Above: the SR-71 Blackbird, a product of Skunkworks.
To discuss traditionalism, I shall use the metaphor of Skunkworks: a small, highly autonomous, and loosely structured group within an organization operating outside normal bureaucratic procedures. In industry research and development, success may require groups telling the bureaucracy: “You impede success.” In recent times, traditionalist Skunkworks were on the verge of becoming a stable ecclesial group, no longer principally defending themselves but injecting new life into the Church. Successful skunkworks create tensions with its governing bureaucracy. When a group, operating outside ordinary structures, begins to succeed without direct bureaucratic direction, how do bureaucrats interpret this? This is the dilemma traditionalism presents to the Church. OnePeterFive notices traditionalism coalescing and – as such – becoming a homogenous group. It needs but cannot afford its own Skunkworks (i.e., traditionalist need a skunkworks within Skunkworks). Enter Fr. Levine. Fr. Levine represents a smaller unit, a red team, invited to find, in an ethical way, flaws in the traditionalist ecosystem, wherever it may be liable to attack. A red team gets invited to tear to shreds self-complacency and laziness of a group. Thus, Fr. Levine’s critique of the SSPX’s profession of faith is most welcome.
I read Fr. Levine, in spite of his use of the humility topos: “I’m just a parish priest,” to possess a rarer clarity of thought than most seminarians whom I have educated over the decades. This training, I suspect, was not at a seminary. Two strengths undergird Fr. Levine’s article: decades of pastoral experience in the Novus Ordo, and above average training in Catholic thought. Levine occupies a middle register between highly technical academic theology and ordinary pastoral commentary. He challenges informed traditionalists as an educated and experienced defender of the mainstream postconciliar synthesis. I respond to Fr. Levine, on the one hand, with charity but, on the other hand, truth combined with an economy of space; a challenge.
Fr. Levine’s opening unites with traditionalists to judge the German Church, in its episcopal body, a public scandal for its lapse in doctrine and discipline. Immediately, Fr. Levine’s temperament seems to manifest itself: Even if all appears rotten, hope and optimism is sought in the face of bad news. This recurs throughout the essay:
- German crisis? Find signs of life.
- Conscience confusion among most faithful? Find mitigating factors.
- Vatican II tension for decades? Find continuity.
- Irregular unions worldwide? Find grace at work.
- Postconciliar contradictions in papal documents? Find a reconciliatory reading.
Fr. Levine finds his first bright spot in anecdotal testimony by two Germans: somewhere there good work is still happening in the mainline institution. This thread appears throughout the essay, the silver lining in every cloud. I can sympathize with the search to find confirmation of divine hope in today’s history, but I diagnosis Fr. Levine as conflating human “hope as a strategy” to deal with crisis, very different than theological hope (focused on future things beyond; Romans 8:24-25).
Fr. Levine prefaces his critique by contextualizing SSPX profession of faith to Pope Leo XIV, castigating their sloganeering: “resist Vatican II.” He rightly identifies that clerical leaders at various levels exaggerate. Likewise, quarters of traditionalists inflict self-harm (e.g., Michael Matt has called it the circular firing squad). Fr. Levine, capable of technical or theological parsing, wants precision in every rank: disagree with points of a council, not every jot and tittle. Surprisingly, throughout the rest of the essay, Fr. Levine extends most charitable readings to people in objective error: pagans, dissident Christian groups, erring Novus Ordo Catholics (as virtual mirror of the Vatican policy) except toward traditionalists, reserving for them malice of intention. Sometimes, Fr. Levine’s essay reads like any other OnePeterFive writer, but elsewhere the message seems clear: Traditionalists are conceded the lesser number of qualifications to exonerate their guilt for error; they bear the greater burden for guilt in comparison to their rivals. Our silver lining: We glimpse how mainline clerics of the USA likely see the traditionalist movement: ideologues and morally defective, unlike other masses who are inculpably ignorant and whose goodwill is presumed. The reader can feel a hermeneutic of suspicion throughout the essay; traditionalists are an enemy; Protestants, Jewish, and secular groups are of goodwill in need of friendly relations. As a pastor of years, Fr. Levine theoretically may not endorse this as explicit strategy, but there it is: being a divine gadfly is proper to traditionalist vocation and awakens mainline clerics. The Trad irritant is a reliable itch that cannot be scratched, a nuisance to self-complacency and self-gratulation, a magical power to annoy only to get the swat.
