Francis of Assisi mystical saint, not holy, It's a very complicated figure

7 October 2026/in Theologica/by Father Ivano

FRANCIS OF ASSISI MYSTIC HOLY, NOT SANTINO, IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED FIGURE

Francis is for theology, but he reassures his friar that this must not lead him to lucubrations, intellectualism ends in itself, or to a reality that could distance him from the Lord rather than bring him closer, that elevates him on an intellectual level but not on a mystical-spiritual level. This is why Francis can allow himself to correct and exhort even a very refined theologian like Saint Anthony of Padua; this is why Francis remains a very complex and complicated figure to understand, explain and convey, above all to follow.

— Theologica —

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Capp.

PDF print format article

This article on the Seraphic Father - which in its own way could be defined as "reactive” as “inspired by” - I owe it to the expression of one of the various newly appointed young bishops, what's the weather like?, responding to an interviewer, he illustrated his personality and his pastoral perspectives by stating that he would be inspired by the "theology of Saint Francis of Assisi".

Undoubtedly the young bishop will have tried to say something engaging, with transport and sincere heart, perhaps, however, ignoring not so much Franciscanism, but Francis of Assisi himself is something quite complex, for us Franciscans first.

The editorial team of the Fathers of The Island of Patmos it is also and above all a place of spiritual, pastoral discussion and theological discussion between brothers. And so, Father Ariel and Father Gabriele, both dogmatic theologians by training, Capuchin Friar Minor and Franciscan priest asked me:

«Which one would it be “the theology of Saint Francis"? Saint Francis was perhaps a theologian? And since when? It appears to us that the Franciscan theologians were Anthony of Padua, today doctor of the Church, who was able to exercise the teaching of theologian with the permission of Francis who gave it with no small initial reluctance; Bonaventura da Bagnoregio (doctor of the Church) who is the patron saint of theologians. To follow up with Arlotto da Prato e Matteo d'Acquasparta, but above all the great one fine doctor Duns ScotO, also known as doctor of the immaculate conception of Mary".

It is always our duty to explain with truthful historical and theological rigor what is real and what is surreal, what is historically authentic and what is adulterated to a legendary level, sometimes even ideological. This is why it is reasonable and realistic to say that today, many of those who are inspired by our Seraphic Father, they demonstrate that they know very little about St. Francis. Unfortunately the facts demonstrate - and the facts demonstrate it, not rash judgments - which more than others pauperismO certain subjects are very close to that poverty socio-political ideology that both Francis of Assisi and the wisdom of the Church have fought since the 13th century, openly disavowing it and opposing a concept of poverty that did not open up to transcendence and a relationship with God, but it became violent poverty, accusatory and punitive towards those who possessed material goods. Exactly what in the post-industrial and post-Marxist era will be defined and indicated by sociologists as social envy.

To be precise we should talk about old heresies returning, starting from that of Friar Dolcino, preceded by Gherardo Segarelli and many other more or less illustrious members of that heretical movement of the early 14th century known as Fraticelli. Francesco, followed by Franciscanism which took life and then form from him, they constituted the most striking disavowal and implicit fight against these heretical currents, in full adherence to the doctrine of the Church and obedience to its established authorities.

Francesco is extremely complicated, as a Saint and as a man, despite being the Saint recognized by all as simpler, in truth it is extremely complex. Often, the first to not understand it, It was really us Franciscans, that we have recycled it several times throughout history for our various use and consumption, or “mitigated” and “sweetened”, as Tommaso da Celano and Bonaventura da Bagnoregio did in different but fundamentally similar ways.

Complicated figures to understand and interpret they have always existed in the history of the Church, even if sometimes the populace has distorted them through their own more or less surreal devotions. One of these figures, which in this sense we can cite as an example, it is Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, to understand which it is necessary to interpret his figure in the light of mystical theology in which God attracts man to himself in the totality of his present and future being and becoming. Otherwise San Pio da Pietrelcina will become a superstitious popular figure whose image will be reserved for the place on the truck of the strictly southern truck driver, next to the erotic photos of the calendar of the current calendar year where the figures of twelve bewitching photo models stand out. I say "strictly Southern truck driver" for a purely sociological purpose, because the South Tyrolean one makes a coherent choice: or he puts San Pio da Pietrelcina on his truck or the erotic calendar of the current calendar year, but not both together.

Saint Francis of Assisi For about nine centuries it has aroused the interest not only of devout people, but also of scholars, historians, literati, theologians and of course artists, because of the extraordinary nature of his experience of Christian life; a testimony to the Gospel that has been able to inform and transform our society and, naturally, the church. The poor words that follow have no pretense as there are already many, was stated, and of great cultural standing spoke about Francis, highlighting all areas of his life and his singular personality. The simple intent of this writing is to highlight the single aspect of his mystical experience, angle of vision through which his entire existence as a Christian and saint could also be read.

It's the same Francesco to remember the beginning of his new life as a mystical experience and a gift from God. Twenty years later he describes the events of his conversion in Will that event is now dying, his life change, enclosing it within these few, very densely spoken:

«The Lord granted to me, Brother Francis, to thus begin to do penance, since I am in sin, it seemed too bitter to see lepers; And the Lord Himself led me among them and I showed mercy to them. And when I left them, what seemed bitter to me was changed into sweetness of soul and body. Then, I stayed a little, and I left the world".

Francis is not a theologian, at least not as we are used to thinking. It does not elaborate a systematized conception of the Christian experience, nor does he write treatises or essays on faith and its truths. Nonetheless when Dante, in the Divine Comedy, talks about the mendicant Orders and specifically about Francis, his praise comes from the one who is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest theologian the Church has ever had: San Tommaso D’Aquino. On the other hand, the praise of San Domenico, founder of the Order of Friars Preachers, known as Dominicans, the other mendicant Order par excellence, it will come from the mouth of Saint Bonaventure, the theologian par excellence of the Franciscans, the one who forever stigmatized the image of Francis to the point of making him appear practically inimitable. The great Florentine poet, in the two twin cantos, l’XI and the XII of Paradise, painfully highlights that both movements have lost their initial luster, having deviated from the teachings and rules of their founders. Therefore Dante, through St. Thomas, tells the story of Francis' life by placing it all in a mystical and spiritual dimension, as demonstrated by the long preamble which moves entirely within the realm of metaphor. It talks about the union of the Assisi native with a woman who, despite its virtues, she had remained alone for more than one thousand one hundred years after the death of her first "husband" and no other man had wanted to take her as his wife and that for love of her he, Francesco, he faced his father's wrath. Saint Thomas unravels the long metaphor only in the tercet where he finally explains that the two spouses he speaks of are Francis and Monna Poverty.

This spiritual itinerary of his, made of meetings, embrace of poverty, extreme fidelity to the Gospel and lots of prayer, Francesco will read it, we have already mentioned it, as a gift from the Lord. There are three verbs in the Will which are indicative in this regard. Five times he will repeat that «The Lord gave it to me» to do penance, to have faith in churches and priests, to have brothers and to write the Rule for them. He will subsequently state that the Lord always «revealed to mei» what he had to do and introduce himself with the greeting that had become famous: «May the Lord give you peace». And finally «He hired me» among the lepers.

In this regard Francesco, as you know, it does not offer a political response to social injustices, to the problem of evil in the world. He has no plans for effective and concrete changes, he does not meditate on struggles and rebellions; Francesco, to be understood, it is neither a hippy nor a Che Guevara from the Middle Ages, nor a contemporary of certain so-called very social priests today. Francis responds with faith, when he manages to penetrate to the bottom, with total and impetuous adhesion, the sacrifice of Christ. Let's try to follow him in his thoughts: It gave, the Most High, the master of the universe, of all creation, he sacrificed his only and favorite Son so as not to lose his creature, the man, capable only of sinning. And if Christ who is God came to earth dragged by an immense love, and he became poor and a pilgrim, he suffered from hunger and cold, betrayal and abandonment of friends, to the point of giving his life on the cross to restore salvation to humanity, the eternal joy of Paradise, what else is left for man to do but follow, as much as possible, the footsteps of the Savior, the Gospel, if not to respond to divine love with poor human love, trying to love each other like brothers? And who, if not the poor and the derelict, repeating the earthly experience of Christ in suffering, can better understand the ardent divine charity and accept anguish and suffering with gratitude, recover, like Christ, to the will of the Father?

I Little flowers of Saint Francis, a wonderful collection in the vernacular from the last quarter of the fourteenth century of "miracles and pious examples" of his life, they make him say it, about what the virtue of perfect joy is:

«Above all the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit, which Christ grants to his friends, it is to conquer oneself, and willingly for the love of Christ endure punishments, insults and opprobriums and inconveniences; because we cannot boast in all the other gifts of God, but they are not ours, but of God, wherefore says the Apostle (Paul, in 1 Cor 4, 7 n.d.r.): “What's wrong with you, that you do not have from God? And if you got it from him, because I boasted about it, as if you had it yourself?”. But in the cross of tribulation and affliction we can glory, but what does the Apostle say? (always Paolo, in Gal 6,14 n.d.r): I do not want to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ".

And so the cross since the encounter with the lepers, at the beginning of his conversion, forms part of Francesco's experience, of his spiritual horizon. If we really wanted to identify a theology of Saint Francis, we could define it as a «Knowledge of the Cross». He embraces the cross as he embraces the leper because now what was bitter had turned into sweetness and he can hear the voice of Christ calling him from the cross, in the small church of San Damiano. There, the Redeemer, according to the iconography of the triumphant Christ, without signs of physical suffering, he stares at the observer with quiet sweetness. Francesco believed that the image was aimed specifically at him and spoke to him: «Francesco, can't you see that my house is falling down? So go and fix it.". But Francis misunderstands the symbolic meaning of the words, he believes he must save the material edifice from ruin, he doesn't suspect what task awaits him: save the spiritual building, the church. He comes out happy, it seems to him that life finally has a purpose. Now he knows what to do, the mysterious words of Spoleto's previous dream, that of the palace and the bride that will be his, they begin to clarify; because of this, he can see who is calling him for the first time and hear his name spoken. So that is the order he was waiting for. And so Francesco, "arming oneself with the sign of the cross", his mission began.

The mystical inspiration of Francesco traceable in many of his works, from the Unstamped rule, l’Epistle to the faithful O The praises of the Most High God they are combined from now on with devotion to the Cross of Christ. In the Lodi kept in Brother Leo's chart Let's read these very famous words addressed to the Lord:

«You are holy, o Lord, only God, who does wonderful things. You are strong, you are great, you are very tall, you are omnipotent, your Holy Father, king of heaven and earth. You are three and one, man, God of gods. You are the good, all good, the supreme good, the Lord God, living and true. You are love, charity; you are wisdom, you are humility, you are patience, you are beauty, you are meekness, you are security, you are stillness, you are joy, you are our hope and joy, you are justice, you are temperance, you are all our riches in superabundance. You are beauty, you are meekness; you are protector, you are our guardian and defender, you are fortress, you are refreshment. You are our hope, you are our faith, you are our charity, you are all our sweetness, you are our eternal life, O great and wonderful Lord, Almighty God, merciful savior".

As well as in the third chapter of Foils the profound devotion that the Saint from Assisi reserved for the Cross of Jesus is narrated:

«The day of the Holy Cross is coming, and Saint Francis early in the morning, before saying, he throws himself into prayer in front of the door of his cell, turning his face towards the east, and prayed in this form: O my Lord Jesus Christ, two thanks please do me, before I die; the first, that in my life I feel in my soul and in my body, as much as possible, that pain that you, sweet Jesus, you supported in the hour of your most bitter passion; the second, that I feel in my heart, as much as possible, that great love of which you, Son of God, you were fired up to willingly support so much passion for us sinners".

These aspects of Francis' spirituality they will then be figuratively represented by the artists, which was mentioned at the beginning. Many could be mentioned, including: Master of San Francesco, whose name derives from a panel with the Saint and two angels now preserved in the Museum of the Basilica of Santa Maria degli Angeli in Assisi. We can remember him by the imposing crucifix in the Basilica dedicated to the Saint, in Arezzo. The painted Cross, takes up the typology of Christ Suffering, of Byzantine inspiration, where the pain and death of Jesus are underlined by the head reclining on the shoulder and the body arched. While most painted crosses were read from bottom to top and ended with an Ascension and Christ in glory, here the message must be read from top to bottom, according to the dictates of Franciscan spirituality. This dying Christ, not anymore Triumphant, it is a novelty introduced by the Franciscans who cultivate the element of the pathetic, in the sense of an invitation to compassion. Now the mysterious word, custodian of the secret of Christianity, it is no longer "loving" but "suffering". Instead of appearing standing on the Cross, Risen and triumphant as in San Damiano, Jesus is depicted with his eyes closed and his head leaning sideways on one shoulder. Without denying the resurrection, the faithful become more fond of the Man of suffering. The true message of this cross is therefore that Jesus came down from heaven and endured the passion inflicted on him by Pontius Pilate for men and for their salvation. Devotion leaves room for compassion, to everyone's participation in the suffering of Jesus. And the first of these devotees is Francis himself depicted as a small boy under the cross, which is what he liked to call himself, who takes a bleeding foot of the crucifix in his hands and kisses it. Another work in my opinion capable of describing the «Sknowledge of the Cross» Franciscan is the Saint Francis embracing the crucified Christ by Murillo. Painting created approximately in 1668 and preserved in the Museum of Fine Arts of Seville in Spain. The work was part of a cycle commissioned to the Spanish painter by the Capuchins for a chapel in the church of their convent in Seville. These works were to enhance the distinctive elements of Franciscan spirituality. The painting is of shocking beauty; it moves the spectator who remains silent in front of such a canvas, as in prayer. The painting symbolizes the culminating moment of Francis' life: the renunciation of one's material goods to embrace religious life. The composition is harmonious. Next to the cross, two angels hold an open book which contains the passage from the Gospel according to Luke in Latin: «Whoever of you does not give up all his possessions, he cannot be my disciple" (LC 14, 25-27).

At the feet of the Saint there is a globe, a terrestrial globe; Francesco seems to push him away with his foot, metaphor of his rejection of all vanity. But let's get to the most striking fact, and also the most controversial at least in the testimonies that report it, for whom the mystical inspiration of Saint Francis is combined with his profound devotion to the Cross of Christ Jesus. I'm talking about the La Verna episode in Tuscany, the vision of the seraph and the impression of the stigmata. To make the extraordinary nature of the event palpable, let's relive it through the words of the Saint's biographer, Thomas of Celano, someone who knew him personally, who was called by Pope Gregory IX to write his biography, collecting testimonies on the events. Also and above all on that of the stigmata, before than with the Major legend San Bonaventura da Bagnoregio replaced the previous ones Quickly, imposing its destruction. As Bonaventure is well known and known, general minister of the Order, he sent a precise and mandatory command to all the Franciscan convents: destroy all manuscripts on the life and deeds of the Seraphic Father. However, several of these manuscripts were also found in some Benedictine and Cistercian abbeys and monasteries, who were careful not to carry out such a command. It is to them that historians owe thanks if the manuscripts of the Quickly narrated by other authors before Bonaventura da Bagnoregio, considered by some Church historians as the second founder, or so-called re-founder of the Franciscan Order.

Thomas of Celano in Life before he certainly knew Friar Leone's version of the events in La Verna and obviously also Friar Elia's letter. The biographer could not afford to neglect either the Saint's closest friend and his confessor or the powerful head of the Order. How to connect two such divergent testimonies? He circumvented the difficulty by telling the miracle of the stigmata twice with clever adjustments, a first placing it on the Verna, a second at the time of the exposure of Francis' body. Let's reread what Tommaso da Celano writes:

«Two years before Francesco died, spending a period in the hermitage which is called Verna from the name of the place, in a vision sent by God he saw a man, almost as if he were a Seraph with six wings, stay above yourself, with hands open and feet together, stuck on a cross. Two wings rose above his head, two spread out on the fly and two finally covered the whole body. Seeing this, the blessed servant of the Most High was filled with great amazement but could not understand what that vision meant.. He enjoyed it very much and was delighted to feel himself looked at with a benign and sweet look by the Serafino., whose beauty was truly unimaginable, but at the same time he was terrified by his affixing to the cross and by the cruelty of his suffering. So he got up, as it were, sad and happy, and in Francesco joy and pain alternated. He continued to anxiously mull over what the vision might mean, and his spirit was terribly strained to try to grasp its meaning. Because by reasoning he did not arrive at any certain interpretation and he felt pervaded and very agitated in his heart by the novelty of that vision, the marks of nails began to appear on his hands and feet, as he had seen shortly before on the man crucified above him. His hands and feet seemed to be pierced in the center by nails: the heads of the nails could be seen on the inside of the hands and on the top of the feet, and on the opposite side the tip. Those marks were round on the inside of the hands and elongated on the opposite side and almost formed a fleshy and raised excrescence, as if it were the tip of the nails folded and clinched. Likewise, the marks of the nails protruding onto the rest of the flesh were imprinted on the feet. Even the right side, as if he had been pierced by a spear, he showed a large scar that often emitted blood so that his tunic and legcloths were frequently stained with his holy blood. Ah, how few as long as the crucified servant of God lived, they were lucky enough to be able to see the sacred wound in his side! But happy Elijah who while the Saint lived deserved to see her in some way and no less happy Rufinus who was able to at least touch her".

