Cremation

[GrandmaJo]

Does the Catholic faith permit cremation? If so, do the ashes have to be buried or can they be scattered?

 

[cameron_lansing]

Does the Catholic faith permit cremation?

Yes but not encouraged. Canon 1176 §3. “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

If so, do the ashes have to be buried or can they be scattered?

No. “‘While cremated remains may be buried in a grave, entombed in a mausoleum or columbarium or even buried at sea, "the practice of scattering cremated remains on the sea, from the air, or on the ground, or keeping cremated remains in the home of a relative or friend of the deceased are not the reverent disposition that the Church requires.’ (Order of Christian Funeral, 416) The cremated remains of the body may be properly buried at sea in the urn, coffin or other container in which they have been carried to the place of committal.”

See for the citation and a further explanation the USCCB website, usccb.org/liturgy/innews/799.shtml)

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Does the Catholic faith permit cremation? If so, do the ashes have to be buried or can they be scattered?

The Church has been unable to hold the line on this one. Cremation was banned in the nineteenth century as it was assoiciated with attempts to deny the resurrection of the body. Later it became associated with rather unsavourary, but not anti-Christian, hygiene and modernisation movements. Practically, it is now extremely expensive to buy a grave in Britain.

However the ashes must be buried. They may not be scattered, shot into space, used as a hourglass, etc.

 

[stmaria]

Does the Catholic faith permit cremation? If so, do the ashes have to be buried or can they be scattered?

About 5 years ago I went to a Catholic funeral and to my suprise there was no casket. There was a funeral Mass. I had no idea that cremation had been approved. I have since found out the in 1963 Pope Paul approved cremation. It was one of his first acts as Pope. Not sure why this was done at theat time. It had been forbidden by Canon Law.
When Canon Law was promulgated in 1917, it summarized the previous condemnation of cremation in the following three canons:

Canon 1203: “The bodies of the faithful must be buried, and cremation is reprobated. If anyone has in any manner ordered his body to be cremated, it shall be unlawful to execute his wish.”
Canon 1240, 5° says that “Persons who have given orders for the cremation of their bodies are deprived of ecclesiastical burial, unless they have before death given some signs of repentance.”
Canon 2339 says that “Persons who, in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1240, dare to order or force the ecclesiastical burial (of those who are to be deprived of it) incur excommunication ipso facto; and persons who of their own accord give ecclesiastical burial to the above mentioned, incur an interdict from entering a church.”

A brief history of cremation. remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-church_and_cremation.htm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

To the OP:

You were rightly answered by Cameron Lansing. The Church permits cremation, unless it is for a manifestly unChristian reason (in which case, one wonders why the person would want any kind of Christian service anyway).

The Code of Canon Law from 1917 has been abrogated and replaced by the new Code of Canon Law, which permits it. The article from *The Remnant *is not representative of the mind of the Church (which clearly states that it prefers burial, but permits cremation) and it implies in the last paragraph that good Catholics, concernced for their salvation, must say no to cremation. It is well to remember that the Church can propose nothing to the faithful that will lead them to impiety. Catholics may exercise a liberty of conscience on this question as allowed by the Church. We’ll probably see an increase in cremations as time passes and if I remember correctly, bishops conferences are starting to modify the rites to include the presence of the cremains in urns in the church for funeral masses.

 

[DustinsDad]

…The Code of Canon Law from 1917 has been abrogated and replaced by the new Code of Canon Law, which permits it. The article from *The Remnant *is not representative of the mind of the Church (which clearly states that it prefers burial, but permits cremation)…

Huh? I agree with cameron_lansings explanation of the current status of Church law on the matter and with the opinion expressed in the Remnant? Why do you pit them against each other?

…and it implies in the last paragraph that good Catholics, concernced for their salvation, must say no to cremation.

Ah - the Remnant, while not denying the legality of the current limited permission - definatly prefers burial too. And strongly so. What’s the big deal?

…It is well to remember that the Church can propose nothing to the faithful that will lead them to impiety.

Wait a second, I thought you just said the Church prefers burial but merely permits cremation (under certain circumstances it seems) - permitting ain’t the same as proposing.

