|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: cremation
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For the Western Christian, our current body is expendable because God regards it as so important he is going to totally renew it.
Fixed that for you.
So the Eastern Church thinks that Paul was a Western Christian and/or that I Corinthians 15 is not canonical.
1 Cor 15 as you interpret it, perhaps. Everybody thinks their interpretation is what the Bible really says, and everybody else is interpolating.
Not in this case, I think.
St John of Damascus, in his his Concerning The Resurrection (carried by the Orthodox Christian Information Centre site), describes the post-resurrection body, on the basis of I Corinthians 15 as "now made incorruptible and having put off corruption".
A reasonable deduction from this is that it doesn't matter whether our present body is expended through being burned at the stake in martyrdom, burned in a crematorium or just returned to its constituent atoms after burial, because God is going to renew it in incorruptibility.
As to "interpolating", I was intrigued by your insertion of "Western" into my post.
If I had thought about it at all previously, I would have assumed that it was unacceptable on the Ship to alter reproductions of posts by the addition or alteration of words.
Apparently not.
[ 27. October 2016, 22:05: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Editing a person's post with the annotation "I fixed that for you" is a common Internet trope, and far from unknown on the Ship, so it didn't even occur to me that you wouldn't be familiar with it. My bad.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But why is it a desecration? Plonking the body in a big hole to be eaten by worms is hardly "dignified"!
Not sure what "dignified" has to do with it. Death is undignified, full stop. The original canons forbid cremation because of its association with the paganism of the time ("come out and be separate" and all that). As you can see from this short exposition, holding the position in the absence of that association is a bit of a "well, we just don't" kind of proposition (aka "because we've always done it that way"). I myself don't feel really strongly about it, but I do have some kind of vague sense that letting nature take its course (the undignified worms) versus forcing her hand (burning) is a real distinction somehow. But like I said I'm not going to die on that hill.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that there are circumstances in which the body can't be buried intact in the ground (on board ship, times of war, body is biohazardous waste, the manner of death) what's the Orthodox position (as you understand it, obviously) regarding a funeral.
Did you mean to say "regarding burial"? Funerals are done whenever possible, with a descending list of preferences: best is open casket, then closed casket, at the place of death, at the grave if they're already dead. More or less.
As regards burial, again you do what you can to approximate as closely as possible the ideal. But with nearly anything, there is the principle of "ekonomia," a principle by which you do the best you can and the bishop says "you did the best you could" and allows it.
quote:
Also, what about post/perimortem organ donation? Is that permissable without being considered desecrating the body?
We're all over the map on this. I'm an organ donor, because I think it's my Christian duty to help others. God knows I'm bad enough at it in my life; in my death I might do a bit more good. This discussion (this is a rather conservative site mind) is pretty balanced. Their two big issues seem to be (a) this is a matter to be undertaken with prayer and a solemn understanding of the sanctity of the whole person, and (b) it must be uncoerced.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Honestly?
Yes. Arguments why the sanctity of the body is inconvenient in the modern age are not the same as arguments that the body is not sacred.
quote:
It is because I couldn't think of a polite way to say "desecration" of a body is superstition* held onto by tradition.
Sometimes it's best to just say what you mean than to try to be polite and end up saying something else entirely.
quote:
I really don't mean that to be insulting, it is what I think.
I'm not in the least insulted. I think you're wrong, obviously, but it doesn't insult me that you disagree with me. If you had called me a raving ninny who can't find his arse with both hands and a periscope, that might be different. Then again I've been called that so much it ceases to offend.
quote:
The harm in how one treats a body is in how the people who cared about the former person feel about that. The body id no more the person after death.
The body isn't the person before death either. But the body is still that person's body. It wasn't just any hunk of dead flesh that lay in the rotunda for 3 days in November 1962. It was JFK's body. His body. Not "a" body.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On Orthodox burial, Mousethief am I right that if you are Orthodox you are normally dug up again 5 or 7 years after burial when the flesh has rotted away, and your bones put in a box? Or is that a specifically Greek custom? Here, digging up bones or ashes is normally very forbidden. Once you are in the ground, you stay there. It is rare for anyone to be given a faculty to move buried remains.
