Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[AshvinP]

As everyone is aware, there are very few people, even among the spiritually inclined, who truly manage to develop a deep connection with anthroposophy. I personally found it easier to engage with Heidegger’s philosophy and find grounding in it than to study Steiner’s spiritual works and truly understand them. This is worth noting, given how challenging Heidegger is considered even in academic circles. It is an immense task to read Steiner’s teachings, internalize them without turning them into dogmatic beliefs, and then walk the inner path that leads, in full consciousness, beyond the threshold—while avoiding the dangers that are abundant on such paths. Tomberg emphasizes these dangers in *Meditations on the Tarot* (*MoT*), and I think we all know spiritual people who have become unhinged or deluded themselves into believing they are holy. I myself have noticed certain tendencies that can overtake one without being fully aware of them.

And where does one turn for help or guidance when encountering such dangers? Personally, I would be reluctant to seek out the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach for such support. This is not to say that Steiner deliberately ignored these dangers; on the contrary, he warned about them, though not in every part of his vast body of work. It is one thing to follow his path 110 years ago, when Steiner was there as a master and guide for his students, and quite another to do so today, after online Zoom conferences with his followers. I am not saying there are no masters today, only that we live in a very different context than in Steiner’s time.

The other question I would like to raise is whether Steiner’s emphasis on knowledge also carries inherent dangers. In our era, science was born to satisfy the drive for epistemic certainty, which was the ideal of Enlightenment philosophers and finds its culmination in skeptical materialists. People shy away from taking seriously anything that cannot be guaranteed by this epistemic certainty. Why believe, when the ideal is knowledge (in the sense described)? Today, belief is often misunderstood as clinging to unprovable hypotheses or convictions. However, this is a false conception. Belief is trust in the unknown, to which one surrenders one’s will without having cognitively understood it (Tomberg describes this vividly in *MoT* as the reversed Hanged Man). It is all too easy to engage with occultism out of one’s own curiosity and run the risk of being overtaken by impulses. Steiner was profoundly different from most people in his development, education, and abilities. There is such a vast gap between him and the average person that I am not sure it can be bridged at all. In contrast, the Church manages to provide the ordinary person with a community that fosters spiritual growth and guidance through the tradition established by Christ and centered on Him. In Tomberg, a remarkable synthesis emerges, one that can build a bridge and create a connection.

Many people believe in reincarnation and karma—theosophists, Hindus, New Agers… However, I have noticed in myself that through reading Steiner, these “laws” now feel like a reality in which we are embedded. Yet I can also imagine how these ideas can be influenced by Ahrimanic and Luciferic impulses, as happens with many occultists and spiritualists. Could an understanding of reincarnation lead to neglecting this life, and an understanding of karma to determinism?

Guney,

There are interesting questions you raise. I would like to offer a few thoughts to consider.

Although we often speak of 'paths', what Steiner intended was not to provide a 'path to follow', in any traditional sense. The path of intuitive thinking is unique because it does not rely whatsoever on any particular individuality or their teachings, their level of knowledge, and so on. It is specifically for those individuals who feel a burning desire to resurrect the sacred religious impulse within themselves, without excessive dependence on outer authorities, traditions, paths, etc.(including esoteric 'systems'). Of course, that doesn't mean we neglect contemplation of religious or esoteric texts and go it alone - such an approach would be highly unwise and unproductive. Yet we also learn to trust in our intuitive thinking faculty and its ability to derive all the foundational principles of the evolutionary process from within itself, by simply observing its characteristic dynamics as it interfaces with phenomenal content.

I think everyone is familiar with the difficulties you have expressed in approaching Steiner's lectures. Yet the more we independently investigate our inner process, in relative freedom from outer authorities, the more the fog is lifted from such esoteric content, and we feel like we may have produced that content ourselves if we hadn't come across it in Steiner. As we think through the existential questions from such a phenomenological perspective, suddenly themes and concepts from those lectures that we hardly remember reading, and that previously felt remote and obscure, may emerge into our consciousness and 'fill in the gaps' of our intuitive understanding, as Kaje also mentioned. Cleric also illustrated this from another angle recently with the turbulence and laminar flow metaphor. We need to start thinking differently about what Steiner intended for spiritual science, than what we are used to with other philosophical systems and esoteric paths. It's really comparing apples to oranges in many cases.

I will also mention that there is nothing you will find in Tomberg, about the dangers of supersensible perception, about the Christ impulse, the virtues and sacraments, about faith and trust in the unknown, and so on, that you won't also find in Steiner in a somewhat different form. That is not to say one is superior to the other, but it's simply a fact that nothing in that respect has been left out of consideration in spiritual science. In fact, it is exactly the intuitive thinking path that helps us naturally cultivate the stance of the Hanged Man, since we can only sensitize to our deeper spiritual gestures when we defocus from our familiar perceptions and concepts and become receptive to unfamiliar domains of intuitive potential. These domains are 'made of' the highest virtues and moral impulses; the latter are the medium and atmosphere in which our deeper scale spiritual activity weaves. This is why Steiner continually stressed the importance of PoF and his early epistemic works, because his core intention was to cultivate free spirits who can embody the Christ impulse, awaken across the threshold, and steer toward the fully human ideal without excessive reliance on him, his teachings, his society, or anyone else.

[Federica]

Thank you Federica, I appreciate the welcome reception from you all and the so far quite lively discussion. (I still have some exploring to do in the other threads in order to get a proper orientation to the interests and concerns of the forum, although I think I have a decent general idea). This is an extremely complex and difficult topic, and you bring up many great points to consider.

Concerning the Christian Community and its relationship to the Catholic Church - I'm not able to comment directly, as I have never attended a service of theirs; my knowledge is restricted to things I've read and heard. There is a CC location in my area, and I know a few people who are members. At some point I will go and check it out. I don't suspect that my soul's resolve will be changed by the experience, as I am a pretty firmly committed Catholic and no doubt what is lacking in all churches besides the RCC is also lacking in the Christian Community, most obviously the chair (spirit) of Peter but of course many other things that I'm sure most people are familiar with insofar as they are claimed by the Church.

My statement about Anthroposophy being a total failure is a loaded one with many qualifications. I want to take care to frame it with due nuance and respect. I'll attempt to work toward this throughout the remainder of this response. But right off the bat, let me say I don't think it's strictly a regional issue. I think it has more to do with what I hinted at as the inherent limitations of spiritual science. More on that in a moment. You mention Christoph Hueck and Dennis Klocek. I should clarify that I do believe there are people who are able to form living connections to Anthroposophy. My anecdote was that I haven't met any (Ashvin and I are only acquainted online). Most of what I have seen in my personal experience is A) very genuine attempts to grapple with the gigantic, enigmatic, magnetic, and absolutely singular personality of Rudolf Steiner; B) the complete opposite end of the spectrum, consisting of practically minded individuals of various "alternative" bents who know and even care very little about Steiner or SS, C) all flavors of A and B in connection with the schematic/conceptual approach to SS. This might seem like a trifling detail, but the sheer volume of Anthroposophical content that is to this day printed using the "Antropos" font is a visible sign of the state of things in what is called Anthroposophy today. Is this ironic or hypocritical for a Catholic to point out? No, because the Catholic Church is fundamentally traditional - in many ways it is the hardened but sturdy trunk of a massive tree. Anthroposophy is not meant to become a competing tree (it will only become a corpse) but to assist the morphological development of the already existing organism.