Still further ahead is Tommaso da Celano, speaking of the joy and sadness of the people and the friars in the presence of the now deceased body of the Saint, he reports as follows:

«Pure, an unprecedented joy tempered their sadness and the novelty of the miracle filled their minds with extraordinary amazement. Thus mourning was changed into festive song and crying into jubilation. In fact, they had never heard or read in the Scriptures what they now saw with their own eyes, and they would hardly have believed it if they hadn't had such probative and certain testimony before them […] The shape of the cross was perceived in him. In fact, he seemed to have just been taken down from the cross with his hands and feet pierced by nails and his right side wounded by the spear. They still saw his flesh, which was previously dark, now shining with a luminous whiteness and the superhuman beauty already demonstrated the reward of the blessed resurrection. His face, at last, it was like that of an angel […] While she shone before everyone with such wonderful beauty, his flesh became brighter and brighter. It was truly a miracle to see in the center of his hands and feet not the nail holes but the nails themselves formed from his own flesh., dark in color like iron and the right side purple with blood. And those signs of martyrdom did not inspire fear or horror in those who saw them, rather they conferred decorum and ornamentation, like black tiles on a white floor".

We could stop here and say nothing else in the presence of such a moving story. Suffice it to underline that in La Verna Francis finally experienced his personal and extraordinary identification with Christ and with him crucified. But in what context did this happen?? Towards the end of his life, Francis felt increasingly pressured by the Church concerned with normalizing a project of Christian life, practicing evangelical poverty and love, that, if actually implemented, it would have been revolutionary and dangerous for the ecclesiastical structure itself, if misinterpreted. He also felt misunderstood by a large part of the friars and this increased his discouragement. Having grown up out of all proportion, not everyone was capable of sharing such difficult choices, men sometimes of limited virtue or too cultured, far from the pure ideals of their spiritual leader. Like Christ increasingly alone at the finish line of the cross, at about forty-four years old Francesco took with him very few companions, intimate and involved, and moved, as we know, on the Verna, for a long retreat of solitary contemplation. He was counting on overcoming that profound crisis; he continually asked God to enlighten him, that would show him what the end of his life would be like. In fact, he began to see the darkness in his soul lift only when he understood that he had to leave the problems of the Order and its future to God's decision., enduring, writes Tommaso da Celano, that "the merciful will of the heavenly Father would be totally fulfilled in him". The biographer thinks of the founder as "another Christ" against the backdrop of the Mount of Olives. The Saint, however, he would have liked to at least know what end awaited him, despite now being sure not to rebel against it. A day, after praying for a long time, he resorted to the triple opening of the Gospels, who always showed the same pace or a very similar one. The gaze fell: «on the Passion of Christ, but only in the stretch in which it is predicted". When Tommaso da Celano wrote this part of the work he evidently already knew the sequel, he knew that shortly thereafter he would tell about the apparition of the Seraph and the stigmata. He deliberately constructed the episode of the triple opening with evangelical quotes that refer to the agony of Christ according to Luke (22, 43-45). Christ, at the height of suffering he asks the Father: «Put this cup away from me», but he understands that he must accept all the suffering of the imminent Passion. In the Gospel, after the vision of the angel Jesus felt momentarily consoled; but immediately afterwards he fell back into great anguish, enough to sweat blood. Francesco is also on the mountain, he comes up from La Verna; he sees the Seraph and finds consolation in the moment in which he accepts all the suffering that still awaits him before death. Anguish leads Christ to sweat blood; Francesco, the vision of the Seraph disappeared, feels the Mount of Olives so close to the point that the nails of flesh, copies of the nails of the Cross become visible. Like all the great mystical saints, Francis on La Verna is also immersed in the darkness of the so-called "dark night", not even supported by his dear friend and companion Leone who lived, himself, a moment of crisis. After a long period of spiritual retreat, Francis finally had an epiphany, sees the solution: be Christ, who is God, he submitted himself to the will of the Father, he will not have to do the same himself? Thus, that identification with the Model is achieved which is inscribed not only in the soul of the Saint, but also in his flesh. Jesus consoles Francis and reveals to him the rightness of his path which had its origin and first assurance from the other cross, that of San Damiano; and also gives him the gift of his love, now in the terminal moment of his Christian life and experience. From this profound knowledge, not intellectual, but mystical, of the cross of Christ, those words that we reported above and condensed here will flow from the heart of Francis. Testimony of that «science» of the Christian mystery that still moves us today for the way Francis understood and lived it:

«You are love, charity; you are wisdom, you are humility, you are patience, you are beauty, you are meekness, you are security, you are stillness, you are joy, you are our hope and joy, you are justice, you are temperance, you are all our riches in abundance".

In a letter from Francis to Anthony of Padua in which he addressed him as "Brother Anthony, my bishop", he said:

«Do theology too, but be careful that this does not extinguish the spirit of prayer and contemplation".

Francis is for theology, but he reassures his friar that this must not lead him to lucubrations, intellectualism ends in itself, or to a reality that could distance him from the Lord rather than bring him closer, that elevates him on an intellectual level but not on a mystical-spiritual level. This is why Francis can allow himself to correct and exhort even a very refined theologian like Saint Anthony of Padua; this is why Francis remains a very complex and complicated figure to understand, to explain and convey, above all to follow. This is also why it is not easy to talk about the "theology of Saint Francis".

Sanluri, 17 July 2024

The books of Ivano Liguori, to access the book shop click on the cover

______________________

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:

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

18 August 2026/in Theologica/by Father Gabriele

Italian, English, Español

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

¹MAXIMUS 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.

²MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the Agony of Jesus, cit. [Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 27; Of the Angels, p. 85, 94].

³MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the Agony of Jesus, cit., 25, 64.

⁴B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, Person, Freedom, cit., 56 and 180–181.

⁵B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, Person, Freedom, cit., 160.

⁶MAXIMUS 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

¹MAXIMO 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.

²MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, cit. [Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 27; Of the Angels, p. 85, 94].

³MAXIMO THE CONFESSOR, Meditations on the agony of Jesus, cit., 25, 64.

⁴B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, persona, freedom, cit., 56 and 180-181.

⁵B. OF THE ANGELS, Nature, persona, freedom, cit., 160.

⁶MAXIMO 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.

______________________

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

Beyond the ferocity of the Gulag: draw on the Marian mystery with Florenskij – Beyond the ferocity of the gulags: drawing from the marian mystery with Florensky – Beyond the ferocity of the gulags: approach the Marian mystery with Florenskij

25 July 2026/in Theologica/by Father Gabriele

Italian, English, Español

BEYOND THE FEROCY OF THE GULAG: DRAWING UPON THE MARIAN MYSTERY WITH FLORENSKIJ

In a season in which faith is confused with fideism and Mariology with mariolatry that chases the emotional spirit, I think it's important to center it a little’ this reflection starting from authors with great spiritual and theological depth.

— Theologica —

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

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

I'm not very well versed in Eastern theology, because I have a totally different approach, but I must say that the readings in the past of the fathers like John Chrysostom, like the Cappadocians, they have been a source of great spiritual attention and consolation for me in times of difficulty.

Oil painting on canvas: “In philosophy”, opera by Mikhail Nesterov depicting Pavel Florensky and Sergey Bulgakov (Galleria Tretyakov, Moscow)

I think of the wonderful poems of St. Gregory of Narek, in which he continually recognizes himself as a sinner. And who knows, maybe one day, when the geopolitical atmosphere has calmed down, I will really be able to visit those places that were the cradle of Catholicism. However, coming to more recent authors who randomly fell into my hands, I find the text The Pillar and Foundation of Truth by Pavel Florenskij very beautiful, which has a very beautiful page on Maria. Ma, first of all, who was this author?

A theologian who sought the Truth of Christ even in the gulags

In summary, starting from some research I did online and in some texts, I will say that Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky was born in Azerbaijan in 1882. Equipped with a multifaceted intelligence, he initially graduated in mathematics at Moscow University, feeling a profound attraction for the exact sciences. Subsequently, he chose to dedicate himself to theological and philosophical studies, being ordained as a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1911. After the October Revolution he courageously chose to remain in Russia so as not to abandon his flock and his vocation. Subjected to harsh persecution by the Soviet regime, he suffered imprisonment and deportation to labor camps, until he was shot during Stalin's purges in 1937.

From the point of view of Catholic theology, although Florenskij is an Orthodox author, his thought offers formidable stimuli, provided they are read in harmony with our Tradition and the Magisterium. The heart of his reflection is found in the masterpiece The Pillar and Foundation of Truth (whose title is a clear reference to 1 TM 3,15). In quest’opera, Florenskij proposes one “orthodox theodicy” which investigates the mystery of theological knowledge. He claims that the Truth (in Russian Istina) it is not achieved through cold and systematic rationalism, but it has an antinomian character, which human reason alone perceives as contradictory¹. It is only the living experience of ecclesial love and of the Spirit that allows us to overcome these antinomies.

Per Florenskij, the object of knowledge can only be reached if there is love towards it; love, truth and beauty constitute a single vital and experiential principle². This aspect fits admirably with Catholic doctrine, that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us (cf.. n. 2500), recognizes that “truth brings with it the joy and splendor of spiritual beauty”, leading us towards the Creator.

Humility and intellect

«The model of virginal purity is the Most Pure and more than blessed Mother of the Lord, humble in its eternal purity, pure in her immutable humility. In her, bride of the Holy Spirit and eternally purified by Him, the living source of universal purity flows, «eternally flowing source of the intellect». In her gushes the living water that quenches every thirst and extinguishes the fire of hell in the soul. For this reason the Church invokes her with words: «Purification of the world, Mother of God".³

In this first step something fundamental is said, that is, that Mary is immutable in her humility, from which the living source flows, that eternally flowing source of the intellect. We know, and it is a typical Marian locus, that Mary is humble. Therefore she is the one who accepts God's plan without being able to understand concretely and in the smallest details; this is an example for all of us. But I believe that today he is humble for another thing too, because it is linked to that sphere of the intellect that Florenskij mentions. This is the era, the post-Covid era and the change of era, in which everyone more easily constructs faith and truth at will. And the reality, and therefore also the deposit of faith, they are little more than accessories that are used according to personal enjoyment. Here then, Florenskij reminds us that Maria does not do this. Mary is the one who, on the contrary, he is also humble in the submission of the intellect. What he doesn't understand, and that perhaps he continues to contemplate, who continues to pray, which he continues to welcome with faith, with an intelligence of faith, but at the same time it does not question faith, only because she is not confirmed in her beliefs which have nothing to do with the faith of the God of Jesus Christ, that long-awaited messiah son.

This is a bit’ one of the great hubris of our time. The construction of a relativist faith, as the then Cardinal Ratzinger had already alarmed us, then Pope Benedict. Of contrast, Mary is an example of anchoring to a reality of faith. Faith is this, it does not change in its doctrinal expressions, morals and then in the practice of charity. Because this is not an act of humility, it is an act of pride.

Authentically transmit divine favor

There is a second passage of this work that I found very interesting, in which Florenskij writes:

«Indeed she is the one who disperses the dark jumble of our passions and desires… the pillar of fire that preserves us from the temptations and allurements of the world… the pillar of fire that shows us the path to salvation in the midst of the darkness of sin… who frees us from the fire of passions with the dew of her prayers». If the Lord is the head of the Church, the meek Mary is «the transmitter of divine favor», the true heart through which the Church distributes life to its members, eternity and the gifts of the Spirit, the true "giver of life", the true "vivifying source". Because Mary is «the all immaculate Lady, the only pure and blessed one... the one full of graces... the only uncorrupted and good dove". It is the living symbol and principle of the purifying world, the purifier; it is the burning bush surrounded by the flames of the Holy Spirit, the living and anticipatory approval of the Spirit on earth".⁴

In this second step Mary is presented as the one who mediates against the passions; so, we could say, she is a mediator in the sense that she prays for us in moments of great tension, of great anger, of great fear. During Covid how many rosaries were said and Mary was with us, in the period of “black fear”, as it was called by sociologists. And at the same time, But, it is said that Mary is the one who transmits divine favor. She being uncorrupted and good, here is the one who is our model, therefore not only as humility in welcoming the faith, but also as a model of one who fully transmits the faith. And what, transmitting it truly and in its fullness, she becomes the one who helps the purification of the world and society.

This step of the transmission asks us all for a life review, a reflection in the sense: what is our role as transmitters of faith, those who are traditional, but that true tradition? We are afraid to speak those truths of faith, also regarding, for example, sexual morality, which appears to be outdated? Or we are afraid to even mention Christ, because we think that the secular nature of the State imposes silence on us? there, this is not being true transmitters. Every transmitter, like Mary, he is the one who tends to ask for the grace to communicate even with passion, with devotion, with authenticity what is the beauty of faith. And it would also be strange if it weren't so. there, Florenskij helps us think about something important: that Mary is the forerunner of the Spirit on earth. And therefore Maria is a pneumatological woman, woman filled with the Holy Spirit who wants the whole Church, may all believers be filled with the Spirit. Here then, in this time that still lives on the light received at Pentecost, let's try to take the words of the Eastern thinker in this sense. Being Marian means being men of the Spirit and generators of the Spirit. Generators of peace in the Christological sense of the term. And so this reflection helps us to truly be all a little’ more Marian. And pneumatological.

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 25 July 2026

NOTE

¹ Si veda l'introduzione a PAVEL ALEKSANDROVIČ FLORENSKIJ, The pillar and foundation of truth: essay on orthodox theodicy in twelve letters, edited by Natalino Valentini, Cinisello Balsamo, San Paolo Editions, 2010, pp. 15 and the following.

² G. LORIZIO, Pavel Aleksandrovic Florenskij: an outline of his thought, "Dialegesthai", 5 (2003), ; R. FISICHELLA, History of Theology – from Vitus Pichler to Henri de Lubac, vol. 3, EDB, Bologna, 2015, p. 587, who.

³ P. FLORENSKIJ, The pillar and foundation of truth, Rusconi, Milan, 1974, p. 416.

⁴ In the same place.

______________________________

BEYOND THE FEROCITY OF THE GULAGS: DRAWING FROM THE MARIAN MYSTERY WITH FLORENSKY

In an age in which faith is confused with fideism and Mariology with a form of Mariolatry that pursues emotionalism, I believe it is important to focus this reflection through authors endowed with profound spiritual and theological depth.

— Theologica —

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

I am not particularly knowledgeable in Eastern theology, because my own formation is entirely different, but I must say that in the past the writings of Fathers such as John Chrysostom and the Cappadocians have been for me a source of profound spiritual attention and consolation in moments of difficulty. I also think of the wonderful poems of Saint Gregory of Narek, in which he continually acknowledges himself to be a sinner. And perhaps, one day, when the geopolitical atmosphere has calmed down, I shall truly be able to visit those places that were the cradle of Catholicism. Turning, however, to more recent authors who have come into my hands almost by chance, I find Pavel Florensky’s work The Pillar and Ground of the Truth a very beautiful book, one that contains a remarkable page on Mary. But, first of all, who was this author?

A theologian who sought the Truth of Christ even in the gulags

In summary, drawing upon various studies that I have consulted online and in several books, I would say that Pavel Aleksandrovich Florensky was born in Azerbaijan in 1882. Endowed with a remarkably versatile intellect, he initially graduated in Mathematics from the University of Moscow, feeling a profound attraction to the exact sciences. Subsequently, he chose to devote himself to theological and philosophical studies and was ordained a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1911. After the October Revolution, he courageously chose to remain in Russia so as not to abandon his flock and his vocation. Subjected to severe persecution by the Soviet regime, he endured imprisonment and deportation to labour camps until he was finally executed during Stalin’s purges in 1937.

From the perspective of Catholic theology, although Florensky was an Orthodox author, his thought offers extraordinary insights, provided that it is read in harmony with our Tradition and the Magisterium. The heart of his reflection is found in his masterpiece The Pillar and Ground of the Truth (whose title is a clear reference to 1 Tim 3:15). In this work, Florensky proposes an “Orthodox theodicy” that investigates the mystery of theological knowledge. He maintains that Truth (in Russian, Truth) is not attained through a cold and systematic rationalism, but possesses an antinomic character that human reason alone perceives as contradictory¹. Only the living experience of ecclesial love and of the Holy Spirit makes it possible to overcome these antinomies.

For Florensky, the object of knowledge can be attained only if there is love for it; love, truth and beauty constitute a single vital and experiential principle². This aspect harmonises admirably with Catholic doctrine which, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us (n. 2500), recognises that “truth carries with it the joy and splendour of spiritual beauty”, leading us towards the Creator.

Humility and Intellect

«The model of virginal purity is the Most Pure and more than Blessed Mother of the Lord, humble in her eternal purity, pure in her immutable humility. In her, Bride of the Holy Spirit and eternally purified by Him, springs forth the living source of universal purity, the “ever-flowing fountain of intellect”. In her gushes the living water that quenches every thirst and extinguishes in the soul the fire of Gehenna. For this reason the Church invokes her with the words: “Purification of the world, Mother of God”».³

In this first passage, a fundamental truth is expressed, namely that Mary is immutable in her humility, from which flows the living source, that ever-flowing fountain of intellect. We know, and this is a classic Marian locus, that Mary is humble. She is therefore the one who accepts God’s plan without being able to understand it concretely and in all its details; this is an example for all of us. But I believe that today she is humble also for another reason, because it is linked to that sphere of intellect mentioned by Florensky. This is the age, the age of the post-Covid era and of epochal change, in which each person more easily constructs faith and truth according to personal preference. Reality itself, and therefore the deposit of faith, become little more than accessories to be used according to personal convenience. Florensky reminds us that Mary does not do this. On the contrary, Mary is humble also in the submission of her intellect. What she does not understand, and which she perhaps continues to contemplate, continues to pray over, continues to receive in faith with an intelligence of faith, she nevertheless does not call faith itself into question simply because it does not confirm her own convictions, convictions that have nothing to do with faith in the God of Jesus Christ, that long-awaited Messiah and Son.

This is, if we wish, one of the great forms of hybris of our time. The construction of a relativistic faith, against which Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict, had already warned us. By contrast, Mary stands as an example of being anchored to the reality of faith. Faith is this; it is not altered in its doctrinal, moral expressions and then in the practice of charity. For this is not an act of humility, but an act of pride.

Transmitting the Divine Favour with Authenticity

There is a second passage in this work that I found very interesting, in which Florensky writes:

«For she is the one who disperses the dark confusion of our passions and desires… the pillar of fire that preserves us from the temptations and enticements of the world… the pillar of fire that shows us the path of salvation amid the darkness of sin… who delivers us from the fire of passions through the dew of her prayers». If the Lord is the Head of the Church, gentle Mary is «the transmitter of divine favour», the true heart through which the Church distributes to her members life, eternity and the gifts of the Spirit, the true «giver of life», the true «life-giving fountain». For Mary is «the all-immaculate Lady, the only pure and blessed one… full of grace… the only incorrupt and good dove». She is the living symbol and principle of a world being purified, the purifier; she is the burning bush surrounded by the flames of the Holy Spirit, the living and anticipatory manifestation of the Spirit upon the earth».⁴

In this second passage Mary is presented as the one who mediates against the passions; therefore, we might say that she is a mediatrix in the sense that she prays for us in moments of great tension, great anger and great fear. During the Covid period, how many Rosaries were prayed and Mary was with us in that period of “black fear”, as sociologists have called it. At the same time, however, it is said that Mary is the one who transmits divine favour. Being incorrupt and good, she is our model not only in humility in receiving the faith, but also as the one who fully transmits the faith. And by truly transmitting it in its fullness, she becomes the one who assists in the purification of the world and of society.

This passage on transmission calls all of us to an examination of life, to a reflection in this sense: what does it mean for us to be transmitters of the faith, guardians of Tradition, but of true Tradition? Are we afraid to proclaim those truths of the faith, for example concerning sexual morality, which are considered outdated? Or are we afraid even to mention Christ because we think that the secular nature of the State imposes silence upon us? This is not what it means to be true transmitters. Every transmitter, like Mary, is one who seeks the grace to communicate with passion, devotion and authenticity the beauty of the faith. Indeed, it would be strange if it were otherwise. Florensky helps us to reflect upon an important truth: that Mary is the forerunner of the Spirit upon the earth. Therefore Mary is a pneumatological woman, a woman filled with the Holy Spirit who desires that the whole Church, that all believers, may be filled with the Spirit. Therefore, in this time that still lives in the light received at Pentecost, let us receive the words of this Eastern thinker in this sense. To be Marian means to be men of the Spirit and generators of the Spirit. Generators of peace in the Christological sense of the term. May this reflection therefore help us all to become truly a little more Marian. And a little more pneumatological.

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 25 July 2026

NOTES

¹ See the introduction to PAVEL ALEKSANDROVIC FLORENSKIJ, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters, edited by Natalino Valentini, Cinisello Balsamo, San Paolo Editions, 2010, pp. 15 ff.

² G. LORIZIO, Pavel Aleksandrovic Florenskij: A Profile of His Thought, "Dialegesthai", 5 (2003), ; R. FISICHELLA, History of Theology – From Vitus Pichler to Henri de Lubac, vol. III, EDB, Bologna, 2015, p. 587, here.

³ P. FLORENSKIJ, The Pillar and Ground of the Truth, Rusconi, Milan, 1974, p. 416.

⁴ Ibid.

_____________________________

BEYOND THE FEROCITY OF THE GULAGS: GET CLOSE TO THE MARIAN MYSTERY WITH FLORENSKIJ

In an era in which faith is confused with fideism and Mariology with a Mariolatry that pursues the emotional spirit, I consider it important to focus this reflection on authors endowed with great spiritual and theological depth..

— Theologica —

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

I'm not a great connoisseur of Eastern theology., because my training is completely different, But I must say that the readings I did in the past of Fathers like John Chrysostom or the Cappadocians have been for me a source of deep spiritual attention and comfort in times of difficulty.. I also think of the wonderful poems of Saint Gregory of Narek, in which he continually recognizes himself as a sinner. and who knows, maybe someday, when the geopolitical climate has calmed down, I will really be able to visit those places that were the cradle of Catholicism. However, moving on to more recent authors who came into my hands almost by chance, I find the book The Column and the Foundation of Truth by Pavel Florenskij very beautiful, containing a truly remarkable page about Mary. But, first of all, who was this author?

A theologian who sought the Truth of Christ even in the gulags

In summary, based on various research carried out on the internet and some texts consulted, I will say that Pavel Aleksandrovich Florenskij was born in Azerbaijan in 1882. Gifted with an extraordinarily multifaceted intelligence, He initially graduated in Mathematics from Moscow University, feeling a deep attraction for the exact sciences. Later he decided to dedicate himself to theological and philosophical studies., being ordained a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1911. After the October Revolution he bravely chose to remain in Russia so as not to abandon his flock or his vocation.. Subjected to harsh persecution by the Soviet regime, He suffered imprisonment and deportation to labor camps until he was finally shot during the Stalinist purges of 1937.

From the point of view of Catholic theology, although Florenskij is an orthodox author, his thinking offers extraordinary stimuli, as long as it is read in harmony with our Tradition and the Magisterium. The heart of his reflection is found in his masterpiece The Column and the Foundation of Truth (whose title constitutes a clear reference to 1 Tim 3,15). In this work, Florenskij proposes an "orthodox theodicy" that investigates the mystery of theological knowledge. He maintains that the Truth (in Russian Istina) It is not achieved through cold and systematic rationalism, but it has an antinomian character that human reason, alone, perceived as contradictory¹. Only the living experience of ecclesial love and the Spirit allows us to overcome these antinomies..

Para Florenskij, the object of knowledge can only be achieved if there is love towards it; amor, truth and beauty constitute a single vital and experiential principle². This aspect harmonizes admirably with the Catholic doctrine that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us (n. 2500), recognizes that "the truth carries with it the joy and splendor of spiritual beauty", leading us towards the Creator.

Humility and intellect

«The model of virginal purity is the Most Pure and more than Blessed Mother of the Lord, humble in its eternal purity, pure in its immutable humility. in it, Bride of the Holy Spirit and eternally purified by Him, springs the living fountain of universal purity, the “eternally flowing fountain of intellect”. In it flows the living water that quenches all thirst and quenches the fire of Gehenna in the soul.. That is why the Church invokes her with these words: “Purification of the world, Mother of God”».³

In this first passage something fundamental is stated: that Mary is immutable in her humility, from which springs the living fountain, that eternally flowing fountain of the intellect. We know, and this is a classic Marian locus, that Mary is humble. She is the one who accepts God's project without being able to understand it concretely and in all its details.; In this he constitutes an example for all of us. But I think today he is humble for another reason as well., because it is linked to that sphere of intellect that Florenskij cites. This is the time, the post-Covid era and the change of era, in which each person constructs faith and truth to their liking with greater and greater ease.. and reality itself, and therefore also the deposit of faith, They become little more than accessories used according to personal taste. Florenskij reminds us that Mary does not do this. Maria is, on the contrary, humble also in the submission of his intellect. What you don't understand, and who perhaps continues to contemplate, continue praying and continue welcoming with faith, with an intelligence of faith, However, it does not lead her to question faith itself just because it does not confirm her own convictions., convictions that have nothing to do with faith in the God of Jesus Christ, that long-awaited Messiah and Son.

This is, if you want, one of the great forms of hubris of our time. The construction of a relativistic faith that the then Cardinal Ratzinger had already warned us against, after Pope Benedict. In contrast to it, Mary is for us an example of rootedness in the reality of faith. Faith is this; It is not modified in its doctrinal expressions, morals and neither in the practice of charity. Because this is not an act of humility, but an act of pride.

Authentically transmit divine favor

There is a second passage of this work that I found very interesting., in which Florenskij writes:

"For she is the one who disperses the dark confusion of our passions and desires... the pillar of fire that preserves us from the temptations and seductions of the world... the pillar of fire that shows us the way of salvation in the midst of the darkness of sin... the one that frees us from the fire of passions through the dew of her prayers". If the Lord is the Head of the Church, sweet Mary is "the transmitter of divine favor", the true heart through which the Church distributes life to its members, eternity and the gifts of the Spirit, the true "giver of life", the true "life-giving source". Because Mary is "the all immaculate Lady", the only one pure and blessed… the one full of grace… the only incorrupt and good dove». She is the living symbol and the principle of the world that is purified, the purifier; It is the burning bush surrounded by the flames of the Holy Spirit, "the living and anticipatory manifestation of the Spirit on earth".⁴

In this second passage Mary is presented as the one who mediates against the passions; therefore, We could say that she is a mediator in the sense that she prays for us in moments of great tension., of great anger and great fear. During Covid, how many rosaries were prayed!, and Mary was with us in that period of "black fear", as some sociologists have called it. And at the same time, however, we are told that Mary is the one who transmits divine favor. Being uncorrupted and good, is for us a model not only of humility in the acceptance of faith, but also a model of one who fully transmits the faith. And truly transmitting it in all its fullness, becomes the one who helps the purification of the world and society.

This passage about transmission invites us all to a life review, to a reflection in this sense: What does it mean for us to be transmitters of the faith?, custodians of Tradition, but from the true Tradition? Are we afraid to proclaim those truths of faith, for example those relating to sexual morality, that today are considered surpassed? Or are we afraid to even name Christ because we think that the secular nature of the State imposes silence on us?? This is not being true transmitters. All transmitter, following the example of Mary, is someone who asks for the grace to communicate with passion, devotion and authenticity the beauty of faith. And it would be strange if it weren't like that. Florenskij helps us understand an important truth: that Mary is the anticipator of the Spirit on earth. That is why María is a pneumatological woman., a woman filled with the Holy Spirit who wants the entire Church, that all believers, be filled with the Spirit. So, in this time that still lives from the light received at Pentecost, let us receive the words of this eastern thinker in this sense. Being Marian means being men of the Spirit and generators of the Spirit.. Generators of peace in the Christological sense of the term. May this reflection help us, therefore, to truly be a little more Marian. And more pneumatological.

Santa Maria Novella in Florence, 25 July of 2026

NOTES

¹ See introduction to PAVEL ALEKSANDROVIČ FLORENSKIJ, The pillar and foundation of truth: orthodox theodicy essay in twelve letters, edition by Natalino Valentini, Cinisello Balsamo, San Paolo Editions, 2010, pp. 15 and following.

² G. LORIZIO, Pavel Aleksandrovic Florenskij: a profile of his thinking, "Dialegesthai", 5 (2003), R. FISICHELLA, History of Theology – from Vitus Pichler to Henri de Lubac, vol. III, EDB, Bologna, 2015, p. 587 here.

³ P. FLORENSKIJ, The pillar and foundation of truth, Rusconi, Milan, 1974, p. 416.

⁴ Ibid.

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.

______________________

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

Karl Rahner and Easter as a time of rediscovery of glory – Karl Rahner and Easter as a time of rediscovering glory – Karl Rahner and Easter as a time of rediscovery of glory

27 April 2026/in Theologica/by Father Gabriele

Italian, English, Español

KARL RAHNER AND EASTER AS A TIME OF REDISCOVERY OF GLORY

«The beginning of the glory of all things is already underway, that we, apparently so lost and wandering, needy and distant, we are already enveloped in infinite bliss. Because the end has already begun. And that's the glory."

— Theologica —

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

A famous proverb goes:: «Even a broken watch, twice a day, marks the exact time".

in theology Padre Karl Rahner S.J. (to the left), Father Joseph Ratzinger (downtown), Father Sergio Ubbiali (To the right)

It will seem strange to you, but for once I found myself in agreement with Karl Rahner, who dedicated some reflections to Easter. I read one of his texts because I wanted to take a while’ in discussion on what were also my Easter reflections, and I must say that the speech of this Jesuit theologian seems to me, as well as profoundly Catholic, also very consistent and profitable. In this article we will start from one of his considerations and then try to apply it to the Easter season.

Yup, because Easter time is coming a little’ left out, and this is the first reflection I want to leave you. It seems to run away quickly until summer, almost as if it were exclusively a period in which we sit and rest: just remember that Jesus is risen and everything is resolved, and we put ourselves in a position of pure celebration. Unlike Lent, considered the strong spiritual and existential time par excellence, in which fasting is rightly practiced, ascetic choices are made and topics such as death are reflected upon par excellence, judgment and original sin, and that is what the Church asks of us at that moment.

You understand well, At that time, that it would be appropriate for us believers to also be a time of Easter to pay attention to certain issues that, otherwise, they tend to escape us a little. Of course, it is obvious that we need to diversify the Easter season from that of Lent; the liturgy up to Pentecost already distinguishes the colors, passing from Lenten purple to the white vestments of the holiday. It is based on some of Rahner's intuitions - although he does not share many others, but by grasping what is valid - that a profound detail emerges about the meaning of Easter. He states:

«I believe that the beginning of the glory of all things is already underway, that we, apparently so lost and wandering, needy and distant, we are already enveloped in infinite bliss. Because the end has already begun. And that's the glory." (cf.. What Easter means, Queriniana, Brescia, 2021, 37).

Rahner says this starting from the idea that the resurrection is not a past event, closed in time, nor is it an event that will occur exclusively at the end of time: it is a present, a resurrection that begins now, a glory we experience now. On this point I could quote Rahner's antagonist par excellence, also trained in the Society of Jesus, Hans Urs von Balthasar, but it would take us down paths that are too far away. Glory is presence, the might and strength of God in our today.

And then we can make this reflection, dear friends of the Island of Patmos: truly the Easter season is a time of glory for us? We have truly understood that with the resurrection of Christ the era of the new man began for us, of man living in God? Indeed, entering the glory of God happens, in the first place, in the sacraments. It is the moment in which sacramental grace - in particular the Eucharistic one, but united with all the other sacraments - already now introduces us into the very life of God. And so experiencing the sacraments during Easter time is the right time to enter into the glory of the Risen One, to understand that the life we are living has a different meaning, a sense of eternity. And this shouldn't make us fear the rules - “don't do this, otherwise one day eternal life could be hell” —, limiting itself to a cold normative sense. This promise of eternal life, which starts now, it is also the joy and hope of building, as of now, real paths to eternity.

And here we come to the third point: what does it mean, in practice: live as a resurrected person? It means learning that behind every suffering, behind every pain, behind every mourning and behind every trial, Christ already promises us glory from now on; he promises us that He is with us and asks us to face difficulties in a Christian way and then rise again with Him.

I still have vivid memories of my years of study for Bachelor of Theology: during an in-depth study on the theology of marriage, our teacher, suor Alexandra Diriart, he reminded us that every wedding goes through its own Easter. Pass through the nights of passion, of pain and lack of understanding, to arrive at Easter and rise again every time. This dynamic doesn't just apply to marriage: it is our whole life that is resurrected, and rises again now. To live as resurrected people we must have the courage of love, of charity, and the courage to discover the truths of the Catholic faith. We don't all have to be theologians, but we must all learn to believe intelligently. Here is a spiritual journey that we can rediscover at Easter. The liturgical elements of this time – the Ascension, Pentecost and so on - must help us to enter into the perspective of glory to start thinking from “glorified”, looking, as Saint Paul exhorts us, the things from above.

Santa Maria Novella, in Florence, 27 April 2026

KARL RAHNER AND EASTER AS A TIME OF REDISCOVERING GLORY

“I believe that the beginning of the glory of all things is already underway, that we, apparently so lost and wandering, needy and distant, are already enveloped in infinite beatitude. For the end has already begun. And it is glory”.

— Theologica —

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

A well-known proverb says: «Even a stopped clock is right twice a day». It may seem strange to you, but for once I found myself in agreement with Karl Rahner, who devoted some reflections to Easter. I read one of his texts because I wanted to question my own Easter reflections, and I must say that the thought of this Jesuit theologian appears to me not only profoundly Catholic, but also remarkably coherent and fruitful. In this article, we will begin from one of his insights and then attempt to apply it to our present Easter season.

Yes, because the Easter season is somewhat neglected, and this is the first reflection I would like to offer you. It seems to pass quickly until summer, almost as if it were merely a time to sit back and rest: it is enough to recall that Jesus has risen and everything is resolved, and one settles into a purely festive attitude. In contrast to Lent, considered the strong spiritual and existential time par excellence, in which one rightly practices fasting, undertakes ascetical choices, and reflects above all on themes such as death, judgment, and original sin — as the Church asks of us in that time.

You can understand, then, that it would be fitting for the Easter season also to become for us believers a time of attention to certain themes which otherwise tend to slip away from us. Of course, it is clear that Easter must be distinguished from Lent; the liturgy itself, up to Pentecost, distinguishes the colors, moving from the Lenten violet to the white vestments of the feast. It is from some insights of Rahner — while not sharing many of his other positions, but taking what is valid — that a profound detail about the meaning of Easter emerges. He states:

Rahner says this starting from the idea that the Resurrection is not a past event, closed in time, nor is it an event that will occur only at the end of time: it is a present reality, a Resurrection that already begins now, a glory that we live even now. On this point I could mention Rahner’s great counterpart, also formed in the Society of Jesus, Hans Urs von Balthasar, but that would lead us too far afield. Glory is the presence, the power, and the strength of God in our today.

And so we may ask ourselves, dear friends of the Island of Patmos: is the Easter season truly a time of glory for us? Have we really understood that with the Resurrection of Christ there has begun for us the era of the new man, the man alive in God? Indeed, entering into the glory of God takes place, first of all, in the sacraments. It is the moment in which sacramental grace — especially Eucharistic grace, but united with all the other sacraments — already introduces us into the very life of God. Thus, living the sacraments during the Easter season is the favorable time to enter into the glory of the Risen One, to understand that the life we are living has a different meaning, a meaning of eternity. And this should not instill in us fear of rules — “do not do this, otherwise eternal life may become hell” — reducing everything to a cold normative sense. This promise of eternal life, which begins already now, is also joy and hope, allowing us to build, even now, true paths of eternity.