This is the custom on Mount Athos and other places where burial space is at a premium. The bones may be put into a box, or lovingly thrown onto a heap of other bones, although generally the skull ("crown") is kept separate from the other bones, often labeled so you know who it is/was.
I think the Czechs were/are Catholic, but here's an, um, interesting twist on the bone thing. Don't click if you're squeamish about dead men's bones. Lots and lots of dead men's bones.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Much as I disagree that Christianity mandated traditional burial, I am trying to not be rudely dismissive.
It's pretty much a matter of historical record that Christianity mandated traditional burial.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
St John of Damascus, in his his Concerning The Resurrection (carried by the Orthodox Christian Information Centre site), describes the post-resurrection body, on the basis of I Corinthians 15 as "now made incorruptible and having put off corruption".
A reasonable deduction from this is that it doesn't matter whether our present body is expended through being burned at the stake in martyrdom, burned in a crematorium or just returned to its constituent atoms after burial, because God is going to renew it in incorruptibility.
From this however it does not follow that it is "expendable."
===============
I enjoin you all, with fear and trepidation lest we get onto a huge tangent, to consider the Orthodox (and Catholic) understanding of relics, which (we believe) retain some measure of the holiness of the person whose relics they are. And I commend you to 2 Kings 13:21.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Sorry; it's custom to not just give bible references. Here is 2 Kings 13:21 as mentioned in my last:
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
How does "solemn understanding of the sanctity of the whole person" fit with having relics consisting solely of people's hearts, fingers, and so on?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
This is a good point,I think. The bones of canonised saints are divided up and sent to all parts of the world.
It was common practice for the popes, once they died of course, to have their internal organs removed and stored in separate jars, sometimes in a separate church from where the body would await the day of the glorious resurrection.
It was also common for the dead to have their heart removed and placed in another area from their body.
It is also common in some countries with a Catholic tradition,especially but not exclusively Italy,for the dead to be 'buried' not underground,but rather in niches or tombs above ground.
Again in many countries of Central and Southern Europe the tombs,either underground or overground will be opened after about 25 years,and the bones put into a communal charnel house.
Ultimately the Vatican document is trying to indicate how the Church considers that respect should ,in an ideal situation, be shown to the remains of the deceased.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's a very Western understanding of Christianity. In the East, all matter matters, and human remains even moreso.
If that's the Western/Platonic understanding, the Eastern/Orthodox understanding seem to be one of faulty logic and veneration of empty vessels.
Of course, the truth is that those are both wild generalisations.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
It was common practice for the popes, once they died of course, to have their internal organs removed and stored in separate jars, sometimes in a separate church from where the body would await the day of the glorious resurrection.
It was also common for the dead to have their heart removed and placed in another area from their body.
In fact, it was a standard practice amongst the Hapsburgs as well. As a general rule, the body went to the Capuchin Church in the Neuer Märkt with the heart to the Augustiner Church and other internal organs to St Stephen's. Of course there are some exceptions to this.
[ 28. October 2016, 10:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's a very Western understanding of Christianity. In the East, all matter matters, and human remains even moreso.
If that's the Western/Platonic understanding, the Eastern/Orthodox understanding seem to be one of faulty logic ...
I think that's the disconnect.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How does "solemn understanding of the sanctity of the whole person" fit with having relics consisting solely of people's hearts, fingers, and so on?
Well the short answer is "the whole person" means "both body and spirit/soul," not "the intact body." Because even we know that bodies don't stay intact when you bury them and the undignified worms do their bit.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's a very Western understanding of Christianity. In the East, all matter matters, and human remains even moreso.
If that's the Western/Platonic understanding, the Eastern/Orthodox understanding seem to be one of faulty logic and veneration of empty vessels.
Can you explain what's faulty about that logic? It seems to me not to be a logical inference but a claim of fact. I can see someone saying, "You believe X but X isn't true." I don't understand what you mean by "faulty logic." What inference do you believe I have drawn, and from what premises?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I hate burial and everything about it. Especially when, for one reason or another, the body is exhumed. Now that is desecration imo. Scatter the ashes, no body to disrespect. Dust to dust (or in my case water).
