Is it schismatic, heretical, to attend a Novus Ordo Mass?

[aridite]

Kristopher:

Dear aridite:

No burden of proof is on me: I asked a question; I made no claim and provided no arguement. Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a Mason?

Is it heretical to be both Catholic and a Modernist? Is it heretical to be both a Protestand and a Catholic? Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a homosexual? Is it heretical to be both a Catholic and a communist, a Marxist?

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

Esteemed Kristopher:

These are loaded questions, but I will play your little game. You should realize that you are fast exhausting any sympathy you might have had for your views by your manner of discussion.

It is heretical to be a Mason, Modernist, Protestant, Marxist. I think some forms of communism might be compatible with being a Catholic, so until you say plainly what you are talking about, I can’t answer your question. Again it depends what you mean by homosexual. It is not heretical (nor sinful) to have homosexual inclinations (though it is not natural or good); it is sinful to act on such inclinations.

We can say what is heretical based on pronouncements of the Magesterium of the Church. All and only that has been condemned as heresy should the faithful consider a heresy. The normative Roman rite has not been so condemned (having been promulgated by the Magesterium), so therefore it is not heretical.

From the fact that you are silent about my argument that attendance at the Normative Mass is not and cannot be schismatic, I understand that you accept the conclusion. Silence implies consent. You believe that it is not schismatic to attend the Normative Mass. Is that correct?

Kristopher:

In anycase, what little I understand about papal authority as regards him in the position as magisterium of the church is this: The magisterium is divided in two parts: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church must be obeyed by all Catholics. The Authoritative Magisterium of the Church need not be obeyed by all Catholics.

I believe you are mistaken, sir, in your understanding of ecclesial authority. There is no distinction between Ordinary Magisterium, which must be obeyed, and Authoritative Magisterium (curiously named), which need not be obeyed, and so is not really authoritative. Do you have a source for this distinction? The Holy Church of Rome has defined a distinction between ordinary Magisterium, which binds the faithful according to religious assent, and the supreme (or extraordinary) Magisterium, which binds the faithful according to the obedience of faith (CCC 891-2).

The question of liturgical law is matter of juristiction or governance, which does not bind the conscience or assent of the faithful at all, but does bind their actions in obedience. The faithful are bound by obedience to follow the liturgical norms of the Church as they are bound to do some pennance on Fridays.

Kristopher:

The Ordinary Magisterium, but I should say, it makes sense to my view that no pope acting upon, or acting out The Ordinary Magisterium of The Roman Catholic Church may go contrary to what has been established as such, by other popes, say Pope Saint Pius X, and Pope Saint Pius V.

No pope can bind later popes in the exercise of their governance without thereby changing the essential nature of the Church. Christ gave Peter and ALL his successors the authority of the keys; no successor can bind by the authority of the keys later successors in the exercise of that same authority. No pope supercedes Christ. If your theory that ealier popes can bind later popes in liturgical law were correct, then Pope St. Pius X could not have modified the Roman Misal of Pope St. Pius V.

With all kind regards,
aridite

P.S., This discussion will be extremely tedious if you continue to write in such an oblique manner. Simply state your views directly. You will garner far greater respect from your audience.