Author Topic: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision (Read 7862 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #30 on:** October 19, 2018, 04:37:17 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2018, 04:17:14 PM

Your question does not show that the syllogism applies in principle. You are the one conflating things.

Of course it does, because your objection to it has now shifted to the contention that the modern practice is wrong/bad, but, according to you, God did not mandate this modern practice. So it doesn't clash against the syllogism to say that the modern practice is bad.

Jaynek · « **Reply #31 on:** October 19, 2018, 04:43:11 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2018, 04:34:10 PM

Well, the Church taught against circuмcision done for religious reasons (various degrees of Judaizing).

St. Paul had it done to Timothy; he clearly considered it an indifferent matter.

There was, however, Church teaching after that point. It has already been pointed out that:

" it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice 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."

That sure sounds like the reason does not matter.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #32 on:** October 19, 2018, 04:59:22 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2018, 04:43:11 PM

There was, however, Church teaching after that point. It has already been pointed out that:

So, what's your point? Are you saying that St. Paul was wrong? Are you saying that Church teaching changed on so important a matter?

It has already been point out that these quotes refer to religious observance of circuмcision. One can practice it for religious reasons without placing hope in it. I am not saved by keeping Jєωιѕн dietary laws, but I'm going to comply because God said eating pork was bad. So, if I decide that I don't want to eat pork because it's bad for you (some people so argue), then I've committed a sin?

Rather than apply modernist principles such as these (in my questions), I apply a "hermeneutic of continuity".

St. Paul thought it OK for prudential reasons, but not OK for religious reasons. Church teaches that it's not OK for religious reasons. So there's no contradiction.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #33 on:** October 19, 2018, 05:08:05 PM »

This is a very good analogy.

God said not to eat pork. I refuse to eat pork because I think it's bad for me, not for any religious reasons. Am I committing a sin by refusing to eat pork? But if I were, even as a Catholic, going around quoting the Old Testament and citing it as the reason why I don't eat pork, now that's a problem. Whether I put my "hope in" not eating pork or not is a different matter. I could say that I won't be damned for eating pork, but I won't do it because it's better not to since God forbade it. That's a religious reason that falls short of putting one's hope in it.

In fact, there were a group of Judaizers who thought exact that in the early Church. They didn't say that it was absolutely necessary to be circuмcised, just that it was BETTER to be circuмcized, that the circuмcised Christians were superior to the non-circuмcised ones.

happenby · « **Reply #34 on:** October 19, 2018, 05:45:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2018, 03:33:51 PM

Have you ever heard of the term "religious observance"? No one is committing a sin by doing it for its (perceived) medical "benefits". That phrase "whether or not they place their hope in it" has to do with whether or not they consider it salvific. If one were to say, "I'm not doing this because it's necessary for salvation, but since God commanded it in the Old Testament I want to show my obedience."

There was probably a time that circuмcision could be scandalous in that it might imply Judaizing (when none but Jєωs practiced it), but it's so common for non-religious reasons now that there's no longer any scandal associated with it. Not that one typically exposes his genitals for others to be scandalized by.

Ok, we have to really shred this thing because it has become pretty convoluted. 1st. There is no medical benefit to circuмcision. Unless the foreskin is cancerous, and that is extremely rare, circuмcision is not recommended as a preventative. You don't cut off an arm because it might become cancerous someday. Anything cancerous can be cut off because it is cancerous. No one contests that. But then, it isn't a circuмcision, it is a removal of cancer. 2nd. Obedience to what is disobedience is not obeying but doing something wrong. The Church condemns circuмcision as mutilation. 3rd. The ONLY reason it is practiced today is because false Jєωs promote it and profit from it, while simultaneously contradicting the Church's commands. 4th. Scripture makes it's opinion on circuмcision clear.

[font=Times
New Roman]St. Paul often condemned circuмcising the flesh, as seen in the following passages:[/font][/color]

Galatians 5:2-6: Pay close attention to me, Paul, when I tell you that if you have yourselves circuмcised, Christ will be of no use to you. I point out once more to all who receive circuмcision that they are bound to the law in its entirety. Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourselves from Christ and fallen from God's favor! It is in the spirit that we eagerly await the justification we hope for, and only faith can yield it. In Christ Jesus neither circuмcision nor the lack of it counts for anything; only faith, which expresses itself through love.

Philippians 3:2-3: Beware of unbelieving dogs. Watch out for workers of evil. Be on guard against those who mutilate. It is we who are the circuмcision, who worship in the spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus rather than putting our trust in the flesh.

1 Corinthians 7:18-19: Was someone called after he had been circuмcised? He should not hide his circuмcision. Did the call come to another who had never been circuмcised? He is not to be circuмcised. Circuмcision counts for nothing, and its lack makes no difference either. What matters is keeping God's commandments.

No one is condemned for not knowing. But Catholics should KNOW. This is an attempt to KNOW what the Church teaches.

happenby · « **Reply #35 on:** October 19, 2018, 05:48:12 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2018, 04:43:11 PM

There was, however, Church teaching after that point. It has already been pointed out that:

" it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice 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."

That sure sounds like the reason does not matter.

It certainly does say the reason does not matter. It cannot be practiced at all.

Jaynek · « **Reply #36 on:** October 19, 2018, 07:34:56 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2018, 04:37:17 PM

Of course it does, because your objection to it has now shifted to the contention that the modern practice is wrong/bad, but, according to you, God did not mandate this modern practice. So it doesn't clash against the syllogism to say that the modern practice is bad.

You made a syllogism to claim that the modern practice of circuмcision must be OK because it was something that had been commanded by God in the past. The syllogism and the claim were incorrect because these things are materially different in spite of having the same name. Rather than admit you were wrong, you now seem to be claiming that you were saying something else.

Since you did not have your own sons circuмcised you obviously do understand that it is wrong and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Jaynek · « **Reply #37 on:** October 19, 2018, 07:50:27 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2018, 05:08:05 PM

This is a very good analogy.

God said not to eat pork. I refuse to eat pork because I think it's bad for me, not for any religious reasons. Am I committing a sin by refusing to eat pork? But if I were, even as a Catholic, going around quoting the Old Testament and citing it as the reason why I don't eat pork, now that's a problem. Whether I put my "hope in" not eating pork or not is a different matter. I could say that I won't be damned for eating pork, but I won't do it because it's better not to since God forbade it. That's a religious reason that falls short of putting one's hope in it.

So let's follow through on this analogy and see what our debate has been in terms of pork. I am saying that religious reasons for not eating pork no longer apply and this should therefore be decided based on evidence concerning its impact on health. You respond by saying that since God mandated this in the OT we should not speak of avoiding pork as a bad thing, even if we think the evidence shows that eating pork is important for nutrition.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #38 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:21:27 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2018, 07:34:56 PM

You made a syllogism to claim that the modern practice of circuмcision must be OK because it was something that had been commanded by God in the past.

No, I did not speak of modern circuмcision. I spoke of circuмcision in general. Now, if you want to get into the details about why the old practice is OK while the new one is not, be my guest. If it's demonstrated that the new one is bad, then I would simply add the qualification/stipulation that circuмcision as was practiced by the command of God. I'm interested in the principles and not the details regarding the different circuмcisions.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:22:12 AM »

Quote from: happenby on October 19, 2018, 05:48:12 PM

It certainly does say the reason does not matter. It cannot be practiced at all.

Only for someone who lacks reading comprehension skills.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #40 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:22:43 AM »

Quote from: happenby on October 19, 2018, 05:45:09 PM

Ok, we have to really shred this thing because it has become pretty convoluted.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:25:00 AM »

Quote from: happenby on October 19, 2018, 05:45:09 PM

2nd. Obedience to what is disobedience is not obeying but doing something wrong. The Church condemns circuмcision as mutilation.

No, the Church does no such thing. Some theologians held that it would be wrong unless there's a therapeutic reason to do so. Whether you want to argue that there is or there isn't, someone is not committing if they have their children circuмcised for the perceived medical reasons. It would be because they're not persuaded by the contention that there is no benefit. They're obviously doing it for some perceived benefit.

I've known of some boys who had issues with infection as a result of improper hygiene beneath the foreskin. But of course most young boys practice perfect hygiene, right?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #42 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:26:35 AM »

Quote from: happenby on October 19, 2018, 05:45:09 PM

[font=Times
New Roman]
St. Paul often condemned circuмcising the flesh, as seen in the following passages:
[/font][/color]

So then why did St. Paul have Timothy circuмcised?

Answer: what he was actually condemning was the Judaizers.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #43 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:29:48 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2018, 07:34:56 PM

Since you did not have your own sons circuмcised you obviously do understand that it is wrong and are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'm not persuaded that there's any benefit to circuмcision. I'm arguing on principle, that it would not be sinful to do it for medical reasons. If someone disagrees with me and believes that there's a benefit to circuмcision, I will not condemn them as having committed a sin. I might argue that they're wrong about the medical benefits of circuмcision, but not that they did anything sinful. Arguing about principles is not the same as "arguing for the sake of arguing".

Jaynek · « **Reply #44 on:** October 20, 2018, 11:36:45 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 20, 2018, 11:21:27 AM

No, I did not speak of modern circuмcision. I spoke of circuмcision in general. Now, if you want to get into the details about why the old practice is OK while the new one is not, be my guest. If it's demonstrated that the new one is bad, then I would simply add the qualification/stipulation that circuмcision as was practiced by the command of God. I'm interested in the principles and not the details regarding the different circuмcisions.

Here are your exact words in reply #4:

"I am loathe to condemn circuмcision as a medical practice since God Himself mandated it at one time. There's lots of stuff out there claiming that circuмcision is bad, but I have a hard time accepting it based on the fact that God required it, even of His Son."

This was not circuмcision in general but explicitly "circuмcision as a medical practice" which is only a modern phenomenon. You were speaking of modern circuмcision and a very specific instance of it, i.e. as a medical practice. This was in response my post about a circuмcision as a medical practice. You definitely were talking about modern medical circuмcision and it is disturbing that you are trying to deny it.

Author Topic: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision (Read 7862 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Jaynek

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

happenby

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

happenby

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Jaynek

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Jaynek

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Ladislaus

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision

Jaynek

Re: Traditional Catholicism and Circuмcision