Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[Federica]

So while, yes, it is true that the intellectual soul which seeks keep the soul forever in its own element is regressive, forces which work to erode the intellectual soul are equally regressive in a different way. Rome is the primary defender of the intellectual soul in our day, in a time when this faculty is being eroded from all sides. The situation has changed, and we can't simply take every word Steiner ever said about the world of the 1910s as a rock solid guide to our current world. And even when we do take Steiner's statements in isolation, we also must remember that a critique of something is not an argument for the absolute rejection of that thing but an invitation for its change/transformation.

I think you are critically overlooking what Cleric pointed out, that intellectual thinking and intellectual soul are not the same thing. Anyway, since you are saying the bold, how do you answer the following?

When we look at things in this way, can we even point out what of the spiritual scientific impulse must be preserved and planted in the Church? For example, if we take the MoT as an instance of the proper continuation of this impulse (I apologize if I’m speaking again out of incomplete knowledge), it is difficult for me to see what is there due to the Michaelic spiritual scientific impulse. I would say that almost entirely the book can be written as resting on the Hermetic foundations. To me, the Michaelic impulse is in its very essence the described delamination of the ego, which alone leads us to true higher cognition, self-knowledge about our Cosmic constitution, and freedom. If we strip this away as premature, then what precisely remains that is worthy of being called such an impulse, and which is not already contained in the streams of Western Christian occultism?

[AshvinP]

I have no problem seeing that decision as deliberate. Yet, when we speak of such profound events, we should also see things in the corresponding depth. Habitually, one may imagine that VT has developed Devachanic consciousness, surveyed the evolutionary situation, then weighed the facts, and basically decided: “The bulk of the impulse of spiritual science blasts off prematurely. The souls are simply not ready for this. We need something much more structured, well-organized, within which the souls should be nourished until they mature enough to go deeper.” However, as we often emphasize, it is simply not the case that higher consciousness is developed as if reaching a certain level and then everything there becomes visible and objectively known. Instead, we should bear in mind that the human soul in itself is the arena where many spiritual eyes gaze through. Cosmic beings compete for dominance. Each has a certain intuition about what the first-person continuation of the movie of existence should be and pushes in that direction. So when we say that someone took a deliberate decision, we should also consider the deeper context, this arena where Cosmic forces battle. One continuation of the inner movie sees man developing as a free being with thorough consciousness of his Cosmic structure. Another superimposed continuation whispers, “It is too soon. It will come out stillborn. We need the maternal womb for some more time.”

Thanks, Cleric. This discussion of profound events, deliberate choices, and deeper pushes and pulls within the Cosmic context, reminded me of something:

This makes comprehensible the varying length of the sojourn in Devachan. When the human being stands at the beginning of his development and has transformed but very little of his etheric body he can only remain in Devachan for quite a short time. The part of the etheric body that is lacking must be replaced for him by the external Devas. When he develops further he sojourns for a progressively longer time in Devachan; thus the time that he spends there increases in proportion to his own development. People, however, who are more advanced sometimes reincarnate earlier for other reasons, for instance, because they are needed in the world.

When the Chela dies, the entire etheric body is present. Thus at this stage the Chela can renounce Devachan because the etheric body has been completely worked through. Then, after quite a short time, re-birth takes place. He waits at first in the astral world, as in a place of transition, until he receives a definite mission from his Master. Then he can again take possession of his etheric body in order to reincarnate once more.

What does it mean to renounce Devachan after death? And could this also be related to what individualities like VT did during life? I don't have too many concrete thoughts surrounding this idea, but it seems like something that warrants further contemplation and scrutiny. Especially when dealing with such profound karmic events of epochal destiny, as channelled through significant individualities (it is interesting because even some Anthroposophists associate VT with such an individuality), we may not appreciate how the Michaelic impulse can manifest itself in non-linear ways. Clearly, VT/MoT will exist 'side by side' with Steiner/Anthroposophy for some time, and perhaps there is a complementary function here that doesn't need to be categorized as forces of opposition so hastily, especially when MoT lends itself well to cultivating phenomenological thinking foundations, much more so than the published works of Anthroposophers over the last few decades.

