No, No, NO!!
"No man cometh to the Father, but by Me" ~ Douay-Rheims Bible, John 14:6
I'm sure than many of you are already aware of the passing of Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger (+) of Paris, France. And most of us know that he was born and raised in the Jewish Faith until his conversion to Catholicism as a youth. Being proud of your ethnic heritage... sure. But having the Mourner's Kaddish read as part of the funeral on the grounds of Notre Dame Cathedral was just plain wrong.
Why do I say that? Simple.. the Kaddish is a prayer that excludes Jesus Christ. I don't care if he was a Cardinal, the saying of the Kaddish as an official part of his funeral service shouldn't have been done. And let's not get caught up in the emotion. Would it matter if Cardinal Lustiger was born a Taoist, or a Hindu, or a Shintoist? We all know the answer to that question.
And yes, it was a terrible thing that members of His Eminence's family were herded off to Concentrations Camps (and in some cases, executed) by the enemy during World War Two. But you know what? I can say the same thing. My mother and her entire family was force marched, along with 10,000 other Guamanians, to the Manenggon Concentration Camp.
And if you look to the left, you'll see a picture (and link) concerning Father Jesus Duenas, "The Patriot Priest". He was tortured for two weeks solid and then beheaded for not giving up an American Sailor who was hiding in the hills during the war. Father Duenas is also my 2d cousin. Oh, and he never did give up the American Sailor. Even unto death.
Anyhow, would it be appropriate if the members of my family who were shipped off to enemy Concentration Camps (and in some cases, executed) during WWII, if they had non-Catholic prayers said at their funerals? Of course not.
If Catholicism truly has The Fullness of The Truth, then we should all be buried in The Fullness of The Truth. Period.
"No man cometh to the Father, but by Me" ~ Douay-Rheims Bible, John 14:6
I'm sure than many of you are already aware of the passing of Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger (+) of Paris, France. And most of us know that he was born and raised in the Jewish Faith until his conversion to Catholicism as a youth. Being proud of your ethnic heritage... sure. But having the Mourner's Kaddish read as part of the funeral on the grounds of Notre Dame Cathedral was just plain wrong.
Why do I say that? Simple.. the Kaddish is a prayer that excludes Jesus Christ. I don't care if he was a Cardinal, the saying of the Kaddish as an official part of his funeral service shouldn't have been done. And let's not get caught up in the emotion. Would it matter if Cardinal Lustiger was born a Taoist, or a Hindu, or a Shintoist? We all know the answer to that question.
And yes, it was a terrible thing that members of His Eminence's family were herded off to Concentrations Camps (and in some cases, executed) by the enemy during World War Two. But you know what? I can say the same thing. My mother and her entire family was force marched, along with 10,000 other Guamanians, to the Manenggon Concentration Camp.
And if you look to the left, you'll see a picture (and link) concerning Father Jesus Duenas, "The Patriot Priest". He was tortured for two weeks solid and then beheaded for not giving up an American Sailor who was hiding in the hills during the war. Father Duenas is also my 2d cousin. Oh, and he never did give up the American Sailor. Even unto death.
Anyhow, would it be appropriate if the members of my family who were shipped off to enemy Concentration Camps (and in some cases, executed) during WWII, if they had non-Catholic prayers said at their funerals? Of course not.
If Catholicism truly has The Fullness of The Truth, then we should all be buried in The Fullness of The Truth. Period.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
7:01 AM
12 Comments:
Wow... a martyr in your family - now that's a family to be proud of!
For sure--militant Catholics in every sense of the word!
While I do see and agree with your point in general, I’m not sure I can agree with applying it here. It is a Jewish prayer, but I think that the Judaism holds a unique and special place in relation to Christianity that religions such as Taoism, Hinduism, or Shintoism just don’t. The prayer magnifies God’s name, seeks His will, and asks for peace. Sure, the Mourner’s Kaddish doesn’t explicitly mention Jesus, but does it need to? If prayers that did not include Jesus were not permitted, then wouldn’t we have to remove the Our Father?
I found it interesting that there was a small outcry from some Catholics when the late Cardinal was referred to as an “apostate” in some Jewish news sources. Not sure what the problem was here, the late Cardinal was an apostate! He formally renounced his Judaism when he entered the Church – and he and the Church were better for it.
But with that said, I do think that there is a disturbing trend in the Church toward an ecumenism that is to ready to exchange truth for agreement. This attitude moves away from the full truth and drifts disturbingly close to syncretism.
