I am a theologian guardian of tradition in line with the thought of the theologian Andrea Grillo, intellectual honesty dictates it to me

— Liturgical ministry —


I dream-aesthetic traditionalists they are basically pathological patients for whom a newborn could be taken and its throat slaughtered in the baptismal font during the holy rite of initiation into the Christian life, But, if Holy Baptism is celebrated in Latin with the ancient rite, you can rest assured that they will get over it, or in any case they will always find justifications, however absurd and irrational, always.



PDF print format article



A year and a half ago the Apostolic Letter created discontent and bewilderment Guardians of tradition date in the form of motu proprio by the Supreme Pontiff Francis the 16 July 2021 about the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970, which in fact creates understandable and appropriate restrictions on the Motu Proprio given the 7 July 2007 by the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI on the use of the Roman Missal of St. Pius V before the reform outlined by Holy Council the 4 December 1963.

On this issue the sacramental theologian Andrea Grillo intervened with one of his articles by 24 February 2022 in which you ask: It is legitimate to create stable anti-council Indian reservations? Article that I accepted and judged balanced and also far-sighted.


the sacramental theologian Andrea Grillo


On the so-called and improperly called traditionalists I'd rather fly over, however, it is necessary to give an idea of ​​theirs status psychological with some examples aimed at clarifying what we are talking about, but above all how irrational and emotional their approach to the sacred liturgy is. So let's try to formulate precise questions: the members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate had perhaps not generated, within their young and confused religious congregation, some forms of real juridical chaos? Perhaps these are far from sporadic results, but unfortunately many, the recorded cases of young religious who left their austere convents to end up under psychiatric treatment, after being not so badly trained, but really deformed on a human and spiritual level? Empirical evidence shows, have they not proved, with unprecedented arrogance, to be a congregation born yesterday, recognized by the Holy See just in 1990, that despite not having had time to train even a generation of theologians, not to mention a theological school, they set about promoting international conferences against the top exponents of the New Theology, which can be criticized, but by the Dominicans or the Franciscans, who over the course of eight centuries have given birth to important currents of theological thought and donated to the Church theological schools and various great Saints and Doctors of the Church? With their somewhat confused Father Serafino Lanzetta, little more than a kid at the time, perhaps they did not set about hammering the nail of Vatican II, a purely pastoral council, therefore in fact a non-dogmatic council and as such a sort of little council second class? With their very arrogant Mariologist Father Alessandro Apollonio, perhaps they did not begin to give the Marian dogma of Mary the co-redeemer as already declared, calling the Blessed Virgin with this title and even instituting her cult and devotion, unaware of how much the very concept of "co-redemptrix" has always created enormous problems in the field of dogmatics and above all of Christology? Maybe they haven't had, sweet at the bottom, problems related to financial and asset management? Forget it, because we could take these facts one by one and still others to follow, all tested and documented, without being able to move i in the slightest dream-aesthetic traditionalists convinced that the poor Franciscans of the Immaculate were persecuted because they celebrated Mass with the the old order and because they criticized the German theologian Karl Rahner.

I dream-aesthetic traditionalists they are basically pathological patients for whom a newborn could be taken and its throat slaughtered in the baptismal font during the holy rite of initiation into the Christian life, But, if Holy Baptism is celebrated in Latin with the ancient rite, you can rest assured that they will get over it, or in any case they will always find justifications, however absurd and irrational, always.

Andrea Grillo belongs to what some usually define “progressive area” O “very progressive”. These are definitions that I have never liked, because for me there are only theologians who discuss and that as one and only “label” they have that of Catholics. I met Andrea Grillo in past years, he is a man of profound legal culture, theological and sacramental. When asked if I share some of his theses and positions, I would answer no, but that he is a scholar of the highest level, this is indubitable. Add to this that he is also amiable as a person and very talented as a teacher, always helpful and considerate with graduate school students. If certain dream-aesthetic traditionalists whose arrogance has always matched their ignorance, began to discuss the theological and pastoral structure of the Missal of Saint Pius V, not to mention its history and evolution through the ages, with a liturgist like that - whose stature and encyclopaedic culture, I repeat, must first of all be recognized - I think that after scarce three minutes not even a feather would be left of them.

I have always tried to be an intellectually honest scholar, therefore I have never had any difficulty in affirming that Hans Küng had natural gifts and speculative abilities far superior to those of Joseph Ratzinger, because the historical facts and the originality of his writings prove it. Otherwise, those of Joseph Ratzinger, they are written by a very cultured theologian as well as an excellent teacher able to expound in a masterly way, but the originality of the thought is, however, quite another thing. My confrere and friend Brunero Gherardini (1925-2017), which was the quintessence of the strictest and most rigorous orthodoxy, had no difficulty admitting appreciatively that Leonard Boff was one of the most gifted and talented ecclesiologists of the last 50 year old, or that the most beautiful commentary and exegesis of the Letter to the Romans remains that of the Protestant Karl Barth, currently unsurpassed. But there's more: perhaps, if we possessed the works and writings - which unfortunately we have not received - we could even discover that the heresiarch Pelagius was more gifted, on a theological and speculative level, than was Augustine bishop of Hippo, later Saint and Doctor of the Church. Unfortunately we don't have the works of Pelagius and we know only the answers and refutations of Augustine about him. But if a titan like Augustine moved against Pelagius, this already shows that on the other side, as heretical as we want, there was another titan and a tough nut to crack to fight against. And we want to talk about the heresiarch Arius, who with his theories on the Incarnation of the Word managed to convince almost all Catholics that Christ was a divine creature created by God? His theories, very well structured and compelling, forced the Church Fathers to gather at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, in the year 325, to dogmatically define that Christ was not a creature but "begotten not created of the same substance as the Father" (born not created like the Father). Far from being eradicated, the Arian heresy continued to spread for the following centuries in entire regions of Europe. The Germanic peoples and beyond, they were evangelized by Arian bishops and presbyters in the early 4th century. Only in the 6th century were the Germanic peoples re-converted by missionaries, after two centuries of Arianism, which nevertheless continued to leave its mark.

This kind of theology and the history of theology some poor people dream-aesthetic traditionalists locked up in four rancid formulas of decadent neo-scholasticism - which is not even a distant relative of classical scholasticism - they don't even know where he lives, because like all mediocre people they have to invent enemies, wallow between millenarianisms and doomsday prophecies, imminent magical triumphs of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pretending to know better than anyone, but above all by trying to destroy those they decide to elevate to the rank of supreme enemies, because the image of the enemy is a fundamental premise of their very being and existence. Typical characteristic of these people is not to fight ideas but people in an attempt to destroy them in any way and by any means, according to the consolidated style of the worst pseudo-religious fundamentalisms.

On the columns of our magazine Father Ivano Liguori and I were more and more severe with certain priests showman, but not only: always and in practice we have called their bishops to accountability accusing them in no uncertain terms of lack of vigilance. However, we cannot say that the Church has been indifferent and silent from this point of view, because both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have spoken and written against liturgical abuses, In the 2004 instruction was promulgated Sacramentum which is a very clear and precise document which many have screwed over, at the head of all the Neocatechumenal and various Charismatic groups.

Well before Guardians of tradition I pleaded defiantly that it would be good to revoke that motu proprio by Benedict XVI on Mass of old order [see my video conference] given certain outcomes that are anything but minority or isolated. And for years, not for days or months, but for years I have been telling in vain to certain groups and faithful to stop with their amenities like: "Ah, this is the only Mass, the valid Mass, the usual Mass, not that Protestant Mass of Paul VI invented by that Freemason Annibale Bugnini!». And how many times have I repeated to them that they could not and should not use the Missale old order to attack an entire church council, or a necessary liturgical reform already started before the council by the Supreme Pontiff Pius XII and so on to follow. Equally to no avail I repeated for years that if they continued that way, sooner or later that motu proprio would have been revoked. Forget it, this is the answer: "No, It is not possible, because the Mass of all time is irrevocable, untouchable!». It's still, uselessly, for years and years I told them that that motu proprio it was not an irrevocable dogmatic definition and it has always been said in Rome that «a Pope boils and a Pope boils».

Lost time, wasted words, narrow-minded heads who have always refused to understand, going on for years, stubbornly and stubbornly, to make use of a missal to create two parties within the Church, using as an element of division what constitutes the heart of the unit: l'Eucharist.

In my humble opinion, with all the displeasure for those who have not had these attitudes, I believe that the Supreme Pontiff was right to promulgate that motu proprio restrictive which in fact it is Keeper of traditions, about which we can say in a legitimate critical tone, but above all in the light of the principles of prudence, balance and above all aequitas, that his action was undoubtedly right, but equally undoubtedly partial. As far as I'm concerned, it may be fine for me to tighten my belt on the use of the Missal of St. Pius V, seen the way some do not, but many have used it, having seen certain unhappy and full-blown outcomes, But, being intellectually honest, I cannot fail to wonder and to ask: and the Neocatechumenal groups that have invaded and are in control of almost half of the parishes of the Diocese of Rome, that impudently, insolent and arrogant they rent halls in the hotels of the capital or in the religious houses of the city, to make of the sacred liturgy what they want and how they want directly under the windows of the Holy Father, maybe someone said something to him, or, if anything, intends to tell him something shortly? By chance, a document was issued in which it is forbidden to celebrate Masses without the authorization of the Ecclesiastical Authority outside consecrated spaces, which neither in Rome nor in the rest of Italy is lacking, allowing them to continue to gather in the halls of hotels or obliging religious houses, with the priest “rented” who carries out the orders of laymen kneeling at the worst bizarre directives of Kiko Argüello? The Supreme Pontiff, who recently put his hand to his own Diocese with a radical reform, has he ever noticed that the Vicariate has been in the hands of the Neocatechumens for some decades, thanks to the unfortunate protection granted to them first by Cardinal Camillo Ruini and then by Cardinal Agostino Vallini? The Supreme Pontiff, he is aware of what the Neocatechumenals have done in ostracism and wickedness, to those priests they consider hostile to their doctrinal and liturgical eccentricities, using the armed wing of their loyal associates such as the immovable chancellor of the Vicariate of Rome Giuseppe Tonello, able to do good and bad weather, or to decide how and how to cut off the heads of certain priests hostile to the "Church" of Mr. Kiko Argüello? Since none of this has been done so far, that makes me read Guardians of tradition as a measure made necessary by the situation that has arisen, but which at the same time once again manifests the partiality and imbalances of this Augustus Pontificate, in which we rightly care for those who have had the open indecency to use the Missale old order to attack an entire Church Council and liturgical reform, without, however, caring in the slightest for those who in a no less insolent and arrogant way make the liturgy what they want and how they want directly in the Diocese of Rome under the windows of the Supreme Pontiff.

I repeat: the analyzes of Prof. Andrea Grillo, badge, cultured and qualified sacramental theologian, on the level of doctrine, of the liturgy, ecclesiology and pastoral care are absolutely flawless. Thesis that as far as I'm concerned I approve and share, moved by that intellectual honesty which animates and sustains faith, unlike those who seek to change their faith, you want with the Missal of St. Pius V you want with the liturgical extravaganzas of the Neocatechumenals and certain fringes of the Charismatics, in the world of subjective emotions. And a Supreme Pontiff, to be truly right when doing right things, it must above all be above emotions and warring parties. And if the case imposes the need to beat him, in that case it would be good to club both right and left equally.

I don't think I have to justify myself for anything, in any case it should be noted that I am a great admirer of the Venerable Missal of St. Pius V, of which I think I know in depth that theological structure and that pastoral system completely unknown to them exotic priests thirty-year-olds who got up one morning and improvised so-called “Tridentine”, unaware first of all that a “Tridentine rite” it just never existed, it's just a totally inappropriate way of saying. Above all unaware that in that Missal even gestures and silences have a profound mystagogical and spiritual meaning, completely ignored by them to leave room for forms of exotic aestheticism that are almost always tragically ends in themselves. I dream-aesthetic traditionalists who mention the bubble inappropriately At the first time with which the Holy Pontiff Pius V promulgated in 1570 that Missal defining it unreformable with a lot of let him be, they demonstrate that they do not know the style in which certain pontifical documents were usually composed, which had their own precise rhetorical style, but above all they ignore that that Missal was revised and reformed a total of eighteen times starting from 1614, when the Supreme Pontiff Urban VIII published a first edition updated and improved to just 44 years after its promulgation, with substantial and radical corrections. The last important reforms were made in the twentieth century by the Holy Pontiff Pius X, by the Venerable Pope Pius XII and by the Holy Pontiff John XXIII in the space of less than fifty years. I abhor liturgical abuses, but for that very reason, in my humble capacity as a poor dogmatic theologian and historian of dogma, I am perfectly aware that much worse liturgical abuses took place with that Venerable Missal than those we are witnessing today with the Missal promulgated in 1969 and entered into force in 1970. I am a lover of the Latin language and when I can I always use the typical edition Latin of the Missal of Paul VI, the one in Italian always and de rigueur when I celebrate for the assemblies of the faithful. I resent certain blind and obtuse anachronisms typical of people who actually call for the exhumation of a corpse, however holy, namely the Missal of Saint Pius V, no longer feasible today both at the pastoral level and at the level of evangelization. The basic problem of these people is that by taking a Missal as an object of dispute and struggle, they tend to vent the discomforts of an immature or badly lived Christianity, rejecting the theological and eschatological element that the Church begins its unceasing journey with the disciples along the Emmaus Road together with the Lord [cf.. LC 24, 13-35], while some would have liked to paralyze it, like Peter, statically on Mount Tabor, before the transfiguration of Christ [cf.. MC 9, 2-10]. The Church is by its very nature constitutive The development of the people, anyone who tries to change it to The regression of the people claims unusual right, but above all unacceptable, to betray the mission that Christ entrusted to her, in an endless journey, always leaning forward, until his return at the end of time.

the Island of Patmos, 27 February 2023


The problem of the aequitas and the ancient game of the punishable and the unpunishable, of the stickable and the caressable …




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

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

n Agency. 59 From Rome
Iban code:
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:

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:

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

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos




9 replies
  1. Jonathan
    Jonathan says:

    This article links very well to that of Father Ariel himself on Summorum Pontificum. I have enough experience with VO and NO to agree that reform reform is needed. Where the VO is updated with the provisions of the Sacrosanctum Concilium, without creative leaps forward in the name of “spirit of the Council”. Perhaps I am one of the few faithful who have read and re-read all the documents of the Council and have repeatedly found themselves disoriented to see that this spirit does not transpire from any of them.
    As far as I'm concerned, I have been attending an FSSP parish in Rome for two years and I have found the desire to pray again, go to Mass and receive the sacraments. Not just for outward appearances (tabernacle in the center, priests yes “they camouflage” the altar, silence first, during and after the celebration and above all during the consecration, well-groomed liturgical chants, faithful all on their knees during the consecration), but above all for the faith and pastoral care of the priests of the Fraternity. However, I would gladly go back to Mass NO if it were celebrated in Latin (the latest adaptation of the CEI is from urticaria) and following the Missal of Saint Paul VI, without adding or taking anything away. Because this is the way the Church commands us to celebrate. But until you decide to use the same heavy hand on the abusers of NO (also condemned by Desiderio wished you), guaranteeing us a Mass ” The norm” anytime anywhere, I will stay where I am. At least as long as it's legal. We'll see.

    • father ariel
      father ariel says:

      Comment that should be printed, framed and posted in the sacristies between the photo of the Supreme Pontiff and the photo of the diocesan Bishop, with the obligation for certain priests to read it before the celebration of Holy Mass.

  2. Stefano Delle Chiaie
    Stefano Delle Chiaie says:

    According to Andrea Grillo BXVI was wrong to want to guarantee an Indian reservation to traditionalists because, as anti-conciliar, they constitute an anti-church; which is why the Pope did well with TC to withdraw SP, for the benefit of a true unity of the Church.
    Well done Grillo! It's a pity that

    Point 1) “anti-conciliar” Catholics do not exist in nature, it is an optical illusion determined by the reaction of common Catholic sentiment to post-conciliar conciliarism; it is only due to the difficulty of discriminating the real Council from its overflowing post-conciliar mystification that many end up assimilating the two things together by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Subjectively a slight fault. The real anti-conciliars, on the other hand, are precisely the conciliarists who knowingly usurped the real council – that of documents – to replace it with a virtual anti-council thanks to the diabolical deception of the "spirit of the Council" (see the historic speech of BXVI to the Curia del 2005 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39E-AK9oP4I, and that of greeting to the clergy of Rome of 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-l3Eq_vIps).

    Point 2) not the traditionalists, but this schismatic anti-church under the leadership of supreme intelligences like Hans Kung has denied the real Council, producing a de facto schism; and now that she has also succeeded in electing herself the Pope, attempts to force the resisters to make an open schism to definitively sanction the discontinuity with the pre-conciliar Church (I find it significant that when asked by a journalist whether he did not fear a traditionalist schism in the Church, the Pope candidly answered with a disconcerting “no, there have been many in the Church, there is always schismatic action in the Church”). Point 3) BXVI's intent was not to protect traditionalists, but to reaffirm a principle of the Council, that of novelty in continuity; the coexistence of the ordinary and extraordinary rites was therefore conceived as a pioneering measure for that reform of the reform that he so much invoked and necessary to mend divisions in the Church, how spoiled by the wise and intelligent like Grillo who are now singing victory for its definitive cover-up.

    Poor us!

    • father ariel
      father ariel says:

      The Supreme Pontiff Celestine V in a few months of his pontificate managed to do a lot of damage, some of which was even big.
      Yet he was a holy man of God, so much so that he was canonized and today he is venerated as a Holy Pontiff.

      The resigned Celestino V was succeeded by Cardinal Benedetto Caetani with the name of Bonifacio VIII, then changed between the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century into an absurd and false black legend.
      Boniface VIII was a very capable and decisive man of government who first of all remedied the damage done by his predecessor, who was also a holy man of God.

      The sanctity of life and theological wisdom of Benedict XVI remain unquestioned as are his evident and at times serious incapacities of government which have caused considerable damage, given that the Church is not governed with fine speeches.

      There would be many things we could say, But I think it suffices to say that Mr. Enzo Bianchi, forge of immense heresies, he was invited to various synods by Benedict XVI, while with Francesco he was first defenestrated and then silenced.

      No one can judge and establish whether we are dealing with a sort of re-edition in a different form and key of the story of Celestine V and Boniface VIII. One thing remains undoubted: the Supreme Pontiff Francis is a very decisive man of government, authoritative if necessary, if we want even ruthless. The results of his government will be judged by history, at the moment it is not possible to give a positive or negative opinion. One thing is certain, if Benedict XVI had gone on for any longer, within a short time “aesthetic ceremonies” they would have brought him out on the gestational chair with the tiara on his head and the papal flabellums on his right and left, because that was the road that had been taken with a man who was made to do as they pleased. It is no coincidence that some were convincing him to restore the use of the tiara which they say was erroneously abolished by Paul VI.

      Let them try to get the Supreme Pontiff Francis to do what they want, to then see what the wind is blowing.

      I can only tell you one thing, because this is proven by history: better a Pope who governs the Church badly than a Pope who does not govern it and lets himself be governed by the whims of others, because the damage of the second will always and in any case be much more serious than what the first can do, regardless of the fact that this second may also be a holy man of God and a theologian of profound and rare competence.

      The Church is not a university chair from which lessons of splendid and sound theology are imparted.

  3. Ales
    Ales says:

    Caro Father

    I will not enter into the discussion on the Liturgy in Latin, but I make two simple observations.

    Even if Mr. Grillo is right, as you say too, Dad, we know very well that that article is instrumental because the author sets himself a goal that is not in harmony with his thinking, father ariel. Cricket proposes “Mass with new eyes”, emptying it of the sense of the sacred, putting the supremacy of “people of God” above that of the celebrating priest, a Holy Mass as an encounter, festive lunch and dinner, in practice with a distant God, not to mention Our Lord who would only be a go-between, an example to imitate. the, I call her there “Mixed with bread and Nutella”, in a joke.

    In second place, it is not clear whether Pope Francis' idea of ​​government is one of decentralization “Rome” with more emphasis on local autonomy (the synod of synods), or, on the contrary, gain control of Rome, regaining his decision-making power (for example on the local liturgical rite). Insoma, more Rome or less Rome?

  4. Ruben Perez Rivas
    Ruben Perez Rivas says:

    Dear father Ariel,
    I appreciate your article, and I'm inclined to agree with her, at least on the substance of what you wrote.
    However, I don't entirely agree with the "warlike" emphasis with which he puts ink on his position (that is the position that, I repeat, I also share).
    The reason for my opinion is that the question dealt with in the article refers to a disciplinary provision of the Apostolic See. That means, nel nodo centrale sia del MP Summorum Pontificum che del MP Traditionis Custodes, as in the recent rescriptum of Pope Francis, it is not an infallible question, the magisterial authority of the Roman Pontiff is not involved, but it is a pastoral or government measure (that is, liturgical pastoral care), in which the Pope is fallible, and with which you may or may not agree (always with the utmost respect and obedience to what was decided by the Holy Father).
    Therefore, and I say that with the utmost respect, I don't think it's necessary to emphasize one's opinion so much, in such a confrontational and combative way with the perfectly reasonable contrary opinion.

  5. orenzo
    orenzo says:

    What leaves me somewhat perplexed, and with me more than a few liturgists, is that who, with the authority that belongs to him, ha scritto la Lettera Apostolica Custodians of Tradition, then, although you can change it, does not take into consideration what is established by “The Ceremonial of Bishops” about the “Robes and insignia” and from “The Mass presided over by the Bishop without him celebrating the Eucharist”, which instead is concelebrated.

  6. Alessio
    Alessio says:

    father ariel,

    I was 11 years along the way and I can say that at the second scrutiny they fleeced the brothers down to the last penny, collecting sums well above the 50,000. Of these, a third they send in person to the bishop (while they preach that charity should be done anonymously). Thus the bishop receives a tidy sum, as a gift he offers a Mass to the Community and everyone is happy.

    Unfortunately Judas also sold Jesus for 30 to everything, and it still happens today.

    After 11 years of heresies I needed a cleansing inside my soul and I began to attend the Latin mass. I have been participating there for a short time, and I can say that unfortunately in these places there aren't large sums of money, the people who participate are not wealthy and then there are no catechists who pluck people like chickens.

    This means that without money bribes cannot be paid to bishops, and then who cares about the Latin mass if no one eats up?

    A greeting.

Comments are closed.