Do All Dogs Go To Heaven? New Books Seem To Think So

[rap1962]

rap,

I never said that heaven has no animals in it.

I said that based on Catholic teaching/theology, animals do not have an immortal soul and thus without one, their souls cannot exist beyond the life of their body. St. Thomas Aquinas taught this, and he, next to St. Augustine, was the smartest Catholic who ever lived when it came to theology. He was not made a Doctor of the Church because he was a Sicilian . . .

And if you read my posts on this thread, I always took the position that allowing for an animal’s soul to enter heaven as would a man’s, negates or denigrates Jesus’s suffering and redemptive death.

The bible was not written for animals - it was written for man. I know that for a fact because animals cannot read.

And I realize that God thought that animals were good after he made them. He thought everything he created was good, including Lucifer. Well, just because God thought all ofhis creation was good does not mean it makes it to heaven. Things didn’t turn out too well for Lucifer, yet he, too, was God’s creation.

I simply think that when man “elevates” animals to the level of a man, that denigrates God’s creation because WE were created in God’s image - not animals, not trees, not water, not grass, nothing else but man.

I readily admit the Church has never definitively taught on the issue. But keep one thing in mind about “definitive teaching” on certain issues.

The Church never teaches about ANYTHING definitively until it does - but that does not mean what is finally taught was not already a fact. Considering the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. Neither of those were definitively taught until the Holy Father made his ex cathedra pronouncements to those effects. But again - they occurred long before the Church defined them as infallible teachings.

I’m really quite confussed about what you are saying. With all due respect, your arguments above don’t make much sense to me. 1)You say animals have no immortal soul yet you say there are animals in heaven. 2) God does not THINK animals are good, he KNOWS they are good. God doesn’t think anything, he knows everything. 3) Lucifer was created to be good, but he himself chose to reject God by refusing to serve him. We all are created to be good and through free will we ourselves chose good or evil. 4) The belief in the possibility of animals souls entering heaven does not denegrate Jesus’ sacrifice because he came to redeem man, not animals. Animals were never in need of Jesus’ redemption becasue they are not capable of sin. It is for this same reason that they have no need of scripture and therefore no need to read. 5) If this belief were a denegration of Jesus sacrifice I believe the Church would take a definite position on this issue, which it clearly does not. 6) Man was created in God’s image, quite true. Where in Scripture or Tradition are we told that only creatures made in God’s image are in heaven? Angels were not created in God’s image, yet we know they are in heaven.

The most troubling of your arguments is your statement about Church teaching. You say the Church does not teach anything definitively until it does. Wow!!! So based on this you jump to whatever conclusion you want and accept that as gospel because sometime in the future the Church MAY teach what you yourself profess to be truth. Do you realize how silly that argument is?? I guess I could believe anything I wish and just say "sometime in the future the church may teach this as doctrine so I am going to go ahead and just believe it now.

The immaculate conception and assumption were taught and believed from the very early years of the Church. True they were not made DOCTRINE until later on but at least this was always taught and believed by the Church.

Finally, read Isaiah 11:1-11. And pay special attention to verses 6-8. If this is not a foreshadowing of heaven then what is it? None of these things will ever happen in this world.

 

[StAnastasia]

So you got all these celestial meadows, sparkling pools, glorious woods and they are full of… nothing? Just very amateur harp-players? Even the Greeks & Hindus knew better than that. Of course Heaven is teeming with all of Creation and probably creatures from other galaxies that in your wildest imaginings you wouldn’t have dreamed of.

Space aliens too – see Catholic poet Alice Meynell’s poem :Christ in the Universe."

It never ceases to amaze me how we arrogant humans define God’s attributes & power in our own image. At one stage Heaven was just above the cloud line, flat, no soulless slaves or heathens; no unbaptised babies or unchurched mothers; no Muslims and certainly no gays; in fact I doubt if the lower orders ever got in…except as celestial servants and coffe-makers.

Our theology is gradually refined, although there are still those who thank God every day they were not born a woman.

Yes Heaven is full of God’s Creation including dogs so you better get used to it. A new fascinating book on the developing Catholic theology around animals by Deborah M. Jones, The School of Compassion claims that animal afterlife will partake in some form of the Beatific Vision.

See also Andrew Linzey, Creatures of the Same God: Explorations in Animal Theology
amazon.com/Creatures-Same-God-Explorations-Theology/dp/1590561422/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c

 

[RSD]

Jerry-Jet,

I do not presume to tell you how to think, but I will beg pardon on this one:

I would SERIOUSLY reconsider your statement: "The point isn’t that Jesus and the beatific vision of God isn’t the greatest and most wonderful thing in heaven . . . "

If that is not the point of “aiming” for heaven, what is???

I do not know Jerry-Jet, so I am just guessing- but I think that the problem here is the double negative. I do not think that JJ is intending to say anything contrary to Catholic teaching. Please JJ correct me if I have misunderstood, but I think that sentence means “…Jesus and the Beatific vision is the greatest and most wonderful thing in Heaven…”

 

[RSD]

rap,

The bible was not written for animals - it was written for man. I know that for a fact because animals cannot read.

And I realize that God thought that animals were good after he made them. He thought everything he created was good, including Lucifer. Well, just because God thought all ofhis creation was good does not mean it makes it to heaven. Things didn’t turn out too well for Lucifer, yet he, too, was God’s creation.

I simply think that when man “elevates” animals to the level of a man, that denigrates God’s creation because WE were created in God’s image - not animals, not trees, not water, not grass, nothing else but man.

It seems to me that there are not two viewpoints expressed in this thread, there are about fifty. Even though they can be roughly divided into “at the end I think that our pets will be there in Heaven with us” vs. “They won’t” people seem to be reaching those two different points in such different ways. I think that I am mostly arguing with you because I agree with you on almost everything you say right up to: and therefore your pets will not be in Heaven. Other people who have reached the same endpoint I have, with whom I might seem to be in agreement, have such different ideas leading to that endpoint that I do not find myself wanting to agree with them. So please read what I have to say without considering this to be in unity with some others.

Part one)The animals I love are given to me as gifts from God. These gifts convey to me some part of God’s love that I can’t get through any other gift. Some animals seem very interchangeable to me, just as many roses seem like beautiful gifts from God, but not very individual gifts from God. Some animals have very individual personalities. I do not believe that even the world’s best pony who gives riding lessons to my grandchildren has the moral capacity and immortal soul of a human. Yet, I see him making decisions to take care of these small people in a way that is far beyond any training I could possibly have given him. It is a relationship, and carries some hint, some nuance, some undefinable part of the relationship of love that is God’s continual gift to His creation. So I do receive gifts from God through not only animals, which might be as you say in Heaven, as part of the scenery, but also from individual animals. Part of the gift that God gives me is my love for this animal.

Part two) God is so far beyond our understanding that very often we express what we know about God in negatives: “A spirit without body, parts or passions” Yet the closer people come to God the less they experience Him as a negative. The positive-ness of God fills us up. Analogously, I do not believe that Heaven will be any experience of deprivation or negativity. I do not think that we will find that any pleasure that God has given us here on Earth will be taken away from us in Heaven, but rather will be lifted up and fulfilled in Heaven. The reason that I think that the Beatific Vision will include us experiencing many of our earthly joys, but better, purer, and more enjoyable, is because God gave them to us. I do not love my dog, or horse, or the sight of autumn leaves more than I love God, I love them because God gave them to me.

I know that you said that nobody seems to be changing their mind because of this argument, but I have found myself thinking more clearly about what I do believe, and so I thank you for your participation.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I did mess up on the double negative. Jesus and the beatific vision of God IS the greatest and most wonderful thing about Heaven.

I sometimes think that modern theologians to try to sound sophisticated think of Heaven as ONLY a state of being.

God’s creation does not take away from His inifinteness.

If God chooses to have the streets of heaven paved in gold then that is great.

Remember–Jesus said “In my father’s house are many mansions–if it weren’t so I would have told you. I go to prepare a PLACE for you that where I be you may be there also.”

Jesus speaks of a PLACE. Not a PLACELESS state of being championed by theologians who think they know what they’re talking about!

