How serious is the current crisis in the Vatican and the Church and what does it portend for the future?
To obtain a clearer idea, I spoke with Father Nicola Bux, a respected theologian and former consultor to both the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints.
In this interview, Father Bux sees some hope in a world that he sees as moving in a more conservative direction, but he questions whether bishops and cardinals are capable of leading the Church along the same path and therefore elect a suitable successor to Pope Francis.
The mood in the College of Cardinals is, however, changing, Father Bux says. “Half of the cardinal electors and many bishops are convinced we cannot go on this way and change is needed to put the Church in order if she is to remain Catholic — there is turmoil in the College of Cardinals, as there is among the priests,” he explains, and adds: “The ecclesial body is waking up from a state of anesthesia.”
Father Bux, what is the premise for your considerations on the crisis in the Church and how we could emerge out of it?
In order to be able to concretely discuss the prospects, predictions, hypotheses of a change of pontificate, many are convinced it is necessary to have understood who influenced Benedict XVI’s resignation and why. [Archbishop Georg] Gänswein asserts that it was unencumbered by influences, but he may not even have wanted to show those influences, and who influenced the appointment of the successor. The forces at play after ten years are the same and are stronger. Therefore, scenario building should identify and understand who would be “in play” in the next conclave and what game they would claim to play, with what goals, with what forces, alliances, and means, etc.
Basically, who would take the floor to support a Catholic candidate or a “progressive” candidate, taking into account also that the institutions that until recently knew and could influence such an event today (Opus Dei, Communion and Liberation) have been downsized? In practice, without knowing how a pope will be “elected” tomorrow, it will be almost impossible to make realistic scenarios.
In light of this, what is your first consideration?
Certainly, world power is going “to the right.” A crisis like the one going on in the West requires only conservative powers of the world to solve them. The progressive part of the left only knows how to create the problems. One might therefore be able to foresee a form of restoration, even in the supreme moral authority, the pope, on which the new Western power will want to lean. This is certainly a good thing, although one cannot imagine how a new pontiff will be able to rely on the current hierarchy and curia, or on all those who have roles in Church structures (think only of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) that will not be easily changed any time soon.
Would a conservative world power want, or know, how to provoke such a restoration?
This is my second consideration. Would they know how to do this, or would they want to maintain the process of secularization of the Church? Because restoration, as I understand it, would still mean creating a competitive arena of confrontation on moral, ethical themes, in the financial, economic field. I do not believe that a conservative return in the U.S. (with the Republicans) will result in a downsizing of the power of Silicon Valley or the major investment funds. Returning a little more to the right does not necessarily mean converting technocrats.
Why do you say this?
As a consultant to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, I was very struck in 2017 when I read Pope Francis’ apostolic letter, in which he created a new category of saints and blesseds, and secularizing the calendar. They would be, today, those who offer their lives (oblatio vitae) as martyrs of charity. But not the Christian charity of martyrs who bear witness to the faith (odium fidei). One example was the canonization of Archbishop Romero (martyr of charity) assassinated for his political choices not for matters of faith. Some theologians believe that this new category of oblatio vitae will allow the sanctification of political or economic ideologies considered exemplary, perhaps inspired by Gnostic circles. Why should a new conservative but still technocratic environment deprive itself of this opportunity?
Does that coincide with the Church’s general drift towards promoting more secular ideas than exclusively Catholic ones?
Yes, this brings me on to my third consideration. In the last decade, the Church has ceased to primarily defend traditional values (life, family, birth, heroic virtues…) but rather ecology, sustainable development, migration, etc., creating a system of umbilical relations with those advocating these values. This has changed the structure of international foreign relations. It will not be child’s play for the new pontificate to deal with this.
I try to imagine the appointment of a restorative pope, hoped for by so many, someone like Pius IX, for instance, perhaps writing a Syllabus of Errors for the 21st century [Pius’ 1864 Syllabus condemned a total of 80 errors or heresies, articulating Catholic Church teaching on a number of philosophical and political questions]. What would become of him, a new Porta Pia? But also I imagine a Paul VI writing a document like Humanae vitae for today. Or a Benedict XVI writing the second part (which was omitted) of Caritas in Veritatewhere he tackles biotechnology.