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Since we evolved. (Wikipedia estimates that due to the exponential population growth in the last couple of centuries about one in twenty human beings are alive at the moment.)
Good, you avoided that particular error ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . In which case:
quote:
My conclusion was that the carbon in the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere is about six hundred times the carbon mass of the entire human race.
The current biomass is about fifty times that of the entire human race.
So that suggests that the chance that any given carbon atom has been in another human's body is less than one in six hundred and fifty (and that's ignoring carbon that is elsewhere in circulation - dissolved in sea water, for example).
I'm not convinced that this takes into account the sheer speed of turnover of the atoms in a given environment. A simple example would be a box full of air. if you select a random hundredth of that box then the odds that the atoms within said hundredth have been part of the other hundredths as well are considerably greater than 1/100.
Every time we eat, drink or inhale we take in new atoms. And every time we poop, pee or exhale we get rid of old ones. And that's just the most obvious ways that transfer of atoms between us and the wider environment happens.
There's another reason that your calculation isn't accurate, and that's the fact that the distribution of atoms in the environment is not random. The majority of our sewage is converted into fertiliser for farms, which in turn becomes the plants and/or animals that we eat. Most of the remainder is returned to the water cycle, which will likely mean that in one way or another it will make its way into another human body at some point - possibly even before the river it's in reaches the sea, if you live far enough inland.
quote:
The calculation doesn't include food consumed for calories, but I've assumed that doesn't count as being part of us.
Whyever not? Calories are merely a way of measuring the energy that can be derived from food, but in order to derive said energy the atoms of that food must first be absorbed by the body.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can you explain what's faulty about that logic? It seems to me not to be a logical inference but a claim of fact. I can see someone saying, "You believe X but X isn't true." I don't understand what you mean by "faulty logic." What inference do you believe I have drawn, and from what premises?
Well I suppose it is about this sense I'm getting from you that decomposition of buried bodies by worms (actually it wouldn't be worms exactly, but never mind) - together with random preservation of bones and/or other body bits of the saints - is somehow venerating it because that's the natural way of things (perhaps?) whereas burning a body isn't venerating it because somehow it isn't natural.
That's what I'm getting from your explanation as you suggested here:
quote:
I myself don't feel really strongly about it, but I do have some kind of vague sense that letting nature take its course (the undignified worms) versus forcing her hand (burning) is a real distinction somehow. But like I said I'm not going to die on that hill.
Now, I don't know if your vague sense is the one shared by other Orthodox people who have a problem with cremation, I've never thought about it before. But if that is accurate and that is a shared understanding of the Orthodox body decomposition, it seems pretty illogical on various levels to me.
First to say that a body is to be venerated seems to suggest that it is left in one piece to decompose quietly on its own. There seems to be a logical breakdown when at the same time it is acceptable to tear off bits to wave around, however carefully this is done.
Second the idea that a body is to be venerated seems to, in and of itself, imply that it isn't just something which can later be used in artwork as per your ossuary link. Again, you might not have been using that link approvingly, it is hard to tell - but I'm not understanding your point of introducing it other than as an extension of the point about bones from Mount Athos.
Third, the idea that burning is somehow less natural than burial seems entirely illogical and bogus. Burning is of course a perfectly natural process. And keeping ashes on a windowsill seems no more or less venerable than keeping bones in a crypt.
Now, of course, I'm a Western Christian so I guess I would say that - it just looks from where I am that the Orthodox claims you've outlined relating to venerating the body are anything but.
[ 28. October 2016, 15:56: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So that suggests that the chance that any given carbon atom has been in another human's body is less than one in six hundred and fifty (and that's ignoring carbon that is elsewhere in circulation - dissolved in sea water, for example).
I'm not convinced that this takes into account the sheer speed of turnover of the atoms in a given environment. A simple example would be a box full of air. if you select a random hundredth of that box then the odds that the atoms within said hundredth have been part of the other hundredths as well are considerably greater than 1/100.
There's another reason that your calculation isn't accurate, and that's the fact that the distribution of atoms in the environment is not random. The majority of our sewage is converted into fertiliser for farms, which in turn becomes the plants and/or animals that we eat. Most of the remainder is returned to the water cycle, which will likely mean that in one way or another it will make its way into another human body at some point - possibly even before the river it's in reaches the sea, if you live far enough inland.
I think your first point adequately undercuts your third point. (Your second point omitted to be dealth with below.) If the movement of carbon atoms between environments is fast then the distribution of atoms in the environment will become random rather quickly. Atoms that are locked in dead organic matter stay locked (or carbon dating wouldn't work, but otherwise I think carbon atoms get cycled into the atmosphere by plants and bacteria pretty quickly.
quote:
quote:
The calculation doesn't include food consumed for calories, but I've assumed that doesn't count as being part of us.
Whyever not? Calories are merely a way of measuring the energy that can be derived from food, but in order to derive said energy the atoms of that food must first be absorbed by the body.
I'm assuming that the conversation is about the carbon that goes into the proteins in cell walls, bones, and so on, rather than that which gets converted straight into sugar and then respirated. If you're arguing about which person gets the carbon atoms on resurrection then atoms that were only in a person for a few days don't seem to raise the same kind of problem.
If you're arguing that the carbon within the cell walls gets cycled fairly quickly as well (and I suppose it must be for carbon dating to work) then I think that the question of who gets which carbon atom matters rather less.
(Assuming that the resurrection of the body takes place in a way that requires the currently existing carbon atoms to be used.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Point of information, which may or may not be of interest;
There have been claims going back hundreds of years that human bones were used at various times in British agriculture - it is certainly true that bones were a big industry in the 19 century before guano became a major commodity, but it is less easy to prove that battle-graves were dug up as some have claimed.
But assuming that human bones were spread on agricultural soils, there is a good chance that the carbon ions became incorporated into the soil carbon, which has quite a long half life.
Carbon isn't directly taken up by living plants from the soil, but from the atmosphere - however it seems reasonable to assume that the carbon in the plants most likely came from a local carbon source.
Which is to say that there is a pretty good chance that the carbon in British food contains ions from the dead at Waterloo, the dead from Egypt and the bones from buffalo slaughtered on the North American plains.
Happy eating.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm assuming that the conversation is about the carbon that goes into the proteins in cell walls, bones, and so on, rather than that which gets converted straight into sugar and then respirated.
There's an interesting discussion to be had on that point alone! Do the various liquids, carbohydrates, fats, hormones, enzymes, etc. that are within us count as part of our bodies or not? Where does the line get drawn, and on what basis?
Is the petrol in the tank part of the car? What about the engine oil? The brake fluid?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and buried directly into the ground without a coffin.
Come to think of it, that makes a lot of sense.
I'm not against cremation, it is cheaper than burial and not against scattering them in the sea. However, the one problem I have it, is that there is no grave site for people to come on anniversaries of death to offer flowers and pay respect. Going to a river or a sea is different from a grave marker, because a grave marker is specifically noted for the deceased.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and buried directly into the ground without a coffin.
I guess this must depend on what you mean by "ecological" - it seems to me to be pretty unlikely that a local soil environment would do well in the short term with a lot of fats and protein suddenly thrown at it, and having a lot of bodies in the same place may well cause an overload as to what the microbes can deal with, leading to unpleasant emissions.
In contrast, I'd have thought ignition is likely to lead to much more stable ashes which are much less likely to cause an environmental problem (well, in the soil at least - I guess one also needs to consider the atmospheric emissions).
quote:
Come to think of it, that makes a lot of sense.
I'm not against cremation, it is cheaper than burial and not against scattering them in the sea. However, the one problem I have it, is that there is no grave site for people to come on anniversaries of death to offer flowers and pay respect. Going to a river or a sea is different from a grave marker, because a grave marker is specifically noted for the deceased.
There is a lot of sea, I suppose, but presumably the spreading of a lot of ashes in the same place could cause problems. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the disposal of bodies is a contributory factor to the polluted Ganges, for example.