If we know that there are PLACES in Heaven–it isn’t too much of a stretch to think that there are THINGS in Heaven.

In other words we don’t go to a placeless abode that is beyond ANY notion of location or dimensionality.

Now I’m not saying that the afterlife is identical to life here on Earth–what I am saying is Heaven is not NOTHINGNESS NIRVANNA!

Seen in that light the whole REGENERATION of creation by Christ is not impossible to imagine.

The New Jerusalem will be the perfection of the Old Jerusalem.

That may not mean that your favorite pet will positively be there–but SOME animals in Heaven?

Why not? It isn’t impossible. If the streets are gold then we know there are streets. If God has streets in heaven then why not animals?

Jesus as the New Adam REVERSES all the things that were done by the Old Adam.

What would God’s will for creation had been IF Adam and Eve had never sinned?

I believe that will for creation that wasn’t realized at the time because of their sin WILL be realized because of Christ at the end of time!

We will not be the same in heaven as we are here–we will be better!

I believe all creation–and that includes animals will also be better.

There is nothing that precludes God from making something good and then making the same thing better.

Now I don’t believe the animals have souls–but the scripture does say they have spirits.

What would a better animal spirit be like?

Who knows? And who knows if God even wants to do such a thing?

All I’m saying is that God MIGHT do such a thing with the animals and with other parts of His creation.

But it is true that in Heaven we will not be ATTACHED to anything but God.

We won’t need anything but God.

BUT when we do reach that state–who knows what God will have in store for us?

Masions and a place prepared for us–yes because Jesus said so.

Animals?

If they bring glory to Him and let us express our love for Him—maybe.

Whatever God decides will be perfect.

 

[Salvatore123]

rap,

I think that you don’t understand my post because you have joined this thread so late in the game. I will try to respond to each of your criticisms of my post, by enumerating each item you said, with my response to follow. Your words are italicized:

1. You say animals have no immortal soul yet you say there are animals in heaven.

No, I didn’t say that. I said that I do not believe that animals on earth have immortal souls so that when they die, the souls of those animals “rise” to heaven along with their owners (provided their owners make it as well). Big difference. God can obviously choose to populate heaven with whatever he chooses. And I am not saying that God CANNOT permit animals to enter heaven in contradiction to what I just explained. My point of animals on earth not going to heaven is based on Catholic teaching/theology on the nature of a soul, the nature of man, the whole point of God creating man, man sinning, and God wanting to “right the world” that man destroyed with his sin, by sending his Son to die a redemptive death. I, as well as some of the smartest Catholic theologians who ever lived (St. Thomas Aquinas being one of them), hold the same position.

And I also admit that the Church has not definitively taught on the immortality of an animal’s soul. My thesis is built solely upon Catholic teaching and how it applies to mankind and what God did for mankind. God can still populate heaven with animals that were not necessarily part of earth and who lived a life on earth to then die and have their “souls” rise.

1. God does not THINK animals are good, he KNOWS they are good. God doesn’t think anything, he knows everything.

Now you are playing semantics games. I did not use the word “think” as though it had a limitation on God’s abilities. I fully realize that God is ominipotent and omniscient. When I said that God “thinks” a certain thing, I say it in a way that implies he thinks with certitude. Let’s at least try to “debate” the issue raised by the thread instead of getting sidetracked on things such as this.

3.* Lucifer was created to be good, but he himself chose to reject God by refusing to serve him. We all are created to be good and through free will we ourselves chose good or evil.*

I realize this as well. I mentioned the fact of Lucifer being created by God in response to those who claim that animals are in heaven because EVERYTHING that God created is good and thus there is no reason to think that what God created does not make it to heaven. That type of reasoning is pure sentimentality and borders on those who nowadays are starting to advocate the non-existence of Hell because a “good, all loving God could not possibly send people to Hell”. Well, God does not send anyone anywhere. He allows them to make their own choices as to where they want to go based on how they live their lives and how contrite they are for their sins.

A: All of God’s creation was good. B. All things in heaven are good. C. Therefore, all things that God created must be in heaven. The fallacy with that “logic” is the false assumption that all good things must necessarily be “admitted” into heaven, and there is NO justification for such a conclusion.

