ENZO BIANCHI AND THE DEATH OF CAMILLO RUINI: PLEASE PRAY IN FRONT OF A DECEASED, THE ACCOUNTS ARE NOT SETTLED
«Even the card. Ruini is dead! A clergyman who caused many in the church to suffer. She gave the face of her stepmother to the church, the face of the church seeking authority, influence and seat among the powerful. But he did not have approval from the card. Martini nor by Pope Francis" (Enzo Bianchi).
When the Church accompanies one of its children to death he does not convene a historic tribunal, it does not open a political debate and does not proceed with an ideological verification of the life of the deceased.
The Church does something much simpler e, at the same time, infinitely deeper: pray. He does so because he looks at death in the light of the victory of the risen Christ, according to the proclamation of the Apostle: «Death was swallowed up for victory. Where, death, your victory? Where, death, your sting?» (1 Color 15,54-55). For this reason, the general premises of the Funeral Rite remind us that the deceased remains a brother in the faith and that the entire ecclesial community gathers around him to accompany him with prayer, offering the Eucharistic sacrifice and raising suffrages. In fact, the Church prays for the deceased because it believes that corporal death does not interrupt their belonging to Christ and that, for this, the prayer of the Church can still benefit them.
It is from this faith that we must start when looking at the death of a Christian, not first of all by the role he held in the Church, from the battles he fought or from the judgments that history will formulate on his person and his work. All this belongs to legitimate historical judgment and can be discussed and even severely criticized. In the face of death, But, the Church looks first of all at the baptized person. It is not without significance that, in the official verification of the death of the Roman Pontiff, he who bore that pontifical name for years was called three times by his baptismal name: in the face of death, in a sense, everyone returns to the origin. This is why the first word of the Church is not judgement, but prayer, because the deceased is first and foremost a child of the Church entrusted to the mercy of God and accompanied by the intercession of his brothers.
It is in the light of this faith that what happened after the death of Cardinal Camillo Ruini must be considered. It is not of interest here to establish whether he was right or wrong in the great ecclesial battles of recent decades, nor discuss the historical judgment on his vision of the Church. The question is another and concerns the reaction aroused by his disappearance, because precisely at the moment in which the Church entrusts one of her children to the mercy of God and accompanies him with prayer, the Christian is called to measure his words and his judgments with the very meaning of Christian death.
They were not missed, in the hours following his death attempts to read this figure almost exclusively through political and ideological categories. The Daily, the 16 June 2026, published the article by Francesco Antonio Grana: «Cardinal Camillo Ruini has died. Interference in politics, proximity to the right, the relationship with Berlusconi: history of the Italian Richelieu»; The Manifesto was titled «Ruini, religion as a political instrument". Certainly legitimate readings on a historical and journalistic level, but which show how easy it is to continue discussing a person in terms of sides, influence and power even at the moment of his death. And so, in this same vein, a few hours after the death of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, Enzo Bianchi intervened on his X profile by writing:
«Even the card. Ruini is dead! A clergyman who caused many in the church to suffer. She gave the face of her stepmother to the church, the face of the church seeking authority, influence and seat among the powerful. But he did not have approval from the card. Martini nor by Pope Francis".
The question that emerges from those words it concerns Cardinal Ruini much less than it concerns Enzo Bianchi himself: which conception of Christian death manifests who, in front of a deceased person, first of all he feels the need to reopen an ecclesial controversy? It is a question that does not arise from controversy, but by the faith of the Church. A militant atheist who continues his polemic in front of a dead person acts according to the logic he professes, although he often avoids doing so because he shows the respect for death that some Christians do not have. Instead, by Enzo Bianchi, who for decades spoke of evangelical spirituality and eccentric monastic life, becoming a celebrity disputed by Italian bishops who competed to invite him to hold conferences in their cathedrals during the years of Cardinal Camillo Ruini's long presidency of the CEI, one would expect at least the elementary memory of what the Church does in front of a deceased person.
In this context the spiritual testament of Camillo Ruini takes on a meaning that goes far beyond the personal story of its author. Anyone expecting self-defense from a protagonist of Italian ecclesial life will be surprised, because those pages do not contain claims or attempts to justify their historical choices. What emerges instead is the confession of one's own insufficiencies, the request for forgiveness and the invocation of divine mercy. He acknowledges that he has sometimes acted harshly, he asks for forgiveness, confesses the smallness of his faith and presents himself simply as a man called to appear before God. This is where the contrast becomes evident. On the one hand there is a man who has reached the end of his life and entrusts himself to divine mercy; on the other who, in the face of that death, feels the urgency of reopening the accounting of ecclesial controversies. Which of the two is looking at death in a Christian way: Camillo Ruini or Enzo Bianchi?
Even more so it is not a question of establishing who was right in the controversies that have crossed the Italian Church in the last forty years. It is not a question of deciding whether this Cardinal was a great ecclesial protagonist or a questionable protagonist. Nor is it a question of denying Enzo Bianchi the right to radically disagree with his vision, but to understand what happens when a Christian dies. Because there is a substantial difference between historical judgment and the polemical use of death: the first is legitimate; the second instead reveals a loss of the Christian meaning of death. When a man's coffin becomes the latest battlefield of a decades-long ecclesiastical war, when the body of a deceased is used as polemical material and the death of a brother in the faith becomes an opportunity to settle scores that have remained open, It's not just the respect due to the dead that is damaged: the very faith in God's judgment is called into question, in mercy, in the communion of saints and in eternal life. Because of this, in the end, the problem is not Cardinal Camillo Ruini. The problem is us. Because if faced with the death of a Christian we no longer know how to pray, if faced with a spiritual testament imbued with a request for forgiveness and mercy we only know how to reopen old processes, if we continue to think like faction militants at the very moment in which the Church invites us to pray for a deceased brother, then we have not simply lost our sense of proportion, but something essential about the Christian faith has been lost. When this happens, prophecy gives way to controversy, which ends up imposing itself even in the face of death.
It must be said that Cardinal Camillo Ruini, nicknamed “Cardinal Thin”, he did not fail to write in his will:
«When Pope Francis was elected I rejoiced and, as much as I could, I was immediately a supporter of his. Even today I rejoice and thank him for his extraordinary evangelizing enthusiasm. However, I must confess that I find myself in an uncomfortable situation, certainly not for personal reasons but because I struggle to understand some orientations that seem to me to reopen wounds, after the Council they were barely medicated. I humbly ask the Lord to convince me internally that the Church is his and that he himself takes care of it, beyond our human sights".
This is not the place to address issues that would require other spaces. However, it remains difficult not to observe that many of the most serious contemporary ecclesial problems have their roots in the long and complex pontificate of John Paul II, of which Camillo Ruini was one of the most influential figures, arriving gangrenous at the pontificate of Benedict XVI - under which he continued his mandate as President of the CEI and Vicar General of the Diocese of Rome for another two years - and in certain respects out of control during the complex pontificate of Francis, everything to be understood before even being studied in the face of a very difficult situation inherited by him from the two previous pontificates, which he tried to cope with in situations that were very difficult to manage. It is therefore striking to read in his will the confession of the difficulty in understanding some ecclesial orientations specific to Francis' pontificate. If the profound meaning of these events was not fully clear to him during his earthly life, it is reasonable to think that today, coming face to face with God, understand it with a fullness that remains closed to those who, like us living people, look at history from within its inevitable partiality.
Florence, 22 June 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
.
.
.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Padre-Simone-isola-piccola.jpeg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150Father SimoneHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngFather Simone2026-06-22 11:36:182026-06-25 15:52:19Enzo Bianchi and the death of Camillo Ruini: one prays in front of a deceased person, scores are not settled
Remaining prisoners of memories of the past is always dangerous. Living backwards is often the condition of those who are unable to live in the present. Those who live life from the perspective of faith know that they are not only on a journey towards the future, but projected towards eternity.
It may happen that you find it in an almost forgotten box some object or some image that marked a season of one's life. When this photograph of mine reemerged from the past I did not feel that nostalgia that belongs to what is lost and does not return, but rather tenderness and gratitude. So much so that the phrase contained in the opening verse of the Psalm came to mind 42 (43), with which the priest, at the foot of the altar, began the Holy Mass in the rite preceding the liturgical reform of the Holy Pontiff Paul VI:
«Introibo altar Gods, to God who makes my youth happy» (I will approach the altar of God, to God who cheers my youth").
I thank God, together with the Brothers of this happy Island of Patmos of ours, for giving us a youth that never fades. Not that of the body, that time inevitably transforms, but that contained in the ministerial priesthood of Christ which has marked and ontologically transformed us. A youth that no passage of years can consume, because it has its roots in the very eternity of God. Because of this, every time we approach the altar of the Lord, we can keep repeating within ourselves, with the same truth and with the same joy, the words of the Psalmist: Introibo altar Gods, to God who makes my youth happy.
From the island of Patmos, 19 June 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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Padre-Ariel-foto-2025-piccola.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150father arielHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngfather ariel2026-06-19 19:14:082026-06-19 19:14:08… to the God who cheers my youth
THE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD AND THE GRATUITY OF THE GIFT: SHEEP BLASTED AND WOLVES CURED
Jesus orders the Twelve to turn first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to go among the pagans and the Samaritans. It is perhaps not a contradiction in terms with the universality of Jesus' announcement?
There are pages of the Gospel that appear difficult to understand and decipher from the first listen, among the various examples it is enough to remember the passage from John in which Christ affirms: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life” (GV 6,54).
Jesus' gaze towards the prostitute, mosaic, opera by Marko Ivan Rupnik, Basilica San Pio da Pietrelcina
They are words that test our ability to understand. In fact, Jesus connects a material gesture, such as eating and drinking, to a supernatural and eternal reality such as salvation. Nor should we forget that certain evangelical stories take place in specific theatrical scenes of Judea, where the Halakah, Jewish Law, prohibited the consumption of animal blood, for this reason the meat must be bled completely through specific salting and washing procedures before being eaten as kasher, i.e. permitted. Imagine the reference to human blood, or worse, eating human flesh. Hence the accusation leveled against Christians, first by the Jews of Judea and then by the Romans, to practice ritual cannibalism. It is therefore not surprising that many of his own disciples reacted by saying: “This language is harsh; who can understand it?» (GV 6,60). In cases like these the difficulty emerges immediately, because the mystery announced by Christ surpasses what human reason alone is able to fully grasp. Other texts, instead, they seem simple, linear, almost obvious. And this is precisely where the risk lies: that of believing that we have already understood them. This Sunday's Gospel belongs to this second category, Let's read the text:
"During that time, Jesus, seeing the crowds, he felt sorry for it, because they were tired and exhausted like sheep that have no shepherd. Then he said to his disciples: “The harvest is abundant, but there are few workers! Therefore pray to the Lord of the harvest to send workers into his harvest!”. Called his twelve disciples to him, he gave them power over impure spirits to drive them out and heal every disease and every infirmity. The names of the twelve apostles are: first, Simone, called Peter, and Andrea his brother; Giacomo, son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Filippo and Bartolomeo; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; Giacomo, son of Alphaeus, and Taddeo; Simon the Canaanite and Judas the Iscariot, the one who then betrayed him. These are the Twelve that Jesus sent, ordering them: “Do not go among the pagans and do not enter the cities of the Samaritans; turn instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Along the way, predicate, saying that the kingdom of heaven is near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, purify the lepers, cast out the demons. You received it for free, give freely”» (Mt 9,36 -10,8).
It all starts with a look: Jesus, seeing the crowds, he felt sorry for it, because they were "tired and exhausted like sheep that have no shepherd". This image is not accidental, recalls a long prophetic tradition, in particular chapter XXXIV of the prophet Ezekiel in which God rebukes the shepherds of Israel, accusing them of having thought of themselves instead of the flock entrusted to them: «The sheep were scattered for lack of a shepherd» (This 34,5). The same accusation also returns in the prophet Jeremiah: "Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the flock of my pasture" (Gives 23,1). Therefore, when Jesus scrutinizes the crowds like sheep without a shepherd, he does not simply see a multitude of people tired by the difficulties of life, but rather a people who risk dispersing because they lack authentic guides. For this reason, the Evangelist's image of sheep without a shepherd does not offer a generic description of the human condition, but a very specific reality that runs through the entire biblical history: that of the flock entrusted by God to shepherds called to guard and guide it. Christ's compassion must be understood in this context, not as a simple movement of emotion, but as the manifestation of God's own gaze on his people. He whom the prophets had announced as the true Shepherd of Israel, now he finds himself in front of the scattered flock and is preparing to gather them.
After having contemplated Christ's compassion towards the crowds, the Gospel takes a decisive step: Jesus calls twelve men to him and sends them. This is not a random choice, in the Old and New Testament numbers always have a symbolic and mystagogical meaning: in this case the number of those called refers to the twelve tribes of Israel (cf.. Gen 35,22-26; Is 24,4) and manifests Christ's will to gather the new people of God around himself. Below the Evangelist lists their names, before which it is difficult not to be struck by what we find: Peter will deny the Master during the Passion (cf.. Mt 26,69-75). Matthew comes from the world of publicans, meaning the employees of what is now called the Revenue Agency, a category, that of tax collectors, regarded with little sympathy by many of his contemporaries (cf.. Mt 9,9-13), yesterday as today. Thomas will struggle to believe the testimony of the Resurrection (cf.. GV 20,24-29). Judas Iscariot will even betray him (cf.. Mt 26,14-16; 47-50).
If none of the Apostles appear as ideal candidates for a mission destined to change history, because Christ chooses them? Certainly not because you ignore their weaknesses, who knows better than anyone. He chooses them precisely knowing who they are and in doing so teaches a fundamental truth: the Kingdom of God is not founded on the perfection of men, but on the power of divine grace. The Apostle will write later: «My grace is enough for you; in fact my power is fully manifested in weakness" (2 Color 12,9). If the apostolic mission had been entrusted to impeccable men, one might have thought that the success of the advert depended on their qualities, while Christ instead chooses fragile men to remember our human frailties, so that it appears more clearly that the work belongs to God and not to man. In this regard Benedict XVI, the 15 June 2008, giving the homily at the Holy Mass celebrated at the Banchina di Sant'Apollinare in Brindisi, he remembered that Christ did not choose the Apostles because they were already saints, but for them to become so. It's a crucial distinction: Holiness is not the prerequisite of the call but the fruit of the response to the call. And this applies not only to the Apostles, but for every Christian.
The Gospel story he then continues with a statement that might surprise us: Jesus orders the Twelve to turn first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to go among the pagans and the Samaritans. It is perhaps not a contradiction in terms with the universality of Jesus' announcement? No, if we take into account that God had been preparing his people for centuries for the coming of the Messiah. Israel is the place of promises, of the Covenant and of that long divine pedagogy through which the Lord had progressively educated his people to welcome the Savior. This is why the announcement starts from Israel, not because other peoples are excluded from salvation, but because the promises entrusted to the Patriarchs and Prophets had to be fulfilled precisely in Israel. Only after the Resurrection will the Apostles receive the mandate to go to all people (cf.. MC 16, 15), bringing to the ends of the earth that Gospel which was first announced to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The universality of salvation, so, it is not denied but prepared for, according to that divine plan that leads from the Ancient Covenant to the preaching of the Gospel to all peoples.
Jesus finally concludes with a sentence which is perhaps the most challenging of the whole piece: "You received, freely give ". The Apostles must remember that nothing they possess truly belongs to them, why the call, grace and mission are gifts received that cannot be transformed into possession. These words also apply to us: no one gave themselves faith alone, nor did anyone proclaim the Gospel to himself. We have all received something from others: faith, the witness, prayer, forgiveness, the charity. This is why the Lord asks us not to hold back what we have received. Evangelical generosity does not only concern the proclamation of the faith, but also the concrete exercise of charity. Saint Paul reminds the Christians of Corinth: «What do you have that you have not received?» (1 Color 4,7). It is a question that still retains all its force today: if everything we are and possess is first and foremost a gift from God, then even the good we do towards others cannot become a source of personal pride, but it must remain a grateful response to the grace received.
If we had to summarize this evangelical pericope in a few words, we could say that Jesus sees, feel compassion, call and send. Finally, it teaches that the gift received must become a shared gift. This is the logic of the Gospel through which the Lord continues to take care of his people today, because sheep can get lost, but they are never forgotten by the Shepherd who gave his life for them, even if today, in the visible Church, one often has the perhaps wrong impression that sheep are beaten to pet wolves in a complacent or, as they say with worldly flattery: inclusively.
From the island of Patmos, 14 June 2026
.
_________________________________________
THE SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD AND THE GRATUITY OF THE GIFT: WHEN SHEEP ARE BEATEN AND WOLVES ARE STROKED
Jesus orders the Twelve to go first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to the pagans and the Samaritans. Is this not, at first sight, a contradiction of the universal character of Christ’s proclamation?
There are passages in the Gospel that appear difficult to understand from the very first hearing. Among the many examples, one may recall the Johannine passage in which Christ declares: «Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life» (Jn 6:54). These are words that challenge our capacity for understanding. Jesus links a material act — eating and drinking — to a supernatural and eternal reality, namely salvation. Nor should we forget that certain Gospel narratives unfold within the very specific religious setting of Judea, where the Halakhah, the Jewish Law, forbade the consumption of animal blood. For this reason, meat had to be completely drained of blood through specific procedures of salting and washing before it could be eaten as kosher, that is, as lawful food. One can therefore imagine the shock provoked by any reference to human blood, let alone to the eating of human flesh. From this arose the accusation, first among some Jews of Judea and later among the Romans, that Christians practised ritual cannibalism. It is therefore hardly surprising that many of Christ’s own disciples reacted by saying: «This saying is hard; who can accept it?» (Jn 6:60). In cases such as this, the difficulty is immediately apparent, because the mystery proclaimed by Christ surpasses what human reason alone can fully grasp.
Other texts, however, appear simple, straightforward and almost self-evident. And it is precisely here that the danger lies: that of believing we have already understood them. The Gospel of this Sunday belongs to this second category. Let us therefore read the text:
“At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them because they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.’ Then he summoned his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. Jesus sent out these twelve after instructing them thus: ‘Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, make this proclamation: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, drive out demons. Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give’” (Mt 9:36–10:8).
