Posted on 12/16/2012 3:24:55 PM PST by NYer
My grandmother recently died. She was a Lutheran, but we, her descendents, are Catholic. Who, then, should do the burial? A Lutheran minister, or our Catholic priest? Thank you, and please pray for her soul.
Canon 1183.3 states,
“In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.”
In this situation, it seems the grandmother’s minister is available.
Since grandma did not convert prior to her death, it seems imprudent to go against her wishes and deny her a funeral in the ecclesiastical community of which she was a member.
Turning the sock inside out for a moment, we often hear of tragic cases in which a good Catholic person dies, but because the children are no longer practicing, she is denied the benefits of a funeral. Yes, funerals benefit the dead! The poor dead person might be given a prayer service at the funeral home or buried without ceremony.
In former ages, respecting the last wishes of the deceased was something that was sacrosanct.
So, unless the Lutheran minister is not available, inquire of the pastor about having the funeral at grandmother’s church. Go, pray for her (do not receive communion at the Lutheran funeral, even if invited), bury her.
Masses can be offered for the deceased, even those who are not Catholic. You can later have a Mass or Masses offered for her, even a Requiem Mass if your pastor is available and amenable.
Everyone, pray for the dead. Do not forget to pray for the dead.
Thanks for your interest, guys, and your affirmation. You have confirmed something for me. When it comes to prayers for the departed (which, inarguably, is part of the Catholic funeral/burial rites) it always comes down to purgatory and, consequently, the deuterocanonical books.
This kind of “discussion” is going nowhere, unless we leave it at this: What the Old Testament (sans the deuterocanonical) and New Testament Scriptures plainly proclaim, and the three ecumenical creeds clearly echo and affirm, are truth. That I agree with whole heartedly, with hesitation or hindrance.
If you want to argue beyond that, go ahead, argue ... you argue.
In other words, you can’t make an argument. Yeah, we already knew that.
What’s to argue? You want to go beyond that which ecumenical church (the church of the oikoumene) agreed before the eyes of the world to confess in the three ecumenical creeds. Further, you want to call into question the Christianity, the faith, of those unwilling to go beyond those universally accepted creeds. Further, you want to heap snark upon all such in the belief, apparently, that that will accomplish something God-pleasing (or self-pleasing, intellectual pride being what it is - there may not be a difference).
Well, Vladimir, I do not agree with you. Furthermore, I question what your goal really is. I will leave it at that since the rules of FR prohibit further speculation on my part ... and speculation is what it would be since only the Lord Himself knows the heart of each.
So what happens to my soul the moment I die as a born again Christian? What if I am taken from the game is a manner that completly destroys my body?
It happens.
You wrote:
“What’s to argue? You want to go beyond that which ecumenical church (the church of the oikoumene) agreed before the eyes of the world to confess in the three ecumenical creeds.”
False. The ancient Church affirmed prayers for the dead. Catholics and Orthodox always have ever since. Protestants never walked the earth until 1517.
“Further, you want to call into question the Christianity, the faith, of those unwilling to go beyond those universally accepted creeds.”
Again, false. I do not doubt the Christianity of those who deny some orthodox doctrines. I simply deny the orthodoxy of those deniers - as would be proper for any orthodox Christian to do. A simple perusal of the CCC would show that what I AM DOING is quite clearly standard orthodox practice in regard to the Christianity of the unorthodox. CCC 818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
I do not deny your Christianity. I simply know you are not orthodox. You deny truths of the faith. You also don’t know history or the Catechism very well. Ignorance has always found a welcome home in sects.
“Further, you want to heap snark upon all such in the belief, apparently, that that will accomplish something God-pleasing (or self-pleasing, intellectual pride being what it is - there may not be a difference).”
No, I simply “snark” to get a point across. When someone is ignorant it should be pointed out to him. When someone is ignorant or foolish in the extreme they should be treated as such (Galatians 3:1). Would you expect me to treat you any differenly than St. Paul did St. Peter when he erred (Galatians 2:11)?
“Well, Vladimir, I do not agree with you.”
No, you don’t agree with orthodox Christianity. It has nothing to do with me. Orthodox Christians have always believed and taught the truth and good value of prayers for the dead.
“Furthermore, I question what your goal really is. I will leave it at that since the rules of FR prohibit further speculation on my part ... and speculation is what it would be since only the Lord Himself knows the heart of each.”
My goal is simple - to state the truth. I did that. If I slapped you in the back of the head when you denied a Christian truth, all the better. In any case, you were wrong. You were wrong about what the Bible did and did not say. You were wrong about what the Church always taught. You were wrong when you said, “you want to call into question the Christianity, the faith, of those unwilling to go beyond those universally accepted creeds.” Such glaringly ignorant statements - all made without a hint of proof as usual - should be opposed. . . and they have been.
If you subscribe to the Nicene creed, then you "plainly proclaim" belief in "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church". You ought to then believe in what that church teaches, whether you see it best expressed in its western or eastern forms ... both of which affirm prayer for the dead.
Or, to put it another way, the church that taught at Nicaea is the same church that teaches the efficacy of prayer for the dead, whether you think it survived better among the conciliar Greeks or the papal Latins. You accept the creed, you should accept the church that formulated and taught the creed. Not to do so is to pick-and-choose. (The Greek word from which we get "heresy" means ... "choice".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.