Baptisim Replacing Circumcision

[SavedbyHisBlood]

If in Col 2:11-12 baptism replaced circumcision, why is it that we still have our babies circumcized?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Some find it a good idea for hygenic reasons. Others disagree.

 

[kristie_m]

I have all girls, myself, but I’ve heard from friends that there are hygene purposes, as well as aesthetics.

 

[jpjd]

It’s cultural. You will find pros and cons for circumcision, but most new parents wouldn’t be able to articulate them. They have their son circumcised because that is the tradition in Western culture.

 

[SavedbyHisBlood]

So there is no longer a religous reason for it as with the Jewish community? We simply do it because we do it?

 

[puzzleannie]

If in Col 2:11-12 baptism replaced circumcision, why is it that we still have our babies circumcized?

who is “we”? not everyone does make this choice for their male children, it should be a decision guided by your doctor if it is not a requirement for religious or cultural reasons (which it is not for Catholics). Baptism does not replace circumcision. they are two different things. Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ to cleanse the individual from original sin and restore him to sanctifying grace and make him a member of the Church. Circumcision is a rite practiced by Jews as a sign of the covenant with Abraham. It is also a rite practiced in other cultures for religious or other reasons.

 

[RedSoxWife]

If in Col 2:11-12 baptism replaced circumcision, why is it that we still have our babies circumcized?

Lots of people don’t (it’s definitely less, or more popular in different parts of the country). When I was pregnant I read in a parenting magazine that it’s about even in California now. If we have boys we won’t because of the family tradition.

 

[jpjd]

So there is no longer a religous reason for it as with the Jewish community? We simply do it because we do it?

Right. For Catholics and Protestants, there is not a religious reason for it. We do it because we do it.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

My sister, a pediatrician, told me that some people still think it is necessary for hygiene reasons, but more often, it is for psychological reasons, i.e., so the son “looks like” his father and identifies with him. (To me, that sounds a lot like “doing it just because we do it.”)

When I was of childbearing age, a huge debate was raging over whether or not it was right to circumcise for non-religious reasons. Some people thought it was cruel (routinely done without anesthesia). I don’t know how that debate ended up, or whether it is ongoing.

I only had daughters, so I didn’t have to make that decision.

 

[malphono]

SavedbyHisBlood:

bpbasilphx:

If in Col 2:11-12 baptism replaced circumcision, why is it that we still have our babies circumcized?

Some find it a good idea for hygenic reasons. Others disagree.

First off, circumcision has nothing to do with Christianity: the prescriptions of the Old Covenant have been fulfilled and superceded by the New. And it’s quite clear that in the US (and elsewhere) orthodox (lower-case “o”) Christians certainly do not do it as a religious ritual.

The practice seems to remain somewhat popular in that there are certain hygienic concerns. OTOH, those could generally be addressed with what is called a “partial circumcision” which is somewhat of a middle ground that allows the best of both, so-to-speak.

 

[EasterJoy]

First off, circumcision has nothing to do with Christianity: the prescriptions of the Old Covenant have been fulfilled and superceded by the New. And it’s quite clear that in the US (and elsewhere) orthodox (lower-case “o”) Christians certainly do not do it as a religious ritual.

Right. In the very early Church, the controversy was over whether circumcision was required IN ADDITION to baptism. There was never any question about whether the two were equivalent.

The practice seems to remain somewhat popular in that there are certain hygienic concerns. OTOH, those could generally be addressed with what is called a “partial circumcision” which is somewhat of a middle ground that allows the best of both, so-to-speak.

It isn’t just hygenic reasons, although those are real. (Warning: This is a little graphic.)

There is a condition called paraphimosis “…in which the foreskin can be retracted over the glans, often with some difficulty, when flaccid but then becomes trapped in the coronal groove as the glans swells with erection. The constriction of the foreskin causes the glans to swell even more and a vicious circle sets in. Prompt professional action can return the foreskin to its original state of covering the glans, but if left a paraphimosis can cause gangrene and loss of the glans.” (circinfo.com/questions/ypq.html – this is definitely a pro-circ webpage).

Guys, typically kids who don’t know better or older men who are incapacitated by, say, alcohol, retract the foreskin and neglect to replace it afterwards, and then are forced to seek medical attention for relief (which takes the form of squeezing the blood out of the swollen area: not fun to experience). One patient was a child who decided he wanted to look like his circumcised friend, so he retracted his foreskin and left it that way until the pain drove him to seek help.

 

[malphono]

It isn’t just hygenic reasons, although those are real. (Warning: This is a little graphic.)

Yes indeed. What I meant by “hygienic” included all of that. What I forgot was to put the word in quotes.

 

[Zea_mays]

from what ive heard in the victorian era it was supposed to be a cure/preventative for masturbation.

 

[passus]

Baptism does not replace circumcision. they are two different things. Baptism is a sacrament instituted by Christ to cleanse the individual from original sin and restore him to sanctifying grace and make him a member of the Church. Circumcision is a rite practiced by Jews as a sign of the covenant with Abraham.

First off, circumcision has nothing to do with Christianity: the prescriptions of the Old Covenant have been fulfilled and superceded by the New.

Baptism does replace circumcision. The two are in fact related, as Saint Paul tells us.

Check out the tract Infant Baptism:

In Place of Circumcision

Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

Saint Thomas Aquinas comments further in the Summa:

Article 1. Whether circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism?

Objection 1. It seems that circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism. For every figure has some likeness to that which it foreshadows. But circumcision has no likeness to Baptism. Therefore it seems that it was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.

Objection 2. Further, the Apostle, speaking of the Fathers of old, says (1 Corinthians 10:2), that “all were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea”: but not that they were baptized in circumcision. Therefore the protecting pillar of a cloud, and the crossing of the Red Sea, rather than circumcision, were a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.

Objection 3. Further, it was stated above (38, 1,3) that the baptism of John was a preparation for Christ’s. Consequently, if circumcision was a preparation for, and a figure of Christ’s Baptism, it seems that John’s baptism was superfluous: which is unseemly. Therefore circumcision was not a preparation for, and a figure of Baptism.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Colossians 2:11-12): “You are circumcised with circumcision, not made by hand in despoiling the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism.”

I answer that, Baptism is called the Sacrament of Faith; in so far, to wit, as in Baptism man makes a profession of faith, and by Baptism is aggregated to the congregation of the faithful. Now our faith is the same as that of the Fathers of old, according to the Apostle (2 Corinthians 4:13): “Having the same spirit of faith . . . we . . . believe.” But circumcision was a protestation of faith; wherefore by circumcision also men of old were aggregated to the body of the faithful. Consequently, it is manifest that circumcision was a preparation for Baptism and a figure thereof, forasmuch as “all things happened” to the Fathers of old “in figure” (1 Corinthians 10:11); just as their faith regarded things to come.

Reply to Objection 1. Circumcision was like Baptism as to the spiritual effect of the latter. For just as circumcision removed a carnal pellicule, so Baptism despoils man of carnal behavior.

Reply to Objection 2. The protecting pillar of cloud and the crossing of the Red Sea were indeed figures of our Baptism, whereby we are born again of water, signified by the Red Sea; and of the Holy Ghost, signified by the pillar of cloud: yet man did not make, by means of these, a profession of faith, as by circumcision; so that these two things were figures but not sacraments. But circumcision was a sacrament, and a preparation for Baptism; although less clearly figurative of Baptism, as to externals, than the aforesaid. And for this reason the Apostle mentions them rather than circumcision.

Reply to Objection 3. John’s baptism was a preparation for Christ’s as to the act done: but circumcision, as to the profession of faith, which is required in Baptism, as stated above.

ST, IIIa, LXX, i

 

[yablabo]

If in Col 2:11-12 baptism replaced circumcision, why is it that we still have our babies circumcized?

That’s a good question…since the Catechism of the Catholic Church forbids the mutilation or amputation of a healthy organ.

