What’s Wrong with the World

70 "Brother, the power of love becalms our wills
And makes us wish for only what we have
And whets our thirst for nothing more than that.

- Dante, Paradiso Canto III

One could, for the sake of argument, put forward the following, simply to get the objections clarified.

I. Heaven is a place in which the enjoyment of God's presence saturates all the desiring capacities of its residents.
II. For those who reside in heaven, all earthly desires are "jettisoned" by the highest human desire, the enjoyment of God's presence.
III. The desire to associate with a pet, is earthly. (Dogs are not created in the image and likeness.)
therefore,
IV. etc. etc. etc.

I suppose the logical connection between I and II could be strengthened. Additionally, one may have to show that the desire to be with one's family is not simply an earthly desire, since family members are rational persons created in the image of God, at least most family members. Animals are neither rational nor the image. (The point being that turtles and hamsters and dogs and vases and statues and Karmann Ghias (sigh) and stamp collections, etc. are a different--in--degree class of being, than rational images.)

pauli

I would concentrate some effort instead on St. Paul's dictum "the eye has not seen, and the ear has not hear, the wonders" in store for the blessed.

Here is my proposed counter to Pauli (to proposal which I do not hold fast - I think it is easy for this to be wrong):

While only rational natures can enjoy the blessed realm as such, in the Beatific Vision, we will do so as full human persons. That is, with full bodies (glorified, of course). We will, in fact have a "life" that is a truly human life, completed in the BV. It is more or less easy to imagine continued contemplation of the Divine Essence, ongoing eternally. But that, I think, it too simple a view of heaven. Angels, after all, do the same, but they are not human, do not have bodies.

Also, Scripture speaks frequently of a "renewed Jerusalem", and of a "new heaven and a new earth". What would be the point of these renewed things if not to have us living in them as humans?

Consequently, I would suggest that perhaps what is really in store for us is a form of human life that encompasses and in some (as yet unknown) fashion uses the body as body, while in heaven. All while we each and all together enjoy the BV eternally.

If that were possible, then it is also possible for pets to be in heaven. The only truly noble reason I know of for having pets (and the one my wife threw back in my face to con me into allowing the kids to get a dog) is that by making an animal into a pet, one enables the animal to live the life of reason. Not, of course, in the natural sense, but in a sort of participated or "received" sense, in that it acts according to our reason, thereby lifting it up above its natural station. But this sort of ennobling is not incompatible with the view of the "new heaven and new earth" that I suggested above. Indeed, one might posit that this is almost the same view Lewis was pointing toward in Perelandra: the whole of the natural order within the sphere of dominion came under the ordering of the man and the woman, and was ennobled by being so.

This leads me to a final point: would it even be possible to say that this is part of what it means to be human in act, wholly and completely? That it belongs to human nature fulfilled to be an agent of perfection for the natural order under us (by passing on the perfection received into non-rational natures)?

I don't know how it would be possible to say that we are at one and the same time totally fulfilled in the BV, so that no further fulfillment is possible, and ALSO say that we need to order and do things. But I also don't know what would be the point of a new heaven and earth if the only thing we do in the blessed realm is contemplate God.

I can well imagine that _our_ experience of the BV would be compatible with our interacting with animals (make mine a white Arab horse, please, that I ride perfectly). What I struggle with a bit is questions concerning which animals are chosen, why it is just those animals, what happens to the others, and can there be a metaphysical status of a dog or other animal such that it may or may not be immortal? That seems a little problematic. It seems as though an entity ought either to be intrinsically immortal by nature or intrinsically mortal by nature.

I wonder if Ed would come in with an A-T view on the matter.

God is master and Man is servant, and as the servant spends time in relationship with his master, the servant is divinized: Brought into the supernatural life of his master, achieving greater heights of personality and relationship than he, fallen creature, could ever have achieved on his own. By cooperating in the master's plan, the servant becomes part of that plan and gains an eternal destiny. And this does not come from the servant's initiative, but the master's love, and often his correction.

Man is created in the likeness of God.

Perhaps animals are temporal creatures except to the extent that men exercise their likeness to God by bestowing a loving master-servant relationship on them, ennobling them to levels of relationship beyond what they could have ever had in their own natures. By becoming "a part of the family" the pet is covenanted into the life of his master in an echo of the way we are covenanted into the life of our Master. And if, in the end, the master of the pet receives the life-giving grace and divinization through the Spirit and is raised to new life, so too may that power be appropriated by the resurrected man to raise the animal he loved to a dim sort of animal spirituality in the New Creation.

All of this is dependent, however, on the empowerment of man. He who God fulfills in his eternal destiny of likeness to God might naturally, being like God, pour out that fulfillment even on the animals he loved and knew. But he who rejects the grace of God will have eternity not only without God, but with no love, and no power to see again or even any longer to care about the pets or the people that once held his affection.

All this is vague and I have perhaps not selected the right words for it. But God, though all glory and power and authority is in and from Him, does not hoard it but bestows it on those who are "in" Him. Thus we become His hands and feet, and although God and only God renews the face of the earth, some of that comes about through our hands and our feet (and how beautiful are those feet, when they come bringing the gospel). It is hard to imagine that, when there is a new heaven and a new earth, and they are merged and the kingdom of this world becomes the kingdom of our God and of His Christ, and He makes His home among His people...it is hard to see that derivative grace rolling down from God, reviving humankind, and perfecting all inanimate Creation, but somehow neglecting to revive and perfect the living bits of Creation that we called animals, which we loved as pets.

It would seem like rather an oversight, you know?

It really is not as complicated as some want to make it.

If God wants there to be dogs in heaven, there are dogs in heaven. Period.

If He wants to endow them with a consciousness that extends beyond worldly death, and if He, who is Love, wants to show His love by allowing His children to continue to enjoy in heaven the affection that they showed for His creatures here on earth, then He can do it. He's God.

Besides, it would seem strange that the God who is Love would say No to someone who wishes to share their own love with one of His creatures, especially creatures who are, by their very nature, social animals, such as dogs.

And if He wills that those creatures who did not enjoy such human affection - such as a worm or flea or bacterium - should simply cease to exist, "going" to neither heaven nor hell, then His will will be done.

My take on the issue is probably not as deep as some other people have gone, but that's never stopped me before. ;)

In heaven, we will experience the fullness of joy. There will be no desires which are unfulfilled. Therefore whether or not your dog is there, what you love about your dog is there. Loyalty, affection, playfulness, whatever it may be. None of that will be lacking in heaven.

I would like to know more about Lewis being a Berkeleyan idealist.

Actually, the question does seem a bit complicated, since it is a question of whether or not a fully sanctified, resurrected soul, has a desire for the companionship of a pet. (Not whether it's logically possible for God to approve . . . .) It is not obvious that such a soul does have such a desire. I happen to like worms, though they do not provide me with companionship, because they really help me in my garden, likewise the lady-bug and mantis religiosa, though the latter doesn't seem very religiosus eating its mate, nor very mantic when the mate fails to fore-see he's about to be eaten. With worms we get to the slippery slope: if dogs then why not . . .; etc. etc. etc.? Just as some of the Fathers argued that courage was a strictly earthly virtue, and so not transferred in the resurrection, since there are no fears to conquer there . . . . so one may analogously see the desire for pets as etc. etc. etc.

One might put forward, against Pauli's argument, a model for heavenly life which suggests that heaven is a re-configuration or restitution of something like Eden, where there were lots of animals, if one takes that element of the mythos literally. Trees, too, but presumably without prohibitions. And lots of walking and talking. It would seem that including animals in the Hebrew representation of paradise has some Christian significance. A depiction of the heavenly state as an updated Eden, may be a felicitous weaving of Hebrew cultural values (corporeality/materiality) with Greek [Platonist] knowing-as-abstract-vision. But again, the significance of animals and trees, presupposes the mythos has some essential literality. If some "authorized" conception of paradise, has animals, then . . . . .

There is an old saying-"send me to no heaven that does not have horses"...
I added to it "send me to no heaven that does not have horses-dogs-et al:

If heaven is a better place-which the Word says it is--how can it be a 'better' place w/o the most loyal creatures that we know?
My off-spring came to me w/ agony-- "Mom,-Pastor says Daphne won't be going to heaven." My response-"Oh-really..." w/ a call to the pastor stating the above...
He had never had anyone challenge him on the issue-now he had something to think about !!

Some years ago, Fr. Hardon addressed this issue. The short answer: yes, dogs may go to Heaven.

The article may be found in The Catholic Faith magazine, (May/June 1999) Vol. 5, No. 3. Here is the question and Fr. Hardon's answer:

Q. Is it correct to say that pets do not go to Heaven after death because animals do not have immortal souls? Are religious medals for pets wrong? Do they lead to misunderstanding about animals, souls, and Heaven? —I.R., Michigan

A. Pets, as pets, do not go to Heaven. But animals and such like beings may be said to be brought to Heaven because, after the Last Day, they can serve as part of the joys of Heaven. In other words, animals and such like creatures may be said to be brought to Heaven to serve as part of our Heavenly joys. Clearly, we do not need pets to provide happiness in Heaven. But pets and such like creatures will be brought to Heaven to become part of our creaturely happiness in the Heavenly kingdom. Consequently, we may say that animals and such like creatures may be brought to Heaven by God to enable us to enjoy them as part of our creaturely happiness in Heavenly beatitude. Absolutely speaking, medals and such like religious articles may be part of Heavenly beatitude. Certainly, they do not serve the same purpose as other creatures do in Hea ven. However, while they do not serve the purpose which medals do on earth, they may nevertheless be part of God’s mysterious providence in our Heavenly beatitude.

Religious medals for pets are not wrong. The whole question is whether an object, like a religious medal, is used for an appropriate purpose. There is nothing per se wrong with having a religious object on an animal. Clearly a religious object is not necessary for animals. But there is nothing inherently wrong with having a religious object on or near an irrational being.

Certainly a religious medal attached to or associated with an irrational animal can be misunderstood. We cannot say that a religious object helps an animal because somehow the animal is spiritually inspired by the religious object. But there is nothing wrong with having a religious object on or near an animal. The benefit would always come through the mind of some intelligent being who is inspired by the religious object.

I would propose that the problem needs to be further clarified. A couple of the commentators have already mentioned the following distinction:

Is it a question of the whether or not an attachment to or interaction with an animal would be proper for a human being participating in the beatific vision?

Or is it a question of whether or not an animal is allowed in Heaven?

I feel like the discussion of animal natures frames it as an animal vs qualifications of heaven question, whereas I feel the crux lies in the human-animal relationship.

Fun question I've given it much thought. I fear pragmatic conditions win in the end.

First, let us propose that heaven is like life only more so. That is, we are creatures of flesh and spirit and will always require flesh to exist and its concomitant qualities.

Our beloved pets are flesh and of some spirit, too. They are created in the image of God in that they have love, desire, will, intelligence, consciousness, morality, instinct but with less development of reason, intelligence, rationality and so forth.

It would seem then to annihilate the existence of a dog is not far from destroying a human forever, too. Something anathema to faith and truth.

Yet, in my life I have had a great number of dogs I have loved as a part of life. Were I to be resurrected and my dogs should appear (as in the movie What Things May Come), I would be overwhelmed.

And how to divide the animals between my siblings and me before I started having dogs on my own? What about the dog that I may have adopted from someone who died? Who does that pet go to?

Right now, as an adult, I have four dogs (two dead) to account for, and one dog was also my daughter's beloved pet.

Then there's my wife who's shared three dogs with me. Does she get them? Are we going to be eternally together?

Thus, it make no sense. It's to complicated for God who is simplicity itself.

Dogs may have their own heaven, but I don't think it intersects with humans.

A thing that happens in the world is, not simply the product of one creaturely act, but also the product of its whole antecedent past, which makes that act possible in the overall scheme of things. My act in this present moment is novel, and free, yet it is a product of the whole past of the whole universe, which has come together in me right now as the datum and causal infrastructure of the act I now perform. Were the past of my present moment otherwise than in fact it is, I would face a different complexion of things, a different array of really rational choices. I.e., I would be different.

This is why the doctrine of Original Sin makes any sense at all; ditto vicarious sacrifice and atonement. Things hang together; if any part of the world has been redeemed, or has ascended into heaven, then ipso facto all the world has been redeemed, and can ascend with Him into heaven. Man is embodied: not just in a bunch of human cells, but in a cosmos. His redemption entails the redemption of that whole body, of that whole cosmos: a new Heaven and a new Earth. God's ontological resources are infinite. He can resurrect us, and all our factors; these are not different resurrections. So He can resurrect me, and my dogs, and the fleas who bit me or my dogs. Likewise, His resurrection of my body may entrain the resurrection of all the organisms of which that body is made - not just the human cells, but those of the trillions of amazingly beautiful and noble creatures who now inhabit my gut, and help me to feed.

God is not for man, but man for God; so, likewise, all His other creatures are for God, and He delights in them (else why would they be?). They are not extraneous, not superfluous to His general scheme, or they would not exist in the first place. At the eschaton, as Julian of Norwich says, ALL manner of things will be made well.

If God is to resurrect me, He must if He is to do a thorough job resurrect all of me - at least, all the good of me. In so doing, He cannot but resurrect all those things that made for my good - including my very good doggy friends, who each made me a better more humane man. If they had not been, I would not now be who I am. So, if God is to resurrect the man I now am, He will resurrect them, too.

I'm definitely more moved by the worry that dogs are not allowed in heaven (or, to put it more stuffily, that they may not be the kinds of creatures who can live eternally in heaven) than by the worry that the enjoyment of a dog is not appropriate to a glorified human soul. I think it's interesting that my readers, like Lewis, seem unmoved by "fairness" considerations--that is, that it would be arbitrary or unfair to have some dogs but not others living eternally.

I don't think the practical considerations Mark Butterworth raises are prohibitive, because God gets around similar ones in human cases. For example, if a person has been married and widowed multiple times, God works this out with "no marriage or giving in marriage." A child who has been adopted can be raised with all his parents. Evidently, it just works out. Though it does occur to me that my desires have changed somewhat, and that I was a "dog person" as a child and am not now. Perhaps I would just let my brother have our childhood dog...

I don't see any problem with the "fairness" issue at all. What I see problems with is the fundamental metaphysical issue: what would it mean to say that "my" dog will be in heaven after I am resurrected? If a dog is wholly mortal, it consists of the union of a mortal soul with a mortal body. When the dog dies, there is nothing left to resurrect . God can do anything, as long as the "anything" is not inherently contradictory. But it sure sounds to me contradictory to say He could restore this particular dog, when this particular dog is just the union of the form dogginess with a particular clump of matter. There is no remaining principle of individual being that subsists by which to call it "this dog" once the dog dies. Therefore, there can be no restoration of the specific dog. Unlike with humans, whose souls persist after death, the dog's soul does not persist.

That's my take on it. I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that dogs exist in heaven. I just don't see a way for this particular dog to exist in heaven.

However, I see no reason God could not make a dog just "exactly like" my dog in heaven. But if He does, I am going to give it to someone else, I won't want it. Presumably, if pets are in heaven, they will be pets without defects. Which means they won't be exactly like the pets we have here and now, will they?

At the risk of opening an eschatalogical can of worms, wouldn't a lot depend on we mean by "heaven"? Is heaven understood to be the "intermediate state" where we are absent from the body but present with the Lord (II Cor. 5:8) and awaiting the resurrection of our bodies.

Or would that be when our resurrected bodies take up residence on the "new earth." (Rev. 2 1-4)?

To cut to the chase, it would require the Holy Spirit to enter into the animal and renew it in order for the animal to be cleansed for the next life. I don't know of anyone seriously claiming to have heard of the Spirit doing anything remotely like that.

[...]

Thou that before the Fall didst make pre-emption
Of Adam, restore the privilege of the Garden,
Where he to the beasts was namer, tamer, and warden;
Buy back his household and all in the world's redemption.

When the Ark of the new life grounds upon Ararat
Grant us to carry into the rainbow's light,
In a basket of gratitude, the small, milk-white
Silken identity of Timothy, our cat.

- Dorothy L. Sayers

Great topic. I'm afraid I'm going to burst into full tangent mode. :-)

What R.C. says above is what I've always taken Lewis to mean.

(By the way, certain disbelievers in the afterlife apply a crude & vague version of this to humans: Yes, you're immortal; after your death you'll live on in the hearts of those who loved you, in the minds of those who read your books, &c. With the rather despicable implication that the feral child nobody knew about, the forgotten homeless person, the isolated writer whose life's work remained unpublished and unread, the aborted fetus whose existence was known of, and resented, by only two or three people, are not immortal.)

To me, the question of animals, seen in this light, raises the question of fictional characters - especially those possessing a high degree of apparent reality (I believe Lewis considered Elizabeth Bennet to be in this category). Will I ever meet Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson, either in the life after death or in the life after life after death? If so, will I find out who was right about Doctor Watson's middle name, and whether Holmes really became a Catholic during the great hiatus? Again, if so, does the answer to those questions depend on people's collective efforts to make the best possible sense of the stories, or on something different? (For clarity: I'm telling people what I wonder about, not demanding an answer.)

I'm also thinking of Tolkien's Leaf by Niggle, in which the artistic subcreation was being brought to completion in Heaven (or perhaps it was the Earthly Paradise) before the artist even got out of Purgatory. But I suspect I have only the most basic and general notion of either Tolkien's concept of subcreation or Lewis' Berkelyan idealism. Are there any important differences?

Re: Kristor's comment: Yes. This. I think the only way for something - or more precisely, someone - not to be redeemed would be for that person - human or angelic - to freely and wilfully reject God while being fully aware of who God is. Never mind if that's ultimately possible for humans (some think not, but I don't believe it changes anything about the reality of Hell or our responsibility to avoid it); but would it be possible for a dog, a mosquito, or a fig tree to do that?

These last three comments are in different ways all directed toward the same metaphysical issue--the personal identity of animals. Now, I believe that human beings have a very "heavy" kind of personal identity, connected crucially with the mind (or soul, if you prefer), which is naturally immortal and perdures after death. That essence of you survives the death of the body and waits for the resurrection of the body in what Keith mentions as the "intermediate state." Those Christian philosophers are wrong who try to make Christianity compatible with modern metaphysics by denying this and implying that God re-creates someone identical to you later (as Tony mentions God might do with dogs) when He makes a new body. That's not the Christian view of the immortality of the human person.

It seems plausible that part of the essential difference between humans and animals is that it doesn't work that way with animals. Hence it would seem that animals would _not_ exist in the intermediate state and that, if they exist in the final state of the redeemed creation, they have been "recreated" to be type-identical to the animals we knew on earth, which is a bit disappointing. (Even Lewis conjectures animal existence only in the resurrection, not before.) Such recreation wouldn't be a matter of the involvement of the Holy Spirit and would not require (as I demur at in the main post) any notion of personal salvation for animals. However, it is perhaps not what a grieving pet owner is seeking, either.

Sorry, a couple of comments went up at the same time as mine, so the "last three comments" I was referring to were Tony's, Keith Pavlischek's, and Mike T's.

No, Mariken, I think we have to rule out fictional characters, because that would create a second class of human persons who exist only "through" other human persons, which is o-u-t out. If God creates human persons, they are real-real, dependent only upon God for their existence, with full-scale souls that will ultimately be saved or damned, essentially immortal, the whole ball of wax.

This subject has always been interesting to me. A few points:

I don't know whether Lewis would call himself a Berkeleyan idealist, but the idea that the reality a thing has comes from its ideal rather than its material aspect is not unique to Berkeley: the historical weight of philosophy stands behind this. The position that thought is ontologically prior to material, and that material has reality only insofar as it can be thought has a very strong basis in Greek philosophy. Aside from its historical pedigree, in my view, this is manifestly the correct position (I've never seen a convincing rebuttal of Aristotle's arguments on the matter).

So on that point, Lewis' idealism should make his case more compelling.

I would also think care should be employed when talking about man's nature being immortal. From a Christian perspective, human beings are precisely not immortal in their natural state; instead they must be given the gift of the imago Dei, which allows them to partake in divinity and immortality. Some argument can be made that the soul has a capacity for immortality; but this capacity itself is a gift, and does not come entirely naturally to a hylomorphic creature.

I hadn't thought that Lewis remained an Idealist after his conversion, but perhaps that's just me making a leap from quotes that I wouldn't have said if I were an Idealist (e.g. about how God likes matter; after all, he invented it; or a poem about making the world out of dust). Since I've never seriously considered Idealism, my extrapolations may be false.

I'm guessing there's someone reading this who's a lot more familiar with the literature on C.S. Lewis than I am; perhaps he/she can point me to a reference?

Sorry, this belongs here.

http://www.thegroveatfoxfarm.com/thegroveatfoxfarm.com/Canine_Theology.html

"Catholic dogs go to heaven. Presbyterian dogs can talk to their pastor."

Those Christian philosophers are wrong who try to make Christianity compatible with modern metaphysics by denying this and implying that God re-creates someone identical to you later (as Tony mentions God might do with dogs) when He makes a new body. That's not the Christian view of the immortality of the human person.

For what its worth in terms of historical context, John Calvin's first published article (two years before the first edition of the Institutes) was PSYCHOPANNYCHIA; OR, THE SOUL'S IMAGINARY SLEEP. Calvin sought to refute the notion of "soul sleep." Here is an introduction to Calvin's work by Henry Henry Beveridge from a mid-19th century edition(1851):

http://www.lgmarshall.org/Calvin/calvin_psychopannychia.html

The figment which it refutes is said by CALVIN to be of Arabian origin, but was first brought prominently into notice by some of the wildest fanatics among the ANABAPTISTS, for whom everything new and monstrous appears to have had an irresistible attraction. In more modern times, attempts have been made to give it a philosophical shape, as a necessary corollary from the dogma of Materialism advocated by Priestley and others.

It would seem that the figment, wild and irrational though it is, had made considerable progress at an early period of the Reformation, and counted numerous converts, not merely among the fanatics who had revived it, but in more respectable quarters, where better things might have been expected.

One is puzzled to understand why it should have been received with so much favor; for the idea which it suggests, so far from being attractive, is naturally revolting. It was probably welcomed, not so much for its own sake, as for the great assistance which it was supposed capable of giving in THE POPISH CONTROVERSY. Were it once established that the soul falls asleep at death, and will not awake to consciousness till again united to the body at the resurrection, THE POPE would forthwith be excluded from the larger half of his domain, and deprived of the most lucrative branches of his trade! There would neither be SAINTS to whom divine honors could be paid, nor PURGATORY out of which poor souls might be delivered with more or less expedition, according to the number of well-paid masses that were said for them!

If the cordial reception given to the dogma was owing to the collateral benefit thus supposed to be derived from it, it only adds another to the many instances in which blind man would arrogantly give lessons to his Maker, and arrange the world on a better plan than His infinite wisdom has devised. Because it would furnish a triumphant refutation of Popish legends and fictions - the soul must be made to perish with the body, and a common ruin overtake both!

In other words, Calvin refused to endorse soul sleep, even though it would have made for good ecclessiastical politics and polemics against Roman Catholicism. Calvin, of course, believed that Scripture was unmistakably clear on the point.

Not sure if this has anything to do with whether Fido or Rover will be there on the New Heavens and the New Earth, but I thought it might be worth noting.

I think we have to rule out fictional characters, because that would create a second class of human persons who exist only "through" other human persons, which is o-u-t out. If God creates human persons, they are real-real, dependent only upon God for their existence, with full-scale souls that will ultimately be saved or damned, essentially immortal, the whole ball of wax.

Yeah, created (by God) and constructed (by humans) people walking around on the same level of reality... Blade Runner. (If I may be pedantic, it's not possible for something to exist only through something created, and every human being after Adam exists partly through other human beings. But I get what you mean - we don't assume God to create a soul every time we think up a character.) I can't help but think, though, that whatever good we created in this life will somehow be present in the next life, and be both better and more real than we could make it. But I'll leave this alone for now - it's theology of the arts, or something, not of the nonhuman primary creation, which this post is about.

Chad: That's absurdly funny. I even wondered for a split-second whether it was real. (It's a real joke. Paraphrasing Lewis again, it isn't a real crocodile but it is a real nightmare.) There aren't any church signs like these where I live, but when I first saw them I could imagine the possibilities for overt and covert one-upmanship...

On Lewis's Berkeleyanism, I admit to having been a bit dogmatic. I take his Berkeleyanism to be evident from _Surprised by Joy_. He pretty clearly identifies realism there with materialism, though of course logically the two do not entail each other. He also indicates that he became "something like" a Berkeleyan on his way to Christianity, but while he had to abandon Hegelian idealism to embrace the idea of a personal God, Berkeley was of course a Christian, and it would not have been similarly necessary to abandon Berkeleyanism to become a Christian. As far as I know, he never indicates that he did. More directly the passage in _Problem of Pain_ on this very subject (the resurrection of animals) has a very strongly Berkeleyan sound to it, as does the passage in (I believe) _Letters to Malcolm_ on the possible resurrection of the fields of his childhood. He also remarked (I can't remember if it was in a real letter or in _Letters to Malcolm_) that it is "only God's attention" that keeps anything in existence. This statement _could_ be made compatible with something other than Berkeleyanism, but I tend to think it should be taken in a Berkeleyan sense. It's important to remember that the idealist-realist controversy in Lewis's own time really did tend to connect realism with materialism, so it isn't surprising that he should view things this way. The passages on the subject in _Surprised by Joy_ do definitely give me the strong impression that he left realism regarding matter behind forever and was always an idealist *of some sort*, though not Hegelian anymore once he admitted a personal God.

So... only dogs which were owned by humans get to go to heaven?

What about all the wild dogs, why don't they get to go?

Ditto for horses.

I really wonder whether people have thought through the difficulty of trying to say what heaven is like?

If there are things to do to be accomplished (like raising a puppy, and training it to do as you command) which take effort to overcome resistance, then the sheer fact that it takes effort calls into question the supposed complete bliss of having all needs satisfied: the person waiting until the effort reaches its fulfillment cannot be fulfilled in that very aspect. Which implies a sort of less than total perfection (just yet, of course).

If, on the other hand, there is nothing to do in the sense of things to accomplish, and all we do all day is sit there being fully satisfied in each possible desire all day by supernatural fulfillment that overwhelms and transcends the natural functions, it is difficult to understand why it is that it matters whether we have our bodies or not, or whether the earth will be renewed. God can supernaturally fulfill our desires at every moment without any matter anyway, so what will change with the resurrection?

There must be some path different from these options, but what it is seems to escape us. What option is there that presupposes that at every moment we will be WHOLLY fulfilled, and yet that it matters that we have bodies after the resurrection?

If the answer provides some sort of doing that really does use our bodies, and will not happen until the resurrection and the renewal of the earth, then there does seem to be a place for animals. And if animals, then certainly pets. But not identically the actual pets we had here in the pre-resurrection.

This is ridiculous.

It's not enough that one in heaven actually has come to the beatific vision; instead, the exceedingly worldly here would rather conceive of heaven as some sort of pagan paradise wherein every conceivable material/sensual pleasure is met; where being in the presence of God isn't enough, but having Fido and all other worldly things must not be absent, else it will ultimately be deemed as nothing more than a dull, pathetic experience.

If this is today's version of Christianity, then perhaps it is better to be atheist.

I think it has been conclusively established that there is not an absolute prohibition on dogs in heaven.

For the proof, go here.

Tony, of course that is a wonderful question, but it seems to be a broad-scale question that goes for all kinds of things. Take friendship, for example. I would think that if we imagine human friendship in heaven, then we are imagining a state in which we can experience change and effort. The Bible says something about "judging the nations." I have little idea of what _that's_ all about, but it certainly seems to presuppose something like work and a process rather than a static situation. In the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer, we pray for the dead that they "may continually grow in thy love and service," and I think that this reflects a notion in Christian theology that the beatific vision is compatible with in some sense effort and growth.

Obviously, in talking about these things we are much like a person who sees only in two dimensions talking about seeing three-dimensional objects. (As I in actual fact have no depth perception, this is a vivid example for me.) But it's more dramatic than that: We're more like a person trying to imagine a wholly new primary color. We have only guess and conjecture, and God probably views our discussions with a smile and shake of the head.

I think it comes naturally to us and is not prohibited by anything we know to imagine something like learning, growing, and striving in some sense in heaven, which would be compatible with working with animals. Anyone who has done so, or who has even worked at learning a sport or a musical instrument, knows the combination of effort and joy that comes in these things, where the two are intertwined inextricably.

Aristocles,

I suppose you might say the same thing of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection: we have our souls, why would we need bodies except to sate our sensual desires? Or, since God exists eternally, why should we not be satisfied just to merge into his infinity, why must we maintain our individuality?

Thomas:

Subscribing to the ludicrous notion that taking along Snoopy is possible is not even remotely on the same level as subscribing to the bodily resurrection, which is based on fact that was further subtantiated by Our Lord.

You might as well be like the Mohammedans who would claim a heaven filled with virgins!

To say that there must be something more in Heaven than simply being with God or else it amounts to a perpetually pathetic after-life devoid of any real happiness absent certain things that gave us happiness while in the world, is not only absurd but, even further, unChristian to say the least.

This seems silly to me. What about cats, or fish, or hamsters, or rose petals, or stomach bacteria? My life would not be nearly as happy without my stomach bacteria! So my stomach bacteria must go to heaven.

Perhaps, there is a dog that makes me happy, but my neighbor miserable. What,then?

Suppose there is a dog, unknown, who would make me even happier than my present dog. Surely, he should be in heaven.

The great Commandment is (Matt 22:36-40):

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."

Jesus did not give the law nor prophets to dogs. He did not tell dogs to love their master or to forgive their master.

One could argue that the cows in the Garden of Eden (assume there were some) did not sin, so surely they should be in Heaven. It was not the animals to whom God had a relationship of personhood to personhood. It was also not the animals who fell.

If an animal is a, "bad dog," does that mean that he has sinned? Does a, "good dog," live in a state of grace? How does a bad dog become a good dog? Do dogs know about repentance?

Since only pure things may be in Heaven, is there a purgatory for dogs?

It is in the nature of man to love God, however imperfectly, after the Fall. It is in the nature of man to love dogs because they are a natural goodness provided by God. In loving the dog, one, indirectly, loves God. One can only imperfectly love God in this life and dogs are a way to express that love. In the next life, one may love God, directly, and the love for the dog will be seen in the love for God. One does not lose the dog, one gains a perfection of the love of the dog. When the love of the dog is perfected, the vehicle of the dog is not needed. A dog going to Heaven will not make you happier; a dog not going to Heaven will not make you sadder.

A good proof for this and a good thing to think about is the exact opposite. Suppose you lost everything you hold dear in life except God. What would you have really lost? Suppose you had gained everything in life, but God. What would you have gained? If you lose nothing by losing everything, then you lose nothing by losing the dog. Thus, it is not necessary for dogs to be in Heaven for perfect happiness. It is necessary for God to be there and for you to be their.

This is, in many ways, like the old question of would it diminish a person's bliss in Heaven to see his neighbor in Hell? If the answer is no (and, classically, that is the answer, because one would be content in justice) then dogs do not need to go to Heaven, either, for happiness, since a human life is infinitely worth more than a dog's life.

It is right to pray for animals in this life, since we have a compassionate dominion over them and it is right to love them with a creaturely love, since they allow us, in their own way, to express our love for God in his creation. The New Jerusalem is not like the old. Eye has not seen nor ear has heard. Would it be right for a resurrected, glorified species to be given back a non-glorified dog? That glory must be God's glory. God has promised that the world will pass away. That includes all matter. Only souls will be glorified with a new body.

If dogs souls go to heaven, it must logically follow that anything with a soul must go to Heaven or Hell, since what does grass know of sin? Humans are ontologically different. Their souls are ontologically different.

There will be only one ontology in the New Jerusalem. Jesus was made incarnate so that man could share in that ontology. Jesus was not made incarnated into all other creatures. There is a subtle form of pantheism involved in the question of whether dogs go to Heaven.

I must agree with Aristocles, on this one.

The Chicken

You might as well be like the Mohammedans who would claim a heaven filled with virgins!

One comedian makes fun of this by saying (roughly), "What if they are all Duran Duran fans? Talk about eternal punishments."

It is necessary for God to be there and for you to be their.

It is necessary for God to be there and for you to be there.

And, Lo, there shall be no need of spell checking in Heaven.

The Chicken

Or proof reading.

The Chicken

Chicken:

This seems silly to me. What about cats, or fish, or hamsters, or rose petals, or stomach bacteria? My life would not be nearly as happy without my stomach bacteria! So my stomach bacteria must go to heaven... There will be only one ontology in the New Jerusalem. Jesus was made incarnate so that man could share in that ontology. Jesus was not made incarnated into all other creatures. There is a subtle form of pantheism involved in the question of whether dogs go to Heaven. I must agree with Aristocles, on this one.

Thanks!

As I recall, the Boston Catechism taught Catholics that the purpose of man is "to know and to love and to serve god, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven."

It would appear that the Westminster Catechism taught likewise: "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever."

From this thread, it would appear that God Himself is not enough; Fido, Snoopy and even Garfield must be present in order for Heaven to be deemed a place of eternal bliss, else it would not be paradise but, even more, nothing more but Hell!

Errata:

...Boston Catechism taught Catholics that the purpose of man is "to know and to love and to serve God, and to be happy with Him forever in Heaven."

Sincerest apologies to fellow Papists. *wink*

Hold on a minute. I didn't raise this question because I couldn't be happy in heaven without a dog. To tell you the truth, I'm not really a dog person. I could be perfectly happy in heaven without dogs. (Though I'd be sad to think that when history and the world end, there will never again be any more horses.) Moreover, I never suggested that we could find out by pure reason whether dogs in heaven are required for our own perfect happiness, or for the perfect happiness of dog-lovers, or anything like that. I'm sure we can't discover that, and I didn't in any event raise the question, "Could we be happy in heaven without dogs?"

I raised the question because it is theoretically interesting in relation to the ontology of the mind and consciousness and in relation to the doctrine of the new heaven and the new earth and the resurrection of the body. Scripture says that the whole creation waits for the redemption of the body, and it promises a new heaven and a new earth. As one commentator said above, if we are permitted to imagine non-animate, non-human parts of creation in that new heaven and new earth (and the whole image of such a new creation urges us to do so, as do passages in Revelation concerning a river, trees, and a banquet), then it would seem a bit odd if the whole of animal nature were left out.

Lewis clearly raises the question because he is interested in the telos of animals, particularly those who are clearly in some sense conscious, who have what we would call personalities, and who have been ennobled by their communion with man. Here is this whole aspect of creation about which God has not revealed to us His ultimate plan. It is an aspect of creation, moreover, that includes creatures that have some of the qualities that lead us to love them and to have what we should be inclined to call friendship with them. With our human friends, we desire that they should live eternally in bliss, and we desire this as part of loving them. It seems sad that they should be nothing after death. And it seems similarly sad that beloved animals should be nothing after death, not even chiefly or only because we ourselves would "need" them for _our_ happiness in heaven but because we believe we have experienced something like their individuality, and it would be a loss in some larger sense if that individuality died forever. This love and experience of friendship and personality lead people to ask the question of whether dogs go to heaven. It is a small part of the larger question of what it will mean for the whole creation to be redeemed, for good things to be glorified rather than lost, for God to give back the years that the locusts have eaten. As such, it is not something that can simply be reduced to anything like pantheism much less to a gross or sensual desire that we ourselves should have eternally all the pleasures we have enjoyed here on earth.

All that being said, I don't know the answer to the question.

Hold on a minute. I didn't raise this question because I couldn't be happy in heaven without a dog. To tell you the truth, I'm not really a dog person. I could be perfectly happy in heaven without dogs. (Though I'd be sad to think that when history and the world end, there will never again be any more horses.)

That's just it -- it doesn't have to be Benji; it could even be Seabiscuit!

There is something suspiciously the matter if in order for a place to even be considered "Heaven"; we require that certain worldly things need be present in order for there to be any eternal happiness for us personally, whether that is Lassie, Pegasus or even a harem of virgins!

Such prerequisites evince a worldliness that is more pagan than it is Christian.

To say that there must be something more in Heaven than simply being with God or else it amounts to a perpetually pathetic after-life devoid of any real happiness absent certain things that gave us happiness while in the world, is not only absurd but, even further, unChristian to say the least.

No, it merely means that we have not yet fully understood or expressed WHY it is that having our bodies in heaven actually matters to our happiness. As with most "development of doctrine", it takes two firm teachings that seem to have a sort of incompatibility, and then attempt to discern a coherence between them that does violence to neither teaching. It is firmly taught that in heaven the fundamental aspect of blessedness is perfect communion with God, such wise that no further happiness could be sought. It is also firmly taught that after the end times, our bodies will be resurrected and we will once again be whole humans, body and soul, along with a renewed earth. Ari, if you don't see any tension between these, you haven't been listening.

There is something suspiciously the matter if in order for a place to even be considered "Heaven"; we require that certain worldly things need be present in order for there to be any eternal happiness for us personally, whether that is Lassie, Pegasus or even a harem of virgins!

Please don't clutter the discussion with false innuendo. We accept that heaven will be heaven, and the realm of the blessed, with or without animals. Saying that we will be blessed even if there are no animals does nothing to determine whether there will be animals there or not.

I raised the question because it is theoretically interesting in relation to the ontology of the mind and consciousness and in relation to the doctrine of the new heaven and the new earth and the resurrection of the body. Scripture says that the whole creation waits for the redemption of the body, and it promises a new heaven and a new earth. As one commentator said above, if we are permitted to imagine non-animate, non-human parts of creation in that new heaven and new earth (and the whole image of such a new creation urges us to do so, as do passages in Revelation concerning a river, trees, and a banquet), then it would seem a bit odd if the whole of animal nature were left out.

Ah, Lydia, I see. It appears the post got a little side-tracked. Sorry. I should try to answer your original question.