I also think that the need for a marker must on some level be a social construct. I'm not sure that there has ever really been a need to have a grave on which to lay flowers.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Our clergy team handles between 100 and 150 funerals each year, a huge majority of which are cremations. Cremation followed fairly quickly by an interment in a churchyard, cemetery or woodland burial area or similar offers a decent and reverent way of dealing with a body. Unfortunately, because cremated remains are portable and handleable, they enable less reverent and (IMO) less decent alternatives.
We find ashes unofficially buried and scattered in the churchyard (once in a supermarket carrier bag) and I know that this is also a continuing problem for gardeners at National Trust properties. I visit houses where ashes have sat in boxes and urns for decades. I inter ashes and family members come up afterwards to say "I kept a bit". I've met representatives of companies that will convert cremated remains into diamonds (another response to the Carbon question), or make matching pendents for all the family, each containing a wee bit of Grannie's ashes.
I'm Anglican, so Canon law prevents me from presiding at a surface scattering, flinging or firing of ashes from a rocket. When they ask me to rewrite the Canons (!!) I will propose that nothing should be done with cremated remains that could not be done with a body. Would you try to keep a bit of a body in your pocket? No? then don't do it with ashes. Would you keep the body at home for decades? Would you throw it off a cliff or into a river? Then don't treat ashes like that.
I know that many people handle the cremated remains of their loved ones with reverence and care, scattering or strewing them lovingly, but the very nature of cremated remains makes it too easy for them to be treated otherwise.
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well I suppose it is about this sense I'm getting from you that decomposition of buried bodies by worms (actually it wouldn't be worms exactly, but never mind) - together with random preservation of bones and/or other body bits of the saints - is somehow venerating it because that's the natural way of things (perhaps?) whereas burning a body isn't venerating it because somehow it isn't natural.
Hmm. Then I am not making myself clear. How about this: burning is destructive intervention. If you don't do anything to a body, the flesh will rot from the bones. Burning requires you to DO something, and something intentionally destructive.
quote:
quote:
I myself don't feel really strongly about it, but I do have some kind of vague sense that letting nature take its course (the undignified worms) versus forcing her hand (burning) is a real distinction somehow. But like I said I'm not going to die on that hill.
Now, I don't know if your vague sense is the one shared by other Orthodox people who have a problem with cremation, I've never thought about it before. But if that is accurate and that is a shared understanding of the Orthodox body decomposition, it seems pretty illogical on various levels to me.
"If that is accurate" -- if I am reporting my personal beliefs truthfully? WTF?
quote:
First to say that a body is to be venerated seems to suggest that it is left in one piece to decompose quietly on its own.
I thought we'd established that that's what we do.
quote:
There seems to be a logical breakdown when at the same time it is acceptable to tear off bits to wave around, however carefully this is done.
The vast vast majority of first-class relics are pieces of bone. They are not "torn off" an intact body.
quote:
Second the idea that a body is to be venerated seems to, in and of itself, imply that it isn't just something which can later be used in artwork as per your ossuary link.
Agreed. That is creepy and improper.
quote:
Again, you might not have been using that link approvingly, it is hard to tell - but I'm not understanding your point of introducing it
Clearly
quote:
other than as an extension of the point about bones from Mount Athos.
It's an example of the concept of letting the flesh fall from the bones then removing the bones and setting them aside. When the number of bones gets really big, people (for good or for ill) can get a little creative with them, apparently.
quote:
Third, the idea that burning is somehow less natural than burial seems entirely illogical and bogus. Burning is of course a perfectly natural process.
See above. But note again that I said this was my vague feeling, not the position of the Orfie church and not something I am going to go to the wall for. Making your reaction seem a lot over the top.
quote:
And keeping ashes on a windowsill seems no more or less venerable than keeping bones in a crypt.
On this we clearly disagree. Probably not much more to be said on this score. May it please God.
quote:
Now, of course, I'm a Western Christian so I guess I would say that - it just looks from where I am that the Orthodox claims you've outlined relating to venerating the body are anything but.
Shrug. Are you speaking about what the Orthodox officially believe, or my personal opinions that I hold loosely?
[ 29. October 2016, 01:50: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Anne - my mother specifically dictated that she be cremated and her ashes scattered on the River Wharfe, which is what we did. The scatter tube, inevitably still containing some of the ashes I still have and will be buried at the base of a bush I will buy for the garden in the Spring. Ylu can probably guess how much I care that the Church officially disapproves of my carrying out her wishes, but just for the record, it's the lower bound of 1/x as x approaches infinity.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and bu
Or the Zoroastrian Tower of Silence - carrion eat the body.
My grandma used to say, "I don't care what you do with me; just put me in a Co-op box in the garden." Strikes me as pretty ecologically sound.
(We didn't, of course. She was cremated and her ashes put in the plot with my grandpa - from whom she'd been separated for years and whom she hated but, hey; there was a space that had been paid for. Waste not, want not! We noticed on a winter's day some years later that the whole graveyard was deep in snow except our family plot, which was bare of snow. My suggestion that the snow there had melted owing to the heat generated by the friction from Grandma spinning in her grave having been buried with Gramps was, strangely, not well received by my mother...)
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Anne - my mother specifically dictated that she be cremated and her ashes scattered on the River Wharfe, which is what we did. The scatter tube, inevitably still containing some of the ashes I still have and will be buried at the base of a bush I will buy for the garden in the Spring. Ylu can probably guess how much I care that the Church officially disapproves of my carrying out her wishes, but just for the record, it's the lower bound of 1/x as x approaches infinity.
I don't suppose for a moment that you care what I think either (nor should you) but I am glad that you were able to carry out your Mother's wishes.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Cremation is now the norm in the UK. Relatively few British people are RCs in any case, so what the RCC has to say about it won't affect very many people here.
However, I come from a community that overwhelmingly prefers burials, so if there's enough money left in the kitty (and space in the cemetery) I think I'd prefer burial for myself. Cremation would create the problem of what to do with my ashes. I have no particular connection with rivers, cliffs or country meadows to justify scattering my ashes there, and there's no tradition in the family of stuffing cremation urns to the back of cupboards, etc. Being in the ground would be simpler.
[ 29. October 2016, 20:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
I'm Anglican, so Canon law prevents me from presiding at a surface scattering, flinging or firing of ashes from a rocket. When they ask me to rewrite the Canons (!!) I will propose that nothing should be done with cremated remains that could not be done with a body. Would you try to keep a bit of a body in your pocket? No? then don't do it with ashes. Would you keep the body at home for decades? Would you throw it off a cliff or into a river? Then don't treat ashes like that.
I looked at the canons for cremation in my Canadian Anglican diocese. It references compliance with civil law and "ashes be disposed
of in a decent and reverent manner". Which leaves it in the judgement of the priest.
One of the other problems on the Canadian prairies and north is that after ~December each year, the ground becomes hard frozen. The options are to thaw it with a tiger-torch (one of those 40 or 100 lb propane construction torches) over the course of a couple of days, cremate, or have the body held in cold storage until spring. Some cemeteries pre-dig holes, but they tend to cave in with shifting as freezing. Smaller RMs don't have the funds to do it.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teekeey Misha
Shipmate
# 18604
|
Posted
It's interesting that this should be yet another division amongst believers (not in that we disagree about what ought to happen to our dead but in that we disagree about WHY what ought to happen to our dead ought to happen to our dead.)
I've never really thought about there being a Roman position - I just assumed they accept cremation because I've known plenty of Romans who've been cremated and have often found myself conducting at the crem before or after my local Roman mucker. I knew "Anglicans down" accept cremation and that Orthodox don't. This week I've learned that Romans accept it but not really!
--------------------
Misha
Don't assume I don't care; sometimes I just can't be bothered to put you right.
Posts: 296 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I suspect the most ecological means of disposing remains is what is common in Jewish and Muslim funerals in which the body is wrapped in a linen sheet and buried directly into the ground without a coffin.
I guess this must depend on what you mean by "ecological" - it seems to me to be pretty unlikely that a local soil environment would do well in the short term with a lot of fats and protein suddenly thrown at it [...]
Why so? I would have thought that "local soil environments" would be pretty well adapted to take advantage of animal carcasses.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
If a deer (roughly human sized) or moose (much larger) dies in the open or in a forest, even in the frozen Canadian north, there's nothing but bones by spring, and within 3-10 years, those are generally hard to find, though a rib or skull may show up for 25 or 50 years if it is sticking up. We have some middens with buffalo bones which are 5000 years old. Only located due to volume. I expect that in warmer climates, the time is shorter for bacterial and animal consumption, and the remaining hard parts more quickly covered over by the detritus of nature (leaves, other plant litter, soil which forms).
The aspect of wanting a location of the ashes or remains, so as to visit - I think this can be nice in some situations, and not needed at all in others. Oddly we have no location for my mother (ashes in a small lake in another country where she died), and my inlaws in a close by cemetery. I find, and the family finds, no real issue either way. YMMV
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Not all ashes scatterers or those who make requests of them are considerate, reverent or thoughtful. There's often no consideration of those who might drink from the rivers, walk in the beauty spots, garden around the famous house without drinking, walking through or digging through human remains. Now it seems that there's no thought for fellow opera lovers either.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37814444
anne
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Now it seems that there's no thought for fellow opera lovers either.
It seems that they could have bypassed the middle man by placing the ashes directly in the opera house vacuum cleaner.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
And the chap responsible should be charged the full price of a ticket every time he wants to visit Granny's resting place... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Oh, and he should also be made to reimburse those who were unable to go to the opera at all, or who had to miss the fourth act.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Oh, and he should also be made to reimburse those who were unable to go to the opera at all, or who had to miss the fourth act.
IJ
Absolutely.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Now it seems that there's no thought for fellow opera lovers either.
It seems that they could have bypassed the middle man by placing the ashes directly in the opera house vacuum cleaner.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Which vacuum cleaner would then, of course, be reverently buried in consecrated ground (again, at the perp's expense).
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Which vacuum cleaner would then, of course, be reverently buried in consecrated ground (again, at the perp's expense).
Not necessary, according to this thread. Just scatter it somewhere it won't cause ecological damage. New Jersey, say.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
There is an interesting (and quite moving IMO) passage in one of John Donne's sermons (the exact reference I can't locate at the moment) in which he meditates on the resurrection of the body, of which parts may have been lost in battle, wasted away by disease, etc. He says in part (more or less) 'God who knows in which cabinet of his every seed pearl lies, whistles and beckons for the bodies of his saints, and at a flash and in a crash each of them is immortal diamond.' I apologise for mis-quotation.
On a more personal level: when my partner died he had left quite specific directions for his funeral and burial. He was to be cremated AFTER the funeral mass, and his ashes buried in a private woodland owned by a friend. So that was done, except 'I kept part of the remains,' and consigned a bit to the nearby stream, which he had loved. Three other bits I kept, the first I had buried in the parish burial garden, one I placed in the outgoing tide at the Atlantic coast, and the last poured into the Seine from the Pont Neuf. Irregular? Perhaps, but he was a sort of 'irregular' personality, and it all connected in various ways. (I had the above-referenced Donne passage read at the church burial service.)
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Why so? I would have thought that "local soil environments" would be pretty well adapted to take advantage of animal carcasses.
Well I suppose it depends what you mean - yes, the microbes and other carrion in the soil will break down a body, but a large carcass may not remain within the soil because there may not be enough local capacity for storing or using it. There is therefore, I'm afraid to say, potential where large numbers of bodies are buried for pollution to groundwater from the embalming fluids, the coffins or from the decomposition products from the bodies themselves.
