«Freedom denied. Catholic theology and dictatorship of Western conformism". New work by Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

«FREEDOM DENIED. CATHOLIC THEOLOGY AND DICTATORSHIP OF WESTERN CONFORMITY". NEW WORK BY ARIEL S. LEVI of GUALDO

Tra i meriti maggiori del libro la capacità di tenere insieme piani diversi senza confonderli. L’Autore intreccia la tradizione teologica dei grandi Padri della Chiesa con le sfide poste dall’epoca contemporanea, inclusa l’Intelligenza Artificiale, non trattata come curiosità tecnologica ma come banco di prova decisivo per l’antropologia cristiana. Particolarmente interessanti le similitudini tra il pensiero teologico di San Tommaso d’Aquino e alcuni degli elementi cardine che regolano e reggono l’Intelligenza Artificiale.

— Books and reviews —

Author:
Jorge Facio Lynx
President of Editions The island of Patmos

.

In un tempo storico in cui la parola “libertà” è divenuta uno slogan consumabile, La libertà negata si presenta come un’opera volutamente controcorrente. Non perché insegua il gusto della provocazione, ma perché rifiuta il linguaggio anestetizzante con cui la cultura contemporanea ha svuotato di contenuto i concetti fondamentali dell’antropologia morale e della teologia cristiana.

Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo non scrive per rassicurare, né per confermare convinzioni preconfezionate, ma per stimolare a pensare, soprattutto a giudicare con maturo senso critico.

Il cuore dell’opera è una tesi tanto semplice quanto radicale: la libertà non è un dato automatico, né una conquista garantita dal progresso tecnico o dall’ampliamento delle possibilità di scelta. On the contrary, oggi è sistematicamente mutilata da una nuova forma di potere, più sottile e pervasiva di quelle del passato: la dittatura del conformismo occidentale, che non imprigiona i corpi, ma addomestica le coscienze; che non vieta esplicitamente, ma orienta silenziosamente ciò che è dicibile, pensabile, moralmente legittimo.

In this sense, La libertà negata non è un saggio di sociologia religiosa né una requisitoria ideologica. È un testo teologico nel senso più rigoroso del termine: parte dall’uomo, dalla sua struttura spirituale e morale, per mostrare come la perdita della verità sul bene conduca inevitabilmente alla dissoluzione della libertà che, ricorda l’Autore, non consiste nell’arbitrio, ma nella capacità di aderire al bene riconosciuto come compimento della propria natura. Quando il limite viene espulso dall’orizzonte umano, la libertà non si espande: implode.

Tra i meriti maggiori del libro la capacità di tenere insieme piani diversi senza confonderli. L’Autore intreccia la tradizione teologica dei grandi Padri della Chiesa con le sfide poste dall’epoca contemporanea, inclusa l’Intelligenza Artificiale, non trattata come curiosità tecnologica ma come banco di prova decisivo per l’antropologia cristiana. Particolarmente interessanti le similitudini tra il pensiero teologico di San Tommaso d’Aquino e alcuni degli elementi cardine che regolano e reggono l’Intelligenza Artificiale.

Particolarmente incisiva è l’analisi delle dinamiche ecclesiali interne. L’Autore non indulge in polemiche personalistiche, né in facili moralismi, ma mostra con lucidità come anche nella Chiesa il conformismo possa trasformarsi in criterio di governo, producendo una progressiva emarginazione di tutto ciò che non è funzionale al consenso. In questo quadro, la persecuzione non assume più la forma del martirio cruento, ma quella dell’ironia, della delegittimazione, dell’isolamento sistematico di chi rifiuta di adeguarsi al linguaggio dominante.

La copertina del libro — la Venere di Botticelli censurata pernuditàda un marchio social — non è un semplice espediente grafico, ma una chiave di lettura dell’intero libro: la bellezza, quando non è addomesticabile, deve essere oscurata; the truth, quando non è manipolabile, deve essere rimossa. In this sense, La libertà negata è anche una riflessione sul rapporto tra verità e scandalo: non lo scandalo morale costruito mediaticamente, ma lo scandalo evangelico di una verità che non si piega.

Non è un libro per tutti e non pretende di esserlo, come del resto le opere di questo autore terribilmente chiaro e comprensibile. Richiede un lettore disposto a uscire dalla comfort zone delle semplificazioni ideologiche, a misurarsi con un pensiero che non concede scorciatoie. Ma proprio per questo è un libro necessario. In un’epoca che confonde la libertà con l’assenza di vincoli e la coscienza con il sentimento soggettivo, La libertà negata ricorda che senza verità non c’è libertà e senza libertà l’uomo smarrisce se stesso.

Un’opera che interpella credenti e non credenti sul punto decisivo della nostra modernità: che cosa resta dell’uomo quando rinuncia a giudicare?

the Island of Patmos, 30 January 2026

.

LIBRARY STORE – OPEN HERE

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

Roma decadence. The passion of the mystical body and the illusion of activism – Rome decadence. The passion of the mystical body and the illusion of activism – Roma decadence. The passion of the mystical body and the illusion of activism

Italian, english, español

 

ROMA DECADENCE. THE PASSION OF THE MYSTICAL BODY AND THE ILLUSION OF ACTIVISM

The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of its members, but as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification"; it is not holy due to the virtue of its members, but because its head is Christ and its animator is the Holy Spirit.

— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

 

.

Dear readers of the Island of Patmos, I am writing to you at a time that many, not wrongly, define of Roma decadence, an era in which the evaporation of Christianity, as Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi also lucidly observed[1], it is no longer a dystopian prophecy, but a tangible reality.

However, faced with this scenario, a theologian looks at the Church not with the worldly eyes of sociology, but with the gaze of faith that recognizes in the Mystical Body the living presence of Christ and His Spirit.

This article of mine was born from dialogue social with dear Alessandro, also a digital pastoral operator (who his site). I would like to divide our reflections into three moments.

The Ecclesial Kenosis: between the Holy Saturday of history and the heresy of efficiency. As Don Giuseppe Forlai writes, but the theme returns in many reflections carried out in multiple areas, the Church in Europe today resembles the body of Jesus taken down from the Cross: lifeless, consummate, apparently defeated, and yet - and this is the divine paradox - a treasure chest of eternal life persists in it. We must not be scandalized if the Bride of Christ appears disfigured; she is reliving the mysteries of her Spouse's life, including the passion and burial[2]. In this sulphurous ecclesial, the greatest temptation is to replace mystery with organization, grace with bureaucracy, falling into that Pelagianism that Pope Francis and his predecessors have often stigmatized. A young Saint Benedict of Nursia, in the face of the corruption of Rome, he did not found a party or a protest movement, but he retreated into silence to "relive with himself" (to live with him), laying the foundations for a civilization that was not born from a human project, but from the search for God (To seek God). This contemplative silence is not mutism but prayerful listening to the Word and is the only adequate response to the crisis. The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of its members, but as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification" (CCC 827); it is not holy due to the virtue of its members, but because its head is Christ and its animator is the Holy Spirit. Because of this, a serious way of reforming the ecclesial community is not frenetic activism. Already Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, of venerable memory, he wisely remembered that a shepherd must feed the sheep and not vice versa, and serve the sanctification of people. Following the teaching of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Philippians: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Fil 2,12), we must stop looking for scapegoats or structural solutions to problems that exist, in their root, pneumatic and spiritual. They take time, study and prayer.

The fundamental mistake I think it lies in a sort of "heresy of action" which forgets a basic principle of Scholasticism: Acting follows being (the Act follows the be). If the being of the Church is emptied of its supernatural substance, his actions become an empty shell, a background noise that converts no one. Today we are witnessing what we could define as an obsession with structures, almost as if by modifying the organizational chart of the Curia or inventing new pastoral committees we can infuse the Holy Spirit on command. I'm not saying that planning or reorganization are bad things in themselves, indeed they are welcome. But let's remember that the Spirit blows where he wants, not where our human planning forces it. This efficiency mentality betrays a lack of faith in the intrinsic power of Grace. We behave like the Apostles on the boat in the storm before Christ woke up: we get agitated, we row against the wind, we scream, forgetting that He who commands the winds and the sea is present, albeit apparently dormant, aft.

The current condition of the Church in Europe, which we defined above as "deposed from the Cross", it reminds us of the mystery of Holy Saturday. It is the day of great silence, not of desperate inactivity. On Holy Saturday, the Church does not proselytize, does not organize conferences, it does not draw up five-year synodal plans; the Church keeps vigil next to the tomb, knowing that that stone will not be overturned by human hands. The mortal danger of our time is wanting to "reanimate" the ecclesial body with worldly techniques marketing or sociological adaptation to a century, transforming the Bride of Christ into a compassionate NGO, pleasing to the world, but barren of divine life. Let us remember what Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugene III in On Consideration: «Woe to you if, to worry too much about external things, you end up losing yourself[3]. If the Church loses its mystical dimension, it becomes flavorless salt, destined to be trampled by men" (cf.. Mt 5,13). Moreover, this anxiety about «doing» often hides the fear of «being». Standing under the Cross, stay in the cenacle, stay on your knees. The crisis of vocations, the closure of parishes, cultural irrelevance cannot be resolved by lowering the bar of doctrine to make it more attractive - a failed operation, as demonstrated by the now deserted liberal Protestant communities - but by raising the temperature of faith. The Church is Crawford Prostitute, the Fathers loved to say: chaste due to the presence of the Spirit, a prostitute for the sins of her children who prostitute her to the idols of the moment. But purification does not occur through human reforms, but rather through the fire of trial and the sanctity of individuals.

Non serve, so, a Church that is agitated, but a Church that burns. We need to return to that priority of God that Benedict XVI tirelessly preached: where God fails, man does not get bigger, but he loses his divine dignity. The remedy for Roma decadence it is not an «activist Rome», but a "praying Rome". We must have the courage to be that "little flock" (LC 12,32) who does not fear numerical inferiority, provided that he keeps the deposit of faith intact. Like yeast in the mass, our effectiveness does not depend on quantity, but by the quality of our union with Christ. Therefore, Let us commit ourselves not to let ourselves be robbed of hope by prophets of doom, nor by the strategists of creative pastoral care, let's go back to the tabernacle, at the Lectio Divina, to the passionate study of the Truth. Only from there, from the pierced and glorious heart of the Redeemer, the living water capable of irrigating this western desert will be able to flow. The Church will rise again, not because we are good organizers, but because Christ is alive and death no longer has power over Him. Because Christ offers everyone a profound act of contemplation if we know how to grasp it.

Rediscover Dogma against the dictatorship of sentiment. Faith that seeks understanding: Faith seeking understanding. To avoid falling into sterile quietism, But, we must understand that Christian contemplation is intrinsically fruitful and that love for the Church requires a radical return to the foundations of our faith. There is no charity without truth, and there is no real reform that does not start from the rediscovery of deposit of credit. In a liquid world where faith risks dissolving into mere emotional feeling and truth is sacrificed on the altar of social consensus, it is urgent to return to the Symbol of our faith which is not a nursery rhyme to be recited, but the route of our Christian existence. About that, I would like to suggest reading the latest book by Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo: I think to understand: Journey in the Profession of Faith. In quest’opera, Father Ariel explains each article of the Symbol or Creed making it taste its original power: not cold formula, but to a «word to live by». The text takes the reader on a theological journey where reason, illumined by faith, he bows before the mystery without abdicating, but finding its fulfillment. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, faith is an act of the intellect that adheres to divine truth under the control of the will moved by grace (cf.. QUESTION, II-II, q. 2, a. 9); for this reason, study the dogma, understand what we profess every Sunday, it is an operation of the highest contemplation. Approach the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, connate ourselves with the mysteries we profess, so that action becomes a reflection of our being in Christ. Sacred art, the liturgy, theology is not aesthetic frills, but vehicles of the Truth that saves. If we don't understand what we believe, how will we be able to testify to this? If the salt loses its flavor, It is good for nothing other than to be thrown away (cf.. Mt 5,13). Father Ariel's book teaches precisely this: give flavor to our faith, giving back to the word I believe the sense of perfect adherence to the incarnate Truth.

We live in an era afflicted by another serious spiritual pathology which we could define as "sentimental fideism". The erroneous idea has spread that faith is a blind feeling, a consoling emotion detached from reason, or worse, that dogma is a cage that imprisons the freedom of God's children. Nothing could be more false and dangerous. As a preacher brother, I strongly reiterate that the Truth (Veritas) it is the very name of God and that the human intellect was created precisely to grasp this Truth. Rejecting the intellectual effort to understand dogma means refusing to use the highest gift that the Creator has given us in his image and likeness. Culpable ignorance of the truths of faith is the ideal breeding ground for every heresy. When the Catholic stops forming, when he stops asking "who is God" according to Revelation and begins to build a god of his own size and likeness, he inevitably falls into the idolatry of his own self.

Give back meaning and value to the Creed it means rediscovering the constitutional charter of our Christian life. Each of his articles is not abstract philosophical lucubration, since they are linked to the Christian fact, to the history of salvation that has affected man and the entire cosmos. Saying "I believe in one God" or "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh" is an act of disobedience to nihilism that leads to desperation and the detriment of spirit and matter. The intellectual reconstruction I'm talking about is, ultimately, an act of love. You can't love what you don't know. If our knowledge of Christ is imperfect our love for Him will remain childish, fragile, unable to withstand the impact of the trials of adult life and the seductions of dominant thought.

On this journey that I propose to you let us learn to see theology not as a science for initiates, but what does the Church do when it bends over revealed data and therefore what it breathes and therefore lives from. The study, done on your knees, it becomes prayer; the understanding of the Trinitarian mystery becomes adoration in Spirit and truth. We need not fear the complexity of dogma: it is like the sun which, while being bright enough to be looked at directly without hurting the eye, it is the only source that allows us to clearly see all the rest of reality. Without the light of dogma, the liturgy becomes choreography, charity becomes philanthropy and hope becomes illusion. So let's get back to studying, to read, to meditate. Let us make St. Peter's exhortation our own: “Always be ready to answer anyone who asks you why the hope is within you” (1PT 3,15). But to give reasons (logos) of Christian hope we must honor reason as we seek to possess the things of God and in this theology is a great help.

The A small herd and the power of grace. Beyond desperation, theological hope. I conclude this itinerary by inviting "cautious optimism" that flows from the virtue of theological hope. The decadence of Christianity in Europe is a historical fact, but the story of Salvation does not end with Good Friday. Our identity, as the Scriptures and the testimony of many saints remind us, must be based on the awareness of being "useless servants/simple servants" (LC 17,10). This "uselessness/simplicity" is not devaluation, but the recognition that the main actor of history is God. I'll try to explain myself.

Christian hope is the polar opposite of worldly optimism. This could arise from a statistical or simply humoral prediction that "things will get better". theological Hope, instead, it is the certainty that God does not lie and keeps his promises even when things happen, humanly speaking, they go from bad to worse. Abraham "had faith, hoping against all hope" (Sa foot against hope, RM 4,18), just when biological reality presented him with the impossibility of having a child. We today are called to the same faith as Abraham. The numerical decline of believers and the loss of appeal of the Church must not lead us to a sectarian retreat, but to the awareness that God, as the history of salvation teaches and the biblical idea of ​​the "remnant" advocates, it has always operated not across ocean masses, but using a a small herd, a small faithful flock that takes charge of the whole. This appears in Scripture and in the history of the Church as a constant: some few pray and offer themselves for the salvation of many.

From this perspective, the definition of "useless servants" that Jesus talks about in the Gospel becomes our greatest liberation. Useless (useless) does not mean "worthless", but "without any claim to profit", that is, without claiming to be the efficient cause of Grace. When man, even within the Church, forget this truth, ends up building pastoral towers of Babel that collapse at the first breath of wind. The history of the 20th century, with its atheistic totalitarianisms, he showed us the hell that man builds when he decides to do without God to save humanity with his own strength. But be careful: there is also a spiritual totalitarianism, thinner, that creeps in when we think that the Church is "our thing", to be managed with corporate or political criteria. No, The Church is of Christ. And the Christian's action is fruitful only when it becomes teandric, that is, when our human freedom allows itself to be so permeated by divine Grace that it becomes a single act with Christ. This is what Saint Paul expressed by saying: "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me " (Gal 2,20). This synergy between God and man is the antidote to despair. If the work were only mine, I would have every reason to despair, given my smallness; but if the work is of God, who can stop it? Under the leadership of the Holy Father Leo XIV (Robert Francis Prevost), we are called to guard this flame. It doesn't matter if our cathedrals empty or if the media laughs at us; what matters is that that flame remains lit and pure. Like the myrophores on Easter morning, like Joseph of Arimathea in the darkness of Good Friday, we are the keepers of a promise that cannot fail.

The beauty that saves the world is not a façade aesthetic, but the splendor of the Truth (The Splendor of Truth). It may appear uncomfortable, give the sensation of cutting like a sharp sword, but it is the only one capable of making man truly free. I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't be afraid to go out into the world and speak against the grain. Just as I think it is important to study our Creed to profess it in its entirety, though, even among priests, there are those who consider it obsolete and "don't believe in it" (4)[4]. In the silence of our rooms, in our families, in parishes or convents, wherever you operate, we are preparing the spring of the Church. We may not see it with our mortal eyes, but we are building it in faith and wisdom-based charity. Everything passes, only God remains. And who is with God, he has already won the world. The Cross stands while the world revolves: the Cross stands still while the world turns. Let us cling to this glorious Cross, and we will be immovable in hope.

Santa Maria Novella, in Florence, 29 January 2026

_____________

[1] Speech by Cardinal Matteo Zuppi at the opening of the 81st General Assembly of the CEI, Assisi, 17 November 2025. The full text can be found on the website of the Italian Episcopal Conference: Who

[2] Summarized by G. Forla, church: reflections on the evaporation of Christianity, St. Paul, Cinisello Balsamo (MY) 2025, p.133-134

[3] Paraphrased from this original text Tibi feet, if you have completely abandoned yourself, and you have reserved nothing for yourself! (Woe betide you if you give yourself everything to them [to administrative matters] and you will not reserve anything of yourself for yourself!). In On Consideration Book I, Chapter V, paragraph 6.

_________________________

ROME DECADENCE. THE PASSION OF THE MYSTICAL BODY AND THE ILLUSION OF ACTIVISM

The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of its members; yet, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is “holy and at the same time in need of purification” (CCC 827). She is not holy by virtue of her members, but because her Head is Christ and her animating principle is the Holy Spirit.

— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

Dear readers of The Island of Patmos, I write to you in a time that many — rightly so —define as one of Rome decadence, an era in which the evaporation of Christianity, as Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi has also lucidly observed, is no longer a dystopian prophecy but a tangible reality. Yet, in the face of this scenario, a theologian looks upon the Church not with the worldly eyes of sociology, but with the gaze of faith, which recognises in the Mystical Body the living presence of Christ and of His Spirit.

This article arises from a dialogue on social media with my dear friend Alessandro, himself engaged in digital pastoral ministry (his website may be found here). I would like to divide our reflections into three moments.

Ecclesial kenosis: between the Holy Saturday of history and the heresy of efficiency. As Don Giuseppe Forlai writes — and the theme recurs in many reflections developed in various contexts — the Church in Europe today resembles the body of Jesus taken down from the Cross: lifeless, consumed, apparently defeated, and yet — and here lies the divine paradox — within her there persists a casket of eternal life. We should not be scandalised if the Bride of Christ appears disfigured; she is reliving the mysteries of her Bridegroom’s life, including His Passion and burial. In this ecclesial kenosis, the greatest temptation is to replace mystery with organisation, grace with bureaucracy, falling into that Pelagianism which Pope Francis and his predecessors have frequently denounced. A young Benedict of Nursia, confronted with the corruption of Rome, did not found a party nor a protest movement, but withdrew into silence in order “to dwell with himself” (to live with him), laying the foundations of a civilisation that did not arise from a human project, but from the search for God (to seek God). This contemplative silence is not muteness but prayerful listening to the Word, and it is the only adequate response to the crisis. The historical body of the Church suffers from its wounds and from the sins of her members; yet, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Church is “holy and at the same time in need of purification” (CCC 827). She is not holy by virtue of her members, but because her Head is Christ and her animating principle is the Holy Spirit. For this reason, a serious way of reforming the ecclesial community is not frenetic activism. Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, of venerable memory, wisely recalled that a shepherd must pasture the sheep and not vice versa, and must serve the sanctification of persons. Following the teaching of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Philippians: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), we must cease seeking scapegoats or structural solutions to problems that are, at their root, pneumatic and spiritual. They require time, study, and prayer.

I believe the fundamental error lies in a kind of “heresy of action” that forgets a basic principle of Scholastic theology: Agere sequitur esse (action follows being). If the being of the Church is emptied of its supernatural substance, her action becomes an empty shell, a background noise that converts no one. Today we witness what might be defined as an obsession with structures, as though by modifying the organisational chart of the Curia or inventing new pastoral committees one could infuse the Holy Spirit at will. I do not say that planning or reorganisation are in themselves erroneous — on the contrary, they may be welcome. But we must remember that the Spirit blows where He wills, not where our human planning attempts to constrain Him. This efficiency-driven mentality betrays a lack of faith in the intrinsic power of Grace. We behave like the Apostles in the boat during the storm before Christ awoke: we agitate ourselves, row against the wind, cry out, forgetting that the One who commands the winds and the sea is present, though apparently asleep, at the stern.

The current condition of the Church in Europe, which we have described above as “taken down from the Cross,” leads us into the mystery of Holy Saturday. It is the day of great silence, not of desperate inactivity. On Holy Saturday, the Church does not engage in proselytism, does not organise conferences, does not draft five-year synodal plans; the Church keeps vigil beside the tomb, knowing that the stone will not be rolled away by human hands. The mortal danger of our time is the attempt to “reanimate” the ecclesial body through worldly techniques of marketing or sociological adaptation to the a century, transforming the Bride of Christ into a compassionate NGO, pleasing to the world yet sterile of divine life. Let us remember what Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugene III in On Consideration: “Woe to you if, by occupying yourself too much with external matters, you end up losing yourself”. If the Church loses her mystical dimension, she becomes salt without flavour, destined to be trampled underfoot by men (cf. Mt 5:13). Moreover, this anxiety of “doing” often conceals the fear of “being”: being beneath the Cross, being in the Upper Room, being on one’s knees. The crisis of vocations, the closure of parishes, and cultural irrelevance are not resolved by lowering the bar of doctrine in order to make it more palatable — an operation that has failed, as demonstrated by liberal Protestant communities now largely deserted — but by raising the temperature of faith. The Church is Crawford Prostitute, as the Fathers used to say: chaste by the presence of the Spirit, a harlot through the sins of her children who prostitute her to the idols of the moment. Purification does not occur through human reforms, but through the fire of trial and the holiness of individuals.

What is needed, therefore, is not a Church that agitates, but a Church that burns. We must return to that primacy of God which Benedict XVI tirelessly preached: where God fades away, man does not become greater, but loses his divine dignity. The remedy for Rome decadence is not an “activist Rome,” but a “praying Rome.” We must have the courage to be that “little flock” (Page 12:32) that does not fear numerical inferiority, provided that it preserves intact the deposit of faith. Like leaven in the dough, our effectiveness depends not on quantity, but on the quality of our union with Christ. Therefore, let us commit ourselves not to allow hope to be stolen from us — neither by prophets of doom nor by strategists of creative pastoral planning. Let us return to the tabernacle, to Lectio Divina, to the passionate study of Truth. Only from there, from the pierced and glorious heart of the Redeemer, can living water flow to irrigate this Western desert. The Church will rise again, not because we are skilful organisers, but because Christ is alive and death no longer has power over Him. Because Christ offers to all a profound act of contemplation, if we know how to receive it.

Rediscovering dogma against the dictatorship of sentiment. Faith seeking understanding: faith seeking understanding. In order not to fall into sterile quietism, however, we must understand that Christian contemplation is intrinsically fruitful and that love for the Church requires a radical return to the foundations of our faith. There is no charity without truth, and there is no true reform that does not begin with the rediscovery of the deposit of credit. In a liquid world where faith risks dissolving into mere emotional sentiment and truth is sacrificed on the altar of social consensus, it is urgent to return to the Symbol of our faith, which is not a nursery rhyme to be recited, but the course of our Christian existence. In this regard, I feel compelled to recommend the latest book by Father Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo, I think to understand: Journey in the Profession of Faith. In this work, Father Ariel explains each article of the Symbol or Creed, allowing its original power to be tasted — not as a cold formula, but as a “word to be lived.” The text accompanies the reader on a theological journey in which reason, illumined by faith, bows before the mystery without abdicating, but rather finding its fulfilment. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, faith is an act of the intellect assenting to divine truth at the command of the will moved by grace (cf. QUESTION, Ii-ii, q. 2, a. 9); for this reason, studying dogma, understanding what we profess every Sunday, is an act of the highest contemplation. Approaching the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, becoming connatural to the mysteries we profess, so that our action may become a reflection of our being in Christ. Sacred art, liturgy, and theology are not aesthetic ornaments, but vehicles of the Truth that saves. If we do not understand what we believe, how can we bear witness to it? If the salt loses its flavour, it is good for nothing but to be thrown out (cf. Mt 5:13). Father Ariel’s book teaches precisely this: to restore flavour to our faith by returning to the word I believe its full meaning of perfect adherence to the Incarnate Truth.

We live in an age afflicted by another grave spiritual pathology that might be described as “sentimental fideism.” The erroneous idea has spread that faith is a blind feeling, a consolatory emotion detached from reason, or worse, that dogma is a cage imprisoning the freedom of the children of God. Nothing could be more false or more dangerous. As a preaching friar, I reaffirm with force that Truth (Veritas) is the very name of God, and that the human intellect was created precisely to grasp this Truth. To refuse the intellectual effort to understand dogma is to refuse to use the highest gift the Creator has bestowed upon us in His image and likeness. Culpable ignorance of the truths of faith is the ideal breeding ground for every heresy. When a Catholic ceases to be formed, when he stops asking “who God is” according to Revelation and begins to fashion a god in his own image and likeness, he inevitably falls into the idolatry of the self.

To restore meaning and value to the Creed means rediscovering the constitutional charter of our Christian life. Each of its articles is not an abstract philosophical speculation, but is bound to the Christian event, to the history of salvation that has marked man and the entire cosmos. To say “I believe in one God” or “I believe in the resurrection of the flesh” is an act of disobedience to the nihilism that leads to despair and to the degradation of spirit and matter. The intellectual reconstruction of which I speak is, ultimately, an act of love. One cannot love what one does not know. If our knowledge of Christ is imperfect, our love for Him will remain infantile, fragile, incapable of withstanding the impact of adult life’s trials and the seductions of dominant thought.

In the journey I propose, we learn to see theology not as a science for initiates, but as what the Church does when she bends over the revealed datum — and thus what she breathes and lives by. Study, when done on one’s knees, becomes prayer; understanding the Trinitarian mystery becomes adoration in Spirit and truth. We must not fear the complexity of dogma: it is like the sun, which, though too luminous to be stared at directly without harming one’s sight, is the only source that allows us to see all the rest of reality clearly. Without the light of dogma, liturgy becomes choreography, charity becomes philanthropy, and hope becomes illusion. Let us therefore return to study, to reading, to meditation. Let us make our own Saint Peter’s exhortation: “Always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15). But in order to give reasons (logos) for Christian hope, we must honour reason as we seek to possess the things of God—and in this, theology is a great aid.

The a small herd and the power of grace. Beyond despair, theological hope. I conclude this itinerary by inviting to a “cautious optimism” that flows from the theological virtue of hope. The decline of Christianity in Europe is a historical fact, but the history of Salvation does not end with Good Friday. Our identity, as Scripture and the testimony of so many saints remind us, must be founded on the awareness of being “unworthy servants / simple servants” (Page 17:10). This “uselessness / simplicity” is not devaluation, but the recognition that God is the principal actor in history. Let me explain.

Christian hope stands at the opposite pole of worldly optimism. The latter may arise from statistical forecasts or from a merely emotional expectation that “things will get better.” Theological Hope, by contrast, is the certainty that God does not lie and fulfils His promises even when, humanly speaking, things go from bad to worse. Abraham “believed, hoping against hope” (hope against hope, Rom 4:18), precisely when biological reality placed before him the impossibility of having a child. We are called today to the same faith as Abraham. The numerical decline of believers and the loss of the Church’s cultural appeal must not lead us into sectarian withdrawal, but into the awareness that God, as salvation history teaches and as the biblical notion of the “remnant” proclaims, has always acted not through vast masses, but by means of a a small herd, a small faithful flock that bears responsibility for the whole. This appears in Scripture and in Church history as a constant: a few pray and offer themselves for the salvation of many.

In this perspective, the definition of “unworthy servants” spoken by Jesus in the Gospel becomes our greatest liberation. Useless (useless) does not mean “without value,” but “without claim to usefulness,” that is, without the presumption of being ourselves the efficient cause of Grace. When man, even within the Church, forgets this truth, he ends up constructing pastoral Towers of Babel that collapse at the first breath of wind. The history of the twentieth century, with its atheistic totalitarianisms, has shown us the hell that man constructs when he decides to do without God in order to save humanity by his own strength. But let us be careful: there also exists a more subtle spiritual totalitarianism, which insinuates itself when we think the Church is “ours,” to be managed according to corporate or political criteria. No — the Church belongs to Christ. And Christian action is fruitful only when it becomes theandric, that is, when our human freedom allows itself to be so penetrated by divine Grace as to become a single action with Christ. This is what Saint Paul expressed when he said: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal 2:20). This synergy between God and man is the antidote to despair. If the work were only mine, I would have every reason to despair, given my poverty; but if the work is God’s, who can stop it? Under the guidance of the Holy Father Leo XIV (Robert Francis Prevost), we are called to guard this little flame. It does not matter if our cathedrals empty or if the media mock us; what matters is that the flame remain lit and pure. Like the myrrh-bearing women on Easter morning, like Joseph of Arimathea in the darkness of Good Friday, we are the custodians of a promise that cannot fail.

The beauty that saves the world is not a superficial aesthetic, but the splendour of Truth (The Splendor of Truth). It may appear uncomfortable, may feel like the cut of a sharp sword, but it alone is capable of making man truly free. I believe it is right to say that we must not be afraid to go out into the world and to speak against the current. I also believe it is important to study our Creed in order to profess it in its entirety, even though, tragically, even among presbyters there are those who consider it obsolete and “do not believe in it”. In the silence of our rooms, in our families, in parishes or convents — wherever one may labour— we are preparing the springtime of the Church. We may not see it with our mortal eyes, but we are building it in faith and in sapiential charity. Everything passes; only God remains. And whoever abides in God has already overcome the world. The Cross stands while the world revolves: the Cross stands firm while the world turns. Let us remain clinging to this glorious Cross, and we shall be immovable in hope.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 26 January 2026

 

_______________________

ROMA DECADENCE. THE PASSION OF THE MYSTIC BODY AND THE ILLUSION OF ACTIVISM

The historical body of the Church suffers for its wounds and for the sins of its members., but, as he teaches Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification" (CIC 827); It is not holy because of the virtue of its members, but because its Head is Christ and its life-giving principle is the Holy Spirit.

— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.

.

Dear readers of The Island of Patmos, I am writing to you at a time when many, not without reason, define as Roma decadence, a time when the evaporation of Christianity, as Cardinal Matteo Maria Zuppi has also lucidly observed, It is no longer a dystopian prophecy, but a tangible reality. However, in this scenario, a theologian looks at the Church not with the worldly eyes of sociology, but with the look of faith, that recognizes in the Mystical Body the living presence of Christ and his Spirit.

This article of mine is born from dialogue on social networks with dear Alessandro, also the operator of digital pastoral (here). I would like to divide our reflections into three moments.

The sulphurous ecclesial: between the Holy Saturday of history and the heresy of efficiency. As Don Giuseppe Forlai writes — and the theme reappears in numerous reflections developed in different areas —, The Church in Europe today resembles the body of Jesus taken down from the Cross: let's examine, consumed, apparently defeated, and yet — and here lies the divine paradox — a chest of eternal life persists in it.. We should not be scandalized if the Bride of Christ appears disfigured; She is reliving the mysteries of her Husband's life., including passion and burial. Herein sulphurous ecclesial, The greatest temptation is to replace mystery with organization, grace for bureaucracy, falling into that Pelagianism that Pope Francis and his predecessors have repeatedly denounced. A young Saint Benedict of Nursia, in the face of the corruption of Rome, He did not found a party or a protest movement, but he withdrew into silence to "dwell with himself." (to live with him), laying the foundations of a civilization that was not born from a human project, but of the search for God (to seek God). This contemplative silence is not muteness, but listen prayerfully to the Word, and it is the only appropriate response to the crisis. The historical body of the Church suffers for its wounds and for the sins of its members., but, as he teaches Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Church is "holy and at the same time in need of purification" (CIC 827); It is not holy because of the virtue of its members, but because its Head is Christ and its life-giving principle is the Holy Spirit. For this reason, a serious way to reform the ecclesial community is not frenetic activism. Already Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, of venerated memory, wisely remembered that a shepherd must feed the sheep and not the other way around, and serve the sanctification of people. Following the teaching of Saint Paul in the Letter to the Philippians: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Flp 2,12), We must stop looking for scapegoats or structural solutions to problems that are, at its root, pneumatic and spiritual. They require time, study and prayer.

The fundamental error, I think, resides in a kind of "heresy of action" that forgets a basic principle of Scholasticism: Agere sequitur esse (working follows being). If the being of the Church is emptied of its supernatural substance, his work becomes an empty shell, a background noise that converts no one. Today we are witnessing what we could define as an obsession with structures, as if by modifying the Curia's organizational chart or inventing new pastoral committees the Holy Spirit could be infused at will. I'm not saying that programming or reorganization is wrong in itself.; on the contrary, may be welcome. But let us remember that the Spirit blows where it wants, not where our human plans force it. This efficiency mentality betrays a lack of faith in the intrinsic power of Grace.. We behave like the Apostles in the boat during the storm before Christ woke up: we stir, we row against the wind, we scream, forgetting that He who commands the winds and the sea is present, although apparently asleep, in the stern.

The current condition of the Church in Europe, which we have defined above as "descent from the Cross", It refers us to the mystery of Holy Saturday. It is the day of great silence, not from desperate inactivity. On Holy Saturday, The Church does not proselytize, does not organize conferences, does not prepare five-year synodal plans; the Church watches next to the tomb, knowing that that stone will not be removed by human hands. The mortal danger of our time is wanting to "reanimate" the ecclesial body with mundane marketing techniques or sociological adaptation to the a century, transforming the Bride of Christ into a compassionate NGO, pleasing to the world, but barren of divine life. Let us remember what Saint Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to Pope Eugene III in the On Consideration: «Woe to you if, for worrying too much about external things, you end up losing yourself!». If the Church loses its mystical dimension, turns into tasteless salt, destined to be trampled by men (cf. Mt 5,13). Besides, This anxiety of “doing” often hides the fear of “being.”: be under the cross, be in the cenacle, kneel. The crisis of vocations, the closure of parishes, cultural irrelevance are not resolved by lowering the bar of doctrine to make it more attractive — a failed operation, as demonstrated by the liberal Protestant communities today practically deserted —, but by raising the temperature of faith. The Church is Crawford Prostitute, the Fathers said: caste by the presence of the Spirit, prostitute for the sins of her children who prostitute her to the idols of the moment. But purification does not occur through human reforms, but through the fire of trial and the holiness of individuals.

It is not necessary, well, a Church that shakes, but a Church that burns. It is necessary to return to that primacy of God that Benedict XVI preached tirelessly: where God disappears, man doesn't get bigger, but loses its divine dignity. The remedy to Roma decadence It is not an "activist Rome", but a "praying Rome". We must have the courage to be that "little flock" (LC 12,32) who does not fear numerical inferiority, in order to keep intact the deposit of faith. Like yeast in the dough, our effectiveness does not depend on the quantity, but of the quality of our union with Christ. So, Let us commit ourselves not to let the prophets of calamity or the strategists of creative pastoralism steal our hope.; let's go back to the tabernacle, to the Lectio Divina, to the passionate study of the Truth. Just from there, of the pierced and glorious heart of the Redeemer, living water capable of irrigating this western desert may spring forth. The Church will resurrect, not because we are skilled organizers, but because Christ is alive and death no longer has power over Him. Because Christ offers everyone a profound act of contemplation, if we know how to welcome it.

Rediscover the Dogma against the dictatorship of feeling. The faith that seeks understanding: faith seeking understanding. To avoid falling into a sterile quietism, We must understand that Christian contemplation is intrinsically fruitful and that love for the Church requires a radical return to the foundations of our faith.. There is no charity without truth, nor is there a true reform that does not start from the rediscovery of the deposit of credit. In a liquid world where faith runs the risk of dissolving into mere emotional sentiment and truth is sacrificed on the altar of social consensus, It is urgent to return to the Symbol of our faith, that it is not a song to recite, but the route of our Christian existence. For this purpose, I would like to suggest reading the latest book by Father Ariel S.. Levi di Gualdo, I think to understand: Journey in the Profession of Faith. In this work, Father Ariel explains each article of the Symbol or Creed, allowing you to savor its original power: not a cold formula, but a "word to live by". The text accompanies the reader on a theological journey in which reason, illuminated by faith, bows before the mystery without abdicating, finding in it its fulfillment. As Saint Thomas Aquinas taught, Faith is an act of the understanding that assents to divine truth by command of the will moved by grace (cf. QUESTION, II-II, q. 2, a. 9); for it, study the dogma, understand what we profess every Sunday, It is an operation of the highest contemplation. Getting closer to the ineffable mystery of the Trinity, connaturalize ourselves with the mysteries we profess, so that acting becomes a reflection of our being in Christ. sacred art, the liturgy, theology is not aesthetic decorations, but vehicles of the Truth that saves. If we do not understand what we believe, How can we bear witness to this?? If salt loses its flavor, It's good for nothing but to be thrown out. (cf. Mt 5,13). Father Ariel's book teaches precisely this: restore flavor to our faith, restoring the word I believe the sense of perfect adherence to incarnate Truth.

We live in an affected time due to another serious spiritual pathology that we could define as "sentimental fideism". The erroneous idea has spread that faith is a blind feeling, a consoling emotion unrelated to reason, or even worse, that dogma is a cage that imprisons the freedom of the children of God. Nothing more false and dangerous. As a preaching friar, I strongly reaffirm that the Truth (Veritas) is the very name of God and that the human intellect has been created precisely to grasp this Truth. Rejecting the intellectual effort to understand dogma means rejecting the use of the highest gift that the Creator has granted us in his image and likeness.. Guilty ignorance of the truths of faith is the ideal breeding ground for all heresy.. When the Catholic stops forming, when he stops asking himself "who is God" according to Revelation and begins to build a god in his own image and likeness, inevitably falls into the idolatry of one's own self.

Return meaning and value to the Creed means rediscovering the constitutional charter of our Christian life. Each of his articles is not an abstract philosophical musing., because they are linked to the Christian fact, to the history of salvation that has affected man and the entire cosmos. Saying "I believe in one God" or "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh" is an act of disobedience to nihilism that leads to despair and the deterioration of spirit and matter.. The intellectual reconstruction I speak of is, ultimately, an act of love. You can't love what you don't know. If our knowledge of Christ is imperfect, our love for Him will remain childish, fragile, unable to resist the shock of the trials of adult life and the seductions of dominant thought.

On this path that I propose to you we learn to see theology not as a science for initiates, but as what the Church does when it leans on the revealed data and, therefore, what she breathes and lives. The study, performed on knees, becomes a prayer; the understanding of the Trinitarian mystery is transformed into worship in Spirit and truth. We must not fear the complexity of dogma: It's like the sun that, even though it is too bright to be fixed directly without damaging the eyesight, It is the only source that allows us to see everything else clearly. Without the light of dogma, liturgy becomes choreography, charity in philanthropy and hope in illusion. let's go back, well, to study, to read, to meditate. Let us make the exhortation of Saint Peter our own: "Always be ready to give an account of the hope that is in you" (1 Pe 3,15). But to give reasons (logos) of Christian hope it is necessary to honor reason as we seek to possess the things of God, and in this theology is a great help.

The a small herd and the power of grace. Beyond despair, theological hope. I conclude this itinerary by inviting a "cautious optimism" that springs from the theological virtue of hope. The decline of Christianity in Europe is a historical fact, but the history of Salvation does not end with Good Friday. Our identity, as the Scriptures and the testimony of so many saints remind us, must be based on the awareness of being "useless servants" / simple servants (LC 17,10). This "uselessness" / simplicity" is not devaluation, but the recognition that the main actor in history is God. I try to explain myself.

Christian hope is at the antipodes of worldly optimism.. This may arise from a statistical forecast or from a purely emotional expectation according to which "things will go better.". Theological Hope, instead, It is the certainty that God does not lie and keeps his promises even when, humanly speaking, things are going from bad to worse. Abraham "believed, hoping against hope" (hope against hope, Rom 4,18), precisely when the biological reality presented her with the impossibility of having a child. Today we are called to the same faith as Abraham. The numerical decrease of believers and the loss of attractiveness of the Church should not lead us to a sectarian retreat, but to the awareness that God, as salvation history teaches and as the biblical idea of ​​the “remnant” proclaims, has always acted not through oceanic masses, but using a a small herd, a small faithful flock that takes charge of the whole. This appears in Scripture and in the history of the Church as a constant: a few pray and offer themselves for the salvation of many.

In this perspective, the definition of "useless servants" what Jesus talks about in the Gospel becomes our greatest liberation. Useless (useless) does not mean "worthless", but "without any pretense of usefulness", that is to say, without the pretension of being the efficient cause of Grace. When the man, even within the Church, forget this truth, ends up building pastoral towers of Babel that collapse at the first breath of wind. The history of the 20th century, with their atheistic totalitarianisms, has shown us the hell that man builds when he decides to do without God to save humanity with his own strength.. But attention: There is also a spiritual totalitarianism, more subtle, that is insinuated when we think that the Church is "our thing", that must be managed with business or political criteria. No: the Church is of Christ. And the action of the Christian is fruitful only when it becomes theandric., that is to say, when our human freedom allows itself to be penetrated so deeply by divine Grace that it becomes a single act with Christ. This is what Saint Paul expressed by saying: «It is no longer I who lives, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2,20). This synergy between God and man is the antidote to despair. If the work were only mine, I would have every reason to despair, given my smallness; but if the work is from God, who can stop her? Under the guidance of the Holy Father Leo XIV (Robert Francis Prevost), we are called to guard this little flame. It doesn't matter if our cathedrals are empty or if the media ridicules us; What matters is that that flame remains lit and pure. Like the myrophores on Easter morning, like Joseph of Arimathea in the darkness of Good Friday, We are custodians of a promise that cannot fail.

The beauty that saves the world is not a facade aesthetic, but the splendor of Truth (The Splendor of Truth). It may seem uncomfortable, give the sensation of cutting like a sharp sword, but it is the only one capable of making man truly free. I think it is fair to say that we should not be afraid to go out into the world and speak against the current.. I also believe that it is important to study our Creed to profess it in its entirety., although, tragically, Even among priests there are those who consider it obsolete and "do not believe in it". In the silence of our rooms, in our families, in parishes or convents, wherever you work, we are preparing the spring of the Church. Maybe we don't see it with our mortal eyes, but we are building it in faith and in sapiential charity. everything passes, only God remains. And whoever remains in God has already overcome the world. The Cross stands while the world revolves: The Cross stands firm while the world turns. Let us remain clinging to this glorious Cross, and we will be immovable in hope.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, a 29 January 2026

.

Subscribe to our Channel Jordan the Theological club directed by Father Gabriele by clicking on the image

 

THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO

.

Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

The rational, between symbol, history and aesthetic misunderstandings – The rationale: between symbol, history, and aesthetic misunderstandings – The rational: between symbol, history and aesthetic misunderstandings

Italian, english, español

 

THE RATIONAL: BETWEEN SYMBOL, HISTORY AND AESTHETIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS

It's good to say this clearly, even at the cost of disappointing some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from civilian clothes, pre-Christian honorifics or religious ones. La casula derives from the Roman ribbon, the dalmatic from a garment of oriental origin, the stole gives signs of civil distinction.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

PDF print format article – Article print format – article in printed format

.

.

One of the most widespread temptations in certain ecclesial circles is to stop at the external apparatus of the liturgy, transforming vestments, colors and shapes in objects of aesthetic contemplation, sometimes even of identity satisfaction.

Yesterday, in the celebration of Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, in the Ostiense Basilica, the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV wore it for the first time in his pontificate, the rational. The risk - already widely verifiable on various social media —, is to give in to fervent enthusiasm for what "is seen", accompanied, however, by an often very approximate - if not completely absent - knowledge of the historical genesis, of the symbolic meaning and theological function of those same elements that are so fascinating.

The rational falls fully into this category: very rare vestment, evoked with almost mythological tones, sometimes cited as an emblem of a “more authentic” liturgy, but in reality little known in its origin and its profound meaning. Precisely for this reason it lends itself well to a reflection that goes beyond aesthetics and recovers the symbolic and historical dimension of the liturgy. But what is rational? The term rational indicates a liturgical vestment worn over the chasuble or cope, generally rectangular or slightly arched in shape, richly decorated, worn on the chest and fastened to the shoulders. This is not a vestment of universal use in the Latin Church, nor a constitutive element of the Eucharistic celebration.

Used in some specific contexts, especially in the episcopal sphere, with particular reference to certain local Churches - notoriously that of Eichstätt e, in a different form, of Krakow —. The use of the rational has never been normative for the entire Church, nor even necessary for the validity or lawfulness of the rite.

Of biblical origin, the rational name itself explicitly refers to the breastplate of the high priest of the Old Testament, described in the book of Exodus (Is 28,15-30). That bib — called The strength of the sentence (ḥōžen ha-imicpāṭ) “judgment breastplate” — carried twelve precious stones, symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel, and it was a sign of priestly responsibility in bringing the people before God.

Nascent Christianity, as he did with many elements of the ancient world, he did not reject pre-existing symbols, but he took them on and transfigured them. The Christian liturgy was not born in a cultural vacuum, is inserted into the story, assumes form, languages, symbols - even coming from the pagan or Jewish world - and leads them back to Christ. In this perspective, the rational is not a decorative ornament, but a theological sign: recalls the ministry of responsibility, of discernment and judgment exercised not in one's own name, but before God and for the good of the people.

It's good to say it clearly, even at the cost of disappointing some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from civilian clothes, pre-Christian honorifics or religious ones. The chasuble derives from skirt romana, the dalmatic from a garment of oriental origin, the stole gives signs of civil distinction. This has never been a problem for the Church.

The liturgy has never been an "archaeological reconstruction" of a pure and uncontaminated era. It always has been, instead, a work of inculturation and transfiguration. What changes is not the external form itself, but the meaning that the Church attributes to it. Even the rational is placed in this line: not a remnant of an idealized past, but a sign that made sense in certain ecclesial contexts and which today above all retains a historical and symbolic value, non-regulatory.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, the rational has never been a vestment in ordinary use, nor universal. Its use has always been linked to particular concessions, local traditions or specific privileges, never to a general prescription of the Latin Church. This data is essential to avoid a recurring error: confusing what is symbolically suggestive with what is theologically necessary. The liturgy does not grow through the accumulation of external elements, but for clarity of the sign and fidelity to its primary function: make visible the saving action of Christ.

When the rational - like other rare or obsolete vestments - it is taken as a banner of identity by certain forms of aestheticism or as proof of a presumed liturgical superiority, we fall into a profound misunderstanding. The liturgy is not a museum, nor a stage. It is the action of the Church, not self-representation of a taste. Learn about the history of vestments, their development and their authentic meaning does not impoverish the liturgy: it frees it from ideological readings and returns it to its deepest truth.

Therefore the rational is not a liturgical fetish nor a symbol of a lost golden age. It is a historical sign, theological and symbolic that speaks of responsibility, of discernment and service. Understood in its context, enriches the understanding of the liturgy; isolated and absolutized, it impoverishes it. True tradition does not consist in multiplying ornaments, but in guarding the meaning. And the meaning of the liturgy, yesterday as today, it's not aesthetics, but Christ.

Florence, 26 January 2026

.

THE RATIONALE: BETWEEN SYMBOL, HISTORY, AND AESTHETIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS

It must be stated clearly, even at the risk of disappointing some naïve enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from pre-Christian civil, honorific, or religious garments. The chasuble derives from the Roman paenula, the dalmatic from a garment of Eastern origin, and the stole from marks of civil distinction.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

One of the most widespread temptations in certain ecclesial circles is to stop at the outward apparatus of the liturgy, transforming vestments, colours, and forms into objects of aesthetic contemplation and, at times, even of identity-driven self-complacency.

 

Yesterday, during the celebration of Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV wore the rationale for the first time in his pontificate. The risk — already clearly observable across various social media platforms — is to give way to fervent enthusiasm for what “is seen”, accompanied, however, by a knowledge that is often highly approximate — when not entirely absent — of the historical genesis, symbolic meaning, and theological function of those very elements that so strongly fascinate.

The rationale fully belongs to this category: a very rare vestment, evoked in almost mythological terms, at times cited as an emblem of a “more authentic” liturgy, yet in reality scarcely known in its origin and deeper meaning. Precisely for this reason, it lends itself well to a reflection that goes beyond aesthetics and recovers the symbolic and historical dimension of the liturgy. But what, in fact, is the rationale? The term rationale designates a liturgical vestment worn over the chasuble or the cope, generally rectangular or slightly curved in shape, richly decorated, worn on the chest and fastened at the shoulders. It is not a vestment of universal use in the Latin Church, nor is it a constitutive element of the Eucharistic celebration.