Let's look at the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation:

Rev 3: 12:
He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. [RSV]

Rev 21: 2 - 27
[2]
And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband;
[3] and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them;
[4] he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."
[5] And he who sat upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." Also he said, "Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true."
[6] And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment.
[7] He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.
[8] But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death."
[9] Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."
[10] And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God,
[11] having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.
[12] It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed;
[13] on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates.
[14] And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
[15] And he who talked to me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city and its gates and walls.
[16] The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its breadth; and he measured the city with his rod, twelve thousand stadia; its length and breadth and height are equal.
[17] He also measured its wall, a hundred and forty-four cubits by a man's measure, that is, an angel's.
[18] The wall was built of jasper, while the city was pure gold, clear as glass.
[19] The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every jewel; the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald,
[20] the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.
[21] And the twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made of a single pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass.
[22] And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb.
[23] And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
[24] By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it,
[25] and its gates shall never be shut by day -- and there shall be no night there;
[26] they shall bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations.
[27] But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Rev.22: 1- 5
[1]
Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
[2] through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
[3] There shall no more be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall worship him;
[4] they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads.
[5] And night shall be no more; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they shall reign for ever and ever. [All Book of Revelation quotes from RSV, from CCAT, University of Pennsylvania]

Sorry, but the tree, here with its twelve kinds of fruit is a reference to the apostles, perhaps. It is metaphoric. The twelve types of stones that form the walls is also metaphoric.

I see no reference to animals or other living things than God and men, anywhere. My remarks on the singular ontology in the New Jerusalem, stand. All I see is a relationship between God and man.

The Chicken

Dear Tony,

You wrote:

It is firmly taught that in heaven the fundamental aspect of blessedness is perfect communion with God, such wise that no further happiness could be sought. It is also firmly taught that after the end times, our bodies will be resurrected and we will once again be whole humans, body and soul, along with a renewed earth. Ari, if you don't see any tension between these, you haven't been listening.

Actually, I don't see the tension between these, either. We do not know the nature of the New Jerusalem. We will NOT have body and soul in the same sense that we had them on the old earth. The new body and soul will be a glorified body and a purified soul. What are the needs of such? How will the new earth supply it? The new earth is not the old earth. To consider it the same material is to misread the Book of Revelation, in my opinion. In fact, we may not even be capable of understanding what the new earth is with our current ability, because God dwells in his fullness, there, whereas he does not on this earth, except for a short time, 2000 years, ago, and he assume a material nature to do so. In fact, we know there will be no sun or moon. Thus, the new earth will definitely not be the same as the old earth, so trying to make a comparison or generate a tension is not possible. Heaven, until the General Resurrection and Judgment is incomplete in actuality, but not potentially. The New Jerusalem will come after the Judgment and then all will be complete in terms of number and relationship.

The Chicken

The new earth is not the old earth. To consider it the same material is to misread the Book of Revelation, in my opinion. In fact, we may not even be capable of understanding what the new earth is with our current ability, because God dwells in his fullness, there, whereas he does not on this earth, except for a short time, 2000 years, ago, and he assume a material nature to do so. In fact, we know there will be no sun or moon.

Should read:

The new earth is not the old earth. To consider it the same material is to misread the Book of Revelation, in my opinion. In fact, we may not even be capable of understanding what the new earth is with our current ability, because God dwells in his fullness, there, whereas he does not on this earth, except for a short time, 2000 years, ago, and he assumed a material nature to do so. In fact, we know there will be no sun or moon lighting the new earth.

The Chicken

There are a couple of Scriptural passages that should probably be considered, because it's not clear at all to me that this is within the purview of pure metaphysics.

1 Cor. 15
[35] But some one will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
[36] You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
[37] And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
[38] But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
[39] For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
[40] There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
[41] There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
[42] So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.
[43] It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
[44] It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.
[45] Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
[46] But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual.
[47] The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
[48] As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.
[49] Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
[50] I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
[51] Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
[52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
[53] For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.
[54] When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."

Romans 8
[19] For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God;
[20] for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
[21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
[22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now;
[23] and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
[24] For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?
[25] But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.

What I glean from this is that animals clearly aren't resurrected. However, man is appointed to be the master of creation, and it would seem odd to cultivate the virtue of wisdom, knowing the proportion of things to one another and loving them for God's sake, to have the exercise of that virtue become oblivious. Much like charity, it would seem that there would be no reason for it to cease, since this virtue is not exercised purely instrumentally in salvation but for the sake of God's glory. It would also be odd for St. Paul to speak of "the whole creation" in the context that he does if he means only the human part of creation. Paul appears to be suggesting that, while the Christian experiences this longing most inwardly and strongly, it pervades the entirety of creation in some sense.

Perhaps it makes most sense if we think of a trained animal companion as in some sense bearing the image of his master, which is truly what is loved and lovable in the animal. One might imagine that there will be similarly animals made in the image of their heavenly masters, just as there might be works of art. As Tony suggests, the lack of any conflicting instincts or effort in the training would presumably make things quite different, but the essence of the master-animal relationship would not be excluded in principle. Perhaps this might also mollify aristocles and TMC in the sense that it would not be mere sentiment for animals, but rather loving the animal for the sake of what makes the animal genuinely lovable, i.e., through its ability to image its master in the exercise of its natural powers, as image of the image to the glory of God.

Also, cf. Isaiah 11:6-7 "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." This seems to suggest something like a change in instincts for the natural species, but also suggests that they will continue to exist in some form.

Chicken, in what will our happiness differ (for those who die and go to heaven before the end times) comparing pre-resurrection and post-resurrection?

Another point: ST. Thomas Aquinas, one of the deepest writers on the blessed state, taught that Christ in his human intellect enjoyed the Beatific Vision from the first moment of his taking on human nature. Yet he was able to (a) get angry at the Temple, (b) sorrow at the death of Lazarus, and (c) be repulsed by the prospect of the passion when praying in Gethsemane. Apparently, Thomas thought there was nothing incompatible between enjoying the BV and operating with human nature with passions and actions, receiving natural human goods and doing human things. What then makes it impossible to do these after the resurrection?

Please don't cite the "glorified body" to me. I know that we will have glorified bodies. But we don't really know what that means. We do know that Christ in his glorified body ate fish with the Apostles. While the glorified body does not have any needs that must be fulfilled to avoid pain, that does not speak to the other end of the spectrum: can God arrange for the glorified body to perceive a kind of fulfillment in eating with friends?

Nearly the whole of Revelation is metaphorical. That is neither here nor there. Even if the entire metaphor of the renewed Jerusalem is a metaphor for a spiritual reality, (1) that does not preclude that the physical description is ALSO valid as describing an actual physical city, and (2) Since we will certainly have our bodies, saying there will be a city neither adds nor detracts from the basic issue: what will those bodies be FOR?

Jonathan, when you wrote,

What I glean from this is that animals clearly aren't resurrected.

did you mean "aren't clearly resurrected" instead?

For those who can't get the cartoon linked by Tim above to show up at that link, here is another one:

http://rulingcatsanddogs.com/funny-pet-picture-71-Snoopy-cartoon-Charles-Schultz-no-dogs-allowed-sign.htm

did you mean "aren't clearly resurrected" instead?

No, I mean "clearly aren't resurrected." I can't see any other way to interpret "Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." The animals are clearly perishable creatures not uniquely made in God's image; consequently, there doesn't appear to be an avenue for bodily resurrection of animals.

Nonetheless, it does appear as if the natural kind nonetheless has an orientation toward (and purpose in) the new creation. I'm suggesting that they are either created anew as instances of the natural kinds or something similar (perhaps based on the memories of the saints of their individual animal companions) in the new creation. Otherwise, I can't figure out what it would mean for all creation to be groaning for the eschaton, even though St. Paul appears to be clearly saying that resurrection is solely by the image of God. That is why I take it to mean that although there will not be numerical identity between animals on earth and animals in Heaven, there could be the same natural kinds.

We do know that Christ in his glorified body ate fish with the Apostles. While the glorified body does not have any needs that must be fulfilled to avoid pain, that does not speak to the other end of the spectrum: can God arrange for the glorified body to perceive a kind of fulfillment in eating with friends?

Not to mention Acts 1:9-11 "And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, 'Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'" I don't see much warrant for thinking that the New Jerusalem is not going to be on the same Earth, one that will certainly be very much changed but not entirely removed from the current planet.

You guys move too fast for me.

But lo' from what I can glean, the usual orthodox lot seem to be arguing as though the human incarnation were the great evil, instead of the Fall.

Lydia, your comment here was quite beautiful.

Incidentally, I asked Bern today what she thought about your question (since her Chihuahua, Cedar, is beloved by our family), and she said "Oh, definitely." It's the same answer she gave when I first asked some years ago, at which time I concluded, for her sake that "any sentient creature capable of giving and receiving love ought to be eligible for a life in which that is the only relationship that one creature is allowed to have with any other." She liked the conclusion.

Dear Jonathan,

You wrote:

"'This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.'" I don't see much warrant for thinking that the New Jerusalem is not going to be on the same Earth, one that will certainly be very much changed but not entirely removed from the current planet.

The passage was speaking of Christ's return for the General Judgment, not what would happen after the Judgment is finished. It says that the sheep will go off to Heaven:

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal [KJV]

Thus, the sheep will not be on this earth. Also, if they were, without the sun and moon, the orbit might be radically different.

In any case, the love of the dog will remain and be perfected in Heaven.

Tony,

Jesus wept while on earth. There is no crying in Heaven. He ate fish as a supernatural condescension to the apostles, since in ancient times, eating was a way of proving that a person were alive. The text nowhere says that he enjoyed the fish.

That Jesus had the BV does not mean that his flesh was in a beatified state.

The Chicken

When I say the love of the dog, I mean the love of God expressed through the agency of the dog.

On the other hand, here is a puzzler:

We are to preach the Gospel to every creature. Why, if they are merely for this earth? Any thoughts?

The Chicken

It's unhelpful to read prophetic passages too literalistically. Christ promised to make all things new, not to make all new things.

We are not going to spend eternity "in heaven" as disembodied souls. In the eschaton we will have glorified bodies which will have some mystical connection to/continuity with our current earthly bodies; likewise, the entire new creation will have some
connection to/continuity with the present creation.

Biblical prophecy seems to indicate that there will be plants and animals in the world to come. If they're not there, however, we won't miss them. Further than that, we can only speculate.

I don't think we have an obligation to preach the Gospel to dogs. I do think we have an obligation to treat them well and humanely and to train those we are specially responsible for. The "only for this world" question, though, is a puzzler, not because of preaching the Gospel but because of the evidence that some types of animals do have consciousness and individual personalities, which makes it difficult to believe that they simply end at death. Interestingly, though, Tony has already pointed out that insofar as they are not intrinsically immortal they would truly die, truly cease to exist, and would be recreated anyway, and that would not be the token-identical being. So perhaps we have to concede the death of "this dog" even if we believe there will be animals in the new creation.

The passage was speaking of Christ's return for the General Judgment, not what would happen after the Judgment is finished. It says that the sheep will go off to Heaven:

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal [KJV]

Thus, the sheep will not be on this earth. Also, if they were, without the sun and moon, the orbit might be radically different.

Non sequitur. The fact that the righteous will "go into" life eternal, or even that the unrighteous will "go away" into punishment, doesn't mean that they will be removed from the earth entirely. Scripture explicitly says the earth will be preserved for the righteous after a passage through fire in analogy to Noah being spared in the Ark while the earth was cleansed by water.

2 Pet. 3
[3] First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions
[4] and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation."
[5] They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water,
[6] through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
[7] But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
[8] But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
[9] The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
[10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
[11] Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness,
[12] waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire!
[13] But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Obviously, I don't have any idea what the universe, including the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth, looks like after being remade in a transforming divine fire, but I don't doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ will be bodily present on it in the same body that has returned from Heaven. There will be no weeping because there will be no cause for weeping, but I don't think you have remotely made the case that there would be no purpose for the use of other material things. You yourself admit that your argument with respect to the eating of fish by the Lord is an argument from silence, so Tony is filling in the gaps in the explicit Scriptural revelation based on probable reasoning. But in the face of an explicit Scriptural promise of new heavens and a new earth, I think you have gone way too far in your gloss on Matt. 25:46 to the point of making an argument from silence that appears to contradict the most probable interpretation of an explicit Scriptural passage.

Aristocles,

No-one said that there "must be something more in Heaven than simply being with God or else it amounts to a perpetually pathetic after-life..." If you are going to argue with figments of your own imagination, you may want to do so with yourself in private.

I brought up the bodily resurrection because it betrays a certain ethos: that bodies are important, and -- apparently -- requisite to heaven. This means that heaven, while it has its spiritual elements (of course), it also has important physical elements. Heaven is not some incorporeal place, but a new earth, a tangible space. There's certainly no a priori reason that no animals would not exist there, and good reasons to think that they would.

If you remember your patristic theology, you know that the act of redemption is not sharply different from the act of creation; rather, redemption is a sort of re-creation, a re-establishing of the true order of creation. Since plants and animals were very much a part of creation, we have every reason to believe that they will be present when creation is re-constituted. This does not mean that the pets we knew will be present; but as animals were created at least in part for the pleasure of human beings, such an idea is not outlandish.

You assert that paganism is more worldly than Christianity. This certainly was not true of the paganism prior to the Edict of Milan. The pagan objection against Christianity was precisely that Christianity was so worldly. As I'm sure you remember from Celsus' treatment of Christianity, the scandal was precisely that God had become human, that the divine had touched the physical. Remember too the early Gnostic controversy, where the Gnostics wished to escape this world to that completely other world, and Christians had to assert that heaven was accessible in the present life, on earth, and that God would not destroy this world, but bring it to its full reality.

Dear Jonathan,

You wrote (or quoted):

But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

This context is unclear. i would have to look at the original Greek. It says, perhaps, that the Heavens and earth have been stored up for fire, which I take it to mean to be ignited, until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. This says nothing at all about what will happen after the judgment. It merely says that on the day of judgment, these elements of the Heavens and earth will be ignited on that day, whether to punish the ungodly or to finally destroy these Heavens and earth at that time.

It is clear that just as the earth was destroyed by water the first time for wickedness, it will be destroyed by fire the second time in punishment for the sins of the ungodly. It, in fact, says the earth will be destroyed. Thus, the just will have a new Heaven and earth, but the passage does not say of what elements they will be made. Nowhere does it say they will be made of the same elements as the old Heavens and earth. In fact, those will be consumed by fire.

The earth, as it exists is temporal. It must pass away fro its current form. It is not suitable for eternal life. The new Heaven and earth must be eternal, hence its elements will be eternal. Now, perhaps, God will imbue the old earth with immortality, but that is speculation. We know the souls will be given immortal bodies, however. So, it is not a non sequitur to link etenal life with a new Heaven and earth.. It is a deduction from the changed nature of men that earth must change, as well. Whether or not it will be entirely new or merely has a new property added, no one can say.

The Chicken

Dear Jonathan,

Another point:

You wrote:

There will be no weeping because there will be no cause for weeping, but I don't think you have remotely made the case that there would be no purpose for the use of other material things.

I wasn't talking about the usefulness of material things, but animate things, however, since we will have the gift of ,a href="http://www.theopedia.com/Impassibility_of_God">impassibility, this will change the nature of our relationship to material objects. There will be no needs in the new earth, because that would contradict Scripture. If there are no needs (there will be no pain), then what need is there for material things?

The Chicken

I've always been inclined to answer 'no' to the original question, since direct experience with a God who is infinitely good precludes the need for enjoyment-producing animal companionship. I think I agree with a comment above (can't remember which one) in that what is good about our companionship with beasts is subsumed under the direct relationship with God. To paraphrase and apply this website's mission statement: We are in this world but are not of it; dogs, however, are wholly of it, and since they lack immortal souls, will likely perish with it.

This is what I've always been taught since youth, and limited as we are by our fallen nature, I think it's best to avoid becoming too literal in our ponderings of what the New Jerusalem really is. "For we are saved by hope. But hope that is seen is not hope. For what a man seeth, why doth he hope for? But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience." Rom. 8:24-25.

You assert that paganism is more worldly than Christianity.

No --

Your deliberate mistatement of what I actually said and meant is so egregiously wrong, it's a wonder if you ever even studied patristics, much less explored it at all since much of what I said has been the subject of quite a number of the Fathers themselves in connection with those things that Jesus Himself had taught while still here on earth.

That is to say, to assert that our after-life must have present those things that accompanied us in our earthly existence in order for it to even be considered eternal bliss evince an attachment to worldly things, and that is exactly the "worldliness" I was referring to.

As the great Saint Augustine himself had said:

“But it is impossible for anything falling short of yourself to add to your happiness… Whatever you possess on earth is inferior to yourself...”

Modern Christians seem wont to re-define the state and very definition of the beati such that simply being in the presence of God Himself eternally would still be insufficient.

Chicken said: "There will be no needs in the new earth, because that would contradict Scripture."

Zach said: "I've always been inclined to answer 'no' to the original question, since direct experience with a God who is infinitely good precludes the need for enjoyment-producing animal companionship."

At least, some folks here appear to get it.

The whole needs/no needs thing does seem to me to be misguided. One could equally well argue that we will have no _need_ for the companionship of other human souls in heaven and that therefore every man's experience of the beatific vision will be utterly solitary--just the sole individual and God. This, however, would be clearly unscriptural, since Scripture portrays the eternal state under metaphors such as a city or banquet as well as "judging the nations." Human community is pretty clearly presupposed, and Dante of course portrays heaven as a busy place involving the whole company of the blessed.

So "needs" are beside the point. The question is in what forms and in what guise God will give us perfect beatitude, not whether we will _need_ this or that form or guise. It seems to me to be pretty limiting to God to insist that He must not or cannot give us a multi-formed set of activities that include enjoyment of others as a form of enjoying Himself. That, in fact, is a perfectly legitimate Christian thing to look forward to. And those of you who are Catholic believe that the saints now enjoy God while at the same time being involved in works here on earth, and you do not consider these to be incompatible. Hence the vision of God is on your view evidently compatible even with having jobs to do. Said Milton, "Thousands at His bidding speed, and post o'er land and ocean without rest."

It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility that God could choose to have us enjoy Him in heaven through the medium of enjoying His new creation in various ways as well as enjoying other glorified human and angelic persons. The question then is whether it is for various other reasons metaphysically possible for animals a) to survive death in any sense as the same individual creatures or b) to be recreated as types of creatures in heaven so that part of "what we do" in heaven involves enjoying that type of Divine creation.

The whole needs/no needs thing does seem to me to be misguided. One could equally well argue that we will have no _need_ for the companionship of other human souls in heaven and that therefore every man's experience of the beatific vision will be utterly solitary--just the sole individual and God.

There are two commandments of love (God, neighbor), so, where there is love, there will be fulfillment. We will have companionship in Heaven, because it is commanded of us in this life and will be perfectly realized in heaven.

The Chicken

One could equally well argue that we will have no _need_ for the companionship of other human souls in heaven and that therefore every man's experience of the beatific vision will be utterly solitary...

This all the more proves yet again a failed understanding of the "Communion of Saints" or even what "Communion" itself means.

It appears Chicken has introduced a brief glimpse into the Church Triumphant.

Though if you feel compelled to argue that the Blessed (those actually made after the image & likeness of God Himself, which Union with God becomes perfectly realized in the next), because it would appear to consist of such "companionship", Heaven itself must therefore be accomodative of people's pets and what not as well; go for it.

Perhaps a more fitting afterlife for you is the Elysium of the pagans where even unicorns and pegasus roam?

The Heaven of Christianity that I personally believe in does not consist of such a mythical after-life or even shadows of this life that Modern Christians seem wont to manufacture.

I guess what I'm suggesting, Lydia, (and I could be wrong) is that the gratifying relationships we have with animals are gratifying precisely because they allow us to experience God through his creation as a sort of proxy. But the whole point of the Beatific Vision, I thought, was direct experience with God. Thus, in the Beatific Vision, the Blessed no longer experience God through anything. My question then is: how can a direct experience of God in His infinite goodness be enhanced by an indirect experience of God through animals, when by definition that which is infinite cannot be enhanced?

Does this make any sense, or is it wholly beside the point? I may be misconceiving the notion of God's infinitude.

This context is unclear. i would have to look at the original Greek.

I wasn't arguing that sola scriptura would mandate that meaning, but there is no real doubt that the anti-Gnostic interpretation of the Fathers took the re-creation of the new earth as one of numerical identity; otherwise, the original creation would have been spurious. The elements might be changed, but the essential substance of the creation would be preserved as the platform for real bodily existence in the general resurrection.

See, e.g., St. Irenaeus:
"For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment (plantationem), that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but the fashion of the world passes away (1 Corinthians 7:31); that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them." (Against Heresies V.36.1).

Nobody is denying that the mode of the world's existence changes. But as St. Irenaeus points out, it would simply be foolish to have bodies without material creation; that would render the original creation itself spurious. That doesn't mean that we need material things, but that the created things would ultimately have served no purpose in being created. Yes, there could be a bunch of glorified bodies floating in the abyss in contemplation of God in principle. But it doesn't make any sense for that to be the case in the context of God having created a variety of things for any reason or purpose. If the goal was simply to have angelic existence with bodies tacked on, God could have done that without creating all of the things He did create.

On the contrary, everything in the original creation was created with an eternal purpose, the logoi in the Logos, so one would not expect that purpose to have an expiration date. If the new heaven and earth were entirely new, that would obviate the purpose of the original creation, which is exactly the objection that St. Irenaeus raises, one which would be echoed centuries later by St. Maximus the Confessor. The original purpose in creation is how all things are recapitulated in Christ, and why St. Francis's approach to the Gospel makes sense.

If you are Catholic (and I thought I remembered that being the case), then I wonder why you are making an argument from silence from a Biblical passage regarding an entirely new creation, when there is no linguistic reason to do it and no traditional or philosophical reason to think that it is the case. You'd really need a persuasive reason for the created things of the world NOT to be in the new heaven and earth, and since there is no essential reason why material things would be a distraction FROM contemplation of God or the beatific vision in any way (on the contrary, they cannot possibly do), it's really a question of why they wouldn't be there.

The more I think about it, the less I can comprehend what possible objection could be raised here. It's not a question of keeping creature comforts from creation, pace aristocles, but of affirming that God made even temporal things for an eternal reason.

Dick Cavett recounts this story:
>>>
Basil Rathbone was entertaining a friend one night at his home in the Hollywood Hills. Both men were keenly interested in dogs and their breeding. His friend had brought with him two handsome specimens. As it got late, the two friends had a parting drink and called it a night. The friend and the canines got into the car and drove away. But, sadly, not very far.

As Rathbone turned to go back inside, he heard the screech of brakes and the sickening sounds of a ghastly car crash. His friend and the dogs were killed instantly. In deep shock, and with the thought, “He was just standing here,” pounding in his aching head, Rathbone heard the damned phone begin ringing. Mechanically he picked it up and heard the voice of the MGM studio’s night switchboard operator. “Sorry, Mr. Rathbone but I have a woman on the line who simply must talk to you. She says it’s desperately, desperately important.” Probably some smitten fan, he thought as the operator said, “Sir, I’ve never heard anyone be so urgent. She hopes you’ll know what a certain message means.”

Rathbone, impatient and in a daze, snapped, “For Christ’s sake, put her on and be done with it!”

The woman was calling from her home, located way to hell and gone on the far side of Los Angeles. She had a low and cultivated speaking voice and identified herself as a trance medium and clairvoyant. At that time the movie colony was going through one of its periodic infatuations with psychics, astrologers, table-tipping séances, Ouija boards and such. Rathbone scorned all such claptrap, but, he said, “the woman’s voice was so compelling.”

“I have for you, sir, what we term ‘a calling of urgency,’” she said. “It came to me with such impact that, although not knowing its meaning, I simply had to find you. The message is brief. Here it is in its entirety: ‘Traveling very fast. No time to say good-bye.’ And then, ‘There are no dogs here.’ ”

http://cavett.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/basil-rathbones-mysterious-message/?apage=6

Zach, part of what I'm saying is that you can't make an _in principle_ argument along those lines (concerning indirect enjoyment of God), because such an argument would also apply to human love and friendship, which I believe we have quite strong reason to believe is completed and continued rather than replaced in the Beatific Vision.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that friendship with animals is on a par with human friendship. I'm just saying that one can't argue in principle against God's making an experience of animal creation one of the joys of heaven on the grounds that our enjoyment of animal creation here has been an indirect enjoyment of or proxy for our enjoyment of Him. Because you could say that even about things that we have every reason to believe will not disappear in heaven.

Jonathan:

It's not a question of keeping creature comforts from creation, pace aristocles, but of affirming that God made even temporal things for an eternal reason.

Temporal things are exactly that: 'temporal'.

Unlike man, which has an eternal soul and made after the likeness and image of God, these do not and, therefore, cannot have a divine purpose meant for eternal life.

Also, to suggest that such 'forms' and 'guises' (merely shadows of this life), whether it be animals or such, are necessary in the next because these are what will ultimately satisfy man's eternal bliss, implies that God, by Himself, is inadequate.

If that is indeed the case, then the God we believe in could not possibly be 'God' since we believe God to be 'perfect' in every way.

To suppose that things other than God Himself need be present in the next life (as Lydia precisely suggests with her question: "The question is in what forms and in what guise God will give us perfect beatitude") in order for us to enjoy a happy eternal life would indicate exactly that: God, by Himself, is not enough.

Question: Isn't the "intermediate state" (let's call it "heaven")-- where we exist after we die but before the coming of the eschaton, in a sense "incomplete." Is there something deficient about it, not in the sense that heaven is pervaded by sin (indeed, it is not possible to sin), but in the sense that there something more and different to come? Like the resurrection of the body, perhaps? The renewal of creation, perhaps?

It seems to me that Jonathan Prajean and Irenaeus have it exactly right on the earthiness of the New Earth, and with his statement that "If the new heaven and earth were entirely new, that would obviate the purpose of the original creation." That seems to me to be just, good-old fashioned Biblical orthodoxy.

The key question for me (and I'd love to hear Jonathan weigh in on this) has to do with why this teaching is so strange to many modern Christians, both Catholic and Protestant? In fact, why is this thoroughly orthodox teaching so often perceived as being itself heretical? Why is the first reflex to consider the eschatological state (New Heavens and New Earth) as a place (if we may call it a place) for incorporeal, disembodied souls?

Then, I hereby submit the scandalous opinion of one of the greatest heretics of all time in all of Christendom, Thomas Aquinas:

"The material universe cannot remain in existence without its essential parts. But the essential parts of the universe are the heavenly bodies and the elements, for the entire world machine is made up of them. Other bodies do not, apparently, pertain to the integrity of the material universe, but contribute rather to its adornment and beauty. They befit its changeable state in the sense that, with a heavenly body acting as efficient cause, and with the elements as material causes, animals and plants and minerals are brought into being.

But in the state of final consummation another kind of adornment will be given to the elements, in keeping with their condition of incorruption. In that state, accordingly, there will remain men, elements, and heavenly bodies, but not animals or plants or minerals."

So, according to aristocles, Aquinas has it right, but Irenaeus has it wrong. But according to Jonathan, Irenaeus has it right, but Aquinas has it wrong. Or at least, so it seems.

Perhaps aristocles can tell us why Irenaeus got it wrong and Jonathan can tell us why Aquinas got it wrong.

Inquiring minds want to know.

**To suppose that things other than God Himself need be present in the next life (as Lydia precisely suggests with her question: "The question is in what forms and in what guise God will give us perfect beatitude") in order for us to enjoy a happy eternal life would indicate exactly that: God, by Himself, is not enough.**

But as Lydia said above, "need" has got nothing to do with it. Anything apart from God is superfluous. Yet does not God, in fact, give us superfluities? His grace itself is a superfluity, is it not? Why would it be any different in the eschaton?

If there are plants and animals in the next world (and I think there will be) it will not be because they 'need' to be there, but because God loves them and wants them there.

Mr. Pavlischek:

Perhaps you might want to provide a compelling reason as to why the "New Earth" necessarily means the presence of even animals and that anybody who suggests otherwise would be considered some sort of heretic since he would be contradicting what you personally call "good-old fashioned Biblical orthodoxy"?

Yet, to my mind, the great angelic doctor himself, who endorses an opinion apparently contrary to yours and your "good-old fashioned Biblical orthodoxy", is by no means heretic; let alone, a makeweight.

John says in Revelations:

Rev 21:1 I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone: and the sea is now no more.

One thing's for sure, if there is no sea, I'm sorry to say that there'll be no fishies in the New Earth. =(

Rob G:

If there are plants and animals in the next world (and I think there will be) it will not be because they 'need' to be there, but because God loves them and wants them there.

Et tu, Brute?

Come on, Rob!

For something to exist eternally, wouldn't it require an eternal soul?

As far as I know, the only thing in the world that possess an eternal soul is man!

To suppose that animals have, or that in the next life will come to have, the same is simply ludicrous.

Let's ask a more foundational question: what is the purpose of a dog?

The Chicken

The discussion about necessity reminds me a lot of the way Protestants are wont to speak of things like the intercession of the Saints or the Immaculate Conception, which is a little disorienting. I may be wrong, but what I'm seeing is that those arguing against the idea of the possibility of dogs (and whatnot) in the Resurrection have a point, or would have a point if those arguing for it were making a statement from the perspective of earthly human wants (wishes or needs); but I think the pro-dog people are actually saying something about the character of God. I couldn't very clearly say what this is, except that God seems to me to be very fond of matter, and of coherence and continuity, and of little extras, like creating a bunch of galaxy clusters or putting mathematics into daisies. The fact that I also happen to like matter, and patterns, may of course predispose me towards the assumption that there will be daisies in the Resurrection (or something like them), but that doesn't detract from the validity of the observation.

Re: The Basil Rathbone anecdote: I expect there are no dogs in Purgatory, except possibly for those who have mistreated them. (I am - I hope - completely orthodox about attempts of the living to contact the dead; I don't exclude the possibility that the dead may sometimes be permitted to contact the living.)

Dear Jonathan,

I have read the passage you cited from Irenaeus and it does not say, as I interpret it, that a completely new earth could render the original spurious. The passage says that the elements of this world that make men old (corruptible) shall not exist in the new earth, but the substance and essence shall remain. INnfact, he says, along with St. Paul, that the fashion of the world is passing away. The word, fashion, is the Greek, schema, which means all of the externals, "the habitus, as comprising everything in a person which strikes the senses, the figure, bearing, discourse, actions, manner of life etc.," (Thayer's Lexicon). In otherwords, precisely the material aspects of the world.

He goes on to say:

But when this[present] fashion [of things] passes away, and man has been renewed,
and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the
possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and
the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [con- tinually],
always holding fresh converse with God. And since (or, that) these
things shall ever continue without end, Isaiah declares, "For as the
new heavens and the new earth which I do make, continue in my sight,
saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain."(1) And as
the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in
heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise,
and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the
Saviour(2) shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be
worthy.

This seems to square with what Aristocles quoted from Aquinas. He did not give the reference. It is from, Compendium Theologiae, First Treatise on Faith: the divine Trinity, Chapter 170 :Renovation Restricted to Certain Classes of Creatures. The Compendium is on-line.

The Chicken

The, "substance and essence," in the passage of Irenaeus being understood as the soul.

The Chicken

but I think the pro-dog people are actually saying something about the character of God.

So are the anti-dog people.

What a lousy expression. No one, here is anti-dog. How about using the term, the NDIH (no dogs in Heaven) crowd, instead. So, DIH and NDIH or +Dogs and -Dogs?

The Chicken

P. S. This thread is moving so fast it is hard to keep up.

Chicken:

Thanks again!

You're moving in the right direction!

The selection I cited from Aquinas can further be found here in greater elaborate detail:

CHAPTER 169 RENOVATION OF MAN AND OF MATERIAL NATURE It is manifest that all things existing for some definite end are disposed in an order required by the end. Therefore, if that to which other things are related as means can vary from perfect to imperfect, the means subordinated to it must be subject to parallel variation, so as to serve the end in either state. Food and clothing, for instance, are prepared otherwise for a child than for a grown man. We have already called attention to the fact that material creation is subordinated to rational nature as to its end. Consequently, when man is admitted to his final perfection after the resurrection, material creation must take on a new condition. This is why we are told that the world is to undergo renovation when man rises, as is taught in the Apocalypse 21:1: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth,” and in Isaiah 65:17: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth.”

CHAPTER 170 RENOVATION RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN CLASSES OF CREATURES
However, we should remember that the different kinds of material creatures are subordinated to man in different ways. Plants and animals serve man by aiding him in his weakness, in the sense that they supply him with food and clothing and transportation and like conveniences, whereby human feebleness is strengthened. But in the final state that comes after the resurrection all such defects will be eliminated from man. Men will no longer need food to eat, since they will be incorruptible, as we have pointed out. Nor will men need garments to cover their nakedness, because they will be clothed with the radiance of glory. Nor will they require animals to carry them, as they will be endowed with agility. Nor will they need medicines to keep them in health, since they will be impassible. In that state of final consummation, therefore, as we should expect, there will be no material creatures of this kind, namely, plants and animals and other like mixed bodies.

But, the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth are for man not only as regards the utility of bodily life, but also as regards the composition of his body. The human body is made up of these elements. And so the elements have an essential ordination to the human body. Hence, when man is glorified in body and soul, the elements have to remain also, although they will be changed to a better condition of existence.

As for the heavenly bodies, their substance is not utilized for the support of man’s corruptible life, and does not enter into the substance of the human frame. However, they serve man in the sense that by their beauty and enormous size they show forth the excellence of their Creator. For this reason man is often exhorted in Sacred Scripture to contemplate the heavenly bodies, so as to be moved by them to sentiments of reverence toward God. This is exemplified in Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things.” And although, in the state of consummated perfection, man is not brought to the knowledge of God by a consideration of sensible creatures, since he sees God as He is in Himself, still it is pleasing and enjoyable for one who knows the cause to observe how the likeness of the cause shines forth in the effect. Thus a consideration of the divine goodness as mirrored in bodies, and particularly in the heavenly bodies, which appear to have a pre-eminence over other bodies, gives joy to the saints. Moreover, the heavenly bodies have some sort of essential relationship with the human body under the aspect of efficient causality, just as the elements have under the aspect of material causality: man generates man, and the sun, too, has some part in this operation. This, then, is another reason why the heavenly bodies should remain in existence.

The doctrine here advocated follows, not only from the relationship which various bodies have with man, but also from an examination of the natures of the material creatures we have been discussing. No object wanting in an intrinsic principle of incorruptibility ought to remain in the state that is characterized by incorruption. The heavenly bodies are incorruptible in whole and in part. The elements are incorruptible as wholes, but not as parts. Man is incorruptible in part, namely, in his rational soul, but not as a whole because the composite is dissolved by death. Animals and plants and all mixed bodies are incorruptible neither in whole nor in part. In the final state of incorruption, therefore, men and the elements and the heavenly bodies will fittingly remain, but not other animals or plants or mixed bodies.

We can argue reasonably to the same conclusion from the nature of the universe. Since man is a part of the material universe, the material universe should remain when man is brought to his final consummation; a part would seem to lack its proper perfection if it were to exist without the whole. On the other hand, the material universe cannot remain in existence without its essential parts. But the essential parts of the universe are the heavenly bodies and the elements, for the entire world machine is made up of them. Other bodies do not, apparently, pertain to the integrity of the material universe, but contribute rather to its adornment and beauty. They befit its changeable state in the sense that, with a heavenly body acting as efficient cause, and with the elements as material causes, animals and plants and minerals are brought into being. But in the state of final consummation another kind of adornment will be given to the elements, in keeping with their condition of incorruption. In that state, accordingly, there will remain men, elements, and heavenly bodies, but not animals or plants or minerals.

Chicken:

Thread moving fast: Yes, and it's rather late where I am, so I will soon be getting even further behind while "sleeping on it".

Both your sets of terms are much better than pro-dog and anti-dog. (Pro-dog sounds like a group of people who will be going around collecting signatures for a petition, which will then be handed to God...)

What I can gather the NDIH (or NDITR) people to be saying (or referring to) is that at the end of the story, God is enough, being all in all, and that since it will be, in some sense, possible for us to "see" Him "face to face", we won't be looking at anything else (with the exception of each other). I think the NDIH people would also say that all nonhuman created things were made for the purpose of drawing humanity closer to God. I believe that this is the case. However, I believe that God, being creative, is also interested in them for their own sake, and for the sheer delight of expressing Himself through them; and I think this has some bearing on the question of the new creation.

I guess for me the question (of things ranging from dogs, grass, and beeswax to the arts) comes down to this: Will the principle I see at work in reflectedness, mediatedness, analogy, and hierarchy be abolished, or will it continue to operate in some fashion? It seems it can't be completely abolished if the people are right who say that we will each individually reflect some aspect of God's glory. What I can't find is a reason, from the perspective of this principle (which seems to be the way God operates in creation), why it would suddenly restrict itself to the relationship between God and humanity.

Would it be correct to say that the NDIH people come at it from the angle of what-is-necessary-to-humanity and the DIH people from the angle of pattern-of-reflectedness-observed-in-the-universe? To me, that would explain a lot... It would also likely mean that we were both wrong. And somewhat right.

I'd like to think that God is indeed smiling and shaking His head because we don't know what we're talking about...

It seems to me that it wouldn't do to be dogmatic (har, har, I just love awful puns) to the effect that nothing exists in the eschaton but beings that have immortal souls + God. As has already been pointed out, we know that some of those beings--us--will also have bodies. Those bodies will presumably walk on something, sit on something, see something, etc. Therefore if I'm understanding Aquinas correctly, his strictures against even the existence of _minerals_ (crikey!) in heaven seem a bit overstated. Something like saying, "Streets of gold, shmeets of gold! we'll walk on air."

He ate fish as a supernatural condescension to the apostles, since in ancient times, eating was a way of proving that a person were alive. The text nowhere says that he enjoyed the fish.

Chicken, I think you are missing the point here. If Christ "appeared" to eat in order to prove something, then he really did eat, or the proof is no proof at all but a fraud.

If Christ really ate, then it would seem that the food was really become part of him. Not, necessarily in the normal mode, I grant you. But whatever the mode, unless Christ eating the food was something other than the outward appearance that angels have done in the Bible, then Christ's proof was no proof that he was a living body. Therefore, it was not an appearance of consuming, but real consuming.

If Christ really consumed the food that under some mode became part of him, then the other human functions of eating, including enjoyment, could be present as well. I don't insist that they were, but I insist that there is no way to prove they were not. And it would seem odd to say that Christ ate without fulfillment in the act.

