Ecumenicism [1.5]

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

Open to debate, but only "in universe" so to say.

Now, a long time ago, I wouldn't have likely said that an interesting argument for/model of ecumenicism, a robust strain of it even, could be extrapolated from the Book of Revelation, yet... It occurred to me that the geographical division of the "seven" Churches, since it also is a doctrinal one, exemplifies a framework for representing the Church as open to institutional variation.

Likewise, the later representations of the sea-monster and the dragon, as seven-headed multi-institutional forces, suggests a congruent/parallel analysis.

So then what hath this to do with ecumenicism? Just so, that if "those who are not against Me are for Me" as much as "those who are not for Me are against Me," and again given actions speaking louder than words, in light of Christ's behavior then, if we yet wanted to affirm that there is some doctrinal point to make nevertheless, let us suppose that the "one true Church" is somehow divided into seven denominations (or sets of denominations), each of which teaches at least one special truth that the others do not, so that only together do all form the "one" body of Christ.

Personally, I think that the fact that each denomination's doctrines can be, in theory, listed in finite order, means that it is at least mathematically possible for some denominations, even among the elect seven, to teach more, both in absolute and proportionate terms, specific truths of the faith than others. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that just because one denomination taught the most of all (if it did), that this one was perfectly superior to the others, since we might also rank the importance of each doctrine in the hyper-system, such that one sect might only teach one unique Christian fact and yet the fact that it teaches is the best of them all.

Even so...

On short notice, I would assume that the Catholic Church, at the end of the day, has the largest grasp on the ecclesial crystal, of the seven elect sects. I am a fan of analysis and in a surprise twist, the New Advent Encyclopedia (IIRC) has an article on Immanuel Kant that is stunningly insightful and, ultimately, not at all dismissive---the suggestion is made that Kantian ethical emphases might vitiate Christian moral theology, along the lines of Aristotelian scholasticism but with a different figurehead (if you will). As a fan of Kant, I was super-impressed by that article, and so anyway then, the RCC, although implicated directly and indirectly in many terrible things, is then more like just more of the wheat and the tares, maybe.

The intensity of this magnitude is a different issue. Having never tried to sort out if I feel one doctrine, or cluster of doctrines, to be the most pivotal in the system, I can't honestly say that any of the things special to Catholicism is also the most significant simpliciter, here. OTOH Dante was a Catholic so if you know me

Candidates for #2? Or just in general? Besides Catholics, for sure I'm gonna have to say Mormons. In fact, due to the Dean scenario, I'm pretty sure I'm technically more sure that Mormons are part of the "crystal" than that Catholics are, or something like that. Although if this means I'm more than 100% sure on either score, IDK.

Jehovah's Witnesses! But no seriously, they actually seriously mass-resisted (proportionate to their numbers) the Nazis, a rare thing for an ecclesial order. Also it is a quick appropriation of their "Jesus is Apollyon" teaching, to adapt that teaching to the parable of Christ's "brother," who then is not Satan but God, the destructiveness thereof.

3 down, 4 to go... If only because of Ethiopia and, maybe, Armenia, the broad Orthodox affiliation seems likely, to me. This plays into the question of the canon, and Protestantism's absurd mutilation of scripture on grounds of "historical rationality" or whatever.*

*In our day we see the outcome of this in the semi-pressing issue of Young-Earth Creationism. If we ought to take the Bible as literally as possible, and if scientific evidence be damned (as it were) when it conflicts with the Bible, then it follows that there was never any Christian reason to omit the deuterocanon from indoctrination efforts, since the Christian reason for accepting the Bible depends crucially on the preservation theorem and not direct scientific correspondence to the text's content. The preservation theorem is the trust, not just in the Bible in general or in the original copies of the composing documents, but the entire sequence of copies across the face of history, and since in both the RCC and the Orthodox circles the deuterocanon has been substantially maintained, then, to put it in terms of a hypothetical gathering, if Catholicism and Protestantism traded something (at the end of the day!) for reconciliation, I think the latter would have to trade the reduced canon for the Septuagint's shadow instead.

