Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[AshvinP]

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?

Guney,

Rodriel mentioned before that these questions should often be addressed at a level deeper than the content we explore at the discursive intellectual level, and I think that's a helpful approach. One way to help orient to this deeper level is to ask what has been or is being done, rather than just what has been said. That is especially helpful to ask in our real-time thinking process, but it can also be asked of others. 

A common theme on this forum has been that the World content - whether it is framed in philosophical, religious, scientific, esoteric, etc. terms, whether it is alchemy, astrology, tarot, MoT, Steiner's letures, etc. - will inevitably become more of a hindrance to the inner development of the modern intellectual (or consciousness) soul if it is not accompanied by the thinking perpsective finding its proper stance within the experiential flow. It inevitably leads in the direction of petrification (excessive Ahrimanic influence) within the imaginative life, as mental puzzles are constructed and lead the soul into further and further levels of indirection from the intuitive foundations. Thus, the real-time thinking perspective should first begin to understand how it is placed within the World process and its condensed content, beginning with our imaginative content, which necessarily overlaps with the content of modern cultural institutions (for ex., the dogmas of the Church, modern scientific theories, etc.). 

Once we reorient our perspective within the experiential flow, bringing thinking out of the blind spot, we would be very unwise to imagine we can go it alone, floating into 'pure spiritual worlds', and ignoring the vast reservoirs of Wisdom embedded in the imploded natural and cultural patterns of the World state. In fact, we realize it is necessary to positively immerse ourselves in such patterns to stimulate living and evolving intuitions of supersensible realities. I think VT could develop such a profound appreciation for the RCC and its role in the evolutionary process precisely because he first went through the phenomenological foundations of the cognitive path, exactly as Steiner intended souls to do. It is through that path that he was able to see what was missing from the post-Steiner Anthroposophical society when it engaged with other traditions and systems, and launch such a forceful critique. 

It then seems clear that VT wanted to emphasize these treasure troves of Wisdom, particularly as a counterbalance to the post-Steiner Anthroposophical movement that tended to be hypercritical of all other living traditions, philosophies, and so on, often characterizing and ostracizing them as Ahrimanic or Luciferic. Perhaps many Anthroposophists were drawing on Steiner's critical remarks of various personalities, for example, Kant, Eliphas Levi, Bergson, Jung (a little bit), and so on (many of whom VT puts in a more positive light in MoT). I think such Anthroposophers failed to realize Steiner was only using them as reference points for certain wider soul tendencies in the evolutionary process that he was trying to illustrate, not attempting to reject their work completely as 'evil' or inferior. VT wanted to draw out the valid intuitions and insights of these personalities as a counterbalance to such a dogmatic stance, it seems. 

A similar thing may apply to the RCC, but that also goes beyond any particular philosophical, scientific, religious, etc. personality. It speaks to a deeper scale of imploded patterns, in a sense. Yet I see no reason why the same foundational principle can't apply here. By reorienting our thinking perspective as discussed, we can retrace the petrified aspects of the RCC to the light-filled Wisdom (Sophia) from which it was born and maintained itself as a living body of Christ for many centuries. Again, I think that is what VT sought to do from within the Church and could only do so because of his Anthroposophical cognitive foundations. From what I can gather, especially from my own experience, it is because of the latter that he was in a position to orient properly toward the traditions and dogmas of the Church and sense their underlying Inspiration, and the path of their potential transformation from the inside-out. If we pay more attention to what VT did, in that sense, then I think we get a better feeling for what he intended with his life path and the content of his later works. 

So far from misunderstanding Steiner's philosophical-epistemic impulse, I think VT's entire life path is a testimony to that impulse and its fruits. Now, there is still the question of whether and how the RCC fits in the broader evolutionary impulse, i.e., whether it can be a 'host' for the etheric incarnation of Christ that is increasingly bringing intimations of life beyond the threshold (pre-born and post-death) into the intellectual scale of consciousness. I don't think we can say that reincarnation will eventually end, so therefore souls don't necessarily need to become familiar with the elastic threads lawfully connecting various aspects of their incarnate lives. As Federica pointed out, we are at an evolutionary stage where that is exactly what is needed for most modern souls who have contracted into the intellectual ego. Or as Cleric stated on the other thread, "If we understand that, we should really shudder – what we thought was ‘neutral’ or quite optional knowledge, turns out to concern trees that we are already bumping into." Without at least some orientation to those lawful threads, the frames of existence will start to feel more and more confusing, oppressive, threatening, and so on. But VT is also correct that it needs to be grasped from out of intimate cognitive insight, not as mere theoretical occultism (although it will inevitably begin that way). One need only look at the Facebook Anthroposophy page to see many examples of the latter, which can only lead to more harm and confusion than light and healing.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

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.

Ah, yes, I've read this lecture cycle. Steiner's intimate knowledge of both the Church in his day and throughout its long history is a testament to the seriousness and subtlety with which he approached the subject. He was intimately familiar with the work of the Church Fathers, could speak to the contents and outcomes of the Church councils, and understood traditional theology better than most. Having such a vast knowledge and appreciation of the Church and its history (as a primary stream flowing directly out of Golgotha) put him in a position to be able to describe it from many angles, including critical ones. In his lectures on Scholasticism ("The Redemption of Thinking," GA 74) he heaps the most glowing praise on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, making the direct and radical claim that Anthroposophy is the transformed continuation of this tradition. I'll return to this in a moment.

Regarding Steiner's views around the "egotism of the churches." It's interesting to take account of the way his various points relate to what has taken shape in specific streams. The idea of Christ having paid for humanity's sins "without men having to do anything themselves" is a decidedly Protestant attitude. What he describes as the insistence of a childlike connection to Christ can be seen most strongly in the most ancient of the churches, namely the Eastern Orthodox. It seems only natural that the stream which has retained the largest degree of similarity to the early community would conserve a certain childlike soul mood. Orthodoxy is extremely suspicious and skeptical of both the intellect and the imagination, finding these to be targets for evil spirits and therefore barriers to humility. Spiritual illumination is not denied in this tradition, however - It is simply thought to proceed through and only through a childlike falling-at-the-feet of Christ Jesus. This attitude is an echo of just how strong the Christ Impulse was in the immediate aftermath of Golgotha. Roman Catholicism on the other hand, having sprung up in a time when the Christ Impulse was less intensely concentrated, actively develops the intellect and therefore is not nearly as childlike in its overall soul mood. Sacramentally speaking, though, the "childlike" mood remains. The path to salvation, especially insofar as it relates to the laity, is not first and foremost a cognitive path but a moral one of poverty, charity, and obedience. (Tomberg undertook the impressive task of showing how this triad is upwardly scalable into more advanced cognitive domains and not dialectically opposed to them). Clearly these two ancient churches represent developmental stages in the evolution of the collective Christian organism. And to Steiner's point, holding onto former stages once they have passed, at the exclusion of new developments that are attempting to sprout forth, is evidence of a kind of pride. The embrace of the new is needed, but the truly operative question is where this newness will be housed. And a closely related question: to what extent are these church streams, as outer manifestations, coterminous with the invisible ecclesia catholica. Are these churches, particularly Roman Catholic Church for the purposes of this discussion, merely a temporary manifestation of that invisible collective entity, or do they have some lasting share in it? It's crystal clear that Steiner believed the Russian Orthodox Church to be in possession of an impulse that will come to define the 6th cultural epoch. Will there still be a Russian Orthodox Church at that time, or will its impulse pass on without the outer corporate structure? I don't know. But it is my conviction, with respect to the Roman Catholic Church, that it as an outer institution will be what ultimately persists into the Age as the Ecclesia Catholica, as the bodily vehicle through which all other streams are resurrected. Earth evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are inextricably linked. "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." (Luke 2:1) Rome is the earth, and "Caesar" will take account of it in its entirety. But since the day St. Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome, the Christ Impulse has become united with this rock of the Church, and the Roman Church is the earth lifted upward on the wings of John the Eagle while the world descends into darkness. All other streams are destined to do as Thomas indicated, "let us go and die with him [Lazarus-John]" (John 11:16), for this is how the Eagle imparts flight to the Rock.

Returning then to the point above about Steiner's claim that Anthropsophy is the transformed continuation of Scholasticism. This is really a key for me in understanding the RCC-Steiner relationship. The Church is in possession of the perfected apparatus of the intellectual soul, namely Scholasticism. Scholasticism lives on to this day in Catholic theology in what is usually called "Thomism." Thomism is still in fact the prevailing impulse in Catholic theology. However, over the course of the last 100 years, major developments have occurred which, like I have pointed out, are quite resonant with some of Steiner's key contributions, particularly from PoF. So there is already a transformation at work. What is now of course needed is a further fructification of the the intellectual soul foundation within the Church by a Goethean impulse. And the Goetheanization of the Church was precisely Valentin Tomberg's project. Valentin Tomberg has attempted to plant the Goethean seed into the soil of the intellectual Church in order for it to sprout forth from within. Proclaiming reincarnation and karma from the rooftops is not the way this will succeed. Instead, showing the existing structure to be pregnant with the materials of its own further unfolding - with the enlivened thought life of the Spirits of Motion - is the way forward, and the extent to which reincarnation and karma will be realized in this transformation will be the extent to which individual souls come to experience these things inwardly.

[Cleric]

Returning then to the point above about Steiner's claim that Anthropsophy is the transformed continuation of Scholasticism. This is really a key for me in understanding the RCC-Steiner relationship. The Church is in possession of the perfected apparatus of the intellectual soul, namely Scholasticism. Scholasticism lives on to this day in Catholic theology in what is usually called "Thomism." Thomism is still in fact the prevailing impulse in Catholic theology. However, over the course of the last 100 years, major developments have occurred which, like I have pointed out, are quite resonant with some of Steiner's key contributions, particularly from PoF. So there is already a transformation at work. What is now of course needed is a further fructification of the the intellectual soul foundation within the Church by a Goethean impulse. And the Goetheanization of the Church was precisely Valentin Tomberg's project. Valentin Tomberg has attempted to plant the Goethean seed into the soil of the intellectual Church in order for it to sprout forth from within. Proclaiming reincarnation and karma from the rooftops is not the way this will succeed. Instead, showing the existing structure to be pregnant with the materials of its own further unfolding - with the enlivened thought life of the Spirits of Motion - is the way forward, and the extent to which reincarnation and karma will be realized in this transformation will be the extent to which individual souls come to experience these things inwardly.

Rodriel, a question came to mind as I'm following this interesting thread.

Since what we are speaking of basically concerns the future structure of humanity, what are your thoughts on the Threefold Social Organism?

I believe that anyone who grasps the structure of man (body, soul, spirit, not as a scheme but in its inner reality) would be aware that these ideas were not simply Steiner's musings on the 'perfect sociopolitical system' (like some 'smart' replacement of Communism and Capitalism), but simply reflect the structure of the condensing World flow in its more coherent nature - the Edenic flow (to use the term from Ashvin's latest essay).

So we have the cultural sphere - the spirit, the influx guided by the archetypal curvature of the evolutionary flow, as bent by the intents of higher-order beings. Then we have the political sphere, for which "As the superimposed soul state gets folded in on itself, the waves of spiritual activity begin to work at cross-purposes to one another, generating ‘friction’ and decohering the superfluid transpersonal flow." Thus we have the web of frictious but elastic Karmic relationships between individuals, nations, and races. Finally, we have the elemental flow condensate - the metabolic/economic system. These are the body, soul, spirit bandwidths in their transporsonal superposition.

First, do you think that this is one of the misguided ideas that would be 'scraped away' as the Anthroposophical impulse is being reincarnated within its new host? If not, how do you see the place of the RCC institution within this organism? For example, one possibility would be to spread along the full spectrum of the three spheres and guide human life from the lofty religious curvatures to the everyday economic/metabolic transactions. Or the RCC would take its place as the crown of the cultural sphere, where the new Catholic Initiates transduce the spiritual impulses into general humanity?

[Federica]

Ah, yes, I've read this lecture cycle. Steiner's intimate knowledge of both the Church in his day and throughout its long history is a testament to the seriousness and subtlety with which he approached the subject. He was intimately familiar with the work of the Church Fathers, could speak to the contents and outcomes of the Church councils, and understood traditional theology better than most. Having such a vast knowledge and appreciation of the Church and its history (as a primary stream flowing directly out of Golgotha) put him in a position to be able to describe it from many angles, including critical ones. In his lectures on Scholasticism ("The Redemption of Thinking," GA 74) he heaps the most glowing praise on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, making the direct and radical claim that Anthroposophy is the transformed continuation of this tradition. I'll return to this in a moment.

Regarding Steiner's views around the "egotism of the churches." It's interesting to take account of the way his various points relate to what has taken shape in specific streams. The idea of Christ having paid for humanity's sins "without men having to do anything themselves" is a decidedly Protestant attitude. What he describes as the insistence of a childlike connection to Christ can be seen most strongly in the most ancient of the churches, namely the Eastern Orthodox. It seems only natural that the stream which has retained the largest degree of similarity to the early community would conserve a certain childlike soul mood. Orthodoxy is extremely suspicious and skeptical of both the intellect and the imagination, finding these to be targets for evil spirits and therefore barriers to humility. Spiritual illumination is not denied in this tradition, however - It is simply thought to proceed through and only through a childlike falling-at-the-feet of Christ Jesus. This attitude is an echo of just how strong the Christ Impulse was in the immediate aftermath of Golgotha. Roman Catholicism on the other hand, having sprung up in a time when the Christ Impulse was less intensely concentrated, actively develops the intellect and therefore is not nearly as childlike in its overall soul mood. Sacramentally speaking, though, the "childlike" mood remains. The path to salvation, especially insofar as it relates to the laity, is not first and foremost a cognitive path but a moral one of poverty, charity, and obedience. (Tomberg undertook the impressive task of showing how this triad is upwardly scalable into more advanced cognitive domains and not dialectically opposed to them). Clearly these two ancient churches represent developmental stages in the evolution of the collective Christian organism. And to Steiner's point, holding onto former stages once they have passed, at the exclusion of new developments that are attempting to sprout forth, is evidence of a kind of pride. The embrace of the new is needed, but the truly operative question is where this newness will be housed. And a closely related question: to what extent are these church streams, as outer manifestations, coterminous with the invisible ecclesia catholica. Are these churches, particularly Roman Catholic Church for the purposes of this discussion, merely a temporary manifestation of that invisible collective entity, or do they have some lasting share in it? It's crystal clear that Steiner believed the Russian Orthodox Church to be in possession of an impulse that will come to define the 6th cultural epoch. Will there still be a Russian Orthodox Church at that time, or will its impulse pass on without the outer corporate structure? I don't know. But it is my conviction, with respect to the Roman Catholic Church, that it as an outer institution will be what ultimately persists into the Age as the Ecclesia Catholica, as the bodily vehicle through which all other streams are resurrected. Earth evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are inextricably linked. "In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world." (Luke 2:1) Rome is the earth, and "Caesar" will take account of it in its entirety. But since the day St. Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome, the Christ Impulse has become united with this rock of the Church, and the Roman Church is the earth lifted upward on the wings of John the Eagle while the world descends into darkness. All other streams are destined to do as Thomas indicated, "let us go and die with him [Lazarus-John]" (John 11:16), for this is how the Eagle imparts flight to the Rock.

Returning then to the point above about Steiner's claim that Anthropsophy is the transformed continuation of Scholasticism. This is really a key for me in understanding the RCC-Steiner relationship. The Church is in possession of the perfected apparatus of the intellectual soul, namely Scholasticism. Scholasticism lives on to this day in Catholic theology in what is usually called "Thomism." Thomism is still in fact the prevailing impulse in Catholic theology. However, over the course of the last 100 years, major developments have occurred which, like I have pointed out, are quite resonant with some of Steiner's key contributions, particularly from PoF. So there is already a transformation at work. What is now of course needed is a further fructification of the the intellectual soul foundation within the Church by a Goethean impulse. And the Goetheanization of the Church was precisely Valentin Tomberg's project. Valentin Tomberg has attempted to plant the Goethean seed into the soil of the intellectual Church in order for it to sprout forth from within. Proclaiming reincarnation and karma from the rooftops is not the way this will succeed. Instead, showing the existing structure to be pregnant with the materials of its own further unfolding - with the enlivened thought life of the Spirits of Motion - is the way forward, and the extent to which reincarnation and karma will be realized in this transformation will be the extent to which individual souls come to experience these things inwardly.

Leaving aside that, so far, we are still to find the other non-critical angles from which Steiner described the Church, the glorious vision you depict of the emergence of the universal Ecclesia is highly thought-provoking and interesting, for all readers of this thread, I am sure. Thanks for bringing it to us!

Many are the questions sprouting forth at this point. Connected to the one Cleric has raised, there is the fundamental divergence between Tomberg and Steiner, the latter vehemently arguing that it is crucial “for man’s social health, to restore the fact of his pre-existence to the consciousness of mankind of the present and of the future”, while Tomberg, and you, see it as an optional private realization. The question of how the 'church-sponsored' adversarial grip on the human soul (extreme egotism) will be countered in your scenario, has not been addressed. But I would leave this too aside, since Cleric already pointed to the essential, and ask this one instead:

Why do you think that what’s now needed in the evolving RCC is fructification by a Goethean impulse, when SS has honored, reenlivened, and surpassed that impulse, namely by transforming the intellect into the witness that actually can take stock of the archetypal Ideas, once it has imbued itself with the sympathy, the reverent receptivity, and the rhythmical self-effacing capacity, allowing it to concretely interface with the spiritual? In other words, why go back to Goethe (with all the enormous respect that Goethean Science absolutely commands)? Or how exactly do you intend the “Goethian impulse”?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Rodriel, a question came to mind as I'm following this interesting thread.

Since what we are speaking of basically concerns the future structure of humanity, what are your thoughts on the Threefold Social Organism?

I believe that anyone who grasps the structure of man (body, soul, spirit, not as a scheme but in its inner reality) would be aware that these ideas were not simply Steiner's musings on the 'perfect sociopolitical system' (like some 'smart' replacement of Communism and Capitalism), but simply reflect the structure of the condensing World flow in its more coherent nature - the Edenic flow (to use the term from Ashvin's latest essay).

So we have the cultural sphere - the spirit, the influx guided by the archetypal curvature of the evolutionary flow, as bent by the intents of higher-order beings. Then we have the political sphere, for which "As the superimposed soul state gets folded in on itself, the waves of spiritual activity begin to work at cross-purposes to one another, generating ‘friction’ and decohering the superfluid transpersonal flow." Thus we have the web of frictious but elastic Karmic relationships between individuals, nations, and races. Finally, we have the elemental flow condensate - the metabolic/economic system. These are the body, soul, spirit bandwidths in their transporsonal superposition.

First, do you think that this is one of the misguided ideas that would be 'scraped away' as the Anthroposophical impulse is being reincarnated within its new host? If not, how do you see the place of the RCC institution within this organism? For example, one possibility would be to spread along the full spectrum of the three spheres and guide human life from the lofty religious curvatures to the everyday economic/metabolic transactions. Or the RCC would take its place as the crown of the cultural sphere, where the new Catholic Initiates transduce the spiritual impulses into general humanity?

That's a really great question to which I have to admit I haven't given a whole lot of thought. My sense is that the Church's influence would predominate in one the three spheres at first, but that eventually the all three would integrate within the Church to cover the full spectrum. As to the first part of this hypothesized development, I could see it going any number of ways. Your second scenario of the Church as "crown of the cultural sphere" sounds plausible, although the position it seems to be increasingly occupying is that of the rhythmic / heart / soul system. But eventually, like I said, the Church would come to encompass the entire earth organism. That is really what the Church as ecclesia catholica is: the entire earth organism permeated by Christ. But we know the earth is passing away. The Church is the ark which will sail to the shore of Jupiter (the resurrected New Earth). Like I said before, the operative question is less what the Church will be but more how the elements of it now (manifested as the separate "churches") will factor into the eschatalogical picture.

One thing I've been contemplating for some time, which I feel is not unrelated to the question of social threefolding, is the spiritual meaning of John and Peter with respect to the head and limb systems. John is a head figure, and Peter is a limb figure. I've provided the image above of Peter crucified upside-down in Rome. This is nothing other than the Hanged Man whose center of gravity has been reversed toward the Divine. His head points down toward the center of the earth, the point of ultimate petrification and death, while his legs point upward toward that which transcends this moribund process. When John and Peter enter the tomb, the Lord's garments have been folded separately: the head garment and the feet wrapping. Peter the limbs goes in first while John the head enters second. Earlier, on Holy Thursday, after the Lord had washed Peter's feet, Peter asked that his head be washed also, to which Christ replied that only feet need washing. All these symbols are profoundly related to the destiny of the earth and the pattern of Lazarus-John (Christian Rosenkreutz) as fructifier of the Church. Moreover they are also all related to the morphological transformation between head and legs in successive incarnations of individuals. Spelling it all out would take some time (and skill that I'm not sure I have).

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Leaving aside that, so far, we are still to find the other non-critical angles from which Steiner described the Church, the glorious vision you depict of the emergence of the universal Ecclesia is highly thought-provoking and interesting, for all readers of this thread, I am sure. Thanks for bringing it to us!

Many are the questions sprouting forth at this point. Connected to the one Cleric has raised, there is the fundamental divergence between Tomberg and Steiner, the latter vehemently arguing that it is crucial “for man’s social health, to restore the fact of his pre-existence to the consciousness of mankind of the present and of the future”, while Tomberg, and you, see it as an optional private realization. The question of how the 'church-sponsored' adversarial grip on the human soul (extreme egotism) will be countered in your scenario, has not been addressed. But I would leave this too aside, since Cleric already pointed to the essential, and ask this one instead:

Why do you think that what’s now needed in the evolving RCC is fructification by a Goethean impulse, when SS has honored, reenlivened, and surpassed that impulse, namely by transforming the intellect into the witness that actually can take stock of the archetypal Ideas, once it has imbued itself with the sympathy, the reverent receptivity, and the rhythmical self-effacing capacity, allowing it to concretely interface with the spiritual? In other words, why go back to Goethe (with all the enormous respect that Goethean Science absolutely commands)? Or how exactly do you intend the “Goethian impulse”?

Happy to leave the unresolved points aside for now. Thank you again for the very engaging conversation!

The short answer to your question about my choice of the phrase "Goethean impulse" is that I mean this simply as the stream in which Steiner was operating. It isn't at all an attempt to exclude Steiner's massive influence within and development of this stream. I often describe Steiner's work as a transformation of Aristotle through Goethe. Goethe provided the impulse toward immobilized thinking, and Steiner brought this mobility to the clear thinking inaugurated by Aristotle (and perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas). One amazing thing Anthroposophy teaches us, which I'm sure all here agree on, is that the history of the world is the history of a community of soul-spirits. Acknowledging the continuity of various streams through the individuals who provided important impulses is key. That's all I intend to convey in that phrase.

[AshvinP]

Regarding Steiner's views around the "egotism of the churches." It's interesting to take account of the way his various points relate to what has taken shape in specific streams. The idea of Christ having paid for humanity's sins "without men having to do anything themselves" is a decidedly Protestant attitude.

Sorry to pile on more, Rodriel, but I wanted to ask a few things. When you spoke of the RCC integrating more of the consciousness soul, and the growing impulse toward inner freedom (for ex., only obeying the voice of conscience), isn't this also associated with 'becoming more Protestant', so to speak? Could it also be associated with an impulse to place more emphasis on personal understanding of the scripture, rather than only what we are told the scripture means by other authorities? We have become increasingly thinking-questioning beings, after all, and thus we want to know what the scripture means, just like all other outer appearances, and how it relates to the events of our lives, and we are no longer so satisfied with second-hand reports of that meaning.

If so, then the question arises how such a personal understanding of scripture can take shape without deeper scales of knowing. In a certain sense, as long as we fail to sense the deeper spiritual gestures weaving within the Gospel words, i.e., the higher lawfulness which inspired such words, we will inevitably interpret them as Protestants, i.e., as pointing to a kind of salvation via intellectual acceptance of creeds. I think that is a key aspect of what Steiner is pointing to in the quote. When we feel our soul is uninvolved in the lawful process by which its current incarnate existence takes shape, then we will simply say "God did it for His reasons and my task is to accept that and wait for the liberation of the afterlife in Heaven".

Obviously, that is a super simplistic way of putting it, and neither a Protestant nor a Catholic theologian would ever express it that way or say that is the emphasis of their respective theologies, but again, I think it follows inevitably from the development of the consciousness soul which questions everything, wants to understand why things happen the way they do, but lacks higher methods of knowing. The soul gets struck by an unexpected illness or injury and, instead of understanding it as feedback for some soul qualities that need to be developed and harmonized, or relationships with other souls that need to be set aright, and so forth, it can only say, "God wanted this for me, and my compensation will be in the afterlife".

I may have asked you this before, but I am also curious about the mainstream RCC position on the nature of incarnation. I know there are theological nuances involved in whether individual souls existed in some spiritual 'arena' before they incarnated, or whether they first come into existence when the Spirit impregnates the body at conception, and so on. And then somehow the individual soul maintains its existence after departing the body. What is the general RCC understanding? Have any recent Catholic theologians philosophized about this question or have there been any recent modifications in the general understanding?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Regarding Steiner's views around the "egotism of the churches." It's interesting to take account of the way his various points relate to what has taken shape in specific streams. The idea of Christ having paid for humanity's sins "without men having to do anything themselves" is a decidedly Protestant attitude.

Sorry to pile on more, Rodriel, but I wanted to ask a few things. When you spoke of the RCC integrating more of the consciousness soul, and the growing impulse toward inner freedom (for ex., only obeying the voice of conscience), isn't this also associated with 'becoming more Protestant', so to speak? Could it also be associated with an impulse to place more emphasis on personal understanding of the scripture, rather than only what we are told the scripture means by other authorities? We have become increasingly thinking-questioning beings, after all, and thus we want to know what the scripture means, just like all other outer appearances, and how it relates to the events of our lives, and we are no longer so satisfied with second-hand reports of that meaning.

If so, then the question arises how such a personal understanding of scripture can take shape without deeper scales of knowing. In a certain sense, as long as we fail to sense the deeper spiritual gestures weaving within the Gospel words, i.e., the higher lawfulness which inspired such words, we will inevitably interpret them as Protestants, i.e., as pointing to a kind of salvation via intellectual acceptance of creeds. I think that is a key aspect of what Steiner is pointing to in the quote. When we feel our soul is uninvolved in the lawful process by which its current incarnate existence takes shape, then we will simply say "God did it for His reasons and my task is to accept that and wait for the liberation of the afterlife in Heaven".

Obviously, that is a super simplistic way of putting it, and neither a Protestant nor a Catholic theologian would ever express it that way or say that is the emphasis of their respective theologies, but again, I think it follows inevitably from the development of the consciousness soul which questions everything, wants to understand why things happen the way they do, but lacks higher methods of knowing. The soul gets struck by an unexpected illness or injury and, instead of understanding it as feedback for some soul qualities that need to be developed and harmonized, or relationships with other souls that need to be set aright, and so forth, it can only say, "God wanted this for me, and my compensation will be in the afterlife".

I may have asked you this before, but I am also curious about the mainstream RCC position on the nature of incarnation. I know there are theological nuances involved in whether individual souls existed in some spiritual 'arena' before they incarnated, or whether they first come into existence when the Spirit impregnates the body at conception, and so on. And then somehow the individual soul maintains its existence after departing the body. What is the general RCC understanding? Have any recent Catholic theologians philosophized about this question or have there been any recent modifications in the general understanding?

Ashvin, that's plenty okay! Yes, the impulse toward inner freedom is something I definitely associate with the Protestant impulse. The RCC has integrated it in baptized form in the catechism, as I've mentioned. But the way that the RCC integrates things is always by connecting them back to the tradition. The past is never rejected, for it is the trunk and bark of the organism. The elements of the trunk and bark remain there, even if transformed versions of them appear in the fresh and tender shoots. There are times when old and new impulses come into a kind of tension with each other. Their simultaneous presence can feel like a dissonance. A prime example is the newly enshrined appeal to personal conscience, which nonetheless is still "subject to the authority of the Church." Ideally these two perspectives should be the same, but they aren't in the case of esoterically developed individuals, as you point out. I won't deny that this is at the very least a tension. It's one that I do feel as a churchgoing Catholic esotericist.

You mention the increasing primacy within the era of the consciousness soul of a personal understanding of Scripture. This is actually encouraged in the RCC, but to a point, obviously. What is interesting is that the Mass itself (even in its Novus Ordo form which went into effect in the 60s) is designed to do just what you describe: to impress the deeper meaning of Scripture into the soul. In past ages, this took effect largely in the members of man's makeup up to but not including the I. Now that the I (in its consciousness soul vehicle) has become increasingly involved, the formative capacity of the liturgy comes to meet it. This is a genuine conundrum for the Church, because, as we know, in the era of the consciousness soul, either the I of an individual has taken increasing hold of the soul life, or elemental forces have slipped into the fill the I-shaped hole. For individuals of the former bent, Scripture and liturgy open up to untold esoteric depths. For those of the latter category, the function of Scripture and liturgy are the same as for individuals of previous eras; except these individuals have an added elementally-captive I organism which floats atop the lower organization. What to do about this? I know the answer from Anthroposophy was to tell these souls the esoteric facts of the matter. I'm simply highly skeptical that this is appropriate or effective. I feel that Steiner's trumpet blast was made loud so that those who needed to hear it would. Today spiritual science seems far more likely to me to be a stumbling block for the unprepared. Instead, I lean toward the notion that the guardrails of the Church are to remain so that Christ can "wash the feet" of these individuals. "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit" (John 13:10). These people will hopefully then form spiritual (death transcending) bonds with the esoterically deepened Church members.

To your point about the attitude toward misfortune of "God wanted this for me," first of all, official doctrine is one thing here and folk belief is another. Plenty of Catholics feel their fortunes and misfortunes to be tied to the deeper contours of their soul life. But insofar as official doctrine is concerned, I would say that the route offered by the Sacraments is effective. Here I could highlight Confession. When one goes to regular Confession and does this honestly and fully, one gets in the habit of examining one's thoughts, feelings, and will impulses/actions quite closely. The one confessing is then typically counciled to be reconciled with those they've done wrong. They either then sense that their sin (karma) is caught up inexorably with their misfortunes or they don't. But they are at least on a path toward repentance and reconciliation. Further karmic awareness can proceed privately from this starting point.

Regarding the Catholic doctrine around incarnation, this has been considered a settled topic, I believe since the 1500s or so (I'd need to check the dates to be sure). Up until the turning point (whatever the date actually is), there was some light debate about it. Even before that, though, the tradition came down overwhelmingly in support of "creationism" (that souls are created anew by God at conception). Note that this is of course also related to the jettisoning of the tripartite model of the human being (body, soul, spirit) in the council of 869. Origen had proclaimed the pre-existence of the soul, but this was anathematized shortly after its short lived promulgation. So there is a long history of support in the RCC of the notion of one life that begins at conception. This position is staunchly upheld today. The best I can do is side with Tomberg here and point to the fact that the dangers around this topic are so grave that the Church's position is providential. The Church is a field hospital for souls, and the medicine is eternal Truth. Temporary truths (spiritual facts) are not its purview. The truly spiritual world (Upper Devachan) is the moral world, and temporary facts are amoral. Accepting or rejecting amoral facts amounts to sending one in the direction of a particular moral end. The Church has chosen to ensure that souls attempt to live up to the highest moral standards in one life, and this does lead toward salvation. As you know, however, my personal experience points to there being deeper patterns at work, and I am increasingly finding the Peter-John relationship a fitting lens through which to explore these.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, that's plenty okay! Yes, the impulse toward inner freedom is something I definitely associate with the Protestant impulse. The RCC has integrated it in baptized form in the catechism, as I've mentioned. But the way that the RCC integrates things is always by connecting them back to the tradition. The past is never rejected, for it is the trunk and bark of the organism. The elements of the trunk and bark remain there, even if transformed versions of them appear in the fresh and tender shoots. There are times when old and new impulses come into a kind of tension with each other. Their simultaneous presence can feel like a dissonance. A prime example is the newly enshrined appeal to personal conscience, which nonetheless is still "subject to the authority of the Church." Ideally these two perspectives should be the same, but they aren't in the case of esoterically developed individuals, as you point out. I won't deny that this is at the very least a tension. It's one that I do feel as a churchgoing Catholic esotericist.

You mention the increasing primacy within the era of the consciousness soul of a personal understanding of Scripture. This is actually encouraged in the RCC, but to a point, obviously. What is interesting is that the Mass itself (even in its Novus Ordo form which went into effect in the 60s) is designed to do just what you describe: to impress the deeper meaning of Scripture into the soul. In past ages, this took effect largely in the members of man's makeup up to but not including the I. Now that the I (in its consciousness soul vehicle) has become increasingly involved, the formative capacity of the liturgy comes to meet it. This is a genuine conundrum for the Church, because, as we know, in the era of the consciousness soul, either the I of an individual has taken increasing hold of the soul life, or elemental forces have slipped into the fill the I-shaped hole. For individuals of the former bent, Scripture and liturgy open up to untold esoteric depths. For those of the latter category, the function of Scripture and liturgy are the same as for individuals of previous eras; except these individuals have an added elementally-captive I organism which floats atop the lower organization. What to do about this? I know the answer from Anthroposophy was to tell these souls the esoteric facts of the matter. I'm simply highly skeptical that this is appropriate or effective. I feel that Steiner's trumpet blast was made loud so that those who needed to hear it would. Today spiritual science seems far more likely to me to be a stumbling block for the unprepared. Instead, I lean toward the notion that the guardrails of the Church are to remain so that Christ can "wash the feet" of these individuals. "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit" (John 13:10). These people will hopefully then form spiritual (death transcending) bonds with the esoterically deepened Church members.

To your point about the attitude toward misfortune of "God wanted this for me," first of all, official doctrine is one thing here and folk belief is another. Plenty of Catholics feel their fortunes and misfortunes to be tied to the deeper contours of their soul life. But insofar as official doctrine is concerned, I would say that the route offered by the Sacraments is effective. Here I could highlight Confession. When one goes to regular Confession and does this honestly and fully, one gets in the habit of examining one's thoughts, feelings, and will impulses/actions quite closely. The one confessing is then typically counciled to be reconciled with those they've done wrong. They either then sense that their sin (karma) is caught up inexorably with their misfortunes or they don't. But they are at least on a path toward repentance and reconciliation. Further karmic awareness can proceed privately from this starting point.

This makes a lot of sense, but I feel that much of it is sort of describing the past functions of the Church. In the recent meaning crisis essay, I quoted the verse, ""Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth..." (John 15:15) I feel that what you express above about the sacraments and confession is indeed what the RCC provided the intellectual soul in its nascent development, and perhaps even the consciousness soul in the early modern age to some extent. Yet this is what hass already been done by the Lord in the evolutionary process through his body, the Church. I am more hesitant, however, to be confident that the maturing consciousness soul can go to regular Confession honestly and fully.

That hesitance is not simply because I am generally suspicious of the RCC or institutional religion (I used to be, like many modern souls, but I'd like to think I have outgrown much of that), but comes from intimate experience. It has become clear from such first-hand experience how easily prayer and even imaginative meditation can very subtly become routinized, a process of intellectual commentary and going through the motions while the imagination stays on the surface or even wanders to other things. That is a big risk even when we are esoterically informed and are quite aware that it is happening or may potentially happen, let alone when we have no deeper reasons to suspect it's a problem or could be a problem. Unless we have a non-routinized process to compare the genuine prayerful-contemplative-confessional stance with, we may even convince ourselves the former is the latter. And I am sure you would agree that most Church faithful attend these things on Sundays and holidays, and then immerse themselves in the mechanistic and habituated modern environment like everyone else. We are hardly aware of how these environmental influences constantly condition our inner life.

Kuhlewind had a helpful discussion of this that I shared before in the context of object concentration:

If the concentration exercise has reached this phase, that of idea concentration, as will develop organically from practice, the student is still concerned with an object. He or she wants to think the idea and wants the idea to appear, to arise, to flash forth. If this is successful, and he or she has learned to stay with it, so that it is not only a lightning flash, as it tends to be at the start, then the extension of wakefulness to the activity of consciousness will surpass in intensity all earlier experience. For in thinking the idea, activity and object are one: the idea does not exist outside of the activity that thinks it; there is no memory of it and it can never be thought out. We could also say that now we really know what spoon means. The self-perception of thinking has raised itself from past consciousness into presentness.
...
In every kind of exercise, we achieve a first success with relative ease. The second success is generally much harder to reach. This is because, after the first time, the practitioner forms a memory, a mental picture of the experience, almost against his will, and he then awaits its recurrence. The second and third experiences will always be different from what preceded them.

So if we are looking at the consciousness soul as it stands now in its development and continues to unfold from here, I think we need to pay some close attention to these lessons we learn from the esoteric life, because they reveal to us what is always happening beneath the surface of the imaginative life, even when it directs attention to the lofty eternal truths of existence. Unless there is a sustained path of becoming more conscious of different modes of prayer and confession along the spectrum, it's hard to imagine how souls can mitigate the risk of these activities becoming highly habituated, even while they feel it is all carried out in fullness and honesty.

Regarding the Catholic doctrine around incarnation, this has been considered a settled topic, I believe since the 1500s or so (I'd need to check the dates to be sure). Up until the turning point (whatever the date actually is), there was some light debate about it. Even before that, though, the tradition came down overwhelmingly in support of "creationism" (that souls are created anew by God at conception). Note that this is of course also related to the jettisoning of the tripartite model of the human being (body, soul, spirit) in the council of 869. Origen had proclaimed the pre-existence of the soul, but this was anathematized shortly after its short lived promulgation. So there is a long history of support in the RCC of the notion of one life that begins at conception. This position is staunchly upheld today. The best I can do is side with Tomberg here and point to the fact that the dangers around this topic are so grave that the Church's position is providential. The Church is a field hospital for souls, and the medicine is eternal Truth. Temporary truths (spiritual facts) are not its purview. The truly spiritual world (Upper Devachan) is the moral world, and temporary facts are amoral. Accepting or rejecting amoral facts amounts to sending one in the direction of a particular moral end. The Church has chosen to ensure that souls attempt to live up to the highest moral standards in one life, and this does lead toward salvation. As you know, however, my personal experience points to there being deeper patterns at work, and I am increasingly finding the Peter-John relationship a fitting lens through which to explore these.

Thanks for clarifying that RCC position.

I understand this general sentiment. I suppose you followed some of the discussion on the other thread with Eugene. Does this position of the RCC only being concerned with the eternal truths at least partially echo the 'nondual' exclusive emphasis on the 'dimension of Oneness'? In the latter case, everything communicated out of higher cognitive perception, except the general truth of unity and interconnectedness, Divine love and compassion, and so forth, is considered optional facts (temporary truths) that can be investigated or not, as the soul in question sees fit. And, to be clear, I don't think Tomberg (or you) are suggesting anything nearly as one-sided as such a position. For one thing, the nondual practitioner generally doesn't even understand what 'higher cognitive perception' entails, while Tomberg certainly did. On the other hand, it's hard to ignore some of the overlaps. The main question, I think, is to what extent can we truly know the eternal truths, as something that continually renews and inspires the depths of our soul, without delving into the 'temporary truths' like reincarnation? Put another way, how can the Church dispense medicine to ailing souls without providing inner certainty of the eternal truths, which only comes to the consciousness soul through Mysticism (Intuition) and Gnosis (Inspiration)?

[Federica]

AS: this is not to burden Rodriel with more questions. I am only putting a few points in the middle, as question marks. I am sorry if this sounds too harsh. It's not meant to be. But trusting everyone’s perception, I don’t see the point of 'sugarcoating' in this context.



1. Is it okay to call the true nature of the spiritual being of man an amoral, temporary fact, indifferent to the eternal truths?

2. In its attitude to “providentially” preserve man from the grave dangers connected with acknowledging the truth of reincarnation, is the Church operating as a field hospital for [constitutionally sick?] souls in need of eternal truth treatment, or has it rather established itself as a sort of premium clinic where souls are pampered with uplifting, authoritatively prescribed, heavenly treatments, which ultimately occupy the soul space to impede man’s appropriate awakening to the higher worlds?

I think that, from any esoteric perspectives - which by nature must encompass the evolutionary substance holding the two sides of eternity together/apart - man's path to salvation cannot be moral before it is cognitive. And haven’t we always said that there is now an urgency for man to discover the lawfulness of all worlds, through the development of Imagination and higher cognition in general? And that the grave dangers arise precisely from everything that delays and deforms such evolutionarily due awakening, either by stressing the unprepared psyche through the use of drugs, or by exposing it to unlawful images, be it with shamanic or nondual imagery, or even just through the adversarial technological demultiplication of unlawful soul food, which we are drowning into in today's world?

And isn’t a Church institution which impedes the awakening to the lawfulness of all worlds ultimately to consider on a par with these retarding intents? “There is already a transformation at work” perhaps, but transformation was due to be working already yesterday, not in a nebulous future authoritatively regulated by the RCC's hierarchy. And, as we know, asynchronicity is precisely the ultimate character of evil. I think there can be hardly any doubts that the temple has to progressively move within, with communal support, not to any obscurely led field hospital for the infantilized man. And I don't see why Rodriel's glorious vision of Ecclesia couldn't be integral to a reality of the Ecclesia as an inner community of souls, that in the future frees itself from the deadly institutional, retarding forms.