Are you saying that the Church is Divinely protected from *permitting *anything that would lead the faithful to impiety?

Again J, methinks you go too far. What about addressing what the article actually said - referring to the traditional (and “official”) teaching & reasons for the prohibition through the centuries that the article lists. And please share your opinion as to why, apparently, they no longer apply or are valid reasons any longer.

What changed between the last explicit condemnation of the practice (apparently 1892) and it’s 1960s permission?

It’s easy to say “Remnant baaaaad”…“bishops’ conferences goooood”. But go a little deeper please. Humor us rigid ol’ traditionalists a bit my friend.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wait a second, I thought you just said the Church prefers burial but merely permits cremation (under certain circumstances it seems) - permitting ain’t the same as proposing.

Are you saying that the Church is Divinely protected from *permitting *anything that would lead the faithful to impiety?

Again J, methinks you go too far. What about addressing what the article actually said - referring to the traditional (and “official”) teaching & reasons for the prohibition through the centuries that the article details. And let us know why - logically and reasonably - they apparently no longer apply any longer.

It’s easy to say “Remnant baaaaad”…“bishops’ conferences goooood”. But go a little deeper please. Humor us rigid ol’ traditionalists a bit my friend.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Humor the rest of us! You’ve often spoken of the post-conciliar Church’s ambiguous use of langauge. Here she’s being pretty clear cut, wouldn’t you say?

"Canon 1176 §3. “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

No “particular circumstances” are mentioned, are they?

And they no longer apply because IT IS A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE and the Church has exercised her authority on the matter. Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong? Are you suggesting that those who choose cremation are, what, doomed to hell (The Remnant seems to imply it in the last paragraph).

One more example of spreading seeds of doubt in the minds of the faithful where no doubt need exist, but then that’s what The Remant is very good at. It’s equally easy to say,“If the Remant said it, I believe it!” But when The Remnant contradicts the Church, where’s the faithful Catholic to look for guidance?

Obviously, The Remnant.

Also, I notice that The Remnant doesn’t provide citations for the idea that cremation was a Masonic innovation.

 

[DustinsDad]

Humor the rest of us!

Okay.

You’ve often spoken of the post-conciliar Church’s ambiguous use of langauge. Here she’s being pretty clear cut, wouldn’t you say?

"Canon 1176 §3. “The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the dead be observed; it does not, however, forbid cremation unless it has been chosen for reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

No “particular circumstances” are mentioned, are they?

Yes - ambiguously of course…the “particular circumstances” mentioned are any circumstance where the creamation is not for “reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching.”

Therefore, cremation is still prohibited for any reasons which are contrary to Christian teaching. And so - how and when is cremation contrary to Christian teaching? For this, we must look at the teaching on the subject down through the centuries - see what they said and taught on the subject and how it touches on Christian teaching. Ironically - this is exactly what the Remnant article does and what you have yet to do.

And they no longer apply because IT IS A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE and the Church has exercised her authority on the matter. Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong?

If the Church is right in currently allowing it - was it wrong in prohibiting it less than 100 years ago?

I absolutely accept and humbly bow to Her God-given right to both establish and abolish disciplinary laws. Personally I think the old law was “better” in transmitting the subtle and not so subtle teachings of the Church regarding the General Resurrection, the dignity of the human body and human person, it helps to teach us the reality that the body (like our souls) belong to God and hence, we don’t purposely damage or destroy it, etc. But then again, I tend to think the “old ways” by and large transmit the faith better. Call me old fasioned I guess.

Are you suggesting that those who choose cremation are, what, doomed to hell (The Remnant seems to imply it in the last paragraph).

Not at all, and I don’t think the Remnant article says that either.

…But when The Remnant contradicts the Church, where’s the faithful Catholic to look for guidance?

Strange you driven to say the Remnant “contradicts” the Church merely because you are presented with an article that describes in detail the traditional teachings of the Church Herself on the issue of cremaiton. So they agree with the stern old ways - why get in such a rucus? If you think the new disciplinary rules are not contradictory or have “organically developed” over time, then why go so nutty when examining them side-by-side?

