|
What a pleasant missive I received from someone who takes
exception to my page on circumcision.
I respond to it (in gray box) as I go along. Someone writes:
You poor benighted soul!
You plead with parents not to circumcize their infants? You claim that
the AMA, etc. do not recommend circumcision??? Garbage!
| Response: Well,
they don't. Facts are facts. |
Why don't you
ask someone who's been circumcized if he regrets it?
| Response: I've
spoken with a number of men and have read the accounts of even more men
who regret and lament the fact that they were circumcised. Some men
even attempt foreskin restoration. |
You are marshalling facts to fit your own prejudices which, in turn,
are based on pure ignorance and aesthetic. Adult circumcision is a
problem, so Paul dispensed with it in order to gain converts. That's
it! Perhaps circumcision isn't necessary or sufficient for salvation,
but it's certainly not an impediment. Saying a novena is not necessary
or sufficient for salvation, so I supppose we should proscribe novenas,
too, right?
Response: The
Church founded by Christ on the rock of St. Peter has ruled that no
Catholic should be circumcised. The very first Council of the Church --
the Council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50 -- spoke against circumcision. Acts
15:1 "And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except
you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved... 7
And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them:
Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us,
that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and
believe. 8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto
them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; 9 And put no difference between
us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why
tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
Not an impediment to salvation? From the document, "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 circumcision, the [Jewish] 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.
Ignorance
mitigates culpability, of course, but the fact remains: Catholics are
not to be circumcised.
|
JUDAIZERS??? JUDAIZERS???
| Response: Yes,
to "Judaize" is to expect Christians to take on the yoke of the Mosaic
law which has been FULFILLED. Today it means not only that, but,
additionally, expecting Christians to take on the yoke of the Talmud,
too. . |
I don't care what kind of contortions you go through to justify your
anti-Semitic, anti-hygienic hypocracy, the LAW is the LAW, and Jesus
came to fulfill it, not replace it. And I don't care how much of those
self-justifying rantings of that neurotic Hellenist Saul of Tarsus you
throw at me.
Response: And
the Law is fulfilled. But your opinions of St. Paul show me you're not
Catholic (or if you were baptized, you've apostasized and are no longer
Catholic).
How it is "anti-semitic" to explain Catholic teaching which states that
Catholics are of the New Covenant and are not to be circumcised like
Old Covenant Israel, post-Temple Jews, Muslims, and certain African
tribesmen is beyond me. Perhaps it's "anti-Catholic" of all these
groups to teach that we're wrong and that male children should have
their genitals cut.
There's also nothing "anti-hygienic" about not being circumcised.
Surely men can learn to pull back the foreskin and run water over it.
That's not too hard is it? Should people have toes cut off because they
have to spread them to get the jam out? Stop being silly. |
Whether you like it our not, the Church was founded by PETER not Paul,
and the Church he founded is none other than the unbroken continuation
of the Jewish religion, with all the trappings, INCLUDING CIRCUMCISION,
as if the Jews of the time had accepted Jesus as the Messiah. But then,
if that were the
Response: I
Corinthians 7:18 "Is any man called, being circumcised? let him not
procure uncircumcision. Is any man called in uncircumcision? let him
not be circumcised."
Scroll back up to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. It was St. Peter
who stood up and said, "Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke
upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have
been able to bear?" People love to try to pit Paul against Peter and
vice versa, but we Catholics have the writings of both men in our
Bibles. |
case, the nature and mission of Jesus would have been completely
different. So the Jews, being the people chosen by God to make
sacrifice to Him, should of course be God's instrument in the sacrifice
of His Lamb. Everything, EVERYTHING about Jesus was Jewish. He was born
a Jew, was circumcized and named a Jew, lived as a Jew and died as a
Jew. His CHURCH IS JEWISH!!! If he didn't mean it to be he would have
said so, not leave it up to some guy who says he heard a voice on the
road to Damascus.
Response: Jesus
was of the House of Judah, but He was not a Talmudic Pharisee, and He
was not circumcised in the way babies are today. His Church IS Jewish;
it is Israel itself. But it is under the New Covenant, not the Old
Covenant and not the Talmud.
Jeremias 31:31-34: 31 Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord, and I
will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house
of Juda: 32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their
fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of
the land of Egypt: the covenant which they made void, and I had
dominion over them, saith the Lord. 33 But this shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the
Lord: I will give my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their
heart: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And
they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his
brother, saying: Know the Lord: for all shall know me from the least of
them even to the greatest, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their
iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. |
So, about circumcision, you don't know what you're talking about! Of
course, thus won't shut you up because you have nothing to learn.
Response:
Another site you might learn something from:
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Etiquette/
Blessed Lent!
i.p.i,
Tracy
P.S.
NY Officials Bar Rabbi from Circumcision
Ritual
Wed Feb 2, 4:46 PM ET U.S. National - Reuters
By Larry Fine
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York City health officials have gone to court
to stop a rabbi from performing a type of ritual circumcision they
believe may have led to the death of a baby boy from herpes.
The baby was one of three infants found to have contracted herpes
simplex virus after being circumcised by Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, who
used his mouth to draw blood from the infant's wound, a traditional
Orthodox practice during the bris, or religious circumcision.
The complaint filed by the department of health in Manhattan Supreme
Court asked that Fischer submit blood samples to be tested for the
herpes virus and no longer engage in the specific practice until an
investigation was completed.
The court papers, filed on Dec. 22, were reported on by the Daily News
on Wednesday
"Rabbi Fischer is still performing circumcisions, but he is complying
with the court's direction," his lawyer, Mark J. Kurzmann, told Reuters
on Wednesday.
Kurzmann described Fischer as a London-trained, "internationally known"
mohel, or someone who performs circumcisions.
Ten days after Fischer circumcised twins last October, one died of
herpes and the other tested positive for the virus, according to the
court papers.
A third baby circumcised by Fisher was later found to have also tested
positive for herpes, health officials said.
An affidavit submitted to the court by Dr. Susan Blank, assistant
commissioner of the health department, said Fischer had performed about
350 Jewish circumcisions in the area.
Blank noted that the herpes virus, which is common in adults and often
causes lesions known as "fever blisters" or "cold sores" is easily
transmitted but not usually a serious illness in adults. In newborn
infants, however, herpes can cause severe illness and may be fatal, she
said.
Kurzmann suggested the infants could have contracted the infection some
other way.
"Rabbi Fischer is cooperating fully with the city's investigation in
order to determine the true sources of the infection," Kurzmann said. |
|
|
