In Genesis 17, God forms the Abrahamic Covenant where Abraham and his descendants are required to be circuмcised. I thought that since this was an everlasting covenant it would still apply today. However, I am stumbling on things that suggest that Baptism is the new circuмcision which replaces the circuмcision in the Old Testament. I will say that the sources I stumbled on were Novus Ordo, and I am questioning whether or not they were true because of that.
With that in mind, I am aware that the Mosaic covenant no longer applies because it was not an everlasting one. I have been thinking, for a while now, that the Abrahamic covenant would apply because it was everlasting, and it would only apply to the descendants of Abraham (who descended of Noah's son Shem). Thus, a Christian who is descended of the Israelites should be circuмsized as well as Baptized. I will say that it seems that a circuмcision would not be required for salvation, but it would be required in order for the Abrahamic Covenant to be in effect. So in other words, if you want to be one of God's chosen, granted you are a true descendant, then you should be circuмsized. But if you do not get circuмsizedt, then you can still go to Heaven with a valid Baptism. You just won't receive the promise that God made with His chosen people.
I am not sure if the Catholic Church has ever touched on this matter before. Perhaps it has always taught that Baptism replaces circuмcision. But I would be wiling to bet that the Church has never taught this way until post-Vatican II times.
Any thoughts on this?