Fr. Levine still inhabits living memory of the the Council, the heat of its flame warms him: “When the TLM becomes emblematic of resistance to Vatican II it begins to become a vehicle for schismatic tendencies.” A longer arc of Church history provides us with different exemplars, as St. Gregory Nazianzen (morally forced to resign during the Second Ecumenical Council). He resisted its unjust decrees on matters unconcerned with Arianism (Macedonianism) and Apollinarianism. I might multiply paradigms; neither St. Gregory (nor St. Ambrose of Milan) would have explicitly ever suffered martyrdom for every jot and tittle of Constantinople I (381), though holding the same faith as the bishops thereat. Reason fails us, if we do not ask: How can room be made in martyrologies for St. Gregory’s and St. Ambrose’s resistance to parts of Constantinople I? Why – regarding ordinary magisterium – require extraordinary adherence in those matters of discipline smacking of ambiguity at Vatican II? What is disloyal per se if appeal is made to clearer previous teaching?
Next, Fr. Levine highlights a real challenge for SSPX: The presumption of the law, until proven otherwise, is that unauthorized episcopal ordinations are treated by law as schismatic acts. Here, Fr. Levine disciplines his reader correctly: should this event happen, canon law demands an investigation, and its findings may uncover schismatic intent. If that is the result, the canons justify a papal excommunication. This brings about a serious consideration for SSPX: How seriously is the crisis in the Church (admitted by Fr. Levine to be affecting at least Germany)? They might reason: The evidence is that much more than Germany, even the Vatican, succumbs, then the risk outweighs the sanction, for the salvation of souls.
Ironically – apart from the canonical process – Fr. Levine invokes canon 1382 against the SSPX. The canon’s current wording arose from Pius XII’s Ad Apostolorum Principis, dealing with Chinese communists. Formerly, the Vatican rejected dual allegiance, where primary subjugation to Communist ideology was a condition imposed on bishops of the Church. Recently, the CCP by “Provisional Agreement” exercises decisive influence over episcopal nominations, while Rome but recognizes candidates emerging from this process. Hence, the underground Church finds itself greatly paralleling SSPX – by rejecting Communist oaths – versus the CCP Patriotic Church patronized by the Vatican. The patriotic bishops might too be excommunicated for not swearing an oath to the CCP and receiving post a papal sign off. Here is a lesson: a canon was instituted in its 1983 form to deal with a then-contemporary situation (CCP), but may now be applied equally to the anti-Communistic Church in China, or even occupied Ukraine, just as to SSPX. Therefore, legal categories often outlive historical circumstances that generated them.
Next, Fr. Levine signals his hermeneutic of suspicion for interpreting virtually every line of SSPX’s profession of faith: “The context of the Declaration tends to distort the meaning of the very truths professed.” Fr. Levine’s thesis is not that SSPX occasionally errs, but the movement’s ecclesiology distorts even the truths it correctly professes. Fr. Levine marshals his best combination of rhetoric, canon law, and theology, to persuade traditionalists – if there be some of goodwill – to abandon moral support of SSPX because it is a distortion of Catholicism. My interest is not his thesis, but his evidence and methodology, which prove incoherent (neither due to malice nor to bad principles). His inability to view from afar a hierarchy of principles: a stable architecture of reason, revelation, grounds for making acts of faith, and the system of theological reasoning they lead to, altogether leads Fr. Levine to invoke Catholic principles and peculiar applications thereof, but ad hoc, confusing this hierarchy of principles. His own architecture proves too weak to bear the weight of his conclusions.
The paradigmatic moment of unprincipled criticism of SSPX runs thus: “While faith and action are intimately linked and it has become common to separate pastoral action from doctrinal faith, the SSPX in its own way seems to confound pastoral action with doctrinal faith.” Fr. Levine’s conclusion proves haphazard.
- Premise 01 of his syllogistic principle: Actions do not overlap with theory and should be treated separately, not the same.
- Fr. Levine asserts premise 02: SSPX conflates Vatican action with doctrine, an error.
- Fr. Levine concludes: SSPX’s professed faith is defective because it fails to affirm Vatican demands to profess Conciliar practical policies, actions, and orientations as true, though Conciliar doctrine in no way changed.
This is a basic and grave error in reasoning. Either St. Ambrose and St. Gregory can oppose in good faith prudential judgments and policies (under whatever conditions) of an Ecumenical Council or they morally cannot. Ab esse ad posse valet illatio.
Fr. Levine complains about a default setting in today’s debates thus: “The SSPX is given a ‘free pass’ on matters of faith.” Fr. Levine’s conviction is that the record be set straight, admirably hedging SSPX as “in danger of schism” and at “risk of heresy.” For now, we will take this characterization of traditionalists as the issue. Throughout his essay, Fr. Levine fails to qualify “schism” and “heresy” as effects of rejection of the extraordinary and universal ordinary magisterium versus pure obedience demanded by Rome (in the clarified terms of Pope Pius XII) to the ordinary magisterium of the pope.[1] This flaw muddles his categorization of disputes between Rome and SSPX. To illustrate: To reject the published Creed of Nicaea, or to contest an affirmation of Vatican II about “the signs of the times,” are not acts of the same theological species.
Happily, Fr. Levine demonstrates that he understands things beyond a simple parish priest:
Early formulations of principles like “no salvation outside of the Church,” or expressions regarding the unicity of the Church or the unicity of baptism were made without qualifications. Through the course of history, often over centuries, implicit qualifications were drawn out and made explicit. To deny the qualifications that were later made explicit distorts the meaning of the original affirmation.
Fr. Levine’s initial architecture is promising: As the principle of non-contradiction is: “A square is a square and is not a circle…” Yet, Levine notes further conditions to be required for an enduring principle of logic: “… at the same time and in the same respect.” He applies this to SSPX’s statement: “There is no salvation outside the Church.” Fr. Levine does not impugn the statement (too aware of its long arc with Fathers and saints), but suspiciously reads into SSPX (as with nigh every affirmation): What is the implicit Vatican policy SSPX denies by this statement? I adapt a quote in response: “Sometimes a profession of faith is simply a profession of faith.” Besides this handicapped reading of SSPX’s profession, refusing face value meaning, or even comparison with a 1960 copyrighted version of Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma,[2] Fr. Levine spills most of his ink trying to ferret out hidden traps for the Vatican belying each confessional affirmation. My reading is: No hidden trap needed but a public signal to the Vatican about its conundrum: Are SSPX statements contained in the universal and ordinary magisterium (cf. Denzinger, cited by Vatican I and II) or not? This is what puts the bureaucracy in a bind, not unlike the cardinals’ famous Dubia. Bad optics flow in secular and especially European media and Vatican relations if they reaffirm pre-Vatican II Universal Ordinary Magisterium in its straightforward terms.
Fr. Levine is furthermore concerned about the absence of qualifications in SSPX’s summary restatement: “no salvation outside the Church” (and desires multiple qualifications in many lines of this summary profession). Levine’s moral theology instincts constantly predominate: Affirm a dogma, yes, but provide all mitigating conditions: ignorance, good will, lack of opportunity, etc. What Fr. Levine’s tenderheartedness fails to account for is the critical point, as per Pope Pius XII, where “no salvation outside the Church” becomes “a meaningless formula.”[3] Let me illustrate, by example of a restaurant owner: “We are never open on Sundays, that’s the Lord’s day.” The principle and its effect seem absolute. Now let me qualify it: “We are never open on Sundays… unless it’s a national holiday because too many people need a meal … and except the tourist season because that’s our main source of income … and we do dishes on Sundays … and I clean on Sundays to ready for Monday…” At a certain point, the real is accurately stated thus: “We in principle work minimally on the Lord’s Day and only because of profit margins.” We are closed on Sundays is not true. Fr. Levine doesn’t signal that the several qualifications he makes move dangerously toward this said objection. He creeps, each distinction moving him closer, to: “Only somebody who knows all propositions, and emotionally and intellectually integrated, who freely and maliciously rejects the faith risks damnation.” Microscopic distinctions of moral theology without limits can become parasitic on higher and loftier propositions of truth.
