This statement is amazing, inasmuch as it continuously changes both in author and in content (never seen the "guilty of the sin of omission" version before), yet is repeatedly cited by persons who must have seen the innumerable variations elsewhere.
If Levada doesn't believe in TRANSUBSTANTIATION, downplays it, shunts it aside, has a problem with, has deemphasized it even in the slightest, or any other euphemism one chooses to employ, then according to Catholic theology, Levada has knowingly rejected a most essential Dogma of the Roman Catholic Faith, and has apostasized from both the Faith and from the Church, and is hence by his own act no longer Catholic.
I don't approve of getting rid of the term, 'transubstantiation', any more than I favor the loss of 'consubstantial' from the Creed. But your conclusions are absolutely false. Pius VI says:
The doctrine of the synod, in that part in which, undertaking to explain the doctrine of faith in the rite of consecration, and disregarding the scholastic questions about the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist, from which questions it exhorts priests performing the duty of teaching to refrain, it states the doctrines in these two propositions only: 1) after the consecration Christ is truly, really, substantially under the species; 2) then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, appearances only remaining; it (the doctrine) absolutely omits any mention of transubstantiation, or conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith, and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith; since by an indiscreet and suspicious omission of this sort knowledge is taken away both of an article pertaining to faith, and also of the word consecrated by the Church to protect the profession of it, as if it were a discussion of a merely scholastic question,-dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics. (Auctorem Fidei, prop. 29)
Pius VI: dangerous, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth about the dogma of transubstantiation, favorable to heretics
You: Levada has knowingly rejected a most essential Dogma of the Roman Catholic Faith, and has apostasized from both the Faith and from the Church, and is hence by his own act no longer Catholic
You see the difference?
As a matter of fact, Levada fully believes in transubstantiation, the Sacrifice of the Mass, etc.
From his 2005 Pastoral Letter on the Year of the Eucharist:
This is the first and in many ways the most important meaning of the Eucharist: as Pope John Paul expresses it in his Encyclical (no. 11), "The Eucharist is indelibly marked by the event of the Lord's passion and death, of which it is not only a reminder but the sacramental re-presentation. It is the sacrifice of the cross perpetuated down the ages." He goes on to remind us, "When the Church celebrates the Eucharist, the memorial of her Lord's death and resurrection, this central event of salvation becomes really present and the work of our redemption is carried out. This sacrifice is so decisive for the salvation of the human race that Jesus Christ offered it and returned to the Father only after he had left us a means of sharing in it as if we had been present there at the cross with Mary and the disciple whom he loved.” ... There is so much to reflect upon, and to act upon, as we contemplate the face of Christ really present with us in the Eucharist. ... The Eucharist offers a remarkable twofold dimension of this encounter with the risen Christ, as we are invited to receive the very Lord of life himself at Mass in Holy Communion, and to contemplate his real presence as an abiding gift to his Church in our Eucharistic adoration outside of Mass. The real presence of Christ in the tabernacles of our Churches is an extension of his love, yet another instance of his response to the desire of every Christian heart, echoing the plea of the disciples on the road to Emmaus: "Stay with us, Lord!" So our Holy Father has indicated that "the presence of Jesus in the tabernacle must be a kind of magnetic pole attracting an ever greater number of souls enamored of him, ready to wait patiently to hear his voice and, as it were, to sense the beating of his heart. O taste and see that the Lord is good!" (Ps 34:8) ... I encourage every parish to provide this devotion, at least once a month, perhaps on the first Friday. I have recommended the above-mentioned "mystagogical catechesis" on the Eucharist for the Easter season in the context of an hour of Eucharistic Adoration in order to provide a model for such devotions; listening to catechetical instruction on the Eucharist in the context of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament seems to me a uniquely appropriate means of fostering a richer understanding of and devotion to the Eucharist in our local church.
And in the "Glossary" for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, prepared and written by Archbishop Levada, we find:
TRANSUBSTANTIATION: The scholastic term used to designate the unique change of the Eucharistic bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. "Transubstantiation" indicates that through the consecration of the bread and the wine there occurs the change of the entire substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood of Christ--even though the appearances or "species" of bread and wine remain (1376).
If Levada believes in transubtantiation in theory, why does he allow his priests to use invalid matter? Why does he concelebrate with Lutheran ministers? Why does he avoid use of the word?
That's the scary part. He believes. He knows what happens in a valid consecration. Watch what he does. It's more important that what he says.