Translate

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

WHY ARE SO MANY AGING THEOLOGIANS, BISHOPS AND PRIESTS HELL BENT ON RETURNING US TO THE 1960'S?

Maybe Andrea Grillo thinks transubstantiation means this:

When in reality it is this!


Of course, transubstantiation describes in metaphysical terms what is in reality a mystery (not a problem to be solved but something to enter into) which means that our Risen Lord gives Himself to us, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity as the living Supreme Being but in a manner that is palatable, under the form of Bread and Wine, no longer its substance, but the Substance of our Risen and Glorified Lord. And through transubstantiation, the baptized are strengthened as the Mystical Body of Christ, because in "eating and drinking" the Body and Blood of Christ, the Risen Lord does not become a part of us, but rather He makes us a part of Him! 


Recently a 1960's trained theologian, Andrea Grillo, said this: “Transubstantiation is not a dogma and, as an explanation, it has its limits. For example, it contradicts metaphysics.”

His teachers, quite evidently, were my teachers in the 1970's!

I was taught in the 1970's seminary that the term and theology of transubstantiation were outdated and we should use different language to describe what occurs during the Eucharistic Prayer. The emphasis shouldn't be on bread and wine becoming the Body of Christ, but rather the congregation becoming the Body of Christ! Transubstantiation contradicts metaphysics! The following captures what I was taught and never believed and what Grillo was taught and still believes and promotes. Does he think we are idiots? :



New Theology or Old Heresy?

In 1966 the late Fr. Karl Rahner stated that "one can no longer
maintain today that bread is a substance, as St. Thomas and the
Fathers of the Council (of Trent) obviously thought it was".[12] For
Rahner, the "substance" of a thing did not include its
physical> reality, but the "meaning and purpose" of the thing.[13]
So, according to Karl Rahner, transubstantiation meant that, after
the consecration of the Mass, the physical bread remained physical
bread but it now had a new "meaning" of spiritual food because it was
now a "symbol" of Jesus Christ.[14]

Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx agreed with Fr. Karl Rahner that the

physical bread and wine were only a "sign" of Christ.[15] In fact,

for Schillebeeckx, the "real presence" of Christ in the Eucharist was

not the consecrated bread and wine, but the presence of Christ in the

<"assembled community">.[16] This is why Schillebeeckx says that "

kneel, not before a Christ who is, as it were, condensed in the host,

but before the Lord himself> who is offering his reality, his body, to

me through the host."[17]

This same theory of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was
accepted by some theologians in the United States. Thus, Tad W.
Guzie, S. J. of Marquette University, says that the change in the
bread and wine taking place through the consecration of the Mass is
"not one that has to do with the order'."[18] And,
Georgetown University professor, Monika K. Hellwig, suggests that
Jesus' words at the Eucharist were not meant to identify the "bread"
with his body, but that the "community" was the "embodiment . . . of
Jesus".[19] Finally, Anthony Wilhelm, author of (a
catechism with "two million copies sold"), stated:

"When we say that the bread and wine 'become Christ'

saying that bread and wine are Christ . . . What we mean is that the

bread and wine are a sign of Christ present>, here and now, in a

special way - , as if condensed into a

wafer . ."[20]


16 comments:

Gene said...

Nothing good came out of the sixties...

Carol H. said...

Hey, Gene! I was born in the 60's! Okay, I guess that proves your point. ;D

rcg said...

It does seem like these people have really missed the point.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Gene @ October 31, 2017 at 3:21 PM said, "Nothing good came out of the sixties..."

Well, my brothers thought the Ford Mustang and Pontiac GTO were pretty awesome. I was not much into cars though, so I don't know. :-)

As to Fr. McD's question, "Does he think we are idiots?" Well, in a word Father, yes.

To me these guys, these theologians like Rahner and Schillebeeckx, are far too cerebral, and fell in with the modernistic idea that the only knowledge worth trusting is rational knowledge, and rejected any mystical knowledge. Too much Enlightenment? Probably. Too much hope they could overcome the human condition by using only their puny brains? Probably.

Anyway, better to trust the Scriptures and early Church Fathers. Doubters are a dime a dozen. Believers are few.

God bless. Happy All Saints Eve!
Bee

Gene said...

Well, Carol, the good people are the exception.

Bee, yeah, I had a '64 Impala 283 that I thought was pretty cool.

John Nolan said...

Is Grillo confusing metaphysics with physics?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

1960’s muscle cars the greatest! All the Chevy SS models, Chevelle, Chevy II, Impala, Stingray plus Corvair and how can we not love the Citlass, GTP and the mustang, Camarillo, Javlin, Barracuda, roadrunner and the memorable, Pinto, Grimlin and the $1,995 Maverick plus the Torino! What isn’t there to love from the 1960’s?

Mike said...

I'm with Flannery O'Connor on this: if it's [the Eucharist] just a symbol then to hell with it.
Of course, it is much more than any simple symbol, something that seems to elude those who are uber-rational.

Joseph Johnson said...

Maybe this explains why some priests, as a matter of "principle," do not like to use "Eucharistic Prayer I" (aka the Roman Canon).

George said...


Transubstantiation transcends the mere physical domain and although it can be seen as being more in the realm of the metaphysical, is does not fully reside within the boundaries of either of these disciplines,since it is part of the supernatural order and is therefore beyond our human understanding. Interestingly, modern science, in plumbing the depths of the nature of reality, increasingly finds itself at the threshold of the incomprehensible.

Rood Screen said...

The 1962 Roman Missal.

TJM said...

I could pull a better decade out of the hat than the 1960s! These aging priests and bishop are loons who will get their "reward" for their role in destroying the Faith of millions

Joseph Johnson said...

A lot of the negative aspects that we often associate with the 1960's seem to have started showing up after about 1963. The early 1960's (when I was born) seem, in retrospect, (in terms of daily American life) to have been a pretty good time to be around. The only negatives I see are the lingering aspects of segregation and the Communist threat.

johnnyc said...

Seeing how Christ's teaching on marriage took a hit in the last liberal run Synod we would probably end up with crackers and grape juice if they decided to have a Synod on the Eucharist.

Tom Makin said...

It's a last gasp from a dying generation clinging desperately for relevance. My Dad is 84 and refuses to cede control over anything no matter how many mistakes he makes or how hard he is making things for himself. This is in our DNA and we are seeing the same behavior play out in this context; from Francis on down.

John Nolan said...

Dialogue

I attend the so-called EF three Sundays out of four, and have yet to find one celebrated according to the rubrics of the 1962 Missal. However, this particular revision was in force for less than three years, and did not have time to get 'bedded in'.