Next, granted traditionalist adherents in the United States can be estimated at 2-3% of Mass goers, we should excuse Fr. Levine’s occasional mischaracterization SSPX. Fr. Levin’s long excursus on “no salvation, etc.” is probably innocently unaware of the longstanding opposition to Feeney’s doctrine requiring water baptism absolutely. A perusal of a 1960 copyrighted Denzinger includes the Holy Office opposition to Feeney. SSPX mightily opposes Feeneyism. Thus, Fr. Levine wastes much time on his intended readers. There is a silver lining: Fr. Levine reads somehow Feeneyism into the SSPX profession of faith, despite SSPX longstanding opposition thereto. This is the intellectual cost of a hermeneutic of suspicion; a pardonable sin, for Fr. Levine is really a parish priest, not a stuffy academic obliged to scour virtual bibliotheca for every SSPX proposition and controversy since 1965.
Significant cornerstones are missing from Fr. Levine structure: What is the hierarchy of theological principles to apply in his critique? When do distinctions vitiate the thing rather than explain it? Elsewhere, a missing capstone enfeebles his arch upon discussing the ordinary magisterium. Again, using a hermeneutic of suspicion, Fr. Levine searches the hidden landmine in SSPX’s affirmation: “By divine decree, the Most Holy Virgin Mary has been directly and intimately associated with the entire work of Redemption…” The issue missed by Fr. Levine is that SSPX avoided the term “Coredemptrix,” and chose only the underlying theological notion – independently affirmed by Fr. Levine by quoting Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, nos. 61-2). SSPX makes a very moderate statement in its profession of faith, essentially like: “We profess the universal ordinary magisterium to mean Mary merits during Jesus’s salvific mission and these have objective value.” If the Pope Leo XIV accepts this, then the root of the controversy rejecting the term Coredemptrix is solved, although the allegedly illicit usage of the term remains. The term, used in ordinary magisterium, is not presented by SSPX as essential to the faith, missed by Fr. Levine.
Fr. Levine continually, if accidentally, keeps slipping into the SSPX camp he impugns. First, regarding the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) rejection of Coredemptrix: “Nor did the DDF deny either the reality of co-redemption or mediation. Their only concern, rightly or wrongly, was with possible misunderstanding of the titles.” Beyond Fr. Levine’s intentions, he concedes more than his overall architecture should allow: The prudence of the DDF may have done something “wrongly.” Yet, Fr. Levine passes over this as inconsequential: But this is the point at issue. Notable departures and plausible contradictions between the pre- and post-1965 ordinary magisterium are not obiter dicta, they are the central issue. Later, Levine repeats this grave methodological error:
The late Msgr. Arthur B. Calkins, staunch proponent of the “threefold dogma” (Co- redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate), who would certainly have detested the DDF document, would nevertheless have recognized that it was merely about secondary matters, words rather than realities.
Fr. Levine does not realize the deep quagmire he creates for himself and the Vatican:
- The Curial Fr. Calkins can detest ordinary magisterium (no moral judgment implied),
- since the DDF document is unworthy of paying attention to about “secondary matters.” Levine’s rhetoric imperfectly hides his underlying commitments.
The DDF document (Maria Populi Fidelis) is ordinary magisterium. Levine concedes too much, his premises’ implications are broader than he acknowledges: (i.) Calkins can despise it, (ii.) it is only ordinary magisterium. A corollary by the SSPX could be: Whence, we only oppose (not despise!) the ordinary magisterium and consider it too contradictory to bind, whether DDF or Vatican II. Fr. Levine concedes a privilege to Caulkins, denied to SSPX, giving the former “a free pass.”
