When you look at the conditions for a sin to take place and be imputed to someone, you start to wonder, then what does it matter what is going on right now, if pretty much all in the Novus ordo are in ignorance, following their would be pastors and priests etc., and are none the wiser? How will they be held responsible for anything if they're simply doing what they're told and don't know any better? How can they be held guilty of things they're not even aware of?

Why bother trying to convert them if they aren't guilty? Why expose them to actual sin?

I see my family members committing objective sacrilege, but they have been taught that what they're doing is perfectly normal and good, and they haven't seen anything to the contrary, so how will they be held responsible?

Telling them what they're doing is actually sacrilege might actually be a bad idea, because it's highly likely they won't believe you or stop doing it or change so THEN they will be formally guilty, without excuse, so then you better keep quiet so they don't become guilty.

You could say this of anything practically. Immodesty? They don't know any better because that's what they were taught and their "church" approves it, so why make them actually guilty by telling them the truth?

Do they hold heretical ideas? Just keep quiet so they never become pertinacious and guilty of formal heresy. And on and on.

But how do pertinacity and the conditions for sin to exist square up with Matthew 15:14?

"And if the blind lead the blind, they BOTH fall into the pit."

I'm not sure if you're employing some kind of reductio ad absurdum rhetorical device here or not, but assuming the latter: How far do you take it? Why not be "merciful" to practitioners of every mortal sin and keep silent so that they can wallow in their sodomy, fornication, self-abuse and pornography in blissful ignorance of the gravity of their sins?

Why not? Because sin objectively offends God and it is the duty of every Catholic to admonish the sinner, instruct the ignorant, and counsel the doubtful. What madness it is to leave the sinner and the doubter ignorant in the hopes that that ignorance will ameliorate his guilt when by so doing we bring down grave guilt upon ourselves for uncharitably and unmercifully leaving our neighbor ignorant!

These spiritual works of mercy are indeed obligatory, but only when you can reasonably expect something good will come of it, or when you are confronted, asked etc., and depending on your situation, position or office. If you are sure nothing will be accomplished and that they will not change, and if it isn't your place to do or say anything about it, you are not obliged to do anything and it would actually be a bad thing because you may make things worse.

In this case, Matthew 7:6 applies:

"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you."

So sin always offends God, even if the sinner may not be guilty (not fulfil the conditions) and not aware he is committing sin?

Like i said, i just wonder how can passages like Matthew 15:14 can be reconciled with the conditions for sin to take place and be imputed to someone. Matthew 15:14 makes it seem people will go to Hell even if they aren't obstinate, pertinacious, and even if they don't have the knowledge that what they're doing is sinful, but Catholic teaching plainly teaches such conditions must be present for sin to exist at all.

I mean there are just so many passages in the Bible, the Saints, Popes before Vatican 2 etc. all saying over and over again how truth must be kept intact and every error condemned and exposed, the orthodoxy of the Faith, etc. etc. because if not, the faithful will be infected and will be led to Hell.

But if the faithful are led astray by the very people they should follow and obey, and they don't know any better since none of them are theologians or expected to be theologians and until recent times the majority couldn't even read, how can they be held responsible? Why is this so dangerous and pressing if they're clueless and have not evil will?

With the case of any heresiarch, it was clear they were openly departing from the teaching and unity of the Church, and the countries and states were Catholic, so you really had no excuse to say "Oh I'm just following my pastor!" and besides they were condemned and denounced from the start, but in the situation we are living in right now, where the would-be Popes themselves and all the would-be Hierarchy has taken the role of Heresiarch, how can you hold anyone responsible?

Sodomy, fornication, self-abuse and pornography have always been taught to be evil in the Novus Ordo since Vatican 2, and it is only now that they seem to be about to get rid of the first two.

Which is why I mentioned sacrilege, which is NOT taught to be evil anymore since V2.

I can not count the number of times I've heard men tell me that a the priest told them the third one was not sinful.  This one seems to have been made a de facto non-sin for decades in the confessional even if there is some docuмent somewhere that says otherwise.

When you look at the conditions for a sin to take place and be imputed to someone, you start to wonder, then what does it matter what is going on right now, if pretty much all in the Novus ordo are in ignorance, following their would be pastors and priests etc., and are none the wiser? How will they be held responsible for anything if they're simply doing what they're told and don't know any better? How can they be held guilty of things they're not even aware of?

I think that you are speaking about the whole; "what you do not know cannot hurt you" fallacy attributed to the Baltimore Catechism's "three things necessary to make a sin mortal - grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will."

What you are saying makes all the sense in the world if indeed the above three things are in fact, all that is necessary -  because ignorance is excused as if no sin ever occurred, it is not one of those three ingredients.

The truth is, that we are all bound to find out if what we are doing, or are about to do, offends God before we actually do it. When we are ignorant, we count on the grace of God to show us the way. If we correspond to those graces, we get the help we need to avoid doing those things which offend Him, if we reject those graces, we will know that we really shouldn't be doing those things, but for selfish reasons we do them any way. So what happens is that we are too lazy to find out because of the inconvenience involved.

In short, the reason people do not know is because they do not want to know, this "not wanting to know" has been labeled as 'invincible ignorance', which, according to liberals everywhere, saves souls.

Yes, the "not wanting to find out", of either variety
* fear that "I might have to stop doing that if it turns out to be sinful" -- it usually is
* laziness

puts a formal end to the "invincible" part of invincible ignorance.

As soon as a person has a feeling that what they're doing is wrong (a third-party won't always know this -- it can be deep down in the person's heart), or a deep down feeling they should look into something but reject the idea out of fear, human respect, laziness, etc.  then the time of "innocent" ignorance has passed.

Only God can judge.

Yes, there are some good-willed in the Novus Ordo who might be invincibly ignorant. But don't kid yourself -- everyone who is attached to human respect/fitting in/being normal, all the woman who love the "enhanced role" that women play in the non-Trad world, etc. have ulterior motives and a motive for NOT embracing the truth. They very well might be staying in ignorance (about the need to leave the Novus Ordo, for example) because they fear what it might mean for them.

I believe that good-willed Catholics exist in the Novus Ordo -- but don't kid yourself. The majority are NOT of good will. However, in each individual case you can't know for certain; God is the judge.

We must do our best to instruct the ignorant.

Well the current "Catechism of the Catholic Church" still says its a "gravely disordered act" which, even though highly "attenuated", for a good willed Catholic would be code for mortal sin and something to avoid.

Is a "gravely disordered act" a sin?  

Just asking.  It doesn't sound like it is necessarily a sin in the opinion of the writers of the Catechism of the Conciliar Church.

If it is, why didn't they just say that?  What, exactly, does "gravely disordered act" mean?