http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/monsignor-bux-we-are-in-a-full-crisis-of-faith Monsignor Bux: We Are in a Full Crisis of Faith Theologian and former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith calls on the Pope to make a declaration of faith, warning that unless the Pope safeguards doctrine, he cannot impose discipline. Edward Pentin To resolve the current crisis in the Church over papal teaching and authority, the Pope must make a declaration of faith, affirming what is Catholic and correcting his own “ambiguous and erroneous” words and actions that have been interpreted in a non-Catholic manner. This is according to Monsignor Nicola Bux, a respected theologian and former consulter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during Benedict XVI’s pontificate. In the following interview with the Register, Msgr. Bux explains that the Church is in a “full crisis of faith” and that the storms of division the Church is currently experiencing are due to apostasy — the “abandonment of Catholic thought.” Msgr. Bux’s comments come after news that the four dubia cardinals, seeking papal clarification of his exhortation Amoris Laetitia, wrote to the Pope April 25 asking him for an audience but have yet to receive a reply. The cardinals expressed concern over the “grave situation” of episcopal conferences and individual bishops offering widely differing interpretations of the document, some of which they say break with the Church's teaching. They are particularly concerned about the deep confusion this has caused, especially for priests. “For many Catholics, it is incredible that the Pope is asking bishops to dialogue with those who think differently [i.e. non-Catholic Christians], but does not want first to face the cardinals who are his chief advisors,” Msgr. Bux says. “If the Pope does not safeguard doctrine,” he adds, “he cannot impose discipline.” *** Monsignor Bux, what are the implications of the ‘doctrinal anarchy’ that people see happening for the Church, the souls of the faithful and priests? The first implication of doctrinal anarchy for the Church is division, caused by apostasy, which is the abandonment of Catholic thought, as defined by St. Vincent of Lerins: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur (what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all). Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, who calls Jesus Christ the “Master of unity,” had pointed out to heretics that everyone professes the same things, but not everyone means the same thing. This is the role of the Magisterium, founded on the truth of Christ: to bring everyone back to Catholic unity. St. Paul exhorted Christians to be in agreement and to speak with unanimity. What would he say today? When cardinals are silent or accuse their confreres; when bishops who had thought, spoken and written — scripta manent! [written words remain]— in a Catholic way, but then say the opposite for whatever reason; when priests contest the liturgical tradition of the Church, then apostasy is established, the detachment from Catholic thought. Paul VI had foreseen that “this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism will tomorrow become the strongest [force]. But it will never represent the Church's thinking. A small flock must remain, no matter how small it is.” (Conversation with J. Guitton, 9.IX.1977). What implications, then, does doctrinal anarchy have for the souls of the faithful and ecclesiastics? The Apostle exhorts us to be faithful to sure, sound and pure doctrine: that founded on Jesus Christ and not on worldly opinions (cf. Titus 1:7-11; 2:1-8). Perseverance in teaching and obedience to doctrine leads souls to eternal salvation. The Church cannot change the faith and at the same time ask believers to remain faithful to it. She is instead intimately obliged to be oriented toward the Word of God and toward Tradition. Therefore, the Church remembers the Lord’s judgment: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” (John 9:39). Do not forget that, when one is applauded by the world, it means one belongs to it. In fact, the world loves its own and hates what does not belong to it (cf. John 15:19). May the Catholic Church always remember that she is made up of only those who have converted to Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; all human beings are ordained to her (cf. Lumen gentium 13), but they are not part of her until they are converted. How can this problem best be resolved? The point is: what idea does the Pope have of the Petrine ministry, as described in Lumen gentium 18 and codified in canon law? Faced with confusion