A comment from the former dairy farmer now working at a funeral home ...

The term "will" is sometimes used generically to include "final wishes", but the docuмent "last will and testament" is almost never read or referenced until several days, or even weeks, after the funeral.  It is not the place to record one's funeral wishes.

The best way to be sure that one's death care wishes are properly carried out is to preplan your arrangements at the funeral home of one's choice and pay for it.  Most funeral homes have a means (typically a life insurance policy or a trust account) to accept preneed payments over time (interest free).  Once the arrangements one has selected (service package, casket, incidentals) have been fully paid for usually their cost is frozen at that point in time.  The same should be done for cemetery property, the opening and closing, and the marker.  These set aside assets are shielded from the spend down requirement if one has to use medicaid (not to be confused with medicare) in their final years.

If one's final care is not prearranged, then state law (of which there can be 50 different variations) determines who gets to make the decisions, because these things need to be dealt with in a timely manner.  Often a "power of attorney" docuмent or guardianship expires on the death of the person who granted the "power of attorney" to someone.  In WA where I live it is possible sign a docuмent designating a specific individual or individuals to have the authority to make someone's final arrangements which supersedes the authority of relatives designated by state law.  That person needs to agree to accept the responsibility, and the matter of funding needs to be determined.

A final matter to consider:  People sometimes die while traveling, or an elderly parent may move to be closer to one of their adult children but when the time comes they want to be taken "back home" to be buried next to their spouse.  Flying casketed remains across the country is expensive, and this is when cremation is sometimes chosen, though that would not have been the preferred choice.  I believe that there are insurance policies that can cover the extra cost of transporting someone back home if they die while traveling, the funeral home where the pre-arrangements are made would know.  Otherwise, if someone moves away from where they wish to be buried when the time comes, that extra cost needs to be provided for.  We had a case once where a gentleman died back east (Virginia I think) and his funeral and burial were to be in eastern WA.  He was embalmed but no final prep and dressing yet, and in a combo air tray (a cardboard shipping container for human remains not in a casket).  His daughter and son-in-law drove him cross country nonstop in a u-haul van.  The daughter had been a deputy coroner, so she was comfortable with it all and knew what to do.  An important aspect is to have the proper paperwork completed and traveling with the deceased, it is usually frowned upon to be driving around with a dead body and not have paperwork.

Good points!  😊

At least in this case my brother and I are the executors of my parents' will and I think my brother probably is the one who is in charge of arranging the funeral too and neither of us agrees with cremation.

As you know, there is a litany of defections from the SSPX from the day of its establishment, to the left of Conciliarism and to the right of Sedevacantism. Which way did you go again???!!!!

That is understandable given the nature of this crisis.  Catholics who have the faith cannot NOT have a tension between the need to be in communion with and in submission to the Catholic hierarchy.  There's no pre-Vatican II teaching, no Pope, Church Father, Doctor, or theologian who ever held that it's OK to break from communion with and submission to the Catholic hierarchy.  That was the stuff of Old Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.  So this tension tends to resolve itself one way or the other, by either trying to reconcile the post-V2 changes as accidental, perhaps destructive due to its implementation rather than its substance, and therefore return to submission to the Conciliar hierarchy, or else, if one is unable to apply this "hermeneutic of continuity" to the V2 changes, to hold that the Conciliar hierarchy is not actually the Catholic hierarchy.

So, basically, if the crisis were characterized by a syllogism (from the SV perspective to start):

MAJOR:  Catholic hierarchy cannot substantially corrupt the Magisterium and the Mass.
MINOR:  Conciliar hierarchy substantially corrupted the Magisterium and the Mass.
CONCLUSION:  Conciliar hierarchy is not the Catholic hierarchy.

SV:  hold the MAJOR, MINOR, CONCLUSION
R&R:  hold the MINOR but tend to reject the MAJOR and therefore the CONCLUSION.
Conservative Novus Ordites:  hold the MAJOR, reject the MINOR, and therefore the CONCLUSION.

Some people refuse to accept the CONCLUSION out of hand, and so they struggle with whether to reject the MAJOR or the MINOR to avoid the conclusion.  R&R reject the MAJOR, while those who end up back in submission to the Conciliar hierarchy reject the MINOR.  SVs reject neither the MAJOR nor the MINOR, and so they end up at their SV conclusion.

This!

The One Holy Catholic and Aposotolic Church is INDEFECTIBLE

because it is protected from heresy and error by the Holy Ghost.




They all apostatized at VII. 

They declared Allah is Jesus' Father.

That's denying Christ:  antichrist

They started a false church of Chrislam.



Note: he doesn't say a false Mass

or an irreverent Mass

or an invalid Mass.

He says a FALSE CHURCH.

It's the pantheon of gods church of the nwo.

Those who remain "una cuм" are giving a pinch of incense to the pantheon for which thousands of martyrs gave their lives rather than comply.

It's clear they are herding trads into the SSPX so they can 

"practice their faith" in a little side chapel

while they still "subsist in" the pantheon.