We are not under legal religious law as during the Law of Moses. In the new covenant, sin is not legally charged or imputed, because there is no religious law. This is why Paul says that all things are lawful; but all things are not expedient.
We are not called to blind obedience. Spiritual discernment is given to us to be used under all circumstances. Most of us are not under vows of obedience: nor should we act like we are.
We are still under the moral law. That is eternal. Sin is charged insofar as we put ourselves into a state of mortal sin and lose sanctifying grace.
Obedience is absolutely required. No one said anything about blind obedience, however. Conscience is not infallible and therefore cannot overrule a lawful binding of said conscience under faith or morals.
We are under moral law, but not in a judicial sense with legal penalties as under the Law of Moses. In the new covenant, the only penalty for sinning is to remain in slavery to the law of sin which is only absolved by true repentance. There is no lawful binding of conscience by judicial religious law, because it doesn’t exist in Christianity. This is why V2 tells us that our conscience enjoys "immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom" (Dignitatis Humanae 2).
That’s a cherry picked quote and doesn’t apply to this situation. Man is bound by four types of law within the religious sphere:
Eternal Law
Divine (Revealed) Law
Natural Law
Ecclesial or Canon Law
That quote doesn’t mean that we are free from all law in totality. It means that man cannot be forced to accept the faith against his will. That is the context of the whole document. Freedom from the law, according to Paul, is only in reference to the dietary, ceremonial, etc laws of Moses. The Moral Law, which is part of the Divine Law mentioned above, binds the conscience of the Christian. At the very least, all men are bound by the natural law written in our hearts. This spoken of multiple times in Lumen Gentium. Your interpretation of DH would be in contradiction to LG.
I would say that the prohibition of eating meat on Ash Wednesday constitutes a judicial religious law with judicial penalty imposed by the Church. This would be in contradiction to what Paul says in Scripture.
Wednesday and Friday are days of fasting/ penance since apostolic times. See the Didache. Fasting is a biblical principle that is never abrogated by Christ. In fact, He frequently encourages it. Paul, likewise, encourages fasting and penance. Thus, the church is merely doing what Christ and the Apostles did.
So wonderful to have a new priest among us, congratulations!
Thank you my friend!
We are not under legal religious law as during the Law of Moses. In the new covenant, sin is not legally charged or imputed, because there is no religious law. This is why Paul says that all things are lawful; but all things are not expedient.
We are not called to blind obedience. Spiritual discernment is given to us to be used under all circumstances. Most of us are not under vows of obedience: nor should we act like we are.
We are still under the moral law. That is eternal. Sin is charged insofar as we put ourselves into a state of mortal sin and lose sanctifying grace.
Obedience is absolutely required. No one said anything about blind obedience, however. Conscience is not infallible and therefore cannot overrule a lawful binding of said conscience under faith or morals.
We are under moral law, but not in a judicial sense with legal penalties as under the Law of Moses. In the new covenant, the only penalty for sinning is to remain in slavery to the law of sin which is only absolved by true repentance. There is no lawful binding of conscience by judicial religious law, because it doesn’t exist in Christianity. This is why V2 tells us that our conscience enjoys "immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom" (Dignitatis Humanae 2).
That’s a cherry picked quote and doesn’t apply to this situation. Man is bound by four types of law within the religious sphere:
Eternal Law
Divine (Revealed) Law
Natural Law
Ecclesial or Canon Law
That quote doesn’t mean that we are free from all law in totality. It means that man cannot be forced to accept the faith against his will. That is the context of the whole document. Freedom from the law, according to Paul, is only in reference to the dietary, ceremonial, etc laws of Moses. The Moral Law, which is part of the Divine Law mentioned above, binds the conscience of the Christian. At the very least, all men are bound by the natural law written in our hearts. This spoken of multiple times in Lumen Gentium. Your interpretation of DH would be in contradiction to LG.
I would say that the prohibition of eating meat on Ash Wednesday constitutes a judicial religious law with judicial penalty imposed by the Church. This would be in contradiction to what Paul says in Scripture.
Wednesday and Friday are days of fasting/ penance since apostolic times. See the Didache. Fasting is a biblical principle that is never abrogated by Christ. In fact, He frequently encourages it. Paul, likewise, encourages fasting and penance. Thus, the church is merely doing what Christ and the Apostles did.
I agree; but there was no judicial penalty of grave or mortal sin associated with it by the Church at that time.