Posted on 01/02/2018 5:09:40 PM PST by Salvation
The feast for January 1st is designated as the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. Although that is its most ancient title, for many centuries it was the Circumcision of the Lord; it is still celebrated under that title on the calendar of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
Yesterday we meditated on the Feast of Mary, Mother of God; today we will ponder the meaning of the Feast of the Lord’s Circumcision. In so doing we will follow the thoughts of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. The words of St. Thomas are presented below in bold, black italics, while my commentary appears in red text.
As his focal question, St. Thomas asks,
Whether Christ should have been circumcised? (Summa Theologica III, Q 37, Art 1). He answer yes, and for the following reasons:
First, in order to prove the reality of His human nature, in contradiction to the Manicheans, who said that He had an imaginary body: and in contradiction to Apollinarius, who said that Christ’s body was consubstantial with His Godhead; and in contradiction to Valentine, who said that Christ brought His body from heaven.
The sacraments all touch and/or involve the body in some way. For example, we do not simply pray that a person be freed from original sin, we pour water upon the body. To be human is to be both body and spiritual soul.
There has long been a tendency toward a kind of dualism that seeks to make the body a container and locates the self purely in the soul. But Christ, in taking on human nature, took not only a likeness to us, but became fully human. As such, He truly had a body; His body was not a mirage or something uniquely crafted out of His divinity in order that He appear human. He was like us in all things except sin.
Circumcision emphasizes the importance of the body to us because it cuts the very sign of the Covenant into the body. All the sacraments of the New Covenant (to which circumcision points) touch the body in order to have effects on the soul.
Secondly, in order to show His approval of circumcision, which God had instituted of old.
Although the New Covenant no longer requires circumcision, the sacraments do not dishonor circumcision; they fulfill it.
Thirdly, in order to prove that He was descended from Abraham, who had received the commandment of circumcision as a sign of his faith in Him.
Fourthly, in order to take away from the Jews an excuse for not receiving Him, if He were uncircumcised.
Recall that St. Paul had Timothy circumcised for a similar reason (see Acts 16:3). Although Paul was clear that the Judaizers who insisted on circumcision as necessary for salvation were wrong, he made a pastoral and prudential decision to sidestep fruitless debate with them. St. Paul wrote elsewhere about his approach in matters such as this: To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the Law), to win those under the Law. (1 Cor 9:20).
Fifthly, “in order by His example to exhort us to be obedient” [Bede, Hom. x in Evang.]. Wherefore He was circumcised on the eighth day according to the prescription of the Law (Leviticus 12:3).
Until such time as the New Covenant was fully inaugurated, the Old Law still held. Hence obedience is demonstrated for us. If even the Son of God, who did not need the law’s effects (for He was sinless and law is for the weak), subjected Himself to the standing law and lawful authority, how much more should we be willing to do so.
In a similar matter, Jesus advised the apostles, The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach (Matt 23:2-3).
To those who argue that circumcision ceased at the birth of Christ (since He Himself is the New Covenant), St Thomas answered, … we are freed by Christ’s Passion. Consequently, this figure was not completely fulfilled in Christ’s birth, but in His Passion, until which time the circumcision retained its virtue and status. Therefore, it behooved Christ to be circumcised as a son of Abraham before His Passion.
St. Thomas also cites the objections of some in his time who said that obedience in circumcision is not a fruitful example to us since we are under no obligation to be circumcised; then he adds this insight: Christ submitted to circumcision while it was yet of obligation. And thus His action in this should be imitated by us, in fulfilling those things which are of obligation in our own time. Because “there is a time and opportunity for every business” (Ecclesiastes 8:6).
Sixthly, “that He who had come in the likeness of sinful flesh might not reject the remedy whereby sinful flesh was wont to be healed.”
Though the Law could not of itself cure sin, it was a remedy in that it prepared us for Christ and help lead us to Him.
Seventhly, that by taking on Himself the burden of the Law, He might set others free therefrom, according to Galatians 4:4-5: “God sent His Son … made under the Law, that He might redeem them who were under the Law.”
Indeed, the Law had many burdens and punishments associated with it and did not contain the grace to accomplish it. Thus, the Lord took up these burdens and fulfilled them, accomplishing them in full so as to free us and give us the grace to live the new Law of Love. St. Paul says elsewhere, For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4).
Here, then, are some teachings on the circumcision of the Lord. Even if the matter may seem arcane to us, to the Christians of the first generation it was a matter of great importance and something to be understood carefully. Through St. Thomas, the Lord gives us much to ponder.
Tomorrow we will consider another aspect of the eighth day of Christmas: the naming of Jesus.
If you are referring to John 7:22 (”Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken ...”) how would you square that with Galatians 5:6 (”For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”)? Or is it another passage from which you infer a conclusion about Christ’s circumcision?
These are the kinds of things that are discussed in sermons at both Catholic and Protestant churches.
Is your point that there shouldn’t be any sermons at all; people should only pick up Bibles in bookstores and read them and that’s it? Or that there’s something unique about this particular Catholic sermon that misses a particular point in a way that a Protestant preacher would not?
Is the Book of Luke in your Bible? You might want to check!!!!
Gospel Lk 2:16-21
The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,
and the infant lying in the manger.
When they saw this,
they made known the message
that had been told them about this child.
All who heard it were amazed
by what had been told them by the shepherds.
And Mary kept all these things,
reflecting on them in her heart.
Then the shepherds returned,
glorifying and praising God
for all they had heard and seen,
just as it had been told to them.
When eight days were completed for his circumcision,
he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel
before he was conceived in the womb.
Good comment
Any church which brain washes instead of encouraging the attendee to think for them selves is a stumbling block.
... and that He fulfilled the Law (so that we could be justified - by the grace of God!) ...and it was at His circumcision that the name was given to the holy Babe, “JESUS,” or SAVIOR (Mt 1:21; Ac 13:23). Yeshua‘/Yehoshua‘ (Joshua) in Hebrew, meaning “Yahweh saves” or “the Lord saves.”
Christ, although God, humbled Himself by being subjected to the Law of Moses.
“He was like us in all things except sin.”
I’ve always felt this was under spoken or downplayed in my churches in the past. It wasn’t that he couldn’t sin - by taking human form he was susceptible to sin, but throughout his life and all the temptations he, being the Christ, was able to resist sinning in all its many forms.
Something that we always fail at to some varying degree. Whereas we are buffeted by the winds of temptation, HE stood firm and then silenced the gale through his sacrifice.
I must add: we are not saved by anyone or anything else. Jesus Christ is the Way.
Are you saying He fulfilled the Old Covenant with his circumcision?
This silly article reminds me of the mental gymnastics required to decipher the Church's absurd "epicycles" to fill the gaps (eg. Mars' retrograde motion) in Ptolemy's false geocentric theory.
Thomas Acquinas wasn’t a Pope. He was probably the most brilliant theologian in history. And he was there prior to the Reformation.
It is so.
With all respect, I may not believe in your notion of ‘stumbling blocks’.
Our Lord came. A lot of what he said was open to interpretation, and a lot of interpretations grew up around His words and life.
Some of those interpretations make sense to some people, and some to others.
The important thing is that people find their way to the God that is within them; and that’s going to be a somewhat different path for each person.
(I don’t understand this perpetual *fighting* over something that is supposed to be about LOVE. It seems to me that if people were actually following the instruction of Jesus, we wouldn’t see threads like this.
Religion, on FR, seems to have become just more “politics”.)
In the old universal latin rite mass liturgical readings followed the episodes of Christ’s childhood. The New Year mass following Christmas was known as “The Feast of Circumcision”. American bishops bowing to political correctness decided it become known as “ Purification”. A few years back one would see January 6th shown in all American calendars marked as Epiphany the traditional 12th day of Christmas. Since then it no longer appears on the calendar. Catholic bishops had much earlier moved observance of it to the Sunday following New Year.
Except for those teenaged years. You know, those years where there I no record of him being anything but a teenager and young adult.
The popes changed the Sabbath from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week. They stopped celebrating the Leviticus Feasts days for pagan days like Christmas on Dec 25 and Easter( Ishtar or Astarte) not on First Fruits. The RCC could be saved, but what are the odds? They have made Mary into Jezebel and worship idols. Eating things sacrificed to idols is referring to your Eucharist. The first pope is easily provable to be in the 4th century. James, the brother of Jesus, took the church when Jesus ascended. There was a Jewish church founded by the Apostles 300 years before the RCC was even thought of. Look back through your history of 12yo popes, bastard boys becoming popes, the buying of offices, and on and on. The Bible is infallible, not the RCC. It is the Babylonian pagan idol worship combined with a similitude of Christian tradition. That is called adultery in Bible terms.
This was written in love, not to make you mad. If we can never have this conversation, the RCC will die in it's sin. They have heard lies and obfuscation for so long, they cannot even read the words on the page. I've been there. I was raised baptist and no one ever spoke about the Holy Spirit. I was almost 60 when I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. I could not even read the words on the page until the scales fell off. John 1 tells us the Word is God. The Ruach became Flesh and then became Logos. Jesus came to save, but His Word will judge us. Don't listen to me or anyone else with your relationship with God. Read the verses and pray God will show you the truth. The Woman rides the Beast would be a good start. If you are wrong, wouldn't you want to know? If you are right, what would it hurt? There are no popes, nuns, or cardinals in the Scriptures. it's made up to make you think you owe allegiance to men over Jesus. As a Christian, you are a priest and King. A vote in Italy doesn't affect your station with God. You are a saint when you accept Jesus as Savior. It has nothing to do with how good you are or what church you attend, but what your relationship is with Jesus. If you are the child of the King, you are automatically a prince. A prince in Bible terms is an angel, or messenger of God. Just as I broke off of the Baptist denomination, you can leave the RCC and you are still the child of God. They cannot excommunicate you or hurt your salvation in anyway. Francis is just a man, a fallible man, a socialist man. He would deny Jesus to get more food stamps for Venezuela.
If you do a study on Nimrod and Babylon and see the pagan foundation of much of what we believe today, you can see how paganism has worked it's way deep into what Christians believe today. Look up Madonna and child to see the beginnings of Mary worship thousands of years before Mary. Look up Tammuz and Semiramis and see what they represent. Look up Semiramis coming back as an egg to hatch as the mother of god. It has to wake any thinking person up. A Christian today would look closer to a believing Jew than a Catholic or a Baptist. The RCC is almost totally man made and confused verse reading.
That's where I quit reading and lose all respect for the author.
A topic I’d rather remain ignorant on.
G’Nite, dear.
If Jesus is NOT God, his sacrifice was worthless and our faith is pointless.
What does Scripture say?
John 1:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 8:
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
Why, do you suppose, did they want to stone Him?
The answer should be obvious: He claimed as His own the Name of God.
Either He is God, or He was a blasphemer. There is no middle ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.