Posted on 02/06/2013 4:11:39 AM PST by NYer
You thought there couldn’t be a law and religion angle to today’s news—fascinating for us history nerds—that archaeologists have discovered the mortal remains of Richard III beneath a parking lot in Leicester? Think again. Plans are underway to re-inter the bones in the city’s Anglican Cathedral. Not so fast, say some: the hunchback king wasn’t a Protestant, but a Catholic, and he requires a Catholic burial. In fact, as Shakespeare fans know, Richard died at Bosworth Field (“A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”), defending his throne from Henry Tudor. Henry went on to reign as Henry VII; his son, Henry VIII, broke with Rome. As The Tablet’s blog argued this morning, “Had Richard prevailed at the Battle of Bosworth Field, there would have been no Henry VII, therefore no Henry VIII and no Reformation. England today might still be a Catholic country.” Think of it: no Reformation, no Established Church, no Archbishop Laud, no Puritans, no Great Migration — no Massachusetts! — and no Establishment Clause. Surely there’s a law review article in there somewhere.
Leicester Cathedral seems to know it’s facing a sensitive situation. A Catholic priest is keeping watch over Richard’s remains (as is an Anglican, I believe), and the cathedral is planning a “multifaith” burial ceremony. Personally, I’m not sure why English Catholics are so keen to claim Richard, anyway. They must be forgetting the nephews in the Tower.
Well it would be a nice gesture, esp so at the critical time for western civilization, for the Anglicans to make some inquiries to Rome.
Body found under parking lot is King Richard III, scientists prove
The base of the skull shows the larger of two potentially fatal injuries. This shows clearly how a section of the skull had been sliced off.
he complete skeleton showing the curve of the spine. Supporters of the infamous king, including members of the Richard III Society, hoped the discovery would force academics to rewrite history, which they say has been tainted by exaggerations and false claims.
Many additional photos at above source.
From what I’ve been reading, the plan is to give him a Catholic mass at his reinternment.
But this article is kinda dumb. Richard was NOT a hunchback (he had scoliosis) and there is no evidence that he murdered his nephews. He actually was a brilliant administrator in the North as the Duke of Gloucester and a forward-thinking King. And pretty damned good-looking, too!
What could have not been...
Really. I grew up there. ‘Twas not a pleasant experience, lets just say. So “Imagine no Massachusetts?” Um, okay!
Funny, from the image in the stained glass he really resembles me (other than that I am female). I even have scoliosis and am of British ancestry (and Catholic, although a convert). Things that make you go hmmm....
Dick doesn’t care. He’s dead.
Matthew 8:22
But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.
That passage always confuses me a little. I thought the Jewish tradition required the dead to be buried PDQ after death. What was this guy doing out gallivanting around town? Shouldn’t he have been sitting shiva or something?
But it's obviously an anachronism to pretend he was an Anglican. Maybe it will cause at least a few people in the UK to take an objective look at the government-imposed religious revolution that swept their country in the 16th Century, as well as an objective look at the traditional Christianity of England that it swept away ... a Christianity that looked a lot more like that of the local TLM parish than it did that of the CofE.
Yeah, at a high level I sort of take it as instruction to care about bringing the Good News to the living more than about taking care of dead bodies, which are just so much rotting meat once the person leaves what Paul calls your “tent”.
If Richard is to get a religious funeral, it would be fitting that he receive a Catholic one.
What would qualify as evidence?
The life of surplus princes were always precarious.
The "body is just rotting meat, the soul is all that counts" idea is Greek Platonism, not Christianity.
I’ve never heard that Henry VII paid for his funeral mass. I know he was buried with haste by the Grey Friars in a very shallow grave - as if they were concerned Henry was going to come after THEM. Several years later, the notoriously thrifty Henry coughed up about 50 pounds to put a tombstone over his grave. Eventually, that tombstone ended up in the poet Robert Herrick’s garden. The garden eventually become the infamous car park!
Whenever our Lord spoke of the “dead” he was speaking of those that were dead spiritually. This why He had to clarify to the Apostles what he meant by Lazarus was sleeping. Let the dead burying the dead has nothing to do with not giving anyone a proper burial. That is a corporal work of mercy.
Well, everyone forgets (or never knew) that there was a third heir to the throne who came before Richard: his older brother George’s young son, Edward. He lived with Richard’s family in Yorkshire and was eventually murdered by...Henry VII.
Then why was Christ buried with great care by his Mother, joseph of Aramethea, Mary Magdelene, and St. John in accordance with Jewish Law especially if Christ showed us the way?
A gentle correction is in order.
A Christian funeral is done not only to say “goodbye” the the believer, bring confort to those who are left behind, and also to celibrate the life of that person.
You miss the whole point of the Gospel passage, which has nothing to do with funerals and everything to do with putting a priority on following Jesus.
I must not have expressed it clearly enough, because that is exactly what I was trying to say.
And check out Dick’s skeleton. You will notice the meat has rottted and been eaten by worms. Jesus’ body would have been rotting meat had he not been who he said he was. There will be a resurrection, of course, but if you check any grave anywhere on the planet where the burial is not fresh, you will find either rotting meat or no meat.
At the resurrection we will all be given a body. One will be given one long enough to go to everlasting destruction/death, the other to eternal life with the Lord. But earthly graves contain decomposing “tents”. All of them.
It is important to remember that you do not occupy the same body you did approximately seven years ago. Not one cell is left. Likewise with dead bodies. The Lord can reconstruct your body at the resurrection, if we even want to go there. It’s not the point.
As you say, the point is putting a priority on following Jesus. It is what I was attempting to say but must not have said it very well.
A Christian funeral is done not only to say “goodbye” the the believer, bring confort to those who are left behind, and also to celibrate the life of that person.
Plus even in death, a Christian’s body was were the Holy Spirit lived in.
A Christian funeral is done not only to say “goodbye” the the believer, bring confort to those who are left behind, and also to celibrate the life of that person.
And to put that in the context of Jesus’ comment, imagine Jesus was walking the earth right now and he walked up to you and said the exact same thing as in the scripture preceding the one I posted, and you said the same thing. How would you interpret the posted scripture?
Yeah, me too. I’d forget about the funeral and follow him. It’s a priority thing.
That is one of my favorite tools I use to interpret scripture. After all, it is supposed to speak to me personally, so when possible I personalize it.
Drat. I’ll have to listen to the whole 12-hour set of “War of the Roses” lectures again, because I’ve forgotten, like, *everything,* and it’s only been a couple of months!
But as one previous poster has said, burying the dead IS a corporal work of mercy.
You said:
“ but if you check any grave anywhere on the planet where the burial is not fresh, you will find either rotting meat or no meat.”
Obviously you have not heard of the “Incorruptibles”.
Your loss.
Lurking’
Plus even in death, a Christian’s body was were the Holy Spirit lived in.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120916145733AATEMDq
The “incorruptibles” is proof of the grace of God.
If a dead human body is just rotting meat, it doesn't matter who its "owner" was, or who he claimed to be, etc. Unless perhaps you think that Jesus' body was something other than human. Going down that path will quickly lead you to the heresy of Docetism (Jesus was truly divine, but his humanity was more-or-less an illusion).
Romans 8: the redemption (Paul says "redemption", not "replacement") of our bodies. What are you going to do with it?
Plenty of Catholic saints' bodies are incorrupt, BTW.
That is why proper respect is given when it comes to Christian buriel for the very reason I have stated.
Obviously you have not heard of the “Incorruptibles”.
;-)
If a dead human body is just rotting meat, it doesn’t matter who its “owner” was, or who he claimed to be, etc.
True. Unless, of course, it was Jesus - or Laserus.
BTW, I believe all believers are “the saints”.
I do believe there is even a book on such a subject.
Plenty of Catholic saints’ bodies are incorrupt, BTW.
Naw. Some are just “less” corrupt. They would not look too good if they were re-animated.
Wrong, horribly wrong. A human person is a body-soul duality, not a ghost temporarily inhabiting a sack of meat. This is exactly what I mean when I say your anthropology is not Christian.
As someone said, “it is said you have a soul. You ARE a soul. You have a body.”
"Someone" may have said that, but it's not in the Bible. Nor is it even correctly attributed to C.S. Lewis. I'd say "someone" got it wrong.
Horribly complicated war! But in the end it’s just two families slaughtering each other to get the crown (or really, the lands that come with it).
Richard III is my 33rd great grandfather. It’s only bones.
Then not true.
Yes, the same old thing, just like Arab tribes today ...
I’ve got that the Henrys are Lancastrian, John of Gaunt’s descendants, and the Richards and Edwards are Yorkist, and the Nevilles play both sides.
Richard III, modern pragmatist that he was, probably doesn’t care, but I think it’s neat that they’ve identified his remains with both scientific and historical evidence.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1032): prayer for the dead is one of the spiritual works of mercy.
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
He was a Catholic! Of course he should receive a Catholic burial! Anything else would be blasphemy!
Wrong, horribly wrong. A human person is a body-soul duality, not a ghost temporarily inhabiting a sack of meat. This is exactly what I mean when I say your anthropology is not Christian.
Well, I guess we disagree on that one, then. My perspective gets a lot of rankles up at my Baptist church here in Kentucky, but I’ll sum it up here:
I believe that we are both natural and spiritual. One example of scripture that discusses this is Jesus being called both “Son of God” and “Son of man.”
But to get to my core belief, it starts with Ecclesiastes. In fact, when I encounter a person who is not a Christian but is not an enemy of the faith and knows something of it (usually someone raised as a catholic in childhood but fell away as an adult) I ask them to read Ecclesiastes in its entirety in one sitting. I preface it with the comment that it is about the richest man that ever lived, he had the chicks, the cars, the villa in the Alps, but he discovered something about the “natural man” and repeats it over and over. And then there is a zinger at the end that changes everything - kinda like the movie, The Sixth Sense.
I see non-Christians as animals, that have potential. That is the “natural” man. Without Christ, as Ecclesiastes says, you eat and drink and enjoy the fruits of your labor and then you die, just like any other animal. The only difference is that you will stand before the white throne judgement. If you are in the book of life, you go on to eternity with your Creator. If not, you die the second death. You are then done. For all eternity.
And the “you” is the soul that really is separate from your body. It’s why Paul calls this body a tent. And he was VERY clear about it:
2 Corinthians 5:1
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.
2 Corinthians 5:4
For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
2 Peter 1:13
I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body...
I’ve used this analogy for many years:
An animal’s body is like a drone aircraft while a human’s is like a manned aircraft. Both do similar things and are designed to function and reproduce within the environment for which they were created. But the animal is instinct and a sort of AI while the human is occupied by a self aware and sentient living soul. Just as an airplane is treated as more valuable has more safety features and precautions to preserve it’s functionality and the life of the occupant compared to a drone, a human is more valuable than an animal for the same reason. What makes it valuable is its contents.
This is a point of contention many animal rights activists have with me. I separate creation into two groups: Man, who is created in Gods image, and natural resource, which is the category into which everything else falls.
Your body will die. Your spirit will be resurrected for the great white throne judgement. If you are written in the book of life, you go to an eternity in the presence of God. If not, you die for the last time. The “second death”.
The living Christians are simply the little “s” saints. The Christian believers ONLY get the “S” after their passing.
AMEN.
You must have done a lot of family history research.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1032): prayer for the dead is one of the spiritual works of mercy.
I disagree with that particular teaching. I’m not Catholic. I do not believe Mary died a virgin. I do not believe Mary was perfect. I am not a Catholic. I agree with much of what that particular organization teaches, but I also agree with much of what Jehovas Witnesses, Mormons and pentacostals teach. But I disagree with all of them on some things.
For me, Christianity is about two things: My relationship with my Creator and my relationship with my fellow man. The latter is actually a subset of the former.
I have no relationship with dead people. I consider ALL of them merely flawed sinners such as myself. Now, I believe that after the resurrection we will have a relationship in eternity in our Lord’s presence, but everything in its time.
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.