THE SATANIC INFLUENCE BEHIND THE MOTU PROPRIO TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

The freight train of Bergoglio is “comin around the bend” at such a high speed he is ensuring that the Catholic Church ends up looking like it has been in a huge train wreck.

Inbox

6:31 PM (2 hours ago)

Andrea Grillo: The Mind Behind the Motu Proprio

 Peter Kwasniewski, PhDAugust 18, 20210 Comments

Andrea Grillo (born 1961) is a professor of Sacramental Theology and Philosophy of Religion at the Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm in Rome (Sant’Anselmo) and of Liturgy in Padua at the Abbey of Santa Giustina. With the promulgation of Pope Francis’s motu proprio of July 16th, 2021, Traditionis Custodes, he has become a more important figure in Catholic thought. Many indications point to Professor Grillo as an author or at least inspirer of the document, serving as the Pontiff’s “house” liturgist and theologian, as he is often called in Rome. He joins many others from Sant’Anselmo who have exercised a disproportionate progressive influence.

The Foundations of the Motu Proprio

For years now, Professor Grillo has espoused avant la lettre the tenets of Traditionis Custodes, maintaining that the Mass of Paul VI represents the exclusive rite of the Roman Church and that the Traditional Latin Mass should be legislated in such a way that its disappearance is assured.[1]

In an open letter dated March 27, 2020, a full sixteen months prior to the motu proprio, Professor Grillo (along with some 180 signatories) boldly described the Traditional Latin Mass as “closed in the historical past, inert and crystallized, lifeless and without vigor…there can be no resuscitation for it.”[2] “Continuing to nourish a ‘state of liturgical exception’—one that was born to unite but does nothing but divide—only leads to the shattering, privatization, and distortion of the worship of the Church.”[3] Furthermore, the letter puts forth the following:

  1. The intention of Summorum Pontificum (SP) was pacification and reconciliation.
  2. Unfortunately, SP led to division, conflict, and a “liturgical rejection” of the Second Vatican Council.
  3. Certain seminaries where both the NOM and the TLM are expected to be learned represent the “greatest distortion of the initial intentions” of SP.
  4. It is time for the abolition of the “state of liturgical exception” introduced by SP.
  5. All powers concerning the liturgy must be restored to diocesan bishops and to the Congregation for Divine Worship. This has multiple implications. (a) The Ecclesia DeiCommission and Section IV of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with authority over liturgical matters must be terminated. (b) The CDF has been acting as a substitute in exercising competences either conferred on bishops by the Second Vatican Council or ordinarily entrusted to the Congregation for Divine Worship by the pope; this irregular situation must end. (c) The CDF has undertaken to elaborate “liturgical variants” of theordines without having the historical, textual, philological and pastoral competences. (d) The CDF seems to ignore, precisely on the dogmatic level, a grave conflict that arises between the lex orandi and the lex credendi, since it is inevitable that a dual, conflictual ritual form will lead to a significant division in the faith. (e) The CDF seems to underestimate the disruptive effect this “reservation” (as in, Indian reservation) will have on the ecclesial level, by immunizing a part of the community from the “school of prayer” that the Second Vatican Council and the liturgical reform have providentially given to the common ecclesial journey.[4]

It is clear from reading Grillo’s Italian articles online that he considers the liturgical reform to have been, on the whole, very good; that the major obstacle to its success has been a regrettable tendency for clergy and laity to maintain or reintroduce bad practices or resources from the past that get in the way of the reformed rites’ shining forth in their clean lines and new orientations; that a preoccupation with “liturgical abuses” on the part of John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the curial officials they appointed did nothing but reassert a Tridentine legalistic mentality that threatened to quench the openness to adaptation and freedom characteristic of the Novus Ordo (indeed, he says expressly that it is more important to advance the “use” of an active communal liturgy than to correct “abuses,” since the latter effort reflects a superseded vision of worship as a clerical box-checking exercise); and that the parallel existence of the traditional Mass as well as the Ratzingerian Reform of the Reform movement threaten the integrity of the reformed rites as given by Paul VI.

Reacting to the Motu Proprio

In an article published at the blog Come se non on July 16, 2021 (how prompt!) and then published in English at La Croix International on July 19, “From ‘Supreme Pontiffs’ to ‘guardians of tradition’: the vicissitudes of the Roman Rite,[5] Grillo does not hide his triumphant glee about the motu proprio that his own thinking helped create. Concerning the much-criticized claim in Article 1 that “the liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique [correctly, sole] expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite,” Grillo comments:

This radically supplants the bold sophistry on which SP stood—namely, the ‘parallel coexistence’ of two ritual forms, which contradict each other. The re-establishment of ‘a single valid form of the Roman Rite’ is the only horizon on which it is possible to build peace. Every other hypothesis, however well-intentioned, creates growing divisions and misunderstandings.

He also calls “sophistry” the freedom that SP gave to priests to choose which form of the Roman Rite to celebrate, since it takes from the bishop his power of moderating liturgical unity within his jurisdiction, and allows a “competition between two ritual forms.” It’s worthy of note that theological progressives also tend to be liberals in social matters, comfortably favorable to a centralized welfare state and viewing with suspicion the competition that arises from an open business market. Where competition is allowed, a better product may succeed. In the liturgical domain this was happening with the choice of tradition by Catholic clergy and laity, especially youths and families. They must not be allowed to have such freedom of choice, such freedom “for the good” or “for the best.” Progressivism always talks about freedom, but it is authoritarian at its core, working against all inequalities except for the systemic inequality of ruler and ruled that perpetuates the system itself.

He says, seemingly without awareness of the dubious nature of the claim: “Now we must recognize that there is only one table: that of the reformed rite according to the indications of the Second Vatican Council” (emphasis added). In the La Croix article Grillo bluntly asserts:

The tradition of the Roman Rite is found there [in the reformed rite] and nowhere else… The effects of the earlier “concessions” helped foment a Church that was immune to the Second Vatican Council and opposed to the common path. Thanks to SP, the Old Mass had practically become the symbol of opposition to Vatican II. And for this reason, the criteria for access to it had to be carefully reviewed, so as not to generate any further abominations… Instead, Pope Francis, son of the Council, has had the good sense and wisdom to say, “Enough is enough.” He has wisely opened a new phase in which the quality of the ritual act is played out on a single table—common and ordinary, ecclesial and of the people. It is both a small and great reminder that the conciliar reform cannot be stopped, neither by inventing a fictitious language, nor by re-exhuming a ritual form that no longer exists.[6]

Interesting, isn’t it, how readily Grillo “unpersons” millions of Catholics, who celebrate joyfully and fruitfully a ritual form “that no longer exists”?

Not very much of Grillo has appeared yet in English. An interesting trio of articles published at New Liturgical Movement makes for timely reading in the present circumstances:

Positions Contrary to Church Teaching

Catholics around the world will undoubtedly be interested to learn of other ideas held by Professor Grillo.

In a recently published book, co-authored with Cosimo Scordato, entitled Can a Mother Not Bless Her Own Children? Homo-Affective Unions and the Catholic Faith, the argument is advanced for the theological and pastoral blessing of homosexual unions within the Church.[7]

Grillo decries transubstantiation, i.e., that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ at the Mass. He maintains that “transubstantiation is not a dogma and as an explanation has its limits. For example, it contradicts metaphysics.”[8]

He advocates for female ordination, especially to the diaconate.[9]

He holds positions that contradict the Church’s pro-life teachings, including the legitimacy of using contraceptives for prophylactic purposes.[10]

He explicitly rejects the idea that there is an authority such as the Church with the ability to pronounce definitively on matters regarding human sexuality.[11]

He writes against the permanent validity and indissolubility of marriage.[12]

Liturgical Deformation and Sexual Immorality

In the Holy Bible, perversion of divine worship is always associated with and compared to sexual immorality. Idolatry is adultery, adultery is idolatry: the one makes way for the other and reinforces it. The connection remains true in every age, although it manifests itself under different forms.

The interpretative key to understanding Grillo’s conflictive postmodern style of writing is rather simple. He will state a teaching of the Church, but without affirming it; then, towards the end of the article or publication, he frames conclusions in the form of “possibilities” and “questions” that are oftentimes much different from and even in opposition to Church doctrine. It is important to keep this principle in mind when reading his work. Furthermore, with imprecisions and unintelligible musings as a modus operandi, his writings on the site Munera: Rivista europea di cultura and elsewhere make a mockery of traditional Catholic theology.

It is incomprehensible that Andrea Grillo is allowed publicly to hold tenure at a Pontifical University in Rome and, what is far worse, to influence the writing of documents released by the Supreme Pontiff that will affect the lives of millions of faithful Catholics. Alas, as we have seen more than once—it suffices to cite the example of one of the ghostwriters of Amoris Laetitia, Archbishop Víctor Manuel “Tucho” Fernández, author of Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing—this pope’s choice of theological consultants is rarely happy, and often scandalous.[13]
Andrea Grillo: The Mind Behind the Motu Proprio – OnePeterFiveBy Peter Kwasniewski, PhD – Andrea Grillo may be a possible ghostwriter for suppressing the Latin Mass, but he a…

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to THE SATANIC INFLUENCE BEHIND THE MOTU PROPRIO TRADITIONIS CUSTODES

  1. mortimer zilch says:

    Andrea Grillo’s influence with Liturgy compares similarly to that of Raymond Brown with Scripture. With every page you read of Brown writing about the Ten Commandments the cloud on Mt. Horeb gets thinner and thinner until finally you find Moses sitting alone with a hammer and chisel chipping away at a stone tablet. No GOD. The same with the Liturgy Grillo imagines. This was Judas’ sin. He dipped his bread into the bowl at the same time as Jesus – refusing to recognize the Divinity of Christ…only acknowledging the humanity. That is the essential difference between the Old Liturgy and the New Liturgy.

Comments are closed.