By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ's holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.
~ Catechism of the Catholic Church #1023, quoting Benedictus Deus by Pope Benedict XII (1336)
"It [The Council of Florence] has likewise defined . . . that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another."
~ The Ecumenical Council of Florence (from the Bull "Laetentur coeli," July 6, 1439) (Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. Roy J. Deferrari [Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2002], a translation of "the thirtieth edition of Enchiridion Symbolorum by Henry Denzinger, revised by Karl Rahner, S.J., published in 1954, by Herder & Co., Freiburg", p. 219-220, #693)
The Beatific Vision
In 1336, Pope Benedict XII defined, as an official teaching of the Catholic Church, that the saved and purified after death and throughout eternity will actually see or experience God's own actual essence. In defining and articulating this teaching of divine revelation, Pope Benedict XII made a very bold move. God is infinitely above us. His essence transcends all space and time, and all limitation. That's why we can't perceive God's essence here and now. We are limited creatures, and our perceptions are always limited. Our vision and our ideas are always limited and partial, infinitely inferior to the divine essence. It is infinitely above creaturely capacity to truly, directly, see or experience God in his actual essence. Yet, since God is the one Supreme Good, and in the end there can be no lasting good outside of him, we must in the end either be brought to actually know God himself or be forever miserable, lacking the only thing that can satisfy the desire of rational beings. There is no such thing as definitive, substantial happiness outside of God. Therefore, although it was such a bold move, the Holy Spirit guided the Apostolic See of St. Peter to define for the people of God the truth that the Beatific Vision, in which is our full eternal happiness, consists in our direct experience of the essence of God.
But this affirmation raises difficult and complex questions about how this could be possible. Again, God is infinitely above us as creatures. How could it ever be possible for a mere creature to attain to the height of truly knowing the infinite God? The glorious answer is that, in salvation, we are adopted as children of God and actually come to share in his divine life. The theologians of the Church from the earliest times have therefore described our salvation as our divinization.
The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (CCC #460, footnotes removed)
Not only is this doctrine consonant with and indeed demanded by reason, it is woven throughout the Scriptures. Our salvation makes us children of God, "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17), "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Although now we see "as in a glass darkly," yet in the end, when our salvation is complete, we shall see "face to face," and although for now we know in part, then we shall know even as we ourselves are known (1 Corinthians 13:12). "Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2). "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him" (1 Corinthians 2:9).
Now none of this means, of course, that we will ever cease to be creatures, or that we will become God, so that we will be ourselves worthy of worship. Our union with Christ makes us sharers of the divine life, but only by grace. God enjoys his own divine life, the life and love of the Blessed Trinity, by nature, as belonging properly to himself. We participate in that divine life only as a free, undeserved gift of grace, as creatures lifted by God's free gift infinitely beyond what we could ever deserve or achieve by our own merits or nature. We will indeed enjoy the divine life, but always only as creatures lifted to that joy by a sheer, undeserved gift of grace.
The Indivisible Unity of the Experience of the Beatific Vision
But this is still a very deep and complex subject theologically. What will it be like for a creature to directly experience the divine essence? Of course, we can't imagine it subjectively until we are actually brought into the experience of it. Although we can understand the idea of it, the actual envisioning of it in an experiential sense is beyond our abilities in this life. But even looking at the subject intellectually and philosophically, lots of questions are raised as to what it means for a creature to experience the divine essence. I would like to discuss a couple of these questions throughout the rest of this post. The two questions are related: 1. Can a creature be brought by grace to directly experience the divine essence without being brought to know everything there is to know? 2. Are there any differences in the experience of different human individuals brought to experience the Beatific Vision, seeing that they are all brought to experience the very same divine essence and that that essence is not complex but simple (indivisible, without parts)?
Both of these questions relate to the doctrine of divine simplicity. In Catholic teaching (and according to reason), God is a simple being. He is not complex. He is not made up of parts or pieces. Therefore, it would seem, to experience God's essence must be an all-or-nothing affair. One cannot experience only a part of God's essence, for God's essence does not have parts. If one sees God, one sees all of God. One either sees God or one does not. There is no in-between, and there are no degrees. So it would seem that the answer to both questions posed above must be no. All that exists in reality is rooted in God, flowing from his divine will, either by participation in his being or by divine permission (in the case of limitation or evil). It is a commonplace in Catholic theology to note that God knows everything that happens in the history of the world without looking outside of himself simply by knowing his own divine essence, for it all logically flows from there. It would seem to follow, therefore, that if the Beatific Vision involves the direct experience of the essence of God, it must bring with it a complete knowledge of everything in the universe. And, with regard to question #2, if all the saved are experiencing the same, simple divine essence, their experiences must all be the same. No one can know God more or less, for, again, one either sees a simple essence or one does not; there can be no degrees or partiality.