Which is a very nasty thought.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by georgiaboy:
There is an interesting (and quite moving IMO) passage in one of John Donne's sermons
Perhaps this, from here - Sermon LXXXI: quote:
God knows in what cabinet every seed-pearl lies, in what part of the world every grain of every man's dust lies; and sibilat populum suum, (as his prophet speaks in another case4) he whispers, he hisses, he beckons for the bodies of his saints, and in the twinkling of an eye, that body that was scattered over all the elements, is sat down at the right hand of God, in a glorious resurrection. A dropsy hath extended me to an enormous corpulency, and unwieldiness; a consumption hath attenuated me to a feeble macilency and leanness, and God raises me a body, such as it should have been, if these infirmities had not intervened and deformed it.
There is also this, available here - Sermon XIX quote:
the dead body falls by putrefaction into a dissolution, into atoms and grains of dust; and the resurrection from this fall, is by re-efformation: God shall re-compact and re-compile those atoms and grains of dust, into that body, which was before: and then a third fall in natural death, is casus in dispersionem, this man being fallen into a divorce of body and soul, this body being fallen into a dissolution of dust, this dust falls into a dispersion, and is scattered unsensibly, undiscernibly upon the face of the earth; and the resurrection from this death, is by way of re-collection; God shall recall and re-collect all these atoms, and grains of dust, and recompact that body, and re-unite that soul, and so that resurrection is accomplished:
Which lets us know that Donne, like any great thinker, recycles his thoughts just as God recycles our bodies into a heavenly home as we might suppose.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
Many of my mother's family were buried in Nunhead Cemetery in London, famous for vandalism over a long period before it was rescued and partly restored. There are stories of biker gang members digging up graves for skulls that they would use to decorate their motorbikes. That helped me make up my own mind that cremation and scattering in a special place that is pleasant to remember, and that can't be desecrated, was all I wanted. So far, that's how we have cared for both of my parents, and I'm trusting our children to do the same for me.
I'm not completely closed minded about burial. A lot of my wife's family members are buried in a small cemetery cut out of the cornfields close to their village in Nebraska, near the farms that they worked, and you could hardly imagine a more peaceful place. That works too. I am as sure of God's presence there as by a highland river in Scotland.
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
One other less serious argument against cremation that I heard is that on the rare chance that your relative is officially canonized as a saint by Rome, cremation means denying the faithful opportunity for venerating their relics.
Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?
[ 30. October 2016, 23:15: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Why so? I would have thought that "local soil environments" would be pretty well adapted to take advantage of animal carcasses.
Well I suppose it depends what you mean - yes, the microbes and other carrion in the soil will break down a body, but a large carcass may not remain within the soil because there may not be enough local capacity for storing or using it. There is therefore, I'm afraid to say, potential where large numbers of bodies are buried for pollution to groundwater from the embalming fluids, the coffins or from the decomposition products from the bodies themselves.
Which is a very nasty thought.
Anglican_brat was referring to wrapping the body in a linen cloth and burying it without a casket, so objections about embalming fluids and coffins are irrelevant. As for the rest - just don't put them all in the same place. Large animals die all the time, but we don't seem to need to comb the forests to remove their carcasses to safeguard the water supply.
(Also - "microbes and other carrion in the soil" doesn't make sense. "Carrion" is the decaying flesh of dead animals, not what eats the decaying flesh of dead animals.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One other less serious argument against cremation that I heard is that on the rare chance that your relative is officially canonized as a saint by Rome, cremation means denying the faithful opportunity for venerating their relics.
Has there been a saint canonized by Rome who was cremated?
What about those burned at the stake?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not necessary, according to this thread. Just scatter it somewhere it won't cause ecological damage. New Jersey, say.
I could have sworn I read "theological damage."
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Anglican_brat was referring to wrapping the body in a linen cloth and burying it without a casket, so objections about embalming fluids and coffins are irrelevant. As for the rest - just don't put them all in the same place. Large animals die all the time, but we don't seem to need to comb the forests to remove their carcasses to safeguard the water supply.
Note the link, cemeteries are a potential source of contamination.
Even a single body, in particular circumstances, can cause pollution. Animal bodies are often eaten by other large animals and are not usually buried in the ground.
quote:
(Also - "microbes and other carrion in the soil" doesn't make sense. "Carrion" is the decaying flesh of dead animals, not what eats the decaying flesh of dead animals.)
Yes, I meant carrion-eaters.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
