Old Covenant circumcision removed Original Sin?

Apparently there is something new being taught in Catholic seminaries, which is that circumcision under the Old Covenant removed original sin. Apparently this is being taught by Judaizers within these seminaries and in Catholic universities. The Baptism of Desire crowd seems to have accepted this propaganda from these judaizers.



Where do all of you fall on this issue?

I don't know for sure.

No one can enter heaven with the stain of original sin on their soul so if circumcision did not remove it - what did remove it?
The only other way would be that of faith in the coming redeemer which in a way would suffice for Baptism which is what the BoDers attribute the efficasy of baptism of desire.
The trouble I see with that argument is that salvation could be achieved under the New Covenant using Old Covenant means. St. Paul however doesn't agree that the old law can save.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Catholic_Truth wrote:Apparently there is something new being taught in Catholic seminaries, which is that circumcision under the Old Covenant removed original sin. Apparently this is being taught by Judaizers within these seminaries and in Catholic universities. The Baptism of Desire crowd seems to have accepted this propaganda from these judaizers.



Where do all of you fall on this issue?

That's nothing new, it can be found also in the Summa, for instance.

That's not Judaizing either—not necessarily—since it was specifically referring to Old Covenant times.

Do you have anything more specific about how it is being taught; and could you please tell us how you know that this is in taught in Catholic seminaries?

Anyway, according to St. Thomas, it did remit Original Sin. It's not de fide or anything though, so a Catholic can hold either view... I guess. But what do I know anymore?

However, I would be very interested in how they are presenting this teaching in the seminaries.

columba wrote:I don't know for sure.

No one can enter heaven with the stain of original sin on their soul so if circumcision did not remove it - what did remove it?
The only other way would be that of faith in the coming redeemer which in a way would suffice for Baptism which is what the BoDers attribute the efficasy of baptism of desire.
The trouble I see with that argument is that salvation could be achieved under the New Covenant using Old Covenant means. St. Paul however doesn't agree that the old law can save.

Hi columba,

These are interesting points that I would like to return to tomorrow, err, later today.

deleted....

Hmmm judging by what Jehanne said no-one before Christ entered heaven including Moses et al. or am I misunderstanding? If circumcision didn't cleanse original sin then I'm sure something else had to.. maybe it was the grace of God's love... wonder if that could be possible, who knows eh?

RememberGethsemane wrote:Hmmm judging by what Jehanne said no-one before Christ entered heaven including Moses et al. or am I misunderstanding? If circumcision didn't cleanse original sin then I'm sure something else had to.. maybe it was the grace of God's love... wonder if that could be possible, who knows eh?

Before the Passion, the Just had to wait in the Bosom of Abraham, or in Purgatory if further purification was needed. Heaven was not open to them then. It is now.

I don't think the quote from the CCC which Jehanne posted is really addressing or concerns what was asked in the original post of this thread.

The Old Covenant is dead; the CCC clearly teaches this. One cannot choose not to be baptized.

DeSelby wrote:

columba wrote:I don't know for sure.

No one can enter heaven with the stain of original sin on their soul so if circumcision did not remove it - what did remove it?
The only other way would be that of faith in the coming redeemer which in a way would suffice for Baptism which is what the BoDers attribute the efficasy of baptism of desire.
The trouble I see with that argument is that salvation could be achieved under the New Covenant using Old Covenant means. St. Paul however doesn't agree that the old law can save.

Hi columba,

These are interesting points that I would like to return to tomorrow, err, later today.

Hi DeSlby,

Would like to hear your thoughts.

Jehanne wrote:The Old Covenant is dead; the CCC clearly teaches this. One cannot choose not to be baptized.

The question raelly is; Even if one does wish to be Baptized but circumstances prevent him receiving sacrament, can he still be saved without it?

The people of the old covenant due to their circumstances -having been born and died before the promulgation of Baptism- had to have had original sin removed without the sacramnet (or any sacrament for that matter) yet we don't doubt that many of them were saved. But we do know that Baptism only became mandatory after its promulgation ergo, at what point did these OTers have original sin removed? Could they point to a specific moment in time where they could say, "I have been washed clean of original sin."

Jehanne wrote:The Old Covenant is dead; the CCC clearly teaches this.

Absolutely, the Old Covenant is dead; but it wasn't dead before the Passion (which is the era being considered in the original post).

Jehanne wrote:One cannot choose not to be baptized.

How so? If, after the basics of the faith were explained to him, you asked a Jew on his death bed if wanted to be baptized, he could say "no".

DeSelby wrote:

Jehanne wrote:One cannot choose not to be baptized.

How so? If, after the basics of the faith were explained to him, you asked a Jew on his death bed if wanted to be baptized, he could say "no".

Sure he could, but he would go to Hell. I should have added "and go to Heaven" to my statement above.

columba wrote:I don't know for sure.

No one can enter heaven with the stain of original sin on their soul so if circumcision did not remove it - what did remove it?
The only other way would be that of faith in the coming redeemer which in a way would suffice for Baptism which is what the BoDers attribute the efficasy of baptism of desire.
The trouble I see with that argument is that salvation could be achieved under the New Covenant using Old Covenant means. St. Paul however doesn't agree that the old law can save.

What if we said though, instead of "Old Covenant means", Old Covenant circumstances? Since the Old Law itself is indeed dead.

Or is that a distinction without a difference?

But, I know that St Thomas in the Summa wrote that circumcision, under the Old Covenant of course, DID remit original sin (but not as efficaciously as baptism now does, i.e, there were still temporal punishments... I think). I'll have to find the passage to check though. It's in there somewhere.

Your comment about some attributing faith in the coming redeemer still sufficing reminded me of this from the CCC, at least as it pertains to the Jews:

840 and when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

To me, this makes everything seem altogether too hunky-dory. The Jews are now waiting for the Antichrist, really.

columba wrote:The question raelly is; Even if one does wish to be Baptized but circumstances prevent him receiving sacrament, can he still be saved without it?

The people of the old covenant due to their circumstances -having been born and died before the promulgation of Baptism- had to have had original sin removed without the sacramnet (or any sacrament for that matter) yet we don't doubt that many of them were saved. But we do know that Baptism only became mandatory after its promulgation ergo, at what point did these OTers have original sin removed? Could they point to a specific moment in time where they could say, "I have been washed clean of original sin."

As to the last part, I'm not really sure right now.

The Jews undoubtedly did have Sacraments under the Old Law, of which circumcision was but one. But some of their sacraments only signified, rather than accomplished what they signified. Going by St. Thomas, circumcision had an effect though. I could certainly use some clarifications myself though, as I am not 100% clear on this.

Maybe a browbeating from Mike is in order.

Interestingly, at one point in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, it says, "[...]So much will suffice in explanation of the word sacrament. What we have said applies equally to the Sacraments of the Old Law; but since they have been superseded by the Gospel Law and grace, it is not necessary that pastors give instruction concerning them."

Jehanne wrote:

DeSelby wrote:

Jehanne wrote:One cannot choose not to be baptized.

How so? If, after the basics of the faith were explained to him, you asked a Jew on his death bed if wanted to be baptized, he could say "no".

Sure he could, but he would go to Hell. I should have added "and go to Heaven" to my statement above.

Yes, that clarification helped. Thank you.

columba wrote:The people of the old covenant due to their circumstances -having been born and died before the promulgation of Baptism- had to have had original sin removed without the sacramnet

Why do you make that assumption? Are you saying that Jesus lied in John 3:5 when Jesus stated that nobody could enter Heaven unless he received Water Baptism? Note that Jesus stated this as a truth before he instituted water baptism under the New Covenant, so therefore this is a truth for "all men", which would include those who lived during the Old Covenant. So therefore Jesus obviously had Water Baptized all those held in Abraham's bosom before they were set free from that place. Which means every single Saint in Heaven has received Water Baptism. There is not one soul in Heaven that has not received it.

So therefore circumcision under the old covenant having removed original sin is a false teaching. The Council of Trent declared (Session VI, Chap. 1 on Justification) that “not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise” from original sin.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 1 on Justification: “… whereas all men [*except the Blessed Virgin - as Trent says in Sess. V*] had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam, ‘having become unclean’, and (as the Apostle says), ‘by nature children of wrath… but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom…”

Catholic_Truth wrote:
Are you saying that Jesus lied in John 3:5 when Jesus stated that nobody could enter Heaven unless he received Water Baptism? Note that Jesus stated this as a truth before he instituted water baptism under the New Covenant, so therefore this is a truth for "all men", which would include those who lived during the Old Covenant.

Good point CT.

I was of the belief that no one in NT times could enter the kingdom of God without water Baptism; as for the OT I wasn't sure by what means original sin was removed but what you say makes sense.

By the way, I posted this same thread on Fisheaters Forum. An individual by the nickname Scriptorium responded. I suspect that Scriptorium is actually MRyan. Their writing styles are very similiar and their modernists beliefs also seem to match exactly.

Circumcision removing Original Sin - what utter piffle and twaddle. I do not believe for one moment that Aquinas taught this in the Summa - he taught that the sacraments of the OT, while being a rudimentary means of grace, lacked efficacy.

The whole point of St. Paul's teaching on the old Covenant was that it lacked the power to save - it was not until Christ opened the gates of Heaven that man could enter it (with the possible exception of Elijah.)

Other reasons why circumcision could not be a means of removing Original Sin:

1.) By and large Jews didn't/don't even believe in Original Sin as we do.

2.) The idea of eternal life in heaven was a relatively late concept in Judaism (probably only developed around time of Babylonian exile) - circumcision predated this belief by perhaps 2,000 years.

3.) At the time of Christ's ministry on earth, significant sects of the Jews such as the Sadducees rejected belief in the resurrection of the body and eternal life - the thought that they believed in Original Sin or the need to be freed of it is just daft.

4.) Probably the most important point - if circumcision removed Original Sin, your chances of salvation were pretty stuffed if you were a woman.......................................!!!!!!!! (Female circumcision/genital mutilation has never been practised in Judaism.)

Deacon Augustine wrote:Circumcision removing Original Sin - what utter piffle and twaddle. I do not believe for one moment that Aquinas taught this in the Summa - he taught that the sacraments of the OT, while being a rudimentary means of grace, lacked efficacy.

Here's some of the "piffle and twaddle":

(Summa, Third Part, Question 70)

"Article 4. Whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying grace?

[...]

Objection 4. Further, nothing but sin closes the entrance to the heavenly kingdom. But before the Passion the entrance to the heavenly kingdom was closed to the circumcised. Therefore men were not justified from sin by circumcision.

