I was greatly perturbed today by a twitter post from Mark Hart the bible geek for Lifeteen. He posted about his newborn baby boy’s circumcision (TMI just sayin’) but what came after was interesting.
Mr. Hart tweeted this:
The Pediatrician: “Have any questions about your son’s circumcision?”
Me: “What do I look like? A Galatian?”
Her: “Let’s try this again.”
A person responds with a bible quote
Uhm - don’t read Phillipians 3:1-2 prior to the event… just saying
several others tweet their shock about his discision and what finnally got me was this
he won’t need a dispensation if he wants to be a priest! Yay!
with Mr. Hart replying back "
Hahaha - I can only hope! #onlyonecollar
I am really shocked here. I was sure that Catholics believed that [non-medical and only cosmetic] neo-natal-circumcision especially on the 8th day is a Jewish BAPTISM and thus highly sinful as exemplified as in the Philippians quote and others from the Colossians and such.
But with the Council of Florence/Basil in the 1460s proclaiming that infant circumcision was a mortal sin, how could these tweets be?
Am I entirely wrong on this or is Mark Hart wrong I don’t understand? As a person discerning the priesthood the state of whether or not I need or don’t need certain body parts is crucial.
(For the record I understand this is a controversial topic I wish only to espouse Catholic Facts) (I understand that people have a right to cosmetic and medicinal surgeries)
Please answer this.
I have found the Church Documents from the council
Cantate Domino (A.D. 1442), signed by Pope Eugene IV, from the 11th session of the Council of Florence
Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation
[note to mod: couldn’t find a subforum to enter under move if necessary]
This is only obfuscating this all the more