Animals and plants - have they souls?

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

What is the status of animals in Orthodox doctrine? Obviously cats, dogs, lions, sheep and bears are not possessed of a rational soul in the same sense as humans, but are they just the same as vegetable life? Is a beloved household pet the same as a cabbage? And what is our responsibility towards creatures in terms of their suffering? If we see a cat, for example, hit by a car but still living, what ought we as Christians do? I don't mean in a purely sentimental sense, but also what is the Church teaching on animals? Do animals, for example, exist as individual souls (albeit not rational?)? Will they be resurrected? Do they go to heaven, or even hell?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

According to Orthodox teaching man is delegated by God to care for creation. Man is also responsible for creation in the sense that as it is his sin which causes the suffering of creation (man sins, creation groans)- so in some unseen way our struggle in Christ vs sin also affects the creation in a larger positive way. This is just to say that our care should extend to all of creation and this happens naturally as we grow in Christ as the lives of the saints so amply attests.

For example saints Sergius of Radonezh and Seraphim of Sarov both were so grace-filled that wild bears approached them and stayed by them just as would little children around adults they love. St Gerasim had his lion which obeyed like an obedient monastic and upon the saints' repose the lion also reposed. This care also extended beyond animal life for example in St Cosmas of Aetolos' instruction that all Orthodox should plant trees.

The Holy frs certainly know of the difference scientifically and spiritually between organic and inorganic (ie a dog and a rock). For them the difference is seen as one of sensibility.

It is the soul which is the activating part of an organic creature- so animals have souls. But as to whether the soul of an animal survives death-either St John of Damascus or St Gregory Palamas said they do not survive death. They go on to explain theologically why this is but I have never been able to understand this explanation. I don't mean I disagree- I mean I literally don't understand the sense of the words they use to explain this! (I will try to post this explanation if I can find it).

Man possibly inherently hates to think of any of creation ultimately disappearing. Partly this is due to the emotional way in which we relate to animals nowadays- but partly it is also a matter of justice as animals are often faithful companions. As Christians however whatever it is that we expect in regards to animals it must be part of our hope that all of creation will be redeemed. So if when creation is remade by Christ we find ourselves in the company of animals many of us probably will not be disappointed.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From a post made by Herman Blaydoe, June 7, 2004.


"In comparing the soul of man with that of animals, St. Gregory [Palamas] says that animals possess a soul not as essence, but as an energy. 'The soul of each of the irrational animals is the life for the body it animates, and so animals possess life not essentially, but as an energy, since this life is dependent on something else and is not self-subsistent.' Therefore since the soul of animals has only energy, it dies with the body. By contrast, the soul of man has not only energy but also essence: 'The soul possesses life not only as an activity, but also essentially, since it lives in its own right... For that reason, when the body passes away, the soul does not perish with it.' It remains immortal [by God's Grace].' [St Gregory Palamas 150 Chapters, ch 38]."

I still do not understand anything of this important statement beyond the first part of the sentence of how for animals the soul is the life of the body it animates.

The point being made seems to hinge on how the nature of animals is distinct from that of man. But one basic question is how can there be energy without essence (as in animals)? From what does the energy originate if not from an essence, ie from the nature of the distinct creature? I guess what I am asking is how can there be a soul in creatures without an essence? I usually think of a soul as the activating part of the nature or essence.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

To quote from Saint Silouan the Athonite and Archimandrite Sophrony:

"The Staretz was careful even about plants - he thought that to rough-handle them went against the teachings of grace...this pity...was linked in him with the most realistic approach to everything in the world. As a Christian he admitted that every living thing was created for man's benefit...Consider in his writings what the Staretz thought and felt about animals. On the one hand there is his really striking compassion for all creation, an example of which we find in his account of how he bewailed his own harshness in 'unnecessarily' killing a fly...He looked on animals and wild beasts...(whom) man should not become attached to, for one most love God with all one's mind, with all one's heart, with all one's strength - that is, absolutely forgetful of the earth."

To quote from Archimandrite Sophrony:

"We often see people so attached to animals that they are even 'friends' with them. This the Staretz (Silouan) considered to be a perversion of the order established by God and contrary to the normal state of man (cf. Gen. ii:20)

"And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." (King James version)

Again from Archimandrite Sophrony:

"In the whole of the New Testament there is not a single instance of the Lord paying attention to animals, though He, of course, loved every living thing. Attaining to...perfection of human nature, in the image of the Man-Christ, is the task set before us, appropriate to our nature as created in the likeness of God, and therefore affection and attachment to animals, so the Staretz thought, debases the human form of being. In this respect he writes,

'Some people attach themselves to animals but in so doing they grieve the Creator, for man is called to love the One God. It is wrong to have a passion for animals - one must only commiserate with all living things.'