Have we perhaps reached a point of no return?
A non-religious friend of mine, but in the Courtyard of the Gentiles, speaking to me a few months ago about the successor to Francis, said he saw it as a challenge between St. Michael the Archangel confronting the challenger who had just said “non serviam,” answering him “quis ut Deus? [Who is like God – the literal meaning of the name Michael]” The friend concluded by telling me: but if the Church is God’s work, is this not the time for Him to intervene?
From Cardinal Müller’s recent book In Good Faith: Religion in the 21st Century, the answer is apparent: the Church is riddled with apostasy, the precursor to schism: from the German synodical way, “lacking a coherent ecclesiological vision,” to the appointment of bishops who make puzzling statements because they often do not even have a theological bachelor’s degree, there is a disdain for theology and philosophy, not least because on more than one occasion the pope has directed very harsh words toward academia and professors of theology, especially toward those considered too anchored in tradition (coining for them the term “indietrists” and “indietrism”). Thus, for example in the liturgical sphere, they took him for a ride, “some professors of the Ateneo Sant’Anselmo” who “manipulated” the data of the survey of bishops about the implementation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum.
And yet Pope Francis claimed to have had recourse to Pope Benedict to feel secure. How come in this case did he not consult him?
Frankly, rather than lending faith to Francis’ statements, it is better to stick to the facts. In his most recent interview, Francis said that he loves criticism from those who speak to his face. This is not true. In fact, he does not respond to those who speak to him, even politely, as seen with the Dubia of the four cardinals, to which, in any case, sooner or later, he or his successor will have to respond. Thus, Müller can rightly observe, “anyone who raises constructive criticism is accused of making opposition, of being an enemy of Francis.”
I do not believe that Bergoglio is swayed by “fraudulent” advisers, but by “courtiers” who pander to him in what he thinks and likes to hear. Notice how, as quickly as he becomes infatuated with a bishop and appoints him a cardinal [i.e. Cardinal Giorgio Marengo whom he first met only a few days before announcing his elevation to the Sacred College], he becomes disenchanted with him and casts him out [i.e. Cardinal Angelo Becciu whom he elevated to cardinal and two years later dismissed him because of unproven allegations of corruption]. Not to mention former associates of Francis, such as Enzo Bianchi, who came out with broken bones.
So what can be done to resolve this crisis?
Certainly half of the cardinal electors and many bishops are convinced we cannot go on this way and change is needed to put the Church in order if she is to remain Catholic. There is turmoil in the College of Cardinals, as there is among the priests: the ecclesial body is waking up from a state of anaesthesia.
But as Joseph Ratzinger affirmed, the crisis of the Church is contingent upon the collapse of the liturgy, and the remedy lies in the “hermeneutics of continuity and reform of the one subject-Church,” I would add it is in the “reform of liturgical reform” he initiated. The funeral of Benedict XVI highlighted that he, in his thinking, nurtured in the Church a reality of the grassroots, despite the “laboratories of utopias” in it. It takes time, and this reality, like a karstic river, will re-emerge. Impostures are doomed to failure.
They have been talking about hermeneutic of continuity but never were they able to identifty what links the traditional Catholic Church with this Vatican II crap.
The crisis in the Vatican began in earnest with the overthrow of a rightfully elected pope in 1958, of which the White Smoke 1958 site gives substantial evidence. All indicators point to the reality that we’ve been in the long prophesied Great Apostasy for a while now, what Our Lady of La Salette foretold as the “eclipse” of the Church. The gates of hell will never prevail but they will come close. St Athanasius said, “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a mere handful, they are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
As the cowardly College of Cardinals has been silent for the last decade, Pope Francis has been unopposed in his attack on the True Christ. To further mute any possibility of a prophetic voice – and to help him create what he calls “a different church” – Pope Francis has deliberately loaded the College of Cardinals with with aggressive homosexualist Marxist eco-witches. To renew the True Church in the image and likeness of Christ will take nothing less than a miracle.
Garabandal’s Warning, I pray is soon.
The miracle being a conservative pope to replace Bergoglio and then dumping all heretical Cardinals, Bishops and Priests like James Martin.