So if the argument is that including the Mourner’s Kaddish was wrong because it excludes Jesus Christ, I’d have to disagree. But if the argument is against deviating from an established rite (not sure if this was done or not), you have my vote.
And about the "The Patriot Priest" – very, very cool.
Serviam,
My argument is exactly because the Kaddish excludes Christ... and to a lesser point, because the bastardization of the Mass of Christian Burial.
There're a few specifics that you asked that Id like to respond to;
1. The prayer magnifies God’s name, seeks His will, and asks for peace. What "God" are you speaking of? God has manifested Himself to us as The Holy Trinity. Anything other than would be a denial to one or more Persons of The Holy Trinity. The Kaddish denies both The Son and The Holy Ghost. So I have no chioce but to reject the notion that the Kaddish invokes God, from the Catholic perspective.
2. Sure, the Mourner’s Kaddish doesn’t explicitly mention Jesus, but does it need to? Yes it does. Or at a bare minimum, it should be strongly inferred. Catholics, for millenia, have always concluded our prayers with "through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen." And sadly, we've all seen more than one cleric exclude Jesus at so-called "interfaith" meetings. Anyhow, here's the main point I'm getting at; did Jesus really mean it when He said "No man cometh to the Father, but by Me."? Does that apply only in certain circumstances? Is that particular Truth an absolute or just situational?
3. If prayers that did not include Jesus were not permitted, then wouldn’t we have to remove the Our Father? You forget, the Our Father was given to us by Christ Himself... hence it already is through Jesus.
Even though we may disagree on some points, thanks for your thought provoking comments!
Good post, and follow up comments, Cavey. I have to agree with you. That bothered me, as well. So much is being tossed in the name of ecumenism.
I have no problem with them praying the Kaddish during Mass as long as they did it at an appropriate time (i.e. after the general intentions, when often, at least in America, the Hail Mary is added as part of intentions; adding it here would not "bastardize" the Mass at all, but be one of many intercessions - if the Hail Mary is not wrong here, neither is a prayer for the soul of the cardinal).
I do have a problem with several of your comments here, though, specifically when you clarify that you are upset because the Kaddish does not mention the Trinity.
1. The prayer magnifies God’s name, seeks His will, and asks for peace. What "God" are you speaking of? God has manifested Himself to us as The Holy Trinity. Anything other than would be a denial to one or more Persons of The Holy Trinity. The Kaddish denies both The Son and The Holy Ghost. So I have no chioce but to reject the notion that the Kaddish invokes God, from the Catholic perspective.
Are you saying, then, that Jews do not worship the True God, even if they do not understand the fullness of the revelation given to the Church? Are you SERIOUSLY saying that Jews worship a false God? Not even the Catholic Church says that. They might not recognize (as of yet) the Trinity, but they recognize the very same God we worship. Without the Jews, there is no Christianity. We are the fulfillment of their Covenant. To deny that they, even in the Kaddish, pray to the True God (Whom we recognize in the fullness of revelation as the Blessed Trinity) is to compeltely misunderstand some basic teachings of the Church. I truly hope that I've misunderstood you, but this comment of yours does not leave much room for such an interpretation.
2. Sure, the Mourner’s Kaddish doesn’t explicitly mention Jesus, but does it need to? Yes it does. Or at a bare minimum, it should be strongly inferred. Catholics, for millenia, have always concluded our prayers with "through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen." And sadly, we've all seen more than one cleric exclude Jesus at so-called "interfaith" meetings. Anyhow, here's the main point I'm getting at; did Jesus really mean it when He said "No man cometh to the Father, but by Me."? Does that apply only in certain circumstances? Is that particular Truth an absolute or just situational?
We frequently pray without invoking the Blessed Trinity - AT MASS. Look at the Psalms. And, really, if you read the Kaddish, it makes specific mention of God giving reign to His kingshop in our lifetime and days. Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Jesus not the fulfillment of this very prayer? (Read the Mourner's Kaddish here. Much of the prayer is very similar to what we pray at Mass, blessing, extolling, praising, glorifying God's name. I find absolutely nothing objectionable or even contrary to the Catholic Church in this prayer. It is beautiful. I would be blessed and honored if someone prayed this prayer for my family and I after I died.
3. If prayers that did not include Jesus were not permitted, then wouldn’t we have to remove the Our Father? You forget, the Our Father was given to us by Christ Himself... hence it already is through Jesus.
True, Jesus gave us the Our Father. But I'll bet He and the Blessed Virgin Mary also prayed the Mourner's Kaddish, as well as the Apostles, who continued to go to Temple until they were no longer permitted to do so.