Objection 5. Further, original sin is not remitted without actual sin being remitted also: because "it is wicked to hope for half forgiveness from God," as Augustine says (De Vera et Falsa Poenit. ix). But we read nowhere of circumcision as remitting actual sin. Therefore neither did it remit original sin.

On the contrary, Augustine says, writing to Valerius in answer to Julian (De Nup. et Concup. i.): "From the time that circumcision was instituted among God's people, as 'a seal of the justice of the faith,' it availed little children unto sanctification by cleansing them from the original and bygone sin; just as Baptism also from the time of its institution began to avail unto the renewal of man."

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision. But some said that no grace was conferred, and that the only effect was to remit sin. The Master holds this opinion (Sent. iv, D, 1), and in a gloss on Romans 4:11. But this is impossible, since guilt is not remitted except by grace, according to Romans 3:2: "Being justified freely by His grace," etc.

Wherefore others said that grace was bestowed by circumcision, as to that effect which is the remission of guilt, but not as to its positive effects; lest they should be compelled to say that the grace bestowed in circumcision sufficed for the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law, and that, consequently, the coming of Christ was unnecessary. But neither can this opinion stand. First, because by circumcision children received the power of obtaining glory at the allotted time, which is the last positive effect of grace. Secondly, because, in the order of the formal cause, positive effects naturally precede those that denote privation, although it is the reverse in the order of the material cause: since a form does not remove a privation save by informing the subject.

Consequently, others said that grace was conferred in circumcision, also as a particular positive effect consisting in being made worthy of eternal life; but not as to all its effects, for it did not suffice for the repression of the concupiscence of the fomes, nor again for the fulfilment of the precepts of the Law. And this was my opinion at one time (Sent. iv, D, 1; 2, 4). But if one consider the matter carefully, it is clear that this is not true. Because the least grace can resist any degree of concupiscence, and avoid every mortal sin, that is committed in transgressing the precepts of the Law; for the smallest degree of charity loves God more than cupidity loves "thousands of gold and silver" (Psalm 118:72).

We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace, but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not, therefore Baptism imprints a character that incorporates man in Christ, and bestows grace more copiously than does circumcision; since greater is the effect of a thing already present, than of the hope thereof.

[...]

Reply to Objection 4. Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion. Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom. But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom.

Reply to Objection 5. When adults were circumcised, they received remission not only of original, but also of actual sin: yet not so as to be delivered from all debt of punishment, as in Baptism, in which grace is conferred more copiously."

It is true that Saint Thomas Aquinas stated that circumcision under the Old Covenant removes original sin, but other Saints disagree with him. Thats why Catholics are suppose to go by what the Church says because Saints are fallible in their beliefs. The Church infallibly teaches from both the Councils of Trent and Florence that circumcision did not remove original sin.

The Council of Trent declared (Session VI, Chap. 1 on Justification) that “not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise” from original sin.


(Council of Florence) - "There are seven sacraments of the new Law, ...., which differ greatly from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former, ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them."

Not that C_T will listen to the Truth, but his errors are so pernicious that justice demands their correction lest anyone be fooled by such sloppy private butchery of Catholic doctrine (otherwise known as “utter piffle and twaddle”); besides, I would hate to disappoint “Foot” who predicted (warned) that my absence was just temporary.

First of all, C_T, your suspicion that I am posting as “Scriptorium” over at Fisheaters is simply false … I can assure you (I haven’t posted at FE in ages -- and only as “Pastor Aeternus”). But I appreciate the compliment (intended as an insult) since, from the little that I read (thanks to your prompting), Scriptorium writes with an elegance I can only aspire to. As far as our so-called exactly matching “modernist beliefs”, I can only laugh when solid orthodoxy is mistaken for “modernist beliefs”. As we shall see; however, your “doctrine” is nothing more than modernist (Feeneyite tinged) heresy (aka, “utter piffle and twaddle”).

Shall we proceed?

Catholic_Truth wrote:It is true that Saint Thomas Aquinas stated that circumcision under the Old Covenant removes original sin, but other Saints disagree with him. Thats why Catholics are suppose to go by what the Church says because Saints are fallible in their beliefs. The Church infallibly teaches from both the Councils of Trent and Florence that circumcision did not remove original sin.

The Council of Trent declared (Session VI, Chap. 1 on Justification) that “not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise” from original sin.

(Council of Florence) - "There are seven sacraments of the new Law, ...., which differ greatly from the sacraments of the old Law. The latter were not causes of grace, but only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ; whereas the former, ours, both contain grace and bestow it on those who worthily receive them."

It is true “that Saint Thomas Aquinas stated that circumcision under the Old Covenant removes original sin”, but it is not true that “other Saints disagree with him”, for they understood the meaning of his teaching which is clearly revealed in the context of the citations above and in those provided by DeSelby.

And, surprise, surprise, there is no contradiction between St. Thomas and Trent/Florence because St. Thomas never taught that “the very letter of the law of circumcision” was the cause of grace that removes original sin, as if, like Baptism, circumcision “both contain grace and bestow it”. He very clearly taught that (unlike “Baptism” in which “grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself”) “circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith”.

In other words, as St. Thomas continues, “Abraham ‘received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith’: because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not”.

The efficacy of circumcision, as St. Thomas makes clear, is not derived from “the very letter of the law of Moses” as if it were a cause of grace (by virtue of the rite itself – ex opere operanto), but, it is efficacious only “inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith” which is signified in the law of circumcision, the latter of which “only prefigured the grace to be given through the passion of Christ” (Florence).

So it is true that “The Church infallibly teaches from both the Councils of Trent and Florence that circumcision did not remove original sin”, by which the Church means circumcision did not remove original sin “by the very letter of the law of Moses” or by it being a cause of grace. No, as a “sign”, it could only prefigure the grace to be given through the passion of Christ in Baptism which was bestowed in circumcision not by the work performed (it did not “contain” grace), but by the “faith signified” by circumcision, which faith takes away original sin by the sole remedy of “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption” (Trent, Ch. 5, Original Sin).

The audacity of stating that “other Saints disagree with” St. Thomas Aquinas on this fundamental doctrine (without a shred of evidence), and of suggesting that both Trent and Florence “corrected” the erring Angelic Doctor ... is exposed for the hubris that it is by Pope Leo XIII who makes reference to the Angelic Doctor no less than 10 times in his Encyclical on the Holy Spirit, Divinum Illud Munus, where our esteemed Pontiff infallibly confirms that before Christ (and of course before the institution of Baptism) “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” in the “Souls of the Just” who were “numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

Let C_T explain how the souls of the just who lived before Christ where “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” had their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come - while remaining in the state of original sin! After all, Pope Leo XIII teaches in the same Encyclical that “the just man” is “he who lives the life of divine grace”, and that:

… charity, which, as it were, is the special mark of the Holy Ghost, is shared in only by the just. In harmony with this, the same Spirit is called Holy, for He, the first and supreme Love, moves souls and leads them to sanctity, which ultimately consists in the love of God. … as St. Thomas teaches, "when the Holy Ghost proceedeth as love, He proceedeth in the character of the first gift; whence Augustine with that, through the gift which is the Holy Ghost, many other special gifts are distributed among the members of Christ." (Summ. Th., la. q. xxxviii., a. 2. St. Aug. de Trin., xv., c. 19).

The Council of Florence also infallibly condemned the following proposition (at Basel):

"To be a member of Christ, it is not enough to be united with him in the bond of charity, some other union is needed."

The premise of the original post on this thread is simply false, which reads:

Apparently there is something new being taught in Catholic seminaries, which is that circumcision under the Old Covenant removed original sin. Apparently this is being taught by Judaizers within these seminaries and in Catholic universities. The Baptism of Desire crowd seems to have accepted this propaganda from these judaizers.

Your unsubstantiated and ill-defined premise that alleges that “circumcision under the Old Covenant removed original sin” is driven by a profound ignorance that does not understand how the souls of the just who lived before Christ “were numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”. As such, you cannot comprehend how original sin was removed in all such souls, so you simply deny that the merit of Christ could ever be applied without and before the institution of Baptism.

Such ignorance is quickly dispelled when the doctrine is properly understood as it was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas (not to mention that it is the common opinion of the theologians) and as it is infallibly taught by the Church, with this same doctrine being taught in Catholic seminaries for centuries on end. So your caricature which holds it as some “new ... propaganda” as you understand it is actually only a new heresy proposed by ignorant layman such as yourself who mangle the doctrine through private interpretation while refusing to be moderated by the Church.

Oh, wait, will you now suggest that Pope Leo XIII did not “define” his very clear teaching “On the Souls of the Just” with respect to those who were justified by grace (by the very merit of Christ who was to come) prior to the promulgation of the New Law, so you are free to accuse him of error and to suggest that his teaching is opposed to the dogma on Original Sin proposed at Florence and Trent?

I hope not, though such ignorant hubris is not uncommon with the true arbiters of faith and tradition. Just ask them.

Seriously, C_T, get with the Catholic program … it isn’t that difficult to comprehend.

Deacon Augustine wrote:
Circumcision removing Original Sin - what utter piffle and twaddle. I do not believe for one moment that Aquinas taught this in the Summa - he taught that the sacraments of the OT, while being a rudimentary means of grace, lacked efficacy.

Not quite. If, as you admit, circumcision was “a rudimentary means of grace”, then it stands to reason that it was a primitive, undeveloped or vestigial means of grace, meaning “circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith." (Aquinas)

In other words, it was faith in the Redeemer to come that was rudimentary, but this did not prohibit this same rudimentary faith from being efficacious towards one’s sanctification by the power of the merit of the Redeemer to come; of which circumcision was but a sign of the “sacrament of faith”, and as such, circumcision bestowed grace, not by the work performed, but by the faith it signified by the profession of the same.

If you had read his Summa, you would know what St. Thomas meant by “All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision”, for he takes the time to explain it in sufficient detail. For example, to say that “original sin was remitted in circumcision” is not to say that original sin was remitted by the power and/or efficacy of circumcision, as you should know.

Deacon Augustine wrote:
The whole point of St. Paul's teaching on the old Covenant was that it lacked the power to save - it was not until Christ opened the gates of Heaven that man could enter it (with the possible exception of Elijah.)

Not quite. That the gates of heaven could not be opened until the act of Redemption was complete does not mean that no one could be justified or saved in anticipation of, and with faith in, the merit of the Redeemer to come, as St. Paul, St. Thomas and the Church clearly teach. One could enter into a state of justification/salvation ("Paradise", as our Lord promised St. Dismas that very day) by being united to Christ in charity while awaiting the opening of the gates of heaven. The various degrees of justification are but a part of the same state of glorification that culminates in the unveiled majesty of the beatific vision, after all, as St. Paul states,

And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, and are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

Sublime, no?

Deacon Augustine wrote:
Other reasons why circumcision could not be a means of removing Original Sin:

1.) By and large Jews didn't/don't even believe in Original Sin as we do.

2.) The idea of eternal life in heaven was a relatively late concept in Judaism (probably only developed around time of Babylonian exile) - circumcision predated this belief by perhaps 2,000 years.

3.) At the time of Christ's ministry on earth, significant sects of the Jews such as the Sadducees rejected belief in the resurrection of the body and eternal life - the thought that they believed in Original Sin or the need to be freed of it is just daft.

4.) Probably the most important point - if circumcision removed Original Sin, your chances of salvation were pretty stuffed if you were a woman.......................................!!!!!!!! (Female circumcision/genital mutilation has never been practised in Judaism.)

Sorry, but none of this has anything to do with the true teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Church on the role and "rudimentary" efficacy of circumcision, and the removal of original sin in the souls of the just who lived before Christ. You are attacking a straw man of your own making and are very misleading with your statement that “circumcision could not be a means of removing Original Sin”, while elsewhere you acknowledged it being a rudimentary means of grace ("indirect means" may be more precise).

Here is a very simple question:

If, as Pope Leo XIII magisterially affirms, that “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace [‘to dwell in the saints’], as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna”, and that the “Souls of the Just … were numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, does it not infallibly follow that in all such souls the stain of original sin was removed by the power of “the merits of Christ who was to come”, and that, as St. Thomas taught, circumcision was “a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith”, and was justified thereby?

No "piffle and twaddle" there, just the truth.

Columba wrote:
The only other way would be that of faith in the coming redeemer which in a way would suffice for Baptism which is what the BoDers attribute the efficasy of baptism of desire.

The trouble I see with that argument is that salvation could be achieved under the New Covenant using Old Covenant means. St. Paul however doesn't agree that the old law can save.

Columba, would you agree that all men, in whatever age they live(d), were and are saved by the merit of the Redeemer, and that no one is justified/saved without faith in the same, no matter how rudimentary the faith?

Since this is an infallible dogma of the Church, I know you will respond in the affirmative, which begs the question: Do you not recognize that under no circumstances can it be said that “the old law saves”, but that the old law prefigures the new? Having said that, do you not also recognize that while the sacraments of the old law were not efficacious (in and of themselves), they were instituted by God and they did represent a means for bestowing the grace of justification, with the efficacy of the same being effected by the merit and faith in the Redeemer to come?

By what “means” then do you mean to suggest that salvation can be achieved under the old and the new Covenants, if we follow the teaching of St. Thomas and Pope Leo XIII, when neither of these teaches that the “old law can save”? One could be saved in and under the old law, but never by the law. I think St. Paul would agree.

Are we on the same page?

DeSelby wrote:I know that St Thomas in the Summa wrote that circumcision, under the Old Covenant of course, DID remit original sin (but not as efficaciously as baptism now does, i.e, there were still temporal punishments... I think). I'll have to find the passage to check though. It's in there somewhere.

I think you found it, and I hope you can now see the "difference". Original sin was NOT remitted BY circumcision (as with Baptism), but I think we can say with St. Thomas it was remitted IN circumcision (as a sign of redeeming faith) by Faith in the Redeemer to come. And it is not that the difference is a matter of degree (with circumcision not remitting original sin "as efficaciously as baptism now does", either original sin is remitted, or it isn't); it is more a matter of identifying the true and common source of the efficacy for both (the merit of Christ), and recognizing the difference in how each sacrament operates, and recognizing that circumcision has no inherent power to effect the end for which it was instituted (unlike Baptism).

DeSelby wrote:Your [columba's] comment about some attributing faith in the coming redeemer still sufficing reminded me of this from the CCC, at least as it pertains to the Jews:

840 and when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

To me, this makes everything seem altogether too hunky-dory. The Jews are now waiting for the Antichrist, really.

Yes, I know what you mean - while there is nothing heterodox, perhaps it would have been better to simply ask "what are you waiting for, wake up?!" (or words to that effect - like a few choice passages from St. Paul).

DeSelby wrote:The Jews undoubtedly did have Sacraments under the Old Law, of which circumcision was but one. But some of their sacraments only signified, rather than accomplished what they signified. Going by St. Thomas, circumcision had an effect though. I could certainly use some clarifications myself though, as I am not 100% clear on this.

Maybe a browbeating from Mike is in order.

Moi? Never!

Would you now agree that the sacraments of the old law could bestow, but did not contain the grace of the sacraments of the new law they signified, and with respect to efficacy, to repeat, “circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith”?

Clear(er)?

MRyan wrote:
By what “means” then do you mean to suggest that salvation can be achieved under the old and the new Covenants, if we follow the teaching of St. Thomas and Pope Leo XIII, when neither of these teaches that the “old law can save”? One could be saved in and under the old law, but never by the law. I think St. Paul would agree.

Columba, let me clarify my question by rephrasing it using your own words:

By what “means” then do you mean to suggest that “salvation could be achieved under the New Covenant using Old Covenant means”, if we follow the teaching of St. Thomas and Pope Leo XIII, when neither of these teaches that the “old law can save”? One could be saved in and under the old law, but never by the law. I think St. Paul would agree.

MRyan wrote:

MRyan wrote:
By what “means” then do you mean to suggest that salvation can be achieved under the old and the new Covenants, if we follow the teaching of St. Thomas and Pope Leo XIII, when neither of these teaches that the “old law can save”? One could be saved in and under the old law, but never by the law. I think St. Paul would agree.

Columba, let me clarify my question by rephrasing it using your own words:

By what “means” then do you mean to suggest that “salvation could be achieved under the New Covenant using Old Covenant means”, if we follow the teaching of St. Thomas and Pope Leo XIII, when neither of these teaches that the “old law can save”? One could be saved in and under the old law, but never by the law. I think St. Paul would agree.

I think we are all in agreement that the old law cannot save.
Circumcision being of the old law therefore would have needed to have derived its efficasy (if it indeed had any) from the application of the blood of Christ. As to how the merits of Christ were applied before His coming we must presume that even though the old law was ineffective in and of itself, there was merit attributed by God in adhering to it which somehow would be joined to the obedience of Christ yet to come. I have no problem with this.

My problem is (as stated in an earlier post); we, (you and I) can pin down to the very day and hour precisely when original sin was washed from our soul. Can it be said of one who lived prior to the coming of Christ, that the point at which original sin was removed from the soul was precisely at the point he was circumcisd? If so, at what point was a female washed clean of original sin?

I believe that those who were justified while under the old law were so justified in anticipation of the baptism of water which they would later (infalibly) receive at the the death of Christ, for as CT pointed out, "

And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, 53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. Matt 27: 51-53

I should have added concerning Matt 27:
A good oportunity to receive Baptism either by men or angels.

Columba wrote:
I believe that those who were justified while under the old law were so justified in anticipation of the baptism of water which they would later (infalibly) receive at the the death of Christ, for as CT pointed out,

And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent. 52 And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, 53 And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many. Matt 27: 51-53

A good oportunity to receive Baptism either by men or angels.

What C_T “pointed out” was pure conjectural heterodoxy, otherwise known as Protestant-like private interpretation. Never has the Church or tradition ever taught that the law of Baptism (actual sacramental ablution) applies to every man in every age without exception, such that no man could ever be sanctified and saved without actual sacramental ablution.

You cannot find one pope, saint, doctor or any theologian who ever suggested such heterodoxy that assigns such a blatantly false meaning to the words of our Lord. Not ONE. Since when does the private opinion of two laymen become dogma and trump the actual meaning as it was always understood and taught by the Church?

If you and C_T want to hold that every soul since creation who is saved receives actual sacramental ablution, go right ahead, but don’t insult our intelligence, tradition and the Faith by turning this conjecture into a defined dogma of absolute necessity.

In fact, trying to recruit the saints who came out of the tombs after the resurrection (who came to the holy city and appeared to many) as ministerial agents of sacramental baptism is pure unsubstantiated conjecture (Feeneyite legend), for if they came out of the tombs immediately or soon after the resurrection (as Scripture attests), not only would they have administered the Sacrament only to the residents of Jerusalem (the only place they are said to have appeared), they would have administered this same “Sacrament” before the law of Baptism was promulgated (on Pentecost), which makes NO sense whatsoever.

So, did these same saints wait in their tombs until Pentecost and the promulgation of the Gospel before being sent on their divine mission to announce the good news and to baptize the residents of Jerusalem? Or did they announce the good news and hang around for another 40 days before baptizing? Either way, it seems they would have had to run into the other Apostles and even St. Peter who alone baptized more than 3000 souls on the day of Pentecost. Gee, one would think that if this were true, since Scripture does not suggest any such thing, there would be some tradition, no matter how obscure, that attests to this rather monumental event, don’t you think?

Hey, Luther changed the words of Scripture to conform to his theology, I’m sure you can do the same by changing “after his resurrection” to “after Pentecost” in Matt 27:53 (just as you added words by “inference” to a dogmatic Bull). Of course, the fact that “after Pentecost” doesn’t exactly harmonize with the events being described verses 51-53 (from 3 PM Friday to Sunday morning) such as “And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent”, should be no problem for you if you tell us that “after his resurrection” can actually mean 40 days or so “after", so long as we don't think too hard about the fact that waiting 40 days to announce the good news to the residents of Jerusalem and to baptize the same seems just a bit anti-climatic with the Apostles swarming all over the city preaching the good news and baptizing souls left and right.

Sorry, Columba, but that's a tough sell; option A ("after his resurrection") has the saints administering a sacrament that has yet to be promulgated (not even John the Baptist had that honor; in fact, the notion is heterodox), while the even wackier option B (after Pentecost) has the saints waiting 40 days "after his resurrection" to begin baptizing, as they mingled side by side with the Apostles who were busy preaching the Gospel and baptizing by the thousands.

You will pardon my skepticism at such "piffle and twaddle", won't you?

No, tradition makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to the risen saints acting as ministerial agents of sacramental baptism; rather, as Haydock suggests:

The rocks were rent, and the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints ... arose. S. Jerome takes notice, that these saints did not rise with their bodies till after Christ was risen; and so it follows, that going out of the graves, after the resurrection, they came into the holy city, (i.e. into Jerusalem) and appeared to many. Wi. — This event was a prophecy of the fatal destruction that was shortly to fall upon the temple; and also, that it should henceforth give place to things more noble and sublime. It likewise shews that greatness of Christ's power. S. Chrys. hom. lxxxix.

Did you see any mention of Baptism there, or anywhere else in sacred tradition? Of course not. The saints did not appear in their bodies as ministers of a sacrament that had not yet been promulgated; tradition holds that they came to Jerusalem as living witnesses to the power of the risen Christ, to announce the good news and (perhaps) to warn of the coming destruction of the temple.

I hope you don’t expect us to take the unsubstantiated and terribly flawed "infallible" conjecture of C_T seriously. In order to make your novel “dogma” work, it seems you guys will grasp at anything.

I’ll address your other problem (the removal of original sin without sacramental actual ablution) in another post.

First let me apologise to CT. I meant to say; "for as CT pointed out in reference to John 3:5, ' Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit etc," and it was I who used Matt 27 to show that indeed this could be possible.

Mike,
I haven't stated my above belief as a doctrine but merely as a possibility that would not conflict with the words of Our Lord in John 3:5.
At the same time, there is no specific teaching that says that all the saints (both old and new covenant) were not all of them baptized; you could say that it is an open question, one which could be subject to the "development of doctrine" but in this case would not be contradicting any previously known doctrine.

One other thing to mention; I wasn't referring to the saints who came out of their tombs at the resurection as themselves being the ministers of the sacrament of Baptism, rather they would be in need of Baptism and could have appeared to the apostle in order to receive it in preparation for the ascension.
It is mentioned in the gospel that they came into the Holy City, but this doesn't necessarily mean that other just souls did not appear in other places.

My point is, it is nether definitively orthodox or hetrodox to hold this possibility and either way would involve no new teaching.

columba wrote:First let me apologise to CT. I meant to say; "for as CT pointed out in reference to John 3:5, ' Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit etc," and it was I who used Matt 27 to show that indeed this could be possible.

Mike,
I haven't stated my above belief as a doctrine but merely as a possibility that would not conflict with the words of Our Lord in John 3:5.
At the same time, there is no specific teaching that says that all the saints (both old and new covenant) were not all of them baptized; you could say that it is an open question, one which could be subject to the "development of doctrine" but in this case would not be contradicting any previously known doctrine.

One other thing to mention; I wasn't referring to the saints who came out of their tombs at the resurection as themselves being the ministers of the sacrament of Baptism, rather they would be in need of Baptism and could have appeared to the apostle in order to receive it in preparation for the ascension.
It is mentioned in the gospel that they came into the Holy City, but this doesn't necessarily mean that other just souls did not appear in other places.

My point is, it is nether definitively orthodox or hetrodox to hold this possibility and either way would involve no new teaching.

Perhaps not, and as I previously acknowledged, there is nothing heterodox in holding such a view. The point you are missing is the heterodoxy of C_T who suggests that it is a dogma of the Church that necessitates sacramental ablution for every soul who is and will be saved since the creation of man. You hide behind non-heterodox private conjecture on what can and could have taken place with regards to the application of the sacrament, while the true heterodoxy lies with the motive for such conjecture, which is explicitly revealed in the dogma of C_T (which you appear to agree with), which goes as follows:

Are you [columba] saying that Jesus lied in John 3:5 when Jesus stated that nobody could enter Heaven unless he received Water Baptism? Note that Jesus stated this as a truth before he instituted water baptism under the New Covenant, so therefore this is a truth for "all men", which would include those who lived during the Old Covenant. So therefore Jesus obviously had Water Baptized all those held in Abraham's bosom before they were set free from that place. Which means every single Saint in Heaven has received Water Baptism. There is not one soul in Heaven that has not received it.

This is not mere “private conjecture”, it is the affirmation of a dogma as it is allegedly understood and taught by the Church. And it is pure heterodoxy. Whether one has the risen saints in Jerusalem baptizing or being baptized, the premise behind the conjecture is the same – the absolutely necessity of water baptism for every soul in every age without exception – and this is passed off as “dogma”; otherwise, our Lord is a “liar”.

Obviously, the Council of Trent did not get the infallible memo which states that our Lord bound all men in every age to actual sacramental ablution for justification/salvation when it dogmatically and infallibly declared in Session 6, Ch. 4:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated, as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

According to C_T, our Lord did not “lie” when He allegedly declared that no man since man’s creation can obtain justification/salvation without being born again of water in the sacrament of Baptism, even though neither our Lord nor His Church ever declared any such thing. No, according to the dogma of C_T, the Council of Trent “lied” when it declared that this translation into Christ (the state of justification and a state of glorification for those who die in this state) cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected without the laver of regeneration, or its desire.

Now, if the translation to justification for those who lived before the promulgation of the Gospel could be effected without the laver of regeneration, as Pope Leo XIII infallibly affirmed, and C_T “infallibly” denies, why in Heaven’s name did Trent dogmatically declare that this same translation to justification (available to those before Christ by other means) could only be effected, since the promulgation of the Gospel, through sacramental baptism, or its desire?

Never would Trent have inserted the words “since the promulgation of the Gospel” if it did NOT recognize the infallible truth that those who lived before Christ could be justified and saved without actual sacramental ablution by faith in the redeemer to come.

Did Pope Leo XIII also “lie” when he professed the infallible truth that declares:

“It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace, as we read in the Scriptures concerning the prophets, Zachary, John the Baptist, Simeon, and Anna; so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.). But if they also were numbered among the children of God, they were in a state like that of servants, for "as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant, but is under tutors and governors" (Gal. iv., I, 2). Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much labour, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20).

You say you agree with every word of our esteemed Pontiff, and yet you are on record as saying that you do not believe that any man was ever justified (let alone saved) in sanctifying (saving) grace where “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” (necessitating the remittance of original sin) and resulting in a justice “derived from the merits of Christ who was to come” which were applied “in those of the just who lived before Christ”, without actual sacramental ablution.

Such contradictions are truly “amazing”; as amazing as saying “since the promulgation of the Gospel” does not mean “since the promulgation of the Gospel”, it actually means “since the creation of man”.

It will not bode well for you if you are hitching your wagon to C_T’s abysmal heterodoxy.

If I have misunderstood you, please correct the record by distancing yourself from the dogma of C_T.

Columba wrote:

One other thing to mention; I wasn't referring to the saints who came out of their tombs at the resurection as themselves being the ministers of the sacrament of Baptism, rather they would be in need of Baptism and could have appeared to the apostle in order to receive it in preparation for the ascension.

OK, I missed your follow-on statement that says “I should have added concerning Matt 27: A good opportunity to receive Baptism either by men or angels.”

But you haven’t told us why those already justified by faith (by the merit of the redeemer to come before the “promulgation of the Gospel”) would be in “need” of the sacrament when they were already justified, cleansed of original sin and incorporated into Christ as His member.

Do you deny the truth of the latter?

What other union is necessary for those already incorporated into Christ as His member (in faith/charity) when the law governing Baptism had not yet been promulgated? Again, why did Trent, in its decree on Justification, and in reference to John 3:5, say "since the promulgation of the Gospel" if it meant to infallibly declare "since the creation of man"?

For the justified souls who appeared in Jerusalem "after his resurrection" was there some dogmatic, divine and ecclesiastical “need” for an additional organic incorporation into the institutional Church that would not take visible form for another 50 days after the Resurrection, and 10 days after the Ascension?

“I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” (John 16:7)

Columba, are you suggesting that it is a dogma of divine and Catholic faith that no one ever has or ever will enter heaven without the sacramental seal of water baptism?

If so, can you tell us when the Church officially fell into apostasy by turning our Lord into a "liar"?

Dogma, or conjecture, which is it? Either way, you will have to reconcile such a novel belief with Trent (Session 6, Ch. 4), with Pope Leo XIII (Divinum Illud Munus), and with all of tradition.

C_T wrote:
Are you [columba] saying that Jesus lied in John 3:5 when Jesus stated that nobody could enter Heaven unless he received Water Baptism? Note that Jesus stated this as a truth before he instituted water baptism under the New Covenant, so therefore this is a truth for "all men", which would include those who lived during the Old Covenant. So therefore Jesus obviously had Water Baptized all those held in Abraham's bosom before they were set free from that place. Which means every single Saint in Heaven has received Water Baptism. There is not one soul in Heaven that has not received it.

This is just one insipid logical fallacy after another and the very fruit of a Protestant-type private “interpretation” of Scripture.

John 3:

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

This is the dogmatic and divine truth that applies to every man since man's creation, for there is no justification/salvation without rebirth/regeneration/translation into Christ. Nicodemus, however, is confused:

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Our Lord will now lead Nicodemus by the hand and explain how rebirth will be effected under the new law of grace, while the Church (especially Trent) will place His words into proper context, a context Nicodemus is not ready for:

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Again, the emphasis is on being "born" ("born again"), with our Lord providing the instrumental and ordinary means by which regeneration will be effected under the new law.

Jesus continues:

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Never has the Church suggested that our Lord cannot act as the instrument for the transmission of the grace of baptism in lieu of sacramental water; in fact, she has confirmed that He may (and will) do so when some obstacle frustrates the sacrament's reception for those who are otherwise properly disposed.

I can't believe there are Catholics who still deny this irrefutable and infallible doctrine.

By the same C_T logic and by ignoring the Magisterium of the Church, we might as well say that because our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Eucharist before the institution of the New Covenant, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53) must mean that the divine precept applies to all men since that time without exception. Even if we move this precept up to the promulgation of the New Law, we can say there is not a single Saint in Heaven since then who has not actually received the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Sacrament.

Just as the Church would clarify the true meaning of John 6:53 in her dogmatic and magisterial explications, so too would she clarify the meaning of John 3:5, and it is not up to ignorant laymen to impose their rigorist private interpretations on the Church and to accuse those who reject such specious interpretations of making our Lord into a “liar”.

What complete and utter nonsense.

MRyan wrote:
What other union is necessary for those already incorporated into Christ as His member (in faith/charity) when the law governing Baptism had not yet been promulgated? Again, why did Trent, in its decree on Justification, and in reference to John 3:5, say "since the promulgation of the Gospel" if it meant to infallibly declare "since the creation of man"?

For the justified souls who appeared in Jerusalem "after his resurrection" was there some dogmatic, divine and ecclesiastical “need” for an additional organic incorporation into the institutional Church that would not take visible form for another 50 days after the Resurrection, and 10 days after the Ascension?

Columba, allow me to provide a response to my questions that I hope will shed some additional light on a difficult topic.

While an organic incorporation in the institutional Church (the Church Militant) is not strictly necessary (neither as precept nor means) for the justified who died before the promulgation of the Gospel and who entered into heaven upon/after the Ascension (as members of the universal Church Triumphant), the munificent treasures of the Holy Ghost (which were held back in the souls of those justified prior to our Lord’s glorification) were unleashed upon these same souls immediately upon our Lord’s glorification and their release from the Limbo of the Fathers (which came to an end with Christ’s glorification).

