Posted on 02/27/2020 1:31:39 PM PST by ebb tide
ROME (ChurchMilitant.com) - Catholics all over the world have been scandalized by nuns performing a distinctive Hindu ritual during the elevation of the Holy Eucharist at a Mass celebrated by Cdl. Blaise Cupich in Rome.
The "arati" ritual is one of twelve Hindu symbols, rituals and ceremonials approved by the Vatican for the "Indian Rite Mass" and has led to widespread syncretism, liturgical abuse, confusion among the laity and a moratorium on evangelization in India.
A trio of Indian nuns, who had completed their diploma in safeguarding at the Gregorian Pontifical University's Center for Child Protection, performed the "arati" rite at the thanksgiving Mass presided over by Cdl. Cupich of Chicago on Feb. 14.
Nuns offer "arati" while Cdl. Cupich presides at Holy Mass
The "arati" was performed to the chant of a "bhajan" (Indian chorus) with the music of Indian instruments accompanying the singing. At least three other priests are concelebrating alongside Cupich.
In a video clip on Twitter posted approvingly by Sr. Karolin Kuhn SSND, the nuns are seen swaying rhythmically to the music, each waving a ceremonial dish containing joss sticks, flowers and oil lamps, as Cupich and his concelebrant raise the consecrated Host and chalice for the Great Doxology at the culmination of the Eucharistic Prayer.
Almost all of the couple of hundred respondents on the Twitter thread slam the ritual as Hindu, pagan, "not Catholic," an "abomination to God," "diabolically disoriented" and "idolatrous."
No priest from India was publicly willing to make a statement when contacted by Church Militant. However, speaking on condition of anonymity, a priest from North India confirmed that such practices had become "now de rigueur in almost all Indian seminaries, convents [and] religious houses of formation."
"The so-called 'Indian Rite Mass' which received Vatican approval in 1969 is vigorously promoted by the Catholic Bishops Conference of India's (CBCI) National, Biblical, Catechetical and Liturgical Center (NBCLC)," he said.
The theological vision behind the Indian Mass is significant, since it integrates the goal of religious sacrifice in Hinduism into that of Christianity.Tweet
The priest admitted that the "arati" was "an explicit Hindu symbol used exclusively by Hindus," but, he said, "bishops, theologians and other religious would mock him if he or faithful lay Catholics even dared to challenge it as inculturation, and using Hindu forms of worship was now "the 'orthodox' position in the Indian Church's hierarchy," regarded as "an authentic Indian expression of the gospel."
"Arati" is a Hindu liturgical rite in which camphor flames, flowers and joss sticks are offered to the deity by means of a clockwise rotation while standing before an idol. The five camphor lights symbolize the five elements of earth, air, fire, water and the ether, representing the totality of the cosmos in Hindu theology. The ceremonial is also used to welcome an important personality or guest, since in monistic Hinduism the whole of creation is one single principle of divinity.
Sources drew Church Militant's attention to the "arati" rite performed by Indian nuns at Strasbourg Cathedral in September 2018 for the beatification of Mother Alphonse-Marie, a French nun and founder of the Sisters of the Divine Redeemer. The Hindu ritual was again performed during the Great Doxology in the presence of dozens of clergy, with no objection or protest.
Here, the sisters are singing a "bhajan" in Tamil. The words used are steeped in Hindu theology with the refrain repeating the word "Anjali" — an offering to a deity (traditionally from the cupped palms of one's hands).
Catholic priest in Hindu robes performing "arati" to his people
"Here we have a purely Hindu ceremony introduced," writes Victor J. F. Kulanday in his book The Paganized Catholic Church in India. Kulanday cites two authorities on Hinduism explaining the Hindu significance of arati.
Walker's Hindu World points out that the "object of the 'arati' rite is to please the goddess with bright lights and colors and also to counteract the evil eye," he notes.
Further, French Catholic missionary and Sanskrit scholar Abbe J. A. Dubois in Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies notes that "arati" is one of the "commonest religious practices of the Hindus ... performed by married women and courtesans ... to counteract the influence of the evil eye and any ill-effects arising from the jealous and spiteful looks of ill-intentioned persons."
In 1969, the Vatican permitted 12 points of adaptation for celebration of the Mass in India leading to an "Indian Rite" form of the Holy Eucharist. The "arati" is one of the rituals that was approved by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship.
The "Indian Rite Mass" uses the "arati" at four points in the liturgy. First, when the priest enters, he is blessed with the person performing the arati tracing three circles around him. The outer circle symbolizes the cosmos, the second circle represents the human community and the third smallest circle stands for the congregation greeting the priest.
Similarly, the priest then takes the "arati" in his hands and — facing the congregation — performs the ritual over the people in three circles.
Nuns offering "arati" at the Doxology in Strasbourg Cathedral
Second, during the Liturgy of the Word, homage is paid to the Bible with a double "arati" of flowers and incense. The "Indian Rite Mass" prescribes verses from the Hindu scripture Brihadaranyaka Upanishad to be chanted while this is taking place. The chant ends with the singing of the sacred Hindu syllable "Om."
Third, at the offertory, the priest makes an "arati" with a tray of eight flowers, which in Hinduism symbolize the eight directions of the universe.
Finally, during the Doxology, there is triple "arati" of flowers, incense and fire.
Indian Catholic priest Fr. Jacob Nangelimalil acknowledges that "the theological vision behind the Indian Mass is significant, since it integrates the goal of religious sacrifice in Hinduism into that of Christianity."
Bishops and theologians promoting the wave of "inculturation" have been caught unawares by the backlash from militant Hindus as well as criticism from Catholic converts from lower-caste Hindu backgrounds.
Hindus are condemning the inculturated liturgies as devious gimmicks designed to convert Hindus to Catholicism, while low-caste Catholic converts accuse the Indian hierarchy of incorporating symbols from Brahmanical Hinduism — which kept lower castes subjugated for millennia before they were liberated by converting to Christianity.
Inculturation has also led to a redefinition of evangelization where the goal is to "make a Hindu a better Hindu" and not to bring him or her to faith in Christ and to membership in the Catholic Church.
“But there are some of you who do not believe.”
And what is it that we must be believe? For this we need to go back prior to where you selectively started. The first thing to remember is that the Bread of Life Discourse came immediately after the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. This was the reason that the crowd was looking for him: "Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. It is response to this that our Lord gives the Bread of Life Discourse. He redirects them from seeking merely physical bread to the bread that will give eternal life: "Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life." And what is this bread?
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”So the context of “But there are some of you who do not believe,” is what Jesus said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."The Jews murmured about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” Jesus answered and said to them, “Stop murmuring among yourselves. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets: ‘They shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
“Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. The Words of Eternal Life. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?” He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. (John 6:35-71)
First it should be noted that when the Jews quarreled over his statement, "The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world," saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", he did not correct them and say that they were misunderstanding him by taking him to literally. Rather he doubled down with his insistence that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Additionally, the verb Jesus uses in "Whoever eats my flesh" is not one that is usually used for humans. Rather it was applied to animals and could best be translated as "munch" or "gnaw." Jesus is purposefully being very graphic here.
It is in this context that we must understand his statement, "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." And the words that Jesus has just spoken, and which shocked his listeners, are:
Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.His flesh and blood is not mere flesh as in ordinary food but the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This is the food that endures for eternal life.
For those who would argue that our Lord is only speaking in metaphor, the idea of eating and drinking someones body and blood can only be a metaphor for the complete annihilation of a defeated enemy. His disciples took him literally many of them left. Jesus does not correct them but becomes even more graphic. Then he does something that he does nowhere else in the gospel, he challenges his apostles, "Do you also want to leave?" When Jesus speaks by way of parable, he explains its meaning to the Apostles. He does not do this here; he challenges them. Will they leave as the others? So when John says that "Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him," it is the refusal to believe that we must eat his body and drink his blood. To believe in Jesus is not just to believe the Cross, but also to believe what he has taught us, including that we must eat his body and drink his blood which are real food and real drink. This is the true context of this passage.
First it should be noted that when the Jews quarreled over his statement, "The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world," saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?", he did not correct them and say that they were misunderstanding him by taking him to literally.
This is not the first time He did this nor the last.
He did not correct the rich young ruler. He did not always correct the Pharisees. He already knew they were misunderstanding Him.
*****
For those who would argue that our Lord is only speaking in metaphor, the idea of eating and drinking someones body and blood can only be a metaphor for the complete annihilation of a defeated enemy. His disciples took him literally many of them left. Jesus does not correct them but becomes even more graphic. Then he does something that he does nowhere else in the gospel, he challenges his apostles, "Do you also want to leave?" When Jesus speaks by way of parable, he explains its meaning to the Apostles. He does not do this here; he challenges them.
Jesus did not always explain the parables to His Apostles.
Will they leave as the others? So when John says that "Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him," it is the refusal to believe that we must eat his body and drink his blood. To believe in Jesus is not just to believe the Cross, but also to believe what he has taught us, including that we must eat his body and drink his blood which are real food and real drink. This is the true context of this passage.
No. Go back to the beginning of the passage. Jesus is talking about believing in Him.
All throughout John this is what He talks about.
IF this was essential to faith, as you are saying that it is His literal flesh and blood, He did not convey this to:
Nicodemus
John's disciples
The woman at the well
The Samaritans
The royal official with the sick son
more unbelieving Jews.
All of these were prior to the Bread of Life Discourse.
IF as you say we have to literally eat/drink His flesh and blood for salvation then Jesus omitted this in His conversation with these other people. But what He did talk about was believing in Him.
That is the clear consistent message of John, the Gospels and the New Testament.
In Romans 10:5-13 Paul does not mention the necessity of having to eat/drink the literal flesh of Christ. He does talk about believing in Him though. Just as Jesus told the unbelieving Jews...believe in Him. Again, the consistent message of the New Testament.
I always find it interesting that IF as you claim, we have to eat/drink the literal flesh and blood, why at the Passover meals did not Jesus prick His finger and allow the disciples to actually drink His literal blood?< .
At the Cross there is no record of anyone attempting to catch drops of His blood to drink later.
When they took Him down from the Cross....why did they not carve out pieces of His flesh....IF as you claim, we have to literally eat/drink His flesh? That would have been the time to do it....for it was the last time available.
Why not?
Because they understood His message correctly...we come to Him through faith. We have eternal life because we believe in Him.
Recall in this passage it is the unbelieving Jews who are thinking as the Roman Catholic does....that He is referring to literal flesh/blood. The unbelieving Jews were the ones who switched the conversation.
IF you want to say this passage in John is literal then you must never get hungry or thirsty.
35Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.
Many Roman Catholics like to switch back to a metaphorical understanding when confronted with this passage. So, you get hungry or thirsty?
*****
Jesus did not just fail to correct the crowd, He became even more emphatic. He wanted His listeners to take His words literally. And unless you want to say that Jesus deliberately mislead them, you have to accept that this is the correct understanding of what Jesus said.
Jesus did not always explain the parables to His Apostles.
But this is the only time that Jesus challenged His Apostles. Many of His disciples left because they understood our Lord's words literally. Jesus then challenges His Apostles over precisely this understanding of His words.
No. Go back to the beginning of the passage. Jesus is talking about believing in Him.
No, the controversy is over His demand that they must eat His Body and drink His Blood. And this is the point in which the disciples refused to believe in Him. To believe in Jesus is not just to accept that He is our Savior, but also to believe and accept all that He taught us, including the need to eat His Body and drink His Blood which He calls real food and real drink.
IF this was essential to faith, as you are saying that it is His literal flesh and blood, He did not convey this to:
Nicodemus
John's disciples
The woman at the well
The Samaritans
The royal official with the sick son
more unbelieving Jews.
All of these were prior to the Bread of Life Discourse.
IF as you say we have to literally eat/drink His flesh and blood for salvation then Jesus omitted this in His conversation with these other people
So He waited until the Bread of Life Discourse. Similarly he told Peter, James and John not to tell anyone about the Transfiguration until after He had been raised from the dead. God reveals His truths in His own time, not yours.
But what He did talk about was believing in Him.
To believe in Him is to believe in what He taught, i.e., that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood.
I always find it interesting that IF as you claim, we have to eat/drink the literal flesh and blood, why at the Passover meals did not Jesus prick His finger and allow the disciples to actually drink His literal blood?
At the Cross there is no record of anyone attempting to catch drops of His blood to drink later.
When they took Him down from the Cross....why did they not carve out pieces of His flesh....IF as you claim, we have to literally eat/drink His flesh? That would have been the time to do it....for it was the last time available.
Why not?
Nonsense! You are being absurd. At the Last Supper Jesus showed that the way that we are to eat His Body and Drink his Blood is through the bread and wind made into His Body and Blood. I should also point out that, although they do not share our belief in Transubstantiation, the Lutherans also believe in the Real Presence and that it is indeed the Body and Blood of our Lord that is consumed with the bread and wine. I guess sola Scriptura is not enough to settle this question even among the Protestants.
Recall in this passage it is the unbelieving Jews who are thinking as the Roman Catholic does....that He is referring to literal flesh/blood.
Rather it is the unbelieving Jews who refused to accept that we must eat His Body and drink His Blood as our Lord taught. If Jesus had simply said that it was just a metaphor they would have stayed. Why would Jesus purposely mislead them by His emphatic language and let them leave over a misunderstanding?
Jesus talked to a lot of people who walked away from Him. The rich young ruler is an example.
18A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 19And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 20“You know the commandments, ‘DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’” 21And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” 22When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 23But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. Luke 18:18-23
Did Jesus mislead the ruler?
Why didn't He follow after Him?
*****
But this is the only time that Jesus challenged His Apostles.
Nope. Get behind Me, Satan is a pretty stinging challenge and rebuke.
But that's not the only time.
*****
Seems like the disciples got taken to the spiritual woodshed a number of times!
*****
5The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” 6And the Lord said, “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you. Luke 17:5-6
*****
14And they had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 15And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” 16They began to discuss with one another the fact that they had no bread.
17And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? 18“HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR? And do you not remember,
19when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.” 20“When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?” And they said to Him, “Seven.” 21And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?” Mark 8:14-21
46An argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest. 47But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, 48and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”
49John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
51When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. 53But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village. Luke 9:46-56
*****
14Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned [notice what He did not say....nothing about eating/drinking flesh/blood....but about believing]. Mark 16:14-16
*****
17When he had left the crowd and entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable. 18And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, Mark 7:17-18
At the Cross there is no record of anyone attempting to catch drops of His blood to drink later.
When they took Him down from the Cross....why did they not carve out pieces of His flesh....IF as you claim, we have to literally eat/drink His flesh? That would have been the time to do it....for it was the last time available.
Why not?
*****
Nonsense! You are being absurd. At the Last Supper Jesus showed that the way that we are to eat His Body and Drink his Blood is through the bread and wind made into His Body and Blood. I should also point out that, although they do not share our belief in Transubstantiation, the Lutherans also believe in the Real Presence and that it is indeed the Body and Blood of our Lord that is consumed with the bread and wine. I guess sola Scriptura is not enough to settle this question even among the Protestants.
Absurd? Hardly. Simply illustrating the wrongness of the RC position.
As I say....IF the disciples understood His words as Romans claim they would have wanted His real blood and flesh.
I mean we have Roman Catholics claiming to have relics from this saint or that saint because they believe they contain healing powers....some have even claimed pieces of the actual cross.
Why wouldn't they want His real flesh and blood.
Because they understood He was talking about believing in Him.
That is the message of the Gospel.
That is the message of the New Testament.
That is the message of Christianity.
So He waited until the Bread of Life Discourse. Similarly he told Peter, James and John not to tell anyone about the Transfiguration until after He had been raised from the dead. God reveals His truths in His own time, not yours.
The Mt of Transfiguration does not involve a discussion of eternal life.
All of those other examples did.
Early in His ministry Jesus made it clear about the necessity of having faith in Him for eternal life. It was His consistent message throughout His ministry.
IF one reads the NT in context this is crystal clear.
A statue or icon is not an idol.
As I say....IF the disciples understood His words as Romans claim they would have wanted His real blood and flesh.
His Body and His Blood under the forms of bread and wine are His real Body and Blood. This, and only this, is how Jesus told us to eat His Body and drink His Blood. The Apostles would have easily understood this and would not have done as you suggested. Even the Lutherans believe that at Communion we consume His Body and Blood, albeit through Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation.
Jesus was free the unfold the fulness of His teaching as He saw fit. He was not bound by what you would think is the proper manner in doing so.
Early in His ministry Jesus made it clear about the necessity of having faith in Him for eternal life.
And to have faith in Him is to believe and follow all that He taught us:
Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)This was His constant message throughout His ministry. And one of these things is that we must eat His Body and drink His flesh. Belief in Him without obedience is not enough. If one reads the New Testament in context this is crystal clear.
15And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned [notice what He did not say....nothing about eating/drinking flesh/blood....but about believing]. Mark 16:14-16
Believing in Him includes believing and obeying what He taught, such as "This is my Body and this is my Blood." This is part of the gospel and we are not free to discard it because it does not fit in with our 16th century theology.
Well, you’ve changed your position on Jesus never challenging His disciples. Roman Catholics may know Rome’s dogmas but they are woefully lacking in knowing the Word. More later.
I had meant challenging their faith. I would have thought that was clear from the context. : )
I’d say in a number of those other places He challenged their faith.
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.