Heaven

Chapter 3: Heaven

Section 1: The Existence of Heaven

1. Definition.

a) Etymologically the Latin word for “Heaven” means the expanse of sky above the earth, which resembles a great dome or arch apparently containing the sun, moon, and stars.¹ The Church employs the term caelum to signify the abode of God and the Blessed, with the emphasis upon the state rather than the place in which they find themselves.

The Bible refers to Heaven both as a place and as a state (eternal life, eternal rest, the kingdom of God, the joy of the Lord, etc.). In the language of St. Paul, to enter into Heaven is to “be present with the Lord,”² which can mean nothing else but a spiritual occupation engaging the highest faculties of the soul and culminating in the knowledge and love of God. As Heaven is man’s final goal (status termini), it must be identical with the beatitude which comes to the created mind from the contemplation and love of the divine essence and perfections (status beatitudinis).

b) To arrive at a real, as opposed to the nominal, definition of Heaven, therefore, we must ascertain in what precisely the happiness of the Elect consists.

Boethius defines Heaven as “a state made perfect by the accumulation of all good things.”³ St. Thomas, as “the ultimate perfection of rational or intellectual nature.”⁴ These definitions, while correct, are not sufficiently specific, for a “state made perfect by the accumulation of all good things” and the “ultimate perfection of rational nature” need not necessarily be supernatural.

The happiness produced by the knowledge and love of God would not be the same in a natural state of beatitude as it is in Heaven. In proposing to man a supernatural end, the Creator abolished his purely natural destiny, which consisted in an abstractive knowledge and a natural love of God. In the present economy the rational creature has no choice between natural and supernatural beatitude. To miss the latter means to miss both. Hence Heaven, in the Christian sense, must be a state of supernatural beatitude.

In what does this supernatural beatitude consist?

c) The supernatural beatitude of Heaven fundamentally consists in the intuitive vision of the Divine Essence (visio Dei intuitiva), as opposed to the purely abstractive and analogical knowledge which man has of God here below.

St. Paul describes the difference between these two kinds of knowledge as follows: “Now we see in a mirror, obscurely; but then [we shall see] face to face. Now I know in part; then shall I know fully, even as I have been fully known [by God].”⁵ As the Divine Essence subsists in three distinct Persons, the beatific vision involves an intuitive knowledge of the Trinity. Needless to say, the human intellect cannot attain to this exalted knowledge by its own power, but requires for this purpose a special “light of glory.”⁶

The intuitive vision of God is essentially beatific, that is, it renders man infinitely happy.

Thomists and Scotists have been engaged in a long-standing controversy on the question whether beatitude is in the intellect or in the will. The two views are not incompatible, in fact, it is only by judiciously combining them that we arrive at the whole truth, viz.: that the knowledge of God is the essence of beatitude, while the love of God is its form and goal.

d) Perfect beatitude must include the will as well as the intellect. That beatitude is described more often as knowledge than as love is owing to the fact that whereas the love we shall have for God in Heaven is substantially identical with the love we have for Him here on earth,⁷ the knowledge we shall have of Him there differs essentially from the abstractive and analogical knowledge which is vouchsafed us here. This does not, however, prevent the visio beatifica from culminating in a rapturous love, free from imperfection, whereby the creature is made unspeakably happy (amor beatificus). As faith is transformed into vision and hope changes to possession, love grows perfect and thus man becomes completely happy.

2. Proof from Revelation. Various heretical errors have been current at one time or other concerning the nature of Heaven. Certain Armenian writers of the fourteenth century claimed that the Elect know God in an abstractive manner only. The Palamites or Hesychasts, a school of Greek mystics who flourished about the same time on Mount Athos, taught that the divine attributes are mere radiations of God’s Essence, which become solidified as it were, by taking on the shape of an uncreated light, perceptible to the Blessed by means of bodily vision.⁸ Rosmini all but denied the beatific vision by saying that its object is not the Divine Essence, but God in His relation to the outside world.⁹ The question was authoritatively decided by Benedict XII (1336) and the Council of Florence (1439).¹⁰

a) For the proof from Revelation see Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 80 sqq.

b) The beatitude of Heaven would be incomplete if it did not include freedom from evil — which is but another way of saying that the Blessed can neither suffer pain nor commit sin.

