Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[Cleric]

I had taken about an hour or so to write a response to this, and then when I hit submit I found I had been automatically logged out the forum website, and so the post was lost. It might take me a while to redo the response, but I intend to.

This has happened to me more than a few times on long posts. I try to remember to draft eveything in gmail or some other software with autosave, but when I forget to do so, I also figured out that we can login after prompted and then use the back button to go back to the previous page and what we typed will still be there. If you immediately go back without logging in, however, the post is lost.

I also use a google doc when writing longer posts, but here's one more hint. Just before submitting the post, a quick Select All, Copy, can also save our effort.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

This has happened to me more than a few times on long posts. I try to remember to draft eveything in gmail or some other software with autosave, but when I forget to do so, I also figured out that we can login after prompted and then use the back button to go back to the previous page and what we typed will still be there. If you immediately go back without logging in, however, the post is lost.

Thanks Ashvin, this is helpful info

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Let's consider again the question: why would the Peter stream even consider accommodating the John stream? Last time we conversed, I tried to point out that, as things are, there’s no real incentive for a soul to seek deeper development, higher cognition, and so on. Unless one feels called to a higher mission, it makes no difference whether the soul tries to develop deeper abilities on Earth, as long as it is good enough to make it to Heaven. It even makes more sense to focus on a basic and simple virtuous life, rather than pursuing the risky path of the supersensible (not to mention that such a path is actually forbidden. AFAIK, only natural spiritual gifts are accepted by the Church).

Okay, so here's attempt #2 at a response to this. I think I'll focus this time on the first paragraph, as this alone is quite a bit to unpack.

I don't believe the Peter stream will consider accommodating the John stream. That's a feature of the pattern I've been describing, not a bug. A primary component of this pattern is that the John influence will necessarily be a subtle one. People within the Church walls will (perhaps over quite a long period of time) be led gently to increasingly clear personal experiences of the depth axis. The manner in which this will occur will be multifaceted, likely involving - among other things - a re-veiling of spiritual scientific truths into more symbolic language (in the manner of MoT), exemplary deeds of interpersonal morality, and an earnest reexamination of PoF on the part of theologians, perhaps in some rearticulated form. Regarding this latter component - such an examination has never really been done, as PoF largely escaped the notice of both philosophers and theologians and disappeared into obscurity soon after publication. As it relates to theologians, this was no doubt reinforced by the bad reputation Steiner earned within the Church during the moral panic around Anthroposophy at the height of its popularity in the 1910s. After that, there was little incentive to return to the work. But it's my opinion that serious, honest Catholic theologians would find its core premises challenging but ultimately difficult to argue with. Those taking up the task of submitting PoF for reconsideration would do well to approach this from a perspective highly educated in Thomism and the history of the Church. Proving from the beginning that one fully understands the tradition is table stakes for a serious conversation with that tradition. Steiner himself of course held these prerequisites to an extraordinary degree. Unfortunately, most Anthroposophists - in my experience, at least - know next to nothing about Christian history, other than what they have directly received from Steiner. This is obviously not an ideal situation. All the talk of the Christ Impulse in history falls a little flat when such knowledge, either physical or supersensible, is lacking.

Now, regarding your point about only natural spiritual gifts being accepted by the Church, this is not exactly true. It's a tricky and highly nuanced topic. Your comment combines two elements which are treated separately by the Church. It's understandable that you would combine them since this is essentially what Anthroposophy exists to do. The two elements are: epistemology and that which is afforded to saintly individuals by grace, namely illumination.

Epistemologically speaking, you are right that the Catholic theology does not admit of supersensible knowledge attainable through thinking. "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu" (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses) is the famous Aristotelian assertion taken up by Thomas Aquinas and used as a foundation for Catholic epistemology. St. Thomas worked the ramifications of this premise to the furthest extent possible, and this body of work became basically the quintessence of Peter thinking, the terminal limit of the powers of the Intellectual Soul. The elephant in the room in this complex intellectual system was of course that the final personal verification of the system itself - that which is done via thinking - is relegated to a leap of faith, placing verification instead in an external given framed as ontology (the axiomatic assertion of subjects and objects independent of thinking). The history of continental philosophy from that point forward was the centuries-long rupture in this framework, in which the 'I' was hazily grokked through a series of distorted mirrors until Steiner showed the way forward with PoF.

As far as supersensible illumination goes, this is an accepted and highly revered phenomenon in the Church. St. Thomas directly states that supersensible knowledge can be received as a gift of God's grace to saintly individuals, and that when this happens the angels bestow spiritual understanding in the form of imaginations and purely invisible communications of the principles of creation. This phenomenon was much more of a focal point in the first Christian millennium, and then attitudes became increasingly skeptical about it the more materialism took hold. Skepticism, not in the sense of denying the possibility of illumination but in the sense of suspicion toward those claiming to be in possession of this gift. This skepticism reached its painful and dramatic culmination in Joan of Arc, the very figurehead of the transition to the era of the Consciousness Soul. St. Joan (the feminine form of John), not herself a representative of the Intellectual Soul but of the burgeoning virginal Consciousness Soul, held fast to her personal certainty of supersensible guidance (granted by the Archangel Michael) to the death, staying true to both herself and the Church. She was burned at the stake by the very institution she championed, only much later being exonerated and canonized. This is a sobering but hopeful pre-image of what will unfold for those entering the John path, clothed like Joan in the outer armor of the Intellectual Soul.

So, like I mentioned above, we know that these two separate elements - the epistemology and the God-given graces, must spiral together. In a certain sense the path toward this within the Church seems inevitably blocked. On the one hand there is a denial of cognitively gained supersensible knowledge. On the other hand there is a suspicion around graced illumination. But there are openings to this blockage on multiple fronts, and I believe that these openings are a viable way forward. A serious reappraisal of PoF would be possible now, given the distance of our current time from the panic around Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is barely on the Church's radar these days. Not to mention there has been a direct, while filtered, Anthroposophical influence on the Church itself via Pope John Paul II, who was part of a Steiner-influenced drama troupe prior to becoming pope and who famously took interest in Tomberg, paving the way for respected theologian Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar to write the afterword to MoT and not be rebuked. Another opening is the fact that Steiner's methods, if they were to be examined honestly, can be shown to be entirely unproblematic from the standpoint of the Church's antipathy toward the occult. As outlined in the Catechism of the church, published in 1994, the Church's explicit prohibitions are the following: necromancy, mediumship, clairvoyant aspirations (in the sense of atavistic clairvoyance - the only form known to the Church), astrological determinism, and black magic. These are all explicitly rejected by Steiner as well. The common thread is that they stir up astral forces and either occlude the 'I' or develop the Luciferic ego. The fact that Steiner's Rosicrucian methods rely on etheric-cognitive develop make them fundamentally different from all the occult phenomena that the Church rejects. In fact, if a Catholic were to pick up the method section from HTKHW and read it (perhaps with the mention of auras redacted) without knowing what it was, they would likely find no fault with it. I've described the techniques to other Catholics who have expressed zero alarm or concern.

Anyway, none of this is to say that the path Tomberg has laid out will be an easy one, but I don't think it's impossible or doomed to fail. I'll have to return to your images of the amniotic sac another time, as I am about out of steam for now.

[AshvinP]

A serious reappraisal of PoF would be possible now, given the distance of our current time from the panic around Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is barely on the Church's radar these days. Not to mention there has been a direct, while filtered, Anthroposophical influence on the Church itself via Pope John Paul II, who was part of a Steiner-influenced drama troupe prior to becoming pope and who famously took interest in Tomberg, paving the way for respected theologian Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar to write the afterword to MoT and not be rebuked. Another opening is the fact that Steiner's methods, if they were to be examined honestly, can be shown to be entirely unproblematic from the standpoint of the Church's antipathy toward the occult.

As a bit of an aside, Rodriel, I am wondering whether you can imagine any scenario in which you would lose a lot of confidence in this general position? I know it is a sensitive topic, and I'm not at all asking whether you would abandon your Catholic faith. Rather, I am wondering whether there is a scenario in which you might feel that the current Church is no longer a viable institution for sheltering souls and preparing them to spiral into the John stream. For example, let's say a prominent Catholic theologian thoroughly evaluates PoF and fails to understand it, annihilating it in a critique, which many other theologians and thinking-inclined laity are convinced by. Would that be a scenario in which you say, "OK, the Church is not at all ready to help integrate the streams in the domain of thinking and seems to be acting more as an obstacle, so perhaps we weren't perceiving this correctly." I'm not sure, but I think imaginatively probing our current outlooks through such hypotheticals can sometimes be useful. It's not about reaching some definitive answers, of course, but just contemplating how our outlook has taken shape and what kind of 'stress testing' it can endure.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

As a bit of an aside, Rodriel, I am wondering whether you can imagine any scenario in which you would lose a lot of confidence in this general position? I know it is a sensitive topic, and I'm not at all asking whether you would abandon your Catholic faith. Rather, I am wondering whether there is a scenario in which you might feel that the current Church is no longer a viable institution for sheltering souls and preparing them to spiral into the John stream. For example, let's say a prominent Catholic theologian thoroughly evaluates PoF and fails to understand it, annihilating it in a critique, which many other theologians and thinking-inclined laity are convinced by. Would that be a scenario in which you say, "OK, the Church is not at all ready to help integrate the streams in the domain of thinking and seems to be acting more as an obstacle, so perhaps we weren't perceiving this correctly." I'm not sure, but I think imaginatively probing our current outlooks through such hypotheticals can sometimes be useful. It's not about reaching some definitive answers, of course, but just contemplating how our outlook has taken shape and what kind of 'stress testing' it can endure.

That's a fair question. I don't think the example you've provided would actually make me lose much confidence. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to see that happen and almost expect that it would occur in the event that the things I'm suggesting actually come to pass. Like any other large human collectivity, the Catholic Church is home to a variety of competing opinions which are sometimes even quite dramatically opposed. A decisive blow to the John stream would need to come from the Vatican, in the form of some doctrinal or dogmatic update that directly closes the door to Anthroposophical methods. At the moment, this is extremely unlikely. Moreover, it would constitute a change in the steady direction in which the Church has been progressing for hundreds of years. I don't see any signs of this whatsoever. Nonetheless, such a possibility shouldn't be written off as impossible. St. Peter himself attempted to revert to the Law after the establishment of the first Christian community, which led to the famous dispute between him and St. Paul.

[AshvinP]

As a bit of an aside, Rodriel, I am wondering whether you can imagine any scenario in which you would lose a lot of confidence in this general position? I know it is a sensitive topic, and I'm not at all asking whether you would abandon your Catholic faith. Rather, I am wondering whether there is a scenario in which you might feel that the current Church is no longer a viable institution for sheltering souls and preparing them to spiral into the John stream. For example, let's say a prominent Catholic theologian thoroughly evaluates PoF and fails to understand it, annihilating it in a critique, which many other theologians and thinking-inclined laity are convinced by. Would that be a scenario in which you say, "OK, the Church is not at all ready to help integrate the streams in the domain of thinking and seems to be acting more as an obstacle, so perhaps we weren't perceiving this correctly." I'm not sure, but I think imaginatively probing our current outlooks through such hypotheticals can sometimes be useful. It's not about reaching some definitive answers, of course, but just contemplating how our outlook has taken shape and what kind of 'stress testing' it can endure.

That's a fair question. I don't think the example you've provided would actually make me lose much confidence. In fact, I would not be at all surprised to see that happen and almost expect that it would occur in the event that the things I'm suggesting actually come to pass. Like any other large human collectivity, the Catholic Church is home to a variety of competing opinions which are sometimes even quite dramatically opposed. A decisive blow to the John stream would need to come from the Vatican, in the form of some doctrinal or dogmatic update that directly closes the door to Anthroposophical methods. At the moment, this is extremely unlikely. Moreover, it would constitute a change in the steady direction in which the Church has been progressing for hundreds of years. I don't see any signs of this whatsoever. Nonetheless, such a possibility shouldn't be written off as impossible. St. Peter himself attempted to revert to the Law after the establishment of the first Christian community, which led to the famous dispute between him and St. Paul.

I see. I also think such an explicit doctrine is quite unlikely for the same reason that we are unlikely to see the Anthroposophical society issue a direct statement of that kind. In other words, to me it seems like there are often people who imagine they understand the "Anthroposophical methods" (or Christian hermetic methods, more generally) and either reject, endorse, or leave the door open to them on the basis of their imagined understanding (similar to scripture), yet the real test of openness and understanding is whether they are willing to stretch the imagination into unfamiliar territory and orient toward the phenomenological foundations, discerning how the higher worlds participate in the real-time flow of experience. That is why I focused on the example of PoF. Also, you had stated in the previous comment:

"A serious reappraisal of PoF would be possible now, given the distance of our current time from the panic around Anthroposophy"

Yet you also say that you expect this serious reappraisal would lead to a rejection of its symbolically recursive content, at least by some portions of the Catholic theological vanguard. I suppose I am still unclear on your position for the function of the Church in this respect. How could it help thinking souls open up to the transition to the spiritual soul if it is also expected to generally dismiss the inner exploration of the phenomenological foundations? Or would it be open to such an exploration as long as the name of "Steiner" or "Anthroposophy" is not attached to it, since that automatically brings prior prejudices that would be difficult to overcome?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

I see. I also think such an explicit doctrine is quite unlikely for the same reason that we are unlikely to see the Anthroposophical society issue a direct statement of that kind. In other words, to me it seems like there are often people who imagine they understand the "Anthroposophical methods" (or Christian hermetic methods, more generally) and either reject, endorse, or leave the door open to them on the basis of their imagined understanding (similar to scripture), yet the real test of openness and understanding is whether they are willing to stretch the imagination into unfamiliar territory and orient toward the phenomenological foundations, discerning how the higher worlds participate in the real-time flow of experience. That is why I focused on the example of PoF. Also, you had stated in the previous comment:

"A serious reappraisal of PoF would be possible now, given the distance of our current time from the panic around Anthroposophy"

Yet you also say that you expect this serious reappraisal would lead to a rejection of its symbolically recursive content, at least by some portions of the Catholic theological vanguard. I suppose I am still unclear on your position for the function of the Church in this respect. How could it help thinking souls open up to the transition to the spiritual soul if it is also expected to generally dismiss the inner exploration of the phenomenological foundations? Or would it be open to such an exploration as long as the name of "Steiner" or "Anthroposophy" is not attached to it, since that automatically brings prior prejudices that would be difficult to overcome?

One of the Church's primary historical functions was to bring about the full flowering of the spirit-open Intellectual Soul. That achievement has long past at this point. The Church now serves to uphold this achievement against forces which seek to erode it. Extra-ecclesial scientific culture is not sufficient to do this; it's the fact the Church's expression of the Intellectual Soul is spirit-open that makes it the most suitable defender of this important faculty, which is meant to be built upon, not discarded. The spirit-openness of the Church manifests, over time, in a sequence of small holes poked in the canopy of the Intellectual Soul. Each of these little holes fractally recapitulates Peter's statement "You are the Son of the Living God." This statement is the essence of the Intellectual Soul, in that it comprehends the world as given by the Father while mystically acknowledging the identity of the Son without fully comprehending the Son in his own element. The Son of course comes to be known in his own element through the Consciousness Soul, and it's these little holes in the Intellectual Soul canopy - openings to moral creativity - through which the Consciousness Soul will grow within the Church. That a contingent within the Church will oppose this makes no difference in the larger scope of the Church's function. As long as the institutional authority remains spirit-open, a pathway will exist for souls to progress. I don't believe that Anthroposophy on its own can serve the important function of the Church as I've described it, and so it appears to me that more souls will ultimately benefit from a combined Peter-John stream rather than either on its own.

[AshvinP]

I see. I also think such an explicit doctrine is quite unlikely for the same reason that we are unlikely to see the Anthroposophical society issue a direct statement of that kind. In other words, to me it seems like there are often people who imagine they understand the "Anthroposophical methods" (or Christian hermetic methods, more generally) and either reject, endorse, or leave the door open to them on the basis of their imagined understanding (similar to scripture), yet the real test of openness and understanding is whether they are willing to stretch the imagination into unfamiliar territory and orient toward the phenomenological foundations, discerning how the higher worlds participate in the real-time flow of experience. That is why I focused on the example of PoF. Also, you had stated in the previous comment:

"A serious reappraisal of PoF would be possible now, given the distance of our current time from the panic around Anthroposophy"

Yet you also say that you expect this serious reappraisal would lead to a rejection of its symbolically recursive content, at least by some portions of the Catholic theological vanguard. I suppose I am still unclear on your position for the function of the Church in this respect. How could it help thinking souls open up to the transition to the spiritual soul if it is also expected to generally dismiss the inner exploration of the phenomenological foundations? Or would it be open to such an exploration as long as the name of "Steiner" or "Anthroposophy" is not attached to it, since that automatically brings prior prejudices that would be difficult to overcome?

One of the Church's primary historical functions was to bring about the full flowering of the spirit-open Intellectual Soul. That achievement has long past at this point. The Church now serves to uphold this achievement against forces which seek to erode it. Extra-ecclesial scientific culture is not sufficient to do this; it's the fact the Church's expression of the Intellectual Soul is spirit-open that makes it the most suitable defender of this important faculty, which is meant to be built upon, not discarded. The spirit-openness of the Church manifests, over time, in a sequence of small holes poked in the canopy of the Intellectual Soul. Each of these little holes fractally recapitulates Peter's statement "You are the Son of the Living God." This statement is the essence of the Intellectual Soul, in that it comprehends the world as given by the Father while mystically acknowledging the identity of the Son without fully comprehending the Son in his own element. The Son of course comes to be known in his own element through the Consciousness Soul, and it's these little holes in the Intellectual Soul canopy - openings to moral creativity - through which the Consciousness Soul will grow within the Church. That a contingent within the Church will oppose this makes no difference in the larger scope of the Church's function. As long as the institutional authority remains spirit-open, a pathway will exist for souls to progress. I don't believe that Anthroposophy on its own can serve the important function of the Church as I've described it, and so it appears to me that more souls will ultimately benefit from a combined Peter-John stream rather than either on its own.

Right, so I suppose that, as is usually the case in these discussions, it all hinges upon what is precisely meant by this critical concept of "spirit-open". What does it mean for the intellectual soul to be truly open to the Spirit?

Like you said, the Church's function of bringing the intellectual soul to the threshold of this spirit-openness has long been fulfilled. If it continues trying to serve the same function that it already fulfilled in practically the same way (at the same scale of cognitive depth), that can only lead to suboptimal and retrogressive results. The question is, how much can it adapt its current structure and teachings to evolve its function in keeping with the Spirit of the times? If it seeks to uphold its prior achievement against the forces that continually seek to erode it, then surely it must do that in a novel manner. The old playbook can't be expected to fulfill the new functions that are needed to preserve the soul's openness to the spirit.

I think that spirit-openness in our time must be measured by the standard of POF, as a starting point. Until the soul reaches the point where it feels its real-time thoughts being shaped by and manifesting within the contextual intuitive streamlines of spiritual activity, it remains practically closed to the spirit. It can then only manipulate those thoughts as abstract tokens at the surface of consciousness, theorizing about spiritual realities, but cannot sense the deeper inner movements of its own theorizing activity. And as illustrated before, when approached from the standard intellectual perspective, those tokens generally serve to make it more difficult to accustom ourselves to the deeper movements by diffusing the meditative impulse.

To be clear, I think that what Tomberg emulated for us (not necessarily the precise content of his statements, although that content is also complementary when taken as a spiritual exercise) is a great example of this starting point within a Catholic context. What I am unsure about is the extent to which the institutional Church can integrate the Steiner-Tomberg impulse, despite the latter's best attempts in that direction. I think we need much more concrete transformations of the Church's function of preserving spirit-openness, in the direction of PoF, before it seems like a promising possibility. And the same could equally be said of the Anthroposophical Society, which often seems disconnected from the phenomenological foundations. Simply moving the intellect through combinations of esoteric concepts is also no longer sufficient for the soul to remain open to the immanent birth of its deeper essence.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA096/En ... 29p01.html

We have a Theosophical Society in order that people may be given awareness of the spiritual core of their being. It exists above all to bring health to humanity, and not in order that one person or another knows something or other. It is not a matter of you knowing—I mean merely knowing—that reincarnation and karma exist. What matters is that these ideas become the very life blood of the soul, the spiritual core of our being, for they are sound. It is not a matter of proving or disproving them, nor of founding a science where reincarnation and karma are presented in strictly mathematical terms. There is only one proof of what is taught in the science of the spirit, and that is life itself. The teaching of spiritual science will prove to be true when healthy life develops under its influence. This will be the proof of what is taught in theosophy. If you want to have proof of theosophy, you must live theosophy; then it will show itself to be true. Every step and every day must gradually give us proof of the truths taught in the science of the spirit.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Right, so I suppose that, as is usually the case in these discussions, it all hinges upon what is precisely meant by this critical concept of "spirit-open". What does it mean for the intellectual soul to be truly open to the Spirit?

Like you said, the Church's function of bringing the intellectual soul to the threshold of this spirit-openness has long been fulfilled. If it continues trying to serve the same function that it already fulfilled in practically the same way (at the same scale of cognitive depth), that can only lead to suboptimal and retrogressive results. The question is, how much can it adapt its current structure and teachings to evolve its function in keeping with the Spirit of the times? If it seeks to uphold its prior achievement against the forces that continually seek to erode it, then surely it must do that in a novel manner. The old playbook can't be expected to fulfill the new functions that are needed to preserve the soul's openness to the spirit.

I think that spirit-openness in our time must be measured by the standard of POF, as a starting point. Until the soul reaches the point where it feels its real-time thoughts being shaped by and manifesting within the contextual intuitive streamlines of spiritual activity, it remains practically closed to the spirit. It can then only manipulate those thoughts as abstract tokens at the surface of consciousness, theorizing about spiritual realities, but cannot sense the deeper inner movements of its own theorizing activity. And as illustrated before, when approached from the standard intellectual perspective, those tokens generally serve to make it more difficult to accustom ourselves to the deeper movements by diffusing the meditative impulse.

To be clear, I think that what Tomberg emulated for us (not necessarily the precise content of his statements, although that content is also complementary when taken as a spiritual exercise) is a great example of this starting point within a Catholic context. What I am unsure about is the extent to which the institutional Church can integrate the Steiner-Tomberg impulse, despite the latter's best attempts in that direction. I think we need much more concrete transformations of the Church's function of preserving spirit-openness, in the direction of PoF, before it seems like a promising possibility. And the same could equally be said of the Anthroposophical Society, which often seems disconnected from the phenomenological foundations. Simply moving the intellect through combinations of esoteric concepts is also no longer sufficient for the soul to remain open to the immanent birth of its deeper essence.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA096/En ... 29p01.html

We have a Theosophical Society in order that people may be given awareness of the spiritual core of their being. It exists above all to bring health to humanity, and not in order that one person or another knows something or other. It is not a matter of you knowing—I mean merely knowing—that reincarnation and karma exist. What matters is that these ideas become the very life blood of the soul, the spiritual core of our being, for they are sound. It is not a matter of proving or disproving them, nor of founding a science where reincarnation and karma are presented in strictly mathematical terms. There is only one proof of what is taught in the science of the spirit, and that is life itself. The teaching of spiritual science will prove to be true when healthy life develops under its influence. This will be the proof of what is taught in theosophy. If you want to have proof of theosophy, you must live theosophy; then it will show itself to be true. Every step and every day must gradually give us proof of the truths taught in the science of the spirit.

The Church is in fact not operating strictly by its old playbook. The Church of 2025 is incredibly different from the Church of, say, 1925. Though highly conservative, the Church is also progressive in key ways. And these key developments are precisely what constitutes the spirit-openness I've been referring to. To be clear, these developments are subtle and don't come in the form of clear-cut teachings. Instead they appear as what I've referred to as "holes in the canopy of the Intellectual Soul." These are little openings or doorways into the domain of personal certainty, upon which the Intellectual soul cannot and must not impinge. To express these as explicit teachings would cut against the very grain of personal certainty. The more subtle, intimate activity of unknown friends is what will drive the development forward. To my mind, this is the solution to the inherent problem of Anthroposophy, which we've already discussed at length for which you've provided another great reference from Steiner. And to provide a few concrete examples of the openings, here are a few: crucial developments around conscience and the definition of the human person (in which references to the 'I' are not uncommon), the entire impulse behind Vatican II, recent expansions in the understanding of soteriology (which essentially boils down to an expansion of the very concept of the Church to include spheres outside its direct membership), very recent ecumenical movements and clarifications around the notion that Christ has worked in and through other religions. There are quite a few more such examples. Most of these are things that huge numbers of people within the Church are up in arms about. They are fueling an ultra-conservative backlash which at the moment has taken the form of the "Trad" movement. The Vatican has pressed onward nonetheless, absolutely refusing to capitulate to these regressive tendencies but upholding dogma in the face of those who seek to move the Church closer to leftist political agendas.

I think we do well to remember also that, while it's true in general that phenomena which overstay their welcome on the stage of history become retrogressive forces if untransformed, sometimes these same phenomena are kept in place or held back for a particular reason: namely to be put into service of a fructification of streams. In these cases, certain aspects of development are held back while others germinate. This is precisely what happened, for instance, in the Hebrew people, in whom the sense of personal-internal morality was held back in order to be kept fresh for the fructification of the Buddhist current, while at the same time a mighty I-impulse came to expression in the stream of heredity. And we expect a similar process to take place again within what is now the Eastern Orthodox (specifically the Russian stream) Church. This stream is being held back at a pre-Intellectual Soul level in order to remain fertile for the Maitreya impulse in the sixth epoch.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

To clarify a point on the above: when I say that the openings don't come in the form of clear-cut teachings, I mean fully elaborated esoteric ones. They can and do take the form of teachings, but ones that constitute a kind of groping toward an unseen depth.