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 ...
Back in the day; Slick Willy must have been inquiring into becoming a Catholic.
His “What IS IS...” is famous (or infamous); but a very SHORT version when compared to what was just posted.
If that incident, stated the way you just started it, were sufficient to prove a principle, it would prove too much: that suicide is OK by God; and/or that, as you say,"kamikaze terrorist bombing" is OK by God.
But the idea that this incident in Judges proves a principle, is invalid.
That would mean we approve in principle of the burnt offering of children unto the Lord, because that's what Jephthah did in Judges 11, and without a word of disapproval from on high;
...and it would mean we approve of forcing one' daughters out the door to be violated by a mob of rapists ("I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes");
...it would mean all that Biblical polygamy is fine of us, too, as well as slavery and genocide; in fact the entire catalog of OT lechery and butchery and jihad-level morality would be OK --- right?.
Somehow, this doesn't seem right.
Especially since God in His actual legislative Word repudiates such things repeatedly, e.g. He condemns "the shedding of innocent blood" as an abomination pret-near 20 times by my count.
So, no: Samson does not prove a general moral principle.
And especially since it was from the Book of Judges, which twice warns us that "men did what was right in their own eyes."
Remember that a lot of the point of the OT is to demonstrate just how desperately we need a Savior.
Which recalls the wise saying, "Well if you can't be a good example, you're just have to be a horrible warning."
Berry good.
Yes!
Why yes: yes, I can.
Based on the ordinary, accepted principles of the specific competencies and limits of the hierarchical teaching authority.
First: the hierarchy is competent to rule on faith and morals, the proper content of theology; not on other matters such as molecular biology, small engine repair or weather forecasting.
Second: even for the pope, magisterial authority is not a property that makes him an all-purpose oracle. He does not receive Divine inspiration in the way that the writers of Scripture received inspiration. His guarantees are essentially negative: not that he will always say the right thing, but that he will not make errors which will be binding "de fide" and thus lead the whole Church into error.
In a social encyclical, one finds statements of general principles. These are the most authoritative. One also finds various analyses of particular political, economic, and social situations. These usually involve judgments of a prudential sort that are not binding in either the de fide or authoritative sense. They still merit respectful attention, as coming from the supreme earthly shepherd of the Church.
For example, the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, the existence of and limits to the right to own private property, the principles regulating just warfare, and the like are highly authoritative. But the more one descends to particulars, the less one is dealing with “binding doctrine” and the more one is dealing with pastoral guidance.
If you want to read more about the different levels of authority, one can begin with Lumen Gentium (LINK) (a document of Vatican II). There was also a document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith a few years ago called Ad Tuendam Fidem , written by St. John Paul II, which is very helpful.
In the encyclical Laudato Si itself (this much-debated environmental encyclical), Pope Francis actually makes it quite clear that the "prudential" parts are not binding, are not intended to be binding, and are rather "conversation starters" for what Pope Francis hopes will be an ongoing dialogue.
This idea of "encyclical as dialogue platform" is indeed an innovation, because there has never (to my knowledge) been a precedent, an encyclical which was manifestly NOT meant to be authoritative.
But here you have it, in Pope Francis' own words: #190
... especially as follows:
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 --- these words establish that the papal intent here is to spark a discussion, not to define doctrine.
I'd give 'em a plug nickel for it, they could send that to the recyclers -- and keep the Change.
Not that there is anything bad about metals recycling, of course.
This nation should keep more of the metals which are sent (sold even) to Asian destinations, as discard. Nothing against South Korea (which has the largest ship building industry in the world) --- but generally all the rest? Let 'em buy Caterpillar and John Deere tractors & farm implements, made with our own blends of recycled metals and virgin ore, from right here in the U.S.A & Canada.
96 Tears (? and the Mysterians)
It's not Hinduism to care for the creatures that God cares about.
Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
If God knows when a sparrow falls from a tree, He knows when someone kills a sparrow (or anything larger, in my opinion) for the sole purpose of fun.
That said, I have killed a lot of rats, mice, and snakes...don't want them in the house.
Not similar; rather opposite.
Give me credit for that.
Truth?
Or Catholic teaching?
There seems to be some disagreement about various things.
Oh, I dunno. I pontificate from time to time, when the spirit moves me :o)
Well, since we’re friends, Elsie, let me tell you this: even when there are disagrements, I always assume your intention is to tell the truth.
I 'assume' this of ALL FReepers!
But you and I BOTH know there is truth and there is TRUTH.
Truth that is proclaimed without data to back it up and truth that does have it.
Pets in heaven has as much scriptural support as bacon in heaven.
Personally, it would be hard if I had to choose between them... :)
My Bible has a peanut-butter dab at the beginning of Psalms. Fact.
I go to God's Wotd for guidance. Wisdom.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are animals in heaven. Why would anyone want to doubt that?
Especially if you had one of those little pigs for a pet!
I’m wondering if this list is ALL you refer to.
All that I 'know' comes from the Book:
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
What kind of cruel god allows mosquitos on Noah’s Ark but leaves without the unicorns?
As long as we are engaging in infantile dialog, I want to ask that of the hippy leftist earth hugging pope, who just may be the Antichrist.
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.