It might be argued that, although one cannot see parts of an essence that has no parts, one could see a simple essence with greater or lesser clarity, and this could result in some seeing "more" of that divine essence than others. To use a space-time analogy, Dave and Joan might both experience a tree, but Dave might see more of the tree than Joan. One way that might happen is if Dave can see more branches than Joan can. But another way would be if Joan is not wearing her glasses and so, while seeing the same parts of the tree that Dave does, she sees them less clearly. Perhaps one person might see the essence of God more clearly than someone else. But I don't think this clears up the problem, for when two people see an object, one person with greater clarity than another, it is still the case that what this ultimately means is that one person is seeing parts of the object that the other person isn't seeing. For Dave to see the tree more clearly than Joan is for Dave to see more details in the tree and thus more parts of the tree. Whereas, perhaps, Joan can see the trunk of the tree, but only as a kind of blurry, vague brown shape, Dave can see a good bit of the texture and details of the bark, etc. Joan isn't seeing those details, so Dave is seeing parts of the tree that Joan is not seeing. It's really no different essentially than if Dave could see a particular tree branch that Joan couldn't see. So I don't see how this difference is going to help in terms of explaining how one person can see the divine essence more than someone else. The only way that there can be two people experiencing an object where one of them can see parts, or pieces, or aspects of the object that another person can't see is if the object is complex rather than simple, made of distinguishable, truly distinct parts. But the divine essence is simple. So it would seem that seeing the essence of God must be an all-or-nothing affair and not one that could admit of degrees.
Another problem with the idea of some people experiencing more of God than others is that God is the Supreme Good. God himself in his fullness is the source of happiness. It follows, then, that those who experience less of God experience less of the source of happiness and thus less happiness. Some people have tried to account for this by comparing it to two cups of different sizes but both full of water. Both cups are full--that is, both individuals are full of God and thus, presumably, fully happy, even though one person experiences less of God than the other. But then do we want to say that it is no disadvantage or misfortune at all for a person to experience less of God? This doesn't make sense, because, again, if God in his fullness is the source of happiness objectively, for all rational creatures, then less of God implies less happiness. If there is more of God to be had than I am getting, therefore, as a rational being, I should want that. I should be motivated to get more if I can, which implies some degree of dissatisfaction if I cannot. Also, if we say that it is no misfortunate or cause of dissatisfaction at all to have less of God, then we are saying it is not better in any way, objectively, to have more of God. How little of God is enough to fully satisfy a rational being? How little of God can you get and still have "God"? This whole line of questioning is, of course, absurd when we are talking about a simple essence, and yet this is what we are in for as soon as we admit of degrees of knowing the essence of God. Another problem with this line of reasoning is that, I think, most people who would argue it would hold that even the human being who attains to the most clear vision of God is infinitely far from experiencing God with full clarity, or all of God. That is, they would not say that it is a matter of being almost there, as if Fred just needs, say, a 5-degree increase to experience God fully, George needs a 7-degree increase, etc. They would say that even the highest achiever in this regard is infinitely distant from knowing God fully and with perfect clarity. (One of my favorite philosophers, Jonathan Edwards, expressed this by picturing the heavenly state as one where the saved are forever approaching closer and closer to a complete experience of God, gaining more and more of him throughout eternity, and yet always at an infinite distance from attaining that fullness.) But if this is the case, then even the highest attainer of the vision of God is actually getting only an infinitesimal amount of God or an infinitesimal degree of clarity in their vision of God. But how is this really any different from saying that he really gets nothing of God at all? If I only experience creatures and miss the Beatific Vision entirely, I'm getting infinitely less than the fullness of God, so looking at things this way would seem to effectively gut the Beatific Vision essentially, making our experience of the essence of God really no different qualitatively than a person not experiencing it. If our happiness is in God, this would imply that even the highest attainer of the divine vision must be infinitely miserable. Heaven has become hell.
To say that we cannot experience the fullness of God because we are creatures, so that there will always be infinitely more of God beyond our capacity to experience, even in the Beatific Vision, is to say that what we do experience will always be only on the level of creaturely capacity and therefore, really, only a creaturely kind of experience. We will not really experience the divine essence at all, but only whatever of himself he can manifest to a creaturely capacity. But that's what our experience is like now, before the Beatific Vision, and it is precisely why we are not satisfied and are looking forward to something more in heaven. God manifests himself in his creation, and we can experience that in many ways, but it always leaves us longing for more, because it is only on a creaturely level. We want to move beyond that level and be brought to experience God himself in his own essence, which is infinitely beyond creaturely capacity. If our experience will be limited to creaturely capacity--to time and space--then our experience will never be qualitatively different from what it is now. We will ever only experience temporal-spatial, limited realities (albeit God manifesting himself in those realities to the level creaturely capacity will allow). To be invited to experience the essence of God itself so that we can be fully satisfied with that which is infinite and not finite, requires us to be taken up infinitely beyond our creaturely capacities. That is exactly what the Beatific Vision promises us. But that promise is gutted by limiting that Vision to only creaturely capacity.
Degrees of Glory
So it would seem, as I said, that experiencing God's essence must be an all-or-nothing affair, not admitting of degrees. And yet, as you can see from the second quote at the top of this article, the Ecumenical Council of Florence, in 1439, taught as official doctrine that the saints, either right after death or after being purged in purgatory, "are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another" (emphasis added). Florence confirms what Pope Benedict XII had earlier defined, but it has added a statement that seems to contradict everything I've been saying in my last few paragraphs. The Council seems to be affirming that there are degrees of experiencing the Beatific Vision based on the diversity of merits of different individuals.
And this has been a doctrine commonly taught by the theologians of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches it in his Summa Theologica:
Of those who see the essence of God, one sees Him more perfectly than another. This, indeed, does not take place as if one had a more perfect similitude of God than another, since that vision will not spring from any similitude; but it will take place because one intellect will have a greater power or faculty to see God than another. The faculty of seeing God, however, does not belong to the created intellect naturally, but is given to it by the light of glory, which establishes the intellect in a kind of "deiformity," as appears from what is said above, in the preceding article.Hence the 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 charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 12, Article 6, from The Summa Theologiæ of St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, 1920. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition Copyright © 2017 by Kevin Knight. Embedded links removed, here and in the quotations below.)But no created intellect can attain to that perfect mode of the knowledge of the Divine intellect whereof it is intrinsically capable. Which thus appears—Everything is knowable according to its actuality. But God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Article 7) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God. (Ibid., Article 7)
St. Thomas has even anticipated my objection to this idea from the doctrine of divine simplicity, and has responded to this objection:
Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De Vid. Deum, Ep. cxlvii): "That is comprehended which is so seen as a whole, that nothing of it is hidden from the seer." But if God is seen in His essence, He is seen whole, and nothing of Him is hidden from the seer, since God is simple. Therefore whoever sees His essence, comprehends Him. (Ibid., Article 7)Reply to Objection 2. God is called incomprehensible not because anything of Him is not seen; but because He is not seen as perfectly as He is capable of being seen; thus when any demonstrable proposition is known by probable reason only, it does not follow that any part of it is unknown, either the subject, or the predicate, or the composition; but that it is not as perfectly known as it is capable of being known. (Ibid., Article 7)
St. Thomas has also answered my other question: "Can a creature be brought by grace to directly experience the divine essence without being brought to know everything there is to know?" He answers that those who attain the Beatific Vision do not know everything because, while they experience God's essence, they do not comprehend (that is, experience fully or with perfect clarity) God's essence. So while all knowledge can indeed, in principle, be seen in the divine essence (and God himself knows all things by knowing his own essence), yet, because we do not fully know God, we do not gain all knowledge from the Beatific Vision:
The created intellect, in seeing the divine essence, does not see in it all that God does or can do. For it is manifest that things are seen in God as they are in Him. But all other things are in God as effects are in the power of their cause. Therefore all things are seen in God as an effect is seen in its cause. Now it is clear that the more perfectly a cause is seen, the more of its effects can be seen in it. For whoever has a lofty understanding, as soon as one demonstrative principle is put before him can gather the knowledge of many conclusions; but this is beyond one of a weaker intellect, for he needs things to be explained to him separately. And so an intellect can know all the effects of a cause and the reasons for those effects in the cause itself, if it comprehends the cause wholly. Now no created intellect can comprehend God wholly, as shown above (Article 7). Therefore no created intellect in seeing God can know all that God does or can do, for this would be to comprehend His power; but of what God does or can do any intellect can know the more, the more perfectly it sees God. (Ibid., Article 8)