If the collapse of the liturgy could cause this much a crisis in the Church, there are a lot more problems that need to be addressed in the Church besides the liturgy. The role that the Holy Spirit needs to have in the life of individual Catholics is almost completely ignored. The role of the Holy Spirit was the most important part of Christianity in the New Testament Church. This is the revival that is needed.
The Holy Spirit operates through His Most Beloved Spouse, Mary. Sr Lucia in her 1957 interview with Fr Augustin Fuentes said: “God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, being the last remedies…there will be no others.” (Dec. 26, 1957; last public words before being “disappeared”)
The sacrament associated with receiving the Holy Spirit is Baptism. Thereafter, we interact with the Holy Spirit within us; and with Him, Jesus and the Father. We yield to the Godhead within us in order to have the fruit of the Spirit which includes inner peace and strength from God.
Le sue considerazioni,che dimostrano che lei è un protestante di genere evangelico, sono irrilevanti alla discussione. Se invece lei fosse cattolico, vista la sua dichiarazione in merito alla Santa Eucsrestia, lei è un eretico, per cui sono peggio che irrilevanti, sono degne del vescovo Cramer !
Liturgy is how Catholics pray each Sunday. For many its the only prayer they do each week. Sunday worship was paramount in NT Church. And how we pray is how we believe. Most Catholics hold a Protestant view of the faith. We have to fix the Liturgy.
We must abandon the disastrous Novus Ordo. Forever!
No. Embrace both. The TLM must return with vigor, and be readily accessible as much as feasible. “Either/or” will only lose more of the faithful. Absolutism either way has proven to be disastrous.
Men often credit the “Holy Spirit” for their works…………including Men who purposely inserted confusing, ambiguous and contradictory statements into Vatican II Documents. May have been a spirit but I doubt it was Holy.
The Holy Ghost is a rhetorical excuse and justification used far too often these days by charlatans, heretics and apostates. The Bergoglianistas and those who rabbit on about the delights of Vatican II are moved by the Devil not the Holy Ghost. The choice for the Cardinals and clergy as a whole is do you want to have an orthodox Catholic Church founded on Christ or a Judas Church?
My concern about this is Francis’ saying that HE will be receiving a “new revelation” from the Holy Spirit. The Church had taught for 2000 years that there can be no new revelation. I’m sure this revelation will be from Satan, and further the destruction of the True Church. It’s also an offense to the Holy Spirit to make a claim like this, which Jesus said is unforgivable.
God, send your Angel to purify Mother Church and purge out the demons and their spirits far from her.
Benedict was a modernist as all the post concillar popes were!!! We have a counterfit church in Rome!! The true Catholic Church is in eclipse. We all must realize the errors of vatican 2!! Vigano got it right!! Only God can. fix this diabolical mess!
Benedict may have been a Modernist in some respects, but, like JPII, he held the line on morals. Benedict certainly did not hold the subjectivism that is at the heart of Modernism. Benedict showed in countless ways that he loved us–Catholics. Bergoglio shows, daily, his seething hatred for Catholicism and Catholics.
Boils my blood when I hear JPII called “the Great” and rumors of Benedict becoming a “doctor” of the Church. It was JPII’s lack of interest in vetting Bishops and Cardinals that paved the road to this earthly hell and Benedict’s decision to “flee in fear of the wolves” is the reason we’re suffering through this Bergoglian nightmare. I do agree- Compared to Francis, both were infinitely better when it came to faith & morals. But, my! how weak these “shepherds” were when it came to the strong, manly task of protecting their flock! They failed miserably.
Weak, effeminate men are truly destructive!
GK, thanks for telling us how you really feel. Regarding St JP II, you should check out the writings of retired Bishop of Corpus Christi. No friend of Pope Francis, he will set you straight on JP II and Paul the VI. Former B17 tail gunner, he calls a spade a spade.
He’ll remind you that you will be held accountable for every word spoken, and that you better know first hand what your talking about. I’m sure you will agree….
