There’s a big difference between Archbishop Müller and the members of SSPX. One has faculties and is in full communion with the Catholic Church, and the others aren’t.
I think the more important differences are that Archibshop Mueller is a well known theological scholar. The SSPX has no theological scholar of his caliber or that of John Paul II or Benedict XVI. When one takes then up against each other, one has to give the benefit of the doubt to the guy who has been well received by the Magisterium.
The SSPX theologians cannot be contradicted, not because they have made any new contribution to the development of theology, but because what they say and cite is what has been written by prior scholars and already accepted by the Magisterium.
People are going to look at their statements and say, “You see, they’re right. The Vatican did not contradict them.”
That’s not true. They’re not right. Aquinas was right. Lawrence was right. The Fathers were right. The SSPX theologians are repeating and they repeat very selectively. They stay clear of every Franciscan Doctor in the Church. Which is interesting in itself. All of the Franciscan doctors are very different from Aquinas. Among the Dominicans, there are only two doctors, Aquinas and Catherine. Catherine is very Augustinian, not a Thomist.
The Franciscans have the largest number of doctors and all of them are Augustinian. You don’t see an SSPX quote Bonaventure, Lawrence of Brindisi, or Anthony of Padua. They don’t quote the Franciscan mystical masters such as Francis, Clare, Agnes of Prague, Leonard of Port Maurice, Francisco de Osuna or the Marian theologians such as Duns Scotus. When they want to speak of Mary, they go to St. Louie de Montfort. They don’t mention that St. Louie is a) a Franciscan and b) well versed in the writings and works of Duns Scotus and Bonaventure.
They steer clear of St. Ignatius, St. Fancis Xavier or the Carmelite doctors as well.
They won’t touch John of Avila or John Henry Newman with a 10 ft pole. Neither of them are Thomists. Both are master theologians. John of Avila was just approved to become the next Doctor of the Church.
What Archbishop Mueller does is what someone like John Henry Newman did, Duns Scotus or Louie de Montfort. He builds on what came before and he hypothesizes. He’s not trying to each dogma. He’s trying to add a comment to what has been said and to raise new questions.
As long as those questions and the hypotheses do not contradict dogma, they are permissible.
In his theology of history, Bonaventure shows us that as history unfolds, Truth invites us to deeper exploration and question. Truth is not being called into question. That’s not what he means. He means that more questions about truth arise.
I haven’t read the whole thing but I don’t have a problem with this statement.
He said Christ’s body was not NECESSARILY seen. Which means to me that it was not always seen. Christ’s glorified body was able to walk through walls and was able to disappear at will.
Now if he said Christ’s glorified body was NEVER seen, there would be a problem.
He’s just repeating what Augustine and Bonaventure said. What’s there to object to, unless one wants to call Augustine and Bonaventure heretics. Calling two of the greatest doctors of the Church heretics is a big claim.
Of Aquinas it has been said that he is the Angelic Doctor. However, what is rarely mentioned is that later the Church declared that Bonaventure was the Seraphic Doctor, because his theology is so packed with pure love that it radiates fire like that of the seraphs around the throne of God. It is said that one cannot read Bonaventure’s theology and not love, unless one is either dead or dense.
Of Aquinas it is said that one cannot read his theology and not see reason, unless one is either dead or dense.
They come at theology from two different perspectives. Aquinas uses reason to ignite the heart. Bonaventure uses the fire of divine love to enlighten reason. Archbishop Mueller is borrowing from the latter.
Why the traditionalist movement is so shy of the Augustinian, Franciscan, Carmelite and Jesuit schools is a mystery to me. I have heard some say that there is actually a genuine hatred for the Franciscan school among the Trads. This I can understand. Archbishop Lefebvre’s excommunication for his disobedience was hailed by 114 Franciscan superiors, because the Rule of St. Francis is very clear. You may never disobey the authority unless you have concrete proof that you are being commanded to sin. Speculation that something may lead to sin or may cause others to sin never justifies disobedience. Also, our law says that anyone who disagrees with Francis is a heretic. I can see that little conflict.
But the other writings and scholars in these other schools are wonderful. I have never seen them quote the writings of St. Francis, Bl. John Newman, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St.Edith Stein, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Alberto Hurtado, St. Jose Maria Escriva or Bl. Mother Teresa.
That’s a msytery to me. These men and women have much to say about many of the questions that the Traditionalist movement puts on the table. They actually offer some answers.
As I said, I am not about to read the book until I can find it English. Reading in German and having to look up a word every five minutes drives me crazy. From the little that I read, I can put my finger on this and that and say with certainty, “This is Augustine and this is Bonaventure. The question on the table is not the same question to which Aquinas was responding. Aquinas does not fit in here.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
