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.
Jesus was the only one to fulfil the law perfectly. He didn’t need to be saved. He is The Saviour.
A perfect response - succinct and to the point.
Nothing.
There’s nothing to read into it.
Mary and Joseph did what was required by the Law as any good observant Jews would have.
Not in any church I've ever been in.
I can't ever recall hearing a sermon about circumcision.
Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
QuoteC-ircumcision? That’s just a catholic holiday, right? It’s not in the bible as far as I can see.
Unless you follow a calendar different than the pope Gregory calendar, ‘circumcision’ day is a holy day on the world’s calendar. January 1st.
Most don’t work that day so it is deemed a ‘holy day’ in much of the world.
Btw, Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday aren’t in the bible either.
Those three lies are also birthed from the Pope’s calendar.
All would be blessed to start testing what Rome sells as holy or truth.
They may not like the answer though. But that is an opportunity for sanctifican in His Word.
That's what your religion tells you, anyway...
No it wasn't...It's a matter of belief and then understanding...Not interpretation...
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.
Where did you get the notion that God is within everyone???
(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.
Jesus was adamant about correct doctrine...
Perhaps not specifically about circumcision but sermons about Christ and his relationship with the law of Moses are not uncommon at all. And they often use inference and analysis, which the original comment I was responding to suggests are just stumbling blocks.
The Church’s epicycles? Can you support your contention that the Church invented epicycles?
In fact Copernicus relied even more heavily on epicycles than did Ptolemy, to square his Aristotelian assumption of circular orbits with actual observations of elliptical orbits. Epicycles were only solved by Kepler’s theory of elliptical orbits.
The Church has pretty much nothing to do with the transition from Copernicus to Kepler.
Then you need to read your Bible a little closer.
If the RCC doesn't believe they are the Harlot, who do they say it is? The RCC has copied many things of the Babylonian religion. They killed more saints than all other entities on earth. That's what astonished John in Revelation. There were no popes until Constantine in the 300's AD. There are many more indications but I'm wasting my typing if you won't even read it. The fate of the church at Thyatira awaits you if you won't change.
Religion on FR.......
......................
In my mind religion is the kink in the
chain, we are supposed to live by every
Word that comes from god.
And you are right there are some things that
are hard to understand and we should not
Quibble over them unless we know what we are
talking about.
But your view of independent thinking is
different than mine,
If I am preaching the word to some one, it is not only your right but your reponsibility to correct me if I am lieing.
If we can take God’s word any way we want what was the object
of giving us his word?.
Blah blah blah
You said it better than I could. also every one should take
very serious what Jesus said to the religious leaders of his
day.
You are of your father the devil, have religious leaders
become men of God? or are they still the wealthiest men in
the neighborhood?
There are a lot of preacheers who are poor but the ones I
know do not call them selves religious but
like the early Christians gave up every thing to follow
Christ.
Yes - but not just with His circumcision. That would be reductive.
Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant and set up the New Covenant with His blood and sacrifice. A piece of that mystery occurs, or is revealed, or prefigured, at the circumcision. Another piece at the presentation at the Temple (40 days after birth). Another piece at His baptism in the Jordan.
But the whole thing - the whole mystery - culminates or is fully revealed at what we call the Passion. This is the term used for those events that took place from The Last Supper up to Christ's death.
I've assembled some passages below. If we were watching a film of Christ's life, we could imagine each of these being read out at both the circumcision and the crucifixion. All except for the last.
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood — to be received by faith.
also
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
also
Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
also
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
and lastly:
After Jesus had taken the vinegar, He said, 'It is accomplished', and bowing his head he gave up his spirit.
This last passage doesn't fit as a voice-over during the circumcision. Because God's work is not accomplished at the circumcision. But the circumcision is a type or necessary precursor of the Passion.
We must be mindful that the Mosaic law isn't some accidental historical baggage that Christ had to deal with. Instead: it was created for Him and pointed the chosen people towards His salvific death and resurrection.
The Mosaic practice of circumcision was ordained by God because Christ would be circumcised - shedding his blood as a pre-figure of His Passion.
The Mosaic practice of blood sacrifice was ordained by God because Christ the Lamb of God would be sacrificed, at the Passion.
The Mosaic priesthood was ordained by God because one day Christ would be Priest as well as Victim - at the Passion.
And at the Passion the Law is fulfilled, in the sense of being brought to its proper and rightful end.
Christ bows His head. It is accomplished.
The Whore is apostate Jerusalem. The Beast is pagan Rome.
Five kings have already fallen, the sixth now reigns, and the seventh is yet to come, but his reign will be brief
If five of these kings had fallen in John’s day and one of them was still in existence, then the Whore must also have existed in John’s day.
Yet Christian Rome and Vatican City did not exist in John's day.
However, pagan Rome did have a line of emperors. Most commentators see this as the line of kings to which Revelation 17:10 refers.
Hope this is helpful.
I enjoy some of these even though I may not agree with all that is said. To me it’s a lot simpler - Christ walked the Earth under the Old Covenant and in order to be the only “Man” to live and stay totally within the Law, He needed to be circumcised - after h\His Death/Resurrection, many tried to keep adhering to the Law to “prove” their worthiness and they were chastised as having “fallen from Grace” by ignoring that His sacrifice was the only reason any could be deemed worthy.
Well, it’s an historical fact that he was not a Pope.
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 reason that we don't worry about this now is because people like Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus etc already did all the heavy lifting.
We know that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. He was not a phantom; neither was He a mere human with a Divine brain, nor was He one of half-a-dozen variations on the same lame theme. He was - and is - and ever shall be - Incarnate God.
Half-bright moderns dismiss Thomas, thinking muddy thoughts about angels and pins. But where would we be, if we still had to argue whether or not Christ was God every time we talked about Him?
Thanks for sorting that stuff out, Thomas!
It's neat how you called the Beast "pagan Rome". That's the whole point I was making. The Beast will be someone from Assyria. The false prophet will be a pope. It is located on 7 hills. It will be from the old Roman empire. Rev 17 :10-11 speaks of
Rev 17:10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.
Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also the eighth, and is of the seven, and is going to perdition.
The kingdoms in order are
Egypt
Assyria
Babylon ( Daniel 7:19:23)
Persia
Greece
Rome ( Rev 17:10-11)
And finally a new kingdom coming from the reconstituted Roman empire I call "Rome 2"
Many forget that the Roman Empire was Europe plus the Middle East and North Africa. They assume the Beast will be from Europe. The "One is" is Rome at the time of John. The one that was and is not is the 8th. The only empire that hasn't returned is Assyria. Assyria was, but has not returned.
Do a word search on "The Assyrian" and what you read will describe The coming Beast. Even the Pharaoh that forgot Joesph was an Assyrian Pharaoh.
Now as far as Israel,..They are Gods people. There is a replacement theology that is just antisemitism. The whole Bible is the relationship between God and His people. We have been "grafted in" or adopted into the Family of God, but Israel is still the center of attention all the way to Revelation. Jesus will come back on a white horse to rescue Israel from the antisemitic army on the Last Day. In Zech 12 and 13, God tells us Israel will repent when they see Jesus and His wounds in the Last days. Being the Bride of Christ is the best deal by far, but God will not leave His people and His covenant with them. We have a better covenant, but they were blinded to add us in to God's family.
Now back to the original principle. The RCC took pagan religion and spliced it into true Christianity by celebrating Dec 25th, the birth of Tammuz, celebrating Easter instead of Passover and First Fruits, adding Halloween, and New years. The Bible gives us days to celebrate in Leviticus 23 and we refuse. The RCC forbids to marry which is doctrines of demons. The RCC worships Madonna and child, which is straight out of Semiramis and Tammuz. If you bow before a statue of anybody, including Mary and pray to them, that is idol worship and blasphemy.
That's enough for now, but I still wanted to thank you for at least making a civil response for real discussion.
Please read Revelation 2 and the letter to Thyatira and see if anything there could apply to RCC's. You can still go in the Rapture, you don't have to be numbered with the ones left behind in the Tribulation. It sounds to me like the Beast will treat the RCC particularly bad. You will be ruled with a rod of iron and dashed to pieces. Sickness and the plagues will strike you. All I ask is to put some study into this before the last days. If you are still convinced, then well and good. I and others just see things that others don't seem to see, and we do care. If we can never speak to each other in civil terms, there will never be change. I had hope the present pope would open some eyes about infallibility and God's Vicar hearing directly from God. He is obviously just a liberal man that reads scripture very different than most. I don't know where the line will be, but at some point he will bless gay marriage, bless sodomy, bless abortion, or change thousands of years of tradition that should open some eyes. It has to come from within the church because you will never listen to someone who is not a Catholic.
The real church will look more like Jesus' church in the first century. They were converted Jews that still went to Synagogue and followed Leviticus 23, just as Jesus did. Denomination is the "traditions of men" spoken of in Scripture. We have been freed from the oral law and His yoke is easy and His burden is light. If I had one available, I would attend a Messianic church because they have an understanding I'm still learning. All I know is a Christian denomination misses much of what Jesus taught because they are not Jews. For Salvation, all you need is faith that Jesus was the Son of God, come in the flesh, and He gave His life to pay my sin price, and I belong to Him forevermore. Salvation and Rapture are two separate things however. I for one don't want to meet the Beast.
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.