He raises an objection to this, which also touches another of my earlier concerns:
Objection 4. Further, the rational creature naturally desires to know all things. Therefore if in seeing God it does not know all things, its natural desire will not rest satisfied; thus, in seeing God it will not be fully happy; which is incongruous. Therefore he who sees God knows all things. (Ibid., Article 8)
And his reply:
Reply to Objection 4. The natural desire of the rational creature is to know everything that belongs to the perfection of the intellect, namely, the species and the genera of things and their types, and these everyone who sees the Divine essence will see in God. But to know other singulars, their thoughts and their deeds does not belong to the perfection of the created intellect nor does its natural desire go out to these things; neither, again, does it desire to know things that exist not as yet, but which God can call into being. Yet if God alone were seen, Who is the fount and principle of all being and of all truth, He would so fill the natural desire of knowledge that nothing else would be desired, and the seer would be completely beatified. Hence Augustine says (Confess. v): "Unhappy the man who knoweth all these" (i.e. all creatures) "and knoweth not Thee! but happy whoso knoweth Thee although he know not these. And whoso knoweth both Thee and them is not the happier for them, but for Thee alone." (Ibid., Article 8)
I confess I am not entirely satisfied with St. Thomas's defenses of the "degrees of glory" point of view or his responses to the objections to it. I still do not see how he can avoid gutting the simplicity of God. St. Thomas recognizes the problem here--that seeing God in "parts" would seem to contradict the divine simplicity. But I don't find his solution--that God has no parts, it's simply a matter of some people seeing him "more clearly" than others--to solve the problem, because, as I argued earlier, to see something with greater or lesser degrees of clarity is really just a subspecies of seeing some but not all parts of a divisible or complex object.
I also find his response to the "people won't be happy if they don't know everything" objection unsatisfying. His response seems to miss the point, nor do I find it to be true to human psychology. It is obvious that human beings are full of curiosity. We are explorers by nature. We always want to know more and more about reality. The reason for this is that we were made for God. Only God is the Supreme Good, and God is the Fullness of Reality, the Supreme Being. If happiness objectively consists in knowing the Supreme Being who is the Supreme Good, then anything other than that will be fundamentally dissatisfying. That is why we cannot find final satisfaction in the experience of any creature. As St. Augustine famously put it, "Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee." Or, as Pascal put it:
What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.
St. Thomas's response to the objection is that it won't matter that we won't know everything because we will know God, and that will be enough. But, in his view, it seems, we won't know all of God, but only part of him--an infinitesimal part of him, infinitely removed from full comprehension of God. So how can we be satisfied? Also, St. Thomas suggests that people don't really care to know the details of everything. Really? It seems to me that human nature is just the opposite. Just imagine a human being who knew almost everything, but they became aware that there was just one thing they didn't know. Wouldn't that human being find it to forever gnaw at him until he could learn about that one thing? Again, the reason for this is because we are made to be filled only by the Supreme Being, the Fullness of Reality, in whose essence is seen and known all of reality.
I am very loath to disagree with St. Thomas on anything, since he is the premier theologian of 2,000 years of Catholic Church history. However, St. Thomas's opinions are not, per se, the official doctrine of the Church. Yes, the Church has endorsed St. Thomas's overall theological methodology, but not every single thing that St. Thomas taught. For example, St. Thomas famously rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and argues against it in the Summa (though, of course, this was centuries before it was a defined and required doctrine--and he did acknowledge Mary's total freedom from actual sin, which had been the universal position of the Church for centuries before him). He also taught that heretics ought generally to be executed, which went beyond the official position of the Church on this point, even in the Middle Ages. So, if the evidence drives me to it, I'm willing to argue with St. Thomas on certain points. I'll come back to this later. But I have a bigger problem in the Council of Florence, for this was an ecumenical council of the Church and, as such, its teachings are indeed authoritative and binding on the entire Church.
But I'll go further than that. Not only is the doctrine of the "degrees of glory" binding and official per the Council of Florence, it actually has the support of reason as well, despite all I've said above. So even if the Council of Florence hadn't taught this, I would be compelled by reason to acknowledge it and fit it into my system. St. Thomas gets at this reason in what I quoted earlier (from the First Part, Question 12, Article 6, of the Summa):
Hence the 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 charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified.
Every one of us, as an individual, is unique. Our life experiences are unique. But it's through our life experiences that God prepares us by grace to experience the Beatific Vision. Our experience of anything is necessarily colored by our perspective, and our perspective is shaped by our beliefs, our values, our memories, our previous experiences, etc. Two individuals may experience the same present situation, and yet their experience of that situation will be different because of the different life trajectories that have brought them to that point.
