Italian, english, español

 

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

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

— Liturgical ministry —

.

.

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

.

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

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

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

— Liturgical pastoral —

.

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

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

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

— Liturgical pastoral care —

.

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florence, 12 January 2026

.

.

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.