In other words, while our Lord would wait until Pentecost to send forth the Holy Ghost (the “Counselor”) and His treasures to the Church Militant so that the institutional Church could begin her divine mission in earnest, for the justified who would receive their “reward exceeding great” upon or after the Ascension, "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" began immediately “after Christ's glorification” at the right hand of the Father (Divinum Illud Munus). There was no compelling “need” (neither ecclesiastical nor divine), then, for the administration of the sacrament of water Baptism on these same justified/redeemed souls.

Again, there is absolutely no tradition that supports the contention that the justified souls who visited Jerusalem “after his resurrection” (Matt 27) were made to appear in their bodies for the purpose of receiving the sacrament of water baptism from angels or from the Apostles (who were hiding in fear of the Jews). No, as already explained, the Saints and Doctors provided the real reason for their bodily appearance, which had nothing to do with receiving Baptism.

Its nice conjecture, but you simply cannot appeal to dogma as the basis for this so-called and misplaced “need”.

MRyan wrote:
It is true “that Saint Thomas Aquinas stated that circumcision under the Old Covenant removes original sin”, but it is not true that “other Saints disagree with him”..

Really? Try telling that to St Justin, St Irenaeus, and Tertullian

MRyan wrote:
..“circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith”.

You say "circumcision bestowed grace", but the infallible teaching from the Council of Florence says that circumcision did not bestow grace

MRyan wrote:
.. it is true that “The Church infallibly teaches from both the Councils of Trent and Florence that circumcision did not remove original sin”,..

Great, glad to see that you finally agree with the infallible teachings of the Church on this topic

MRyan wrote:
..by the “faith signified” by circumcision, which faith takes away original sin by the sole remedy of “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption” (Trent, Ch. 5, Original Sin).

You just claimed that circumcision did not remove original sin and now you claim it did, just as long as it was accompanied by "faith". Kinda flip flopping there aren't ya? But, perhaps I'm wrong, and instead you are saying original sin was removed by their "faith alone". So if the latter is what you meant, then why call me the protestant when you have accepted reformation protestant "faith alone" false doctrine as your own?

Also, I'm not sure why you linked "faith" plus circumcision as a means of taking away original sin to a quote from Trent, when Trent instead teaches "faith" through "Baptism" for the removal of original sin.

MRyan wrote: Pope Leo XIII who makes reference to the Angelic Doctor no less than 10 times in his Encyclical on the Holy Spirit, Divinum Illud Munus, where our esteemed Pontiff infallibly confirms that before Christ (and of course before the institution of Baptism) “the Holy Ghost resided by grace” in the “Souls of the Just” who were “numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.[/color]

You think this encyclical is infallible? You do know that encyclicals are not infallible in and of themselves don't you? Now it is possible for an encyclical to contain an infallible teaching of the Church, so if what Pope Leo XIII said is infallible, then site the original infallible Church teaching. If you're unable to do so, then you cannot make the claim that Pope Leo XIII's statement in this encyclical on this particular subject is infallible.

MRyan wrote:
...the souls of the just who lived before Christ “were numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

Nope. Sorry, you're wrong. If what you say is true, then those souls would not have ended up in Hell/Hades(Sheol and Abraham's bosom). There is one Saint, however, whose justification was derived from Christ's merits before Christ came to us through his incarnation,.. Would anyone reading this thread care to guess who that Saint is?

MRyan wrote:
Such ignorance is quickly dispelled when the doctrine is properly understood as it was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas...

Would you agree with Saint Aquinas that Mary's conception was not a Holy conception? I'm guessing you would not. Therefore why do you always look to fallible sources to make your case, while at the same time you dismiss infallible teachings by claiming that the infallible teachings don't mean what they literally say? Whereas I, on the other hand, look to the infallible teachings.

Below is the infallible teaching which clearly differentiates the blessed virgin Mary from the rest of the jews under the Old Covenant. The point being made there that only she was justified retro-actively through Christ's merits, whereas the rest of the jews were still under original sin....

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 1 on Justification: “… whereas all men [*except the Blessed Virgin - as Trent says in Sess. V*] had lost their innocence in the prevarication of Adam, ‘having become unclean’, and (as the Apostle says), ‘by nature children of wrath… but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom…”

Now I'm sure, MRyan, you will do as you always do and attempt to tell us that the infallible teaching above actually means the opposite of what it says, and therefore the jews were "liberated" from Adam's sin, not by the letter of the law, but by some other means. You are too spiritually blind to see that those who lived under the Old Covenant were "under the law", whereas those who live under the New Covenant are "under Grace". Which explains why those saints under the Old Covenant descendent into Hell/hades and those under the New Covenant are able to enter Heaven.

So, either Jesus had brought these Old Testament Saints into the New Covenant by baptizing them when Jesus had descended into Hell or these Saints were baptized sometime after they had risen from their graves. In any case, they would not have been able to enter Heaven unless they were "born again" and Jesus tells us in John 3:5 how one becomes born again(Water baptism).

I don't have time right now to continue, but I do look forward to correcting MRyan's error in regards to John 3:5

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:
It is true “that Saint Thomas Aquinas stated that circumcision under the Old Covenant removes original sin”, but it is not true that “other Saints disagree with him”..

Really? Try telling that to St Justin, St Irenaeus, and Tertullian

If a few of the early Fathers such as St Justin, St Irenaeus, and Tertullian disagreed with the majority of the Fathers (to include St. Augustine) and with St. Aquinas, this should come as no surprise since no one said that there was 100 percent universal agreement on every particular point of doctrine, to include the theology governing the operation the sacraments of the old law.

It is no secret, for example, that St. Cyprian disagreed with the other Fathers and Pope St. Stephen I, Pope St. Siricius and Pope St. Innocent I on the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism for those born into heretical sects, but that does not take away from the moral consensus of the Fathers or the Church’s subsequent magisterial clarifications on the true doctrine. The same goes for the operation of the sacraments of the old law such that by the time of Pope St. Innocent III and St. Aquinas, the true doctrine was firmly established, and St. Thomas could say with full confidence:

I answer that, All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision.

“All” means a universal moral consensus, notwithstanding the disagreement of a few early Fathers.

I know why you did not actually cite St Justin, St Irenaeus, and Tertullian, for you are simply parroting Scriptorium at FE where, as you said, you posted the same question under the moniker “faith3faith”. Since you are only parroting Scriptorium, let’s place his words into context, where he said:

Read Ott pages 347 and 348 (Part 3, Sec. 1, Chap. 5, §11). The gist stated is that circumcision was for male Israelites the normal means of purification from original sin in the period from Abraham to Moses. Innocent III taught this in agreement with the Scholastics (D 410). St Augustine and St Gregory the Great also teach this. Some other Fathers disagreed with this (St Justin, St Irenaeus, and Tertullian). From Moses to Christ, the various rituals and acts of the Old Covenant in addition to circumcision acted for remission (Passover, sacrifices, etc.).

Ott has this dogma: The Old Testament Sacraments wrought, ex opere operato, not grace, but merely an external lawful purity. (Sent. certa.) He says, "As an objective confession of faith in the coming Redeemer, [circumcision] was for God the occasion of regularly bestowing the grace of sanctification." And he also says, "By awakening the consciousness of sinfulness and faith in the coming Redeemer, with the co-operation of actual grace in the recipient, they created a disposition favourable for the reception of sanctifying grace which God then conferred and thus these Sacraments brought about inner sanctification ex opere operantis."

As for females, I believe their sanctification came through the rites of worship and faith available straight from being cast out of the Garden. Circumcision and the other rites were more definite means of preparing the people for the coming Redeemer. The rites themselves were not effective, but did serve as motives for faith and grace (ex opere operantis).

Precisely, and, here is the citation provided by Scriptorium backing up his reference to the teaching of Innocent III:

Pope Innocent III, Maiores Ecclesiae causas, 1201 (D 780/410)

"... Etsi originalis culpa remittebatur per circumcisionis mysterium, et damnationis periculum vitabatur, non tamen perveniebatur ad regnum caelorum, quod usque ad mortem Christi fuit omnibus obseratum ..."

"... Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all. ..."

Your problem, C_T (thanks to your Kindergarten fundamentalist theology), is that you see a non-existent contradiction that exists between the identical teachings of Augustine, Aquinas, Popes Innocent III (above) and Leo XIII (Divinum illud munus), that you say stand opposed to the teaching of Pope Eugenius IV who solemnly declared in his dogmatic Bull, Exultate Domine:

There are seven sacraments under the new law: that is to say, baptism, confirmation, the mass, penance, extreme unction, ordination, and matrimony. These differ essentially from the sacraments of the old law; for the latter do not confer grace, but only typify that grace which can be given by the passion of Christ alone. But these our sacraments both contain grace and confer it upon all who receive them worthily.

There is no contradiction in the teachings of our sovereign Pontiff’s and Doctors of the Church when we understand the distinctions (emphasis and context) being made in their respective teachings.

Pope Eugene IV provides the context of “the latter do not confer grace” when he adds, “these our sacraments both contain grace and confer it”, meaning of course, that the sacraments of the old law do not both contain and confer grace in the literal ex opera operanto sense of containing the grace they confer; but, properly understood, the sacraments of the old law can still be said to confer grace ex opere operantis, whereby “original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided” because, as St. Thomas explained:

… circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith … Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith": because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying.

He also said “Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not”.

And this is precisely why Pope Leo XIII, in his major Encyclical on the Holy Ghost, can say with magisterial authority (in union with all of his predecessors, to include Innocent III and Eugenius IV, and with the universal moral consensus of the Doctors and theologians):

“7 ... It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace … so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints, but by pouring Himself forth more abundantly; crowning, not beginning His gifts; not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" (St. Leo the Great, Hom. iii., de Pentec.). But if they also were numbered among the children of God, they were in a state like that of servants, for "as long as the heir is a child he differeth nothing from a servant, but is under tutors and governors" (Gal. iv., I, 2). Moreover, not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come, but the communication of the Holy Ghost after Christ was much more abundant, just as the price surpasses in value the earnest and the reality excels the image. Wherefore St. John declares: "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii., 39). So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom which He had won with so much labour, He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20).

12. Such, Venerable Brethren, are the teachings and exhortations which We have seen good to utter, in order to stimulate devotion to the Holy Ghost. We have no doubt that, chiefly by means of your zeal and earnestness, they will bear abundant fruit among Christian peoples...

Here we find is a magisterial explication on the common doctrine of both Innocent III and Eugenius IV, to where any apparent “contradiction” is resolved, and the same doctrine of the Angelic Doctor is confirmed (and vindicated).