Returning again to the flaw or limitation within SS that I spoke of previously. This is a very tricky topic, and I will admit it's difficult for me to completely disentangle spiritual science per se from the specific manner in which Steiner bestowed it to us. Firstly, let me point out - and hopefully this is at least somewhat obvious - that I have personally been enriched beyond measure by spiritual science. I have found it quite accessible and intuitive, perhaps for karmic reasons, but we needn't go into that. But the inescapable fact is that most people do not find it accessible. Even some of the most spiritually, esoterically minded people I know, some of whom I have been discussing Anthroposophy with for years, can't make heads or tails of it. This is due in part, in my view, to the specific context in which SS as presented by Steiner arose. In addition to the fact that Steiner developed his ideas in an extremely academic and erudite milieu, the turn of the 20th century was in many ways a very different world from the one we live in now. Its materialism was of a very different kind than ours today (let me not discount the many ways in which we are of course in continuity with that time). Steiner's whole manner of presentation was designed in response to this context. The cultural-contextual gulf between us and him erects an impenetrable wall around around SS for many people today. Sure, plenty of people find their way around/through this wall, but in so many cases what they find on the other side is the corpse of what was once breathing and pulsing there. An attempt is then made to reanimate the corpse. And - here is perhaps the crux of what I've been calling the flaw - this at least in some respects is by direct instruction from Steiner. Steiner never tired of repeating how simply listening to the teachings of Anthroposophy, despite not arriving at perception, would lead one to the Christ, if not in this life then after death. Steiner seems to have underestimated the extent to which his words would reach the ears of people decades later completely unchanged, or he estimated that his impulse was so important to make loud at that specific moment in time that the benefit outweighed the risk. Those unchanged words which become dogma to so many are not a bridge to Christ but a stumbling block. Not only do they contribute to sprouting of little "ossified trees" within the soul, they lead souls to prepare for reincarnation. Not taking this life as the stage upon which one's work must be done is a grave error, and all one has to do is dust off one's New Testament again to be reminded of this sobering fact. Tomberg makes a big point of this. To be fair, Steiner himself makes a point of this too, but one has to read very carefully to pick up on it.

I'll quickly address your question about why one shouldn't also apply the concept of death and resurrection to the Catholic Church. My answer would be that death and resurrection are in fact operative for the Church - they just play out differently. The Church is a structure that from the time of Golgotha became inextricably linked with earth evolution. Its fate is connected with the destiny of the earth, and its bodily persistence through time is therefore arranged along a much larger arc than that of other institutions or beings. The Church does, however, have a tendency toward ossification (this is symbolically evident even in the name of Peter). Tomberg describes how the Church's "fructification" (to use a Steinerian term), its continual rejuvenation, comes from its integration of outside streams (the Lazarus pattern). The Church therefore is the vehicle through which the history of the entire earth will be gloriously raised in the Age to come, itself becoming ever stronger through the inclusion of increasing numbers of redeemed impulses. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

Thank you for your considerate response, Rodriel. At first, through your description of how Steiner’s unchanged words have become an inexorable stumbling block for the spiritual seeker of today, I felt I understood your position slightly better, behind the enigmatic (for me) denomination of anthroposophical Catholic. You resonate with those words, but regret that they lead the vast majority of their readers to dead concepts. Still, the more I ponder the question of the RCC - I have now read the three lectures in GA 198 titled “Roman Catholicism” - the more it seems to me that the basis for your statement of failure must be larger than the blames of miscommunication.

For my part, I can’t understand why the aspiration to embody the Christ impulse would require things such as the chair of Peter, and other prerogatives of the RCC - in other words, why the institution of the RCC should come in between Christ and the human individuality, as rightful expression of the community of seekers of the being of Christ on Earth, to condition the search for truth of those who open their heart to the fullness of existence, and its central focus point ⵙ the Christ Being.

The lectures in GA 198 have indeed reinforced these doubts about the role of the RCC. In the third lecture, the point is made that by opposing the truth of reincarnation, the RCC in fact distorts the true nature of Christ, drawing a thick veil over His real secret. In the second lecture, it is spoken of the corpse of the RCC, a dead institution, belonging to the fourth epoch, that can only fight for its own survival. And I wonder how you relate to these views. Do you consider that they constitute a failure of Steiner's seership and contribute to sink Anthroposophy? In anycase, I respect your position that the institution of the RCC is the organism by which the true contents of Christianity can be integrated by people. For me Anthroposophia is that organism, as an ideal community of Christians, not at all as a religion itself, as you say. But I remain open to learn more about this large and difficult question, which I don't have a sufficient grasp on, I will admit.

I also want to comment on the question of Steiner's words as stumbling blocks. It’s evidently true that many have difficulties apprehending SS in a living way, but I doubt that the reason for this inaccessibility resides in the cultural milieu and the academic context in which these words were formed. Steiner wrote and spoke in a way that is surely not easy to take in, but transcends academic discourse entirely. I believe the reason why these are not easy reads today is the growing chiasm between our shorter and shorter attention spans, which struggle to hang on to long sentences and articulated elaborations, and the will, the thinking effort, required to actively engage with the ideas. Cognitive fitness is the first barrier. Then there’s no willpower left to try and actively engage with the ideas, which is the second barrier. But even if it was possible to express the same ideas in simplified language, that would not exempt the reader from working with the ideas in the soul, in a sort of breathing - or study-meditation, as it’s been often called on this forum. That’s the main barrier, as I see it, which does not depend on communication style.
To confirm that, one can notice that for example Klocek today writes in a very simple style, with short sentences, and an easy vocabulary. Does that eliminate the barriers for the spiritual seeker who wants to move past dead concepts? No, it doesn't. The thinking will needs to be activated in the same anthroposophical way, and the task lies entirely on the side of the reader. Consequently, the accessible communication style has not made these writings into spiritual literature best-sellers, even though it's easy for the reader to become aware of the task at stake, since it’s expressed in very accessible language. But that doesn’t help doing the self-work, if something else is not present, that only the reader can bring.

[Federica]

How will the CC integrate such a fact [reincarnation] into its existing traditions and teachings?

As we often say, questions may contain unexpressed assumptions. Namely, in this case, it is assumed that CC will integrate such a fact.

I wasn't making that assumption, Federica, but I can see how it reads that way. I should have used "would" instead of "will", and that would reflect my intended meaning better. It's hard for me to imagine because I don't see any viable path toward such an integration in the near future, as Rodriel also concurs.

Ok, I see. Thanks!

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Thank you for your considerate response, Rodriel. At first, through your description of how Steiner’s unchanged words have become an inexorable stumbling block for the spiritual seeker of today, I felt I understood your position slightly better, behind the enigmatic (for me) denomination of anthroposophical Catholic. You resonate with those words, but regret that they lead the vast majority of their readers to dead concepts. Still, the more I ponder the question of the RCC - I have now read the three lectures in GA 198 titled “Roman Catholicism” - the more it seems to me that the basis for your statement of failure must be larger than the blames of miscommunication.

For my part, I can’t understand why the aspiration to embody the Christ impulse would require things such as the chair of Peter, and other prerogatives of the RCC - in other words, why the institution of the RCC should come in between Christ and the human individuality, as rightful expression of the community of seekers of the being of Christ on Earth, to condition the search for truth of those who open their heart to the fullness of existence, and its central focus point ⵙ the Christ Being.

The lectures in GA 198 have indeed reinforced these doubts about the role of the RCC. In the third lecture, the point is made that by opposing the truth of reincarnation, the RCC in fact distorts the true nature of Christ, drawing a thick veil over His real secret. In the second lecture, it is spoken of the corpse of the RCC, a dead institution, belonging to the fourth epoch, that can only fight for its own survival. And I wonder how you relate to these views. Do you consider that they constitute a failure of Steiner's seership and contribute to sink Anthroposophy? In anycase, I respect your position that the institution of the RCC is the organism by which the true contents of Christianity can be integrated by people. For me Anthroposophia is that organism, as an ideal community of Christians, not at all as a religion itself, as you say. But I remain open to learn more about this large and difficult question, which I don't have a sufficient grasp on, I will admit.

I also want to comment on the question of Steiner words as stumbling blocks. It’s evidently true that many have difficulties apprehending SS in a living way, but I doubt that the reason for this inaccessibility resides in the cultural milieu and the academic context in which these words were formed. Steiner wrote and spoke in a way that is surely not easy to take in, but transcends academic discourse entirely. I believe the reason why these are not easy reads today is the growing chiasm between our shorter and shorter attention spans, which struggle to hang on to long sentences and articulated elaborations, and the will, the thinking effort, required to actively engage with the ideas. Cognitive fitness is the first barrier. Then there’s no willpower left to try and actively engage with the ideas, which is the second barrier. But even if it was possible to express the same ideas in simplified language, that would not exempt the reader from working with the ideas in the soul, in a sort of breathing - or study-meditation, as it’s been often called on this forum. That’s the main barrier, as I see it, which does not depend on communication style.
To confirm that, one can notice that for example Klocek today writes in a very simple style, with short sentences, and an easy vocabulary. Does that eliminate the barriers for the spiritual seeker who wants to move past dead concepts? No, it doesn't. The thinking will needs to be activated in the same anthroposophical way, and the task lies entirely on the side of the reader. Consequently, the accessible communication style has not made these writings into spiritual literature best-sellers, even though it's easy for the reader to become aware of the task at stake, since it’s expressed in very accessible language. But that doesn’t help doing the self-work, if something else is not present, that only the reader can bring.

