Urgent notice: the 7 September The island of Patmos could close
/0 Comments/in Actuality/by father arielURGENT NOTICE: THE 7 THE ISLAND OF PATMOS COULD CLOSE IN SEPTEMBER
Now that Vittorio Messori is no longer among us, we are fond of remembering him post mortem and reveal that he was an admirer and precious supporter of ours.
— Ecclesial current events —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
Dear Readers,
I address you in my capacity as director of this magazine on behalf of all the brother editors thanks to whom The Island of Patmos it has existed and operated for twelve years.

Only once a year, when the deadline for payments for the services we use approaches, we ask for the help of the Readers. We are not used to asking assiduously, let alone insistently: in home page and at the bottom of the articles are links to our bank account and account PayPal, with invitation, to those who want it, to support our work.
Between dedicated server, subscriptions to graphic services, editorial programs and various services within the site, we have to face an annual expense of 8.000 Euro. We do not benefit from any grants or contributions: only offers from those who read us. Who writes for The Island of Patmos it does it for free, because this is first and foremost a pastoral mission through the Internet. However, we cannot - as has happened several times - pay the costs out of our own pockets to offer a service to such a large number of readers, It's not fair or sustainable. We therefore consulted among ourselves and decided that if by 7 September, date on which we have to pay the renewal fees for the year 2027, we will not have collected what we need, we will close this happy experience of over ten years.
Now that Vittorio Messori is no longer among us we are fond of remembering this post mortem and reveal that he was our admirer and precious supporter: on two occasions similar to the current one, In the 2019 It is in the 2021, finding ourselves at risk of closure, provided us with the entire missing amount for payments; and every year he sent us a generous contribution.

For us, his esteem and the exhortation to continue this publicist and editorial work, which he believed, it was more precious than any sum of money, even though the latter is useful and necessary.
If our Christian brothers of the first centuries they died in the Colosseum of Rome during the bread and circus games guaranteed by the emperors to keep the plebs happy, today everything has radically transformed and it is precisely certain Catholics, unfortunately more and more numerous, to show growing disinterest in sound doctrine and in an authentic path of growth in faith, avidly seeking sensationalism, talking madonnas, prophecies from amusement park and trembling secrets about to be revealed.

Nothing new under the sun: the Blessed Apostle had already warned us two thousand years ago in the Second Epistle addressed to his disciple Timothy:
«The day will come, indeed, when they will not endure sound doctrine;, ma, having itching ears they, will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, refusing to listen to the truth to get lost behind fables " (II Tm 4, 3-4).
In these twelve years we believe we have done our duty as priests and theologians, remembering above all the foundations of all those uncomfortable truths of faith that people - devout believers included - increasingly do not want to hear, refusing to please the vices and charms of the world in order to obtain the money of those thirsty for itches and gossip in clerical sauce. If this work of ours will really end, we will at least be able to say in clear conscience together with the Apostle:
«I fought the good fight, I finished the race, I kept faith " (II Tm 4,7).
Finally, let's get to the practical part: our economic availability, as you can see from the Bank and Paypal statements attached here, is equal to 2.135 Euro, a lower amount of 6.000 euros compared to the total amount needed for expenses.

Finally the paradox: considering that July is traditionally a dead month for the web The Island of Patmos recorded approx 270.000 different visitors, beyond 308.000 visit, circa 1.200.000 pages viewed for a total of over 2.000.000 of accesses.

Of this large number of people only a very small part leaves an offering to support our pastoral activity, while it would be enough for 1% of our readers to just offer 3 euros - the equivalent of the cost of a cappuccino and a croissant in a suburban bar - and we would have already fully covered the necessary annual expenses.
Without the support of the Readers The Island of Patmos it cannot survive and exist, we have done our duty, now, the rest of the choice is entirely up to you.
We take this opportunity to express our deep thanks all those who have offered us help over these years.
From the island of Patmos, 26 August 2026
.
HELP US NOT TO CLOSE
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 cannot 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
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Il sanatorium come purgatorio secolarizzato in La montagna magica — The Sanatorium as Secularized Purgatory in The Magic Mountain
/0 Comments/in Catechesis/by Eneas De Camargo BeteA new reform is being studied to include the "Liturgy of slander" in the rituals
/0 Comments/in Liturgical pastoral care/by Father SimoneA NEW REFORM IS BEING STUDIED TO INSERT THE «LITURGY OF MALEDICTION» INTO THE RITUALS
"Hate, that in your providence you allow your children to edify one another by talking behind their backs, lay off, for the intercession of Santa Sfranta, virgin and martyr, to never be caught out with evidence, names or dates".

Author
Simone Pifizzi
.
.
It's with great relief that we can finally announce how long the base has been — indeed, the database – he claimed: after centuries of honored informal service, Slander is preparing to receive the dignity it deserves.

Well informed sources - which by statute remain anonymous, as it is obvious that it is the matter in question - they report that a special Commission is studying the inclusion in the near future, in the liturgical books of the sacraments and sacramentals, of a real one Rite of Slander. He confided it to us, in confidence, a high prelate who asked to remain anonymous, obviously.
If the liturgy is you culmen background of the life of the Church, as the Council teaches, it was time to recognize liturgically what already exists in practice, give time, the true culmination and true source of many ecclesial conversations: not the Eucharist, but the latest rumor. The work of the Commission, the usual well-informed sources inform, they would have concentrated on three main nuclei. First of all the Income, no more «Introibo altar Gods», but a more updated «Introibo in the curial gossip WhatsApp group», accompanied by a responsorial psalm whose antiphon he will recite: «I heard that…», with the responsory: «And it seems to me too…».
Then the I confess, appropriately revised in a pastoral sense: no longer «I confess to almighty God and to you, siblings, that I have sinned a lot", but rather a more streamlined «I confess to you, siblings, how much that other one sinned", with relative immediate acquittal for the accuser, who by acting "for the good of the Church" enjoys automatic dispensation from the examination of conscience.
Finally the Gospel, for which one would be considered Lectio continues taken from a recently discovered apocryphal text, the so-called Gospel according to the Anonymous, whose incipit - already leaked from our strictly anonymous sources - reads: «In the beginning he was the Suspect, and the Suspect was at the Algorithm, and the Suspicion was the Algorithm".
As per practice for every new rite, the identification of a Patron Saint could not be missed. The choice is clear to us, always from the reliable anonymous sources who revealed it to us, it would have fallen on a figure hitherto unjustly neglected by official hagiography: Saint Sfranta virgin and martyr, mysticism lived - apparently - by neither eating nor drinking, but feeding exclusively on rumors collected and promptly redistributed in a strictly confidential manner. His liturgical feast, provisionally set for April 1st, among its own texts includes a collective prayer of rare theological depth:
"Hate, that in your providence you allow your children to edify one another by talking behind their backs, lay off, for the intercession of Santa Sfranta, virgin and martyr, to never be caught out with evidence, names or dates".
Having said all this — and here, dear readers, the Tuscan Florentine irony willingly lays down its weapons - a fact remains that has very little of the comic about it: behind every "they say", behind every source that «for reasons you will understand prefers to remain anonymous», behind every article that accuses, without ever qualifying the accusation, ensuring "a highly informed person who must remain anonymous for safety", behind every denunciatory letter sent to the bishops, there are real people. Priests who stop sleeping at night, bishops who are judged on the basis of a joke about their diction, co-workers leaving an office slamming the door because someone, without signing, decided that their reputation was an acceptable price to pay for a few more views in shots gossip deriving from "very reliable anonymous sources".
Slander does not need a new liturgy to be celebrated: already celebrates it, Every day, anyone who writes an accusation without showing their face and anyone who reads it without wondering who is really behind that keyboard. There is no need to invent a ritual. Just look in the mirror — or, for those who prefer, look at your own home page and your own blog where anonymity triumphs, except to guarantee that everything comes from "highly informed sources".
Florence, 24 August 2026
.
.
.
You can use the convenient and secure PayPal system and our current account, both registered in the name of Edizioni L'Isola di Patmos, which you find below:
or ours
BANK ACCOUNT
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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Domenico Beneventi, a bishop targeted twice: when the fury signed "editorial staff" passes itself off as independent international journalism
/0 Comments/in Actuality/by father arielDOMENICO BENEVENTI, A BISHOP TARGETED TWICE: WHEN THE AVOIDANCE SIGNED «EDITORIAL» PASSES ITSELF AS INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM
When the same accusation, with the same words, returns identically four months later - the first time to announce a papal visit, the second to tell it - it is no longer news. It is a dossier written in advance, presumably on commission, kept ready and reopened at the right time.
— Ecclesial current events —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
![]()
.
The 22 August the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV was on an apostolic visit to San Marino, invited by the Regency of the Serenissima Republic in the year of the centenary of diplomatic relations with the Holy See.

Anyone who reads the news of that day on I can not remain silent, he quickly realizes that the event is just a pretext. The real subject of the article is another: an attack on the Bishop of San Marino-Montefeltro, S. AND. Mons. Domenico Beneventi, pilloried for the second time in the space of a few months.
THE SCRIPT REPEATES, IDENTICAL
The 28 last May, at the announcement of the papal visit, I can not remain silent published a piece with an eloquent title: Leone XIV a San Marino, the historical visit that lays bare the Beneventi case. It stated that the bishop "always speaks with challenging tones typical of adolescents", which "contributed to creating a heavy climate", that a "collaborator of the diocese" confides how he has "managed in recent years to pit one against the other, in every pastoral office, in every reality".
Yesterday, after the visit has taken place, the same blog returns to the topic in a piece with a pastorally impeccable title: Communion for a wounded diocese. Except then write:
«The bishop cannot be a teenager who plays at pitting one priest against another, he reports to Gaius what he heard Titius say to fuel discord and even insults his predecessor. On Italian, then, let's spread a merciful veil".
The exact same images, the same register, the same joke on the Italian pronunciation already launched in May, a few days after his appointment as president of the Commission for Culture and Social Communications of the Italian Episcopal Conference (cf.. who), the Bishop was mocked because «he replaces the “t” with the “(d)” »; yesterday, with similar derision: «an Italian still to be polished» followed by the «pitiful veil» to be spread over. It is not news of an event that happens before the eyes of the reporter: it's a plot already written, kept in a drawer, brought out every time current events offer a hook. The visit of the Holy Father, in this case, it only served as a bass drum for yet another insulting attack.
AN ATTACK ON THE PERSON, NOT AN INVESTIGATION INTO FACTS
There is a difference between criticizing the governance of a bishop and mocking his pronouncement. The first is journalistic criticism, legitimate even when severe, provided that it is exercised within the limits of respect due to the person, to the office he holds and to his priestly dignity as successor of the Apostles. The second is personal mockery. Take it out on the “t” which becomes “(d)” it does not serve to inform the reader about anything concerning the Diocese of San Marino-Montefeltro: it only serves to mock a man in front of his faithful. Whoever writes certain lines is not providing ecclesial information, he is bullying with the keyboard and signs it «Editorial» so that no one takes personal responsibility for it. And when the same accusation, with the same words, returns identically four months later - the first time to announce a papal visit, the second to tell it - it is no longer news. It is a dossier written in advance, presumably on commission, kept ready and reopened at the right time.
THE SOURCES: ALWAYS ANONYMOUS, NEVER AN EXCEPTION
In both pieces, the substance of the accusation does not rest on a single verifiable fact, is based on "a collaborator of the diocese" who "trusts", on «the priests» who «speak», on a generic "there are numerous events" without a single one being detailed with a name, data, verifiable context. It is the typical structure of denunciation, not the investigation: an accusation that cannot be controlled, defend, nor deny on the merits, because it has no form. Those who accuse remain invisible; only the accused has a name, a face and a diocese to lead the day after being publicly insulted by anonymous individuals.
A BLOG THAT DRESSES UP AS A NEWSPAPER, BUT YOU DON'T PAY THE PRICE
I can not remain silent presents itself as an "independent international newspaper" (cf.. who). Challenging words, which in Italy involve a responsible director with name and surname, registered with the Order, criminally responsible for what he publishes. On this site, that name is not found on any page. The publisher appearing in the company references is Clarionfold Press OÜ, a company based in Tallinn, in Estonia (cf.. who).
It is not a question of bureaucratic detail, It is the heart of the problem: a real newspaper, when he writes that a bishop "insultes his predecessor" or "starts discord", he does it knowing that someone, with name and surname, he responds if necessary to a professional association, before a judge, in front of the reader who wants to know who is speaking to him. His I can not remain silent that responsibility simply isn't there. It is written by «Redazione» and published through a foreign company, without a single human being putting their face on what is printed. The attitude adopted mimics the large independent press, but the structure is that of those who organized things so as not to have to answer to anyone.
THE PARADOX OF THOSE WHO ACCUSE OTHERS OF THEIR SAME VICE
There is, in these articles, a hypocrisy that is worth highlighting. In yesterday's piece we read a severe - and in abstract agreeable - judgment on the "certain episcopate" which is "strong with the weak and weak with the strong". Well: it is exactly the mechanism that I can not remain silent apply here, against a bishop who always answers with his name, face and role, never put in the position of replying to an accuser who has chosen to have neither one nor the other, he is hit repeatedly with an accusation that he must never qualify, never sign, never respond to a cross-examination. Strong with those who cannot react and with the signature «Editorial» with those who should respond in person: it is precisely the scheme that it is said to condemn in words.
DEFEND THE METHOD, NOT THE MAN
It is not the task of this magazine to establish whether the Feretran Prelate is, in the management of his diocese, up to the task entrusted to him, it is a judgment that belongs to the Holy See, to his priests called to act with him openly in a spirit of faithfulness, to its faithful bound to the utmost respect towards their Pastor, certainly not to a blog signed with a collective noun. As for being up to par, if whoever directs SI cannot escape knew, with the anonymous people who write to you, the foundations of Catholic doctrine, should know that none of us, from the Supreme Pontiff to the last of the priests ordained in the Catholic Church yesterday morning, he can be and feel worthy or equal to the office he holds by sacrament of grace. What is instead the ethical duty of anyone who seriously practices Catholic journalism is to clearly say that the persecution repeated with the same plot, the source never verifiable, the joke about pronunciation, the total absence of those who answer and everything else that follows is not information, it is a repeated attack against H.E. Mons. Domenico Beneventi, conducted by those who organized themselves specifically so as to never have to answer for it.
From the island of Patmos, 24 August 2026
.
.
Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO
.
______________________
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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Peter and his frailties: from «If it is you» to «You are the Christ, son of the living God»
/0 Comments/in Homiletics/by Hermit Monk
Homiletics of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos
PETER AND HIS FRAGILITY: FROM «IF YOU ARE» TO «YOU ARE THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD»
“He who believes will never encounter a miracle. You can't see the stars during the day". “He who works a miracle says: I can't detach myself from the earth". (Franz Kafka)
.

