The Catholic Church forbids circumcision for any reason!
#21
Upon reflection, my previous unedited post may have been seen as too dismissive of OP's topica and their argument and be viewed as a personal attack.

I apologize for any sins of Gossip, Detraction, Calumny, and/or Slander caused by this post, as well as any other sins committed, and any sins others fell or will fall into by reading it as a result.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen.
Reply
#22
(02-27-2014, 03:11 PM)Gidge Wrote: I guess those of us with tattoos are in deep trouble.

Well, you believe in the old testament, right?

Quote:Ritual circumcision is the the same as attending a Seder meal, since the Old Covenant is out, it's the tame as believing in pagan or occult practices.

In one sense, but at a seder meal, the men don't walk away with bloody pants because they just had part of their penis amputated.  So i guess in that sense it's not really the same at all, huh?

Quote:Is the implication that uncircumcised men have more libido, ergo, circumcision = birth control  ???

Actually, I think it's opposite.  I read a study once that showed uncircumcised men think about sex as often as women.  I guess when you have all your sexual nerve endings exposed and rubbing up against your underwear everytime you move, that probably does make you think about sex more often.

Quote:Since this was done when I was a few hours old, I think I am off the hook.

I don't think anyone suggested you were on it.
Reply
#23
(02-27-2014, 01:40 PM)Melkite Wrote: I hope many expecting parents will take this to heart.  Circumcision is on the next tier below abortion of the violations of the right to life.

#1 most retarded thing I've seen posted on FE.....ever.
Reply
#24
(02-27-2014, 03:45 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 03:11 PM)Gidge Wrote: I guess those of us with tattoos are in deep trouble.

Well, you believe in the old testament, right?

Tattoos themselves are not a problem, if we read the passage to which you refer in the context and without proof-texting it.

Leviticus 19 states, "[26] You shall not eat with blood. You shall not divine nor observe dreams. [27] Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise: nor shave your beard. [28] You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh, for the dead, neither shall you make in yourselves any figures or marks: I am the Lord."

Now, just as I would bring up to Mr. B, my "Bible" teacher at the "Christian" school I attended in 9th and 10th grade....

1) this is about ritual tattooing in worship of the dead. It's not about tattooing itself, nor is it about memorial tattoos, but literally rites which involved self-mutilation (cutting) and tattooing for the purpose of pagan worship.

2) If we are to go with this as just tattooing in general, we have to also admit we cannot shave our beards, nor cut our hair (on the sides - hence the Orthodox Jews' coiled locks... forget the name).

Haydock explains the passage:

Quote:Ver. 27. Cut your hair, &c. This, and other such like things, of themselves indifferent, were forbidden by God, that they might not imitate the Egyptians or other infidels, who practised these things out of superstition, in honour of their false deities. (Challoner) --- The pagans consecrated locks of hair, and their beard, when it was first cut, to Apollo, the river gods, the hours, Esculapius, &c. Some, at Rome, hung the hair on a tree. (Tirinus) --- The Arabians and Macæ left only a tuft of hair at the top of their head, in imitation of Bacchus. (Herodotus iii. 8.; iv. 175.) This tuft is called sisoe by the Septuagint who seem to have alluded o the Hebrew term tsitsith. See Ezechiel viii. 3. The ancient scholiast says, this was left in honour of Saturn. It resembled a crown. The same custom was observed by the Syrians, (Lucian) Idumeans, &c. (Jeremias ix. 25.) --- Beard. Hebrew, "the angle, or extremity of your beard." These regulations would seem beneath the attention of a lawgiver. But they were made in opposition to some profane customs of the surrounding nations. The Jews still observe this direction, and leave the beard from the ear to the chin, (where they let it grow pretty long) and also two mustaches, or whiskers, on the top lip. The Egyptian mummies have only the beard on the chin. The eyebrows and other hair of the gods and inhabitants of Egypt, were entirely cut off. In mourning the chin was also shaved. God forbids his people to imitate them. (Calmet) --- But heretics need not hence infer, that the tonsure of priests and monks is reprehensible. (Radulph.) --- Superstition and affected delicacy in curling, &c., are to be avoided. (Tirinus)

