Roman Curia

Monsignor Nicola Bux speaks to AdVaticanum about the SSPX, Traditionis Custodes, the “reform of the reform”, women’s ordination, Anglicanism and what he describes as the Church’s liturgical and doctrinal crisis under the post-conciliar era Monsignor Nicholas Bux is a priest and theologian whose work has spanned academia, pastoral ministry and service to the Roman Curia. Born in Bari, southern Italy, in 1947 into a modest family, he studied at the Pontifical Gregorian University before being ordained in 1975 by Archbishop Anastasio Ballestrero, the Discalced Carmelite archbishop later known for overseeing the first modern scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin in 1978. A specialist in Eastern liturgy and sacramental theology, he obtained a doctorate at the Pontifical Oriental Institute and went on to teach in his native Bari, Jerusalem and Rome. His service to the Holy See began under Pope John Paul II, who appointed him a consultant to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. A collaborator of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI, he contributed to synodal preparations and Eucharistic texts, and later served during Benedict XVI’s pontificate in roles connected to synodal assemblies and papal liturgies. AV: Monsignor Bux, since leaving Rome and your responsibilities in the Roman Curia, what have you been doing? How have you been spending your time? Are there any particular projects, writings or pastoral activities you are currently working on? How did your work and apostolate develop following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, particularly during the pontificate of Pope Francis? Monsignor Nicholas Bux: After concluding my collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff upon Benedict XVI’s resignation, I continued working until 2019 with the Congregation for the Causes of Saints and until 2021 with the Congregation for Divine Worship. Having reached the age limit for teaching theology in a faculty, I have continued giving conferences in Italy and abroad, and publishing on topics related to Eastern liturgy, ecclesiology and ecumenism. During the pontificate of Pope Francis, in which the Magisterium experienced a serious crisis, I devoted myself to explaining the reasons why one must remain in the Church, resisting despotic forms and avoiding the mistake of placing oneself outside it. By dying within the Church – like the grain of wheat that falls to the earth – one contributes to overcoming the crisis and renewing it. Together with theologian friends, we promoted the Scuola Ecclesia Mater, an Italian network of clerics and laity, with study sessions and spiritual exercises. Along with Cardinals Caffarra, Brandmüller, Burke and Sarah, we continue to advance the idea and practice of the “reform of the reform” of the liturgy and the Church according to the thought of Pope Benedict, as well as the international Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage at the end of October in Rome. I can say, in light of the Pope’s latest address to the French bishops, that we were right. AV: Looking back on the years spent in the Curia, particularly your service at the Dicastery for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, what were the most significant challenges or moments you faced? NB: In 2009, after a plenary meeting of the Congregation that had decided to propose to the Pope the inclusion in the Missal of certain rites from the Vetus Ordo Missae – for example, the Offertory, to be used ad libitum – the news was leaked by someone, and an alarm was sounded by those who feared an attack on the post-conciliar liturgical reform, so everything was stopped. Another issue we began to address was that of mega-concelebrations. The rite of concelebration promulgated by Paul VI in 1965 prescribed no more than 50 concelebrants so that they could “stand around the altar”, even if not all could immediately touch the altar table and pronounce the words of consecration over the bread and wine. These are the intention and external action required for a true concelebration and simultaneous consecration. Otherwise, saying “This is my body … this is the chalice …” does not correspond – to use the liturgists’ terms – to the truth of the sign, because one should say “That is my body …” These are the conditions for the validity of a concelebrated Mass, so that it is sacramental and not merely a ceremony, as Pius XII affirmed. The limit set by Paul VI has disappeared in the current Missal, so doubts arise about the validity of the celebration when the number of concelebrants overflows the presbyteral area or when it takes place outdoors in enormous spaces, where non-liturgical equipment of the concelebrants is added – hats, sunglasses, water bottles and cameras. AD: You were in the Curia during the period of negotiations with the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). In light of the Society’s recent decision to proceed with episcopal consecrations without a papal mandate, what is your current judgment on the SSPX? NB: Setting aside the good intentions of individuals, over time the Society has lost the vital sap of Catholic thought, as already