacrifice to God the Father to glorify Him, to redeem us from our sins and to bring down Grace on the souls of the living and the dead. The Mass is a priestly act, an act of Christ, in which the faithful join ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui, ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiae suae sanctae.
“The first thing that happens when participating in the Eucharist is that we find ourselves: the celebration begins precisely with the act of gathering”.
Here is another heresy. The Mass is a sacrifice offered by the priest alone in the name of the Church: it is valid even if no one physically attends it, because the entire Church, the one triumphant in heaven and the one suffering in Purgatory, bows on the altar, before the celebrant who offers in persona Christi the immaculate Victim to God the Father. The community dimension of the Mass is a Protestant heresy adopted by the Council (even if it was already incubating with the so-called liturgical renewal since the 1930s) and which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine. Consistent with this approach, the Novus Ordo provides that there be, alongside the rite cum populo, a rite sine populo, as if the absence of the faithful before the altar exhausted the social role of the sacrifice, reducing it to a mere personal devotion of the celebrant who makes superfluous – almost ridiculous, one might think – even the Dominus vobiscum to which no one responds. Private Masses have also disappeared, in preference to concelebration, just as Masses celebrated at side altars during the celebration of Mass at the high altar are prohibited by the Council. And the Mass coram Sanctissimo, a perfect synthesis of Catholic doctrine on the Most August Sacrament of the Altar, was prohibited by the innovators on the basis of the same principle. In confirmation of this intrinsic link between the errors on the Mass and the Eucharist and the formulation in the conciliar documents, let us not forget the change in symbolism of the altar, which with the liturgical reform took on the appearance of a table facing the people. This also explains the reasons for the opposition of the innovators to the return of the celebration to the liturgical East, since this re-proposes the sacrificial representation of Golgotha denied by those who prefer the convivial aspect of a dinner.
It is disconcerting that the shameful words of this unworthy priest, reported with ill-concealed satisfaction by the reviled Grillo, are accompanied by sexual insinuations, revealing a perverse and vicious nature, almost as if the Lord wanted to indulge in a shameful embrace, rather than becoming the celestial nourishment of the soul. These obscenities on the eros of the Eucharist, in other times, would have deserved to be punished in an exemplary manner by the secular arm. And consider that Belli, like Grillo, has the very serious responsibility, conferred on him by the Ecclesiastical Authority, of training future priests: what will be their intention, when they are on the altar and will have to repeat, perhaps modifying them, the words of the Consecration? The disgusting followers of this sect, who rival in obscenity the worst epigones of Lutheran heresy, have in Bergoglio their worthy standard-bearer: who, just yesterday, demonstrated similar irreverence towards the Blessed Sacrament with a joke that was at the very least disrespectful about the ubiquity of Our Lord in the tabernacle (here):
In a statement released by the Archdiocese of Santiago de Chile, Father Julio recounts the conversation he had with Pope Francis: “‘We have to make noise,’ I said to the Pope,” the parish priest recounts, “and the Pope said: ‘We have to make noise because the others don’t do it.’ Then I invited him to come into the church, and he said no, because then he would go to pray in the chapel of the Nunciature ‘because,’ he said, ‘the Lord has the gift of ubiquity.’ We all laughed with him.
And it is no mystery that Bergoglio never kneels before the Blessed Sacrament, neither at Mass nor what is exposed in the monstrance.
If the fire of God's holy wrath in striking down on Earth to reduce His blasphemers to ashes were to also burn the righteous, it would be a thousand times preferable to witness this disgusting dripping of impiety on the part of the renegade clergy of the neo-church, in the complicit silence of the Hierarchy.
.jpeg)
Comments