and apostasy, the Pope should make the distinction — as Benedict XVI did — between what he thinks and says as a private, learned person, and what he must say as Pope of the Catholic Church. To be clear: the Pope can express his ideas as a private learned person on disputable matters which are not defined by the Church, but he cannot make heretical claims, even privately. Otherwise it would be equally heretical. I believe that the Pope knows that every believer — who knows the regula fidei [the rule of faith] or dogma, which provides everyone with the criterion to know what the faith of the Church is, what everyone has to believe and who one has to listen to — can see if he is speaking and operating in a Catholic way, or has gone against the Church’s sensus fidei [sense of the faith]. Even one believer can hold him to account. So whoever thinks that presenting doubts [dubia] to the Pope is not a sign of obedience, hasn’t understood, 50 years after Vatican II, the relationship between him [the Pope] and the whole Church. Obedience to the Pope depends solely on the fact that he is bound by Catholic doctrine, to the faith that he must continually profess before the Church. We are in a full crisis of faith! Therefore, in order to stop the divisions in progress, the Pope — like Paul VI in 1967, faced with the erroneous theories that were circulating shortly after the conclusion of the Council — should make a Declaration or Profession of Faith, affirming what is Catholic, and correcting those ambiguous and erroneous words and acts — his own and those of bishops — that are interpreted in a non-Catholic manner. Otherwise, it would be grotesque that, while seeking unity with non-Catholic Christians or even understanding with non-Christians, apostasy and division is being fostered within the Catholic Church. For many Catholics, it is incredible that the Pope is asking bishops to dialogue with those who think differently, but does not want first to face the cardinals who are his chief advisors. If the Pope does not safeguard doctrine, he cannot impose discipline. As John Paul II said, the Pope must always be converted, to be able to strengthen his brothers, according to the words of Christ to Peter: “Et tu autem conversus, confirma fratres tuos [when you are converted, strengthen your brothers].”
Notice her what the Monsignor is saying. The Pope must not simply correct others; he must correct himself.
And Monsignor Bux also gave an interesting interview on AL some time back: On Amoris Laetitia: Interview of Vatican Liturgical Consultant and Professor of Theology, Msgr. Nicola Bux Featured Written by Alberto Carosa | Rome Reporter MSGR. BUX, POPE BENEDICT XVI “GIVING WITNESS TO THE TRUTH INVOLVES THE ABANDONMENT OF FRIENDS, BETRAYAL AND DEATH” As the debate on the exhortation "Amoris Laetitia" is raging on, Msgr. Nicola Bux has kindly agreed to share some comments on the present state of affairs, especially following the letter to the Pope by four cardinals seeking clarification on specific points of the above document. For those who may be not aware, theologian and Vatican liturgical consulter, Msgr. Nicola Bux, is also professor of sacramental theology and author of several books on the liturgy, including 2016’s Con i sacramenti non si scherza (The Sacraments Are Not a Joke). Q. You are certainly following closely the story regarding the letter to Pope Francis by the four cardinal asking for a final clarification of certain aspects of the exhortation "Amoris Laetitia", which in their opinion are not so clear. What do you think? A. I'm not competent in moral theology, more than an ordinary Catholic priest; I studied at the Gregorian, when the Jesuit Joseph Fuchs taught "morality in the situation", which I think has 'infected' the Amoris laetitia; but don Giussani warned us, because it was a non-Catholic thought penetrated into the Church, as Paul VI said to Jean Guitton. I mean. Following the Apostle (Gal 1,8), St. Cyril of Jerusalem teaches that the Catholic faith received in baptism, must be taken as "travel supply" for a lifetime without ever taking anything else, even if the very same pastors, changing their minds, were to teach the opposite of what they had taught previously. The Letter of the Cardinals to the Pope - this, like the other one sent at the beginning of the Synod - is believed to be driven by the same conviction; moreover, it is a sign of recognition of the Petrine ministry, because is asking to be confirmed by the Supreme Pontiff and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the department specifically responsible for the preservation of the Catholic faith - on a number of truths