If you want to see how unsaintly John XXIII, Paul VI, and JPII were, see Fr Luigi Villa’s research on them. He was told in the mid-1950s by Padre Pio that he had a mission to expose ecclesiastical Freemasonry, then was given a special Papal Mandate by Pius XII to do so. Fr Villa survived 7 assassination attempts in carrying out that mission. The reason those 3 were “canonized” was to “canonize” Vatican II.
God is sending Russia to purify His Church.
Do you understand?
No. I think that given the atrocities of the Russians in Ukraine, to attribute the actions of God to Russia is just short of blasphemy. Your gnostic knowledge of the mind of God is a sign of great hubris.
You should take a closer look at the Church approved messages revealed to Sister Marie St Pierre of Tours. You will be shocked to find that God is using Communism as a scourge. Pius the IX approved them and Leo XIII got them spread for a short period. The remedy is the Holy Face Devotion.
The remedy was told to us by Sr Lucia of Fatima (the real one) in 1957:
“[Our Lady of Fatima] told me, as well as my cousins, that God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, being the last remedies, that is to say, they are the final ones, means that there will be no others.” (Sr Lucia; Conversation with Fr Augustin Fuentes, December 26, 1957
And devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary includes making reparation for the sins committed against Her:
“There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.” (Our Lady of Fatima, 1929; Examples: Protestants and even many Catholic disbelieving in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, Divine Motherhood; Queenship; not honoring Her as God wills)
And what of the atrocities of the Ukrainian Nazi’s against the Russians? We’re they supposed to endure that nightmare for eternity? No, it is a good thing Russia went into Ukraine and dismantled the US’s “experimental biological warfare factories there.
Imposture but not imposter? Hermeneutics of continuity, with what? In intent and result, V2 is not continuous.
It is heartening to hear the Cardinals and bishops are understanding this cannot continue. One hopes they are talking to each other, the first heads that pop up are likely to get lopped off by Francis, so there is safety in numbers.
Eventually the golden goose will be no more, so even if it is not a matter of loving Christ or his Church enough to do it, practicality will be. Without the people, what is the Church, who will support it, who will carry it on, nobody, it will more or less end here and now. Sad to think that may be the thinking. Yet who sees Cardinals or bishops so in love with Christ or so full of zeal they have spoken courageously and called out the relentless onslaught of destruction from Francis and his minions. Precious few.
If after everything we’ve seen, nothing convinced it is only too real, the potential “ban” on the Latin Rite ends all speculation. It is nothing but satanic.
This madman rails against God Himself.
I hope some Priests clean up the mess of these modernist Aryans (clerics and laymen like me); but I think its more likely the Lord will have to hammer it out……….and it ain’t gonna be pretty….until I guess the smoke clears.
Francis has created 80 of 130 cardinals — the rest elected Francis to the episcopacy so not sure where you are getting your info. “some bishops” yeah – because how many bishops has francis appointed?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinals_created_by_Francis
There is a grave problem with the new mass, the lack of reverence and uniformity in which it is celebrated. If after 50 years of the new rite less than 30 percent of Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ, is it not clear that there is a crisis? The bishops too in the USA recognize this which is why there is a committee on Eucharistic revival!
“…the crisis of the Church is contingent upon the collapse of the liturgy, and the remedy lies in the “hermeneutics of continuity and reform of the one subject-Church,”
No, the crisis’ foundation is the collapse of the liturgy, whose foundation is in turn the collapse of Faith. And no, the remedy does not lie in a “hermeneutic of continuity
– i.e. a reconciliation of so-called reform with Tradition. The remedy lies in the restoration of Tradition, and nothing more.
Never mind that Francis appointed two-thirds out of the members of the current college of cardinals. Who do you think appointed the bishops who gathered at Vatican II, if not Pius XII and Pius XI ?
Freemason Cardinal Baggio selected ALL bishops for approval.
Read Charles Theodore Murr “murder in the 33rd degree” based on his diary as secretary to Cardinal Gagnon – charged with a 3 year fact-finding investigation into Freemasonic Infiltration of the Roman Curia.
Ho Hum–I know how the story ends.
Only God can solve this crisis. And I fear for what God has planned to humble the Church and put it aright.
My biggest takeaway, something I never considered before, is the dearth of theological and philosophical formal education of many cardinals. You don’t just pick up this stuff in the streets. Shocking and depressing.