Authentication of the Magisterium?

[JerryZ]

At the risk of derailing discussion…is it the case that the Church has a position on circumcision??

Circumcision as a religious practice is forbidden for us Catholics, however it is permitted for medical reasons. Since our covenant with GOD comes from Baptism.

Some people suffer from a condition known a Phimosis which can be very painfull. Circumcision can be a remedy for it. However it is your physician that can make a determination.

Peace

 

[Rau]

Circumcision as a religious practice is forbidden for us Catholics, however it is permitted for medical reasons. Since our covenant with GOD comes from Baptism.

Some people suffer from a condition known a Phimosis which can be very painfull. Circumcision can be a remedy for it. However it is your physician that can make a determination.

Peace

My understanding, and experience, is that it is a medical fad. Say, 50 years ago, it was commonplace, and believed to be of some health benefit, and commonly performed. Nowadays (where I live, but perhaps not the case in USA), the medical staff don’t even raise it with new parents, and the OBs do not favour it.

 

[fhansen]

I have realized by posting at CAF that the reason why the Vatican opposes gay marriage, abortion, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia (the five non-negotiables) is not necessarily due to anything the Bible says, but rather what the Magisterium and Tradition say.

Same applies to theological concepts like the seven sacraments, purgatory, and the nature of Mary. It’s more based on the Magisterium and Tradition, as the biblical bases for these things are unclear and open to interpretation.

A quick example… Catholics interpret Matthew 12:32 “in this age or in the age to come” as indirectly referring to purgatory. But rather, it could just mean that the writer is emphasizing that forgiveness will not come in any point in time.

My question is, how can we authenticate the Magisterium?

How can we know that what the Vatican is teaching now is consistent with what the early church taught in Acts? It isn’t, right?

How do we know that today’s Holy Tradition is the same as that of the early church in Acts? It isn’t, right?

Some would say it’s due to apostolic succession. But putting aside church scandals, why does apostolic succession continue to be relevant, in the face of the Great Schism and Reformation?

How do we know that the teaching authority of the Church continues to be legitimate and not fraudulent? What makes the Catholic Church’s teachings more legitimate than that of a Protestant church? At least a Protestant church, although it may not have Apostolic Succession, is drawing solely from the Bible.

The bible is silent on many things, as it was never intended to be a theological textbook or a catechism. Without the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, we often as not can’t know the faith, what scripture intends, or God’s will where scripture may not address a particular matter of faith or morals directly.

 

[JerryZ]

My understanding, and experience, is that it is a medical fad. Say, 50 years ago, it was commonplace, and believed to be of some health benefit, and commonly performed. Nowadays (where I live, but perhaps not the case in USA), the medical staff don’t even raise it with new parents, and the OBs do not favour it.

My dear friend I don’t know about it being a fad, but when this condition makes the unitive act with your spouse so extruciating painfull that you cannot even complete it or having to tell her that you cannot engage in it even when you and her are willing to.
Your understanding of it might change a little.

Believe me.

Peace

 

[Rau]

My dear friend I don’t know about it being a fad, but when this condition makes the unitive act with your spouse so extruciating painfull that you cannot even complete it or having to tell her that you cannot engage in it even when you and her are willing to.
Your understanding of it might change a little.

Believe me.

Peace

I was referring to male infant circumcision. Not sure what you are referring to…

 

[JerryZ]

I was referring to male infant circumcision. Not sure what you are referring to…

Why do you think that it needs to be done ONLY to infants? My dad had it done when he was almost 70.
Unfortunately phimosis is a condition that can be congenital.
If your dad had it and you had most probably your son will.

If you know this the pediatrician can diagnose it quickly and he can recommend circumcision to resolve it at early age.
When the impact will be minimal.

I can assure you it is not fun having it done at 40 or 70 years like my poor dad.

Peace

 

[Rau]

Why do you think that it needs to be done ONLY to infants? My dad had it done when he was almost 70.
Unfortunately phimosis is a condition that can be congenital.
If your dad had it and you had most probably your son will.

If you know this the pediatrician can diagnose it quickly and he can recommend circumcision to resolve it at early age.
When the impact will be minimal.

I can assure you it is not fun having it done at 40 or 70 years like my poor dad.

Peace

I don’t doubt it! Did I suggest otherwise? My view is that circumcising infants, absent medical indication, was once conventional wisdom, and is now not.

 

[Michael57]

At the risk of derailing discussion.…is it the case that the Church has a position on circumcision??

Don’t worry, you did…

 

[oldcatholicguy]

At least a Protestant church, although it may not have Apostolic Succession, is drawing solely from the Bible.

The Bible is a product of the Magisterium. In order to hold the Bible as valid, you must either prove that the Magisterium has lost its teaching authority or prove that the Bible wasn’t a product of it. Good luck doing either.

 

[Rau]

The Bible is a product of the Magisterium. In order to hold the Bible as valid, you must either prove that the Magisterium has lost its teaching authority or prove that the Bible wasn’t a product of it. Good luck doing either.

Suppose one proved that a source document of the bible was a forgery, that had fooled the church authorities for many centuries? That would demonstrate error, I presume?

 

[JerryZ]

Suppose one proved that a source document of the bible was a forgery, that had fooled the church authorities for many centuries? That would demonstrate error, I presume?

Oh wow you hit that right in the nail. The enemy has been at it for 2000 years…
Trying to undermine the Church that is

Good luck with that. Or rather NOT We have Jesus’s promise that IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

 

[Michael57]

Suppose one proved that a source document of the bible was a forgery, that had fooled the church authorities for many centuries? That would demonstrate error, I presume?

Perhaps you should investigate?

The Early Church Fathers might be a good place to start.

They had lots of thought on the Gospels and the Epistles, and what was and wasn’t canonical.