CathInfo.com

Ask a traditional priest and follow his guidance.  Unless you’d prefer the advice of an ordinary lay woman in her 60’s.

No.  Your examples assume the person has a well-formed conscience and isn't guilty through spiritual ignorance. 


Some of us are assuming the contrary, i.e. a poorly-formed conscience (which there are many types) and thus, they are guilty of the sin of ignorance.

As St Thomas says on those who are ignorant of the Faith...they are guilty because of their ignorance, which is due to other sins.  In the same way, those that are ignorant of Traditionalism and go to the novus ordo, are guilty because of their ignorance, due to other sins.

So you're assuming internal forum guilt of a mal-formed conscience.  Got it.  Most people growing up in the NO don't now anything else.  I grew up thinking simply that this is a Catholic Mass.  I could discern bad practices in the NOM, in which I would refuse to participate, i.e. Communion in the Hand, etc., but that's it.  I was nearly 30 years old before even the internet was a "thing".

I wrote quite clearly above, that that there could be some culpability (known in most cases only to God) with regard to whether or not the individual sufficiently informed himself.

To extend my example of the $100 bill above.  I take $100 off a table (and pocket it), thinking it's mine, though in reality it belongs to someone else.  Maybe I should have investigated, or asked around first, but heck if I didn't just have a very similar $100 bill a few minutes earlier, so it never even occurred to me that it just might belong to someone else rather than being my own.

BOTTOM LINE:  You cannot commit a grave sin without knowing it to be a grave sin and willing it anyway.  Nobody commits a grave sin without knowing it.  This is utterly absurd and people have to stop trying to spread that crap.  Natural law is known in written in men's hearts and is knowable there, just like the existence of God, and the only way one doesn't know it is by drowning it out.  But positive law, such as the requirement to fast on Fridays, or questions like whether the NOM is displeasing to God, those are not.  Very many sincere individuals have concluded that the NOM is not offensive to God.  I could sit here myself and make a convincing devil's advocate case for the NOM myself, reducing the evils we see to "abuses" of the "pure" NOM.

Very many sincere individuals have concluded that the NOM is not offensive to God. 

No, nobody sincere has concluded that the Novus Bogus is pleasing to God.

For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made manifest among you. (1 Corinthians 11:19)

We know who is of good wiil precisely by what faith they profess more than anything else. The NO is an expression of a freemasonic man-centered religion which is on its face completely contrary to the Catholic Mass. 

I could sit here myself and make a convincing devil's advocate case for the NOM myself, reducing the evils we see to "abuses" of the "pure" NOM.

Yeah, and a well-spoken jew can make a great-sounding case against Christ and a well-read atheist can obliterate someone's faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. That doesn't make the people of bad will who fell for satan's trap excused from being jews and atheists.