J.R. Stoodley:
Please visit the following site for comprehensive treatment regarding the 20+ Rites in the Catholic Church in an article from the Newman Center entitled "Different Rites of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church":
Linking to "Different Rites of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church":

CATHOLIC RITES

What I am contending is the following from Dr. Eric:
No Esau, there are 23 Churches that compose the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The number of Rites is even less.

Esau,
If you are right about rites vs. Churches how come there are many rites (Latin, Ambrosian,Mozarabic, Bragan, etc.) celebrated in one Church while several autocephalous Churches celebrate the same rite (e.g. the Byzantine rite).
I would recommend you read this artical from EWTN on the matter, though according to Wikipedia there is a minor inaccuracy somewhere (I forget what).
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?sour...

Eileen R.:
Thanks for the info. What I mentioned was based on a documentary that was shown some time back in high school in a World Cultures class.
South Coast:
About what you said:
Egyptians did not sacrifice humans to their dead kings.
What was mentioned was the possible notion that servants of Pharaohs were killed so that they could serve the Pharaoh in the after-life.
One of the reasons for this was because of tombs found in pyramids for pharaoh's servants which were constructed around the King's mastaba.

I remember seeing this same "find" several years ago, again published around Valentine's Day. Just out of curiosity, I went to the linked site, and discovered that this particular story was published on March 10, 2007... Anyone see where that white rabbit went!
(Btw, the Egyptians did not sacrifice humans to their dead kings. The Sumerians, however, were another story entirely.)

And have found the article about the place in Egypt where human sacrifice might have likely occured. In the very first dynasty, long long before the Pyramids and most of recorded history.
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/featur...

Esau:
It is thought that the servants were killed so that they might serve Pharaoh in the after-life.
No it isn't thought so. If you've been watching documentaries that say that, you've been watching nutbar documentaries. The 'servants' buried near the Pharoahs are high-ranking courtiers who were illustrious enough to be buried near their king in the afterlife, but *not* in the same tomb. In their own tomb. The biggest goal of an aristocrat in the civil service, people often related to the pharoah by marriage.
The only place where one finds the kings of Egypt buried with other mummies is in the mummy caches, made after robbers looted the tombs.
The actual servants of the dead person in hte afterlife weren't any of these courtiers, however, but the ushebti figures or shabti figures, which were magically to become live servants hereafter.

Esau,
You had better tell His Beatitude Lubomyr Cardinal Husar to change the name of his Church then:
http://www.ugcc.org.ua/eng/ugcc_history/definition...
Tell His Beatitude Gregory III as well:
http://www.melkite.org/sa34.htm

Maybe they weren't lovers, but the position they were found in suggests care and affection.
Annalucia:
Just because they were found that way doesn't actually mean they died that way.
For example, though the thought is revolting, it might be possible that people could just have as easily manipulated the final pose of these two by:
1. Forcing the two to embrace the other prior to their deaths
2. After their deaths, somebody could just as easily moved their arms so that the two would actually embrace each other to simulate the pose we find them today
We will never know.
Nevertheless, as had been mentioned, we should have the utmost respect for their human remains.

Maybe they weren't lovers, but the position they were found in suggests care and affection. I can't imagine that a slave woman killed to accompany a man in the afterlife would have her arm around him like that. And look at how their legs interlock. I don't see that as siblings or just good buddies, somehow.

We really will never know what the story is...for all we know, this could have a woman with her lover discoverd by a jealous husband who then killed them both and left them there for public ridicule. I prefer Jimmy's approach...let the angels of our better nature do the imagining...but still pray for their souls.

"The Complete Idiot's Guide..." was written by a complete idiot.
"Dummies..." was written by solidly Catholic priests.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Guide-Unders...
Read the reveiws and you might understand my disgust.

Sailorette/Foxfier:
To be fair, I've not read the book myself.
I'm just surprised when you mentioned what you did because these priests come off pretty orthodox on ewtn and demonstrate a pretty good understanding about the Catholic Faith.

The Amazon "inside the cover" search for Catholicism for Dummies by John Trigilio and Kenneth Brighenti has no results for the pop-star Madonna, only four results on the black Madonna and one on the czestochowa Madonna.
Ah! It was "Complete Idiot's Guide to Understanding Catholicism" that was so bad, as best ten minutes of searching can tell. And yes, they do look like they're both from the same company that makes the computer books. (Good books! You need help on a computer, they work!) /promotion
My appologies to Mr. Trigilio and Breighenti.

