Posted on 07/24/2015 11:09:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The question of whether animals will join us in the afterlife finally has a definitive response from Rome.
It’s a topic that’s been long debated, with Popes weighing in unofficially on both sides. Last December, a story broke nationwide claiming that Pope Francis had declared that animals are going to heaven, but it turns out that the media had conflated two stories, and that it was actually Pope Paul VI who had, many years earlier, told a young boy that “one day we will see our animals in the eternity of Christ.”
Paul was later contradicted by Pope Benedict XVI, who said in a sermon that “for other creatures, who are not called to eternity, death just means the end of existence on Earth.”
Notably, neither of these were doctrinal statements, and Catholic theologians continued to disagree and debate.
But no more. Despite last year’s media mix up — and despite Paul’s and Benedict's contradictory statement — Pope Francis did just officially declare that animals will join us in heaven, in his June 18 Encyclical, which offers official and binding doctrine on the question.
In fact, he has gone far beyond animals and the afterlife, linking animals to the Trinity and declaring that the Mother of God “grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor and for creatures of this world laid waste by human power.” For Catholics, the idea of Mary grieving for both the poor and animals, in the same sentence, is revolutionary.
So it’s almost anti-climactic that on the question of animals in heaven, Francis takes a stand: “Eternal life will be a shared experience of awe, in which each creature, resplendently transfigured, will take its rightful place and have something to give those poor men and women who will have been liberated once and for all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
True. Doesn’t necessarily say ‘in the here and now’, does it?
Good verse. Thanks.
My apologies to heaven's inhabitants. But they were bugging the devil out of me.
I think he is talking about Ecclesiastes 3:18-21
I disagree. I say that without Natural Law, interpreted in an authoritative way, you cannot act "justly" (or know if you are acting justly or unjustly) in a lot of the so-called ethical "dilemmas" of our age.
(You can ignore all of the following if you don't want to spend any time on it. I am just supplying examples in order to fortify my point that Scripture alone does not yield direct and simple answers on moral law.)
Does Scripture unambiguously authorize or prohibit torture? Slavery? Polygamy? "Ethnic cleansing"? Are these things a "just" person can justly can do? Is terminal sedation Biblically OK? With patient consent? With proxy consent? Or under what conditions?
Say that, through IVF and surrogacy, a baby has three mothers and two fathers: a genetic mother, a gestational mother, a contracting mother (the one who intends to take the baby home), a genetic father, and a contracting father. Is there any part of this IVF/surrogacy arrangement which is prohibited in Scripture? Any part which is NOT prohibited? If so, which parts?
Is usury OK, or not? (Interesting in view of Scripture's application of the word "abomination")
According to the Bible, is it permitted or forbidden to use drugs and surgery to change one's natural sexual function?
How about to change one's (I hate this term) "gender"?
Is intentional indiscriminate killing of civilian noncombatants Biblically OK?
Are bionic components Biblically permitted in the cerebral cortex?
Does Scripture permit a drug to compel a criminal suspect to tell the truth?
Is it Biblically OK to synthetically create, from non-human components, totipotent artificial human-type DNA if you do not use it in a cell? How about if you do insert it in a cell, and culture the cells through a couple of replications --- for fundamental molecular biology experimental reasons? How about for therapeutic reasons? How about for procreation?
Is it OK according to the Bible to implant small amounts of human genetic material in different taxa?
Does God's Word say it is OK for an unmarried woman to "adopt" a genetically unrelated frozen embryo and have it implanted in her womb -- as a way to save the embryo's life? How about for a married woman to do this?
Say a faithful wife was unwillingly civilly divorced by her husband. There was no Biblical reason for the divorce. May she remarry?
If she does remarry, does the Bible say the ex-husband may remarry?
A man in his 20's has a wife who is permanently brain injured, unable to recognize him, and living bed-bound in a nursing home. Her care is assured. He wants to seek a new wife so he can have a life-companion and a family. Can he do this? Or, according to Scripture, must he accept celibacy and sexual continence for the rest of his life?
Is mitochondrial transfer Biblically OK in human somatic cells? How about if you use it to modify a human zygote?
According to Scripture, is it OK to create permanent germline GMOs that are trans-species or trans-phylum? How about completely new synthetic life forms?
When AI entities can answer self-awareness questions and manifest self-awareness responses indistinguishable from those of humans, are they then "persons"? According to the Bible, are they to be treated with justice and mercy? Would it be OK to be cruel to them --- to inflict fear and pain upon them? Do they have a right to life?
I did not include things Christ does not teach.
Remember, I was talking about real water, intending to imply meaning inclusive of how Christ spoke of "water".
Feel free to let me know if you actually have something pertinent to the main thrusts of what else I was saying.
All the Magisterial stuff is binding. These are, properly speaking, "teachings of the Church."
All the non-Magisterial stuff is non-binding. These are, properly speaking "not" teachings of the Church. Even if they are true.
(OK, it's a tautology, but it's as simple as I can make it.)
For instance: "Water is H2O. Its molecular mass is 18 g/mol, rounded to the nearest tenth." These are true statements. However they are not teachings of the Church. They are teachings of chemistry.
"The sound of waves can help calm you if you have anxiety problems, and can help you pray" --- even though it's related to spirituality, it's not Magisterial because it's an opinion or maybe a personal experience, or maybe even an observation of psychology.
However it's the type of observation that would not be out-of-place in in Encyclical. It's spiritually useful. But it's not binding.
It's not "binding" because it's not presented as a truth of faith or morals which must be accepted by all the faithful.
Only truths related to faith or morals are the proper objects of Magisterial teaching.
Does that help?
I am afraid you are not using a relevant definition to Natural Law as it applies to ethics (LINK)
In the context of ethics, Natural Law philosophy means judgments of right and wrong based on reason, because rationality is our nature. That's why it's called 'Natural' Law. Because it is law derived from human nature,. That is, a rational nature.
This would be as distinct from Supernatural law, which is, in itself, above our nature, and cannot be apprehended except by revelation.
Supernatural Law and Natural law, properly understood, will reach conclusions which do not contradict each other. They reach congruent conclusions by different routes.
It does not mean "doin' what comes naturally" or "that which is naturally obvious." It takes a whole lot of disciplined intellectual work to have a coherent grasp of Natural Law.
Natural Law relates to all those questions I asked you in #184. I don't think most of them have obvious answers from Scripture.
Do they?
They don't have smack-on-the-nose 'obvious' answers from 'nature', either, but you can reason them out. In fact, you have to, or you aren't acting justly.
If it's from the same outfit who can't properly appraise the signs of the weather ---- what good could all the rest of it be?
Your own apparent assumptions that the RC 'magesterium' is the only game in town (that could ever count?) is not shared by myself -- so -- I don't need any lectures from you, and will not accept them even if I did.
See ya'.
Have fun.
Yes, we did.
”This latest encyclical, according to “Popes" themselves, is a teaching document that must be taken as "ordinary teaching authority".
Thanks for the link to “Humani Generis”. Note this distinction: Pius XII is spelling out the level of authority of the teachings in his encyclical as “Ordinary Magisterium.” Pope Francis spells out the level of authority in his encyclical quite differently (I’m using paragraph numbers here):
p. 3 – “In this Encyclical, I would like to enter into dialogue with all people about our common home.”
He is stating this is a “dialogue” encyclical, not primarily a “doctrinal” encyclical.
p. 7-9 “ [these statements] echo the reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians, and civic groups”
–- whereupon he gives us 2 paragraphs of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who cannot conceivably be directly supplying Catholic doctrine, since exactly NOBODY in the Catholic Church is Bartholomew's ecclesial subject.
Not to say he isn’t a good man and dearly beloved, etc. etc., but “Reflections” from the Eastern Orthodox are not part of the Ordinary Magisterium.
p.11 ”If we feel intimately connected with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously”
“Feelings” and wholesome sentiments which “well up spontaneously” are not part of the Ordinary Magisterium. And this encyclical is loaded with these calls to respond on an emotional and even sentimental level. We could all have an ennobling heat-to-heart on this (a couple beers would get me going), but "feelings" are not Magisterial.
p. 14 “I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue … We need a new conversation…raising awareness of these challenges…”
p. 15 “I will advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action…”
p. 16 “I will point to…the call to seek other ways of understanding… the need for forthright and honest debate…”
p. 19”Our goal is… to become painfully aware [of] what is happening to our world…”
“Dialogue,” “conversation,” “proposals,” “debate,” awareness-raising about what is going on in our "world" --- these words establish that Pope Francis' intent here is to spark a discussion on debatable, this-worldly topics, not to define doctrine.
p. 23”A very solid scientific consensus indicates…”
Prescinding from the question of whether this consensus is in fact so very solid, “scientific consensus” is not, and can not, be a basis for doctrine and dogma.
p. 60 (Under the sub-head “A Variety of Opinions”) “We need to acknowledge that different approaches and lines of thought have emerged… This makes a variety of proposals possible, all capable of entering into dialogue with a view to developing comprehensive solutions.”
p. 61 And finally, a resounding disclaimer of doctrine, or even “definitive opinion” (!),whatever that might be-- an intriguing oxymoron:
“On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.”
Thank you, Sr. Bergoglio, for contributing to the dialogue.
No, my friend, what we see here is NOT the intent of making binding doctrinal rulings as an exercise of the Papal Magisterium.
More tomorrow, if I have time. G'night now, BlueDragon.
Debate encouraged among experts? Not at the Vatican, not as for issue of so-called 'climate change'.
What they just put on was more like a dog and pony show.
FR thread; Alinsky Acolytes at the Vatican
The info at the link hardly begins to scratch the surface...
18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[a]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”
Samson committed suicide. I've not seen him condemned for it.
Would he be considered a kamikaze terrorist bomber today?
His mom will be glad to hear this!
Hold this thought.
Does that help?
Oh; yes!
It shows me that apparently YOU can decide what is PROPER for them to expound upon.
I was gonna say 'pontificate'; but I think that word might be used ONLY when referring to what a POPE says.
Correct me if I'm correct.
Sounds to me that you'll not even pay 88 cents for what Rome is trying to sell for a dollar!
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.