May one disregard a morally certain conscience on a particular matter w/o sinning?

If I am convicted in my conscience that "X" is a sin - even though it is no actual sin at all.

But I do "X" anyway - is it a sin?

Weren't you just sh*tting all over another poster because he said FE didn't have a map (model) that worked? 

:facepalm:Well, that wouldn't be true now since you have introduced heresy into the mix. It could still be a sin of willful ignorance or negligence. I only see this as one-sided in favor of FEers.

The globers call you out for no model.

You call them stupid and say a model isn't that important right now.

Then you say the globers have no model therefore they are heretics.

How is that working towards a consensus on a Catholic model?

If the man who appears to be the Roman Pontiff spreads false doctrines, doubtful sacraments, pernicious disciplines, and he performs heretical actions PUBLICLY - I would do well to consider him a non-Catholic heretic foreign to the Body of Christ and take action accordingly by having no communion with him whatsoever.

But it is theoretically possible there were other reasons he did what he did; he was double, he was brain-washed with mind control, he was insane and out of his mind.

But no matter, I had moral certainty - NOT only "enough" to act upon, but enough to COMPEL me to separate from his anti-communion in EVERYTHING.

And because it is a PUBLIC matter that all can see MANIFESTLY I am COMPELLED to aid others to see and act as well according to the dictates of my conscience.
Though condemnation is NOT warranted because of it's less-than dogmatic status. Compelling others is warranted. That is why it keeps coming up you know. It is NOT because there is some small subset of twisted people who make it their life's mission to force others to be dogmatic Sedes. It is because of THIS principle and the subject matter. It will keep coming up for as long as the crisis continues and the Vatican II church lives.

The example is most wonderfully illustrated in the case of removing Nestorius' name from the Mass. The bishops fought over this for about a year with Saint Cyril taking the side of those who removed his name BEFORE an official condemnation and the Pope later praised that group for acting rightly. WHY - because they had MORAL CERTAINTY and they had to act.

If the man who appears to be the Roman Pontiff spreads false doctrines, doubtful sacraments, pernicious disciplines, and he performs heretical actions PUBLICLY - I would do well to consider him a non-Catholic heretic foreign to the Body of Christ and take action accordingly by having no communion with him whatsoever.

But it is theoretically possible there were other reasons he did what he did; he was double, he was brain-washed with mind control, he was insane and out of his mind.

But no matter, I had moral certainty - NOT only "enough" to act upon, but enough to COMPEL me to separate from his anti-communion in EVERYTHING.

And because it is a PUBLIC matter that all can see MANIFESTLY I am COMPELLED to aid others to see and act as well according to the dictates of my conscience.
Though condemnation is NOT warranted because of it's less-than dogmatic status. Compelling others is warranted. That is why it keeps coming up you know. It is NOT because there is some small subset of twisted people who make it their life's mission to force others to be dogmatic Sedes. It is because of THIS principle and the subject matter. It will keep coming up for as long as the crisis continues and the Vatican II church lives.

The example is most wonderfully illustrated in the case of removing Nestorius' name from the Mass. The bishops fought over this for about a year with Saint Cyril taking the side of those who removed his name BEFORE an official condemnation and the Pope later praised that group for acting rightly. WHY - because they had MORAL CERTAINTY and they had to act.

Moral certainty doesn't cut it. Take note of the dogma of the Assumption, where the encyclical says:

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or
to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has
fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

Person 1: "They found the remains of Christ's mother in Jerusalem."
Person 2: "It cannot be, because the dogma of the Assumption means Our Lady's body is with her in heaven"
Person 1: "Are your raising to a dogma that the body they found is not Christ's mother?"
Person 2: "It's not a dogma, but it calls into question a dogma, so it is as CERTAIN and serious as a dogma to deny it is Christ's mother"

This is the case with sedevacantists:
R&R: "A pope approved of heresy at Vatican II for the whole Church"
Sede: "A pope cannot approve of heresy to the whole Church"
R&R: "Are you raising to a dogma that these men are not popes"
Sede: "It's not a dogma, but it calls into question a dogma, so it is as CERTAIN and serious as a dogma to deny these men were/are true popes"

I'm talking about the objective, not subjective.

But all my points above are addressed to "subjects" as the moral certainty each individual needs to act pertains to the each subject's convictions.

I think going straight to the objective and CERTAIN is what "kills" it for many R&R, i.e., "Who the hell do you think you are telling me what I have to believe and do." etc.