Anti-Climacus

A BRIEF DEFENSE OF ECUMENISM, LARGELY FOR MY OWN BENEFIT: It's an awkward, awkward position to hold, for any number of reasons, but in large part because no one is ever happy with it. Ecumenism in my mind consists of two strands. Paul will often speak of particular behaviors which divided churches and attempt to heal the breaches by saying (in regard to feast days, or the use of meat sacrificed on pagan altars, etc) that it's an indifferent matter, but one should have a reason for choosing as one does. Ecumenism, I think, should respect both ends of that kind of statement: choices aren't random (that is, they aren't pure exercises of will), and so have reasons or an apologetic that can be given in their defense. On the other hand, one should recognize that people differ, and can differ reasonably. So the ecumenist is always (perpetually) caught in the middle: never enough 'at home' to please the other members of one's tradition, never close enough to the other to consider all those matters indifferent. But, but:

The second triad--blossoming in this
Eternal sprngtime that the nightly Ram
does not despoil--perpetually sings

'Hosanna' with three melodies that sound
in the three ranks of bliss that form this triad;
within this hierarchy there are three

kinds of divinities: first, the Dominions,
and then the Virtues; and the final order
contains the Powers. The two penultimate

groups of rejoicing ones within the next
triad are wheeling Principalities
and the Archangels; last, the playful Angels.

These orders all direct--ecstatically--
their eyes on high; and downward, they exert
suchforce that all are drawn and draw to God.

And Dionysius, with much longing, set
himself to contemplate these orders: he
named them and distinguished them just as I do.

Though, later, Gregory disputed him,
when Gregory came here--when he could see
with opened eyes--he smiled at his mistake.

This was, as I remember, Dara's favorite part of the Paradiso--Gregory smiling at his mistake. It's also a nice commentary on the limits of disputation--we disagree but there will come a point where the disagreements won't matter, and when dealing with each other (always with charity, always in love), it's best to keep in mind that we may pour our best efforts into mistakes we will smile away when the time comes.


(The kicker, if you like, is that Dante is wrong: he claims Dionysius' opinion is correct (in the last of Canto XXVIII, which I omitted) because he received in directly from Paul, who (according to the end of 2 Corinthians) had a vision of heaven. Except this only works if the Dionysius who wrote the work on the angels was also Dionysius the Aeropagite, who is mentioned in Acts. Dante thought he was, but we now know the works are by someone else, usually called psuedo-Dionysius. So p-D may still be right (if there is a right), but not for the reasons Dante thought. But it's a beautiful passage, and the thought stands in spite of that, works of art being lovely that way.)