For example, if we take the MoT as an instance of the proper continuation of this impulse (I apologize if I’m speaking again out of incomplete knowledge), it is difficult for me to see what is there due to the Michaelic spiritual scientific impulse. I would say that almost entirely the book can be written as resting on the Hermetic foundations. To me, the Michaelic impulse is in its very essence the described delamination of the ego, which alone leads us to true higher cognition, self-knowledge about our Cosmic constitution, and freedom.

My perspective on MoT is a bit different here, although I do think that it mostly rests on the Hermetic foundations, again as perhaps a deliberate choice that indeed wants to see the movie flow bent along a certain geodesic, but knowing full well the spiritual scientific curvature will be simultaneously bending the flow in slightly different and perhaps complementary ways. (again, I view this VT/MoT curvature as somewhat independent of the 'Catholic project')

I am curious, though, outside of Steiner, would you point to anyone else whose writing can be traced to the Michaelic spiritual-scientific impulse? For example, would we find it in Scaligero or Kuhlewinde? What would that look like exactly?

[Federica]

Ashvin, you said you wanted to wait for Cleric before answering the key questions. Now Cleric has said what he wanted to say. I remind the questions:

Since you agree with Cleric that the Catholic project is detrimental, how do you maintain that such a project is not what Tomberg envisioned?

Do you maintain that Spiritual Science “reflects” Tomberg’s attitude of keeping reincarnation a matter of private concern, and that there are no major differences in how one is encouraged to develop oneself according to VT and according to Spiritual Science?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin, you said you wanted to wait for Cleric before answering the key questions. Now Cleric has said what he wanted to say. I remind the questions:

Since you agree with Cleric that the Catholic project is detrimental, how do you maintain that such a project is not what Tomberg envisioned?

Do you maintain that Spiritual Science “reflects” Tomberg’s attitude of keeping reincarnation a matter of private concern, and that there are no major differences in how one is encouraged to develop oneself according to VT and according to Spiritual Science?

The Catholic project, as that has been described here, imagines it is optimal to shelter souls from freely developed higher knowledge and instead lead them to the Divine through externally imposed dogmas and philosophical-theological concepts which they can move through with mechanical intellectual gestures (not much unlike modern flattened Anthroposophy), while MoT invites souls to cultivate an interest in the phenomenological foundations of their soul life and freely work their way into the living soul asanas through imaginative symbols. These arcane asanas, as Cleric has described them, already imply the concrete reality of reincarnation, which is something we all agree the Catholic project would never entertain. They already imply the concrete participation of human souls in the fashioning of Earthly destiny and redemption of Earthly kingdoms, which would be dismissed as a heretical 'salvation by works' by the Catholic project. A devout member of the Catholic project who has worked through MoT and nodded along with it, simply hasn't yet understood where it leads when approached with proper meditative contemplation, in my view.

Both VT/MoT and spiritual science encourage the aspirant to develop an intimate experiential perspective on their spiritual activity, cultivating moral-cognitive forces that are instrumental to all proper higher development. Again, the 'proof' (inner certainty) of this comes from our living through MoT in a meditative way, just as Steiner indicated with respect to Theosophy in the quote I shared before. What I am saying in this respect is not a theory or an intellectual argument to be maintained, rather it is simply a reflection on the living experience of how the soul is invited to engage with the contents of MoT and spiritual science, respectively, and where that engagement can lead.

[Federica]

Cleric, could you please clarify what you mean that you have no problem seeing Tomberg as deliberately “stepping back” from Devachan, and “stripping down” that layer for a better fit to the existing stream, in relation to that:

I only see it that he could not reach the tipping point from the Hermetic tradition to the new influx of Michaelic Inspiration. He absorbed as much as he could from spiritual science, but in the end, it felt fragmentary compared to the alive and warm unity of the Arcane asanas in soul space encircling the central mystery. In that way, he could not reach actual consciousness of the Devachan, where we can only know ourselves as a spirit embedded in the superimposed flow of multiplicity of spirits. As such, at the upper edge of the Imaginative world, he could only anticipate the Logos in mystical fervor.

