Denver, Colo., Jan 30, 2019 / 04:05 am (CNA).- Pope John Paul II was born Karol Wojtyla, a man from a small town in Poland who lost all of his immediate family – mom, older brother, an infant sister, and father – by the time he was 20 years old. Shortly thereafter, he vowed a life of celibacy as a Catholic priest. And yet, Wojtyla would go on to be remembered as “Pope of the Family.”
25 years ago next week, on Feb. 2, 1994, Pope John Paul II penned his “Letter to Families,” the subject of which was spurred by the United Nations’ declaration that 1994 would be the “Year of the Family.”
At the time, U.S. divorce rates were higher – about 4.6 per 1,000 people, compared with 2.9 in 2017. But marriage rates were also higher – 9.1 compared with 6.9 for those same years. Legalized same-sex marriage was still considered a taboo political idea, and would remain so for more than a decade. And Bruce Jenner still went by Bruce Jenner.
But even though it was written 25 years ago, many Catholics in family life ministries believe that the Church is only beginning to see the fruits of John Paul II’s message to families.
Although he was a celibate priest, Wojtyla became very close to a circle of young people whom he pastored while serving as chaplain to university students in Krakow. As they married and had children, Fr. Wojtyla offered spiritual and pastoral guidance to their families that would inform his work well into his years as Pope John Paul II.
“He was able to support these young families, to help them live the faith at a time when Communist society was really trying to undermine the family,” said Jared Staudt, who is the director of formation for the Archdiocese of Denver, where he also leads Building Family Culture retreats for families.
When the Communist Party ruled Poland, family’s work and school schedules were arranged in such a way that they spent as little time together as possible. The state, and not the family, was, according to the government, the ultimate good and end of society.
“So he was in this battle for family life very directly in Communist Poland,” he said of Wojtyla.
Much of what Wojtyla came to know about the sanctity and importance of marriage and family life can be found in his 1994 “Letter to Families.”
Man, woman and child – the family as vocation
John Paul II wrote prolifically on the family, but this letter is one of his more personal and concise works detailing much of his thought on marriage and family.
He was known for elevating the idea of the vocation of marriage and family life to a level that had not yet been articulated in the Catholic Church.
“John Paul literally started a revolution when it comes to the Catholic Church and family,” said Steve Bollman, founder of family ministry Paradisus Dei.
“What John Paul did is he truly identified the family as the pathway to holiness,” Bollman said. “In this letter, it’s the family that’s placed at the heart of the great struggle between good and evil, between life and death, between love and all that’s opposed to love.”
In his letter, John Paul II wrote that men and women, particularly in their roles as fathers and mothers in the family, are key to building up a “civilization of love,” in which families are able to give and receive love at individual and societal levels.
“If the first ‘way of the Church’ is the family, it should also be said that the civilization of love is also the ‘way of the Church’, which journeys through the world and summons families to this way; it summons also other social, national and international institutions, because of families and through families. The family in fact depends for several reasons on the civilization of love, and finds therein the reasons for its existence as family. And at the same time the family is the centre and the heart of the civilization of love,” John Paul II wrote (LTF 13).
Bollman said that by telling families that they were at the heart of the Church, it called them to holiness in a way that hadn’t yet been articulated.
“The vast majority of people become holy as a husband and father and wife and mother, not in spite of that,” Bollman said. John Paul II’s teachings on the family are at the foundation of Bollman’s work at Paradisus Dei, which includes a couple’s ministry, and That Man is You, a ministry for men that particularly focuses on their roles as husbands and fathers.
“Our tagline is, “Helping families discover the superabundance of God.” That’s what we are is we’re all about family and finding God within the family,” he said.
The family in crisis
Staudt called John Paul II’s letter “prophetic”, because it addresses not only the crucial importance of the family’s place in society, but some of the key ways it is under attack.
And if attacks on the family were urgent in 1994, they are all the more so today, Staudt said.
“John Paul’s famous line from the letter: ‘The history of mankind, the history of salvation, passes by way of the family,’ is actually chilling at this point,” Staudt noted, “because what we’re seeing is that we don’t have hope for the future, we’re not investing for the future of society or for the Church. We’re just living for the present moment for our own selfish desires. So I think John Paul was already recognizing that the foundation of society itself is already in jeopardy, if people are not getting married, if they’re not having kids, they’re saying no to the future.”