Author
Hermit Monk
.
![]()
.
.
We have seen moles many times legal thriller Americans, which take place for most of the scenes in a courtroom, the lawyers press the witnesses who have climbed onto their bench, with direct questions that only required a yes or no answer. These are the questions that communication science identifies as closed. Open ones are of another kind, that make it possible, instead, a reasoned and articulated response, even if short. It is those questions that psychologists, eg, they are preferred because they foster relationships and a positive climate between interlocutors.

Perugino – Delivery of the keys to St. Peter, particular – 1481-1482 – fresco – Sistine Chapel, Vatican
On the evangelical page of this one twenty-first Sunday of ordinary time Jesus asked his disciples two questions of the second type, that is, open. The evangelical text is as follows:
"During that time, Jesus, arrived in the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples: “The people, Who says he is the son of man?”. They replied: “Some say John the Baptist, other Elijah, other Jereame the advent gorge dei”.. He told them: “But you, Who do you say I am?”. Simon Peter replied: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God ". And Jesus said to him: “Blessed are you, Simone, son of Jonah, because neither flesh nor blood has revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to you: you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the powers of hell will not prevail over it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven: everything you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and everything you melt on earth will be melted in heaven ". Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.". (Mt 16, 13-20)
This scene which is commonly defined as the confession of Peter takes place in the far north of Israel, where Jesus was after passing through Genesareth (Mt 14, 34), then from the parts of Tire and Sidon (Mt 15, 21), then along the Sea of Galilee (Mt 15, 29) and in the Magadan region (Mt 15, 39). We are on the slopes of Mount Hermon where the Jordan rises, near Caesarea Philippi, city whose name refers to the power of Rome because it was built by the tetrarch Philip, son of Herod, in honor of the emperor. Both spiritually and geographically we are therefore very distant from the holy city of Jerusalem, practically at the opposite extreme, and it is here that Peter's messianic confession takes place. After which Jesus' path will move away from these territories, where until now it had lingered, to head straight towards Jerusalem: «From then on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he had to go to Jerusalem» (Mt 16, 21).
Near the city that in ancient times bore the name of the god Pan (APEA)[1] and now Caesar's Jesus questions his disciples, first indirectly and then directly with words that leave no room for digression because they require an answer that involves the interviewees. A leave no escape also expressed by the adversative: «But you, Who do you say I am?».
Nowadays Surveys are very fashionable, indispensable kit for politicians and their coalitions, as well as the exit poll which soon make it possible to understand who won an electoral competition or market surveys launched before a certain product is put into circulation, to find out if it will be appreciated by buyers. The research that Jesus invoked with the first question was certainly not of this type and tenor, yet he also wanted to explore what opinion people might have of him. If in the first question the question is aimed at knowing what was said about the "Son of man", probably the most important messianic title at that time ( cf.. Mt 9, 6; Mt 10, 23; Mt. 24, 27-30 etc..), in the second Jesus, passing directly to the ego, he placed the disciples in front of a personal response, difficult, maybe even painful. You who lived with me, that you have walked this far with me, that you listened to what I said, that you saw what I did, that you witnessed the clashes and encounters you witnessed. Butter, who do you say who I am? It's not so much the request itself, which is more than legitimate, as much as the fact that Jesus, in this way of posing, He himself becomes a question both for the disciples to whom he addresses himself and for the immediate readers of the Gospel. Someone[2] collected all the questions that Jesus asked in the Gospels, it seems to be two hundred and seventeen (217)[3]. But this one here, which we find in this Sunday's song, is the question that reaches everyone: believers and non-believers. The second why, if honest and thoughtful, they cannot help but be fascinated and disturbed by the figure of Jesus. And receive, believers, because they know that this is the question that resonates every day and shakes them to the core, since it is not a question of accepting an opinion or adhering to an idea, however noble, but it concerns Jesus himself, his person and his mystery. Jesus is the question. It cannot be avoided nor is it easy. In fact, the answer to the first question was unanimous: «And they said “and they said“»; the second was answered by Pietro alone. Because it is a decisive request that evaluates the true disciple, removing him from the risk of remaining silent.
Returning to the first question, Jesus asked about circulating opinions regarding the “Son of Man”, an expression obscure to us but clear to his listeners, in fact Jesus preferred to identify himself with it: a messianic character who «is a person, not a community; has a divine nature, it exists before time and still lives; knows all the secrets of the Law and therefore has the task of celebrating the Great Judgment at the end of time"[4]. All the disciples' answers on what was thought of the "Son of Man" will have a prophetic trait in common. First of all, they equate him with John the Baptist whom Jesus himself had defined as "more than a prophet" (Mt 11,9) and precursor of the Messiah (Mt 11,10). According to Matthew, the crowd itself considered John a prophet (Mt 14,5) and now identifying him with Jesus he had to necessarily think of him as resurrected. This was also the opinion of Herod who had also put him to death: «This is John the Baptist. He rose from the dead and for this reason he has the power to work wonders." (Mt 14,2).
Regarding the correlation of the “Son of man” with Elia, instead, it must be remembered that biblical tradition considered these as a precursor of the Messiah (cf.. Mal 3,23; Sir 48,10), while Jesus had identified him with John the Baptist (Mt 17, 10-13). Instead, approach Jesus, Son of man, to Jeremiah is Matthew's own, probably because like Jesus the ancient prophet spoke words against the temple (cf.. Gives 7) and how he suffered from the caste of priests and in the city of Jerusalem. A foreshadowing, so, of what would happen to Jesus himself. In the end, say the disciples, others think of him as a prophet, one among many. It is at this point that Jesus, perhaps dissatisfied or eager to take the dialogue to a higher level, more personal and engaging, he asked them a direct question: «But you, Who do you say I am?». This time Peter alone answered: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God ".
In the apostle's response we have the reprise of the declaration made to Jesus on the boat: “Truly you are the Son of God” (Mt 14,33) premised by the messianic confession "You are the Christ", with the addition of an adjective referring to God which refers to the awareness expressed in the Old Testament that the God of Israel was indeed "living": And it will happen that instead of telling them: "You are not my people", they will be told: “You are children of the living God” (cf.. Os 2,1)[5].
We are faced with a Christian title of great importance which together makes up both the messiahship of Jesus and his divinity, since he proceeds from God and through Him the very life of the Father is revealed and communicated. As Giovanni will say, Jesus is the way of truth and life (See GV 16, 6). These are statements that theology will be pleased to explore, but which the Bible simply states as solid and quiet truth. This is thanks to the evolution of the apostle Peter who went from the hesitant "if it's you" uttered as he was about to sink[6] to today's clear confession of faith in Jesus. A transition that occurred not on merit, but by grace as stated in the subsequent beatitude that Jesus addressed to Peter which refers to another evangelical saying that we have already encountered: «I give you praise, Dad, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned and have revealed them to little ones"[7]. We know from other circumstances that Peter was a man of very human frailties and weaknesses, this did not prevent the Lord from seeing him as a "little one" and benefiting from a particular revelation and an important task. This is attested by the words of Jesus who choose the patronymic «Simone, son of Jonah" and Semitism "flesh and blood": it is therefore within the personal and generational history of Peter that divine grace descends. And note that, if in Mark and in Luke, Peter expressed the faith of the entire group of disciples (cf.. MC 8,29; LC 9,20), here in Matthew, however, he spoke in his own name and for this reason Jesus' response is addressed to him alone: «Blessed are you, Simone, son of Jonah, because neither flesh nor blood has revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven".
This statement is the basis of the subsequent revelation of Jesus on the Church because it too will be born from the grace and gift of God. Simone who was almost like a stone would have reached the bottom of the lake if he hadn't been grabbed, it will become, in the words of Jesus, the "stone" on which the Church will rest, which however will be built by the Lord and will be his (build my church – Oikodomeso we our response to). Yet despite the important placement of the apostle as the stone at the base, the last mention of Peter, in the Gospel of Matthew, he will show him in tears after the triple denial (Mt 26, 75) nor will he be mentioned in the resurrection stories. This aspect of Peter that the synoptic tradition does not fail to mention will not prevent Jesus from giving him important powers. As Paul states in today's second reading, the Lord knows what lies deep inside and does not take advice from anyone: «How unfathomable are his judgments and inaccessible his ways!»[8]. The power of the keys of the Kingdom refers to the words of the prophet Isaiah recalled in the first reading this Sunday: «I will place the key to the house of David on his shoulder: if he opens, no one will close; if he closes, no one will be able to open"[9]. They are a sign of authority granted by the Lord - the keys, indeed, they are his - which cannot be taken advantage of like the 'doctors of the Law' who had distorted their metaphorical use by preventing most people from accessing the knowledge of the word of God or interpreting it in their favor (cf.. LC 11, 52)[10]. The task of Peter and the apostles with him must now be the one that Jesus will give them at the end of the Gospel: «Go and make disciples of all peoples… teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you» (Mt 28,19).
In this step, as we read, the word Church appears, which will return only one more time in all the Gospels, again in Matthew (cf. Mt 18,17). The term Church - ekklesia - identified the assembly of the called-by (I-kletoí): this in fact was the name given by the Helleno-Christians to their communities, also to differentiate itself from the synagogue (assembly) of non-Christian Jews. Like the ancient one ekklesia of the Greeks had their own organs, its own laws and resolutions as well as Peter to guide theekklesia Christian will be endowed with the power of the keys which will be accompanied by the power of loosening and binding, or to prohibit or allow in the disciplinary and doctrinal field. And it will become especially, in the ecclesial space, the authority to forgive sins, true power that narrates the power of the resurrection.
The strength of the risen Christ it is now also granted to the Church, construction carried out by himself. The resurrection is the decisive moment that allows the disciples to remember and take up the words of Jesus and finally understand them. From that moment on the Church rested and founded on his resurrection, will prolong the life and salvation of Jesus who, risen from the dead, he will give hope to all men. Openness to the gift of God will allow the Church to counter the action of the forces of evil, making room for the power of Christ through faith. The Church lives by the promise of Christ.
To conclude it is necessary to remember that this meditation on the Church and on the role of Peter that the gospel triggered, it will probably have been a bit heavy because the summer period we are going through would most likely require lighter topics, perhaps because they are not easy topics, they seem to concern only the configuration of the Church and its powers. In fact, we cannot fail to say that on Peter's confession and on the consequent words of Jesus regarding his role and that of his successors, the various Christian communities have divided. Catholics think one thing differently from the Orthodox and the various Reformed churches think another.
As I wrote at the beginning the open questions, like these posed by Jesus, they allow a positive climate between the dialogue partners and the relationship. Because Jesus instead of simply revealing who he was and it would have been the easy way, he preferred to ask himself? Probably because he wanted this relationship then and still. It will be based on the response we are able to give that faith as a vital experience will be determined, because each of us will only believe in the Christ we feel is our own, the one whose face he recognized as true for himself. Even in its divine absoluteness, Jesus wants to remain relative to the lives of individual people and in the name of that relationship he continues to ask us to be the ones to say who he is, regardless of the words of others.
From Matthew's perspective who remembered the Caesarea episode and wrote about it, the intention was to make people understand what a great gift faith in the now risen and living Jesus was, Son of God. And how from this gift that illuminates and gives hope to existence many others flow in cascade. The first is that Jesus' disciples are not monads, but a community, a ekklesia precisely, a spiritual but also vital and concrete place where it is possible to make the other gifts that now come from the Spirit grow and mature, for the benefit of all. Pietro plays an important role in this community that he did not choose for himself and for this we thank him in every one of his representatives. I am reminded of the last of his successors that we have known, John Paul who is holy, Benedict and Francis, beyond obvious personal differences, at a certain point in their lives they found themselves in the position of having to reveal their physical infirmity to everyone: almost a parable or an icon of that fragility and weakness of the first, Pietro's.
And I conclude by recalling that in the tradition of the fourth Gospel Peter will be the one who doesn't understand[11], he will be the one who arrives at the tomb second[12]. He will be the one who needs someone else to tell him: «It is the Lord»[13], because he didn't realize it. But he is also the one who, before the others, will cover his nakedness and start swimming until he reaches Jesus on shore.. Maybe he needs to apologize, to recover. Jesus asked him three times if he loved him and he was saddened by understanding. «More than these?» (GV 21,15) Jesus asked him and he understood. He understood that his particular service would be that of love and of confirming his brothers in their relationship with Jesus, that is, in faith. Then he will continue his journey with the others behind him, because it will be to him that Jesus will say: «You follow me»[14].
Happy Sunday everyone!
from the Hermitage, 23 August 2026
NOTE
[1] Polybius, Stories, Book 16, paragraph 18, Rizzoli, 2002.
[2] Monti L., Jesus' questionsÙ, St. Paul, 2019.
[3] op cit. pg. 251-262: To the disciples (111), to religious men (51), to the crowd (20), to sick people (9), to others (25), to God (1).
[4] Sacchi P., Jesus Son of man, Morcelliana, 2023; the author rereads the figure of the son of man in Mark in the light of the apocryphal book Book of Parables, second book of the Ethiopian Enoch collection (IH).
[5] "Just, indeed, among all mortals he heard, like us, the voice of the living God speaking from the fire and remained alive." (Deut 5, 26).
[6] Mt 14, 30.
[7] Mt 11, 25.
[8] Rom 11, 33.
[9] Is 22, 22.
[10] "Woe to you, doctors of the Law, that you have taken away the key to knowledge; you didn't enter, and you prevented those who wanted to enter.".
[11] GV 20, 9 «In fact they had not yet understood the Scripture, that is, he had to rise from the dead".
[12] GV 20, 6 «Meanwhile Simon Pietro also arrived, who followed him, and entered the tomb and observed the cloths placed there".
[13] GV 21, 7.
[14] GV 21, 22.

San Giovanni all'Orfento. Abruzzo, Mount Maiella, it was a hermitage inhabited by Pietro da Morrone, called in 1294 to the Chair of Peter on which he ascended with the name of Celestine V (29 August – 13 December 1294).
.
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
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
.
.
.
Cremation of the body? It can be an excellent Catholic choice
/in Actuality/by father ariel
CREMATION OF THE BODY? IT CAN BE AN EXCELLENT CATHOLIC CHOICE
If there are theologians ready to believe and teach that bodies will emerge from the tombs to resume their physical appearance, confusing the mystery of faith in the resurrection with the long production of horror films about zombies, then they might as well resign themselves: that description, complete with bodies recomposed in flesh and blood, they will find it much better illustrated in the Qur'anic Paradise, also including seventy virgins, so as not to miss anything material, both in libations and more.
- Church news -
.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
![]()
PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format
.
The Catholic Church allows cremation from 1963, since the Holy Office, with education Pious and constant the 5 July of that year, established that it is not "in itself contrary to the Christian religion" and that the faithful who chose it would no longer be denied the sacraments and funeral services, provided that this choice was not motivated «as a denial of Christian dogmas, or with a sectarian soul, or out of hatred against the Catholic religion and the Church".

Since then the discipline has passed into the Code of Canon Law the 1983 (can. 1176 §3) and in that of the Eastern Churches of 1990. It is a distinction that must be held firm from the beginning: one thing is the lawfulness of the practice, another is the preference for burial. The Church, however, absolutely prohibits the scattering of ashes and their conservation at home, as we'll see.
A historical aside: It is worth remembering that cremation had been condemned by the Church with a decree of the Holy Office of 12 May 1886, in the years in which its practice had been assumed by Freemasonry as an ideological flag with an anti-clerical function, to publicly deny the truths of faith about eternal life and, above all, on the resurrection of the dead.
Theology has nothing to fear from cremation itself. Fire does not touch the soul and in no way limits divine omnipotence in resurrecting bodies: God who took man from the dust can call him back from the ashes as well as from the earth. Or maybe it's not pronounced, precisely in the Ashes liturgy with which Lent begins: «dust you are and to dust you will return» (Gen 3,19)? Cremation may be chosen for hygienic reasons, economic, ecological or even ethical, and it is a completely legitimate choice for a faithful Catholic.
We cannot forget the lack of space in the cemeteries of large cities. Furthermore, it should be considered that, unlike nations inhabited by a few tens of millions of people spread over boundless territories, There are others in the world where the population density is very high: in those cases, cremation, more than desirable it should be recommended. We then fly over the ecomonsters of various cemeteries in which, due to lack of space on the land, height was aimed at by building horrible five-storey buildings to contain the burial niches inside. In most Italian cemeteries there are no longer places for burials on the ground, where it would be natural to place the body through the ancient gesture of returning it to the earth itself. We don't have the spaces that other populations have, for example in the United States of America, in Australia and other places where cemeteries are large green parks, the so-called Rural Cemetery Movement (cemetery garden), called more commonly today Lawn Cemetery O Memorial Park (memorial park).
These places extend over large green meadows with trees, they don't even look like burial places, at least for us Italians and Europeans of Latin origin, accustomed to tombs that vary from ancient monumental funerary chapels of valuable artistic interest to niches and tombs of rare bad taste. In the “garden cemeteries”, to maintain the appearance of a uniform lawn, gravestones are often flat and placed at ground level. There are no walls, individual fences or monumental family tombs that interrupt the view: trees, paths and ponds integrate the cemetery into the natural landscape, transforming it into a place of peace for visitors too, where it is possible to take children or animals for a walk to play. But as we were saying, ground burials have now disappeared from most cemeteries and our population density does not allow us places like Lawn Cemetery O Memorial Park. In certain cases, cremation or burial on the fifth floor of a cemetery condominium is better? Thank God free choice is allowed, also from Holy Mother Church.
It is therefore no coincidence that the recent Magisterium felt the need to intervene precisely in this area, to pastorally accompany increasingly widespread choices without leaving them without a meaningful framework. Taking into account these new needs and related problems, education To rise with Christ issued on 15 August 2016 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, has updated Pious and constant specifying the rules on the conservation of ashes. The document is clear: the ashes must receive the same care and respect reserved for the body, and must be kept in a sacred place: the cemetery, or a church, or an area dedicated to this by the competent ecclesiastical authority (n. 5). The opposition of the Church, so, it is not towards cremation in and of itself, if anything towards what one might want to manifest or openly deny with it.
Christian tradition has always favored inhumation for three reasons that To rise with Christ summarizes precisely. First of all because it recalls the body of Christ placed in the tomb and expresses with greater symbolic force the expectation of the resurrection of the body (cf.. n. 3). Then because the human body, through Baptism, it has become a temple of the Holy Spirit and theology urges us to treat it with the greatest physical proximity possible, also in the gesture of entrusting it to the earth. Finally, because burial preserves the communion between the living and the dead, encouraging remembrance and prayer. It is for this reason - not out of suspicion towards fire itself - that the Church prohibits the scattering of ashes in nature, their conversion into jewelry and commemorative objects and their preservation at home, this is in order to avoid pantheistic drifts, naturalist or nichilist, in addition to the commodification of the memory of the deceased (cf.. n. 7). Only in serious and exceptional circumstances, linked to local cultural conditions, the Ordinary can grant domestic conservation, never divided, But, between different families (cf.. n. 6).
A brief historical overview helps put things in perspective. In archaic Rome, inhumation prevailed. From the late Republic cremation took over: fu Silla, In the 79 a.C., the first member of the gens Cornelia — traditionally faithful to earth burial — to be cremated, perhaps for fear that his corpse would be outraged by his enemies. From there cremation remained the dominant rite throughout the late Republic and the first and second centuries of the Empire: the body was burned on a pyre together with personal objects and offerings and the remains collected in a cinerary urn kept in tombs or columbaria, like the one still visible of Pomponius Hylas on the Appian Way.
It was with Hadrian (117-138 d.C.) that burial gradually came back into fashion — the emperor himself was perhaps the first to be buried rather than cremated — with the construction of sculpted sarcophagi becoming increasingly widespread in the 2nd century and generalized in the 3rd, even in the provinces. Multiple factors - changes in taste - played a role in this turning point, in urbanization and above all in ideas about the afterlife - but the growing spread of Christianity undoubtedly also contributed, who considered cremation disrespectful to a body destined for resurrection.
The profound reasons for this trend reversal However, they remain debated among historians. Already in the 1930s Arthur Darby Nock1 he observed how the transition to inhumation followed, at least initially, a social fashion that spread from top to bottom rather than a precise doctrinal rethinking on the afterlife; a reading taken up and expanded by Jocelyn M. (C). Toynbee2. The fact remains, however you explain it, that precisely in those decades Christians dug the first Roman catacombs, reserving burial for their dead from the beginning, due to a conscious and deliberate distance from the then still dominant use of cremation in Roman society.
This is where it is worth stopping on a broader point, which applies to this as well as other cases: since the early Christian era, attempts were made to draw clear distinctions with respect to what were considered pagan customs. but yet, in other circumstances, numerous elements and symbols of paganites Roman were taken, emptied of their original meaning and filled with Christian symbolism, this much in the liturgical context - think of the adoption of the stole as the symbol par excellence of the ministerial priesthood, or other elements that have become liturgical wallpapers -, to follow in the administrative field with the adoption of terms and organizational structures such as curiae and dioceses, borrowed largely from Roman law. The history of the Church has never been a wholesale rejection of the world around it, but an exercise in common sense in which he evaluated himself, case by case, what needed to be rejected and what could be purified and assumed.
Some theologians who demonize cremation by connecting it directly to the mystery of the resurrection of the dead they take a serious risk, due to excess of zeal, of slipping into a form of inverted paganism: a completely involuntary esotericism. The bodies that emerge from the tombs summarizing their appearance are catechetical images, created for the simple and for those who couldn't even read, let's think of the cycles of frescoes that are still found today in many monumental churches and cathedrals. They are pedagogical images, not theological descriptions of how. Linking the opposition to cremation to such a literal reading of the resurrection of the body denotes — something serious, if theologians do it - an improper understanding of the mystery.
Saint Paul had already clarified this with admirable precision in the Letter to the Philippians:
«in fact our citizenship is in heaven and from there we await the Lord Jesus Christ as savior, who will transfigure our miserable body to conform it to his glorious body, by virtue of the power he has to subject all things to himself" (Fil 3,20-21).
It is from this Pauline theology which derives from one of the most beautiful formulas of the liturgy of the dead: in the Eucharistic Prayer III, remembering the deceased brother or sister, the Church prays that God, when "he will raise the dead from the earth", «he will transform our mortal body into the image of his glorious body» (Roman Missal, Eucharistic prayer III, quoting Fil 3,20-21).
The heart of the doctrine it lies precisely in these two words: transformation e conformation. And here it must be clarified that it is not a question of the mechanical recomposition of the dispersed physical particles of a corpse, almost as if the power of God depended on the conservation of the original matter: would be, that yes, a magical thought. Rather, it is about the continuity of the person, including identity and history, brought by God to a new condition understood as "conforming" - σύμμορφος (symmorphos), the same word used by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8,29 about the predestination of believers — to the glorious body of the risen Christ. It is the same paschal mystery of death, burial and resurrection which acts in the believer through Baptism and finds fulfillment on the last day, whatever the physical fate of his mortal remains. Or perhaps we want to fear that God may have difficulty restoring a body to the souls of the deceased on the day of the resurrection of the dead?
If not, if there are theologians ready to believe and teach that bodies will emerge from the tombs to resume their physical appearance, confusing the mystery of faith in the resurrection with the long production of horror films about zombies, then they might as well resign themselves: that description, complete with bodies recomposed in flesh and blood, they will find it much better illustrated in the Qur'anic Paradise, also including seventy virgins, so as not to miss anything material, both in libations and more.
From the island of Patmos, 22 August 2026
.
NOTE
1 A.D. Nock, Cremation and Burial in the Roman Empire, «Harvard Theological Review» 25, 1932, pp. 32-59.
2 J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1996.
.
.
CREMATION OF THE BODY? IT CAN BE AN EXCELLENT CATHOLIC CHOICE
Should there be theologians ready to believe and to teach that bodies will come out of their tombs to resume their physical likeness, confusing the mystery of faith concerning the resurrection with the long line of zombie horror films, then they might as well resign themselves: that description, complete with bodies reassembled in flesh and bone, they will find far better illustrated in the Qur’anic Paradise, seventy virgins included, so as not to lack for anything material, in feasting and more besides.
— Current Ecclesial Affairs —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
The Catholic Church has permitted cremation since 1963, when the Holy Office, with the instruction Pious and constant of 5 July of that year, established that cremation is not “in itself contrary to the Christian religion” and that the faithful who chose it should no longer be denied the sacraments and funeral rites, provided that the choice was not motivated “as a denial of Christian dogmas, or out of a sectarian spirit, or out of hatred for the Catholic religion and the Church.”

Since then the discipline has passed into the 1983 Code of Canon Law (can. 1176 §3) and into that of the Eastern Churches of 1990. This is a distinction that must be firmly maintained from the outset: one thing is the licitness of the practice, another is the preference for burial. The Church, however, absolutely forbids the scattering of ashes and their preservation at home, as we shall see.
A historical aside: it is worth recalling that cremation had been condemned by the Church by decree of the Holy Office of 12 May 1886, in the years when the practice had been taken up by Freemasonry as an ideological banner in an anticlerical key, in order to publicly deny the truths of faith concerning eternal life and, above all, the resurrection of the dead.
Theology has nothing to fear from cremation in itself. Fire does not touch the soul, nor does it in any way limit divine omnipotence in raising bodies: the God who drew man from dust can call him back from ashes just as well as from earth. Or does Scripture not say, precisely in the liturgy of Ashes with which Lent begins: “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen 3:19)? Cremation may be chosen for hygienic, economic, ecological, or even ethical reasons, and it is an entirely legitimate choice for a Catholic faithful. Nor can we forget the shortage of space in the cemeteries of large cities. It should also be considered that, unlike nations inhabited by a few tens of millions of people spread across vast territories, there are other places in the world where population density is instead very high: in those cases, cremation, far from being merely advisable, should actually be recommended. Let us pass over the architectural monstrosities of various cemeteries where, for lack of space on the ground, height has been exploited, building hideous five-storey blocks to house the niches inside them.
In most Italian cemeteries there are no longer any burial plots in the ground, where it would be natural to lay the body through the ancient gesture of restoring it to the earth itself. We do not have the space available to other peoples — for example in the United States, in Australia, and other places where cemeteries are vast green parks, the so-called Rural Cemetery Movement (garden cemetery), now more commonly called the Lawn Cemetery or Memorial Park. These places, spread over broad tree-lined lawns, hardly even look like burial grounds, at least to us Italians and Latin Europeans, accustomed to tombs ranging from ancient funerary chapels of considerable artistic value to niches and tombs of rare bad taste. In these “garden cemeteries,” to maintain the appearance of a uniform lawn, headstones are often flat and set at ground level. There are no low walls, individual enclosures, or monumental family tombs to interrupt the view: trees, paths, and small lakes integrate the cemetery into the natural landscape, turning it into a place of peace even for visitors, where it is possible to bring children to play or walk pets. As we were saying, however, ground burial has by now disappeared from most cemeteries, and our population density does not allow for places like the Lawn Cemetery or Memorial Park. In certain cases, is it better to be cremated, or entombed on the fifth floor of a cemetery apartment block? Thank God, free choice is granted, even by Holy Mother Church.
It is therefore no coincidence that the recent Magisterium has felt the need to intervene precisely on this terrain, in order to pastorally accompany increasingly widespread choices without leaving them devoid of a framework of meaning. Taking account of these new needs and their related problems, the instruction To rise with Christ, issued on 15 August 2016 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, updated Pious and constant by specifying the norms for the preservation of ashes. The document is unambiguous: ashes must receive the same care and respect given to the body, and must be kept in a sacred place: the cemetery, or a church, or an area dedicated to this purpose by the competent ecclesiastical authority (n. 5). The Church’s opposition, then, is not to cremation in and of itself, but rather to what one might wish to express or openly deny through it.
Christian tradition has always favored burial for three reasons that To rise with Christ summarizes with precision. First, because it recalls the body of Christ laid in the tomb, and expresses with greater symbolic force the expectation of the resurrection of the flesh (cf. n. 3). Second, because the human body, through Baptism, has become a temple of the Holy Spirit, and theology urges that it be treated with the greatest possible physical closeness, even in the gesture of entrusting it to the earth. Finally, because burial safeguards communion between the living and the dead, fostering remembrance and prayer. It is for this reason — not out of any suspicion toward fire in itself — that the Church forbids the scattering of ashes in nature, their conversion into jewelry or commemorative objects, and their preservation at home, in order to avoid pantheistic, naturalistic, or nihilistic drifts, as well as the commodification of the memory of the deceased (cf. n. 7). Only in serious and exceptional circumstances, tied to local cultural conditions, may the Ordinary grant domestic preservation, though never divided, however, among different family units (cf. n. 6).
A brief historical excursus helps put things in perspective. In archaic Rome, burial prevailed. From the late Republic onward, cremation gained the upper hand: it was Sulla, in 79 BC, the first member of the gens Cornelia — traditionally faithful to burial in the earth — to be cremated, perhaps for fear that his corpse would be desecrated by his enemies. From then on cremation remained the dominant rite throughout the late Republic and the first two centuries of the Empire: the body was burned on a pyre together with personal belongings and offerings, and the remains gathered in a cinerary urn kept in tombs or columbaria, such as the one still visible belonging to Pomponius Hylas on the Appian Way.
It was under Hadrian (117–138 AD) that burial gradually came back into fashion — the emperor himself was perhaps the first to be buried rather than cremated — with the construction of carved sarcophagi becoming increasingly widespread in the second century and generalized in the third, even in the provinces. Several factors weighed on this shift — changes in taste, in urbanization, and above all in ideas about the afterlife — but the growing spread of Christianity, which considered cremation disrespectful toward a body destined for resurrection, undoubtedly contributed to it as well.
The deeper reasons for this reversal of trend remain, moreover, debated among historians. Already in the 1930s, Arthur Darby Nock1 observed how the shift to burial followed, at least initially, a social fashion that spread from the top down rather than a precise doctrinal rethinking of the afterlife; a reading later taken up and expanded by Jocelyn M. (C). Toynbee2. What remains true, however one explains it, is that in precisely those decades Christians were digging the first Roman catacombs, reserving burial for their own dead from the very outset, in conscious and deliberate distance from the then still dominant use of cremation in Roman society.
This is where it is worth pausing on a broader point, one that holds true here as in other cases: from the earliest Christian era, an effort was made to draw clear distinctions from what were considered pagan customs. And yet, on other occasions, numerous elements and symbols of Roman paganites were taken up, emptied of their original meaning, and filled with Christian symbolism — this occurred both in the liturgical sphere, as with the adoption of the stole as the preeminent symbol of ministerial priesthood, or other elements that became liturgical vestments, and in the administrative sphere, with the adoption of terms and organizational structures such as curiae and dioceses, largely borrowed from Roman law. The history of the Church has never been a wholesale rejection of the world that surrounded it, but an exercise of good sense in which, case by case, what had to be rejected and what could be purified and assumed was weighed.
Some theologians who demonize cremation by directly linking it to the mystery of the resurrection of the dead risk seriously, out of excessive zeal, sliding into a form of inverted paganism: an entirely involuntary esotericism. Bodies emerging from tombs and resuming their former appearance are catechetical images, created for the simple and for those who could not even read — one need only think of the cycles of frescoes still found today in many monumental churches and cathedrals. These are pedagogical images, not theological descriptions of the how. Linking opposition to cremation to so literal a reading of the resurrection of the body betrays — a serious matter, when it is theologians who do so — an improper understanding of the mystery.
Saint Paul had already clarified this with admirable precision in the Letter to the Philippians:
“But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we also await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself” (Phil 3:20-21).
It is from this Pauline theology that one of the most beautiful formulas of the liturgy for the dead descends: in Eucharistic Prayer III, making memory of a departed brother or sister, the Church prays that God, “when from the earth he will raise up in the flesh those who have died,” will “transform our lowly body after the pattern of his own glorious body” (Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer III, citing Phil 3:20-21).
The heart of the doctrine lies precisely in these two words: transformation and conformation. And here it must be clarified that this is not a matter of the mechanical reassembly of the scattered physical particles of a corpse, as though the power of God depended on the preservation of the original matter: that, indeed, would be magical thinking. It is rather a matter of the continuity of the person — identity and history included — brought by God to a new condition understood as “conformed” — σύμμορφος (symmorphos), the very word used by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:29 regarding the predestination of believers — to the glorious body of the risen Christ. It is the same paschal mystery of death, burial, and resurrection that works in the believer through Baptism and finds fulfillment on the last day, whatever the physical fate of his mortal remains may have been. Or shall we perhaps fear that God might have difficulty in restoring a body to the souls of the departed on the day of the resurrection of the dead?
If not, should there be theologians ready to believe and to teach that bodies will come out of their tombs to resume their physical likeness, confusing the mystery of faith concerning the resurrection with the long line of zombie horror films, then they might as well resign themselves: that description, complete with bodies reassembled in flesh and bone, they will find far better illustrated in the Qur’anic Paradise, seventy virgins included, so as not to lack for anything material, in feasting and more besides.
From The Island of Patmos, 22 August 2026
NOTES
1 A.D. Nock, Cremation and Burial in the Roman Empire, “Harvard Theological Review” 25, 1932, pp. 32-59.
2 J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1996.
.
.
DOES THE CREMATION OF THE BODY? IT CAN BE AN EXCELLENT CATHOLIC OPTION
if there are theologians willing to believe and teach that bodies will come out of the tombs to regain their physical appearance, confusing the mystery of faith about the resurrection with the long production of horror films about zombies, then they better resign themselves: that description, with bodies recomposed into flesh and blood included, You will find it much better illustrated in the Koranic Paradise, seventy virgins included, so that they do not lack anything material, both at banquets and elsewhere.
- Ecclesial news -

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo
.
The Catholic Church allows cremation from 1963, when the Holy Office, with the instruction Pious and constant the 5 July of that year, established that cremation is not "in itself contrary to the Christian religion" and that the faithful who had chosen it would no longer be denied sacraments and funerals., provided that such a choice was not motivated "as a denial of Christian dogmas.", or with sectarian spirit, or out of hatred against the Catholic religion and the Church".

Since then the discipline has passed to the Code of Canon Law of 1983 (can. 1176 §3) and that of the Eastern Churches of 1990. It is a distinction that must be held firm from the beginning: one thing is the legality of the practice, another is the preference for burial. However, the Church absolutely prohibits the scattering of ashes and their preservation at home., as we will see.
A historical incident: It is worth remembering that cremation had been condemned by the Church by decree of the Holy Office of the 12 May 1886, in the years in which its practice had been assumed by Freemasonry as an ideological flag of an anti-clerical nature., to publicly deny the truths of faith about eternal life and, above all, about the resurrection of the dead.
Theology has nothing to fear from cremation itself. Fire does not touch the soul and does not in any way limit divine omnipotence to resurrect bodies.: God, that brought man out of the dust, can call him back from the ashes just as from the earth. Chance does not proclaim itself, precisely in the liturgy of Ashes with which Lent begins: "You are dust and to dust you will return" (GN 3,19)? Cremation may be chosen for hygienic reasons, economic, ecological or also ethical, and it is a completely legitimate choice for a faithful Catholic. Nor can we forget the scarcity of spaces in cemeteries in big cities.. Besides, it must be considered that, unlike Nations inhabited by a few tens of millions of people distributed over immense territories, There are others in the world where the population density is very high.: in those cases, cremation, more than advisable, should be strongly recommended. Let us ignore the eyesores of several cemeteries in which, due to lack of space on the land, has opted for height, building horrible five-story buildings to contain the niches inside.
In most Italian cemeteries there are no longer burial places on land, where it would be natural to deposit the body through the ancient gesture of its restitution to the earth itself. We do not have the spaces that other populations have, for example in the United States, in Australia and other places where cemeteries are large green parks — the so-called Rural Cemetery Movement (garden cemetery), called today more commonly Lawn Cemetery O Memorial Park (memorial park). These places, spread out over wide green wooded meadows, They don't even look like burial places, at least for us, Italians and Europeans with Latin roots, accustomed to tombs that vary from ancient monumental funerary chapels of notable artistic interest to niches and tombs of truly rare bad taste. In the "garden cemeteries", to maintain the appearance of a uniform meadow, Gravestones are usually flat and placed at ground level.. There are no walls, individual fences or monumental family tombs that interrupt the view: trees, Trails and small lakes integrate the cemetery into the natural landscape, transforming it into a place of peace also for visitors, where it is possible to take the children to play or walk the animals. As we said, however, In most of the cemeteries the earthen graves have already disappeared and our population density does not allow us places like the Lawn Cemetery O Memorial Park. In certain cases, Is cremation or burial on the fifth floor of a cemetery building better?? Thank God free choice is granted, also from the Holy Mother Church.
It's not, well, coincidence that the recent Magisterium felt the need to intervene precisely in this area, to pastorally accompany increasingly widespread decisions without leaving them deprived of a framework of meaning. Taking into account these new needs and the related problems, the instruction To rise with Christ, promulgated on 15 of August of 2016 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, updated Pious and constant specifying the rules on the conservation of ashes. The document is clear: the ashes must receive the same care and respect reserved for the body, and must be kept in a sacred place: the cemetery, or a church, or an area dedicated to it by the competent ecclesiastical authority (n. 5). The setback of the Church, therefore, It is not towards cremation in and of itself, but rather towards what one might want to openly manifest or deny with it..
Christian tradition has always preferred burial for three reasons that To rise with Christ accurately summarize. Above all because it remembers the body of Christ deposited in the tomb and expresses with greater symbolic force the expectation of the resurrection of the body. (cf.. n. 3). Then because the human body, through Baptism, It has become a temple of the Holy Spirit, and theology encourages treating it as physically close as possible., also in the gesture of entrusting it to the earth. Finally, because the grave guards the communion between the living and the dead, promoting remembrance and prayer. It is for this reason — not because of a suspicion of the fire itself — that the Church prohibits the scattering of ashes in nature., their conversion into jewelry and commemorative objects and their conservation at home, this in order to avoid pantheistic drifts, naturalists or nihilists, in addition to the commodification of the memory of the deceased (cf.. n. 7). Only in serious and exceptional circumstances, linked to local cultural conditions, the Ordinary can grant domestic conservation, never divided, however, between different family units (cf.. n. 6).
A brief historical excursion helps put things in perspective. In archaic Rome burial prevailed. Since the late Republic, cremation took the lead: it was Sulla, in the year 79 a.C., the first member of the gens Cornelia — traditionally faithful to ground burial — in having one cremated, perhaps for fear that his corpse would be violated by his enemies. Since then, cremation continued to be the dominant rite throughout the late Republic and during the first and second centuries of the Empire.: The body was burned on a pyre along with personal objects and offerings., and the remains were collected in a cinerary urn guarded in tombs or columbariums., like the one still visible of Pomponius Hylas on the Appian Way.
It was with Hadrian (117-138 d.C.) when inhumation gradually came back into fashion – the emperor himself was perhaps the first to have himself buried rather than cremated – with the construction of sculpted sarcophagi becoming more widespread in the 2nd century and widespread in the 3rd, even in the provinces. Several factors weighed in this shift — changes in taste, in urbanization and especially in ideas about the afterlife — but the growing spread of Christianity undoubtedly also contributed., who considered cremation disrespectful toward a body destined for resurrection.
The deep reasons for this trend reversal they continue, otherwise, debated among historians. Already in the thirties of the 20th century, Arthur Darby Nock1 I observed how the passage to the burial continued, at least initially, a social fashion spread from the top down rather than a precise doctrinal rethinking of the afterlife; a reading taken up and expanded by Jocelyn M. (C). Toynbee2. The fact remains, explains itself as it explains itself, that precisely in those decades Christians excavated the first Roman catacombs, reserving burial for their own dead from the beginning, by conscious and deliberate distance from the then still dominant use of cremation in Roman society.
Here it is worth stopping at a broader point, What is valid for this case as for others?: Since the first Christian era, attempts have been made to draw clear distinctions regarding what were considered pagan customs.. And yet, on other occasions, numerous elements and symbols of the paganites Roman were taken, emptied of their original meaning and filled with Christian symbology, this both in the liturgical sphere - think of the adoption of the stole as a symbol par excellence of the ministerial priesthood, or other elements converted into liturgical ornaments —, as in the administrative field, with the adoption of terms and organizational structures such as curias and dioceses, taken largely from Roman law. The history of the Church has never been a wholesale rejection of the world around it., but an exercise of common sense in which it was valued, case by case, what had to be rejected and what could be purified and assumed.
Some theologians who demonize cremation relating it directly to the mystery of the resurrection of the dead they run the serious risk, due to excess zeal, of slipping into a form of inverted paganism: a completely involuntary esotericism. The bodies that emerge from the tombs recovering their appearance are catechetical images, created for the simple and for those who did not even know how to read; Let us think about the cycles of frescoes that are still found today in so many monumental churches and cathedrals.. They are pedagogical images, not theological descriptions of how. Linking opposition to cremation to such a literal reading of the resurrection of bodies denotes something serious., if theologians do it - an improper understanding of the mystery.
Saint Paul had already clarified it with admirable precision in the Letter to the Philippians:
"US, instead, we are citizens of heaven, from where we wait for a Savior: the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform our humble body, according to the model of his glorious body, with that energy he has to submit everything" (Flp 3,20-21).
It is from this Pauline theology from where one of the most beautiful formulas of the liturgy of the dead descends: in the Eucharistic Prayer III, remembering a deceased brother or sister, The Church prays that God, when he "brings forth the dead from the earth", "transform our fragile body into a glorious body like yours" (Model Romano, Eucharistic Prayer III, quoting Flp 3,20-21).
The heart of the doctrine It is precisely in these two words: transformation and conformation. And here it must be clarified that it is not about the mechanical recomposition of the dispersed physical particles of a corpse., as if the power of God depended on the conservation of the original matter: that would be magical thinking. It is more about the continuity of the person, identity and history included, brought by God to a new condition understood as “conforming” — σύμμορφος (symmorphos), the same word used by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8,29 regarding the predestination of believers — to the glorious body of the resurrected Christ. It is the same paschal mystery of death, burial and resurrection that acts in the believer through Baptism and finds its fulfillment on the last day, whatever the physical fate of his mortal remains may have been. Or are we to fear that God may have difficulty in restoring a body to the souls of the deceased on the day of the resurrection of the dead??
Otherwise, if there are theologians willing to believe and teach that bodies will come out of the tombs to regain their physical appearance, confusing the mystery of faith about the resurrection with the long production of horror films about zombies, then they better resign themselves: that description, with bodies recomposed into flesh and blood included, You will find it much better illustrated in the Koranic Paradise, seventy virgins included, so that they do not lack anything material, both at banquets and elsewhere.
Desde The Island of Patmos, 22 of August of 2026
NOTES
1 A.D. Nock, Cremation and Burial in the Roman Empire, «Harvard Theological Review» 25, 1932, pp. 32-59.
2 J.M.C. Toynbee, Death and Burial in the Roman World, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1996.
.
Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO
.
______________________
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
Petrine primacy and vicarious power: when canonical criticism forgets the “previous note”
/in Theology and canon law/by Father TheodorePETRINE PRIMACY AND VICARIAL POWER: WHEN CANONISTIC CRITICISM FORGET THE PREVIOUS NOTE
About a recent article on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome: the sources cited are authentic, but the ecclesiological montage that holds them together does not stand the test of the texts.
– Theology and canon law –

Author
Teodoro Beccia
.
![]()
.
Sometimes inspiration is needed, for this reason the Fathers of The Island of Patmos are grateful to the stimulating blog I can not remain silent, capable of inspiring serious scholars to correctively deal with interesting topics that require a structured approach based on criteria of solid legal precision.

This is the case of the recent article: «A power that decides everything: perhaps the time has come to rethink the Petrine primacy?» (cf.. who), which raises a legitimate question - the tension between the synodal rhetoric of Francis' pontificate and the technical-juridical practice of centralization of power - and supports it with a largely authentic set of sources: the Preach the Gospel, Gianfranco Ghirlanda's study on Periodica de re canonica, the document of the Dicastery for Christian Unity The Bishop of Rome (2024) who, a correct reference to Afanassieff, Meyendorff and Clément on first among equals eastern. The problem is not the invention of non-existent sources, but the way they are mounted: an operation that could be defined as ecclesiology done with scissors, where the passages that support the thesis remain, those who would complicate it disappear as if by magic.
Four issues deserve to be resolved publicly, not for the sake of controversy, but because the topic - the foundation of government power in the Church - is too serious to be left to such a partial reading. The first knot: the article reconstructs the doctrine on the governing power of bishops as if the Second Vatican Council had closed the question in favor of the sacramental derivation alone, keeping quiet A preliminary explanatory note which connects the sacrament and the juridical exercise of power. The second knot: extends to the proper power of the bishops a principle - that of the vicarious power of the curial departments - designed for an organ that has never had its own power. The third knot: hyperbolically compares an organizational regulation of 2022 to the dogmatic definition of Vatican I, ignoring its limits relationship Gasser set the record. The fourth knot: cites Gianfranco Ghirlanda as independent historical proof of a thesis that he himself constructed and then translated into law. Let's tackle them one by one, in the order in which the article presents them.
First: the absence of the Explanatory Note praevia
The article presents the tension between the doctrine of The light 21-22 (which links the governing power of bishops to episcopal consecration, exercised in hierarchical communion with the college and its head) and the thesis - revived by Ghirlanda - according to which the power of government derives rather from the canonical mission received from the Roman Pontiff. He does so as if the Council had closed the issue in favor of the first reading, leaving the second as a pre-conciliar residue now obsolete.
Lacks, in this reconstruction, a decisive textual fact: the A preliminary explanatory note, desired by Paul VI and attached to the conciliar text precisely to clarify in what sense the doctrine of The light on the college of bishops. The N. 2 of the Note specifies that the consecration ontologically confers the office, but that the exercise of that power remains subordinate to "canonical or juridical determination by the hierarchical authority". It is exactly the connection between the sacramental dimension and the juridical-canonical dimension that the article presents as an unresolved contradiction between the Council and subsequent doctrine. Soon said: omitting it out of ignorance would already be a problem, but omitting it because it complicates the thesis you intend to support is much worse.
Second: the confusion between vicarious curial power and the bishops' own power
The point 5 of the «Principles and criteria» of Preach the Gospel — correctly cited in the article — concerns the power with which the dicasteries of the Roman Curia operate: vicarious power, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Roman Pontiff. This has never been controversial: the Curia, by definition, it never had its own power, being the executive body of the Pope since its historical origin.
The bold logical leap of the article consists in extending this principle - designed for dicasteries - to diocesan bishops, abbesses and major superiors of religious institutes, as if they too were mere executors of a power that always and exclusively remains with the Pope. But it's the same The Eternal Shepherd, mentioned shortly afterwards in the article, to deny this extension: the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is defined as ordinary and immediate potestas over every Church, but the text explicitly takes care not to undermine the power - also ordinary and immediate - that bishops exercise over their particular Churches (DS 3061). They are two distinct powers that coexist; not one absorbing the other. The case of the commissionerships of monasteries and religious institutes, which the article cites as proof of the thesis, it must be assessed on a case-by-case basis from the perspective of the law of institutes of consecrated life (where the relationship between its own internal authority and the intervention of the Holy See follows a distinct discipline, cf. cann. 596 e 622-624 CIC), not generalized starting from the internal regulations of the Curia.
Third: the hyperbole of the “most ultramontane Council in history”
The article argues that the doctrine underlying the reform of the Curia, if generalized, «it goes beyond what even the most Ultramontane Council in history has ever done», with reference to Vatican I. It is a rhetorically effective statement, I dare say bombastic, but theologically untenable, because it compares two non-commensurable categories: an internal organizational arrangement of 2022 (the regulations of the Curia) and a universal dogmatic definition of the 1870 on the primacy of jurisdiction. It is worth remembering that the First Vatican Council itself, in relationship of Bishop Vinzenz Gasser who accompanied the vote of the The Eternal Shepherd, he made it clear that the defined primacy was not an absolute or despotic power, and that it did not suppress the ordinary power of bishops. And with this it is obvious: if even the strongest dogmatic definition ever produced on the primacy was careful to set this limit, Comparing it unfavorably to a curial regulation - which dogmatically binds nothing - is not an argument, if we want to be good we could good-naturedly define it as a rhetorical device.
bedroom: Garland as a source of himself
The article cites Ghirlanda's study 2017 his Periodica de re canonica as proof that the thesis of the derivation of the power of government from the canonical mission alone has a genealogy in Leo XIII, Pius XII and John XXIII. But Ghirlanda is not a neutral witness here: he is the canonist who physically drafted the legal framework of Preach the Gospel is that, In the 2017, five years before promulgation, he was already building the argument in support of the reform he would sign. Citing the architect of a thesis as independent historical proof of the validity of the thesis itself is a self-referential short circuit: the source does not prove the thesis, presupposes it.
The one that remains standing
Not everything, in that article, it must be thrown away. The underlying question - whether the synodal rhetoric of recent years has been accompanied by an opposite technical-juridical practice - is real, and is discussed by canonists of the opposite orientation: the article acknowledges this by citing both Cardinal Müller in a critical way and progressive voices who complain about the opposite outcome, a power disconnected from the sacrament and the Word. Also the reference to the ecumenical document of 2024 on first among equals it is relevant and not misrepresented.
The problem is therefore not the question, which deserves to be asked and discussed seriously. The problem is the response constructed by selecting the sources that are convenient and keeping quiet about those — the Note the preliminary, the distinction between vicarious power and proper power, the Gasser relatio — which would have complicated it. Whoever wrote that article knows where to look for the texts, but it does not weigh them against each other with logical rigor, chronological and scientific. And it is exactly this, not the invention of sources, the sign of the canonical amateurism of those who have been giving lessons to others for five years now.
Velletri of Rome, 18 August 2026
.
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 of Rome --vatico
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
.
.
.
Maximus the Confessor: united with the will of the Father despite the almost “state of emergency” ecclesial – Maximus the Confessor: united to the Father’s will amid an ecclesial quasi “state of emergency” – Maximus the Confessor: united to the will of the Father despite the almost “state of emergency” ecclesial
/in Theologica/by Father Gabriele
MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR: UNITED WITH THE FATHER'S WILL DESPITE THE ALMOST “STATE OF EMERGENCY” ECCLESIAL
In this summer time we can dedicate a few more moments to reflection and prayer, without sending God on holiday too, the Mass and the Church - perhaps in front of a sea or mountain panorama, contemplating the beauty of the truth of Jesus in creation.
— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.
.
![]()
PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format
.
.
Who today strives to authentically live the Catholic faith risks being ridiculed, sometimes isolated - often due to choices of ecclesiastical institutions and men of the Church, in good or bad faith. We must fear it? I do not believe: it might make us angry, give us frustration, but it is precisely here that the experience of San Massimo can help us.
In an almost “state of emergency” which never authorizes, minimizes or glorifies the birth of schisms or divisions, this holy monk teaches us extraordinary things about Jesus, with theology and with life. St. Maximus the Confessor (580–662 d.C.) it stands at the height of Eastern patristic speculation, an essential point of reference for Christology and Christian spiritual life. Nato, according to the historiographical tradition, in Constantinople — or in Palestine, according to an alternative Syriac biography —, he received an excellent humanistic and philosophical education, which led him to hold the office of first secretary of the emperor Heraclius. Then driven by the desire for a contemplative life, he abandoned palace honors to retire to the monastery of Chrysopolis, becoming its abbot.
The existence of Massimo was marked by the great political upheavals of the 7th century and, above all, from heated Christological controversies. To escape the invasions that threatened the Empire, he first took refuge in Crete, then in Byzantine Africa. In this context, monoenergism and monothelitism were born, promoted by the patriarch Sergius of Constantinople and supported by the Byzantine emperors to mend the rift with the Monophysites, according to which in Christ there would be a single energy and a single will. To understand what's at stake: monophysitism (the greek “one nature”) it is the doctrine, condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, according to which in Christ, after the Incarnation, only one nature would exist - the divine one, that would have absorbed the human one -, against the Chalcedonian belief in two natures, divine and human, united without confusion in a single person. Il monoenergismo, promoted in the 7th century precisely to bring the Monophysites closer to the imperial Church, he was looking for a compromise: two natures yes, but a single energy, a single operating principle, in Christ. Monothelitism was its coherent development: if there is only one energy, it was stated, the will must also be, because will and action are closely linked.
Massimo understood that denying the human will of Christ meant dissolving his real and autonomous humanity. Referring to the principle of Gregory Nazianzen - "what is not assumed is not cared for" - he defended the integrity of the human nature assumed by the Word. In 645 he disputed in Carthage with the deposed patriarch Pyrrhus, masterfully refuting the Monothelite theses; he then went to Rome, where he was the inspirer and reference theologian of the Lateran Council of 649, wanted by Pope Martin I, who condemned Monothelitism.
The imperial reaction was ruthless: In the 653 Pope Martin I and Maximus were arrested and taken to Constantinople. Despite years of imprisonment, interrogations and political pressure, the monk remained unwavering in his defense of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 662, at the end of the last process, to prevent him from continuing to preach or write, the Monothelites inflicted the mutilation of his tongue and right hand; exhausted by torture, he was deported to the fortress of Schemaria in Lazica, on the Black Sea, where he died 13 August of the same year, historically deserving the title of “Confessor”1.
The commentary on the Gethsemane episode
The focal point of the Christological reflection of Saint Maximus is concentrated in the exegesis of the dramatic prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane: «Dad, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; but not what I want, but what you want» (Mt 26,39; LC 22,42). For monothelites, the request to remove the cup indicated a single divine will moved with a view to the economy, or it would have introduced an unacceptable conflict between the will of the Son and that of the Father.
In the booklets dedicated to the agony of Jesus (especially him Brochures 6, 7, 15, 16 e 24), Maximus demonstrates that the request to be freed from death comes from the natural will of the flesh assumed by Christ: temerla, feel anguish, shunning it are dimensions of human nature, which cannot help but retreat from physical dissolution. Taking on real flesh, rational and intelligent, the Word appropriated all the natural properties of humanity, including pain and fear, without this introducing any opposition between human will and divine will. The mistake of Massimo's opponents was to confuse the natural distinction with themoral opposition: rebellion does not come from nature, but from sin, which alters the way he acts - τρόπος (in the tropics) — nothing that is natural can be in conflict with the Creator2.
Like this, in Gethsemane, the human will of Christ first expresses the natural weakness of the flesh in the face of death, but immediately afterwards he submits and adapts perfectly to his own divine will and that of the Father: «Not mine, but your will be done». There is no opposition, but "supreme consensus" and "perfect union": the human will of Jesus, free and immune from sin, it totally is “deified” from the hypostatic union with the Word. Thus Christ's obedience in Gethsemane redeems Adam's disobedience, taking care of the human will and bringing it back to full communion with God3.
The anthropology of San Massimo: Nature, Person and Freedom
The anthropology of San Massimo presents man as a cosmic synthesis and a “mediator” called to recapitulate within himself and unite the entire creation with God. According to Bernardo De Angelis, Maximian anthropological speculation rests on the fundamental methodological distinction between nature or substance — οὐσία (ousia) — e persona o ipostasi — presence (Hypostasis)4.
While the nature expresses what is common and universal to a species (the “what is it”), l’hypostasi O persona indicates the concrete existent, singular and unrepeatable (the “who is it”). Alla natura appartiene il principio essentia — reason of nature (logos physeos) — which includes all the powers and faculties constitutive of the human being, including reason, intelligence e volontà naturale — natural will (thelema physikon): an innate power, the faculty of desiring what is in conformity with rational nature and of tending towards the good.
Unlike the natural will, freedom of choice or gnomic will — γνώμη (gnome), will of opinion (thelema gnomicon) — is specific to the person and the hypostasis. The gnome expressi il modo — way of being (tropos hyparxeos) — in which the individual person exercises his or her natural faculty of will. In fallen man, gnomic will is a hesitant and uncertain process, marked by deliberation in the face of opposing alternatives, from doubt, from ignorance and the tragic possibility of choosing evil, deviating to selfishness — φιλαυτία (philautia).
Maximian anthropology culminates in the doctrine of deification — θέωσις (theosis). Man was created to become “God by grace”, participating in divine life. This process does not cancel human nature, but leads it to its perfect fulfillment5. In deification, the oscillations of the gnomic will are overcome: the deified person, mossa dall'amore — love (agape) — adheres stably and freely to the Supreme Good, without any more hesitations or internal divisions.
In this picture we understand the excellence of the humanity of Jesus Christ: in Him there is a real and complete natural human will, but there is no hesitant or imperfect gnomic will. The hypostasis of Christ being the same as that of the divine Word, his human will, moved and guided by divinity in a perfect and sinless way, represents the model and the first fruits of true freedom and the deification of all humanity.
Let's listen directly to San Massimo, writing to the hegumen prior of the Monastery of San Giorgio di Cizio:
To the holy Egumeno priest Giorio […] full of pity, I propose an answer according to my strength, saying that humanity in the Savior by nature is not something different from ours; but it is the same and entirely similar in essence, for He has taken from us in an unspeakable way the virginal and uncontaminated blood of the all-pure Mother of God, to whom, like a seed, the Logos united and became flesh without ceasing to be God according to essence. And he became a perfect man like us, except sin, which often makes us rebel and oppose God, in the will, as it makes us swing from two sides. But He by nature is free from all sin, as he is not simply a man, but God made man, and has nothing against it, but it preserves our nature properly and in all things pure and immaculate, as it says: «now comes the prince of this world, and he has no power over me" […] Voluntarily without falsifying our essence in anything or anything that is irreproachable and natural in it, and he deified it with all its properties like a red-hot iron, making it entirely theurgic as he has impregnated it supremely for union and in everything has become one with her without confusion in a single hypostasis. Thus in Him the human differs from ours not by the logos of nature, but for the new way of conception; equal in essence and different in absence of seed […] His will was just as natural as ours, but divinely informed and superior to us. Because it is evident that being generated with or without seed does not make nature different, but what concerns nature, as being unbegotten or generated. the great Gregory the Theologian there appears no demonstration that the Savior's humanity is one thing and our humanity another, as some believe because He says: «we can say that these words are spoken as if by a man, not by him who is considered the Savior (because the will of This has nothing that opposes God, being totally deified), but from him who is like us. Because human will does not always follow that of God, but he often resists and opposes it". He had the Logos himself as his seed, adding the innovation of his mode of birth, obtaining in participation, at the same time as natural being, being divinely founded in Him, so that He would affirm what was ours and be believed superior to us. Because it's necessary in everything, one part, preserve the nature assumed by Him, the Logos of God incarnate and made perfectly man for us, with everything that is natural to it and without which there is no nature but only a vain simulacrum; other parte, their union. The one preserved in its natural otherness, the other, on the contrary, recognized in the hypostatic identity; thus making it appear without confusion and without division, with wisdom and piety, the whole logos of the economy.6
San Massimo and us
The reflections and life of Saint Maximus help us closely in this effort to be authentically Catholic. Adhering to the faith of Christ implies welcoming, like Jesus, the will of the Father — with all fears, difficulties, the penalties and suffering that this entails. I think of Saint Maximus in his smelly and terrible imprisonment: without ever hesitating, he never abandoned the Truth of Christ, nor obedience to Pietro. Nello “state of emergency” he was really there, objectively, and he had every reason to fear — for the coherence and purity of the faith, and for your life. But he never thought, not even for an instant, that the true will of the Eternal Father was to create a parallel church, Made of “true Catholics in their own way” versus “fake Catholics” of the Roman Church.
Saint Maximus lived on his own skin what it meant to take on the cup of agony in Gethsemane, to be with Christ the bearer of a greater love that holds together truth and obedience. Let's think about it: if we were like him, we would have escaped from that prison to escape, I do not know, in the Swiss cantons? Or we would have remained to offer our lives in union with God's will?
Let's think about it, this summer, to all those who continue to remain in the unity of the Church despite uncertain times, difficulties, the appearance of victory of the devil. They are not fools or fools, conservatives who damage the Church for not criticizing the Pope's every sneeze as a schismatic or heretical act. Expenses, like Saint Maximus, remains in unity and truth, he forcefully expresses that yes that unites him to the charity of Christ - that charity that loves without hesitation, that overcomes every fear, every fear, any state of emergency, whether subjective or objective. In the strong will of Jesus we always find unity with the Spirit and with the Father. And unity with Mary, the Mother who gave us the Head for the Body. And unity with the Church, Mother who gives us the Body for the Head.
Let's keep thinking about it, this summer.
Convent of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 18 August 2026
NOTE
1 Maximus the Confessor, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, New City, Introduction by Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo, Rome 1985, 5-12; B. Of the Angels, Nature, persona, freedom. The anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, Armando Editore, Rome 2002, 11-14.
2 Maximus the Confessor, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, cit. [Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 27; Of the Angels, p. 85, 94].
3 Maximus the Confessor, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, cit., 25, 64.
4 B. Of the Angels, Nature, persona, freedom, cit., 56 e 180-181.
5 B. Of the Angels, Nature, persona, freedom, cit., 160.
6 Maximus the Confessor, Brochure 4, PG 91, 56 (D) – 61 (D), in S. Maximus the Confessor, Theological and polemical pamphlets, the cure of Bernardo De Angelis, Dehonian, Bologna, 2007.
______________________________
.
MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR: UNITED TO THE FATHER’S WILL AMID AN ECCLESIAL QUASI “STATE OF EMERGENCY”
In this summer season we can devote a little more time to reflection and prayer, without sending God, Mass, and the Church on holiday too — perhaps before a seascape or a mountain view, contemplating the beauty of the truth of Jesus in creation.
— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.
.
In almost “state of emergency” that neither authorizes nor minimizes nor ever exalts the rise of schisms or divisions, this holy monk teaches us extraordinary things about Jesus, through theology and through his life. Saint Maximus the Confessor (580–662 AD) stands at the summit of Eastern patristic speculation, an indispensable point of reference for Christology and for Christian spiritual life. Born, according to the historiographical tradition, in Constantinople — or in Palestine, according to an alternative Syriac biography — he received an excellent humanistic and philosophical formation, which led him to hold the office of first secretary to the Emperor Heraclius. Driven then by a desire for the contemplative life, he abandoned the honors of the palace to withdraw to the monastery of Chrysopolis, of which he became abbot.
Maximus’s life was marked by the great political upheavals of the seventh century and, above all, by the fierce Christological controversies. Fleeing the invasions that threatened the Empire, he took refuge first in Crete, then in Byzantine Africa. It was in this context that Monoenergism and Monothelitism arose, promoted by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople and supported by the Byzantine emperors in an effort to heal the breach with the Monophysites, according to whom there would be in Christ a single energy and a single will. To understand what was at stake: Monophysitism (from the Greek “one nature alone”) is the doctrine, condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, according to which in Christ, after the Incarnation, there would subsist a single nature — the divine one, which would have absorbed the human — as against the Chalcedonian faith in two natures, divine and human, united without confusion in a single person. Monoenergism, promoted in the seventh century precisely to bring the Monophysites back closer to the imperial Church, sought a compromise: two natures, yes, but a single energy, a single operative principle, in Christ. Monothelitism was its coherent development: if the energy is one alone, it was argued, so too must the will be, because will and action are closely bound together.
Maximus understood that to deny Christ’s human will meant dissolving his real and autonomous humanity. Appealing to the principle of Gregory Nazianzen — “what has not been assumed has not been healed” — he defended the integrity of the human nature assumed by the Word. In 645 he disputed at Carthage with the deposed Patriarch Pyrrhus, masterfully refuting his Monothelite theses; he then went to Rome, where he was the inspiration and the theological point of reference for the Lateran Council of 649, convened by Pope Martin I, which solemnly condemned Monothelitism.
The imperial reaction was merciless: in 653 Pope Martin I and Maximus were arrested and taken to Constantinople. Despite years of imprisonment, interrogation, and political pressure, the monk remained unshakeable in his defense of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 662, at the end of the final trial, in order to prevent him from continuing to preach or write, the Monothelites had his tongue and right hand mutilated; worn out by torture, he was deported to the fortress of Schemaris in Lazica, on the Black Sea, where he died on 13 August of that same year, thereby historically earning the title of “Confessor.”1
The commentary on the Gethsemane episode
The focal point of Saint Maximus’s Christological reflection is concentrated in his exegesis of the dramatic prayer of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane: “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not what I will, but what you will” (Mt 26:39; Page 22:42). For the Monothelites, the request to have the cup pass away either indicated a single divine will moved with a view to the economy of salvation, or else it would have introduced an unacceptable dissension between the will of the Son and that of the Father.
In the treatises devoted to the agony of Jesus (in particular pamphlets 6, 7, 15, 16, and 24), Maximus demonstrates that the request to be freed from death proceeds from the natural will of the flesh assumed by Christ: to fear death, to feel anguish before it, to shrink from it are dimensions proper to human nature, which cannot but recoil from physical dissolution. By assuming a real, rational, and intelligent flesh, the Word made his own all the natural properties of humanity, including pain and fear, without this introducing any opposition between the human will and the divine will. The error of Maximus’s adversaries was to confuse natural distinction with moral opposition: rebellion does not derive from nature, but from sin, which alters its mode of acting (in the tropics) — for nothing that is natural can ever be in contrast with the Creator.2
Thus, in Gethsemane, the human will of Christ first expresses the natural weakness of the flesh before death, but immediately afterward submits and conforms perfectly to the divine will proper to himself and to the Father: “Not my will, but yours be done.” There is no contrariety here, but rather “supreme consent” and “perfect union”: the human will of Jesus, free and immune from sin, is entirely “divinized” through the hypostatic union with the Word. Thus Christ’s obedience in Gethsemane redeems the disobedience of Adam, healing the human will and leading it back to full communion with God.3
Saint Maximus’s Anthropology: Nature, Person, and Freedom
Saint Maximus’s anthropology presents man as a cosmic synthesis and a “mediator” called to recapitulate and unite the whole of creation in himself and to God. According to Bernardo De Angelis, Maximian anthropological speculation rests on the fundamental methodological distinction between nature or substance — οὐσία (ousia) — and person or hypostasis — HYPOSTASIS (Hypostasis).4
While nature expresses what is common and universal to a species (the “what it is”), the hypostasis or person indicates the concrete, singular, and unrepeatable existent (the “who it is”). To nature belongs the essential principle — reason of nature (logos physeos) — which comprises all the powers and faculties constitutive of the human being, among them reason, intellect, and the natural will (thelema physikon): an innate power, the faculty of desiring what is in conformity with rational nature and of tending toward the good.
Unlike the natural will, freedom of choice or the gnomic will — γνώμη (gnome), will of opinion (thelema gnomicon) — belongs properly to the person and the hypostasis. The gnome expresses the mode — mode of existence (tropos hyparxeos) — in which the individual person exercises his natural faculty of willing. In fallen man, the gnomic will is a hesitant and uncertain process, marked by deliberation in the face of opposing alternatives, by doubt, by ignorance, and by the tragic possibility of choosing evil, deviating toward self-love (philautia).
Maximian anthropology culminates in the doctrine of deification — θέωσις (theosis). Man was created to become “God by grace,” participating in the divine life. This process does not annul human nature but leads it to its perfect fulfillment.5 In deification, the oscillations of the gnomic will are overcome: the deified person, moved by love (agape) — adheres stably and freely to the supreme Good, without further hesitation or inner division.
Within this framework one can understand the excellence of the humanity of Jesus Christ: in him there is a real and complete human natural will, but there is no hesitant or imperfect gnomic will. Since Christ’s hypostasis is that very hypostasis of the divine Word, his human will, moved and guided by the divinity perfectly and without sin, represents the model and the first fruits of true freedom and of the deification of the whole of humanity.
Let us listen directly to Saint Maximus, writing to the priest-abbot of the Monastery of Saint George of Cyzicus:
To the holy priest and abbot Georgius […] full of devotion, I offer a reply according to my powers, saying that the humanity in the Savior is by nature not a thing different from ours; but it is the same and in every way like ours in essence, because he took it from us, assuming it ineffably from the virginal and undefiled blood of the all-pure Mother of God, to whom, as to a seed, the Logos united himself and became flesh without ceasing to be God according to his essence. And he became perfect man as we are, save for sin, which so often makes us rebel and set ourselves against God, in the will, insofar as it makes us waver from two sides. But he by nature is free from every sin, inasmuch as he is not a mere man, but God made man, and has nothing that opposes him, but preserves our nature properly and wholly pure and immaculate, as he says: “now comes the prince of this world, and he has no power over me” […] Willingly, without falsifying in anything our essence nor anything within it that is blameless and natural, he has divinized it with all its properties like red-hot iron, rendering it wholly theurgic inasmuch as he has supremely permeated it through the union, and in every way has become one with it without confusion in a single hypostasis. Thus in him the human differs from ours not in the logos of nature, but in the new mode of conception; equal in essence, and different for lack of seed […] His will was properly natural as ours is, but informed divinely and above us. For it is evident that being begotten with or without seed does not make the nature different, but concerns what belongs to nature, such as being unbegotten or begotten. Nowhere in the great Gregory the Theologian does there appear any demonstration that the humanity of the Savior is one thing and our humanity another, as some believe on account of his saying: “we may say that these words are spoken as by a man, not by him who is regarded as the Savior (for the will of this one has nothing that opposes God, being wholly deified), but by him who is as we are. For the human will does not always follow that of God, but often resists him and opposes him.” He had the Logos himself as his own seed, adding the innovation of his mode of birth, obtaining in participation, at the same time as natural being, the being divinely founded in him, so that he might affirm what was ours and be believed superior to us. For it is necessary in every respect, on the one hand, to preserve the nature assumed by him, the Logos of God incarnate and made perfect man for us, with everything that is natural to him and without which there is no nature but only an empty simulacrum; and on the other hand, their union. The one preserved in its natural otherness, the other, on the contrary, recognized in hypostatic identity; so as to display, without confusion and without division, with wisdom and piety, the whole logos of the economy.6
Saint Maximus and Us
The reflections and the life of Saint Maximus help us closely in this effort to be authentically Catholic. To adhere to the faith of Christ means accepting, as Jesus did, the will of the Father — with all the fears, difficulties, hardships, and sufferings that this entails. I think of Saint Maximus in his foul and terrible imprisonment: without ever wavering, he never abandoned the Truth of Christ, nor obedience to Peter. In the “state of emergency” he truly was there, objectively, and he had every reason to fear — for the coherence and purity of the faith, and for his own life. But he never thought, not even for an instant, that the true will of the Eternal Father was to create a parallel church, made up of “true Catholics in their own fashion” against the “false Catholics” of the Roman Church.
Saint Maximus experienced on his own flesh what it meant to take up the cup of the agony of Gethsemane, to be with Christ a bearer of a greater love that holds together truth and obedience. Let us think about it: had we been like him, would we have fled that prison to escape to, say, the Swiss cantons? Or would we have remained to offer our lives in union with the will of God?
Let us think, this summer, of all those who continue to remain within the unity of the Church despite uncertain times, difficulties, and the appearance of the devil’s victory. They are neither fools nor simpletons — conservatives who harm the Church by not setting out to denounce the Pope’s every sneeze as a schismatic or heretical act. Whoever, like Saint Maximus, remains within unity and truth, powerfully expresses that “yes” which unites him to the charity of Christ — that charity which loves without hesitation, which overcomes every fear, every dread, every state of emergency, whether subjective or objective. In the strong will of Jesus we always find unity with the Spirit and with the Father. And unity with Mary, the Mother who gave us the Head for the Body. And unity with the Church, the Mother who gives us the Body for the Head.
Let us go on thinking about it, this summer.
Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 18 August 2026
NOTES
1 MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the Agony of Jesus, New City, Introduction by Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo, Rome 1985, 5–12; B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, Person, Freedom: The Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, Armando Editore, Rome 2002, 11–14.
2 MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the Agony of Jesus, cit. [Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 27; Of the Angels, p. 85, 94].
3 MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the Agony of Jesus, cit., 25, 64.
4 B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, Person, Freedom, cit., 56 and 180–181.
5 B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, Person, Freedom, cit., 160.
6 MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, An essay 4, PG 91, 56D–61D, in S. MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, Theological and Polemical Opuscula, edited by Bernardo De Angelis, Dehonian, Bologna, 2007.
_____________________________
.
MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR: UNITED TO THE WILL OF THE FATHER DESPITE THE ALMOST “STATE OF EMERGENCY” ECCLESIAL
In this summer time we can dedicate a little more time to reflection and prayer, without also sending God on vacation, to the Mass and the Church — perhaps before a marine or mountainous panorama, contemplating the beauty of the truth of Jesus in creation.
— Theologica —

Author:
Gabriele Giordano M. Scardocci, o.p.
.
In an almost “state of emergency” that never authorizes, minimizes or exalts the birth of schisms or divisions, This holy monk teaches us extraordinary things about Jesus, with theology and with life. Saint Maximus the Confessor (580–662 d.C.) stands at the summit of eastern patristic speculation, essential reference point for Christology and Christian spiritual life. Born, according to historiographical tradition, in Constantinople — or in Palestine, according to an alternative Syriac biography—, He received an excellent humanistic and philosophical training, which led him to occupy the position of first secretary of the emperor Heraclius. Later moved by the desire for a contemplative life, He abandoned the honors of the palace to retire to the monastery of Chrysópolis, of whom he became abbot.
The existence of Máximo was marked by the great political upheavals of the 7th century and, above all, by the heated Christological controversies. To flee from the invasions that threatened the Empire, He first took refuge in Crete, then in Byzantine Africa. In this context, monoenergism and monotelism were born., promoted by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople and supported by the Byzantine emperors to mend the fracture with the Monophysites, according to which in Christ there would be a single energy and a single will. To understand what was at stake: monophysitism (from Greek “one nature”) is the doctrine, condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, according to which in Christ, after incarnation, only one nature would remain - the divine, that would have absorbed the human, against the Chalcedonian faith in two natures, divine and human, united without confusion in a single person. monoenergism, promoted in the 7th century precisely to bring the Monophysites closer to the imperial Church again, I was looking for a compromise: two natures yes, but only one energy, a single operating principle, in Christ. Monothelism was its coherent development: If the energy is only one, it was stated, the will must also be, because will and action are closely linked.
Maximus understood that denying the human will of Christ meant dissolving his real and autonomous humanity. Referring to the principle of Gregory of Nazianzus — “what has not been assumed has not been healed” —, defended the integrity of human nature assumed by the Word. On 645 He disputed in Carthage with the deposed patriarch Pyrrhus, masterfully refuting his monothelite thesis; He then went to Rome, where he was the inspiration and the leading theologian of the Lateran Council of 649, summoned by Pope Martin I, who solemnly condemned monothelism.
The imperial reaction was ruthless: in 653 Pope Martin I and Maximus were arrested and taken to Constantinople. Despite years in prison, interrogations and political pressure, the monk remained unwavering in the defense of Chalcedonian orthodoxy. On 662, at the end of the last process, to prevent him from continuing to preach or write, The Monothelites mutilated his tongue and right hand.; exhausted by torture, He was deported to the fortress of Schemaris, in Lazica, next to the Black Sea, where he died 13 August of that same year, historically deserving the title of “Confessor”.1
Commentary on the Gethsemane episode
The focal point of Saint Maximus's Christological reflection is concentrated on the exegesis of Jesus' dramatic prayer in the garden of Gethsemane.: "Dad, if possible, take this chalice away from me; but don't do what I want, but what you want” (Mt 26,39; LC 22,42). For the monothelites, the request that the cup be set aside either indicated a single divine will moved in view of the economy of salvation, or it would have introduced an unacceptable dissension between the will of the Son and that of the Father.
In the tracts dedicated to the agony of Jesus (in particular the Opuscles 6, 7, 15, 16 and 24), Maximus demonstrates that the request to be freed from death comes from the natural will of the flesh assumed by Christ: temerla, feel anguish before her, avoiding it are dimensions of human nature, that cannot but withdraw in the face of physical dissolution. By assuming real flesh, rational and intelligent, the Word made all the natural properties of humanity his own, including pain and fear, without this introducing any opposition between human will and divine will. The mistake of Maximus's adversaries was to confuse the natural distinction with the moral opposition: rebellion does not derive from nature, but of sin, that alters their way of acting — τρόπος (in the tropics) —; nothing that is natural can be in contrast to the Creator.2
So, in Gethsemane, The human will of Christ first expresses the natural weakness of the flesh in the face of death, but immediately afterwards he submits and adapts perfectly to his own divine will and that of the Father.: “My will not be done, but yours". There is no contradiction, but “supreme consent” and “perfect union”: the human will of Jesus, free and immune from sin, is totally “divinized” by the hypostatic union with the Word. So, Christ's obedience in Gethsemane rescues Adam's disobedience, healing the human will and bringing it back to full communion with God.3
The anthropology of Saint Maximus: Nature, Person and Freedom
The anthropology of Saint Maximus presents man as a cosmic synthesis and a “mediator” called to recapitulate within himself and unite all creation with God.. According to Bernardo De Angelis, Maximian anthropological speculation rests on the fundamental methodological distinction between nature or substance — οὐσία (messenger) — y persona o hipóstasis — hypostasis (hypóstasis).4
While nature expresses what is common and universal to a species (the “what is”), the hypostasis or person indicates the concrete existent, singular and unrepeatable (the “who is”). A la naturaleza pertenece el principio essencial — reason of nature (logos physeos) —, which includes all the constituent powers and faculties of the human being, among them the reason, la inteligencia y la voluntad natural — natural will (thelema physikon): an innate power, the faculty of desiring what is in accordance with rational nature and of tending toward good.
Unlike the natural will, freedom of choice or gnomic will — γνώμη (gnome), will of opinion (thelema gnomikón) —is characteristic of the person and the hypostasis. The gnome expresa el modo — way of being (tropos hyparxeos) — in which the singular person exercises his natural faculty of willing. In the fallen man, the gnomic will is a vacillating and uncertain process, marked by deliberation in the face of opposing alternatives, for the doubt, by ignorance and by the tragic possibility of choosing evil, diverting towards self-love — φιλαυτία (philautía).
Maximian anthropology culminates in the doctrine of deification — θέωσις (theosis). Man was created to become “God by grace.”, participating in divine life. This process does not cancel human nature, but leads it to its perfect fulfillment.5 In the deification, the oscillations of the gnomic will are overcome: the deified person, moved by love — ἀγάπη (agape) —, adheres stably and freely to the supreme Good, without more hesitation or internal splits.
In this framework the excellence of the humanity of Jesus Christ is understood: in Him there is a real and complete natural human will, but there is no wavering or imperfect gnomic will. The hypostasis of Christ being the same as that of the divine Word, his human will, moved and guided by divinity in a perfect and sinless way, represents the model and the first fruits of true freedom and the deification of all humanity.
Let's listen directly to Saint Maximus, writing to the egumenous priest of the Monastery of San Jorge de Cícico:
To the holy Egumenan priest George […] full of pity, I propose an answer according to my strength, saying that humanity in the Savior by nature is nothing different from ours; but it is the same and in all things similar in terms of essence, because He took it from us, assuming it in an inexpressible way from the virginal and uncontaminated blood of the all pure Mother of God, to which, like a seed, the Logos united and became flesh without ceasing to be God according to the essence. And he became a perfect man like us, save sin, which often causes us to rebel and oppose God, in the will, as it makes us oscillate from two sides. But He by nature is free from all sin, as he is not a simple man, but God made man, and there is nothing that opposes it, but preserves our nature properly and in everything pure and immaculate, as he says: "Now comes the prince of this world, and has no power over me." […] Voluntarily, without falsifying our essence or anything that is irreproachable and natural in it., He has deified it with all its properties like a red-hot iron, making it entirely theurgic in that it has been supremely impregnated by the union, and in everything he has become one with her without confusion in a single hypostasis. So, In Him what is human differs from what is ours not because of the logos of nature, but for the new way of conception; the same in essence and different in the absence of seed […] His love was as natural as ours., but divinely informed and above us. Because it is evident that being generated with or without seed does not make nature different., but what concerns nature, as being unborn or generated. In the great Gregory the Theologian there is no demonstration that the humanity of the Savior is one thing and our humanity another., as some believe because He says: "We can say that these words are uttered as if by a man, not by Him who is considered the Savior (because His will has nothing that opposes God, being totally deified), but for him who is like us. Because human will does not always follow God's will, but it is often resisted and opposed.”. He had the Logos himself as his own seed, adding the innovation of its birth mode, obtaining in participation, at the same time as the natural being, being divinely founded in Him, so that he would affirm what was ours and be believed superior to us. Because it is necessary, throughout, on the one hand, preserve the nature assumed by Him, the Logos of God incarnated and made perfectly man for us, with everything that is natural to it and without which there is no nature but only a vain simulacrum; besides, their union. The one preserved in its natural otherness, the other, instead, recognized in the hypostatic identity; so that it is manifested without confusion and without division, with wisdom and mercy, all the logos of the economy.6
Saint Maximus and us
The reflections and life of Saint Maximus help us closely in this effort to be authentically Catholic.. Adhering to the faith of Christ means welcoming, like Jesus, the Father's will — with all fears, difficulties, hardships and suffering that this entails. I think of Saint Maximus in his pestilent and terrible prison: without ever hesitation, He never abandoned the Truth of Christ, nor obedience to Peter. In the “state of emergency” he was truly present, objectively, and had every reason to fear—for the coherence and purity of the faith, and for his own life. but never thought, not even for a moment, that the true will of the Eternal Father was to create a parallel church, formed by “true Catholics in their own way” against the “false Catholics” of the Roman Church.
Saint Maximus lived in his own flesh what it meant to assume the chalice of the agony of Gethsemane, to be with Christ the bearer of a greater love that keeps truth and obedience together. Pensémoslo: if we had been like him, Would we have fled from that prison to escape, I don't know, to the Swiss cantons? Or would we have remained to offer our lives in union with the will of God?
Let's think, this summer, in all those who continue to remain in the unity of the Church despite uncertain times, of the difficulties, of the devil's appearance of victory. They are not stupid or naive, conservatives who harm the Church for not having dedicated themselves to criticizing every sneeze of the Pope as a schismatic or heretical act. Who, like Saint Maximus, remain in unity and truth, expresses with force that yes that unites him to the charity of Christ — that charity that loves without hesitation, that overcomes all fear, all fear, all state of emergency, sea subjective or objective. In the strong will of Jesus we always find unity with the Spirit and with the Father. And unity with Mary, the Mother who has given us the Head for the Body. And unity with the Church, Mother who gives us the Body for the Head.
Let's keep thinking about it, this summer.
Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 18 of August of 2026
NOTES
1 MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, New City, Introduction by Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo, Rome 1985, 5-12; B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, persona, freedom. The anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, Armando Editore, Rome 2002, 11-14.
2 MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, cit. [Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 27; Of the Angels, p. 85, 94].
3 MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, cit., 25, 64.
4 B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, persona, freedom, cit., 56 and 180-181.
5 B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, persona, freedom, cit., 160.
6 MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR, Booklet 4, PG 91, 56 (D) – 61 (D), and S. MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR, Theological and polemical tracts, by Bernardo De Angelis, Dehonian, Bologna, 2007.
.
Subscribe to our Channel Jordan the Theological club directed by Father Gabriele by clicking on the image
THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO
.
Visit the pages of our book shop WHO and support our editions by purchasing and distributing our books.
.
______________________
Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:
Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos
![]()
n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21
If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com
We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.
The Fathers of the Island of Patmos
.
.
.
The rainbow Trojan horse: when freedom becomes one-way
/in Actuality/by DraftingTHE RAINBOW TROJAN HORSE: WHEN FREEDOM BECOMES ONE-WAY
About the case of the psychiatrist Tonino Cantelmi, of Senator Simone Pillon and the usual, predictable crusade of Silere non possum
Author
Editors of The Island of Patmos
.
![]()
.
I can't keep quiet, I can't turn from being struck and it does so with its consolidated scheme: we take a news story - this time the so-called "family of the forest" (cf.. who) — and turns it into a lock pick for a much broader attack, which this time targets the psychiatrist Tonino Cantelmi, the lawyer Simone Pillon, the system of Italian professional orders e, in filigree, anyone who dares to declare themselves Catholic without being ashamed in public. The article in question, «From psychology to cultural crusade: the case of psychologists “Catholics”», signed by an anonymous person, certo «d.V.N», it is readable who.

Let's not go into the merits of the legal matter, because it does not concern us and on which others, competent, they are already speaking. To us editors of The Island of Patmos - who, as we know, all have a name, a face and a card on the page “Drafting” (cf.. who) — of interest is the method applied for years by the creator of this blog which has now become the "International Independent Newspaper" based in Estonia (cf.. who), that means: take a concrete case, load it with ideological suspicion and use it to advance a much more general demand - that of delegitimization, with the accusation of "ideology", anyone who publicly professes Catholic beliefs in a professional context.
The knot, But, it is not Cantelmi's faith but the consistency of those who accuse him. Silere non possum writes that Cantelmi «is not a new face in the panorama of Italian far-right Catholicism» and attributes a «long ideological history» to him and Pillon. Good: I cannot from la storia di Silere, instead, it would perhaps be devoid of orientation and ideology? A blog that presents itself as an impartial analyst of the Church and the Holy See and which for years has been conducting a systematic campaign against anyone who does not share the rainbow agenda, Doesn't it also have a line and "a lexicon that repeats itself to the point of caricature", to use the identical words that the article addresses to others? There is nothing more revealing, in this genre of prose, of the moment in which the accuser describes exactly his own vice in the opponent. This is why the admonition of the Gospel still applies - and will always apply:
«Because you observe the speck in your brother's eye, while you don't notice the beam in your eye? […] Hypocritical! First remove the beam from your eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye " (cf. Mt 7,3-5).
Freedom, to be such, it must apply to everyone — not for just one part. The priests who write these lines have never denied anyone the right to live their sexuality as they see fit, nor have they ever allowed themselves to scrutinize the private choices of others: We don't go back an inch on this and those who read our articles know it. However, we demand recognition, with the same naturalness, the right to say - if necessary even with the severe frankness of the Apostle Paul (cf.. 1Color 6,9-10 ; RM 1,26-27) — that certain lifestyle behaviors are incompatible with Catholic doctrine and morality, everyone remaining free to live the lifestyle they prefer in this world, in this sense also enjoying all the legal protections of the case. But, the same protections should also apply to those who, like us, respectfully expresses a feeling linked to opinions contrary to LGBT issues that cannot be achieved within the ecclesial community and the Catholic clergy: this is also called freedom of thought and speech, to be respected and protected. Therefore, we expect the same freedom to be recognized for us, to Catholics who think like us, therefore also to professionals like Cantelmi. If a blog claims the right to say everything it thinks about the Church, on sexuality, on morality — and it does, with tones that, to be good, we can limit ourselves to defining over the top - he cannot then deny to Catholic psychologists how Amedeo Cencini e Roberto Marchesini the right to openly declare one's beliefs, therefore branding them as unsuitable for the profession, in the case of Father Amedeo Cencini to the point of a formal complaint to the Order of Psychologists of Veneto, archived on 18 July 2022 because no violations of the Code of Ethics were identified (cf.. who), I suspect that the creator of Silere himself could not, far from accepting it, turned into a new accusation and a threat of legal action against the Order itself (cf.. who). Or freedom is mutual, or is it just a privilege that we assign to ourselves while denying it to those who don't think the same way.
That's exactly the pattern that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, on the eve of the conclave that would elect him Pope, he described with words that today resonate more than ever:
«A dictatorship of relativism is being established which does not recognize anything as definitive and which leaves only one's own self and its desires as the final measure» (Homily For electing the Roman Pontiff, 18 April 2005).
It is not relativism to recognize equal dignity to all positions: it is the dictatorship of relativism to demand that only one vision - one's own - has the right to public citizenship, while every other is traced back to an "ideology" to be neutralized.
Then again, belief is a private matter, it is the favorite sophistry of those who want to inhibit the free expression of other people's thoughts. It is the same argument that Silere non possum has been making for years regarding priests:
«[…] Silere non possum waged a battle in this by saying that the priest in his private life is free to do what he wants and neither the bishop nor this parlor chatter which he has really tired of by now can interfere in the private life of the priest" (cf.. I can not remain silent: in conversation with Felipe Perfetti, YouTube, 8 September 2023, minute 11:38, video which).
But a priest does not have a private life separable from his ministry, as has been reiterated several times in these columns of ours. He is a priest twenty-four hours a day, in public as in private, for this reason his existence must always conform to what he professed. This sophistry of "private life" applies today, with identical logic, in Cantelmi: his religious beliefs would be a private matter that should not interfere with his professional practice. In the same way, the faith of a Catholic is not a dress that one takes off when entering the clinic or court: And, if anything, precisely the opposite of what Silere non possum would like us to believe out of ideological obstinacy. The Second Vatican Council establishes that no one can be "impeded, within due limits, to act in accordance with one's conscience, «privately or publicly, individually or in association" (cf. Human Dignity, n. 2). Publicly, not just privately: it is written in black and white, and it is a right, this, which also applies to those who do not share the rainbow agenda, like it or not.
And here comes the paradox which unmasks the entire rhetorical structure of Silere non possum. If a professional's religious beliefs really had to stay outside the office door, then not even a conscientious objector gynecologist could refuse to perform an abortion: his “private” faith, by the same logic, it would have no right to impact the professional public sphere. But no rational mind would support such a conclusion. So why does the rule only apply when the person hit is a Catholic? Or at least a Catholic legitimately opposed to the attempt to bring the rainbow Trojan horse into the Church with all its claims in open conflict with the doctrine, Catholic morality and the magisterium of the Church?
The real problem is not science versus ideology. It is he who absolves himself from the rules he claims to impose on others. The article invokes professional associations, ethics, scientific rigor. Good: the same categories apply, At that time, to those who have been building a one-way narrative for five years, in which - these are the words of the same article - "science is always on its own side and the opponent is always ideological". That's not how critical thinking works: This is how ideology works, the real one, the one that never recognizes itself as such because it is convinced that it speaks in the name of science and progress, while anyone who dissents is automatically classified as a fanatic, homophobe, or - precisely - "ideological".
Equally non-negotiable is the law to say, with the same firmness with which others claim theirs, that a Catholic can think differently about an LGBT ideological agenda without becoming a bad professional, a bad citizen or an enemy to be exposed. Therefore, what the Blessed Apostle Peter asked of the first Christians also applies to us: be "always ready to respond to anyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you", but "with gentleness and respect" (cf. 1PT 3,15). Sweetness and respect that we demand, in our turn, in exchange.
From the island of Patmos, 17 August 2026
.
For those wishing to delve deeper into the topic of freedom, we refer you to this recent work by Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo (who)
.
Our previous articles (2023-2026):
– 17 August 2026 – THE RAINBOW TROJAN HORSE: WHEN FREEDOM BECOMES ONE-WAY (To open the article click WHO)
– 23 July 2026 – YOU DON'T BECOME A PRIEST FOR "AS LONG AS YOU DON'T PRACTICE SEX" (To open the article click WHO)
– 20 July 2026 – I CAN'T BE SILENT, THE INTERNATIONAL DAILY WITH THE WORKSHOP INCORPORATED IN THE ATTACK BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE VATICAN MEDIA (To open the article clickWHO)
– 28 June 2026 — SILERE NON POSSUM AND THE RAINBOW AS A TROJAN HORSE. WHEN THE FIGHT AGAINST ABUSE BECOMES THE PRETEXT TO REWRITE CATHOLIC MORALS (To open the article click WHO)
– 22 June 2026 — Press release: THE ISLAND OF PATMOS SUBJECT TO REPEATED UNFOUNDED REPORTS (To open the article click WHO)
– 11 June 2026 — MARCO PERFETTI: TELLING ME THAT I AM A PROBLEMATIC IS AS OBVIOUS AS SAYING THAT MADDALENA WAS A PROSTITUTE (To open the article click WHO)
– 5 May 2026 — ESTONIA, A PROMISED LAND, A DIFFERENT WORLD... AND A DAILY BADNESS OF THOSE WHO CANNOT BE SILENT (To open the article click WHO)
– 30 April 2026 — I CAN'T BE SILENT: THE DAY WHEN CRIMINAL LAW DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS BORN IN THE SACRESTY (To open the article click WHO)
– 27 April 2026 — WHY IN THIS CASE "I CAN KEEP SILENT"? (To open the article click WHO)
– 31 March 2026 — THE MALIGNANT NARCISSIST AND THE USE OF BLOGS AND SOCIAL MEDIA TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH AND ITS FAITHFUL SERVANTS (To open the article click WHO)
– 21 March 2026 — THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTrinal CONFUSION (To open the article click WHO)
– 28 February 2026 — I CAN'T BE SILENT. AN EXTRAORDINARY MARCO PERFETTI BETWEEN CONFIDENT CANON LAW AND «SCANDAL IN THE SUN»: THE DECEASED AUGUST SAID THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN (To open the article click WHO)
– 16 February 2026 — DONNE, LAW AND THEOLOGY USED AS A SLOGAN BY THE SILERE NON POSSUM BLOG (To open the article click WHO)
– 8 February 2026 — THE ATTORNEYS OF ITACA AND THE EPIC OF THE ENFORCEMENT THAT CANNOT BE SILENT (To open the article click WHO)
– 10 December 2025 — MARCO PERFETTI, I CANNOT SILENCE OTHERS: THE CULTURED CRICKET AND THE MOSQUITO THAT THINKS IT IS A GOLDEN EAGLE (To open the article click WHO)
– 6 September 2025 — IL MIGHTY SILENCE I CAN'T STAND DOING GOOGLE SHAKES (To open the article click WHO)
– 16 August 2025 — I CAN'T BE SILENT And that word taboo that he just can't pronounce: "HOMOSEXUALITY" (To open the article click WHO)
– 14 August 2025 — There is a homosexual? AT THAT TIME I CAN'T BE SILENT Also defends the indefensible (To open the article click WHO)
– 29 March 2025 — Always about I CAN'T BE SILENT: DAL “Vertical man"A" Fireculo "and" quadhow "of Leonardo Sciascia (To open the article click WHO)
– 21 March 2025 — I CAN'T BE SILENT And the story of that convinced seamstress that he can give Giorgio Armani high fashion lessons (To open the article click WHO)
– 12 February 2025 — The Opossum is to the knowledge of the Vatican as Henger is in chastity and like his deceased husband Riccardo Schicchi is at work Confessions OF SAINT AUGUSTINE (To open the article click WHO)
– 15 January 2025 — AT THE CLERICAL BORDERS WITH REALITY: THE WOMAN SUFFERS FROM FREUDIAN PENIS ENVY, The Opossum of the envy by Matteo Bruni Director of the Press Room of the Holy See (To open the article click WHO)
– 20 January 2025 — THE OPOSSUM IGNORE THAT A NUN CAN QUIETLY BECOME GOVERNOR OF THE VATICAN CITY STATE, As already was Giulio Sacchetti (To open the article click WHO)
– 22 November 2024 — THE EPISCOPAL APPOINTMENT OF RENATO TARANTELLI BACCARI. WHEN YOU ARE AFFECTED BY LIVER CANCER, THEY CHARGE ON THE ATTACK THOSE WHO CANNOT BE SILENT (To open the article click WHO)
– 31 May 2024 — A NOTE FROM FATHER ARIEL ON THE SITE I CAN'T BE SILENT: «AS ANNOYING AS A SEA URCHIN INSIDE YOUR UNDERPANTS» (To open the article click WHO)
– 8 December 2023 — WHO IS MARCO FELIPE PERFETTI REFERRING TO STATING FROM THE SITE I CAN'T BE SILENT «HERE IN THE VATICAN… WE IN THE VATICAN…», IF YOU CANNOT EVEN SET FOOT IN THE VATICAN? (To open the article click WHO)
– 14 October 2023 — THE ARCHABOT EMERITUS OF MONTECASSINO PIETRO VITTORELLI HAS DEAD: CHRISTIAN PIETY CAN ERASE THE SAD TRUTH? (To open the article click WHO)
.
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 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 the apostolic service of the Fathers of the Island of Patmos.
.
.
The website of this magazine and the editions take name from the Aegean island in which the Blessed Apostle John wrote the Book of the Apocalypse, isola also known as «the place of the last revelation»

«God revealed the secrets of others ALTIUS»
(in higher than the others, John has left the Church, the arcane mysteries of God)

The bezel used as the cover of our home page is a 16th century fresco by Correggio. preserved in the Church of San Giovanni Evangelista in Parma
creator of the website of this magazine:
MANUELA LUZZARDI


