Saturday, December 25, 2004

Snip the tip?

Message: 7
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:25:41 -0600
From: "ardgowan"
Subject: Re: Re: Cantata Domino

---- Original Message -----
From: "lexcaritas"
To:
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 11:27 AM
Subject: [AHC] Re: Cantata Domino

> Returning to the matter at hand--Question: Is the underlying
> assumption correct in presuming that circumcision is, or was, such a
> ceremony, sacred rite, sacrifice and/or sacrament? I wonder.

Judging from the blazingly clear teaching of Holy Scripture in the New
Testament, not to mention the unbroken witness of Tradition, we must
answer "Yes," that underlying assumption is correct.

> For example, it is not administered by cohanim or leviim, but by the
> mohel and is done at home if possible not at any modern substitute for
> ha Bayit.

In the same way, baptism need not be administered by someone in Holy
Orders. In rare emergencies, it can even be administered by a
non-Christian. So the analogy doesn't quite work.

> It is asserted that "[A]lthough they were suited to the divine
> worship" at one time, they ceased after our Lord's coming for a
> stated reason: "Because they were established to signify something in
> the future."
>
> But the premise includes this assumption: that they were
> established (by our Lord by the way) for no other reason that to
> signify something yet to come. Question: Is this narrow assumption
> correct? What do observant Jews have to say of this?

The Church does not relying on the testimony of observant Jews for her
understanding of the purpose and significance of circumcision. She draws
on the Deposit of Faith, wherein we find the teaching that the things of
the Old Covenant happened or we instituted as a shadow of things to come,
as allegories of the better covenant that Jesus would bring.

> Last Question: Who does or ever did see them as "necessary for
> salvation as if faith in Christ could not save without them"? Such
> persons may well have been, and are, I suspect, few and far between.

The New Testament mentions them -- they have been called "the Judaisers."
St. Ignatius mentions them as well. In those early days, they were a real
threat to the infant Church -- almost the oldest heresy on record (unless
you count Simon Magus, said to be the father of Gnosticism). Other names
for them were "Ebionites" and "Nazarenes" (though perhaps not all who had
those names actually believed circumcision and other Jewish rites were
salvific). Through the centuries, various sects have arisen that have
been Judaisers, such as the medieval Passigenes and the Circumcisi. In
Russia there were the Subbotniks and Molokani. In Transylvania in the
1500s there were the Unitarian Sabbatarians of Andreas Eossi and Simon
Pechi. Even today there are obscure sects (usually pretty small) who
believe circumcision is required of Christians.

Hope this helps.

Polycarp

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?