Circumcision bestowed santifying grace?

[CaptainPicard]

Hi guys,
I was always under the impression that circumcision was purely symbolic. I can’t remember any specific instances, but I’ve always gotten the general sense from modern Catholic writers that they believed that, too. (I’m speaking strictly of the Old Covenant, I know that it has no power now.)

However, it seems like St. Thomas, following many of the fathers, believed that circumcision did bestow sanctifying grace, though in an inferior way to baptism. Here’s two quotes from the Summa:

We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ’s Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ’s future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith”: because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ’s Passion, whereas circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof.

and another:

Just as before the institution of circumcision, faith in Christ to come justified both children and adults, so, too, after its institution. But before, there was no need of a sign expressive of this faith; because as yet believers had not begun to be united together apart from unbelievers for the worship of one God. It is probable, however, that parents who were believers offered up some prayers to God for their children, especially if these were in any danger. Or bestowed some blessing on them, as a “seal of faith”; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves.

The New Advent encyclopedia sums up a key difference in how St Thomas viewed circumcision worked versus baptism:

According to his teaching, as baptism remits original sin and actual sins committed before its reception, so circumcision remitted both, but ex opere operantis, i.e. by the faith of the recipient, or, in the case of infants, by the faith of the parents.

So he’s saying that circumcision only works by the faith of the recipient (looking forward to the resurrection of Christ), whereas baptism works through the instrumentality of the death and resurrection of Christ. This view could jive with Romans 4 if we understand circumcision as simply being a seal or sign of faith that is powerless without faith (the people Paul’s condemning, then, would view the outward sign of circumcision, even without faith, as being enough to be justified), which is what St. Thomas seems to be indicating. There are perhaps other problems with getting this view to agree with Romans 4, but perhaps it’s a matter of proper interpretation.
It also might better explain why God almost killed Moses for not circumcising his son, because even though it was just an outward sign of faith, it became a necessary sign of faith once God ordained it as such.

Is this still Catholic teaching today? Or is this still something speculated about? What are your thoughts on the subject?

I’d imagine that Protestants would be nearly unanimous in believing that circumcision was only ever a symbol for several reasons. Mainly because of their strict interpretation of works to mean all works, whereas Catholics often interpret works and working as referring to a specific system where man tries to make God his debtor through working, without faith or a relationship with God.

BTW, here’s the link to the Summa section on Circumcision:
newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm

 

[PatrickSebast]

I don’t understand the conflict here at all. St. Paul indicates in Romans 4 that circumcision was part of the law, but that its power was rooted in faith. So if you mean symbolic in the sense that it meant nothing for the Jews to do it, then that would be wrong. Circumcision was required of them by the law, so doing it was an action of faith and obedience. St. Thomas doesn’t seem to say anything differently to me.

 

[CaptainPicard]

I don’t understand the conflict here at all. St. Paul indicates in Romans 4 that circumcision was part of the law, but that its power was rooted in faith. So if you mean symbolic in the sense that it meant nothing for the Jews to do it, then that would be wrong. Circumcision was required of them by the law, so doing it was an action of faith and obedience. St. Thomas doesn’t seem to say anything differently to me.

I guess the assumption I made is that since St. Thomas saw circumcision as a sacrament which bestowed grace and forgave original sin, even if only ex opere operantis, that it was the normative way that male Israelites were saved.

Some might say that this conflicts with Romans 4 where St. Paul points out that Abraham was justified by faith apart from circumcision (v.9). Whereas St. Thomas says, at least if I’m understanding him right, that circumcision as a visible sign of faith and was necessary for sins to be forgiven (from the time of Abraham to the time of the Church, with some exceptions). The perceived conflict is that St. Paul is saying that circumcision was absolutely not necessary and St. Thomas says that it was.

If I understand you right, you’re interpreting Romans 4 such that St. Paul wasn’t saying that circumcision wasn’t necessary, but clarifying that it receives its power from the principle of faith – that apart from faith, circumcision means nothing (correct me if I’m wrong). That seems like a plausible interpretation. I’ll have to read through the text a few more times. I have to admit, St. Paul often totally eludes me.