Paix liturgique

Andrea Grillo, a staunch defender—even against common sense—of modernist excesses, has attacked the Archbishop of San Francisco, Archbishop Cordileone, accusing him of “a schismatic interpretation of unity and of echoing the arguments of Archbishop Lefebvre” after the American bishop observed that there is less unity in the Church under *Traditionis Custodes* than there was at the time of the *Motu Proprio* *Summorum Pontificum*.

On his blog, the teacher at Saint Anselm College in Rome—all the more fiery as his influence wanes—launches into a lengthy indictment: “‘The most incredible thing about Cordileone’s remarks is his attempt to pass off the anti-conciliar stance he advocates—that is, visceral resistance to liturgical reform—as the call for mercy issued by the “good pope” at the beginning of his opening address.’”

He then dismantles his arguments one by one. Regarding young Catholics—many of whom, however, flock to traditional Masses and pilgrimages of Tradition, in Chartres and elsewhere: “It is clear that the problem of young people already existed in Guardini’s time, and even before Rosmini’s.” Attributing the ‘revival’ in attendance at Christian rites to the contradiction of the liturgical reform is misleading and dishonest. It confuses cause and effect and is a delusion. It is serious that an archbishop would use his authority to endorse something that, when exaggerated, rings false.”

Next, Andrea Grillo brands Bishop Cordileone, on the pretext that he echoes the criticism of the Council voiced illo tempore by Archbishop Lefebvre: “It is surprising that such erroneous statements could have been made by a member of the Apostolic Signatura. But it is interesting to see how Cordileone develops, in his speech, the paradoxical assertion: ‘There was greater unity with *Summorum Pontificum* than with *Traditionis Custodes*.’ It is helpful to understand how Cordileone conceives of this so-called ‘unity.’ This becomes clear from his reconstruction of post-conciliar history. This reconstruction, in fact, betrays a deeply traditionalist interpretation, borrowed precisely from Marcel Lefebvre.”

In passing, he points out the ultimate sin of Catholicism according to the cheerleaders of synodal modernism: it is not losing three-quarters of the faithful along the way, as the bishops of Western Europe have done since the 1960s; it is not ordaining married men, as Bishop Bonny of Antwerp has promised to do by 2028; nor is it blessing unnatural practices, as in South America or western Germany—it is upholding Tradition and the traditional Mass. Andrea Grillo clearly calls for boots, a pyre, and a watchtower against all dissenting opinions: “Cordileone’s singular reconstruction, in reality, aligns with a traditionalist interpretation of Catholicism and labels as ‘unity’ a schismatic condition of division. It is, in fact, a schismatic interpretation of unity.”

Incidentally, of course, Andrea Grillo rejects any dialogue: “Only unity on the path opened by the *novi ordines* allows for the preservation of all diversity, within an ‘open’ and ‘flexible’ rite.” To think that unity results from a ritual ‘service’ between contradictory rites seems an irresponsible solution, one that guarantees a false, artificial, and illusory communion.”

Andrea Grillo and Heresy: The Mothe and the Beam

As Catholix points out, it is somewhat curious to see Andrea Grillo accuse his opponents of heresy. He himself has not hesitated to resort to heresy to challenge canonizations he was unable to prevent, religious feasts, or even Eucharistic miracles.

“In June 2025, Andrea Grillo, again on his blog, lashed out at Carlo Acutis, whose canonization was imminent. His main criticism of him was… that he was a good Christian.

“Right from the start of his post, he goes completely off the rails, criticizing the young man—soon to be a saint—for his interest in Eucharistic miracles—which he had compiled on a website translated into several languages and for which he had prepared an exhibition featuring more than a hundred of them.”

Above all, Andrea Grillo criticizes him for paying little heed to the errors committed since the Council—and especially his own: “How is it possible that a young, blessed man could espouse such an antiquated, heavy-handed, obsessive Eucharistic theology—one focused on the non-essential and so neglectful of what truly matters?” How is it possible that all the progress made by the Church over the past 70 years, in terms of understanding the ecclesial value of the Eucharist and its celebration, has been conveyed in such a distorted way to this ardent young communicator, to the point of suggesting to him such a incomplete, flawed, and one-sided understanding? Who led him to focus on “miracles,” while neglecting the true miracle?”

In his post, Andrea Grillo criticizes Carlo Acutis for his devotions, his prayers, his regular attendance at Mass, his interest in Eucharistic miracles, Adoration, and Church history. “Carlo Acutis is indeed the model of a good Christian, a role model for young people—and that rubs Andrea Grillo the wrong way. Carlo Acutis did not indulge in hateful and abstruse ramblings; he edified others through his actions, attended Mass every day, adored the Blessed Sacrament, prayed for his neighbors and the souls in Purgatory, recited the Rosary, helped others, practiced charity, and was a model of a Good Death—in keeping with the Tradition and History of the Church, like so many saints and blessed before him.” He will go down in history for his simple faith, accessible to all, which he sought to make even more accessible through the use of technology. And Andrea Grillo finds this utterly disheartening. He, who will leave behind nothing but a mountain of paper,” Paix Liturgique further noted.

Incidentally, Andrea Grillo outright attacks Eucharistic miracles and claims, without a shred of shame, that Carlo Acutis was manipulated: “Eucharistic disrespect is not the problem of young Carlo, whose short life still carries a glimmer of hope. The problem does not lie with the teenager, but with the adults who put these words, these images, these reconstructions, and these unbalanced and unhealthy interests into his mouth. It is a form of Eucharistic disrespect that has no qualms about writing prefaces, presentations, and introductions that seem, yes, to have been written by teenagers with no theological training on the ‘true’ and ‘unique’ Eucharistic miracle of ecclesial communion.”

Following his remarks, and after a tacit condemnation from the Vatican, the Saint Anselm College distanced itself from Andrea Grillo without actually firing him: “The Pontifical Athenaeum of Saint Anselm resolutely distances itself from the views expressed individually by professors who, in a personal capacity and under their sole and full responsibility, publish personal theses, opinions, or positions on their websites or blogs.” “In reality, they do not reflect what is taught in the various faculties of our Athenaeum, which fully accepts and transmits—with complete trust and obedience to the faith, and within the framework of a healthy dialectic upon which true theological research is based—the teaching of the Church and of the Roman Pontiff.”

Fifteen days later, having gained little insight from Saint Anselm College’s distancing itself from its accusation against Carlo Acutis, Andrea Grillo turns his sights on the Feast of Corpus Christi: “Thus he decides that the Corpus Christi procession, which the brave and ignorant faithful love so much, is a ‘duplicate’ ”—a term we owe to the liturgist Jungmann, and one favored by the reformers who, for example, abolished the Offertory because it was a “duplicate” of the Canon—a “duplicate” that is inconsistent with the very nature of the Eucharistic celebration and its radiant theological evolution.”

As Paix Liturgique explains, “in fact, in his article, Grillo launches into a series of historical explanations that he likely did not proofread and which, as a result, are not very clear. But it is clear that he adheres to the thesis of the reformers of the 1970s: with few exceptions (for example, Vespers followed by a blessing of the Blessed Sacrament), the celebration of the Eucharistic presence must not be separated from the Mass, which concludes with Communion.” In his view, it is anti-liturgical to perform a Eucharistic blessing or a procession with the Blessed Sacrament immediately after receiving Communion at Mass: “If the Eucharistic celebration has just ended and we turn to the Blessed Sacrament for a Eucharistic blessing, we create a ‘duplicate’—albeit a minor one—that betrays ignorance of what has just taken place.”

Questioning Transubstantiation

As early as 2017, accused of being part of a secret Vatican committee on the ecumenical Mass—tasked with developing a future Mass that would unite modernist Catholics and Lutherans—alongside future Cardinal Roche and Archbishop Piero Marini, Andrea Grillo attacked transubstantiation and poured out clouds of ink to obscure a concept that is, in fact, simple: “When the Council of Trent refers to transubstantiation, it considers it the most appropriate explanation of the Real Presence, but the Council of Trent never confuses it with the mystery, which can be described in various ways.” ” Grillo stated that transubstantiation “is not the object of faith, but a tool for understanding that object, which is the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”

And these are not the only remarks in his November 2, 2017, blog post in which he attacks transubstantiation, a doctrine vehemently criticized by Protestants: “The focus on the ‘substantial presence under the species’ has profoundly diverted attention from the Lord’s other forms of presence—in the Word, in prayer, and in the assembly; the ‘substantial presence under the species’ has diminished the significance of the ‘ecclesial presence’ of the Body of Christ, which always remains the primary effect of the Eucharistic celebration; the focus on ‘substance’ has led to a practice of the accidents that oscillates between indifference and ritualism, risking the loss of the symbolic logic of the ritual sequences; the celebration of the Eucharist itself has suffered from the intrusion of an intellectualist interpretation of presence, which has diminished the importance of the gestures, sequences, and internal coherence of the ritual action; finally—though perhaps most importantly—the separation between “sacrifice” and “communion”—a result of the conflict with the Protestant tradition—has not fostered a unified understanding of the Eucharistic rite or the continuity between sacrifice and banquet. ”

Or, a few lines further on: “The heart of the Eucharist is not a ‘consecration of the bread and wine’ but the listening to the Word and the anaphoric prayer that open the way to the rite of communion. This broad understanding of the Eucharist requires a more comprehensive ‘theory of presence.’” And he does not hesitate to simplify his argument further: “Transubstantiation is not a dogma, and as an explanation, it has its limitations. For example, it contradicts metaphysics.” Even if it means outright contradicting the Council of Trent, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Church Tradition—Andrea Grillo simply wants to go down in history. Even though this nonsense was invented before him, in Cambrai, in 1830.

It’s hard to imagine that Andrea Grillo teaches sacramental theology at one of Rome’s most renowned religious institutions while attacking transubstantiation… and yet he does!

Andrea Grillo Against Round Hosts

Even the round shape of the host finds no favor in his eyes: “I would like to express a concern regarding the round shape of the host. I believe that, while it is entirely natural for the Eucharistic bread to be round—and the Hostia Magna always is—it is difficult to understand why the host should be round as well. Perhaps as a miniature imitation of the whole loaf. But we must recognize that the round shape of the host risks obscuring a fundamental experience of the relationship between the Lord and his Church […] The host must be a fragment, not a miniature whole. The fragment can take any shape, except the round shape, which is that of the whole.”

Against a backdrop of so many heresies, Grillo’s statements in favor of women’s ordination, or his accusations against the traditional Mass—which he described in 2020 as “locked in the historical past, inert and frozen, lifeless and without vigor… there can be no resurrection for it”—should come as little surprise…

He Who Sows Division Reaps a Liturgical Storm

Catholix then asks the uncomfortable questions—since it is important to name the evils: “Who accuses his opponents of sinning against unity, while viciously attacking everything he cannot counter?”—it is an undeniable fact that Andrea Grillo’s influence in Rome is waning. Even his own camp is weary of his repeated excesses.

And to turn his question back on him: How is it that a theologian who indulges so deeply in heresy—under the guise of defending even the most modernist excesses against common sense itself—can still teach sacramental theology at one of the most renowned religious institutes in Rome, if not in the entire Christian world?

As he himself acknowledges, “an examination of conscience in the face of this embarrassing paradox has become urgent for the entire Catholic Church,” and his publications “have the merit of bringing it to light publicly and openly.”