Free Will in Heaven

[Tarsier]

Mother Mary was not some automaton; although created like Eve, free from original sin, she willingly gave herself to God.

Totally agree Mary was not an automaton. My post specifically refuted the idea that the only way we could exist without sin was in such a state.

To draw a distinction, though, Mary was “full of grace”. Was the same true of Eve? I don’t recall the title kecharitomene applied to Eve, right?

So my question remains (and I need to read the earlier quote more carefully when I have some time), which is that if Mary can be filled with a level of grace not given to the rest of us and still “willingly” give herself to God, then the apologetic argument I cited loses force.

Also, am I understanding correctly from tonyrey’s first point and your inclusion of it in the quote, followed by the thumb’s up, that “It is impossible for God to know all our decisions” is an acceptable possibility in Catholic thought? I really don’t know the answer, so not trying to be snide. Is this something that come of the Church fathers or great philosophers have written about?

 

[tonyrey]

Mother Mary was not some automaton; although created like Eve, free from original sin, she willingly gave herself to God.

As to God’s knowledge of us, Pope Francis at the Yad Vashem Memorial in Jerusalem:
“‘Adam, where are you?’ (cf. Gen 3:9). Where are you, o man? What have you come to? In this place, this memorial of the Shoah, we hear God’s question echo once more: “Adam, where are you?” This question is charged with all the sorrow of a Father who has lost his child. The Father knew the risk of freedom; he knew that his children could be lost. yet perhaps not even the Father could imagine so great a fall, so profound an abyss! Here, before the boundless tragedy of the Holocaust, That cry - “Where are you?” - echoes like a faint voice in an unfathomable abyss. Adam, who are you? I no longer recognize you. Who are you, o man? What have you become? Of what horror have you been capable? What made you fall to such depths?”

Many thanks for the quote. I always find Pope Francis inspiring and I’m not the only one! Even non-Catholics admire him…

 

[Tarsier]

Many thanks for the quote. I always find Pope Francis inspiring and I’m not the only one! Even non-Catholics admire him…

Though I’m not sure that it is strong evidence that God has limited knowledge of us.

Throughout the Old Testament (even beyond the first books of Genesis, which are often considered to contain strong figurative elements), God is attributed with human emotions and sentiments that run contrary to our understanding of his nature.

I believe scholars call this anthropomorphic language.

The Pope seems to be employing the same poetic approach.

Even if not, it could very well be that God was using something of a Socratic approach (Where are you?) to prompt Adam to ask himself that same question as he hid.

Not to say your interpretation of it is correct, but to suggest that this line and a prayer from the pope imply that God’s omniscience is limited in this way would seem to need, for me at least, a more direct statement to that end.

 

[Tarsier]

That argument plays into the hands of atheists who claim God could have created us with free will without anyone committing evil acts. If it is true why has He permitted so much diabolical evil and needless suffering that can be avoided? Surely it is because we are made in His image and share in His power to such an extent that we can choose to reject Him for all eternity.

I agree that it is an appealing argument for atheists (which is why it is important for me to consider – with the assistance of this community – in my own continued faith journey), and the most common response I’ve seen is the one I gave earlier, that it would be a matter of self-contradiction for God to both infallibly compel us to love him *and * to give us free will.

But the point of my thread was that this doesn’t seem (to me, at least) to be the case, as summed up in this syllogism:

If there is a contradiction between man’s free will and sinlessness, this would explain the problem of evil.
Examples explored through this thread appear to demonstrate there is no contradiction.
Therefore, this explanation (that of a contradiction) does not explain the problem of evil.

Some other explanation might exist, though, and I really appreciate your contribution to two possibilities.

Regarding the first, I still find it hard to reconcile that it would be “impossible” for God to know all our decisions. Free will might be a divine attribute, but that doesn’t mean we possess it to a divine degree. Not to mention that God knows himself perfectly. It is on this premise that the classic articulation of the Trinity is formulated - that God knows himself so perfectly, that this “knowledge” is expressed eternally in a single divine Word, which is the only begotten son Jesus Christ. A God who knows himself so well would, it seem, at least know whether I’m going to shoplift a candy bar or not.

