Council Of Florence

[HartfordWhalers]

"[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. [b]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[/b]. 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.[b] But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation[/b]. [b]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[/b]. [u][b]Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, [i]since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation[/i].[/b][/u]"

The part stating that those who place trust in the old law sin mortally is clear enough, since outside the Church there is no salvation and those who trust in a false religion sin mortally.

How is it that we can take "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, [I]since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation" to mean anything than just that: cicrumcision cannot be had without loss of eternal salvation, whether or not hope is placed in it? I had never heard this until recently, but it seems to me that many Catholics think circumcision is a matter of preference. We must sumbit to the Church: circumcision, with or without trust placed in it, avails to nothing except the loss of eternal salvation, as St. Paul would say: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

[mulls]

hahahahahahahahaha


so who is going to hell in this case.......me for being circumsized, or my parents for making the decision when i was a baby?


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='mulls' date='Sep 6 2004, 11:27 PM'] hahahahahahahahaha


so who is going to hell in this case.......me for being circumsized, or my parents for making the decision when i was a baby?


:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: [/quote]
Unlike non-Catholics, the Church does not teach the false idea that we either always or never have salvation. If you lose your salvation, you can regain it by Confession. If it was before Baptism, I suppose it makes no difference, since Baptism would have forgiven the sin, but it would always be a mortal sin for the parents. Nevertheless, we never know the validity of a non-Catholc Baptism, since if the minister did not have correct intention (to do as the Church teaches), the Baptism is invalid; therefore, if you are baptized, it very likely was not valid.

[mulls]

i want to be Catholic RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!









*no offense to anyone.....but come on, you catch my drift, right?

[Cure of Ars]

The “Therefore” is the part that you are misunderstanding. It is coming to a conclusion on the facts that are stated before it. You cannot read the statement isolated from the facts that were mentioned before the therefore. It is not a sin to circumcise your child if you believe that there are health benefits but that it does not adds anything to salvation. The sin is to think that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient.

Edited September 7, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

This also helps explain the Catholic understanding of the text;

[url="http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/catholic/"]http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/catholic/[/url]

[Theoketos]

[quote]"Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, [I]since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation" [/quote]

I think that the church qualifies the statement with except in the case of theraputic reasons, however, in the West their is almost no diesease right now that circumcision would prevent, but that is just what I have heard, it would be interestiong to get a Pediatrition's opinon on the subject.

I wonder what the percentage of circumcision is in the West...

I also wonder what the consequences of a child looking different from the father would be and if that would be enough to count for a theraputic reason...But I must thank you all for bringing this to people's attention so that may we conquer thier ingnorance.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Sep 7 2004, 12:09 AM'] The “Therefore” is the part that you are misunderstanding. It is coming to a conclusion on the facts that are stated before it. You cannot read the statement isolated from the facts that were mentioned before the therefore. It is not a sin to circumcise your child if you believe that there are health benefits but that it does not adds anything to salvation. The sin is to think that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient. [/quote]
I did not read it in isolation. I even included the entire section in question so that this would not happen. The above condemns the false practices of the old law that no longer avail to salvation, but instead only lead one to hell. It then concludes that those who put trust in circumcision are damned, which follows what it had just been saying, but then it also makes the point of saying: whether or not one puts trust in it. What else does that mean? Even if you don't put trust in it, you still are being condemned for the mere act. That is all I could understand it to mean. Maybe the Church has clarified this. If She has, I would like to see a document of equal weight (ex Cathedra) doing so.

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 7 2004, 10:02 AM'] I did not read it in isolation. I even included the entire section in question so that this would not happen. The above condemns the false practices of the old law that no longer avail to salvation, but instead only lead one to hell. It then concludes that those who put trust in circumcision are damned, which follows what it had just been saying, but then it also makes the point of saying: whether or not one puts trust in it. What else does that mean? Even if you don't put trust in it, you still are being condemned for the mere act. That is all I could understand it to mean. Maybe the Church has clarified this. If She has, I would like to see a document of equal weight (ex Cathedra) doing so. [/quote]
My bad, your right. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I did not know this. I have not had a son yet but I plan on it. And before your post I probably would have had him circumcised.

[Theoketos]

Yeam I am totally reconsidering it because there really seems to be no health benefits, plus, it might actually cause much pain, and watering down of the conjugal act, which I can not imagine is in God's plan...

[cmotherofpirl]

Pediatricians seem to think there are health benefits, babies are given anesthetic, and the Church sees nothing wrong with it.
You can find info on the last comment you made on other boards.

[Socrates]

I beleive the council quoted at the beginning refers to men being circumcised at a time when this practice was associated with Judaism - in other words it was condemning Catholics who made an appearance of identifying themselves with the Jewish religion, rather than the Catholic Church.
Since today circumcision is hardly exlusively identified with Judaism, but is widely practiced for hygiene reasons, this would no longer apply.

The Baltimore Catechism states that "a Catholic sins against Faith by participating in non-Catholic worship when he intends to identify himself with a religion he knows to be defective." This states the Church teaching on this matter quite concisely - the sin is when someone is identifying himself with another religion by participating in its practices - I beleive this should put a lot of the debate on this site in perspective. If it is obvious and clear that a Catholic is not following another Religion's observances, there is no sin.

It would be absurd to claim circumcism is in itself mortally sinful, as God, in the Old Testament is the author of this practice, and commanded circumcism as a sign of His Covenant with the Israelites. God cannot command one to do what is evil!!!

[Paladin D]

I'm not circumsized... and there is really no point to be circumsized it except for being "extra careful". Yet again, there are unfortunate cases where doctors cut the foreskin improperly which later in life resulted in health complications.

As long as you clean properly, you are A-OK.

[MichaelFilo]

I think it would be within reason to say that the practice of circumcision is widely abused here in the states. There are NO health benefits (except possibly preventing a disease later on, which in all fairness, wouldn't be a good reaosn to cut anything off). If you guys are interested enough, I suggest a study on the history of circumcision in the US (only 20% of the male population in the world is circumcised).

As far as this council, Socartes made a good point.

God bless,

Mikey

[Guest JeffCR07]

I also think that Socrates makes a good point, though in my personal opinion, I tend to side with MichaelFilo: I see no attraction whatsoever to the practice and no real health benefits, especially if one lives in the United States (as I do).