“He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Jn 1:11)…
Jewish Hanukkah celebrated at the Vatican
Nothing says ‘witnessing to Christ and the Gospel’ quite like celebrating the religion that officially denies Him, right on Vatican property!
On Dec. 12, 2017, a menorah was lit behind Vatican walls in a Jewish ceremony led by Oren David, who is Israel’s Ambassador to the Holy See. A number of official Vatican representatives participated in a rite of prayers, hymns, and candle-lighting. As Vatican Insider reports:
Last week’s [interreligious] Vatican meetings concluded with a happy, inclusive moment of a celebration of Hannukah [sic]. This special ceremony sealed two days of fruitful meetings. Within the library of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with Jews on Via della Conciliazione 5, Israel’s present Ambassador to the Holy See, Oren David, led a Hannukah candle-lighting ceremony with prayers, songs, and a table of excellent kosher refreshments that were enjoyed by the delegates and guests of the Vatican, the Jewish community, and the Israeli Embassy. Cardinal Kurt Koch and Father Norbert Hofmann (affectionately nicknamed “the rabbi of the Vatican” [!]), plus Pontifical University officials, Catholic scholars, Vatican journalists and friends of “the Dialogue”, mingled with Italian and Rome Jewish Community representatives and the IJCIC [International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations] delegates.
(Lisa Palmieri-Billig, “Jewish-Catholic Celebration of Hannukah inside Vatican Walls”, Vatican Insider, Dec. 20, 2017)
The feast of Hanukkah commemorates and celebrates the dedication of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, so some readers may wonder: But how could this be a bad thing? Is the feast not mentioned in Scripture (see 1 Mach 4:36-59), and didn’t our Lord Himself celebrate it (see Jn 10:22-23)?
To answer this question properly, we must draw a few distinctions.
First, we must distinguish the Judaism of the Old Testament — which was the true religion at the time (see Jn 4:22) — from the so-called Judaism of our day, which is an apostate religion that has its true origin in Annas and Caiaphas’s definitive rejection of Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah (see Mt 26:63-66). This apostate Judaism (a.k.a. Talmudic Judaism) is not the legitimate heir of the religion of the Old Covenant: “If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not….He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God” (Jn 8:39-40,47; cf. Rom 10-11; Gal 4).
Pope Pius XI reiterated the true Catholic teaching in 1928 when he suppressed the Amici Israel association, which had begun to deny Catholic doctrine on Judaism:
…the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the depository of divine promises up until [!] the arrival of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, or rather, because of this very blindness. Moved by that charity, the Apostolic See has protected the same people from unjust ill-treatment, and just as it censures all hatred and enmity among people, so it altogether condemns in the highest degree possible hatred against the people once chosen by God, viz., the hatred that now is what is usually meant in common parlance by the term known generally as “anti-Semitism.”
(Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Decree Cum Supremae; underlining added.)
Today’s Judaism, far from being the religion of the Old Covenant (which was fulfilled in Christ and His Church), is simply “the synagogue of Satan”, inhabited by those “who say they are Jews, and are not” (Apoc 3:9).
A second distinction that needs to be drawn is that of celebrating the Feast of the Dedication when the Old Covenant was in force, and that of celebrating it today, when the Old Covenant has long been superseded by the New Covenant, which was made by the Son of God to perfect and fulfill the Old: “Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end” (Heb 8:13); “…he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth” (Heb 10:9).
Here is what the Council of Florence taught on this matter:
[This council] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.
(Council of Florence, Decree Cantate Domino; Denz. 712; underlining added.)
Likewise, Pope Pius XII laid out quite beautifully the Catholic teaching on the relationship between the Old and the New Covenants in his encyclical on the Church, and it is worth quoting at length:
That [Christ] completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. “And it is now,” says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, “that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is …. molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood.” One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.
And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area — He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [see Mt 15:24] — the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”
On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. “For it was through His triumph on the Cross,” according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, “that He won power and dominion over the gentiles”; by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God’s anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body through the waters of Baptism except by the salutary virtue of the Cross, by which they had been already brought under the complete sway of Christ.
But if our Savior, by His death, became, in the full and complete sense of the word, the Head of the Church, it was likewise through His blood that the Church was enriched with the fullest communication of the Holy Spirit, through which, from the time when the Son of man was lifted up and glorified on the Cross by His sufferings, she is divinely illumined. For then, as Augustine notes, with the rending of the veil of the temple it happened that the dew of the Paraclete’s gifts, which heretofore had descended only on the fleece, that is on the people of Israel, fell copiously and abundantly (while the fleece remained dry and deserted) on the whole earth, that is on the Catholic Church, which is confined by no boundaries of race or territory. Just as at the first moment of the Incarnation the Son of the Eternal Father adorned with the fullness of the Holy Spirit the human nature which was substantially united to Him, that it might be a fitting instrument of the Divinity in the sanguinary work of the Redemption, so at the hour of His precious death He willed that His Church should be enriched with the abundant gifts of the Paraclete in order that in dispensing the divine fruits of the Redemption she might be, for the Incarnate Word, a powerful instrument that would never fail. For both the juridical mission of the Church, and the power to teach, govern and administer the Sacraments, derive their supernatural efficacy and force of the building up of the body of Christ from the fact that Jesus Christ, hanging on the Cross, opened up to His Church the fountain of those divine gifts, which prevent her from ever teaching false doctrine and enable her to rule them for the salvation of their souls through divinely enlightened pastors and to bestow on them an abundance of heavenly graces.
