FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Think we'll get to see our favorite celebs when we die..since we all die?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
(09-14-2010, 03:46 PM)devotedknuckles Wrote: [ -> ]I dunno thavsounds fishy to me
sip sip
southpaw relAted to  ol brendon ah?
We need to have a sip one  day lad
sip sip

The surname of one of my grandfathers was Behan (and there are plenty of granduncles and cousins who carry the name).

I love having a 'sip'...  :laughing:  but I have to stick with beer; vodka always seems to hit me all at once, rather than producing the gradual change of state (of sobriety) that hops and barely does.  ;)


StrictCatholicGirl,
While St. Thomas' position seems quite logical, I suppose you are right in saying that there is no defined teaching on the matter (and the new Catechism, n. 1047, seems to leave open this possibility).
I think there will be animals in heaven, just not the ones we knew on earth.  And these animals will be way better.  New Fido will make you totally forget old Fido.  He always smelled and shat all over the place anyway.
(09-14-2010, 11:27 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
Scipio_a Wrote:But as described in Candyland, many would try to surgically remove, with a chainsaw, entire genres of activities here on earth that we are allowed....I have even seen where we are basically to read nothing....because it is an occasion of sin...on the other forum....so you can see where that goes....most people are not quite so over zealous....but they mark the line way to restrictively anyhow.

Which thread are you referring to? By the way, the 1917 Code of Canon Law listed several kinds of books which were not to be read by the faithful (or by prelates, unless given permission by an Ordinary); see Can. 1399.

http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic17lat.html

To despise that which promotes or is merely neutral to sin is quite commendable.

The 1917 code does not tell folks to avoid things that are not dangerous to the faith....so you are wrong, avoiding everything is not commendable and has NEVER been a Catholic virtue.  Catholics have ALWAYS appreciated educating theirs until fruitloop Candland trads invented themselves.

The index contains a list of book to be avoided precisely because they may endanger ones faith.
(09-14-2010, 03:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Pom, I believe we will love our relatives and friends with more intensity in heaven than we do on earth. The Bible tells us that our joy will be complete. I think that to say "we won't care" about anything else once we get to heaven is anti-biblical and anti-Christian. Don’t listen to people who make the Beatific Vision sound like an overdose of Prozak.

I also believe we’ll see animals and our beloved pets in heaven. No, they don’t have immortal souls like we do, but after the final resurrection there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus said, "behold I make all things new." I believe the New Creation will be inhabited by all kinds of animals and flowers and plants. And because the Church does not have an official teaching on this, you are certainly allowed to believe it too. 

:) totally like your post and thoughts StrictCatholic :)
(09-14-2010, 03:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Pom, I believe we will love our relatives and friends with more intensity in heaven than we do on earth. The Bible tells us that our joy will be complete. I think that to say "we won't care" about anything else once we get to heaven is anti-biblical and anti-Christian. Don’t listen to people who make the Beatific Vision sound like an overdose of Prozak.

I also believe we’ll see animals and our beloved pets in heaven. No, they don’t have immortal souls like we do, but after the final resurrection there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus said, "behold I make all things new." I believe the New Creation will be inhabited by all kinds of animals and flowers and plants. And because the Church does not have an official teaching on this, you are certainly allowed to believe it too. 


Thank you Lisa for beating me to this.

Some folks need a wake up call.  The folks that don't see what you are saying are the same kind of person that "hopes" and "believes" that Heaven will be like being at a perpetual Mass......aaaaaggggghhhhh


No, Heaven will be more like the portrayal it received in "The Simpsons" cartoon than that.  CS Lewis was onto something I think in the last Narnia book.
(09-14-2010, 03:52 PM)wallflower Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-14-2010, 03:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Pom, I believe we will love our relatives and friends with more intensity in heaven than we do on earth. The Bible tells us that our joy will be complete. I think that to say "we won't care" about anything else once we get to heaven is anti-biblical and anti-Christian. Don’t listen to people who make the Beatific Vision sound like an overdose of Prozak.

I also believe we’ll see animals and our beloved pets in heaven. No, they don’t have immortal souls like we do, but after the final resurrection there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus said, "behold I make all things new." I believe the New Creation will be inhabited by all kinds of animals and flowers and plants. And because the Church does not have an official teaching on this, you are certainly allowed to believe it too. 

I'm sorry, maybe "care" was a poor choice of words. We won't be "obsessed" with nonsense like meeting favorite celebs. Is that better?

I find it curious that you think that being in the presence of God sounds like an overdose of Prozak. Maybe you need more understanding of Who exactly He is and why being in His presence is Heaven.

All the joys we have on earth, including our relationships, are but a taste (or foreshadowing) of God's goodness which we will fully possess in heaven. That means that in Heaven, in the presence of God, all those joys will be experienced to our fullest capacity within our possession of Him. Didn't think I had to spell that out but there you have it. No need for Prozak, everything will be better in Heaven, (who would've thunk it?) but because of God, not because of meeting Angelina Jolie.       
Well yea of course everything will be better because of God :). I actually am not totally obsessed as some....I like Ange yes, but I don't have deadset wishes on meeting her in my life now. Whatever happens happens and if I was able to meet her in this life great, if not well hopefully sometime...i like her for my own reasons.. even if their are so many out there who dislike her. She has actually helped me figure out myself and she continues to...I think I am a lot like her as far as beliefs and the things she cares for, some personal things as well as the whole adoption thing...I'm definitely adopting kids from other countries when I can....and as far as the movie industry is concerned, I would like to become a screenwriter. I am myself related to Ty Cobb on my Dad's side, and I'm pretty close to Ernie Reyes and Ernie Reyes Jr. I have a cousin who decided to try to become an actor, currently he is a struggling actor, but still...:).
SouthPawLink Wrote:StrictCatholicGirl,
While St. Thomas' position seems quite logical, I suppose you are right in saying that there is no defined teaching on the matter (and the new Catechism, n. 1047, seems to leave open this possibility).

Actually I'm not denying what St. Thomas wrote. I don't believe animals have immortal souls either. I believe that when they die their souls die too. I was speaking of life after the final resurrection, of which Jesus said "I make all things new." In fact, St. Thomas writes in his Summa, Suppl., Q. 84, art. 2; that the blessed will enjoy the beauty of God's creatures, which eminently reflect the Divine Wisdom." When God restores creation, it will be better than before. All I'm saying is that the Church gives us the freedom to believe that God might fill the New Heaven & Earth with plants and flowers and trees and animals and birds, for these were created by Him in the first Genesis and He called them "Good." We are free to believe that God might breath new life into our pets and we'll be with them again.

There's a neat article about this on FE (the forum owner is an animal lover too. :)) The part that pertains to this discussion can be found near the bottom of the page, under the title "ANIMALS & HEAVEN." http://www.fisheaters.com/animals.html
wallflower Wrote:I find it curious that you think that being in the presence of God sounds like an overdose of Prozak. Maybe you need more understanding of Who exactly He is and why being in His presence is Heaven.

All the joys we have on earth, including our relationships, are but a taste (or foreshadowing) of God's goodness which we will fully possess in heaven. That means that in Heaven, in the presence of God, all those joys will be experienced to our fullest capacity within our possession of Him. Didn't think I had to spell that out but there you have it. No need for Prozak, everything will be better in Heaven, (who would've thunk it?) but because of God, not because of meeting Angelina Jolie.

First, I don't think that being in the presence of God is like an overdose of Prozak. I said (or meant) other people who adhere to the "we won't care about anything else" theory might have that misconception, or something similar (Fr. Boudreaux in his book "The Happiness of Heaven" uses the term "turned into statues.")). Secondly, the part of your quote that I have bolded is exactly what I said (or meant) in my post. So, no, you didn't have to spell it out for me. I have no argument with you there. Thirdly, I was responding to Pom's post where she was responding to yours, in tears, because she got the idea that heaven would not allow her to enjoy the company and closeness of her relatives. This one..

Pom Wrote:what about my mom? O_o forget about everyone? O_o *ish scared of death now....*....I no want to forget about everyone....! *headdesk*  I think of it more like a party up there actually....someone dies and everyone is in God's presence though they don't necessairly forget about each other...heck with as many family members of mine up there..I think of death as how I mom thinks of it like a big luao or something.

If Pom wants to imagine heaven as a big luau with her family there's nothing theologically wrong, or silly, or spiritually immature about that. The blessed in heaven who take delight in their loved ones and all of God's creatures will not lose anything of their essential happiness, which consists in the vision of God, for they will find Him everywhere present. She essentially said the same thing you and I did in the part of her post that I bolded. That's good theology. St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with us.

Here's a book that I recommend to you - and POM - to read called "The Happiness of Heaven" by Fr. F. J. Boudreaux, SJ. It delves into the subject of heaven and, more precisely, life after the final resurrection. All his sources come from scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers, mostly Augustine and Aquinas. It totally detonates the false "nothing else matters" vision of heaven. Here's one excerpt from Fr. B's book:

Quote: "We must be careful to remember this, otherwise it will be impossible for us ever to understand how the saints can enjoy each other's society, rejoice in the conversion of sinners, listen to delightful music, enjoy the pleasures of the glorified senses, and otherwise exercise all the faculties and powers of their nature. The little glimpse of heaven in the Book of Revelation certainly does not represent the saints and angels as inactive statues. On the contrary, ALL is LIFE and a wonderful activity!"
(09-14-2010, 07:25 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
wallflower Wrote:I find it curious that you think that being in the presence of God sounds like an overdose of Prozak. Maybe you need more understanding of Who exactly He is and why being in His presence is Heaven.

All the joys we have on earth, including our relationships, are but a taste (or foreshadowing) of God's goodness which we will fully possess in heaven. That means that in Heaven, in the presence of God, all those joys will be experienced to our fullest capacity within our possession of Him. Didn't think I had to spell that out but there you have it. No need for Prozak, everything will be better in Heaven, (who would've thunk it?) but because of God, not because of meeting Angelina Jolie.

First, I don't think that being in the presence of God is like an overdose of Prozak. I said (or meant) other people who adhere to the "we won't care about anything else" theory might have that misconception, or something similar (Fr. Boudreaux in his book "The Happiness of Heaven" uses the term "turned into statues.")). Secondly, the part of your quote that I have bolded is exactly what I said (or meant) in my post. So, no, you didn't have to spell it out for me. I have no argument with you there. Thirdly, I was responding to Pom's post where she was responding to yours, in tears, because she got the idea that heaven would not allow her to enjoy the company and closeness of her relatives. This one..

Pom Wrote:what about my mom? O_o forget about everyone? O_o *ish scared of death now....*....I no want to forget about everyone....! *headdesk*  I think of it more like a party up there actually....someone dies and everyone is in God's presence though they don't necessairly forget about each other...heck with as many family members of mine up there..I think of death as how I mom thinks of it like a big luao or something.

If Pom wants to imagine heaven as a big luau with her family there's nothing theologically wrong, or silly, or spiritually immature about that. The blessed in heaven who take delight in their loved ones and all of God's creatures will not lose anything of their essential happiness, which consists in the vision of God, for they will find Him everywhere present. She essentially said the same thing you and I did in the part of her post that I bolded. That's good theology. St. Thomas Aquinas agrees with us.

Here's a book that I recommend to you - and POM - to read called "The Happiness of Heaven" by Fr. F. J. Boudreaux, SJ. It delves into the subject of heaven and, more precisely, life after the final resurrection. All his sources come from scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers, mostly Augustine and Aquinas. It totally detonates the false "nothing else matters" vision of heaven. Here's one excerpt from Fr. B's book:

Quote: "We must be careful to remember this, otherwise it will be impossible for us ever to understand how the saints can enjoy each other's society, rejoice in the conversion of sinners, listen to delightful music, enjoy the pleasures of the glorified senses, and otherwise exercise all the faculties and powers of their nature. The little glimpse of heaven in the Book of Revelation certainly does not represent the saints and angels as inactive statues. On the contrary, ALL is LIFE and a wonderful activity!"

I know we agree on that point, which was what annoyed me. You implied that my post was anti-biblical, anti-Christian and described heaven as a Prozak overdose, yet you said pretty much the same thing I had said. Granted, I could have used a word other than "not care" or qualified that we will in be GOD-centered, therefore not as creature-centered as this thread very clearly is, but I think jumping to your critique off the bat was pretty harsh. That's why I felt like I had to spell out my initial post so you could see that it was very similar to yours in meaning if not in wording. My only difference was that I was stressing the GOD-centered part because that is the piece that I believe the OP is missing. If the prozak bit wasn't directed at me, I apologize for being touchy, it just came across that way.

Pom can imagine a luau all she wants. That post about her family came after my response. She was still stuck on "favorite celebs" (and we know who that is) when I responded that we won't care. If Pom is in heaven and Angelina is in hell, Pom will rejoice at the justice and glory of God. She will not be upset by Ange being in hell. She doesn't seem to want to understand that because she is very creature-centered right now. Our perspectives will be very different in heaven. That's what I should have said rather than "not care", I just didn't take the time. 

There's actually a flip-side to the prozak and perpetual Mass (aaagggghhh!) bit. Personally, and I know I have plenty of company on this, I hate parties. For me to imagine heaven as being a big party with a huge crowd to mingle with is actually hell. That's why it is so hard to imagine what Heaven will actually be. We can't imagine God yet we can imagine things we like, yet we all like different aspects of life and none of them are complete. Letting Pom imagine heaven as being a luau is no different from letting someone who loves Mass attendance imagine it is a perpetual Mass. That is not my take but using Scipio's example I see no difference in the principle of letting someone have that image if it's what brings them human comfort. Not only is theology involved in our ideas of Heaven but so are our personalities. I don't want to hear that it's a big party with all our senses thoroughly and simultaneously engaged anymore than Scipio wants to hear that it's a perpetual Mass, but somehow the good of both will be in perfect balance and enjoyed by all within the possession of the Beatific Vision. It's truly a mystery.

(09-14-2010, 10:46 PM)wallflower Wrote: [ -> ]I know we agree on that point, which was what annoyed me. You implied that my post was anti-biblical, anti-Christian and described heaven as a Prozak overdose, yet you said pretty much the same thing I had said. Granted, I could have used a word other than "not care" or qualified that we will in be GOD-centered, therefore not as creature-centered as this thread very clearly is, but I think jumping to your critique off the bat was pretty harsh. That's why I felt like I had to spell out my initial post so you could see that it was very similar to yours in meaning if not in wording. My only difference was that I was stressing the GOD-centered part because that is the piece that I believe the OP is missing. If the prozak bit wasn't directed at me, I apologize for being touchy, it just came across that way.

Pom can imagine a luau all she wants. That post about her family came after my response. She was still stuck on "favorite celebs" (and we know who that is) when I responded that we won't care. If Pom is in heaven and Angelina is in hell, Pom will rejoice at the justice and glory of God. She will not be upset by Ange being in hell. She doesn't seem to want to understand that because she is very creature-centered right now. Our perspectives will be very different in heaven. That's what I should have said rather than "not care", I just didn't take the time. 

There's actually a flip-side to the prozak and perpetual Mass (aaagggghhh!) bit. Personally, and I know I have plenty of company on this, I hate parties. For me to imagine heaven as being a big party with a huge crowd to mingle with is actually hell. That's why it is so hard to imagine what Heaven will actually be. We can't imagine God yet we can imagine things we like, yet we all like different aspects of life and none of them are complete. Letting Pom imagine heaven as being a luau is no different from letting someone who loves Mass attendance imagine it is a perpetual Mass. That is not my take but using Scipio's example I see no difference in the principle of letting someone have that image if it's what brings them human comfort. Not only is theology involved in our ideas of Heaven but so are our personalities. I don't want to hear that it's a big party with all our senses thoroughly and simultaneously engaged anymore than Scipio wants to hear that it's a perpetual Mass, but somehow the good of both will be in perfect balance and enjoyed by all within the possession of the Beatific Vision. It's truly a mystery.

Very nice post.

Truly we can also grasp at straws in comprehending Paradise here in exile.

The Four Last Things and The End of the Present World may be among the best writings illuminating the mind of the Church on the issue.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17