According to Pew Research, the marriage rate in the United States is currently hovering at around 50 percent, meaning half of U.S. adults aged 18 and older are married, a steep decline compared to the peak rate of 72 percent in 1960. The fertility rate is also at a 30-year low in the United States, and sits below replacement levels. As of 2014, less than half of children were living in a traditional nuclear home with their married mother and father.
By many measures, marriage and family life today are in crisis, in ways that are perhaps even more pronounced than when John Paul II wrote this letter.
“I think the ‘crisis of concepts’ that John Paul II speaks of is an enormous challenge for the family today,” Sr. John Mary, S.V., of the Sisters of Life, told CNA.
“Who can deny that our age is one marked by a great crisis, which appears above all as a profound ‘crisis of truth?’” John Paul II wrote. “A crisis of truth means, in the first place, a crisis of concepts. Do the words ‘love’, ‘freedom’, ‘sincere gift’, and even ‘person’ and ‘rights of the person’, really convey their essential meaning?” This crisis now seems to be even more profound than when the Pope first wrote these words, Sr. John Mary, S.V., a Sister of Life, told CNA.
“Even more so today than when the Letter to Families was written, modern culture does not recognize the truth of who the human person is, what we are made for, what constitutes a family, what freedom and human rights are,” she said. “So to truly live Christian family life becomes more and more radically countercultural. John Paul II addresses this in the letter by proposing the anthropology that corrects this crisis of concepts and allows for a civilization of love to grow by way of marriage and family,” she noted.
Another major challenge faced by families is the “radical individualism” present in current culture, Sr. John Mary said, which is something else John Paul II addressed in the letter.
According to John Paul II, radical individualism is “based on a faulty notion of freedom and proposes personalism as the antidote,” Sr. John Mary said. “The family is the first place where love is given and received. But if parents do not model authentic, self-giving love to their children, families become groups of persons pursuing their own selfish ends,” she said.
The ‘antidote’: John Paul II’s cure for a sick society
Though John Paul II’s descriptions of these crises and the current state of affairs of marriage and family in the world paint a dark picture, John Paul also provides for families and the Church a way out.
Bill Donaghy is a senior lecturer and content specialist with the Theology of the Body Institute. The mission of the Institute is to educate and train men and women to understand, live, and promote John Paul II’s teachings in his Theology of the Body.
Donaghy told CNA that not only does he consider John Paul II’s Letter to Families the blueprint to how to live a holy life personally as a husband and father, he also considers it the “antidote” to everything that goes against a “civilization of love.”
“Without a doubt in my mind, in the providence of God Who could foresee today’s crisis in marriage and the family, the attempt to redefine marriage and the explosion of gender ideologies that detach our identity from our humanity, St. John Paul II’s thought is the antidote, the cure, the clear truth of who we are and how we are to live as human persons made by Love,” he said.
“I think the vision presented in this letter is actually more relevant now than it was 25 years ago,” he said. “It contains the secret for our joy, the mystical meaning of marriage, the way home for the prodigal sons and daughters who’ve tried everything else to bring us joy and failed to find it.”
For himself, Donaghy said building the “civilization of love” starts in his own home – by treating his wife with love and respect, by spending time with and listening to his children, by modeling sacrificial love. At the parish level, he said the Church must help families by creating space for “real human interaction, conversation, and formation.”
“Again, the ‘Letter to Families’ is a goldmine of a teaching, a school of love for humanity. But we’ve got to make time and space for it to enter into the everyday dynamics of our own family,” he said.
Staudt too told CNA that the words and teachings of Pope John Paul II on the family have deeply inspired his work in family ministry.
“It really is through John Paul’s teachings, the letter and his other teachings…that I’ve discerned that the way to build Christian culture is through family life,” Staudt, who is also the father of 6, told CNA.
For the Building Family Culture retreats that he leads, Staudt said that he focuses on teaching families how to pray, the importance of which is heavily emphasized by John Paul II in his letter.
“Prayer must become the dominant element of the Year of the Family in the Church: prayer by the family, prayer for the family, and prayer with the family,” John Paul II wrote. “Prayer increases the strength and spiritual unity of the family, helping the family to partake of God’s own ‘strength.’”
“I think we take that for granted, that families know how to pray, and I don’t think they do. So I think that’s the foundation, that’s the core, and John Paul does talk a lot about that,” he said. After prayer, he also focuses on how to build a family culture, which includes doing things that form children’s imagination in positive and beautiful ways.
