Posted on 12/11/2014 7:59:05 AM PST by Slings and Arrows
In his weekly address at the Vatican late last month, Pope Francis issued a remarkable statement that’s sure to come as welcome news to anyone who’s ever lost a beloved pet. According to Francis, the promise of an afterlife applies not only to believers, but to all animals as well.
"The Holy Scriptures teach us that the realization of this wonderful plan covers all that is around us, and that came out of the thought and the heart of God," Pope Francis said, as quoted by Italian news site Resapubblica.
The Pope then went on to say that “heaven is open to all creatures, and there [they] will be vested with the joy and love of God, without limits.”
Pope Francis’s stance on animals stands in contrast to that of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, who despite reportedly being a cat lover, said that animals’ existence was limited to their time on Earth. But Francis isn’t the first pontiff to take an animal-friendly approach to ideology. As newspaper Divisione la Repubblica notes, Pope John Paul II held a similar position, saying animals had a “divine breath.”
This isn’t the first time that Francis, who adopted his papal name in honor of the patron saint of animals, St. Francis of Assisi, has spoken out on behalf of nonhumans. In his first homily as pope, Francis articulated mankind’s role in serving not only the divine, but in all creatures born from it:
“The vocation of being a ‘protector,’ however, is not just something involving us Christians alone; it also has a prior dimension which is simply human, involving everyone. It means protecting all creation, the beauty of the created world, as the Book of Genesis tells us and as St. Francis of Assisi showed us. It means respecting each of God’s creatures and respecting the environment in which we live."
Where is that found? It certainly implies animals will survive. Humans have lived and admired animals since the dawn of time. Perhaps the Good Lord,knowing that, will let animals survive in order to increase the happiness of the few humans that are saved.
Misprint. It's a white Harley.
My personal opinion is that the Bible was written to reveal God to man. It therefor has little information on how God views the rest of creation. If you had to communicate something to an ant, how much info would you include in the message?
I don’t know the fate of animals, but I’d be very surprised if God doesn’t love them too. What provisions He has made (or not made) for them is something we won’t know until we get there ourselves. However, I won’t be surprised if heaven has a LOT of animals. Heck:
Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel
22 Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 Now the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road.
24 Then the Angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. 25 And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again.
26 Then the Angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. 27 And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam; so Balaam’s anger was aroused, and he struck the donkey with his staff.
28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”
29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!”
30 So the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?”
And he said, “No.”
31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face.
32 And the Angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because your way is perverse before Me. 33 The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live.” - Numbers 22
Notice: “Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey...” Not, the Lord put speech into the donkey’s mouth, but the Lord OPENED the mouth of the donkey!
I ride horses frequently. If one ever speaks to me with human speech, I’ll probably be too dumbfounded to converse. But it does suggest something lies beyond what some theologians see...
I have no doubt that there will be many examples...
Animals will be in the new heaven and earth.
That’s the “when” of it.
They won’t necessarily “survive”, they will be re-created.
Isa 11:6, BTW.
Old Twilight Zone episode. After a man dies, he meets his dog. Walks down a road and meets a man at the gates of heaven, but the dog doesn't like the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper says heaven is open to the man, but not his dog. The man takes a pass because his dog isn't allowed. He keeps walking down the path and find the real heaven where the dog is allowed and lives happily ever after.
Tuna?
This would seem to indicate that God understands how fond we humans can be of our pets. A good sign, IMO, that perhaps we’ll have pets in heaven:
2 Samuel 12:3New King James Version (NKJV)
3 But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb which he had bought and nourished; and it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom; and it was like a daughter to him.
Hard to say whether animals will survive death or be recreated. I don't know as scripture does not say and the rest is merely "reasoning." The Good Lord could do either.
I would rather go to hell if I can’t enter heaven with my dog.
Yes, Kujo was ill........
That was a very good episode of Twilight Zone.
Of course my kitties are waiting for me in heaven. I have to continue to be good so I can see them again.
The heavens and the earth, and the “elements” will be all consumed by fire. (2 Peter 3:10)
The new heavens and earth will be created and we’ll live there - with the new animals.
I believe in a very personal God as revealed in the Bible, one who notices when even just one sparrow falls from the sky, I simply do not think a God who cares so much would only stop to notice and not do anything.
Furthermore, the scriptures are a gift there for saints to discern to good, loving, kind nature of God. Non-believers will always be confused if they don’t 1st put their faith [sola fidelis] in Jesus Christ and 2nd let scriptures interpret scriptures [sola scriptura].
So use any Bible search engine to find all the scriptures about a related topic and then let the simplest explanation help guide you [for even God’s secrets are not so to little [humble] children - see Romans 8:18-22.
Now please tell me what ‘all the creation is groaning for’ if they don’t also share in our expectant hopes of Heaven?
Your conclusion is still reasoning. Even though all will be destroyed we will survive through that decreed destruction(at least the saved will survive). The Lord” could have decreed the animals will likewise live through the final destruction. I just say we don’t know. However, it does appear the saved will have the animals they are familiar with.
Indeed!
And he’s really refining his technique these days.
“Does that include mosquitoes and ticks?”
Oh heavens! I hadn’t thought of that!
I would think that one qualification for a pope’s fitness would be a thorough knowledge of the very doctrine he is supposed to promulgate. It was heresy in the Middle Ages to suggest that animals could go to Heaven, since they do not have a soul. Now we have a supreme pontiff flippantly reversing centuries of doctrine, with no scriptural basis whatsoever.
A “remark?” A “statement?” When commenting on matters of doctrine, maybe he should choose his words more carefully. His comments are scrutinized around the world, and that level of responsibility comes with the job. The most banal expression can be considered dictum ex cathedra.
What’s the expression? “Loose lips sink ships?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.