[Federica]

The Catholic project, as that has been described here, imagines it is optimal to shelter souls from freely developed higher knowledge and instead lead them to the Divine through externally imposed dogmas and philosophical-theological concepts which they can move through with mechanical intellectual gestures (not much unlike modern flattened Anthroposophy), while MoT invites souls to cultivate an interest in the phenomenological foundations of their soul life and freely work their way into the living soul asanas through imaginative symbols. These arcane asanas, as Cleric has described them, already imply the concrete reality of reincarnation, which is something we all agree the Catholic project would never entertain. They already imply the concrete participation of human souls in the fashioning of Earthly destiny and redemption of Earthly kingdoms, which would be dismissed as a heretical 'salvation by works' by the Catholic project. A devout member of the Catholic project who has worked through MoT and nodded along with it, simply hasn't yet understood where it leads when approached with proper meditative contemplation, in my view.

Then what is Tombergs own Catholic project?
What is the appropriate role of the RCC according to Tomberg, according to you?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

I think you are critically overlooking what Cleric pointed out, that intellectual thinking and intellectual soul are not the same thing. Anyway, since you are saying the bold, how do you answer the following?

When we look at things in this way, can we even point out what of the spiritual scientific impulse must be preserved and planted in the Church? For example, if we take the MoT as an instance of the proper continuation of this impulse (I apologize if I’m speaking again out of incomplete knowledge), it is difficult for me to see what is there due to the Michaelic spiritual scientific impulse. I would say that almost entirely the book can be written as resting on the Hermetic foundations. To me, the Michaelic impulse is in its very essence the described delamination of the ego, which alone leads us to true higher cognition, self-knowledge about our Cosmic constitution, and freedom. If we strip this away as premature, then what precisely remains that is worthy of being called such an impulse, and which is not already contained in the streams of Western Christian occultism?

If you could elaborate a bit on how you think my comment overlooked Cleric's point about intellectual thinking vs the intellectual soul, I could more easily comment on it.

I'll respond to Cleric's post shortly.

[AshvinP]

The Catholic project, as that has been described here, imagines it is optimal to shelter souls from freely developed higher knowledge and instead lead them to the Divine through externally imposed dogmas and philosophical-theological concepts which they can move through with mechanical intellectual gestures (not much unlike modern flattened Anthroposophy), while MoT invites souls to cultivate an interest in the phenomenological foundations of their soul life and freely work their way into the living soul asanas through imaginative symbols. These arcane asanas, as Cleric has described them, already imply the concrete reality of reincarnation, which is something we all agree the Catholic project would never entertain. They already imply the concrete participation of human souls in the fashioning of Earthly destiny and redemption of Earthly kingdoms, which would be dismissed as a heretical 'salvation by works' by the Catholic project. A devout member of the Catholic project who has worked through MoT and nodded along with it, simply hasn't yet understood where it leads when approached with proper meditative contemplation, in my view.

Then what is Tombergs own Catholic project?
What is the appropriate role of the RCC according to Tomberg, according to you?

That still remains mostly a mystery to me. Rodriel has presented some interesting ideas about that, which I am still contemplating. The more I contemplate it, the more it feels like a complex and layered karmic dynamic that cannot be easily summed up, as either a pure continuation or rejection of the Michaelic impulse. As Cleric said, it is clear that he was sincere and idealistic in his hope that deeper spiritual rods would shoot forth from the trunk of the Church, although it's not clear how he imagined this would happen. I will share a quote by Bamford from his introduction to Christ and Sophia (one of VT's core Anthroposophical works), which seems helpful to gain a bit of orientation in this domain:

Thus it became clear to Tomberg—especially in the face of the evil shamelessly visible in the increasingly vicious persecution of the Jews—that to realize a complete path required a liturgical community that, orienting Earth toward Heaven, could embody Heaven on Earth. For him this became a heart’s need that would lead him mysteriously to the Catholic Church.

He had always loved, and for many years intensively studied, the Russian Orthodox liturgy. Thus he turned first to Orthodoxy, to Father Dionysii, the priest of the Russian Orthodox Church in Amsterdam who had often spoken against National Socialism in his congregation. There was much they could agree on; there was a meeting of hearts on many things. But when Father Dionysii learned that Tomberg’s philosophy included reincarnation, he drew the line; he would not give him the sacraments.

Tomberg turned next to the Christian Community, with which his two “best” friends, Ernst von Hippel and Nikolai Belozvetov, were connected and which, since 1936, had been under strict surveillance by the Nazis, who knew that, with the dissolution of the Anthroposophical Society in Germany, many members would seek refuge and a place to gather there. Tomberg had long wanted to meet Emil Bock, who had taken over the leadership of the Church after the death of Friedrich Rittelmeyer in 1938. In February 1942, Bock returned to Stuttgart after eight months’ imprisonment (“protective custody”). Because Belozvetov lived in Stuttgart, he could set up a meeting and accompany Tomberg. Von Hippel was also present at one meeting. Again, we do not know exactly what passed; nothing was written down. Certainly, the question of religious renewal was discussed, especially what would be done after the defeat of Germany, when the ban on the Christian Community would be lifted. Liturgical questions, too, must have been addressed. Tomberg evidently made a plea for the inclusion of the Mary-Sophia being. Bock apparently would have nothing of it: “We have Michael. That suffices. We do not need Mary-Sophia.” For Tomberg, Mary-Sophia was the foundation of any authentic religious, spiritual striving and alone ensured that any gnosis—even Michaelic gnosis—was complete and not one-sided. Emil Bock, however, would not be swayed. Although interested in, and even devoted to, the Mary being, “Sophia,” in Tomberg’s sense, meant little to Bock. The upshot was clear. The Christian Community did not “need” Valentin Tomberg.

In fall 1942, Tomberg inwardly “entered” the Catholic Church. He made a formal but, as far as one can ascertain, still only inward commitment at the Church of Mary Magdalene in Amsterdam. It was unexpected. His closest friends, Belozvetov and von Hippel, were surprised, but they understood. They knew their friend. But they also understood that such a move would shock many anthroposophists. Anthroposophists, for the most part, felt that organized religions (churches in general and the Catholic Church in particular) were regressive forces, belonging to a previous age and state of consciousness. Rudolf Steiner himself had often, though by no means always, spoken to that effect.

Here it must be noted that Tomberg at this point was not “leaving” Anthroposophy; he was only “joining” the Church. When and how and to what extent he actually “left” Anthroposophy remains an open question. Certainly, he abandoned the more “Aristotelian,” spiritual scientific mode of research and expression and turned to a life of intuition and prayer and a more “Platonic,” mystical, imagistic, and poetic form of communication. Equally unknown is how and to what extent his relationship with Rudolf Steiner changed. For the moment, these things must remain mysteries. According to Charles Lawrie, sometime in the 1950s in London, the Russian anthroposophist Eugenia Gurwitsch asked Tomberg, “Why did you become a Catholic?” He replied very simply, “Rudolf Steiner wanted me to.”24 Who knows whether this is true, and if it is, what it means? At the very least, it seems to imply that Tomberg retained a connection with the individuality of Rudolf Steiner. Though certainly critical of anthroposophists in his Meditations on the Tarot, Tomberg speaks highly of Steiner in his last work, Lazarus, Come Forth! There, writing of the angelic hierarchies, he states: “The teaching on the heavenly hierarchies was renewed in the first quarter of this century through the lifework of the great Austrian seer and thinker Rudolf Steiner. The depth and profundity of Steiner’s contribution to a new understanding of the spiritual hierarchies is such that this theme cannot be taken up today without taking into account his remarkable accomplishment.” He goes on to call Rudolf Steiner’s achievement incomparable—“a cathedral (on the level of thought) to the celestial hierarchies”—and unique in human spiritual history.25

High praise, indeed, but it should not, of course, be taken to imply that little had changed; everything was changed. Tomberg experienced an inner evolution, one so great that, as he put it, it divided his life in two, making his earlier “anthroposophic” life seem like a previous incarnation. He had gone from being a spiritual scientist to becoming a “mystic.” His path changed from meditation to prayer. Yet he remained an “occultist,” or esotericist. In this sense, he did not change; his life, from the earliest manifestations available to us, is clearly continuous. As late as 1952, he wrote a manuscript (unpublished) titled “Mars and Buddha,” which by its title appears still clearly within an anthroposophic framework.

The move toward Catholicism was not expected—yet neither was it unexpected. In his “Our Father Course,” Tomberg had already revealed that his spiritual scientific research was leading him to view Catholicism in a different light. Previously, in the Early Articles, he had been critical. He had written of how Eastern Christianity was an inner communion with the living Christ that left Christians free to think as they would. In the East, there was no “infallible” teaching; the individual was left free. The love of Christ was all. But in the West, according to Tomberg’s view at that time, Christianity had taken on a more dogmatic, authoritarian form. Now, however, as he ended his “Our Father Course,” he began to see things differently. He spoke of the tasks of the two streams, Petrine and Johannine, exoteric and esoteric, one caring for the sheep and the other waiting, both stemming from a single founder—Christ—and each with its own tasks.

Tomberg, Valentin; Bruce, R.H.. Christ and Sophia: Anthroposophic Meditations on the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocalypse . steinerbooks. Kindle Edition.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

...

...

Thank you, Rodriel and Ashvin.

Rodriel, I’ve already signaled that I cannot speak from thorough knowledge of VTs lifelong work, but in this case, this is not even necessary because at the core of the discussion is a more principal question, which could apply to anyone else. We’re basically speaking about why anyone who has penetrated spiritual science sufficiently would decide to step back and strip it down, so to speak, such that it can more easily fit into an existing stream. I think on this point at least, we are all in agreement. You yourself repeatedly said that Steiner has blasted out a lot, and VT has basically preserved only the necessary essence, and the RCC is the best suitable soil where this essence should flourish.

I have no problem seeing that decision as deliberate. Yet, when we speak of such profound events, we should also see things in the corresponding depth. Habitually, one may imagine that VT has developed Devachanic consciousness, surveyed the evolutionary situation, then weighed the facts, and basically decided: “The bulk of the impulse of spiritual science blasts off prematurely. The souls are simply not ready for this. We need something much more structured, well-organized, within which the souls should be nourished until they mature enough to go deeper.” However, as we often emphasize, it is simply not the case that higher consciousness is developed as if reaching a certain level and then everything there becomes visible and objectively known. Instead, we should bear in mind that the human soul in itself is the arena where many spiritual eyes gaze through. Cosmic beings compete for dominance. Each has a certain intuition about what the first-person continuation of the movie of existence should be and pushes in that direction. So when we say that someone took a deliberate decision, we should also consider the deeper context, this arena where Cosmic forces battle. One continuation of the inner movie sees man developing as a free being with thorough consciousness of his Cosmic structure. Another superimposed continuation whispers, “It is too soon. It will come out stillborn. We need the maternal womb for some more time.”

So we see, having spiritual cognition doesn’t simply give us the facts on a plate. Each one of us is centered within a unique constellation of Cosmic influences. Higher consciousness consists in the gradual delamination of these influences. There are countless ways in which these influences can manifest in various proportions, some can remain stubbornly merged with the background, and so on. Seen in this way, it is clear that one can pierce even beyond the Imaginative and have certain Inspirations and Intuitions, yet this doesn’t yet guarantee in what proportions the influences are superimposed in our perspective. Then, it is from within such a constellation that a deliberate decision is made. The decision basically assesses which movie continuation pushes with the greatest weight. Thus, the ‘inability’ is something far more complicated; it is not a simple milestone that is reached or not reached along a linear axis.

The reason I say that it’s not strictly important whether we speak here out of full knowledge of VTs legacy is because the above question concerns first of all us here and now. We are VT at this moment. It is our soul where the above Cosmic battle is waged in many different forms. We all have our Inspirations and Intuitions, no matter how limited they might be, and now we feel a certain weighing of the facts. Is a deeper knowledge of our Cosmic dimension premature? Would I be better off by attending mass, receiving communion, and so on?

We can be even more specific. For example, does the knowledge of the Ahr, Lu, Christ, and all other influences of the hierarchies that are intermingled and weigh in the contextual flow of my destiny actually help me? Am I a freer spiritual being when I have internalized this deeper knowledge and I am actually vigilant for the kinds of streams that I lean into, and eventually attain to the degrees of freedom that allow me to navigate them with clear consciousness? Or I’m better by considering myself a simple soul, avoiding sin and seeking the Love of the Divine, and eventually expanding my consciousness a little further in soul space and its lawfulness?

When we look at things in this way, can we even point out what of the spiritual scientific impulse must be preserved and planted in the Church? For example, if we take the MoT as an instance of the proper continuation of this impulse (I apologize if I’m speaking again out of incomplete knowledge), it is difficult for me to see what is there due to the Michaelic spiritual scientific impulse. I would say that almost entirely the book can be written as resting on the Hermetic foundations. To me, the Michaelic impulse is in its very essence the described delamination of the ego, which alone leads us to true higher cognition, self-knowledge about our Cosmic constitution, and freedom. If we strip this away as premature, then what precisely remains that is worthy of being called such an impulse, and which is not already contained in the streams of Western Christian occultism?

Regarding the sentences of yours which I have bolded, I'm a little perplexed at why we keep coming back to this. I tried to make it clear that the "Catholic project," as it's now being referred to here, is not intended primarily for our benefit, but for our brothers and sisters who are flatly non-receptive to spiritual science (although this isn't to say that it doesn't benefit us in any way). We know spiritual science as it was transmitted to us by Steiner, and it's in this form that it has imparted what I'm sure we'd each describe as immeasurable value. And no one can take away what has been learned. Please don't take the following analogy to be an insinuation of some kind of superiority: an expert bowler will get a strike regardless of whether the bumpers have been left up or not. Likewise, taking the John stream into the Peter stream doesn't cause John to lose his progress. It is simply a matter of John becoming a visible example for Peter (leaning upon the breast of the Lord at table), in the company of Peter.

The sober fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of people incarnated on earth today, if approached with spiritual science in its original form, will have close to zero chance of benefiting from it. Is there really no imperative on the part of spiritual scientists to address this problem? Should we be content to limit the spirit of brotherhood we engender in this life to those who speak our exact language, when we know that learning to speak this language is simply not going to happen for most people? When confronted with a soul who shows some promise in rising to spiritual understanding, do we simply abandon them when our delivery fails to land? Or do we instead look for communities that show the highest degree of promise and plant our seeds there? To me this is the difference between making some difference and abdicating responsibility altogether. It just so happens that the RCC is one of the largest of such communities on the planet, and one that - as I have been arguing - occupies a special position in the currently unfolding dynamics of world evolution.

As to your final paragraph and its culminating question, I think it just needs to be made clear precisely what purposes MoT serves. Like I've said, Tomberg's entire post-anthroposophical corpus is an act, an attempt to render invisible dynamics visible through deed. Whereas much (though certainly not all) of Rudolf Steiner's work is meant as a communication of spiritual scientific facts, Tomberg's work goes beyond the communication of facts and even the strongly stated injunction to move toward specific ends. Instead, within his work is hidden the following: 1) indications as to his spiritual identity (like I've already stated) and its role in relation to various streams, 2) a description of what has happened to Anthroposophy since Rudolf Steiner's death, 3) instructions for the followers of Rudolf Steiner for making spiritual science communicable in the future, 4) a working apparatus for non-anthroposophists to gain a basic orientation to spiritual science. That MoT has taken the form of "resting on Hermetic foundations" is indicative not of the fact that this work has aimed at a goal which it fails to reach, but of a quite different goal than many readers seem to suspect or detect.

So again, I repeat, there is nothing in Tomberg's work which seeks to roll Anthroposophy back, finding it premature or anything like this. No receding back into the womb is being advocated. This work stands on a completely different level, serves a different purpose, and most importantly is aimed at completing the task of the resurrection of Lazarus that Steiner started.

For those who wish to respond with further evidence of Tomberg's repudiation of Steiner and the like, I urge you to become more acquainted with Tomberg perhaps by reading Lazarus, Come Forth, so that you can form your opinions around the broader picture, which is not in the least immaterial to understanding what MoT actually is.

[Federica]

If you could elaborate a bit on how you think my comment overlooked Cleric's point about intellectual thinking vs the intellectual soul, I could more easily comment on it.

Yes. Your contention was:

One must remember that Steiner's earthly work was done a century ago, when conditions were quite different than today. They are of course the same in many respects, and the overarching movements of world evolution are still the same; but many of the details have indeed changed. In Steiner's time, there was as of yet little danger of the intellectual soul becoming atrophied like we are beginning to see today. For the consciousness soul to unfold properly, it must occur atop a fully developed, intellectual soul. We of course find quotes like the following from Steiner on this point:

Essential as it is first of all to undergo the discipline of sound, reasoned thinking before attempting to enter the higher worlds, it is equally essential to rise above this ordinary thinking to immediate apprehension. And just because it is necessary to have this faculty of immediate apprehension in the higher world, the preparatory training in logical thinking is essential, for otherwise our feelings would quite certainly lead us into error. With ordinary intellectual thinking we are incapable of judging rightly in the higher world, but equally we are incapable of judging rightly in that world if we have not first trained our intellectual thinking in the physical world, and then, at a suitable moment, are able to be oblivious of it. Some people consider that this characteristic quality of the higher kind of thinking, the thinking of the heart, is a reason for discarding ordinary logic altogether. They say that as it has eventually to be forgotten there is no need to assimilate it first of all. But in saying this they disregard the fact that logical thinking is a training for making oneself a different man. In logical thinking we experience above all a kind of conscience, and by developing that we establish in the soul a certain sense of responsibility towards truth and untruth, without which nothing can be achieved in the higher worlds.

So while, yes, it is true that the intellectual soul which seeks keep the soul forever in its own element is regressive, forces which work to erode the intellectual soul are equally regressive in a different way. Rome is the primary defender of the intellectual soul in our day, in a time when this faculty is being eroded from all sides. The situation has changed, and we can't simply take every word Steiner ever said about the world of the 1910s as a rock solid guide to our current world. And even when we do take Steiner's statements in isolation, we also must remember that a critique of something is not an argument for the absolute rejection of that thing but an invitation for its change/transformation.

Here's why I don't think this line of reasoning is ideal. It has to do with the difference between intellectual soul and one of its modes of thinking: sound logical thinking.

As I understand it, Cleric proposed that Tomberg’s identity is an elevated expression of the intellectual soul, expanded in the astral world, like Hegel is an elevated expression of the same intellectual soul expanded in the physical-etheric world. This illustrates what Steiner laid out in Theosophy: how the intellectual soul can express thinking in various gradations, from mere overlay to the instincts (because the intellectual soul is still drenched in them), to intellectual sense-bound, to sense-free.

Now what you quoted above from Steiner is not a reference to the intellectual soul at large, but only to one of its possible modes of thinking. He is warning that, as a preparation for the supersensible, sound logical thinking needs to be strengthened, as for example in the first subsidiary exercise, in which a physical object and its logical extensions come into focus. He doesn’t say that the intellectual soul needs consolidation in order to ascend to the supersensible, but that logical thinking gestures should be properly developed, on the support of the sensory spectrum, so that later a similar logic and sense can manifest, to protect the student from illusion in the supersensible, when the direct feedback of sensation is missing.

By contrast, the intellectual soul, as expressed in an individual, can be larger than the mere capacity of sound thinking, or smaller, when it remains undeveloped and coincident with the sentient soul, in instinct-driven individuals. And there is also a broader collective dimension to it. In this collective dimension in particular, the intellectual soul still has a fateful dynamic, as I understand it. That is, its trajectory in the destiny of humanity doesn't necessarily only depend on the will and spiritual activity of specific individuals. The intellectual soul has come, and keeps coming to man, through the activity of higher beings, as a gift. As if someone gifted you drawing paper and pastels to encourage you to draw. In this way, the intellectual soul has now established itself, and cannot be compromised just because there is intellectual erosion within certain human groups. Rather, it is now available ‘out there’, to serve as fruitful foundation for those who will purposefully nourish it, to enable its expansion as consciousness soul. In this sense, the current erosion of sound thinking you speak of - it’s clear there is one - is not an erosion of the intellectual soul.

Yes, because development inevitably happen by streams, many will have to follow at a later stage. But my point is that the shriveling of thought in certain groups does not compromise the emergence of the consciousness soul in other groups, on the solid foundation of the intellectual soul. Therefore, the role of an organization that works for the spirit today should be to fuel the transformation of soul along the path of knowledge, by appealing to the ones who are able to listen, who are karmically ready, not to preserve and institutionalize a supposedly endangered intellectual soul. That foundation is there, ready to play its function for those who can leverage it. But to deprive those souls of the sparkle they may need, through the action of a regressive Church, would lead to failure on the whole front: the eroded souls would not listen anyway, and the ones who have potential to move further would be lulled, and held back, rather than stimulated and encouraged.


PS: As a side note, Steiner didn't only speak on the basis of the social and historical dynamics prevailing in his time. Rather, he was able to clairvoyantly map the potential ahead, and foresee possible future dynamics.