Practice of Circumcision = Loss of Salvation

  • Thread starter Thread starter sainthumbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sainthumbert

Guest
From Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, Year 1442:

“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.”

Any thoughts? Is there any subsequent literature revoking this?
 
I think they are speaking of circumcision as a sacramental act of a covenant not the medical procedure. It would be like saying because the church subscribes to one baptism, anyone swimming who goes under water three times has committed a sin!
 
Here is the complete relevant paragraph from the council:

“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.”
Note that it condemns the practice of the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law to the extent that it is believed that they are necessary for salvation.

I doubt that any Christian today practices circumcision as a necessary means of salvation. Rather, they practice it for medical or personal reasons, not theological reasons.
 
Don_Jackson said:
I think they are speaking of circumcision as a sacramental act of a covenant not the medical procedure. It would be like saying because the church subscribes to one baptism, anyone swimming who goes under water three times has committed a sin!
Click to expand...
This. They’re speaking of circumcision as the Jews believe (as a covenant with God and the initiation into salvation), not the medical procedure.
 
sainthumbert said:
From Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, Year 1442:

“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.”

Any thoughts? Is there any subsequent literature revoking this?
Click to expand...
Only if you are doing in the belief that it is a requirement to achieve salvation.
It it perfectly acceptable to do it for medical reasons and certainly the before part does not apply to a Jew that converts to Christianlty.
Some people have had to be circumcized in old age for medical reasons. 😊
 
sainthumbert said:
From Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, Year 1442:

“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.”

Any thoughts? Is there any subsequent literature revoking this?
Click to expand...
This applied to a time when Judaizing initiatives still happened in some parts of the world, and there were “crypto-Jews”. It was also a world that was rebuilding after vicious attacks from Muslims. In those days, circumcision for medical reasons was probably unknown. So circumcision was a red flag sign that you were “going over” to either Islam or Judaism.

Obviously, this does not apply to a circumcision done for medical grounds (phimosis, penile biopsy, penile cancer, etc.) at all, because your motive and intentions here are legitimate health care, and not religious apostasy. Like many older Church documents, context is everything here.
 
Circumcision for non-medical reasons is still a sin as its destruction of the body according to the USCCB’s Ethical medical directives. Circumcising infants for cultural or “health benefits” is a sin. Unless the person has a legitimate illness, incurable my medicine, is amputations lawful

Circumcision as in the council or Florence was re-affirmed as a sin by pope Pious X and Pope Paul in the early 1900s. Circumcision is an outward sign of an interior remission of sin. Circumcision IS the baptism in the Jewish Faith. As such it has no place in Catholicism.

Also in the ritual circumcisions of antique Judaism, it was not anywere close to modern day circumcisions. Only the very tip would be cut, the majority would be left intact.
 
The US Catholic Church has never had a bad thing to say about therapeutic circumcision of babies. Mostly because it does have proven health benefits, and because parents do have the right to order therapeutic surgery on their kids.

Harelips are a purely cosmetic problem that usually doesn’t affect the usefulness of the face, but nobody Catholic opposes them getting fixed, either.

If you would like to inveigh against piercing ears or getting tattoos, you would have a lot more room to stand.
 
andy92 said:
Circumcision for non-medical reasons is still a sin as its destruction of the body according to the USCCB’s Ethical medical directives. Circumcising infants for cultural or “health benefits” is a sin. Unless the person has a legitimate illness, incurable my medicine, is amputations lawful

Circumcision as in the council or Florence was re-affirmed as a sin by pope Pious X and Pope Paul in the early 1900s. Circumcision is an outward sign of an interior remission of sin. Circumcision IS the baptism in the Jewish Faith. As such it has no place in Catholicism.

Also in the ritual circumcisions of antique Judaism, it was not anywere close to modern day circumcisions. Only the very tip would be cut, the majority would be left intact.
Click to expand...
There was no “Pope Paul” in the early 1900’s. Pope Paul VI became pope in 1963. You might want to check this and everything else you said as well.
 
I couldn’t remember what number his succession was. But my facts are correct, as is my logic and philosophy; that alone should show.
 
My first two boys were circumcised because my in-laws acted like I was crazy to even consider not doing it. I didn’t understand why we would do it since we weren’t Jews. My third son who was born during RCIA and he wasn’t circumcised. I think there is a lot of confusion and people just keep doing it because that is what their family has always done. I hope for a lot of grace for misinformed decisions.
 
Mintaka said:
The US Catholic Church has never had a bad thing to say about therapeutic circumcision of babies. Mostly because it does have proven health benefits, and because parents do have the right to order therapeutic surgery on their kids.

Harelips are a purely cosmetic problem that usually doesn’t affect the usefulness of the face, but nobody Catholic opposes them getting fixed, either.

If you would like to inveigh against piercing ears or getting tattoos, you would have a lot more room to stand.
Click to expand...
Not even close. A cleft lip (harelip) is a deformity. A foreskin is a normal part if the male body. Of course the Church takes no issue with repairing abnormalities. To indicate that you think a normal, healthy part of a baby’s genitalia constitutes an abnormality which must e “repaired” is appalling.

The Church has stated that unnecessary/cosmetic surgeries done on unwilling children are immoral. Of course they are.
 
The church tells us that we must not perform circumcisions as a means of salvation, but they do not forbid Catholics from circumcising for non-religious reasons.

I personally find this recent talk of calling circumcision “sinful” to be non-convincing and confusing for many reason.
  1. That would mean that the Almighty God ordered the Israelite’s to perform a sinful act and continue to condone that sinful act for thousands of years.
  2. It would mean that our Blessed Mother performed a sinful act when Jesus was circumcised when he was 8 days old.
  3. It would mean that during the Feast of the Circumcision of Lord, we celebrated a sinful act. This was a Holy Day of Obligation for all Catholics up until the 1960’s. This feast day is still celebrated among the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Including the Byzantine Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Ethiopian Catholics…among others.
The church is clear that we must not do circumcision as a means for salvation. But, the church does not call it “sinful” and prevents parents from doing it for other reasons. They leave the decision up to the parents.
 
Millie123 said:
I personally find this recent talk of calling circumcision “sinful” to be non-convincing and confusing for many reason.
Click to expand...
I am a bit confused about this as well. Circumcision is a sign that you agree to follow God’s covenant. I know that when Jesus came that a new covenant was made, but does that mean we throw out the old ones?

Also, why did Jesus not condemn circumcision? I know the Apostle Paul said people did not have to be circumcised, but other apostles disagreed with him and said it was still a requirement. I don’t recall any Apostles saying circumcision would damn you to Hell. It seems like that would be a pretty big issue to skip over.

If you do it not for salvation, but as a physical sign of allegiance to God, is that a sin?

JK
 
J_Peterson said:
This is one of the reasons this site bothers me a bit. Now someone is going to be scared that their parents are going to hell for circumcicing their children.

From this site:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50061

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127812
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting these links to two answers from the Ask An Apologist section which pretty much answer the question posed here. There is no need for this to be a divisive issue.
 
JK8619 said:
I am a bit confused about this as well. Circumcision is a sign that you agree to follow God’s covenant. I know that when Jesus came that a new covenant was made, but does that mean we throw out the old ones?

Also, why did Jesus not condemn circumcision? I know the Apostle Paul said people did not have to be circumcised, but other apostles disagreed with him and said it was still a requirement. I don’t recall any Apostles saying circumcision would damn you to Hell. It seems like that would be a pretty big issue to skip over.

If you do it not for salvation, but as a physical sign of allegiance to God, is that a sin?

JK
Click to expand...
Even getting circumcised for religious reasons does not damn anyone to Hell. Only dying in a state of mortal sin does that. All sinners can go to Confession.
The Church condemns circumcism for religious reasons (in my opinion doing it as “a physical sign of allegiance to God” falls under religious reason).
The Church allows it for medical reasons.
 
JimG said:
Thanks for posting these links to two answers from the Ask An Apologist section which pretty much answer the question posed here. There is no need for this to be a divisive issue.
Click to expand...
Regardless of any views by singular people. The Council of Florence is an infallible council speaks Truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top