Do Animals Have Souls?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kooldood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For all those that need to rest their hearts on (Do animals have souls? )I suggest they visit this site franciscansoflife.org/indek.html there is a prayer among others for anImals by St Francis of Assisi the respect and love we have to give to this creation where one day everything is going to be restored back as it was to its perfection , they have material souls that is going to die with them but its plain to see that every thing and every thing means even animals is going to be restored back to perfection that means everlasting life for every single ,small, big, insignificant for us or significant is going to wake up back to that eternal life .No one can limit God he gave humans a soul he gave us the will to choose but it doesn’t mean that because animals have material souls which dies with them God in his greatness didn’t think of something else to bring them back to life if he brought them to life here on this earth and he is their creator what makes us doubt that he can’t do do the same in his Kingdom because if we open more on this subject I have a question this material soul what gave her life the materia or God because if you answer me the materia then God is not her creator and thats what we are implying if we say that animals won’t wake up again because the one that gave them life here is going to give them life on the other side
I think you raise an important point about the Kingdom. “Thy Kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven”. It would be hard to imagine Paradise without birds and trees and flowers and animals. Earth seems to me a reflection of what should be a perfect copy of heaven, had not we sinned in the garden. Everything in nature that God created is an image of his glory. The stars, the trees, the mountains, the streams, the wildlife, etc. We should be good stewards of the wonderful world we were born into and try to make it reflect his kingdom to come.
 
No, they most certainly do not. Only people have souls. That’s precisely what sets us apart from animals.
Since the MIddle Ages the Church established that animals and humans both have souls. This was discussed by the early Fathers and there was no question about the soul. The question was what kind of soul.

Aquinas clarified that animals have a material soul. The soul gives life to the body, but it is finite. This means that when the animals dies, so does the soul.

He clarified that human beings have an imortal soul. The sould also gives life to the body, but it is imortal. It can exist without the body. Therefore, it is not material, because it does not depend on the body for its continuity.

The Suma has a very long explanation on the subject. The Church accepted Aquinas’ logic and the discussion was closed. Today, the Church believes that animals have a material soul and human beings have an imortal soul.

This is a nice article on this subject from a very credible Catholic philosopher.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/pets_in_heaven.htm

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I think you raise an important point about the Kingdom. “Thy Kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven”. It would be hard to imagine Paradise without birds and trees and flowers and animals. Earth seems to me a reflection of what should be a perfect copy of heaven, had not we sinned in the garden. Everything in nature that God created is an image of his glory. The stars, the trees, the mountains, the streams, the wildlife, etc. We should be good stewards of the wonderful world we were born into and try to make it reflect his kingdom to come.
There are two positions on this and neither have been accepted or rejected by the Church.
  1. The Kingdom is not bald. In Heaven we will have everything that will make us perfectly happy. Obviously, if we make it to heaven, we will only wish for the good things that will make us happy.
The other position.
  1. In Heaven, God’s presence and all of its glory will be more than we will ever need to make us happy. Therefore, we will not desire the things those things that made us happy on earth, because they are insignificant by comparison.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Aquinas clarified that animals have a material soul. The soul gives life to the body, but it is finite. This means that when the animals dies, so does the soul. He clarified that human beings have an imortal soul. The sould also gives life to the body, but it is imortal. It can exist without the body. Therefore, it is not material, because it does not depend on the body for its continuity.
That’s an interesting opinion. I wonder what he based it on.
 
There are two positions on this and neither have been accepted or rejected by the Church.
  1. The Kingdom is not bald. In Heaven we will have everything that will make us perfectly happy. Obviously, if we make it to heaven, we will only wish for the good things that will make us happy.
The other position.
  1. In Heaven, God’s presence and all of its glory will be more than we will ever need to make us happy. Therefore, we will not desire the things those things that made us happy on earth, because they are insignificant by comparison.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Thank you! Both answers make a lot of sense. And I do agree with you that individually we can’t make up the rules of how and who will get to heaven, or what would be the point of following a religion which has already thought long and hard about the answers to things that as humans, we naturally wonder and worry about.
 
That’s an interesting opinion. I wonder what he based it on.
I can only guess that he used the writings of the Fathers, the Greek philosophers and the influence of Bonaventure. But I’m only guessing. Aquinas does not explain the background of his conclusions.

In the end, the background is not important, once the Church accepts is as part of her belief system. Then it becomes part of our faith. The good thing is that the Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals. Therefore, since this has been accepted as part of our faith, it must be absolutely true and irrefutable.

We will always find better wording to explain it, but we will never be able to change the truth. Men have imortal souls and animals have material souls. We can’t change that since it has become part of our deposit of faith. As Catholics we must accept this along with the other truths that we cannot prove, but accept in faith.

The best confirmation that we have on this point is that it is the belief held by all of the Apostolic Churches, Catholic and Orthodox. This is not a coincidence. This has been well thought out and found to be revealed through tradition.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
And you base your opinion on what evidence?
StAnastasi, I would like to ask a question and I don’t mean to offend. But I notice that you keep asking for evidence. My question is this.

