http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en...rimonio-38046/I read this last night a few times and I still don't quite get it, or at least I hope I don't, because the entire article seems to be geared towards saying dogma isn't dogma and that faith is a bad thing. At one point it puts "dogma of the faith" in scare quotes for no reason other than to call it into question, as far as I can see, and it quotes from John Paul II who seems to have not believed in, and poured scorn on a certain dogma here:
"Gennari recalled that in one of his catecheses on the body and sɛҳuąƖity, John Paul II described as “having no basis in the Word of Christ”, something which had been stated in the Council of Trent and confirmed in paragraphs 21 and 28 of Pius XII’s encyclical “Sacra Virginitas” published in 1954. Paragraph 21 of Pius XII’s docuмent said that “according to the teaching of the Church, holy virginity surpasses marriage in excellence”. Paragraph 28 solemnly set this in stone, mentioning the Council of Trent’s “anatema sit” on those who claimed that “virginity does not surpass marriage”."
Worrying, no? The author uses this apparent lack of support for dogma to carry on in this vein:
"Taking these recent examples into consideration, Gennari urges caution when speaking in absolute terms about an “unchangeable doctrine” on marriage, sɛҳuąƖity, family and other such topics being, in an attempt to set “limits ahead of the upcoming Synod”."
So, the synod will not be bound by dogma? Again we have "unchangeable doctrine" in quotes as though the phrase is contemptible.
Next we move onto words from Pope Benedict about the dogma of the assumption. He is quoted as saying:
"Dogma was not perceived as an external link, but as the vital source which made new knowledge possible."
New knowledge from dogma? He isn't implying that dogma can be read in multiple senses is he? Is it not dogma that dogma must be read is the same sense and with the same meaning, always?
Next there is a description of some scholarly work on the Assumption, before it was dogma, that seemed to call into doubt the historicity of it by proving it was unknown before the 5th century. Benedict then calls into question people who interpret tradition as being solely determined by texts. Benedict then seemingly talks about taking things from the patristic era that have been ignored until now.
Lastly we have a scene where the young scholar who proved the dogma had no basis beyond the 5th century was asked what she would do if the dogma was announced, and she said she would have faith in the Church over her erudition. The article ends with a remark by Benedict that seems to say that the faith of this woman and her skills in history are both bound (her faith bound by the Church, her scholarly work bound by her inability to look beyond the evidence), Benedict seems to be pouring scorn on the woman and people who have faith in the Church and its dogma.
I do not get it. I apologise for the long post but I am incredibly troubled by this. Is Vatican Insider not a trustworthy source for orthodox news? The entire article seems to say dogma is not binding and that dogma is a bad thing and must be ignored and that the Church has in the past been wrong in its dogma and that blind faith in the Church's teachings is wrong.
Am I misinterpreting this? Because this does not look orthodox to me. Considering the massive state of confusion the Church appears to be in, I am aware of the arguments the article puts forth, that of dogma being able to be subverted or undermined, that the patristic era and its traditions that were never used should be returned to and that the dogma of the Church is cruel and doesn't bend to man enough.
This is surely not a picture of the same Church in the same sense
Topic: synod: dogma no longer dogma? faith a hindrance? (Read 848 times)