CCC, Last sentence of 2297:

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

Since “therapeutic” pertains to the cure of a disease, “therapeutic” does not include preventative, hygienic or aesthetic reasons for mutilation.

The Catechism also cites the encyclical Casti Connubii as teaching bindingly on this subject:

1. Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason. St. Thomas teaches this when inquiring whether human judges for the sake of preventing future evils can inflict punishment, he admits that the power indeed exists as regards certain other forms of evil, but justly and properly denies it as regards the maiming of the body. “No one who is guiltless may be punished by a human tribunal either by flogging to death, or mutilation, or by beating.”
2. Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.

The Catholic Church also forbids observance of the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament after the promulgation of the Gospels whether one’s hope is placed in the observance or not under the pain of loss of eternal salvation.

The Council of Florence, Bull of Union with the Copts:

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 circumcision, 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 circumcision 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.

This all gives one a lot to think about.

– Nicole

 

[EasterJoy]

Baptism does replace circumcision. The two are in fact related, as Saint Paul tells us.

Check out the tract Infant Baptism:
Saint Thomas Aquinas comments further in the Summa:

Replaces in the sense of entrance into the community of believers, yes. Your answer puts it much better.

Doesn’t replace in terms of physical advantages, which will vary from individual to individual and from one set of circumstances to another. Which is why it is sometimes done, even for boys whose male relatives are uncircumcised.

 

[Brendan]

That’s a good question…since the Catechism of the Catholic Church forbids the mutilation or amputation of a healthy organ.

That is quite true, but the Church defines “mutilation” as

“An action which deprives oneself or another of a bodily organ or it’s proper, normal use”

-Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John A. Hardon S.J ©1998

( FYI, Fr Hardon was a Professor of Systematic Theology and Pope Benedict has approved Fr. Hardon’s cause for Canonization, so it’s a pretty good source

The Church, then would consider a circumcision to be mutilation only if it denied the person the proper normal use of the organ. Unless the circumcision was heavily botched, it would be a difficult case to state that it meets the Church’s definition.

 

[passus]

The Church, then would consider a circumcision to be mutilation only if it denied the person the proper normal use of the organ. Unless the circumcision was heavily botched, it would be a difficult case to state that it meets the Church’s definition.

There are number of anti-circumcision arguments which are based on the assertion that biologically, circumcision inhibits the proper function of the penis. I think we can make a valid argument against circumcision on those grounds.

That debate really isn’t appropriate for Liturgy and Sacraments, though!

 

[yablabo]

That is quite true, but the Church defines “mutilation” as

-Modern Catholic Dictionary - Fr. John A. Hardon S.J ©1998

( FYI, Fr Hardon was a Professor of Systematic Theology and Pope Benedict has approved Fr. Hardon’s cause for Canonization, so it’s a pretty good source

The Church, then would consider a circumcision to be mutilation only if it denied the person the proper normal use of the organ. Unless the circumcision was heavily botched, it would be a difficult case to state that it meets the Church’s definition.

It’s quite a leap to cite a priest (whether his cause is approved for canonization or not) and say basically that he defines what the Church teaches. The section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains “The Teaching Office” of the Church (888-892) does not include singular priests (unless that priest be the pope).

The foreskin/prepuce is an organ which is meant to cover the glans for many reasons, the removal of which does deny a person the proper use of the organ…since the organ would no longer be there once removed. To say it is permissible to remove this organ (or any organ) for non-therapeutic reasons is the same as saying that God got things wrong when He created men with foreskins…so we have to fix it for Him.

To remove this organ for non-therapeutic reasons is simply against the moral law as stated in the Catechism.

– Nicole

 

[malphono]

There are number of anti-circumcision arguments which are based on the assertion that biologically, circumcision inhibits the proper function of the penis. I think we can make a valid argument against circumcision on those grounds.

That debate really isn’t appropriate for Liturgy and Sacraments, though!

Sorry, but irrespective of the forum, no, one cannot make a valid argument against the practice on those ground. The so-called “Bull of Union” with the Copts notwithstanding.