How do you believe everything that the Church teaches about Jesus when we have no evidence for most of it, other than the tradition that was handed down from the Apostles? There is no scientific explanation for anything that we believe about Jesus.

I guess this takes me to the second point. At what point do you accept the faith of the Church without a need for evidence?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Since the MIddle Ages the Church established that animals and humans both have souls. This was discussed by the early Fathers and there was no question about the soul. The question was what kind of soul.

Aquinas clarified that animals have a material soul. The soul gives life to the body, but it is finite. This means that when the animals dies, so does the soul.

He clarified that human beings have an imortal soul. The sould also gives life to the body, but it is imortal. It can exist without the body. Therefore, it is not material, because it does not depend on the body for its continuity.

The Suma has a very long explanation on the subject. The Church accepted Aquinas’ logic and the discussion was closed. Today, the Church believes that animals have a material soul and human beings have an imortal soul.

This is a nice article on this subject from a very credible Catholic philosopher.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/pets_in_heaven.htm

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Hiyas Brother JR:)

Thanks for the link.
 
I can only guess that he used the writings of the Fathers, the Greek philosophers and the influence of Bonaventure. But I’m only guessing. Aquinas does not explain the background of his conclusions.
So it’s somewaht arbitrary – an opinion based on the opinions of others. It’s interesting to add in the considerations of philosophers and scientist who are alive today, rather than restricting ourselves to what people imagined thousands of years ago.

I find the work of Marc Bekoff and others fascinating, as they study animal emotion and cognition and proto-morality. They have shown significant continuity between humans and other animals, rather than arbitrarily declaring an imagined gulf between them.

StAnastasia
 
So it’s somewaht arbitrary – an opinion based on the opinions of others.
It was based on the teachings of the Fathers. That’s not opinion. The Fathers were in posession of revealed truths.
It’s interesting to add in the considerations of philosophers and scientist who are alive today, rather than restricting ourselves to what people imagined thousands of years ago.
When scientists and philosophers contradict that truths that have been revealed, we cannot accept their positions. It is the role of theology to enlighten the other sciences. Faith must always guide reason. Not the other way around. This is a teaching of the Catholic Church that has been repeated several times by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
I find the work of Marc Bekoff and others fascinating, as they study animal emotion and cognition and proto-morality. They have shown significant continuity between humans and other animals, rather than arbitrarily declaring an imagined gulf between them.
StAnastasia
It is not an arbitrary gulf. It is part of Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is not arbitrary. If you claim that, then you may as well leave the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and some of the Reformation communities who believe that Sacred Tradition is revealed truth, just as are the scriptures and the teachings of the Magisterium.

You’re Catholic. You know we cannot change truth. We accept what has been revealed through the Apostolic Tradition that the Fathers of the Church received two thousand years ago.

I fail to understand how you can accept that Jesus of Nazareth is God and have trouble accepting the Church’s position on the soul of animals.

Can you explain that for me? Why is this different? All we know about Jesus is 2,000 years old.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
 
So it’s somewaht arbitrary – an opinion based on the opinions of others. It’s interesting to add in the considerations of philosophers and scientist who are alive today, rather than restricting ourselves to what people imagined thousands of years ago.
So you obviously do not believe in the Church getting its authority to teach from Christ. Do you know how the non-Catholic Christian churches came into existence? They all rejected the Catholic Church’s Christ-given authority at one point, which led to starting another church. It is ironic that you said in that thread in the Scripture forum something to the effect that the converts from non-Catholic denominations are harmful to the Catholic Church, when you are very much like the people who split away and started those churches that they converted from.

If the teachings of the Catholic Church are just “opinions” or the product of the imagination, why should any one even be a Catholic?
 
You’re Catholic. You know we cannot change truth. We accept what has been revealed through the Apostolic Tradition that the Fathers of the Church received two thousand years ago.

I fail to understand how you can accept that Jesus of Nazareth is God and have trouble accepting the Church’s position on the soul of animals.

Can you explain that for me? Why is this different? All we know about Jesus is 2,000 years old.
Exactly.
 
It is ironic that you said in that thread in the Scripture forum something to the effect that the converts from non-Catholic denominations are harmful to the Catholic Church/QUOTE]

No, I didn’t say that at all. Conversions are wonderful!
 
It is ironic that you said in that thread in the Scripture forum something to the effect that the converts from non-Catholic denominations are harmful to the Catholic Church, ?
No, I didn’t say that at all. Conversions are wonderful!
 
(1) You have to understand the bigger picture. I did not say “there is a resurrection of the saved prior to the end of the world or the end of time.” I said that eternity is outside of time, so that the resurrection of Jesus and of everyone else “takes place” (if you will) outside of time.

(2) The “end times” items to which you refer are symbolic. Humanity will go extinct with other macro-scale plant and animal in another half billion years when the increasing solar winds of the swelling sun first strips away the atmosphere and then boils the oceans. Life on earth will continue in bacterial form for another few billion years until either the red giant sun swallows up the earth, or the planet cools to a frozen balls when the sun collapses to the state of a brown dwarf.
Certainly, Biblical eschatology is expressed using symbolism. The Apostle John explained his supernatural vision in a way that could be understood by his readers, using metaphors and symbols. In the Gospels, Christs explains the Last Judgment using “images” of sheep and goats. Christ Himself is described with the imagery of the Lamb. Yet all this figurative language expresses deep religious realities and eschatological truths.

Science can only project the future state of the cosmos based on what it knows on the scientific level. I don’t know of any scientists who would claim to have prophetic knowledge about the distant future. Science cannot tell us that the universe and time will in fact continue any number of millenniums and that its present course will not be interrupted by Divine intervention such as the Second Coming of Christ. To deny the Parousia as a future historical event is in fact to deny what the Bible and the Church clearly teach.

To claim that science trumps Revelation is rank scientism or at least a misuse of science. It’s a poor exchange to give away one’s inheritance of the Faith for a mess of quantifiable pottage. Science has no magic crystal ball to see into the future.

To assert that the Last Things recorded in the Bible are just symbolic is to make an unintelligible statement. The question truly is, What are the statements symbolic of? They are not meaningless or empty symbols. What realities and truths are expressed by the symbols and other figurative expressions?
(3) Cosmologists see no evidence that the universe will re-collapse into a reverse Big Bang; indeed, the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, leading to its eventual entropic heat death tens of billions of years from now.
I see no evidence either that the cosmos will collapse. I cannot say “re-collapse” because a re-collapse presumes that it has collapsed at least once before.

If the universe continues to expand, and if scientific knowledge is correct in its understanding, then it is fair to predict, on a scientific level only, an eventual entropic failure of the universe. However, to predict that this “could” happen is no guarantee that it “will” happen, because time may end, as Catholics know, before the universe ends its current phase, all as a result of Divine plan and intervention into the natural history of the cosmos.
It seems that we must either accept what astronomers and cosmologists tell us and jettison a literal interpretation of biblical eschatology, or insist on a literalist eschatology and junk modern science. Of course, we could always choose both to accept science and to interpret eschatology in a way that distinguishes between the temporal and the eternal. StAnastasia
Your alternatives are not realistically stated and need not be considered.

Astronomy and cosmology cannot guarantee that God will not intervene again in the course of history as part of His plan. Christ did not reveal the time of His return. He said He will come at a time when it is least expected, as does a thief in the night.

From what you are saying, it sounds like the Second Coming will be a surprise to those cosmologists and astronomers who think their projected time-line playbook for the cosmos has to be followed page for page by the Creator. I am sure an awful lot of people will be surprised by the Last Things, just as Christ predicted they would be.
 
Science is a blessing that God has given to man. But as the Church has said many times, the work of science has to be guided by faith. The findings of science have to understood in the light of faith, not the other way around.

Currently, the Vatican owns and directly operates the largest and most advanced astronomic observatory in the world. She has a team of Catholic and non Catholic scientists studying the different theories of evolution. She sponsors medical research. The Vatican’s observatory in the Mohabi Desert actually provides services to NASA.

So the Church is neither ignorant of science nor does she reject it. But science has to respond to truth. That which has been revealed as truth cannot change. Albert Einstein said best. “I don’t want to be God. I just want to understand how he did it.” That is the true work of science. It is not to compete with revealed truth or with moral law. Science neither creates truth nor does it define what is right and wrong. Science simply provides information and raises more questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
When scientists and philosophers contradict that truths that have been revealed, we cannot accept their positions. It is the role of theology to enlighten the other sciences. Faith must always guide reason. Not the other way around.
Sorry JR, but I can’t abandon reason quite to the extent that you are willing to. Contrary to the purveyors of the nineteenth-century “warfare thesis” faith and reason go hand in hand. Reason is not the enemy of faith.

The idea of an “immortal soul” is a Greek category imposed onto Hebrew thought. The early Christians who developed the idea that all and only humans have immortal souls could not know that all life on earth is genetically related (as Pope Benedict notes), and that humans share many of their genes even with plants.

Of course, during the past several million years our hominid ancestors developed larger brain size and more flexibility of behavior, leading to the development of moral consciousness and spiritual awareness. These qualities mark humans as substantially more developed in the cognitive sphere. You would be hard pressed to find the precise generation where you could say with certainty, “this creature is human, but his parents were not human.”

An intriguing problem with the all-humans-and-only-humans-have-immortal-souls position is what you would do with rational life on other planets. When we find morally conscious and spiritually aware life elsewhere in the universe (and remember, there are 300 billion galaxies averaging one hundred billion stars each) how will we determine their “soular” state? If the image of God they worship is different than the human image we worship in the person of Jesus, how will we handle this theologically?

Intriguing questions! (I am going into the wilderness this weekend and may have no computer access until Sunday night; I’ll reply on Monday.)

StAnastasia
 
From what you are saying, it sounds like the Second Coming will be a surprise to those cosmologists and astronomers who think their projected time-line playbook for the cosmos has to be followed page for page by the Creator. I am sure an awful lot of people will be surprised by the Last Things, just as Christ predicted they would be.
I’m not a biblical literalist, so I hold no illusion that the entire universe will end because of what one species of intelligent primates on one planet imagine. There is no scientific reason to believe the universe will come to en end even when our sun burns out in five billion years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top