Now, three left (for the Trinity?!). It might be supposed that Protestantism ought to be on the list. For the time being I will just postulate that this is so but I actually have a lot of doubts about this. The banner of the Reformation is a call to basic beliefs but it strikes me that this approach is dismissive of an enormous amount of the historical Christian experience. It is true that the Bible says that the message is supposed to be simple enough, but it also is true that passages like "the Son [is] the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of His reality" must be read attentively. ---At any rate, Calvinist and/or Arminians (Methodists) might be relevant, here, more particularly.

That leaves us with 2 slots or maybe just 1 slot to fill. Part of me thinks Messianic Jews, Gnostics, abstract-philosopher Christians (like Kant or maybe Hannah Arendt, sort of-ish), or some other peculiar category or set of categories satisfies the criteria in play, but I'm not quite fixed about it.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[…]

On short notice, I would assume that the Catholic Church, at the end of the day, has the largest grasp on the ecclesial crystal, of the seven elect sects. I am a fan of analysis and in a surprise twist, the New Advent Encyclopedia (IIRC) has an article on Immanuel Kant that is stunningly insightful and, ultimately, not at all dismissive---the suggestion is made that Kantian ethical emphases might vitiate Christian moral theology, along the lines of Aristotelian scholasticism but with a different figurehead (if you will). …

Are you aware that a broadly Kantian framework (duly qualified and corrected so as to be conformable to the dogmatic boundaries of orthodoxy) has long ago been appropriated by Catholic thinkers, such as Rahner and Lonergan?

Among many other Catholic thinkers, notable heavyweights such as JP2 also qualifiedly admired Kant (even though his primary point-of-departure was phenomenological, as in the [again, qualified] frameworks of Husserl and Scheler).

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

I should've been aware To some extent I think I was, if only through Van Til's counteranalysis (he picked up on the Aristotle-Kant thing in Catholicism/conciliatory Protestantism, although he thought it was a regrettable turn of events*).

*Why in the world would I use acceptance of Kant as a yardstick for legitimate Christian systematics anyway? To put it in the worst way possible: because he resurrected Gnosticism in Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, except that he purified it of its magical metaphysics and condensed its logic into moral information theory. Now why in the world would I use pro-Gnosticism as a yardstick for measuring the value of a person's role in the history of Christianity? Unfortunately there's a circle, here, since for me it's partly because Gnosticism pre-echoes Kant (not in the matter-is-evil theory, Kant would not have agreed with that; but in the delineation of the archetypes)... But more particularly, though Kant didn't care (much) about the question of God as a Trinity and transmythologized the Son of God in turn, it remains that he seems to me to have been an objectively good, thoughtful person, and his contributions to the history of knowledge, and the essential role of knowledge in goodness in general, put together add up Kant doing something important in moral history, so if I have to chalk it up to providence, I would do so by saying that the Bible was right, the Savior would be called by the name of Immanuel, though not that Christ would be called this so much but that a special representative of His plan would be. That is, Kant's purpose in God's plan would have been to express the essence of Christ in a unique form, to transmit the pure doctrine on some level. And though no specific assertion of Kant's counts as such, here, a constellation of them does, namely Kant figured out the correct framework (hope-in-abstract-moral-possibility instead of belief-in-concrete-moral-actuality) as the condition of "evidence" for religious judgments, that is in the absence of proof of God's existence, it remains that we are licensed, even by reason, to place our faith in the possibility of God---God being the being such that He is the greatest thing of all even if He is only possible, or even if we don't know for certain whether He exists, such that no other thing, even if actual, is greater than the possibility of God).

Btw that na-Calvin thing* in the other thread, you're killing me man I could see it, "Gibbon Pence"

*EDIT: In Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant puts "heteronomous" moral theories into a table/list, on which the pure divine-command theory is identified as the worst theory of all, not necessarily in terms of method but as to its conclusion, since Kant says that making our moral judgments depend on the concept of a being defined from its absolute physical might, is quite corruptive.

Applied to the flow of history, Kant's table/list would have it that societies/cultures/civilizations go through moral cycles as much as climatological, economic, etc. ones. The degree to which one heteronomous conception leads into or is reflected from another is the degree to which this flow will shift here and there, perhaps. At least, it will not be inexplicable, when a society transforms into one dominated by the divine-command theory of ethics, for there will actually be bizarre hedonistic precursors to this process (e.g. as in the "prosperity gospel").

So, though, despite the fact that in the Children of the Last Days series, the False Prophet is seemingly identified as a false theologian named Felix von Tilman,[~] and despite all the quite troubling things that Cornelius Van Til said, and even despite all the trouble that has come from Van Til's political successors, I am hesitant to equate the relevant Christian denomination with a non-candidate for the septadimensional election. Rather, I think it would make more sense, sort of, maybe, for God to use this denomination, irrespective of its faults, for the sake of something good in the perfection of time. Accordingly, just as the full redemption of the Catholic Church would be a wondrous thing, the full redemption of the Reformation would be, too.**

**It must be remembered, or I have to remember it for my own sake, but anyway it is not a human or even a group of humans, that is Apollyon. And since Apollyon is the ultimate adversary in the system, then no matter who its servants are, it is not the defeat of the servants---even the triumph over Satan, who has according to the legends been sealed under Apollyon in Hell--- that is absolutely pivotal, here, or this is only a precursor to the defeat of the Destroyer per se. But that is a task for Christ alone (or, alone save for the Spirit?), maybe, or even if not, it is not a task in which anyone on Earth is to be destroyed (even if the Book of Revelation talks of destroying those who destroy the Earth).

[~] On another level, more or less (maybe less than more...), this does disturb me. I realize Michael O'Brien(sp.?) is a well-read author, so the chances of him reading Van Til's work are not that bad, but to seem to so starkly identify the theology in question, as Satanic, is weird, that is it is not so much even the sum of Van Til's unfortunate statements that I am so afraid of, as this sum in the Reconstructionist context. That is, I am afraid not of what Van Til represented so much as I am of what Reconstructionism has appropriated him for. The transcendental argument for the existence of God, regardless of its technical validity or lack thereof, is a powerful, impressive idea, a brilliant refinement of the classical idea of divine illumination. Yet even so, that classic was not such a good thing, I think. So then this new-ish form of it, when rendered in the hypnotic form that Van Til does, seems like a terrible thing. And then, when we get to Rushdoony and Gary North...

... and so, then, how much is O'Brien aware of, anyway? I feel like he wouldn't have that von Tilman fellow in the tale, just as a jab at a peculiar Reformed theologian. That seems a little mean. So, unless it was just a coincidence, the name would be a nod, maybe, to the Reconstructionists instead, that is the False Prophet as the ideology of evil, is mirror-summed up in the reference.

But in that event, contrary to the content of the Children of the Last Days series, O'Brien would be asserting that Reconstructionism is the ideology of the Antichrist's system (in the series, the Antichrist's global order is founded on semi-accidental demon-worship under the guise of a sort of "New Age" spin on Christ; at any rate, Satan's end-times cult is not disguised as atheism), which seems weird, like, why would he think that? I know why I would but it's only, in part, because of a super-personal relationship with the author (super-personal, here, meaning not in person but involving my personal life, alongside something to do with a signed copy of one of the author's books). That is, him writing of this von Tilman fellow, seemed too coincidental given what else I was thinking about at the time.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

All of this is entangled in my mind with other things, besides. So, for example, it occurred to me that the seven-headed demons in the Book of Revelation might correspond to memes, that is, each demon is a sequence of ideas that, when initially accepted, leads individuals and societies to accept the successive ideas too. The Dragon, then, is the abstract sequence of moral confusion/error, with the Beast from the Sea as an ideological/political sequence derived/constructed from the moral one.*

Such an interpretation dovetails with a historical application of Kant's "groundwork" ethical theory, except that it indicates 7 heteronomous/antinomous theories instead of 4 (I think there were 4 only in the Groundwork).

*It is of no little interest to me, that Joachim of Fiore depicted the demons from the Book of Revelation in a sort of fractal-spiral manner. My theory is, of course, that John of Patmos was recording a divinely-inspired literary metaphor for an abstract/metaphysical sequence, one that when applied to history and the future would sound like a magical prophecy. The sea-beast, then, is recursively from the dragon, as in a fractal, so that the spiral-demons in Joachim's gloss of the "prophecy" stands to perfect (visual) reason.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Well, there's not much response to give to most of your posting, other than to note that what you seem to be proposing is incompatible with Catholicity without very substantial correction and limitation. But I'm sure that you already know that.

But FWIW, and IIRC, the character of Felix von Tilman was a (heretical) Catholic theologian. I don't think that he was intended to be a veiled dig at any Reformed personage. I don't think that any responsible Catholic would principally denigrate (or elevate) one Protestant movement over another, as if the kind of heresy proposed by Calvin was any more insidious than simply being the flip-side of the one proposed by Arminius. Error is error (though one can certainly make a case for certain errors being more practically devastating in their historical effects or more proximately dangerous given the vagaries of the cultural climate obtaining at the time).

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

I wonder what my alleged system would sound like... Well, ridiculous for starters

Other than that, yeah, though, no one would like it from the outset (if it were, say, some kind of proposal at an ecumenical gathering or whatever). Or maybe they would, I wouldn't know, eh...

Now on another hand, though, I think there is an ecclesiological reason, if you will, for Calvinism to be more problematic, even from the RCC vantage, than Arminianism, in the sense that the Calvinist-Arminian dichotomy harkens back to the Augustinian/Pelagian one, which in turn was involved, as it goes, in the Franciscan transition in Europe. However, therefore, as I see these things, since the ascension of the Franciscan order was good, and yet since this was a movement that would correspond more to semi-Pelagian or Arminian thought, it follows that the antithesis of Franciscan thought, i.e. Calvin's (it seems to me), would represent an especially deviant alternative ecclesial ideology.

[Linna Heartbooger]

I wonder what my alleged system would sound like... Well, ridiculous for starters

You know, when I put out a dream or an idea or theory of mine, there's always problems with it.
When someone points out "this and that wouldn't work, and here's why," I often want to jump to the conclusion, "oh, I was all wrong!"
So much so that my husband (who often gets to be the lucky soul to break the news to me that my ideas won't work!) has taken to initiating those responses with, "I'm know I'm being a wet blanket here, but..."

But I dunno, even dreams of ours that don't work in the way we first envision, they can still tell us something.
Again and again, I see the theme of "harmony" coming up with you.

And I've ever got John 17 in the back of my mind:
I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

Other than that, yeah, though, no one would like it from the outset (if it were, say, some kind of proposal at an ecumenical gathering or whatever). Or maybe they would, I wouldn't know, eh...

Whichever way it would tend to go wouldn't give evidence..
humans being fickle and wrong about many things.

Btw that na-Calvin thing* in the other thread, you're killing me man

Me too - in almost those exact words!
That was a good one, Wosbald.
(also, Mighara, I wouldn't have felt free to say that if you hadn't said you were amused, yourself.)

Anyway, I think that an increase in harmony and giving good things to one-other among the different divisions and denominations that consider themselves to be following Christ is possible.
Even when our starting point is "they're heretics to me, and I'm a heretic to them."
I definitely remember a time when someone close to me sent me an e-mail which attached an article about Catholics affirming that they believe that, "only the Catholic church is a true church and that Orthodox churches are sort of possibly alright, but insufficient." <-- (can't remember the exact wording.)
I think the point of the sender of that email was to drive a wedge there.
But I think it had the effect of making me want to move in the opposite direction!
Not that I would just suddenly think that this position I was exposed to was true...
...but I did think, "That is not an inherently unreasonable thing to believe; they are much like me." and "No, no, it is not inherently 'mean' or 'unloving' to have that particular ideological frame of reference."