Problematically, Fr. Levin’s theory is underequipped to address Coredemptrix as essentially taught first by Pope Leo XIII (Encyclical) and Pope St. Pius X (Encyclical).[4] Afterwards, the term is invoked by a magisterial Holy Office decree (26 June 1913), then Benedict XV (Encyclical; 1918),[5] a brief of Pius XI and other papal allocutions.[6] After Vatican II, John Paul II used the terminology in several minor magisterial addresses. Incredibly, the DDF’s Maria populi fidelis, otherwise richly footnoted, avoids all magisterial references and vaguely summarizes the magisterium as “some popes” (MPF, no. 18). The DDF principle now in force is that it is always “inappropriate” to call Mary Coredemptrix. Since magisterially popes Pius XI-John Paul II are “inappropriate purveyors of terms,” what authority other than papal makes this papacy the “ever-appropriate purveyor of terms”? The differential: the dead do not speak. An atemporal affirmation, past popes were theologically inappropriate, whether in encyclicals, or otherwise. Fr. Levine provides no key for unlocking which magisterium is “truer” to be “more obeyed” over its rivals on this theological terminology. Apparently, men are morally wrong to endorse previous magisterium (in moral theology, Levine does not address popes as guilty of theological inappropriateness).
Reluctantly, I address a point not central to Levine’s overall architecture: Like his conflation of all levels of magisterium, ad hoc, with dogma, Fr. Levine confuses the juridical-canonical term “Roman Church.” Again, Denzinger 1960 clearly preserves the theological and canonical tradition prior to Vatican II’s Orientalium Ecclesiarium. Newer canonical distinctions do not impute heresy or error to past magisterium, lest previous Congregations and popes be all implicated since Trent (and prior). The imprecise language of popes was all-encompassing: “the Greeks,” or later “Oriental” or “Eastern Church.” After studying thousands of Eastern sources of canons and their collections from diverse traditions since Pius XI, a satisfactory language emerged to respect separate histories and to enshrine those by law. Criticism of “Roman Church” is a case where Fr. Levine’s short historical horizon hobbles his critique substantially and in its details.
Fr. Levine then follows up with an accusation against SSPX that outruns even Vatican sources: Essentially the SSPX is described as outside of the Church and, rhetorically, outside of salvation. While jolting, he cannot explain how to integrate prized Vatican sources: Vatican decrees of SSPX Mass and communion satisfying the Sunday obligation and the recognition of SSPX Sacraments that require jurisdiction (e.g., confession) as valid. This seriously undermines the force of a purely rhetorical attack.
I also briefly note other specious attacks (e.g., Pelagianism), since Levine’s SSPX critiques begin by lamenting their excessive demand for grace everywhere in all conditions for salvation, only to accuse them of excluding all grace from their theology… Pick an opponent: Jansensius or Pelagius, for Jansensio-Pelagianism is a pretty tough sell.
In the lengthy essay, Fr. Levine seems genuinely offended by the notion that each and every proposition of Catholic dogma must be affirmed to dispose oneself to divine or infused charity: “It seems that the SSPX would reduce all of this to the mere adherence to the creed.” The architectonic problem Fr. Levine runs into feels very much like a bottom up moral theology: look first at people, then figure out their limiting factors, make a best moral guess as to their dispositions and state of conscience, and finally determine whether they are plausibly obstinate. Only afterwards, under all these conditions, consider application of the theological virtues as requisite for salvation. There is something pastoral to this, but faith is top down by Scripture, by Tradition, and by ordinary magisterium: Credal propositions are “believed by hearing,” the belief involves a reasonable act of the will, the belief urges toward action of baptism, baptism provides infused faith, hope, and love. Love saves. Fr. Levine accidently emptied, in his zeal to concede justifying grace to pagan and heretic, soteriology (salvation-theology) of its content. The unifying principle making the Church different from a social or political organization is faith, a series of propositions requiring willful internal assent. A habit of belief is fully realized and salvation secured through loving actions (Galatians 5:6) with the revealed God as end goal. In his zeal for God’s house, Fr. Levine bypassed Catholic architecture, pulverizing SSPX as if constructed from Feeneyite bricolage. This is always the risk of an a posteriori theology of exceptions determining the rule of faith.
Having initially stumbled over the cornerstone of soteriology, I think – in the end – Fr. Levine would agree with salvation-theology here presented in its cathedral architecture. Still, his professed mission is to break open weak points in SSPX’s modest chapel: its profession of faith to Pope Leo XIV. It is here that he unfortunately picks a fight on a disputed question: Is the jurisdiction that a bishop has over a territory directly or indirectly from the Roman pontiff? The dispute is presented in simplistic terms: does episcopal consecration or the pope grant to a new bishop an office of governance. The disputed question, however, is deeper. Because Fr. Levine’s essay is approximately 9,000 words and I seek to respond with half as many, I must pass on to more important matters. Suffice it to say, Fr. Levine believes he located a theological fault line in SSPX. On this matter, we need to know whether SSPX holds a stronger papalist position, as Sts. Bonaventure and Thomas, or Lumen Gentium invoked by Fr. Levine.
Next, Fr. Levine introduces another self-defeating concession, parallel to his admission regarding Fernández’s Maria Populi Fidelis, but on the liturgical question of the consecration of the blood at Mass:
[…] “For many” is proper for the consecration. The English translation originally employed “for all” which while it opened the door for a false idea of universal salvation, also had a legitimate meaning, though perhaps not appropriate for the consecration.
Less concessive, but even so, too much by half: If the Holy See gave a recognitio (approval) to a translation that is (morally) inappropriate, then it conceded a correction that originated from a critique from traditionalist-aligned Italians (the so-called Ottaviani intervention). This reversal is due to a sustained, multi-decade criticism by books and tracts against the Novus Ordo in several modern languages. The concession by the Vatican is that the English is apt to be misunderstood. Again, critique of the liturgy (a locus theologicus) by traditionalist figures led to institutional correction (within Fr. Levine’s framework), so that public complaints can be accredited for good doctrinal reform. This is the position of the SSPX, and traditionalists generally. Granted Caulkins’ contrary-to-fact disagreement with the DDF and traditionalist critiques of pro omnibus, Fr. Levine overlaps more in principle than he may realize with SSPX.
Fr. Levine most clearly reveals his shared principle with SSPX that the ordinary magisterium may be judged to err, at least in some vague way, in a third concession:
While he [Francis] may have handled it wrongly, it is important to recognize that in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis was grappling with the reality of confused consciences and the disconnect between the confused conscience of a Catholic and the teaching of the Church.
Here, the admission concedes magisterium may be wrong: The Holy’s See’s practical moral solutions may have gone too far, but an appeal is made to Francis’s pastoral heart, dealing with real people in the trenches. The tension is understandable: The Church’s canonical and theological rules excluded millions living non-sacramental unions. Pope Francis endorsed “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitiae magisterially than that published in the Acts of the Apostolic See (2016) allowing those who were subjectively in some way not entirely cognizant of their objective situation to commune, as their guilt is mitigated. We expect a papalist to boldly defend the ordinary magisterium in all its luster, not asking Fr. Levine to be martyred in the name of obedience. Fr. Levine admits “it may have been handled wrongly…” I proffer that SSPX is more serious and committed to the teaching of the ordinary magisterium than Fr. Levine in these instances.
I now point out a critique of SSPX’s profession faith that Fr. Levine exploits quite correctly. He cites SSPX: “Sins of impurity … against nature are of such gravity that they always and in every circumstance cry to God for vengeance.” Fr. Levine sees imprecision in moral theology. The pastor, very familiar with having parsing species of sin sees SSPX hyperbolizing sins of vengeance by widening the genus of sin. I add that Schoolmen and St. Alphonsus’s Handbook for Confessors are quite graphic with naming the kinds of sin they treat. SSPX’s hypersensitive constituency has clothed Adam’s and Eve’s nakedness with a burqa, rather than a loin cloth. Fr. Levine emphasizes in the profession of faith: All sins of impurity against nature do not cry for vengeance. The sexual sins are listed after willful murder, as sodomy, followed by oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers. Fr. Levine rightfully lists sins intrinsically against nature but not calling for vengeance. Schoolmen and moral theologians of the pre-Conciliar period would not quibble here. From my score keeping, this marks a win for team Levine. However, as he begins to apply maximal pressure – uncovering a fault line in the SSPX profession – he fumbles the ball and scores an auto goal, writing: “I think it would be proper to say that a sin can only cry to God for vengeance if it is committed out of malice.” Notice, again, Levine’s pastoral heart. But, beware … non-malicious murder (?) … the specter of distinction-ing oneself out of personal guilt become parasitic on sins calling out for God’s vengeance.
As we arrive at the end of the essay, Levine writes: “Finally, is it for the SSPX to define the Faith to the Pope or to receive the definition of the Faith from the Pope?” I honestly think he misunderstands the terms of debate since the ordinary magisterium does not define faith, nor revelation. When the ordinary magisterium criticizes the ordinary magisterium, what criterion for obedience of mind and will suffices? A former pope gave magisterium ‘a,’ a latter one taketh it away. What Catholic criterion discerns the presumptively truer from more false? The answer held by the SSPX and others can run thus: The Extraordinary and Universal Ordinary Magisterium includes and build upon human reason (viz., locus theologicus) and its syllogizing as rationality, moving the mind toward a meaningful conclusion for its assent. Gibberish, or vague objects, cannot motivate the intellect, only some positive entity that is true and good for the will to elect. Reason and Magisterium are not transcendental disjunctives: as if the mind is forced to choose either irreformable magisterium or absolute reason. Rather, reason compares the propositions of the faith to what it comprehends by natural inquiry: “God is three” does not contradict reason and harmonizes with evidence for rational belief.
Monophysite Traditionalists
Fr. Levine’s final remarks appeal to Cardinal Müller’s sloppy historical parallel between Copts and traditionalists:
Cardinal Müller suggests that the situation of the SSPX is a bit like the Monophysites who claimed fidelity to the Council of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria but rejected the Council of Chalcedon. The comparison is apt precisely because the denial of the later development distorts the adherence to the already defined truth.
Having read Müller (a dogmatic theologian) he should know, especially given dialogue with Oriental Orthodox, that “Monophysite” now properly designates Eutyches and his theological reception by some Orthodox into the eighth century. Eutychianism was condemned by Archbishop Dioscoros,[7] spiritual Father of today’s Coptic Church. Monophysites argued with Severos of Antioch, the greatest Christologist in Coptic Church history. Pope St. Leo argued the absurdity of Eutyches belief of two natures of Christ before the union not at the time of the Incarnation.[8] Cardinal Müller impugned Monophysites for failing to realize that Chalcedon “taught the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures in the divine person of the Son.” Two natures at the union is St. Cyril in his Letter to Succensus, accepted by Dioscoros, Severos, and today’s Copts. Cardinal Müller confounds this position with Monophysites. The real parallel emerges: Cardinal Müller and too many with teaching and governing roles are not serious theologians, sometimes refusing and sometimes unable to understand the position and merits of SSPX and traditionalists. To assert fideistically that there is continuity because the ordinary magisterium (in their reading) asserts: “there is continuity” is wrong. The magisterium asserts: “There may be deficiencies” in the magisterium. What is more Francis and Leo name some: “Coredemptrix” and “slavery.” Papalist theologians rightly assert: “Distinctions can show continuity” (in theory) but they are allergic to the following: If the magisterium asserts of itself deficiencies and inappropriateness, it is a service to the magisterium to locate where these cases lie. The real problem: It might include things said by or after Vatican II. But that taboo has finally been broken. Francis named the “inappropriate” John Paul II for correction by Fernández. Let reason have its say in theology again, let pietism rest a bit, give space to thinking again. Skunkworks provides this service to the Church, whether she has formally requested it, or not, at this time.
In closing, we should be grateful to Müller’s possibly and indirectly maligning the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. By refusing theological dialogue with the Holy See until receiving assurances that Catholic dogma had not changed on homosexuality after Fiducia Supplicans, the head and mouth of the ordinary magisterium bowed in reverence to Müller’s “Monophysites.” Cardinals of the Roman Church would vie with envy to purchase such influence in Rome. If only they were such a privileged non-Catholic group to merit a similar hearing and dignity in answer to their Dubia.
[1] Pius XII, Humani Generis, no. 20 (AD 1950).
[2] Cf. H. Denzinger et al. (eds), Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitionum et Declarationum…, ed. 30 (Barcelon, 1960).
[3] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, no. 27 (AD 1943).
[4] See Iucunda Semper Expectatione and Ad diem Illum.
[5] Inter Sodalicia
[6] 30 November 1933; 23 March 1934.
[7] See Richard Price et al., The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, TTH 45 (Liverpool: 2005), 1:116, n. 8.
[8] How does a human nature exist on its own, not yet united to the Word, and it not be a Nestorian Human person? Cf. St. Leo, Letter 29 “The Tome.”