*********
There are certainly enough real examples of wishy-washy eccumenism without trying to make one out of something that is clearly not contrary to our Catholic faith. Don't go looking for fights where there are none.
Christine,
1. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that Jews don't understand that God is The Holy Trinity? Do you think they are unbelievably stupid? I don't. I believe that they have made a conscience decision to reject the Divinity of Christ, and the complete existance of The Holy Ghost. Don't believe me... just as any Jew. I for one, take Jesus serious when He stated "no man comes to The father but through Me". Do you take Him seriously? If not, you misunderstand some of the basic teachings of The Church.
2. What about the psalms? You obviously don't understand the Mass. The psalms tell us what is to come... the NT reading tell us what HAD come. Hence, the Mass in it's entirety, envokes the Holy Trinity. Judaism leaves it at an end with the OT. Yet another example of them denying Christ.
3. And WHY were they no longer permitted? Something along the lines of accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
********************
When I see those who willingly accept prayers that deny Christ as "correct", I most certainly will look for a fight. That's what Catholics have done for 2,000 years. That is, until the mush-headed thinking brought about by that neo-protestantism better known as "The Spirit of Vatican II".
Have a happy day.
I want to be perfectly certain that I understand you completely.
1. Yes, I am saying that the Jews do not fully understand God as revealed - as the Blessed Trinity. However, you are saying that Jews do not worship the God of the Old Testament. You are also saying that Jews believe in the Trinity, but that Jesus is not the Son of God? The Trinity, as far as I know, was not revealed fully until Jesus revealed it. But what you said in your original comment was:
What "God" are you speaking of?
This statement implies that Jews do not worship the same God as we do, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is quite a serious statement to make.
I also understand that the Church teaches that no one outside the Church is saved; however, what we see as "outside the Church" is probably different than what God sees as such. The Catechism teaches that while we are bound by the Sacraments, God is not. That it is possible for someone who is not a professed Catholic to be saved.
You can read more here, here, and here. All three deal with the teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. Yes, I agree that the Psalms tell of what is to come. And did you read the Kaddish prayer yourself? It also speaks of what is to come. (The prayer reads, "May His great Name grow exalted and sanctified/in the world that He created as He willed./May He give reign to His kingship in your lifetimes and in your days,/and in the lifetimes of the entire Family of Israel,/swiftly and soon. Now say:/(Amen. May His great Name be blessed forever and ever.)/Blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, extolled,/mighty, upraised, and lauded be the Name of the Holy One/Blessed is He./beyond any blessing and song,/praise and consolation that are uttered in the world. Now say:/Amen/May there be abundant peace from Heaven/and life upon us and upon all Israel. Now say:/Amen/He Who makes peace in His heights, may He make peace,/upon us and upon all Israel. Now say:/Amen." I reproduced the entire prayer for those who might not want to click over. The link to the prayer is in my comment above.)
Please tell me which part of that prayer would not be "okay" for a Catholic to pray? Considering the Church is held to be the New Israel/New Jerusalem, I see nothing wrong with the prayer. Again, I say that this prayer is very much like many of those said in Mass. Which part of the paryer is contradictory to the Catholic faith?
3. Right. They were not permitted because they were preaching the Good News.
Since you had nothing to say about the Apostles, the Blessed Virgin, and Christ Jesus Himself praying a Mourner's Kaddish when loved ones died, I will assume that you agree that they most likely did so. So I guess we are in agreement here that this point (prayers not specifically mentioning Christ) is moot.
Also, this prayer does not deny Christ in the least. It does not mention Him by name, but, as was said earlier, neither do the Psalms mention Him by name. On the other hand, the Kaddish does give glory, honor, and praise to God. Which means that, even if they aren't meaning to do so, those who pray this prayer are also giving glory, honor, and praise to the entire Blessed Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And that's okay by me, even if I'm not into "mush-headed thinking brought about by that neo-protestantism known as 'The Spirit of Vatican II'." (And trust me, even if I'm not clammoring for the extraordinary form of the Mass, I'm definitely not into dissenting from the Church.)
1. This statement implies that Jews do not worship the same God as we do, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is quite a serious statement to make.
Christ is, was, and shall always be. The God of Abraham, etc, was ALWAYS The Holy Trinity. And as we both know, The Holy Trinity wasn't made known to us until The Word was made flesh, right? Anyone, be they Jew, Hindu, Dirt-Worshipper... whatever... who knowingly, willingly and intelligently refutes Christ, even unto death, shall not attain salvation. I'm sure we both know that The Church has taught that for 2,000 years.
As far as someone who is "not a professed catholic", I've posted concerning Invincable Ignorance a number of times on this blog. Long story short; anyone, through no fault of their own, who has never had the Gospels of Jesus correctly taught to them and/or has never knowingly, willingly and intelligently refuted Christ, most certainly can attain salvation.
2. You're right. The Kaddish is a beautiful prayer in and of itself. And I would probably use it... if I denyed Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Did you notice the fatal flaw in the Kaddish? It didn't end with "through our Lord, Jesus Christ". Yes Christine... I take "no man shall come to The Father except through Me" very seriously. Don't you?
3. Are you so sure they did? Possibly the Apostles and Disciples may have until St. Peter made it known that Jesus was, infact, God. The Blessed Mother, always knowing who her Son was, why would she not always recognize Him as her Savior? Doesn't it make sense that if she ever did pray the Kaddish, that she would recognize Jesus in the prayer as just that? As far as Jesus praying the Kaddish... why would God have to pray for the souls of the dead? That makes absolutely no sense.
3. Which means that, even if they aren't meaning to do so, those who pray this prayer are also giving glory, honor, and praise to the entire Blessed Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. By this rational, aren't the prayers of Hindus, Ameridcan Indian paganists, Wiccans, etc, just as valid when they pray to "the creator of all things"?
Again, I take Christ very serious when He told us all that no one could go to The father except through Him. Possibly I'm being overly simplistic... or possibly I'm just being faithful to exactly what Christ said.
I didn't have time to answer you here earlier, nor had I decided definitively whether or not to answer with what was up at the other conversation on this topic. I was still contemplating what else I had to say on the topic.
Your decision to comment on this topic at my blog (Domestic Vocation) on a post updating those praying for my aunt was incredibly bad form. I deleted the comment from that thread as I do not wish my aunt and uncle to see those comments if they decide to come to the blog and see what people have said. I specifically said at that post that I'd been directing my family to the posts on that blog. I said that it would be nice for them if those who have been praying for them would leave notes of encouragement where they could read them.
Your decision to try to hijack a post like that with this discussion was reprehensible.
However, since you seem to demand some kind of answer, I have chosen to save your comment and make a single thread for it. I will post it in full, comment on it, provide links to the two blogs where the discussion has been occurring up to this point, and then give you a day or so to comment if you wish. At some point, I will close the comments on the post.
At this point, I have also made the decision to stick with Blogger comments for the time being so as not to lose whatever comments I have there to this point. This means that I will not be banning you from commenting, but am leaving you an opening to make ammends for what you did. I'm hoping that you just picked the most recent post at Domestic Vocation and chose to rant there without reading the content. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.
Again, I'll comment later, but I have other things to do at the moment and will not have time to fully respond until later today. I've got school work to do with the kids and preparations for our homeschool co op to make. Please check tonight or tomorrow for the post.
I have responded here to the accusations, etc. you made at my blog.
Please be so kind as to put this post up here so that the discussion can be fully seen by those who are following it.
Thank you.
Christine,
I posted my comments on the first entry you had. If yo0u so decide to look upon me commenting as a "hijacking", that's your call. Know that there was no disrespect intended to your family members.
But in all fairness, you should have considered that prior to your rather rude comments over at Tickle fight.
But like I said on your blog, if you have disagreements with me, then take them up with me. If you want to purposfully go out of your way to badmouth me on another blog, expect to hear from me.
If you disagree with my opinions concerning the Kaddish (or anything else), then why didn't you just say them to me? Instead, you decided to jump on the "I Hate The Catholic Caveman" bandwagon. And let's be honest here, Christine... that's exactly what you did.
But I'll give you benifit of the doubt. I'll just take it that you got caught up on Tony's mob mentality.
When we get right down to it, much like Vir Speluncae Orthodoxae (I believe he's the one blogger who you ref to as disagreeing with me RE: the Kaddish), I have no problem whatsoever with someone disagreeing with me.
I do however have a problem with the following;
1. You asked some hard questions. I gave hard answers. No problem so far.
2. You asked for clarification. I gave clarification. Still no problem.
3. You obviously didn't like/agree with the answers nor the clarifications I gave. Still we have no problem.
4. You decided to go to an entirely different blog and go out of your way to badmouth me. And keep in mind, I never said one lousy thing about you personally, but you chose to make more than one snide remarks. NOW we have a problem.
PS, there are a number of fellow bloglodytes who come here on a regular basis and disagree with me. Hell, even the other 2 contributors and I don't agree all the time. But the way you went about it was totally out of bounds. I would expect such from Tony and his buddy, Winnipeg Catholic, but not from you. I thought higher of you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home