Everything begins with a gaze. Seeing the crowds, Jesus was moved with compassion for them because they were «troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd». This image is not incidental. It evokes a long prophetic tradition, particularly Chapter 34 of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in which God rebukes the shepherds of Israel for having cared for themselves rather than for the flock entrusted to them: «The sheep were scattered for lack of a shepherd» (This 34:5). The same accusation reappears in the Prophet Jeremiah: «Woe to the shepherds who mislead and scatter the flock of my pasture» (Because 23:1). Therefore, when Jesus looks upon the crowds as sheep without a shepherd, He does not merely see a multitude of people wearied by the hardships of life. He sees a people in danger of being scattered because they lack authentic guides. For this reason, the Evangelist’s image of sheep without a shepherd does not offer a generic description of the human condition, but points to a very specific reality that runs throughout biblical history: the flock entrusted by God to shepherds called to guard and guide it. It is within this context that Christ’s compassion must be understood, not as a simple movement of emotion, but as the manifestation of God’s own gaze upon His people. The One whom the prophets had foretold as the true Shepherd of Israel now stands before the scattered flock and prepares to gather it together.
After contemplating Christ’s compassion for the crowds, the Gospel takes a decisive step forward: Jesus calls twelve men to Himself and sends them out. This is no arbitrary choice. In both the Old and the New Testament, numbers always carry a symbolic and mystical significance. In this case, the number of those called recalls the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. Gen 35:22–26; Ex 24:4) and manifests Christ’s desire to gather around Himself the new People of God. The Evangelist then lists their names, and it is difficult not to be struck by what we find. Peter will deny his Master during the Passion (cf. Mt 26:69–75). Matthew comes from the world of tax collectors, those responsible for collecting taxes, a profession regarded with little sympathy in his own day (cf. Mt 9:9–13), no less than in ours. Thomas will struggle to believe the testimony of the Resurrection (cf. Jn 20:24–29). Judas Iscariot will go so far as to betray Him (cf. Mt 26:14–16; 47–50).
If none of the Apostles appears to be the ideal candidate for a mission destined to change history, why does Christ choose them? Certainly not because He is unaware of their weaknesses, which He knows better than anyone else. He chooses them precisely knowing who they are, and in doing so He teaches a fundamental truth: the Kingdom of God is not founded upon the perfection of men, but upon the power of divine grace. As the Apostle would later write: «My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness» (2 Color 12:9). Had the apostolic mission been entrusted to flawless men, one might have been led to think that the success of the Gospel proclamation depended upon their personal qualities. Instead, Christ chooses frail men in order to remind us of our own human frailty, so that it may appear all the more clearly that the work belongs to God and not to man. In this regard, Benedict XVI, in the homily delivered on 15 June 2008 during the Holy Mass celebrated at the Sant’Apollinare Quay in Brindisi, recalled that Christ did not choose the Apostles because they were already saints, but so that they might become saints. It is a decisive distinction: holiness is not the prerequisite for the call, but the fruit of one’s response to that call. And this applies not only to the Apostles, but to every Christian.
The Gospel narrative then continues with a statement that may surprise us. Jesus instructs the Twelve to go first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to the pagans or the Samaritans. Is this not, at first sight, a contradiction of the universal character of Christ’s proclamation? No, provided we bear in mind that God had prepared His people for centuries for the coming of the Messiah. Israel is the land of the promises, of the Covenant, and of that long divine pedagogy through which the Lord gradually educated His people to welcome the Saviour. For this reason, the proclamation begins with Israel, not because the other nations are excluded from salvation, but because it was precisely in Israel that the promises entrusted to the Patriarchs and the Prophets were to find their fulfilment. Only after the Resurrection would the Apostles receive the mandate to go forth to all nations (cf. Mk 16:15), carrying to the ends of the earth that Gospel which had first been proclaimed to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The universality of salvation, therefore, is not denied but prepared, according to that divine plan which leads from the Old Covenant to the proclamation of the Gospel to all peoples.
Finally, Jesus concludes with what is perhaps the most demanding statement in the entire passage: «Without cost you have received; without cost you are to give». The Apostles must remember that nothing they possess truly belongs to them, for their calling, their grace and their mission are gifts they have received and which cannot be turned into personal possessions. These words apply equally to us. No one has given himself the faith, nor has anyone proclaimed the Gospel to himself. All of us have received something from others: faith, witness, prayer, forgiveness and charity. For this reason, the Lord asks us not to hold on to what we have received. Evangelical gratuity concerns not only the proclamation of the faith but also the concrete practice of charity. Saint Paul reminds the Christians of Corinth: «What do you possess that you have not received?» (1 Color 4:7). It is a question that retains all its force even today. If everything we are and possess is first and foremost a gift from God, then even the good we do for our neighbour cannot become a source of personal pride, but must remain a grateful response to the grace we have received.
If we were to summarise this Gospel passage in a few words, we could say that Jesus sees, feels compassion, calls and sends. Finally, He teaches that a gift received must become a gift shared. This is the logic of the Gospel through which the Lord continues, even today, to care for His people, for sheep may stray, but they are never forgotten by the Shepherd who gave His life for them, even though in the visible Church one sometimes has the perhaps mistaken impression that it is preferable to lose the sheep in order to welcome and caress the wolves.
From the Island of Patmos, 14 June 2026
.
_________________________________________
SHEEP WITHOUT A SHEPHERD AND THE FREENESS OF THE GIFT: BEATEN SHEEP AND PETTED WOLVES
(J)Jesus commands the Twelve apostles address first of all the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not from go among the pagans nor between the samaritans. Is it not this a contradiction with the universality of the announcement of Christ?
There are pages of the Gospel that seem difficult to understand and decipher at the first listen. Among the many examples, It is enough to remember the Johannine passage in which Christ affirms: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (Jn 6,54). They are words that test our ability to understand.. Indeed, Jesus links a material act, how to eat and drink, with a supernatural and eternal reality such as salvation. Nor should we forget that certain evangelical stories take place in the precise religious context of Judea., where the Halaya, Jewish Law, it was forbidden to consume animal blood. For this reason, The meat had to be completely bled through specific salting and washing procedures before it could be consumed as kosher food., that is to say, lawful. Imagine then the impact that any reference to human blood could have., or even worse, to eat human flesh. From there arose the accusation against Christians, first by some Jews of Judea and then by part of the romans: practice ritual cannibalism. It's not surprising, therefore, that many of his disciples reacted by saying: «This way of speaking is harsh, who can accept it?» (Jn 6,60). In cases like this, the difficulty appears immediately, because the mystery announced by Christ surpasses what human reason alone is capable of fully encompassing.
Other texts, instead, they seem simple, linear, almost obvious. And that is precisely where the risk lies.: that of believing that we have already understood them. This Sunday's Gospel belongs to this second category; let's read the text:
«Seeing the crowd, he felt sorry for her, because I was tired and dejected, like sheep that have no shepherd. Then he said to his disciples: “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Rogad, well, to the owner of the harvest to send workers to his harvest.”. Calling his twelve disciples, He gave them authority over unclean spirits to cast them out and to cure every disease and illness.. The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew, his brother; Santiago, son of Zebedee, and John, his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the publican; Santiago, son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Canaanite and Judas Iscariot, the same one who delivered it. Jesus sent these Twelve, after giving these instructions: “Do not go to the land of the pagans or enter the cities of the Samaritans.”; rather turn to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Go and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven is near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, purify lepers, cast out demons. Freely you have received; give for free” (Mt 9,36–10,8).
It all starts with a look: Jesus, seeing the crowd, He felt sorry for her because she was "tired and dejected", "like sheep that have no shepherd". This image is not coincidental. It refers to a long prophetic tradition, in particular to chapter XXXIV of the prophet Ezekiel, in which God reproaches the shepherds of Israel for having thought of themselves instead of caring for the flock that had been entrusted to them: "The sheep were scattered for want of a shepherd" (This 34,5). The same accusation reappears in the prophet Jeremiah: «Woe to the shepherds who let the sheep get lost and scatter from my pastures!» (Because 23,1). When, therefore, Jesus sees the crowds as sheep without a shepherd, he does not simply see a crowd of people tired by the difficulties of life, but a people that runs the risk of dispersing due to a lack of authentic guides. That's why, The evangelical image of sheep without a shepherd does not offer a generic description of the human condition, but a very concrete reality that runs through all of biblical history: that of the flock entrusted by God to shepherds called to guard and guide it. In this context the compassion of Christ must be understood, not as a simple feeling of shock, but as the manifestation of the same gaze of God on his people. He whom the prophets had announced as the true Shepherd of Israel now stands before the scattered flock and prepares to gather them together..
After contemplating Christ's compassion toward the multitudes, the Gospel takes a decisive step: Jesus calls twelve men and sends them. This is not a casual choice. In the Old and New Testaments, numbers always have a symbolic and mystagogical meaning.. In this case, The number of those called refers to the twelve tribes of Israel (cf. GN 35,22-26; Ex 24,4) and manifests the will of Christ to gather around himself the new People of God. Next, the Evangelist lists their names, and it's hard not to be impressed by what we find. Peter will deny the Master during the Passion (cf. Mt 26,69-75). Matthew comes from the world of publicans, that is to say, of tax collectors, a category viewed with little sympathy yesterday (cf. Mt 9,9-13) like still today. Thomas will have difficulty believing in the testimony of the Resurrection (cf. Jn 20,24-29). Judas Iscariot will even go so far as to betray (cf. Mt 26,14-16; 47-50).
If none of the Apostles seem like the ideal candidate for a mission destined to change history, why does Christ choose them? Certainly not because he ignores his weaknesses, who knows better than anyone. He chooses them precisely knowing who they are, and in doing so teaches a fundamental truth: The Kingdom of God is not based on the perfection of men, but in the power of divine grace. The Apostle will write later: «My grace is enough for you, because my strength is fully manifested in weakness." (2 Color 12,9). If the apostolic mission had been entrusted to impeccable men, one might have thought that the success of the advertisement depended on its qualities. Christ, instead, choose fragile men to remind us of our own human frailties, so that it appears with greater evidence that the work belongs to God and not to man. In this regard, Benedict XVI, In the homily delivered on 15 June 2008 during the Holy Mass celebrated at the San Apolinar Pier in Brindisi, He remembered that Christ did not choose the Apostles because they were already saints, but so that they could become. This is a decisive distinction: holiness is not the presupposition of the call, but the fruit of the response to the call. And this applies not only to the Apostles., but for every Christian.
The gospel story continues then with a statement that might surprise us: Jesus orders the Twelve apostles to go first and foremost to the lost sheep of the house of Israel and not to go among the pagans or among the Samaritans.. Is it not this a contradiction with the universality of the announcement of Christ? No, if we take into account that God had prepared his people for centuries for the coming of the Messiah. Israel is the land of promises, of the Covenant and of that long divine pedagogy through which the Lord had progressively educated his people to welcome the Savior. That's why the announcement begins in Israel, not because other peoples are excluded from salvation, but because precisely in Israel the promises entrusted to the Patriarchs and Prophets were to find fulfillment.. Only after the Resurrection will the Apostles receive the mandate to go to all nations (cf. MC 16,15), taking to the ends of the earth that Gospel that had been announced first to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The universality of salvation, therefore, is not denied, but prepared, according to that divine plan that leads from the Old Alliance to the preaching of the Gospel to all peoples.
Jesus finally concludes with a phrase which may be the most demanding of the entire passage: "Freely you have received; give free». The Apostles must remember that nothing they own truly belongs to them, because the call, grace and mission are gifts received that cannot be transformed into possession. These words are also valid for us: no one has given himself faith, nor has anyone announced the Gospel to himself. We have all received something from others: faith, the testimony, the prayer, forgiveness and charity. That is why the Lord asks us not to retain what we have received. Evangelical gratuitousness does not refer only to the announcement of the faith, but also to the concrete exercise of charity. Saint Paul remembers the Christians of Corinth: «What do you have that you have not received?» (1 Color 4,7). It is a question that still retains all its force today.: if everything we are and possess is above all a gift from God, then also the good we do for our neighbor cannot become a source of personal pride, but must remain a grateful response to the grace received.
If we had to summarize this evangelical pericope in a few words, we could say that Jesus sees, sympathize, call and send. Finally, it teaches that the gift received must become a gift shared. This is the logic of the Gospel through which the Lord continues today to care for his people., because sheep can go astray, but they are never forgotten by the Shepherd who gave his life for them, although today, in the visible Church, there is often the impression, maybe wrong, that it is preferable to lose the sheep to welcome and caress the wolves.
From the Island of Patmos, 13 June 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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Padre-Ariel-foto-2025-piccola.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150father arielHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngfather ariel2026-06-14 11:14:592026-06-14 16:31:29Sheep without a shepherd and the gratuitousness of the gift: beaten sheep and caressed wolves – Sheep without a shepherd and the gratuitousness of the gift: beaten sheep and caressed wolves
«MY MOTHER MUST NOT KNOW». WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE POPES IS BORN AND DIES
If the Pontiff has not been informed, who did not inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, in the examination of quite a few cases, is that these figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.
In the exercise of government in general, perhaps in the pastoral one of the Church in particular, the principle according to which the king cannot make mistakes applies and, if he were to make a mistake, someone else has to pay for him. This principle tends to protect not so much the person himself, as the institution that it is called upon to cover or, in the case of the papacy, to embody (cf.. Mt 16, 18-19).
To stay in the political sphere and represent everything with an effective example: according to the article 89 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, all acts of the Head of State are countersigned, as politically irresponsible. The countersignature in fact transfers the political and legal responsibility for the act from the President of the Republic to the proposing ministers or to the Government, while guaranteeing the formal regularity of the measure.
If we move from the political sphere to the spiritual one instead we discover something substantially different: while the Head of State of the Italian Republic, like other Heads of State governed by different but similar constitutional systems, Republican president or monarch, is not responsible for political acts carried out in the exercise of its functions, even though he could be called to answer for serious crimes against the State, the Roman Pontiff is not judged by any human authority (cf.. Code of Canon Law, can. 1404: The first seat is judged by no one). His supreme power, milk, immediate and universal on the Church (cf.. can. 331) in fact he knows no superior earthly authority.
but yet, despite these immunities created to protect the office, of the Petrine ministry and his apostolic succession, the Roman Pontiff, unlike any other political figure, republican or monarchic, remains fully responsible for its own actions, of their own words, of one's works and omissions on a spiritual and moral level before God and before the Church. In fact, he enjoys total human legal immunity, but precisely for this reason his moral responsibility is not attenuated, quite the opposite: if anything it is increased by the singularity of his office and the absence of any superior earthly authority called to judge him. This regardless of the fact that, if necessary, someone may be exposed, sacrificed or called to pay in his place. In fact, these are dynamics attributable to government policy, sometimes even its most unscrupulous forms, which, however, have no relevance on a doctrinal level, ecclesiological or metaphysical. Before God there are no ministerial countersignatures, nor responsibilities transferable to others.
Over the last few decades However, that period has progressively established itself which I have already had the opportunity to define as the era of uninformed and kept in the dark Pontiffs.. In these cases, not even the ancient scapegoat sacrificed to save the sovereign who cannot make mistakes or be exposed for his own mistakes no longer pays.. Responsibility rather tends to dissolve in a generic lack of information, in news that would not have reached its destination, in filtered alerts, incomplete or even altered by others. And that this could happen occasionally is entirely plausible. No man, not even the Roman Pontiff, possesses the gift of omniscience. However, less plausible appears to be the fact that this explanation recurs with surprising regularity under different pontificates, in different eras and in profoundly different events. In fact, it is at this point that an inevitable question arises: if the Pontiff has not been informed, who did not inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, in the examination of quite a few cases, is that these figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.
Here's an example. Let's assume that within the micro-state of which the Roman Pontiff is sovereign, blatant and serious violations of human rights occur, even as he is particularly active on the international scene in calling out governments, supranational institutions and bodies to respect the dignity of the person and the protection of fundamental rights. It is in cases like these that various justifying mechanisms tend to be activated: we are talking about information that was not received, of news filtered along the way, of incomplete relationships, of collaborators who would not have reported, of apparatuses that would have shielded reality and so on. All subjects almost always shrouded in vagueness, nameless, of face and precise identity.
Vladimir Putin governs a federation that spans over seventeen million square kilometers and spans eleven time zones. Donald Trump presides over a federation that spans nearly ten million square kilometers and spans six time zones. Both, wanting, they could argue with some reasonableness that they are not able to know everything that happens in the most remote points of their territories, of the various central administrations and above all of the peripheral ones. The same argument can also be invoked by the Supreme Pontiff, sovereign of a state that extends for just over half a square kilometre? A state in which, to go from the Apostolic Palace to the Vatican Gardens, it is not necessary to face an intercontinental flight, cross deserts, mountain ranges or tropical forests, nor even change the time on the clock to adapt to different time zones. However, also in this case, it may happen that certain news stories undertake such long journeys, tortuous and bumpy that they will never be able to reach their final destination.
The distance between the Vatican City State and Gaza is considerable. However, this does not prevent - rightly - from raising our voices in defense of the tormented Palestinian people, as well as other peoples deprived of their rights in even more distant lands. It may be, however, that this constant and necessary reminder of human rights violations committed thousands of kilometers away sometimes makes it more difficult to deal with the different Gazas and their respective tortured Palestinians who may find themselves right inside the sacred palaces of that half square kilometer.
It is perhaps due to the lack of information? Can be. It's because of filtered news, withheld or never reached their destination? It could be this too. Anything can be. As it can be, to quote the late and unforgettable Giuni Russo: «My mother must not know that I want to go to Alghero in the company of a foreigner» (cf.. who).
One thing, however, remains out of question on a doctrinal and juridical level: the Roman Pontiff is not judged by any human authority. But perhaps precisely for this reason he is called to answer in a particular way before God for his own thoughts, of their own words, of one's works and omissions, without anyone being able to countersign his documents to relieve him of responsibility or assume responsibility, if necessary, political responsibility in his place. Because if the sovereign can be protected by men, the question always remains open of how he will be judged by Him who knows perfectly what men have seen, what they did not see and even what they preferred not to see. It is written:
"To whom much is given, much will be asked for; to whom men have committed much, It will ask the more " (LC 12, 48).
And before the divine tribunal it will be very difficult to say you don't know, that they were not informed or were deceived in half a square kilometre.
«MY MOTHER MUST NOT KNOW». WHERE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PONTIFFS IS BORN AND WHERE IT DIES
If the Pontiff was not informed, who failed to inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was actually deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, upon examining not a few cases, is that such figures almost always remain without a name, without a face and without any precise identification.