And when Pope Leo XIII declares “It is indeed true”, you have the audacity to say it is indeed false, and to accuse both Pope Innocent III and Leo XIII of teaching “error” on a doctrine that allegedly stands in blatant opposition to a dogma of the Church. See, we are told, neither of these erring Popes was “infallible” when presenting a doctrine to the universal Church, and we can ignore the warning of Pope Pius XII who declared in "Humani generis":

"Nor should we think that the things taught in Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of which it is also correct to say: 'He who hears you, hears me.'"

We realize that not everything presented in an Encyclical, as Pius XII would go on to explain, necessarily requires the assent of the mind and will (either from the motive of faith, or at least from the motive of obedience to the authority of the Church teaching), for indeed, not everything a pope touches on necessarily pertains to settled doctrine (when the pope does not manifest his will to teach a doctrine or to settle a matter still open to dispute).

However, he makes it very clear in his major Encyclical Divinum Illud Munus that in his doctrinal teaching on “The Holy Ghost in the Souls of the Just”, especially where he says “It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace … they also were numbered among the children of God” [they were no longer “children of wrath”, even if they were like that of “servants” rather than fully adopted heirs] and “not only was their justice derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”, he is not giving his fallible “opinion” on a matter still open to debate among theologians, he is presenting a magisterial teaching on a point of doctrine long-since established.

Where is the “debate”? There is none, notwithstanding the ranting of a couple of deluded sedevacantists and their sect followers. And yes, his teaching is “infallible” in the sense that it cannot be opposed to revelation or defined dogma, or be harmful to the faith. This is true even if the Encyclical is not immune from any and all error in its presentation (there is NO “error” in doctrine, and let those who say there is, prove it).

For you, C_T, to accuse the sovereign Pontiffs of teaching “error” (heresy, since you say it is opposed to dogma) on such an important doctrine tells us all we need to know about your “theology” of dissent.

Your fundamental error and heresy is to deny that God (in anticipation of the redemption) in his justice and mercy provided a means of grace/sanctification for those who lived prior to the institution of the sacrament of Baptism; and from this heresy, all of your egregious errors and accusations of “error” against Popes and Doctors flow.

It has simply never occurred to you that the Popes and Doctors you accuse of doctrinal error (heresy) know what they are talking about, and you don’t.

Every schismatic invents a heresy to justify his schism, and yours is no exception to the rule.

To be continued ...

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:
.. it is true that “The Church infallibly teaches from both the Councils of Trent and Florence that circumcision did not remove original sin”,..

Great, glad to see that you finally agree with the infallible teachings of the Church on this topic

Yes, I do, unfortunately, you do not. Cutting my (Aquinas’) statement short thereby removing it from its context is typical of fundamentalist dogmatic Neanderthals who simply cannot grasp theological distinctions. It is also the act of a desperate man looking to score cheap points.

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:
..by the “faith signified” by circumcision, which faith takes away original sin by the sole remedy of “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption” (Trent, Ch. 5, Original Sin).

You just claimed that circumcision did not remove original sin and now you claim it did, just as long as it was accompanied by "faith". Kinda flip flopping there aren't ya?

Not at all, for I did NOT “claim” that “circumcision removes original sin”, can’t you read? I said it is “faith signified” in circumcision, “which faith takes away original sin by the sole remedy of “the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In other words, circumcision cannot confer that which it does not contain, but it can act (as a weak and needy instrument) as an indirect means established by God for bestowing (only by representation) that grace signified in the justifying faith of the one being circumcised. Circumcision can only typify the true sacrament which contains the grace it confers, and as such, it is a visible manifestation/sign of justifying faith and “the sacrament of faith”.

Properly understood, we know what Pope Innocent III meant when he wrote “… original sin was remitted by the “the mystery of circumcision”, but not by the sacrament itself, which served only as weak and needy instrument signifying the justifying faith of the penitent, who was justified by grace by faith in the redeemer to come -- what Innocent says takes place in “the mystery of circumcision”.

What part of this do you not understand? Do you know the difference between ex opere operanto and ex opere operantis? Apparently not, for you seem bound and determined to conflate the former with the latter – all the while acting like the latter does not exist.

Catholic_Truth wrote:
But, perhaps I'm wrong,

Of course you are. See, two can play this game; only in this case, it is absolutely true.

Catholic_Truth wrote:
Also, I'm not sure why you linked "faith" plus circumcision as a means of taking away original sin to a quote from Trent, when Trent instead teaches "faith" through "Baptism" for the removal of original sin.

It does not surprise me that you would try to divorce the teaching of the Doctors and the Church on the means of grace available to those who lived before Christ for the removal of original sin from the sole cause of our redemption in both the old and the new dispensations -- as if the merit of our Lord’s redemption could not be applied in advance to those who had justifying faith in the redeemer to come.

This is why you accuse Pope St. Innocent III and Pope Leo XIII of “error” (heresy), while your own heresy is revealed for exactly what it is.

Trent does not teach “faith through Baptism” in the passage I cited. In fact, let’s look at the entire dogmatic passage, not that any of this will register with you. I’m going to break the passage down into distinct sections to mark the two clearly distinct propositions being condemned, and how the third section ties it all together:

[Trent, Ch. 5, On Original Sin] Sec 3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,--which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, --is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption;

or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema:

For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

C_T simply imposes the second section onto the first as if Trent anathematizes anyone one who “denies” that the ONLY means and instrument (available in any age) “for the removal of original sin” through the one “remedy of the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood …” IS “faith through [the sacrament of] Baptism", when it says, and means, no such thing.

But hey, I’m used to people taking great liberty with our dogmas by adding words by “inference” (the true arbiters of faith and tradition, and all that).

Catholic_Truth wrote:

MRyan wrote:
...the souls of the just who lived before Christ “were numbered among the children of God” in that “their justice [was] derived from the merits of Christ who was to come”.

Nope. Sorry, you're wrong. If what you say is true, then those souls would not have ended up in Hell/Hades(Sheol and Abraham's bosom).

Oh my goodness, what insanity is this?

And you are not addressing my words, but the teaching of Pope Leo XIII and the Catholic Church.

That “Abraham’s bosom” is commonly held as being in/on the fringe of hell is absolutely irrelevant since hell proper is the permanent abode of the damned, and the Limbo of the Fathers was a temporary abode for those already justified and saved by our Lord while waiting for our Lord to open the gates of Heaven. It was also a place for purgation, if required. Do you think St. Dismas was cast into the hell of the damned, or did he go to “Paradise” on that Good Friday (already participating in the grace and glory of our not yet glorified Lord), to wait in Limbo with the other justified souls until the Ascension? How about St. Joseph?

Remember, eternal glory is more than a place, it is, as St. Paul says, an ever progressing state of unity with our Lord where we are “being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:18). The veil will never be completely lifted until heaven, but there are degrees of glorification that begin in the translation to justification. St. Paul and many of our Saints participated in these advanced states of veiled glory, if only temporarily, but they could never forget what lies ahead for those who remain faithful to the end.

Also remember that even as “children of God”, the just in the limbus partum were still like that of servants because they were not yet crowned as heirs with full rights to the Kingdom. As I pointed out to Columba, the sending forth of the Holy Ghost immediately upon our Lord’s glorification (of a munificent kind that had never been before) would assure them of their full glory in heaven as fully adopted sons and true heirs.

Never mind, that was just the “erring” Pope Leo XIII shooting from the hip in a major Encyclical on the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity; he obviously did not know how to read Trent, and had no idea what he was talking about, but you do.

That about sums it up. I don’t have the stomach to address the rest of your post … at least not now.

http://www.archive.org/stream/sacraments01pohluoft/sacraments01pohluoft_djvu.txt

[Selections]:

"INTRODUCTION

The justification of the sinner, with which we have dealt in a previous treatise, is ordinarily not a purely internal and invisible process or series of acts, but requires the instrumentality of external visible signs instituted by Jesus Christ, which either confer grace or augment it.

Such visible means of grace are called Sacraments.

The source and well-spring of all grace under the present dispensation is the Sacrifice of the Cross, from which redemptive power flows into the souls of men through the Sacraments and the Mass. This consideration led St. Thomas to regard the Passion of Our Divine Saviour as the foundation-stone of the dogmatic treatise on the Sacraments. The importance of this treatise, from both the theoretical and the practical point of view, is in turn evident from the fact that the grace of the Atonement cannot in the present economy effect justification in the individual soul without the use of the Sacraments, in re, or at least in voto.

Following the example of the Tridentine Council, modern theologians are wont to introduce the treatise on the Sacraments with an explanation of the nature, operation, and requisites of Sacraments in general. Besides obviating the need of constant repetition, this introduction serves to show that the Sacraments are closely connected by a common bond and together constitute an organic unit.

PART I

THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL

CHAPTER I

DEFINITION, DIVISION, AND NUMBER

In this Chapter we shall first define the term "Sacrament," then show how it has been applied to various rites in the Old and the New Testament, and finally demonstrate that under the New Law there are seven Sacraments, neither more nor less.

2. DEFINITION OF A SACRAMENT IN THE RESTRICTED SENSE OF THE TERM. Generally speaking, a Sacrament is, as we have seen, "a symbol of a sacred and mysterious thing." Now, as there exists a vast number of such symbols that are not Sacraments in the technical sense, it is necessary to eliminate from the formal definition of the term all those symbols which do not refer to man s personal sanctification. Only the visible signs of internal sanctification are called Sacraments in the proper sense. To distinguish the Sacraments of the Old Testament from the far more excellent and effective ones of the New, we must add, as a characteristic mark of the latter, that they not only signify but actually confer grace. Hence Peter Lombard’s famous definition: "Sacr amentum proprie id dicitur quod ita est signum gratiae Dei et invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat" or, more concisely, "Sacramentum est signum efhcax gratiae sanctificantis" -- a Sacrament is an efficacious sign of sanctifying grace.

a) The note of "personal sanctification" eliminates a multitude of signs or symbols which were formerly included in the term Sacrament, e. g., such Old Testament types as the passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea, the brazen serpent, the manna, and in general all those signs, rites, symbols, and ceremonies which had for their chief purpose the glorification of God rather than the sanctification of man, for example, the sacrifices of the Old Law, the Mass, the physical universe as a manifestation of the Creator s greatness, and so forth. Similarly, the dove as a symbol of the Holy Ghost, the Bible, images of the saints, the sign of the cross, are indeed signa rei sacrae, but not Sacraments, because they signify or symbolize something else than the sanctification of the soul. Even among the sensible signs of interior sanctification, only those are truly Sacraments that were permanently instituted for this purpose by God Himself. Such was, for instance, circumcision under the Old Law, such is Baptism under the New. By this criterion we must eliminate merely transient rites, as the communication of the Holy Spirit by breathing, etc. To exclude from the definition of a Sacrament a number of rites or signs that are merely sacramentals, it is necessary to emphasize with De Lugo that a true sacrament not only signifies but actually causes interior sanctification. In the complete and perfect sense this is true only of the seven Sacraments of the New Law.

b) As there were undoubtedly true Sacraments, though of an inferior order, under the Old Law, we must find some note by which to distinguish the Sacraments of the Christian dispensation from those of the Ancient Covenant, and elaborate a generic definition applicable to both classes.