Regarding the second, that he should voluntarily “relinquish His Omnipotence” would show an act on God to create our reality that doesn’t provide a self-contradiction since he could have otherwise not have relinquished it. I don’t really have any reason to argue against your second solution because I’ve actually made the same point in this thread – that at least for most of us, God has withheld the level of grace that would infallibly lead us into Heaven. So your second point explains the mechanism by which this would happen, but not really the motivation for an all-loving God to do so if there is an alternative path. You actually allude to this in your explanation:

He has shared His power with us not just temporarily but forever. The price may seem too high but divine love is not restricted by human values or opinions.

I agree that God is not restricted by human values or opinions, for sure. Your phrase “the price may seem too high” is key, as this is the whole point of my thread. The price of what? If the price seems high, we have to identify the object of the price (the earlier apologetics argument seems to indicate the price is for the avoidance of self-contradiction, which doesn’t seem to be the case). It doesn’t seem that this too-high price is for our ability to spend eternity with him, as the thread also explored that there appears to be an alternative route available (for all of us, from the garden onward, to be filled with efficacious grace). So, in that second point, I suppose it would help clarify if that line were rephrased:

The price of ____________________ may seem too high. What fills in the blank?

 

[davidv]

I agree that it is an appealing argument for atheists (which is why it is important for me to consider – with the assistance of this community – in my own continued faith journey), and the most common response I’ve seen is the one I gave earlier, that it would be a matter of self-contradiction for God to both infallibly compel us to love him *and * to give us free will.

But the point of my thread was that this doesn’t seem (to me, at least) to be the case, as summed up in this syllogism:

If there is a contradiction between man’s free will and sinlessness, this would explain the problem of evil.
Examples explored through this thread appear to demonstrate there is no contradiction.
Therefore, this explanation (that of a contradiction) does not explain the problem of evil.

Some other explanation might exist, though, and I really appreciate your contribution to two possibilities.

Regarding the first, I still find it hard to reconcile that it would be “impossible” for God to know all our decisions. Free will might be a divine attribute, but that doesn’t mean we possess it to a divine degree. Not to mention that God knows himself perfectly. It is on this premise that the classic articulation of the Trinity is formulated - that God knows himself so perfectly, that this “knowledge” is expressed eternally in a single divine Word, which is the only begotten son Jesus Christ. A God who knows himself so well would, it seem, at least know whether I’m going to shoplift a candy bar or not.

Regarding the second, that he should voluntarily “relinquish His Omnipotence” would show an act on God to create our reality that doesn’t provide a self-contradiction since he could have otherwise not have relinquished it. I don’t really have any reason to argue against your second solution because I’ve actually made the same point in this thread – that at least for most of us, God has withheld the level of grace that would infallibly lead us into Heaven. So your second point explains the mechanism by which this would happen, but not really the motivation for an all-loving God to do so if there is an alternative path. You actually allude to this in your explanation:

I agree that God is not restricted by human values or opinions, for sure. Your phrase “the price may seem too high” is key, as this is the whole point of my thread. The price of what? If the price seems high, we have to identify the object of the price (the earlier apologetics argument seems to indicate the price is for the avoidance of self-contradiction, which doesn’t seem to be the case). It doesn’t seem that this too-high price is for our ability to spend eternity with him, as the thread also explored that there appears to be an alternative route available (for all of us, from the garden onward, to be filled with efficacious grace). So, in that second point, I suppose it would help clarify if that line were rephrased:

The price of ____________________ may seem too high. What fills in the blank?

Not to speak for the other poster, in the context given, it appears that the blank = sharing his power through the granting us free will.

I don’t agree with other poster(s) who have proposed that God has limited knowledge.

Efficacious grace is not irresistible. It can still be rejected by the intended recipient. It cannot compromise free will.

 

[Tarsier]

Not to speak for the other poster, in the context given, it appears that the blank = sharing his power through the granting us free will.

I don’t agree with other poster(s) who have proposed that God has limited knowledge.

Efficacious grace is not irresistible. It can still be rejected by the intended recipient. It cannot compromise free will.

Regarding efficacious grace, by its definition it isn’t rejected, at least as described by Akin and (at least his representation of) Thomistic thought:

Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious; by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always produces the effect of salvation.

It is the type of grace that always produces its intended effect. Otherwise it would be just sufficient. I realize Akin calls it “enabling grace”. Perhaps I should have been using that terminology.

