Transfiguration Profaned: Modernism’s Kitchen Mysticism vs. Catholic Dogma

The Transfiguration Profaned: From Dogmatic Mystery to Naturalistic “Kitchen Mysticism”

A commentary published by VaticanNews on February 27, 2026, under the byline of Jenny Kraska, presents a reflection on the Gospel of the Transfiguration for the Second Sunday of Lent. The article, titled “Mountaintop Moments & Monastery Kitchens,” centers on a thematic dichotomy: the extraordinary, fleeting “mountaintop” experience of divine glory versus the ordinary, hidden “kitchen” of daily life. It uses the 17th-century lay brother Brother Lawrence as its primary lens, praising his “Practice of the Presence of God” and noting that “Pope Leo XIV has given high praise to Brother Lawrence’s little book.” The core message is that the glory of the Transfiguration is to be carried into the mundane, with the command “listen to him” reinterpreted as an call for humble attentiveness in daily tasks. The article completely omits the Transfiguration’s role as a definitive, public revelation of Christ’s divine identity and its function in confirming Apostolic authority, instead reducing it to a template for personal, interior spirituality. This analysis exposes the article’s profound theological bankruptcy, its embodiment of the Modernist errors condemned by St. Pius X, and its service to the neo-church’s project of replacing supernatural Catholic dogma with a naturalistic, human-centered mysticism.

I. Factual Deconstruction: The Omission of Dogma and Authority

The article’s foundational error is its deliberate silence on the dogmatic and juridical reality of the Transfiguration. The event is not presented as the public, historical revelation that definitively establishes Jesus Christ as the true Son of God, a truth solemnly defined by the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) and fundamental to Catholic faith. Instead, it is framed as a subjective “experience” to be “carried” into one’s “ordinary valleys.”

We long for mountaintop experiences – clarity in prayer, beauty in the liturgy, a felt sense of God’s nearness. Yet most of our lives are lived not in brilliant light, but in the ordinary valleys of work, family, and hidden sacrifice.

This language (“felt sense,” “ordinary valleys”) is pure Modernist subjectivism. It ignores that the Transfiguration was an objective, historical event witnessed by multiple, reliable witnesses (Peter, James, John) where the human nature of Christ was visibly transformed by His divine nature, and where the Voice of God the Father publicly declared, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5). This hearing (audite illum) is not an invitation to vague interior attentiveness but a command to obey His public teaching and authority, which He subsequently entrusted to the Apostles and their successors (Matt. 28:18-20; John 20:21). The article’s interpretation strips the event of its juridical and doctrinal weight, reducing “listening” to a private, psychological stance.

Furthermore, the article’s focus on Brother Lawrence, while referencing an authentically Catholic spiritual writer, is weaponized to promote an immanentist worldview. Brother Lawrence’s “practice of the presence of God” is presented not as a means of sanctifying ordinary actions within the life of the Catholic Church and its sacramental system, but as a standalone technique for finding God anywhere, independent of the Church’s hierarchical structure and sacraments. This aligns perfectly with the errors of “indifferentism” condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Propositions 15-17), which suggest that holiness and God’s presence can be equally accessed outside the one true Church. The article’s silence on the necessity of the Church, the sacraments (especially Penance and the Eucharist), and submission to legitimate ecclesiastical authority for salvation is a damning omission that reveals its naturalistic foundation.

II. Linguistic Analysis: The Vocabulary of Naturalism and Subjectivism

The article’s language is a telltale sign of its theological decay. Key terms are consistently naturalized and psychologized:

“Mountaintop moments” / “ordinary valleys”: This binary is a humanistic construct, not a Catholic one. Catholic theology speaks of states of life (contemplative vs. active) and supernatural grace, not of geographic metaphors for spiritual experience. The valley is not a place of lesser grace; it is where the Cross is lived out. The article’s framework implies the mountain is “better,” a subtle denigration of the suffering and obscurity of the Passion, which is the true path of discipleship (Mark 8:34).
“Felt sense of God’s nearness”: This is pure sentimentality. Catholic doctrine teaches that God is truly present, substantially, in the Eucharist and by grace in the just soul. A “felt sense” is a subjective emotion, not an objective reality. The article prioritizes feeling over being, a hallmark of Modernist “experience-based” religion condemned by Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu (Propositions 24, 26: “Faith… is ultimately based on a sum of probabilities,” “Dogmas… are binding in action rather than as principles of belief”).
“Practice of the presence of God”: While a legitimate phrase in Catholic spirituality, here it is divorced from its context. Authentic Catholic “presence of God” is rooted in the Real Presence in the Eucharist and the indwelling of the Holy Trinity through sanctifying grace. The article’s usage suggests a general, pantheistic immanence, where God is “present” in all things like a diffuse atmosphere, not a personal, covenantal God who dwells specifically in the souls of the baptized and in the sacraments.
“Listen to him” as “attentiveness in every circumstance”: This is a radical reinterpretation. The Father’s command at the Transfiguration is a singular, authoritative declaration of Christ’s unique Sonship and the consequent duty of obedience to His teaching and His Church. To reduce it to general mindfulness is to empty it of its dogmatic and juridical content. It turns a command of faith and morals into a technique for personal development.

The tone is one of gentle, therapeutic reassurance—”the wisdom of Brother Lawrence becomes luminous”—which is the linguistic uniform of the post-conciliar “pastoral” approach that shies away from harsh, dogmatic truth for fear of “scaring” people. This is the very “softness” Pius X condemned as the “enemy within” in his motu proprio E supremi (1903), calling for a return to militant, uncompromising Catholic doctrine.

III. Theological Confrontation: The Unchanging Faith vs. the Article’s Errors

Every theme in the article stands condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium.

A. The Nature of Revelation and the Role of the Church

The article presents revelation as a series of personal “moments” to be integrated into life. The Catholic Faith, defined at Vatican Council I (1870), teaches that Revelation is a public, historical, and objective deposit of truth (depositum fidei) committed to the teaching Church for authentic interpretation and defense. The article’s subjectivism directly contradicts Dei Filius (Vatican I), which states that faith is an assent of the intellect to truth proposed by the Church’s infallible Magisterium. By omitting any mention of the Church’s teaching authority, the article promotes the error of “private judgment” and the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” that defines the conciliar revolution.

B. The Reign of Christ the King and the Social Order

The article’s “kitchen mysticism” is a perfect expression of the secularist error Pius XI condemned in Quas Primas. The Pope wrote that the plague of his time was the removal of “Jesus Christ and His most holy law from… public life.” The article, by confining Christ’s presence and “listening” to the private sphere of “kitchen” and “office,” explicitly accepts the secularist partition of life. It violates the principle Pius XI so clearly stated: Christ’s reign “encompasses all men—as our predecessor… Leo XIII… says: ‘His reign… extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians… the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.'” The article’s framework is a capitulation to the “laicism” Pius XI identified as the source of society’s ruin. It offers no call for the public recognition of Christ’s Kingship in law, education, and governance, as demanded by Quas Primas and the Syllabus of Errors (which condemns the separation of Church and State, Proposition 55).

C. The Nature of Holiness and the Means of Grace

The article’s equation of “holiness” with “attentiveness in daily duty” is a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian reduction. Catholic theology, defined by the Council of Trent (Session VI, Chapter 6), teaches that justification is a supernatural process initiated by God’s grace, received through the sacraments, and requiring cooperation with that grace. Brother Lawrence’s spirituality, while valid, presupposes this sacramental life of grace. The article, by not mentioning the sacraments—especially the Eucharist as the “source and summit” (Lumen Gentium, 1964, but rooted in pre-conciliar theology)—and by not mentioning the necessity of being in a state of grace through Confession, presents a works-based, naturalistic path to holiness. This is the “vague mysticism” and denial of the necessity of sacramental grace that St. Pius X condemned in Lamentabili (Proposition 41: “The sacraments… merely serve to remind man of the presence of the ever-benevolent Creator”).

D. The Error of “Development of Doctrine” in Action

The article’s reinterpretation of the Transfiguration is a textbook case of the “evolution of dogmas” condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus, Prop. 21, 22) and Pius X (Pascendi Dominici gregis, 1907). It takes a defined, historical event with clear dogmatic content (Christ’s divine Sonship, the authority of His voice, the witness of the Apostles) and “develops” it into a metaphor for personal growth and mindfulness. This is not the organic development of understanding the same revealed truth (as in the doctrine of the Trinity), but a corruption that substitutes a new, Modernist meaning. The article demonstrates the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pius X’s phrase for Modernism) by turning a supernatural, objective revelation into a natural, subjective experience.

IV. Symptomatic Analysis: The Conciliar Revolution’s Fruit

This article is not an anomaly; it is the logical fruit of the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) that has occupied the Vatican since the death of Pope Pius XII. Its errors are systemic:

The Hermeneutic of Continuity in Action: The article attempts to link Brother Lawrence (pre-1958) with “Pope Leo XIV” (the antipope Robert Prevost) and his praise, creating a false lineage of “spirituality” that ignores the radical rupture in doctrine and authority. This is the core method of the conciliar sect: use pre-conciliar saints and texts to validate post-conciliar errors.
The Cult of the Human and the “Autonomy of the Terrestrial”: The focus on “kitchen,” “office,” “family” is the “cult of man” Pius XI warned of in Quadragesimo Anno (1931). It makes human activity and natural relationships the primary locus of “glory,” with God as a vague background presence. This is the precise opposite of the Catholic principle: recta ratio servituti—right reason is for service to God. All human activity must be ordered to the supernatural end, not “sanctified” by a vague interior attitude.
The Silence on the Sacrifice of the Mass and the State of Grace: The gravest omission. The Transfiguration prefigures the Resurrection, which is made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The article says nothing of the Mass as the true, propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary, the primary means by which we “listen to Him” and participate in His redemptive act. It also says nothing of the necessity of being in a state of sanctifying grace (through sacramental Confession) to “see” Christ, either in the Eucharist or in the neighbor. This silence is the hallmark of the neo-church: it has replaced the supernatural economy of sin, grace, and sacrifice with a naturalistic moralism and “presence.”
The “Praise” of an Antipope: The article’s citation of “Pope Leo XIV” (Robert Prevost) is a fundamental error. According to the unchanging doctrine of the Church, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice; Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code). The “Pope” who praises a spirituality that omits the Church’s authority and the sacraments is himself a heretic and an usurper. His praise is not a seal of approval but a sign of the apostasy. The article’s uncritical acceptance of his authority proves its adherence to the conciliar sect’s false ecclesiology.

Conclusion: A Call to Reject the Naturalism of the Neo-Church

The VaticanNews commentary on the Transfiguration is a masterpiece of Modernist reinterpretation. It takes a dogmatic cornerstone of the Faith—the public, historical revelation of Christ’s divine Sonship and the consequent command to obey His teaching through the Church—and reduces it to a therapeutic principle for managing the “stress” of daily life. It replaces the objective, hierarchical, sacramental Church with a subjective, egalitarian “presence” available to all in their “kitchens.” It silences the Father’s definitive declaration and the Church’s authoritative voice, replacing them with the whisper of individual conscience and the “wisdom” of a 17th-century lay brother stripped of his Catholic context.

This is not a “reflection” but an act of theological violence. It is the “dumbing down” of the Faith into a palatable, naturalistic spirituality for the “distracted and restless” age the antipope Leo XIV represents. The true Catholic, adhering to the integral Faith before the revolution of 1958, must reject this profanation utterly. The Transfiguration commands us to “hear” Christ—not in a vague interior monologue, but in the definitive, unchangeable teachings of His Church, proclaimed by her legitimate pastors, and made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The “kitchen” is sanctified not by “attentiveness” alone, but by being offered up in union with the one Sacrifice of Christ, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in the state of grace, and in submission to the sole authority of the true Church. The article’s error is not minor; it is the very error of Modernism, which “under the pretense of piety, tries to drain the supernatural out of faith” (St. Pius X, Pascendi).

Source:
Sunday Gospel Reflection: Mountaintop Moments & Monastery Kitchens (vaticannews.va)
Date: 27.02.2026