"He would say that all things were created to serve man, and so, when necessary, everything could be made use of but, at the same time, man was obliged to care for all creation. Therefore, harm done unnecessarily to an animal - to plant life, even - gainsays the law of grace. But attachment to animals likewise goes against the Divine commandment, since it diminishes love for God and one's neighbour.

"Anyone who genuinely loves mankind, and in his prayers weeps for the whole world, cannot attach himself to animals." pgs. 94-96, Saint Silouan the Athonite.

I, by the way, have two cats. At one time I had ten cats and a dog.

My own Bishop is seldom seen without his two cats crawling with affection all over him.

[Vasilis Kirikos]

> Once there was an old Greek man who regularly attended his Greek Orthodox church in New York City. He lived alone save that of his dog, Diogenes who lived with his every waking moment since the man's retirement. . Sadly one day his dog, Diogenes died. The man was in deep grief over the demise of his dog, Diogenes. Living in New York City the old man decided to go to his local parish and ask his Greek priest about having a memorial service for poor Diogenes. Whereupon immediately after he asked him, the priest quipped with some indignation "Are you serious? Don't you realize where you are? Look around you! No! Certainlty not!" replied the priest. The man got up, and feeling very sad started walking out the church's door; but the priest feeling sorry for the poor man told his parishioner "look, there is some sort of new age group down the street. Maybe this new age group will be able to help you with some sort of service for your dog. I really don't know what they are all about, but maybe they can do something for your dog. "Really?" responded the sad man, "Really? Do you think they will take the $20,000 for poor Diogenes memorial?" Hearing this, the priest shouted out to the old man.. "What!?!?! WAIT!!! COME BACK!! DON'T GO! YOU DIDN'T TELL ME YOUR DOG WAS GREEK!!!" This may or may not be a true story!! This past early November I was told by my parish priest on our way to visit a friend who lay dieing in the ICU at George Washington University Hospital...that, "I could not find Harry's name among the membership of our parish; but I will go with you anyway. However" he continued, "you know that we have to charge non-members fees for services....$1000 for a wedding" so much for a baptism, so much for a funeral and so on. He told me that I should consider that the chruch was just like any other organization and required money to funciton... FINE I thought; but my friend may be dieing and I DON'T WANT TO HEAR FINANCES JUST NOW" in my mind I was shouting! Why can't a PRIEST, of all people realize that was not the apporpriate time to discuss MONEY! ..We continued to travel to the hospital in his car. We got to the ICU and there lay my friend, Harry. He was totally unconscience and had machines breathing for him and cleaning his blood and I don't know what all.....I was in shock. Only a few days before I had spoken to him in his home...He seemed fine at the time. he was .only 57 years old. My priest said a brief prayer and immediately turned to go...He did not annoint Harry with Holy Oil. He did not even bother to put a cheap paper an Icon above the man's bed...One day later when it was learned that Harry was to be cremated my priset told me that because Harry was goiing to be cremated that he would perform no funeral; not even a memorial! Now I happen to know that the Russian jurisdiciton has made special dispensation for their Japanese members; and the Russian Orthodox do indeed perform funeral services for these members who are cremated. SO IT IS NOT WRITTEN IN STONE!! "NO FUNERAL FOR THOSE CREAMTED"!!! Furthermore, I recall the back bending the Greek Archdioces in Greece did when Jackie Kennedy Onassis married Aristotle...considering his past that should not have been allowed in The Chruch...but Aristotle Onasis had MONEY! So that makes it all different?? I know that I am a bit bent out of shape, so to speak having lost 3 relatives and 6 friends since this past August; but what goes on here? Why for some and not others? What possible difference does it make if one is cremated or is allowed to be eaten by worms in the ground as a criterion for a funeral or even a memorial service? A lot of guys were burned alive in Viet Nam...they were essentially CREAMATED! Does that mean they could not have gotten a funeral in the Greek church here in the USA? I am very upset over this. Moreover, it just happens that this man, my friend Harry was unemployed, and both he and his wife were on disability. Harry was disabled after having heart surgery, and soon after his surgery the tech school where he taught electronics closed his entire department and layed him off without any benefits. He was in the hospital for some more surgery but developed complications and died in the hospital. His wife now has to sell their home to make ends meet. NO FUNERAL? WHY NOT? Vasilis Kirikos....for the record, both of my parents are from Greece....

[Doug Gwinn]

Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for your comments. I can't believe Byron asked the question--I love it! My wife and I were just talking about this the other day since all things Orthodox are new to us. We love dogs. We have 4 dogs (and 2 kids; no, and we don't love them in that order! It's only it was harder to get kids since we had to adopt them.)

Doug

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Thank you for your responses to the question about animals. If I've understood you correctly, animals (latin anima= soul), unlike vegetable or mineral life, are considered sentient beings by the Fathers, and do possess a soul, though not in the same sense as mankind. St Gregory Palamas identifies the difference as being that the animal soul is simply the life in their body, which is an energy; it does not also have essence, as does the human soul. I also wonder how this is possible, and how this relates to the broader question of the logoi of different beings in creation as their essences.

You also identify three other important points (correct me please if I'm mistaken):

1) Man should care for all of creation in his role as its steward. Conversely, human sin somehow contributes to the suffering of creation.
2) Grace-filled saints were blessed with experiencing relationships with wild animals which were unlike anything we commonly know: an obedient lion, for example; this is a return to a prelapsarian edenic state, I suppose. Such a special relationship with God's creatures is the Christian understanding of the potentially harmonious relation between man and creation. (One psychoanalytic observation here: the example of saints living in cooperation with wild animals may be seen as a metaphor for man's mastery over his instinctual life; but to a Christian the lives of the saints are not metaphors, they are true)
3) The Christian hope that all creation may be redeemed, could mean that in a new heaven and a new earth we may find ourselves surrounded by friendly animal creatures. May we also hope, without falling into heresy, that we will meet again with the pets we've been separated from by death?

In Christ
Byron

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Seraphim,


harm done unnecessarily to an animal - to plant life, even - gainsays the law of grace. But attachment to animals likewise goes against the Divine commandment, since it diminishes love for God and one's neighbour.

Orthodox teaching refreshingly cuts across all human tendency to sin, in ways unexpected by the merely rational mind. The same staretz who bewails the death of a fly by his own hand, advises strongly against sentimental attachment to our furry friends! Sometimes this innocent-seeming love really can become a "perversion", as in the case of people who love animals more than other people; but surely again, a little creaturely companionship, in the right proportion, with a cat or dog is not disliked or disapproved of by the Lord, is it? Surely it can simply come under the more general meaning of "caring" for all creation?

Dear Vasilis,

As far as I am aware church canons forbid the receipt of money for sacraments, a serious sin known as simony. It is true however that churches have to raise funds for their operation, and so here in Cyprus we are encouraged to make a certain "contribution" for e.g. getting married or christening a child. I don't know what would happen if a person refused to make this contribution, but I assume the service would go ahead anyway.

You write:


What possible difference does it make if one is cremated or is allowed to be eaten by worms in the ground as a criterion for a funeral or even a memorial service?

Christian belief is that we will be resurrected bodily, and that our bodies are temples of the Lord. To burn the body is a sign of disrespect to it, even if God is perfectly capable of resurrecting us even from the ashes. You also write:


A lot of guys were burned alive in Viet Nam...they were essentially CREAMATED! Does that mean they could not have gotten a funeral in the Greek church here in the USA?

There is surely an obvious difference between choosing to be cremated, and being burned by enemy fire in a war. I'm not a clergyman, but I don't think the Church would have a problem with funeral services for those fallen in battle in this way, if their ashes could be recovered (what do you say, Frs Raphael and Seraphim?).

I am very sorry to hear about your friend Harry, God rest his soul, and his struggling wife. Perhaps in the future if you feel a priest has not said or done enough, or they are paying too much attention to worldly matters like money, you ought to say something. You might be pleasantly surprised by getting a positive response (then again you might not, but at least you'll know you tried, and might have thereby drawn the priests' attention to these serious issues).

I often hear people here in Cyprus and in Greece, even from within the faith, complain about the Church as a worldly power and its relationship to money. What can I say? Sin is sin, whether you're a layman or a Patriarch.

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

My dear Vasilis,

You certainly have every right and need to be 'bent out of shape' having lost so many loved ones in such a short period of time.

One, unfortunately sees much in Orthodoxy that one would not rather witness.

Much is due to human frailty and the fallen world in which we live.

You begin with the animal story about 'Diogenes" Much has been written and is clearly visible, that 'man's best friend' saves lives, comforts broken hearts, express joy upon our return home, and even leaps for joy! (Which can not be said for certain family members when we return from a difficult work day, or as the ladies like to say 'a bad hair day'.)

There is need of discernment in the 'harshness' in St. Silouan's words about PASSIONATE attachment to animals, and my own comment regarding my Bishop's two cats, my own two cats, and having once had ten cats and a dog.

The fact or not about the dog being Greek, is like myself being greeted as non-Orthodox because I am of Scottish heritage.

Over time you learn to grin and bear it.

Of a different and far more serious situation is the treatment of your friend Harry. Here anger rises easily. Believe me, I have lived a great portion of my monastic life in hospitals.

In general, doctors and nurses, are truly angels. This has been my experience.

Priests, on the other hand, come in various colours. Some are overwhelmed by personal impoverishment - raising young children, marital dialogue, in laws (out-laws), and caught at the 'wrong' moment can seem like exploding volcanoes.

Yet, there are Priests who, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, always rise above the mundane. But they are, sadly few and far between.

But Vasilis, it is wrong to criticize a Priest, regardless of his conduct. After all does he not have the charisma from his ordination to change wine and water into the Body and Blood of our Lord?

In a perfect world none of this would need to be addressed. But we do not live in a perfect world. We are 'broken images' to paraphrase Fr. Raphael.

If you allow yourself to dwell on these matters, of what spiritual profit is it truly?

Can we convert all Priests to the level, say, of St. John of Kronstadt?

Can we even, ourselves, be truly Christian? It is a long, hard road, and many tears are shed.

But there is a Divine purpose behind all this, and that is the crucifixtion of our fallen mind and fallen perception of how things should be.

I know many theologians, Abbots, Abbesses, Spiritual Fathers, Spiritual Mothers, monks, nuns, laity...the list can go on. Of these, I have never met one who was not at one time mistreated, misused, slandered, vilified, called a heretic, cast off like a dirty rag - God forbid, it has happened so often, and will continue to happen because we live in a fallen world.

Issues of the Greek Archdiocese, the Russian Church outside Russia, the Orthodox Church in America, etc., it can and does fill volumes. But the volumes are worthless, unless we make them worth our time.

God exists, but so does the devil.

Best in my humble experience is to lay down your life and give your heart to Christ.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

There is a wonderful book about this called Animals & Man by Joanne Stefanatos D.V.M. Most of the book is actually from the Lives of the Saints and indeed as you suggest points to how in Christ our relationship to animals becomes that of Adam & Eve with creation in Eden.

Of course there is a double side to this since we are not only talking about a re-established harmony of creation but also a harmony based on dispassion. Thus the two sides which Fr Seraphim refers to in his post about Staretz Silouan who on the one hand could weep over a broken branch but yet warned about having pets.

One point in all of this worth keeping in mind is that due to man's role of microcosm he bears a great responsibility for redeeming sin within the whole cosmos. This sheds light on the fact already referred to in St Paul's epistles that even though animals bear the effects of sin it is ultimately we who are responsible for this. But put the other way around this also sheds light on man's original purpose as shepherd for all of creation. Man's purpose is to be beyond himself in love.

Does this refer to the question we are having difficulty with about essence and energy in animals and man? Somehow I suspect the words of St Gregory Palamas come from a larger context about man. The words 'essence' and 'energy' certainly are familiar to us as part of his explanation of God's immanence. Since man is in the image of God perhaps St Gregory also ties this essence/energy distinction into the nature of man(?).

About the future of animals I do not know. Whatever is to be we should understand that this in accord with God's ultimate purposes which are for the best. As in starets Silouan's warning about too emotional a bond with animals we have a tendency at times to also project these emotional bonds onto God and expect He also will honour these.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theophrastus]

How does Orthodoxy view animals and plants? Are they seen to be conscious in some way? Do they participate in theosis in some fashion?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

How does Orthodoxy view animals and plants? Are they seen to be conscious in some way? Do they participate in theosis in some fashion?

According to the teaching of the Church it is our sin at the Fall which caused the creation to fall also. So creation as St Paul says, groans. But it also awaits our redemption so that it too can be delivered from death.

In the lives of many of the saints we see this redeeming action in regards to the creation already at work. Around the saints many wild and fierce animals became mild & obedient. In a real way this was like Paradise restored, or at least a taste of this.

A book named Animals & Man by Joanne Stefanatos was published a number of years ago. This book contains accounts of the many saints who interacted with the animal creation like Adam & Eve did in Paradise.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Jetavan,

Neither animals nor plants were made in the image of God, so it is hard to see how they could undergo theosis.

However, Origen had some things to say on this subject which might be of interest:

Providence primarily cares for rational beings, but encompasses irrational animals which also profit from what is designed for man. For since God clearly rules over the motion of heaven and what is in it and over what is accomplished on earth and sea by His divine skill - the birth, origins, foods, and growth of all different animals and plants - it is foolish to close our eyes and not look to God (cf. Isa. 6:10; Matt. 13:15; Acts 28:27)

He also uses 'animal' in a less literal sense when he says:


But the Church also has animals, hear how it says it in the Psalms: "Lord, you will make men and beasts safe” (Ps. 35:7). These, therefore, who are dedicated to the study of the word of God and of reasonable doctrine, are called men. But those who are living without such studies and do not want exercises of knowledge, but are nevertheless faithful, they are called animals, though, to be sure, clean ones. for just as some are men of God, so some are
sheep of God.

As Fr. Raphael says, there are many accounts of how, in the presence of Holy Men and Women wild animals return to the state of gentleness which characterised their original relationship with unfallen Man.

If it was not for the resurrection, the end of the human body would have been the same as that of animals, and, like the flowers and grasses, we would fade and wither, and the place we were would know us no more.

From this we are saved by His redeeming love.

I hope this helps.

In Christ,

John

[Kusanagi]

How does Orthodoxy view animals and plants? Are they seen to be conscious in some way? Do they participate in theosis in some fashion?

Well it does say in the psalms that everything that has breath praises the Lord. Also St Seraphim of Sarov qoutes this too.
I still think to Orthodox we were created to govern the animals and resepct them together with nature (plants) but when i talk to Orthodox people outside of the UK about animal rights and plant lovers they give me a strange look like they are going too far as to subject themselves to the animals or plants rather than the other way around.
I think Theosis is for mankind only as we fell and God came to heal us not the animals or plants they were innocent and became corrupted because of our fall, and so that we will not be alone in our fall but the animals and plants take part in this too. Read it in one of the catechism books but i forgot which one i think its a Fr George Dragas one.

[Jorgo Ristevski]

I would like to ask are there going to be animals and plants in Heaven? Will they be ressurected too? What happens to animals and plants when they die; are they no more, or like humans their soul goes to Heaven or hell? Hope I didn't ask too much (forgive me!). Thanks.

[Paul Cowan]

In short, no. Plants and animals do not have souls therefore will not go to heaven or hell. These places are for humans alone and the angels He created.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

Saint John tells us there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). What sort of new earth would it be without plants and animals?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

So far we have only considered this question from the point of view of what happens to animals after they die; ie how does death affect the souls of animals.

Another thing very important to keep in mind however is what is contained in the first chapter of Genesis:


20. And God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.."

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the water swarmed after their kind, and every winged creature after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

22. And God blessed them saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

24. Then God said, "let the earth bring forth living creatures of after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind."; and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Yes, it could very well be that due to sin, whose fruit is death, animals cease to be after they die.

Keep in mind though that this death is due to us and our sin, from which 'the creation now groans.' If animals completely perish now at death it is due to us.

God's original purpose though was not this but rather of a Paradise of continuous life without sin. And as we see from the above, animals had their place in this as an aspect of the beauty of God's creativity.

So then the question should be: what of God's purpose in that new reality? Will it include His original purpose or not? If so then how?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jorgo Ristevski]

Fr Raphael wrote:
Keep in mind though that this death is due to us and our sin, from which 'the creation now groans.' If animals completely perish now at death it is due to us.

God's original purpose though was not this but rather of a Paradise of continuous life without sin. And as we see from the above, animals had their place in this as an aspect of the beauty of God's creativity.

So then the question should be: what of God's purpose in that new reality? Will it include His original purpose or not? If so then how?

In Christ- Fr Raphael


Then there is a chance that animals and plants will be a part in the new world after the Final Judgement?Or not so?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Then there is a chance that animals and plants will be a part in the new world after the Final Judgement?Or not so?

I don't really know. It's striking though that all of the experiences of that other world refer to a clearly created reality.

Not as we know this now, but in a renewed sense. Thus there is experience of individual people, a terrain (plants, trees of some sort), and yes, some see animals, especially birds.

Now all of this could be interpreted as only symbolic but I do not think this is correct. For after all just because that world will be an entirely renewed one does not at all imply it will not be a clearly created one. In other words the experience of that other world does not accord with popular descriptions of people with angel wings floating by each other on clouds but rather a discernibly created world that corresponds to this one in some sense.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Jorgo Ristevski]

[/quote]This question was sent in directly by John, the young theologian from New Zealand (who asked the previous question): Do animals go to heaven to be with God?
Answer
Dear John
Thank you for your letter and especially for your question about whether animals go to Heaven.
From the time that Adam and Eve were created and until Jesus comes again, only people’s souls continue to live after the body dies. So that means that, for the time being, animal souls do not go to heaven – they are waiting for Jesus’ return.
Some big saints, like St Simeon the New Theologian, teach that when Jesus comes again, the whole world with all the people and animals, as well as the moon and the sun, and all the planets and stars, will all change suddenly. Everything will be better and prettier. At that time the animals, and the birds and the fish will all be brought back, and they will all be friendly and loving.
God wanted things to be that way from the beginning when He created the world, but because Adam and Eve (and everybody afterwards) disobeyed God, and stopped loving Him, everything deteriorated – got worse. This is what happens when people stop loving God, but the good thing is that God never stops loving us, as well as everything else that He created.
St Basil the Great, who lived 1600 years ago, wrote the following prayer for animals.
“O GOD, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our little brothers to whom Thou hast given this earth as their home in common with us.
May we realise that they live not for us alone, but for themselves and for Thee, and that they love the sweetness of life even as we do, and serve Thee better in their place than we do in ours.”
Ask mum to explain some of the complicated words in the prayer.
One more thing, there is a nice book that you will enjoy reading. It is called:
“Animals and Man: A State of Blessedness,” by Joanne Stefanatos. We will try to get you a copy soon.[/quote]

This I found on this site: http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/orthodox/web/child_ask.html

Does this means that animals and plants don't go neither to Heaven or hell, but at the Second Coming of our Lord they will be ressurected too (even our home animals and plants?)?

[Jorgo Ristevski]

If I may ask, do animals and plants (all of them) have sins?

[Nina]

If I may ask, do animals and plants (all of them) have sins?

As far as I know they do not. It is said (can't recall where) that at the moment Adam sinned, the entire creation wanted to tear him to pieces, but God did not allow it. The rest of the creation was actually grateful to God, way more than humans. We are so wretched.

[Isaac Crabtree]

I want to suggest a different sort of direction in all of this. I don't know if the consensus of the Church is that animals and plants were not subject to corruption before Adam's fall. Here is probably the most succinct treatment of nature's decay in the Scriptures:

"The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:19-21)

It does not echo St. Paul's earlier assertion that "therefore death passed to all men, because all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12). Rather, St. Paul says that nature will be made incorruptible, but that it awaits the revelation of the sons of God to do so. Further, creation was subjected to "frustration" or "futility" "by the will of the one who subjected it"-- God.

The fathers do speak of Eden as being "between corruption and incorruption" where plants died but they gave off fragrant smells. Animal behavior in the Garden was also peaceful. But the Garden wasn't the whole world, in fact the Garden had a gate and was bordered by rivers. Maybe Adam's role as the head of the visible world was to attain theosis and through him the universe itself would be changed. Until then, Adam was placed in a special part of creation where he himself was protected from things that were good for the universe and our world, but were not for us.

I know of VERY traditional ROCOR Bishops (like Bishop Alexander Mileant, of blessed memory) who believed this. To argue that animals were not subject to death before Adam's own fall into mortality is dangerous (in my opinion) because many many animals appear to be designed for violence, self-defense, and death. Or perhaps the T-rex also ate straw with the oxen?

St. Augustine and many other fathers did not see animal struggle as evil at all, but as spiritual lessons for our salvation. Even the suffering of wounded, blind gazelles is a gift from the Creator to soften our own hearts so that we too will cry out to Heaven for mercy.

But will animals be resurrected from the dead? Possibly. It's not revealed to us in Scripture, but then again our own resurrection from the dead was not immediately revealed either, in the first books of the Bible. Whoever said on this list that animals don't have "souls" is wrong-- Genesis uses "soul" for animals created on the sixth day, just not the "living soul" that Adam receives when the Lord God breathed into his nostrils. St. Seraphim of Sarov said that Adam's soul was like an animal's until the Lord breathed into His nostrils.

Ok, lots of rambling (sorry), but just wanted to get a few of those things out there to see what people say.

[Andreas Moran]

Were there not two Falls? The fall of Satan preceded that of Adam, and this first fall would have corrupted Creation which was why, presumably, the Garden of Eden was separate from the rest of the world and not the whole world (if that is right).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Creation definitely suffers the results of the Fall- ie violence and death. But because they were not willing participants in this but rather suffered the results caused by us the creation has a degree of innocence. Thus for example even if an animal is violent or is disobedient to our command we do not refer to them as sinful.

In other words in the Patristic understanding sin is connected to and inseparable from human free will. Or to present this whole scenario of man's sin and creation's falleness the other way around: creation awaits man's deliverance from sin to find its own restoration. Man's path like a hub at the centre of a wheel will always affect the rest of creation for better or worse.

A number of Fathers speak of animals and soul.

Thus:

St Anthony the Great:


Because some people impiously dare to say that plants and vegetables have a soul, I will briefly write about this for the guidance of the simple. Plants have a natural life, but they do not have a soul. Man is called an intelligent animal because he has intellect and is capable of acquiring knowledge. The other animals and the birds can make sounds because they possess breath and soul. All things that are subject to growth and decline are alive; but the fact that they live and grow does not necessarily mean that they all have souls.

There are four categories of living beings. the first are immortal and have souls, such as angels. The second have intellect, soul and breath, such as men. The third have breath and soul, such as animals. The fourth have only life, such as plants. The life of plants is without soul, breath, intellect or immortality. These four attributes, on the other hand, presuppose the possession of life.


St Maximus the Confessor then considerably refines this to say:


The soul has three powers: first, the power of nourishment and growth; the second, that of imagination and instinct; third, that of intelligence and intellect. Plants share only in the first of these powers, animals share in the first and second only, and men share in all three.

Also:

from St Augustine:


If I say there are other creatures made by God, some are less excellent than the soul, and some equal to it. The soul of a brute animal, for instance, is less excellent, and that of an angel equal; but nothing is better than the soul. And if at any time any of these is better, that is the result of the soul's sin, not of its nature. Still, sin does not make the human so inferior that the soul of a brute animal is to be preferred to it or even compared to it.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I very much enjoyed Fr Raphael's recent post in this thread.

The standard reading of the fathers is that creation follows its lord (kyrios), the human creature, in both its righteousness and its corruption. The sins of man echo through the cosmos, but so to his virtues, and the fruit of his redemption in Christ.

St Maximus the Confessor describes this unique lot of the human race as residing in man's nature as 'microcosm' of the whole of creation. In the human person are brought together all the diverse realms of creation of which all other orders have only a share: materiality, soul, spirit, irrationality, rationality, temporality, eternity, etc. In the human person lie all the ties that govern the cosmos.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

There is a BBC News item today about a nine-month-old dog going for a walk with its owner who collapsed. The dog stayed with her and barked the alarm until someone heard the barking and got help. It is said the dog's action in barking for attention saved the woman's life.

My in-laws in Moscow have two dogs. One likes the wintry weather, the other doesn't. The latter, when told it's time for walkies, slides under the table and pretends to be asleep. It also doesn't like a ringing telephone to be ignored but goes to someone and barks at them to answer the 'phone. When we visit Moscow, we take a toy for this dog. When we arrive at the apartment, after greeting us, it goes to our suitcase, waits for it to be opened and then rummages through the contents until it finds the expected toy.

In Russian, animals are not referred to impersonally as 'it'. This led to some confusion when my wife first came here because she would remark, 'there's someone in the back garden'! Rushing to confront an intruder, I would find instead next door's cat.

[Justin Farr]

This has been an extremely enlightening thread! I have always been terribly concerned on the issue; I love my dog, my sister, beyond words. Yes she is my dog, but I fully consider her my sister as well.

This thread has been a real comfort to me. Thanks. :)

The Russian tidbit was very fascinating as well. ^_^

[John W.]

This has been an extremely enlightening thread! I have always been terribly concerned on the issue; I love my dog, my sister, beyond words. Yes she is my dog, but I fully consider her my sister as well.

Abba Xanthias said, ""A dog is better than I am, for he has love and he does not judge."

Check out this old Monachos thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1495&highlight=xanthias+dog&page=3)


From: History is Full of 'Smart Animals' by Richard Holdgreve, in the Delphos Herald


Faithful Companion in the Bible

In the Old Testament Book of Tobit, Tobias sets off on a trek to collect a debt to help his blind father. He is accompanied on his journey by the angel Raphael and a small dog. After all the adventures have finished, he returns home, the dog running ahead* to announce his arrival. Tradition maintains that this dog even proceeded Tobias into heaven. It is this story that accounts for the sustained popularity of the name Toby for dogs.

["Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail." Tobit 11:9 (Douay Rheims) ]


St. Patrick

Patrick MacAlpern’s life was strangely entwined with dogs. Around A.D. 400, at age sixteen, Patrick was abducted by Irish marauders. He was enslaved and kept as a shepherd for six years, his sole companion being a dog. In response to a dream, he made his way to the coast, where he found the ship that the dream foretold would return him to his own land.

The ship was from Gaul, and the master had put into Irish waters in order to get a cargo of hunting hounds, which were bringing fabulous prices on European markets. Not surprisingly, as a penniless runaway slave, Patrick was received unsympathetically when he tried to gain passage. However, just as he was leaving, he was suddenly called back. Over one hundred great Irish wolfhounds now packed the holds and filled the deck of the ship. Taken from their masters and their familiar surroundings, the giant dogs were frantic and furious, ready to attack anyone who came near. Some of the sailors had noticed that during Patrick’s brief visit to the ship, he had spoken with some of the dogs and seemed to have a calming effect on them. Therefore, in exchange for feeding, cleaning up after, and otherwise caring for the dogs — Patrick received passage to the continent.

The ship was badly underprovisioned and reached a ruined and deserted section of Gaul with nothing left to feed dogs or men. Because the dogs were worth more than the ship, the crew abandoned the ship, and set off on foot, heading inland. With no inhabitants or food in the area, the dogs and men were soon in jeopardy of dying of starvation. The shipmaster, who had learned that Patrick was a Christian, turned to him and in a taunting manner said, “If your god is so great, then pray to him to send us food.” Patrick did so, and the story goes, a miracle occurred. A herd of wild pigs appeared, seemingly from nowhere. Instead of bolting and running, as one might have expected, the swine stayed long enough for the starving men, with the assistance of the dogs, to kill some of them, providing meat for all. Patrick’s reputation rose considerably, and, after the dogs were marketed, the crew made a gift to him of some food and money to help him on his way.

Many years later, he returned to Ireland, and his goal was to preach Christianity. It seems the news that a strange ship had just landed, from which emerged white-robed men with clean shaved heads who chanted in a strange tongue, prompted an Irish prince named to go to the coast to investigate the situation. He was accompanied by his favorite large hunting dog. Observing St. Patrick’s missionary group, Dichie decided that the best course was to kill these odd clerics and be done with it. With a shout he set his dog at Patrick. The dog lept forward in full fury, but when Patrick uttered a short prayer, the dog halted, grew quiet, and then approached Patrick and nuzzled his hand. Dichie was so touched by this scene that he aided Patrick’s mission in Ireland in many ways.

The point of these stories seems to be that the dogs could somehow sense or respond to Patrick’s piety. According to Irish folklore, Patrick repaid dogs for their deference to him by allowing the legendary character Oissain, to take hounds to heaven with him when he died, where we can suppose that they are keeping Tobias’s little dog company.

[John W.]

In the Old Testament Book of Tobit, Tobias sets off on a trek to collect a debt to help his blind father. He is accompanied on his journey by the angel Raphael and a small dog. After all the adventures have finished, he returns home, the dog running ahead* to announce his arrival. Tradition maintains that this dog even proceeded Tobias into heaven. It is this story that accounts for the sustained popularity of the name Toby for dogs.

["Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail." Tobit 11:9 (Douay Rheims) ]

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon has an interesting take in The Wide World of Tobit (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f):


The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.” No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity!

Thus, when young Tobias made his trip to Ecbatana and then, like Odysseus, journeyed back to the home of his father, he traveled with a vast company of classical pilgrims. He was neither the first nor the last to decide: “I will arise and return to my father.” On that trip, moreover, Tobias enjoyed the fellowship of an angel and a dog, symbolically representing the two worlds of spirits and beasts, both associated with Paradise and both mysteriously joined together in the human being that they accompany.

Here's his footnote on "the two worlds of spirits and beasts":


Angels and beasts are also the companions of Jesus in the desert; see Mark 1:13 along with the comment of Euthymius Zigabenus, In Marcum (PG 129.776C). Particularly in our hagiography, this motif of angelic and animal companionship is ubiquitous. Cf. Joanne Stephanatos, Animals and Man: A State of Blessedness, Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1992.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I posted this on another thread but I believe it is also pertinent to this thread.

""Love all God's creation, the whole of it and every grain of sand. Love every leaf, every ray of God's light! Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything you will perceive the divine mystery in things. And once you have pereeived it you will begin to comprehend it ceaselessly, more and more every day. And you will at last come to love the whole world with an abiding universal love. Love the animals: God has given them the rudiments of thought and untroubled joy. Do not therefore, trouble it, do not torture them, do not deprive them of their joy, do not go against God's intent. " Starets Zosima in the novel The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoevsky

"Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden, and there he put the man he had formed And the Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground - trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." From the book of Genesis

[Effie Ganatsios]

My little dog died two days ago and I have been feeling sad and have been thinking about him continuously. He was such a gentle creature, giving us his love and loyalty. What does the Orthodox religion believe about animals and souls? Where did all the love in this dog come from? He didn't give us this love just because we fed him and provided shelter for him.

I'm curious because this is the first time I have ever loved an animal so much.

Effie

Perhaps the subject of animals and souls is a little off-topic but I felt that it might fit in a little in this discussion.

I posted a picture of him in my albums section.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Actually, according to St Basil the Great and others, animals do have souls and in that way are significantly different from plants which have only a body. The animal soul, however, is inferior to the human soul in that it is mortal and ceases to exist when the body dies. Neither is the animal soul in any way spiritual in nature and thus animals, as you note, do not participate in the spiritual life or theosis in any way.

Fr David Moser

Just read this message. Thank you Father David.

Two prayers for animals by St. Basil :


The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof.

O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us.

We remember with shame that in the past we have exercised the high dominion of man with ruthless cruelty so that the voice of the earth, which should have gone up to Thee in song has been a groan of travail.

May we realize that they live not for us alone, but for themselves and for Thee and that they love the sweetness of life even as we, and serve Thee better in their place than we in ours. (3)

For those, O Lord, the humble beasts, that bear with us the burden and heat of day, and offer their guileless lives for the well-being of mankind; and for the wild creatures, whom Thou hast made wise, strong, and beautiful, we supplicate for them Thy great tenderness of heart, for Thou hast promised to save both man and beast, and great is Thy loving kindness, O Master, Saviour of the world. (3)

[Effie Ganatsios]

St. Theophan the Recluse says:

Letter 9 - Just what is the spirit? It is that force which God breathed into man when He created him. The earth bore all species of earthly creatures by God's command. From the earth also came every kind of living creatures soul. The human soul, although it resembles the animal soul in its lowest part, in incomparably superior to it in its highest part. That it is this way in man is because of it's bonding with the soul. The spirit, breathed by God, combined with it and raised it far above every nonhuman soul. That is why we note within ourselves, in addition to what we see in the animals, that which is peculiar to the spiritualized soul of man, and even higher, that which is peculiar only to the spirit.

Letter 11 - I will take up where I left off, that is, with what happened to the soul as a result of its union with the spirit, which is from God. From this union, the entire soul was transformed from being an animal soul, which it is by nature, into a human soul... The human soul, being such as described, displays aspirations above all this and rises a step further, because it is an inspired soul... (man) is the high priest in the sense that the voices of all creation praise God instinctively, while man raises praise to the Creator Above All with rational song. (13)