And here we come to the third point: what does it mean, in practice, to live as risen? It means learning that behind every suffering, behind every pain, behind every loss and every trial, Christ already now promises us glory; He promises that He is with us and asks us to face difficulties in a Christian way in order to rise again with Him.

I still vividly remember my years of study for the licentiate in theology: during a lecture on the theology of marriage, our professor, Sister Alexandra Diriart, reminded us that every marriage goes through its own Easter. It passes through the nights of passion, suffering, and misunderstanding, in order to arrive at Easter and rise again each time. This dynamic does not apply only to marriage: it is our whole life that rises again, and rises now. To live as risen, we must have the courage of love, of charity, and the courage to discover the truths of the Catholic faith. We do not all have to be theologians, but we must all learn to believe with intelligence. This is a spiritual path that we can rediscover at Easter. The liturgical elements of this time — the Ascension, Pentecost, and so on — must help us to enter into the perspective of glory and begin to think as “those already glorified,” seeking, as Saint Paul exhorts us, the things that are above.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, April 27, 2026

KARL RAHNER AND EASTER AS A TIME OF REDISCOVERY OF GLORY

«The beginning of the glory of all things is already underway, that we, seemingly so lost and wandering, needy and distant, we are already enveloped in infinite bliss. Because the end has already begun. And it is the glory

— Theologica —

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

A well-known proverb says: "Even a broken watch, twice a day, mark the exact time. It may seem strange, but for once I found myself agreeing with Karl Rahner, who has dedicated some reflections to Easter. I have read one of your texts because I wanted to question my own Easter reflections, and I must say that the thought of this Jesuit theologian seems to me, in addition to being deeply Catholic, also remarkably coherent and fruitful. In this article we will start from one of his intuitions to try to apply it to our Easter time..

Yeah, because Easter time is usually a bit sloppy, and this is the first reflection that I want to leave you. It seems to go by quickly until summer, almost as if it were just a time to sit and rest: It is enough to remember that Jesus has risen and everything is resolved, thus adopting a purely festive attitude. Unlike Lent, considered the strong spiritual and existential time par excellence, in which fasting is precisely practiced, ascetic choices are made and reflection is made on topics such as death, judgment and original sin — just as the Church asks us at that time.

Understand well, so, that it would be appropriate for Easter time to also be for us, believers, a time of attention to certain themes that, otherwise, they tend to escape. It is evident that the time of Easter must be distinguished from that of Lent.; of the liturgy, until Pentecost, differentiate the colors, going from Lenten purple to the white ornaments of the holiday. Based on some of Rahner's intuitions — although not sharing many of his other positions, but embracing what is valid — a profound aspect emerges about the meaning of Easter. He claims:

«I believe that the beginning of the glory of all things is already underway, that we, seemingly so lost and wandering, needy and distant, we are already enveloped in infinite bliss. Because the end has already begun. And it is the glory (cf. What does Easter mean?, Queriniana, Brescia, 2021, 37).

Rahner affirms this based on the idea that the Resurrection It is not a past event., closed in time, nor is it an event that will happen only at the end of time: it is a present, a Resurrection that begins now, a glory that we already live today. At this point I could quote Rahner's great counterpoint, also trained in the Society of Jesus, Hans Urs von Balthasar, but it would take us too far. Glory is the presence, the power and strength of God in our today.

And then we can ask ourselves this question, dear friends of the Island of Patmos: Is Easter time really a time of glory for us?? Have we truly understood that with the Resurrection of Christ the era of the new man has begun for us?, of man alive in God? Indeed, entering the glory of God happens, first of all, in the sacraments. It is the moment when sacramental grace - especially Eucharistic grace, but united to all the other sacraments — it already introduces us into the very life of God. Living the sacraments at Easter time is, therefore, the opportune moment to enter into the glory of the Risen Lord, to understand that the life we are living has a different meaning, a sense of eternity. And this should not make us afraid of the rules — "don't do this.", otherwise eternal life could be hell”—reducing itself to a cold normative sense. This promise of eternal life, that starts now, It is also joy and hope, allowing us to build from now on true paths of eternity.

And here we come to the third point: what does it mean, in practice, live like resurrected? It means learning that behind all suffering, behind all pain, behind every loss and every trial, Christ now promises us glory; He promises us that He is with us and asks us to face difficulties in a Christian way and then rise again with Him..

I still have very vivid memories of my years of study. for the degree in theology: during a class on the theology of marriage, our teacher, sor Alexandra Diriart, He reminded us that every marriage goes through its own Easter. Go through the nights of passion, of pain and misunderstanding, to reach Easter and resurrect each time. This dynamic doesn't just apply to marriage.: It is our whole life that is resurrected, and resurrect now. To live as resurrected we must have the courage of love, of charity, and the value of discovering the truths of the Catholic faith. Not all of us should be theologians, but we must all learn to believe intelligently. Here is a spiritual path that we can rediscover at Easter. The liturgical elements of this time — the Ascension, Pentecost and so on — should help us enter into the perspective of glory and begin to think as “glorified.”, searching, as Saint Paul exhorts us, the things above.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 21 April 2026

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

THE LATEST EPISODES ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ARCHIVE: WHO

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

______________________

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 Abbot of Solesmes and the illusion of liturgical synthesis: between subjectivism and doctrinal confusion – The abbot of Solesmes and the illusion of liturgical synthesis: between subjectivism and doctrinal confusion – The Abbot of Solesmes and the illusion of liturgical synthesis: between subjectivism and doctrinal confusion

21 March 2026/in Theologica/by father ariel

Italian, English, Español

THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTrinal CONFUSION

It is true that each of us is accountable for what we say, however, the container in which these statements are deposited is not irrelevant, for it too is not devoid of meaning. And maybe, for this, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding the more complex themes of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — like certain blogs — that, by their nature, they are more prone to itching gossip clerical than in search of the truth.

— Theologica —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

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

My late friend Paolo Poli, unforgettable theater master, with his usual disarming irony, he loved to say: «Men who declare themselves bisexual are nothing more than gays masquerading as heterosexuals».

And here the reader can legitimately ask himself what does such an approach have to do with the Sacred Liturgy. Nothing in itself; however, on the analogue level, not a little. Because, when an attempt is made to hold together irreconcilable realities through an artifice of synthesis, we often end up producing not one unit, but an ambiguity. This is precisely the impression that the proposal put forward by the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, in the interview given to the blog I can not remain silent: an attempt to overcome the liturgical fracture not through theological clarification, but through a practical composition that risks generating further confusion (See. Interview, who).

in the picture: Geoffroy Kemlin, Abate di Solesmes

When Mr. Abate states: «I believe that each of the Catholic sensitivities must agree to take a step towards the other», already introduces a deeply problematic assumption: the one according to which the liturgy is in some way an expression of different "sensibilities"., to be harmonized through compromise. But the Sacred Liturgy is not the place of subjective sensitivities: it is the public act of the Church, in which faith is objectively expressed. The liturgical unity, therefore, it does not arise from a compromise between sensitivity, but from adhesion to it the law of prayer which expresses the law of belief.

Even more serious this is what is proposed on a concrete level: «The priest could simply choose to integrate elements of the ancient missal...». E qHere we reach a decisive point. The priest is not the master of the liturgy, nor is he given the right to select ritual elements according to personal or "enrichment" criteria. The Constitution Holy Council is crystal clear: the government of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church and no one, not even the priest, can add, remove or change anything on your own initiative. This principle was also forcefully reiterated by the Instruction Sacramentum.

The idea of a modular liturgy, in which different elements can be integrated at discretion, it therefore contradicts not only ecclesial discipline, but the very nature of the liturgy as an act received and not constructed. On the other hand - mutatis mutandis — we place ourselves on the same level as the most casual liturgical creativity of certain Neocatechumenal circles: there we dance around the altar to the sound of the bongos, Gregorian chants are sung here in Latin; but the underlying principle remains identical. Change the external form, not the logic that generates it.

No less problematic it is the statement according to which «the liturgy belongs to the Church». Expression that, if not adequately specified, risks being theologically misleading. The liturgy is not the property of the Church, nor any of its productions. It is first and foremost the action of Christ, High Priest, who works in his Body which is the Church. The primary subject of the liturgy is Christ himself, as the Second Vatican Council recalls: it is He who acts in the sacramental signs and makes the paschal mystery present (cf.. Holy Council, n. 7). The Church is not the master of the liturgy, but her guardian and servant, called to receive it faithfully and transmit it without arbitrariness, as clearly reiterated by the magisterium: «The liturgy is never someone's private property, neither of the celebrant nor of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated" (Sacramentum, n. 18).

Then when Mr. Abate calls back the Motu proprio Guardians of tradition claiming that it simply aimed to put an end to divisions, shows that he does not grasp the real scope of the document or, more simply, that I didn't really understand it. That text is not limited to a generic wish for unity, but it intervenes precisely to regulate and limit the use of the so-called The old order, precisely because the previous experience had shown how the coexistence of two ritual forms had become, In many cases, factor of ecclesial division and not of communion, but what is worse - and unfortunately not infrequently - is a pretext for real ideological struggles. So the idea of solving the problem through a fusion of the two orders — inserting elements of one into the other — not only does it not address the root of the issue, but it risks worsening the confusion, introducing a form of “variable composition” liturgy, foreign to the Catholic tradition and explicitly rejected by it in its magisterium: «it is necessary to rebuke the audacity of those who arbitrarily introduce new liturgical customs or revive rites that have already fallen into disuse» (Mediator Dei, n. 58).

In this sense, the reference to Dom Prosper Guéranger it appears not only inappropriate, but paradoxical. The founder of the Benedictine liturgical restoration worked precisely to bring the disorderly plurality of the French diocesan rites back to the unity of the Roman rite. In his Liturgical institutions he strongly defends the idea that the liturgy is not the object of local invention, but an organic expression of the Tradition of the universal Church. His intent was to restore unity, not to build hybrid syntheses.

The real knot, which the interview carefully avoids addressing, it is therefore another: the liturgy is not a field of mediation between sensibilities, but the place where the Church receives and transmits an objective form of faith. As the Magisterium recalls: «the regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church» (Holy Council, 22), precisely because it is not available for the free manipulation of subjects. And when this form is transformed into an object of composition, selective adaptation or integration, we inevitably slip into a form of subjectivism that empties the liturgy of its nature. The problem is not legitimate plurality, but the loss of the sense of liturgical normativeness and its theological root.

When the liturgy becomes the result of a constructed synthesis, it ceases to be received as a gift and becomes the product of human mediation. So yes, the risk is that of replacing the real unity of the Church with an apparent unity, obtained not in the truth of faith, but in the negotiation of forms. As Joseph Ratzinger wrote lucidly: «the liturgy does not arise from our imagination, it is not the product of our creativity, but it is something that precedes us and that we must receive" (Introduction to the spirit of the liturgy).

It is then painful that the Most Reverend Abbot - which the interviewer, now short of information, dusts off as if it were one news a letter sent by him to the Supreme Pontiff 25 November 2025 — this far from secondary element also escapes. They, indeed, declares: «My letter to the Pope is evidently only a suggestion. I am well aware that it still needs to be refined and specified. I hope that the bishops continue to reflect on this theme and themselves make proposals so that the Church finds the much desired unity".

The very way in which one addresses the Roman Pontiff is never neutral. In the tradition of the Church, we don't talk to him like an interlocutor between equals, nor are "proposals" submitted to him as if it were a questionable matter entrusted to discussion between specialists, nor are suggestions and advice offered, if they are not expressly requested by him. Rather we address the Holiness of Our Lord with filial respect, humbly exposing observations and desires, in the awareness that the final judgment on what concerns the life of the Church belongs solely to him. That, so, the exponent of an ancient two thousand year old monastic tradition does not even notice the delicacy of this ecclesial register, indeed present publicly as a "suggestion" that which touches the very heart of the liturgical life of the Church, offers a significant — and not a little worrying — index of the level of confusion that is widespread today even in areas that, by their nature, they should be immune to it, nothing else for history, tradition and, not last, also for elementary ecclesial education.

It all proves it to us that when theological competence is replaced by an emotional and conciliatory approach, the liturgy - which is the heart of ecclesial life - ends up being reduced to a field of experimentation. And what begins as an attempt at unity easily transforms into the subtlest form of disorder.

Finally, it is true that each of us is accountable for what we say; however, the container in which these statements are deposited is not irrelevant, for it too is not devoid of meaning. And maybe, for this, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding the more complex themes of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — like certain blogs — that, by their nature, they are more prone to itching gossip clerical than in search of the truth. This should lead to the due virtue of prudence of both the Archbishop H.E. Mons. Renato Boccardo (cf.. Video interview who), as much as the Bishop H.E. Mons. Eduard Profittlich (cf.. Interview who), which, agreeing to intervene in similar contexts, end up - hopefully without full awareness - by implicitly endorsing the method and tone of a blog that daily indulges in invectives against dignitaries and departments of the Holy See, as well as dioceses and ecclesiastics judged not to conform to their subjective satisfaction. But on the other hand: «We in the Vatican … here in the Vatican …».

From the island of Patmos, 21 March 2026

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

THE ABBOT OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTRINAL CONFUSION

It is ultimately true that each of us is responsible for what he affirms; however, the medium in which such statements are placed is not irrelevant, for it too is not without meaning. And perhaps, precisely for this reason, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding that the most complex themes of sacramental theology be treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — which, by their very nature, are more inclined to the unhealthy fascination with clerical gossip than to the search for truth.

— Theologica —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

My late friend Paolo Poli, an unforgettable master of theatre, with his usual disarming irony, used to say: “Men who declare themselves bisexual are nothing other than homosexuals disguised as heterosexuals.” And here the reader may legitimately ask what such a comparison has to do with Sacred Liturgy. In itself, nothing; yet, on an analogical level, quite a lot. For when one attempts to hold together realities that are not reconcilable through an artificial synthesis, one often ends up producing not unity, but ambiguity. This is precisely the impression conveyed by the proposal advanced by the Abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, in the interview granted to the blog I can not remain silent: an attempt to overcome the liturgical fracture not through theological clarification, but through a practical composition that risks generating further confusion (article, here).

When the Reverend Abbot states: “I believe that each of the Catholic sensibilities should accept taking a step toward the other,” he already introduces a deeply problematic presupposition: namely, that the liturgy is in some way an expression of differing “sensibilities” to be harmonized through compromise. But Sacred Liturgy is not the realm of subjective sensibilities: it is the public act of the Church, in which the faith is expressed objectively. Liturgical unity, therefore, does not arise from compromise between sensibilities, but from adherence to the same the law of prayer which expresses the law of belief.

Even more serious is what is proposed on the practical level: “The priest could simply choose to integrate elements of the ancient missal…” Here we touch upon a decisive point. The priest is not the master of the liturgy, nor is he granted the faculty to select ritual elements according to personal criteria or for the sake of “enrichment.” The Constitution Holy Council is absolutely clear: the regulation of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, and no one, not even the priest, may add, remove, or change anything on his own initiative. This principle has been forcefully reiterated by the Instruction Sacramentum.

The idea of a liturgy assembled at will, in which different elements may be integrated at discretion, therefore contradicts not only ecclesial discipline but the very nature of the liturgy as something received and not constructed. From another perspective — mutatis mutandis — one finds oneself on the same level as the most uninhibited liturgical creativity found in certain Neo-Catechumenal environments: there one dances around the altar to the sound of bongos, here Gregorian chants in Latin are intoned; yet the underlying principle remains identical. The external form changes, not the logic that generates it.

No less problematic is the statement that “the liturgy belongs to the Church.” An expression which, if not properly clarified, risks being theologically misleading. The liturgy is not the property of the Church, nor its production. It is first and foremost the action of Christ, the High Priest, who operates in His Body, which is the Church. The primary subject of the liturgy is Christ Himself, as the Second Vatican Council recalls: it is He who acts in the sacramental signs and makes present the Paschal mystery (cf. Holy Council, 7). The Church is not the master of the liturgy, but its custodian and servant, called to receive it faithfully and to transmit it without arbitrariness, as clearly reaffirmed by the Magisterium: “the liturgy is never anyone’s private property, neither of the celebrant nor of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated” (Sacramentum, 18).

When the Reverend Abbot then invokes the Motu Proprio Guardians of tradition, claiming that it simply aimed at putting an end to divisions, he shows that he has not grasped the real scope of the document — or, more simply, that he has not understood it at all. That text does not merely express a generic aspiration to unity, but intervenes precisely to regulate and limit the use of the so-called The old order, precisely because previous experience had shown that the coexistence of two ritual forms had, in many cases, become a factor of division rather than communion — and worse still, not infrequently a pretext for genuine ideological conflicts. Thus, the idea of resolving the problem through a fusion of the two ordines — inserting elements of one into the other — not only fails to address the root of the issue but risks aggravating the confusion, introducing a form of a liturgy of variable composition foreign to Catholic tradition and explicitly rejected by its Magisterium: “it is necessary to reprove the temerity of those who arbitrarily introduce new liturgical practices or revive rites already fallen into disuse” (Mediator Dei, 58).

In this sense, the appeal to Prosper Guéranger appears not only inappropriate but paradoxical. The founder of the Benedictine liturgical restoration worked precisely to bring the disordered plurality of French diocesan rites back to the unity of the Roman Rite. In his Liturgical institutions, he strongly defends the idea that the liturgy is not the object of local invention but the organic expression of the Tradition of the universal Church. His aim was to restore unity, not to construct hybrid syntheses.

The real issue, which the interview carefully avoids addressing, is therefore another: the liturgy is not a field for mediation between sensibilities, but the place in which the Church receives and transmits an objective form of the faith. As the Magisterium recalls, “the regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church” (Smost holy Council, 22), precisely because it is not available for free manipulation by individuals. And when this form is transformed into an object of composition, adaptation, or selective integration, one inevitably slides into a form of subjectivism that empties the liturgy of its nature. The problem is not legitimate plurality, but the loss of the sense of liturgical normativity and of its theological foundation.

When the liturgy becomes the result of a constructed synthesis, it ceases to be received as a gift and becomes the product of human mediation. And thus, the risk arises of replacing the real unity of the Church with an apparent unity, obtained not in the truth of faith but in the negotiation of forms. As Joseph Ratzinger wrote with clarity: “the liturgy does not arise from our imagination; it is not the product of our creativity, but something that precedes us and that we must receive” (The Spirit of the Liturgy).

It is also regrettable that the Most Reverend Abbot — whose interviewer, now short of news, dusts off as though it were a news item a letter sent by him to the Supreme Pontiff on 25 November 2025 — should fail to grasp this element, which is by no means secondary. He, in fact, declares: “My letter to the Pope is evidently only a suggestion. I am well aware that it still needs to be refined and specified. I hope that the bishops will continue to reflect on this matter and that they themselves will make proposals so that the Church may rediscover the unity so greatly desired”.

The very manner in which one addresses the Roman Pontiff is never neutral. In the tradition of the Church, one does not speak to him as to an interlocutor among equals, nor does one submit “proposals” as though it were a matter open to debate entrusted to specialists, nor does one offer “suggestions” and advice unless they have been expressly requested by him. Rather, one addresses the Holiness of Our Lord with filial respect, presenting with humility observations and desiderata, in the awareness that the final judgment on what concerns the life of the Church belongs to him alone. That, therefore, a representative of an ancient monastic tradition spanning two millennia should fail even to perceive the delicacy of this ecclesial register, and indeed publicly present as a “suggestion” what touches the very heart of the Church’s liturgical life, offers a significant — and by no means reassuring — indication of the level of confusion today widespread even in circles which, by their very nature, ought to be immune to it, if only by reason of history, tradition, and, not least, elementary ecclesial decorum.

It is ultimately true that each of us is responsible for what he affirms; however, the medium in which such statements are placed is not irrelevant, for it too is not without meaning. And perhaps, precisely for this reason, a certain prudence would suggest avoiding that the most complex themes of sacramental theology be treated, by a Benedictine Abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — which, by their very nature, are more inclined to the unhealthy fascination with clerical gossip than to the search for truth. This should lead to the due virtue of prudence both the Archbishop H.E. Msgr. Renato Boccardo (cf. Here) and the Bishop H.E. Msgr. Eduard Profittlich (cf. Here), who, by agreeing to intervene in such contexts, end up — one hopes without full awareness — implicitly endorsing the method and tone of a blog that daily indulges in invectives against dignitaries and dicasteries of the Holy See, as well as dioceses and ecclesiastics deemed not to conform to its own preferences.

From the Island of Patmos, 21 March 2026

THE ABBEY OF SOLESMES AND THE ILLUSION OF LITURGICAL SYNTHESIS: BETWEEN SUBJECTIVISM AND DOCTRINAL CONFUSION

Is, In short, It is true that each of us responds for what he affirms; however, The scope in which such statements are deposited is not irrelevant., Well, this is not meaningless either.. and maybe, precisely for this reason, A certain prudence would suggest avoiding the most complex topics of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — that, by its own nature, They are more inclined to the morbid inclination towards clerical gossip than to the search for truth..

— Theologica —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

My late friend Paolo Poli, unforgettable theater master, with his usual disarming irony, I used to say: "Men who declare themselves bisexual are nothing more than homosexuals disguised as heterosexuals". And here the reader may legitimately wonder what such a comparison has to do with the Sacred Liturgy.. in itself, nothing; however, on the analog level, not a little. Why, when an attempt is made to keep together non-reconcilable realities through an artifice of synthesis, often ends up producing not one unit, but an ambiguity. This is precisely the impression aroused by the proposal made by the abbot of Solesmes, Dom Geoffroy Kemlin, in the interview given to the blog I can not remain silent: an attempt to overcome the liturgical fracture not through a theological clarification, but through a practical composition that runs the risk of generating further confusion (article, here).

When the Lord Abbot affirms: "I believe that each of the Catholic sensibilities should accept taking a step towards the other", already introduces a deeply problematic budget: that the liturgy would be, somehow, expression of different “sensitivities” that must be harmonized through a commitment. But the Sacred Liturgy is not the place of subjective sensibilities: It is the public act of the Church, in which faith is objectively expressed. The liturgical unity, therefore, It is not born from a compromise between sensibilities, but of the adhesion to it the law of prayer that expresses the lex credendi.

Even more serious is what is proposed on a concrete level.: "The priest could simply choose to integrate elements of the old missal...". Here we touch on a decisive point. The priest is not the owner of the liturgy, nor does it have the power to select ritual elements according to personal or “enrichment” criteria.. The Constitution Holy Council it is very clear: The regulation of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, and nobody, not even the priest, can add, remove or change anything on your own initiative. This principle has also been strongly reaffirmed by the Instruction Sacramentum.

The idea of a composable liturgy, in which diverse elements can be integrated at discretion, contradicts, therefore, not only ecclesial discipline, but the very nature of the liturgy as an act received and not constructed. On the other hand - change of changes — we find ourselves on the same plane as the most uninhibited forms of liturgical creativity in certain neocatechumenal environments: there they dance around the altar to the sound of the bongos, Gregorian chants are sung here in Latin; but the underlying principle is identical. Change the exterior shape, not the logic that generates it.

no less problematic is the statement according to which "the liturgy belongs to the Church". Expression that, if not properly specified, runs the risk of being theologically equivocal. The liturgy is not property of the Church, not even one of his productions. It is above all the action of Christ, High priest, that acts in your Body, what is the Church. The primary subject of the liturgy is Christ himself, as the Second Vatican Council recalls: It is He who acts in the sacramental signs and makes the paschal mystery present (cf. Holy Council, n. 7). The Church is not the owner of the liturgy, but your custodian and servant, called to receive it faithfully and to transmit it without arbitrariness, as the Magisterium has clearly reiterated: «the liturgy is never someone's private property, neither of the celebrant nor of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated" (Sacramentum, n. 18).

When the Lord Abbot later invokes the Motu proprio Guardians of tradition, maintaining that this was simply intended to end the divisions, demonstrates not having grasped the real scope of the document or, more simply, not having understood. This text is not limited to a generic desire for unity, but intervenes precisely to regulate and limit the use of the so-called The old order, because previous experience had shown that the coexistence of two ritual forms had become, in many cases, a factor of ecclesial division and not of communion, and - what is worse - not infrequently as a pretext for real ideological struggles. So, the idea of solving the problem through a fusion of the two orders — inserting elements of one into the other — not only does it not address the root of the issue, but it runs the risk of aggravating the confusion, introducing a form of liturgy “of variable composition”, alien to Catholic tradition and explicitly rejected by its Magisterium: "it is necessary to condemn the audacity of those who arbitrarily introduce new liturgical customs or revive rites that have already fallen into disuse" (Mediator Dei, n. 58).

In this sense, The reference to Dom Prosper Guéranger is not only inappropriate, but paradoxical. The founder of the Benedictine liturgical restoration worked precisely to redirect the disorderly plurality of French diocesan rites to the unity of the Roman rite.. In their Liturgical institutions strongly defends the idea that the liturgy is not an object of local invention, but organic expression of the Tradition of the universal Church. Its purpose was to restore unity, do not build hybrid syntheses.

The real knot, that the interview carefully avoids facing, is therefore another: The liturgy is not a field of mediation between sensibilities, but the place in which the Church receives and transmits an objective form of the faith. As the Magisterium remembers, "The regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church" (Holy Council, n. 22), precisely because it is not available for the free manipulation of the subjects. And when this form becomes an object of composition, selective adaptation or integration, inevitably falls into a form of subjectivism that empties the liturgy of its nature. The problem is not legitimate plurality, but the loss of the sense of liturgical normativity and its theological root.

When the liturgy becomes the result of a constructed synthesis, It stops being received as a gift and becomes a product of human mediation.. And then yes, The risk is to replace the real unity of the Church with an apparent unity, obtained not in the truth of faith, but in the negotiation of the forms. As Joseph Ratzinger lucidly wrote:: «the liturgy is not born from our fantasy, It is not the product of our creativity, but something that precedes us and that we must receive" (The spirit of the liturgy).

It also hurts that the Most Reverend Abbot —whose interviewer, already lacking in news, dusts off as if it were news a letter sent by himself to the Supreme Pontiff on 25 November 2025 — you also miss this non-secondary element: The very way in which one addresses the Roman Pontiff is never neutral. In the tradition of the Church, you are not spoken to as an interlocutor among equals, nor are “proposals” presented to it as if it were an opinionable matter entrusted to debate among specialists., nor are suggestions and advice offered, if they have not been expressly requested by him. Rather, one goes to the Holiness of Our Lord with filial respect, humbly exposing observations and wishes, in the awareness that the final judgment on what concerns the life of the Church corresponds solely to him. What, therefore, the representative of an ancient two-thousand-year-old monastic tradition does not even perceive the delicacy of this ecclesial record and, even more, publicly present as a "suggestion" that which touches the very heart of the liturgical life of the Church, constitutes a significant – and not a little worrying – indication of the level of confusion today widespread even in areas that, by its own nature, They should be immune to it., not only for history and tradition, but also, and not last, for an elementary ecclesial education.

All this confirms us what, when theological competence is replaced by an emotional and conciliatory approach, the liturgy – which is the heart of ecclesial life – ends up reduced to a field of experimentation. And what is born as an attempt at unity easily transforms into the most subtle form of disorder..

Is, In short, It is true that each of us responds for what he affirms; however, The scope in which such statements are deposited is not irrelevant., Well, this is not meaningless either.. and maybe, precisely for this reason, A certain prudence would suggest avoiding the most complex topics of sacramental theology from being treated, by a Benedictine abbot, in contexts — such as certain blogs — that, by its own nature, They are more inclined to the morbid inclination towards clerical gossip than to the search for truth.. This should induce the due virtue of prudence both to Archbishop H.E.. Mons. Renato Boccardo (cf. Video-interview here), as at Obispo S.E. Mons. Eduard Profittlich (cf. Interview here), who, by agreeing to intervene in such contexts, They end up — hopefully without full awareness — implicitly endorsing the method and tone of a blog that daily indulges in invective against dignitaries and dicasteries of the Holy See., as well as against dioceses and ecclesiastics considered not to conform to their own subjective criteria.

From the Island of Patmos, 21 March 2026

Our previous articles (2023-2026):

– 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)

______________________

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

"Let me cry". The dark night in which God appears far away and is therefore truly close – “Lascia ch’io pianga.” The dark night in which God appears distant and for that very reason is truly near – "Let me cry". The dark night in which God appears far away and for that reason is really close –

12 March 2026/in Theologica/by father ariel

Italian, English, Español

«LET ME CRY». THE DARK NIGHT IN WHICH GOD APPEARS FAR AWAY AND IS THEREFORE REALLY CLOSE

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. It becomes essential. He does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer tries to “feel” the presence; silence lives. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: it was simply beyond representation. The night, when it is authentic, it does not take away God: it takes away the illusion of possessing it. And in this dispossession a greater freedom than any religious enthusiasm is born; a freedom that is born from the tears of those who have accepted to be freed by the truth.

— Theologica —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

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

Many saints and mystics they went through that spiritual condition that tradition called "dark night".

Saint John of the Cross gave it its most radical formulation in Climbing Mount Carmel and above all in dark night, where he describes the active and passive purification of the senses and the spirit. Saint Teresa of Avila outlined the progressive purifications in Interior castle, particularly in the fourth and fifth tasks, where the soul experiences the suspension of consolations and entry into a purer mode of union. Saint Teresa of Calcutta experienced its almost absolute silence for years, as emerges from his spiritual letters published in Come Be My Light, in which he confesses that he does not "feel" the presence of God while continuing to believe and act with unshakable fidelity. In all these cases it was not a crisis of faith, but of its maturation. And this is where the most frequent reading error lies: confusing the "dark night" with the loss of faith. The night is not a denial of belief; it is purification of the lower ways in which one believes.

Dire: «I feel God far away, in fact I don't feel it at all", it does not mean affirming an ontological absence of God, but to describe what spiritual masters call sensitive deprivation of presence. God does not fail, what is missing is the usual way in which the soul was used to perceiving it. As long as God is “heard”, it still partly remains within the horizon of experience and often - it must be said clearly - within the horizon of emotional fideism. Faith supported predominantly by feeling is not yet false, but it is fragile: it depends on an internal vibration, from a consolation, by an affective resonance that can easily be mistaken for divine presence. At this stage the risk is subtle: confusing God with what we feel about Him. When instead God is no longer heard but believed in silence, then it becomes absolute. It is no longer an object of consolation, nor emotional support, nor rewarding experience; becomes the foundation of being. It's no longer what comforts, but what it is. And adherence to what is does not arise from enthusiasm, but from the truth.

With the maturation of faith the sense of our nothingness takes over before the mystery. Emotional fideism seeks emotional confirmation; theological faith, on the contrary, accept silence. Think about it, eg, to those who identify the presence of God with the internal warmth felt during a prayer, with the emotion aroused by a song, with the enthusiasm generated by an intense community experience. None of this is in itself negative: it can be an authentic gift. But if faith depends on such resonances, when these fail it seems that God also fails.

It is relatively easy to have "faith" inside the majestic basilicas, among the aromatic fumes of incense, the sounds of the organ, the solemn choirs, the vestments which are authentic works of art and the sacred vases worthy of a goldsmith museum. All of this can elevate, prepare, to help. But try to have it, faith, in a basement in the middle of the night, or in an isolated place in the countryside, where the Eucharist is celebrated in a climate of persecution, with one ear turned to prayers and the other alert for fear that someone might break in. Without devices, without solemnity, without sensible supports. It's there, between strength and fear, that faith is measured in its nakedness. The night intervenes right here: it removes the sensitive support to reveal whether the adhesion was aimed at God or his consolations.

However, the other side of the coin must also be analysed: when the soul enters stably into this more naked form of faith, a subtle risk may arise: a certain severity towards the simplest forms of religiosity, it is comprensible, but this does not necessarily happen out of snobbery or haughtiness, quite the opposite: when one has gone through the purification of the imagination, naive devotions can appear superficial. However, the difference is not between maturity and ridiculousness, but along different paths. Even a simple faith can be authentic, if it is oriented towards truth and not towards subjective suggestion.

Those who go through the night do not experience a nostalgic faith nor does it defend a refined image of God built on elevated categories; lives in the silence of God. And this silence is not a sign of crisis, but of depth. It's not empty; it is space not occupied by the imagination. It's like the silence that envelops a charterhouse: a silence that does not allow half measures. In that context the superficial man does not survive. Or you remain mediocre, incapable of inhabiting the essentials, or we become men who, even with his feet firmly planted in the earth and a fully human body, they already live oriented towards the eternal incorporeal. Silence does not destroy: select.

When the mystery is no longer an object to be understood but a horizon before which to stop, the ego resizes. Thus a new freedom is born. Not the freedom of autonomy, but that of adaptation. We are no longer free because God is far away; we are freer because we have stopped wanting to make him close according to our own measure. The risk to the contrary is subtle and widespread: reduce God to the interlocutor of one's own internal resonances. The religious world is full of people who talk to themselves believing they have spoken to God, to then speak to men as if they were speaking in the name of God. It's not about mysticism, but of projection. When the imagination is not purified, can easily be mistaken for revelation. The night, instead, takes away this claim. It does not authorize one to speak on behalf of God; forces one to remain silent before Him. As long as God is heard, it remains partly within our horizon. When silence is believed, the horizon reverses: he is not God within our space, but we inside His. And there you are left speechless.

In this experience awareness of human limitations emerges. The limit is not frustration; it is truth. The mystery does not humiliate man, places it. And the man placed in the mystery is freer than the man who imagines himself central and builds a God in his own emotional image. The authentic night does not generate cynicism; generates internal precision. Many talk about "night" because they have lost consolations, few recognize it as a place of knowing one's limits. In the first case there is a lack, in the second, maturation. Only those who have gone through this purification can guard without dominating, transmit without imposing, respect the freedom of others, including religious freedom, much debated and misunderstood in certain circles, founded on human dignity and freedom of conscience (cf.. Human Dignity, 2) and its times. Those who have not come to terms with their limits tend to save in order to assert themselves, whoever did it saves because he has received.

God appears far away, but precisely in the subtraction it becomes more radically present. No longer as an object of experience, but as the silent foundation of existence. And in front of this foundation no exaltation is produced, but adoration. The claim to "feel" God as a criterion of his presence is a childish simplification of the relationship with the Eternal. Dire: “I have to hear from God” or: "In that place you truly feel the presence of God" often means confusing emotional intensity with ontological reality. The experience can be intense, but the intensity does not coincide with the truth. God cannot be contained in the resonances of our affective microcosm. He does not increase or decrease based on the vibration of our sensitivity. On the contrary, to the extent that the soul matures, the awareness of the infinite distance that separates the Creator from the creature grows. E, paradoxically, precisely this perception of distance is a sign of greater proximity. We get closer to God by not reducing Him to our own measure, but accepting that He exceeds every measure. When the soul stops demanding sensitive confirmation and accepts to believe without possessing, then enter into a truer relationship. No longer based on the need to perceive, but on the willingness to worship.

The night, so, it does not push God away; removes the illusion of having grasped it. The night is not just about taking away consolations; it is going through pain. There is no spiritual freedom without a form of pain that breaks the internal chains. As long as the soul finds support in its own representations, in their emotions, in one's own reassuring images of God, remains in only apparent freedom. It is the pain that breaks the bonds that hold her back.

Duolo is not a value in itself here, nor an ascetic complacency. It is the inevitable consequence of losing what one had learned to love as support. When God escapes sensitive perception, the soul experiences real deprivation. But this deprivation does not destroy faith; purify it. It doesn't weaken it; it makes it more naked and therefore more real. No one acquires freedom without going through loss. Authentic freedom always arises from detachment, and detachment involves pain. Not because God wants to hurt, but because man must be freed from that which confuses consolation with truth.

The night is therefore an act of severe mercy. Break what binds, not what it constitutes. Destroys images, not reality. He is silent to educate about pure membership. And when the soul stops clinging to what it feels, finally begins to adhere to what is. This night is therefore not an ascetic concept for exceptional souls. It's a real threshold that many cross in silence. There are priests who celebrate every day without feeling anything anymore, who preach without interior consolations, who accompany others while they themselves walk in the dark. They have not lost faith; they have lost the sensitive support of faith. And it is precisely in this nakedness that the quality of adhesion occurs. When all that remains is the pure act of believing, without emotional echo, without spiritual gratification, without emotional return. Then faith is no longer experience: it's loyalty (See. my work I think to understand).

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. It becomes essential. He does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer tries to “feel” the presence; silence lives. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: it was simply beyond representation. The night, when it is authentic, it does not take away God: it takes away the illusion of possessing it. And in this dispossession a greater freedom than any religious enthusiasm is born; a freedom that is born from the tears of those who have accepted to be freed by the truth.

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

The duolo breaks

These twists

Of my martyrs

Just out of pity

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

(Let me cry, G. F. Handel).

From the island of Patmos, 12 March 2026

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

“LASCIA CH’IO PIANGA.” THE DARK NIGHT IN WHICH GOD APPEARS DISTANT AND FOR THAT VERY REASON IS TRULY NEAR

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. They become essential. They do not despise simple devotion, yet they can no longer confuse consolation with God. They no longer seek to “feel” presence; they inhabit silence. And in silence they discover that God was not absent; He was simply beyond every representation. The night, when authentic, does not remove God: it removes the illusion of possessing Him. And in this stripping there is born a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm — a freedom born of the tears of one who has consented to be liberated by truth.

— Theologica —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

Many saints and mystics have passed through that spiritual condition which the tradition has called the “dark night.” Saint John of the Cross offered its most radical formulation in the Climbing Mount Carmel and above all in the dark night, where he describes the active and passive purification of the senses and of the spirit. Saint Teresa of Ávila outlined its progressive purifications in The Interior Castle, particularly in the fourth and fifth mansions, where the soul experiences the suspension of consolations and enters a more purified mode of union. Saint Teresa of Calcutta lived for years in a near-absolute interior silence, as emerges from her spiritual letters published in Come Be My Light, in which she confesses that she did not “feel” the presence of God while continuing to believe and to act with unshaken fidelity. In none of these cases was this a crisis of faith, but rather its maturation. Here lies the most common misreading: to confuse the “dark night” with the loss of faith. The night is not the negation of belief; it is the purification of the lower modalities by which one believes.

To say, “I feel God distant — indeed, I do not feel Him at all,” does not affirm an ontological absence of God; it describes what the spiritual masters call the sensible deprivation of presence. God does not withdraw; what withdraws is the habitual mode by which the soul had grown accustomed to perceiving Him. As long as God is “felt,” He still remains, in part, within the horizon of experience — and often, it must be said clearly, within the horizon of emotional fideism. A faith sustained primarily by feeling is not yet false, but it is fragile: it depends upon an interior vibration, a consolation, an affective resonance that can easily be mistaken for divine presence. At this stage the risk is subtle: to confuse God with what one feels of Him. When, however, God is no longer felt but believed in silence, He becomes absolute. He is no longer the object of consolation, nor emotional support, nor gratifying experience; He becomes the ground of being. No longer what comforts, but what is. And adhesion to what is does not arise from enthusiasm, but from truth.

With the maturation of faith there emerges a sense of our own nothingness before the mystery. Emotional fideism seeks affective confirmations; theological faith, by contrast, accepts silence. Consider those who identify God’s presence with the interior warmth experienced during prayer, with the emotion stirred by a hymn, with the enthusiasm generated by an intense communal experience. None of this is negative in itself; it may well be an authentic gift. Yet if faith depends upon such resonances, when they fade it seems as though God Himself has faded.

It is relatively easy to have “faith” within majestic basilicas, amid the fragrant clouds of incense, the sound of the organ, solemn choirs, vestments that are works of art and sacred vessels worthy of a goldsmith’s museum. All this can elevate, dispose, assist. But try to have faith in a basement at midnight, or in an isolated countryside setting where the Eucharist is celebrated under threat of persecution, with one ear attentive to the prayers and the other alert in case someone should break in. Without apparatus, without solemnity, without sensible supports. It is there, between strength and fear, that faith is measured in its nakedness. The night intervenes precisely here: it removes sensible support in order to reveal whether adhesion was directed toward God or toward His consolations.

Yet the reverse must also be considered: when the soul enters steadily into this more stripped form of faith, a subtle risk may arise — a certain severity toward simpler forms of religiosity. This is understandable, though it need not stem from snobbery or hauteur. When one has passed through the purification of the imagination, ingenuous devotions may appear superficial. Nevertheless, the distinction is not between maturity and ridicule, but between different paths. A simple faith can also be authentic, if it is oriented toward truth rather than suggestion.

One who traverses the night does not live a nostalgic faith, nor defend a refined image of God constructed upon elevated categories; he inhabits the silence of God. And this silence is not a sign of crisis, but of depth. It is not emptiness; it is space no longer occupied by imagination. It resembles the silence that envelops a Carthusian monastery — a silence that admits no mediocrity. Within such a space the superficial man does not endure. Either one remains mediocre, incapable of inhabiting the essential, or one becomes a man who, though firmly planted on earth and fully embodied, already lives oriented toward the incorporeal eternal. Silence does not destroy; it selects.

When the mystery is no longer an object to be grasped but a horizon before which one must halt, the self is reduced to its true measure. A new freedom is born. Not the freedom of autonomy, but that of conformity. One is not freer because God is distant; one is freer because one has ceased trying to render Him near according to one’s own measure. The opposite risk is subtle and widespread: reducing God to an interlocutor of one’s interior resonances. The religious world is full of people who converse with themselves, convinced that they have spoken with God, and who then speak to others as though in His name. This is not mysticism; it is projection. When imagination is not purified, it can easily be mistaken for revelation. The night, by contrast, removes this presumption. It does not authorise one to speak in God’s name; it compels one to fall silent before Him. As long as God is felt, He remains partly within our horizon. When He is believed in silence, the horizon is reversed: it is no longer God within our space, but we within His. And there, words fall away.

In this experience there emerges an awareness of human limitation. Limitation is not frustration; it is truth. The mystery does not humiliate man; it situates him. And the man situated within the mystery is freer than the one who imagines himself central and fashions a God in his own emotional image. The authentic night does not generate cynicism; it generates interior precision. Many speak of “night” because they have lost consolations; few recognise it as the place where one learns one’s own limit. In the first case there is lack; in the second, maturation. Only one who has undergone this purification can guard without dominating, transmit without imposing, respect the freedom of the other and his time. Those who have not reckoned with their own limit tend to save in order to affirm themselves; those who have, save because they have received.

God appears distant, yet precisely in this withdrawal He becomes more radically present. No longer as an object of experience, but as the silent foundation of existence. And before such a foundation there is no exhilaration, but adoration. The insistence on “feeling” God as the criterion of His presence is an infantile simplification of the relation to the Eternal. To say, “I must feel God,” or “In that place one truly feels God’s presence,” often confuses emotional intensity with ontological reality. Experience may be intense; intensity is not truth. God is not contained within the resonances of our affective microcosm. He does not increase or diminish according to the vibration of our sensibility. On the contrary, as the soul matures, there grows the awareness of the infinite distance separating the Creator from the creature. Paradoxically, this perception of distance is itself a sign of greater proximity. One approaches God not by reducing Him to one’s measure, but by consenting that He exceeds every measure. When the soul ceases to demand sensible confirmations and consents to believe without possessing, it enters a truer relation — one grounded not in perception, but in adoration.

The night, therefore, does not distance God; it distances the illusion of having grasped Him. The night is not only the removal of consolations; it is the passage through sorrow. There is no spiritual freedom without a form of grief that breaks interior chains. As long as the soul leans upon its own representations, emotions, and reassuring images of God, it remains in a merely apparent freedom. It is sorrow that shatters the cords that bind it.

Sorrow here is not a value in itself, nor an ascetical complacency. It is the inevitable consequence of losing what one had learned to love as support. When God withdraws from sensible perception, the soul experiences a real deprivation. Yet this deprivation does not destroy faith; it purifies it. It does not weaken it; it renders it more naked, and therefore more true. No one acquires freedom without passing through a loss. Authentic freedom is always born of detachment, and detachment entails pain. Not because God desires to wound, but because man must be freed from what confuses consolation with truth. The night is thus an act of severe mercy. It breaks what binds, not what constitutes. It destroys images, not reality. It falls silent in order to educate pure adhesion. And when the soul ceases clinging to what it feels, it finally begins to adhere to what is. This night is not an ascetical concept reserved for exceptional souls. It is a real threshold crossed in silence by many. There are priests who celebrate each day without feeling anything, who preach without interior consolation, who accompany others while themselves walking in darkness. They have not lost faith; they have lost the sensible support of faith. And it is precisely in this nakedness that the quality of adhesion is revealed. When nothing remains but the pure act of believing — without emotional echo, without spiritual gratification, without affective return — then faith is no longer experience: it is fidelity.

Those who have crossed this threshold do not become cynical. They become essential. They do not despise simple devotion, yet they can no longer confuse consolation with God. They no longer seek to “feel” presence; they inhabit silence. And in silence they discover that God was not absent; He was simply beyond every representation. The night, when authentic, does not remove God: it removes the illusion of possessing Him. And in this stripping there is born a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm — a freedom born of the tears of one who has consented to be liberated by truth.

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

The duolo breaks

These twists

Of my martyrs

Just out of pity

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

Let me cry (G. F. Handel).

Patmos Island, 12 March 2026

«LET ME CRY». THE DARK NIGHT IN WHICH GOD APPEARS FAR AWAY AND WHY HE IS REALLY CLOSE

Whoever has crossed this threshold does not become cynical. It becomes essential. Does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer seeks to "feel" the presence; dwells the silence. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: It was simply beyond all representation. the night, when it's authentic, does not take away God: removes the illusion of owning it. And in this dispossession a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm is born.; a freedom that is born from the cry of those who have accepted to be liberated by the truth.

— Theologica —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

Many saints and mystics They have gone through that spiritual condition that tradition has called "dark night.". Saint John of the Cross offered his most radical formulation in the Climbing the Mounte Carmelo and especially in the dark night, where it describes the active and passive purification of the senses and spirit. Saint Teresa of Ávila outlined her progressive purifications in The Inner Castle, particularly in the fourth and fifth mansions, where the soul experiences the suspension of consolations and entry into a purer mode of union. Saint Teresa of Calcutta lived in almost absolute silence for years, as can be seen from his spiritual letters published in Ven, be my light (Come Be My Light), in which he confesses not "feeling" the presence of God and, however, continue believing and acting with unwavering fidelity. In none of these cases was it a crisis of faith, but of its maturation. Here is the most frequent error of interpretation: confuse the "dark night" with the loss of faith. The night is not a denial of belief; It is purification of the lower modalities with which one believes.

Say: «I feel God far away, I don't even feel it at all.", does not mean affirming an ontological absence of God, but to describe what spiritual teachers call sensible deprivation of the presence. God does not disappear; the habitual modality with which the soul was accustomed to perceive it disappears. While God is "felt", still remains, in part, within the horizon of experience and often – it must be said clearly – within the horizon of emotive fideism. A faith sustained primarily by feeling is not yet false, but it is fragile: depends on an internal vibration, of a consolation, of an affective resonance that can easily be confused with divine presence. In this phase the risk is subtle: confuse God with what is experienced of Him. When, instead, God is no longer felt but believed in silence, then it becomes absolute. No longer an object of consolation, no emotional support, no rewarding experience; becomes the foundation of being. It is no longer what consoles, but what is. And adherence to what is is not born of enthusiasm, but of the truth.

With the maturation of faith, the sense of our nothingness in the face of mystery arises.. Emotional fideism seeks emotional confirmations; theological faith, on the contrary, accept the silence. think, For example, in whom he identifies the presence of God with the inner warmth experienced during a prayer, with the emotion aroused by a song, with the enthusiasm generated by an intense community experience. None of this is negative in itself.: can be a real gift. But if faith depends on such resonances, When these disappear it seems that God also disappears.

It is relatively easy to have "faith" inside majestic basilicas, among the aromas of incense, the sounds of the organ, the solemn choirs, the ornaments that are true works of art and the sacred vessels worthy of a goldsmith's museum. All this can raise, predispose, help. But try to have faith in a basement in the middle of the night, or in an isolated place in the countryside, where the Eucharist is celebrated in a climate of persecution, with one ear attentive to the prayers and the other attentive in case someone breaks in. Without devices, without solemnity, without sensitive supports. It's there, between strength and fear, where faith is measured in its nakedness. The night intervenes precisely here: withdraws sensitive support to reveal whether the adhesion was directed to God or his consolations.

The reverse must also be analyzed: when the soul enters stably into this most naked form of faith, a subtle risk may arise: certain severity towards the simplest forms of religiosity. It's understandable, although not necessarily the result of snobbery or haughtiness. When you have gone through the purification of the imagination, naïve devotions can seem superficial. However, The difference is not between maturity and ridiculousness., but between different paths. A simple faith can also be authentic, if it is oriented towards truth and not suggestion.

Who goes through the night he does not live a nostalgic faith nor defend a refined image of God built on elevated categories; dwell in the silence of God. And that silence is not a sign of crisis, but deep. It is not empty; It is space not occupied by the imagination. It's like the silence that surrounds a monastery: a silence that does not admit half measures. In this context, the superficial man does not survive.. If it remains mediocre, unable to inhabit the essential, or you become a man who, with feet firmly planted on the ground and a fully human body, lives already oriented towards the eternal incorporeal. Silence does not destroy: select.

When the mystery stops being an object to understand and becomes a horizon before which to stop, the self is resized. Then a new freedom is born. Not the freedom of autonomy, but that of adequacy. You are not freer because God is far away; one is freer because one has stopped trying to make it close according to one's own measure. The opposite risk is subtle and widespread: reduce God to the interlocutor of one's own interior resonances. The religious world is full of people who dialogue with themselves, convinced that they have spoken with God., and who then speak to men as if they were speaking in their name. It's not about mystique, but projection. When the imagination is not purified, can be easily confused with revelation. the night, instead, eliminate this claim. Does not authorize speaking on behalf of God; forces to be silent before Him. While God is felt, remains partly within our horizon. When it is believed in silence, the horizon is reversed: It is no longer God within our space, but us within yours. And there the words fade away.

In this experience awareness of the human limit emerges. The limit is not frustration; It's true. Mystery does not humiliate man; places it. And the man located in the mystery is freer than the one who imagines himself central and builds a God in his emotional image.. The authentic night does not generate cynicism; generates internal precision. Many speak of "night" because they have lost consolations; few recognize it as a place of knowledge of one's own limit. In the first case there is a lack; in the second, maturation. Only those who have gone through this purification can guard without dominating, transmit without imposing, respect the freedom of others and their times. He who has not faced his own limit tends to save to assert himself; whoever has done it saves because he has received.

God seems far away, but precisely in its withdrawal it becomes more radically present. No longer as an object of experience, but as the silent foundation of existence. And before that foundation no exaltation arises, but worship. The claim to "feel" God as a criterion of his presence is a childish simplification of the relationship with the Eternal.. Say: "I must feel God" or "In that place the presence of God is truly felt" usually confuses emotional intensity with ontological reality.. The experience can be intense; intensity is not the truth. God is not locked in the resonances of our affective microcosm. It does not grow or decrease according to the vibration of our sensitivity. On the contrary, as the soul matures, awareness grows of the infinite distance that separates the Creator from the creature. And paradoxically, This perception of distance is a sign of greater proximity. One approaches God by not reducing Him to one's own measure., but accepting that He exceeds all measure. When the soul stops demanding sensitive confirmations and accepts believing without possessing, enter a truer relationship: not based on the need to perceive, but in the availability to worship.

the night, therefore, does not distance God; removes the illusion of having held on to it. The night is not just a withdrawal of consolations; is going through the pain. There is no spiritual freedom without a form of mourning that breaks the inner chains. As long as the soul relies on its own representations, calming emotions and images of God, remains in a freedom only apparent. It is the pain that breaks the ties that held her.

Mourning here is neither a value in itself nor an ascetic indulgence.. It is the inevitable consequence of losing what we had learned to love as support.. When God escapes sensitive perception, the soul experiences real deprivation. But this deprivation does not destroy faith; purify it. It doesn't weaken it; makes it more naked and therefore more true. No one acquires freedom without going through loss.. Authentic freedom is always born from detachment, and detachment brings pain. Not because God wants to hurt, but because man must be freed from that which confuses consolation with truth. the night is, therefore, an act of severe mercy. Break what binds, not what constitutes. Destroy images, not reality. Keep quiet to educate in pure adhesion. And when the soul stops clinging to what it feels, finally begins to adhere to what is. This night is not an ascetic concept reserved for exceptional souls. It is a real threshold that many cross in silence. There are priests who celebrate every day without feeling anything, who preach without interior consolations, who accompany others while they themselves walk in the darkness. They have not lost faith; they have lost the sensitive support of faith. And it is precisely in this nakedness where the quality of the adhesion is verified.. When there is nothing left but the pure act of believing — without emotional echo, without spiritual gratification, without emotional return — then faith is no longer experience: it's fidelity.

Whoever has crossed this threshold does not become cynical. It becomes essential. Does not despise simple devotion, but he can no longer confuse consolation with God. He no longer seeks to "feel" the presence; dwells the silence. And in the silence he discovers that God was not absent: It was simply beyond all representation. the night, when it's authentic, does not take away God: removes the illusion of owning it. And in this dispossession a freedom greater than any religious enthusiasm is born.; a freedom that is born from the cry of those who have accepted to be liberated by the truth.

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

The duolo breaks

These twists

Of my martyrs

Just out of pity

Let me cry

My cruel fate

And what sighs

Freedom

Let me cry (G. F. Handel).

From the Island of Patmos, 12 March 2026

______________________

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

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

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

The desert, the exodus and the stage: young people and Lent with Pope Leo XIV – The desert, the exodus and the stage: young people and Lent with Pope Leo XIV – The desert, the exodus and the setting: young people and Lent with Pope Leo XIV

8 March 2026/in Theologica/by Father Gabriele

Italian, English, Español

THE DESERT, THE EXODUS AND THE STAGE: YOUNG PEOPLE AND LENT WITH POPE LEO XIV

«How rare it is to find adults who mend their ways, people, companies and institutions that admit they were wrong! Today, from noi, it is precisely this possibility".

— Theologica —

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

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

«I always imagine all these kids who play a game in that immense rye field etc. etc. Thousands of kids, and there is no one else around, no big ones, I am trying to say, just me. And I'm standing on the edge of a crazy cliff. And all I have to do is catch everyone who's about to fall off the cliff, I am trying to say, if they run without looking where they are going, I have to jump out from somewhere and catch them. I shouldn't have to do anything else all day.".

This famous and poignant confession of the protagonist of Young Holden di J.D. Salinger (1), resonates, decades later, with an impressive prophetic relevance. Holden Caulfield, in his restless and disenchanted wandering, he profoundly despises the falsity of the adult world, empty conformism, what today we could define as the hypertrophy of the ephemeral. He desperately seeks authenticity, a safe place where innocence is not corrupted. Those were other times now gone? We are sure? I do not believe. The youth of today, immersed in our complex and turbulent era change, they're right on that crazy cliff, one step away from the dizzying void of the loss of meaning.

Ours are unprecedented times. The post-pandemic era has left deep scars in the souls of the new generations, scars that add to the anxieties of a society in which artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms and the new logic of the global economy risk reducing the human person to a mere data point for consumption and processing. In this scenario, as trainers, theologians and pastors, we clash with two fundamental tensions that run through the hearts of young people. The first is the absence of future and planning: the new generations struggle to imagine their own tomorrow because they are not given the coordinates to trace it; their hopes, too often, they have not been integrated into a journey of faith capable of giving breathing space to existence.

The second tension, even more radical, it is precisely the search for a profound meaning that goes beyond the ephemeral, the urgent need for something, or rather than Someone, that does not fade with changing fashions, of Amazon advertisements and various digital stores. However, at least at our personal level of pastoral and human experience, we can say with certainty that under the ashes of this crisis there is a living fire. The extraordinary experience of the Youth Jubilee of the summer 2025 it wasn't a flash in the pan, an isolated event consumed in the enthusiasm of a few days. Was, on the contrary, an authentic beginning. Many have started walking along that road. We certainly cannot guarantee for all the two million young people present, but the excitement is undeniable. Young people feel increasingly attracted to the sacred. Paradoxically, Precisely the aggressiveness of a secularization that has flattened itself on commercialization and on the hypertrophy of the ego is pushing the new generations to look elsewhere, to escape from a materialism that does not nourish the spirit. They seek the God of Jesus Christ, a God who knows how to value them, that shows them their strengths but also helps them deal with necessary self-denials.

The beginning of this Lent of 2026 it was marked by a beautiful and programmatic homily by the Holy Father Leo XIV, who made his debut as Pontiff for the first time on the penitential path. The Pope grasped this dynamic of youthful research with extraordinary clarity, offering a theological and pastoral reading that shakes us from our laziness. In his message for the Ash Mass, Pope Leo XIV states: opposing idolatry to the living God - Scripture teaches us - means daring freedom and finding it again through an exodus, a path. No longer paralyzed, rigid, secure in their positions, but gathered to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions that admit they were wrong!

"Today, from noi, it is precisely this possibility. And it is no coincidence that numerous young people, even in secularized contexts, feel the call of this day more than in the past, on Ash Wednesday. Are they, indeed, young people, to clearly understand that a more just way of living is possible and that there are responsibilities for what is wrong in the Church and in the world. It should be, so, start where you can and with whoever is there. «Now is the favorable moment, here is now the day of salvation!» (2Color 6,2). We feel, so, the missionary significance of Lent, certainly not to distract us from working on ourselves, as to open it to many restless people of good will, who seek ways to authentic renewal of life, on the horizon of the Kingdom of God and his justice" (Homily in the Holy Mass for the blessing of the ashes, 18 February 2026, text who).

Here is the key: Lent is not an intimate retreat, but an exodus. And who, more than young people, it is structurally ready to hit the road? The Pope acutely observes a dynamic that shames us adults:

«How rare it is to find adults who mend their ways, people, companies and institutions that admit they were wrong! Today, from noi, it is precisely this possibility".

The Church today finds itself in an ambivalent phase: is experiencing an undeniable decadence of its oldest institutional forms, but at the same time experiences a silent and powerful spiritual growth, a return to the essential. In this disorientation, in which as an ecclesial community we are not always able to provide the right answers, young people desperately ask for new ones “fixed points”. Fixed points necessary to decipher reality, so as not to be dragged away by the ideologies of the moment and to resist the spiritual desert.

Pope Leo XIV underlines precisely this aspect: young people. Young people are not looking for a perfect Church, but a credible Church, capable of admitting one's limits and getting back on the path. From here arises the urgency of a new mission, as recalled by the Apostle Paul cited by the Pontiff: «Now is the favorable moment, here is now the day of salvation!» (2Color 6,2). The Pope sends us as missionaries among young people, inviting us to get down from our chairs and seek new pastoral and theological ways to make people understand the beauty of being Christians. It is an invitation to make the desert flourish, offering solid proposals that overcome intimacy and embrace the drama of history.

Let's try to come up with some ways for this research by young people, with young people you become an effective pastoral action and theologically founded in the Theodrama of Christ which generates saving action and Hope. There is a precious interpretation that emerges every year, at the beginning of the penitential time, in conversations with a dear friend, who always reminds me how Lent is her favorite liturgical period. The motivation, translated into theological language, it is enlightening: Lent is the journey into which we are called to enter physically and spiritually drama of Christ, to immerse yourself in His deepest action, taller and more beautiful.

All other liturgical mysteries — Christmas, Ordinary Time, the Marian solemnities - find their center of gravity and their perfect connection only here, in the dramatic and saving action of Jesus. It is here that the thought inevitably refers us to the brilliant intuition of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In its monumental Theodramatic, the great Swiss theologian reminds us that Revelation is not a static picture to witness, but a drama in which God enters personally, compromising with history. He writes:

"It gave […] he is like a poet. From here it is also explained that he finds himself in evil and in all filth… He himself is all over the place, observe, goes on composing, in a certain sense in poetically impersonal ways, pay attention, so to speak, to everything" (2).

Man is then torn from his condition of simple spectator and is drawn to play his part in Christ, so long as:

«This entire existence can be understood – in its relation to the cross and of the cross – as a drama» (3).

This is the heart of the proposal to offer our young people. We must bring them back to live the drama of Christ, to understand that Christianity is the boldest adventure in which the infinite intertwines with the finite. We need to help them insert their action, their failures, their frustrated hopes and their disorientation in the victorious action of Jesus. When a young person understands that his pain and his aspirations have been taken on by the Son of God on the "stage" of the Cross, secularization suddenly loses its deceptive charm.

Let us then look at this Lent, led by the magisterium of Leo XIV, with unshakable optimism and profound hope. Despite the shadows of our era, the Holy Spirit continues to arouse in the hearts of the new generations a hunger and thirst for the Absolute that no human logic will ever be able to satisfy. Accompany young people in this exodus towards freedom, become their traveling companions to help them rediscover the dazzling beauty of faith in Christ, it is the most exciting challenge that the Church today is called to face. And the victory, in the drama of redemption, it has already been assured to us.

Santa Maria Novella, in Florence, 8 March 2026

NOTE

(1) (D). SALINGER Young Holden, Torino, Einaudi, 1961, cap. 22.

(2) U. FROM BALTHASAR, TheoDrammatica, Vol. I: Introduction to the drama, Jaca Book, Milan, 1980, 30.

(3) U. FROM BALTHASAR, TheoDrammatica, Vol. IV: The Action, JACA BOOK, MILANO, 1986, 368).

THE DESERT, THE EXODUS AND THE STAGE: YOUNG PEOPLE AND LENT WITH POPE LEO XIV

«How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions who admit that they have been wrong! Today, among us, this is precisely the possibility».

— Theologica —

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

«I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody’s around – nobody big, I mean – except me. And I’m standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do is catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff – I mean if they’re running and they don’t look where they’re going, I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That’s all I’d do all day».

This famous and moving confession of the protagonist of The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger (1) resonates, decades later, with astonishing prophetic relevance. Holden Caulfield, in his restless and disenchanted wandering, profoundly despises the falseness of the adult world, its empty conformism – what today we might define as the hypertrophy of the ephemeral. He desperately seeks authenticity, a safe place where innocence is not corrupted. Were those times long gone? Are we sure? I do not think so. Today’s young people, immersed in our complex and turbulent change of epoch, stand precisely on that crazy cliff, one step away from the vertiginous void of the loss of meaning.

Ours are unprecedented times. The post-pandemic era has left deep scars on the souls of the younger generations, scars that add to the anxieties of a society in which artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms and the new logics of the global economy risk reducing the human person to mere data for consumption and processing. In this scenario, as educators, theologians and pastors, we encounter two fundamental tensions that cross the hearts of the young. The first is the absence of a future and of life projects: new generations struggle to imagine their tomorrow because they are not given the coordinates to chart it; their hopes, too often, have not been integrated into a journey of faith capable of giving breath to existence.

The second tension, even more radical, is the search for a profound meaning that surpasses the ephemeral, the pressing need for something — or rather Someone — who does not vanish with changing fashions, Amazon advertisements and the countless digital stores. Yet, at least according to our own pastoral and human experience, we can affirm with certainty that beneath the ashes of this crisis there burns a living fire. The extraordinary experience of the Youth Jubilee in the summer of 2025 was not a flash in the pan, an isolated event consumed in the enthusiasm of a few days. On the contrary, it was an authentic beginning. Many have begun to walk along that road. We cannot guarantee for all the two million young people who were present, but the ferment is undeniable. Young people are increasingly attracted to the sacred. Paradoxically, precisely the aggressiveness of a secularization flattened into commercialization and the hypertrophy of the ego is pushing the new generations to look elsewhere, to flee from a materialism that does not nourish the spirit. They seek the God of Jesus Christ, a God who knows how to value them, who shows them their strengths but also helps them to face the necessary renunciations of self.

The beginning of this Lent of 2026 was marked by a beautiful and programmatic homily by the Holy Father Leo XIV, who for the first time opened the penitential journey as Pontiff. The Pope grasped with extraordinary clarity this dynamic of youthful search, offering a theological and pastoral interpretation that shakes us from our laziness. In his message for the Mass of Ash Wednesday, Pope Leo XIV states: opposing the living God to idolatry – Scripture teaches us – means daring freedom and rediscovering it through an exodus, a journey. No longer paralyzed, rigid, secure in one’s positions, but gathered in order to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions who admit that they have been wrong!

«Today, among us, this very possibility is at stake. And it is no coincidence that many young people, even in secularized contexts, feel more than in the past the appeal of this day, Ash Wednesday. Indeed, it is the young who clearly perceive that a more just way of living is possible and that there are responsibilities for what does not work in the Church and in the world. Therefore we must begin where we can and with those who are willing. “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation!” (2 Color 6:2). Let us therefore feel the missionary scope of Lent, not in order to distract ourselves from the work on ourselves, but to open it to the many restless people of good will who are seeking paths for an authentic renewal of life, in the horizon of the Kingdom of God and of His justice» (Homily for the blessing of ashes, 18 February 2026).

Here lies the turning point: Lent is not an inward-looking retreat, but an exodus. And who, more than the young, is structurally ready to set out on a journey? The Pope astutely observes a dynamic that exposes us adults:

«How rare it is to find adults who repent, people, companies and institutions who admit that they have been wrong! Today, among us, this is precisely the possibility».

Today the Church finds herself in an ambivalent phase: she experiences an undeniable decline of her most ancient institutional forms, yet at the same time she witnesses a silent and powerful spiritual growth, a return to the essential. In this disorientation, in which we as an ecclesial community are not always able to provide the right answers, young people desperately ask for new “points of reference”. Firm points necessary to decipher reality, to avoid being swept away by the ideologies of the moment and to resist the spiritual desert.

Pope Leo XIV highlights precisely this aspect: young people. Young people do not seek a perfect Church, but a credible Church, capable of admitting its limits and setting out again on the journey. From here springs the urgency of a new mission, as the Apostle Paul – quoted by the Pontiff – reminds us: «Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation!» (2 Color 6:2). The Pope sends us as missionaries among the young, inviting us to descend from our chairs and to seek new pastoral and theological paths to make people understand the beauty of being Christians. It is an invitation to make the desert blossom, offering solid proposals that go beyond intimacy and embrace the drama of history.

Let us try to devise some paths so that this search of the young, with the young, may become an effective pastoral action and theologically grounded in the Theo-drama of Christ that generates salvific action and Hope. A precious interpretative key emerges every year, at the beginning of the penitential season, in conversations with a dear friend who always reminds me that Lent is her favourite liturgical season. The reason, translated into theological language, is illuminating: Lent is the journey in which one is called to enter physically and spiritually into the drama of Christ, to immerse oneself in His deepest, highest and most beautiful action.

All the other liturgical mysteries – Christmas, Ordinary Time, the Marian solemnities – find their centre of gravity and their perfect convergence precisely here, in the dramatic and salvific action of Jesus. Here our thought inevitably turns to the brilliant intuition of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In his monumental Theo-Drama, the great Swiss theologian reminds us that Revelation is not a static picture to be observed, but a drama in which God enters personally, committing Himself to history. He writes:

«God […] is like a poet. Hence it is understandable that He finds Himself in evil and in all the filth… He Himself is everywhere on the scene, observing, continuing to compose, in a certain sense with poetically impersonal ways, attentive, so to speak, to everything» (2).

Man is thus torn from the condition of a mere spectator and drawn to play his part in Christ, since:

«This whole existence can be understood – in its relation to the Cross and from the Cross – as a drama» (3).

Here lies the heart of the proposal to offer to our young people. We must bring them back to live the drama of Christ, to understand that Christianity is the boldest adventure in which the infinite intertwines with the finite. We must help them insert their action, their failures, their frustrated hopes and their disorientation into the victorious action of Jesus. When a young person understands that his suffering and aspirations have been taken up by the Son of God on the “stage” of the Cross, secularization suddenly loses its deceptive charm.

Let us therefore look to this Lent, guided by the magisterium of Leo XIV, with unshakeable optimism and deep hope. Despite the shadows of our age, the Holy Spirit continues to awaken in the hearts of the new generations a hunger and thirst for the Absolute that no human logic will ever be able to satisfy. Accompanying young people in this exodus toward freedom, becoming their companions on the journey so that they may rediscover the dazzling beauty of faith in Christ, is the most exciting challenge that the Church of today is called to face. And the victory, in the drama of redemption, has already been assured to us.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, 8 March 2026

NOTES

(1) J.D.. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye, Boston–Toronto, Little, Brown and Company, 1951, ch. 22.

(2) Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory, Vol. I: Prolegomena, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1988, p. 30.

(3) Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama: Theological Dramatic Theory, Vol. IV: The Action, San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1994, p. 368.

THE DESERT, THE EXODUS AND THE SCENARIO: YOUNG PEOPLE AND LENT WITH POPE LEO XIV

"How rare it is to find adults who become, personas, companies and institutions that admit to having been wrong! Hoy, among us, It is precisely this possibility.".

— Theologica —

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

«I always imagine all those children playing in that huge rye field… Thousands of children and no one around, no adult, I mean, only me. And I'm standing on the edge of a terrible precipice. And all I have to do is catch everyone who's about to fall off the cliff.; if they run without looking where they are going, I have to come out from somewhere and grab them. "That's the only thing I would have to do all day.".

This famous and moving confession of the protagonist The catcher in the rye by J.D.. Salinger (1) resonates, decades later, with impressive prophetic relevance. Holden Caulfield, in his restless and disenchanted wandering, deeply despises the falsehood of the adult world, empty conformity, what today we could define as the hypertrophy of the ephemeral. Desperately seeking authenticity, a safe place where innocence is not corrupted. Were those times long gone?? Are we sure? I don't believe it. The youth of today, immersed in our complex and turbulent change of era, They find themselves precisely on that terrible precipice, one step away from the dizzying emptiness of the loss of meaning.

We live in unprecedented times. The post-pandemic era has left deep scars in the souls of the new generations, scars that add to the anxieties of a society in which artificial intelligence, predictive algorithms and the new logic of the global economy run the risk of reducing the human person to a mere piece of data for consumption and processing.. In this scenario, as trainers, theologians and pastors, we find two fundamental tensions that cross the hearts of young people. The first is the absence of future and projects: The new generations have difficulty imagining their tomorrow because they are not provided with the coordinates to plot it; your hopes, too often, have not been integrated into a path of faith capable of giving breath to existence.

The second tension, even more radical, It is the search for a deep meaning that surpasses the ephemeral, the urgent need for something – or rather Someone – that does not disappear with the change of fashions, of Amazon advertising and the various digital platforms. However, at least according to our pastoral and human experience, We can affirm with certainty that under the ashes of this crisis a live fire burns. The extraordinary experience of the Summer Youth Jubilee 2025 It was not a straw fire, an isolated event consumed in the enthusiasm of a few days. Was, on the contrary, a real beginning. Many have begun to walk down that path. We cannot guarantee it for the two million young people present, but the ferment is undeniable. Young people are increasingly attracted to the sacred. Paradoxically, precisely the aggressiveness of a secularization reduced to commercialization and hypertrophy of the ego is pushing new generations to look elsewhere, to flee from a materialism that does not feed the spirit. They seek the God of Jesus Christ, a God who knows how to value them, that shows them their strengths but also helps them face the necessary renunciations of themselves.

The beginning of this Lent 2026 was marked by a beautiful and programmatic homily by the Holy Father Leo XIV, who for the first time heads as Pontiff on the penitential path. The Pope captured with extraordinary lucidity this dynamic of youthful search, offering a theological and pastoral reading that shakes us from our laziness. In his message for Ash Wednesday Mass, Pope Leo XIV affirms: Opposing the living God against idolatry — Scripture teaches us — means daring freedom and rediscovering it through an exodus, of a path. No longer paralyzed, rigid and secure in our positions, but gathered together to move and change. How rare it is to find adults who become, personas, companies and institutions that admit to having been wrong!

«Hoy, among us, It is precisely this possibility. And it is no coincidence that many young people, even in secularized contexts, perceive the call of this day more than before, Ash Wednesday. are they, the young, who clearly understand that a more just way of living is possible and that there are responsibilities for what does not work in the Church and in the world. It is necessary, therefore, start from where you can and with those who are willing. “Now is the favorable time, “Now is the day of salvation.” (2Color 6,2). Let's feel, therefore, the missionary reach of Lent, not to distract us from working on ourselves, but to open it to so many restless and good-willed people who seek paths for an authentic renewal of life., on the horizon of the Kingdom of God and his justice" (Homily at the Holy Mass for the blessing of the ashes, 18 February 2026).

here is the key: Lent is not an intimate withdrawal, but an exodus. and who, more than the young, is structurally ready to get going? The Pope keenly observes a dynamic that reveals to us adults:

"How rare it is to find adults who become, personas, companies and institutions that admit to having been wrong! Hoy, among us, It is precisely this possibility.".

Today the Church is experiencing an ambivalent phase: experiences an undeniable decline of its oldest institutional forms, but at the same time witness a silent and powerful spiritual growth, a return to essentials. In this confusion, in which we are not always able as an ecclesial community to offer adequate responses, young people desperately ask for new “reference points”. Firm points necessary to decipher reality, to not be carried away by the ideologies of the moment and to resist the spiritual desert.

Pope Leo XIV emphasizes precisely this aspect: the young. Young people are not looking for a perfect Church, but a credible Church, able to admit its limits and get back on track. From here arises the urgency of a new mission, as the Apostle Paul recalls quoted by the Pontiff: «Now is the favorable time, "Now is the day of salvation." (2Color 6,2). The Pope sends us as missionaries among young people, inviting us to come down from our chairs and look for new pastoral and theological paths to make us understand the beauty of being Christians.. It is an invitation to make the desert bloom, offering solid proposals that overcome intimacy and embrace the drama of history.

Let's try to imagine some paths so that this search of the young, together with the young, becomes an effective pastoral action and theologically founded on the Theodrama of Christ that generates saving action and Hope. There is a precious reading key that emerges every year, at the beginning of penitential time, in conversations with a dear friend who always reminds me how Lent is her favorite liturgical season. The motivation, translated into theological language, It is illuminating: Lent is the path in which we are called to enter physically and spiritually into the drama of Christ, to immerse ourselves in its deepest action, taller and more beautiful.

All other liturgical mysteries —Christmas, Ordinary Time, the Marian solemnities — find their center of gravity and their perfect convergence precisely here, in the dramatic and saving action of Jesus. It is here that thought inevitably refers us to the brilliant intuition of Hans Urs von Balthasar. In its monumental Theodramatic, The great Swiss theologian reminds us that Revelation is not a static picture to attend, but a drama in which God personally enters, engaging with history. He writes:

"God […] is like a poet. From there it is also explained that he is found in evil and in all the filth... He himself is everywhere on the scene, observa, continue composing, in a way with poetically impersonal ways, attentive, so to speak, to everything" (2).

The man is then torn from his condition as a mere spectator and is drawn to play his own part in Christ, since:

«This entire existence can be understood – in its relationship with the cross and from the cross – as a drama» (3).

Here is the heart of the proposal that we must offer to our young people. We must bring them back to live the drama of Christ, to understand that Christianity is the most daring adventure in which the infinite is intertwined with the finite. It is necessary to help them insert their action, your failures, their frustrated hopes and their bewilderment in the victorious action of Jesus. When a young person understands that his pain and aspirations have been assumed by the Son of God on the “stage” of the Cross, secularization suddenly loses its deceptive charm.

Let's look at this Lent then, guided by the teachings of Leo XIV, with unwavering optimism and deep hope. Despite the shadows of our time, The Holy Spirit continues to stir up in the hearts of new generations a hunger and thirst for the Absolute that no human logic can ever satisfy.. Accompany young people in this exodus towards freedom, become companions on the journey to rediscover the dazzling beauty of faith in Christ, It is the most exciting challenge that the Church today is called to face. and the victory, in the drama of redemption, it has already been assured to us.

Santa Maria Novella, Florence, a 8 March 2026

NOTES

(1) J.D.. SALINGER, The catcher in the rye, Torino, Einaudi, 1961, cap. 22.

(2) H.U. FROM BALTHASAR, Theodramatic, Vol. I: Introduction to drama, Jaca Book, Milan, 1980, 30.

(3) H.U. FROM BALTHASAR, Theodramatic, Vol. IV: The action, Jaca Book, Milan, 1986, 368.

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.

______________________

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

“I cannot be silent”. An extraordinary Marco Perfetti between casual Canon Law and «Scandal in the Sun»: the deceased Augustus said that homosexuality is a sin

28 February 2026/in Theology and canon law, Theologica/by father ariel

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

We can only thank the creator of the blog I cannot be silent, whose interventions, sometimes characterized by an argumentative ease that raises more questions than certainties, they constitute a healthy exercise for us. They remind us that the task of the priest and the theologian is not to chase media coverage, but distinguish, clarify and faithfully safeguard the order of truth, to then defend it from error and pass it on.

— Theology and canon law —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

PDF print format article

This video from three years ago continues to circulate online - which I discovered and listened to only a few days ago - but which retains its relevance not due to the solidity of the theses supported, but for the persistence of the ambiguities on which they are based. It often happens that argumentative constructions erected on well-packaged misunderstandings survive longer than structurally based analyses. (see the video who).

Every time a Pontiff gives an interview, a small media ritual is now taking place: a sentence is extracted, it is isolated from the context, clarifications are lightened, it is stripped of all distinctions and relaunched as if it were a doctrinal earthquake. This time the title is already a manifesto: “Homosexuality is a sin”. Segue, with studied gravity, the subtitle: "We're going back".

First of all, it would be interesting to understand what happened. To the constant doctrine of the Church? To the Catechism promulgated in 1992 and definitively edited in 1998? To the moral tradition that distinguishes - with that conceptual finesse that today seems to have become a rare commodity, especially among certain young people who have improvised as keyboard lawyers - between people, inclination and act? The problem is not the "going back" indignation, but the ease with which one handles categories that would demand, even before passion, competence combined with solid intellectual maturity, doctrinal and legal.

When the Roman Pontiff states that homosexuality It's not a crime but it's a sin, it neither introduces anything new nor inaugurates a regression. It makes an elementary distinction between the penal order and the moral order, between crime and sin, between the external hole and the internal hole. A distinction that belongs to the very structure of Catholic thought and which precedes today's controversies by centuries. It would be enough to have a minimal familiarity with the law - the real one, not the one evoked by hearsay - before claiming to impart lessons or using it as a polemical cudgel, sometimes with effects that are more revealing than convincing.

However, if you are unaware of what "sin" means in Catholic moral theology and the judgment on the act is confused with an ontological judgment on the person, then every word becomes material for the tabloid headline and every clarification is dismissed as a reverse. Theology is not done through titles: it is done by distinguishing. And the right, for its part, demands even greater precision, especially the one structured on a Roman basis, less elastic than common law but precisely for this reason less inclined to those ambiguities that, in inexperienced hands, they risk transforming a distinction into an accusation and a clarification into a regression.

Here the real sophistry emerges, as simple as it is effective on a media level. The author states in this video: «Acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered: the acts". As if the word "acts", marked with particular emphasis, was sufficient to resolve the problem and protect against any moral evaluation of the person. The question that consequently follows is therefore elementary: who carries out the acts? Given that the acts are not entities suspended in the air, they are not atmospheric phenomena, they are not metaphysical accidents that are produced by self-combustion, It is obvious: the moral act is always a human act. It is posed by a free subject, endowed with intellect and will, of freedom and free will. If we talk about an "act"", we are necessarily talking about an action performed by someone. And that “someone” is man.

Catholic moral theology — and here it would be enough to open a serious manual, not an offhand comment on social — accurately distinguishes between inclination, personal condition and freely posed act. But distinguishing does not mean ontologically separating what is united in reality. The act belongs to the person; the person is the subject of the act. Denying this to save a formula means slipping into a moral nominalism that dissolves responsibility in the lexicon and ends up arousing a certain tenderness towards sorcerer's apprentices convinced that with a terminological device they can resolve structural issues that are evidently bigger than them. St. Augustine, before I can say «I can not remain silent» — I cannot remain silent —, from Aurelius of Tagaste as he still was, he listened to that voice that whispered to him «Great doctor» — take and read. Implied: studies. Aurelius became Augustine because he listened, lessons, he studied and learned.

First of all, it is necessary to recover the category of the moral object. According to the constant doctrine, taken up with clear clarity by Saint John Paul II in the encyclical The Splendor of Truth, the human act is morally qualified on the basis of three elements: object, purpose and circumstances. The object is not the subjective intention, nor the psychological condition of the subject; it is that towards which the act is ordered in itself. When Tradition states that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered", he is not making a judgment on the dignity of the person, but on the objective structure of the act in relation to the natural law and the specific purpose of sexuality. This means intrinsically evil: that the object of the act is such that it cannot be ordered to the good under any circumstances or intention. It's technical language, not moral slogan. Confusing the judgment on the moral object with an ontological judgment on the person means not having understood the metaphysics of the act, the grammar of Catholic morality e, sometimes, not even that right that one sometimes presumes to want to teach even to others (see video, who).

At this point it is best to read the text for what it is, not what you would like it to be. The N. 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

«Homosexuality refers to relationships between men or women who experience sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, towards people of the same sex. […] Tradition has always declared that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered". […] Under no circumstances can they be approved.".

It is not an improvised text, nor a marginal note. It is a systematic exposition that clearly distinguishes between inclination and act, between personal condition and morally qualified behavior. The Catechism does not state that the person "is disordered". It does not formulate an ontological judgment on the dignity of the subject. He talks about acts and qualifies them in relation to the natural law and the teleological structure of sexuality.

This distinction does not arise from a disciplinary whim, but from a precise anthropological framework: sexuality, in the Catholic vision, it is ordered to the complementarity between man and woman and to openness to life. If the act is structurally closed for this purpose, the moral object is judged disordered. Not because it was decided in some obscure Roman office by presumed custodians of trembling prejudices, but because the act is evaluated according to a conception of human nature that the Church considers to be inscribed in the order of creation.

One can dispute this anthropology? Certainly and legitimately. But you can't ridicule it by pretending not to understand it, in the hope that others will stop understanding it. The same goes for the inconsistency of the accusation of "going backwards". The text of the Catechism is from 1992, with typical edition the 1998. It was promulgated under Saint John Paul II and drafted under the supervision of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. We are not faced with a sudden doctrinal regression of 2023 - as claimed by those who repeatedly accuse the Supreme Pontiff of having defined homosexuality as a sin - but to the simple repetition of a constant doctrine. Talking about "backsliding" means ignoring thirty years of Magisterium or pretending that it does not exist. The problem, so, it's not that the Holy Father Francis has said anything new, but that someone has decided to discover today what the Church has never hidden.

If you then really want to understand what "sin" means in Catholic language, it would be enough to remember a formula that every believer hears - or should hear - in the liturgy: «I have sinned a lot in thoughts, words, works and omissions'. Sin is not a sociological label, it is not an identity, it is not a permanent ontological condition, but a morally qualified human act, something that is accomplished, or that you fail to do. So thoughts, words, works and omissions are four ways in which freedom is exercised. E, practicing, it can be ordered towards the good or be disordered with respect to it.

Saying that an act is a sin means to say that, in that concrete choice, man has posed an action contrary to the objective moral order. It does not mean stating that the person is reducible to his act. It does not mean denying its dignity. It does not mean transforming an existential condition into a permanent guilt. The distinction between person and act is not a modern attenuation: it is the very grammar of Catholic morality. Therefore, when the Supreme Pontiff states that homosexuality is not a crime but a sin, he is simply placing the issue in the moral sphere and not in the criminal sphere. He is recalling that the Church does not invoke civil sanctions, but formulates an ethical judgment on the acts. It's a huge difference, which anyone with only an elementary notion of law should be able to recognise.

Sin belongs to the forum of conscience and the relationship with God, crime belongs to the legal system and the public sphere. Confusing the two levels means understanding neither moral theology nor the general theory of law. And it is precisely here that the controversy shows all its fragility. Why accuse the Holy Father of "backtracking" for having reiterated that a morally disordered act - in this specific case the practice of homosexuality - is a sin, equivalent, in reality, to reproach the Church for continuing to be what it is: that means, simply, itself.

At this point a further node emerges, more delicate and more serious. Because behind the media controversy there is not only a problem of distinction between sin and crime, but an ecclesiological question: l'Idea, more or less explicit, that acceptance must necessarily translate into moral approval. And here we need to be extremely clear: the Church is mother, welcomes everyone, always and without preconditions. He did it towards the adulteress - «I don't condemn you either; go and from now on don't sin anymore " (GV 8,11) — of the publican — «O God, be merciful to me a sinner! ' (LC 18,13) — of the persecutor transformed into an apostle — «Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?» (At 9,4) — of the manifest sinner sitting at table with the Master — «It is not the healthy who need the doctor, and in sickness» (MC 2,17). He never asked for a moral certification upon entry. But hospitality has never been synonymous with legitimization of the act. Nor has mercy ever been equated with the normalization of disorder.

To the number of the Catechism mentioned above (cf.. n. 2357) the one immediately following follows with precise calls to respect and welcome homosexual people:

«A non-negligible number of men and women have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies. This inclination, objectively disordered, constitutes a test for most of them. Therefore they must be welcomed with respect, compassion, delicacy. In their regard, any sign of unfair discrimination will be avoided. Such people are called to carry out God's will in their life, e, if they are Christian, to unite the difficulties they may encounter as a result of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's cross " (CCC n. 2358).

The point, however, is precisely this: there are subjects who do not ask for hospitality - which the Church already offers - but for moral recognition of the practice, of the exercise of moral disorder. They don't ask to be welcomed as people, but that the act is removed from moral judgment and normalized. And here we are no longer in the pastoral sphere, but in the doctrinal one. If you intend, in other words, that the Church modifies its anthropology to adapt to a dominant cultural paradigm. Who rereads his own morality in the light of contemporary identity issues. May he bless what until yesterday he defined as intrinsically disordered, without changing the theological structure of reference. Now, everything can be discussed, but the Church cannot be asked to cease being itself without openly declaring it.

The topic is usually presented in a more suggestive rather than rigorous way: inclusion is evoked, we talk about rights, the specter of discrimination is raised, to the point of manipulating the objective data by openly reproaching the Holy Father who, calling homosexuality a sin, it would offer legitimacy to the Islamist regimes that prosecute it criminally. But here what is at stake is not the dignity of the person - which the Church forcefully affirms - but rather the moral qualification of the act. And confusing the two dimensions is a suggestive rhetorical device, but theologically inconsistent and juridically cumbersome.

The truth is that someone would like to let you into the Church what we might call a rainbow Trojan horse: not the person, but the entire ideological package that claims to redefine anthropological categories, moral and sacramental. The Church does not reject people, but he cannot accept that hospitality becomes the tool to undermine his own vision of human nature. The mother hugs, but it does not rewrite the moral law to make the embrace more culturally acceptable to those who would like to transform sin into a right. Whoever asks the Church to declare what it is morally good, in the light of his own theological anthropology, considers it objectively disordered, he is not asking for a pastoral act, but a doctrinal revision. And a doctrinal revision is not achieved through media pressure, nor for effective titles, nor for personal needs, nor through reckless denunciations that alter the level of confrontation.

It is necessary to thank the creator of the blog I cannot be silent, whose interventions, sometimes characterized by an argumentative ease that raises more questions than certainties, they constitute a healthy exercise for us. They remind us of the priest's task, of the theologian and the true jurist is not chasing media coverage, but distinguish, clarify and faithfully safeguard the order of truth, to then transmit it and defend it from those ideological Trojan horses that, with rainbow hues and seductive language, they try to introduce into the Church what does not belong to it, to the point of considering the Supreme Pontiff's words about sin a real scandal in the sun.

From the island of Patmos, 28 February 2026