J
JadeStarr
Guest
Yeah, what Twin said!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Apollos
Guest
Well, theological speculation would be kind of pointless. It’s like speculating over whether a beehive is one organism or many. If human reason has settled on the answer, then the Church’s endorsement would be just icing on the cake. I don’t know whether the Church has taught anything about this definitively - or, for that matter, whether it even falls within the Church’s competence to do so. Whether animals have immortal souls capable of beatific vision doesn’t seem to fall into faith, morals, or a category closely related.I was really wondering what the Church has taught or if this was still an allowable area of speculation.
I
Indyann
Guest
I found this article by a Vet from a Christian viewpoint. I know it is not from a Catholic viewpoint, but I did not see anything that contradicted Church teaching.I was really wondering what the Church has taught or if this was still an allowable area of speculation.
I have no “dog in this fight”, as there is only one dog I would kind of like to see again. Well, maybe two, if she has relearned some manners. (Went totally bonkers after her first litter). Forgot all her house training and turned vicious. Even, after the pups had been weaned and given away.
pet-loss.net/heaven.shtml
S
Salvatore123
Guest
I can say, with as much certainty as I am capable of having (to some that may count as something, to others, it may count for nothing), that the Catholic Church has never dogmatically taught on what happens to the souls of animals other than man.
Yet, I think it reasonable to assume that animals do NOT go to heaven (or hell), based on the following dogmas, and the logical extensions of each:
Without making fun of people who may believe that animals are in heaven, I must reiterate my question I asked earlier: If the goal of man (and it SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF MAN) is to see God in the face, that is, to enjoy the beatific vision, why would anyone want to turn away from that to go play fetch with their dog? I hardly think that when we are allowed to contemplate God for eternity, pets are no longer our concern.
Over the years, and primarily because of Dante’s Inferno, man began to think of heaven, purgatory, and hell as “places where a soul goes after death” rather than “status” of one’s soul after death. This, for me, is another reason why I simply cannot envision pets “in heaven”.
Do we really need the Church to infallibly teach, so as to “settle” this question that seems to be raised innumerable times, that the soul that animated the body of a hamster or a parakeet cannot enjoy the beatific vision for the simple reasons that if animals did not commit original sin (and they didn’t), then Christ’s redemptive work had absolutely no benefit for the soul of animals?
I am all ears for anyone who disagrees with anything I said above.
Yet, I think it reasonable to assume that animals do NOT go to heaven (or hell), based on the following dogmas, and the logical extensions of each:
- Adam and Eve lost the beatific vision by sinning.
- God became man incarnate in order to heal the breach between man and God through his redemptive death.
- Man had no “part” in the redemptive act of Christ. It was impossible for him to have done so, as every act done by Christ was infinitely valuable and man is not capable of doing anything with infinite value.
- While on earth, Christ’s teachings were limited only to what man should do under the new covenant - no mention was ever made of animals (except their use as “bit players” in parables, on occasion).
- Although the redemption was objective and benefitted all men, God instructs man to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”.
- No. 5 presupposes that salvation is not guaranteed, and that we must cooperate with God in achieving salvation.
- To sin requires a culpable breaking of one of God’s laws for man.
- To enter heaven or purgatory, one must die completely free of mortal sin.
- As part of man cooperating with God in working out his own salvation, God gave man free will (as someone stated above) to choose whether we wanted to work towards salvation or not.
- All of the above has, as a predicate, a soul that not only animates a body, but one that has free will to make certain choices, that can think, that can reason, that can yearn to be with God.
- When asked how to pray, Jesus specifically taught man the Pater Noster.
- When asked how to cooperate with God in working out our salvation, Jesus set forth a specific set of “guidelines” on how we should live - the Beatitudes.
- I know of no animal that has a soul that is capable of doing anything stated above.
- If one accepts all of the premises I stated above, I do not see how anyone can say that animals are “saved” and go to heaven.
- To accept as dogma that animals may be saved, one must also accept as a possibility that some animals may not be saved. This, of course, from a theological aspect, makes no sense, as animals cannot act in a manner that allows admittance into heaven/purgatory: being contrite and trying to change one’s life toward the path of God.
Without making fun of people who may believe that animals are in heaven, I must reiterate my question I asked earlier: If the goal of man (and it SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF MAN) is to see God in the face, that is, to enjoy the beatific vision, why would anyone want to turn away from that to go play fetch with their dog? I hardly think that when we are allowed to contemplate God for eternity, pets are no longer our concern.
Over the years, and primarily because of Dante’s Inferno, man began to think of heaven, purgatory, and hell as “places where a soul goes after death” rather than “status” of one’s soul after death. This, for me, is another reason why I simply cannot envision pets “in heaven”.
Do we really need the Church to infallibly teach, so as to “settle” this question that seems to be raised innumerable times, that the soul that animated the body of a hamster or a parakeet cannot enjoy the beatific vision for the simple reasons that if animals did not commit original sin (and they didn’t), then Christ’s redemptive work had absolutely no benefit for the soul of animals?
I am all ears for anyone who disagrees with anything I said above.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
twinc,
When I asked “and what if that place is nowhere”, I was not speaking literally so as to be correct from a logical point of view.
I simply meant “nowhere” as referring to: when you die, that is it - you die, nothing happens, and your soul goes nowhere because your soul ceases to exist as well. In that vein of thought, “nowhere” is, indeed, a place - a place of nothingness.
I don’t believe in “nothingness”, but I think you get my point . . .
When I asked “and what if that place is nowhere”, I was not speaking literally so as to be correct from a logical point of view.
I simply meant “nowhere” as referring to: when you die, that is it - you die, nothing happens, and your soul goes nowhere because your soul ceases to exist as well. In that vein of thought, “nowhere” is, indeed, a place - a place of nothingness.
I don’t believe in “nothingness”, but I think you get my point . . .
T
twinc
Guest
it has been stated again and again that heaven is where God is and hell is where God is not - we pray “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” - so who is going to populate the new heavens and new earth where God will be and His will will be done as it is in heaven - how about paradise plenty of trees there for dogs - twincI can say, with as much certainty as I am capable of having (to some that may count as something, to others, it may count for nothing), that the Catholic Church has never dogmatically taught on what happens to the souls of animals other than man.
Yet, I think it reasonable to assume that animals do NOT go to heaven (or hell), based on the following dogmas, and the logical extensions of each:
I realize that many people love their pets, and that for some, their pets are their only companions in this life. Death of their pets are felt by them like some people feel when a loved member of a family dies. I think that people who think they will be reunited with their pets in heaven is a “defense mechanism” that allows people to cope with loss - it allows them to be able to look forward to something good after they die.
- Adam and Eve lost the beatific vision by sinning.
- God became man incarnate in order to heal the breach between man and God through his redemptive death.
- Man had no “part” in the redemptive act of Christ. It was impossible for him to have done so, as every act done by Christ was infinitely valuable and man is not capable of doing anything with infinite value.
- While on earth, Christ’s teachings were limited only to what man should do under the new covenant - no mention was ever made of animals (except their use as “bit players” in parables, on occasion).
- Although the redemption was objective and benefitted all men, God instructs man to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”.
- No. 5 presupposes that salvation is not guaranteed, and that we must cooperate with God in achieving salvation.
- To sin requires a culpable breaking of one of God’s laws for man.
- To enter heaven or purgatory, one must die completely free of mortal sin.
- As part of man cooperating with God in working out his own salvation, God gave man free will (as someone stated above) to choose whether we wanted to work towards salvation or not.
- All of the above has, as a predicate, a soul that not only animates a body, but one that has free will to make certain choices, that can think, that can reason, that can yearn to be with God.
- When asked how to pray, Jesus specifically taught man the Pater Noster.
- When asked how to cooperate with God in working out our salvation, Jesus set forth a specific set of “guidelines” on how we should live - the Beatitudes.
- I know of no animal that has a soul that is capable of doing anything stated above.
- If one accepts all of the premises I stated above, I do not see how anyone can say that animals are “saved” and go to heaven.
- To accept as dogma that animals may be saved, one must also accept as a possibility that some animals may not be saved. This, of course, from a theological aspect, makes no sense, as animals cannot act in a manner that allows admittance into heaven/purgatory: being contrite and trying to change one’s life toward the path of God.
Without making fun of people who may believe that animals are in heaven, I must reiterate my question I asked earlier: If the goal of man (and it SHOULD BE THE GOAL OF MAN) is to see God in the face, that is, to enjoy the beatific vision, why would anyone want to turn away from that to go play fetch with their dog? I hardly think that when we are allowed to contemplate God for eternity, pets are no longer our concern.
Over the years, and primarily because of Dante’s Inferno, man began to think of heaven, purgatory, and hell as “places where a soul goes after death” rather than “status” of one’s soul after death. This, for me, is another reason why I simply cannot envision pets “in heaven”.
Do we really need the Church to infallibly teach, so as to “settle” this question that seems to be raised innumerable times, that the soul that animated the body of a hamster or a parakeet cannot enjoy the beatific vision for the simple reasons that if animals did not commit original sin (and they didn’t), then Christ’s redemptive work had absolutely no benefit for the soul of animals?
I am all ears for anyone who disagrees with anything I said above.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
twinc,
I say this with all humility - I think you are, in good faith, “falling prey” to man’s notion of heaven being a place where the temperature is perfect, the sun is always shining, we have no storms, we “lounge” at our leisure, etc.
In other words: you seem to be equating heaven with what the Sierra Club would like for our world to be with respect to the environment.
I just don’t think it works that way.
No one has dogmatically taught what heaven is actually like, except that those in heaven will enjoy the beatific vision.
Now, some will enjoy that vision to a greater degree than others. That was always taught by the Church, not only with respect to children who died before being baptized, but for those of us who, by way of non-culpable ignorance, did not fully come to know God as, say, a St. Therese of Liseaux, or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church cites the verse John 14.2, where Jesus say, “In my Father’s house are many rooms”, for the teaching that although all in heaven will not have the same beatific vision in terms of quantity, all will have the same vision in terms of quality, as each, according to his own soul’s “space” will be filled so that one soul will not be desirous or jealous or wanting of another soul’s. Each soul will be filled to its own capacity, and that will make that soul as happy as possible for that soul.
Now, am I saying that God absolutely will not permit pets in heaven? Of course not. I am simply saying that, based on all dogmatic teachings of the Church, the only way for a soul to enter heaven was for Christ to have performed the redemptive act of dying. But that presupposes that souls NEEDED that redemptive act - and I know of no animal other than man that needed redemption.
I hope this helps.
I say this with all humility - I think you are, in good faith, “falling prey” to man’s notion of heaven being a place where the temperature is perfect, the sun is always shining, we have no storms, we “lounge” at our leisure, etc.
In other words: you seem to be equating heaven with what the Sierra Club would like for our world to be with respect to the environment.
I just don’t think it works that way.
No one has dogmatically taught what heaven is actually like, except that those in heaven will enjoy the beatific vision.
Now, some will enjoy that vision to a greater degree than others. That was always taught by the Church, not only with respect to children who died before being baptized, but for those of us who, by way of non-culpable ignorance, did not fully come to know God as, say, a St. Therese of Liseaux, or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church cites the verse John 14.2, where Jesus say, “In my Father’s house are many rooms”, for the teaching that although all in heaven will not have the same beatific vision in terms of quantity, all will have the same vision in terms of quality, as each, according to his own soul’s “space” will be filled so that one soul will not be desirous or jealous or wanting of another soul’s. Each soul will be filled to its own capacity, and that will make that soul as happy as possible for that soul.
Now, am I saying that God absolutely will not permit pets in heaven? Of course not. I am simply saying that, based on all dogmatic teachings of the Church, the only way for a soul to enter heaven was for Christ to have performed the redemptive act of dying. But that presupposes that souls NEEDED that redemptive act - and I know of no animal other than man that needed redemption.
I hope this helps.
T
twinc
Guest
I thank you for your gallant attempt which alas and sadly says nothing at all and takes a lot of time and words to do so - when it comes to heaven and where it is and what it will be like we have no idea really except “the beatific vision” which is meaningless in the main to most. I have already stated dogs will not be in heaven but only in individual heavens with all other things that that individual loves.I have shown that in the dream state all in that dream is real to the individual dreamer and to no other nor is it ever rejected as being non existent except on awakening - but what if one is dead and does not awake does the dreamer vanish and the dream - a good little paperback explains it better viz A Travel Guide to Heaven by Anthony DeStefano - twinctwinc,
I say this with all humility - I think you are, in good faith, “falling prey” to man’s notion of heaven being a place where the temperature is perfect, the sun is always shining, we have no storms, we “lounge” at our leisure, etc.
In other words: you seem to be equating heaven with what the Sierra Club would like for our world to be with respect to the environment.
I just don’t think it works that way.
No one has dogmatically taught what heaven is actually like, except that those in heaven will enjoy the beatific vision.
Now, some will enjoy that vision to a greater degree than others. That was always taught by the Church, not only with respect to children who died before being baptized, but for those of us who, by way of non-culpable ignorance, did not fully come to know God as, say, a St. Therese of Liseaux, or St. Augustine, or St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church cites the verse John 14.2, where Jesus say, “In my Father’s house are many rooms”, for the teaching that although all in heaven will not have the same beatific vision in terms of quantity, all will have the same vision in terms of quality, as each, according to his own soul’s “space” will be filled so that one soul will not be desirous or jealous or wanting of another soul’s. Each soul will be filled to its own capacity, and that will make that soul as happy as possible for that soul.
Now, am I saying that God absolutely will not permit pets in heaven? Of course not. I am simply saying that, based on all dogmatic teachings of the Church, the only way for a soul to enter heaven was for Christ to have performed the redemptive act of dying. But that presupposes that souls NEEDED that redemptive act - and I know of no animal other than man that needed redemption.
I hope this helps.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is kind of my point. There are many opinions on this. I side with Aquinas myself. However, if someone has a different opinion, it can hardly contradict a Catholic teaching that does not exist. So far, no one has posted where anything on this subject has taught as doctrine. So if this Franciscan priest wants to speculate, there is no reason to belittle him because he is a Franciscan. He could be right, unless the Church has taught otherwise. It seems She has not.Well, theological speculation would be kind of pointless.
A
Apollos
Guest
I’m not belittling him because he’s Franciscan. I’m belittling him because he’s loony. Theology is not the Franciscan charism.That is kind of my point. There are many opinions on this. I side with Aquinas myself. However, if someone has a different opinion, it can hardly contradict a Catholic teaching that does not exist. So far, no one has posted where anything on this subject has taught as doctrine. So if this Franciscan priest wants to speculate, there is no reason to belittle him because he is a Franciscan. He could be right, unless the Church has taught otherwise. It seems She has not.
P
pnewton
Guest
Here is his bio. It doesn’t look like there is any mental illness.I’m not belittling him because he’s Franciscan. I’m belittling him because he’s loony. Theology is not the Franciscan charism.
americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/FriarJackBio.asp
A
Apollos
Guest
I’m not qualified to render a medical assessment of his mental health. I’m amused that you thought I was.Here is his bio. It doesn’t look like there is any mental illness.
americancatholic.org/e-News/FriarJack/FriarJackBio.asp
S
Salvatore123
Guest
twinc,
If you say that none of what I said is of any help (and you did in so many words), and then you follow it with:
“when it comes to heaven and where it is and what it will be like we have no idea really except “the beatific vision” which is meaningless in the main to most”
then I don’t see how anyone can answer the question or satisfy your quest. I am not aware of anyone KNOWING what it means to contemplate God face to face for eternity - I think that requires death.
