No one has been able to come up with a case of such rejection in the “knowingly and willingly” thread on this forum.
I find the language of “invincibility” very vague.
If I choose to remain ignorant about sins because I condemn all authority, then this would also be a matter of ignorance.
… there are some of us who are so caught up in self-loathing that they do not care about their destiny, they think they “deserve” the worst. Such, again, is a matter of ignorance or blindness.
…Would God be so uncharitable that He would refuse a repenting soul from hell? It doesn’t make sense.
… I make the afterlife penalty as severe as possible, with no escape, so as to motivate people to behave. …
*That that do not want to listen are not even convinced by miracles. Neither were the *
Pharisees saying that demons did them. Finally, charitas saves.
Luke 16:31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.
Matthew 5:17-20 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.
Humans have a conscience which informs them that the hypothetical “ooflesnopping” is a sin. It can happen that through ignoring that conscience and through repeated sins, that awareness is deadened.
God does not withhold forgiveness, the sinner controls it through repentance and asking for forgiveness. There is no assurance that it can be asked for after death.
You wrote: “People do not do mortal sin when they are aware of the seriousness of the sin”. You must mean something other that what you wrote, because this is an obvious fallacy, since there would never be any mortal sins committed, but we know that there are mortal sins committed.
However it is not necessary to know the seriousness of a sin to commit it mortally and be culpable for it.
The culpability arises foremost from negligence, but also indifference.
“… the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.”
You may find this helpful to distinguish ignorance:So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.
Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm
