 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
This subject will be treated under seven headings:
I. Name and Place of Heaven;
II. Existence of Heaven;
III. Supernatural Character of Heaven and the Beatific Vision;
IV. Eternity of Heaven and Impeccability of the Blessed;
V. Essential Beatitude;
VI. Accidental Beatitude;
VII. Attributes of Beatitude.
Heaven (Anglo-Saxonheofon, O.S.hevan andhimil, originallyhimin) corresponds to the Gothichimin-s. Bothheaven andhimil are formed fromhimin by a regular change of consonants:heaven, by changingm beforen intov; andhimil, by changingn of the unaccented ending intol. Some deriveheaven from the rootham, "to cover" (cf. the Gothicham-ôn and the GermanHem-d). According to this derivation heaven would be conceived as the roof of the world. Others trace a connection betweenhimin (heaven) andhome; according to this view, which seems to be the more probable, heaven would be the abode of theGodhead. The Latincoelum (koilon, a vault) is derived by many from the root ofcelare "to cover, to conceal" (coelum, "ceiling" "roof of the world"). Others, however think it is connected with the Germanichimin. The Greekouranos is probably derived from the rootvar, which also connotes theidea of covering. The Hebrew name for heaven is thought to be derived from a word meaning "on high"; accordingly, heaven would designate the upper region of the world.
In theHoly Bible the termheaven denotes, in the first place, the bluefirmament, or the region of the clouds that pass along the sky.Genesis 1:20, speaks of thebirds "under thefirmament of heaven". In other passages it denotes the region of the stars that shine in the sky. Furthermore heaven is spoken of as the dwelling ofGod; for, althoughGod is omnipresent, He manifests Himself in a special manner in the light and grandeur of thefirmament. Heaven also is the abode of theangels; for they are constantly withGod and see His face. WithGod in heaven are likewise thesouls of the just (2 Corinthians 5:1;Matthew 5:3, 12). InEphesians 4:8 sq., we are told thatChrist conducted to heaven thepatriarchs who had been inlimbo (limbus patrum). Thus the termheaven has come to designate both thehappiness and the abode of just in the next life. The present article treats as heaven in this sense only.
InHoly Scripture it is called:
Where is heaven, the dwelling ofGod and the blessed?
Some are of opinion that heaven is everywhere, asGod is everywhere. According to this view the blessed can move about freely in every part of theuniverse, and still remain withGod and see everywhere. Everywhere, too, they remain withChrist (in His sacred Humanity) and with thesaints and theangels. For, according to the advocates of this opinion, thespatial distances of this world must no longer impede the mutual intercourse of blessed.
In general, however,theologians deem more appropriate that there should be a special andglorious abode, in which the blessed have their peculiar home and where they usually abide, even though they be free to go about in this world. For the surroundings in the midst of which the blessed have their dwelling must be in accordance with theirhappy state; and the internal union of charity which joins them in affection must find its outward expression in community of habitation. At the end of the world, the earth together with the celestial bodies will begloriously transformed into a part of the dwelling-place of the blessed (Revelation 21). Hence there seems to be no sufficient reason for attributing a metaphorical sense to those numerous utterances of theBible which suggest a definite dwelling-place of the blessed.Theologians, therefore, generally hold that the heaven of the blessed is a special place with definite limits. Naturally, this place is held to exist, not within the earth, but, in accordance with the expressions ofScripture, without and beyond its limits. All further details regarding its locality are quite uncertain. TheChurch has decided nothing on this subject.
There is a heaven, i.e.,God will bestowhappiness and the richestgifts on all those who depart this life free fromoriginal sin and personal mortalsin, and who are, consequently, in the state ofjustice and friendship withGod. Concerning the purification of thosejustsouls who depart in venialsin or who are still subject to temporal punishment forsin, seePURGATORY. On the lot of those who die free from personalsin, but infected withoriginal sin, seeLIMBO (limbus pervulorum). On the immediate beginning ofeternalhappiness after death, or eventually, after the passage throughpurgatory, seePARTICULAR JUDGMENT. Theexistence of heaven is, of course, denied byatheists,materialists, andpantheists of all centuries as well as by thoserationalists who teach that thesoul perishes with the body — in short, by all who deny theexistence of God or theimmortality of thesoul. But, for the rest, if we abstract from the specificquality and thesupernatural character of heaven, thedoctrine has never met with any opposition worthy of note. Even merereason canprove theexistence of heaven or of thehappy state of the just in the next life.
