Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matto on February 09, 2014, 05:52:24 PM
-
Does the SSPX tell their parishioners not to circuмcise their baby boys?
-
Why WOULD anyone do that?
-
It would seem to me to be a decision for the parents to make.
Is there a particular reason you are asking?
-
Why WOULD anyone do that?
Well, 'anyone' WOULD do that, because they don't think it's a good idea.
.
-
:dancing-banana:
There is no specific belief or rule regarding circuмcision. Like the issue of vaccines, different priests will give opposite answers. The only point of agreement would be that circuмcision is of no spiritual value.
-
Exactly. Circuмcision once had spiritual value, of course, but it no longer does. Parents should make that decision prudently, but there is no religious dimension to it at all that I can see.
-
The Old Law does not applies anymore after Christ instituted the New Law. Therefore, circuмcision is no longer necessary.
-
I don't think Catholics should circuмcise their children for the same reason I do not think we should give our children Bar Mitzfas (sorry, I don't know how to spell that word). It is a sign of adherence to the obsolete religion of Judaism (or the false religion of Islam).
-
No, it isn't. At least, it need no be. I had my sons circuмcised because I believed it was medically preferable. I no longer think this, and would not do it now. I was not in any way motivated by Old Testament religion, however. The fact that it was a part of the old law actually never even occurred to me, and I doubt that it occurred to my wife. She certainly did not mention it.
-
It is my understanding that it is not allowed except for cases of medical necessity. I know Fish Eaters is less than ideal, but I believe it is a good resource in this instance:
From the docuмent, "Cantate Domino" (A.D. 1442), signed by Pope Eugene IV, from the 11th session of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1439, a continuation of the Council of Basle, A.D. 1431, and the Council of Ferrara, A.D. 1438) :
[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circuмcision, the [Jєωιѕн] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circuмcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
http://www.fisheaters.com/circuмcision.html
-
Ouch!
No, it isn't. At least, it need no be. I had my sons circuмcised because I believed it was medically preferable. I no longer think this, and would not do it now. I was not in any way motivated by Old Testament religion, however. The fact that it was a part of the old law actually never even occurred to me, and I doubt that it occurred to my wife. She certainly did not mention it.
That is the exact template in the USA for almost all trads. The Novus Ordos are likely still circuмcising, though. If I remember correctly, the insurance companies stopped paying for it a while back, no? So, it is likely there are few circuмcisions today.
Circuмcision was/is rare in all Catholic countries.
-
While I agree that it is not necessary to bring the subject up, I do believe that it would be beneficial for any priest, parish, or religious order to bring some people up to speed who may have never considered that it is not the only option.
My sons were spared and I do think that this is barbaric and completely unnecessary. For my first son I was actually still clinging to a concern that he may feel different when he got to gym class or in locker room situations. Almost had it done for that reason alone. Satan never stops does he? He has managed to make it seem that the natural way is somehow not normal.
Either way, it was not a priest or information shared at the parish that planted the idea in my head. It was my mother.
My children are the happiest children I have ever known. And I do believe that for the boys they may have not been so happy if they were tortured in this way right after they came into the world. I also have no proof, but let me just say I have a feeling that the removal of the foreskin can be a factor in getting involved in disordered sɛҳuąƖ habits better known to us as sins.
Again, no proof, but my gut tells me that.
No Catholic should do this to their boys.
-
Well, God did command it for some under the old law. It can't be intrinsically evil. I see absolutely no reason to do it now, though.