(I was just passing by.)
(I was just passing by.)
Maybe not fast enough to avoid getting caught up in the storm.
Not that you’re not welcome; you are always welcome!
What Jesus is trying to say is, the carnal flesh mind of man, cannot comprehend the spiritual and supernatural things he is talking about…things like the Eucharist.
I did jump the puddle of quick sand, but my big toe grazed the surface just as I touched beloved terra firma on the other side with my leading foot.
Does that constitute “a catch”???
Sorry, I kept on running as fast as I could.
I did a Google search on “official church teaching on animals in the afterlife” and although I didn’t go into any of the articles, there seems to be one common thread in all the results:
So here they are:
Exoplanet Census Suggests Earth Is Special after All
I’m saying we don’t know if animals will be in the “New Kingdom,” 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. That’s what we were squabbling over until I had to go to the dentist.
Thank you for your research, Autumn Smoke!
However, it was taught in some editions of the Baltimore Catechism.
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? I’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 adder’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.
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 couldn’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 “heaven” when we start to speak of more than disembodied souls…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 “absolute dominion of the soul” 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 “reincarnate” or revisit our happy memories as a true reality.
Nobody knows, but surely its possible,
Clearly it was once a widespread and mainstream Catholic “teaching” much like Geocentrism and the iniquity of any interest on a loan at all.
“Doctrine” is not a magical word. It is exactly the same word as “teaching” except being the latin equivalent. Call it a “dissemination” if it makes you feel more comfortable, its really the same thing.
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 don’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 “dissemination” then if you think “teaching” and “dogma” are the same. Most of us here don’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.
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!