Not Rejecting

[dairygirl4u2c]

infallible doctrines cannot be rejected, in the CC. but, if one were to not reject the doctrine, but also not accept it, would that be mortally sinful just as if it were rejected?

eg, A has a hard time, and so doesnt, believe in the assumption of Mary. he doesn't reject though. mortally sinful?

[Resurrexi]

Yes. That would be an example of willingly doubting a dogma, which is a mortal sin.

[dairygirl4u2c]

is that in the catechism or something?
i asked cause i couldn't find it very easily if it's o0ut there somewhere.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1829666' date='Apr 8 2009, 11:53 PM']Yes. That would be an example of willingly doubting a dogma, which is a mortal sin.[/quote]
You could argue that it's not 'willing' though, in which case it would be admirable to put aside one's reservations and still accept the dogma as best they can.
Unless I misunderstand the question.

[Resurrexi]

"The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief." (CCC 2088)

Also heresy, which "is the obstinate denial [b]or doubt[/b], after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith." (CIC 751, emphasis added) has a latae sententiae excommunication attached to it (CIC 1364), which is not a penalty that the Church attaches to a merely venial sin.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

I have nothing to say. Hopefully someone else can continue this discusstion.

[philothea]

Not [i]being able[/i] to accept something but not actually rejecting it either doesn't sound like "obstinate denial or doubt" to me.

There are a number of Church teachings that my brain goes all if I think about too much, but I don't [i]reject[/i] them at all. I just figure I don't understand.

I think there's a fine line, and it would depend on where the person's will was: trying to accept, or trying to reject?

[Resurrexi]

We must give our assent of faith to the dogmas of the Church. To assent to a teaching of the Church is synonymous with accepting it.

[Dr_Asik]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1829450' date='Apr 8 2009, 11:39 PM']eg, A has a hard time, and so doesnt, believe in the assumption of Mary. he doesn't reject though. mortally sinful?[/quote]It seems A is incoherent. He doesn't believe the Assumption of Mary, yet he doesn't reject it. But if A doesn't reject it, then he must be accepting it. Therefore, A is at the same time accepting and not believing in the Assumption of Mary, which is schizophrenic.

If A has a hard time with this dogma, he really has two options:
(1) - "I don't see how this dogma can make sense, but it must be because of my ignorance or limited understanding. I will try to shed some light on this, but in the meantime, I'll accept it."
(2) - "This dogma is simply impossible. There is definitely no way I can give my assent to such an absurdity. Therefore, I reject it."

If he goes with 1, he's in communion with the Church. With 2, he's not, he's, formally speaking, a heretic (even though you might not want to say that to A as it can be contrary to charity).

Edited April 9, 2009 by Dr_Asik

[dairygirl4u2c]

"It seems A is incoherent. He doesn't believe the Assumption of Mary, yet he doesn't reject it. But if A doesn't reject it, then he must be accepting it. Therefore, A is at the same time accepting and not believing in the Assumption of Mary, which is schizophrenic."

i think you're reasoning yourself in circles.
neutrality if anything, acepting or rejecting, i'd say is more like rejecting, cause that person doesn't believe and won't believe, proactively.
but, it's doesn't have to be either. and even if it was more like rejecting, it's not rejecting, in a proactive sense. there's a difference, and simply equating the two w/o acknowledging the differences, is improper.
my question is "he's neutral. at worst he's rejecting through neutrality. are either of these bad?" and you're like "he's rejecting, there's no two ways around it". at best, you're taking a legit point you have and muddying it with those equivocations.

[dairygirl4u2c]

there'd almost have to be a certain lag time, at least, for new belivers. i mean, X becomes a catholic not knowing much of anything. suddenly he reads the catechism, or is told a long list of dogmas. he's not going to believe htem right away after hearing it, it's just not going to happen. or, like hte above poster said he tries to understand them etc

i guess my hypo was such that the man was well settled as catholic etc.
and, with the above poster, and these other hypos, they might in theory at least least believe with it while they internalize it, even if at a specific level they couldn't be aid to fully.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think we need to be able to differentiate between "not understanding, but believing the Magisterium on Faith alone" and willingly rejecting what the Magisterium says.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1829698' date='Apr 9 2009, 12:15 AM']"The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief." (CCC 2088)

Also heresy, which "is the obstinate denial [b]or doubt[/b], after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith." (CIC 751, emphasis added) has a latae sententiae excommunication attached to it (CIC 1364), which is not a penalty that the Church attaches to a merely venial sin.[/quote]

yes, doubt of an established doctrine is heresy. Sometimes, for Catholics, you just need to learn to accept some things even if you don't understand it. It's humbling, but that's the way it is. There are plenty of things that Catholics can disagree on and debate about and question, but dogma (such as Mary's assumption) is not one of them.

[Dr_Asik]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1829889' date='Apr 9 2009, 01:27 PM']"It seems A is incoherent. He doesn't believe the Assumption of Mary, yet he doesn't reject it. But if A doesn't reject it, then he must be accepting it. Therefore, A is at the same time accepting and not believing in the Assumption of Mary, which is schizophrenic."

i think you're reasoning yourself in circles.
neutrality if anything, acepting or rejecting, i'd say is more like rejecting, cause that person doesn't believe and won't believe, proactively.
but, it's doesn't have to be either. and even if it was more like rejecting, it's not rejecting, in a proactive sense. there's a difference, and simply equating the two w/o acknowledging the differences, is improper.
my question is "he's neutral. at worst he's rejecting through neutrality. are either of these bad?" and you're like "he's rejecting, there's no two ways around it". at best, you're taking a legit point you have and muddying it with those equivocations.[/quote]To speak in your terminology, yes, being "neutral" is bad. "He who's not with Me is against Me" (Matthew 12:30).

The thing is, your "neutrality" is a disguise. If you don't accept a dogma, you are, by definition, rejecting it. You consider you have some good reasons for not believing in it, and you think they overwhelm any evidence to the contrary. That's rejection. No neutrality is possible when what is asked of you as a Catholic is to assent to certain doctrines; either you do it, or you don't.

The closest thing to a "neutral ground" is what I described in part (1) of the alternative I proposed : "I don't understand the dogma, but I can nonetheless accept it while I try to shed some light on the issue." No one is telling you you must understand all about faith, simply to give your assent. It's ok to have a hard time with some dogmas, as long as you still believe they are true.

Edited April 10, 2009 by Dr_Asik

[Resurrexi]

I guess if what dairygirl is talking about is "suspending judgment" about a dogma, the person doing so would actually be sinning by not making an act of faith.

[Aloysius]

one may assent while not having been convinced himself. A might find no historical or scriptural reason to believe in the assumption of Mary; but he must say "I believe in the Church and therefore trust what the Church says on the subject"... one may cover his bases with dogmas by simply stating in a general overarching way as is said in the creed: "I believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church". to be in the Church you must believe in the Church, to believe in the Church you must be willing to assent to her teachings.

assent can be different from full acceptance; one can acknowledge their interior inability to be fully convinced and convicted in this or that truth of the faith but out of belief in the Church give assent to it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

since this thread was posted, i have come to realize hte conventioal understanding, that a person must believe dogmas of the catholic faith. they cannot just 'reserve judgment' on them.
makes on wonder about the formation process though?
i guess a person can 'assent' in genral to all the principles expanded, even if they can't truly interallize it. eg, assumption of mary or pick some randm doctrine.

[Amppax]

There was a really helpful post by Fr. Dwight Longnecker about this whole issue.

[url="http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2011/01/dissent-or-discussion.html"]http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2011/01/dissent-or-discussion.html[/url]

peace

Alex