concerning faith and morals, especially about the sacraments of marriage, penance-reconciliation and the Eucharist. The instrument of the Dubium through which a Responsum is asked, is canonically legitimate, as explained in the same letter. How then deny that these "doubts", and others, are penetrating into a not insignificant part of the Catholic Church? It is precisely the Catholic thought to be questioned by the post-synodal Exhortation ambiguities, rather than encourage the propensity to commit morally good acts, in order to grow one’s virtues up to the heroism necessary to achieve holiness, the true end of the moral life according to the Gospel. But such ambiguities appear to comprehend, 'accompany' and even legitimize the propensities to perform morally evil acts, such as divorce and remarriage, and to remain in the situations they produce, such as cohabitation and concubinage. Yet, the Word of God calls them sins and vices. Q. And how do you explain this situation A. The Catholic thought is in crisis: it is obscured the reason why the Word became flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary and died on the cross to save men from sin, calling them into the Church which, as the Catechism says (cf. Compendium 1), is called to evangelize and baptize for the creatures to become children of God. If it has been reached the point to affirm that even those not baptized are children of God, it means that baptism is unnecessary, and therefore also the catechumenate and Christian sacramental initiation. By withholding the truth about sin and grace, it is conceptualized a 'liquid' Church... to liquidate it. Q. What do you think of the various reactions to the letter of the cardinals, those in favor like Bishop Schneider, and those against, as Father Spadaro, for whom the Pope has already answered the questions posed by the four cardinals? A. The interventions of Anna M. Silvas from Australia, Claudio Pierantoni from Latin America, Ross Douthat from the United States, up to the recent ones of John Finnis, Germain Grisez and Edward Peters, represent an intercontinental reaction, therefore not "Eurocentric" but Catholic, on the part of faithful laypeople and clergy, who, as stated in the CIC (codex iuris canonici, canon law) 212, § 3, have the right and duty to express their opinion to the shepherds. Thus they 'correct' them, in the etymological sense of cum regere: the regal munus which also belongs to the faithful (the 'mi corrigerete', viz. ‘you’ll correct me’ by John Paul II comes to mind). Did Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani not publish in 1969 a critical examination of the new Ordo Missae, that contributed to its correction? Why then should one get scandalized by the Dubia? The Pope could summon the Cardinals around a table and talk fraternally, not emotionally, but with arguments of faith and reason. Adversarial reactions, up to demonization and threat, instead betray emotion, moralism, and – allow me - anger. Didn’t they want the 'church of dialogue'? Those who now out of opportunism have become 'papist', whereas in the past they did not spare criticism to predecessors, certainly are not serving truth. However, let us not forget that from the prophets till John the Baptist, but especially from Jesus to John Fisher and Thomas More, giving witness to the truth involves the abandonment of friends, betrayal and death. Q. One of the four cardinals, Walter Brandmüller, spoke instead of a fraternal correction in private, if their letter continues to remain unanswered ... A. It's true that in the Gospel fraternal correction must be made before coram duobus vel tribus testibus (in the presence of two or three witnesses) and should it prove unsuccessful, dic ecclesiae (say it to the assembly) (cf. Mt 18.15 to 17). But there are those who contend that when the scandal and heresy were public, the correction cannot but be done publicly; let’s think of the confrontation between Paul and Peter in the so-called Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (cf. Gal 2:11). In essence, for the Dubia, made public, to be followed by a secret correction would not make sense. Experts in canon law may identify other modalities. Meanwhile, it is important that the debate is spreading in the universal Church. Q. It is also being rumored that the Pope may revoke the four prelates as cardinal ... A. A response has been competently provided by Edward Peters for whom "the four cardinals, albeit they would gladly welcome a papal response, are probably satisfied that they have raised some vital issues in anticipation of a day when it will be possible for them to be finally answered. But