Which by the way you still didn’t do. Here was my challenge to you:What about addressing what the article actually said - referring to the traditional (and “official”) teaching & reasons for the prohibition through the centuries that the article details. And let us know why - logically and reasonably - they apparently no longer apply any longer. Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And so - how and when is cremation contrary to Christian teaching? For this, we must look at the teaching on the subject down through the centuries - see what they said and taught on the subject and how it touches on Christian teaching. Ironically - this is exactly what the Remnant article does and what you have yet to do.

**But a Christian can choose to be cremated for a plethora of reasons that AREN’T unchristian: economical reasons, environmental reasons, purely personal reasons (I personally like the thought of being quickly reduced to nice clean ash and fragment QUICKLY rather than moldering in a box). AND the reasons for which cremation might have been chosen or forced upon people in the past are no longer by and large associated WITH cremation (though there may be people who choose it for anti-Christian reasons, but that’s more than likely the reason the Church gives the caveat, don’t you imagine?) **

If the Church is right in currently allowing it - was it wrong in prohibiting it less than 100 years ago? **I don’t think anything was wrong with it because I think it’s a disciplinary practice that is largely morally neutral OF ITSELF. **

Personally I think the old law was “better” in transmitting the subtle and not so subtle teachings of the Church regarding the General Resurrection, the dignity of the human body and human person, etc., recognizing the fact that the body (like our souls) belong to God and hence, we dont’ purposely damage or destroy it, etc. But then again, I tend to think the “old ways” by and large transmit the faith better. Call me old fasioned I guess.

**I personally believe that the God Who called me, not to mention the world, into being out of nothingness can also resurrect me out an urn. **

Not at all, and I don’t think the Remnant article says that either.
**I’d beg to differ. **

"
It is in order to hasten this happy day, as well as to ensure their salvation, that all faithful members of the Church and those who, at least, wish to be such, must go to the sources of Tradition, that is, to the teachings of the Magisterium – implicit, explicit and tacit – of the pre-conciliar Church (encyclicals, liturgy, treatises, catechisms, lives and writings of the saints, etc.), and there nourish their minds and spirits. It is from cells that have remained in good health, or that have recovered their health, that God’s Holy Church will wax strong again.
All of which includes saying “No” to cremation."

Strange you driven to say the Remnant “contradicts” the Church merely because you are forced to read an they article that describes in detail the traditional teachings of the Church Herself on the issue of cremaiton. So they agree with the stern old ways - why get in such a rucus. If you think the disciplinary rules are not contradictory, then why go so nutty when examining them side-by-side.

I never said it contradicted anything. I said it didn’t represent the mind of the Church on the topic. And come on, in reading my post, I don’t quite see where I got into a “ruckus” or went “nutty.” And in examining them side by side, there isn’t much to say except “then” it wasn’t allowed for specific reasons, “now” it is, provided that those specific reasons don’t exist.

What about addressing what the article actually said - referring to the traditional (and “official”) teaching & reasons for the prohibition through the centuries that the article details. And let us know why - logically and reasonably - they apparently no longer apply any longer.

In going through all of the things listed by the article, look at the dogmatic section: They give scriptural references that are so broad you could interpret them in a variety of ways and without citations from Church authortities citing those scriptures. None remotely have anything to do with the actual disposal of a body, reverent or otherwise. Likewise in the section subtitled moral. They give what is basically their opinion. They touch on tradition briefly, with Saint Augustine. Saint Augustine may have believed that it came down from the Apostles, but Saint Augustine also believed that only 144, 000 people would attain the Beatific Vision, as do the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Everything Saint Augustine said isn’t revealed truth. There is noevidence that it came down from the Apostles.

It seems to me that the Church was most concerned with WHY cremation took place (I did find a masonic reference). If the WHY is answered satisfactorily, she permits the laity to choose to be cremated and she doesn’t seem to attempt to constrain their choice by intimating that they aren’t good Catholics if they choose cremation.

 

[DustinsDad]

Hey J - thanks for responding in more detail.

I’m gonna get back to this tomorrow and leave you a response to just two small parts of your post for now…

(I personally like the thought of being quickly reduced to nice clean ash and fragment QUICKLY rather than moldering in a box)

…

I personally believe that the God Who called me, not to mention the world, into being out of nothingness can also resurrect me out an urn. .

Me too on the second part. But the God who can resurrect me out of an urn can also resurrect me out of my ashes scattered to the four corners of the earth.

So why is one prohibitted and not the other?

And why is the answer related to the formerly prohibitted practice of cremation altogether?

Hint: It’s not about us.

http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/1.gif

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Hey J - thanks for responding in more detail.

I’m gonna get back to this tomorrow and leave you a response to just two small parts of your post for now…

Me too on the second part. But the God who can resurrect me out of an urn can also resurrect me out of my ashes scattered to the four corners of the earth.

So why is one prohibitted and not the other?

And why is the answer related to the formerly prohibitted practice of cremation altogether?

Hint: It’s not about us.

http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/1.gif

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I see your point (it had and has to do with the respectful disposal or reposal of a body in specifically consecrated ground), BUT: The fact remains that the Church didn’t want us to be cremated for reasons XYZ. The Church allows people to choose to be cremated for reasons that are NOT XYZ. She still requires us to be buried in consecrated ground, not poured out on the earth or the water or the wind. If you’re asking if there is inherently anything MORALLY wrong with ashes being scattered, the only reference I can make is to the Church that says that they can’t be and in obedience to Her, mine won’t be. But any decision I make has to be made with reference to Her and the plain fact of the matter is, She permits cremation. Why do you have a problem with the Church allowing the faithful a liberty of conscience on this? I don’t see a problem, unless someone claimed that you COULDN’T be buried. I’m certainly not advocating that!

And touching on the dignity of the human body, how much do you know about modern funeral practices? I had a health class in college where we had to do some projects and one group’s bright idea was to have a mortician/funeral director come in and present to us. Unfortunately, there was a question/answer session at the end of the talk. If what he described is the treatment due our inherent dignity as creatures made in the Image of God, well, all I can say is that what didn’t sound undignified sounded downright gruesome. You can pm me if you want details, but that’s when I decided (post canon 1983) that I would be cremated. Now, you don’t HAVE to have those things done, but you better leave instructions to have your funeral Mass take place ASAP, otherwise one hopes the priest is heavy-handed with the incense.

When one asks the question,“Does the Catholic Church allow people to be cremated?,” the only real answer is “Yes, She does.” “Can their ashes then be scattered?” No, they can’t. I don’t see the problem.

 

[DustinsDad]

I see your point (it had and has to do with the respectful disposal or reposal of a body in specifically consecrated ground), BUT: The fact remains that the Church didn’t want us to be cremated for reasons XYZ. The Church allows people to choose to be cremated for reasons that are NOT XYZ.

I agree…that’s why I want to be darn sure what X,Y and Z are - and for that I really think you have to look at pre-Vatican II stuff. Most folks nowadays think that as long as you don’t scatter or have your ashes burned in the name of Ba’al you’re not violating anything. I don’t think it’s quite that way.

She still requires us to be buried in consecrated ground, not poured out on the earth or the water or the wind. If you’re asking if there is inherently anything MORALLY wrong with ashes being scattered, the only reference I can make is to the Church that says that they can’t be and in obedience to Her, mine won’t be.

I’m cool with that. I would hazard a guess that at the bottom of the issue is the reality is that the body is not our own - it belongs to God. We treat the human body with respect not soley out of respect for the person made in the image of God, but for God Himself. We are not our own - our bodies belong to Him And we shouldn’t purposely destroy what is His. In the case of burial, we place what is His in a ground that is concecrated to Him. For saefekeeping until the Last Day .

But any decision I make has to be made with reference to Her and the plain fact of the matter is, She permits cremation. Why do you have a problem with the Church allowing the faithful a liberty of conscience on this? I don’t see a problem, unless someone claimed that you COULDN’T be buried. I’m certainly not advocating that!

I don’t really know how to answer that other than to give you my personal opinion (and the opinion of the Church for centuries) - I think the older disciplinary rule was better. To me, it makes more sense, transmits the faith better, and is consistant with the discipline of the Church for nearly two millenia.

Now I’m not going to lay upon you a heavier “burden” than the Church currently does and “condemn” you for being cremated, I’d just urge you not to if the topic comes up (as it did). Just like I’d urge anyone to receive Holy Communion on the tounge or abstain from mean on Friday’s throughout the year if the topic comes up. Not because you’re going to go to Hell for practicing your faith otherwise, but because I think there is wisdom behind those ol’ traditions of the not too distant past - worth looking into I’d say. Something that was crucially important for nearly two millenia shouldn’t suddenly be an inconsequential.

And touching on the dignity of the human body, how much do you know about modern funeral practices? I had a health class in college where we had to do some projects and one group’s bright idea was to have a mortician/funeral director come in and present to us. Unfortunately, there was a question/answer session at the end of the talk. If what he described is the treatment due our inherent dignity as creatures made in the Image of God, well, all I can say is that what didn’t sound undignified sounded downright gruesome. You can pm me if you want details, but that’s when I decided (post canon 1983) that I would be cremated.

I made the mistake of viewing an autopsy on Youtube once. I think I know exactly what you mean. My wife had the same opinion as you when I told her about it…until I talked her out of it of course . If the state or some third party does something disrespectful to the body without our knowledge or against our will - what can we do? The fault is their’s. If we consent to something like that, the fault would be ours. I don’t want to take any chances.

Now, you don’t HAVE to have those things done, but you better leave instructions to have your funeral Mass take place ASAP, otherwise one hopes the priest is heavy-handed with the incense.

Me personally - I would prefer not to be autopsied OR embalmed. Just bury me quick and in an air tight casket . Given that I hope to have my furneral mass in the EF, I would think the incense will be offered .

I’m not sure what they’ll do though - most states have laws requiring such things in most circumstance.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Linnyo]

One of my relatives said the Church disapproves of cremation because “burning is for witches”. I thought that may be a bit harsh but I still wouldn’t like to be cremated. Actually, I wouldn;t like to be buried either. Come to think of it, I don’t want to be dead!

 

[DustinsDad]

…I still wouldn’t like to be cremated. Actually, I wouldn;t like to be buried either. Come to think of it, I don’t want to be dead!

Haha! You caught me off guard there…that was funny.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I agree…that’s why I want to be darn sure what X,Y and Z are - and for that I really think you have to look at pre-Vatican II stuff. Most folks nowadays think that as long as you don’t scatter or have your ashes burned in the name of Ba’al you’re not violating anything. I don’t think it’s quite that way. I think that in terms of XYZ, faithful Catholics would be clear as to why they are choosing cremation. I plan to leave instructions including a letter to whatever priest will assist my family in my final rites, certifying to him that my reasons are NOT XYZ.

I’m cool with that. I would hazard a guess that at the bottom of the issue is the reality is that the body is not our own - it belongs to God. We treat the human body with respect not soley out of respect for the person made in the image of God, but for God Himself. We are not our own - our bodies belong to Him And we shouldn’t purposely destroy what is His. In the case of burial, we place what is His in a ground that is concecrated to Him. For saefekeeping until the Last Day

**I guess where we differ is that I don’t think that the Church regards cremation of itself as an insult to God or that which He created. It’s merely a way (and a fairly economical and environmentally sound way) of committing a body to His care. The ashes (the remains) still have to be shown reverence, they still have to be buried in consecrated ground, etc. **

I don’t really know how to answer that other than to give you my personal opinion (and the opinion of the Church for centuries) - I think the older disciplinary rule was better. To me, it makes more sense, transmits the faith better, and is consistant with the discipline of the Church for nearly two millenia.

Now I’m not going to lay upon you a heavier “burden” than the Church currently does and “condemn” you for being cremated, I’d just urge you not to if the topic comes up (as it did). Just like I’d urge anyone to receive Holy Communion on the tounge or abstain from mean on Friday’s throughout the year if the topic comes up. Not because you’re going to go to Hell for practicing your faith otherwise, but because I think there is wisdom behind those ol’ traditions of the not too distant past - worth looking into I’d say. Something that was crucially important for nearly two millenia shouldn’t suddenly be an inconsequential. I agree, but I think that the primary focus of the Church in denying cremation to the faithful was the motive behind cremation or the motive implied. Once that ceases to be a problem, then there isn’t really a reason not to cremate if a person isn’t doing it for the wrong reason (and again, I fail to see why they’d want Catholic services if they WERE doing it for the wrong reason). I would never say that what was crucially important is now inconsequential, but rather that what was crucially important was the primary reason for the denial and if it is addressed, the thing itself is a moral neutral (or it could even be a positive, such as the reception of Holy Communion in both forms. The Church denied it for reasons XYZ. XYZ were addressed satisfactorily, then the Church permitted the practice agaom/

I made the mistake of viewing an autopsy on Youtube once. I think I know exactly what you mean. My wife had the same opinion as you when I told her about it…until I talked her out of it of course . If the state or some third party does something disrespectful to the body without our knowledge or against our will - what can we do? The fault is their’s. If we consent to something like that, the fault would be ours. ***I don’t want to take any chances. (Emphasis mine) *****But see, here’s where I’m wondering: do you believe that you MIGHT go to Hell for choosing cremation? **

Me personally - I would prefer not to be autopsied OR embalmed. Just bury me quick and in an air tight casket . Given that I hope to have my furneral mass in the EF, I would think the incense will be offered .

I’m not sure what they’ll do though - most states have laws requiring such things in most circumstance.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

DD: I don’t want to take any chances.
JK: But see, here’s where I’m wondering: do you believe that you MIGHT go to Hell for choosing cremation?

I’d say if you didn’t choose cremation for the wrong reasons you wouldn’t go to Hell for that choice.

That being said - we probably both know that the reward in heaven is given in different degrees to different folks. And if in that simple act choosing not to be cremated out of respect for God we can add one iota of glory to Him or please Him in such a way that that glory will be reflected back on us individually in heaven just a little bit more, then that’s the route I’m going to take. Think of it…one simple act in time is rewarded infinitely in heaven by our merciful God. Boggles the mind - in a good way!

I guess I’m saying that even in the best of circumstances and with the most innocent of motives, it’d be more meritorious for the individual to choose not to be cremated.

I’m of the mind that we should try to aim for the highest rung of heaven rather than the lowest rung of purgatory (not saying you would disagree with this, but it’s the basis behind my reasoning here).

And then on the other hand…and here’s where one really has to look inside himself…if the choice to be cremated is more related to our love of self than love of God, then the choice could possibly add to our suffering in purgatory. I wouldn’t want to “risk” that either.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’d say if you didn’t choose cremation for the wrong reasons you wouldn’t go to Hell for that choice.

That being said - we probably both know that the reward in heaven is given in different degrees to different folks. And if in that simple act choosing not to be cremated out of respect for God we can add one iota of glory to Him or please Him in such a way that that glory will be reflected back on us individually in heaven just a little bit more, then that’s the route I’m going to take. Think of it…one simple act in time is rewarded infinitely in heaven by our merciful God. Boggles the mind - in a good way!

I guess I’m saying that even in the best of circumstances and with the most innocent of motives, it’d be more meritorious for the individual to choose not to be cremated.

I’m of the mind that we should try to aim for the highest rung of heaven rather than the lowest rung of purgatory (not saying you would disagree with this, but it’s the basis behind my reasoning here).

And then on the other hand…and here’s where one really has to look inside himself…if the choice to be cremated is more related to our love of self than love of God, then the choice could possibly add to our suffering in purgatory. I wouldn’t want to “risk” that either.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

This is where we disagree. I don’t believe that the Church can permit anything that would imperil or impede our souls before God. I don’t believe that the Church can propose to us anything that holds within it the danger of detracting from the Glory of God (granted, what we DO with what is permitted MIGHT). Further, I don’t think this is an area where we go much beyond God’s permissive or passive Will as opposed to His active Will.

 

[DustinsDad]

This is where we disagree. …

Fair enough - let’s leave it at that.

Peace in Christ my friend,

DustinsDad