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I was taught in the 1970's seminary that the term and theology of transubstantiation were outdated and we should use different language to describe what occurs during the Eucharistic Prayer.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]