Also, I apologize. I think my sentence with the blank might be confusing, and I appreciate your insightful response as a chance to clarify. In my read of what the earlier poster wrote, the price was just what you said - sharing his power. What I meant was what exactly did that price purchase? Why did God feel it necessary to share his power? What did he tend to accomplish by doing this other than giving us the opportunity to sin?

Maybe a different approach is better.

If God sharing (or “relinquishing”) his power was an antecedent cause of man’s ability to sin. And man’s sinfulness (according to Christian doctrine) was an antecedent to God relinquishing his power (i.e. when Christ “emptied himself and took the form of a slave”), then it seems like an odd Rube Goldberg set-up. A causes B, which causes A. Aquinas, at least, would have issues with that since he wrote that the cause of something cannot be the effect of it.

 

[davidv]

Regarding efficacious grace, by its definition it isn’t rejected, at least as described by Akin and (at least his representation of) Thomistic thought:

It is the type of grace that always produces its intended effect. Otherwise it would be just sufficient. I realize Akin calls it “enabling grace”. Perhaps I should have been using that terminology.

Also, I apologize. I think my sentence with the blank might be confusing, and I appreciate your insightful response as a chance to clarify. In my read of what the earlier poster wrote, the price was just what you said - sharing his power. What I meant was what exactly did that price purchase?

Our ransom from death

Why did God feel it necessary to share his power?

It is my understanding that without free will we cannot love as God loves. This love is the sole means of our eternal happiness.

What did he tend to accomplish by doing this other than giving us the opportunity to sin?

We are allowed to choose love.

Maybe a different approach is better.

If God sharing (or “relinquishing”) his power was an antecedent cause of man’s ability to sin. And man’s sinfulness (according to Christian doctrine) was an antecedent to God relinquishing his power (i.e. when Christ “emptied himself and took the form of a slave”), then it seems like an odd Rube Goldberg set-up. A causes B, which causes A. Aquinas, at least, would have issues with that since he wrote that the cause of something cannot be the effect of it.

The underlined cannot be correct. It seems to me there is a different meaning of “sharing power” between A and B.

 

[Tarsier]

David,

Thanks so much for joining in. I’m not totally sure that you’ve read the entire thread. I don’t say that to be insulting, but some of your answers don’t fit the context we’ve established. If you have, my apologies, but I’ll respond as to why I am saying this below and maybe we can clear it up.

Our ransom from death

Our ransom from death came from Christ’s death on the cross. But the problem of sin I referenced is the one that existed even in the garden, before the fall and before a ransom was necessary.

In a way, I can see your answer still applying, as the Church refers to the fall as the Happy Fault, in that we couldn’t be ransom from our sins without first having fallen into them in the first place (i.e. "“For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” - St. Augustine).

However, the whole point of the thread is ask whether this has to be so since (see thoughts after the next quote) …

It is my understanding that without free will we cannot love as God loves. This love is the sole means of our eternal happiness.

We are allowed to choose love.

… has to be so since we established earlier in the thread that some specific biblical and doctrinal examples show that one can have free will and choose to love as God loves without also necessarily committing sin.

If you note earlier, the specific answer you gave (perhaps worded differently) was the one that the last third or so of the thread has been predicated upon, so pardon my laziness if I refer back to it for a more full answer. Just in case you are just tapping into the thread, note that I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I’ve mentioned a few times that it is one of a few spiritual struggles I’m working through, and I really appreciate the help of you and others in doing so.

The underlined cannot be correct. It seems to me there is a different meaning of “sharing power” between A and B.

I agree with you that there should be, but I was responding directly to Tourney’s second point earlier, where he said:

God knows all our decisions but has relinquished His omnipotence to such an extent that we can reject His love and defy His will for all eternity. He has shared His power with us not just temporarily but forever. The price may seem too high but divine love is not restricted by human values or opinions. Just as Jesus on earth surrendered everything for our sake so God in Heaven does likewise.

My own thoughts are that the act of Christ “emptying himself” (as Paul wrote) is a sole and unique act of God and that there is no “just as” comparison with an act of God at any other point. So you and I agree there. God has certainly shared his power with us in many ways aside from that, such as by giving us a creative and loving soul, sharing in his powers (I think I prefer the word attributes, but …) of creation and love.

My post this morning at 8:28 am sums up my struggle in a syllogism and there are two other “parts” to this thread, one exploring a consideration among those in heaven and another that explores an aspect of predestination.

Please don’t think that I’m trying to shut you down by referring you back - I’m happy to revisit anything that doesn’t jive - but I’d prefer to keep the thread from doing too much back-peddling.

Hope all are well. I’m actually off to Mass with my family in about an hour, so I’ll think about your (name removed by moderator)ut there and offer prayers for all of you.

 

[tonyrey]

That argument plays into the hands of atheists who claim God could have created us with free will without anyone committing evil acts. If it is true why has He permitted so much diabolical evil and needless suffering that can be avoided? Surely it is because we are made in His image and share in His power to such an extent that we can choose to reject Him for all eternity.

There are no limits to divine knowledge but it doesn’t follow that every aspect of God is understandable even to God. It wouldn’t be due to a limitation of God’s knowledge but because it may be an ultimate attribute of divine reality. It is impossible for us to know such a fundamental fact (if it is a fact) because we’re not omniscient. There is no doubt that the Ultimate Reality is the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” and the only reasonable response for us is to admit invincible ignorance instead of discounting the possibility.

The price may seem too high

but divine love is not restricted by human values or opinions.
I agree that God is not restricted by human values or opinions, for sure. Your phrase “the price may seem too high” is key, as this is the whole point of my thread. The price of what? If the price seems high, we have to identify the object of the price (the earlier apologetics argument seems to indicate the price is for the avoidance of self-contradiction, which doesn’t seem to be the case). It doesn’t seem that this too-high price is for our ability to spend eternity with him, as the thread also explored that there appears to be an alternative route available (for all of us, from the garden onward, to be filled with efficacious grace). So, in that second point, I suppose it would help clarify if that line were rephrased:

The price of ____________________ may seem too high. What fills in the blank?

Unending diabolical evil in the form of a hideous amount of needless injustice and unnecessary suffering inflicted on innocent persons and animals. As humans we cannot bear the thought of eternal suffering in hell but if it is self-inflicted and has its compensations it is no longer quite so unacceptable. Similarly if we believe in the Beatitudes the victims of injustice and misfortune have their compensations in heaven. In both cases eternal destinies are the result of human decisions and not due to ignorance but clear-sighted knowledge. Hell is not a trap nor is heaven a bribe but both are the inevitable consequences of an informed choice: to exist in a kingdom of one’s own or to co-exist in the kingdom of God. No one would choose to be damned if hell had no compensations nor would anyone choose to be with God if heaven had no challenges…

 

[Aloysium]

Some random thoughts:
God does not know the future. He has no past or future but exists as One in all moments, knowing all about them and their place in infinity. There is but one eternal present, which He is, and from which we all spring, all our moments in time. He does not revolve around this specific Now in which you the reader find yourself considering these thoughts. We, on a rim of the wheel of time, revolve around the axel that is the Now from which radiate the “spokes” that are our conscience and, in fact, our very existence as individuals. He can be said to be surprised, angered and pleased with whom we chose ourselves to be because it has not been predestined. Our destiny is heaven, participation in the Trinity, but it is up to us to decide. We hope to possess the Beatific Vision, but that can only be attained by giving ourselves away to Goodness.

 

[sonofbarry]

If it’s just a matter of being “exposed to the beatific vision”, and that’s your new existence, why would there be the need for any kind of will, free or enforced?

 

[Tarsier]

If it’s just a matter of being “exposed to the beatific vision”, and that’s your new existence, why would there be the need for any kind of will, free or enforced?

We’ve already discussed enabling, efficacious grace, which always produces its intended result, and this type of grace is an accepted belief, specifically under the Thomistic viewpoint.

Is there a difference there than with the question you just posed?

If not, then you have your answer.

 

[Tarsier]

It is impossible for us to know such a fundamental fact (if it is a fact) because we’re not omniscient. There is no doubt that the Ultimate Reality is the “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” and the only reasonable response for us is to admit invincible ignorance instead of discounting the possibility.

This might be the only answer I can buy at the moment, which is that there is no reconciliation of the apparent paradox/conflict I mentioned earlier, but if A) one has established that an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists, B) that God has been established as one who does not lie to us, and C) he had revealed certain truths, then D) we can accept those truths on faith, even if they confuse us.

Unending diabolical evil in the form of a hideous amount of needless injustice and unnecessary suffering inflicted on innocent persons and animals. As humans we cannot bear the thought of eternal suffering in hell but if it is self-inflicted and has its compensations it is no longer quite so unacceptable. Similarly if we believe in the Beatitudes the victims of injustice and misfortune have their compensations in heaven. In both cases eternal destinies are the result of human decisions and not due to ignorance but clear-sighted knowledge. Hell is not a trap nor is heaven a bribe but both are the inevitable consequences of an informed choice: to exist in a kingdom of one’s own or to co-exist in the kingdom of God. No one would choose to be damned if hell had no compensations nor would anyone choose to be with God if heaven had no challenges…

I don’t think this was what I was trying to drive at with the proposed fill-in-the-blank, but I’m accepting full responsibility for setting that up wrong. The thoughts are helpful, though. Thanks.

 

[Aloysium]

If it’s just a matter of being “exposed to the beatific vision”, and that’s your new existence, why would there be the need for any kind of will, free or enforced?

“Being exposed to the Beatific Vision” (Spell check capitalizes it, so should you.) means one is connected to reality, one is in love, joyous, in peace, in awe, stuff like that. One has been transformed into a son or daughter of God, doing His will, reciprocating the love He has for us. When one meets another, one sees them as they are, knowing them as God knows them, loving them. We are in existence through an act of Divine will. Returning the love through which we are, we creatures, enter into the communion of the Trinity. Eternal, in the resurrection of the body, we meet in the fullness of perfect relationship, with one another, the world and God.
:twocents:

 

[sonofbarry]

“Being exposed to the Beatific Vision” (Spell check capitalizes it, so should you.) means one is connected to reality, one is in love, joyous, in peace, in awe, stuff like that. One has been transformed into a son or daughter of God, doing His will, reciprocating the love He has for us. When one meets another, one sees them as they are, knowing them as God knows them, loving them. We are in existence through an act of Divine will. Returning the love through which we are, we creatures, enter into the communion of the Trinity. Eternal, in the resurrection of the body, we meet in the fullness of perfect relationship, with one another, the world and God.
:twocents:

Thanks for the gracious response.

 

[tonyrey]

This might be the only answer I can buy at the moment, which is that there is no reconciliation of the apparent paradox/conflict I mentioned earlier, but if A) one has established that an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists, B) that God has been established as one who does not lie to us, and C) he had revealed certain truths, then D) we can accept those truths on faith, even if they confuse us.

We don’t need to be confused in the absence of a feasible blueprint of a perfect world in which there is no moral or natural evil. All moral evil is a form of folly because it is ultimately self-destructive. In daily life the borderline between malice and ignorance is often hard to distinguish. The wisdom of the Catechism is evident in its analysis of the Fall:

385 God is infinitely good and all his works are good. Yet no one can escape the experience of suffering or the evils in nature which seem to be linked to the limitations proper to creatures: and above all to the question of moral evil.

If we expect to have everything for nothing we are being unrealistic. The fact that every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage is an indisputable fact until some one can give an example to the contrary. Free will is no exception nor is physicality and the combination of the two is at the root of all the apparently unnecessary misery and suffering in the world. A worldly Utopia is an infantile fantasy which underlies all attacks on belief in God’s power, wisdom and love. Atheists are always demanding evidence from theists but they seem to forget the onus is also on them to justify their faith in Chance and Necessity - on which no rational person relies when making important decisions.

I don’t think this was what I was trying to drive at with the proposed fill-in-the-blank, but I’m accepting full responsibility for setting that up wrong. The thoughts are helpful, though. Thanks.

It would be helpful to know exactly what you were and are driving at?

 

[Tarsier]

It would be helpful to know exactly what you were and are driving at?

I agree, which is why (earlier in the thread) I withdrew the question and totally rephrased it with a different scenario that drives at the same point.

 

[tonyrey]

So, it seems to me that, with our understanding that our wills are “perfectly” free in Heaven (where sin does not exist) and that God is able to efficaciously move individuals to a positive response to his will without removing their free will (and to do so with the total elimination of sin in the case of Mary, but at least to do so in a way that all of us could achieve Heaven), that this argument loses its footing. It seems to suggest that God could have created a world where we freely love him, but where evil acts don’t exist and we all persevere to enjoy the beatific vision (or where we are created in the beatific vision to begin with, having always had the existence of sinlessness combined with free will that we will have in Heaven).

This objection overlooks the fact that Mary is immaculate because she is the mother of our Redeemer. If Jesus hadn’t been born into this world there is little reason to believe anyone could be totally free from sin. We are not isolated individuals and are all inevitably affected by our moral environment which makes it highly improbable we could be totally immune to - or resist - temptation throughout our lives on earth. Evil is ultimately due to ignorance which makes it very difficult to remain sinless from the moment of birth to death unless one dies very young. It may be possible but to imagine the vast majority don’t need redemption is unrealistic because it underestimates the power of evil:

Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking whom he may devour.

1 Peter 5:8

 

[Tarsier]

This objection overlooks the fact that Mary is immaculate because she is the mother of our Redeemer. If Jesus hadn’t been born into this world there is little reason to believe anyone could be totally free from sin. We are not isolated individuals and are all inevitably affected by our moral environment which makes it highly improbable we could be totally immune to - and resist - temptation throughout our lives on earth. Evil is ultimately due to ignorance which makes it very difficult to remain sinless from the moment of birth to death unless one dies very young. It may be possible but to imagine the vast majority don’t need redemption is unrealistic because it underestimates the power of evil:

1 Peter 5:8

No, she is immaculate because she is full of grace. God choose her for that because she would be the mother of the redeemer, but the specific thing that makes her free from sin is grace, just as it will be for those in Heaven.

I don’t disagree with anything else you’ve written because it all goes with my point, which is that we are affected by our moral environment. However, the whole point of the thread was to challenge a specific apologetics argument that God cannot both give us free will and have us act without evil or sinlessly. Mary was just one example among three to illustrate that there is no inherent contradiction there.

Evil is due to more than ignorance, or it wouldn’t be sin. And that statement again goes to the point that we were born capable of that ignorance (outside the Beatific Vision).

I really don’t want to belabor the point, so let me just ask it to you in a question that sums up my point:

Do you believe that it would have been impossible for God to create us with the will to freely accept love him and provide us with such a powerful exposure to his grace that all of mankind chooses, through that freely willed act) to live lives apart from sin?

I’m not asking about why he choose Mary to be immaculately conceive and not me.
I’m not suggesting he doesn’t have some reason I’m not aware of.
I’m not denying that good can come from evil.
I’m not denying that, in our present condition, our moral context makes it “unrealistic” to live sinlessly.

I’m just challenging the assertion that the above proposition would be “impossible” for God. Your specific challenges to me seem to want me to answer for things I have not proposed or that I don’t believe.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been struggling with some philosophical questions lately, and one of them is related to the idea of free will as it might exist in Heaven (assuming it does).

I’ve never understood that, by reaching Heaven, one loses free will, and reading various Catholic sources, it seems I’m correct in this as long as free will is properly understood. Rather than the ability to freely choose good or bad, free will is the ability to make fundamental choices.

Before baptism, man is slave to sin, but being freed from that he can truly make a fundamental choice toward the greatest good. Sometimes, while still alive, we have choices before us that each contain degrees of good (some of them tied to sinful actions) and we might make a choice of a lesser good (since we see indistinctly, as in a mirror - 1 Cor 13-12).

But in Heaven, we will be in the beatific vision, directly exposed to the greatest and most perfect good and able to discern it clearly, so our will still acts freely in making a fundamental choice, but is unable to resist a constant and eternal choice of God and his love, as it will be so obviously a fulfillment of our longing.

So, this is my understanding in a nutshell, presented for thoughts and feedback if anyone sees where I am in error or where I could have been more precise or nuanced.

Thank you.

By the time we’ve gotten to heaven our wills are already oriented to the greatest good-without benefit of the Beatifc Vision; apparently justice, itself, demands this. We’re asked here; we’re drawn here to orient ourselves with that Good, to align our wills with His, to the greatest extent possible with whatever gifts we’ve been given, as we’re being tested and sifted and refined. Purgatory may well be necessary in order to finish the process of perfecting our wills but in any case God wants us to own this orientation, after which He crowns it with the BV which finally confirms and consummates and rewards all of our grace-aided striving. No sinners enter heaven according to Scripture; the primary leg-work is done before heaven even if the reward is what finally, fully, captivates us and absolutizes our fidelity to God.