We shall give a brief outline of the principal arguments. From these we shall, at the same time, see that the bliss of heaven iseternal and consists primarily in the possession ofGod, and that heaven presupposes acondition of perfecthappiness, in which every wish of the heart finds adequate satisfaction.
Revelation also proclaims theexistence of heaven. This we have already seen in the preceding section from the many names by which theBible designates heaven; and from the texts ofScripture, still to be quoted on thenature and peculiarconditions of heaven.
(1) In heaven the just will seeGod by directintuition, clearly and distinctly. Here on earth we have no immediate perception ofGod; we see Him but indirectly in the mirror ofcreation. We get our first and directknowledge from creatures, and then, by reasoning from these, we ascend to aknowledge ofGod according to the imperfect likeness which creatures bear to theirCreator. But in doing so we proceed to a large extent by way of negation, i.e., by removing from theDivine Being the imperfections proper to creatures. In heaven, however, no creature will stand betweenGod and thesoul. He himself will be the immediate object of itsvision.Scripture andtheology tell us that the blessed seeGod face to face. And because thisvision is immediate and direct, it is also exceedingly clear and distinct.Ontologists assert that we perceiveGod directly in this life, though ourknowledge of Him is vague and obscure; but avision of the Divine Essence, immediate yet vague and obscure, implies a contradiction. The blessed seeGod, not merely according to the measure of His likeness imperfectly reflected increation, but they see Him as He is, after the manner of His own Being. That the blessed seeGod is adogma offaith, expresslydefined byBenedict XII (1336):
Wedefine that thesouls of all thesaints in heaven have seen and do see the Divine Essence by directintuition and face to face [visione intuitivâ et etiam faciali], in such wise that nothingcreated intervenes as an object ofvision, but the Divine Essence presents itself to their immediate gaze, unveiled, clearly and openly; moreover, that in thisvision they enjoy the Divine Essence, and that, in virtue of thisvision and this enjoyment, they are truly blessed and possesseternal life andeternal rest" (Denzinger, Enchiridion, ed. 10, n. 530--old edition, n, 456; cf. nn. 693, 1084, 1458 old, nn. 588, 868).
TheScriptural argument is based especially on1 Corinthians 13:8-13 (cf.Matthew 18:10;1 John 3:2;2 Corinthians 5:6-8, etc.). The argument fromtradition is carried out in detail byPetavius ("De. theol. dogm.", I, i, VII, c. 7). Several Fathers, who seemingly contradict thisdoctrine, in reality maintain it; they merely teach that the bodily eye cannot seeGod, or that the blessed do not fully comprehendGod, or that thesoul cannot seeGod with its natural powers in this life (cf.Francisco Suárez, "De Deo", l. II, c. 7, n. 17).
(2) It is offaith that thebeatific vision issupernatural, that it transcends the powers and claims ofcreatednature, ofangels as well as of men. The oppositedoctrine of theBeghards and Beguines was condemned (1311) by theCouncil of Vienne (Denz., n. 475 — old, n. 403), and likewise a similarerror ofBaius byPius V (Denz., n. 1003 — old, n. 883). TheVatican Council expressly declared thatman has been elevated byGod to asupernatural end (Denz., n. 1786 — old, n. 1635; cf. nn. 1808, 1671 — old, nn. 1655, 1527). In this connection we must also mention the condemnation of theOntologists, and in particular ofRosmini, who held that an immediate but indeterminate perception ofGod is essential to the humanintellect and the beginning of allhumanknowledge (Denz., nn. 1659, 1927 — old, nn. 1516, 1772).
That thevision of God issupernatural can also be shown from thesupernatural character ofsanctifying grace (Denz., n. 1021 — old, n. 901); for, if the preparation for thatvision issupernatural. Even unaidedreason recognizes that theimmediate vision of God, even if it be at all possible, can never be natural for a creature. For it is manifest that everycreatedmind first perceives its own self and creatures similar to itself by which it is surrounded, and from these it rises to aknowledge ofGod as the source of their being and their last end. Hence its naturalknowledge ofGod is necessarily mediate and analogous; since it forms itsideas and judgments aboutGod after the imperfect likeness which its own self and its surroundings bear to Him. Such is the only meansnature offers for acquiring aknowledge ofGod, and more than this is not due to anycreatedintellect; consequently, the second and essentially higher way of seeingGod byintuitive vision can but be a gratuitous gift of Divinegoodness.
These considerationsprove, not merely that theimmediate vision of God exceeds the natural claims of all creatures in actualexistence; but they alsoprove againstRipalda, Becaenus, and others (Recently also Morlias), thatGod cannot create any spirit which would, by virtue of itsnature, be entitled to theintuitive vision of the Divine Essence. Therefore, astheologians express it, nocreatedsubstance is of itsnaturesupernatural; however, theChurch has given no decision on this matter. Cf. Palmieri, "De Deo creante et elevante" (Rome, 1878), thes. 39; Morlais, "Le Surnaturel absolu", in "Revue du Clergé Français", XXXI (1902), 464 sqq., and, for the opposite view,Bellamy, "La question du Surnaturel absolu", ibid., XXXV (1903), 419 sqq.St. Thomas seems to teach (I.12.1) thatman has a natural desire for thebeatific vision. Elsewhere, however, he frequently insists on thesupernatural character of that vision (e.g.III.9.2 ad 3um). Hence in the former place he obviously supposes thatman knows fromrevelation both the possibility of thebeatific vision and his destiny to enjoy it. On this supposition it is indeed quite natural forman to have so strong a desire for that vision, that any inferior kind of beatitude can no longer duly satisfy him.
(3) To enable it to seeGod, theintellect of the blessed is supernaturally perfected by the light ofglory (lumen gloriae). This was defined by theCouncil of Vienne in 1311 (Denz., n. 475; old, n. 403); and it is also evident from thesupernatural character of thebeatific vision. For thebeatific vision transcends the natural powers of theintellect; therefore, to seeGod theintellect stands in need of somesupernatural strength, not merely transient, but permanent as the vision itself. This permanent invigoration is called the "light ofglory", because it enables thesouls inglory to seeGod with theirintellect, just as material light enables our bodily eyes to see corporeal objects.
On thenature of the light ofglory theChurch has decided nothing.Theologians have elaborated various theories about it, which, however, need not be examined in detail. According to the view commonly and perhaps most reasonably held, the light ofglory is aquality Divinely infused into thesoul and similar tosanctifying grace, thevirtue offaith, and the othersupernaturalvirtues in thesouls of the just (cf.Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 3rd ed., Rome, 1883, thes. 16). It is controverted amongtheologians whether or not amental image, be it aspecies expressa or a species impressa, is required for thebeatific vision. But by many this is regarded as largely a controversy about the appropriateness of the term, rather than about the matter itself. The more common and probably more correct view denies the presence of any image in the strict sense of the word, because nocreated image can representGod as He is (cf.Mazzella, "De Deo creante", 3rd ed., Rome, 1892, disp. IV, a. 7, sec. 1). Thebeatific vision is obviously a created act inherent in thesoul, and not, as a few of the oldertheologians thought, the uncreated act ofGod's ownintellect communicated to thesoul. For, "as seeing and knowing are immanent vital actions, thesoul can see orknowGod by its own activity only, and not through any activity exerted by some otherintellect. Cf. Gutherlet, "Das lumen gloriae" in "Pastor bonus", XIV (1901), 297 sqq.
(4)Theologians distinguish the primary and the secondary object of thebeatific vision. The primary object isGod Himself as He is. The blessed see the Divine Essence by directintuition, and, because of the absolute simplicity ofGod, they necessarily see all His perfections and all thepersons of the Trinity. Moreover, since they see thatGod can create countless imitations of HisEssence, the entire domain of possible creatures lies open to their view, though indeterminately and in general. For the actualdecrees ofGod are not necessarily an object of thatvision, except in as afar asGod pleases to manifest them. Therefore finite things are not necessarily seen by the blessed, even if they are an actual object ofGod's will. Still less are they anecessary object of vision as long as they are mere possible objects of the Divine will. Consequently the blessed have a distinctknowledge of individual possible things only in so far asGod wishes to grant thisknowledge. Thus, ifGod so willed, a blessedsoul might see the Divine Essence without seeing in it the possibility of any individual creature in particular. But in fact, there is always connected with thebeatific vision aknowledge of various things external toGod, of thepossible as well as of theactual. All these things, taken collectively, constitute the secondary object of thebeatific vision.
The blessedsoul sees these secondary objects inGod either directly (formaliter), or in as far asGod is theircause (causaliter). It sees inGod directly whatever thebeatific vision discloses to its immediate gaze without the aid of anycreatedmental image (species impressa). InGod, as in their cause, thesoul sees all those things which it perceives with the aid of acreatedmental image, a mode of perception granted byGod as a natural complement of thebeatific vision. The number of objects seen directly inGod cannot be increased unless thebeatific vision itself be intensified; but the number of things seen inGod as their cause may be greater of smaller, or it may very without any corresponding change in the vision itself.
The secondary object of thebeatific vision comprises everything the blessed may have a reasonable interest in knowing. It includes, in the first place, all themysteries which thesoulbelieved while on earth. Moreover, the blessed see each other and rejoice in the company of those whom death separated from them. The veneration paid them on earth and theprayers addressed to them are also known to the blessed. All that we have said on the secondary object of thebeatific vision is the common and reliable teaching oftheologians. In recent times (Holy Office, 14 Dec., 1887)Rosmini was condemned because he taught that the blessed do not seeGod Himself, but only His relations to creatures (Denz., 1928-1930 — old, 1773-75). In the earlier ages we findGregory the Great ("Moral.", l. XVIII, c. liv, n. 90, in P.L., LXXVI, XCIII) combating theerror of a few who maintained that the blessed to not seeGod, but only a brilliant light streaming forth from Him. Also in theMiddle Ages there are traces of thiserror (cf.Franzelin, "De Deo uno", 2nd ed., thes. 15, p. 192).
(5) Although the blessed seeGod, they do not comprehend Him, becauseGod is absolutely incomprehensible to everycreatedintellect, and He cannot grant to any creature the power of comprehending Him as He comprehends Himself.Francisco Suárez rightly calls this arevealedtruth ("De Deo", l. II, c. v, n. 6); for theFourth Council of the Lateran and theVatican Council enumerated incomprehensibility among the absoluteattributes of God (Denz., nn. 428, 1782 — old nn. 355, 1631). The Fathers defend thistruth againstEunomius, anArian, who asserted that we comprehendGod fully even in this life. The blessed comprehendGod neither intensively nor extensively — not intensively, because their vision has not thatinfinite clearness with whichGod is knowable and with which He knows Himself, nor extensively, because their vision does not actually and clearly extend to everything thatGod sees in HisEssence. For they cannot by a single act of theirintellect represent every possible creature individually, clearly, and distinctly, asGod does; such an act would beinfinite, and aninfinite act is incompatible with thenature of acreated and finiteintellect. The blessed see theGodhead in its entirety, but only with a limited clearness of vision (Deum totum sed non totaliter). They see theGodhead in its entirety, because they see all the perfections ofGod and all the Persons ofthe Trinity; and yet their vision is limited, because it has neither theinfinite clearness that corresponds to the Divine perfections, nor does it extend to everything that actually is, or may still become, an object ofGod's free decrees. Hence it follows that one blessedsoul may seeGod more perfectly than another, and that thebeatific vision admits of various degrees.
(6) Thebeatific vision is amystery. Of coursereason cannotprove the impossibility of such a vision. For why shouldGod, in Hisomnipotence, be unable to draw so near and adapt Himself so fully to ourintellect, that thesoul 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 cannotprove absolutely that this is possible; for thebeatific vision lies beyond the natural destiny of ourintellect, and it is so extraordinary a mode of perception 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 thesupernatural. As we have seen,man is bynature entitled to beatitude, provided he does not forfeit it by his own fault. We have also seen that beatitude iseternal and that it consists in the possession ofGod, for creatures cannot truly satisfyman. Again, as we have shown, thesoul is to possessGod byknowledge andlove. But theknowledge to whichman is entitled bynature is not an immediate vision, but an analogous perception ofGod in the mirror ofcreation, still a very perfectknowledge which really satisfies the heart. Hence the beatitude to which alone we have a natural claim consists in that perfect analogousknowledge and in thelove corresponding to thatknowledge. This natural beatitude is the lowest kind offelicity whichGod, in Hisgoodness and wisdom, can grant to sinless man. But, instead of an analogousknowledge of HisEssence He may grant to the blessed a directintuition which includes all the excellence of natural beatitude and surpasses it beyond measure. It is this higher kind of beatitude that it has pleasedGod to grant us. And by granting it He not merely satisfies our natural desire forhappiness but He satisfies it in superabundance.
It is adogma offaith that thehappiness of the blessed is everlasting. Thistruth is clearly contained in theHoly Bible (see Section I); it is daily professed by theChurch in theApostles' Creed (credo . . . vitam aeternam), and it has been repeatedlydefined by theChurch, especially byBenedict XII (cf. Section III). Evenreason, as we have seen, can demonstrate it. And surely, if the blessedknew that theirhappiness was ever to come to an end, thisknowledge alone would prevent theirhappiness from being perfect.
In this matterOrigen fell intoerror; for in several passages of his works he seems to incline to the opinion thatrational creatures never reach a permanent final state (status termini), but that they remain forever capable of falling away fromGod 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 venialsin; every wish of their heart is inspired by the purestlove ofGod. That is, beyonddoubt,Catholic doctrine. Moreover this impossibility ofsinning is physical. The blessed have no longer the power of choosing to doevil actions; they cannot butloveGod; they are merely free to show thatlove by one good action in preference to another. But whilst the impeccability of the blessed appears to be unanimously held bytheologians, there is a diversity of opinion as to its cause. According to some, its proximate cause consists in this thatGod absolutely withholds from the blessed His co-operation to anysinfulconsent. Thebeatific vision does not, they argue, of its verynature excludesin directly and absolutely; becauseGod may still displease the blessedsoul in various ways, e.g., by refusing a higher degree to beatitude, or by lettingpersons whom thatsoul loves die insin and sentencing them to eternal torment. Moreover, when great sufferings and arduousduties accompany thebeatific vision, as was the case in thehumannature ofChrist on earth, then at least the possibility ofsin is not directly and absolutely excluded.
The ultimate cause of impeccability is the freedom fromsin or the state of grace in which at his deathman passes into the final state (status termini), i.e. into a state of unchangeable attitude ofmind and will. For it is quite in consonance with the nature of that state thatGod should offer only such co-operation as corresponds to themental attitudeman chose for himself on earth. For this reason also thesouls inpurgatory, although they do not seeGod, are still utterly incapable ofsin. Thebeatific vision itself may be called a remote cause of impeccability; for by granting so wondrous a token of Hislove,God may be said to undertake theobligation of guarding from allsin those whom He so highly favours, whether by refusing all co-operation to evil acts or in some other manner. Besides, even if the clearvision of God, most worthy of theirlove, does not render the blessed physically unable, it certainly renders them less liable, tosin.
Impeccability, as explained by the representatives of this opinion, is not, properly speaking, extrinsic, as is often wrongly asserted; but it is rather intrinsic, because it is strictly due to the final state of blessedness and especially to thebeatific vision. This is substantially the opinion of theScotists, likewise of many others, especially in recent times. Nevertheless theThomists, and with them the greater number oftheologians, maintain that thebeatific vision of its verynature directly excludes the possibility ofsin. For no creature can have a clearintuitive view of the Supreme Good without being by that very fact alone irresistibly drawn tolove it efficaciously and to fulfil for its sake even the most arduousduties without the least repugnance. TheChurch has left this matter undecided. The present writer rather inclines to the opinion of theScotists because of its bearing on the question of the liberty ofChrist. (SeeHELLunder the heading Impenitence of the Damned.)
We distinguish objective and subjective beatitude. Objective beatitude is that good, the possession of which makes ushappy; subjective beatitude is the possession of that good. Theessence of objective beatitude, or the essential object of beatitude isGod alone. For the possession ofGod assures us also the possession of every other good we may desire; moreover, everything else is so immeasurably inferior toGod that its possession can only be looked upon as somethingaccidental to beatitude. Finally, that all else is of minor importance for beatitude is evident from the fact that nothing saveGod alone is capable of satisfyingman. Accordingly theessence of subjective beatitude is the possession ofGod, and it consists in the acts of vision,love, andjoy. The blessedloveGod with a twofoldlove; with thelove of complacency, by which theyloveGod for His own sake, and secondly with thelove less properly so called, by which theylove Him as the source of theirhappiness (amor concupiscentiae). In consonance with this twofoldlove the blessed have a twofoldjoy; firstly, thejoy oflove in the strict sense of the word, by which they rejoice over theinfinite beatitude which they see inGod Himself, precisely because it is thehappiness ofGod whom theylove, and secondly, thejoy springing fromlove in a wider sense, by which they rejoice inGod because He is the source of their own supremehappiness. These five acts constitute theessence of (subjective) beatitude, or in more precise terms, its physicalessence. In thistheologians agree.
Heretheologians go a step farther and inquire whether among those five acts of the blessed there is one act, or a combination of several acts, which constitutes theessence of beatitude in a stricter sense, i.e. itsmetaphysicalessence in contradistinction to its physicalessence. In general their answer is affirmative; but in assigning themetaphysicalessence their opinions diverge. The present writer prefers the opinion ofSt. Thomas, who holds that themetaphysicalessence consists in the vision alone. For, as we have just seen, the acts oflove andjoy are merely a kind of secondary attributes of the vision; and this remainstrue, whetherlove andjoy result directly from the vision, as theThomists hold, or whether thebeatific vision by its very nature calls for confirmation inlove andGod's efficacious protection againstsin.
Besides the essential object of beatitude thesouls in heaven enjoy manyblessingsaccidental to beatitude. We shall mention only a few:
Sinceeternalhappiness is metaphorically called amarriage of thesoul withChrist,theologians also speak of the bridal endowments of the blessed. They distinguish seven of these gifts, four of which belong to the glorified body — light, impassibility, agility, subtility (seeRESURRECTION); and three to thesoul — vision, possession, enjoyment (visio, comprehensio, fruitio). Yet in the explanation given by thetheologians of the three gifts of thesoul we find but little conformity. We may identify the gift of vision with the habit of the light ofglory, the gift of possession with the habit of thatlove in a wider sense which has found inGod the fulfilment of its desires, and the gift of enjoyment we may identify with the habit oflove properly so called (halitus caritatis) which rejoices to be withGod; in this view these three infused habits would he considered simply as ornaments to beautify thesoul. (Cf.St. Thomas,Supp:95)
There are various degrees of beatitude in heaven corresponding to the various degrees ofmerit. This is adogma offaith, defined by theCouncil of Florence (Denz., n. 693 — old, n. 588). TheBible teaches thistruth in very many passages (e.g., wherever it speaks ofeternalhappiness as a reward), and the Fathers defend it against theheretical attacks ofJovinian. It istrue that, according toMatthew 20:1-16, each labourer receives a penny; but by this comparisonChrist merely teaches that, although the Gospel was preached to theJews first, yet in theKingdom of Heaven there is no distinction betweenJew andGentile, and that no one will receive a greater reward merely because of being a son ofJudah. The various degrees of beatitude are not limited to theaccidental blessings, but they are found first and foremost in thebeatific vision itself. For, as we have already pointed out, the vision, too, admits of degrees. Theseessential degrees of beatitude are, asFrancisco Suárez rightly observes ("De beat.", d. xi, s. 3, n. 5), that threefold fruitChrist distinguishes when He says that theword of God bears fruit in some thirty, in some sixty, in some a hundredfold (Matthew 13:23). And it is by a mere accommodation of the text thatSt. Thomas (Supp:96, aa. 2 sqq.) and othertheologians apply this text to the different degrees in theaccidental beatitude merited by marriedpersons,widows, andvirgins.
Thehappiness of heaven is essentially unchangeable; still it admits of someaccidental changes. Thus we may suppose that the blessed experience specialjoy when they receive greaterveneration frommen on earth. In particular, a certain growth inknowledge by experience is not excluded; for instance, astime goes on, new free actions ofmen may becomeknown to the blessed, or personal observation and experience may throw a new light on things alreadyknown. And after thelast judgmentaccidental beatitude will receive some increase from the union ofsoul and body, and from the sight of the new heaven and the earth.
APA citation.Hontheim, J.(1910).Heaven. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm
MLA citation.Hontheim, Joseph."Heaven."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 7.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1910.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm>.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.