happened with the Orthodox. Catholic thought flows only if one remains united to the main tree, despite the weakening of the Magisterium. Otherwise, one arrives at a museum-like conception of Tradition. One can understand the fears, but it is not justified to remove oneself from the Church in order to self-preserve. The organic development of doctrine, to use the expression of the new Doctor Saint John Henry Newman, is thus lacking. The Church is a mother and one must allow oneself to be corrected, because a true Christian must accept dying, and at the time established by God, will be reborn to new life, as has happened with the charisms of the Saints. Where Peter is, there is the Church: one cannot disregard this visible principle of unity willed by Jesus Christ, in relation to the invisible one, which is the Holy Spirit. AV: Pope Leo XIV recently sent a letter, through Cardinal Parolin, to the French bishops, urging them to find “generous” pastoral solutions for communities attached to the Traditional Latin Mass ahead of their plenary assembly. What does this letter indicate about the current pontificate’s approach to the Traditional Latin Mass, and how do you interpret its tone in light of Traditionis Custodes? NB: The antiquior usus of the Mass has resisted for over sixty years; this is the reality and we must take note of it, just as Saint Pius V did with rites that were over two hundred years old at the time of the Tridentine reform. With this realism, Benedict XVI stated: “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have grown in the faith and prayer of the Church, and to give them their proper place” (Summorum Pontificum, 10). It seems to me that Pope Leo wants to recover this “gaze” and has invited the French bishops and the faithful of Christian communities – traditional or not – to look at each other fraternally. It seems to me that the Pope wants, in an Augustinian way, to let consensus mature from within the ecclesial community: bishops, priests and faithful. I am certain that gradually, in this way, the other episcopates will be led to do the same in their dioceses. AV: Does accepting the Second Vatican Council require Catholics to accept the post-Vatican II liturgical reform in its current form? NB: The liturgy is the epiphany of the Church, which gathered solemnly in the Second Vatican Council, celebrated it constantly in the form then in force during its sessions, thus becoming an integral part of that infallible Magisterium, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (cf. 891). When the Church gathers in Council, it performs a liturgical act because it places itself in adoring listening to God. For this reason, Benedict XVI, in his address to the Roman Curia on December 22, 2005, invited us to read the event as “reform in the continuity of the one subject Church.” With this gaze towards God, the Council elaborated as its first document the liturgical constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Paul VI established a Consilium to implement it. However, one cannot identify the Council tout court with the work of the Consilium, because it was not without defects. Cardinal Ratzinger observed: “Anyone who thinks that not everything in this reform has been successful, and that some things are modifiable or even need revision, is not for that reason an enemy of the Council.” Therefore, the equation does not hold: accepting the validity of the Second Vatican Council means accepting the liturgical reform that would express the reality of the liturgy intimately linked to the vision of the Church in Lumen Gentium, as the text distributed by Cardinal Roche at the Consistory last January seems to suggest. Instead, Benedict XVI intended to apply the Liturgical Constitution, safeguarding “legitimate diversities” – that is, the pluralism of rites – and, at the same time, “the substantial unity of the Roman rite” (SC 38). With the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, he restored the ancient Roman rite, which had never been juridically abrogated. AV: How do you assess the current liturgical crisis in the Church, and what steps do you believe are necessary for authentic liturgical renewal and a true “reform of the reform”? NB: The Holy Father placed the Liturgy on the agenda of the Consistory, proposing to the Cardinals an in-depth historical, theological and pastoral reflection “to preserve the healthy tradition and yet open the way to legitimate progress” (SC 23). To preserve tradition and progress legitimately, one must understand the nature of the liturgy. “The crisis of the Liturgy, and therefore of the Church, in which we continue to find ourselves,” affirmed Benedict XVI, “is due only to a minimal extent to the difference between the old and new liturgical books.” It is becoming ever clearer that, behind all the controversies, a profound dissent has emerged concerning the essence of liturgical celebration, its derivation, its representative and its correct form. At first, Paul VI was convinced that the liturgical reform had translated and supported the indications of the Liturgical Constitution. But arbitrary experimentation continued, which sharpened the nostalgia for the ancient rite. Thus, in the Bull Apostolorum Limina for the proclamation of the 1975 Holy Year, regarding liturgical renewal, he stated: “We consider it extremely opportune that this work be re-examined and receive new developments.” John Paul II, in the apostolic letter Vicesimus quintus annus of 1988, spoke openly of “erroneous applications.” Now, the Dicastery, before anything else, if it wants to render a service to all Catholics, must have the courage to clarify the causes, promoting the study and full publication of the documents of the Consilium for the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, preserved in its archive. This is a wish addressed to the Holy Father in the book La liturgia non è uno spettacolo, co-authored by myself and Saverio Gaeta. I believe we must proceed with the “reform of the reform” proposed several times by Joseph Ratzinger, which begins “from the presence of the sacred in hearts, from the liturgy and its mystery”. In truth, there are already signs: the spread of Eucharistic adoration, receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue, rediscovering the traditional liturgy in which silence and the Mystery of the Lord’s Presence in His Church prevail, beginning from its heart, which is the Eucharist, the Divine and indeed “Sacred Liturgy”. What would happen if the priest’s orientation ad Deum or towards the Cross were permitted during the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Mass, as the clearest sign of continuity with the apostolic tradition and that of the East? This rebirth of the sacred is the condition for the renewal of the Church. Monsignor Bux and John Paul II AV: Turning to ecumenism, the Church of England has just installed Sarah Mullally as the first female Archbishop of Canterbury. In your view, what does this development mean for today’s Catholic-Anglican relations, especially regarding apostolic succession, the ordination of women and the possibility of true theological convergence? NB: There is a contradiction: on the one hand, at least 700 Anglican pastors are welcomed into the Catholic Church – a sign of the profound crisis of the Anglican Communion, which in Great Britain records only 2 per cent Sunday attendance – while on the other hand, a congratulatory message from the Pope is sent for the installation of the so-called primate Sarah Mullally. “So-called” first of all because her office is null, as she is a woman who, according to Catholic teaching, cannot be ordained to the priesthood; then, as a member of the Anglican Communion, her ordination is invalid – otherwise one would not understand why we established Ordinariates to re-ordain bishops and priests coming from it. Finally, because she is not effectively the Primate of Canterbury, since two-thirds of Anglicans do not recognise her as such. It is true that, as Christians, we are united in baptism, but we do not agree on everything that belongs to Christ, John Paul II said to German Protestants in November 1980, primarily on the sacraments. Has no one at the Council for Christian Unity noticed this and told the Pope? Do they not realise that, with such behaviour, many Catholic faithful are scandalised? If one really did not want to tell the truth, it would have been better not to send any message at all. AD: The Church continues to face a serious vocation crisis in many parts of the West. A common response has been the creation of “pastoral units” or groupings of parishes to address the shortage of priests. Do you see this as a real solution, or does it risk becoming an illusion that simply masks a strategic retreat from the traditional understanding of priestly ministry in the Church? NB: Since the post-conciliar period, the number of priests has decreased dramatically, and today in Europe about 10 per cent of the baptised go to Mass. Among the causes are the crisis of the family and the failure to transmit Catholic thought in catechesis to the younger generations. It was also a mistake to admit girls to altar service in place of the “little clergy”, the nursery of vocations. Then, despite the immense paper production by the Italian Bishops’ Conference on the urgency of announcing the Gospel to those far away, instead of strengthening capillary presence in the territories, they invented “pastoral units” – a fig leaf to cover the strategic retreat due to the shortage of priests. When will it be understood that so-called “pastoral care” begins from the deep unity of the Church, which in turn is nourished by the diversity and identity of individuals and groups that together constitute Tradition – and that innovation occurs only from within it? Isn’t that precisely what the word “Tradition” indicates? AV: In contemporary debate, there is often talk of adapting the liturgy and ecclesial institutions “to man” and “to the times”, but these expressions are rarely accompanied by a clear explanation of what is really meant by “man” or “times” in light of the Church’s perennial mission and the deposit of faith. What is your theological evaluation of this approach? NB: In the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical constitution (SC 48), there is mention of the need to adapt the liturgy to the needs of our times (cf. also 1, 4, 107, 110), but it is never explained exactly what these are. The discussions among the conciliar fathers in the three drafts leading to the final version provide no further information on these expressions. In a positive sense, it could mean that we need to present the Gospel in ever new ways in every age. In a negative sense, it could mean that our age is so unique that we must adapt the Gospel and divine worship to it – that is, to ourselves. Perhaps, in the post-conciliar liturgical reform, this second interpretation prevailed, but without reflection, as if it were something obvious and therefore required no explanation. Thus, the “legitimate progress” that was to be balanced by “healthy tradition” (SC 23) has become a “pathological search for novelty”, just as Cardinal Roche notes in the text distributed at the Consistory. AV: Monsignor Bux, thank you very much for being so generous with your time and for your years of priestly ministry.

Archbishop Arrieta speaks to AdVaticanum on his retirement, his first impressions of Pope Leo XIV, the Order of Malta, and the ongoing canonical tensions surrounding the SSPX Archbishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru, Secretary of the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, has reached the age of 75, the mandatory retirement age for a bishop, on April 10. To mark the milestone, the Spanish canonist sat down with AdVaticanum to reflect on nearly two decades of service as secretary across three pontificates, his plans for retirement, and the evolving work of the dicastery. He shared his impressions of Pope Leo XIV as he approaches the anniversary of his election, offered a candid assessment of the irregular situation of the Society of St Pius X, and evaluated the 2021 reform of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law, as well as addressing current canonical questions regarding the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, liturgical unity under Traditionis Custodes, and the dubia from priests of the Diocese of Charlotte. Born on April 10, 1951 in Vitoria, Spain, Archbishop Arrieta was ordained a priest of Opus Dei in 1977. A distinguished academic and jurist, he helped establish the faculty of canon law at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome, where he has taught for many years. Appointed Secretary of the then Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, he was ordained a titular bishop in 2008. AdVaticanum: Your Excellency, having just turned 75 and therefore being at the point of submitting your resignation in accordance with canon 401 §1, many in the Church are curious about the next chapter for a canonist of your stature who has served the Dicastery for nearly two decades. After such an intense period of service in the Roman Curia, what would you most like to do in retirement? Archbishop Juan Ignacio Arrieta Ochoa de Chinchetru: We will have to take things one step at a time, always trusting in divine providence. As for me, I have always been involved in the field of canon law, both in the Roman Curia and at the university. I plan to continue living in Rome, also because I am a member of various commissions and working groups within the Roman Curia. Furthermore, if possible, I intend to spend more time in the academic environment, continuing my studies and publications on canon law. I am still teaching courses on canon law and Vatican law, both at the Faculty of Canon Law of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross and at the Faculty of St Pius X in Venice: two institutions I have seen come into being and to which I feel particularly attached. God willing, in the near future I will be able to carry out these teaching duties with greater peace of mind and collaborate with both faculties. Furthermore, I hope to be able to devote myself a little more to pastoral work, which I have missed for many years. AV: As Secretary since your appointment in 2007, spanning the final years of St John Paul II’s pontificate, the entire Benedict XVI era, the full Francis pontificate, and now the early months under Pope Leo XIV, you have had a uniquely continuous vantage point on the work of what was then the Pontifical Council and is now the Dicastery for Legislative Texts. In your view, what are the most significant shifts you have witnessed in the dicastery’s day to day functioning? +JA: In a way, the major changes the dicastery has undergone in recent years are also reflected in the changes to its name over the years. At the beginning of John Paul II’s pontificate, the dicastery was called the “Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law”; it was later renamed the “Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts”, because, starting in 1990, it also had to deal with the Eastern Code of Canon Law in addition to that of the Latin Church. Subsequently, it was renamed more generally the “Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts”, since the role of “interpreting” universal laws had become rather secondary, and the dicastery devoted itself more to revising the universal norms of the Church or to offering consultative opinions on normative documents of the Holy See or of the Episcopal Conferences. Now, however, the name is “Dicastery for Legislative Texts”, and while retaining all the other functions it had in the past, most of its time is devoted to assisting bishops and superiors in the application of canon law in light of new circumstances arising throughout the world. This is very interesting work, because canon law is a body of law in force throughout the world and is confronted with the legal systems of every country in the world, as well as with vastly different cultures and sensibilities. AV: Having served under several Popes, what are your first impressions of working with Pope Leo XIV? +JA: In addition to his personal qualities, his profound spirituality, practical mind and missionary heart, the Pope has a particular fondness for institutional and orderly governance. I believe this stems from his experience leading a religious institute with a long standing tradition within the Church and a widespread presence throughout the world. Furthermore, I believe that, with regard to his style of governance and, in particular, his attitude towards justice and the law, we must appreciate the fact that the Pope received a university education as a canonist and, above all, that he did not limit himself to studying canon law, but had to teach it as a professor of canon law in Peru and, for some time, also practised it as an ecclesiastical judge in the courts. He therefore possesses a very concrete and comprehensive experience of the law that not everyone has, ranging from the purely theoretical to the didactic, and to the practical exercise and application of the law in the service of justice. AV: The SSPX continues to occupy a unique and, for many, pastorally sensitive place in the Church, with the announcement of the July 1 episcopal consecrations. With the recent proposal from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith for a structured theological dialogue aimed at identifying “minimum requirements” for full communion and a possible canonical status, contingent on suspending the announced July 2026 episcopal ordinations without papal mandate, what is your canonical assessment of the current irregular situation of the Society? +JA: For me, this is a very painful matter, especially because during Pope Benedict’s time I had the opportunity to familiarise myself with their situation and to meet with some of their superiors on several occasions. They feel the need for ministers to celebrate certain sacraments, but I believe it was a grave mistake to have presented this matter as an imposition on the Holy See, announcing directly, as if it were a fait accompli, that they intended to carry out episcopal ordinations. This is the attitude of those who, from the outset, consider themselves outside the Church, a stance that contradicts their own awareness that they do not possess ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In fact, when they had to impose disciplinary sanctions for certain conduct by some of their priests, they turned to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which granted them the authority to do so. Moreover, Pope Francis had directly granted their priests the authority to hear confessions worldwide and issued instructions so that diocesan bishops could grant them the authority to assist at weddings, thereby ensuring that the marriages would not be invalid for the Catholic Church due to a lack of canonical form. Now all of this risks being compromised, which is a heavy responsibility for those who decide not to obey the Pope’s instructions. AV: Your Excellency, you personally spearheaded much of the work on the 2021 revision of Book VI of the Code (Pascite gregem Dei), which updated sanctions to better address contemporary situations such as clerical abuse, the attempted ordination of women, and offences against the sacraments. With several years of application now behind us, how do you evaluate the effectiveness of these changes in practice? +JA: The dicastery’s reform of Book VI of the Code has been one of the primary tasks since the pontificate of Pope Benedict, who, drawing on his many years of experience as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was well aware of the practical limitations of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which, in fact, was rarely enforced. It was the future Pope Benedict who laid the groundwork for effectively combating child abuse beginning with the promulgation of the Curia’s 1988 law, the apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus. He was the one who promoted, in the final years of John Paul II’s pontificate, the new penal regulations against abuse, assuming jurisdiction over the matter within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which he himself presided over, because the local episcopate was not managing it effectively. However, the reform of canon penal law required more in depth work, because it was necessary to overcome the prejudices and naivety of the immediate post conciliar period, which had in fact influenced the drafting of the penal norms promulgated in the 1983 Code. Now the principle of criminal legality has been explicitly restored, along with the duty of the ecclesiastical authority to act, without thereby losing the necessary humanity that the penal law of the Catholic Church necessarily entails. VA: The reforms of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta initiated under Pope Francis, particularly the appointment of a special delegate, the drafting of a new constitutional charter, and the emphasis on the Order’s religious character, have raised interesting canonical questions about the relationship between a sovereign subject of international law and the Holy See. Some observers have described it as the Vatican effectively “regulating another country”. Canonically speaking, how do you understand the Holy See’s authority over the Order in light of its dual nature as both a lay religious institute and a sovereign entity? +JA: I have little information on this subject, apart from some theoretical reading and study: I am unfamiliar with the practical realities and concrete needs, so I cannot offer an opinion. I have always believed that, in Church law, concrete situations cannot be resolved with “off the shelf” solutions, but must be tailored to fit, like a suit. Since the Church is a spiritual reality, in which it is the Holy Spirit who moves the initiatives of Christians, “copy and paste” or cookie cutter solutions are of little use; therefore, it is necessary to go through an evaluation by the authority that gives the appropriate legal form in accordance with the flexibility inherent in Church law. With that in mind, it has always seemed to me that, from a legal standpoint, the solution under canon law regarding the institution you mention should have begun with the recognition of its international legal personality and, within the framework of that formal recognition, resolved the religious issues and the remaining matters of various kinds. More specifically, since this is an entity that many countries recognise as sovereign, I believe greater consideration should have been given to the instrument of a concordat: a concordat between the Holy See and the Order, similar to those signed with many countries, would have provided a formal framework consistent with how it is actually perceived in the international arena, and within that framework, the various spiritual and charitable issues raised by this important entity could have been resolved with realism and practicality, etc. AV: A question frequently raised by faithful Catholics attached to the Vetus Ordo concerns how recent liturgical norms, such as those in Traditionis Custodes and its dubia, are to be reconciled with the broader canonical framework for divine worship and the rights of the faithful. From your perspective, how does one provide a clear and authoritative interpretation that safeguards both the unity of the Roman Rite and the legitimate spiritual needs of the faithful who find deeper nourishment in the earlier form? +JA: It seems to me that the Holy Father is fully aware of all these experiences and that he seeks to address them in the best possible way by appealing to everyone’s sense of unity and sensitivity, so that we may coexist with expressions of diversity that do not undermine unity and respect for authority. I believe that promoting unity is one of the central themes we find in the Pope’s words throughout these months of his pontificate. It is not permissible, however, to use the banner of the liturgy to shatter unity or the reverence due to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. Balance is needed. It is important to move forward while respecting the rights of the Christian faithful, and at the same time, we must obey and share in the spirit of unity. AV: Your Excellency, on January 5, 2026, thirty one priests of the Diocese of Charlotte, roughly one quarter of the active clergy and two thirds of them pastors, submitted a formal dubia to this dicastery seeking clarification on whether Bishop Martin’s practices, which explicitly permitted or even favoured by universal liturgical law, such as the use of altar rails, kneelers and prie dieux for the reception of Holy Communion, as announced in the bishop’s pastoral letter of December 17, 2025. The dubia raise fundamental questions about the limits of a diocesan bishop’s liturgical authority in relation to the rights of the faithful and the stability of universal norms. As the dicastery’s Secretary responsible for the authentic interpretation of ecclesiastical law, what is your canonical assessment of the core issues presented in this dubia? +JA: For several years now, our dicastery has been publishing on its website the various opinions and consultations we are asked to provide, omitting, of course, any personal references, whenever we believe they may be of general use to the Church. For us, it is also a way to engage with the legal world and with new situations arising in various parts of the world, seeking to stimulate studies and in depth analysis of specific aspects of canon law. Regarding individual cases, however, as is logical, we are bound to maintain absolute confidentiality, also out of respect for the individuals involved. AV: Thank you very much for your time, Your Excellency, and for your many years of service to the Church.