Posted on 04/09/2006 1:13:59 PM PDT by Gamecock
| Recently I heard on the radio that a local Christian church was going to be hosting a community-wide “Blessing of the Animals Ecumenical Service” at a nearby park this month. My first thought upon hearing the announcement was that it must be some sort of church picnic where they would be asking a blessing on the barbeque before they ate, but then I realized that I totally misunderstood what this whole “blessing of the animals” was about. Apparently they were talking about blessing live, uncooked animals. Go figure. In case you aren’t aware of this “animal blessing” phenomenon, let me tell you what I know. Evidently there is a growing trend within some corners of Christianity to offer some sort of yearly nondenominational prayer service where all pet owners can bring their beloved animals (or even their favorite stuffed animals, believe it or not) to be ritualistically blessed by God. From what I have gathered, it is a religious ceremony that was first made famous at Manhattan’s Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, as part of their annual celebration that honors St. Francis, the patron saint of animals and the environment. Based on an account of the yearly gathering at St. John the Divine from 2003, here is essentially what takes place: animal lovers bring their pets to the main altar of the church in a grand procession, whereupon the attending Bishop gives homage to “Brother Wolf, Sister Whale, Sister Loon” and other sundry creatures, and then recites a benediction for the animals that says, “Live without fear. Your Creator loves you, made you holy and has always protected you. Go in peace to follow the good road and may God's blessing be with you always. Amen.” Afterwards a throng of clergy go forth and individually bless each animal by laying on hands or sprinkling them with holy water, which could be quite tricky if you were dealing with some kid’s pet tarantula. Of course, when I first heard some of the details about these animal blessing ceremonies, I had three immediate questions:
Yet the thing that raised my curiosity the most was the fact that these events are billed as “ecumenical.” Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that denominational divisions weren’t really an issue in the animal kingdom. On the other hand, I have to wonder if animals of differing faiths even have the ability to adopt an ecumenical spirit with each other. I mean, would a falcon really be able to maintain the proper level of ecumenism with a plump rabbit sitting next to him? Could Precious the cat look past her inherent doctrinal differences with Buster the hamster? I would think that even between similar types of animals there might be a problem. For example, take a lion and a housecat, and then look at the possibility of these two feline cousins meeting at an ecumenical service. In some sense you could say that these two cats are so closely related that they are the zoological equivalent of a Catholic and an Anglican. Still, I can’t help but think that the lion would promptly eat the tabby before the invocation was even given. This is not to imply, of course, that a Catholic has ever eaten an Anglican during an ecumenical service, but then again Anglicans are an acquired taste.
The point I’m trying to make is this: I’ve watched enough Animal Planet on cable television to know that animals aren’t exactly the most well-mannered and virtuous beings around. It’s kind of hard for animals to develop a proper biblical worldview or godly disposition when they’re spending all their time eating each other. I would imagine that even animals of likeminded faith would have difficulty getting together for Bible study. In fact, I can hear their group leader now: “Turn your Bibles to 1st Thessa… Alright, Phil, did you just put Ted in your mouth? Spit him out right now!” Now I realize that this imaginary scenario sounds pretty ridiculous, but then again, this is exactly what happens when these animal blessing ceremonies try to cast animals in the image of man by holding them up as our spiritual brothers and sisters. I ask you, why do people today insist on ascribing human characteristics to animals? Proof of this phenomenon can be found in the publication of several best-selling calendars that contain photographs of dogs in dresses. Do dogs like to wear dresses? Perhaps they do if the dresses are made out of bacon; but generally speaking, dogs abhor fashion. If you’ve ever seen the “just kill me now” expression on Paris Hilton’s Chihuahua when she dresses the poor dog in French couture, then you know what I’m talking about. Which leads me back to my main concern with these animal blessing ceremonies: Despite their good intentions, they seem to promote the false idea that animals have equal standing with mankind in the eyes of God. Essentially, they are proclaiming an unbiblical concept whose foundation is largely built on evolutionary theory, an underlying disdain for man, and a fanciful notion that our pets will one day go to heaven. As fond as I am of my own pets, however, I can find no biblical warrant to support the position that animals are holy creatures with eternal souls that are in need of God’s extra-biblical blessing through religious pomp and ceremony. The Bible plainly states that men, not animals, are made in God’s image to rule over His creation (Genesis 1:26). In addition, Jesus made it quite clear that while God does not forget to care for the sparrows, a man is still of much greater value than a whole flock of birds (Matthew 10:31).
Look, I don’t mind if Christians feel a need to thank God for his creation and the creatures over which He gave us stewardship and dominion, but must we denigrate God’s redemptive plan by lowering the status of man to that of an animal? After all, it is redeemed men, not animals, who will one day be fellow heirs with Christ, partake in the divine nature, and worship Him through all eternity (Romans 8:17; 2 Peter 1:3). To somehow intertwine animals into that equation and speculate that they are equally worthy of redemption is to start down that slippery slope towards a belief in universal salvation. In other words, if Butch the pit bull, who just mauled the mailman, can go to heaven, then what’s stopping your unsaved relatives, who never bit anyone, from getting there, too? Furthermore, I fear that by constantly seeking God’s special blessing upon earthly interests like our job, our house, or our pets, that we are in some way ignoring or discounting the greatest blessing God has ever given us… Jesus Christ. Perhaps we would be better served to place our primary focus on the blessing of Christ in order to bring about the blessings due to the rest of His creation. Maybe we need to make sure that the blessing of the Gospel is spread first and foremost before we promote ecumenical activities that appear to be more grounded in Christ-less worldliness and self-interest. As an aside, let me add that my Old English Sheepdog, Truman, passed away this summer, and I dearly miss him. And though I certainly do not equate his company on the same level as my relationship with those of my fellow man, I will always remember Truman as a good dog: very devoted, humble, and faithful in his service to me. I truly believe that God blessed me with his existence, even though he was just an animal. Perhaps it can be said that the Lord, in His unfathomable wisdom, gave me this sheepdog to be another example of how to be a genuine servant. Jesus certainly made such a connection to the Canaanite woman when he likened true humility to a dog begging for scraps from his Master’s table (Matthew 15). Bottom line: the Bible tells us that God gave us animals as a blessing to man. He created these creatures to serve us, and to fulfill many God-ordained uses including food, clothing and religious sacrifice, which most of these animal blessing ceremonies seem to conveniently ignore or even denounce. God bless the animals? Certainly. But let’s not fall into the trap of promoting an unbiblical mythology or sentimentality that gives every pet, including sea monkeys, the same position as those people redeemed by the blood of Christ. Unless, of course, you can prove your sea monkeys are Baptist. |
|
And how many good works to tilt the balance in ones favor is the great unknown.
We Catholics can explain our own doctrine, thank you very much. You represent your position, we'll represent ours.
The Catholic position is that we are saved by grace through faith, but faith without works is dead faith with no power to save anyone. It's straight from the Bible.
Does the picture in your post #22 come painted on black velvet?
The "balance" is "tilted" in favor of the Christian by the cross. But if you don't live faith, you don't have it.
Equating Catholicism with Pelagianism is a lie. Sorry, I don't have any other word for it, so I'll simply call it what it is -- a lie. I don't earn my salvation any more than you earn yours.
So you don't need works? Make up your mind!
Equating Catholicism with Pelagianism is a lie.
So your soteriology lines up with Augustine and Calvin?
Do your works contribute to your justification before God, or not?
Hey, I once knew a St. Bernard...
...So this Franciscan charismatic priest decides to raise a little extra money for the parish youth league by opening up a dog-training school. After a few weeks go by without one customer, he mentioned his disappointment in a homily. A parishioner comes us to him and says, "Listen, we all know how much you love animals, but no-one figures you know much about training."
So the priest makes this deal with him: "Leave you dog with me for two weeks. At the end of the two weeks, I'll show you what the dog can do. If you're not satisfied, you don't owe me anything.
Two weeks later, the guy shows up, and the priest proudly shows him his dog.
"Ok, boy, sit!" says the man, and the dog sits up perfectly.
"Roll over!" he says, and the dog lies down and rolls over, then sits back up.
"Heel!" he says, and the dog...
[At this point in the joke, you have to smack your hand onto someone's forehead, raise the other hand skyward, and start making "Rorruruff owroo roofarooaowr.." sorta noises. It's kinda a lame pun (so to speak), so you really have to sell it with the obnoxious healer behavior.]
No, no, no, no, it isn't!
It's salvation by grace alone! And if it truly is grace which has saved us, we will have faith, as demonstrated by works!
If we THINK we have faith, but do not produce works, then our faith is misplaced, or it is not true faith. But the Catholic church also teaches that faith precedes works. Did Jesus not have faith those 30 years before his ministry? Did Paul not have faith those years he spent in Damascus? But both faith and works depend on grace, and grace alone.
I would take the Dread Boston Salty and the Ferocious Feline Bebop Trio to be blessed in a minute, if I had crates enough.
hehehe
>> So your soteriology lines up with Augustine and Calvin? <<
Since Augustine was a firm defender of orthodox Catholicism, yes. But Augustine, though a Doctor of the Catholic Church, and one of the most esteemed Catholic thinkers of all time, was not blessed with perfect, living Word, the way the apostles were. Many Catholics believe Thomas Aquinas' writings were necessary to balance Augustine's; the two do not conflict, as James and Paul do not conflict. And both Aquinas and Augustine taught that salvation cannot be gained through works.
As for Calvin... it's hard for a Catholic to focus on purely soteriological issues, so much of the language he uses is colored by other issues, that a Catholic has to study up on what Calvin meant by the words he chose, and not what a Catholic would mean by such words.
I'm often opposed people who treat the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, a publication of midwestern American laity ("Our Sunday Visitor"), as if it were infallible towards history (much of its history it apparently gleams from secular history books). But the book does have a nihil obstat and an imprimatur, indicating that the bishop found nothing heretical in it. (Of course, heresies are only theological, not historical, errors.)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm
A Catholic priest and a Protestant minister had a problem with crows nestin in their church buildings.
However, following Easter, the Catholic church was free from the birds. So the minister asked the priest how he had dealt with the problem.
-- I baptised them and confirmed them. Have never seen them again.
Sacraments are a means through which God bestows his graces. I am aware that many Protestants consider sacraments to be "works." But it's God who calls people to the sacraments. Without God's grace, we would flee from them, rather than be drawn to them. Further, our going through the motions of the sacraments apart from God would be completely meaningless.
If a child is driven to school every day, would you say that the child gets himself to school every day? If a child must wear a jacket to go to school, and the parent will insist that the child put on his jacket, would you say that the child gets himself to school on his own because he willingly put on his jacket? Will not the parent put the jacket on the child? Of course! But is it not good for the child to put the jacket on himself?
If the school is many, many miles away, and it is bitter cold outside, and the child wanders off without a jacket, to head to school on his own, not even knowing which direction to walk, will not people think he has no parents? Or that his parents are wicked to send him out into the weather like that? But in truth, will his Father not seek him out, to rescue him?
Explain what you mean by "depend".
Bottom line, do our works merely identify our salvation or are they active in meriting salvation?
for the record!
i by no means am bashing orthodox catholics.
i was just having fun on a silly thread.
orthodox catholicism is closer to the truth than many so-called protestant denominations!
by the way the dog picture haunts me,because my german shepherd probably knows more scipture than most professing believers.
5 SOLAS!
SCRIPTURE!
SORRY!
Some Protestants (anabaptists, mostly) would claim that they never returned because you didn't A) wait until they were fully able to make a saving confession of faith, and/or B) baptism was administered by sprinkling or pouring, instead of by full immersion, nullifying it's validity.
They would say that because God is still busy sanctifying their sense of humor.
Fully immersing a crow who just made a profession of faith is indeed an image the humor of which will require quite some time to sanctify.
I love the "Heal!" joke; I've seen the human version too many times to take it seriously anymore.
Seriously, there is an innocence to animals I envy. Yes, they turn on each other, eat each other, but they don't do it out of spite or hate or vengence. Our pets remind us of what perfect trust can be; only a dog or cat seems capable of truely unconditional love in this sorry world.
After all, Pope Benedict loves cats, and if it's good enough for him....
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.