It may have been for idiots-- big ugly orange edition, same as the computer books.
As I said, it was five years ago, and the main impression it left on me was "oh, crud; they're good with computers, but *man* are they flaky with religion."

Sailorette:
Are you sure you read the book that Nutcrazical mentioned???
Catholicism for Dummies was written by EWTN's popular priests: Fr. Trugilio and Fr. Ken Brighentti. In fact, they both hosted a new series: Catholicism 101 (or something like that) based on that book on ewtn.
Fr. Trugilio hosted Web of Faith as well as Council of Faith: The Documents of Vatican II.

Nutcrazical-- that book was horrible. I found multiple errors in about five minutes of reading and I belive it's the only book I've ever thrown away, as opposed to *given* away. (it was five years ago, so I don't even recal the exacts-- other than a phrase saying Madonna the pop star was just as good a catholic as Mother Teresa.....)
I susupect you might be a troll, but oh well.
There is Something that suggests lovers to me, too. I have no idea why.

Eileen R.:
Weren't the servants and slaves of the Egyptian Pharoahs purposely killed so that they would be buried with them when they died in order that these may serve him in the afterlife? (Esau)
No. There used to be legends about this, but there's only one *possible* example of human sacrifice in Egypt and that's pre-recorded-history. (Eileen R.)
This wasn't legend.
In fact, if you watched THC programs as well as read about the pyramids, you would see that there were tombs of servants in the pyramids as well where the servants were buried.
It is thought that the servants were killed so that they might serve Pharaoh in the after-life.
Portraits of servants would be painted on the interior walls to serve their master in his afterlife. Tombs for a pharaoh's servants were constructed around the King's mastaba for the same reason.

Cheryl S.:
Gotcha! ;^)
God bless!

JD, bil912 and Dr. Eric:
Please visit the following site for comprehensive treatment regarding the 20+ Rites in the Catholic Church in an article from the Newman Center entitled "Different Rites of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church":
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/newman/Pages/fr-cat...
Excerpt:
Question: Why is there more than one Rite? Do we need 20+ different Rites?
Answer: Our Lord only gave us the essential elements of the Divine Liturgy, the Sacraments, etc.: not specifics on their practice or celebration. The essence of matter, form, and intention (found in every Sacrament) is drawn by the Magisterium from Divine Revelation in Sacred Tradition and Scripture. These essentials are not changeable by the Church. However, when the Apostles of Jesus’ time brought the Gospel to major cities, they inculturated the essentials of the above (Liturgy, fasting, etc.) into the culture of the area. The tradition of a particular area/manner of celebrating a Sacrament is called a "Rite".
The original Rites had three major groupings: the Roman, the Antiochian (in Syria), and the Alexandrain (in Egypt). In the 4th century, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom, the Byzantine Rite derived from the Antiochian. These 4 main Rites then created the over 20 Liturgical Rites present today in the one, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.
God bless you, brothers!
I love these learning opportunities about the Faith!

Esau:
Never said *ALL* victims were willing - just that to assume *ALL* were unwilling may be in error (I definitely do NOT claim that all were willing!).
There are still many people who resist authority of any kind, whether religious, civil, or parental. Nothing new under the sun, ya know? ;)

JD is right. I had it explained to me by a Byzantine Catholic priest on the first Catholic Answers Cruise. He celebrated The Divine Liturgy (of St. John Chrysostom) for us one morning. Absolutely beautiful. And could he sing! (Memo to self: Next time have breakfast BEFORE The Divine Liturgy! It *is* longer than we Roman-types are used to).

From the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches, which governs the 22 non-Latin sui iuris Churches.
(Codex Canonici Ecclesiarum Orientalium)
c. 27
A community of the Christian faithful, which is joined together by a hierarchy according to the norm of law and which is expressly or tacitly recognized as 'sui iuris' by the supreme authority of the Church, is called in this Code a Church 'sui iuris'
c. 28.1 A rite is a liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary heritage, differentiated by the culture and the circumstances of the history of peoples, which is expressed by each Church 'sui iuris' in its own manner of living the faith.
c. 28.2 The rites dealth with in this code, unless it is established otherwise, are those which arose from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean, and Constantinolitan traditions.

Dear Jimmy: Thanks for this great discussion of how St. Peter, the greatest of the Great Popes, truly was the perfect example of what is an orthodox Roman Catholic pope to all succeeding popes and generations! This still stands at the end of the day and the end of the discussion.
Imagine if the Catholic Church could return to this pristine faith and tradition of following Peter in all things orthodox, Roman and Catholic! What unity we would have alone with an all Latin liturgy for as Our Divine Master prayed: "Father, keep in Thy Name those whom Thou hast given Me, that they may be one even as we are." (John 17:11)
For Latin Rite Catholics or, if I dare say all Catholics, could anything be more orthodox, Roman, or Catholic than following Peter's inimitable example for a one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church, built on Peter? All roads lead to Rome, the eternal City! God Bless!
j hughes dunphy
http://www.theorthodoxromancatholic.com

The number of Rites is even less.
Dr. Eric:
That's wrong.
I know this not only by an answer provided at a Catholic Answers open forum but also from other Catholic as well as Eastern Rite Catholic websites as well.
Here's an example:
http://motherofgodchurch.org/mog/eastern.htm

Calvin Broadus = OJ = Fr. George

Hey Esau...I gotta hand it to you, that is extremely FUNNY!!! Hooray!!!
Here's my question Esau: Who own's the bones?

Weren't the servants and slaves of the Egyptian Pharoahs purposely killed so that they would be buried with them when they died in order that these may serve him in the afterlife?
No. There used to be legends about this, but there's only one *possible* example of human sacrifice in Egypt and that's pre-recorded-history.

Moving back to archaeology....
People are always "excited" to find anything. Archaeologists don't like to talk about how moved they are by their finds, or how much they care, because it doesn't really sound scientific. But most archaeologists eat, sleep, and breathe the lives and deaths of the people they dig up, and that includes a good deal of concern for how their remains are treated. They may sneer at their colleagues, fight with their families, and demand slave labor from their grad students, but archaeologists truly love their dead bodies.
I will mention a certain archaeology professor who kept a great many bones in an undisclosed location to keep them safe. (Said undisclosed location just "happened" to follow the norms of burial orientation for their particular prehistoric people, and I don't know how he wangled that out of the administration.) He was occasionally pressured to let local Native American activists rebury the bones. He kept pointing out that the activists' ceremonies were All Wrong and against the beliefs of the dead, and that if any reburial was done, he'd have to run things as the only living authority on their ceremonies.
Cold and unhuman they ain't. (Horribly dilatory to publish, yes.)

No Esau, there are 23 Churches that compose the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The number of Rites is even less.
In some cases, the Rite is synonymous with the Church, ie Maronite; sometimes not, ie the Byzantine Rite is used by 14 Churches which are in Communion with the Holy See.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_...
(How do I do the thing that makes a link in green?)
By the way, I don't think the couple (whomever they are) should be moved.

Clarification (just in case):
When I said ...this wouldn't be looked upon as a sin at all.; what I meant was that it wouldn't be considered a sin, unfortunately, by these concerned parties and NOT that it wasn't actually a sin.
That's why I framed it as follows:
I don't quite know what you're getting at. I know of Traditional Catholics who perhaps may think this way (and, in fact, I could understand that from their perspective).
I'm not so sure how current Catholics feel (though, given the liberal nature of a nominal Catholic these days who are more apt to question everything, I'm sure they would engage in such notions regardless) as well as non-Catholics, this wouldn't be looked upon as a sin at all.

Latin church is one of 23 churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Huh?
Twenty-three churches form the Catholic Church? Nobody ever told me that... and I didn't see it in Catholicism for Dummies...
See, now that's the potential confusion I was referring to in my post above.
I think, more correctly, the word that should have been used in that post instead of 'church' is 'rite'; which is actually right!

Latin church is one of 23 churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Huh?
Twenty-three churches form the Catholic Church? Nobody ever told me that... and I didn't see it in Catholicism for Dummies...

Thanks, bill912, for the clarification.
That makes total sense!
I thought it was the 'sacred cow' element (for lack of a better term) that was prevalent in former days (and for good reason, I might add) where it was thought sinful to explore any such thoughts regarding things sacred.
As for the article AnnonyMouse cited, I don't quite find the same implied perversion as I, on the other hand, had observed in a risible article I read suggesting a possible illicit love affair between St. Francis and St. Clare, which is so far from the truth and, once more, not in the slightest supported by any past or even recent historical evidence.

Esau, I think what AnnonyMouse was referring to was imputing evil to what is holy, or someone who is holy. Imputing evil to what is holy is blasphemy. Imputing evil to anyone, holy or not, without evidence, is calumny. And bothe *are* big sins.

It's a very sweet picture, and I do think that they look more like lovers than brother and sister, but one can't know for sure. I do hope they are treated respectfully.
BTW, can't we just ignore cholo?

I was highly offended when I heard such outrageous hearsay about an illicit love affair between St. Francis and St. Clare (when, in fact, there are no concrete historical evidence to even suggest this) being I have the utmost respect for the way they remained true to their calling and devotion to God, in spite of all the tremendous rigors and profound difficulties and suffering they met as they carried their Cross for the glory of Our Lord and the spreading of the Gospel message.
About your question:
Plus, I thought it was a BIG sin to talk about someone/something holy? Or even to imply it?
I don't quite know what you're getting at. I know of Traditional Catholics who perhaps may think this way (and, in fact, I could understand that from their perspective).
I'm not so sure how current Catholics feel (though, given the liberal nature of a nominal Catholic these days who are more apt to question everything, I'm sure they would engage in such notions regardless) as well as non-Catholics, this wouldn't be looked upon as a sin at all.

It's a neat picture, regardless of the circumstances.

Esau, if you can stomach it, here it is.
http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/1208/essays.htm
David, pretend they are flys and ignore them.

I wish someone would make a device that Jimmy could put on the necks of those who are highjacking this thread. They would be shocked whenever they attempted to access this blog.

Esau, I just remember be so infuriated because St. Francis De Sales is my patron saint.
I could be wrong though. Plus, I thought it was a BIG sin to talk about someone/something holy? Or even to imply it?

Do you remember the popular theologian that made the assumption that St. Francis De Sales and St. Jane De Chantal had to have been MORE than just friends (implication of something else) because they were buried by each other?
It shows how sleezy society has become.
AnnonyMouse:
I've heard similar calumny against St. Francis and St. Clare.

Actually, what if they were brother and sister?
Would it still be "true love"?
Or mother/son? daughter/father? servant/master?
Do you remember the popular theologian that made the assumption that St. Francis De Sales and St. Jane De Chantal had to have been MORE than just friends (implication of something else) because they were buried by each other?
It shows how sleezy society has become.
I could see me embracing my husband/daughter/2sons like that.
This is very interesting.

Cholo:
Can you make sense of this equation:
Calvin Broadus = D'Hippolito = Cholo?
Is there a common denominator?

Cholo:
Calling Jimmy Akin 'PORKCHOP' is a great way of demonstrating how mature a person you are as well as the fact that you really do care what the Bible says! Hooray!!!

Cheryl S.:
...but to assume that all victims who were raised in such a culture were unwilling victims of such practices is likely in error.
Similarly, to assume that all victims who were raised in such a culture were actually willing victims of such practices can likely be in error as well.
Think about the times when the Catholic Church held such prominence and power back in the Medieval days. Now, just because folks were raised in a culture where they were generally taught to respect the traditions and authority of the Catholic Church (both ecclesial and temporal), didn't actually mean that all folks relished it and yielded to it.

Hey Esau....talke to Ishi about it....I think that he would agree with you.

I agree with Esau and Curious -- it struck me as a bit odd that the media immediately dubbed the two as "lovers". How do we know they weren't brother and sister? I think their burial and the "lover" interpretation says more about our (sex-permeated) culture and less about theirs.

People kill one another like they kill deer when they are mating. It's the same mind.

For that matter, if this was the custom of their people (though we'd agree it was wrong to kill her), she may have been a willing participant (perhaps not eager, but not unwilling, either). We will likely never know, but to assume that all victims who were raised in such a culture were unwilling victims of such practices is likely in error.