Nuns Perform Hindu Ritual During Doxology at Cdl. Cupich Mass

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.

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 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).

"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.

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.

And I don't know how many times I've had to explain the "Mass" is not a real sacrifice as there is no shed blood.

What, because you say so?

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26 NASB

Typical of Protestants ripping a verse out of context to try to prove their point. St. Paul does say here that this is not a real sacrifice. He continues:

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. (I Cor. 11:27-29)

We need to discern--to recognize--that what we are eating and drinking is indeed the body and blood of Christ. Could we bring judgment down on ourselves merely by eating and drinking ordinary bread? That this is indeed a sacrifice is made clear by what Paul had written earlier:

Therefore, my beloved, avoid idolatry. I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, [they sacrifice] to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealous anger? Are we stronger than he? (I Cor. 10:14-22)

First, the cup and the bread are the actual participation in the blood and body of Christ, not just a remembrance. Then he compares the partaking of the body and blood of Christ with the Israelites partaking of the sacrifices of the altar. Finally, he contrasts the drinking the cup of the Lord with the drinking the cup of demons which comes from the sacrifice to idols. Thus Christians have their own sacrifice of our Lord's body and blood under the form of bread and wine just as the Israelites had their sacrifices and the pagans theirs. The Mass is a true sacrifice.

It must also be remembered that what our Lord command that we do in remembrance of Him was not just the sharing of bread and wine as He did at the Last Supper. Rather it was the celebration of the new Passover, a new sacrificial meal by which we participate in the new Passover sacrifice of the Cross.

And how did the early Christians understand this? In his letter to the Corinthians around the year 70 A.D., Pope St. Clement writes:

Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate this who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.

Writing between 180 and 199 A.D. St Ireneus states:

Again, giving counsel to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits from among His creatures, not as if He needed them, but so that they themselves might be neither unfruitful nor ungrateful, He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying "This is My Body." The cup likewise, which if from among the creation to which we belong, He confessed to be His Blood.
He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachias, one of the twelve prophets, and signifies beforehand: " 'You do not do My will,' says the Lord Almighty, 'and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place incensed is offered to My name, and a put sacrifice; for great is My name among the gentiles,' says the Lord Almighty." By these words He makes plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but than in every place sacrifice will be offered to Him, and indeed, a pure one; for His name is glorified among the gentiles. . .
Sacrifice as such hand not been reprobated. There were sacrifices then, sacrifices among the people; and there are sacrifices now, sacrifices in the Church. Only the kind has been changed. (Against Heresies, 4,17, 5; 4,18,2)

I do not present these quotes from the Fathers as infallible scripture, but to show the common understanding of the Christians at the time. And if we cannot not accept the authority of the early Christians on a question of faith, how can we accept their authority of the content of Scripture? The Mass in indeed a true sacrifice, the making present of the one sacrifice on the Cross.

>>And I don't know how many times I've had to explain the "Mass" is not a real sacrifice as there is no shed blood.<<

What, because you say so?

No....because Scripture does. Or to be more precise...."And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Hebrews 9:22 NASB

*****

>> For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:26 NASB<<

Typical of Protestants ripping a verse out of context to try to prove their point. St. Paul does say here that this is not a real sacrifice.

You've got something right....this is not a real sacrifice, which is what I've been saying.

*****

Below are all the passages regarding the Lord's Supper.

They do not claim what Rome espouses on this issue.

Matthew 26:26-29

Mark 14:22-24

Luke 22:14-20

John 13:21-26

1 Corinthians 11:23-26

26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;

28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

22While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it.

24And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

25“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”.

14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.”19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you;

do this in remembrance of Me.”

20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

21When Jesus had said this, He became troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, that one of you will betray Me.” 22The disciples began looking at one another, at a loss to know of which one He was speaking.23There was reclining on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. 24So Simon Peter gestured to him, and said to him, “Tell us who it is of whom He is speaking.” 25He, leaning back thus on Jesus’ bosom, said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”

26Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you;

do this in remembrance of Me.”

25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Key Phrases/words:

Poured out: In the OT the blood sacrifice was never consumed; it was always poured out. We further have the drink offering which was poured out before God as a sacrifice (Ex 29:40, Numbers 15:4-5).

29.11 ἀνάμνησις, εως f: (derivative of ἀναμιμνῄσκω ‘to cause to remember,’ 29.10) the means for causing someone to remember—‘means of remembering, reminder.’ ἀλλ’ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν ‘but in those (sacrifices) there is a yearly reminder of sins’ or ‘… that people have sinned’ He 10:3. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 347). New York: United Bible Societies.

*****

Let's see....which opinion of which ECF have you selectively chosen to quote out of context to try and support your claim?

I do not present these quotes from the Fathers as infallible scripture, but to show the common understanding of the Christians at the time.

Yet you have selectively quoted to vainly try and support your position.

And if we cannot not accept the authority of the early Christians on a question of faith, how can we accept their authority of the content of Scripture?

Christians don't accept their "authority" as they have none. They are writing at best what could be considered commentaries.

Imagine 400 years from now as people are reading the documents of Roman Catholicism's current pope. They would take them to represent the "beliefs" of Roman Catholics during the reign of Francis.

See the problem with relying upon a fallible man's writings?

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.