Will my dog be in Heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kennedy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, I kept on running as fast as I could. šŸ™‚
 
Last edited:
I did a Google search on ā€œofficial church teaching on animals in the afterlifeā€ and although I didnā€™t go into any of the articles, there seems to be one common thread in all the results:

So here they are:
Do Pets Go to Heaven? Catholic Answers - https://www.catholic.com qa/do-pets-go-to-heaven Feb 16, 2017But to the question of whether animals in general will exist in the new heaven and new earth, the Church has never given any definitive teaching on this question. Any answer provided would be in the realm of speculative theology. There are arguments on both sides.
Click to expand...
Are There Animals in Heaven? - Catholic Stand : Catholic Stand Are There Animals in Heaven? - Catholic Stand Jul 25, 2017 - In the end, we do not have a definitive answer about whether or not there will be animals in heaven. It has not been clearly revealed to us. The teachings of the Church and the Bible both focus on teaching us what is necessary for our own salvation
Click to expand...
Pets in Heaven - EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answerspets_in_heaven.htm A question that comes up frequently is whether people will see their pets in heaven. Now the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not directly address this question. But it does hold principles which lead us in the direction of an answer.
Click to expand...
 
BlackFriar said:
There is no teaching there will not be animals after the 2nd Resurrection. I am sure its within Gods power to resurrect moggy if that would make our joy complete.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m saying we donā€™t know if animals will be in the ā€œNew Kingdom,ā€ but Scripture indicates there will be. Father is saying the Church knows they will not be, or at least the ones we know today will not be. Thatā€™s what we were squabbling over until I had to go to the dentist.
 
Last edited:
ConstantLearner said:
40.png
Arkansan:
FWIW most of the arguments against limbo are also emotionally driven.
Click to expand...
My feelings about limbo arenā€™t emotionally driven. For me, it was just the first example of the Catholic Church doing a 180 on something that isnā€™t dogma. And I donā€™t blame them for that. Advances in psychology, philosophy, chemistry, physics, medicine, etc. all shed new light on the Churchā€™s teachings. If itā€™s not dogma, the Church can take advantage of new information.
Click to expand...
None of those things have anything to do with either limbo or the mortality of animal souls.
 
One of my favorite passages in the OT is in the 11th chapter of Isaiah, which concerns heaven. Metaphor or more? Iā€™ll leave that up to you all to decide:
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall graze;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adderā€™s den.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.
 
Last edited:
ConstantLearner said:
The Vatican is under the impression that Limbo for unbaptized infants was definitely a teaching:

ā€œIt is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin.ā€

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Itā€™s never been dogma, as I stated.
Click to expand...
You are WRONG! It has neither been dogma or even a doctrine. It was only ever a theological hypothesis.
It is irrelevant what some priests told your grandmother!
 
I believe FD96 was saying Jesus only redeemed human nature.
Somehow he went from there to saying animals therefore couldnā€™t possibly be in heaven.
I am unsure of the connection.

The other problem with this angle of course is what do we mean by ā€œheavenā€ when we start to speak of more than disembodied soulsā€¦ie our souls reunited with bodies.

Heaven must then, in some respects, be a bodily place.
How can it be a bodily place if heaven is the Beatific Vision which is about the spiritual realm - for God can only be seen by the soul not by the body.

I believe the typical solution is to observe that the glorified bodies of the just, after the Final Resurrection, are perfectly responsive and subservient to the ā€œabsolute dominion of the soulā€ by means of the qualities of subtility, impassibility, agility and glory.(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm)

So insofar as the soul is in heaven then the body is in its own material heaven also as it reflects the glory of the soul of the person receiving the Beatific Vision. What that means in material practise nobody knows.

But if favourite pet animals make the soul happier then perhaps our memories will somehow be provided for in the bodily heavenly realm either by the power of God or by the power of our own glorified bodies to ā€œreincarnateā€ or revisit our happy memories as a true reality.

Nobody knows, but surely its possible,
Just sayin.
 
Last edited:
Clearly it was once a widespread and mainstream Catholic ā€œteachingā€ much like Geocentrism and the iniquity of any interest on a loan at all.

ā€œDoctrineā€ is not a magical word. It is exactly the same word as ā€œteachingā€ except being the latin equivalent. Call it a ā€œdisseminationā€ if it makes you feel more comfortable, its really the same thing.
 
BlackFriar said:
Clearly it was once a widespread and mainstream Catholic ā€œteachingā€ much like Geocentrism and the iniquity of any interest on a loan at all.

ā€œDoctrineā€ is not a magical word. It is exactly the same word as ā€œteachingā€ except being the latin equivalent. Call it a ā€œdisseminationā€ if it makes you feel more comfortable, its really the same thing.
Click to expand...
It was not a widespread teaching of the Church. It was NOT a teaching at all. It was only ever a theological hypothesis which Catholics were allowed to believe in or not.
We donā€™t have options with teachings. We must believe/accept them.
 
Simply repasting your prior comments does not make your position any more credible Thistle.

Call it a widespread and mainstream Catholic ā€œdisseminationā€ then if you think ā€œteachingā€ and ā€œdogmaā€ are the same. Most of us here donā€™t seem to.

You are getting somewhat staunch over mere words - we are more interested in the reality they represent. The reality is dissemination and teaching are effectively the same re this view.
 
BlackFriar said:
Simply repasting your prior comments does not make your position any more credible Thistle.

Call it a widespread and mainstream Catholic ā€œdisseminationā€ then if you think ā€œteachingā€ and ā€œdogmaā€ are the same. Most of us here donā€™t seem to.

You are getting somewhat staunch over mere words - we are more interested in the reality they represent. The reality is dissemination and teaching are effectively the same re this view
Click to expand...
It is not the same. It is very clear. Catholics are BOUND BY TEACHINGS, whether infallible or non-infallible. Catholics have NEVER been bound by the theological hypothesis on Limbo for Infants, ergo never a teaching!
 
Please.
Tell that to Galileo re the ā€œhypothesis of geocentrismā€ .
It was a teaching. People donā€™t get punished for hypotheses šŸ˜„.
 
They have material spirits.
That means the spirit exists but only in matter.

Therefore, when we ourselves gain material bodies in the Final Resurrectionā€¦there seems no reason why animals cannot be present with us at that point.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top