Staudt said he hopes that more in family ministry “wake up” to the urgency of helping families become what John Paul II has called them to be.
“I don’t think enough people have woken up to the urgency in supporting family life and really making that a priority in their parishes, their dioceses, in catechesis, in evangelization,” he said.
“John Paul I think is truly prophetic in pointing us to the fundamental realities of man, woman, human love, family life as crucial for the Church and society at this time, that these are the key issues that we need to face.”
Sr. John Mary and the Sisters of Life say they help build a “civilization of love” through the women they help in crisis pregnancies, the women they counsel after abortions, or the young people who are early on in their journey of faith.
Sr. John May said that because John Paul II was speaking about universal truths of the human person, his words will continue to be relevant for families and the Church throughout time. “John Paul’s Letter to Families explores universal truths: the goodness of the human person, the dignity of marriage, and the very real challenges facing families today,” she said. “Marriage and family are God’s plan to satisfy the universal longings of the human heart, so speaking of them is always timely.”
“We are all called to do something great with our life and our love,” she added. “We are made for love and communion with God and others. John Paul II reminds us of this lofty call, and encourages us that true love is possible.”
[…]
I apologize if I’m repeating this but recently I was traveling down a rural road in what’s historically been a predominately Baptist area. I saw a Catholic priest in full cassock and satin sash outside a little country store. It looked very out of place until I remembered that there was a huge SSPX seminary nearby.
I also saw an Amish family driving past in a horse and buggy. Every so often there was a state highway sign with a horse and buggy on it urging drivers to share the road.
All the area needs now is a Chabad synagogue and it will be an image of our demographic future.
🙂
Sadly I visited another area that has been Baptist also and one little town was down to slightly over 200 souls. The school had been closed long ago and turned into a restaurant. Great food and lovely people but you can see the writing on the wall.
Oh, good grief! Will these silly articles never end? A “schismatic mentality”… The Church does not deal with “mentalities,” but with facts. The only reason I do not attend the nearest SSPX chapel is that it is considerably farther from my home than our diocesan-sponsored parish TLM. But if that were to change, with the ongoing persecutions, I would not hesitate to make the longer trek, even if I could attend Mass only once per month. With the SSPX, you are assured of hearing homilies that stick to the Gospel, liturgies that are not personalized according to the whims of the priests, music that does not mock the solemnity of the Mass, fellow parishioners who neither dress nor behave like they are at a family picnic.
Curious. Akin said, “every time a priest commits a liturgical abuse, it creates a canonically irregular situation,”
Last Sunday, circumstance dictated I attend the NO Mass. The grave liturgical abuses at this particular parish have diminished over the decades, but the parish still bears the scars.
During Mass last week, two men, one to my left and another to my right, periodically texted on their cell phones. Two women sat in front of me, one considerably older than her partner, and when not holding hands, one affectionately rubbed the other’s shoulder, back or forearm periodically throughout Mass. All the while, they leaned one into each other. No physical distance separated them. Both wore tight-fitting jeans. One had unkempt hair, looking hastily pulled into a rubber-banded pile on top her head. The two chatted without stop, quietly, into each other’s ears. They both received Holy Eucharist (in hands) and did not return to their pew after receipt.
On Friday of this week, at the Hour of Mercy, I went to this parish’s adoration chapel. A large poster on a tripod conveyed notice and welcome to all guests of so-and-so who would celebrate their wedding at 4 PM. A huge black bow adorned the top of the notice.
Adoration in prayerful silence was nigh impossible with wedding guests laughing and gayly chatting in the vestibule outside the chapel. Thinking, “OK.” I’ll attend the wedding Mass. I found the priest in the vesting sacristy; he relayed there would be no Mass.
Gone are the days when weddings were not celebrated on Fridays, when weddings were celebrated without Mass, in Catholic churches. Announced by black decorations. This particular wedding party consisted of about 14 attendants, dressed in high-end gowns and tuxes.
These may not qualify as liturgical or clerical abuses, but surely we may see them as consequences. Definitely we saw them as irreverent faults against piety and knowledge of the goodness of the Lord. I would think the priests in this parish guilty of laxity in teaching piety, respect, awe or reverence for the God whose words he has been permitted repeat.
I am so very GRATEFUL for my Diocesan-permitted and blessed personal parish staffed by priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter. A clerical society of apostolic life of pontifical rite, their charism is to sanctify souls through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
“The Masses they [SSPX] celebrate are also valid, but it is considered morally illicit for the faithful to participate in these Masses unless they are physically or morally impeded from participating in a Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest in good standing,” Monsignor Camille Perl, then-secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, said in 1995
This is saying that they are valid, but you are not supposed to go to them unless a necessity. They are NOT in communion with the Pope or Bishops, making them illicit. Again, you can go to Mass since the Pope has allowed Sacraments, but only in necessity since they do NOT accept the Church as full authority – obviously, this is what Christ called man to do in the Bible when handing the keys to Peter. Just because people don’t like how the Pope is making certain decisions, does NOT mean you can just separate form the Church, as SSPX did — and the FSSP split from them since they were schismatic — and just continue going to a Mass that is illicit and not in hand with the Pope or Bishops.
This article grossly understates the evil of the SSPX. Their hallmarks are pride, disobedience and deceit. LeFevbre’s justification for his disobedience (ordaining bishops against the direct orders of JPII) was that he needed to do so to save the Church. Quite some nerve!
Take note that the priests of the SSPX were given the faculty to grant absolution in 2015 and to witness marriages in 2017. They crow about that now, but fail to mention that they were giving fake absolutions and performing fake weddings for decades. If that’s not an abuse of the faithful, what is?? They were granted the faculties, not as a sign of the SSPX priests’ own virtue, but as a mercy to their poor deluded followers.
Notice also that Payne’s first source is the SSPX website. He should know better than to adopt their own slant on their transgressions. Better to look at JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanations.
I like the idea of reconciliation and forgiveness. My prayer is that we can all find a way to get along as devout, orthodox Catholics, though in different rites and liturgies. Goodness knows we have enough division in the world without adding more of our own.
God bless the SSPX. I don’t believe they’re the enemy. I read that the SSPX seminary I passed nearby is involved with its local community, participates in blood drives, offers the only opportunity for Catholic Mass in the county, and is generally accepted by its Protestant neighbors. If Baptists are welcoming to the SSPX why wouldn’t we be?
I lived in a town in Switzerland where the ONLY Mass available was at the SSPX chapel, and in a diocese where the bishop frequently called on SSPX priests to preside at funerals because there was NOBODY else to do it. So much for “schism….”
Some of those guys are basically modern circuit riders, taking regular plane trips to the nether regions of Alaska to bring the Sacraments there. As a general rule, I think they take their obligation to provide the Sacraments pretty seriously.
As far as I can tell, their views on Vatican 2 are the same as those held by many who are in full communion with Rome. St. Joan of Arc, pray for them.
No doubt, the counterfeit church that The Catholic Church has accommodated and permitted to subsist within The One Body Of Christ is not The SSPX, but the church of lukewarmness that, in essence, seeks to align themselves with the atheist materialistic over population alarmist globalists, like the U.N., who deny that God, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, Is The Author Of Love, Of Life, And Of Marriage, rendering onto Caesar or themselves, what Has Always And Will Always Belong To God:
Vatican Backs UN Globalist Pact Timidly Objecting to Abortion and Gender Ideology – The Stream
“As usual, the Church declares, “in medio stat virtus” (virtue stands in the middle).”
“Aristotle describes a virtue as a “mean” or “intermediate” between two extremes: one of excess and one of deficiency. “
In this case, Aristotle was simply mistaken. We can know through both our Catholic Faith and reason, that when it comes to The Truth Of Love, there can never be an excess, only a deficiency, when we fail to Love according to The Truth Of Perfect Love Incarnate, for Perfect Love does not divide, it multiplies, as in The Miracle Of The Loaves And Fishes.
“Be Perfect as My Heavenly Father Is Perfect!” Jesus The Christ
“Penance, Penance, Penance.”
“At the heart of Liberty Is Christ.”
“4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Hoply Ghost, 5Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come…”,
to not believe that Christ’s Sacrifice On The Cross will lead us to Salvation, but we must desire forgiveness for our sins, and accept Salvational Love, God’s Gift Of Grace And Mercy; believe in The Power And The Glory Of Salvation Love, and rejoice in the fact that No Greater Love Is There Than This, To Desire Salvation For One’s Beloved.
“Hail The Cross, Our Only Hope.”
“Blessed are they who are Called to The Marriage Supper Of The Lamb.”
“For where your treasure is there will your heart be also.”
“Behold your Mother.” – Christ On The Cross
🙏💕🌹
How can you judge the reason behind granting the SSPX jurisdiction for confession and marriage?
Maybe they just consider them Catholic after all and should be treated a such.
Rome did not give your reason as to why they decided to be fair with the SSPX. That’s your own slant on the situation.
This is mean spirited and not at all charitable. By the way,John Paul II did the exact same thing when he was an Archbishop in Poland. That is, consecration of bishop without permission from Rome.
“All religions are pathways to reach God.” – Pope Francis
A most excellent point you have there!
That is heresy
Maybe they need an article that defines “heretic” and “schism”.
What on earth is “not in full communion”? Communion doesn’t have percentage points. You’re either in the Church or you’re not.
Those who affiliate with the Society of Saint Pius X don’t find themselves “controversial” at all I am certain.
Let’s remember that their Sacraments are valid. When their priests consecrate bread and wine with the intention of calling down the Holy Spirit to transubstantiate them into the Body and Blood of Christ, they do indeed become the Body and Blood of Christ.
Sacraments in SSPX parishes are valid but not licit because of the canonical status. The Orthodox churches are still in schismatic status, but they retain 7 valid Sacraments, but like the sspx, they’re not licit because they aren’t in full communion with Rome.
This one sentence in the article above jumped out at me.
“If they were still in a state of schism, the excommunications could not have been lifted without the law immediately reimposing them. Therefore, they are no longer in schism.”
In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted each other’s excommunication from the 1054 Schism, yet the Orthodox remain in schism and separate from Rome. I don’t see much difference between the Orthodox and the sspx.
It is for this that I cannot in good faith attend an SSPX Mass or an Orthodox Divine Liturgy , unless I was literally on the brink of death with no Catholic parish in full communion with Rome for hundreds of miles around. I have no animosity toward anyone on this matter, I would just rather be safe than sorry.
Orthodox Church Sacraments are valid just as SSPX Sacraments are valid. Yes, they are illicit in the case of the latter (I don’t know if Orthodox Church Sacraments are considered illicit by Rome). But if you’re traveling in a region of the world where no church in full union with Rome were available, you’d fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending an Orthodox liturgy and receiving the Sacrament. One doesn’t need to be at the point of death in order to do so. In fact, what Catholic in a state of mortal sin and facing imminent death wouldn’t confess to an SSPX priest if a priest in full communion with Rome were not available?
You would not fulfill your Sunday obligation to attend Mass at an Orthodox liturgy, because it is not a Catholic Mass/Divine Liturgy. (Canon 1248) Canon law allows for receiving Holy Communion there (which seems a bit contradictory), but not for fulfilling the Sunday obligation there.
When there is no way to fulfill that obligation, it is simply dispensed. The obligation to keep Sunday holy in some way remains in force.
This is not the case with the SSPX. Because they are in communion with Rome, they are Catholic and their Mass actually fulfills the Sunday obligation. It is illicit, but so are all the liturgical abuses found in other Catholic Masses. The question of which abuses are worse is one that, as the article mentioned, laity shouldn’t be obligated to figure out before fulfilling their Sunday obligation. It’s better to assist at a licit Mass. If all Masses within range are some variety of illicit, you choose the least bad in your best judgement. There are some who say that if the only Mass(es) available have seriously bad abuses, your obligation is also dispensed. That seems to mesh with common sense, but I have no idea how bad that has to be, or which side the SSPX falls on. But I expect that no one commits mortal sin by being in honest doubt.
Because the SSPX has received faculties from the Pope for Confession, it is certainly valid, and I believe also licit, to go to an SSPX priest for Confession.
I would not attend an Orthodox liturgy because it is not Catholic. But I would attend an SSPX Mass if that were my best or only option. Hopefully, that will never be the case – at least not until they are regularized.
Anna: You state that it’s alright for a Catholic to receive Holy Communion at an Orthodox liturgy when no other option is available but attendance at an Orthodox liturgy is not a Catholic Mass. Tell me, then, what a Divine Liturgy is if not the same Holy Sacrifice in which the remembrance of Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection are remembered and when bread and wine become His Body and Blood.
You’re right Deacon Edward. If one happened to be traveling in an area without a Catholic Church for hundreds of miles around, I’d probably attend an Orthodox Liturgy, but would abstain from receiving the Eucharist out of respect for the Orthodox and my own Catholic faith.
As for Orthodox Sacraments, they are 100% valid, but I’m pretty sure they’re not licit because they reject the Pope as the universal leader of the worldwide Church, and like I said above, disagree on Catholic dogma such as the Immaculate Conception.
Maybe one day, just maybe one day, we’ll all be reunited. God bless you sir.
Didn’tThinkSo: Thank you for your considered response. When I think of attending an Orthodox liturgy when no other option is available, I also think of Christ’s admonition – “Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of His blood, you will not have life within you.” As for me, I will choose life.
Sorry for the late response, Deacon Ed, hope I’m not reviving another old thread. Amanda above did point out something that is true. Attending an Orthodox Divine Liturgy will not fulfill a Sunday obligation, whether or not there is a Catholic Church nearby. The obligation would probably be dispensed because of the impossibility of finding a Catholic Church within a reasonable distance, but that’s a better question to ask your priest.
I would urge you and Amanda to abstain from attending an SSPX mass unless in dire emergencies, and as I mentioned, unless you’re on the brink of death, Orthodox Sacraments, though 100% valid, should be avoided out of respect for their theology and your own Catholic faith. A confession, absolutely, if you’re near to your death.
Yes, whoever eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood remains in Me and I in him. But lets keep it Catholic!
With more SSPX parishes today and fewer diocesan churches, which to attend or contact in emergencies may become a real issue in some areas.
I traveled through two rural counties recently that have no diocesan Catholic church but one has an SSPX Mass available. If you have limited ability to travel the long distance to the next country or you are homebound and need the Sacraments what would you do?
I know someone in that situation and I’m tempted to contact the SSPX nearby them to see if they can help.
MrsCracker: I would fitst contact your local diocese to ask if the Sacraments can be administered to your homebound friend. Maybe a well-trained lay person could bring weekly Communion, and a priest could visit every month for a confession.
I know someone who spent 20 years in an sspx church before finding out that they weren’t in full communion with Rome. She left them behind, and has been attending her local parish which has a reverent Novus Ordo Mass and zero liturgical abuse. To this day, she has not looked back at the sspx as a viable option should her local parish close.
I know many people will differ and argue about the current canonical status of the sspx, but my viewpoint is if they’re not fully in communion with Rome, then we should avoid going to their parishes. In the Nicene Creed, there are those 4 points of doctrine that define a fully Catholic Church: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Like the Orthodox, the sspx are Holy, Catholic and Apostolic (maintained the chain of apostolic succession from the Twelve, and therefore have valid Sacraments). But if they aren’t in full communion with Rome, then they aren’t One. It is for this reason that I cannot in good faith attend an sspx Mass or an Orthodox Divine Liturgy and receive the Eucharist. Everyone else is absolutely entitled to their opinion on this, I just expressed mine. God bless everyone, I’m moving on from this now.
Thank you for sharing that. I’m going to see what the local diocese offers but if they have no parish in the entire county it’s going to be more difficult.
I know I’m very, very late to the party, but I hope Pope Benedict isn’t. Contrary to what Akin claims that Papa Bene said SSPX is no longer in schism, here is a quote from his Letter lifting the SSPX excommunication:
Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009:
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.”
SSPX IS IN SCHISM. It is outside and separate from the communion of the Church. The judgment and declarations of the Popes have been consistent over the years. SSPX’s lies and falsehoods, to the contrary, are also consistent often propagated by symphatizer bishops like Schneider, Strickland, and Hounder.
1. Pope Paul VI’s letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on the (schism) withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) June 29, 1975:
” … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority – although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed.
” Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.”
Source: PAUL VI, “Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre,” 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113.
2. Pope St. John Paul II on SSPX schism in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988:
” In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html
3. Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009::
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
While Pope Francis’ gesture of mercy shows an important precedent — for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing — it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM – not an approval of SSPX, or their situation.
5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis’ motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict’s statement on SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
6. Pope Francis’ letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, specifically mentioning SSPX to be in “schism.” Here’s the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese’s permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple’s consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX, although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church.
8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II’s letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here’s the link to Pope JPII letter:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141