I have found it a very important and immeasurably illuminating task to investigate, mostly thanks to Tomberg's prompting, the relationship between Peter and Lazarus-John. I believe this is truly the key to understanding the relationship between the RCC and Anthroposophy. One finds it even in Steiner, although subtly. I should point out that I've spent quite a lot of time researching Steiner's ideas about the RCC, and I come away with the conclusion that his views were incredibly nuanced. Major problems arise when people approach these views of his overly dialectically, as if a critique - even a scathing one - should imply that the solution is a pendulum swing in the opposite direction, and within the same horizontal plane of analysis. The Christ impulse is the impulse of death and resurrection, which is the true doorway out of dialectically constrained thinking. All too often one gets caught in the "death" element of death and resurrection and takes a critique such as "the Catholic Church is a dead institution" from Steiner or "Anthroposophy has failed" from Tomberg to mean one need do away with the dead object entirely. That's, however, not the path of the Christ impulse.

So back to Peter and Lazarus-John. Why do Anthroposophists give such short shrift to Peter, this character that is so obviously magnified beyond all others in the Gospels? If the Gospel of John in particular is indeed the loftiest spiritual document ever delivered to human beings, why would one not pay very close attention to the relationship between the beloved disciple - who has written himself into the document - and the apostle to whom Jesus Christ gives the keys to the Kingdom, entrusts with feeding the sheep etc.? What is the significance of John and Peter running to the empty tomb, John arriving first, but Peter entering the tomb first? What is the significance of Peter and John again being the major characters on the final stage of this loftiest of Gospels, on the eschatological shoreline, the Lord proclaiming to the rock of the Church that both he and the beloved disciple will remain unto he returns? Are these just curious details, or are they - as they seem to be - absolutely central to the document? If they are, then one has to seriously consider who Peter was and what his role continues to be spiritually.

Peter is the rock of the Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Yet, we see throughout the Gospels that he his resolve is unsteady - he is prone to sinking, finding himself "outside the boat." He doesn't have the steadiness of spiritual understanding like John but instead catches glimpses of it, which ultimately gives him unwavering faith. This is the exact pattern of the Roman Catholic Church, an institution which is prone to rigidification, to becoming petrified. However that very petrifying tendency is also like the trunk and bark of a tree, which is of course a necessary support for the upper organism. So in a statement like "the Catholic Church is a dead institution," this can in fact be an accurate statement, depending on the time period one is speaking from. It doesn't mean, however, that the Church should be abandoned or rejected. These dead times are the very moments when Lazarus is needed to die and be raised as John and follow Peter into the tomb. The Church is strengthened by the "Johnification" of its members - not all its members all at once, mind you.

Notice the very different way Peter and John function. We commit an error when we think that they should be operating according to the same principle. What I mean by this is that the Church is meant to be the trunk and bark, whereas the esoterically deepened individual is meant to be in a sense an enlivening force at the tips of the branches. And the motor or vehicle behind this enlivening force is the raising of Lazarus. Those who seek to institutionalize the Lazarus-John function are in effect asking for a permanent state of initiatic sleep, forgetting that Lazarus's whole purpose is to be called out of the tomb and thenceforth continue transformed, under a different name. One cannot make an institution out of this pattern. Once it serves its function, it no longer continues as before. Something like an Anthroposophical Society is therefore fundamentally at odds with its own inherent purpose. The institution is the universal Church in whom the spirit of Peter has been active since Golgotha.

That said, to your final response about the inaccessibility of SS having less to do with the communication style and more with cognitive fitness and engagement on the part of the individual, I take your point. And in this regard I feel that Steiner's trumpet blast was heard loud enough such that those who are karmically disposed to it will hear it.

[Federica]

I have found it a very important and immeasurably illuminating task to investigate, mostly thanks to Tomberg's prompting, the relationship between Peter and Lazarus-John. I believe this is truly the key to understanding the relationship between the RCC and Anthroposophy. One finds it even in Steiner, although subtly. I should point out that I've spent quite a lot of time researching Steiner's ideas about the RCC, and I come away with the conclusion that his views were incredibly nuanced. Major problems arise when people approach these views of his overly dialectically, as if a critique - even a scathing one - should imply that the solution is a pendulum swing in the opposite direction, and within the same horizontal plane of analysis. The Christ impulse is the impulse of death and resurrection, which is the true doorway out of dialectically constrained thinking. All too often one gets caught in the "death" element of death and resurrection and takes a critique such as "the Catholic Church is a dead institution" from Steiner or "Anthroposophy has failed" from Tomberg to mean one need do away with the dead object entirely. That's, however, not the path of the Christ impulse.

So back to Peter and Lazarus-John. Why do Anthroposophists give such short shrift to Peter, this character that is so obviously magnified beyond all others in the Gospels? If the Gospel of John in particular is indeed the loftiest spiritual document ever delivered to human beings, why would one not pay very close attention to the relationship between the beloved disciple - who has written himself into the document - and the apostle to whom Jesus Christ gives the keys to the Kingdom, entrusts with feeding the sheep etc.? What is the significance of John and Peter running to the empty tomb, John arriving first, but Peter entering the tomb first? What is the significance of Peter and John again being the major characters on the final stage of this loftiest of Gospels, on the eschatological shoreline, the Lord proclaiming to the rock of the Church that both he and the beloved disciple will remain unto he returns? Are these just curious details, or are they - as they seem to be - absolutely central to the document? If they are, then one has to seriously consider who Peter was and what his role continues to be spiritually.

Peter is the rock of the Church against which the gates of hell will not prevail. Yet, we see throughout the Gospels that he his resolve is unsteady - he is prone to sinking, finding himself "outside the boat." He doesn't have the steadiness of spiritual understanding like John but instead catches glimpses of it, which ultimately gives him unwavering faith. This is the exact pattern of the Roman Catholic Church, an institution which is prone to rigidification, to becoming petrified. However that very petrifying tendency is also like the trunk and bark of a tree, which is of course a necessary support for the upper organism. So in a statement like "the Catholic Church is a dead institution," this can in fact be an accurate statement, depending on the time period one is speaking from. It doesn't mean, however, that the Church should be abandoned or rejected. These dead times are the very moments when Lazarus is needed to die and be raised as John and follow Peter into the tomb. The Church is strengthened by the "Johnification" of its members - not all its members all at once, mind you.

Notice the very different way Peter and John function. We commit an error when we think that they should be operating according to the same principle. What I mean by this is that the Church is meant to be the trunk and bark, whereas the esoterically deepened individual is meant to be in a sense an enlivening force at the tips of the branches. And the motor or vehicle behind this enlivening force is the raising of Lazarus. Those who seek to institutionalize the Lazarus-John function are in effect asking for a permanent state of initiatic sleep, forgetting that Lazarus's whole purpose is to be called out of the tomb and thenceforth continue transformed, under a different name. One cannot make an institution out of this pattern. Once it serves its function, it no longer continues as before. Something like an Anthroposophical Society is therefore fundamentally at odds with its own inherent purpose. The institution is the universal Church in whom the spirit of Peter has been active since Golgotha.

That said, to your final response about the inaccessibility of SS having less to do with the communication style and more with cognitive fitness and engagement on the part of the individual, I take your point. And in this regard I feel that Steiner's trumpet blast was heard loud enough such that those who are karmically disposed to it will hear it.

Thanks for elaborating, Rodriel. I should perhaps point out that I don’t run any risks of thinking wrongly about how John and Peter should operate, simply because I have only the vaguest idea of who they even are, and I regret to say, I don’t think much about them at all. I am not a Catholic, only a relatively recent student of Anthroposophy. Not to suggest that I don’t regret the gaps in my studies, but my thoughts are grounded in my evolving understanding of spiritual science, not in any direct experience of the Church and its doctrine.

And from this perspective, my sense is that man is the entire plant, rather than only the enlivening tips, or the leaves of this metaphoric tree. Human individuality spans from the tips of the petals and leaves, all the way to the roots, passing through the trunk and bark, that is, the Earth itself, which the trunk and bark are an extension of. And man is petrified enough within himself, in his head system, not to need any additional petrifiers, or supporting mineral elements, to delegate the death tendencies to. Not to say that humanity does not need community, but does it need to institutionalize the Christ realization? The way I see it at this point is that man can discover the Christ impulse within himself, without the intermediation of supporting rocks or trunks. Is it dialectical to ask why Steiner would have founded a “Christian Community for Religious Renewal” if he had incredibly nuanced views about the RCC and didn’t see it as a corpse that had its day in the fourth post-A epoch? Perhaps, but I still think it is a reasonable question to ask, and I would be interested in any reading suggestions pointing to the nuances of Steiner’s views on the RCC.

But besides what Steiner thought, I would also be interested in the vision you painted of the future of the Church (if you, or anyone else who shares it, deem it relevant in the context of this thread). As you said: “The Church therefore is the vehicle through which the history of the entire earth will be gloriously raised in the Age to come”. How does this vision arise, and how does it tie in with the evolution of ethics: when you say that the Church is fortunate to have “a rock-solid moral bulwark against attack from malign forces” are you discarding ethical individualism? Lastly, with regards to the question of reincarnation, what to think of the objection that the Church does not concern itself with both “bookends”, but actually only with one - that of immortality after death - leaving the other bookend of eternity in the dark, thereby cultivating man’s egotistic tendencies? What does Tomberg say?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Thanks for elaborating, Rodriel. I should perhaps point out that I don’t run any risks of thinking wrongly about how John and Peter should operate, simply because I have only the vaguest idea of who they even are, and I regret to say, I don’t think much about them at all. I am not a Catholic, only a relatively recent student of Anthroposophy. Not to suggest that I don’t regret the gaps in my studies, but my thoughts are grounded in my evolving understanding of spiritual science, not in any direct experience of the Church and its doctrine.

And from this perspective, my sense is that man is the entire plant, rather than only the enlivening tips, or the leaves of this metaphoric tree. Human individuality spans from the tips of the petals and leaves, all the way to the roots, passing through the trunk and bark, that is, the Earth itself, which the trunk and bark are an extension of. And man is petrified enough within himself, in his head system, not to need any additional petrifiers, or supporting mineral elements, to delegate the death tendencies to. Not to say that humanity does not need community, but does it need to institutionalize the Christ realization? The way I see it at this point is that man can discover the Christ impulse within himself, without the intermediation of supporting rocks or trunks. Is it dialectical to ask why Steiner would have founded a “Christian Community for Religious Renewal” if he had incredibly nuanced views about the RCC and didn’t see it as a corpse that had its day in the fourth post-A epoch? Perhaps, but I still think it is a reasonable question to ask, and I would be interested in any reading suggestions pointing to the nuances of Steiner’s views on the RCC.

But besides what Steiner thought, I would also be interested in the vision you painted of the future of the Church (if you, or anyone else who shares it, deem it relevant in the context of this thread). As you said: “The Church therefore is the vehicle through which the history of the entire earth will be gloriously raised in the Age to come”. How does this vision arise, and how does it tie in with the evolution of ethics: when you say that the Church is fortunate to have “a rock-solid moral bulwark against attack from malign forces” are you discarding ethical individualism? Lastly, with regards to the question of reincarnation, what to think of the objection that the Church does not concern itself with both “bookends”, but actually only with one - that of immortality after death - leaving the other bookend of eternity in the dark, thereby cultivating man’s egotistic tendencies? What does Tomberg say?

Let me first say that I appreciate the continued discussion! This is admittedly pretty "in the weeds" material. I actually avoided any discussion of Church doctrine in my last post (and I have tried to in general here, assuming that most will not be familiar). All the stuff about Peter and John and their relationship comes straight from the Gospels. And the Gospels are of course of prime importance in any Christian path, including Anthroposophy. The figure of John (often referred to as Lazarus-John) is quite central to Anthroposophy. Steiner dedicated an enormous amount of attention to him in his work, especially the lecture cycles. Anthroposophy is in fact fundamentally a Johannine stream, coming out of the Rosicrucian tradition and inspired directly by Christian Rosenkreutz (said to be the reincarnation of Lazarus-John). John is traditionally considered to be the most spiritually lofty of the Apostles and his Gospel was often cited by Steiner as one of the most sublime and important documents ever given to humanity. Peter is a primary focus in this Gospel, but discussion of him is not nearly as prominent in Anthroposophy as is John (for what are to me obvious reasons). On the other hand, Peter is traditionally acknowledged (as he is described Biblically) as the rock of the Church, and the pope is considered to be in spiritual continuity with him. When I point out the conspicuous scarcity of anthroposophical discussion around Peter, it's this context that I have in mind. All that said, what I've been going on about here is bound to be more than a little perplexing absent this context.

It would take a while to assemble a collection of references of Steiner's direct statements on the Catholic Church. But now that you mention it, it would probably be a useful exercise! Steiner spoke relatively frequently of the great cosmic secrets hidden in the Mass and of the importance of the Eucharist. In Cosmosophy Vol. 2 he comments that the Catholic Church is the bearer of the "highest light filled wisdom of humanity." These are just a few of many such examples.

From what I recall, the notion that Steiner founded the Christian Community is actually not quite so cut and dry. I investigated this at one point, and I believe it revealed of Steiner's relationship to the CC that while, yes, he happily participated in the inauguration of this religious community, it was not his conception. Additionally, he made it clear that it should operate autonomously and that he should by no means be touted as its leader.

Regarding ethical individualism, I'd be curious to hear how you think about this concept. I am thoroughly in favor of it and find it to be pretty in sync with Catholic doctrine, especially in light of 20th century theological developments in the Church and particularly Vatican II. Ethical individualism is actually one of those elements which I spoke of before that I believe have made their way through into the Church in changed form. And to begin with, the concept was really just Steiner's development of the age-old Christian idea of having the Law written on the heart, for which one can find ample representation in Paul's epistles.

I think someone might have already quoted one of the relevant passages from Tomberg on the Church's stance regarding reincarnation. But here's another, from MoT:

"I confess that it is only after hesitation, due to objections of a very serious moral order, that I have decided to write of the danger that the doctrine of reincarnation entails, and above all of that abuse that can be—and is, in fact—made of it. It is the faith that you, dear Unknown Friend, understand the weight of responsibility that weighs on each person who sees himself treating reincarnation not as belonging to the domain of esoteric (i.e. intimate) experience, but as an exoteric teaching to popularise—called to convince everyone—which has determined me to speak of the practical abuse of the fact of reincarnation. I implore you therefore, dear Unknown Friend, to have the good will to examine, in the light of moral conscience, the question whether the way of treating reincarnation in exoteric teaching that has been adopted and is practised in general both by representatives of the French occult movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and by Theosophists, Anthroposophists, Rosicrucians, etc., is justified and desirable."

[Federica]

Let me first say that I appreciate the continued discussion! This is admittedly pretty "in the weeds" material. I actually avoided any discussion of Church doctrine in my last post (and I have tried to in general here, assuming that most will not be familiar). All the stuff about Peter and John and their relationship comes straight from the Gospels. And the Gospels are of course of prime importance in any Christian path, including Anthroposophy. The figure of John (often referred to as Lazarus-John) is quite central to Anthroposophy. Steiner dedicated an enormous amount of attention to him in his work, especially the lecture cycles. Anthroposophy is in fact fundamentally a Johannine stream, coming out of the Rosicrucian tradition and inspired directly by Christian Rosenkreutz (said to be the reincarnation of Lazarus-John). John is traditionally considered to be the most spiritually lofty of the Apostles and his Gospel was often cited by Steiner as one of the most sublime and important documents ever given to humanity. Peter is a primary focus in this Gospel, but discussion of him is not nearly as prominent in Anthroposophy as is John (for what are to me obvious reasons). On the other hand, Peter is traditionally acknowledged (as he is described Biblically) as the rock of the Church, and the pope is considered to be in spiritual continuity with him. When I point out the conspicuous scarcity of anthroposophical discussion around Peter, it's this context that I have in mind. All that said, what I've been going on about here is bound to be more than a little perplexing absent this context.

It would take a while to assemble a collection of references of Steiner's direct statements on the Catholic Church. But now that you mention it, it would probably be a useful exercise! Steiner spoke relatively frequently of the great cosmic secrets hidden in the Mass and of the importance of the Eucharist. In Cosmosophy Vol. 2 he comments that the Catholic Church is the bearer of the "highest light filled wisdom of humanity." These are just a few of many such examples.

From what I recall, the notion that Steiner founded the Christian Community is actually not quite so cut and dry. I investigated this at one point, and I believe it revealed of Steiner's relationship to the CC that while, yes, he happily participated in the inauguration of this religious community, it was not his conception. Additionally, he made it clear that it should operate autonomously and that he should by no means be touted as its leader.

Regarding ethical individualism, I'd be curious to hear how you think about this concept. I am thoroughly in favor of it and find it to be pretty in sync with Catholic doctrine, especially in light of 20th century theological developments in the Church and particularly Vatican II. Ethical individualism is actually one of those elements which I spoke of before that I believe have made their way through into the Church in changed form. And to begin with, the concept was really just Steiner's development of the age-old Christian idea of having the Law written on the heart, for which one can find ample representation in Paul's epistles.

I think someone might have already quoted one of the relevant passages from Tomberg on the Church's stance regarding reincarnation. But here's another, from MoT:

"I confess that it is only after hesitation, due to objections of a very serious moral order, that I have decided to write of the danger that the doctrine of reincarnation entails, and above all of that abuse that can be—and is, in fact—made of it. It is the faith that you, dear Unknown Friend, understand the weight of responsibility that weighs on each person who sees himself treating reincarnation not as belonging to the domain of esoteric (i.e. intimate) experience, but as an exoteric teaching to popularise—called to convince everyone—which has determined me to speak of the practical abuse of the fact of reincarnation. I implore you therefore, dear Unknown Friend, to have the good will to examine, in the light of moral conscience, the question whether the way of treating reincarnation in exoteric teaching that has been adopted and is practised in general both by representatives of the French occult movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and by Theosophists, Anthroposophists, Rosicrucians, etc., is justified and desirable."

Likewise, Rodriel, I really appreciate the discussion. I see that the relation between Anthroposophia and religious life is absolutely central, and I do plan to become more familiar with the Gospels. By the way, thank you for the context provided and the reference to the Cosmosophy lectures. Reading them will be more than enough, to begin with, I didn’t mean to ask for a detailed list! In that cycle, however, the only lecture where it is spoken of the Church explicitely seems to be Lecture XI (as gathered from keyword search). Below is the passage comprising the words you have quoted: “the bearer of the highest light-filled wisdom of humanity”, highlighted below. Interestingly, though, when put in context, the meaning we are faced with is the sheer opposite to a nuanced view of the RCC, to say the least! To be noticed, if you have read the cycle in the rsarchive, you may have been misled by what I think is a wrong translation of the German text. This is the passage in correct translation:

Sometimes we see remarkable personalities emerge in the course of history, and in a strange way, such remarkable personalities live, one might say, quite out of place compared to the circumstances of the present. I once spoke during a trip to Italy with a Benedictine priest in Monte Cassino. He spoke of how, in his breviary, among the names of saints, the Saxon German Emperor Henry II. He is also called “the Saint”, I don't know how many history books still mention that. But if we consider what this Henry II wanted — whose name is still among those that play a role in certain breviary prayers of Catholic priests — that is an “Ecclesia Catholica non Romana”. That’s what Henry II, the Saint, wanted! And in the time in which he lived - in the 10th and 11th centuries - it was still entirely possible, based on a true experience of ancient, traditional wisdom, to speak of what should come into the world through Christianity as an “Ecclesia Catholica”, that is a church for all humanity, a church in which the spirit reigns that was actually meant to come into the world through Christianity.

But Saint Henry II wanted a non-Roman Catholic Church, because the Roman Catholic Church had become a worldly kingdom. And it is so that wherever the spiritual realms become worldly realms, the Ahrimanic principle takes hold of that which lives as a holy place, and already lived as such in the primordial wisdom of humanity. There was still a strong awareness in the time of Henry II that the Ecclesia Catholica could be separated from the Ecclesia Catholica Romana, and that one should actually strive for an Ecclesia catholica non Romana. I say that, in the breviary, this Henry II appears as a misplaced saint. The Roman Catholic Church has no reason whatsoever to place him among its saints, for he was one of those who, out of holy catholic zeal, wanted to overcome the Roman Catholic Church precisely because of the Catholic Church.
These historical facts should be brought to people's attention precisely when one points to the most important truths that can be brought to the surface of human consciousness through anthroposophical spiritual science.

Today, it is very necessary to point out these things, because in the particular disgusting phenomena that meet us in such close proximity here, coming from the Roman Catholic Church, you can see how the Ahrimanic spirit was able to penetrate. On the one hand, one must not allow this Ahrimanic spirit to deceive one about the fact that the non-Roman Catholic Church contains within itself luminous, eternal wisdom. And in the theological course I was privileged to hold here, it became clear that, out of that Protestant longing that emerged for a deepening in Protestantism’s spiritual aspects, away from rationalism and intellectualism, it became clear that for some of the participants, the words "non-Roman Catholic Church" had a truly liberating effect. For today we are firmly of the view that rationalism must be overcome, just as the worldliness of the Roman Church must be, and that humanity must once again come together in a general spiritual life, which, however, must not be taken up by any worldly desire for domination.

Whoever reads this lecture in Anthroposophic Press Edition, or on the RS Archive website, will be misled, since the original “die Ecclesia Catholica non Romana” highlighted above, is translated there as "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" This is a sentence about the non-Roman Catholic Church! The original German text can be checked here at paragraph 209-210. And it will be clear to anyone reading the entire paragraph that things makes much more sense when the correct translation is restored. Perhaps Güney, if you are reading here, would you kindly give us your thoughts? This is the sentence in question: "Man darf sich auf der einen Seite durch diesen ahrima-nischen Geist nicht täuschen lassen darüber, daß die Ecclesia catholica non Romana eben doch in sich birgt lichtvolle ewige Weisheit."

In conclusion, I would say that I am still to be convinced that Steiner’s views on the RCC are nuanced. I will be brief regarding the remaining points, which I would gladly discuss further, but trying to remedy now an excess of questions I posed in my previous post. They can perhaps be resumed at a later point.

- Ethical individualism: I referred to the way this concept is addressed in PoF, but I am surprised that you think this is an age-old Christian idea, since the idea of commandments, or moral precepts externally imposed (the guardrails), stands in opposition to an ideal of morality where the individual arrives at contextual moral intuitions within himself, without any need for an external law to be imposed through authority.

- Reincarnation: This Tomberg quote does not seem to help! To me, it sounds like a pre- or post-face to some more central elaboration. The quoted text itself has no substantial elements. The point was the statement: “The Church's purview is the eternal, not the entire range of what is accessible to supersensible perception. It concerns itself with the bookends, if you will, leaving the middle alone”. Unless I misinterpreted, I believe (with Steiner) that the Church concerns itself only with the bookend of immortality after death, and not with the one on "unbornness", as Steiner calls it. And in so doing - hiding the truth of reincarnation - the Church encourages the egotistic drives of man, who is allowed to avoid responsibility for the past, only to focus on attaining immortality beyond the threshold.

[Güney27]

As everyone is aware, there are very few people, even among the spiritually inclined, who truly manage to develop a deep connection with anthroposophy. I personally found it easier to engage with Heidegger’s philosophy and find grounding in it than to study Steiner’s spiritual works and truly understand them. This is worth noting, given how challenging Heidegger is considered even in academic circles. It is an immense task to read Steiner’s teachings, internalize them without turning them into dogmatic beliefs, and then walk the inner path that leads, in full consciousness, beyond the threshold—while avoiding the dangers that are abundant on such paths. Tomberg emphasizes these dangers in *Meditations on the Tarot* (*MoT*), and I think we all know spiritual people who have become unhinged or deluded themselves into believing they are holy. I myself have noticed certain tendencies that can overtake one without being fully aware of them.

And where does one turn for help or guidance when encountering such dangers? Personally, I would be reluctant to seek out the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach for such support. This is not to say that Steiner deliberately ignored these dangers; on the contrary, he warned about them, though not in every part of his vast body of work. It is one thing to follow his path 110 years ago, when Steiner was there as a master and guide for his students, and quite another to do so today, after online Zoom conferences with his followers. I am not saying there are no masters today, only that we live in a very different context than in Steiner’s time.

The other question I would like to raise is whether Steiner’s emphasis on knowledge also carries inherent dangers. In our era, science was born to satisfy the drive for epistemic certainty, which was the ideal of Enlightenment philosophers and finds its culmination in skeptical materialists. People shy away from taking seriously anything that cannot be guaranteed by this epistemic certainty. Why believe, when the ideal is knowledge (in the sense described)? Today, belief is often misunderstood as clinging to unprovable hypotheses or convictions. However, this is a false conception. Belief is trust in the unknown, to which one surrenders one’s will without having cognitively understood it (Tomberg describes this vividly in *MoT* as the reversed Hanged Man). It is all too easy to engage with occultism out of one’s own curiosity and run the risk of being overtaken by impulses. Steiner was profoundly different from most people in his development, education, and abilities. There is such a vast gap between him and the average person that I am not sure it can be bridged at all. In contrast, the Church manages to provide the ordinary person with a community that fosters spiritual growth and guidance through the tradition established by Christ and centered on Him. In Tomberg, a remarkable synthesis emerges, one that can build a bridge and create a connection.

Many people believe in reincarnation and karma—theosophists, Hindus, New Agers… However, I have noticed in myself that through reading Steiner, these “laws” now feel like a reality in which we are embedded. Yet I can also imagine how these ideas can be influenced by Ahrimanic and Luciferic impulses, as happens with many occultists and spiritualists. Could an understanding of reincarnation lead to neglecting this life, and an understanding of karma to determinism?

Guney,

There are interesting questions you raise. I would like to offer a few thoughts to consider.

Although we often speak of 'paths', what Steiner intended was not to provide a 'path to follow', in any traditional sense. The path of intuitive thinking is unique because it does not rely whatsoever on any particular individuality or their teachings, their level of knowledge, and so on. It is specifically for those individuals who feel a burning desire to resurrect the sacred religious impulse within themselves, without excessive dependence on outer authorities, traditions, paths, etc.(including esoteric 'systems'). Of course, that doesn't mean we neglect contemplation of religious or esoteric texts and go it alone - such an approach would be highly unwise and unproductive. Yet we also learn to trust in our intuitive thinking faculty and its ability to derive all the foundational principles of the evolutionary process from within itself, by simply observing its characteristic dynamics as it interfaces with phenomenal content.

I think everyone is familiar with the difficulties you have expressed in approaching Steiner's lectures. Yet the more we independently investigate our inner process, in relative freedom from outer authorities, the more the fog is lifted from such esoteric content, and we feel like we may have produced that content ourselves if we hadn't come across it in Steiner. As we think through the existential questions from such a phenomenological perspective, suddenly themes and concepts from those lectures that we hardly remember reading, and that previously felt remote and obscure, may emerge into our consciousness and 'fill in the gaps' of our intuitive understanding, as Kaje also mentioned. Cleric also illustrated this from another angle recently with the turbulence and laminar flow metaphor. We need to start thinking differently about what Steiner intended for spiritual science, than what we are used to with other philosophical systems and esoteric paths. It's really comparing apples to oranges in many cases.

I will also mention that there is nothing you will find in Tomberg, about the dangers of supersensible perception, about the Christ impulse, the virtues and sacraments, about faith and trust in the unknown, and so on, that you won't also find in Steiner in a somewhat different form. That is not to say one is superior to the other, but it's simply a fact that nothing in that respect has been left out of consideration in spiritual science. In fact, it is exactly the intuitive thinking path that helps us naturally cultivate the stance of the Hanged Man, since we can only sensitize to our deeper spiritual gestures when we defocus from our familiar perceptions and concepts and become receptive to unfamiliar domains of intuitive potential. These domains are 'made of' the highest virtues and moral impulses; the latter are the medium and atmosphere in which our deeper scale spiritual activity weaves. This is why Steiner continually stressed the importance of PoF and his early epistemic works, because his core intention was to cultivate free spirits who can embody the Christ impulse, awaken across the threshold, and steer toward the fully human ideal without excessive reliance on him, his teachings, his society, or anyone else.

Yes, Ashvin, I understand and agree with you. It is certainly true that Steiner never wanted his impulse to become a rigid intellectual system. But this is ultimately what happened, with the exception of a few souls. I don’t think Valentin Tomberg ever doubted that it was unimportant to engage with the ideas of the Anthroposophical Society. It seems to me that for him, it was more about the fact that this was only meant for certain souls who feel a karmic attraction to it.

It appears to me that VT tried to bring occult knowledge into the public through the Catholic Church, rather than through the formation of a new organization. After all, Christ himself founded the Church—why shouldn’t we be able to receive his impulse through it? The Church as such can and has evolved over time. For example, Valentin Tomberg writes that during the time of the Reformation, which, as is well known, placed the will and reason in the foreground, there was a danger of robbing humanity of its heart, leaving humans as mere head and limbs. At that time, a saint received the revelation of the Sacred Heart devotion, which was meant to counteract these impulses.

The difference between VT and RS is not, in the end, that one speaks about reincarnation, karma, etc., while the other denies these and portrays them as demonically inspired, as fundamentalists might. Rather, VT’s focus (at least I think so, though I’m not sure if these thoughts are correct) seems to lie in creating a synthesis between the revealed and the occult, bringing the occult principles into the light of the revealed tradition. VT seems to believe that it can be dangerous to share certain occult knowledge with the public today, whereas for Steiner, this was a primary task.

Perhaps the two simply differ in their missions. Perhaps Steiner wanted to reach people who felt drawn to the occult, while VT wanted to bring the occult into the religious world in a moderated form. OMA and BD also don’t delve as deeply into occult mysteries as Steiner does but instead provide practical exercises and methods for soul purification, etc.

I think that during his conversion, VT recognized the rich and salutary tradition and theology, as well as its spiritual path with Christ as the ideal, as a bearer of the Christ impulse. This is not meant to diminish Steiner—as you said, it’s not about placing one above the other. What do you think VT must have recognized, or perhaps misunderstood, to radically break with the Anthroposophical Society and change his course? Do you think he misunderstood Steiner’s philosophical impulse, which you emphasize, and thus missed something essential?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Likewise, Rodriel, I really appreciate the discussion. I see that the relation between Anthroposophia and religious life is absolutely central, and I do plan to become more familiar with the Gospels. By the way, thank you for the context provided and the reference to the Cosmosophy lectures. Reading them will be more than enough, to begin with, I didn’t mean to ask for a detailed list! In that cycle, however, the only lecture where it is spoken of the Church explicitely seems to be Lecture XI (as gathered from keyword search). Below is the passage comprising the words you have quoted: “the bearer of the highest light-filled wisdom of humanity”, highlighted below. Interestingly, though, when put in context, the meaning we are faced with is the sheer opposite to a nuanced view of the RCC, to say the least! To be noticed, if you have read the cycle in the rsarchive, you may have been misled by what I think is a wrong translation of the German text. This is the passage in correct translation:

Sometimes we see remarkable personalities emerge in the course of history, and in a strange way, such remarkable personalities live, one might say, quite out of place compared to the circumstances of the present. I once spoke during a trip to Italy with a Benedictine priest in Monte Cassino. He spoke of how, in his breviary, among the names of saints, the Saxon German Emperor Henry II. He is also called “the Saint”, I don't know how many history books still mention that. But if we consider what this Henry II wanted — whose name is still among those that play a role in certain breviary prayers of Catholic priests — that is an “Ecclesia Catholica non Romana”. That’s what Henry II, the Saint, wanted! And in the time in which he lived - in the 10th and 11th centuries - it was still entirely possible, based on a true experience of ancient, traditional wisdom, to speak of what should come into the world through Christianity as an “Ecclesia Catholica”, that is a church for all humanity, a church in which the spirit reigns that was actually meant to come into the world through Christianity.

But Saint Henry II wanted a non-Roman Catholic Church, because the Roman Catholic Church had become a worldly kingdom. And it is so that wherever the spiritual realms become worldly realms, the Ahrimanic principle takes hold of that which lives as a holy place, and already lived as such in the primordial wisdom of humanity. There was still a strong awareness in the time of Henry II that the Ecclesia Catholica could be separated from the Ecclesia Catholica Romana, and that one should actually strive for an Ecclesia catholica non Romana. I say that, in the breviary, this Henry II appears as a misplaced saint. The Roman Catholic Church has no reason whatsoever to place him among its saints, for he was one of those who, out of holy catholic zeal, wanted to overcome the Roman Catholic Church precisely because of the Catholic Church.
These historical facts should be brought to people's attention precisely when one points to the most important truths that can be brought to the surface of human consciousness through anthroposophical spiritual science.

Today, it is very necessary to point out these things, because in the particular disgusting phenomena that meet us in such close proximity here, coming from the Roman Catholic Church, you can see how the Ahrimanic spirit was able to penetrate. On the one hand, one must not allow this Ahrimanic spirit to deceive one about the fact that the non-Roman Catholic Church contains within itself luminous, eternal wisdom. And in the theological course I was privileged to hold here, it became clear that, out of that Protestant longing that emerged for a deepening in Protestantism’s spiritual aspects, away from rationalism and intellectualism, it became clear that for some of the participants, the words "non-Roman Catholic Church" had a truly liberating effect. For today we are firmly of the view that rationalism must be overcome, just as the worldliness of the Roman Church must be, and that humanity must once again come together in a general spiritual life, which, however, must not be taken up by any worldly desire for domination.

Whoever reads this lecture in Anthroposophic Press Edition, or on the RS Archive website, will be misled, since the original “die Ecclesia Catholica non Romana” highlighted above, is translated there as "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" This is a sentence about the non-Roman Catholic Church! The original German text can be checked here at paragraph 209-210. And it will be clear to anyone reading the entire paragraph that things makes much more sense when the correct translation is restored. Perhaps Güney, if you are reading here, would you kindly give us your thoughts? This is the sentence in question: "Man darf sich auf der einen Seite durch diesen ahrima-nischen Geist nicht täuschen lassen darüber, daß die Ecclesia catholica non Romana eben doch in sich birgt lichtvolle ewige Weisheit."

In conclusion, I would say that I am still to be convinced that Steiner’s views on the RCC are nuanced. I will be brief regarding the remaining points, which I would gladly discuss further, but trying to remedy now an excess of questions I posed in my previous post. They can perhaps be resumed at a later point.

- Ethical individualism: I referred to the way this concept is addressed in PoF, but I am surprised that you think this is an age-old Christian idea, since the idea of commandments, or moral precepts externally imposed (the guardrails), stands in opposition to an ideal of morality where the individual arrives at contextual moral intuitions within himself, without any need for an external law to be imposed through authority.

- Reincarnation: This Tomberg quote does not seem to help! To me, it sounds like a pre- or post-face to some more central elaboration. The quoted text itself has no substantial elements. The point was the statement: “The Church's purview is the eternal, not the entire range of what is accessible to supersensible perception. It concerns itself with the bookends, if you will, leaving the middle alone”. Unless I misinterpreted, I believe (with Steiner) that the Church concerns itself only with the bookend of immortality after death, and not with the one on "unbornness", as Steiner calls it. And in so doing - hiding the truth of reincarnation - the Church encourages the egotistic drives of man, who is allowed to avoid responsibility for the past, only to focus on attaining immortality beyond the threshold.

Hmm, well that is indeed a significant mistranslation in the Anthroposophic Press edition (I do wish I spoke German). But it only changes things slightly. His overall point in the section is that then-current Christian traditions (including Orthodoxy as well) contain deep wisdom which has come under Ahrimanic influence and is thus hidden and distorted. "That is how it is in the world today. Under the influence of ahrimanic materialism, lies are presented on the outside, and the deepest truth lies within, and the two are brought together in a truly dreadful way." Now this is surely a firm critique. But my point this whole time hasn't been that Steiner wasn't fiercely critical of the RCC. Rather, I've been pointing to the cosmic wisdom that Steiner acknowledged to be contained within these traditions. Criticizing the present manifestation is a different thing entirely than a total rejection. It's an impetus for transformation. All that said, I don't expect to convince you of Steiner's subtlety on this topic. My final remark on it would simply be to point to the fixation with Lucifer and Ahriman among Anthroposophists, which leads to a kind of paralysis where almost nothing is embraceable -- it's too either too Luciferic or too Ahrimanic and thus should be shunned and totally avoided. This is one of the inherent dangers of esotericism that Steiner himself never tired of warning his acolytes about. When one looks "under the hood" of reality and sees the extent to which evil is woven into things, it can come as quite a shock. This shock can then turn into a kind of reactionary, almost puritanical attitude which rejects things instead of understanding how to make proper use of them and transform them for the good.

To address the continuing threads:

Ethical Individualism: Yes, I am referring to the same PoF-based definition as you. All Steiner did here was to clarify something inherent within Christian morality. There is no discrepancy between finding the Law written upon one's heart and receiving it from without. Ideally these things should be converging, as they in fact derive from the same objective moral reservoir. Steiner's crucial contribution was a re-awakening of humanity to this fact, which was in danger of being lost due to petrification within traditional Christianity. The RCC has recently more or less accepted ethical individualism / moral creativity in "baptized" form in its formal doctrine (the catechism of the Church). When one thinks about it, this was bound to take place, considering the canonization of Joan of Arc in 1920, the individual who ushered in the 5th cultural epoch through a profound act of moral creativity in the face of direct opposition by the Church itself. The canonization of St. Joan was the canonization of ethical individualism and the taking-in of the consciousness soul into the RCC.

Reincarnation: Point taken. I could have copy-pasted a better passage. Tomberg's argument spans several pages in multiple sections of MoT, so direct quotation is a bit of a challenge. I'm happy to summarize his view for you, which you are of course free to verify should you wish. According to Tomberg (and Steiner), reincarnation is the unfortunate result of the Fall. It is thus a temporary and not an eternal reality. This being the case, it is a spiritual fact outside the purview of the Church, which concerns itself with the eternal truths necessary for salvation. As I mentioned before, when reincarnation becomes the focus, the average person falls into the trap of preparing for the next incarnation rather than heeding Christ's injunction to remain ever awake and watchful (meaning morally upright in the here and now). Focusing on reincarnation leads spiritually unfortified souls down rabbit holes of curiosity, which are ultimately distractions from spiritual development. (Steiner himself was fond of pointing out how many reincarnated Mary Magdalene's he had met). If however, the individual, through spiritual development comes to remember past lives, spiritual science is a ready apparatus for integrating these. If one is to talk about reincarnation, one should do it with the utmost discretion and most appropriately with a close circle of karmically bonded individuals. The Church has no business incorporating such matters into its formal doctrine. This is Tomberg's view. Perhaps it still doesn't address your question the Church's encouragement of egotism (which I of course disagree with). Please do elaborate on this point, if you care to.

[Federica]

Hmm, well that is indeed a significant mistranslation in the Anthroposophic Press edition (I do wish I spoke German). But it only changes things slightly. His overall point in the section is that then-current Christian traditions (including Orthodoxy as well) contain deep wisdom which has come under Ahrimanic influence and is thus hidden and distorted. "That is how it is in the world today. Under the influence of ahrimanic materialism, lies are presented on the outside, and the deepest truth lies within, and the two are brought together in a truly dreadful way." Now this is surely a firm critique. But my point this whole time hasn't been that Steiner wasn't fiercely critical of the RCC. Rather, I've been pointing to the cosmic wisdom that Steiner acknowledged to be contained within these traditions. Criticizing the present manifestation is a different thing entirely than a total rejection. It's an impetus for transformation. All that said, I don't expect to convince you of Steiner's subtlety on this topic. My final remark on it would simply be to point to the fixation with Lucifer and Ahriman among Anthroposophists, which leads to a kind of paralysis where almost nothing is embraceable -- it's too either too Luciferic or too Ahrimanic and thus should be shunned and totally avoided. This is one of the inherent dangers of esotericism that Steiner himself never tired of warning his acolytes about. When one looks "under the hood" of reality and sees the extent to which evil is woven into things, it can come as quite a shock. This shock can then turn into a kind of reactionary, almost puritanical attitude which rejects things instead of understanding how to make proper use of them and transform them for the good.

To address the continuing threads:

Ethical Individualism: Yes, I am referring to the same PoF-based definition as you. All Steiner did here was to clarify something inherent within Christian morality. There is no discrepancy between finding the Law written upon one's heart and receiving it from without. Ideally these things should be converging, as they in fact derive from the same objective moral reservoir. Steiner's crucial contribution was a re-awakening of humanity to this fact, which was in danger of being lost due to petrification within traditional Christianity. The RCC has recently more or less accepted ethical individualism / moral creativity in "baptized" form in its formal doctrine (the catechism of the Church). When one thinks about it, this was bound to take place, considering the canonization of Joan of Arc in 1920, the individual who ushered in the 5th cultural epoch through a profound act of moral creativity in the face of direct opposition by the Church itself. The canonization of St. Joan was the canonization of ethical individualism and the taking-in of the consciousness soul into the RCC.

Reincarnation: Point taken. I could have copy-pasted a better passage. Tomberg's argument spans several pages in multiple sections of MoT, so direct quotation is a bit of a challenge. I'm happy to summarize his view for you, which you are of course free to verify should you wish. According to Tomberg (and Steiner), reincarnation is the unfortunate result of the Fall. It is thus a temporary and not an eternal reality. This being the case, it is a spiritual fact outside the purview of the Church, which concerns itself with the eternal truths necessary for salvation. As I mentioned before, when reincarnation becomes the focus, the average person falls into the trap of preparing for the next incarnation rather than heeding Christ's injunction to remain ever awake and watchful (meaning morally upright in the here and now). Focusing on reincarnation leads spiritually unfortified souls down rabbit holes of curiosity, which are ultimately distractions from spiritual development. (Steiner himself was fond of pointing out how many reincarnated Mary Magdalene's he had met). If however, the individual, through spiritual development comes to remember past lives, spiritual science is a ready apparatus for integrating these. If one is to talk about reincarnation, one should do it with the utmost discretion and most appropriately with a close circle of karmically bonded individuals. The Church has no business incorporating such matters into its formal doctrine. This is Tomberg's view. Perhaps it still doesn't address your question the Church's encouragement of egotism (which I of course disagree with). Please do elaborate on this point, if you care to.

I take your final remark, I think it is correct. It’s all too easy to give in to the forces of antipathy (in the sense illustrated in Ashvin’s latest essay series) and form too fixed ideas and judgments, through a process of resistance first (by a misplaced wish of self-determination), which then becomes a premature release of the complexity of the question at stake (by lack of sufficient thinking fitness). Then the opinions formed through this release tend to fall rather bluntly to one side or the other, often lacking subtlety, in a reactionary, almost puritanical mood, as you say. I see how such a soul wrinkle may become dangerous if not improved on. I recognize the process, since it definitely characterizes my personality, which comes from a place of more affinity with antipathy than with sympathy.

Specularly though, the opposite propensity is also a thing. Taking the subject of the “On Attaining Spiritual Sight” thread, for example, one could over-emphasize the overall aspiration shared by nondual/mystical meditation and anthroposophical meditation and say: “It’s all appropriate. In the big scheme of things, they both point to Oneness, none of them should be rejected. It’s only a matter of making proper use of each of them” - which is true at a certain high level, but untrue at the level at which one needs to operate in order to guide action towards a fruitful establishment of a meditative practice today. So it is also possible to refrain too much from grasping precise ideas, in an intention to release and harmonize things at all costs, for the transcending feeling of it. I do not mean to suggest that you are leaning in that direction, but only that I strive to become more sensitive to these forces, especially the hardening forces of antipathy.

I would apply this same nuancing to the question of ethical individualism. I agree that there is no high level contradiction between objective moral ideas drawn from within and received from without, since they are, as said, objective. However, there remains a strong need to differentiate between the asymptotical high ideal at eternity and the particular route humanity needs to flow through at any particular time in evolution. From this perspective, the external hierarchy of the Church as a source of imperatives is what needs to diminish, to give way to and let flourish intimate moral discovery. Regardless, thanks for the interesting perspective on the canonization of Joan of Arc, I didn’t know about it. When it comes to the more recent developments within the Church, it really seems a very intricate and opaque question to me. Beyond the aspects of doctrine adjutments (which I am largely ignorant of) and changing attitudes to the evolving facts of modernity, one of the most perplexing aspects of the RCC for me is the obscure hierarchical and political character of it.

Thanks also for the thoughts on reincarnation. I read the first chapters of MoT digitally, but now I’ve ordered the physical book, for a better engagement with this great work. Regarding the possible effects of hiding or not hiding the truth of reincarnation, pros and cons can surely be equally theorized. I admit I am somewhat disappointed to learn about Tomberg’s position. Anyway, I can't make a better case for stopping to hide the fact of our previous lives, than by quoting. From this thread:

In the most profound sense, grasping these truths [Karma and Reincarnation] in the depth of our being, places us differently in the evolutionary stream of humanity and the Cosmos. Something of our 'soul geometry' changes. In our day, the idea of "one life" (even though necessary until recently for certain reasons) is now being possessed by completely Luciferic and Ahrimanic influences.

To be honest, my imagination is not rich enough to imagine the Pope standing and saying, "Listen, my children, we're gradually phasing in the doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation." It is for this reason that I simply cannot comprehend how the CC (or EOC for that matter) could be a suitable host for the ongoing evolutionary impulse.

It is very straightforward. The impulse of spiritual science/anthroposophy (which in a way emerges as a stream of Esoteric Christianity flowing out of the secret schools, out in the open, and bringing a spiritual dimension to all aspects of Earthly life) is all about the human being awakening to its Cosmic dimension and thus gradually bridging the realms of consciousness divided by the threshold of death. If we do not understand this, we do not really understand what this impulse is about, thus what the evolutionary direction of humanity is. The idea that this impulse, which is already quietly working in the souls of humanity, should somehow be collected and planted in the CC box, is ...confusing, to say the least.

And in GA 198, Lecture III of June 6, 1920, Steiner said the following - as retrieved from the Rudolf Steiner Archive. Fasten your seatbelt before you go

Just think what it signifies for the whole evolution of humanity not to speak of a prenatal life. When in the churches of today we are told only of a life after death, that simply arouses instincts connected with man’s egotistical desire not to be extinguished at death.
My dear friends, an essay, a thorough-going study is needed —“On the Cultivation of Human Egotism by the Churches”— In such a study one would have to explore the real motives which are worked upon in the sermons and doctrines of all the usual religious denominations, and one would everywhere find that appeal is made to the egotistical instincts of man, especially to the instinct for immortality after death. One could extend this study to cover more than a thousand years, and one would see that these religious denominations, by eliminating the life before birth under Aristotelian influence, have fostered in the highest degree the egotism in human nature.

Churches, as cultivators of the deepest egotistical instincts, is a subject well worthy of study. By far, the largest part of the religious life of the modern civilized world today panders to human egotism. This egotism can be felt in pronouncements which I could quote by the dozen. Again and again it is written, especially in pastoral letters, that "spiritual science busies itself with all kinds of knowledge about super-sensible worlds, but man does not need that. He only needs to have the childlike consciousness of his connection with Christ Jesus.” That is said both by pastors and by the faithful; this childlike connection with Christ Jesus is always emphasized. It is brought forward with immense pride against what is, of course, far less easy to attain—penetration into the concrete details of the spiritual world.

It is preached over and over again. Again and again man is led to believe that he can be most Christian when he least exercises his soul forces, when he least strives to think something clear with what he calls his Christ consciousness. This Christ consciousness must be something which man attains by absolute childlikeness—so say these easy-going ones. And best of all, they like to be told that Christ has taken all the sins of mankind on Himself, and has redeemed mankind through His sacrificial death, without men having to do anything themselves. All this points to the belief that through the sacrificial death of Christ, immortality is guaranteed after death; but that merely tends to nourish in humanity the most extreme egotism.

By this cultivation of egotism on the part of the churches, we have finally brought about what is dawning today over all the civilized world. Because this egotism has been so widely cultivated, mankind has become what it is today. Just think if the human being, not merely theoretically with ideas and concepts, but with the whole inner life of his soul were to grasp the truth that this earthly life as he enters it through birth lays upon him the obligation of fulfilling a mission which he has brought with him from a life before birth! Just think how egotism would vanish if that thought were to fill our whole souls, if this earthly life were regarded as a task which must be fulfilled because it is linked to an over-earthly life through which we have previously passed! Egotism is combated by the feeling that stirs in us when we look upon life on earth as a continuation of an over-earthly life, just as egotism is fostered by the religious denominations which speak only of life after death. That is what is important for man’s social well being, to restore the fact of his pre-existence to the consciousness of mankind of the present and of the future, and of course the idea of reincarnation is inseparable from that of the pre-existence of the human soul.

I cut the quote to keep it reasonably short, but its continuation is worth reading.