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 —

.

.

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).

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 —

.

.

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 —

.

.

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

.

______________________

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