I really did not intend to waste your or anyone else’s time in trying to answer. I simply do not understand your point of saying that you concede that dogs do not go to heaven, but will be “only in individual heavens with all other things that that individual loves.”
I am aware of only one heaven.
I also do not understand where you say “I have shown” that what people dream to them is real, until they awake. “Real” is an absolute term. “Real” means something exists or it does not exist - there is no middle.
And lastly, you pose the question: “What if one is dead and does not awake . . .” How can one be dead and have the option of either awakening or not?
I won’t answer any more because I don’t have anything else to say on the subject. I just wanted to respond to your points as I did not want you to think I just ignored your post.
If you say that none of what I said is of any help (and you did in so many words), and then you follow it with:
“when it comes to heaven and where it is and what it will be like we have no idea really except “the beatific vision” which is meaningless in the main to most”
then I don’t see how anyone can answer the question or satisfy your quest. I am not aware of anyone KNOWING what it means to contemplate God face to face for eternity - I think that requires death.
I really did not intend to waste your or anyone else’s time in trying to answer. I simply do not understand your point of saying that you concede that dogs do not go to heaven, but will be “only in individual heavens with all other things that that individual loves.”
I am aware of only one heaven.
I also do not understand where you say “I have shown” that what people dream to them is real, until they awake. “Real” is an absolute term. “Real” means something exists or it does not exist - there is no middle.
And lastly, you pose the question: “What if one is dead and does not awake . . .” How can one be dead and have the option of either awakening or not?
I won’t answer any more because I don’t have anything else to say on the subject. I just wanted to respond to your points as I did not want you to think I just ignored your post.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
You’d better let Saint Bonaventure know!I’m not belittling him because he’s Franciscan. I’m belittling him because he’s loony. Theology is not the Franciscan charism.
As to the question. THe usual answer is indeed that in Heaven there will be no animals, because in Heaven there are no bodies, and only a rational soul can share in the beatific vision or share union with God.
However, that isn’t the end state for Christians. We get our bodies back and the Earth, and creation, is remade. Here is what the CCC says:
Which tends to sound to me like they think animals might be included.The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, “so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just,” sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ (CCC 1047).
Certainly I cannot imagine that anything God thought was good would be absent from the new creation.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
What a horribly boring place that will be, with just a bunch of sourpusses who got “saved.” No dogs or cats or giraffes or even the humans who had sense enough to have fun in this life (and thus got sent to hell!)There are no animals in Heaven.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Do you have any evidence to support these claims, other than somebody or other said so?That the souls of animals are mortal is already known from human reason. Animal souls are not substances like ours are, and, lacking an intellectual principle, they arise instead from their bodies instead of being individually created by God.
P
pnewton
Guest
You said he was a loony. That is slang (in America) for mentally ill.I’m not qualified to render a medical assessment of his mental health. I’m amused that you thought I was.
A
Apollos
Guest
Yeah, Anastasia, my evidence is that I want it to be true. Therefore it is true.Do you have any evidence to support these claims, other than somebody or other said so?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Is that the sum and substance of your argument? If I want Noah’s flood to be literally true it is so? If I want it to be true that Maui lassoed the sun, it can be so?Yeah, Anastasia, my evidence is that I want it to be true. Therefore it is true.
A
Apollos
Guest
I have a calling. Are you questioning my feelings?Is that the sum and substance of your argument? If I want Noah’s flood to be literally true it is so? If I want it to be true that Maui lassoed the sun, it can be so?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.