Ver. 28. Dead. Adonis or Osiris; as if you were mourning for them, in which sense the former verse may be explained. At funerals it was customary to cut off the hair. Achilles and his soldiers did so at the death of Patroclus. (Homer) --- The Persians also cut the manes of their horses, to shew their grief for the loss of Masistius, (Herodotus ix. 24,) as Alexander did when Hephæstion died. (Plutarch) --- The Egyptians, Assyrians, &c., cut their hair on the like occasions, and the Hebrews did so too; whether they neglected this law, or it was rather designed only to hinder them from joining in a superstitious lamentation for some idol. They also cut their bodies, Genesis l, and Jeremias xli. 5. The pagans did so, intending thereby to appease the anger of the infernal deities: ut sanguine....inferis satisfaciant, (Varro, Servius): or to please the deceased. (Plutarch, de consol.) Thus Virgil represents Anna, Æneid iv.: Unguibus ora soror fædans & pectora pugnis. The Roman and Athenian laws restrained this cruelty of women towards themselves. But in Persia, the children and servants of great men still make an incision upon their arms, when their father or master dies. The women in Greece also observe a solemn mourning, with loud lamentations, tearing their cheeks and hair, and reciting the memorable actions of the deceased. The Christians and Jews of Syria inflict still more dangerous wounds upon themselves. The latter have always esteemed it lawful to adopt the customs of the nations with whom they lived, provided they were not attended with superstition; which makes us conclude, that what Moses here forbids, was done in honour of some idol. --- Marks, made with a hot iron, representing false gods, as if to declare that they would serve them for ever. (Philo) --- The Assyrians had generally such characters upon their bodies. Philopator ordered the converts from the Jewish religion to be marked with ivy, in honour of Bacchus. (3 Macchabees) Theodoret (q. 18,) mentions, that the pagans were accustomed to cut their cheeks, and to prick themselves with needles, infusing some black matter, out of respect for the dead, and for demons. Allusion is made to these customs, Apocalypse xiii. 16, and Isaias xlix. 15. Christians have sometimes marked their arms with the cross, or name of Jesus. (Procopius in Isai. xliv. 5.) (Calmet) --- As St. Jane Frances de Chantal did her breast. (Breviary, August 21.) Nomen pectori insculpsit. St. Paul says, I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body, Galatians vi. 17. The Church historians relate, that St. Francis and St. Catharine received miraculously the prints of his wounds. (Haydock)
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id438.html

Reply
#25
(02-27-2014, 02:49 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 02:02 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: I think the passage that the OP quoted is in reference to ritual circumcision. There have been Christians throughout history that has insisted that we needed to abide by the Old Covenant.
But he addresses himself to all Christians, not just those who observe the Old Law.

And if you read what I posted, you will note that:

Quote:The theory that circumcision still held some spiritual benefits even for Christians, prompted at least some of the condemnations you speak of. The Council of Vienne (1311), for example, decreed that Christians should not be lured into Judaism or be circumcised for any reason.

The following century, the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered "all who glory in the name of Christ not to practice 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."

So clearly, it was a problem within the Church at that time.
(02-27-2014, 02:49 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 02:02 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: Modern circumcision is different. The history is different and the reasons are different (thank Mr. Kellogg for that one). Currently, the principal Catholic objection to circumcision is based on the principal of violating the rights of the person.
Yes, modern circumcision is definitely mutilation; it's far more extreme than how Jesus et al. were circumcised.

Some very interesting pages on circumcision:
http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

Apparently, modern medical circumcision follows the Pharisees' Talmud (Brit Peri'ah circumcision), whereas how Jesus was circumcised (Brit Milah) leaves the inner prepuce intact.
[/quote]

I'm with you there. With modern circumcision, the intent is to alter sexual function, to curb "promiscuity", initially among sailors but eventually spreading to the whole of the population. For those who argue that it makes no difference to function, that's something to think about.
Reply
#26
(02-27-2014, 01:59 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 01:51 PM)Old Salt Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 01:40 PM)dark lancer Wrote: How do we know whether it was done or not?
If your foreskin remains intact you were not circumcised.

I guess I am going to hell.

Only if you chose to have it done as an adult and have not repented of it.  If it was done to you as an infant, obviously you are not going to hell for that.
I was kidding, but thanks.
Reply
#27
Now the scupoulous among us will be worried about losing their soul because their circumsized.  LOLOLOLOLOLO
Reply
#28
I was circumsized around 5-6 years old for medical reasons.
Reply
#29
(02-27-2014, 01:32 PM)Geremia Wrote: Pope Eugene IV's bull Cantate Domino says that "The sacrosanct Roman Church"
Council of Florence (A.D. 1438-1445) Wrote:commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.


Thanks Geremia.
Reply
#30
(02-27-2014, 05:00 PM)PrairieMom Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 02:49 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 02:02 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: I think the passage that the OP quoted is in reference to ritual circumcision. There have been Christians throughout history that has insisted that we needed to abide by the Old Covenant.
But he addresses himself to all Christians, not just those who observe the Old Law.

And if you read what I posted, you will note that:

Quote:The theory that circumcision still held some spiritual benefits even for Christians, prompted at least some of the condemnations you speak of. The Council of Vienne (1311), for example, decreed that Christians should not be lured into Judaism or be circumcised for any reason.

The following century, the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered "all who glory in the name of Christ not to practice 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."

So clearly, it was a problem within the Church at that time.
(02-27-2014, 02:49 PM)Geremia Wrote:
(02-27-2014, 02:02 PM)PrairieMom Wrote: Modern circumcision is different. The history is different and the reasons are different (thank Mr. Kellogg for that one). Currently, the principal Catholic objection to circumcision is based on the principal of violating the rights of the person.
Yes, modern circumcision is definitely mutilation; it's far more extreme than how Jesus et al. were circumcised.

Some very interesting pages on circumcision:
http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html
http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

Apparently, modern medical circumcision follows the Pharisees' Talmud (Brit Peri'ah circumcision), whereas how Jesus was circumcised (Brit Milah) leaves the inner prepuce intact.

I'm with you there. With modern circumcision, the intent is to alter sexual function, to curb "promiscuity", initially among sailors but eventually spreading to the whole of the population. For those who argue that it makes no difference to function, that's something to think about.
[/quote]

Ditto Kellogs Cornflakes.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)