If we consider closely all these mysteries of the Cross, those words of the Apostle are no longer obscure, in which he teaches the Ephesians that Christ by His blood made the Jews and Gentiles one “breaking down the middle wall of partition . . . in his flesh” by which the two peoples were divided; and that He made the Old Law void “that he might make the two in himself into one new man,” that is, the Church, and might reconcile both to God in one Body by the Cross.
(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 28-32; underlining added.)
These dogmatic truths are naturally reflected in Catholic moral theology, which forbids the keeping of the Old Testament ceremonies and practices under pain of mortal sin against the First Commandment — the sin of false worship. Under a chapter heading of “On Superstition” and a section subtitle of “Wrong Ways of Worshipping God”, the Jesuit moral theologian Fr. Thomas Slater writes:
God may be wrongly worshipped either by false worship or by superfluous worship being paid him. … The ceremonies and practices of the Jewish religion signified that the Messiah was to come, and so now, after the coming of our Lord, they could not be employed without superstition [=false worship]. Inasmuch as falsehood in religion is a grave injury to God, this species of superstition is mortally sinful.
(Fr. Thomas Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, vol. 1, 5th ed. [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1925], p. 140; underlining added.)
Thus it is clear that one is not permitted to still observe the Old Covenant rites or practices today, under pain of mortal sin. The Old Covenant was but meant to foreshadow and point to the greater reality, and because that reality has since been revealed, it is now gravely sinful to turn back again — as though one would prefer the shadow to the reality of which it is but the sign. It would be akin to abandoning Christ in order to follow St. John the Baptist — an absurd mockery of God (cf. Jn 3:30).
For more information about the Vatican celebration of Hanukkah, including lots of photos, please see the following link:
Those who are now longing for the “good old days” of Benedict XVI and John Paul II may want to hold off on that, though. Remember?
“Pope” Benedict XVI in a Jewish synagogue in Cologne, Germany (Aug. 19, 2005)
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger lights a menorah during John Paul II’s “Day of Pardon” (Mar. 12, 2000)
Original caption: “Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, chief of Roman Catholic Doctrine, lights a pardon candle on the altar during the Day of Pardon Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican Sunday, March 12, 2000. asked forgiveness Sunday for the sins of Roman Catholics through the ages, singling out the mistreatment of Jews and the violation of rights of ethnic groups.” (AP Photo [cropped]/Massimo Sambucetti)
Rabbi Marvin Hier rewards “Pope” John Paul II with a menorah
for his support of apostate Judaism (Dec. 1, 2003)
The truth is that this is not a Francis issue, it’s a Vatican II issue. Esteem for false religions, especially that of apostate Talmudic Judaism, is one of the chief characteristics of the Vatican II Church. At the same time, it cannot be denied that the Novus Ordo Sect has probably never had a greater cheerleader for the professed enemies of Christ than Jorge Bergoglio, “Pope” Francis.
Consider, for example, Bergoglio’s kosher lunch for a Jewish delegation at the Vatican; his promotion of the idea that today’s Talmudists are God’s “Chosen People”; the anti-Catholic, pro-Jewish document released by his Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews; his scandalous hiding of his pectoral cross in the presence of the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem; the Vatican exhibit of Jewish menorahs under his watch; his celebration of Hanukkah in Buenos Aires; his being included in a list of America’s most important Jews (!) in 2013; and so forth, ad nauseam.
Against this background, two warnings of St. John the Evangelist immediately come to mind: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father…” (1 Jn 2:23) because “…every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world” (1 Jn 4:3).
Notice, by the way, that the Novus Ordo Sect carries out its interreligious activities with Judaism under the umbrella of ecumenism, not of interreligious dialogue. That is why one of the official Vatican representatives at this event was “Cardinal” Kurt Koch of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity — and not “Cardinal” Jean-Louis Tauran of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
The so-called Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) states this explicitly on its profile page on the Vatican web site: “On 22 October 1974, Pope Paul VI established a Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews as an office distinct from but closely linked with the PCPCU” (source). A Dec. 1, 1974 document of this commission explains that its body was set up “joined to the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity” so as to “encourage and foster religious relations between Jews and Catholics – and to do so eventually in collaboration with other Christians…” (source).
Himself a convert from Judaism, St. Paul the Apostle warned the Gentiles not to become arrogant regarding their inclusion in God’s Eternal Covenant, since just as the Jews had once been included but then rejected because of their unbelief, so too would the Gentiles be cast off if they failed to persevere:
Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
Alas, we have come full circle. Just as our Blessed Lord was once spurned by His own (see Jn 5:37-40), so it is once again today: He is rejected by those who (falsely) claim to be His legitimate representatives and ambassadors (cf. 2 Cor 5:20), those who have the duty of witnessing to Him: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not” (Jn 1:11). What more evidence is needed to demonstrate that the Novus Ordo Sect is not the Roman Catholic Church of Pope Pius XII and his predecessors but rather an apostate religion that mocks and denies Jesus Christ?
“Cardinal” Koch and his friends are busy lighting candles commemorating something that has long been fulfilled in the Eternal Covenant sealed with the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ, who is “the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world” (Jn 1:9). By doing so, the Vatican apostates are denying the very Lord who bought them: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1).
By the way, can you imagine the Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem throwing a Christmas party?
Image sources: maurizioblondet.it / Getty Images / AP Images / Getty Images
Licenses: fair use / Getty embed / rights-managed / Getty embed
Just wait. They’ll be celebrating Kwanzaa next.
Q: Is it legitimate to get a circumcision as a standard medical procedure? i.e. is it the ritual and beliefs associated with the act that would make it mortally sinful? Would avoiding pork because the Jews did be mortally sinful?
Circumcision as a standard med procedure is perfectly legitimate, although not obviously binding. It’s the religious ceremony accompanying it that would make it sinful. Or doing it for religious reasons. And it’s also obviously recommended, at least in USA. And not eating pork, say cuz you don’t like the idea of eating a pig or for health reasons is also perfectly acceptable. Although who doesn’t like bacon, I couldn’t live without it myself.
So in what sense do you regard male genital mutilation to be a legitimate procedure?
I knew my comment would trigger someone. In what sense do you regard circumcision as male genital mutilation?
It is genital mutilation by definition.
I acknowledge that there are certain definite conditions which might call for a surgical intervention, but I am questiong the practise as a cultural norm, viz “. . . obviously recommended, at least in USA”
Mutilation is the infliction of severe violence resulting in disfigurement. This does not occur in circumcision. It is the removal of that which is unnecessary. Just as removal of the appendix or cutting hair or nails. Is that mutilation? You are evading the point: my question was why it is genital mutilation, and you cannot logically answer by saying it is genital mutilation. Yeah, I know you think it is genital mutilation, but why do you believe that?
” infliction of severe violence resulting in disfigurement” is your own defintion. Circumcision can be violent and traumatic (African male initiation for example) and is not the removal of something unnecessary (nothing in nature is unnecessary). Comparisons with appendectomy are specious as this is only performed for medical reasons. As to hair or nails, such comparison is simply false, for obvious reasons.
I was rather hoping you would offer a defense of cultural circumcision (if, as I assumed you actually approve of the practise) as opposed to a semantic debate about the word ‘mutiliation’ which, in respect of the latter practise, I stand over.
You were hoping I would offer a defense, why, are you trying to troll me? What does culture have to do with anything. No, it’s the dictionary’s definition, look it up. All for medical purposes, really? Well gee, I guess people have circumcisions for non-medial reasons (like, cuz they have nothing to do). Of course circumcision is medical and hygienic in nature. Unnecessary in the sense of non-essential. Hands are pre-se necessary for a naturally perfectly composed body, but are not essential, and if rendered useless (gangrene for e.g.) than obviously can be disposed of.
PS: The Catholic Church has never condemned circumcision as a medical/hygienic procedure, so I hope you’re not trying to create sin where none exists.
I was hoping you would offer a defence because you seem to be approving of this practise. Insinuating that I am a troll simply for challenging you is unworthy (I generally agree with your commentary about many things). It is normal to offer a defence of something when it proves controversial.
“Of course circumcision is medical and hygienic in nature.” I do not dispute medical reasons for correcting some condition, however, the hygiene argument is lame because proper washing addresses that.
The comparison to gangrenous hands also falls down because foreskins are not normally gangrenous or dysfunctional in any way.
I do not understand why you bring sin into this, at no point did I even hint that such could be the case. That possibility never even crossed my mind, until now!
Circumcision, or male gential mutlilation as I prefer to call it (I’m far from alone in this) is controversial, notwithstanding your protests to the contrary. In some European countries it is a criminal offence to perform one without proper medical justification – “hygiene” or “custom” is not considered justification, nor religious grounds, as here in Ireland for instance.
Having researched this topic before, I have discovered two reasons why it is still a custom in the US. In the past the American medical profession held views about it which are now considered erroneous. Why does it linger on? Well, it is a billable procedure (c. $200) and in a culture of private medicine that is literally the bottom line. Do a couple of those in an hour and the money mounts up. Another reason I have seen cited is that it is generally women who push for it. Perhaps it is a way of stamping their power on a man from the getgo, a kind of symbolic emasculation?
The latter idea should not be dismissed to hastily as it has been understood that religous circumcision was a form of sacrifice to God whereby men gave something of their manhood in recognition of their submission to God’s authority. This is a far more credible reason than those advanced under the banner of hygiene.
You do realize that mutilating the genitals is sinful? So if you call circumcision genital mutilation, what do you expect any sane human being would think you mean? Why are you coaching me in how to make my arguments? That’s what I meant by trolling. You hoped I would offer a defense this way rather than that way, so if you wanted me to do that, you must know my argument, in which case you’re just trying to argue. Or you are genuinely interested in discussion in which case you would not use a term such as genital mutilation for something which means to everyone who would read it as something sinful. So is it sinful or not? Not practicality, not money, not conspiracy doctor this and that. Those are separate issues, the original issue is it’s morality. I’m not here to debate the practicality of it, doctors and parents can do that.
Are you claiming that the mutilation of criminals in the Middle Ages was sinful (or is it only sinfuil if its genitals?)? I think you would need to check again. You might be here to debate its morality, but you made a statement earlier about it which I challenged, namely that it is fine and normal (“recommended”). This is controversial and it is not trolling to challenge a view you disagree with. Am I allowed to disagree with you about this and expect some kind of defence?
I don’t know about the rest of the world, but everywhere I’ve hear of in the USA (which is the only place I referenced, I didn’t say the whole world) it is recommended and standard. Debate can be had about whether that is good or not, but the fact remains that in most places in the US it is standard.
I already addressed that. I also know there is a movement in the US to have it stopped except in cases of medical necessity. Where I am it is a criminal offence.
“Debate can be had about whether that is good or not, but the fact remains that in most places in the US it is standard.” I know it is recommended (anything worth $200 a pop will be recommended!), but my contention is that it is unnecessary.
There’s a movement for everything in the USA, which if you knew anything about the USA, you’d know, says nothing. Everytime someone wakes up, a new movement starts, 101% of which never actually achieve anything significant or which affect the average person.
A complete non sequitir.
A non sequitur responding to a non sequitur.
No it wasn’t. I mentioned the resistance campaign to it as a counter to your claims that it is normal and accepted in the US. If there is a movement against it then your protrayal of the situation there is inaccurate. I also note that statistically it is in decline in the US.
My point was because there is a movement doesn’t mean either it is wrong or that it is in anyway meaningful statistically. Because it isn’t. There’s a flat earth society, but it has achieved nothing in it’s 61yrs of existence. Gay marriage is increasing in the US, is this something to celebrate, no. I’m sure it is in decline, because people don’t actually have children, I mean, that’s simple.
I did not say that the existence of resistance says anything about the rights and wrongs of something. It was to counter the impression you tried to create that this is all fine and dandy in the US. That was once the case, but no longer.
Comparing resistance to lopping off a portion of a male infant’s genitals to the flat earth movement is crass.
Except that both movements are as irrelevant in the practical order and will continue to be such.
The apparent decline in the practise says otherwise, as does its illegality elsewhere.
not true, but whatever
Yes, true, according to CDC figures.
Blocking your ears is not helping you.
In 2013, The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that hospital circumcision rates declined in the United States: from 64.5% in 1979 to 58.3% in 2010.  The overall decline was almost entirely due to decline in Western states, from 63.9% in 1979 to 40.2% in 2010.
Even if 40% still do it, it’s still common.
And that genitals circumcised or not are essentially the same and function as they should, and that the Church forbids neither, which you forget to mention.
There is evidence to suggest that it does impair function, but there is controversy about that so I wouldn’t press it. The argument is that where it does as standard (the US situation) it is unnecessary, and unnecessary surgical proceudres do have moral implications.
The custom in the US was invented in a time when the medical rprofession believed it was benefical, so people went along with it in good faith. That view is now considered erroneous (as was leeching, bleeding and other medical procedures once considered benefical and standard.). Once again, nothing in nature is unnecessary so I can really see no justification for this practise.
So cite me a moral theologian who says it is sinful. But you won’t because none exist. And it doesn’t impair function. Another lie by people who know nothing.
What on earth has it got to do with theology? Things can be wrong for a number of reasons that need have nothing to do with religion.
If it’s morally wrong, it’s in the moral theology department. Theology doesn’t just mean dogma.
Ok, then it’s morally wrong to abuse (and when it’s not out of actual medical necessity it *is* abuse) any living being that cannot defend itself.
Don’t know how that follows. but ok.
Btw, I never said it was majority popular, I simply said it was in many places and is still widely done,.
Well, the US is only one country. It’s certainly not “recommended and standard” in the UK, and it doesn’t seem to be standard anywhere else in Europe. I imagine the reason that it’s “recommended and standard” in the US is because of the dominance of Jews in your society.
The average person in the US doesn’t actually circumcise cuz the Jews say to.
I don’t think that you appreciate how insidious propaganda is or just how dominant Jews are in medicine.
Not all propaganda done for an ulterior motive (Jews or not) is necessarily promoting something intrinsically evil. Just saying.
Believe that if you like.
I dis-believe in the fallacy of one-dimensionality.
But people don’t routinely have their appendix removed. Leaving nails uncut would eventually make it impossible for a person to function normally, plus they grow back (as does hair). Those examples are not comparable to circumcision.
Can you cite a moral theology book that says circumcision is mutilation? If not, then you need to offer an argument for your view.
McHugh-Callan mention circumcision as an indifferent act (LINK):
“Can you cite a moral theology book that says circumcision is mutilation?
If not, then you need to offer an argument for your view.”
I don’t have to do any such thing. At no point have I made any theological claims about this practise therefore I have no obligation to answer what is just an arbitrary stipulations.
I responded to someone asking about circumcision being moral. That’s theology, moral theology. No moral theologian insists, nor does the Church, that circumcision is genital mutilation. And I don’t think the so many theoretical supposed people who you claim agree with you do either. For most, it’s opinion and practicality and an individual decision. They don’t go around claiming the other person wrong because they are self-proclaimed researchers of everything under the sun. Too much sarcasm, well, #dealwithit.
I notice that you continue to avoid defending your controversial claims. 🙂
I just did. So is it wrong or isn’t it. That’s the issue. I’m not defending any side. I’m simply defending the ability to choose morally whether parents can circumcise or not their children. I’m defending the principle of choice in the matter, not any actual choice.
If it is shown to be an unnecessary surgical procedure then I think we could conclude that it is not morally justifiable, any more than nips and tucks, rhinoplasties, body piercings etc, are.
There you go again with philosophical arguments that make no sense. You just said you made no theological argument (which includes moral theology) and now you say if it is unnecessary than it is wrong. Actually prove and stop just asserting.
All my arguments make sense, I think you meant to say you disagree with me. 🙂
Initially I made no theologcial comments one way or the other about the issue.
In answer to Eric H I said “Now that you bring it up though” and earlier in answer to you I said “That possibility never even crossed my mind, until now!” So now I am thinking about it as a moral issue thanks to what you said. Apparently I am to be excoriated for that now.
So am I to understand that you think a ban on unneccessary surgical procedures is controversial?
You said it’s genital mutilation, and if it is, most people would understand that as it being morally wrong. If that’s not what you meant you obviously don’t care to clarify. That’s theology. So you want the state to tell you what procedures you can and cannot have, as in, the same state that has legalized gay marriage and abortion? You really want the state to have that power, or to set the precedent for such? The state to tell parents what they can and cannot do with their children. ok, that’s not crazy.LOL I say (as does the Church) that circumcision is an elective procedure that parents and ONLY parents should be in charge of making a decision about for their child, not the state.
Again, whose choice? Surely it’s up to the one affected to have the choice, not anyone else!
Like with infant baptism?
Again, not remotely comparable.
Choice is the point, not analogy. Can’t claim circumcision is wrong cuz the child can’t choose. The child doesn’t choose conception, life, birth, food or anything else for many years. Sorry, but parents have final say, not the state or anyone else.
It is the business of parents to protect their children, not harm them – *that* is the source of their authority.
I’m saying parents don’t loose their authority because someone decides circumcision is wrong (which it isn’t).
But it’s not an individual decision, since most circumcisions are carried out on babies who have no say in the matter. How can that be right except in cases of medical need? Incidentally, I know someone who had to have it done as an adult for medical reasons and he noticed a difference. Of course, if you’ve had it done as a baby, then you will have no idea whether you are affected by it or not.
Procedures done as adults vs. infants obviously are going to have different effects. That’s basic science. Parents are in charge of it and that is Divine Law, not the state nor anonymous posters on disqus.
So, if parents want to lop of the who thing, that’s fine, too because it’s their right as parents? Your argument makes no sense.
That would be wrong, circumcision isn’t. Big difference, once you have proof from actually authority that it’s wrong, great.
Please provide provide proof from actual authority that it is wrong for parents to castrate their children. I’ll be very interested to read the actual pronouncement issued by the Church on that very topic.
Castration and “loping off the whole thing” are not the same thing.
And also, just because in the subjective opinion of an anonymous poster or in the court of public opinion, it is judged that parents have made an imprudent decision in a matter which the Church and common sense leave up to their ultimate judgement and which is not a matter of intrinsic evil, it doesn’t therefore follow that the parents loose their divine God given right to the final say in matters under their purview. Yes, parents may be wrong or make mistakes, but it doesn’t follow that you or I get to say so, or make up sin where none exists. This is similar to the Terri Schiavo case, not to open up a bag of worms, but almost every single person who ever spoke/wrote about the topic did so in a totally wrong manner. They approached it as a prolife issue and one in which they somehow had the right to publicly express their opinion in a way which made their opinion and typically very ill-informed one, look like the gospel truth. Whatever be your view on that case, you have no right to pontificate as though you’re view is the gospel truth, or as though you can or could create sin where none exists. The husband had the final say, not in-laws, not the state, not anonymous bloggers or self-proclaimed lay theologians (you want something to ban, that should be banned). So you think circumcision is wrong, great. The Church and common sense say otherwise. It is very damaging to people who are not well educated in these moral ethics to be told or to be reading things in which people make it up as they go along, you have no right, NONE! Cite authority and you do well, make it up and you very well may be the one sinning, and not the parents. Of course, the huge egos of anonymous posters and theologians rarely ever think of that: that they might actually be the ones sinning by leading others into error. Merry Christmas!
I appreciate that, having been so mutilated yourself (apparently, since this is obviously a *very* sensitive subject for you), you cannot be objective. The Church cannot possibly pass judgment on every individual human action, so therefore limits Herself to that which is generally good or generally evil, as laid down by Our Lord, the Gospels and tradition.
As it happens, Fr Jenkins of the SSPV was asked about this on “What Catholics Believe” and said that, although the Church did not forbid it, neither did She encourage it, since St Paul had made it clear that it was part of the Old Covenant. The original rule on circumcision was clearly created for persons living in desert environments and for obvious reasons. Most Christians do not live in circumstances where such precautionary measures are required, which makes the procedure purely cultural and cosmetic.
I say once again that *no one* has the right to do harm to another for no good reason – and that includes parents who act out of cultural ignorance.
By the way, why do you keep banging on about “anonymous posters”? Are we not all, by its nature, anonymous on the Internet? And, since Anna Mack is just a diminutive of my full name, I am rather less anonymous than you!
I never said I was circumcised, and even if I was (for the sake of argument) I can still be objective. The Church would have forbidden it if it was wrong. What Fr. Jenkins says is of no concern to me, he doesn’t believe most sede clergy are valid in practice, so not a very good source. If circumcision is harmful, than you just put millions in the state of sin. I’m not condemning anonymous posters of any kind. I’m condemning the pontificating that goes on, anonymous or otherwise.
Removing the foreskin is known to reduce sensitivity – and why would you remove something that doesn’t need to be removed? It’s there for a reason.
That’s not true at all in any way, shape or form; it doesn’t reduce sensitivity. It’s an argument shown through experience that applies to less than .0000001% of those circumcised. Without getting into details (since this is a public site and a mixed audience), I can speak from experience and also know other people who could as well. There are indeed reasons for it. Some say the hygienic reasons are false, but experience doesn’t corroborate them. No one circumcises their boy for something to do.
And the original question was the morality of it, not the practicality of it. The practicality of it can be debated in principle, the morality cannot, because the Church does not forbid it, only as a religious ceremony, such as the Council of Florence (?) which condemned the Copts for making it a religious ceremony.
And I was merely countering the argument that everything in nature most be left essentially intact. If that were true, nails, hair and appendices could not be cut/removed under pain of sin. It’s a nice philosophical argument which doesn’t make any sense, nor which the Church apparently supports, as mentioned above.
Castration = male genital mutilation. Removing skin doesn’t impair essential function, and in the case of repeated urinary tract infections actually promotes proper functioning. I think many people recall the difficult times uncircumcised soldiers in WWI & II had in the trenches because they couldn’t properly clean themselves, and they think that should circumstances dictate that something similar happen in the future they might wish that their children be spared a similar fate.
Finally someone with some common sense! I mean, seriously. Merry Christmas!
Bacon is the best part of the pig 🙂
Also, some people in the thread mentioned the practice is banned altogether or only in certain strict circumstances. But these countries have legalized abortion, contraception and gay marriage. And these people seem to suggest they want the procedure banned altogether. Let that sink in!!!!!
Isn’t it time we apologized for Jesus?
I mean, if it wasn’t for him, there would not have been all those unpleasant passages in the Talmudic writings against him, his mother, and against his disciples, the “Nosrim” and “minim”, against whom the Rabbis call down a curse each day in their 18th Benediction. Nor would they have had to secretly infiltrated the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, as the Marranos did, in order to destroy the true faith. And then there’s those secret societies which they founded and control, in order to destroy the morale of the Christian nations, and rob them of their resources and liberty, placing them under the tyrannical boot of a Luciferian plutocracy, all in the name of restoring the true order that should exist in the world.
All the doing of that Galilean! We should apologize for having inflicted such a burden on the Chosen People! Yes, and we, the goyim, isn’t it time we learned to know our place, as the true and ideal order would have it? To wit:
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel,” he said during a public discussion of what kind of work non-Jews are allowed to perform on Shabbat.
“Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat,” he said to some laughter.”
: the words of a great and learned Rabbi in Jerusalem.
For consolation to friends here, as we are within the Ember Days of Advent: : Fr.
Here is the book Father recommends in this talk- free online:
Canon 1258.1 1917 Code of Canon Law: “It is not licit for the faithful by any manner to assist actively or to have a part in sacred rites of non-Catholics”. Since the Vatican II sect isn’t part of the faithful they might as well throw a Toga party and sacrifice a Sow.
Anything less than a hatred of Judaism is unacceptable in a Catholic.
Anything less than hatred for ANY false religion is unacceptable in a Catholic. ODIENTES MALUM, ADHAERENTES BONO. (St. Paul to the Romans 12: 9)
Absolutely. And I guess we shouldn’t be so outraged toward the Novus Ordites when they occasionally take part in a Jewish rite. After all, they practice the false religion of Protestantism every time they say their phony mass.
Hold your breath
Make a wish
Count to three
Come with Jorge
And you’ll be
In a world of
Take a look
And you’ll see
Into Bergoglio’s imagination
With a spin
The world of Vatican II’s culmination
What we’ll see
If you want to view apostasy
Simply look around and view it
Anything you want to, do it
Wanta change the Church?
There’s nothing to it
There is no
Life I know
To compare with
You’ll be bound
If you truly wish to be found
Found in the ground of Bergog’s gob; (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prVvWSHINXk) …. stuff the rhyme, no soul, Lord have mercy, wishes to be ‘bound’ in an anti-pope’s imagination.
These false clerics know and celebrate their masters.
Every true Catholic is heartbroken over those who have not excepted Christ. It is not out of love that these members of the Vatican II sect participate in this practice that denies Christ.
You have an entertaining website. A quick search reveals:
The menorah symbolized the ideal of universal enlightenment. The idea that the Menorah symbolizes wisdom is noted in the Talmud, for example, in the following: “Rabbi Isaac said: He who desires to become wise should incline to the south [when praying]. The symbol [by which to remember this] is that… the Menorah was on the southern side [of the Temple].”
The seven lamps allude to the branches of human knowledge, represented by the six lamps inclined inwards towards, and symbolically guided by, the light of God represented by the central lamp. The menorah also symbolizes the creation in seven days, with the center light representing the Sabbath.
Reverse of 1590 coin in honor of Urban VII with menorah and the legend
(Let your light so shine – Matt. 5:16)
The New Testament book of Revelation refers to seven golden lampstands, representing the seven churches of Asia to which the revelation was sent (Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea), with ‘one like a Son of Man’ in their midst.
According to Clement of Alexandria and Philo Judaeus, the seven lamps of the golden menorah represented the seven classical planets in this order: the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.
It is also said to symbolize the burning bush as seen by Moses on Mount Horeb (Exodus 3).
Kevin Conner has noted of the original menorah, described in Exodus 25, that each of the six tributary branches coming out of the main shaft was decorated with three sets of “cups… shaped like almond blossoms… a bulb and a flower…” (Exodus 25:33, NASB). This would create three sets of three units on each branch, a total of nine units per branch. The main shaft, however, had four sets of blossoms, bulbs and flowers, making a total of twelve units on the shaft (Exodus 25:34). This would create a total of 66 units, which Conner claims is a picture of the Protestant canon of scripture (containing 66 books). Moreover, Conner notes that the total decorative units on the shaft and three branches equate to 39 (the number of Old Testament books within Protestant versions of the Bible); and the units on the remaining three branches come to 27 (the number of New Testament books). Conner connects this to Bible passages that speak of God’s word as a light or lamp (e.g. Psalms 119:105; Psalms 119:130; cf. Proverbs 6:23).
Lighting a Menorah doesn’t seem to be so heretical.
Lighting a menorah, kissing a Koran, preaching in a Lutheran Church, the Assisi World Day of Prayer for Peace, participating in all kinds of non-Catholic ceremonies and rites (Hindu, Buddhist, Voodoo, etc.) are all wonderful – if you happen to be a non-Catholic.
Christ founded a religion. I think I’ll stick to it.
Ahh good goyms! Lightning the flame of shame for their talmudic masters…
Take a good look at the fellow pictured just to the left of the fellow lighting the candle. He has an evil and contemptuous look on his face. It is as if he is thinking, “Go ahead and deny your religion, you stupid little Novus Ordo goy! We have conquered you! You are a loser who will do our bidding.”
HI, I have read some of your comments and I find you to be quite reasonable. I’m having a discussion above about the morality of medical/hygienic circumcision. Could you comment on the exchange when you can? I’d appreciate it.
God would not command a sinful thing in either the Old or the New Testament. Our Lord Jesus Christ would not have been circumcised if it were sinful.
Many of the commandments of the Old Law were to keep the Jews healthy, as well as signs and figures of spiritual realities to come in the New Testament. Thus the frequent ceremonial washing of the hands we now know to be also beneficial in curbing the spread of viruses and bacteria. Pork was very often full of trichinella worms, causing thrichinosis. Therefore the prohibition of pork had both a spiritual aspect to it, as well as a health benefit.
If there are perceived hygienic benefits for circumcision, it is not prohibited. There certainly are arguments for the practice for hygienic reasons. And there are arguments that it is no longer needed for hygienic reasons. Life as we know it today with regard to personal hygiene, is relatively new. Toilets, toilet paper, soap and clean running water and other such things were either non-existent or only for the wealthy just 120 years ago.
I think that piercing ears, plucking eyebrows, and other cultural practices are not sinful, even though I do not like the idea of piercing ears, and I certainly do not like the gages that the youthful idiots are sporting these days. Similarly the removal of wisdom teeth is not sinful, but a necessary practice.
Certainly, since the Passion and Death of Christ, circumcision would be mortally sinful if it were done to satisfy the prescriptions of the Old Law, or even if it were done with the idea that it is a kind of sacrament or sacramental capable of remitting sin, or in some other way spiritually beneficial. In the New Testament, baptism has taken the place of circumcision of the Old Testament.
I do not have much reference material regarding circumcision. Heribert Jone makes no mention of it in the section where he treats of self mutilation.
Neither Woywod nor Bouscaren (Canon Law commentaries) mention circumcision under mutilation. They do mention castration as a mutilation.
Wow, very nice comments, I have to say, you are one of those few people on these sites with some sense. Merry Christmas!
I’m so glad someone else noticed that contemptuous looking goblin!
All he needs is some horns to complete the picture. He looks sinister.
The synagogue of satan
OT Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism are essentially different religions. Christ abolished the Old Covenant after the resurrection (willing to be corrected on the exact point, but I think it was after the resurrection).
When Christ died on the cross and the veil of the temple was miraculously cut in half from top to bottom, the Old covenant ceased.
Folks, I wish you would stop discussing the morality, practicality, or prudence of circumision in this thread. This is not the place for it.
Sorry, I won’t respond to any more of Sede’s comments. Got carried away 🙁
You may be interested in the latest newsletter
Thank you, sir! I remember when I began studying the Faith in greater detail and was happy to find “The Lord”, Guardini’s book on the Gospel. I tore into it with great anticipation and enthusiasm, having taken the effusive praise it had received on face value (chief among them, a quote by one Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger). My disappointment was immediate and deflating. Even his “The End of the Modern World, which had been profusely recommended by even such stalwarts of co servative orthodoxy as Russel Kirk, left me wholly underwhelmed. The man was a gushy modernist before modernism came out of the closet and professed itself to be orthodoxy itself. I recently downloaded his work on the liturgy which predated Vatican II, do you have any familiarity? I am always looking for fellow CATHOLICS to correspond with, sir, and I’d love to make your acquaintance. Feel free to email me or text any time: [email protected]
I generally do not give out my name, but I can email you from my home email later. I still have not figured out what to give my wife for Christmas, and it is about 9 hours away. Therefore, give me a day or two.
I am really not familiar with any Novus Ordo authors. When I got disgusted with the whole New Order Church in 1981, I quit all of it: their Churches, their newspapers, their apologists, their priests, etc. Therefore I am likely of little value to you. Prior to 1981, I was more familiar with The Remnant, The Wanderer, and other Novus Ordo publications (Pittsburgh Catholic, National Catholic Register, etc.). I do not know any of the authors you mentioned.
In 1981, I began studying in earnest the Catholic Faith. I was fortunate to have been in close association with some traditionalist priests, who rejected ALL of Vatican II.
I do know a good amount of liturgical things, and have several good works on the Roman Rite liturgy including Fortesque. O’Connell, Gihr, McCloud, Walsh, Mueller, O’Brien, O’Leary, and a 1925 Matters Liturgical as well as a 1956 version, and other works. I have no works which are later than that.
I also have some familiarity with the Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, because I used to go to it for a while when I was young. It was our alternative to the Novus Ordo Missae at the time.
In as much as I am not current on Novus Ordo stuff (other than what I learn about current events from N.O.W.), I may not be all that informative to you. If you still would like me to contact you, and if I can be of any assistance, I would be happy to write you from my home email address. Let me know.
One more thing: In case I give scandal: I am NOT shopping today. I will make a certificate on my computer for what I am GOING to give my wife for a Christmas present.
Sir, my interest in your personal email and having correspondence was based on you being among the rarest of men: a faithful adherent to Our Lord and the Faith, which is of greater value than anything I could ever find to be of use of men and their value to me in any tangible way. I’ve found that when I find pearls of such value to not let the moment pass, and to not let anything get in the way from, at the very least, making the attempt to connect and establish a friendship that can be of more value than anything else in this ephemeral world of decay. Also, let me use this post to thank every contributor of this site one more time. I can’t begin to tell you how many people I’ve showed your post of the nativity in the Vatican. If I can be an agent to shine light on the true state of the conciliar papacy, and if that is our historical role, then His will be done, not mine. I’m sure we would all prefer to live in a time of Catholic certitude and masculinity, but such is not His plan. We would all prefer this cup be served in a different age, but it is minuscule compared to what our Redeemer suffered in a few seconds of His Dolorous Passion
Once again, may all of your families have a blessed Christmas, and may His Light shine on the souls of your loved ones. I honestly thank God for finding your site and the encouragement it provides me. I pray that we may all have our hearts open to His wil and come to serve and the please Him that much more next year than last. If I can offer any assistance or charity- in ANY manner- I would be more than happy to serve that role. My email and phone is open to all. Dominus vobiscum
Thank you VERY much for your kindness. All for the greater glory of God! May God bless you, and merry Christmas!
Thank YOU, sir, for the work you do and the influence you have. I’m sure even those who don’t consider themselves sedevacantists still come to love and depend upon your writing and ardent adherence to the Faith and Light of the World. I hope you and your family have a fulfilling Christmas, as well. I would love to contribute in any way to your work, if you are ever in need of a volunteer regarding research, assistance, or anything else in this regard. I will certainly donate, as well. Dominus tecum et Pax Domini
Judaism was not the true religion of the Old Testament as Anti-Christ Judaism didn’t even exist at the times of the Old Testament/Old Covenant. The false Anti-Christ religion of Judaism was started only after the apostates of the true Old Testament religion had murdered Christ. Judaism is in complete opposition to Christ, and it teaches the exact opposite of what Christ taught. Judaism is Anti-Christ since they deny and hate Christ and his followers. Judaism has never been the true religion as there’s no truth in it at all. Judaism has always been a religion of lies spewed out by the “Synagogue of Satan.”
And the biggest error of all is to say that Christ, Our Lady, and saints like St. Joseph were Jews!!!! Christ could not be Christ and Anti-Christ at the same time, and since the Jews are by definition all Anti-Christ since they deny Christ, then Christ could not have been a Jew (this is simple Logic 101). Living in Judea, of course you could say that Christ was a Judean, but being a Judean does not make one a Jew. Christ was an Israelite, a son of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/Israel, a son of David, and a Hebrew, but He was not a Jew!!!!
So I prefer to call the Old Testament true religion of the Hebrews/Israelites for that time the Old Testament Christianity as it was Christ whom they were correctly waiting for as their messiah, and it is Christ who saved the Old Testament Christians just as Christ saves the New Testament/New Covenant Christians.