In the exercise of government in general, and perhaps in that of the Church’s pastoral governance in particular, there operates a principle according to which the king cannot be wrong and, should he happen to err, someone else must pay in his place. This principle is intended to protect not so much the person himself as the institution he is called to occupy or, in the case of the papacy, to embody (cf. Mt 16, 18-19).
To remain within the political sphere and illustrate the matter with an effective example: according to Article 89 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, all acts of the Head of State must be countersigned, since he is politically irresponsible. The countersignature transfers the political and legal responsibility for the act from the President of the Republic to the proposing ministers or to the Government, while at the same time guaranteeing the formal validity of the measure.
If we move from the political sphere to the spiritual one, we discover something substantially different: whereas the Head of State of the Italian Republic, like other Heads of State governed by different but analogous constitutional systems, whether republican president or monarch, is not accountable for political acts performed in the exercise of his office, although he may be called to answer for grave crimes against the State, the Roman Pontiff is judged by no human authority (cf. Code of Canon Lawi, can. 1404: The first seat is judged by no one). His supreme, full, immediate and universal power over the Church recognises no higher earthly authority (cf. can. 331).
Yet, despite these immunities established for the protection of the office, the Petrine ministry and its apostolic succession, the Roman Pontiff, unlike any other political figure, whether republican or monarchical, remains fully responsible for his acts, his words, his deeds and his omissions on the spiritual and moral plane before God and before the Church. He indeed enjoys complete juridical immunity before men, but precisely for this reason his moral responsibility is not diminished; quite the contrary: it is heightened by the singularity of his office and by the absence of any superior earthly authority called to judge him. This remains true regardless of the fact that, when circumstances require it, someone else may be exposed, sacrificed or called upon to pay in his place. Such dynamics belong to the sphere of governmental politics, at times even in its more ruthless forms, yet they possess no relevance whatsoever on the doctrinal, ecclesiological or metaphysical plane. Before God there are no ministerial countersignatures, nor responsibilities transferable to others.
During the past decades, however, there has gradually emerged what I once described as the era of Pontiffs who are uninformed and kept in the dark. In such cases, not even the ancient scapegoat sacrificed in order to save the sovereign who cannot err or be exposed for his own mistakes is called upon to pay. Responsibility tends instead to dissolve into a generic lack of information, into reports that allegedly never reached their destination, into notices filtered, incomplete or even altered by others. That such things may occasionally occur is entirely plausible. No man, not even the Roman Pontiff, possesses the gift of omniscience. Less plausible, however, is the fact that this explanation recurs with surprising regularity under different pontificates, in different periods and in circumstances profoundly unlike one another. It is at this point that an inevitable question arises: if the Pontiff was not informed, who failed to inform him? If he was misinformed, who misinformed him? And if he was actually deceived, who deceived him? What is striking, upon examining not a few cases, is that such figures almost always remain without a name, without a face and without any precise identification.
Let us take an example. Let us suppose that within the micro-State over which the Roman Pontiff is sovereign there occur manifest and serious violations of human rights, precisely while he is particularly active on the international stage in calling governments, institutions and supranational bodies to respect human dignity and safeguard fundamental rights. It is in cases such as these that various justificatory mechanisms are promptly set in motion: one hears of information that never arrived, of reports filtered along the way, of incomplete briefings, of collaborators who allegedly failed to report matters, of bureaucratic structures that supposedly screened reality from view, and so forth. All subjects almost invariably enveloped in vagueness and deprived of any clear name or identity.
Vladimir Putin governs a federation extending across more than seventeen million square kilometres and spanning eleven time zones. Donald Trump presides over a federation extending across nearly ten million square kilometres and spanning six time zones. Both, if they wished, could reasonably maintain that they are unable to know everything that takes place in the most remote corners of their territories, within the various central administrations and, above all, within the peripheral ones. May the same argument also be invoked by the Supreme Pontiff, sovereign of a State extending over little more than half a square kilometre? A State in which, in order to pass from the Apostolic Palace to the Vatican Gardens, there is no need to undertake an intercontinental flight, cross deserts, mountain ranges or tropical forests, nor even to adjust one’s watch to different time zones. Yet even in such a case it may happen that certain pieces of information undertake journeys so long, tortuous and hazardous that they never succeed in reaching their final destination.
The distance between the Vatican City State and Gaza is considerable. Yet this does not prevent the Holy See – rightly so – from raising its voice in defence of the long-suffering Palestinian people, just as it does for other peoples deprived of their rights in lands even more distant. It may be, however, that this constant and entirely justified concern for human rights violations committed thousands of kilometres away sometimes makes it more difficult to come to terms with the various Gazas and their respective suffering Palestinians who may be found within the sacred palaces of that half square kilometre.
Is it perhaps the fault of a lack of information? It may be. Is it the fault of reports filtered, withheld or never delivered to their destination? That too may be the case. Anything is possible. Just as it may be, to borrow the words of the late and unforgettable Giuni Russo: «My mother must not know that I want to go to Alghero in the company of a foreigner» (cf. here).
One thing, however, remains beyond dispute on both the doctrinal and juridical levels: the Roman Pontiff is judged by no human authority. Yet perhaps precisely for this reason he is called in a particular way to answer before God for his thoughts, his words, his deeds and his omissions, without anyone being able to countersign his acts in order to relieve him of responsibility or assume political responsibility in his stead. For if the sovereign may be protected by men, there remains the question of how he will be judged by Him who knows perfectly what men have seen, what they have not seen and even what they have preferred not to see. For it is written: «Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required; and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more» (Page 12:48).
And, quite frankly, before the divine tribunal it will be very difficult to claim not to have known, not to have been informed, or to have been deceived within half a square kilometre.
From The Island of Patmos, 7 June 2026
.
«MY MOTHER SHOULD NOT KNOW». WHERE IS BORN AND WHERE DOES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PONTIFFS DIE??
If the Pontiff was not informed, Who stopped reporting it?? If you were misinformed, who misreported it? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What attracts attention, when examining many cases, is that such figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.
In the exercise of government in general, and perhaps particularly in the pastoral government of the Church, governs the principle according to which the king cannot make a mistake and, if I were to make a mistake, someone else must pay instead. This principle tends to protect not so much the person themselves as the institution they are called to occupy or, in the case of the papacy, to embody (cf. Mt 16, 18-19).
To remain in the political sphere and represent all this with an effective example: according to the article 89 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic, all acts of the Head of State must be endorsed, because this is politically irresponsible. The endorsement transfers the political and legal responsibility for the act from the President of the Republic to the proposing ministers or the Government., while guaranteeing the formal regularity of the act.
If we move from the political sphere to the spiritual we discovered something substantially different: while the Head of State of the Italian Republic, like other Heads of State governed by different but analogous constitutional systems, whether president of a republic or monarch, is not responsible for political acts carried out in the exercise of its functions, although he may be called to answer for serious crimes against the State, The Roman Pontiff cannot be judged by any human authority (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1404: The first seat is judged by no one). Indeed, his supreme power, full, immediate and universal over the Church recognizes no higher earthly authority (cf. can. 331).
However, despite these immunities established for the protection of the office, of the Petrine ministry and his apostolic succession, the Roman Pontiff, unlike any other political figure, republican or monarchical, remains fully responsible for his actions, of his words, of their works and their omissions on the spiritual and moral level before God and before the Church. He certainly enjoys total legal immunity from men., but precisely for this reason his moral responsibility is not diminished; quite the opposite, It is increased by the singularity of his profession and by the absence of any higher earthly authority called to judge him.. This is true regardless of whether, if necessary, someone can be exposed, sacrificed or called to pay in his place. These are dynamics inherent to government policy., sometimes even in its most ruthless forms, but which lack any relevance at the doctrinal level, ecclesiological or metaphysical. Before God there are no ministerial endorsements or responsibilities transferable to others..
During the last decades that stage that I already had the opportunity to define as the era of the Pontiffs who were not informed and kept in the dark has progressively been affirmed.. In these cases, not even the former scapegoat sacrificed to save the sovereign who cannot make mistakes or be exposed for his own errors no longer pays.. Rather, responsibility tends to dissolve in a general lack of information, in news that supposedly never reached its destination, in leaked ads, incomplete or even altered by others. That this can happen occasionally is entirely plausible.. no man, not even the Roman Pontiff, possesses the gift of omniscience. It is less plausible, however, the fact that this explanation reappears with surprising regularity under different pontificates, in different times and in profoundly different circumstances. It is precisely at this point that an inevitable question arises.: if the Pontiff was not informed, who failed to inform you? If you were misinformed, who misreported it? And if he was even deceived, who deceived him? What attracts attention, when examining many cases, is that such figures almost always remain nameless, faceless and without precise identification.
Let's take an example. Suppose that within the microstate of which the Roman Pontiff is sovereign, serious and clear violations of human rights occur., precisely while he is particularly active in international politics urging governments, supranational institutions and organizations to respect the dignity of the person and the protection of fundamental rights. In cases like these, when various justification mechanisms are usually activated from time to time,: we talk about information not received, leaked news, of incomplete reports, of collaborators who supposedly did not report, of bureaucratic structures that would have hidden the truth and so on. Subjects, almost always, wrapped in vagueness, without precise name and identity.
Vladimir Putin governs a federation that spans more than seventeen million square kilometers and spans eleven time zones. Donald Trump presides over a federation that spans nearly ten million square kilometers and crosses six time zones.. Both, if they wanted it that way, could maintain with reasonable grounds that they are not in a position to know everything that happens in the most remote corners of their territories, of the various central administrations and, above all, of the peripheral. Can the same argument be invoked in the case of the Supreme Pontiff, sovereign of a State that extends for just over half a square kilometer? A state in which, to go from the Apostolic Palace to the Vatican Gardens, it is not necessary to take an intercontinental flight, cross deserts, mountain ranges or tropical jungles, much less modify the clock time to adapt to different time zones. And even in this case, It may happen that certain news undertake such long journeys, tortuous and bumpy roads that never reach their final destination.
The distance between Vatican City State and Gaza is considerable. However, This does not prevent – and rightly so – from raising our voices in defense of the tortured Palestinian people., as well as other peoples deprived of their rights in even more distant lands. It can happen, nevertheless, that this constant and justified attention to human rights violations committed thousands of kilometers away sometimes makes it more difficult to confront the various Gaza and the respective tortured Palestinians who can be found precisely within the sacred palaces of that half a square kilometer.
Is it perhaps the fault of the lack of information? Could be. ¿It's the fault of leaked news, held or never reached their destination? It can also be. everything can be. In the same way it can be, to say it in the words of the unforgettable Giuni Russo: «My mother must not know that I want to go to Alghero in the company of a foreigner» (cf. here).
One thing, however, remains beyond discussion at the doctrinal and legal level: The Roman Pontiff cannot be judged by any human authority. But perhaps precisely for this reason he is called to respond in a particular way before God for his thoughts., his words, his works and his omissions, without anyone being able to endorse his actions to exempt him from responsibility or assume, if necessary, political responsibility in place. Because if the sovereign can be protected by men, The question always remains open as to how he will be judged by Him who knows perfectly what men have seen., what they have not seen or even what they have not preferred to see. Well it is written: «To whom much was given, a lot will be required of him; and to whom much was entrusted, "even more will be asked of him" (LC 12,48).
Y, sincerely, before the divine court It will be very difficult to say that you did not know, that they had not been informed or that they had been deceived in half a square kilometer.
From the Island of Patmos, 7 June 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
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Padre-Ariel-foto-2025-piccola.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150father arielHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngfather ariel2026-06-08 12:10:552026-06-09 14:55:57«My mother must not know». Where the responsibility of the Pontiffs is born and dies – «My mother must not know». Where the responsibility of Pontiffs is born and where it dies – "My mother must not know". Where does the responsibility of the Pontiffs begin and where does it die??
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Padre-Ivano-piccola.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150Father IvanoHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngFather Ivano2026-06-07 17:56:202026-08-08 11:33:12Fra Nazareno da Pula: a man who wanted to please God more than men – Fra Nazarene of Pula: a man who wanted to please God more than men
In the Eucharist it is the body of Christ itself that, in its fullness as a source of grace, comes to us; and it is not through a more or less superficial and ephemeral contact, but through the most intimate and lasting way possible: the assimilation of a food"
The Gospel of this Solemnity it is the conclusion of the story of the multiplication of the loaves according to John.
This "sign" of sharing, seems to be very important to Jesus, since it is the only one narrated by all four gospels; rather, Matthew and Mark even tell it twice. The narratives are similar, yet each retains some of its own characteristics. Let's see the text:
"During that time, Jesus said to the crowd: «I am the living bread, down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world ". Then the Jews began to argue bitterly among themselves: «How can this man give us his flesh to eat?». Jesus said to them,: "In truth, verily I tell you: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will resurrect him on the last day. For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Like the Father, that has life, he sent me and I live for the Father, so also he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like what the fathers ate and died. Whoever eats this bread will live forever" (GV 6,51-58).
Giovanni's story, in particular, it does not seem to be a model of that of the synoptics, since it was not put together with passages taken from the other Gospels; appears as an original composition based on an independent tradition that John would have collected and preserved. E, more specifically, in the Johannine narrative there is a very strong theological orientation which emerges above all in the passage proposed today in the lectionary. This passage could be considered the Eucharistic or sacramental section of the story. Even in the other five versions in the synoptic gospels there is a strong Eucharistic motif, but in John it is more explicit, because it is probably the Gospel furthest from the events narrated. It is possible that gradually the story of the multiplication of the loaves formed part of the tradition of the Christian community, its connection to the special food of God's people, l'Eucharist, was increasingly recognized. The language of the multiplication stories was colored by the Eucharistic liturgies familiar to the various communities.
Even today our communities celebrate the memory of the Body and Blood of the Lord, that is, of the donated body, delivered, of Jesus for the life of men. The words of the Lord: «I am the living bread, down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread he will live forever" (GV 6,51) they reveal first of all who Jesus is: He who reveals the Father and gives life to the world with his own life, for love. In this way the words: «eat my flesh and drink my blood» (cf.. GV 6,53-56), they refer the disciple to the spiritual operation of assimilating the life of Christ into his own existence.
And therefore they refer to faith, that is, to believe, as well as listening to the word of the Lord and acting in practice, in concretely doing the will of the Father, as Jesus himself did. The life of the Lord, his flesh and blood, as witnessed in the Gospels, it is the food that every believer is called to eat so that the life of Jesus lives concretely in him. And the Church becomes the place where the humanity of every believer is called to conform to the life of the risen Lord who continues to give himself to us. So that it is true that a single life binds the Lord and his disciple. The Church thus manifests itself as a place of the alliance between the Lord and the believer.
The evangelical page that was proclaimed it reveals to us the meaning of the Eucharistic mystery that we celebrate. But the verse – «Whoever eats me, he too will live through me" (verbatim) – may seem strangely harsh, so much so that some of Jesus' listeners did not understand him and ended up abandoning him. Perhaps this apparent harshness can be explained, first of all recovering the anthropological sense of eating:
«In the Eucharist it is the very body of Christ that, in its fullness as a source of grace, comes to us; and it is not through a more or less superficial and ephemeral contact, but through the most intimate and lasting way possible: the assimilation of a food" (Pierre-Marie Benoît, ON, The stories of the institution and their scope, Light & Vie, n° 31, 1957).
Even Saint John uses the Greek verb to indicate "eating". three, which some translate literally as "chew". That is, we have a reference to that essential activity of eating which involves the transformation of food through the destruction of solid forms to make them digestible and assimilable.. In this way we can recover the realism of John's text and make it eloquent today, without losing the theological and spiritual value of the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
For man, eating is a primordial act which accompanies us from life in the womb until death. But the act of eating is also a reference to man's cultural activity: it involves work, food preparation, sociality, conviviality. Indeed, man eats together with others and eating is connected to a table, place of friendship creation, fraternity, alliance and society. At the table you don't just share food, but they also exchange words and conversations that nourish relationships, that is, what gives meaning to life supported by food. Eating therefore also involves the most extraordinary cultural creation: the language. Tied as it is to orality and desire, the act of eating affects the affective and emotional sphere of man. It is therefore an anthropological symbol of unique significance that captures the human being in his most intimate and hidden depths and places him in the bond with the earth, with the cosmos, with the police, society and the world. There is no more total assent for man to everything that surrounds him than the act of eating. It is the human way of saying yes.
From this material and anthropological aspect we move spontaneously to the theological and spiritual one, which we grasp in all its significance in the words of Jesus that we have heard: «Like the Father, that has life, he sent me and I live for the Father, so also he who eats me will live because of me.". The "eating of me" is placed in line with the sending of the Son by the Father. It is the outcome of the mission received from the Father and the culmination of the Trinitarian event of divine revelation and communication to man in Jesus, but also the extreme act of love reached by the obedience of the Son towards the Father. From the anthropological level of eating we thus go back to the deepest and most intimate theological level which makes us understand how the Lord is the One who gives himself as food to man. “Eating me” is then the most radical expression of the love of Christ and God for humanity. This eating is made possible by the gift that the Father, in his great love (GV 3,16), He makes the Son by sending him into the world so that men may have life in abundance (GV 10,10) and that the Son freely makes of himself, for the love of humanity (GV 10,11.18; 15,13).
What, so, it is fundamental in this eating it is recognizing the gift that is at its origin. This food, indeed, it does not come from man, but it flows from God's love for man and tends to communicate the love in which true life consists. The Eucharistic food we eat is sacrament― Sacramento ― through which the love and life of God reach man. The Eucharistic community which in approaching the Lord's table reaches its culmination and rediscovers its source, as the Council expresses it, therefore flows from love, through the mediation of the goods of creation, the bread and wine that the Church blesses, which become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Underlining, at last, the many connections that our evangelical passage has with the entire sixth chapter of Saint John of which it is part, we realize that we find this reality that Jesus reveals to us everywhere: He presents himself as the One who reveals the Father and then as Eucharistic food and drink. For us believers this means that "eating me", requested by Jesus, cannot be separated from "coming to Jesus" (GV 6,35-45), or from "believing in Him". The parallel between believing and eating is significant. Let us remember the important and decisive words of Jesus: «This is the will of my Father, that whoever sees the Son and believes in him has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (GV 6,40); “He who believes has eternal life” (GV 6,47); "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day" (GV 6,54); «Whoever eats this bread will live forever» (6,58). Thus believing in the Lord and eating his Body and drinking his Blood are inseparably united, Why: "the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world" (GV 6,33). And the life that Jesus offers us is that of the Father; for this reason coming to Jesus and listening to his Word allows believers to be generated into the new life of the children of God (GV 1,12-13). Before the multiplication of the loaves and the dense discourse that followed, Jesus had stated: «Whoever listens to my word... has eternal life» (GV 5,24). In this way, the phrase «Whoever eats me, he too will live through me" (6,57) it expresses not only the culmination of God's donation and communication to man in Christ, but it also opens us to an unexpected and completely free perspective. He, the Lord Jesus, who has "returned to the bosom of the Father" continues to show us the way of life: “For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world” (GV 6,33).