Evil may be physical or moral. Physical evil disturbs the order of nature; moral evil interferes with the law by which God governs the world. Physical evils are, e.g., ignorance, sorrow, pain, sickness, and death. Moral evils: sin and concupiscence (fomes peccati). In Heaven there is neither physical nor moral evil. Cfr. Apoc. VII, 16: “They shall no more hunger nor thirst; the sun shall not oppress them, nor any heat.” Apoc. XXI, 4: “And [God] shall wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall mourning or wailing or pain be any more, because the first things are passed away.”

The greatest of all evils is sin, and therefore the Blessed can no longer sin. As this truth was denied by Origen, it requires special proof. In saying that there is no pain or sorrow in Heaven the inspired author of the Apocalypse cannot have meant physical sorrow only. Mental sorrow caused by the loss of sanctifying grace is far deeper and keener than mere physical pain. Moreover, the beatitude of Heaven, being eternal, is incompatible with sin. As St. Augustine aptly observes, the happiness of the Elect would be incomplete if it did not exclude sin.¹¹

Whether the so-called impeccability of the Blessed in Heaven is due to a purely extrinsic confirmation in grace, or rooted in the essence of the beatific vision, is a controverted question. St. Thomas declares: “They who are already blessed in Heaven, apprehend the object of true happiness as making their happiness and last end: otherwise their desire would not be set at rest in that object, and they would not be blessed and happy. The will of the Blessed, therefore, cannot swerve from the object of true happiness.”¹² This constancy of the will is rooted in an ineradicable love of God, which, being based on a true knowledge of His essence, has neither the power nor the will to offend Him.¹³ However, there is this much truth in the opposing view of the Scotists, that the beatific vision and impeccability, though connected by an intrinsic natural bond, are not essentially one, but could be dissociated by a miracle. The same may be said of the beatific vision and sorrow: these, too, are naturally but not metaphysically incompatible.

3. The Object of the Beatific Vision. What do the Blessed in Heaven actually behold through the lumen gloriae? To answer this question we must distinguish between the Divine Essence and the things existing outside of it. The Divine Essence itself is the object and source of what is known as beatitudo essentialis sive primaria, or beatitudo aurea. That secondary beatitude which the Scholastics term accidentalis, results from the contemplation of beautiful objects existing outside of the Divine Essence. The essential beatitude of the Blessed consists in an intuitive vision of the tri-une God with His various attributes.¹⁴ To what objects the accidental beatitude of the Blessed extends cannot be exactly determined.

a) From St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor. XIII, 9 sqq. we know that the Blessed clearly behold in Heaven whatever they embraced with theological faith on earth. Faith is transformed into knowledge.

It follows that the Blessed have a clear, though not an adequate, knowledge of all the theological mysteries (the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of the two natures in Christ, the Holy Eucharist), and their mutual relations. A fortiori they must have a knowledge of the lesser mysteries of our holy religion, e.g. in what manner the Sacraments produce their effects, how the Holy Ghost operates in the Church and in the souls of the faithful, the nature of actual and sanctifying grace, the number of the Elect, predestination and reprobation, and many other things of which we on earth have at best only an inkling.

b) The beatific vision also involves a knowledge of the causal relations between God and all existing and possible creatures. This knowledge, however, is not shared equally by all the Blessed, but varies in clearness and depth in proportion to merit.

God is the cause of His creatures in a threefold respect: (1) as their pattern-exemplar (causa exemplaris), i.e., the model according to which they are fashioned; (2) as the efficient cause (causa efficiens) of both nature and the supernatural; and (3) as the final end and object (causa finalis) towards which all creatures consciously or unconsciously tend.¹⁵ In all three of these respects the Blessed in Heaven perceive not only God’s manifold relations to His creatures, but also the why and wherefore thereof, because knowledge of the Divine Essence necessarily includes knowledge of the divine ideas (though not of all), and the external glory of God, i.e., the admiration, love, and praise of His creatures, grows in proportion to their knowledge of His essence.

c) The beatitude enjoyed by the Blessed in Heaven is (per accidens) increased by their intimate association with the angels and saints.

The inhabitants of Heaven do not lead a solitary life, but are associated together in a mystic body called the Communion of Saints (communio sanctorum). They are members of the triumphant Church¹⁶ and admiringly contemplate the angels in their hierarchical gradations as well as the various degrees of dignity and happiness manifested in their glorified fellowmen.¹⁷ Their knowledge is not, however, limited to heavenly things, but extends to Purgatory and this earth, comprising especially those things which are closely related to the supernatural order in general and the position occupied therein by each heavenly denizen in particular. They devote special attention, of course, to whatever pertains to the worship and the intercession of the Saints. Bellarmine thinks that they derive their knowledge of these things from their official position in the celestial hierarchy rather than from a special revelation.

d) Various bonds connect the Blessed in Heaven with the scene of their labors, battles, temptations, and victories here below.

It was here that they acquired that more or less profound knowledge of science and art which is not lost but clarified, deepened, and ennobled in Heaven.¹⁸ Here they still have relatives, friends, and descendants, in whom their former interest continues unabated, for Death does not destroy our earthly relations, but raises them to a higher sphere, in which the salvation of souls outweighs all other considerations. This knowledge the Elect cannot obtain from personal observation, as they lack the organs of sense, but it is communicated to them by the Divine Logos, in whom they behold all things.¹⁹

4. The “Dowry” of the Blessed. By the dowry of the Blessed (dotes beatorum) the Scholastics understand those supernatural endowments by which the soul is distinguished in the beatific state.

a) Like the mystic marriage of the soul with Christ, the dotes beatorum must be conceived allegorically. As a dowry is not the matrimonial bond, but something which precedes marriage; so the dowry that Christ bestows on His mystic spouse is a habit which precedes the beatific vision and renders it more enjoyable.²⁰ The dowry of the Blessed is, however, purely accidental, and must not be confounded with the essence of the beatific vision, which consists in the intuitive knowledge of God.²¹

b) The gifts that constitute the dowry of the Blessed are partly of the body and partly of the soul. The dowry of the body is identical with the properties which we shall describe in Part II, Chapter 2, Section 3. The dowry of the soul consists of the three gifts of contemplation, possession, and fruition. Contemplation (visio) corresponds to faith, possession (comprehensio), to hope, fruition (fruitio), to charity. All three converge in the light of glory, which dispels the obscurity of faith, insures the eternal possession of God, and guarantees the enjoyment of His love.²²

Section 2: The Properties of Heaven

Heaven is supernatural and eternal, and has various degrees of happiness for the Blessed, corresponding to the higher or lower measure of grace with which each is endowed and the intimacy of his union with God.²³

1. Eternity of Heaven. The eternity of Heaven was in olden times denied by the Origenists. Benedict XII defined it as an article of faith: “This same vision and fruition … continues and will continue till the final judgment, and thenceforward forever.”²⁴ The dogma is as old as Christianity, for the Apostles’ Creed says: “I believe … in life everlasting.”

a) Sacred Scripture employs many beautiful figures to illustrate the perpetuity of Heaven. Thus it compares Heaven to “a treasure which faileth not,” which “no thief approacheth, nor moth corrupteth”;²⁵ a reception “into everlasting dwellings”;²⁶ “a never fading crown of glory”;²⁷ an “everlasting kingdom.”²⁸ St. John frequently refers to the abode of the Blessed as “eternal life.”²⁹

b) The Fathers conceived Heaven as unending. Heaven must be everlasting, says St. Augustine, because no happiness could be perfect that would be overshadowed by the fear of a possible cessation or loss.³⁰ St. Thomas defines eternity as an intrinsic and essential quality without which Heaven would not be Heaven. The opinion of some of the later Scotists that eternity is an accidental quality of beatitude, is untenable.

2. Various Degrees of Happiness Among the Blessed. The ancient heretic Jovinian held that virtues and vices, merits and demerits, rewards and punishments are all alike. Luther, in accordance with his false theory of justification, contended that glory as well as grace are absolutely equal in all men and do not admit of degrees. The Catholic Church, on the contrary, holds as an article of faith that there are among the Blessed various degrees of happiness, in proportion to merit. “One is more perfect than the other according to the different merits of each,” says e.g. the Decretum Unionis of Florence.³¹

a) This teaching agrees perfectly with Sacred Scripture. Our Lord Himself intimates that there are various degrees of happiness among the Elect, when He says: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions.”³² St. Paul expressly declares: “Each shall receive his own reward according to his own toil.”³³ And: “He who soweth sparingly, shall also reap sparingly, and he who soweth in blessings, shall also reap blessings.”³⁴ And again: “The glory of the heavenly is different from that of the earthly. There is the glory of the sun, and the glory of the moon, and the glory of the stars; for star differeth from star in glory. And so it is with the resurrection of the dead.”³⁵

The Fathers express themselves in similar terms. St. Polycarp bravely assures his heathen judge: “The more I suffer, the greater will be my reward.”³⁶ St. Ignatius of Antioch writes: “The greater the toil, the greater the gain.”³⁷ Tertullian says: “How is it that there are many mansions in the Father’s house, if not for the variety of merits? How does star differ from star in glory, if not for the diversity of rays?”³⁸ St. Jerome argues against Jovinian: “If there is no difference in merits, if virgins do not differ from married women, if the easier works of piety are equally meritorious with the constancy of the martyrs, it is vain to strive for perfection,” and proceeds to show how absurd it is to suppose that a death-bed repentance puts the life-long sinner on a level with the Apostles.³⁹

The objection that inequality of glory in Heaven would provoke envy and jealousy among the Blessed, is refuted by St. Augustine as follows: “There will be no envy on account of unequal glory, because one love will govern all.”⁴⁰ According to St. Thomas the measure of glory enjoyed by each is gauged by the strength of the love he has for God: “That intellect which has more of the light of glory will see God the more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation of the light of glory who has more of charity, because where there is greater charity, there is a more ardent desire; … hence he who possesses the greater charity, will see God the more perfectly.”⁴¹

b) The inequality of heavenly glory has given rise to the Scholastic doctrine of aureolae, i.e., special marks of success attaching to those who have won conspicuous victories over the three arch-enemies of man, the world, the flesh, and the devil.⁴²

The aureola of the virgin marks a heroic victory over the flesh;⁴³ that of the martyr, over the world;⁴⁴ that of the doctor, over the devil, who is the father of lies.⁴⁵

These marks must be something real, immanent in the soul, and may be conceived as an internal joy over the victory won. What some theologians say of the external visibility of these crowns of glory, or their color, is pure conjecture.

Readings: Lessius, De Summo Bono et Aeterna Beatitudine Hominis, Antwerp 1616 (ed. Hurter, 1869). — Suarez, De Fine Ultimo. — Bellarmine, De Sanctorum Beatitudine. — Schnütgen, Die Visio Beatifica, Würzburg 1867. — A. Krawutzcky, De Visione Beatifica Comment. Histor., Breslau 1868. — Kirschkamp, Gnade und Glorie in ihrem inneren Zusammenhang, Würzburg 1878. — Bautz, Der Himmel, spekulativ dargestellt, Mayence 1881. — Franzelin, De Deo Uno, thes. 14–19, Rome 1888. — F. Boudreaux, S.J., Die Seligkeit des Himmels, Kevelaer 1898. — Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 3rd ed., pp. 583 sqq., Freiburg 1912. — E. Méric, Les Élus se reconnaîtront au ciel, Paris 1881. — Blot, S.J., Das Wiedererkennen im Jenseits, 10th ed., Mayence 1900. — G. Gietmann, S.J., art. “Nimbus,” in Vol. XI of the Catholic Encyclopedia. — Jos. Hontheim, S.J., art. “Heaven,” ibid., Vol. VII.

Footnotes

1. Caelum — a hollow sphere; Greek, ouranos — vault, ceiling. ↩

2. Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 8. ↩

3. De Consolatione Philosophiae, III, 2: “Status omnium bonorum congregatione perfectus.” ↩

4. “Ultima perfectio rationalis sive intellectualis naturae.” (Summa Theol., 1a, qu. 62, art. 1). ↩

5. 1 Cor. XIII, 12: “Videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate: tunc autem facie ad faciem. Nunc cognosco ex parte: tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum.” Cfr. 1 John, III, 2: “Nunc filii Dei sumus: et nondum apparuit quid erimus. Scimus quoniam, cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus: quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est.” ↩

6. Lumen gloriae. On the lumen gloriae see Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, p. 146. ↩

7. Cfr. 1 Cor. XIII, 8 sqq. ↩

8. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, op. cit. (note 6), p. 146. ↩

9. Prop. Damnat. a Leone XIII, prop. 38–40. The full text of the decree of the Holy Office condemning Rosmini’s teaching will be found in Schiffini, Disput. Metaph. Spec., Vol. I, pp. 432 sqq. ↩

10. See above, Chapter 2, Section 2. ↩

11. Cfr. Opusc. Imperf. c. Iulian., V, 61: “Donabit eam [scil. impeccantiam] Veritas, ut sit certa securitas, sine qua non potest esse illa, cui non est aliquid addendum, iam plena nostra felicitas.” ↩

12. Summa c. Gentiles, IV, 92: “Sed illi qui iam beati sunt, apprehendunt id, in quo vere beatitudo est, sub ratione beatitudinis et ultimi finis; alias in hoc non acquiesceret appetitus et per consequens non essent beati. Quicunque igitur beati sunt, voluntatem deflectere non possunt ab eo, in quo est vera beatitudo; non possunt igitur perversam voluntatem habere.” ↩

13. Cfr. St. Gregory the Great, Moral., V, 27: “Angelica natura in semetipsa mutabilis est, quam mutabilitatem vincit per hoc, quod ei qui semper idem est, vinculis amoris colligatur.” ↩

14. Cfr. Concil. Florent., 1439, Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 693: “Illorumque animas, qui post baptismum susceptum nullam omnino peccati maculam incurrerunt, illas etiam, quae post contractam peccati maculam, vel in suis corporibus, vel eisdem exutae corporibus, … sunt purgatae, in caelum mox recipi et intueri clare ipsum Deum trinum et unum, sicuti est, pro meritorum tamen diversitate alium alio perfectius.” ↩

15. Cfr. Rom. XI, 36: “Ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia.” ↩

16. Cfr. Heb. XII, 23. ↩

17. Cfr. Lessius, De Summo Bono, II, 9, 61: “Par enim est, ut civitatem suam et domum Patris sui et fratres suos et cives optime norint et bonitatem Dei in singulis admirentur et laudent.” ↩

18. Cfr. 1 Cor. XIII, 10: “Evacuabitur quod ex parte est.” ↩

19. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa c. Gentiles, III, 50. On the relations of the Elect to the objects of the beatific vision the student may consult Franzelin, De Deo Uno, thes. 14, Rome 1888. ↩

20. Cfr. St. Thomas, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 49, qu. 4, art. 2. ↩

21. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Supplement., qu. 95, art. 2. ↩

22. St. Thomas rejects the parallel drawn by some writers between the dowry of the Blessed and the three principal faculties of the soul. He says: ”… quia irascibilis et concupiscibilis non sunt in parte intellectiva, sed in parte sensitiva, dotes autem animae ponuntur in ipsa mente.” (Supplement., qu. 95, art. 5). The question whether the soul of Christ possesses the dotes beatorum he answers as follows: “Vel omnino non convenit Christo ratio dotis vel non ita proprie, sicut aliis sanctis; ea tamen, quae dotes dicuntur, excellentissime ei conveniunt.” (Ibid., art. 3). Of the angels he adds (ibid., art. 4): “Exigitur enim inter sponsum et sponsam naturae conformitas, ut scil. sint eiusdem speciei. Hoc autem modo homines cum Christo conveniunt, inquantum naturam humanam assumpsit… . Angelis autem non est conformis secundum unitatem speciei neque secundum naturam divinam neque secundum humanam, et ideo ratio dotis non ita proprie convenit angelis sicut hominibus.” The Scholastic doctrine of the dotes beatorum is of no special importance. ↩

23. On the supernatural character of the beatific vision see Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, pp. 80 sqq. ↩

24. Cfr. the Bull “Benedictus,” A.D. 1336: “Eadem visio et fruitio … continuata existit et continuabitur usque ad finale iudicium, et tunc usque in sempiternum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 530). ↩

25. Luke XII, 33: ”… thesaurum non deficientem in caelis: quo fur non appropriat, neque tinea corrumpit.” ↩

26. Luke XVI, 9: “Facite vobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis: ut, cum defeceritis, recipiant vos in aeterna tabernacula.” ↩

27. 1 Pet. V, 4: “Cum apparuerit princeps pastorum, percipietis immarcescibilem gloriae coronam.” ↩

28. 2 Pet. I, 11: “aeternum regnum Domini.” ↩

29. Vita aeterna. ↩

30. De Civ. Dei, XII, 20: “Quid enim illa beatitudine falsius atque fallacius, ubi nos futuros miseros aut in tanta veritatis luce nesciamus aut in summa felicitatis arce timeamus? … Atque ita spes nostrae infelicitatis est felix et felicitatis infelix.” ↩

31. ”… pro meritorum tamen diversitate alium alio perfectius.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 693). ↩

32. John XIV, 2: “In domo Patris mei mansiones multae sunt.” ↩

33. 1 Cor. III, 8: “Unusquisque autem propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem.” ↩

34. 2 Cor. IX, 6: “Qui parce seminat, parce et metet: et qui seminat in benedictionibus, de benedictionibus et metet.” ↩

35. 1 Cor. XV, 41 sq.: “Alia claritas solis, alia claritas lunae, et alia claritas stellarum. Stella enim a stella differt in claritate: sic et resurrectio mortuorum.” Cfr. Al. Schäfer, Erklärung der beiden Briefe an die Korinther, pp. 228 sqq., Münster 1903; J. MacRory, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, P. I, pp. 245 sq., Dublin 1915. ↩

36. Martyrium S. Polycarpi, 4. ↩

37. Ad Polycarp., I, 3. ↩

38. Scorpiace, 6: “Quomodo multae mansiones apud Patrem, si non pro varietate meritorum? Quomodo et stella a stella distabit in gloria, nisi pro diversitate radiorum?” ↩

39. Contra Iovin., II, 34: “Si nulla meritorum diversitas, si nihil distet inter virgines et mulieres coniugatas, si aequalis meriti sint leviora virtutum opera et martyrum constantia, vanum erit perfectionis studium, taediosus omnino erit virtutum labor, omnes a perfectione retrahentur. Quid perseverant virgines? Quid laborant viduae? Cur maritatae se continent? Peccemus omnes, et post poenitentiam idem erimus quod Apostoli sunt.” ↩

40. Tract. in Ioa., 67, 3: “Non erit aliqua invidia imparis claritatis, quoniam regnabit in omnibus unitas caritatis.” ↩

41. Summa Theol., 1a, qu. 12, art. 6: “Intellectus plus participans lumine gloriae perfectius Deum videbit. Plus autem participat de lumine gloriae, qui plus habet de caritate, quia ubi est maior caritas, ibi est maius desiderium… . Unde qui plus habebit de caritate, perfectius Deum videbit.” ↩

42. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., Supplement., qu. 95, art. 1: “Aureola est aliquid aureae [beatitudini essentiali] superadditum, i.e. quoddam gaudium de operibus a se factis, quae habent rationem victoriae excellentis.” ↩

43. Apoc. XIV, 3. ↩

44. Cfr. Matth. V, 11 sq. ↩

45. Cfr. Dan. XII, 3. ↩