It has been used in certain specific contexts, especially within the episcopal sphere, with particular reference to certain local Churches — most notably Eichstätt and, in a different form, Cracow. The use of the rationale has never been normative for the entire Church, nor has it ever been necessary for the validity or liceity of the rite.

Of biblical origin, the very name rationale explicitly refers to the breastplate of the high priest of the Old Testament, described in the Book of Exodus (Ex 28:15–30). That breastplate — called The strength of the sentence (ḥōšin ha-mišpāṭ), “breastplate of judgment” — bore twelve precious stones, symbolising the twelve tribes of Israel, and signified the priestly responsibility of bearing the people before God.

Early Christianity, as it did with many elements of the ancient world, did not reject pre-existing symbols but assumed and transfigured them. Christian liturgy does not arise in a cultural vacuum; it is grafted into history, assumes forms, languages, and symbols — including those drawn from the pagan or Jewish world — and reorients them toward Christ. In this perspective, the rationale is not a decorative ornament, but a theological sign: it recalls the ministry of responsibility, discernment, and judgment exercised not in one’s own name, but before God and for the good of the people.

It must also be stated clearly, even at the cost of disappointing some ingenuous enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments derive from pre-Christian civil, honorific, or religious garments. The chasuble derives from the Roman paenula, the dalmatic from a garment of Eastern origin, and the stole from marks of civil distinction. This has never constituted a problem for the Church.

The liturgy has never been an “archaeological reconstruction” of a pure and uncontaminated age. Rather, it has always been a work of inculturation and transfiguration. What changes is not the external form as such, but the meaning that the Church attributes to it. The rationale too belongs to this line: not a remnant of an idealised past, but a sign that made sense in specific ecclesial contexts and that today retains primarily a historical and symbolic value, not a normative one.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, the rationale has never been a vestment of ordinary or universal use. Its employment has always been linked to particular concessions, local traditions, or specific privileges, never to a general prescription of the Latin Church. This datum is fundamental in order to avoid a recurrent error: confusing what is symbolically evocative with what is theologically necessary. The liturgy does not grow through the accumulation of external elements, but through clarity of sign and fidelity to its primary function: making visible the saving action of Christ.

When the rationale — like other rare or obsolete vestments — is taken up as an identity banner by certain forms of aestheticism or as proof of an alleged liturgical superiority, one falls into a profound misunderstanding. The liturgy is not a museum, nor a stage. It is the action of the Church, not the self-representation of a taste. Knowing the history of vestments, their development, and their authentic meaning does not impoverish the liturgy: it frees it from ideological readings and restores it to its deepest truth.

The rationale, therefore, is neither a liturgical fetish nor a symbol of a lost golden age. It is a historical, theological, and symbolic sign that speaks of responsibility, discernment, and service. Understood within its context, it enriches the understanding of the liturgy; isolated and absolutised, it impoverishes it. True tradition does not consist in multiplying ornaments, but in safeguarding meaning. And the meaning of the liturgy, yesterday as today, is not aesthetics, but Christ.

Florence, 26 January 2026

.

THE RATIONAL: ENTER SYMBOL, HISTORY AND AESTHETIC MISUNDERSTANDINGS

It is worth saying it clearly, even at the risk of disillusioning some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments come from civil vestments, pre-Christian honorifics or religious. The cassulla derives from the Roman panel, the dalmatic of a garment of oriental origin and the stole of signs of civil distinction.

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

AuthorSimone Pifizzi

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

One of the most widespread temptations in certain ecclesial environments it is to stop at the external apparatus of the liturgy, transforming vestments, colors and shapes in objects of aesthetic contemplation and, sometimes, even identity complacency.

Ayer, during the celebration of Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul, in the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, The Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV wore the rational for the first time in his pontificate. The risk – already widely verifiable in various social networks – is giving in to fervent enthusiasm for what “is seen.”, accompanied, however, of a knowledge that is often very approximate — if not totally absent — of the historical genesis, of the symbolic meaning and theological function of those same elements that so fascinate.

The rational fits fully into this category: a very rare facing, evoked with almost mythological tones, sometimes cited as an emblem of a “more authentic” liturgy, but in reality little known in its origin and in its deep meaning. Precisely for this reason, lends itself to a reflection that goes beyond aesthetics and recovers the symbolic and historical dimension of the liturgy. But what is the rational? The term rational is used to designate a liturgical vestment worn over the chasuble or raincoat., usually rectangular or slightly curved in shape, richly decorated, placed on the chest and attached to the shoulders. It is not a vestment of universal use in the Latin Church, nor of a constitutive element of the Eucharistic celebration.

Its use has occurred in some specific contexts, especially in the episcopal sphere, with special reference to certain local Churches - notably that of Eichstätt and, in various ways, that of Krakow —. The use of the rational has never been normative for the entire Church, much less necessary for the validity or legality of the rite.

Of biblical origin, the rational name itself explicitly refers to the breastplate of the high priest of the Old Testament, described in the book of Exodus (Ex 28,15-30). That pectoral — called The strength of the sentence (ḥōžen ha-imicpāṭ), “breastplate of judgment” – carried twelve precious stones, symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel, and it was a sign of the priestly responsibility to bring the people before God.

Nascent Christianity, as he did with many elements of the ancient world, did not reject pre-existing symbols, but he assumed them and transfigured them. The Christian liturgy is not born in a cultural vacuum: is inserted into the story, assumes forms, languages ​​and symbols — also coming from the pagan or Jewish world — and brings them back to Christ. In this perspective, the rational is not a decorative ornament, but a theological sign: sends to the ministry of responsibility, of discernment and judgment exercised not in one's own name, but before God and for the good of the people.

It is also important to say it clearly, even at the cost of disillusioning some naive enthusiasm: many Christian liturgical vestments come from civil vestments, pre-Christian honorifics or religious. The cassulla derives from the Roman panel, the dalmatic of a garment of oriental origin and the stole of signs of civil distinction. This has never represented a problem for the Church.

The liturgy has never been an “archaeological reconstruction” of a pure and uncontaminated time. It has always been, instead, a work of inculturation and transfiguration. What changes is not the external form itself, but the meaning that the Church attributes to it. The rational is also situated on this line: not as a residue of an idealized past, but as a sign that made sense in certain ecclesial contexts and that today retains, above all, a historical and symbolic value., non-normative.

From a strictly liturgical point of view, the rational has never been a facing of ordinary or universal use. Its use has always been linked to particular concessions, local traditions or specific privileges, never to a general prescription of the Latin Church. This information is essential to avoid a recurring error: confuse what is symbolically suggestive with what is theologically necessary. The liturgy does not grow by accumulation of external elements, but for clarity of the sign and fidelity to its primary function: make visible the saving action of Christ.

When the rational — like other rare or disused vestments — is assumed as an identity standard by certain forms of aestheticism or as proof of an alleged liturgical superiority, there is a deep misunderstanding. The liturgy is not a museum or a stage. It is the action of the Church, non-self-representation of a taste. Know the history of the walls, its development and its authentic meaning does not impoverish the liturgy: It frees it from ideological readings and returns it to its deepest truth..

The rational, therefore, it is neither a liturgical fetish nor a symbol of a lost golden age. It is a historical sign, theological and symbolic that speaks of responsibility, discernment and service. Understood in context, enriches the understanding of the liturgy; isolated and absolutized, impoverishes her. True tradition does not consist of multiplying ornaments, but in guarding the meaning. And the meaning of the liturgy, yesterday like today, it's not the aesthetics, but Christ.

Florence, 26 January 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

The Fede case&Culture and the importance of not following one “theology of emotion” which opposes the Magisterium of the Church

THE CASE WEDDING RING & CULTURE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT FOLLOWING A "THEOLOGY OF EMOTION" WHICH IS OPPOSED TO THE MAGISTERY OF THE CHURCH

Theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

- Church news -

.

.

In response to my recent article The irrepressible fascination exercised on certain laypeople by the "theology of the underpants", dr. John Zeno, director of Edizioni Fede&Cultura released a reply video which I insert here.

It is first necessary to clarify a methodological point: theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

My article advanced a precise thesis, articulated and verifiable (cf. Who). Anyone who reads it and then examines the content of Dr.'s reply. Zeno, will be able to ascertain an objective fact: the issues I raised are not addressed on their merits, but circumvented by shifting the discourse to lateral planes, which do not touch the argument I proposed, rather: they don't even touch it.

Anyone can verify that in the disputed text I explicitly clarified that I was intervening as a priest, pastor in care of souls, confessor and spiritual director. The reply of Dr. Zeno instead generically refers to the right of lay people to express themselves, however avoiding the central point, without taking into account that the speech did not concern the right to speak or criticize, but on the specific ecclesial experience from which the reflection originates: the Sacrament of Penance and spiritual direction, where the priests operate, not the laity. It is from this concrete practice, not from an abstract theoretical construction, that my intervention begins and is structured. And on this specific level, the reply is simply irrelevant.

The argument that having had six children suggests a sort of competence superior to that of priests in the moral and pastoral field, it falls within a well-known argumentative typology, historically used by secularist and anticlerical environments to delegitimize the magisterium and the word of the clergy on family and relational issues. Re-proposing this scheme does not strengthen the argument, but it reveals its methodological weakness.

Then there is a central point, which does not allow for ambiguity. The Dr. Zeno publicly objected several times, in harsh and disrespectful tones, the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in relation to the Doctrinal Note Mother of the Faithful People, concerning the inappropriateness of the use of the title of "co-redemptrix" referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now, the determining fact is the following: that document, approved by the Supreme Pontiff who ordered its publication, falls within the authentic Magisterium of the Church. This data, by itself, closes the problem on the ecclesiastical level to any specious "right of criticism".

Then reply by invoking freedom of thought to reject this act is equivalent to deliberately confusing the level of theological research with that of the assent due to the Magisterium. Theological freedom does not authorize the public and contemptuous contestation of a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff, nor does it allow personal opinions and acts of ecclesial authority to be placed on the same level, only to then proclaim themselves theologians, defenders of the faith and Catholic educators.

The call to saints, mystics or to individual statements by past Pontiffs does not change this picture, because Catholic theology has always distinguished:

– devotional or mystical expressions, which do not bind the faith of believers in any way;

– the statements made by the Popes as private doctors;

– the acts of the authentic Magisterium, which instead require ecclesial membership combined with filial respect and devout obedience to the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops.

It is also an indisputable historical fact that Saint John Paul II always rejected the request to define the dogma of Mary co-redemptrix; that Benedict XVI highlighted the Christological difficulties posed by the term itself; that Francesco, as well as finally Leo XIV, have confirmed this orientation, approving the doctrinal note in question. Faced with this coherent set of data, the insistence on isolated and decontextualized quotes does not constitute theological argument, but an ideological selection of sources, preceded and accompanied by their manipulation, after an amateurish approach to the theology and history of the dogma that arises, as an effect, that of poisoning the simplest members of the People of God, the same one that we must protect and protect by imperative of conscience, as Priests of Christ instituted to teach, sanctifying and guiding.

Applying the same criterion of extrapolation and manipulation, one could challenge the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by recalling the reservations of Saint Thomas Aquinas, or call into question the current discipline of Penance on the basis of the positions of Saint Ambrose and Saint Gregory the Great, matured in a radically different historical context, when this Sacrament was not repeatable and could only be administered once in a lifetime and never again. Always following this anti-theological and anti-historical logic, one could even deny the First Council of Nicaea, referring to hypotheses and opinions expressed by various Holy Fathers before the year 325.

The inconsistency of this method is therefore immediately evident that — between saints and mystics, messages of Fatima and clumsy lives of Jesus fictionalized by Maria Valtorta - would bring the discussion back into the realm of pietism and the most desolate fideism, realities that have nothing to do with the Catholic faith and with theological speculation properly and scientifically speaking.

From the videos released by Dr. Zeno a not exactly correct and not fully orthodox approach to fundamental theology emerges: manifest forms of hostility towards the Magisterium of the Church are detected; we set ourselves up as defenders of the "true faith" and the "true tradition", that these groups would claim to protect in the face of actions by Pontiffs and Bishops that they consider doctrinally questionable; everything is masked under the reference to freedom of thought and opinion, which, however, in fact, results in ideological stances.

The picture is completed — and here I conclude — with a series of other videos “highly educational”, distinct and subsequent to that which is the subject of this response of mine, which speak for themselves. To name just one, among many, just think of statements of unprecedented gravity such as: «Heresy is worse than pedophilia»

This is a statement devoid of any logical and theological criteria, founded on an improper juxtaposition between radically different realities on an ontological and moral level. These are comparisons, if proposed by someone who presents himself as a theologian, Catholic pedagogue and trainer, they cannot be dismissed as simple naivety of expression, but they reveal a serious lack of prudence and methodological discernment on a pedagogical and theological level.

From the island of Patmos, 14 January 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The irrepressible fascination exercised on certain lay people by the "Theology of the Underpants" – The irresistible fascination exerted on certain lay people by the “Theology of the Underwear” – The fascinating and irresistible attraction that the “Theology of Braga” exerts on certain lay people – The irresistible fascination, which “underwear theology” exerts on certain laypeople

Italian, english, español, dutch

THE UNSUPPLIABLE CHARM EXERCISED ON CERTAIN LAY PEOPLE BY THE "THEOLOGY OF UNDERPANTS"

It is good to remind these lay people - that on the one hand they establish "How far to go?» according to theirs “pant theology” and who on the other are protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority -, than systematic protest, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people living in a relationship outside of marriage.

- Church news -

.

.

PDF print format article – Article print format – Article in printed format – Article in print format

.

Every ecclesial era knows its own moral deformations. One of the most recurrent - because apparently reassuring - is that which reduces the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the sexual sphere. A reduction that does not arise from moral seriousness, but by a simplification as crude as it is misleading which ends up betraying the very thing it claims to defend.

In the contemporary ecclesial debate, especially in some lay environments linked to an unspecified tradition, We are witnessing a curious and at the same time worrying phenomenon: the emergence of a sort of “underpants theology”, in which the mystery of evil is substantially limited to what happens - or is presumed to happen - from the waist down. Everything else can take a backseat: wounded charity, justice trampled upon, the manipulated truth, the violated conscience. The important thing is that the underwear stays in place, whether real or symbolic.

Morality and morality are not the same thing, it is good to clarify this immediately: they don't coincide, in fact they often oppose it. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because it is based on rigid criteria, abstract and selective, while Catholic morality is based on charity, theological virtue that does not eliminate the truth, but it makes it habitable for concrete man, fragile and sinful.

Bigotry, Puritanism in the worst sense of the word and obsessive moralism are well-known realities, but it must be said honestly that they very rarely arise from the priestly ministry lived in a holy way. More often they take shape in self-referential secular environments, in which the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated with a doctrinal security as inflexible as it is abstract.

It's not about defending a category — that of the priests — but to note a fact: lay people who have never listened to a wounded conscience, who have never accompanied a royal penitent, who have never carried the weight of certain delicate spiritual directions, they hardly possess the tools to judge the complexity of human sin with balance. Despite this, they launch themselves into themes that touch the most intimate and delicate spheres of human souls, often even in a pedantic way, thus giving secularists a bizarre image of Catholicity and increasing their prejudices and negative judgments on the Catholic Church.

The hierarchy of sins is an often forgotten truth. The Catholic moral tradition has always taught that not all sins have the same weight. There is an objective hierarchy of evil, based on the gravity of matter, on intentionality and consequences. And in this hierarchy, sins against charity, justice and truth occupy a much higher place than many sins related to the sexual sphere.

but yet, for lovers of the "underpants theology", this distinction seems unbearable. Better a serious sin against charity, as long as you are well dressed, than a human frailty experienced in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than tiring truth. Like this, what should scandalize — hatred, the lie, the abuse of power, the manipulation of consciences — is relativized, while what concerns people's intimacy becomes the privileged field of obsessive surveillance, all of which is typical – I repeat – of certain bigoted secularists, not priests.

The “underpants theology” is an obsession which often says more about those who judge than about those who are judged. The maniacal obsession with bedrooms, you have inches, to postures and presumed intentions reveals a profound difficulty in inhabiting one's own inner world. It is easier to measure the sin of others with the goldsmith's scale than to deal with one's own conscience. The priest, instead, when he seriously exercises his ministry, it starts from an elementary and anything but theoretical assumption: we are all sinners, we are the first ones called to absolve sins. It is this awareness that generates mercy, not laxity; comprehension, not relativism. Christian mercy does not arise from a minimization of sin, but from the real knowledge of man.

It is no coincidence that the Gospel reserves very harsh words not so much to manifest sinners, as for those who transform the law into an instrument of oppression. That warning from Jesus, often forgotten by professional lay moralists, remains of disconcerting relevance:

"Woe also to you, lawyers!, you load men with unbearable burdens, and those weights you do not touch with a finger!» (LC 11,46).

It is in front of this word that every easy "underpants theology" it should collapse. Because the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, of self-absolution and spiritual superiority.

A morality that loses contact with charity becomes ideology. A morality that selects sins based on its obsession ceases to be Christian. A morality that ignores the hierarchy of evil ends up protecting the most serious sins and persecuting the most visible ones.

The “underpants theology” is not a sign of faithfulness to the doctrine, but of a profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. He does not defend Catholic morality: he cheats on her. E, paradoxically, it does a terrible service to the very Church it claims to want to save.

To conclude with a concrete example truly embodied: in recent days I have had the opportunity to experience the pain of a man who felt betrayed and abandoned by another man he had loved - and continued to love - with whom he had started a relationship that was then abruptly interrupted. A real pain, lacerating, who didn't need lessons, but listening. I may have made moral judgments? Perhaps I have drawn up a list of faults or measured that relationship with the scale of abstract morality? Absolutely not. My priestly task, in that moment, it was welcoming a wounded soul, collect the pain, help her - as much as possible - not to succumb to the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I can't imagine what "lesson on purity" would have received that man if he had turned to certain zealous lay leaders who, with a smiling air and glossy language, they even propose themselves as Catholic trainers, only to then allow himself to publicly insult with insolence the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and to repeatedly contest the official documents approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

Indeed, the same Lord who explains to young people on video «How far to go?» it's the usual guy who, with just as many videos, unloaded tankers of mud against Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández for a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff - and therefore an authentic act of the Magisterium -, locked up with his associates in the logic of a Church "in-my-way”, where authority is accepted only when it confirms their obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass to the theological aberration of Mary Coredemptrix.

It is therefore good to remind these lay people which on the one hand establish «How far to go?» according to theirs “pant theology” and who on the other are protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority -, than systematic protest, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people living in a relationship outside of marriage. I state this unambiguously as a man, as a priest, as a theologian, as confessor and spiritual director. Because I'm a priest and, even before, a sinner. And for this I thank God, as two other great sinners thanked him before me: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

We would like to point out Father Ariel's latest book, a historical-theological journey into the profession of faith published on the occasion of 1700 years after the Council of Nicaea – To access the book shop click on the image

.

 

 

 

 

.

THE IRRESISTIBLE FASCINATION EXERTED ON CERTAIN LAY PEOPLE BY THE “THEOLOGY OF THE UNDERWEAR”

It is therefore fitting to remind these lay people — who on the one hand establish “how far you may go” according to their theology of the underwear, and on the other hand make themselves protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesial authority — that the systematic, public, and contemptuous contestation of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a sin far more grave, more serious, and more objectively disordered than the affective fragility of two young people who live a relationship outside of marriage.

— Eclesial actuality —

.

.

Every ecclesial age knows its own moral distortions. One of the most recurrent — precisely because it appears reassuring — is the tendency to reduce the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the sexual sphere. This reduction does not arise from moral seriousness, but from a simplification that is as crude as it is misleading, and which ultimately betrays precisely what it claims to defend.

In contemporary ecclesial debate, especially in certain lay environments loosely connected to an ill-defined notion of “tradition”, one observes a curious and at the same time troubling phenomenon: the emergence of a kind of “theology of the underwear”, in which the mystery of evil is essentially confined to what happens — or is presumed to happen — below the waist. Everything else may be relegated to the background: wounded charity, trampled justice, manipulated truth, violated conscience. What matters is that the underwear remains in place, whether real or symbolic.

Moralism and moral theology are not the same thing; this must be made clear at once. They do not coincide — indeed, they often stand in opposition. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because it is based on rigid, abstract and selective criteria, whereas Catholic moral teaching rests upon charity, the theological virtue that does not abolish truth but renders it habitable for the concrete, fragile and sinful human being.

Bigotry, puritanism in its worst sense, and obsessive moralism are well-known realities; yet it must be said honestly that they very rarely arise from a priestly ministry lived in a holy and authentic manner. Much more often they take shape in self-referential lay circles, where the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated by a doctrinal self-assurance that is as inflexible as it is abstract.

This is not a matter of defending a category — that of priests — but of acknowledging a simple fact: lay people who have never listened to a wounded conscience, who have never accompanied a real penitent, who have never borne the weight of delicate spiritual direction, can scarcely possess the tools required to judge with balance the complexity of human sin. Yet they rush headlong into issues that touch the most intimate and delicate spheres of the human soul, often in a pedantic manner, thus offering secularists a bizarre image of Catholicism and reinforcing their prejudices and negative judgments about the Catholic Church.

The hierarchy of sins is a truth that is often forgotten. Catholic moral tradition has always taught that not all sins carry the same weight. There exists an objective hierarchy of evil, grounded in the gravity of the matter, intentionality, and consequences. Within this hierarchy, sins against charity, justice, and truth occupy a far more serious place than many faults connected to the sexual sphere.

And yet, for the devotees of the “theology of the underwear”, this distinction appears intolerable. Better a grave sin against charity, provided it is well dressed, than a human fragility lived in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than demanding truth. Thus, what ought truly to scandalize — hatred, lies, abuse of power, manipulation of consciences — is relativized, while everything concerning personal intimacy becomes the privileged field of an obsessive surveillance, entirely typical — I repeat — of certain bigoted lay people, not of priests.

The “theology of the underwear” is an obsession that often reveals far more about those who judge than about those who are judged. A manic fixation on bedrooms, measurements, postures, and presumed intentions betrays a profound inability to inhabit one’s own interior world. It is easier to measure the sins of others with the goldsmith’s scale than to come to terms with one’s own conscience. The priest, on the other hand, when he exercises his ministry seriously, begins from an elementary and anything but theoretical premise: all of us are sinners — we who are first called to absolve sins. It is this awareness that gives rise to mercy, not laxity; understanding, not relativism. Christian mercy is not born from minimizing sin, but from a real knowledge of the human person.

It is no coincidence that the Gospel reserves its harshest words not so much for manifest sinners as for those who transform the law into an instrument of oppression. That warning of Jesus, so often forgotten by professional lay moralists, remains strikingly актуal:

“Woe also to you, lawyers, for you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them!” (Page 11:46)

It is before this word that every facile “theology of the underwear” ought to collapse. For the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, self-absolution, and spiritual superiority.

A morality that loses contact with charity becomes ideology. A morality that selects sins according to its own obsessions ceases to be Christian. A morality that ignores the hierarchy of evil ends up protecting the gravest sins and persecuting those that are merely more visible.

The “theology of the underwear” is not a sign of fidelity to doctrine, but of a profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. It does not defend Catholic morality; it betrays it. And, paradoxically, it renders a very poor service precisely to the Church it claims to want to save.

To conclude with a concrete and truly incarnated example: in recent days I had occasion to receive the pain of an excellent young man who felt betrayed and abandoned by another young man whom he had loved — and whom he continued to love — and with whom he had entered into a relationship that was then abruptly broken off. A real, lacerating pain, which did not require lessons, but listening. Did I pronounce moral judgments? Did I draw up a casuistry of faults or measure that relationship with the scales of abstract morality? Absolutely not. My priestly task at that moment was to welcome a wounded soul, to gather its pain, and to help it — insofar as possible — not to succumb beneath the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I do not dare imagine what kind of “lesson on purity” that young man would have received had he turned to certain zealous lay animators who, with smiling faces and polished language, present themselves as Catholic formators, only then to permit themselves to publicly and insolently insult the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and to repeatedly contest official documents approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

The same individual who, in videos, explains to young people “how far you may go”, is the very one who, through other videos, has poured tanker loads of mud upon Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández for a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff — and therefore an authentic act of the Magisterium — enclosed together with his associates within the logic of a “Church my way”, in which authority is accepted only when it confirms their obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass to the theological aberration of Mary Co-Redemptrix.

It is therefore fitting to remind these lay people — who on the one hand establish “how far you may go” according to their theology of the underwear, and on the other hand make themselves protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesial authority — that the systematic, public, and contemptuous contestation of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a sin far more grave, more serious, and more objectively disordered than the affective fragility of two young people who live a relationship outside of marriage.

I affirm this without ambiguity as a man, as a priest, as a theologian, as a confessor, and as a spiritual director. For I am a priest and, before that, a sinner. And for this I give thanks to God, as before me two other great sinners gave thanks: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the Island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

THE FASCINATING AND IRRESISTIBLE ATTRACTION THAT THE “THEOLOGY OF BRAGA” EXERCISES ON CERTAIN LAY PEOPLE

It suits, well, remind these lay people - who on the one hand establish "how far you can go" according to their braga theology and on the other hand, establish themselves as protagonists of the public contempt of the legitimate ecclesiastical Authority - that the systematic, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people who have a relationship outside of marriage.

- Ecclesial news -

.

.

Every ecclesial era knows its own moral deformations. One of the most recurrent - precisely because it is reassuring - is the one that reduces the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the sexual sphere.. This is a reduction that is not born of moral seriousness, but of a simplification as crude as it is misleading, that ends up betraying precisely what it seeks to defend.

In the contemporary ecclesial debate, especially in certain lay environments linked to a poorly defined tradition, a curious and at the same time worrying phenomenon is observed: the emergence of a kind of “panty theology”, in which the mystery of evil is substantially limited to what happens — or is presumed to happen — from the waist down. Everything else can take a backseat: wounded charity, justice trampled, the manipulated truth, the violated conscience. The important thing is that the panties stay in place, sea ​​real or symbolic.

Moralism and morality are not the same; It is worth clarifying it from the beginning. They do not match and, often, they oppose. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because it is based on rigid criteria, abstract and selective, while Catholic morality is based on charity, theological virtue that does not eliminate the truth, but it makes it habitable for the concrete man, fragile and sinful.

The beguinage, puritanism in its worst sense and obsessive moralism are well-known realities; but it must be said with honesty that they are very rarely born from a priestly ministry lived holily.. They most often take shape in self-referential secular environments, in which the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated by a doctrinal security as inflexible as it is abstract.

It is not about defending a category — that of the priests — but to verify a fact: laymen who have never heard a wounded conscience, who have never accompanied a real penitent, who have never carried the weight of delicate spiritual directions, they hardly have the necessary instruments to judge with balance the complexity of human sin. Y, however, They launch into topics that touch the most intimate and delicate spheres of the human soul., often with a pedantic attitude, thus offering secularists an extravagant image of Catholicity and feeding their prejudices and negative judgments about the Catholic Church..

The hierarchy of sins is an often forgotten truth. The Catholic moral tradition has always taught that not all sins have the same weight. There is an objective hierarchy of evil, based on the gravity of matter, in intentionality and consequences. And within this hierarchy, sins against charity, Justice and truth occupy a much more serious place than many guilts linked to the sexual sphere..

However, for the adherents of the “panty theology”, This distinction is unbearable. Better a serious sin against charity, as long as you are well dressed, that a human fragility lived in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than demanding truth. So, what should shock — hatred, the lie, abuse of power, the manipulation of consciences - is relativized, while everything that refers to people's privacy becomes the privileged field of obsessive surveillance, entirely typical — I repeat — of certain blessed laymen, not from the priests.

The “panty theology” is an obsession which often says more about those who judge than about those who are judged. The manic fixation on bedrooms, centimeters, postures and presumed intentions reveal a profound difficulty in inhabiting one's own inner world. It is easier to measure another's sin with the goldsmith's scale than to face one's own conscience.. The priest, instead, when he seriously exercises his ministry, part of an elementary budget and not at all theoretical: we are all sinners, starting with us, that we are the first called to absolve sins. It is this awareness that generates mercy, not laxity; comprehension, non-relativism. Christian mercy is not born from minimizing sin, but of the real knowledge of man.

It is no coincidence that the Gospel reserve very harsh words not so much for manifest sinners, how much for those who transform the law into an instrument of oppression. That warning from Jesus, so often forgotten by professional lay moralists, retains a disconcerting relevance:

"Woe to you too, doctors of the law, that you load men with unbearable weights and you do not touch them even with a finger!» (LC 11,46)

It is before this word that all easy “panty theology” should collapse. Because the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, of self-absolution and spiritual superiority.

A morality that loses contact with charity becomes ideology. A morality that selects sins according to its own obsessions is no longer Christian.. A morality that ignores the hierarchy of evil ends up protecting the most serious sins and persecuting the most visible ones..

The “panty theology” is not a sign of fidelity to the doctrine, but from a profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. Does not defend Catholic morality: betrays her. Y, paradoxically, provides a terrible service precisely to the Church that it claims to want to save.

To conclude with a concrete example and truly embodied: In recent days I had the opportunity to welcome the pain of an excellent young man who felt betrayed and abandoned by another young man whom he had loved - and whom he continued to love - and with whom he had established a relationship that was then abruptly interrupted.. a real pain, piercing, that I didn't need lessons, but listen. Did I make moral judgments?? Did I create a casuistry of guilt or did I measure that relationship with the scale of abstract morality?? At all. My priestly task at that time was to welcome a wounded soul, collect her pain and help her — as much as possible — not to succumb under the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I dare not imagine what a “lesson on purity” would have received that young man if he had turned to certain zealous lay animators who, with a smiling face and polished language, They present themselves as Catholic trainers, and then allowed himself to publicly insult with insolence the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and repeatedly answer official documents approved by the Supreme Pontiff.

The same character who in videos explains to young people "how far you can go", is the same as, through other videos, has dumped veritable tankers of mud against Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández for a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff — and, therefore, authentic act of the Magisterium —, locked together with his followers in the logic of a Church “my way”, where authority is only accepted when it confirms its obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass to the theological aberration of Mary Co-redemptrix.

It suits, well, remember these laymen — who on the one hand establish “how far you can go” according to their braga theology and on the other hand, establish themselves as protagonists of the public contempt of the legitimate ecclesiastical Authority — that the systematic, public and contemptuous of the Magisterium of the Church constitutes a much more serious sin, more serious and more objectively disordered than the emotional fragility of two young people who have a relationship outside of marriage.

I affirm it without ambiguity as a man, as a priest, as theologian, as confessor and as spiritual director. Because I am a priest and, even before, sinner. And for that I thank God, as before me two other great sinners gave thanks: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the Island of Patmos, 13 January 2026

.

THE IRRESISTIBLE FASCINATION, WHICH EXERCISES THE “UNDERWEAR THEOLOGY” ON CERTAIN LAYS

It is therefore appropriate, to remind these laypeople of this - on the one hand they determine, “how far one is allowed to go” according to their underwear theology and, on the other hand, appear as protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority —, that the systematic, public and contemptuous challenge to the church's magisterium is a far more serious one, represents a more serious and objectively disordered sin than the affective fragility of two young people, who are in a relationship outside of marriage.

— Church topicality —

.

.

Every ecclesiastical era has its own moral distortions. One of the most common - precisely because it seems to have a calming effect - is this, to reduce the question of good and evil almost exclusively to the area of ​​sexuality. However, such a reduction does not arise from moral seriousness, but rather a simplification that is both gross and misleading, which in the end reveals just that, what she claims to be defending.

In the current church debate, especially in certain amateur milieus, which refer to a vaguely defined “tradition”., A phenomenon that is as strange as it is disturbing can be observed: the emergence of a kind of “underwear theology”, in which the mystery of evil is essentially limited to that, what - or what supposedly - below the belt line happens. Everything else can fade into the background: wounded charity, trampled justice, manipulated truth, violated conscience. What matters is alone, that the underwear stays in its place - be it real or symbolic.

Moralism and morality are not the same thing; This needs to be made clear from the start. They don't coincide, rather, they often contradict each other. Moralism is a caricature of morality, because he is rigid, based on abstract and selective criteria, while Catholic morality is grounded in love — that theological virtue, which does not cancel out the truth, but for the specific one, makes fragile and sinful people habitable.

Bigotry, Puritanism at its worst Sense and obsessive moralism are well-known phenomena. However, fairness must be said, that they only very rarely emerge from a holy and authentic priestly service. They arise far more often in self-referential, lay circles, in which the lack of real pastoral experience is compensated for by a doctrinal self-assurance that is as indomitable as it is abstract.

That's not what this is about, to defend a certain category - that of priests, but rather the sober statement of facts: Laymen, who have never listened to a wounded voice of conscience, who have never accompanied a real penitent, who have never borne the weight of delicate spiritual accompaniments, hardly have the necessary instruments, to give a balanced assessment of the complexity of human sin. Nevertheless, they pounce on topics, that touch the most intimate and vulnerable areas of the human soul - often in a didactic tone - and thus provide secularists with a bizarrely distorted image of catholicity, while at the same time reinforcing their prejudices and negative judgments about the Catholic Church.

The hierarchy of sins is a truth, which is often forgotten today. Catholic moral teaching has always taught, that not all sins have the same weight. There is an objective hierarchy of evil, based on the gravity of the matter, in the intention and in the consequences. Within this order, sins take place against love, Justice and truth are far more serious than many sexual offenses.

For the followers of “underwear theology” however, this distinction seems intolerable. Better a serious sin against charity, as long as she is well dressed, as a human fragility, which is lived in struggle and shame. Better respectable hypocrisy than laborious truth. That's how it will be, what should actually be scandalous - hate, lie, Abuse of power, Manipulation of conscience - put into perspective, during everything, when it comes to personal intimacy, becomes the preferred field of obsessive surveillance, quite typical - I repeat - of certain bigoted laymen, not for priests.

“Underwear theology” is an obsession, which often says more about them, who judge, than about those, that is being judged. The manic fixation on the bedroom, centimeter, Attitudes and supposed intentions reveal a deep inability, to inhabit your own inner space. It's easier, to measure the sins of others with gold scales, than to face one's own examination of conscience. The priest, on the other hand, if he carries out his ministry seriously, begins from an elementary and anything but theoretical premise: We are all sinners, and we ourselves are the first, who are called to absolve sins. From this insight comes mercy, not laxity; Understanding, not relativism. Christian mercy does not arise from trivializing sin, but from a realistic knowledge of people.

It's not a coincidence, that the Gospel does not direct its harshest words so much to obvious sinners, but to them, who turn the law into an instrument of oppression. This admonition of Jesus, so often forgotten by professional amateur moralists, has a frightening relevance:

“Woe to you too, teachers of the law! You are putting burdens on people, which they can barely carry, but you yourself do not touch these burdens even with a finger.” (Page 11,46)

Any superficial “underwear theology” would have to be confronted with this word. collapse in on itself. Because the problem is not the defense of morality, but the perverse use of morality as an instrument of control, of self-justification and spiritual superiority.

A moral, who loses touch with love, becomes an ideology. A moral, chooses sins based on one's own obsessions, stops, to be Christian.
A moral, which ignores the hierarchy of evil, ends there, to protect the gravest sins and persecute the more visible ones.

“Underwear theology” is not a sign of fidelity to doctrine, but rather an expression of a profound misunderstanding of the gospel. It does not defend Catholic morality - it betrays it. And paradoxically, it is precisely this church, that she claims to save, a disservice.

Finally, a specific one, truly incarnated example: In the past few days I have had the opportunity, to absorb the pain of an excellent young man, who is from another young man, whom he had loved - and whom he continued to love -, felt betrayed and abandoned; he had had a relationship with him, which had suddenly and abruptly ended. A real one, wrenching pain, who didn't need any instruction, but listening. Did I make moral judgments?? Did I create a casuistry of guilt or measure this relationship using the standard of abstract morality?? Not at all. My priestly task at that moment was this, to take in a wounded soul, to collect her pain and help her - as far as possible, not to collapse under the weight of disappointment and abandonment.

I dare not imagine, what “teaching about purity” this young man would have received, if he had turned to certain zealous amateur animators, who present themselves as Catholic formators with smiling faces and neat, polished language, to then allow yourself, publicly and with impudence insulting the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and repeatedly official, to challenge documents approved by the Holy Father.

The same people, which explain to young people in videos, “how far you can go”, In other videos, they poured out real dirt on Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández — because of a document, which was approved by the Pope and therefore represents an authentic act of the magisterium —, enclosed with their companions in the logic of a church “according to my taste”, in which authority is only accepted, when it confirms one's own obsessions: from the The old rite of the Mass right up to the theological aberration of a “co-redemptrix” of Mary.

It is therefore appropriate, to remind these laypeople of this - on the one hand they determine, “how far one is allowed to go” according to their underwear theology and, on the other hand, appear as protagonists of public contempt for legitimate ecclesiastical authority —, that the systematic, public and contemptuous challenge to the church's magisterium is a far more serious one, represents a more serious and objectively disordered sin than the affective fragility of two young people, who are in a relationship outside of marriage.

I say this without any ambiguity — as a human being, as a Priest, as a theologian, as a confessor and as a spiritual director. For I am a priest and before that a sinner. And I thank God for that, as two other great sinners before me thanked God: Saint Paul and Saint Augustine.

Amen.

From the island of Patmos, 13. January 2026

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

The liturgy as living catechesis. Because it is not a pond to be strengthened – The liturgy as living catechesis. Why it is not a stagnant pool to be preserved – The liturgy as living catechesis. Why it is not a pond that should freeze

 

Italian, english, español

 

LITURGY AS LIVING CATECHESIS. BECAUSE IT IS NOT A POND TO BE CONFIRMED

As Saint John Paul II remembered, making his own a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guardianship of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

— Liturgical ministry —

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

.

.

In the last few years we have witnessed the proliferation of groups and environments that make the liturgy - and in particular the Eucharistic celebration - not the place of ecclesial unity, but a terrain of ideological conflict. It is not simply a question of different sensitivities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic element, identity or as an ideological banner. In many cases, this phenomenon is promoted by strictly lay groups who, rather than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, they project personal fragilities into the liturgy, internal discomforts and needs for self-reassurance of identity.

It needs to be said clearly: using the Eucharistic Sacrifice as an instrument of division is a very serious ecclesial fact, because it strikes the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy was never conceived as a place of subjective self-definition, but as a space in which the Church receives itself from the mystery it celebrates. When the liturgy is bent to ends foreign to its nature, it is emptied and reduced to what it never was.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not private initiative nor group language. The Second Vatican Council clearly expressed this truth by stating that the liturgy is «the culmination towards which the action of the Church tends and, together, the source from which all his virtue emanates" (Holy Council, n. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place where the Church manifests itself as the Body of Christ.

Using the liturgy to divide means contradicting its deepest nature. The liturgy was not created to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated on the altar is what they themselves are called to become.: «Be what you see and receive what you are» (The word is 272). When the liturgy is transformed into an instrument of opposition, it is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the aspects most overlooked by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic question is its intrinsic catechetical dimension. The liturgy is not just celebration, but also a primary form of transmission of the faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated in the faith by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church they were fully aware of it. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical catecheses, he did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but starting from the liturgical experience, because it is the mystery celebrated that generates the understanding of faith. The Liturgy, indeed, he does not teach only through words, but through the set of signs: guests, silences, posture, rhythms, symbolic languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical catechesis I, 1).

Reducing the liturgy to aesthetics it means emptying it of its formative function and transforming it into an object to be contemplated instead of a mystery to be experienced. In this way it ceases to be living catechesis and becomes a self-referential experience, incapable of generating an adult and ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents it is a theologically essential distinction and must be clarified very well, because at the root of many liturgical deviations there is the confusion - sometimes deliberate - between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, he has always clearly distinguished these two levels.

The substance it's about what makes the Sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the real presence, the sacramental form desired by the Lord and safeguarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but from the saving action of Christ.

Accidents, instead, they include the external elements of the celebration: the language, ritual forms, discipline, the celebratory structures. They are not only changeable, but they must change, because the liturgy is inserted in history and is called to speak to concrete men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often evoked inappropriately, recognized the Church's authority to dispose of the rites "save and integrate the substance of the sacraments" (Council of Trent, sess. XXI).

Elevate a language, like Latin, or a historical ritual, like the Missal of Saint Pius V, at the rank of articles of faith is a serious theological error. Not because these elements are worthless, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. Confusing these levels means absolutising what is historically determined and relativizing what is essential.

The history of the liturgy testifies that the Church has never conceived of worship as an immobile reality. In the first centuries different rites coexisted; sacramental discipline has undergone profound transformations; the celebratory forms have changed in response to new pastoral and cultural needs. All this happened without the faith of the Church fading, precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents has always been safeguarded.

Thinking of the liturgy as a reality to be "frozen" it means adopting a museum vision of the Church, foreign to its nature. As Saint John Paul II remembered, making his own a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guardianship of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, it is not an aesthetic refuge, it is not a terrain of identity claims. It is the place in which the Church receives its form from the mystery it celebrates. When the liturgy divides, it is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill internal voids or to build alternative identities to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

THE LITURGY AS LIVING CATECHESIS. WHY IT IS NOT A STAGNANT POOL TO BE PRESERVED

As Saint John Paul II recalled, making his own a well-known saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the safeguarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and does not develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable proliferation of groups and environments that make of the liturgy — and in particular of the Eucharistic celebration — not the place of ecclesial unity, but a field of ideological confrontation. This is not simply a matter of different sensibilities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather of an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic, identity-forming element or as an ideological banner. In many cases, this phenomenon is promoted by strictly lay groups which, rather than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, project onto the liturgy personal fragilities, inner discomforts, and needs for identity-based self-reassurance.

This must be stated clearly: to use the Eucharistic Sacrifice as a means of division is an ecclesially most serious matter, because it strikes at the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy has never been conceived as a space for subjective self-definition, but as the place in which the Church receives herself from the mystery she celebrates. When the liturgy is bent to purposes foreign to its nature, it is emptied and reduced to something it has never been.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not a private initiative nor the language of a group. The Second Vatican Council expressed this truth with clarity, affirming that the liturgy is “the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed and, at the same time, the font from which all her power flows” (Holy Council, no. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place in which the Church manifests herself as the Body of Christ.

To use the liturgy as an instrument of division means to contradict its deepest nature. The liturgy is not born to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated on the altar is what they themselves are called to become: “Be what you see, and receive what you are” (The word is 272). When the liturgy is transformed into a tool of opposition, it is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the most neglected aspects by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic issue is its intrinsic catechetical dimension. The liturgy is not only celebration, but also the primary form of the transmission of faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated the faithful by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church were fully aware of this. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Mystagogical Catecheses, did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but starting from the liturgical experience itself, because it is the celebrated mystery that generates understanding of the faith. Indeed, the liturgy teaches not only through words, but through the whole ensemble of signs: gestures, silences, postures, rhythms, and symbolic languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis I, 1).

To reduce the liturgy to aesthetics means to empty it of its formative function and to transform it into an object to be contemplated rather than a mystery to be lived. In this way, it ceases to be living catechesis and becomes a self-referential experience, incapable of generating a mature and ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents: a necessary distinction. The distinction between substance and accidents is theologically indispensable and must be clearly explained, because at the root of many liturgical distortions lies the confusion — sometimes deliberate — between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, has always clearly distinguished between these two levels.

Substance concerns what makes a sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the Real Presence, the sacramental form willed by the Lord and safeguarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but on the saving action of Christ.

Accidents, on the other hand, include the external elements of the celebration: language, ritual forms, disciplines, and celebrative structures. These elements are not only mutable, but must change, because the liturgy is inserted into history and is called to speak to concrete men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often invoked improperly, acknowledged the Church’s authority to regulate the rites, “the substance of the sacraments being preserved intact” (Council of Trent, Session XXI).

To elevate a language, such as Latin, or a historical rite, such as the Missal of Saint Pius V, to the rank of articles of faith is a serious theological error. Not because such elements lack value, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. To confuse these levels means to absolutize what is historically determined and to relativize what is essential.

The history of the liturgy shows that the Church has never conceived worship as an immobile reality. In the early centuries, different rites coexisted; sacramental discipline underwent profound transformations; celebrative forms changed in response to new pastoral and cultural needs. All this took place without the faith of the Church being diminished, precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents was always preserved.

To think of the liturgy as something to be “frozen” is to adopt a museum-like vision of the Church, foreign to her nature. As Saint John Paul II recalled, making his own a well-known saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the safeguarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow and does not develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith.

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, not an aesthetic refuge, not a terrain for identity-based claims. It is the place in which the Church receives her form from the mystery she celebrates. When the liturgy divides, it is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill inner voids or to construct identities alternative to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

THE LITURGY AS A LIVING CATECHESIS. WHY IT IS NOT A POND THAT SHOULD FREEZE

As Saint John Paul II remembered, adopting a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow or develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith..

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

In recent years There has been a proliferation of groups and environments that make the liturgy – and in particular the Eucharistic celebration – not the place of ecclesial unity., but a field of ideological confrontation. It is not simply a question of diverse sensibilities or legitimate ritual preferences, but rather an instrumental use of the liturgy as an aesthetic element, identity or as an ideological banner. In many cases, This phenomenon is promoted by strictly secular groups that, more than expressing a mature ecclesial faith, project personal frailties onto the liturgy, interior discomforts and needs for identity self-affirmation.

It is necessary to say it clearly: Using the Eucharistic Sacrifice as an instrument of division is a fact of extreme ecclesial gravity., because it strikes at the very heart of the life of the Church. The liturgy has never been conceived as a place of subjective self-definition, but as the space in which the Church receives from itself the mystery that it celebrates. When the liturgy is subjected to purposes foreign to its nature, is emptied and reduced to something that has never been.

The liturgy is a public act of the Church, not a private initiative nor the language of a group. The Second Vatican Council expressed this truth clearly when it stated that the liturgy is “the summit towards which the action of the Church tends and, at the same time, the source from which all its strength flows” (Holy Council, n. 10). It is not an accessory of ecclesial life, but the place in which the Church manifests itself as the Body of Christ.

Use the liturgy to divide means contradicting your deepest nature. The liturgy is not created to express particular identities, but to generate communion. Saint Augustine already reminded the faithful that what is celebrated at the altar is what they are called to become.: “Be what you see and receive what you are” (The word is 272). When the liturgy becomes an instrument of confrontation, It is not the Church that speaks, but the ecclesial ego of individuals or groups.

The liturgy as living catechesis. One of the aspects most neglected by those who reduce the liturgy to an aesthetic question is its intrinsic catechetical dimension.. The liturgy is not just celebration, but also the primary form of transmission of faith. Even before catechisms and doctrinal formulations, the Church educated in the faith by celebrating.

The Fathers of the Church They were fully aware of it.. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in their mystagogical catechesis, did not explain the Sacraments before their celebration, but from liturgical experience, because it is the celebrated mystery that generates the understanding of faith. The Liturgy, indeed, does not teach only through words, but through the set of signs: gestures, silences, postures, symbolic rhythms and languages (Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical catechesis I, 1).

Reduce the liturgy to aesthetics It means emptying it of its formative function and transforming it into an object to be contemplated instead of a mystery to be lived.. In this way it stops being a living catechism and becomes a self-referential experience., incapable of generating an adult and truly ecclesial faith.

Substance and accidents: an essential distinction. The distinction between substance and accidents is theologically essential and must be clarified precisely., because at the root of many liturgical drifts is the confusion — sometimes deliberate — between these two elements. Sacramental theology, since the Middle Ages, has always clearly distinguished these two levels.

The substance refers to that which makes a sacrament what it is: the Sacrifice of Christ, the real presence, the sacramental form willed by the Lord and guarded by the Church. This dimension is immutable, because it does not depend on historical contingencies, but of the saving action of Christ.

The accidents, instead, They include the external elements of the celebration: the tongue, ritual forms, the disciplines, the celebratory structures. These elements are not only mutable, but they must change, because the liturgy is inserted in history and is called to speak to specific men and women. The Council of Trent itself, often improperly invoked, recognized the Church's authority to dispose of the rites, “saves and integrates the substance of the sacraments” (Council of Trent, XXI session).

Raise a tongue, like latin, a historical rite, like the Missal of Saint Pius V, to the rank of articles of faith constitutes a serious theological error. Not because such elements are worthless, but because they belong to the order of accidents and not to that of substance. Confusing these plans means absolutizing what is historically determined and relativizing what is essential..

The history of the liturgy demonstrates that the Church has never conceived worship as an immobile reality. In the first centuries, various rites coexisted; sacramental discipline underwent profound transformations; Celebratory forms changed in response to new pastoral and cultural demands. All this occurred without the faith of the Church being undermined., precisely because the distinction between substance and accidents was always safeguarded.

Thinking of the liturgy as a reality that must be “frozen” It means adopting a museum vision of the Church, alien to its nature. As Saint John Paul II remembered, adopting a famous saying by Gustav Mahler, Tradition is not the preservation of ashes, but the guarding of the fire. A liturgy that does not grow or develop in its forms is a liturgy that ceases to be a living language of faith..

The liturgy is not an ideological weapon, It is not an aesthetic refuge, It is not a terrain of identity claim. It is the place where the Church receives its form from the mystery it celebrates.. When the liturgy divides, It is not the liturgy that is in crisis, but the people who use it to fill interior voids or to build alternative identities to ecclesial communion.

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.