1. The most troubling of your arguments is your statement about Church teaching. You say the Church does not teach anything definitively until it does. Wow!!! So based on this you jump to whatever conclusion you want and accept that as gospel because sometime in the future the Church MAY teach what you yourself profess to be truth. Do you realize how silly that argument is?? I guess I could believe anything I wish and just say "sometime in the future the church may teach this as doctrine so I am going to go ahead and just believe it now.

Yes, I do state what you said in your first sentence, and if you read it carefully, you will see that it makes sense.

The Church teaches MANY things, but not all of them are bound to be believed by the Church’s faithful under pain of heresy. JPII did not believe in the death penalty, but that was a prudential judgment on his part and I, as well as other Catholics, were free to disagree with him - and did so.

Thus, my statement is true: the Church does not teach anything defintively (meaning, infallibly - as dogma) until it states that it does.

I don’t see how you can equate what I say about the CHURCH teaching something that is not definitive and conclude that I meant that WE LAY PEOPLE can “teach” something as well. WE don’t have the power, authority, or right to teach anything - definitively or not - and I never said we did. We can BELIEVE certain things (such as this very subject - the disposition of the soul of an animal that lived on Earth), but that does not mean they are right or wrong. One position IS right, however. Either the souls of animals who lived on Earth rise to heaven or they do not. There is no “in between”.

Many, many people make the false assumption that until a matter is taught definitively (that is, as dogma or infallibly), then the matter can “go either way”. That is not true. Whether St. Anne’s conception of Mary was immaculate or whether Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven occurred, does not depend on the Church’s declaration that those two events are dogma, are infallible, and must be believed by all Catholics. The declaration is what “marks the line in the sand” to where there is no more debate or “free will” to believe or not. But whether or not the Church acted or whatever we believe, does not change the FACT of what may or may not have occurred.

I am reminded by one of Fulton Sheen’s famous quotes: Just because everyone believes a lie does not make it true. And just because no one believes something does not mean it is not true.

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

Conclusion . . .

An analogy is the modern way of referring to the Church dealing with marriages and calling them “annulments”. That is incorrect. The Church does NOT annul a marriage. To annul something is to rule that, as of the ruling, it is no longer valid. The Church, instead, issues a “decree of nullity”, that is, it recognizes that a valid marriage never occurred. This is the same as with dogmatic pronouncements. They are both FINDINGS of facts that have occurred. But simply because the Church has not yet proclaimed a dogma or issued a decree of nullity, does not mean the dogma was not true until the proclaimation no more than it means that the marriage was valid until the Church decreed it to be null. In both instances, the Church is CONFIRMING A FACT THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.

I said I was going to end my participation several posts ago, but I got “dragged in” by several statements that misstated my position.

They are:

1. I do not believe that animals on earth have immortal souls that survive their mortal body’s death, and rises to heaven.
2. The Church has never definitively taught anything about the immortality of a living being’s soul, except for the soul of man, which it has declared as immortal.
3. I personally believe it is dangerous (and yes, a slap in the face to God) to think that God treats the souls of animals as he does the souls of man. God sent his only Son to be horribly executed to benefit man because of his love for man. I see no such action ever done for an animal.
4. It is so easy to think of “animals in heaven” when people have the knee jerk reaction to wishing that their beloved pet cat or dog will be reunited with them in heaven. NO ONE has ever addressed my point in this thread about where the line (if people believe there is one) drawn as far as what kind of pets get to heaven: fish, snakes, spiders, and every other unusual or bizarre creature that some people “adopt” as pets. To me, someone praying that they be reunited with their pot-bellied pig is . . . well, I will just leave it at that. The idea of turning away from looking at God in the face - the most beautiful and wondrous thing imaginable - so that one can go pet their cat or play fetch with their dog, (again - soley in my humble opinion) denigrates God’s plan for man to be with him as one.
5. I have never said that heaven does not have animals. God can do whatever he wants to do. And because of that power, I am the first to say that animals CAN exist in heaven. I simply do not believe they will make it to heaven in the same way as the soul of a man.
6. Humans have an entire book (called the Bible) that definitively shows man the way to get to please God and get to heaven. Holy Mother Church has spent 2000 years teaching God’s plan to men so that they have the opportunity to encounter the Beatific Vision - the goal that everyone should have.
7. As God and his Church have NEVER taught anything about the salvation of the soul of an animal (not just dogs and cats, but bats, pythons, iguanas, lizards, tarantulas, goldfish, etc.), puts the burden on those who advocate such salvation to come forward with the “evidence” for such a thing to occur.

I KNOW that man gets to heaven, because my God, his book, and his Church, have taught me so.

Where is the “theology” for the immortality of the souls of animals, other than people being so devoted to pets that some of them treat them on par with humans (something the Church DOES teach against)?

That’s my take on the matter. I have enjoyed the discussion. If wishing that your pet makes it to heaven with you makes you feel better, they by all means - wish to your heart’s content.

As for me, I simply pray, and pray fervently, that I may meet God in the face one day. And that is the ONLY thing that is important to me for when I die. I truly cannot think of another thing that could be more fulfilling or rewarding.

The End (for me).

 

[meltzerboy]

I think that you don’t get it. It is “a slap in the face of God” to say “I don’t want this gift you are giving to me. It isn’t good enough for me.” Remember that God gave all animals to Adam to care for. That was before the fall of Adam. God did not say “I have made this world, now live in it alone.”

Also remember that Jesus chose to be born in a building full of animals, rather than a house full of people. If you are, for whatever reason, unable to process fully that our love of animals is a gift from God, realize that that is your limitation, and do not try to be so unkind to those of us who appreciate this gift.

Among my friends I am often known as “the animal lady”, so I have been asked on several occasions to help talk to a child grieving the loss of a pet. I could not in good conscience at all say “Nope, your pet is not in Heaven, he isn’t anywhere. God just annihilated your pet. Forget your love, forget the gift that God gave you of this pet, forget the love that God showed you by giving you this time with your pet.” What I do tell them is that their love of their pet is a gift from God, that if they love their pet, God loves their pet even more, and will continue to love the pet and care for the pet, even in death.

I think that your idea of Heaven is way too small. It is cramped and uncomfortable to the point that it seems mean. Don’t try to cram the rest of us in that tiny space. Open your mind and your heart to the wideness of God. God has made us the sort of creatures who enjoy His gifts in many different ways- through our many senses, and our emotions, and our minds. Heaven will be bigger, wider, deeper than Earth, not less in any way.

Great comment!

 

[meltzerboy]

I read here:
“there is no clear dividing line between Homo sapiens and the species that were our forbears”.

I disagree. * Homo sapiens* has an immortal soul. The species that were its forbears did not have one.

Let us get it clear. Dogs, rats, snakes, bacteria etc. do not go to heaven.

However, cats do!

 

[meltzerboy]

P.S. - St. Thomas Aquinas, acknowledged as probably the greatest Catholic theologian and Doctor of the Church of all time, taught that animal “souls” could not by their nature survive death. Unlike human souls, he said, they are perishable when separated from their proper bodies.

Now if you want to put your “knowledge” on the level of someone such as Aquinas, be my guest. As for me, I will side with Aquinas any time . . .

St. Thomas Aquinas had a brilliant mind, but at the time of his writing, most people–perhaps even St. Thomas–also believed that animals do not think or feel. Psychologists who study animal cognition, as well as ethologists, know today that is not true, and so do pet owners.

 

[RSD]

1. I personally believe it is dangerous (and yes, a slap in the face to God) to think that God treats the souls of animals as he does the souls of man. God sent his only Son to be horribly executed to benefit man because of his love for man. I see no such action ever done for an animal.
2. It is so easy to think of “animals in heaven” when people have the knee jerk reaction to wishing that their beloved pet cat or dog will be reunited with them in heaven. NO ONE has ever addressed my point in this thread about where the line (if people believe there is one) drawn as far as what kind of pets get to heaven: fish, snakes, spiders, and every other unusual or bizarre creature that some people “adopt” as pets. To me, someone praying that they be reunited with their pot-bellied pig is . . . well, I will just leave it at that. The idea of turning away from looking at God in the face - the most beautiful and wondrous thing imaginable - so that one can go pet their cat or play fetch with their dog, (again - soley in my humble opinion) denigrates God’s plan for man to be with him as one.
3. As God and his Church have NEVER taught anything about the salvation of the soul of an animal (not just dogs and cats, but bats, pythons, iguanas, lizards, tarantulas, goldfish, etc.), puts the burden on those who advocate such salvation to come forward with the “evidence” for such a thing to occur.

I KNOW that man gets to heaven, because my God, his book, and his Church, have taught me so.

Where is the “theology” for the immortality of the souls of animals, other than people being so devoted to pets that some of them treat them on par with humans (something the Church DOES teach against)?

That’s my take on the matter. I have enjoyed the discussion. If wishing that your pet makes it to heaven with you makes you feel better, they by all means - wish to your heart’s content.

As for me, I simply pray, and pray fervently, that I may meet God in the face one day. And that is the ONLY thing that is important to me for when I die. I truly cannot think of another thing that could be more fulfilling or rewarding.

The End (for me).

1. I am not good at finding the quote that I want when I want it, but doesn’t St. Paul say somewhere that “all creation” suffered from the fall of Adam, and “all creation” is redeemed by Christ’s suffering? Couldn’t this mean animals as well?
2. Again, you set up the false dichotomy of “turning away from God” to enjoy and appreciate the gifts of God. I do not think that it is right or necessary to turn away from the Beatific Vision to enjoy and appreciate the gifts that God has given us within His creation. Consider the possibility that our version of the Beatific Vision will include many different gifts. I do not know why God wants to give us so many different ways to appreciate and enjoy His love, but I see all around me that God wants to give us gifts, and I think that we should appreciate them. If you find the idea of someone praying to be re-united with their pot-bellied pig it may be because you are not (yet) able to understand that the love of the pig is part of God’s gift to this person.

I actually have addressed this question of where the line is drawn concerning which animals get to Heaven- I think that they all do! I look forward to being able somehow, though I cannot right now understand how, to living in harmony with mosquitoes and ticks, which is no more unlikely than for the lamb to lie down with the lion, or the child to play with the adder.

I hope that it is not truly The End for you in this thread, because 1) arguing with you has clarified a great deal of my own thinking, and helped me to be more careful how I will say anything about animals being in Heaven when I speak. For instance, I will be very careful not to say it in any way that implies that I think that God is not enough for us. and also 2) I am hoping for another post like the one about why we don’t want underage birds swaggering up to the celestial bar on the backs of mature pot-bellied pigs. That was hilarious, and I read it aloud to my friends. Here is a question for you- do you think that we will have jokes in Heaven?

 

[benidict]

However, cats do!

Yes I can agree with this. And since Pit Bulls are not your average Dog, they go too!

 

[benidict]

Conclusion . . .

An analogy is the modern way of referring to the Church dealing with marriages and calling them “annulments”. That is incorrect. The Church does NOT annul a marriage. To annul something is to rule that, as of the ruling, it is no longer valid. The Church, instead, issues a “decree of nullity”, that is, it recognizes that a valid marriage never occurred. This is the same as with dogmatic pronouncements. They are both FINDINGS of facts that have occurred. But simply because the Church has not yet proclaimed a dogma or issued a decree of nullity, does not mean the dogma was not true until the proclaimation no more than it means that the marriage was valid until the Church decreed it to be null. In both instances, the Church is CONFIRMING A FACT THAT HAS ALREADY OCCURRED.

I said I was going to end my participation several posts ago, but I got “dragged in” by several statements that misstated my position.

