In short, Brunero Gherardini was a quiet Catholic theologian and philosopher of great erudition, from whom one would never have expected anything that might collide with the ecclesiastical Magisterium. His refined manners and the elegance of his presence and expression recall the calm style of Tolkien’s hobbits—completely foreign to the idea of adventure. And yet this gentle priest, who served in all sorts of minor functions at the Vatican—including acting as the postulator for the cause of canonization of Pope Pius IX—was fiercely criticized simply for expressing what he thought about the most significant debate in the Catholic Church today: the meaning of the notion of “Tradition.”
First of all, Gherardini knew perfectly well how great the stakes were concerning this crucial concept. As a scholar deeply familiar with Protestantism and its theories, he knew all the polemics regarding “Tradition.” He cannot in any way be suspected of superficiality when discussing such a subject. For example, this is what he wrote in a text from 2012:
The Church exercises a real control on Tradition: a discernment that distinguishes what is authentic from what is not. The Church does this with an instrument not wanting in ‘the charism of truth,’ provided that the temptation to absoluteness does not gain the upper hand. This instrument is the Magisterium, whose title-holders are the Pope (as successor to the Apostle Saint Peter, the first Pope on the Roman chair), and the bishops (as successors to the Twelve in the ministry or service to the Church) wherever it may exist as a local expression. It is not necessary to note the distinctions within the Magisterium (solemn, if exercised by the Pope or ecumenical Council; ordinary, if exercised by the Pope in his specific activity and by the bishops as a whole and in communion with the Pope). It is far more important to define within which limits the Magisterium is guaranteed the ‘charism of truth.’
First of all, it must be said that the Magisterium is not a super-church that can force judgements and modes of behaviour on the Church herself; nor is it a caste privileged over and above the people of God, a kind of higher power that must be obeyed without further ado. It is a service, a diakonia. But also a task to be performed, a munus, indeed the munus docendi that cannot and must not be superimposed upon the Church, from whom and through whom it was born and operates. From a subjective viewpoint, it coincides with the teaching Church (Pope and bishops united with the Pope) for the function of proposing officially the Faith. From the operational viewpoint, it is the instrument through which such function is carried out.[2]
Gherardini’s position seems perfectly balanced. From the first part of the quotation above it is clear that he supports the existence of limits, of a “rule” (that expressed by Saint Vincent of Lérins) that guarantees the manifestation of that “charism of truth” exercised by the Pope and the Apostolic College. From this it clearly follows that he does not share the position of those who claim an “automatic” exercise of this charism under any conditions. Neither the Pope nor the members of the Apostolic College are “supermans.” Furthermore, his insistence that the Magisterium is neither “a super-church” nor “a privileged caste” calls into question the exaggerations of those who support one form or another of hyper-papalism.
To make matters completely clear, Gherardini excludes the unconditional obedience that some demand for every teaching transmitted by the Pope or the Apostolic College. By implication, we can understand that we owe absolute obedience only to God—and to His servants when they teach exactly what our Lord Jesus Christ transmitted through His Gospel. Although he emphasizes the importance of the Magisterium’s unique mission, Gherardini is nevertheless aware that this mission itself must pass the test of fidelity to God—the true author of Sacred Doctrine.
What has been said so far already shows that we are dealing with an author consistently interested in the truth of the Faith. Precisely for this reason he does not accept the idea of blind submission to ecclesial authority, whose mission is to discern authentic Tradition from false traditions. After all, even this authority itself can be subjected to an act of discernment in order to verify whether the interpretations it proposes are or are not in full harmony with the teachings of the eternal God. This is precisely what Father Brunero Gherardini did in an article, followed by a book, in which he discussed the most controversial episode in the history of the contemporary Catholic Church: the consecration without pontifical mandate of the four bishops in 1988 performed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer.
Entitled “Quod et tradidi vobis – La tradizione vita e giovinezza della Chiesa” (“Quod et tradidi vobis: Tradition, Life and Youth of the Church”) and published in the theological journal Divinitas,[3] this text drew upon Monsignor Gherardini the fierce attacks mentioned at the beginning of this article. In essence, what the Monsignor wished to verify was whether the statement in Pope John Paul II’s declaration Ecclesia Dei (2 July 1988)—“The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition”[4]—was correct or not. More precisely, Gherardini set out to determine whether the Holy Father’s notion of Tradition was the correct one, in contrast with that of Archbishop Lefebvre. Without presenting his investigation in detail—something that would require a study of at least 10–15 pages—I will summarize his conclusion through two substantial quotations:
From what has just been said, one can easily deduce how the Society of St. Pius X understands Tradition. Indeed, Tradition is the exact opposite of what the Society denies and of what it is opposed to. Directly or in between the lines, the Society refuses the innovations of the Council’s documents and their postconciliar applications, and stands in opposition to the savage use that has been so casually made of them.
I will not enter into the details of the relations and difficulties between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X. I stick to the common theme of Tradition and I observe that “safeguard the faith and combat error” should be the ideal and commitment as much of the Church as of her sons. In the light of this, it is difficult for me to understand how the reproach of an “incomplete and contradictory Tradition” formulated by John Paul II in 1988, could have any real grounds. What I understand is that it has nothing to do with the ‘spirit of Assisi’.[5]
Thus, the opinion of Monsignor Gherardini, expressed elegantly, respectfully, and clearly, is that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was guided by a notion of Tradition that was neither incomplete nor contradictory. On the contrary, what the Society of Saint Pius X understands by Tradition is what the Church has always understood by this notion. Meanwhile, the “spirit of Assisi” actually represents evidence of an erroneous understanding of Tradition. For if the Church traditionally forbade common prayer between Catholic hierarchs and clergy and heretics or schismatics, how could we believe that the Pontiff who most visibly violated this prohibition—following the directives of the Second Vatican Council—would correctly understand Tradition?
By daring merely to suggest this possibility, Monsignor Gherardini immediately drew upon himself the vengeful lightning bolts of both the neo-Modernists and hyper-papalists. Yet he fulfilled his duty: he drew attention to one of the most serious problems of the Church today. And we, reading his writings and reflecting upon them, must be grateful to him both for the erudition and the quality of his theological investigations, and for the passion for Truth and Tradition that he demonstrated.
[1] A detailed and concise biography (and support) of Monsignor Gherardini was published on Rorate Caeli, by Professor Roberto de Mattei: “In defense of Mons. Brunero Gherardini” https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/02/in-defense-of-mons-brunero-gherardini.html [Accessed: 06 March 2026].
[2] Brunero Gherardini, “Chiesa-Tradizione-Magistero,” in Disputationes Theologicae 2011/12, archived translation available online here: https://web.archive.org/web/20120120192923/http:/www.centreleonardboyle.com/Tradition-Magisterium.html [Accessed: 06 March 2026].
[3] Here is the complete reference: “Quod et tradidi vobis–La tradizione vita e giovinezza della Chiesa,” in Divinitas, new series, 2010 (53/1-2-3): pp. 165-186. This study was expanded and published as a book in the same year: Mons. Brunero Gherardini, Quod et tradidi vobis. La Tradizione, vita e giovinezza della Chiesa, Casa Mariana Editrice, Frigento, 2010.
[4] The full English translation is available on the official Vatican website: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html [Accessed: 06 March 2026].
[5] Both quotations are from Msgr. Gherardini, Quod et tradidi vobis. La tradizione vita e giovinezza della Chiesa, Casa Mariana Editrice, pp. 241-244. Their translation–as well as other significant quotes–is available online here: “Msgr. Brunero Gherardini’s Judgement on the Theological Debate between Tradition and Vatican Council II:” https://fsspx.news/en/news/msgr-brunero-gherardinis-judgement-theological-debate-between-tradition-and-vatican-council-ii [Accessed: 06 March 2026].
