HEAVEN
173
HEAVEN
may be greater or smaller, or it may vary without any
corresponding change in the vision itself.
The secondary object of the beatific vision com- prises everything the blessed may have a reasonable interest in knowing. It includes, in the first place, all the mysteries which the soul believed while on earth. Moreover, the blessed see each other and re- joice in the company of those whom death separated from them. The veneration paid them on earth and the prayers addressed to them are also known to the blessed. All that we have said on the secondary ob- ject of the beatific vision is the common and reliable teaching of theologians. In recent times (Holy Office, 14 Dec, 1887) Rosmini was condemned, be- cause he taught that the blessed do not see God Him- self, but only His relations to creatures (Denz., 1928- 1930 — old, 1773-75). In the earlier ages we find Gregory the Great (" Moral. ", 1. XVIII, c. liv, n. 90, in P. L., LXXVI, XCIII) combating the error of a few who maintained that the blessed do not see God, but only a brilliant light streaming forth from Him. Also in the Mitldle Ages there are traces of this error (cf. Franzelin, " De Deo uno", 2nd ed., thes. 15, p. 192).
(5) Although the blessed see God, they do not com- prehend Him, because God is absolutely incompre- hensible to every created intellect, and He cannot grant to any creature the power of comprehending Him as He cbmprehends Himself. Susirez rightly calls this a revealed truth (" De Deo ", 1. II, c. v, n. 6) ; for the Fourth Council of the Lateran and the Vatican Council enumerated incomprehensibility among the absolute attributes of God (Denz., nn. -128, 1782 — old nn. 355,1631). The Fathers defend this truth against Eunomius, an Arian, who asserted that we compre- hend God fully even in this life. The blessed compre- hend God neither intensively nor extensively — not intensively, because their vision has not that infinite clearness with which God is knowable and with which He knows Himself, nor extensively, because their vision does not actually and clearly extend to every- thing that God sees in His Essence. For they cannot by a single act of their intellect represent every possi- ble creature individually, clearly, and distinctly, as God does; such an act would be infinite, and an infi- nite act is incompatible with the nature of a created and finite intellect. The blessed see the Godhead in its entirety, but only with a limited clearness of vision {Deum totum sed non totaliler) . They see the Godhead in its entirety, because they see all the perfections of God and all the Persons of the Trinity; and yet their vision is limited, because it has neither the infinite clearness that corresponds to the Divine perfections, nor does it extend to everything that actually is, or may still become, an object of God's free decrees. Hence it follows that one blessed soul may see God more perfectly than another, and that the beatific vision admits of various degrees.
(6) The beatific vision is a mystery. Of course rea- son cannot prove the impossibility of such a vision. For why should God, in His omnipotence, be unable to draw so near and adapt Himself so fully to our intel- lect, that the soul may, as it were, directly feel Him and lay hold of Him and look on Him and become entirely immersed in Him? On the other hand, we cannot prove absolutely that this is possible; for the beatific vision lies beyond the natural destiny of our intellect, and it is so extraordinary a mode of percep- tion that we cannot clearly understand either the fact or the manner of its possibility.
(7) From what has been thus far said it is clear that there is a twofold beatitude: the natural and the supernatural. As we have seen, man is by nature entitled to beatitude, provided he does not f oriteit it by his own fault. We have also seen that beatitude is eternal and that it consists in the possession of God, for creatures cannot truly satisfy man. Again, as we have shown, the soul is to possess God by knowledge
and love. But the knowledge to which man is enti-
tled by nature is not an immediate vision, but an
analogous perception of God in the mirror of creation,
still a very perfect knowledge which really satisfies the
heart. Hence the beatitude to which alone we have
a natural claim consists in that perfect analogous
knowledge and in the love corresponding to that
knowledge. This natural beatitude is the lowest kind
of felicity which God, in His goodness and wisdom,
can grant to sinless man. But, instead of an anal-
ogous knowledge of His Essence He may grant to the
blessed a direct intuition which includes all the excel-
lence of natural beatitvide and surpasses it beyond
measure. It is this higher kind of beatitude that it
has pleased God to grant us. And by granting it He
not merely satisfies our natural desire for happiness
but He satisfies it in superabundance.
IV. Eternity of He.vven and Impeccability of THE Blessed. — It is a dogma of faith that the happi- ness of the blessed is everlasting. This truth is clearly contained in Holy Writ (see Section I, Scrip- tural Na.mes for Heaven); it is daily professed by the Church in the Apostles' Creed {credo . . . vitam oeternam), and it has been repeatedly defined by the Church, especially by Benedict XII (cf. Section III). Even reason, as we have seen, can demonstrate it. And surely, if the blessed knew that their happiness was ever to come to an end, this knowledge alone would prevent their happiness from being perfect. In this matter Origen fell into error; for in several pas- sages of his works he seems to incline to the opinion that rational creatures never reach a permanent final state {status termini), but that they remain forever capable of falling away from God and losing their beatitude and of always returning to Him again.
The blessed are confirmed in good; they can no longer commit even the slightest venial sin; every wish of their heart is inspired by the purest love of God. That is, beyond doubt, Catholic doctrine. Moreover this impossibility of sinning is physical. The blessed have no longer the power of choosing to do evil actions; they cannot but love God; they are merely free to show that love by one good action in preference to another. But whilst the impeccability of the blessed appears to be unanimously held by theologians, there is a diversity of opinion as to its cause. According to some, its proximate cause con- sists in this that God absolutely withholds from the blessed His co-operation to any sinful consent. The beatific vision does not, they argue, of its very nature exclude sin directly and absolutely; because God may still displease the blessed soul in various ways, e. g., by refusing a higher degree to beatitude, or by letting persons whom that soul loves die in sin and sentencing them to eternal torment. Moreover, when great suf- ferings and arduous duties accompany the beatific vision, as was the case in the human nature of Christ on earth, then at least the possibility of sin is not directly and absolutely excluded. The ultimate cause of impeccability is the freedom from sin or the state of grace in which at his death man passes into the final state {status termini), i. e. into a state of unchangeable attitude of mind and will. For it is quite in conso- nance with the nature of that state that God should offer only such co-operation as corresponds to the mental attitude man chose for himself on earth. For this reason also the souls in purgatory, although they do not see Ciod, are still utterly incapable of sin. The beatific vision itself may be called a remote cause of impeccability; for by granting so wondrous a token of His love, God may be said to undertake the obligation of guarding from all sin those whom He so highly favours, whether by refusing aU co-operation to evil acts or in some other manner. Besides, even if the clear vision of God, most worthy of their love, does not render the blessed physically unable, it certainly renders them less liable, to sin. Impeccability, as ex-