They are:

1. I do not believe that animals on earth have immortal souls that survive their mortal body’s death, and rises to heaven.
2. The Church has never definitively taught anything about the immortality of a living being’s soul, except for the soul of man, which it has declared as immortal.
3. I personally believe it is dangerous (and yes, a slap in the face to God) to think that God treats the souls of animals as he does the souls of man. God sent his only Son to be horribly executed to benefit man because of his love for man. I see no such action ever done for an animal.
4. It is so easy to think of “animals in heaven” when people have the knee jerk reaction to wishing that their beloved pet cat or dog will be reunited with them in heaven. NO ONE has ever addressed my point in this thread about where the line (if people believe there is one) drawn as far as what kind of pets get to heaven: fish, snakes, spiders, and every other unusual or bizarre creature that some people “adopt” as pets. To me, someone praying that they be reunited with their pot-bellied pig is . . . well, I will just leave it at that. The idea of turning away from looking at God in the face - the most beautiful and wondrous thing imaginable - so that one can go pet their cat or play fetch with their dog, (again - soley in my humble opinion) denigrates God’s plan for man to be with him as one.
5. I have never said that heaven does not have animals. God can do whatever he wants to do. And because of that power, I am the first to say that animals CAN exist in heaven. I simply do not believe they will make it to heaven in the same way as the soul of a man.
6. Humans have an entire book (called the Bible) that definitively shows man the way to get to please God and get to heaven. Holy Mother Church has spent 2000 years teaching God’s plan to men so that they have the opportunity to encounter the Beatific Vision - the goal that everyone should have.
7. As God and his Church have NEVER taught anything about the salvation of the soul of an animal (not just dogs and cats, but bats, pythons, iguanas, lizards, tarantulas, goldfish, etc.), puts the burden on those who advocate such salvation to come forward with the “evidence” for such a thing to occur.

I KNOW that man gets to heaven, because my God, his book, and his Church, have taught me so.

Where is the “theology” for the immortality of the souls of animals, other than people being so devoted to pets that some of them treat them on par with humans (something the Church DOES teach against)?

That’s my take on the matter. I have enjoyed the discussion. If wishing that your pet makes it to heaven with you makes you feel better, they by all means - wish to your heart’s content.

As for me, I simply pray, and pray fervently, that I may meet God in the face one day. And that is the ONLY thing that is important to me for when I die. I truly cannot think of another thing that could be more fulfilling or rewarding.

The End (for me).

Interesting. Then pray tell me, Why in the O.T. God commands the blood of the animal be poured upon the ground after having been slaughtered? and if this is not done, the blood of the Animal shall be required of the offender? Also we are commanded not to eat the blood of the animal in both the Old Testament, and the New tesament. Why? Because it is the Life of the animal, and will be taken into account on the last day. Judaism also teaches that At the Judgement Animals will testify as to how they were treated by their human counter parts. Though there may be some symbology in this, the context would lead me to believe otherwise. Get angry at me if you wish, but the issue is more complex than you would have us believe. Peace

 

[StAnastasia]

Interesting. Then pray tell me, Why in the O.T. God commands the blood of the animal be poured upon the ground after having been slaughtered? and if this is not done, the blood of the Animal shall be required of the offender? Also we are commanded not to eat the blood of the animal in both the Old Testament, and the New tesament. Why? Because it is the Life of the animal, and will be taken into account on the last day. Judaism also teaches that At the Judgement Animals will testify as to how they were treated by their human counter parts. Though there may be some symbology in this, the context would lead me to believe otherwise. Get angry at me if you wish, but the issue is more complex than you would have us believe. Peace

benidict, you are quite right. Salvatore’s argument is both very simplistic and very intellectualistic. He or she is arguing as if the capacity to reason is the only qualification for entry into heaven, essentially discarding all other aspects of God’s beautiful creation. This is theologically petty and wrong.

If scripture is interpreted as if Homo sapiens is the only morally considerable dimension of creation, that is probably because it is humans who wrote it. Naturally, humans are anthropocentric, and therefore their scriptures will be anthropocentric as well. There are many non-anthropocentric theologians, such as Andrew Linzey, and countless Christian believers who share your broader vision of God’s goodness and love for the divine creation!

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I am not good at finding the quote that I want when I want it, but doesn’t St. Paul say somewhere that “all creation” suffered from the fall of Adam, and “all creation” is redeemed by Christ’s suffering? Couldn’t this mean animals as well?

Yes - Romans 8:22.

1. Again, you set up the false dichotomy of “turning away from God” to enjoy and appreciate the gifts of God. I do not think that it is right or necessary to turn away from the Beatific Vision to enjoy and appreciate the gifts that God has given us within His creation.

Quite right. Salvatore’s personal interpretation of the Beatific Vision is exceedingly narrow, as if everyone’s enjoyment of that vision will be cerebral. I hope there will be Talisker in heaven, as that is the best scotch on the planet – God made taste and taste is beautiful!

I actually have addressed this question of where the line is drawn concerning which animals get to Heaven- I think that they all do! .

If God can reconstitute the 20-50% of Homo sapiens who die before they are born – that is, who are washed out by miscarriage – God can reconstitute all created life in ways appropriate to eternity.

Here is a question for you- do you think that we will have jokes in Heaven?

If humor isn’t part of the joy of heaven, it might as well be hell.

 

[meltzerboy]

Interesting. Then pray tell me, Why in the O.T. God commands the blood of the animal be poured upon the ground after having been slaughtered? and if this is not done, the blood of the Animal shall be required of the offender? Also we are commanded not to eat the blood of the animal in both the Old Testament, and the New tesament. Why? Because it is the Life of the animal, and will be taken into account on the last day. Judaism also teaches that At the Judgement Animals will testify as to how they were treated by their human counter parts. Though there may be some symbology in this, the context would lead me to believe otherwise. Get angry at me if you wish, but the issue is more complex than you would have us believe. Peace

I’m not sure what Judaism says regarding animals going to heaven. My guess is it does not specify, for according to Judaism, we should not discuss who may or may not go to heaven too much in this life, but rather focus on worshiping G-d and doing good deeds toward Man in the here and now and leave it to G-d to make a just and merciful decision.

 

[StAnastasia]

we should not discuss who may or may not go to heaven too much in this life, but rather focus on worshiping G-d and doing good deeds toward Man in the here and now and leave it to G-d to make a just and merciful decision.

A wise judgment. I’ve never liked the idea of “getting into heaven” – it makes “heaven” sound too much like a gated community, a ghetto for the righteous. I prefer to think of God’s infinite goodness as the matrix within which we dwell; indeed, the matrix within which the universe exists, in Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa’s sense. Thus, we don’t “get into heaven”; rather, if we cease to exclude God we find heaven opens up to us.

 

[kanrok]

What do you call people who believe dogs go to heaven?

“Canine-ites”

Or not.

 

[StAnastasia]

What do you call people who believe dogs go to heaven? “Canine-ites”

Catholics open to the love of God.

 

[benidict]

benidict, you are quite right. Salvatore’s argument is both very simplistic and very intellectualistic. He or she is arguing as if the capacity to reason is the only qualification for entry into heaven, essentially discarding all other aspects of God’s beautiful creation. This is theologically petty and wrong.

If scripture is interpreted as if Homo sapiens is the only morally considerable dimension of creation, that is probably because it is humans who wrote it. Naturally, humans are anthropocentric, and therefore their scriptures will be anthropocentric as well. There are many non-anthropocentric theologians, such as Andrew Linzey, and countless Christian believers who share your broader vision of God’s goodness and love for the divine creation!

StAnastasia

Thank you. Is it not written that even Creation groans for His reappearing? Jesus not only came to shed his blood, and save us from the wrath to come. but to lift the curse that is on the world. All things will become new. We will not just be sitting on clouds staring at God. We Live, Move, and in Him will have our Being! It is impossible to describe, but we will never be seperated from Him, and no matter what we do, He will be present there. This is why I never get upset with Mormons who believe that Marriage is eternal. We dont know. We have these relationships for a reason. Some better than others, but remember even before the fall. Male and Female created He them. Basically a topic for another thread, but I really just dont think we will sit there basking in the Light of Christ, and be Idle. Words cannot describe what is planned for those that love him. Animals are part of this creation. Yes at this point we can eat them, (yummy) but remember before the fall, Adam and Eve did not eat meat. they ate fruits and vegitables. God came also to restore this lost paradise. Im looking forward to it! Peace and prayers that we may all end up there! pets included:thumbsup: