Tuesday, May 25, 2010

The Desacralization of the Holy Eucharist: Part I-Introduction

The Desacralization of the Holy Eucharist (Against the “New Theologians”)
By Matthew James Bellisario 2010


    Since the Second Vatican Council we have witnessed the widespread desacralization of the sacraments in the Catholic Church. There has been great dissent within the Catholic Church by scholars who proclaim themselves to be a part of a “new theology.” We could examine each sacrament and how the infiltration of this “new theology” has in effect caused this mass desacralization. For example, baptism is often taught to new catechumens as being only a sacrament of the community, while completely neglecting the Church's long defined irreformable teaching on original sin. This leads them to question the Church's baptism of infants, as well as the effects that the Sacrament itself has on the soul. Despite the benefit we would receive from studying how each sacrament has been effected in recent years, our point of focus must first start with the treatment of the Divine Savior Himself, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We must focus our attention as to how Christ Himself has been treated by these “new theologians” of the modern age. In order for us to understand what has happened to the rest of our sacramental theology, or loss of in recent years, I believe we must first start with Christ.

    Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote regarding the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the following, “Since the whole mystery of our salvation is comprised in this sacrament, therefore is it performed with greater solemnity than the other sacraments.” (Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Q83, A 4) (1) Over the last 40 years or so there has been a drastic change in attitude towards Our Lord in this most Holy Sacrament. No longer is Christ the King of our Church, He has become Christ the social worker, Christ the psychologist, or Christ the revolutionary. In many parishes the Mass in its celebration no longer reflects what is actually happening in the Divine Liturgy. It no longer reflects Who it is that we receive in the Sacrament. We know in reading the Gospel of St. John, and by the infallible interpretation of this passage by the Church, that Christ gives us Himself in complete Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. “For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him” (John 6:56-57) No longer do we bow down to give God the glory, honor and worship due to Him in the liturgy or in the Sacrament. Instead we now turn to ourselves as the primary focus of “liturgy.”

    It is easy to blame this turbulent upheaval of Eucharistic theology on the Second Vatican Council. Upon close examination however, we can see that this deconstructive attitude was alive and working behind the scenes well before the Council. We may even trace the rebellious roots back to the Protestant revolt of the 16th century and the following years of the so called “Enlightenment.” No, it was not the Council itself that spawned this desacralization, despite some who attended the Council who wanted this to happen; it was the Council that would be the victim of this “new theology.” It is the Council that would be hi-jacked by these “new theologians.” 

    The era after the Council became the era of learned scholars who suddenly knew more than Christ and the collective Magisterial Church of the past 2000 years. The arrogant “scholars” of the modern age sought to recreate their own vision of what the early Church was, and they tried to recreate how this early Church supposedly celebrated the liturgy of the Eucharist. In short, they tried to recreate God and the Church in their own image. This heavy reliance on historical criticism became a recipe for disaster. The mentality of modernism had now penetrated the minds of those inside the Church. This problem can also be attributed to the faulty philosophy of Descartes, Kant, Rousseau and later Nietzsche and others. They defined a “reality” where suddenly everything shifted away from objective truth; instead rationalism and subjectivism became the norm for determining “truth.” No longer was truth defined by the mind conforming to the object, but the object being conformed to the subjective perspective of the mind. This inferior philosophy was later mutated and carried into Protestantism by men like Soren Kierkegaard and Frederick Schleiermacher who taught that emotionalism was superior to rationalism. Catholicism did not escape these philosophical deficiencies. Thomistic philosophy was abandoned to deficient philosophers like Maurice Blondel who introduced his, “nouvelle théologie” in which freedom, action and emotion became the most important functions of religion. This outlines the foundation upon which the decline of  faith in modern society, and now sadly that decline in the Church is built upon.

Above: Maurice Blondel

(Stay tuned for Part II)


kkollwitz said...

"...we can see that this deconstructive attitude was alive and working behind the scenes well before the Council."

Oh, yeah. I was born in '57, and well remember what Mass was like back then. But after V2, the changes came so fast it was more like flipping a lightswitch than a gradual transition.

Speaking of working behind the scenes, check this out:


If you want to cut to the chase, scroll down to, "The personal Πειρασμός, the test, began."

Unknown said...

I challenge you to an on-line debate on Transubstantiation on your website. Proverbs 18:17 says the first to bring forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him".
Do you have the guts to be cross-examined?

You may contact me at

Micah K.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Micah, this topic has been debated for 500 years since the pretended "Reformers" first presented any substantial questioning of the doctrine. The real presence of Christ in the liturgy of the ancient Church's has been defended successfully by the Catholic Church during that period. No need to debate the topic it is presented in the New Testament and in the text of the early liturgies, not to mention the Church Fathers. That this is still being questioned is laughable and can only be explained by sheer pride in creating one's own church based on subjective philosophy rather than God's Word. Good luck in your useless debates.

Unknown said...

Oh put a lid on it Bellasario. Your response was the very essence of a coward! No need to debate? Then I wonder why God likes debates! (1 Kings 18, Prov 18:17, 1 Cor 11:19). So get it straight: Your filthy doctrine of Transubstantiation is a lie from the pit of hell, if for no other reason than Jesus told us to partake of BOTH bread and wine, and Catholicism says you can take either one! Like a fool, YOU BELIEVE IT. It should go without saying that WHATEVER Jesus meant at the Last Supper, he certainly would not take kindly to cutting his commandment in half! HE SAID TO TAKE BOTH BREAD AND WINE and the RCC proves she is the synogogue of Satan by "breaking the Scriptures", something Jesus said ought NOT to be done.
Oh how you personify the very epitomy of stupidity that you could say it is "laughable" to even debate the RC Eucharist, and those that like to obey Jesus by partaking of BOTH bread and wine are "full of pride". Honestly, if I had a dunce cap to pass through my computer screen, I'd happily plant it on your egotistical head.
Count on it then: If God does not wake you up out of spiritual coma, you will receive a passport to hell, and will look back to your idiotic statement to me with regret for all eternity.

Matthew Bellisario said...

Where did you get your manners, your demi-God Luther? Keep spitting in the face of Christ and see how far it gets you. I truly feel sorry for you. I will pray for your conversion.