But eternal life promised to those who assimilate the life of Christ (cf.. GV 6,51.54.58), in reality it already begins here and now for the believer. In every Eucharist we announce, indeed, the death of the Lord, we proclaim his resurrection, waiting for Him to come.
Like Jesus we too integrate death into life making life an act of donation, an act of love in the footsteps of Jesus (cf.. GV 13,34). For this love Jesus still gives himself as food and drink to men. The life of God and the life of man meet in love, nell’agape, food that truly nourishes man and reality that constitutes the life of God; indeed: «God is love» (1GV 4,8.16). The Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, dell’agape, every time we celebrate it we hear stories of how God gives himself to men and by communicating with the Body and Blood of the Lord we too become capable of giving.
From the Hermitage, 6 June 2026
.
______________________________
IF ANYONE EATS OF THIS BREAD, HE WILL LIVE FOR EVER
«In the Eucharist it is the very Body of Christ that comes to us in the fullness of its power as a source of grace; and it comes not through a contact that is more or less superficial and fleeting, but through the most intimate and enduring mode possible: the assimilation of food.»
The Gospel proclaimed on this Solemnity is the conclusion of Saint John’s account of the multiplication of the loaves. This “sign” of sharing appears to have been of particular importance to Jesus, since it is the only miracle narrated by all four Evangelists; indeed, Matthew and Mark recount it twice. The accounts are similar, yet each preserves certain distinctive characteristics. Let us consider the text:
«At that time Jesus said to the crowd: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”» (Jn 6:51-58).
John’s account, in particular, does not appear to be a reworking of the Synoptic narratives, for it has not been assembled from passages borrowed from the other Gospels. Rather, it appears as an original composition based upon an independent tradition which John gathered and preserved. More specifically, within the Johannine narrative there is a very strong theological orientation which emerges above all in the passage proposed today by the lectionary. This section may rightly be regarded as the Eucharistic or sacramental portion of the account. The other five versions found in the Synoptic Gospels also contain a strong Eucharistic motif, but in John it is expressed more explicitly, probably because this Gospel stands at a greater chronological distance from the events narrated. As the account of the multiplication of the loaves increasingly became part of the living tradition of the Christian community, its connection with the special food of God’s people — the Eucharist — came to be recognised ever more clearly. The language of the multiplication narratives gradually took on the colouring of the Eucharistic liturgies familiar to the various Christian communities.
Even today our communities celebrate the memorial of the Body and Blood of the Lord: that is, of the Body given and handed over by Jesus for the life of mankind. The Lord’s words: «I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever» (Jn 6:51), first of all reveal who Jesus is: the One who reveals the Father and gives life to the world through His own life, out of love. In this way the words «eat my flesh and drink my blood» (cf. Jn 6:53,54,56) direct the disciple towards the spiritual task of assimilating the life of Christ into his own existence.
Thus these words point us towards faith — that is, towards believing — as well as towards listening to the word of the Lord and putting it into practice by concretely doing the will of the Father, just as Jesus Himself did. The life of the Lord, His flesh and His blood, as witnessed in the Gospels, is the food upon which every believer is called to nourish himself, so that the life of Jesus may live concretely within him. The Church thus becomes the place in which the humanity of every believer is called to be conformed to the life of the Risen Lord, who continues to give Himself to us. In this way it becomes true that a single life binds together the Lord and His disciple. The Church therefore manifests herself as the place of the covenant between the Lord and the believer.
The Gospel passage proclaimed today reveals to us the meaning of the Eucharistic mystery that we celebrate. Yet the verse — «Whoever feeds on me will have life because of me» (literally) — may seem strangely harsh, so much so that some of Jesus’ listeners failed to understand it and ultimately abandoned Him. Perhaps this apparent harshness can be explained by first recovering the anthropological meaning of eating:
«In the Eucharist it is the very Body of Christ that comes to us in the fullness of its power as a source of grace; and it comes not through a contact that is more or less superficial and fleeting, but through the most intimate and enduring mode possible: the assimilation of food» (Pierre-Marie Benoît, OP, The stories of the institution and their scope, Light & Vie, no. 31, 1957).
Saint John even uses the Greek verb three to indicate “eating”, a verb that some translators render literally as “to chew”. We are thus referred to that essential human activity of eating which implies the transformation of food through the breaking down of solid forms so as to make them digestible and capable of being assimilated. In this way we may recover the realism of the Johannine text and render it eloquent for our own time without losing the theological and spiritual value of the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
For man, eating is a primordial act that accompanies us from life in the maternal womb until death. Yet the act of eating also points towards man’s cultural activity: it implies labour, the preparation of food, social interaction and conviviality. Indeed, man eats together with others, and eating is connected with the table, a place where friendship, fraternity, covenant and society are created. Around the table not only is food shared, but words and conversations are exchanged, nourishing relationships and thus that which gives meaning to the life sustained by food. Eating therefore also implies humanity’s most extraordinary cultural creation: language itself. Bound as it is to orality and desire, the act of eating engages the affective and emotional sphere of man. It is therefore an anthropological symbol of unique richness, one that grasps the human being in his deepest and most hidden dimensions and situates him within his relationship to the earth, the cosmos, the police, society and the world. For man there exists no more total assent to all that surrounds him than the act of eating. It is the human way of saying “yes”.
From this material and anthropological dimension we pass naturally to the theological and spiritual one, which we grasp in all its richness in the words of Jesus that we have heard: «Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.» The expression “feeds on me” is placed in continuity with the sending of the Son by the Father. It is the outcome of the mission received from the Father and the culmination of the Trinitarian event of divine revelation and communication to humanity in Jesus. At the same time, it is the supreme act of love to which the Son’s obedience to the Father attains. From the anthropological dimension of eating we thus ascend to the deepest and most intimate theological dimension, which enables us to understand how the Lord is the One who gives Himself as food to mankind. “Feeding on me” thus becomes the most radical expression of Christ’s love and of God’s love for humanity. This feeding is made possible by the gift that the Father, in His great love (Jn 3:16), gives in sending the Son into the world so that men may have life in abundance (Jn 10:10), and by the gift that the Son freely makes of Himself for love of humanity (Jn 10:11,18; 15:13).
What is therefore fundamental in this feeding is recognising the gift that lies at its origin. This food does not come from man; rather, it springs from God’s love for man and tends towards the communication of that love in which true life consists. The Eucharistic nourishment that we receive is a sacrament— a Sacrament — through which the love and life of God reach mankind. The Eucharistic community, which reaches its summit in approaching the table of the Lord and there rediscovers its source, as the Council teaches, springs from love through the mediation of the goods of creation: bread and wine, which the Church blesses and which become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Finally, by considering the many connections that our Gospel passage has with the entirety of Saint John’s sixth chapter, of which it forms a part, we realise that we encounter everywhere this reality revealed to us by Jesus: He presents Himself as the One who reveals the Father and then as Eucharistic food and drink. For us believers, this means that the “feeding on me” demanded by Jesus cannot be separated from “coming to Jesus” (Jn 6:35-45), that is, from “believing in Him”. The parallel between believing and eating is significant. Let us recall Jesus’ important and decisive words: «For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day» (Jn 6:40); «Whoever believes has eternal life» (Jn 6:47); «Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him on the last day» (Jn 6:54); «Whoever eats this bread will live forever» (Jn 6:58). Thus believing in the Lord, eating His Body and drinking His Blood are inseparably united, because: «the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world» (Jn 6:33).
And the life that Jesus offers us is the life of the Father. For this reason, coming to Jesus and listening to His word enables believers to be begotten into the new life of the children of God (Jn 1:12-13). Before the multiplication of the loaves and the profound discourse that followed it, Jesus had already declared: «Whoever hears my word … has eternal life» (Jn 5:24). In this way, the phrase «Whoever feeds on me will have life because of me» (Jn 6:57) expresses not only the culmination of God’s self-giving and self-communication to humanity in Christ, but also opens before us an unexpected and entirely gratuitous perspective. He, the Lord Jesus, who has «returned to the bosom of the Father», continues to show us the way of life: «For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world» (Jn 6:33).
Yet the eternal life promised to those who assimilate the life of Christ (cf. Jn 6:51,54,58) actually begins already here and now for the believer. In every Eucharist, indeed, we proclaim the Lord’s death, we profess His Resurrection and await His coming.
Like Jesus, we too integrate death into life by making our life an act of self-giving, an act of love in the footsteps of Jesus (cf. Jn 13:34). For this love Jesus continues to give Himself as food and drink to mankind. The life of God and the life of man meet in love, in agape, the food that truly nourishes man and the reality that constitutes the very life of God; for: «God is love» (1 Jn 4:8,16). The Eucharist is the Sacrament of charity, the Sacrament of agape. Each time we celebrate it, we hear proclaimed how God gives Himself to mankind; and by receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord we ourselves become capable of self-giving.
From the Hermitage, 6 June 2026
.
______________________________
IF ANYONE EAT THIS BREAD, WILL LIVE FOREVER
«In the Eucharist it is the same Body of Christ that comes to us, in all the fullness of its condition as a source of grace; and it does not do so through a more or less superficial and ephemeral contact, but through the most intimate and lasting way possible: the assimilation of food.
The Gospel of this Solemnity constitutes the conclusion of the story of the multiplication of the loaves according to Saint John. This “sign” of sharing seems to be very important to Jesus, since it is the only one narrated by the four evangelists; even more, Matthew and Mark even tell it twice. The stories are similar and, however, each one retains some of its own characteristics. Let's look at the text:
«At that time, Jesus said to the crowd: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven.. "Whoever eats this bread will live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.". Then the Jews began to argue heatedly among themselves: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"?”. Jesus answered them: "Actually, truly I tell you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. Because my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Like the Father, what does life have, He has sent me and I live because of the Father, so also he who eats me will live for me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; not like the one your fathers ate and died. "Whoever eats this bread will live forever." (Jn 6,51-58).
John's story, in particular, does not appear to be a simple reworking of the synoptic accounts, since it has not been composed by gathering fragments taken from the other Gospels; rather it appears as an original composition based on an independent tradition that John would have collected and preserved.. Y, more specifically, In the Johannine narrative there is a very marked theological orientation that emerges especially in the passage proposed today by the lectionary.. This text can be considered the eucharistic or sacramental section of the story. Also in the other five versions present in the synoptic gospels there is a strong Eucharistic motif., but in John it appears more explicitly, probably because it is the Gospel furthest from the events narrated. It is possible that, as the story of the multiplication of the loaves became part of the tradition of the Christian community, its relationship with the special food of God's people, the Eucharist, was being recognized more and more clearly. The language of the multiplication stories was progressively permeated by the Eucharistic liturgies familiar to the different communities..
Also today our communities celebrate the memory of the Body and Blood of the Lord, that is to say, of the body given and offered by Jesus for the lives of men. The words of the Lord: «I am the living bread that came down from heaven. "Whoever eats this bread will live forever." (Jn 6,51), they reveal above all who Jesus is: He who reveals the Father and gives life to the world with his own life, for love. Thus, the words "eat my flesh and drink my blood" (cf. Jn 6,53-56), They refer the disciple to the spiritual task of assimilating the life of Christ into his own existence..
So, These words refer to faith, that is to say, to the act of believing, as well as listening to the Word of the Lord and putting it into concrete practice through the fulfillment of the Father's will., just like Jesus himself did. The life of the Lord, his flesh and blood, as witnessed to us in the Gospels, It is the food that every believer is called to nourish so that the life of Jesus lives concretely in him.. And the Church becomes the place where the humanity of each believer is called to be configured with the life of the risen Lord., that continues to give itself to us. So that it is true that one life unites the Lord and his disciple. So, The Church is manifested as the place of the alliance between the Lord and the believer.
The evangelical page that has been proclaimed reveals to us the meaning of the Eucharistic mystery that we celebrate. But the verse — "Whoever eats me, He too will live for me." (literally) — may seem strangely harsh, to the point that some of Jesus' listeners did not understand him and ended up abandoning him. Perhaps this apparent hardness can be explained by recovering, first of all, the anthropological sense of eating:
«In the Eucharist it is the same Body of Christ that comes to us, in all the fullness of its condition as a source of grace; and it does not do so through a more or less superficial and ephemeral contact, but through the most intimate and lasting way possible: the assimilation of food (Pierre-Marie Benoît, OP, The stories of the institution and their scope, Light & Vie, n.º 31, 1957).
Even Saint John uses the Greek verb to indicate the act of "eating" three, which some literally translate as "chew". We thus have a reference to that essential activity of eating that involves the transformation of food through the destruction of solid forms to make them digestible and assimilable.. Through this path we can recover the realism of the Johannine text and make it eloquent for our time., without losing the theological and spiritual value of the Real Presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
for the man, Eating is a primordial act that accompanies one from life in the womb until death. But the act of eating also refers to the cultural activity of the human being.: involves work, food preparation, sociability and coexistence. Indeed, the man eats together with others, and the act of eating is linked to the table, place where friendship is born, the brotherhood, alliance and society. At the table not only food is shared, but also words and conversations that nourish relationships, that is to say, that which gives meaning to life sustained by food. Eating involves, therefore, also the most extraordinary cultural creation of human beings: the language. Linked as it is to orality and desire, The act of eating affects the affective and emotional sphere of the person. It is about, well, of an anthropological symbol of a unique wealth, capable of capturing the human being in its most intimate and hidden depths, placing it in relation to the earth, the cosmos, the police, society and the world. For man, there is no more total adhesion to everything around him than the act of eating.. It's the human way of saying your own yes.
From this material and anthropological aspect we spontaneously move on to the theological and spiritual aspect, that we perceive in all their richness in the words of Jesus that we have heard: "Like the Father, what does life have, He has sent me and I live because of the Father, "So also he who eats me will live for me.". The "eat me" appears in continuity with the sending of the Son by the Father. It is the result of the mission received from the Father and the culmination of the Trinitarian event of revelation and divine communication to man in Jesus., but also the supreme act of love to which the obedience of the Son towards the Father reaches. From the anthropological level of eating we thus ascend to the deepest and most intimate theological level., that allows us to understand how the Lord is the One who gives himself as food to man. "Eating me" then becomes the most radical expression of the love of Christ and God for humanity.. This eating is possible thanks to the gift that the Father, in his great love (Jn 3,16), makes the Son by sending him into the world so that men may have life in abundance (Jn 10,10), and thanks to the gift that the Son freely makes of himself, for love of humanity (Jn 10,11-18; 15,13).
The fundamental thing in this eating is, therefore, recognize the gift that is at its origin. This food does not come from man, but springs from the love of God for man and tends to the communication of that love in which true life consists. The Eucharistic food we receive is sacrament — Sacrament — through which the love and life of God reach man. The Eucharistic community that, when approaching the Lord's table, reaches its summit and rediscovers its source in it, as the Council teaches, springs from love through the mediation of the goods of creation: the bread and wine that the Church blesses and that become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Underlining, Finally, the many connections that our evangelical passage maintains with the entire sixth chapter of Saint John, of which it is part, We notice that this reality that Jesus reveals to us reappears everywhere.: He presents himself as the One who reveals the Father and then as Eucharistic food and drink. for us, the believers, This means that the "eat me", demanded by Jesus, cannot be separated from "coming to Jesus" (Jn 6,35-45), that is to say, of "believing in Him". The parallel between believing and eating is significant. Let us remember the important and decisive words of Jesus: «This is the will of my Father: that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (Jn 6,40); "He who believes has eternal life" (Jn 6,47); «He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (Jn 6,54); "Whoever eats this bread will live forever" (Jn 6,58). So, believing in the Lord and eating his Body and drinking his Blood are inseparably linked, why: "the bread of God is what comes down from heaven and gives life to the world" (Jn 6,33). And the life that Jesus offers us is that of the Father; that's why, Coming to Jesus and hearing His Word enables believers to be begotten into the new life of the children of God. (Jn 1,12-13). Before the multiplication of the loaves and the dense discourse that followed, Jesus had stated: "Whoever hears my word... has eternal life" (Jn 5,24). Thus, the expression "Who eats me", He too will live for me." (Jn 6,57) expresses not only the culmination of the gift and communication of God to man in Christ, but also opens us to an unexpected and completely free perspective. That, the Lord Jesus, who has "returned to the bosom of the Father", continues to show us the path of life: "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world" (Jn 6,33).
But eternal life promised to those who assimilate the life of Christ (cf. Jn 6,51.54.58), in reality it begins here and now for the believer. In each Eucharist we announce, indeed, the death of the Lord, we proclaim his Resurrection and await his coming.
Like Jesus, We also integrate death into life making our existence an act of surrender, an act of love in the footsteps of Jesus (cf. Jn 13,34). For this love Jesus continues to give himself as food and drink to men. The life of God and the life of man meet in love, in the agape, food that truly nourishes the human being and reality that constitutes the very life of God; why: "God is love" (1 Jn 4,8.16). The Eucharist is the sacrament of charity, from agape; Every time we celebrate it we hear the story of how God gives himself to men and, by communing with the Body and Blood of the Lord, we too become capable of giving ourselves to others.
From Ermo, 6 June 2026
.
Sant'Angelo Cave in Ripe (Civitella del Tronto)
.
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
.
.
.
.
.
HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/monaco-eremita-piccolo-.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1150150Hermit MonkHTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.pngHermit Monk2026-06-06 23:54:002026-06-07 11:25:46If anyone eats this bread he will live forever – If anyone eats of this bread, he will live for ever – If anyone eats this bread, will live forever
We use cookies to improve your experience. You can accept them all or manage your preferences.
Functional
Always active
Technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
Technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences which are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
Technical storage or access that is used solely for statistical purposes.Technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance by your Internet Service Provider, or further registrations by third parties, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used for identification.
Marketing
Technical storage or access is required to create profiles of users to send advertising, or to track you across a website or websites for similar marketing purposes.