Chicken, you take exactly the wrong conclusion from Thomas's cosmology argument:

"The material universe cannot remain in existence without its essential parts. But the essential parts of the universe are the heavenly bodies and the elements,

First, we now know that the heavenly bodies are not the "principles" of earthly beings in the manner Aristotle thought. Therefore, any argument based strictly on that premise is unlikely to be valid.

As for the heavenly bodies, their substance is not utilized for the support of man’s corruptible life, and does not enter into the substance of the human frame. However, they serve man in the sense that by their beauty and enormous size they show forth the excellence of their Creator. For this reason man is often exhorted in Sacred Scripture to contemplate the heavenly bodies, so as to be moved by them to sentiments of reverence toward God. This is exemplified in Isaiah 40:26: “Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things.” And although, in the state of consummated perfection, man is not brought to the knowledge of God by a consideration of sensible creatures, since he sees God as He is in Himself, still it is pleasing and enjoyable for one who knows the cause to observe how the likeness of the cause shines forth in the effect. Thus a consideration of the divine goodness as mirrored in bodies, and particularly in the heavenly bodies, which appear to have a pre-eminence over other bodies, gives joy to the saints.

And yet this ENTIRELY supports Jonathan's and my point. Pets are not enjoyed as being useful for supporting our lives, but rather are enjoyed precisely as Thomas supposes that the heavenly bodies are. Therefore, there can be a place for them after the resurrection that Thomas supposes for the stars, etc.

As has already been pointed out, we know that some of those beings--us--will also have bodies. Those bodies will presumably walk on something, sit on something, see something, etc.

One could have likewise easily conjectured that since we'll have bodies, we'll presumably require food as well.

AHA!

That's why you're so insistent on having animals in the after-life!

...at the end of the story, God is enough, being all in all, and that since it will be, in some sense, possible for us to "see" Him "face to face", we won't be looking at anything else (with the exception of each other).

Now, you see, that is yet another 'fleshly' way of conceiving eternal happiness with God. For Heaven's sake (literally), can you not see with eyes of the spirit instead of the flesh?

Besides, I don't think angels get bored in Heaven because all they do there is hang out with the Big Guy, have nothing to look at but each other, and sing perpetually: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come". According to the crowd here, they must, therefore, lead a rather pathetic existence.

However, I believe that God, being creative, is also interested in them for their own sake, and for the sheer delight of expressing Himself through them...

But that is precisely why they initially existed so that we could come to know Him through His creation.

However, in the life to come, we would ultimately be in union with Him.

Anyhow, I'm NDIH and proud of it!

P.S. What the heck is NDITR?

Also, cf. Isaiah 11:6-7 "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." This seems to suggest something like a change in instincts for the natural species, but also suggests that they will continue to exist in some form.

This passage from Isaiah very clearly speaks of animals in the Heavenly Kingdom. It also echoes a not uncommon experience in the lives of the saints, when they had wild animals act as tame ones in their presence. Thus St. Gerasimus had a lion that obeyed his commands and led a donkey down to get water every day. St. Seraphim of Sarov fed a bear, as did a number of other saints. In the saints we see the restoration of the relationship Adam had with the animals in Eden, and we can expect to see this relationship in the Kingdom of Heaven. So, if animals will be there, as it appears from Isaiah, it is hard to imagine that our pets will not be there with us.

Thus a consideration of the divine goodness as mirrored in bodies, and particularly in the heavenly bodies, which appear to have a pre-eminence over other bodies, gives joy to the saints.

This says nothing about the existence of these bodies after the Final Judgment, merely that a consideration of their existence and the order they implied when they existed will give joy. This is part of the joy of the Beatific Vision - to see what God created as he sees it.

The Chicken

I really hate cherry-picking Bible quotes. The quote from Isa 11: 6-7 does not say anything about the next life. It is a coded speech for the coming of Christ, the first time. Look at the passage in context. It is clear that there is much more history to go [my emphasis]:

Isa.11
[1]There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
[2] And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
[3] And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.
He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
or decide by what his ears hear;
[4] but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.
[5] Righteousness shall be the girdle of his waist,
and faithfulness the girdle of his loins.
[6] The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
and the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
[7] The cow and the bear shall feed;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
[8] The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den.
[9] 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.

[10]In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious.

[11]

In that day the Lord will extend his hand yet a second time to recover the remnant which is left of his people, from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Ethiopia, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.

[12] He will raise an ensign for the nations,
and will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.
[13] The jealousy of E'phraim shall depart,
and those who harass Judah shall be cut off;
E'phraim shall not be jealous of Judah,
and Judah shall not harass E'phraim.
[14] But they shall swoop down upon the shoulder of the Philistines in
the west,
and together they shall plunder the people of the east.
They shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab,
and the Ammonites shall obey them.
[15] And the LORD will utterly destroy
the tongue of the sea of Egypt;
and will wave his hand over the River
with his scorching wind,
and smite it into seven channels
that men may cross dryshod.
[16] And there will be a highway from Assyria
for the remnant which is left of his people,
as there was for Israel
when they came up from the land of Egypt.

Isa.12
[1]You will say in that day:
"I will give thanks to thee, O LORD,
for though thou wast angry with me,
thy anger turned away,
and thou didst comfort me.
[2] "Behold, God is my salvation;
I will trust, and will not be afraid;
for the LORD GOD is my strength and my song,
and he has become my salvation."
[3]With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.
[4] And you will say in that day: "Give thanks to the LORD,
call upon his name;
make known his deeds among the nations,
proclaim that his name is exalted.
[5] "Sing praises to the LORD, for he has done gloriously;
let this be known in all the earth.
[6] Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion,
for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel."

It is very clear, from the context, that this passage talks about Christ's first coming. In fact, this passage is used in the Christmas liturgy, if memory serves. Clearly, it describes actions that are yet to be realized.

The chicken

Ari says:

Besides, I don't think angels get bored in Heaven because all they do there is hang out with the Big Guy, have nothing to look at but each other, and sing perpetually: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come". According to the crowd here, they must, therefore, lead a rather pathetic existence.

Nobody here is supposing that angels, or anyone enjoying the BV, will be bored. What, though, is the difference between angels in heaven and men in heaven? Bodies. If their bodies do not modify mens role in the afterlife, then they are pretty nonsensical, aren't they? And if they do modify our role in the afterlife, (compared to that of angels) then presumably it is because there is something about how we participate in that afterlife that involves the body as an integral aspect. As you say yourself, the Beatific Vision is not it. So what in the afterlife is it that makes having a body significant?

Chicken says

This says nothing about the existence of these bodies after the Final Judgment, merely that a consideration of their existence

But no, your earlier quote gave this further point from St. Thomas:

In the final state of incorruption, therefore, men and the elements and the heavenly bodies will fittingly remain,

St. Thomas did not conclude just that men would consider the heavenly bodies that used to exist, he concludes that the heavenly bodies will remain.

Let me clarify that last sentence:

Clearly, it describes actions that were yet to be realized, in this world. It doesn't even come close to discussing the next life. The time described is Christ's first coming.

Interesting discussion, all, but this is my last post for the evening. See you all, Lord willing, tomorrow.

The Chicken

Ah, Chicken, I think that you are being a little simplistic with the passage. Either that, or you maybe cited the wrong passage to prove that it refers specially to Christ's first coming. For example, this part:

[10]In that day the root of Jesse shall stand as an ensign to the peoples; him shall the nations seek, and his dwellings shall be glorious.

Glorious? The stable? Or Nazareth? "The Son of Man hath no place to rest his head." That coming?

I am not cherry picking: there are places throughout the passage that bear better on the second coming, or on wholly figurative or spiritual senses rather than historical ones, than a clear reference to the first coming 2000 years ago.

and will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.

[4] but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.

Animals are not human-
Humans have sin and are in need of the Holy Spirit to clean them up--
As for the argument that-- in heaven - God is all we need ---
God should be all we need here on earth... -
isn't it great that an all knowing God put animals here for us!?..OK-granted - we need food-water and shelter too!..
Heaven cannot be a better place w/o the animals.....
BTW- the Pastor in my first comment -above-got a Labrador- an animal that he and his family loved...after many years the dog died--the Pastor now believes that animals are going to be with us in heaven...

‘Traveling very fast. No time to say good-bye.’ And then, ‘There are no dogs here.’ ”

That's because Rathbone's friend was in hell.

"For something to exist eternally, wouldn't it require an eternal soul?"

I don't see why. After all, there seem to be both inanimate objects (buildings, etc.) and non-sentient beings (plants & trees) in the eschaton.

Ari, there is a whiff of Gnosticism to your reduction of the next world, in that it reduces it to just God and humans in glorified bodies. If this is the case, why do we even "need" our bodies? Couldn't we live forever as disembodied souls, as it seems we are going to do between our deaths and the final judgment?

N.T. Wright has written a fair amount recently about the misapprehension of salvation in Protestantism as something for "souls" only, leaving out its cosmic and physical dimensions. Perhaps some of this error has leaked into popular Catholicism?

4] but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.

First of all, such quotes can be found in the book of psalms describing God and how he approaches people in this life. Secondly, Jesus came to earth to be the full revelation of the righteousness of God in this life. This passage can describe either that revelation or the Last Judgment. Either way, it does not refer to a time after the Last Judgment.

Ari, there is a whiff of Gnosticism to your reduction of the next world, in that it reduces it to just God and humans in glorified bodies. If this is the case, why do we even "need" our bodies? Couldn't we live forever as disembodied souls, as it seems we are going to do between our deaths and the final judgment?

We need our bodies because man is, properly speaking, unlike the angels, a being of both body and soul. No Gnosticism, here. Heaven as it is, now, is not the final step in our relationship with God. That will occur when soul is united to a glorified body and the relationship truly becomes one of God and man. In Heaven,now, it is God and the soul of the man.

The Chicken

aristocles:

...at the end of the story, God is enough, being all in all, and that since it will be, in some sense, possible for us to "see" Him "face to face", we won't be looking at anything else (with the exception of each other).

Now, you see, that is yet another 'fleshly' way of conceiving eternal happiness with God. For Heaven's sake (literally), can you not see with eyes of the spirit instead of the flesh?

If I could see with eyes of the spirit, you might not realise it, because everything I tried to say would run up against the limitations of language. As most things do, in my experience; only less so. I'm purposely using a combination of traditional and colloquial language, with quote marks (perhaps it was asking for trouble not to put the last "looking" in quote marks), to emphasise those limitations. There is no sneering tone or meta-statement of "look how little" in the bolded text. I'm only saying "I can follow this logic."

Besides, I don't think angels get bored in Heaven because all they do there is hang out with the Big Guy, have nothing to look at but each other, and sing perpetually: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come". According to the crowd here, they must, therefore, lead a rather pathetic existence.

I don't see where the "pathetic" comes in.

By NDITR I meant No Dogs In The Resurrection, but I stuck with NDIH to cover both. (Strictly speaking I'm an NDIH-DITR person, but not dogmatically so. Har har, rowf rowf.)

Good point, Lydia—

It seems to me that it wouldn't do to be dogmatic (har, har, I just love awful puns) to the effect that nothing exists in the eschaton but beings that have immortal souls + God. As has already been pointed out, we know that some of those beings--us--will also have bodies. Those bodies will presumably walk on something, sit on something, see something, etc. Therefore if I'm understanding Aquinas correctly, his strictures against even the existence of _minerals_ (crikey!) in heaven seem a bit overstated. Something like saying, "Streets of gold, shmeets of gold! we'll walk on air."

I can understand an eschatology that is somewhat embarrassed by the resurrection of the body and thus wants to explain it away in favor of an eschatology of disembodied souls. And I can understand an eschatology in which the scope of redemption wrought in Christ is cosmic-- understood to be as wide as the scope of creation and the fall--such that there is no good Biblical reason to exclude animals, plants, minerals, from the renewal of all things under the authority of Christ and a lot of good exegetical reasons for including them.

After all, with regard to the latter, we have it on pretty good authority—the testimony of the Holy Spirit, I mean-- that all things were created by and through Christ in the first place and that all things are being reconciled by HIM and will be placed under HIS authority:

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. (Col 1)

Maybe the Apostle Paul was confused about this “all things” stuff, but I’m not inclined to think so. I tend to think that Paul is saying something profound and rather clear here about the SCOPE of redemption of the cosmos through Christ. (Can I have an "amen" SOMEBODY!)

In any case, I understand the temptation to resist the notion that there will be a resurrection of our bodies and to claim that the eschaton (and the scope of redemption) is all about disembodied incorruptible souls (the truly incorruptible “substance and essence”). I think I understand the logic behind an understanding that would consider the resurrection of the body to be superfluous and redundant—“who needs the trouble; let’s just stay in this disembodied 'intermediate state' with the BV and all.” On the other hand, I understand an eschatology that insists that “all things” has to do with the full scope of redemption and that our resurrected selves living in THAT world, under the Lordship of Christ, is really something worth looking forward to.

What I have a hard time getting a grip on is what seems (if the texts and commentaries cited here accurately state his views) to be Aquinas' attempt to split the difference by suggesting eschatology of resurrected bodies living in a world without plants and animals and minerals. Again, I have a hard time seeing solid Biblical warrant for that position but beyond that it just seems down-right odd. To say this is not to deny a great deal of mystery in it all, but a redeemed creation with plants, animals and minerals is no more mysterious or difficult to conceive that a resurrected body. And it is considerable easier to conceive than resurrected bodies wondering around a redeemed creation without plants, animals and minerals.

To put it perhaps too provocatively, it SEEMS (just from the proof-texting offered up here along with the commentary) as though Thomas really wishes he could settle for eschatological "immortal souls" and not have to worry about "resurrected bodies." It would all be metaphysically neater. But the Biblical and apostolic witness is too perspicuous on THAT issue. So, could it be perhaps that the Biblical witness is tugging him in one direction and certain metaphysical commitments in another?

BTW--Al Wolters’ Creation Regained is very good on all this. And so is, as someone noted above, N.T. Wright.

"who needs the trouble; let’s just stay in this disembodied 'intermediate state' with the BV and all.”

The fact that you've associated the Beatific Vision with the 'intermediate state' suggests you have no understanding whatsoever of what exactly is the Beatific Vision.

In any case, I understand the temptation to resist the notion that there will be a resurrection of our bodies...

Who amongst us are actually "resist[ing] the notion that there will be a resurrection of our bodies"?

For goodness sakes, is anybody here actually rallying against a basic tenet of that very Creed carried forward in the Council of Nicaea, which was actually a Catholic council consisting of Bishops and Pope?

Speaking of which, I recall the Athanasian thought that prevailed then, "the grace of His resurrection being imparted to us, that man would be forever freed from the law of corruption"; there appears to be those here very determined to apply that very same grace & redemption to animals, minerals and plants as well!

However, allow me to present the wisdom of that very same Council then:

"For, in the last analysis, the restoration of our nature must be a return to that divine life and to that participation of the Word which had been first granted to mankind. This deification includes the immortality of the body together with the divine sonship and resemblance to God; and it will be fulfilled through the union of our nature with Him who is God, God's own Son, God's perfect image, essential life. For that nature, in which we all have a share, being vivified and made divine by that union, we, who are concorporeal with Jesus by this very fact, deified; according to the expression of Athanasius, our flesh is verbified 'The Word has become man, that He might deify us in Himself.' He was made man that we might be made gods; He manifested Himself in a body, that we might receive the knowledge of the unseen Father; He endured the insults of men, that we might inherit immortality."

Yet, there seems to be those here like Herr Pavlischek who dare not only present themselves as more sophisticated and even superior to the Great Fathers of the Council then, but would also dare treat this traditional Christian belief of the beatific vision (i.e., "the union of our nature with Him who is God, God's own Son, God's perfect image, essential life") that was held even in the early days of Christianity -- not only Nicaea, mind you -- and hitherto historically treasured & believed by Christendom ever since (i.e., traditional Christians, such as the Orthodox & Catholic), to be treated as nothing more than a mere figment of the Christian imagination, deserving only sarcastic dismissal!

Again, I have a hard time seeing solid Biblical warrant for that position but beyond that it just seems down-right odd.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing solid biblical warrant for the after-life of Benji, Lassie and Seabiscuit; however, it would seem certain Moderns here would much prefer the pagan paradise of Elysium to that of the Christian reality of the Beatific Vision.

Thomas really wishes he could settle for eschatological "immortal souls" and not have to worry about "resurrected bodies.

Did you even read Thomas at all or is it that you more so enjoy deliberately manufacturing strawmen?

[C]ould it be perhaps that the Biblical witness is tugging him in one direction and certain metaphysical commitments in another?

Could it be that the Council of Nicaea was actually heretical since they employed a platonic vocabulary? The very same that dared articulate (at least, to even greater degree) the traditional Christian belief known as the Beatific Vision?

(4) Theologians distinguish the primary and the secondary object of the beatific vision. The primary object is God Himself as He is. The blessed see the Divine Essence by direct intuition, and, because of the absolute simplicity of God, they necessarily see all His perfections and all the persons of the Trinity. Moreover, since they see that God can create countless imitations of His Essence, the entire domain of possible creatures lies open to their view, though indeterminately and in general. For the actual decrees of God are not necessarily an object of that vision, except in as afar as God pleases to manifest them. Therefore finite things are not necessarily seen by the blessed, even if they are an actual object of God's will. Still less are they a necessary object of vision as long as they are mere possible objects of the Divine will. Consequently the blessed have a distinct knowledge of individual possible things only in so far as God wishes to grant this knowledge. Thus, if God so willed, a blessed soul might see the Divine Essence without seeing in it the possibility of any individual creature in particular. But in fact, there is always connected with the beatific vision a knowledge of various things external to God, of the possible as well as of the actual. All these things, taken collectively, constitute the secondary object of the beatific vision.

The blessed soul sees these secondary objects in God either directly (formaliter), or in as far as God is their cause (causaliter). It sees in God directly whatever the beatific vision discloses to its immediate gaze without the aid of any created mental image (species impressa). In God, as in their cause, the soul sees all those things which it perceives with the aid of a created mental image, a mode of perception granted by God as a natural complement of the beatific vision. The number of objects seen directly in God cannot be increased unless the beatific vision itself be intensified; but the number of things seen in God as their cause may be greater of smaller, or it may very without any corresponding change in the vision itself.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm

however, it would seem certain Moderns here would much prefer the pagan paradise of Elysium to that of the Christian reality of the Beatific Vision.

See, it's when Ari says stuff like that that I just can't take him seriously.

There's certainly nothing quoted from the Council of Nicea that I can see that mitigates against plants in heaven (or animals, for that matter) or that requires that our resurrected bodies be accompanied by no other resurrected matter. Nothing.

Actually, my view of a redeemed nature was first sparked by a guy named Thomas Howard, now a Catholic, then a very high Anglican, in a book called _Christ the Tiger_, which contains a wonderful passage at the end on redemption as restoring what has been lost by sin and the fall. Previously, my Baptist theology had thought of "redemption" simply as forgiveness of sins. Howard broadened my view and, dare I say it, made it what I have always considered to be more Catholic and less narrowly focused on the soul at the expense of corporeal nature.

I just don't buy that reunification of body and soul after the Last Day and the creation of a New Jerusalem (again, how literally that is to be interpreted is something we shouldn't assume) entails the presence of animals, because that perfect existence will be so radically different from what we experience now (again the difference between perfection and imperfection is infinity, quantificationally(?) speaking). The gap between perfected humans and perfected dogs is much, much wider, it seems to me, than the gap between perfected dogs and, say, perfected video game arcades. But would we consider the presence of video game arcades in the afterlife?

In the end, if there are animals in the New Jerusalem, I think they would exist in such a radically different and better way from what they exist now that our present musings would be rendered silly and woefully incompetent.

I just don't buy that reunification of body and soul after the Last Day and the creation of a New Jerusalem (again, how literally that is to be interpreted is something we shouldn't assume) entails the presence of animals,

I don't buy that either. Nor would I say it. I do think it entails that we cannot insist that there *could not be* animals in heaven on the grounds that only immortal beings--specifically, God, angels, and redeemed humans--are in heaven. That's just too strong of a view and is to some degree counterindicated by Scriptural evidence to the effect that there will be a new creation and that we will have bodies. If we can't absolutely rule out, say, mountains, ground to walk on, water, or trees in heaven, on what grounds can we absolutely rule out dogs?

It seems to me there is a much stronger argument against the immortality of _some particular dog_. And that raises an interesting question: Would a bereaved dog owner, sad that the uniqueness that was Skidboot (Skidboot, btw, was an exceptionally well-trained Australian sheepdog, IIRC) should be gone forever, be heartened or consider his worry answered by the promise of a *dog just like* Skidboot in heaven? That is, if what we grieve over is in part the annihilation of a highly specific, individual animal, which seems a sad loss to creation, how is this answered by the recreation of a type-identical but not token-identical animal? Don't we want to say, rather, that Skidboot will see his master in heaven? But what if it isn't really Skidboot, and couldn't really be Skidboot, but just his Divinely ordained clone? Wouldn't that be somewhat unsatisfying?

That seems to me to be a rather serious objection and concern, because if we once acknowledge that animals do not, whatever else is the case, have immortal personal identity as humans do, then to some extent even if there are dogs in heaven we still have to accept that God permits the eternal ending of the individual dog that has excited our love and admiration.

Lydia,

If you take seriously the possibility that those in heaven are unable to sin, why do you think we have token-identity to our current selves? There will of course be many similarities, but I don't see how those are different from your dog scenario.

That seems to me to be a rather serious objection and concern, because if we once acknowledge that animals do not, whatever else is the case, have immortal personal identity as humans do, then to some extent even if there are dogs in heaven we still have to accept that God permits the eternal ending of the individual dog that has excited our love and admiration.

If that ending were just, then there would be no sorrow. Is it an act of injustice on God's part to eternally end the life of a dog? It certainly would be an injustice to eternally end the life of a man because it would contradict what God has said he would do. Nowhere in Scripture does God promise that plants and animals in this life would continue onto the next, so there is no injustice. If there is no injustice, then one would see the act of the dog's eternal ending in the light of God's will. If having a dog in Heaven added something to Heaven, then it would be an injustice not to have the dog, there.

That, I think is the problem, here. In Heaven, all will be seen through the light of God's will, not through our own light or will. We will want what God wants. We will not want what we want when it contradicts God's will. The question, then, of whether or not there are dogs in Heaven is a question of whether or not God sees that it is proper to have dogs in Heaven, not whether or not we would, personally, like to have our favorite dog in Heaven. If that desire were opposed to the will of God, then we would not even be able to contemplate it in Heaven. There will be no pain of loss if our dog is not in Heaven if it is the Divine Will that our dog is not in Heaven.

The question can be intensified. What happens if our best friend is not in Heaven? Just because we loved him does not mean that he must be in Heaven, otherwise there would be some loss. If not even man is guaranteed a spot in Heaven, how much less, dogs. If the lack of a person in heaven will not spoil Heaven for us, how much less a dog?

God could create new plants and animals in the New Jerusalem, if he chose to, but does he have to? Would it be an injustice to not have them? Would it add anything?

The Chicken

If having a dog in Heaven added something to Heaven, then it would be an injustice not to have the dog there... God could create new plants and animals in the New Jerusalem, if he chose to, but does he have to? Would it be an injustice to not have them? Would it add anything?

Again, as St. Augustine remarked:

“But it is impossible for anything falling short of yourself to add to your happiness… Whatever you possess on earth is inferior to yourself...”

Also, if not having in heaven somebody you love can actually be considered an injustice, what happens then if you should find your husband conspicuously absent, that you were granted entrance into the eternal kingdom and not he?

Would you cry foul? Would you detest God for this apparent injustice on his part? Will your 'Heaven' turn out to be a 'Hell' then?

Moreover, to even come up with (let alone, entertain) the notion that "if something added happiness to Heaven, it should be present there" only evinces that typically materialistic and, indeed, worldly view that our happiness depends on things.

I doubt this need be the case then.

Well, put it this way: if (and that's a big if, God willing) I make it to the New Jerusalem, at least now I won't be surprised if dogs are there!

What I have a hard time getting a grip on is what seems (if the texts and commentaries cited here accurately state his views) to be Aquinas' attempt to split the difference by suggesting eschatology of resurrected bodies living in a world without plants and animals and minerals.

Keith, I think the Thomistic physics / metaphysics here is that all composed things are inherently capable of dying, because they can decompose . Now, there are 2 distinct sense of composition when we speak of men (and animals, plants, etc.) One is that we are composed of many physical parts - carbon, oxygen, nitrogen. Since these must be together (and arranged) in order to have a human, it is possible to posit that they be apart, and this decomposing would cause the death of the human. Or animal, plant or any other complex physical structure.

IN the second sense: anything that is "composed" of matter and form can "decompose" from those constituent principles. A basic element is "composed" of matter and form. But a basic element is not complex, is not composed of many physical parts, and therefore cannot decompose in the first sense above. Similarly, (in Aristotle's theory of cosmology), the heavenly spheres were wholly simple and not composed of physical parts.

Now, in common parlance, mortality refers to the first sort of decomposition, not the second. Therefore, under this approach, elements (and the heavenly spheres of Aristotle's cosmology) cannot be mortal in the common sense of the term. A true element cannot "die", for it cannot break down into separate physical parts - it has none. (If I understand it correctly, the only thing modern physics would posit as an "elemental being" in this sense of element is a quark, which can cease to be altogether, but cannot decompose. A gold atom, and even a proton, can decompose physically, so they do not qualify as elements in the Thomistic sense.)

It is not abhorrent, therefore, to speak of elemental being as "eternal" in a certain sense, since it has no natural death to which it is subject. Not eternal in the Divine sense, because that eternity encompasses all time without being temporal in the least, whereas elements are indeed temporal, at least by participating physically in changing orders of other beings.

But it is interesting that Thomas was willing to grant that elements can be present in the hereafter, even though they are not Eternal in the sense of participating in God's Eternity via the Beatific Vision.

Lydia, you are absolutely right in your distinction about where the DIH argument is landing: that it CANNOT BE PROVEN that there is no possibility of dogs in heaven.

The argument I'm seeing here is this:

A) If there are animals in the eschaton, B) then it must be the case that it is in some sense necessary for them to be there. C) We can demonstrate that it is not necessary that they be there. D)Therefore, they won't be there.

D. is based on the truth of B., but the truth of B. hasn't been demonstrated. Therefore D. is incorrect.

In other words, it seems that before you can prove D., you have to prove B., and that hasn't been done. C. may very well be true, but it doesn't necessitate D.

The argument that anything that is possible must also exist (call it, B1 in Rob G.'s list) is also not necessarily true.

God gets to set what he wants in Heaven. God could, in theory, want anything. The question is, what has he said he wants? What will be in Heaven is already set. God will not decide, again or at the last minute. Therefor, what God has said will be in Heaven is a necessary and sufficient condition to establish whether or not there are dogs in Heaven. The question then becomes: has God told us enough to know what he wants in Heaven?

The Chicken

Thanks, Tony

Very helpful.

And yet this ENTIRELY supports Jonathan's and my point. Pets are not enjoyed as being useful for supporting our lives, but rather are enjoyed precisely as Thomas supposes that the heavenly bodies are. Therefore, there can be a place for them after the resurrection that Thomas supposes for the stars, etc.

Haven't had a chance to comment, but my response would be exactly Tony's. I think St. Thomas has committed a bit of a metaphysical goof here, which happens occasionally, although not all that often, from following Aristotle. The argument clearly relies on the premises regarding the purpose of the Heavenly bodies and the elements in a cosmology that is by no means taken for granted.

I am, of course, interpreting St. Irenaeus in view of the later views of Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Maximus, which I do consider a perspicuous metaphysical account. Generally, I think St. Thomas and St. Maximus end up in the same place on almost everything, but it looks to me like this is one of those cases where one got the better of the other, and in this case, I think it was St. Maximus. Had St. Thomas followed the Pseudo-Dionysian cosmology a bit closer, I think he wouldn't make this mistake, since he's usually very good about getting rid of Aristotelian distinctions when they aren't helpful. In this case, the distinction between the role of heavenly bodies and elements fails to account for the fact that every kind of thing serves a similar essential (and not instrumental) purpose. The Eastern Fathers seem to have just had a better intuitive grasp of that sort of thing and familiarity with the tradition tends to highlight it. I would say that St. Thomas here doesn't seem to be particularly motivated by Christian dogma, lacking much familiarity with the Eastern Tradition; rather, he takes this view based on mundane metaphysics.

God gets to set what he wants in Heaven. God could, in theory, want anything. The question is, what has he said he wants? What will be in Heaven is already set. God will not decide, again or at the last minute. Therefor, what God has said will be in Heaven is a necessary and sufficient condition to establish whether or not there are dogs in Heaven. The question then becomes: has God told us enough to know what he wants in Heaven?

I believe that if you look at creation itself as a kind of covenant, a declaration of God's plan, as St. Maximus does, then yes, He has told us what He wants in Heaven by creating it in the first place. "For the Word of God Who is God wills always and in all things to work the mystery of His embodiment" (Ambiguum 7). This has not been taught as clearly as it should have been, for it was only recently that Pope Benedict XVI named St. Maximus "the great Greek Doctor of the Church" in Spe Salvi, but I very much hesitate to reject the guidance of the Saints on this point.

I believe that if you look at creation itself as a kind of covenant...

Now we're cookin'!

Suppose we were to start with a very strong sense of creation as covenant and then ask what the implications might be for the question at hand? If you start, methodologically, with such a strong assumption, and then proceed to weed out metaphysical notions (or any other philosophical ideas) that might compromise that covenantal understanding of the Creator and His creation, would you be more or less likely to reach the conclusion reached by Lydia?:

Actually, my view of a redeemed nature was first sparked by a guy named Thomas Howard, now a Catholic, then a very high Anglican, in a book called _Christ the Tiger_, which contains a wonderful passage at the end on redemption as restoring what has been lost by sin and the fall. Previously, my Baptist theology had thought of "redemption" simply as forgiveness of sins. Howard broadened my view and, dare I say it, made it what I have always considered to be more Catholic and less narrowly focused on the soul at the expense of corporeal nature.

"redemption as restoring what has been lost by sin and the fall"!

Why might a stress on creation as covenant be more likely to lead you to this notion of "restoration" than not? Why might the notion of creation as covenant lead to a broader understanding of the scope of redemption than thinking of it more narrowly. If you were convinced that such a covenantal understanding was central to the Biblical witness, what might you think of certain philosophical notions that would tend to downplay or mitigate the import of the covenant for the great Biblical themes of creation, fall and redemption?

We might also ask: Suppose you found a Biblical-theological tradition that strongly emphasized the idea of covenant. Would you expect that tradition to emphasize or downplay the scope of redemption and the "earthiness" of the restored eschatological state? Jonathan mentions one theological tradition. I wonder if there are any others that emphasize the notion of creation as covenant?

Just wondering?

I dunno, Keith--what _do_ most Reformed people think about animals, vegetables, and minerals in the new heaven and new earth? Did Calvin have an opinion? I confess to near-total ignorance on that score. (This despite the fact that on one of those stupid Facebook quizzes called "How Reformed Are You?" I came out labeled "Reformed," because there were so many questions where I couldn't choose "none of the above" as an answer. I'm actually way too much of an Arminian to be Reformed.)

"For the Word of God Who is God wills always and in all things to work the mystery of His embodiment" (Ambiguum 7).

This quote, in a sense, pertains to this life. In the next life, the relationship of Christ's embodiment will be much differently understood. We will then see him as we are seen.

The Chicken

God gets to set what he wants in Heaven. God could, in theory, want anything. The question is, what has he said he wants? What will be in Heaven is already set. God will not decide, again or at the last minute. Therefor, what God has said will be in Heaven is a necessary and sufficient condition to establish whether or not there are dogs in Heaven.

Well, no, that's not really true. "The eye has not seen, nor the ear heard..." although God has revealed SOME of what heaven will be like, ST. Paul pretty much states that He has kept His own Counsel on other aspects of it, and we simply have NOT been told all of what He has in store.

And it is silly to say that God could want anything in heaven. We know that there are limitations on that: He cannot want contradictories, and He cannot want dissatisfaction in heaven, and He cannot will that we sin once we are in heaven, and... There are lots of "He cannot"s based on the built-in metaphysical limitations.

Well, no, that's not really true. "The eye has not seen, nor the ear heard..." although God has revealed SOME of what heaven will be like, ST. Paul pretty much states that He has kept His own Counsel on other aspects of it, and we simply have NOT been told all of what He has in store.

And, yet, you remain so sure that Lassie will be in Heaven. Amazing.

You see why I consider Aristocles hard to take seriously. He seems incapable of interpreting those he disagrees with. Tony has not said anything like that, Ari (that he "remains so sure," etc.). But why do I bother pointing this out? You will persist in saying it anyway. If I were Zippy, I'd kick you off my thread for misrepresenting other people.

Lydia,

The point of my comment is that there seems to be this dogged persistence and even remarkable certainty that there will be animals in heaven simply because of the phrase "New Heaven & New Earth".

While I can certainly concede that Scripture itself remains silent on this matter, still I don't see how that because of such silence, we can actually entertain a notion such as this.

Also, it doesn't help to resort to the recurring theme that because we'll have bodies, we may even have animals; one can easily make the (more relevant) remark that since we'll have our bodies, there'll be crappers, too.

Concerning Zippy -- you do know he's never kicked me off out of any of his threads, no (although, I believe Steve had kicked Kevin off from all his due to some altercation I never could actually locate)? It is because of his exemplary Christian patience and, not to mention, the extent of his knowledge and wisdom on various matters that I respected him so. Too bad about his rather abrupt departure, though. It would've been nice to have his take on the current state of the union.

At any rate, thanks for the bringing up the subject. Although I disagree with your assumptions and their conclusion, it was interesting nonetheless.

and even remarkable certainty

See, but there isn't remarkable certainty. Tony and I, Jonathan, etc., keep trying to tell y'all not to be "remarkably certain" in the other direction. I even made up a bad pun about not being dogmatic. You may remember it. See? So why do you keep saying that? I don't know why, but quit it. And cut out all the junk about pagan paradise, too, because none of us has advocated that, either.

Frankly, I think you behaved yourself better for Zippy. I've watched you for several years now. But you persistently misrepresent me on my own threads and on other people's threads, and you misrepresent my commentators, too. I'm getting pretty darned tired of it. Cut it out.

This quote, in a sense, pertains to this life. In the next life, the relationship of Christ's embodiment will be much differently understood. We will then see him as we are seen.

I'm guessing you haven't read much of St. Maximus, but you'd have to take the quote in complete isolation to allow that interpretation. He views Heaven as the culmination of this process, so it would be completely illogical to take it as referring to the time on Earth. If anything, St. Maximus goes even farther the other way; he extends this sort of reasoning even to the pre-Fall Earth. But even if we don't follow him that far (and I probably wouldn't), St. Maximus's understanding of deification and recapitulation would still not allow such a complete disparity between the earthly and heavenly life. Remember, as an Eastern monk, he believed it was possible to see the glory of the Lord in this life too, so the distinction you are urging would not go so far.

Dear Tony,

"Therefore, what God has said will be in Heaven is a necessary and sufficient condition to establish whether or not there are dogs in Heaven."

I did not say, what God has told everything he said to US. God, in Christ, is the Divine Logos. What he says is in Heaven, is in Heaven. He has not told us everything of what he has said, but what he has said, in its totality, forms a necessary and sufficient condition to know what is in Heaven. I guess my use of the word, "said," was somewhat ambiguous. Sorry. Obviously, if we knew the entire content of that "saying," we wouldn't be having this discussion. We will know the content when we get to Heaven, so I guess this discussion is only for this life.

"And it is silly to say that God could want anything in heaven."

It was understood, I thought, that the usual logical/metaphysical exceptions pertained. I have to assume knowledge on the reader's part. I am glad to see them spelled out for those who haven't heard them, but I assumed the Law of Non-contradiction, etc. when I was writing that sentence. I should have spelled it out more clearly, however, sorry.

I am sorry you had to waste time making my writing more specific because I failed to do so when I wrote it. I will try to do better in the future.

Jonathan,

"He views Heaven as the culmination of this process, so it would be completely illogical to take it as referring to the time on Earth."

A butterfly is the culmination of a process, as well, but the final product bears little resemblance to the initial. There must be something different about Heaven, otherwise, why not just re-establish a Garden of Eden on the Earth with a force shield around it?

You are right, however, I have not read much of St. Maximus, the Confessor. I will try to remedy this.

The Chicken

Chicken, thanks for the clarification. I might have gotten it the first time if you had capitalized it as "Therefore, what God has Said will be in Heaven..." thus making divine the "said".

Nice summary of the ideas one of the eminent Maximus scholars, Paul Blowers:
http://swagnerwassen.wordpress.com/book-reviews/reading-report-on-%E2%80%9Cthe-logology-of-maximus-the-confessor-in-his-criticism-of-origenism%E2%80%9D-by-paul-m-blowers/

Money quote:
"Maximus instead posits that creation is diversified because of God predetermined it to be that way. The various logoi of sensible and intelligible (real and noetic) creation are expressions of God’s intention and will, not the outcome of a lapse of noetic souls. God still has judgment and providence upon the logoi in this world, but it is not to bring them back into a unified henad, but to bring them to self-realization."

What St. Maximus notes here is a lacuna in St. Thomas's account that there are notional distinctions in out perception of God while God Himself is simple. It is God-as-willing-the-logoi that we perceive, and as St. Maximus says, "God never ceases from good things, because he never began them” (Gnostic Centuries PG 90:1096D). St. Thomas doesn't explicitly identify this diversity of manifestations in the divine will with the diversity of created things, so he doesn't ever really answer the question of how the knowledge of God in the beatific vision can take place, although he does walk about the issue a bit in ST, Suppl., Q. 92 (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm).

Bl. John Duns Scotus goes farther along these lines, and this is why the dogmatic constitution Benedictus Deus takes the Scotistic language "these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence." St. Thomas, lacking any good account of intuitive knowledge, instead makes the increase of knowledge a matter of handing down in angelic fashion, which I think does not provide a very good account of what purpose the body in Heaven actually serves. But if one understands that the suitability of the intellect for the beatific vision and the resultant quality of the vision results from the ability of the intellect to discern objects, then it would be bettered by knowledge of a variety of God's actions. That is presumably why the bodily experience of the beatific vision would be superior, which is something to which St. Augustine and St. Thomas only vaguely allude. Scotus, by contrast, provides good support for why ongoing experience of distinction among things is useful even if the vision of the object itself is immediate, and that is why I believe his conclusions, particularly regarding the inevitability of the Incarnation for material creation, tend to reflect a more Eastern, creation-centered approach.

Sorry if the earlier comment came off as too sharp in its abruptness, but this has hit on one of those rare areas where St. Thomas is not the best interpreter of the Tradition on account of some questionable metaphysical assumptions. While the discussion might have begun as one that is not of momentous importance, it seems to have intersected with a major theological issue that could well be a show-stopper for East/West reunion if it isn't carefully considered. To put it bluntly, what you and aristocles are articulating would be absolutely unacceptable for anyone learned in the Eastern theological tradition, and I don't think that criticism is unfair given what I understand the Church Fathers to be teaching.

P.S.,
A butterfly is the culmination of a process, as well, but the final product bears little resemblance to the initial. There must be something different about Heaven, otherwise, why not just re-establish a Garden of Eden on the Earth with a force shield around it?

One could flip this around and say "Why create material beings in the first place, if Heaven is just an angelic state?" St. Thomas gives an answer to that regarding the overflow from the intellectual vision into the senses, but it isn't a very good one. The Eastern Fathers would answer that the purpose of material creation is the Incarnation, which is a superior form of union with God than the angels can experience, even with their much more powerful intellect.

Jonathan Prejean:

This is what I'm grasping at here. The quote about Maximus, and what you say about St. Thomas' apparent concept of intuition. If that concept is right, then no dogs. If Scotus' concept is right, then possibly dogs (glorified).

particularly regarding the inevitability of the Incarnation for material creation

Well, that clinches it. If I ever read any of these three, Scotus will be at the top of the list. What would you recommend as a good place to start?

There must be something different about Heaven, otherwise, why not just re-establish a Garden of Eden on the Earth with a force shield around it?

Even further, since there won't be seas then, since as in Revelations:

Rev 21:1 I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone: and the sea is now no more.

...then, presumably, there won't be those animals that dwell in the oceans of our earth.

What could possibly be the reason for God's preference (indeed, even bias) for dogs as opposed to dolphins?

Could God possibly be more of a fan of Lassie as opposed to Flipper?

Should some scurrilous accusation arise, allow me to clarify: it is clear that this "New Earth" ain't anything like our earth!

Folks are drawing false conclusions based on the: "Since Scripture says 'New Earth'; therefore, it'll be like our Earth" assumption. Sorry to disappoint, but: no. not at all.

and the sea is now no more.

I can't remember any time in my life when I took that literally. When I thought about what it could mean, I never got much further than "unfathomable untamable natural thing that takes people's lives" or "the horror of being annihilated". Is it generally taken literally? Among the Catholic & Orthodox?

Well, if that can't be taken literally, then why take the part of the 'New Earth' so literally?

Counter-question to a counter-question: Where did I say that it couldn't be taken literally?

I was asking how that verse was traditionally interpreted because I don't know.

Re: likeness: Can you imagine a point of view in which the New Earth will be both like and unlike the one we know? Of course I agree that it won't be just like this one, only with all the bad stuff removed, like Paradise, and some "modifications" about the lighting. But I don't believe in your "not at all" either (unless I misunderstand your meaning here). I imagine we'll be saying, "Oh, is that a - that's a real lion. So that is what a Lion is; how glorious! Praise God!" I think we will recognise things, but that they're not things we could now imagine.

As far as the sea is concerned, even with the most literal interpretation I don't see any difficulty for dolphins or even for gilled creatures in the event of its absence. It wouldn't pose a problem for God to let them swim in the air, or in space.

Mariken,

Don't you find it a bit odd the incredible extent to which you're attempting to accomodate a literal interpretation of Revelations in order to make viable the conclusions of those here?

While I agree with you that nothing is impossible where God Himself is concerned; personally, I don't think that God is averse to water, especially since He happened to make it a very crucial element of the existence of life itself in our universe.

Although, you've aroused my curiosity though with the hypothesis you formulated above: that perhaps the animals as we know them now (i.e., your lion) are merely shadows themselves; that we might finally see them as they truly are in the after-life.

That would be something.

@Mariken:
Even the Scotists who told me that Scotus's view of the beatific vision had prevailed noted that he is a hard guy even to find summarized well (e.g., I was directed to a thousand-page academic text in French for the rigorous defense of the thesis). The separate ideas (regarding the beatific vision and the purpose of the Incarnation) seemed right to me from Richard Cross's _Duns Scotus on God_ and _The Metaphysics of the Incarnation_, so those might be helpful. The unification of the two seems reasonable, although I haven't seen any work that makes the argument out in that way, perhaps because the question of whether dogs go to Heaven has not been explored in such excruciating detail elsewhere. :) ISTM, though, that because the intuitive cognition of the existence of actual things is so necessary in understanding much of anything that the direct awareness of God's existence (which is what the beatific vision is) would be helped and not hindered by the awareness of the existence of other things, since this would only complement the description (and thus quality) of the experience even though the bare awareness is solely by the presentation of the object. IOW, it is an act of divine will that the intellect can perceive its proper object intuitively at all, but what is actually perceived is a question of how the intellect tends to that object.

Some short articles on intuitive cognition and the purpose of the Incarnation:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/#IntCog
http://irishanddangerous.blogspot.com/2007/04/franciscan-scotistic-thesis-absolute.html

@aristocles:
Should some scurrilous accusation arise, allow me to clarify: it is clear that this "New Earth" ain't anything like our earth!

Nobody is saying otherwise, but as mentioned above, the real question is whether there are certain functions performed by the existence of material things that might also be served in Heaven. St. Thomas didn't recognize them, but that may have been St. Thomas's oversight rather than any principled stance. Something like what Bl. John Duns Scotus or St. Maximus says would provide such a motive, and even St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure admitted that they weren't sure whether they were right about creation having the Incarnation essentially "built in" to its makeup. If nothing else, I think accusing the preeminent Father of the Sixth Ecumenical Council of a frivolous desire to have Lassie and Flipper in Heaven is a far more "scurrilous accusation" than any objection that we have raised even to the Angelic Doctor.

Although, you've aroused my curiosity though with the hypothesis you formulated above: that perhaps the animals as we know them now (i.e., your lion) are merely shadows themselves; that we might finally see them as they truly are in the after-life.

That is most assuredly what I have in mind when saying that I think that the various natural kinds will be in Heaven. I think they will be as God sees them, and that would truly be a sight to behold.

That is most assuredly what I have in mind when saying that I think that the various natural kinds will be in Heaven. I think they will be as God sees them, and that would truly be a sight to behold.

As I said before, if anything, Lydia has presented a topic that has demonstrated to be quite thought-provoking as it is speculative.

At any rate, thanks for all your helpful comments & links, Jonathan!

I still have to wade through many of these as well as those resources you've referenced.

so he doesn't ever really answer the question of how the knowledge of God in the beatific vision can take place

Jonathan, I really don't know what you mean about Thomas's lacuna on the Beatific Vision. He states very clearly indeed that where the ordinary intellectual process involves the intellect having a created form informing the intellect (under the mode of being of the intellect, rather than under the mode of being of the form, for then it would make the intellect into the THING itself known, instead of making the intellect knowing the thing), in the BV, God Himself takes the place of the informing form that inhabits the intellect, since there is no created form that is an adequate representation of God. When God Himself is the form informing the intellect in act, there is no mediation by a created being. Therefore, there is no need for created forms to "supplement" the work the intellect does.

But if one understands that the suitability of the intellect for the beatific vision and the resultant quality of the vision results from the ability of the intellect to discern objects,

Thomas understands the suitability of the intellect for the BV by reason of the ability of the intellect to receive immaterial forms.

St. Thomas, lacking any good account of intuitive knowledge, instead makes the increase of knowledge a matter of handing down in angelic fashion

I have no idea what "increase" you are referring to here, so I am unable to make sense of the comment. St. Thomas refers to angelic knowledge under the natural order of angels. But the BV is a wholly supernatural act of the intellect, not according to the natural order. Where all humans are below the angels in order of their natures, some humans are higher than the angels in their supernatural perfection by grace (i.e. Mary, Queen of Angels). Presumably those higher in the order of grace enjoy the BV in a more perfect way in heaven. But this difference is wholly related to supernatural grace, not anything based on the body.

nevitability of the Incarnation for material creation, tend to reflect a more Eastern, creation-centered approach

I am not well versed in Eastern theology. It was my understanding that both western and eastern fathers invariably state that the Incarnation was for the redemption of man: Christ came to defeat sin and save man. As much as we would like there to be a definitive teaching from the Bible that the Incarnation would have happened had Adam not sinned, is this actually taught by the fathers?

aristocles:

If your remark about the oddness of the incredible extent etc. is about my little fancy regarding dolphins flying through the air, that was in reply to your own "no sea, so no dolphins - what can God have against them?" - to demonstrate than such a reductio ad absurdum didn't work. As for the rest, I've been trying to show that you seem to take other people's views to be more literal than they actually are.

I'm glad to have made you curious about the possibility of "real animals in heaven" (so to call it - RDIH: Real Dogs In Heaven!). This idea's being new to you clarifies a lot about where you're coming from in your thoughts about this matter. You and the Masked Chicken have given me cause to re-think too, about the Beatific Vision, and I've been wanting to thank you both for that; so: thank you.

Jonathan Prejean:

Thanks for the titles, links, and helpful comments. I seem to have got at the idea by osmosis in the first place - via related notions in Charles Williams' He Came Down From Heaven (do I get a dog cookie for bringing up the third Inkling in this thread?) and other things I'm not sure I could now identify - so reading secondary works won't trouble my conscience much. (What is Scotus' kind of obscurity - is he uncommonly longwinded and difficult to follow, or is it a matter of a lack of good standard texts / translations?)

I'm glad to have made you curious about the possibility of "real animals in heaven" (so to call it - RDIH: Real Dogs In Heaven!).

Well, I wouldn't go that far. *wink*

That is, in connection to what you said (and what I thought you meant):

I imagine we'll be saying, "Oh, is that a - that's a real lion. So that is what a Lion is; how glorious! Praise God!" I think we will recognise things, but that they're not things we could now imagine.

I was only curious about the thought that perhaps those 'forms' (for lack of a better word) of things which we recognize in this life as animals might perhaps be only shadows (for lack of a better word) of even greater things in the next other world; and that in the next life, once we're in our glorified state (as St. Paul had alluded to in his epistle), we will come to finally see these things as how they actually are.

I thought Jonathan felt likewise based on his subsequent reply:

That is most assuredly what I have in mind when saying that I think that the various natural kinds will be in Heaven. I think they will be as God sees them, and that would truly be a sight to behold.

Yet, I wasn't actually endorsing, let alone, conceding to the idea that the animals we have in our world will come to exist in the next life though.

Great, now I have to go read Scotus. I may have a reply next year :)

that because the intuitive cognition of the existence of actual things is so necessary in understanding much of anything that the direct awareness of God's existence (which is what the beatific vision is) would be helped and not hindered by the awareness of the existence of other things, since this would only complement the description (and thus quality) of the experience even though the bare awareness is solely by the presentation of the object. IOW, it is an act of divine will that the intellect can perceive its proper object intuitively at all, but what is actually perceived is a question of how the intellect tends to that object.

The intellect tends to objects by sensory perception in this life. I fail to see by what mechanism the direct awareness of God's existence would be helped by the awareness of the existence of other things. Other things do not contain God; other things do not delimit God. If no other thing existed (and God did not have to create any other thing), the BV would not be diminished. It is true that in THIS life, the shadow of the BV which we are allowed is helped by the perception of other objects. I cannot imagine that St. Maximus is talking about the intuitive perception of objects in the next life enhancing the BV, since this would require a supernatural dimension to all objects, since there will be no natural perception of objects in Heaven, because the soul has no sensory mechanism. The information is imparted, directly. This is similar to what Tony is saying.

As much as we would like there to be a definitive teaching from the Bible that the Incarnation would have happened had Adam not sinned, is this actually taught by the fathers?

No. In fact, this was Scotus's proposition and it was rejected by the Church. I can't remember the book I read this in. Sorry :)

Well, it seems as though Tony is pro-Aquinas and DIH; Aristocles is pro-Aquinas and NDIH; Jonathan is pro-Scotus and DIH; Mariken is pro-Scotus and RDIH; Lydia is pro-Lewis and (some)DIH; I am pro-Aquinas and NDIH. Does this summarize everyone's current thinking?

The Chicken

Chicken has been keeping score! Who knew? Good job!

Since we are in a democracy, I guess pro-Aquinas and NDIH is the truth. :-) At least I was half-right. Goes with the rest of me: I ain't real fast, and I ain't real slow, I'm just about half-fast.

Well, it seems as though Tony is pro-Aquinas and DIH; Aristocles is pro-Aquinas and NDIH; Jonathan is pro-Scotus and DIH; Mariken is pro-Scotus and RDIH; Lydia is pro-Lewis and (some)DIH; I am pro-Aquinas and NDIH. Does this summarize everyone's current thinking?

Lassie is in favor of fictional dogs in heaven.

In the interest of stirring the pot, here's a provocative quote:
"I’m not speaking of the future, I’m speaking of a permanent nowness. And that means that hope doesn’t exist because it is no longer a deferred future, it is now. Because God doesn’t promise. He is much greater than that: He is and never ceases being. It is we who cannot bear this ever-now light, and so we promise it for later only so we do not have to feel it right now, today. The present is God’s today face. The horror is that we know that it is right in life that we see God. It is with our eyes truly open that we see God. And if I put the face of reality off until after my death—it is though guile, for I prefer to be dead at the time of seeing Him, and so I think I won’t really see Him, just as I have courage really to dream only when I am sleeping." - Clarice Lispector

h/t the twice banned R-d-k.

Clarice Lispector sounds like someone I would much rather do without, thanks very much. For one thing, the only way to make sense of that is to deny the Christianity held by the Apostles, the Fathers, the Martyrs, and the mystics who, even in spiritual union with God, did not enjoy the Beatific Vision. And were NOT closing their eyes to avoid seeing Him.

But to be fair, I agree with some of the above: the 1st word of the third sentence, for example.

Clarification: In RDIH, by "real" I mean something compared to which the dogs we know are like shadows. I do think we (Aristocles, Jonathan and I) are talking about the same general idea here. Where I get stuck is in whether this would more properly be the thing-we-know-as-dogness, or the thing-we-know-as-this-dog-ness, or something of both, perhaps depending on the presence of that in the animal which we call "personality" or "individuality" in humans. I'm out of my depth about the theological implications of this. So put me with DIH, not RDIH, lest I be tempted to defend what I do not comprehend and make a fool of myself. :-)

@Tony:
Jonathan, I really don't know what you mean about Thomas's lacuna on the Beatific Vision. He states very clearly indeed that where the ordinary intellectual process involves the intellect having a created form informing the intellect (under the mode of being of the intellect, rather than under the mode of being of the form, for then it would make the intellect into the THING itself known, instead of making the intellect knowing the thing), in the BV, God Himself takes the place of the informing form that inhabits the intellect, since there is no created form that is an adequate representation of God. When God Himself is the form informing the intellect in act, there is no mediation by a created being. Therefore, there is no need for created forms to "supplement" the work the intellect does.

That doesn't necessarily suffice, although I may be misunderstanding what St. Thomas means by intellection. Even if God takes place of the form, the intellect nonetheless has an operation to do, an agency, albeit done passively through the alignment of the human will with the divine will. St. Maximus says that this takes place by exercise of the human will in virtue, thus accomplishing its unity with the divine will (and if anyone would know about the two wills, it's Maximus!). That is essentially the position of the all the Eastern Doctors as far as I can tell. Scotus's position allows for intellection of particulars through intuitive cognition, and he provides a motive for this in the ordering of all things to God through will, so that each particular is a manifestation of God's will in a certain order. That seems to me to allow a possibility of increase in intuitive awareness through ongoing experience of created particulars (which is where I think is where aristocles and I agree, if there will be things recognizable as "a lion"), which is what St. Maximus, St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory of Nyssa all say.

I don't think St. Thomas explains what the intellect actually *does* in the beatific vision, and I think he's simply disregarded the role of the will because there is no more need for faith. St. Thomas's answer is simply "the active intellect isn't proportional to the divine essence," (ST Suppl., p. 92, a. 3, RO 11), but that doesn't seem to answer the question adequately. What is it about the active intellect that causes it to be disproportionate to the divine essence? It seems to be a limit to our interpretive ability based on the active intellect, and that has to do with our knowledge of (and orientation to) created things, our perception of particulars in their order. Christ knows literally everything these is by the reasoning of either Maximus or Scotus, not to mention all sorts of knowledge of other possible or future things with immediate application to created things, because all of creation is oriented toward Him. That's not the case for the rest of us.

That the explanatory hole I see in St. Thomas, and note that the fact that he came to the question so late in the Summa might indicate that he hadn't thought it through completely. I think that hole applies to immediate mystical visions on earth as well, and if there is any glaring hole in Thomism, that's it. Maritain, for example, seems to be flailing on precisely HOW mystical intellection relates to charity, for example, even though he affirms it is the case. The account of the presence of the soul to God in the mystical doctors seems much more in harmony with what I am describing.

Thomas understands the suitability of the intellect for the BV by reason of the ability of the intellect to receive immaterial forms.

My point is that it's not clear how this suffices. If in principle the intellect can receive any immaterial form, then there's no reason in principle why it can't receive the entirety of God and simply be absorbed into God, which is gives Easterners heatburn because that is exactly what Origen said. There has to be some essential limit to the intellect's ability to comprehend even what it receives, and that is what these other accounts seem to give. This essential limit must be in the intellect's own operation, relating to the degree of alignment between the human will and the divine will. The Lord Jesus Christ, in whom this alignment is absolutely perfect on account of the hypostatic union and of being the purpose of creation, has the absolute maximum of the knowledge of creation.

I have no idea what "increase" you are referring to here, so I am unable to make sense of the comment. St. Thomas refers to angelic knowledge under the natural order of angels. But the BV is a wholly supernatural act of the intellect, not according to the natural order. Where all humans are below the angels in order of their natures, some humans are higher than the angels in their supernatural perfection by grace (i.e. Mary, Queen of Angels). Presumably those higher in the order of grace enjoy the BV in a more perfect way in heaven. But this difference is wholly related to supernatural grace, not anything based on the body.

I'm sorry that I was unclear. What I mean is that St. Thomas has knowledge of what God knows by vision increasing up until the Last Judgment through a kind of angelic handing-down: "Consequently of those who see God in His essence, each one sees in His essence so much the more things according as he sees the Divine essence the more clearly: and hence it is that one is able to instruct another concerning these things. Thus the knowledge of the angels and of the souls of the saints can go on increasing until the day of judgment, even as other things pertaining to the accidental reward. But afterwards it will increase no more, because then will be the final state of things, and in that state it is possible that all will know everything that God knows by the knowledge of vision." ST Suppl., q. 92, a. 3, ans. I don't think St. Thomas has made that argument out, nor does he have a good argument for why the human knowledge of Jesus Christ is always greater than any human being. I think that Jesus will have superior knowledge to all of us for eternity, and we will happily spend all of eternity catching up in some sense.

Not to say that your argument regarding happiness couldn't hold as well, but I think this is a cleaner explanation.

@TMC:
The intellect tends to objects by sensory perception in this life. I fail to see by what mechanism the direct awareness of God's existence would be helped by the awareness of the existence of other things. Other things do not contain God; other things do not delimit God. If no other thing existed (and God did not have to create any other thing), the BV would not be diminished. It is true that in THIS life, the shadow of the BV which we are allowed is helped by the perception of other objects. I cannot imagine that St. Maximus is talking about the intuitive perception of objects in the next life enhancing the BV, since this would require a supernatural dimension to all objects, since there will be no natural perception of objects in Heaven, because the soul has no sensory mechanism. The information is imparted, directly. This is similar to what Tony is saying.

St. Maximus would absolutely affirm that there is a supernatual dimension to all objects in the world (their logoi, which is very similar to Scotist predestination in this regard). But I hope that what I provided above provides some explanation as to why, while those things certainly do not in any way supplement the presence of the object, they do supplement our finite ability for the intellect to be converted to that object.

Jonathan,

This essential limit must be in the intellect's own operation, relating to the degree of alignment between the human will and the divine will.

The will and the intellect are separate modes. They influence each other, but they do not pass knowledge of the same kind between each other. The will is aligned with the faculty of love; the intellect, with the faculty of faith. Since there will be no faith in Heaven, the intellect, as it operates on earth, cannot increase in Heaven. Sensible objects, in this life, can cause an increase in faith. I do not understand how St. Maximus can get past this.

The will, on the other hand, being aligned with the faculty of love, will certainly increase as it sees the divine object.

I just do not see how "intellection" can increase in Heaven. There is no faith in Heaven. Knowledge is passed to the soul by the same method as the angels - direct perception.

It is true that some souls will have a greater merit and hence a greater reception of love in Heaven, although all will be perfectly content with what they receive. In order for souls to grow closer in the knowledge of God in Heaven, one would have to postulate a mechanism that allowed each person to grow closer in that knowledge, however, the intellect does not gain merit in this life, only the will. I see nothing comparable where some some will gain more knowledge than others in Heaven. If this is not the case, and all people gain the same knowledge, then why not do it all at once and be done with it? This is the standard way in which growth in knowledge is described in Heaven, as an all-at-one act.

I will have to go and read Maximus and Scotus. Can you give a citation of where you are getting the Scotus material, so I don;t have to read his entire works? I think I should hold off making any more comments on this subject until I have had a change to look at the documents.

The Chicken

Unfortunately, my library is not going to be unpacked any time soon, so I can't get at the bits that are most relevant. Fortunately, Florovsky has a nice survey on the will to Incarnation in creation with a good bibliography, and he comes essentially to the same conclusion:
http://jbburnett.com/resources/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-6a-curdeushomo.pdf

I'm not aware of anywhere where Scotus explicitly links the intuitive cognition of God to the purpose of creation in the Incarnation, but where Scotus speaks about intuitive cognition in the context of earthly existence, he does so in a way entirely compatible with St. Maximus. That is what leads me to believe that they can be reconciled relatively easily is Scotus is right as against St. Thomas.

As to the relation between intellect and will, it is obvious that the intellect is operating in a supernatural, not a natural, mode in Heaven. Even St. Thomas concedes this. The question is what the nature of the operation of the faculty is that allows it to operate differently in Heavenly. I am maintaining that it ought to be, by analogy to faith, aligned with purity of will, as the beatitudes suggest. If their ability to receive divine love varies, then by Scotus's theory of intuitive cognition, the beatific vision as an act of loving presentation to the intellect would be differently received as well. So the point is exactly that some people WILL have more knowledge of the divine essence than others, and it is the notion that all have the same knowledge that is what I am resisting based on St. Maximus and Scotus.

Anyway, it probably makes most sense to read some Maximus first, and then evaluate Scotus accordingly, so I hope the Florovsky bibliography will suffice for the subsequent review. Blowers _On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ_ and von Balthasar's _Cosmic Liturgy_ are the starting points for investigating Maximus.

So, after 152 posts, are we any closer to an answer to the question, "Do dogs go to Heaven?" From an apologetics standpoint, this question is much more difficult than it seems. Imagine if some inquiring non-Christina asked the question.

The Chicken

I'd tell him, "It's not impossible, but I don't know."

So put me with DIH, not RDIH, lest I be tempted to defend what I do not comprehend and make a fool of myself. :-)

So, you find it more comprehensible and, indeed, not foolish to argue for the existence of dogs in heaven, which is to say that God will actually grant dogs in the after-life with eternal souls, just like humans?

Apologies, but I find that very idea incomprehensible and, indeed, very foolish, to say the least.

Well, after consulting with a Scotist who ought to know (lee faber), I have been dissuaded from the conclusion that intuitive cognition has anything to do with it, at least with respect to the intuitive content of other things, because it lacks quidditative content. However, Scotus also admits intuitive cognition of one's own acts, and it may well be that knowing oneself as loving another individual can at least broaden the experience of loving God. But even if he doesn't, it may well be that no Western author has thought it through in the manner of St. Maximus, and that could simply mean that they ought to have but didn't.

In any case, I now have public confirmation that Eastern Orthodox are objecting to the intellectual view of the beatifid vision as a failure of the Catholic view vis-a-vis the Eastern Fathers:
http://www.uky.edu/~dbradsh/papers/Concept%20of%20the%20Divine%20Energies.doc

Note Dr. Bradshaw's comments objecting specifically on Aquinas's observation that the body is not needed for the beatific vision. That is troubling to him with good reason. In any case, once one admits various kinds of things interacting with bodies, I don't see any reason that they wouldn't all be there, including dogs (although not the token-identical dogs for the reasons we gave).

Jonathan:

If "the human telos is achieving a likeness to God", what then is the canine telos?

To be a friend to man.

The canine telos is to accompany and enrich the human telos, which is why both Testaments employ their respective word for "soul" in reference to animals.

In other words, when God makes sentient beings at whatever level and of whatever sort, He isn't making throw-away junk.

Michael Bauman and William Luse agree. I think this day should go down in history.

I think this day should go down in history.

Then it was all worth it. By the way, thanks for managing to come up with such a thought-provoking topic!

The canine telos is to accompany and enrich the human telos, which is why both Testaments employ their respective word for "soul" in reference to animals.

In other words, when God makes sentient beings at whatever level and of whatever sort, He isn't making throw-away junk.

I must've missed the part in Scripture where it explicitly stats that God had granted eternal souls (the very same He had bestowed upon man) to animals, too; and that, just like man, he would grant animals glorified bodies as well in the after-life! Who knew?!

Aristocles: If "the human telos is achieving a likeness to God", what then is the canine telos?

William Luce: To be a friend to man

No, that was woman's role (ducks for cover).

The Chicken

Jonathan, I never expected so much learned commentary on the topic. I'm pleasantly surprised at how well it worked out.

Ah, Chicken, distinguo: Helpmeet and friend are not necessarily the same thing.

Ah, Chicken, distinguo: Helpmeet and friend are not necessarily the same thing.

True, but I didn't say that was a wife's role - I said (tongue-in-cheek) that was a women's role. More generally, I am tempted to ask, what can a dog do by way of friendship that a human can't, which was my real point (I had a much snarkier version of this, but I am holding my tongue - I am still fuming about that silly Prize award from Sweden, this morning, and it is coloring my writing).

In any case, since human friendship is of a higher order than animal friendship, it makes sense that the friends in Heaven will be the most perfect possible type and that means humans. Theoretically, one can form bonds with all sorts of animals, but only another human can create the special type of friendship seen between humans. It may be that the teleos of a domesticated dog is to be a friend to man on this earth, but then the question becomes: what does it take to be a friend in Heaven and we are back where we started from.

The Chicken

Chicken:

In any case, since human friendship is of a higher order than animal friendship, it makes sense that the friends in Heaven will be the most perfect possible type and that means humans. Theoretically, one can form bonds with all sorts of animals, but only another human can create the special type of friendship seen between humans. It may be that the teleos of a domesticated dog is to be a friend to man on this earth, but then the question becomes: what does it take to be a friend in Heaven and we are back where we started from.

It would seem you missed out on one of your Sunday Bible classes that reflected on the passage in Scripture which taught that God made animals in His image and likeness too and that these will also come to be glorified in the life to come.

Thus, your more meaningful take on the teleology of man (however seemingly correct) leaves much to be desired; at least, on this thread where the only right opinions are those that would promote the dogma that incorporates the glorification of both man and dog. *wink*

at least, on this thread where the only right opinions are those that would promote the dogma

That should be Dog-ma, shoouldn't it?

The Chicken

If I had to say more on the DIH side, MC, I'd be inclined to say that the nature of friendship with an animal is sui generis and cannot be represented in a glorified form by friendship with humans. Now, that cd. just as easily mean that that sui generis type of friendship is intrinsically mortal and won't be glorified. Which is why I don't know if there will be dogs (or horses, which I'm far more concerned about) in heaven. But it doesn't seem to me to be an argument against that to say that human friendship is of a higher order than human-animal friendship. To be sure, it is. But it doesn't follow that the thing of lower order could not be part of the glorified life. Just as we legitimately enjoy different musical genres, even though some musical genres are of a higher order than others, so we legitimately enjoy different types of friendships. Man's friendship with an animal--that master-animal relationship--cannot be replaced by a man to man relationship, because no man is another man's master in anything like that same sense.

For that matter, different human friendships are closer than others, and I should be sorry to think that all such distinctions will be necessarily abolished in heaven, so that all our relationships with other created beings in heaven must be in some egalitarian sense the same as one another.

Uniqueness and variety are things God glories in. The great chain of being and all that.

Woman is flesh of a man's flesh, bone of his bone, so she's a bit more than a friend. As Christ will satisfy our need for a higher love, maybe man satisfies what passes for that need in lower animals. We elevate their nature.

Jonathan, Lydia got the idea for the post from me, but how soon people forget. I feel like the grad student whose professor took all the credit.

I mentioned "a reader" in the main post but did not name you, Bill, as I thought perhaps you would want to remain anonymous. But perhaps I should have asked...

Jonathan, Lydia got the idea for the post from me, but how soon people forget. I feel like the grad student whose professor took all the credit.

Serves you right for your deplorably regretable act of capitulation in previous years: shirking one's responsiblities as then contributor, woefully neglecting to exercise your God-given talents for writing by refusing to grace us with yet another magnificent piece after that rather remarkable one entitled, "The Consolations of Nihilism" until, finally, yielding the field to the likes of Dr. McGrew et al; in other words, this is quite simply poetic justice.

If anything, you deserve to remain in the doghouse, so-to-speak, for all eternity.

(...unless, of course, you should decide to return to your former post as distinguished W4 contributor -- especially given Zippy himself abandoned ship and we have yet to fill that immense void left due to his departure.)

Giving you a hard time is too much fun, Lydia.

Ari, that may be the first unassailably cogent comment you've made this thread, especially the part about the void left by Zippy.

The only question that remains to be answered is what you have against dogs.

Unless I missed it, no one quoted St. Bernard.

"Unless I missed it, no one quoted St. Bernard."

Really, really glad I wasn't drinking my tea when I read that, Michael! :)

But it doesn't seem to me to be an argument against that to say that human friendship is of a higher order than human-animal friendship. To be sure, it is. But it doesn't follow that the thing of lower order could not be part of the glorified life. Just as we legitimately enjoy different musical genres, even though some musical genres are of a higher order than others, so we legitimately enjoy different types of friendships.

So, there definitely won't be Country-Western music in Heaven :)

I did not say that human-human friendship was merely of a higher order, but also that it was the most perfect. There is no imperfection in Heaven (in a sense. I may need to expand on that). Is dog-human friendship more inherently imperfect a form of friendship for humans than human-human friendship? Of course. Therefore, human-human friendship is definitely on the list of perfections. Is there a certain perfection in dog-human friendship that is lacking in human-human friendship that would entitle it to a place on the perfection list in heaven?? I would maintain, not.

Friendship is a complicated business to analyze. It would seem that there are necessary and possible attributes of friendship. Do dogs contain the sufficient percent of necessary attributes to grant them a place in Heaven based on friendship? Interesting question because the attributes also have relational properties which allow for a calculus to be developed which can map the ebb and flow of friendships. Are there certain relational actions permitted in human friendships that are not permitted in dog-human friendships, thereby rendering the system not merely a subsystem of human-human friendship, but only a partial overlap? I would say, yes.

One example of a defective relational action, per hypothesi, is in the action of love and is exactly where the two camps (NDIH, DIN) differ: do dogs have immortal souls? Certainly, the highest act of love is to will the good of the soul of another and the highest possible good for that soul is Heaven for those living things that have immortal souls. If a dog does not have an immortal soul, the love for the dog does not extend to Heaven, so there is something missing in love for a dog that is present in love for a Human. Not only is it missing, it is not allowed, so the set of love actions is only a partial overlap between love for dogs and love for humans.

Love for dogs cannot change the nature of their souls (no Pinocchio-ism), so man does not elevate dogs to a status they never had. Love for a dog may elevate them to the pinnacle of their natural soul, however. which is still a good.

In passing, I want to apologize for the "No, that was woman's role," comment, above. It was tongue-in-cheek, sort of, but I wasn't thinking clearly when I said it. I had a lot of anger over the Nobel nonsense and I had a lot of anger in my subtext. The result is that my remark may have degraded women to a role above or just above that of a dog on the friendship scale. As I hope it is clear, I consider human friendship to be infinitely higher that any kind of friendship with animals. I just wanted to hit something, yesterday. My anger spilled over into my writing. I try to be even-handed in my blog comments, but yesterday got the better of me. Sorry.

The Cicken

That shoould be: The Chicken

And shoould should be should, sigh.

The Chicken

Do chickens go to heaven?

Yes, but only those with spellcheckers.

Yes, but only those with spellcheckers.

Spellcheckers are clearly in league with the devil, i.e. in the details.

God, not the devil, is in the details.

I've heard He's a pretty good speller. (wink)

I've heard He's a pretty good speller.

You should read some of the church signs around here.

Isiah: "The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox."

I believe this clearly states animals will be in heaven, only, they will be heaven like. Killing each other for food ends.

My deceased dogs are waiting for the time I arrive in Heaven. It doesn't need to be complicated. I can't imagine Heaven without dogs, horses, and other animals. They are all God's creatures.

Barbara makes an interesting point about the redemption:

In the eschaton the lion lies down with the lamb -- and the lamb is not inside the lion when it happens.

Lewis was funny about that one. It sort of bothered him. He thought lying down with lambs was beneath the dignity of lions and therefore said perhaps it was only on some special upside-down festival in heaven that the lion would lie down with the lamb. I think perhaps his Platonic ideal of the lion got the better of him there, because that's definitely not what the passage implies.

I think it means that the death-dealing we are constrained to enact now for our survival will be reversed. A fundamental transformation is in the offing, just as one was in our past.

How about this. The Heaven I will be going to will have my cat, my dog and every other animal that has died waiting for me there.

Those of you who either don't believe in God, don't believe in an afterlife, or don't believe that animals have souls and are basically just pieces of furniture that happen to breathe and bleed like us -- well, you *won't* be there. And that is what will make it Heaven for me.

Ari, that may be the first unassailably cogent comment you've made this thread, especially the part about the void left by Zippy.

The only question that remains to be answered is what you have against dogs.

Nothing against dogs (I myself have one and, in fact, love the one I have); but I do have something against egregious novems as the kind that would elevate dogs to such extremes that folks would manufacture heresy such as this.

For folks who purportedly pride themselves on following Scripture, I find it ironic that you and yours would actually go to the extreme of entertaining such fiction that would actually grant dogs and the like a teleology not unlike man's.

You would make it as if Jesus came not only to save mankind but also Benji et al.

Barbara makes an interesting point about the redemption: In the eschaton the lion lies down with the lamb -- and the lamb is not inside the lion when it happens.

Whatever happened to "figurative language", such as the kind usually resorted to when Protestants interpret John 6 when they say that the "Bread of Life" was meant only figuratively and not literally as certain Romanists and early Christians have traditionally interpreted it?

I am sorely disappointed.

How about this. The Heaven I will be going to will have my cat, my dog and every other animal that has died waiting for me there.

Those of you who either don't believe in God, don't believe in an afterlife, or don't believe that animals have souls and are basically just pieces of furniture that happen to breathe and bleed like us -- well, you *won't* be there. And that is what will make it Heaven for me.

So if one doesn't believe that dogs will be resurrected, they actually believe that they're merely "just pieces of furniture that happen to breathe and bleed"?

It's no wonder I personally spend so much money taking care of my own dog and his needs because, to me, he's not ever so precious!

Sorry, but although I love my dog, I just happen to think that my happiness in Heaven doesn't depend on having those material things present in order for me to enjoy it.

God is sufficient for me -- in fact, God is more than sufficient; He is Infinitely Good.
He is, for me, Eternal Happiness itself!

To say that extraneous things need be present in Heaven in order to achieve eternal happiness there is to declare that God Himself insufficient.

such fiction that would actually grant dogs and the like a teleology not unlike man's.

You're right, their teleology is not like man's. That's why, when you get to purgatory, you won't see any.

Nice article and great comments! Just want to share a book I've been reading on the topic. It's by author Susi Pittman and it's called "Animals in Heaven? Catholics Want to Know!" She offered compelling scriptural based evidence that animals will be in heaven.
http://www.catholicstewardsofcreation.com/about-the-book/

I have been entranced about the amount of conjectured material.........is what we call a leap of faith, I guess
Am not sure where Aquinas got in his innings, but Maybe, I too, will look at little harder at St. Francis. Perhaps there is something to his "blessing of the animals"!!
In summary however, and as much as I love theological wrangling..(since there is no answer makes it more open ended I think. ) But I believe this discussion is rapidly getting into the realm of angels and pins.
I think and hope my beloved dogs have a life after death, though not having a clue what the physical (if any) aspects of heaven are... I doubt that it offends God and, "man proposes........

Many, many years ago, Rev. Billy Graham had a newspaper column, "My Answer." I remember the question posed by a young child, "Will my dog be in heaven?" His answer was simple and profound(paraphrasing, I can't remember the exact quote): "If your dog is necessary for your happiness, it will be in heaven." This answer has been good enough for me for many years.

In case anyone is still reading, I take this argument (that we'll be reunited with our beloved pets) one step further and give a positive, though understandbly speculative, case that male-female relationships similar to marital bonds can continue between the redeemed into the next life. This may then also imply a romantic, physical and even sexual aspect in such a relationship.

Below are some websites that make this positive case (across Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant strands of Christianity). Each website does deal with the marriage pericope of Mt 22 to a lesser or greater degree -

1. http://sites.google.com/site/rezfamilies/
2. http://www.ewtn.org/library/Marriage/zmarrheavn.htm
3. http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=YSSCUO1tonkC&dq=meyendorff+marria ge%20&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=5NSzvkqo5M&sig%20=hBJchN5_JtqohBFE y0xFHYABFJI#PPA15,M1

Whether you find these arguments convincing is ultimately up to you.

Your website seems to have a lot of visitors, do Your know that you can monetise every external and internal link click or image view on Your www ? Don't lose money, better read about this, just search in google: Omgerido method to make money