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

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.

«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

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.

«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

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..

«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.

.

______________________

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

.

.

.

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

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.

.

.

.

______________________

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

.

.

.

Italian, english, español

CONSCIENCE IS NOT A COUNCIL. THE FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIUS

One can remain in full communion by rejecting outright the authority of an Ecumenical Council and the subsequent Magisterium? The Catholic answer is no. Certainly not due to rigidity, but for consistency. Subjective conscience is not a Council and communion is not an interpretative option.

— Theologica —

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

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

.

In the article on the meeting between Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and the recently published Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius (see who) we have indicated what constitutes the non-negotiable point of the issue: ecclesial communion is not a feeling nor a self-declaration, but an objective fact based on the recognition of the authority of the Church.

The official letter from the Rev. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Fraternity (see full text, who), repeats exactly the issue that we highlighted in that previous article: not a simple interpretative divergence, but a claim to redefine the very criteria of communion from within. In fact, the Fraternity speaks of a "case of conscience". It would not be, so, question of disciplinary dissent, but of fidelity to Tradition against alleged conciliar deviations. And here we must immediately stop, because we are not faced with a problem of liturgical sensitivity or theological accents, but rather to a structural issue: who judges who in the Church?

Let's start by clarifying a point that does not allow for ambiguity: conscience is not a higher instance than the Magisterium. Catholic doctrine is unequivocal. The authentic Magisterium of the bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff "requires the religious obsequiousness of the will and intellect" (The light, 25). This is not a psychological option, but of an ecclesial duty that belongs to the very structure of faith. Conscience, in the Catholic tradition, it is not an autonomous source of truth, but a practical judgment that must be formed in the light of objective truth. If conscience is invoked against the Magisterium, the very order of faith is altered and the hierarchy of sources is overturned.

It's here, incidentally — without indulging in gratuitous polemical spirit, but for simple intellectual honesty - it is necessary to observe an element that cannot go unnoticed. For over four decades the environments of this Fraternity have proudly claimed to train their priests according to the most solid principles of logic, of classical scholasticism and Thomism. That's a really challenging statement. However, to the test of the texts and argumentative constructions that are proposed, it is not easy to trace that rational solidity that is proclaimed. In fact, confusing some manual formulas of decadent neo-scholasticism with Aristotelian logic, or with the great speculations of Saint Anselm of Aosta and Saint Thomas Aquinas, it means reducing a very high-level philosophical-theological tradition to a repetitive pattern. Logic is not a password, but rigor in proceeding, internal coherence, respect for the principles of non-contradiction and identity.

When conscience is erected as a superior tribunal with respect to the Magisterium e, at the same time, loyalty to scholasticism is invoked, we fall into an evident methodological contradiction, not to mention gross: we claim to defend the order of reason while undermining it at its roots. It is therefore not a question of theological schools, but of basic coherence. Saint Anselm never opposed his conscience to the authority of the Church; nor did St. Thomas ever build an alternative system to the Magisterium. Their greatness consisted precisely in harmonizing reason and faith within the ecclesial order, not in replacing it. And this is not an abstract statement. None of the great Doctors of the Church would ever have allowed themselves to oppose - even more so with aggressive tones - the ecclesiastical Authority for having clarified and established that the title of "co-redemptrix" cannot be attributed to the Virgin Mary (cf.. Mother of the Faithful People, 17). It can be argued theologically, can be explored further, it can be specified. But to oppose one's position to the legitimate authority of the Church as if it were an abuse to be corrected means crossing a limit that would horrify all the great masters of the scholastic tradition..

If today we intend to invoke Aosta and Aquinas, let it be done with the same intellectual discipline that these two Doctors demanded. Because praising logic while introducing a principle of subjective judgment that claims to evaluate an Ecumenical Council is not an act of fidelity to scholasticism, but a rhetorical operation that does not stand up to rational analysis. The Second Vatican Council states that the authentic interpretation of the Word of God "is entrusted to the living Magisterium of the Church alone" (God's word, 10). Not to the individual, not to a group, not to a Priestly Fraternity.

One further element must be observed: it is not uncommon for theologians of the so-called to be dismissed as "modernist heretics" in certain circles New Theology. It's a convenient simplification, but intellectually fragile. That there are problems in those currents is beyond question, just as there have been in the history of theology in almost all the great authors, including Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. St. Augustine, converted, baptized and already bishop, he had to work quite a bit on himself to purify residues of Manichaeism; and nobody, because of this, denies his greatness. But let's also take the names that in certain circles are presented as the most dangerous of the theologians of the twentieth century: Karl Rahner and Hans Küng. We can — and in some cases we should — criticize Rahner. One can also radically disagree, but to think that the teaching staff of the Ecône Seminary could have supported a high-level theological discussion, conducted on the terrain of classical Thomism and great scholasticism, with a mind of vast culture like that of Hans Küng, it really means giving in to an overestimation that has no basis in reality.

Incidentally, a personal memory: Brunero Gherardini, theologian certainly not suspected of being pro-modernism, defined Leonard Boff as "one of the most brilliant ecclesiologists of the twentieth century". One may not agree with his conclusions, but to deny his intellectual stature would simply be to deny the evidence. What is at stake here is not adherence to the theses of these authors but a principle of intellectual honesty. Controversy does not replace argumentation nor does label replace refutation. The proclamation of orthodoxy is not equivalent to rational solidity. If scholasticism is invoked, really practice it: with logical rigor, with distinction of floors, with respect for ecclesial authority and with that discipline of reason that does not fear confrontation, but he faces it without caricature.

When it is declared that the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium they would be breaking with Tradition and that such judgment would derive from an obligation of conscience, a leap is made that is not theological but structurally arbitrary: one attributes to one's conscience the power to review the authority that Christ established to safeguard the faith. That's the point, It's not a question of good or bad faith, but of an ecclesial order.

Placing Tradition against Magisterium it is an impossible construction, illogical. Yet the Fraternity speaks of fidelity to Tradition against the "fundamental orientations" of the Council, a contrast that is in and of itself theologically unsustainable. Tradition is not an archaeological deposit to be contrasted with the living Magisterium. It is the living transmission of the faith under the guidance of apostolic authority. The Council of Trent already taught that revelation is contained «in written books and unwritten traditions» (DS 1501), but always preserved and interpreted by the Church. Separating Tradition from the authority that safeguards it means transforming it into an ideological and illogical principle.

Theologian Joseph Ratzinger, well before becoming Pontiff, he remembered that Tradition is not an immobile block, but a living reality that grows in the understanding of faith, without breaking but also without fossilization. In particular, in the famous speech to the Roman Curia of 22 December 2005, he spoke of "hermeneutics of reform in the continuity of the single subject-Church" as opposed to a "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture" (in Speech to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005). Rejecting an Ecumenical Council as such is not an exercise in discernment; it is the denial of an act of the universal Magisterium. A hermeneutic can be discussed, but authority cannot be suspended.

The letter from the Rev. Davide Pagliarani expresses availability for a theological comparison, but at the same time contests the conditions set by the competent authority by staging a form of dialogue that denies the hierarchical principle. And here the problem is not diplomatic, it's logical again. An ecclesial dialogue takes place within a hierarchical structure. If the legitimacy of those who convene and direct the discussion is not recognised, dialogue becomes a confrontation between equals that does not exist in the constitution of the Church, which is not a federation of autonomous interpretations but an ordered body. Demanding dialogue without recognizing the authority that establishes the criteria is equivalent to asking for recognition while maintaining one's own regulatory self-sufficiency.

In the previous article we wrote that communion is not a negotiable point (see who). We reiterate it, specifying what ecclesial communion implies: the recognition of the Roman Pontiff, of the Magisterium of the bishops in communion with him and the acceptance of the ecumenical Councils as acts of the universal Magisterium. It is not enough to declare yourself Catholic, because to be one it is necessary to accept the Catholic order. It is therefore easy to say: when a group exercises the sacred ministry, train the clergy, administers the Sacraments e, at the same time, suspends membership in an Ecumenical Council and in the subsequent Magisterium, an objective tension is created that cannot be normalized with rhetorical formulas. Communion is not self-definable, nor can it be reduced to self-certification; it is mutual recognition within a hierarchical order received from Christ. And it then comes naturally to ask whether some zealous followers of Aristotelian logic, who also declare that they base their school education on it, have not sometimes confused Aristotle with the sophists. Because classical logic is based on the principle of non-contradiction; sophistication, instead, on the art of making sustainable what remains contradictory.

The most problematic core it then lies in the risk of self-authorization. When one's ecclesial identity is built on the systematic contestation of authority, you enter into a dynamic that, historically, it has always produced fractures. It's not about accusing, but to note the structure that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius. If in fact the ultimate criterion becomes: “our conscience judges the Council”, then the hierarchy of sources is totally overturned through what the Greeks called παράδοξος, from which the term paradox derives.

The Church is not founded on individual conscience, but on apostolic authority. Conscience is called to obey the truth guarded by the Church, not to replace it. The question, so, it's not whether there are questionable aspects in the post-conciliar period. The Church has always known tensions, clarifications, developments, starting from the First Council of Nicaea, which was not sufficient to draft the Symbol of Faith entirely, to the point that the subsequent First Council of Constantinople had to intervene, so that, the I believe, It is certainly not called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol by chance (see my latest work, who). The question is another: one can remain in full communion by rejecting outright the authority of an Ecumenical Council and the subsequent Magisterium? The Catholic answer is no. Certainly not due to rigidity, but for consistency. Subjective conscience is not a Council and communion is not an interpretative option.

This Fraternity it was dedicated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Saint Pius, the same Pontiff who condemned the modernists for maintaining that «the authority of the Church, whether he teaches or governs, must be submitted to the judgment of private conscience"; but like this, he warned, «the order established by God is overturned» (Feeding of Dominic's Sheep, 8 September 1907). Paradoxically, It is precisely here that the irony of the story is consummated: the most insidious modernists are not those who declare themselves as such, but those who, while condemning modernism, they assume the methodological principle, elevating one's conscience to the criterion of judgment of ecclesial authority.

From the island of Patmos, 20 February 2026

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

.

CONSCIENCE IS NOT A COUNCIL. THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X AND THE SOPHISM OF SELF-AUTHORIZATION

Can one remain in full communion while rejecting wholesale the authority of an Ecumenical Council and of the subsequent Magisterium? The Catholic answer is no. Not out of rigidity, but out of coherence. Subjective conscience is not a Council, and communion is not an interpretative option.

— Theologica —

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

In the recent article on the relationship between Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and the Society of Saint Pius X (see here), we indicated what constitutes the non-negotiable point of the matter: ecclesial communion is neither a sentiment nor a self-declaration, but an objective reality grounded in the recognition of the Church’s authority.

The official letter of Rev. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Fraternitas (full text, here), reproposes precisely the very knot we had highlighted in that previous article: not a simple interpretative divergence, but a claim to redefine from within the very criteria of communion itself. The Society speaks, in fact, of a «case of conscience». It would therefore not be a matter of disciplinary dissent, but of fidelity to Tradition against alleged conciliar deviations. And here one must pause immediately, for we are not facing a question of liturgical sensitivity or theological nuances, but a structural issue: who judges whom in the Church?

Let us begin by clarifying a point that admits of no ambiguity: conscience is not an instance superior to the Magisterium. Catholic doctrine is unequivocal. The authentic Magisterium of the bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff «requires religious submission of will and intellect» (The light, 25). This is not a psychological option, but an ecclesial duty belonging to the very structure of faith. Conscience, in the Catholic tradition, is not an autonomous source of truth, but a practical judgment that must be formed in the light of objective truth. If conscience is invoked against the Magisterium, the very order of faith is altered and the hierarchy of sources overturned.

And here, by way of aside — without indulging in gratuitous polemics, but out of simple intellectual honesty — one must observe an element that cannot pass unnoticed. For more than four decades the circles of this Society have proudly claimed to form their priests according to the most solid principles of logic, classical scholasticism, and Thomism. It is a demanding claim indeed. Yet, when tested against the texts and argumentative constructions proposed, it is not easy to discern the rational solidity that is proclaimed. To confuse certain manualistic formulas of a decadent neo-scholasticism with Aristotelian logic, or with the great speculative syntheses of Saint Anselm of Aosta and Saint Thomas Aquinas, is to reduce a philosophical-theological tradition of the highest order to a repetitive schema. Logic is not a slogan, but rigor in reasoning, internal coherence, and respect for the principles of non-contradiction and identity.

When conscience is erected as a tribunal superior to the Magisterium and, at the same time, fidelity to scholasticism is invoked, one falls into an evident — not to say gross — methodological contradiction: one claims to defend the order of reason while undermining it at its root. This is therefore not a matter of theological schools, but of elementary coherence. Saint Anselm never opposed his own conscience to the authority of the Church; nor did Saint Thomas ever construct a system alternative to the Magisterium. Their greatness consisted precisely in harmonizing reason and faith within the ecclesial order, not in substituting themselves for it. Nor is this an abstract affirmation. None of the great Doctors of the Church would ever have presumed to oppose — all the more so with aggressive tones — ecclesiastical Authority for having clarified and established that the title «co-redemptrix» cannot be attributed to the Virgin Mary (cf. Mother of the Faithful People, 17). One may discuss theologically, one may deepen and refine; but to oppose one’s own position to the legitimate authority of the Church as though correcting an abuse is to cross a boundary that would have appalled all the great masters of the scholastic tradition.

If today one wishes to invoke the Aostan and the Angelic Doctor, let it be done with the same intellectual discipline those two Doctors demanded. For to extol logic while introducing a subjective principle of judgment that claims to evaluate an Ecumenical Council is not an act of fidelity to scholasticism, but a rhetorical operation that does not withstand rational analysis. The Second Vatican Council affirms that the authentic interpretation of the Word of God «has been entrusted to the living Magisterium of the Church alone» (God's word, 10). Not to the individual, not to a group, not to a Priestly Society.

And again, by way of aside — but in earnest — another element must be noted. It is not uncommon in certain circles to dismiss the theologians of the so-called Nouvelle Théologie as «modernist heretics». Such simplification is convenient, but intellectually fragile. That problematic elements may be found in those currents is beyond dispute, just as they have been present throughout the history of theology in nearly all the great authors, including the Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Saint Augustine, converted, baptized, and already a bishop, had to labor considerably upon himself to purge residual Manichaean tendencies; yet no one, for that reason, denies his greatness. Let us take, however, the names that in certain environments are presented as the most dangerous among twentieth-century theologians: Karl Rahner and Hans Küng. One may — and in certain cases must — criticize Rahner. One may also dissent radically; but to imagine that the faculty of the Seminary of Ecône could have sustained a high-level theological confrontation, conducted on the terrain of classical Thomism and the great scholastic tradition, with a mind of the vast culture of Hans Küng, is truly to indulge in an overestimation that finds no support in reality.

By way of personal recollection: Brunero Gherardini, a theologian certainly not suspect of modernist leanings, described Leonard Boff as «one of the most brilliant ecclesiologists of the twentieth century». One may disagree with his conclusions, but to deny his intellectual stature would simply be to deny the evidence. What is at stake here is not adherence to the theses of these authors, but a principle of intellectual honesty. Polemic does not replace argument, nor does labeling replace refutation. The proclamation of orthodoxy does not equate to rational solidity. If scholasticism is invoked, let it be practiced truly: with logical rigor, distinction of levels, respect for ecclesial authority, and that discipline of reason which does not fear confrontation, but engages it without caricature.

When it is declared that the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium stand in rupture with Tradition, and that such judgment derives from an obligation of conscience, a leap is made that is not theological but structurally arbitrary: one attributes to one’s own conscience the power to sit in judgment over the authority that Christ constituted to safeguard the faith. This is the point. It is not a matter of good or bad faith, but of ecclesial order.

To set Tradition against the Magisterium is an impossible and illogical construction. Yet the Society speaks of fidelity to Tradition against the “fundamental orientations” of the Council — a contrast that is in itself and of itself theologically untenable. Tradition is not an archaeological deposit to be set against the living Magisterium. It is the living transmission of the faith under the guidance of apostolic authority. The Council of Trent already taught that revelation is contained «in written books and unwritten traditions» (DS 1501), yet always safeguarded and interpreted by the Church. To separate Tradition from the authority that guards it is to transform it into an ideological and illogical principle.

The theologian Joseph Ratzinger, long before becoming Pontiff, recalled that Tradition is not an immobile block, but a living reality that grows in the understanding of the faith, without rupture yet without fossilization. In his well-known address to the Roman Curia of 22 December 2005, he spoke of an «hermeneutic of reform in continuity of the one subject-Church» as opposed to an «hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture» (Address to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005). To reject an Ecumenical Council as such is not an exercise of discernment; it is the denial of an act of the universal Magisterium. One may debate an hermeneutic, but one may not suspend authority.

The letter of Rev. Davide Pagliarani expresses willingness for theological dialogue, yet at the same time contests the conditions set by the competent authority, thereby staging a form of dialogue that denies the hierarchical principle. And here the problem is not diplomatic; it is once again logical. Ecclesial dialogue takes place within a hierarchical structure. If the legitimacy of those who convoke and guide the discussion is not recognized, dialogue becomes a confrontation among equals — something that does not exist in the constitution of the Church, which is not a federation of autonomous interpretations but an ordered body. To demand dialogue without recognizing the authority that establishes its criteria amounts to seeking recognition while maintaining one’s own normative self-sufficiency.

In the previous article we wrote that communion is not a negotiable point (see here). We reiterate this, specifying that ecclesial communion implies: recognition of the Roman Pontiff, of the Magisterium of the bishops in communion with him, and acceptance of the Ecumenical Councils as acts of the universal Magisterium. It is not enough to declare oneself Catholic; to be so, one must accept the Catholic order. It follows, then, that when a group exercises sacred ministry, forms clergy, administers the sacraments and, at the same time, suspends adherence to an Ecumenical Council and to the subsequent Magisterium, an objective tension arises that cannot be normalized by rhetorical formulas. Communion is not self-definable, nor can it be reduced to self-certification; it is reciprocal recognition within a hierarchical order received from Christ. One is then led to wonder whether certain zealous cultivators of Aristotelian logic, who declare that they ground their formation upon it, may at times have confused Aristotle with the sophists. For classical logic rests upon the principle of non-contradiction; sophistry, by contrast, upon the art of rendering sustainable what remains contradictory.

The most problematic nucleus lies in the risk of self-authorization. When one’s ecclesial identity is constructed upon systematic contestation of authority, one enters into a dynamic that historically has always produced fractures. This is not an accusation, but an observation of structure — the structure the Society of Saint Pius X has given itself. If the ultimate criterion becomes: “our conscience judges the Council,” then the hierarchy of sources is entirely overturned through what the Greeks called παράδοξος, from which the term “paradox” derives.

The Church is not founded upon individual conscience, but upon apostolic authority. Conscience is called to obey the truth safeguarded by the Church, not to replace it. The issue, therefore, is not whether there may be debatable aspects in the post-conciliar period. The Church has always known tensions, clarifications, developments — beginning with the First Council of Nicaea, which was not sufficient to formulate the Symbol of Faith in its entirety, so that the subsequent First Council of Constantinople had to intervene; hence the Creed is not by chance called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol (see my latest work, here). The issue is another: can one remain in full communion while rejecting wholesale the authority of an Ecumenical Council and of the subsequent Magisterium? The Catholic answer is no. Not out of rigidity, but out of coherence. Subjective conscience is not a Council, and communion is not an interpretative option.

This Society was dedicated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Saint Pius X, the same Pontiff who condemned the modernists for maintaining that «the authority of the Church, whether teaching or governing, must be subjected to the judgment of private conscience»; yet thus, he warned, «the order established by God is overthrown» (Feeding of Dominic's Sheep, 8 September 1907). Paradoxically, it is precisely here that the irony of history unfolds: the most insidious modernists are not those who declare themselves such, but those who, while condemning modernism, unconsciously adopt its principle, elevating their own conscience to a criterion for judging ecclesial authority.

From the Island of Patmos, 20 February 2026

.

.

CONSCIENCE IS NOT A COUNCIL. THE FRATERNITY OF SAINT PIO X AND THE SOPHISM OF SELF-AUTHORIZATION

Can we remain in full communion by rejecting en bloc the authority of an ecumenical Council and the subsequent Magisterium?? The Catholic answer is no.. Not because of rigidity, but for consistency. Subjective conscience is not a Council and communion is not an interpretive option.

— Theologica—

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

In the recent article about the relationship between Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius (see here) We indicate what constitutes the non-negotiable point of the issue: ecclesial communion is neither a feeling nor a self-declaration, but an objective fact founded on the recognition of the authority of the Church.

The official letter of the Rev. Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Fraternitas (full text, here), exactly rethinks the knot that we had pointed out in that previous article: not a simple interpretative divergence, but the attempt to redefine from within the very criteria of communion. The Brotherhood speaks, indeed, of "case of conscience". would not be treated, therefore, of a disciplinary dissent, but of fidelity to Tradition in the face of alleged conciliar deviations. And here it is necessary to stop immediately, because we are not facing a problem of liturgical sensitivity or theological nuances, but before a structural issue: Who judges who in the Church?

Let's start by clarifying a point that does not allow ambiguity.: conscience is not a superior authority to the Magisterium. Catholic doctrine is unequivocal. The authentic Magisterium of the bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff "requires the religious gift of will and understanding" (The light, 25). This is not a psychological choice, but of an ecclesial duty that belongs to the very structure of faith. The conscience, in the Catholic tradition, is not an autonomous source of truth, but a practical judgment that must be formed in the light of objective truth. If conscience is invoked against the Magisterium, the very order of faith is altered and the hierarchy of sources is inverted.

and here, by the way — without incurring a gratuitous polemical spirit, but for simple intellectual honesty — it is worth pointing out an element that cannot go unnoticed. For more than four decades, the circles of this Fraternitas have proudly claimed to train their priests according to the most solid principles of logic., of classical scholasticism and Thomism. It is a truly demanding statement.. However, to the testing of the texts and the argumentative constructions that are proposed, It is not easy to find that rational solidity that is proclaimed. Confusing certain manualistic formulas of a decadent neo-scholasticism with Aristotelian logic, or with the great speculations of Saint Anselm of Aosta and Saint Thomas Aquinas, It means reducing a very high level philosophical-theological tradition to a repetitive scheme. Logic is not a slogan, but rigor in the procedure, internal coherence and respect for the principles of non-contradiction and identity.

When conscience is erected as a court superior to the Magisterium and, at the same time, fidelity to scholasticism is invoked, falls into an obvious methodological contradiction, not to say rude: it is intended to defend the order of reason while undermining it at its roots. It is not about, therefore, of theological schools, but of basic coherence. Saint Anselm never opposed his own conscience to the authority of the Church; Not even Saint Thomas ever built an alternative system to the Magisterium. Its greatness consisted precisely in harmonizing reason and faith within the ecclesial order, not to replace it. And this is not an abstract statement.. None of the great Doctors of the Church would have allowed themselves to oppose – much less in aggressive tones – the ecclesiastical Authority for having clarified and established that the title of “co-redeemer” cannot be attributed to the Virgin Mary. (cf. Mother of the Faithful People, 17). It can be discussed theologically, can be deepened, can be specified. But to oppose one's own position to the legitimate authority of the Church as if it were an abuse that to correct means crossing a limit that would have scandalized all the great teachers of the scholastic tradition..

If today we intend to invoke Aostano and Aquinas, that it be done with the same intellectual discipline that these two Doctors demanded. Because praising logic while introducing a principle of subjective judgment that seeks to evaluate an ecumenical Council is not an act of fidelity to scholasticism., but a rhetorical operation that does not resist rational analysis. The Second Vatican Council affirms that the authentic interpretation of the Word of God "has been entrusted solely to the living Magisterium of the Church" (God's word, 10). Not to the individual, not to a group, not to a Priestly Fraternity.

Y, also in passing — but seriously — it is worth observing another element. It is not uncommon for the theologians of the so-called Nouvelle Théologie to be dismissed as "modernist heretics" in certain circles.. It's a convenient simplification., but intellectually fragile. That there are problems in these currents is indisputable, just as there have been in the history of theology in almost all the great authors, including Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Saint Augustine, converted, baptized and already bishop, he had to work a lot on himself to purify residues of Manichaeism; and nobody, for it, denies his greatness. Let's take, however, the names that in certain environments are presented as the most dangerous among the theologians of the 20th century: Karl Rahner and Hans Küng. One can — and in certain cases one should — criticize Rahner. One can even radically disagree; but to think that the teaching staff of the Ecône Seminary would have been able to sustain a high-level theological confrontation, developed in the field of classical Thomism and great scholasticism, with a mind of vast culture like that of Hans Küng, It means giving in to an overvaluation that finds no support in reality..

A personal memory, by the way: Brunero Gherardini, theologian certainly not suspected of philo-modernism, He defined Leonard Boff as "one of the most brilliant ecclesiologists of the 20th century". You can not share your conclusions, but to deny his intellectual stature would simply be to deny the evidence. Adherence to the theses of these authors is not at stake here., but a principle of intellectual honesty. Controversy does not replace argumentation nor does label replace refutation.. The proclamation of orthodoxy does not equate to rational solidity. If scholasticism is invoked, that it be truly practiced: with logical rigor, with distinction of plans, with respect for ecclesial authority and with that discipline of reason that does not fear debate, but he faces it without caricatures.

When it is declared that the Council and the post-conciliar Magisterium would be in breach with Tradition and that such a judgment would derive from an obligation of conscience, a leap is made that is not theological but structurally arbitrary: the power to judge the authority that Christ has established to guard the faith is attributed to one's own conscience. This is the point. It's not about good or bad faith, but of ecclesial order.

Poner Tradition and Magisterium is an impossible and illogical construction. Y, however, The Fraternity speaks of fidelity to Tradition in the face of the "fundamental guidelines" of the Council, a contrast in itself theologically unsustainable. Tradition is not an archaeological deposit that should be opposed to the living Magisterium. It is the living transmission of faith under the guidance of apostolic authority. Ya el Concilio de Trento taught that the revelation is contained "in written books and unwritten traditions" (DS 1501), but always guarded and interpreted by the Church. Separating Tradition from the authority that it safeguards means transforming it into an ideological and illogical principle..

Theologist Joseph Ratzinger, long before becoming Pontiff, remembered that Tradition is not an immobile block, but a living reality that grows in the understanding of faith, without rupture but also without fossilization. In his famous speech to the Roman Curia of the 22 December 2005 spoke of "hermeneutics of reform in the continuity of the single subject-Church" versus a "hermeneutics of discontinuity and rupture" (Speech at the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005). Rejecting an ecumenical Council as such is not an exercise in discernment; It is a denial of an act of the universal Magisterium. A hermeneutics can be discussed, but authority cannot be suspended.

The letter of the Rev. Davide Pagliarani expresses availability for a theological dialogue, but at the same time challenges the conditions established by the competent authority, staging a form of dialogue that denies the hierarchical principle. And here the problem is not diplomatic; It's logical again.. Ecclesial dialogue takes place within a hierarchical structure. If the legitimacy of the person who convenes and guides the debate is not recognized, Dialogue becomes a confrontation between equals that does not exist in the constitution of the Church, which is not a federation of autonomous interpretations, but an ordered body. Pretending dialogue without recognizing the authority that establishes its criteria is equivalent to demanding recognition while maintaining one's own normative self-sufficiency..

In the previous article we write that communion is not a negotiable point (see here). We reiterate it, specifying that ecclesial communion implies: the recognition of the Roman Pontiff, of the Magisterium of the bishops in communion with him and the acceptance of the ecumenical Councils as acts of the universal Magisterium. It is not enough to declare yourself Catholic, because to be so it is necessary to accept the Catholic order. Is, therefore, obvious: when a group exercises the sacred ministry, trains the clergy, administers the sacraments and, at the same time, suspends accession to an ecumenical Council and the subsequent Magisterium, an objective tension is created that cannot be normalized through rhetorical formulas. Communion is not self-defining, nor can it be reduced to self-certification; it is reciprocal recognition within a hierarchical order received from Christ. And then the question spontaneously arises as to whether some zealous cultivators of Aristotelian logic, who declare that they founded their scholastic formation on it, They will not have ever confused Aristotle with the sophists. Because classical logic is based on the principle of non-contradiction; the sophistry, instead, in the art of making sustainable what remains contradictory.

The most problematic core lies in the risk of self-authorization. When one's own ecclesial identity is built on the systematic contestation of authority, you enter into a dynamic that, historically, has always produced fractures. It's not about accusing, but to verify the structure that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius. If the last criterion becomes: "our conscience judges the Council", then the hierarchy of the sources is completely inverted through what the Greeks called παράδοξος, Where does the term “paradox” come from?.

The Church is not founded on individual conscience, but about apostolic authority. The conscience is called to obey the truth guarded by the Church, not to replace it. The question, therefore, It is not whether there are debatable aspects in the post-council. The Church has always known tensions, clarifications and developments, beginning with the First Council of Nicaea, which was not enough to completely write the Symbol of Faith, to the point that the later First Council of Constantinople had to intervene; hence the Creed is called, not by chance, With the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol (see my latest work, here). The question is another: Can we remain in full communion by rejecting en bloc the authority of an ecumenical Council and the subsequent Magisterium?? The Catholic answer is no.. Not because of rigidity, but for consistency. Subjective conscience is not a Council and communion is not an interpretive option.

This Fraternity was dedicated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to Saint Pius, the same Pontiff who condemned the modernists for maintaining that "the authority of the Church, whether teaching or governing, "must be submitted to the judgment of private conscience"; But in this way — he warned — “the order established by God is disrupted.” (Feeding of Dominic's Sheep, 8 September of 1907). Paradoxically, It is precisely here where the irony of history is consummated: The most insidious modernists are not those who declare themselves as such., but who, even condemning modernism, they assume their methodological principle, raising his own conscience at the discretion of the ecclesial authority.

From the Island of Patmos, 20 February 2026

.

.

Father Ariel's latest books

book store WHO

______________________

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

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

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos