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?

Quote from: fidelismaris

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

I did not know this. I have to say that I am very confused right now. How do you explain the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17? It was an everlasting covenant that instructed the semites to be circuмcised.

Also, these are official Catholic teachings where the Pope was speaking in magisterium?

Found this too:

Council Of Florence[/url]]It 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 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.

I think the ide is, is that when done as an act of the OT, it is completely sinful. But like all things in our most beautifully rational religion, if done for a medical necessity (and just like using NFP as a 'medical necessity' , this should be done with clear communication between you and your good priest) its okay. Those are my 2c.

What about the girls?

I think it is best to say that baptism fulfills the Old Law of circuмcision rather than replaces it.  Its purpose, good as it was, is fulfilled.  Therefore, there is not only no need to practice it.  It is wrong to practice it if one who does so is motivated by a desire to fulfill the Old Law.  This is at best really ignorant, and at worst positively heretical.  I don't think the Council of Florence envisioned anyone ever undertaking circuмcision for anything but a religious motive, and so really doesn't address the question of doing it for medical reasons.  The Old Law prohibits eating pork.  If I don't eat pork for that reason, I am a heretic.  If I just don't like pork, it isn't a religious issue.  

On an aside, my wife and I never considered not having our sons circuмcised because we bought the line our doctor fed us about it being healthier.  Under normal circuмstances (pun intended  :wink:) this is nonsense.  If I had it to do over again, I would not do it.

I used to kind of think that it did.

However, upon further reflection, I never heard of a phenomena known as COD, or Circuмcision of Desire.

So I gotta say no.

Didn't Peter put an end to the debate on circuмcision?

I think that was more about whether or not circuмcision was required for salvation. I already knew that circuмcision was not required before asking this question.

I used to kind of think that it did.

However, upon further reflection, I never heard of a phenomena known as COD, or Circuмcision of Desire.

So I gotta say no.

Thank you for a good laugh.