The existence of Sacraments under the Old Law may be deduced from the constant belief of the Fathers and Scholastics, and especially from the positive teaching of the Church. The Council of Trent defines: "If anyone saith that these Sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the Sacraments of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites, let him be anathema." It is not easy to formulate a generic definition that will fully answer the requirements laid down. According to the exposition of doctrine drawn up by Eugene IV for the Armenian delegates at the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439, the essential difference between the Sacraments of the Old and those of the New Testament consists in this that the former merely symbolize, or prophetically typify, sanctifying grace, whereas the latter "contain" and actually "confer" it.

In other words, the distinguishing characteristic of the Sacraments of the New Law is the efficacia signi, that of the Sacraments of the Old Law, the inefficacia signi. But if the Sacraments of the Ancient Covenant were inefficacious signs, if they did not somehow truly effect or convey grace, how can they be called Sacraments? Holy Scripture makes a distinction between a twofold sanctity, the legal "sanctity of the flesh," and the theological "sanctity of the spirit." The Sacraments of the Old Law foreshadowed but did not of themselves (ex opere operato) confer "theological sanctity," i. e. sanctifying grace, but they actually conferred "legal sanctity," and in so far at least were endowed with the necessary causality or efficacia signi. They were efficacious signs of legal sanctity in the present, and inefficacious signs of theological sanctity for the future, and consequently types or models of the Sacraments of the New Testament. To exercise this twofold function they had been instituted by God Himself as a permanent institution, to last till the coming of the Messias. This distinction enables us to formulate an adequate generic definition as follows:

"A Sacrament is a visible sign of sanctity, instituted by God, the efficaciousness of which is determined by the particular economy of grace to which it belongs."

[…]

SECTION 2

CHRISTIAN AND OTHER SACRAMENTS

Catholic theologians distinguish four different states through which the human race has successively passed: (i) The state of original justice in Paradise; (2) the state of the law of nature; (3) the state of the Mosaic Law, and (4) the state of the New Covenant. Each of these states has its own peculiar means of grace.

2. THE STATE OF THE LAW OF NATURE. The status legis naturae, (not to be confounded with the status naturae purae), comprises that long interval between the fall of our first parents and the enactment of the Mosaic dispensation, during which men were subject to no other law than that of nature, “written in their hearts.” The state of the law of nature, under the influence of the redemptive grace of Christ promised in the Protogospel, was a supernatural state, and may be divided into two epochs. The first of these, from Adam to Abraham, had a “Sacrament of Nature;” the second, from Abraham to Moses, possessed a true Sacrament of regeneration in the rite of circumcision.

a) It is theologically certain, and admitted by all Catholic divines, that from Adam to Moses mankind possessed a Sacrament of Nature.

(A) To deny this would be to except the infants born during that epoch from the divine will to save, which, as we have demonstrated in our treatise on Grace, is universal. As God wills to save all men without exception, there must have been some means by which the infants of the pre-Mosaic period could be cleansed of original sin. The Fathers were firmly convinced of the existence of such a sacramentum naturae. St. Augustine repeatedly insists on its necessity. Suarez states the position of the Schoolmen thus: “It is impious and repugnant to the universal tradition and sentiment of the Church, to hold that, under the natural law and under the law of Moses, infants were without a remedy against original sin, and that consequently all who died before attaining to the use of reason, were damned.”

(B) The exact character of this sacramentum naturae is a matter of conjecture. All that can be said with any degree of certainty is: (I) As a medium of regeneration, the Sacrament of Nature must have been based in some way on belief in the future Redeemer, because “there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved.” (2) This faith in the Messias most probably found expression in a prayer and was symbolized by a visible sign. (3) As no one but God can cleanse the soul of original sin, the “Natural Sacrament” of the pre-Abrahamic period must have been instituted by Him, at least in substance, though He may have left the determination of its form and the selection of the grace-conferring symbols to the free choice of men. St. Thomas view of the matter may be gathered from the following passage in the Summa: “It is probable that believing parents offered up some prayer to God for their children, especially if these were in any danger, or bestowed on them some blessing, as a seal of faith; just as the adults offered prayers and sacrifices for themselves.” These three requisites are sufficient to constitute a Sacrament in the generic sense of the term.

It is much more difficult, nay practically impossible, to decide whether, in the state of the natural law, there were also Sacraments for adult persons. The Thomists think there were several, while other theologians reject this assumption on the ground that for the state of the natural law God provided only what was absolutely necessary, and Sacraments were not necessary because adults could obtain forgiveness of their sins by an act of perfect contrition.

It is to be noted that for the heathen and the female children of the Israelites the economy of grace which existed in the status legis naturae remained in force even after the proclamation of the law of circumcision.

b) At the time of Abraham, long before the promulgation of the Mosaic law, circumcision be came the ordinary means of spiritual regeneration. This rite has all the characteristics of a true Sacrament.

(A) God promulgated the law in these words: “This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: all the male kind of you shall be circumcised; and you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you. . . . The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people, because he hath broken my covenant.” Here circumcision is plainly made a conditio sine qua non of salvation. As no one can be saved unless he is cleansed of original sin, circumcision was obviously an instrument of regeneration. This is the opinion of St. Thomas, and though it is disputed by Vasquez, Tournely, and Bellarmine, Suarez rightly maintains that the teaching of the Angelic Doctor on this head cannot be denied “without a certain degree of temerity,” especially in view of Pope Innocent III’s declaration against the Cathari, that “Original sin was forgiven and the danger of damnation avoided by the mystery of the circumcision.”

(B) In what manner did circumcision remit original sin?

In adults, no doubt, through the instrumentality of justifying faith (fides formata), and consequently “by the work of the worker” (ex opere operantis). But how about infants? This question is intimately connected with another, on which theologians disagree, viz.: How do circumcision and Baptism differ in regard to their mode of operation? It will prove helpful to review the varying opinions on these two points.

(I) The Scotists contend that circumcision wiped out original sin "by the work wrought"(ex opere operato) [26], but that it was not on the same level with Baptism because it did not confer an equal measure of holiness nor an immediate claim to Heaven. In support of this contention, Scotus and his followers appeal to the authority of St. Augustine, who says that circumcision supplied the place of Baptism among the Jews, and they also quote Pope Innocent III’s declaration that original sin was remitted by the mystery of the circumcision. But the Scotist view is incompatible with St. Paul s repeated assertion of the futility and inefficacy of all "works of the law," and moreover contradicts the positive teaching of the Fathers that the Sacraments of the Ancient Covenant had no power to forgive sins.

Note 26: “There is a famous phrase which is employed to express concisely the Catholic doctrine: the Sacraments are said to work by the work wrought. This is opposed to the doctrine that their effect comes about by the work of the worker – ex opere operato, ex opere operantis. Some half-learned Latin grammarians [HA!] maintain that the first phrase ought to be translated, by the work that works. These critics forget that every word means that which it is intended to mean by him who uses it; and even on their narrow ground of Latin grammar they are wrong, for there are plenty of cases where the participle of a deponent verb is used passively, as may be seen in any good dictionary. (See dominor, ulciscor, etc.). This very word operatum is so employed by Lactantius (De Instit. Divin., vii, 27; P. L., 6, 819), and by St. Ambrose (De Incarn., c. 9, n. 95 ; P. L., 16, 841), so that the theological use does not involve a blunder in an elementary point of grammar. The phrase . . . opus operatum seems to have been first used by Peter of Poitou, a writer of the twelfth century (Sent., p. 5, c. 6; P. L., 211, 1235); ... it made its way into the common language of theology partly through the influence of Pope Innocent III, who saw how aptly it expressed the Catholic doctrine (De Myst. Missae, III, 5; P. L., 217, 844), and finally received the sanction of the Council of Trent.” (S. J. Hunter, S. J., Vol. III, pp. 191 sq.)

(2) Bellarmine, Vasquez, Tournely, and a few others go to the opposite extreme, saying that circumcision was merely an external sign of Israel s covenant with Jehovah and a mark distinguishing the Chosen People from the gentiles. We have already criticized this theory because it suggests, or at least does not absolutely exclude, the implication that the circumcised infants remained in the state of mortal sin. This assumption is refuted by the same arguments which speak in favor of a sacramentum naturae for the pre-Mosaic period.

(3) A third group endeavors to reconcile the two extremes just mentioned by saying that the remission of original sin depended somehow on the rite of circumcision, though that rite was by no means the cause but merely an occasion or a conditio sine qua non of justification. From this point of view it is clearly a sophism to argue, as the Scotists do: "The remission of original sin is effected either ex opere operato or ex opere operantis; it is not effected ex opere operantis because infants are incapable of justifying faith; consequently, it must be effected ex opere operato." For, unless we take the phrase ex opere operato merely as the counterpart of opus operans, as De Lugo does, it is possible to insert between the two a middle term, explaining the rite of circumcision merely as a "sign of faith," to which regeneration is outwardly attached but which lacks the intrinsic power of effecting it. Or, to express the idea differently: Circumcision did not, like Baptism, wipe out original sin causally, as a signum demonstrativum, but merely incidentally, as a signum prognosticum. This theory, which is held by St. Thomas and the majority of Catholic theologians, bears all the earmarks of truth. It takes into account St. Paul s teaching of the inefficacy of all the Old Testament ceremonies, and at the same time agrees with the universal teaching of the Fathers and the conciliary definitions of Florence and Trent."

[End of selected citations]

Hey, Mike, hope you've been well.

In other words, circumcision cannot confer that which it does not contain, but it can act (as a weak and needy instrument) as an indirect means established by God for bestowing (only by representation) that grace signified in the justifying faith of the one being circumcised. Circumcision can only typify the true sacrament which contains the grace it confers, and as such, it is a visible manifestation/sign of justifying faith and “the sacrament of faith”.

Properly understood, we know what Pope Innocent III meant when he wrote “… original sin was remitted by the “the mystery of circumcision”, but not by the sacrament itself, which served only as weak and needy instrument signifying the justifying faith of the penitent, who was justified by grace by faith in the redeemer to come -- what Innocent says takes place in “the mystery of circumcision”.

The highlighted - we are talking about 7 day old infants, yes?

tornpage wrote:Hey, Mike, hope you've been well.

In other words, circumcision cannot confer that which it does not contain, but it can act (as a weak and needy instrument) as an indirect means established by God for bestowing (only by representation) that grace signified in the justifying faith of the one being circumcised. Circumcision can only typify the true sacrament which contains the grace it confers, and as such, it is a visible manifestation/sign of justifying faith and “the sacrament of faith”.

Properly understood, we know what Pope Innocent III meant when he wrote “… original sin was remitted by the “the mystery of circumcision”, but not by the sacrament itself, which served only as weak and needy instrument signifying the justifying faith of the penitent, who was justified by grace by faith in the redeemer to come -- what Innocent says takes place in “the mystery of circumcision”.

The highlighted - we are talking about 7 day old infants, yes?

Hi Tornpage,

Nice to hear from you.

Actually, we're talking about 8 day old infants, as in "An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you."

I know ... wise guy.

I was referring to everyone under the law of circumcision, be they adults, infants, and even females ("It is to be noted that for the heathen and the female children of the Israelites the economy of grace which existed in the status legis naturae remained in force even after the proclamation of the law of circumcision.") Obviously, for infants, faith was most likely provided by the parents (or whoever presented him for circumcision), as St. Thomas suggested in his Summa, Third Part, Question 70, response to Objection. 5 (see DeSelby's post):

"Article 4. Whether circumcision bestowed sanctifying grace?

We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace ["merely incidentally, as a signum prognosticum"], but not as in Baptism. Because in Baptism grace is bestowed by the very power of Baptism itself, which power Baptism has as the instrument of Christ's Passion already consummated. Whereas circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him.

Mryan, the statements you posted from Popes Innocent III and Leo XIII are not infallible. All you've been doing, which you always do, is post fallible statements after fallible statements to back up your errors. However, what I posted from the Council of Florence and from the Council of Trent is infallible. You've already admitted that Florence and Trent both infallibly teach that original sin was not removed by circumcision under the Old Covenant. Therefore if you're now claiming it was by their "faith alone" that enabled them to receive grace whereby original sin is removed, then why call yourself a Catholic? You apparently have accepted the protestant "faith alone" heresy as your own. Perhaps a Lutheran Forum would be more suitable for your taste.

Further to this discussion:

From The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Third Series, Volume VII, 1886

Grace, Dispensation of – II. The Mosaic Law

Extract, p. 1080:

…What intensified the difficulties of this most trying discipline was, that the Law which imposed [under the old dispensation] it gave no correlative natural or supernatural assistance which would render its fulfillment less onerous: it did not contain, and therefore did not impart, any near title to that divine aid without which the discharge of those multiplied obligations would be a sheer impossibility. As Suarez explains it: "Humana natura per originale peccatum facta est indigna omni gratia, et ideo quamdiu redemptionem praesentem non habuit, non habebat, secundum illum stadium, unde gratiam obtineret ad quamcumque legem implendam (De Leg. Lib. x., c. viii., n. 2.) In this, as in many other particulars, it was immeasurably inferior to the Law of the Gospel, the imposition of whose precepts is invariably accompanied by the conferring of supernatural grace.

During all that protracted period of probation, however, the divine "voluntas salvitica" was at all times present, and not unfrequently fruitful, amongst the Hebrew people, as abundantly attested by that "cloud of witnesses" amongst whom were the Prophets and unnumbered Patriarchs. "Quamvis lex vetus," writes St. Thomas, "non sufficeret ad salvandum hominem, tamen aderat aliud anxilium a Deo hominibus simul cum lege, per quod salvari poterant; scilicet fides Mediatoris, per quem justificati sunt antiqui Patres, sicut etiam nos justificamur; et sic Deus non deficiebat hominibus quin daret eis salutis auxilia." Manifestly, therefore, the Mosaic Law per se et de suis was all that St. Paul's words imply—"infirma et egena"--and all its riches were borrowed wealth. It is nevertheless, equally manifest that those who lived under that Dispensation were mercifully supplied with means more or less efficacious for the procuring of the "unica causa formalis justificationis"; and it may be of interest to review some of the theories by which theologians undertake to set forth in what manner of rites, and with what principles of fecundity, that "unica causa” could be secured.

And this common doctrine is what C_T manifestly, and hereticaly, denies, as he accuses Pope Leo XIII of "error" (heresy) when he confirmed this very same doctrine in his major Encyclical on the Holy Ghost, to wit, that the divine "voluntas salvitica" was at all times present, and not unfrequently fruitful", and that those who lived under that Dispensation were mercifully supplied with means more or less efficacious for the procuring of the "unica causa formalis justificationis".

As Pope Leo XIII declared: "It is indeed true that in those of the just who lived before Christ, the Holy Ghost resided by grace ... so that on Pentecost the Holy Ghost did not communicate Himself in such a way "as then for the first time to begin to dwell in the saints ... not commencing a new work, but giving more abundantly" ... they also were numbered among the children of God ... So soon, therefore, as Christ, "ascending on high," entered into possession of the glory of His Kingdom ... He munificently opened out the treasures of the Holy Ghost: "He gave gifts to men" (Eph. iv., eight). For "that giving or sending forth of the Holy Ghost after Christ's glorification was to be such as had never been before; not that there had been none before, but it had not been of the same kind" (St. Aug., De Trin., 1. iv. c. 20).

Sanctifying grace, according to C_T, simply did not exist, or was unavailable (same difference) to those who lived under the old Dispensation. Anathema sit to such heterodoxy.

Mryan wrote:

Not that C_T will listen to the Truth, but his errors are so pernicious that justice demands their correction lest anyone be fooled by such sloppy private butchery of Catholic doctrine (otherwise known as “utter piffle and twaddle”); besides, I would hate to disappoint “Foot” who predicted (warned) that my absence was just temporary.

Oh what, look who’s back! It’s the man who says one thing and does another. Your farewell to Columba and the rest of the crew was heartfelt, but extremely false, just like your modernistic false conclusions of Catholic dogma. I knew you would be back. Liars need to keep filling in their lies with more lies. Where will you go when it ends?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Just to inform everyone, if circumcision did not confer sanctifying grace, then the Holy Innocents had to have received baptism of blood. Just saying.....

RashaLampa wrote:Just to inform everyone, if circumcision did not confer sanctifying grace, then the Holy Innocents had to have received baptism of blood. Just saying.....

Rasha, quite so; however, the dogmatic fundamentalists (who refuse to be moderated by the Church) reject any such notion of the Holy Innocents being sanctified by the merit (in advance) of the Redeemer to come, so whether one says the Innocents were already justified by grace under the Old Law, or were sanctified/regenerated by the "desire" of the Church, or in a vicarious baptism of blood, makes no difference, they simply reject the "fallible" Church's teaching and Liturgical tradition in this regard. They are smarter than the Church and her Doctors, and that's all there is to it.

With regard to "if circumcision did not confer sanctifying grace, ...", allow me to elaborate, once again, on a critical distinction.

The more precise theological terminology marking the distinction between that which confers grace ex opere operanto (e.g., Baptism) and that which confers grace only indirectly (not of or by itself) ex opere operantis (e.g., circumcision) tells us that circumcision did NOT confer sanctifying grace in the former sense since it did not contain (as the cause of) the grace conferred in the old covenant sacrament. It was a "sign" and "condition" of the effected sanctified state and covenant, such that "on the occasion of their reception [of circumcision], the faith and piety of the recipients obtained for them sanctifying grace" (Fr. Hardon).

While the Angelic Doctor's extensive body of teaching is very clear on these critical distinctions (e. g., "circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith"; "Hence, too, the Apostle says (Romans 4:11), that Abraham 'received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith': because, to wit, justice was of faith signified: not of circumcision signifying. And since Baptism operates instrumentally by the power of Christ's Passion, whereas circumcision does not ..."), the more precise aforementioned technical term "opus operatum; ex opere operato" only came into general use soon after (and probably as a result of) the era of St. Aquinas, as the New Catholic Dictionary explains:

New Catholic Dictionary: opus operatum; ex opere operato

A technical phrase used by theologians since the 13th century to signify that the sacraments produce grace of themselves, apart and distinct from the grace dependent upon the intention of the person conferring the sacrament; the latter effect is designated by the phrase ex opere operantis. The phrase is first found in the writings of Peter of Poitiers (c.1130-1215),

"The act of Baptism is not identical with Baptism because it is an opus operans while Baptism is an opus operatum."

The phrase was not in general use in the time of Saint Thomas but it was officially adopted by the Council of Trent and used to signify the objective character of the sacraments as producers of grace in opposition to the subjectivism of the Reformers. According to Trent, therefore, the term opus operatum signifies that the correct use of the sign instituted by Christ produces the grace irrespectively of the merits of either minister or recipient (ex opere operantis), though the intention of conferring the sacrament is required in the minister and the intention of receiving in the recipient, if he be an adult, for a valid and worthy reception of the sacrament. For the council clearly states that the sacraments "confer Grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto."

Thanks

Rashalampa wrote:

1 Corinthians 13:4-8

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

That is true, and I confess I need to work on a lot of things in the process of the purification and sanctification of my soul, but Rashalampa you are missing the big picture, exactly as Mryan is, due to your lack of faith in the meaning of the true and unchangeable teachings of the Catholic Church. My love for you and Mryan is patient and kind, but you will not embrace it, because love to you is evil and evil is love. Believe it or not, I love everyone on this forum and I hope for everyone’s eternal happiness. The above passage sums you and Mryan up well also; as St. Paul explains to us Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth, the truth which you both despise.

And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: [2 Thessalonians 2:10]

RashaLampa wrote:Just to inform everyone, if circumcision did not confer sanctifying grace, then the Holy Innocents had to have received baptism of blood. Just saying.....

If the holy innocents died in a state of sanctifying grace due to Jesus' sacrifice working retro-actively, then why were they also held in "HELL" until Jesus had gone to set them free, which Jesus only did after his death on the cross? Why didn't they go straight to Heaven after their deaths?

The reason is because Jesus' sacrifice on that cross only worked retro-actively to redeem one person, which is his mother, the blessed virgin Mary. The Council of Trent makes this clear.

Also, there isn't any such thing as Baptism of Blood for the remission of sins. The Church infallibly declares that shedding one's blood does not bring about any remission of sin unless the person already resides within the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church,......can not be saved,......even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

MRyan wrote: I was referring to everyone under the law of circumcision, be they adults, infants, and even females

Even females huh? Thats a new one. Can you provide us with the Church's teaching which claims females under the Old Covenant needed circumcision? Also, while you're looking that up, then you might want to watch this Youtube video titled "Horror of Female Genital Mutilation" in Africa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzLy8qezDEw

Great to have you back, Mike






JMJ,

George