July 7, 2026
Francesco Borgonovo interviewing Don Nicola Bux for Radio Cusano
Don Nicola Bux, the well-known liturgist and longtime personal friend and confidant of Pope Benedict XVI, gave an interview to the private broadcaster Radio Cusano. The interview was published on YouTube a few days after the valid but illicit episcopal ordinations by the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X.
Matteo Matzuzzi, mentioned in the interview, has been editor-in-chief of the Italian daily newspaper Il Foglio since 2020. The interview with Don Nicola Bux was conducted by Francesco Borgonovo, deputy editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper La Verità.
Moderator: Here we are again with Calibro 9 on Radio Cusano. We welcome Don Nicola Bux, who has commented both in writing and verbally in recent days on this event, which the newspapers are calling a schism. Don Nicola, what should we make of this? Why, in your view, has it come to this?
Don Nicola Bux: Good day. I believe we have reached this point because — not just today, but at least since 1985, when Ratzinger pointed it out in his famous book The Ratzinger Report (Zur Lage des Glaubens) with Vittorio Messori — the Catholic understanding of the reality of the Church has been lost, both in theology and in public opinion. People no longer believe that the Church is a reality willed by Christ; instead, they see it as something that can be reshaped at will, as if it were made of Lego bricks. On one side I am thinking of the Lefebvrists, and on the other of the Germans. In the end, the contents of faith and morals become arbitrary.
Moderator: What is the real difference? Let’s try to explain this to our listeners. Why are the Lefebvrists being punished — apart from the fact that they ordained bishops without papal approval and thereby refused obedience to the Pope? I already said earlier in the conversation with Matteo Matzuzzi that much of what is happening in Germany, and also here, seems to me theologically far more serious and further removed from the teaching of the Church than what the Lefebvrists stand for. Or am I seeing this wrong?
Don Nicola Bux: That is the most common objection: Why punish precisely those who appear so orthodox and faithful to Catholic principles, while allowing others to do as they please even though they permit almost anything in matters of faith and morals? In reality, the punishment has nothing to do with what they believe, but with what they have done. They have committed an act that canon law expressly designates as a grave delict: the ordination of bishops without a papal mandate.
Remember that a similar case occurred with the bishops ordained without papal mandate in China, already under Pius XII and later as well. This is an extraordinarily serious act, more serious than problematic views on marriage or other moral questions. Why? Because such views initially remain mere opinions and stay on the level of opinion. Let me give an example: Just last week the Dicastery for Divine Worship responded to the Germans and made it clear that the homily at Holy Mass may not be given by a layperson. So such clarifications do exist.
If, nevertheless, people act accordingly, a sanction will inevitably follow sooner or later. Therefore one must be careful not to simply equate different behaviors. In my opinion, the real problem is that people no longer understand what the Church as a community means. It is like a family in which there is communion, though one in which disputes certainly occur. But if every time differences of opinion arise the door is slammed and the community is broken, then nothing can endure. The problem is that many people no longer even know what ecclesial communion actually means.
Moderator: In your opinion, could this break have been prevented? What exactly was expected of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X? That it should simply gradually dissolve? That the bishops whose excommunications had been lifted would die and no new ones would be ordained, so that the problem would eventually solve itself? How could things have turned out differently?
Don Nicola Bux: If the Pope had called the responsible parties to himself months ago and said, “Good, let’s sit down and talk,” perhaps with the help of experts, then this break might — I say explicitly: might — have been avoided. Unfortunately, that did not happen. On the other hand, there have been attempts at dialogue in the past, including on the part of Ratzinger and other cardinals.
The truth, however, is that the Society has sometimes been very inflexible in its convictions, especially regarding the Ecumenical Council. For not everything has the same rank. There are fundamental statements of the Council that must be accepted; after all, a solemn act of the Church’s magisterium is infallible. In addition, there are statements of a more time-conditioned nature about which one can certainly discuss. Apparently this distinction has been given too little consideration. Why that is, I do not know. Perhaps because the Bergoglian-Vatican environment — even though it now owes obedience to the new Pope — still shapes the governing apparatus. The Pope does not yet fully control this machinery and must therefore rely on those who steered it before him. Possibly this prevented a different development.
One could draw many further conclusions from this. I remain, however, at this point: The understanding of ecclesial communion as a reality in which one wrestles together and arrives at the faith together has been lost. The Church is not a democracy, but a sacramental, that is, a hierarchical reality. Its structures are reformable and can always be reviewed; but in its essence the Church belongs neither to the one side nor the other, but to Christ. Precisely this awareness has, in my opinion, been lost, and I hope that we regain it.
Moderator: Can one still turn back?
Don Nicola Bux: Yes, it is possible. One can turn back. But this requires good will. The sanctions provided for in canon law have now been imposed, yet it would be very desirable for the dialogue to be resumed. A certain elasticity is needed, especially on the part of the Society. For example, it should rediscover Saint John Henry Newman, especially his thoughts on the relationship between doctrine and the development of doctrine. It seems to me that in some respects it has remained stuck in the 19th century. It should reflect on that. In any case, we must never give up hope that an understanding remains possible.
Moderator: I thank Don Nicola Bux very warmly. Here we are dealing with questions of fundamental importance for the Church. It is a problem that, besides the spiritual and faith-related dimension, could also have political consequences. There are considerable tensions surrounding these decisions that go beyond theology. Isn’t that so?
Don Nicola Bux: Well, but that would actually be inappropriate. Political categories cannot be applied to the Church. That is a mistake. Certainly there may be influences by individual persons. But I believe that in the Church we must learn to step back ourselves and, as it were, disappear, so that Christ may triumph. The greatest renewers of the Church were the saints. The Church needs holiness, and the first form of holiness consists, in a sense, in seeking communion. Communion with Peter is fundamental; I would say it is the truly Catholic charism that distinguishes the Catholic Church from other ecclesial communities. If this communion is lacking, one cannot claim to want to be united with the Pope and at the same time perform actions that contradict this. That makes no sense.
As for the political aspect, I would say: Actually there isn’t one. Certainly, I have heard some commentators…
Moderator: Those would again be other fundamental questions. Many thanks, Don Nicola. We will now take a short break and be right back.
Don Nicola Bux: Thank you. All the best to you!
Translation: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Radio Cusano/YouTube (Screenshot)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG
No comments:
Post a Comment