they could certainly exercise their own Episcopal office as teachers of the faith (can. 375) and propose answers based on their own authority. in fact, they are men, I believe, prepared to accept even the derision and suffer the incomprehension and misinterpretation of their actions and motivations”. I remember that St Pius X urged:" Be strong! We are not to give in where we must not give in. We must fight, not hesitantly, but with courage; not in secret, but in public; not behind closed doors, but in the open". Today, like yesterday (cf. Rm 12,2), the intra-ecclesial confrontation is between Catholics and neo-modernists: those who speak of conservatives and progressives, reduce the life of the Church to politics. The Cardinals have acted in an ecclesial and non-political way. Therefore, who's afraid of the theological dispute in the Church, conducted with meekness and humility, as Jesus wants? Raffaello painted the famous one on the Sacramento. The Magisterium would benefit from it. Q. And what do you think the ultimate consequences of this situation could be, if it is not resolved? A. It has been said by far more authoritative clergy that we are in the presence of a creeping schism: a non-Catholic thought has entered the Catholic Church, a thought which considers the Mass only as a banquet rather than primarily as a sacrifice, marriage as a human act and not as an indissoluble sacrament, talking of sin and grace as by now outdated, a thought preaching morals of mercy irrespective of conversion and penance, and so on. Isn’t it a way to liquidate the Church? The work of the Church in the world is the victory over evil and death; We must fear not primarily those who kill the body, but those who damn the souls to eternal punishment.
Isn't the following statement an exaggeration, "a non-Catholic thought has entered the Catholic Church, a thought which considers the Mass only as a banquet rather than primarily as a sacrifice"?
What I mean is that this notion is not being preached and I believe most clergy still consider the mass a sacrifice. I absolutely believe that Pope Francis does. The Msgr. states the thought has entered the church, maybe he was trying to get people's attention before it is too late.
I don't know about clergy, but my personal observation is that most people in general don't consider the Mass a sacrifice anymore. In fact my whole life (I am 45 now) I only heard it mentioned of as the "celebration" of the Mass. It is not until I returned to the faith the past few years that I even learned it was called the "sacrifice" of the Mass.
I agree that it is not something that is impressed upon parishioners, so either way very little is said about it. That could also be the point that the Msgr. is trying to make but the sacrifice is taking place regardless of what they say and that is essential. I think that it would be wonderful if the clergy impressed this upon the people but that has not been the case for years as you state. If we are looking for more reverence at mass, well that's a whole other story and that has been discussed numerous times on MOG already.
The absolute best talk I have ever heard on the Holy Eucharist by Father William Casey C.P.M. he explains the whole sacrificial part of the Mass from the Passover through the Last Supper. I could listen to it every day. https://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/the-holy-eucharist
I get the sense 80% or 90% of catholics these days do not know and do not confess that Jesus, that is God, is truly and really present in the Eucharist, that HE IS RIGHT THERE and HE can be touched physically. You can tell by the way may people take communnion and leave the church right after the mass to move on with the day, without even stopping for a second of silent thanksgiving while Our Lord IS still inside our very bodies for the 10-15 minutes that follow communion. I also get the sense that some priests (many indeed) celebrate the mass as if they had forgotten that HE IS THE BREAD (and wine) when they raise HIM with their hands at the moment of consecration. Some do it so fast and with such lack of reverence that it feels like they are saying a formula and raising a piece of bread, and then move on to communion, sharing, peace, love, church announcements, etc. I am gladly surprised to hear Monsignor Bux speak so loudly and so clearly! Because indeed the practice that the Mass is a kind of banquet for all to hold hands, listened to a fulfilling homily, and share together some sort of sacred bread in a moment of fraternal love and happiness from where the crucified Jesus is pretty much absent, is spreading within the Church.
Prophecy has it that this is how you will recognize the False Prophet, as he will remove the Sacrificial part of the Mass. All the rest of the Mass will stay. From the book God Speaks Will You Listen https://www.scribd.com/doc/22505473/God-Speaks-Will-You-Listen 6/27/07 "This is how you can recognize the abomination of desolation. A false prophet or anti pope will proclaim the protestant doctrine of the mass to be correct. This is the one teaching that will change. The rest of my churches teachings can stay the same. Satan knows how to deprive my children of everlasting life, deprive my children of my presence. This is how the man of sin, the son of perdition will sit in the temple of God. Reference II Thessalonians 2:4-10. He will attempt to lead my people to deny my presence in the Eucharist and to teach the mass is only a symbol. This is antichrist. This will bring the wrath of God on the children of disobedience. This will cause the unleashing of the bowls of divine justice. My sacrifice of the mass daily holds back my Father’s justice. Luke 18:8. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? Will I find any of my children, who I recognize with my life in them? Will there be faith left in my holy sacrifice? These are the questions which need to be pondered. My son, a false Christian church will be forced on the people. A gospel of prosperity and a make you feel good gospel will be preached. My churches can be filled with people, but the churches will be dead because I am not there. Without my presence in the churches, God does not dwell in the churches. Then, these sheep who hear my voice will be forced to worship in underground churches where I will be present. This truly is the abomination of desolation and antichrist. Then I will come with the brightness of my coming, destroy this false church, and restore my church according to my will. Then you will see an era of peace. A Eucharistic era of peace where I will reign in the hearts and mind of my people in the holy Eucharist. You must believe all these words I am teaching you and the teachings of my church or you will not enter my era of peace. Ponder these words or I may say to: I NEVER KNEW YOU. The words of the Lord. I bless you Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. AMEN"
No, it isn't an exaggeration. That's how I heard a priest describe the Mass in a homily. The word "sacrifice" was never mentioned. I haven't set foot in that church since and for the first time in over thirty years I didn't attend their annual novena to St. Anthony this month. If the priest doesn't know or refuses to acknowledge what is Holy Mass, I can't be confident of his intentions at the Consecration so don't know whether I am receiving a valid Eucharist.
I brought this very question up on the forum two or three years ago and got zilch in response. I remember hearing the Priest say the Mass is a 'Sacrifice of reconciliation' and at the time I thought this is not right. I heard other Priests mention the Sacrifice of reconciliation referring to Mass later. I think you will find the words are spoken by a lot of Priests during Mass, but they say it quietly and we don't realise what is being said. I believe it was put in place by order of a Bishops conference or something, so Priests are obliged to obey. When I was a child, we were told the Holy Mass is a 'Sacrifice in ATONEMENT' for our sins. Jesus is the Sacrifice and His death on the Cross is in atonement for our sins. Jesus Sacrifice on Calvary is made present in each Holy Mass in an unbloody manner, is what we were taught. I don't think anyone did get what I was saying, or maybe don't even get it now. I thought it was already a protestantisation of our traditional beliefs. Everyone accepts it as far as I can see. And it has been happening for two or three years now. Could the Mass already be invalid for two or three years, has society changed in that time. Or has anyone else noticed this. Or does this make sense to anyone else. I hope so. We were taught that Confession and Absolution is a Sacrament of our RECONCILIATION with God. So nowadays, confession is sacramentally lumped in with Mass, or this is how I feel about how it must be headed. In reality everyone who was present on Calvary was NOT automatically saved by Jesus death on the Cross in atonement for our sins. So everyone who is present at each Holy Mass is not automatically saved or reconciled by just being there. Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation AFTER His Resurrection when He appeared to the Apostles on the Sunday. Interesting how important Jesus made this Sacrament and only after His mission was complete in Redeeming us. 'For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, and for those whose sins you retain, they are retained.' Powerful authority from Heaven, and certainly not to be confused with the act of ATONEMENT itself.
I was listening to Catholic radio today and the host was telling a story of a Catholic who was showing a Protestant around the Church. When they got to the Tabernacle the Catholic explained what it was and said that one difference between Catholics and Protestant denominations is Transubstantiation. Catholics believe the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Jesus and because it actually is Him it is stored in a special place. The Protestant looked at the Catholic and said "You don't really believe that." "Yes I do" the Catholic responded. "I know you don't" the Protestant said again. The Catholic was becoming baffled as they went back and forth on this in front of the Tabernacle. "I know you don't believe that" the Protestant said again, "If I really believed that Jesus was right here next to us I would be down on my face in front of Him." Makes you think...
That is so interesting. Sometimes all I want to do is lay down on my face in front of the taberacle lol. I think they would send me to a psych ward if I did.
Really? I see that fairly regularly at the adoration chapel near me. I mean people prostrating themselves, not people being taken away to the psych ward
Padre Pio's mass used to take four hours. One time the Vatican ordered him to restrict it to half an hour which is weird. I remember one time mentioning the long time Padre Pio took to say mass as an inspiration and the guy scoffed and said it was an exaggeration (the e priest later went to jail for child abuse). But one thing they say about Padre Pio was that he suffered most at the consecration. Padre Pio was all about the sacrifice of the mass. You could say his all life was both a preparation and a thanksgiving for the mass. I do notice more and more priests going back to the proper liturgical forms, thank God.
I think there are about four different Eucharistic Prayers that the priest can choose from (not sure whether it's actually an option for each individual priest at each individual Mass but there are variations of the Eucharistic Prayer). I think the words "Sacrifice of Reconciliation" are in Eucharistic Prayer III so it is valid. Yes, we were taught that Holy Mass is the unbloody re-presentation of Jesus' sacrifice of atonement for man's fall from grace. As I understand it, Christ's sacrifice of atonement made possible the reconciliation between God and man, so I don't see a substantial difference between the two words in this context. Actually, you could say the same about Baptism but that and the Sacrament of Penance (or as now called Reconciliation) are only possible because of Calvary. Most of us were baptised as babies when we were incapable of committing sin but inherited Adam's sin. I'm open to correction on this, but I'm pretty sure that the first Christians confessed in public at Mass so in a way confession has been part of Mass since the early days. The Confiteor is a confession that we are sinners. The Sacrament of Penance or Reconciliation is a separate Sacrament where the priest gives us absolution for sins that we as individuals committed. As far as I know, the practice of confessing in private began in Ireland. Each time we commit a mortal sin, we separate ourselves from God and it takes Sacramental absolution to once again reconcile us with God. I don't think there is a confusion. Jesus saved or reconciled us with God by His sacrifice of atonement "By his stripes we are healed". Nevertheless, you are right that we don't have a free pass into Heaven which would be the sin of presumption. The first word of Jesus' first sermon was "Repent" and, according to St. Luke, Jesus repeated the call to repentance when he appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem after the Resurrection when He said: “Thus it is written that the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." My concern is that what began in Jerusalem is dying out. The current trend is to preach the forgiveness of sins in Jesus' name while omitting the call to repentance, especially for sins of the flesh. All the stress is on the do's like love your neighbour, give to the poor, care for the earth, etc. (social justice issues) while the don'ts are treated as no big deal. Something else that concerns me is the oft quoted "Jesus ate with sinners" to justify open invitations "to the Lord's table". Sure, Jesus ate with tax collectors, etc. and converted them. He ate with sinners in their homes. I know of only one occasion in Scripture where Jesus hosted a meal and that was at the Last Supper. He didn't invite any unconverted tax collectors. Everyone at that supper was a disciple. Sure, they were sinners as are we all but they were converted sinners who weren't picking and choosing which of Jesus' teachings suited their lifestyles. Even Judas hadn't yet completed his act of betrayal and he certainly wasn't flaunting his intentions. The early Christians had so much reverence for the Eucharist that catechumens were expected to leave Mass before the Consecration. We have strayed so far from their faith in the Consecration and the Real Presence that we pay scant attention to who receives the Body and Blood of Jesus. Even if we aren't calling Mass and the Eucharist "just a meal", that's how we treat it. No wonder we are in such a mess.
