I have been thinking about cremation but don’t want to go against the Word so leaning more towards burial.

I have the following piece of report from the year 1596 about a wooden parish church located in southern Lesser Poland region, which I struggle to understand, because curical words related to 'sepultura' thing have several meanings and I'd need to have some historic background on the topic: > Item habet proventus communes pro aedificatione sui: vaccas quatuor (a singulis lactantibus duodecem grossorum, a sterilibus sex grossorum solvuntur), a sepulturis in ecclesia media marca solvitur, sed medietatem plebanus tollit in porticu nihil. > (...) > Quod reformationem attinet: (...) A sepulturis in porticu duae saxagenae tegularum conferantur. It is about church income which could be used for construction works (e.g., the parish had a few cows which were rented by local people). But then there is something about 'sepultura'. My initial, naive understanding would be that for being buried in that church it costed 1/2 'marca' (i.e. «grzywna», a unit of exchange) for a place in the nave, while a place in the porch was for free. However, it was a small wooden church, so I doubt there were some huge crypts (if any) in either the nave or the porch. To complicate matters even more, 'in porticu' can either mean 'in a porch', but also 'within «*soboty*»' (a wooden portico surrounding the church, see here: [*soboty*](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soboty) . This particular church had «soboty»). However, even within «soboty» there was not enough space to bury many people (and I doubt there were any burials there since they were often paved with stones). The church could look like this one (but likely was smaller): I suppose that 'sepultura' can mean not only a grave, but also burial, or funeral obsequies (see: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sepultura#Latin ; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=sepultura) and in this case the last meaning seems to be the most appropriate. I've read somewhere that in those days the distance between a coffin and the main altar marked the importance of the deceased person and that in Orthodox church funeral in the nave was reserved only for clergy... Does anyone know something about funerals/burials in Catholic churches in old times and could help me with understanding the above-mentioned passages?

Without going into the specifics of three days and three nights or some configuration, where and what did Jesus go and do between the time of His death/burial and His resurrection, if anything? We know that Apostles Creed says "[He] descended into hell" (or [*sheol*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol), [Abraham's bosom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham), [*hades*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades)), although see here . So, what happened? I'm looking for any of the following denominational points of view: Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, other Protestants.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul states the Gospel that saves: that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. I have heard multiple versions of this when people teach people how to be saved, often in these two ways: 1. believe Jesus died for your sins, was buried, and rose again so you could be saved (no mention of the third day, just that he rose again) 2. believe Jesus died for your sins and rose again so you could be saved. Notice how the third day was not mentioned, nor the burial in the second one. Why are they omitted? If one believes in either of those two for salvation, are they still unsaved? Romans 6 seems to claim that Jesus was buried so we could be saved, too. Why would Jesus wanna make us believe in a timeframe to be saved? Yes, we should believe it, but do we have to believe the 3rd day part to BE saved?

Coffins for the burial of Christians are traditionally made either in a hexagonal form with tapering at the shoulder point, or in a rectangular shape with proportionate length and width. But, Christians of Ghana are known to be using unconventional shapes of coffins, ranging from those of aeroplane, birds and animals to fruits and flowers. Now, the hexagonal shape reminds us of the Cross, and may actually owe its origin to the Cross. The rectangular shape is good from practical points of view. But, why the shape of aeroplane and animals? Is it meant to reinforce the idea that a Christian burial is a celebration? My question in sum is: **What do the unconventional shapes of coffins used in Christian burial in some countries signify?**

We read in 1 Samuel 31 how Saul, his sons and generals killed themselves rather than surrender to Philistines. The valiant men of Israel retrieved their dead bodies ,burned them and buried the bones under a tamarisk tree in Jabesh. Elsewhere, we see prominent men of Israel getting buried on their death. It is not clear why Israelites chose to cremate the dead body of Saul. What explanation do scholars offer for the same ? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

How do non-Trinitarian Christians respond to the question *where did Jesus go and what did he do between His death and resurrection?* *** *** This question is asked as a parallel to this existing question . Since the scoping of the earlier question was tightened to specifically solicit the input of Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and other Protestants, and a variety of users had offered answers from other viewpoints, this question is being asked to provide a place to respond from these other viewpoints. Scoping for this question would certainly include The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Biblical Unitarians, and the Swedenborgian Church. However, if between this question and its predecessor there is a Christian viewpoint that is still excluded, I would be happy to edit the scoping of this question so that between the two questions a more complete set of Christian denominations can be represented.

Wikipedia's [Desmond Tutu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu) (the former archbishop of the [Anglican_Diocese_of_Cape_Town](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Diocese_of_Cape_Town) , theologian, and known for his work as an anti-apartheid and human rights activist) says: >A Funeral Mass was held for Tutu at St. George's Cathedral in Cape Town on 1 January 2022... Following the funeral, Tutu's remains were to be [aquamated](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_hydrolysis_(body_disposal)) , a process similar to cremation but with up to 90 percent less carbon dioxide emissions. His ashes will be interred in St. George's Cathedral and that Wikipedia article says: >When alkaline hydrolysis was proposed in New York state in 2012, the New York State Catholic Conference condemned the practice, stating that hydrolysis does not show sufficient respect for the teaching of the intrinsic dignity of the human body20. > >20CatholicNewsAgency.com (New York City, N.Y., Mar 25, 2012) [NY Catholic conference opposes 'chemical digestion' of human remains](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/24591/ny-catholic-conference-opposes-chemical-digestion-of-human-remains) I have two related questions: 1. What were the theological origins of "shows sufficient respect..." from which the New York Catholic Conference would have made the determination that cremation does ([barely](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/62699/54135)) but aquamation doesn't? 2. Have they maintained this position? Does the Catholic Church as a whole have a position on the more environmentally friendly alternative to cremation?

We read in Ezekiel 43: 6-10 how God spoke to the prophet, of the importance of keeping the temple holy: > Then I heard Him speaking to me from the temple, while a man stood beside me. And He said to me, “Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever. No more shall the house of Israel defile My holy name, they nor their kings, by their harlotry or with the carcasses of their kings on their high places. 8 When they set their threshold by My threshold, and their doorpost by My doorpost, with a wall between them and Me, they defiled My holy name by the abominations which they committed; therefore I have consumed them in My anger. Now let them put their harlotry and the carcasses of their kings far away from Me, and I will dwell in their midst forever. Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. However, one comes across many ancient churches having the graves of the religious as well as laity within their walls. Of course, churches of modern times may not permit such burials. My question therefore is: what were the justifications given by administrations which allowed the burial of the religious and the laity in the church ? Views of any denominations are welcome.

As per the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus breathed his last at 3.00 p.m.on Friday (27: 46-50) We read again in Mtt 27: 57-58 : > When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. There was, therefore a gap of at least 3 hours between the death of Jesus and the bringing down of his body from the cross. It was customary for the Jews to bury their dead before sunset, especially on the day preceding Sabbath (Jn 19:31). The trial of Jesus during the early hours of the day was perhaps intended to ensure that he was crucified and buried by the end of the day. Now, the question is: was there a delay in the burial of Jesus who died at 3:00 pm? One reason could be that there was no close relative to claim his body, on account of which Joseph of Arimathea took up the responsibility. Mother Mary, being a woman, could not be expected to run around completing the necessary formalities for getting the body released. And John, whom Jesus had entrusted to Mary as her son, was not his near relative in the eyes of the law. My question therefore is: Does the delayed burial of Jesus attest to the fact that he had no close relatives other than his mother? **Does the Catholic Church say anything on the subject?**

My mother, a Roman Catholic in good standing, passed recently and wished to be cremated and her ashes poured out at sea. A young priest at her parish, fresh out of seminary, indicated that such a thing goes against Catholic teaching while an older priest of 44 years in the same parish suggested not bringing the ashes to the memorial Mass and then doing whatever we wish. It was also suggested that the entire urn could be tossed into the ocean but sprinkling the ashes out is the part that is disallowed. What is the official Roman Catholic stance on: 1) Cremation 2) disposition of ashes at sea, particularly regarding sprinkling out of the urn

There is an old saying which goes like this : "A dead man is the landlord of six feet ! " It most probably owes its origin to the custom of burying the dead under six feet of land. I am curious to know if the Catholic Church has a written rule or protocol governing the depth of the grave in a cemetery that a grown-up dead faithful can be buried in.

In a copy of *Order of Christian Funerals* that my deacon owns, it says this regarding burial and cremation: > *413* Although cremation is now permitted by the Church, it does not enjoy the same value as burial of the body. The Church clearly prefers and urges that the body of the deceased be present for the funeral rites, since the presence of the human body better expresses the values which the Church affirms in those rites. > > *414* The Church's teaching in regard to the human body as well as the Church's preference for burial of the body should be a regular part of catechesis on all levels and pastors should make particular efforts to preserve this important teaching. Unfortunately, it doesn't go into detail about why the Catholic Church prefers burial over cremation. What is the reasoning for this? What values that the Church affirms are better expressed through burial, but not cremation?

In the not-so-good old days, there used to be an annexe to the Christian cemetery, called Rogue Pit in some places, where members who had commited suicide or had lived sinful public life would be burried. These days, such annexe is hard to come by. I wish to know whether the Catholic Church has officially stopped segregating a part of the cemetery to be used as Rogue Pit, or has the practice tapered off without invervention of of the Church authorities .

During a burial today, I noticed the coffin was buried facing east. Where does this Christian tradition come from?

I was reading about the relatively new discovery of the Apostle Phillip's gravesite in Turkey, and it briefly mentioned that the square was represented in his grave and it was significant because the square is a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Mosaics and Images from Byzantine Ravenna, Italy: I was also reading about it here: Christian iconography **Why is the square a symbol of the Melchizedek Priesthood? What ancient documents detail this?** **If no ancient documents, then are there Jewish or early Christian graves that somehow convey that the square represents the Melchizedek Priesthood?**

I was reading an old article published in [Christian Today](http://christiantoday.com) on July 17, 2014, in which Brownie Marie reported that ISIS desecrated the tomb of Jonah, and were burning churches. The only thing I could find in the Bible related to desecrating a tomb or a body is [Amos 2:1](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Amos+2%3A1&version=NKJV) , which reads: >Thus says the Lord: > "For three transgressions of Moab, and for four, > I will not turn away its punishment, > Because he burned the bones of the King of Edom to lime. [NKJV] Is this the only example, Amos 2:1? What additional biblical basis is there for not desecrating a grave or a body?

I remember seeing, some forty years ago, the Catholic family of a cancer patient burying his amputated leg in the local cemetery. I do not know if Christians all over the world still practice such burials. My question is: are there instructions in the Catholic Canon Law or in other texts making it mandatory for the faithful to bury the body parts amputated on account of accident or surgery, in a consecrated cemetery?

I have heard some people speak against cremation for Christians, because of the ties it has to some eastern religions. But what does the Bible actually say about cremation, or any other burial practices?

A funeral notice announces a "mass of Christian burial" (at a Roman Catholic church in the US) followed by a burial followed by a luncheon. As an outsider I have a few questions about what to expect: - Is the mass the same as a Sunday mass with extra stuff added, or is it different? What content is unique to a funeral mass? - What happens at the burial beyond putting the casket in the ground? (In movies you always see what looks like another religious service there, but I don't know if that's accurate.) If there is a service of some sort, how does it differ from the mass? - Where is the eulogy given (or does that vary)? Will visitors be asked to say something about the deceased at one of these services? - Is it practical to skip the mass1 and go to the rest, or would that be "weird"? If it's practical, approximately how long after the announced start time for the mass should one show up to proceed to the cemetery? - What are the cultural/social norms around interacting with the mourners? Are there specific things you should (or shouldn't) say or do, beyond what common sense suggests? For example, in Judaism we have a specific phrase of comfort that we say; is there anything like that? - Are you supposed to bring a dish to the luncheon? 1 Because participating in, or appearing to participate in, another religion's service can be problematic.