When was original sin removed from OT saints?
#11
By symbol, I meant type.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Aquinas' logic.  But as you said, if you start out with a corrupt preconception, the logic following it may be impeccable, but the outcome will still be corrupt.
Reply
#12
Previous discussion:

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...755.0.html
Reply
#13
(07-20-2012, 08:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: No cleansing took place by the circumcision itself.  This is readily apparent.

Scripture treats circumcision as being more:

Genesis 17:14 Wrote:The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

Circumcision was a visible sign of entering into the Covenant. It bound the male who was circumcised to the Law. I think St. Thomas is correct barring reasoning to the contrary.

Circumcision was more than just a human act when done for the purposes of the Law.

Circumcision in itself is meaningless, just like pouring water on people is meaningless, otherwise. However, circumcision was an issue after the institution of Baptism because there heresy stated that one had to be circumcised to be righteous...this is only contested in light of Baptism. Nobody questioned the reasoning before. So clearly, circumcision was related to Baptism in more than just externals. It bound the man to the Law. With the fulfillment of the Law, the grace of God was extended to all through Baptism.

"Circumcision" is a pain for me to type (I do not type that word often), and barring any clear comprehensive reasoning contrary to what Saint Thomas wrote, I think we should accept it.
Reply
#14
When they believed.

"Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness" (Romans 4:3)
Reply
#15
(07-20-2012, 08:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: Aquinas was wrong about the immaculate conception, he is wrong about this as well. 

We know he is wrong about the Immaculate Conception because it was infallibly stated so.  I suspect that St. Thomas holding a heterodox view on the IC was part of the reason that it was stated ex cathedra.

I know that you're not a big Thomist, Melkite, but this issue is not analogous and it is the case that, given things like Aeterni Patris, Catholics don't really have much a leg to stand on when arguing with Thomas where the Church has not also done so.

I think we can agree that Thomas doesn't state something lightly.  Do you have an equally thoughtful argument against the efficacy of circumcision? 
Reply
#16
(07-20-2012, 08:45 AM)Rosarium Wrote: Aquinas was not "wrong" as much as you think.

This is very important, I think.  He's not just another saint/theologian.  He holds a singular and extraordinary place in the Church, and is the Angelic Doctor, the chief of all theologians, and the school (though there are no schools comparable in scope to his own) which has been accepted and promoted by the Church above all others.
Reply
#17
(07-23-2012, 12:36 PM)Walty Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 08:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: Aquinas was wrong about the immaculate conception, he is wrong about this as well. 

We know he is wrong about the Immaculate Conception because it was infallibly stated so.  I suspect that St. Thomas holding a heterodox view on the IC was part of the reason that it was stated ex cathedra.

I know that you're not a big Thomist, Melkite, but this issue is not analogous and it is the case that, given things like Aeterni Patris, Catholics don't really have much a leg to stand on when arguing with Thomas where the Church has not also done so.

I think we can agree that Thomas doesn't state something lightly.  Do you have an equally thoughtful argument against the efficacy of circumcision? 

I don't know that you'd consider it equally thoughtful, but I've already stated it.  Both Jewish men and women went to Hades prior to the resurrection.  Those who received circumcision, and those who didn't, suffered the same fate.  That alone proves that, if original sin alone separates man from God, then circumcision had no effect on one's spiritual state, since receiving circumcision prior to Christ in no way saved one from the fate of original sin.

If, as the Thomists state, that God saved men through their faith and circumcision, but women only through their faith, doesn't setting up such arbitrary conditions for one person but not the other kind of contradict the simplicity of God?  Either faith is the requirement, or it's not, but it can't be the requirement for some and not for others.
Reply
#18
(07-23-2012, 01:16 PM)Melkite Wrote: If, as the Thomists state, that God saved men through their faith and circumcision, but women only through their faith, doesn't setting up such arbitrary conditions for one person but not the other kind of contradict the simplicity of God?  Either faith is the requirement, or it's not, but it can't be the requirement for some and not for others.

"If, as all here believe (I hope), God allows only men to be priests, but women to have other roles, doesn't setting up such arbitrary conditions for one person but not the other kind of contradict the simplicity of God?"

No for the priesthood, and no for circumcision.  Men and women are complementary but very different and God chooses to treat them very differently.  God is simple, but that doesn't mean that His creation is simple in the same way.  We don't have to fully understand for a thing for it to be so.

A man who was circumcised but died without faith would go to everlasting hell,  just as a woman would.  Circumcision removes original sin, it doesn't guarantee salvation.
Reply
#19
(07-23-2012, 12:38 PM)Walty Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 08:45 AM)Rosarium Wrote: Aquinas was not "wrong" as much as you think.

This is very important, I think.  He's not just another saint/theologian.  He holds a singular and extraordinary place in the Church, and is the Angelic Doctor, the chief of all theologians, and the school (though there are no schools comparable in scope to his own) which has been accepted and promoted by the Church above all others.

I disagree with this, not because I disagree with Thomism on certain points, but because it singles out one person as basically being the summit of Catholic truth.  He very much is just another saint/theologian.  I think to put him on such a pedestal as the West does, and not merely acknowledging that he was more gifted than other theologians in many ways, but putting him on an entirely different level to the exclusion of all other theologians, is in a certain sense idolatrous.  You're basically saying all other theologians are deserving of an academic type of dulia, but Aquinas alone deserves academic hyperdulia.
Reply
#20
(07-23-2012, 04:53 PM)Doce Me Wrote:
(07-23-2012, 01:16 PM)Melkite Wrote: If, as the Thomists state, that God saved men through their faith and circumcision, but women only through their faith, doesn't setting up such arbitrary conditions for one person but not the other kind of contradict the simplicity of God?  Either faith is the requirement, or it's not, but it can't be the requirement for some and not for others.

"If, as all here believe (I hope), God allows only men to be priests, but women to have other roles, doesn't setting up such arbitrary conditions for one person but not the other kind of contradict the simplicity of God?"

No for the priesthood, and no for circumcision.  Men and women are complementary but very different and God chooses to treat them very differently.  God is simple, but that doesn't mean that His creation is simple in the same way.  We don't have to fully understand for a thing for it to be so.

A man who was circumcised but died without faith would go to everlasting hell,  just as a woman would.  Circumcision removes original sin, it doesn't guarantee salvation.

We're talking about salvation here, not vocation.  To say that men and women hold different vocational roles is to be expected.  To say that men and women must follow different paths to salvation is heretical.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)