Author Topic: Belief of animal souls (Read 1935 times)

Pelly · « **on:** March 10, 2014, 02:44:49 AM »

Something called "chimpanzee spirituality" came into my mind. Then came the stories of animals worshipping the Eucharist (and of course, the Donkey of Baalaam).
It is said that animals have souls, but they're dumb.
Can you mention something on this matter? And does the whole chimpanzee thing prove animals have souls?

Nadir · « **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2014, 07:08:15 AM »

Pelly, I suggest you type "animal soul" in the CathInfo search engine, making sure you un-tick where it says "Only search in posts newer / older than". This will lead you to other threads which talk about this.

Cantarella · « **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2014, 08:59:20 AM »

Animals do not have immortal souls but they do have feelings.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2014, 09:20:54 AM »

The soul is what animates [anima] and all living things have a soul, though only human persons have an immortal soul.

BTNYC · « **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2014, 05:51:24 PM »

Mithrandylan is correct. Animals have material souls that perish when their bodies do. So Patches and Fido won't be greeting us in the World to Come...

The fact that this troubles so many people (many in my own familiy, in fact) is evidence that we as a culture have taken our affection for our pets much, much too far.

AgnesRoma · « **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2014, 07:21:52 PM »

Duncan MacDougall

experiment show that Human soul weight 21 gram.
however, when dogs dies there is no weight change.

Nadir · « **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2014, 10:05:37 PM »

Gosh! I hope some quack doesn't decide to weigh me at the moment I am dying!

AgnesRoma, the soul is spiritual, and so impossible to weigh.

If as BTNY has said, animals have material souls, then it should mean the opposite of the findings of Duncan McDougall. I wouldn't give much weight :roll-laugh1: to the doctor.

Nadir · « **Reply #7 on:** March 10, 2014, 10:07:55 PM »

Quote from: Pelly

Something called "chimpanzee spirituality" came into my mind.

Why on earth did you let it in? Where do you find this stuff?

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #8 on:** March 10, 2014, 10:33:53 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Gosh! I hope some quack doesn't decide to weigh me at the moment I am dying!

AgnesRoma, the soul is spiritual, and so impossible to weigh.

If as BTNY has said, animals have material souls, then it should mean the opposite of the findings of Duncan McDougall. I wouldn't give much weight :roll-laugh1: to the doctor.

The 21 gram weight came about because that was the average weight lost at death by human persons. If each and every weighed person who died lost 21 grams at the moment of death, that would be uncanny. As such, it is merely the average weight lost of all patients weighed.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2014, 02:44:16 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The soul is what animates [anima] and all living things have a soul, though only human persons have an immortal soul.

The way the philosophers of the Church put it, the soul is the vital principle of living organisms. This applies to man, animal, plants and bacteria (many of which are either/or/both plant and/or animal).

Quote from: BTNYC

Mithrandylan is correct. Animals have material souls that perish when their bodies do. So Patches and Fido won't be greeting us in the World to Come...

The fact that this troubles so many people (many in my own familiy, in fact) is evidence that we as a culture have taken our affection for our pets much, much too far.

When an animal or plant dies, its material soul returns to the potency of matter.

This teaching is troubling to many moderns because we live in an age of great confusion, and many people don't know what to believe. Add on top of that the fidelity, constancy and companionship that animals offer as pets, and it is understandable on an EMOTIONAL level how people today may be unwilling to let go of their expectation to have their favorite pets with them in paradise.

I have known otherwise solid Catholics who have said, "If heaven means not having my pet Fifi with me forever, I don't think I want to go."

When there has been no human being who has given them the "good feelings" they get from their pets, AND they base their faith on emotionalism, the consequence is this error. But the ROOT error is basing our faith on emotionalism. That is essentially Modernism, to say that religion is a 'feeling' -- or, in the most distilled version, "God is immanent." That is Modernism in its strictest essence.

.

Nadir · « **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2014, 02:58:31 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The 21 gram weight came about because that was the average weight lost at death by human persons. If each and every weighed person who died lost 21 grams at the moment of death, that would be uncanny. As such, it is merely the average weight lost of all patients weighed.

I don't have a problem with the 21gm. I just have a problem with the idea of attributing that average loss to the weight of the soul, no mention of loss of bodily fluids etc; with the large sample of 6 bodies and the fact that such an experiment has never been repeated, is inconclusive and is of no importance in the spiritual realm of the soul.

Traditionalmom · « **Reply #11 on:** March 11, 2014, 04:53:38 PM »

Yep I actually have 5 good RCIA instructors one of which is a traditional priest and he taught us class before last that animals souls die with their body. Only we are immortal.

Cantarella · « **Reply #12 on:** March 11, 2014, 04:59:10 PM »

Does someone know where the "blessing of the pets" in Novus Ordo churches come from? is that a modernist -after Vatican II- practice?

Cantarella · « **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2014, 05:00:25 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

This teaching is troubling to many moderns because we live in an age of great confusion, and many people don't know what to believe. Add on top of that the fidelity, constancy and companionship that animals offer as pets, and it is understandable on an EMOTIONAL level how people today may be unwilling to let go of their expectation to have their favorite pets with them in paradise.

I have known otherwise solid Catholics who have said, "If heaven means not having my pet Fifi with me forever, I don't think I want to go."

When there has been no human being who has given them the "good feelings" they get from their pets, AND they base their faith on emotionalism, the consequence is this error. But the ROOT error is basing our faith on emotionalism. That is essentially Modernism, to say that religion is a 'feeling' -- or, in the most distilled version, "God is immanent." That is Modernism in its strictest essence.

.

Excellent point about the emotion-riden error of the modernist heresy. Neil.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2014, 05:01:29 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Does someone know where the "blessing of the pets" in Novus Ordo churches come from? is that a modernist -after Vatican II- practice?

I'm pretty sure there's a traditional blessing for animals such as livestock. Not certain, but there's not much there isn't a Roman blessing for.

If the Novus Ordo has a blessing for domestic animals, it's likely a perverted and sentimental type, but it probably finds it's origins in a traditional practice of blessing livestock and the like.