Imagine two individuals: Bob and Sam. Bob's life has been much more difficult than Sam's in some ways. He has faced greater challenges in his life than Sam has. He has had to make a greater number of harder choices. Both Bob and Sam die in a state of grace, but Bob has had to suffer much more to be faithful to Christ than Sam has. And his sufferings have strengthened him in virtue in a way that Sam has not experienced. His awareness and experience of God, accordingly, is overall richer than Sam's is. (I'm not saying, by the way, that it is always the case that those who suffer more have a greater experience of God. There is an enormous amount of complexity in such things. My intent here is simply to give one particular example in order to address the theological issue under consideration.) Both Bob and Sam eventually die, and they both attain to the Beatific Vision. Will it not necessarily be the case that Bob's and Sam's experiences of that Vision will be different? They must be different, because their life trajectories that have led them to that Vision have been so different. In this case, it so happens that Bob has had a deeper preparation than Sam has for that Vision, and so his experience of the Vision is deeper. In the language of the Council of Florence, both Bob and Sam "see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another." Or, to use St. Thomas's language, Bob, because of his experiences, his choices, and his deeper virtue and merits, when he reaches God, will have "more of the light of glory [and thus] will see God the more perfectly; and he will have a fuller participation of the light of glory [because he] has more charity; because where there is the greater charity, there is the more desire; and desire in a certain degree makes the one desiring apt and prepared to receive the object desired. Hence he who possesses the more charity, will see God the more perfectly, and will be the more beatified."
And this diversity in our experience of the Beatific Vision is not limited to a comparison of the degree of merit. Even apart from the question of greater or lesser merit, every individual's life experiences and trajectory are very different, and so each person's experience of the Beatific Vision must be different since that experience will be the culmination of a particular life trajectory different from that experienced by other people.
Reconciling the Simplicity of the Divine Essence with Degrees of Glory: The Communion of Saints
So now comes the big question: How can reconcile the two things I've been arguing throughout this article? How can we reconcile, on the one hand, the idea that all those who attain the Beatific Vision will experience the very essence of God, when that essence is absolutely simple and so cannot admit of experience by degree or by parts, and, on the other hand, the idea that it must be so that different individuals will experience the Beatific Vision differently because of their diverse life experiences and trajectories?
I propose that an answer to this question can be found in the fact that, when we get to heaven, we will be unified not only with God but also with each other. It is not just communion with God that will be perfected in heaven, but the communion of the saints as well. Because of the communion of saints, we are not on our own as individuals. It's not just "me and God." It's "us and God." We are enriched not only directly by our own personal fellowship with God, but also through the communion of all the saints. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it (#947):
947 "Since all the faithful form one body, the good of each is communicated to the others. . . . We must therefore believe that there exists a communion of goods in the Church. But the most important member is Christ, since he is the head. . . . Therefore, the riches of Christ are communicated to all the members, through the sacraments."480 "As this Church is governed by one and the same Spirit, all the goods she has received necessarily become a common fund."481
This, of, course, has many manifestations and implications in the life of the Church. It's the basis for the sacramental system, the intercession of the saints, our own prayers for each other on earth and for those who have died, indulgences, etc. In general, it's a central part of our life as Christians and how God relates to his people.
And I think it has crucial ramifications for our current topic as well. Think back to Bob and Sam. When they get to heaven, their different life experience, levels of virtue and merit, etc., will necessarily give them different experiences of the Beatific Vision--at least, when we are considering what they themselves, by themselves, bring to the table. But Bob and Sam will not only find perfect unity with God in heaven, but with each other as well. They will share with each other all that they have and be enriched by each other. Everyone else's life experiences and trajectories will enrich me when we get to heaven, and my experiences will enrich everyone else as well. This allows us to talk about our experience of the Beatific Vision in two ways. We can talk about each of our individual, unique experiences of the Beatific Vision that flow from our own peculiar life trajectories. We can talk about the Beatific Vision from Bob's unique point of view as opposed to Sam's unique point of view. And when we do that, we will note the differences, the diversity. But then we must remember that Bob's and Sam's points of view will be enriched by each other's. Bob's and Sam's experience of God will not be limited only to what they themselves, individually, bring to the table, as if the other person never existed. Sam's contribution, in our scenario, will be, overall, less than Bob's (though that doesn't mean that Sam's unique perspective will not enrich Bob as well in some ways). His reward in the Beatific Vision will be less. But Sam's experience of the Beatific Vision will not be limited to what his individual reward would entail by itself, because his experience will be enriched by Bob's sharing his merits and reward with him. What Sam may lack because of his own life trajectory, he will share in by grace in the communion of the saints in virtue of Bob's life trajectory. And therefore, when all the sharing has been taken into account and everyone's individual perspective and experience have been enriched by that sharing, together they will all experience the single, indivisible divine essence which is one and which admits of no diversity.
As an analogy, think of a rainbow. There are many colors in a rainbow, and yet the white light that makes the rainbow is only one. All the colors individually are diverse, but when they are united, they become one. And yet the individual frequencies and wavelengths of the colors remain in the white light. As this article on study.com puts it, "White light is made up of all the colors and frequencies of the visible light spectrum on the electromagnetic spectrum." Bob will still be Bob and Sam will still be Sam. There will always be a fundamental difference between what Sam experiences from himself and what he gains from Bob, and we can always talk about the different perspectives of Bob and Sam (even when, through sharing, they are experiencing something together, still there will be the difference of Bob experiencing it as the fruit of his own life and Sam experiencing it as the fruit of Bob's life), just as we can always say that, while Christ shares his own divine life and Sonship with us, yet it will always be the case that Christ enjoys that divine life as a fruit of his own nature and merits while we will enjoy it only as a gift of grace through Christ. In both cases, the unity of experience will not cancel out the different trajectories that create the different perspectives that arrive at that unity of experience. Both sides of the equation will always remain true. Sam's reward will always be greater, because, although he shares all that he has with Bob, who is enriched by the sharing, yet there is a greater merit and reward when one reaps the fruits of one's own labors (recognizing, of course, that even this is ultimately a gift of grace) than when one shares in the fruits of another's labors. And yet, through the sharing, both will reap the benefits of each other's experiences and rewards, and will rejoice in the other. Bob, though his personal reward is less and he has less merit, yet will rejoice fully in not only what he has achieved but what Sam has received and achieved as well, recognizing that God has given to all as he sees fit and his plan is fully and perfectly accomplished. "God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" (1 Corinthians 12:24-27).
But let's return briefly, before we end, to St. Thomas's claim that we won't know everything because we won't comprehend God. Is that the case? In light of what we've seen, I think we can answer this by saying that, considering our own unique points of view rooted in our unique life trajectories, none of us by ourselves will have the complete picture. However, if we factor in the communion of saints, what each of us as an individual lacks will be complemented by what others share, so that, in the end, we will gain a complete picture together. I think we have to say this in order to preserve the fundamental unity of the divine essence and the intrinsic all-or-nothing nature of experiencing a simple essence. To know the divine essence must necessarily involve an experience of the complete picture. As creatures, of course we cannot comprehend God. We are at an infinite distance from God. And yet the whole point of our salvation is that we are raised beyond our creaturely capacities to experience the divine life and essence itself. We truly get to experience God himself. However, again, we will still remain creatures. Even though we will share in God's experience of his own life, yet, considering the distinction of who we are and who God is and the different pathways by which we have arrived at the experience of the divine life (God by eternal nature and we through a temporal process of salvation by grace), we will always be able to speak of different perspectives as we experience the divine life. There will always be a fundamental distinction between God experiencing his own life as his own life and we glorified creatures experiencing God's life, not as our own intrinsically, but as God's, shared with us freely and graciously. Thus, for all eternity, we will rely wholly on God's grace and give him all the glory and recognize his infinite distance from us as creatures, even as we partake in the divine nature by grace and see God as he is, face to face, sharing in the Trinitarian life. I don't know what St. Thomas would say to every point of this, but, again, even if he would disagree with some of it, it is permissible to disagree with him if the evidence calls for it. But I'm not sure he ever considered the question from this point of view, so it is difficult to know how he would have responded to this line of reasoning. We'll have to ask him that when we get to heaven!
So, in conclusion, by means of the communion of the saints we can reconcile these two teachings of the Church that appear, on the surface, to be in tension with each other. We can preserve the unity and simplicity of the divine essence on the one hand, and thus the unity of all of our experiences of the Beatific Vision without creating a situation where we would have only partial experience of the divine essence or multiple, fundamentally different divine essences. And, on the other hand, we can preserve the true diversity that must exist in the different perspectives of all those who attain to the Beatific Vision due to their different life experiences and trajectories.
Published on the feast of the First Martyrs of the Holy Roman Church.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment