Cleric wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 3:42 pm
Thank you all for this thread!
I have not yet delved into VT in depth, but, like others, I find the claim that the Catholic Church is the most suitable host for a refurbished spiritual scientific impulse, a little perplexing.
It is enough to point attention to one thing (well, two things) - Karma and Reincarnation. I'm using these words in the deepest sense. These are not simply some human-level points of disagreement. For example, when looking at the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, many people feel like "Please, stop arguing whether Mary was born with the original sin or not. These are childish, insignificant trivialities. Let's unite in God!" Superficially, one may say, "Whether there's Karma and Reincarnation is all the same as long as you believe in God above all!" However, in our particular age, it is not in the least the same. In the most profound sense, grasping these truths in the depth of our being, places us differently in the evolutionary stream of humanity and the Cosmos. Something of our 'soul geometry' changes. In our day, the idea of "one life" (even though necessary until recently for certain reasons) is now being possessed by completely Luciferic and Ahrimanic influences.
To be honest, my imagination is not rich enough to imagine the Pope standing and saying, "Listen, my children, we're gradually phasing in the doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation." It is for this reason that I simply cannot comprehend how the CC (or EOC for that matter) could be a suitable host for the ongoing evolutionary impulse.
It is very straightforward. The impulse of spiritual science/anthroposophy (which in a way emerges as a stream of Esoteric Christianity flowing out of the secret schools, out in the open, and bringing a spiritual dimension to all aspects of Earthly life) is all about the human being awakening to its Cosmic dimension and thus gradually
bridging the realms of consciousness divided by the threshold of death. If we do not understand this, we do not really understand what this impulse is about, thus what the evolutionary direction of humanity is. The idea that this impulse, which is already quietly working in the souls of humanity, should somehow be collected and planted in the CC box, is ...confusing, to say the least.
I'll be happy to hear others' thoughts on this.
Hi Cleric,
As I am currently engaged with two of Tomberg’s books, I would like to share some thoughts on the subject. I am relatively new to studying him, and I believe Ashvin and Rodriel will likely provide more comprehensive and nuanced responses and insights.
First, I would like to quote a letter from Valentin Tomberg, which he wrote in response to a young man with anthroposophical roots who was enthusiastic about Tomberg’s writings from his anthroposophical period and wished to meet him:
>
Dear Mr. –,
>
> Here is a late but well-considered reply to your letter of January 15, 1970, which I have read and pondered thoroughly. My main question and concern is how I could spare you an expensive disappointment.
>
> Because a disappointment is inevitable if you were to come to Reading to meet me in person; you would not encounter the one who emerged as the author of the *Studies* in the 1930s and who represented a centrally focused spiritual science—simply because that person no longer exists.
>
> He is gone.
>
> The author of the *Studies* on the Bible and the Gospel was a man who made it his task in the 1930s to save Rudolf Steiner’s life’s work—spiritual science—from eradication and sclerosis by bringing it back to its central focus.
>
> However, the inner successor of that same person today believes that there is no such thing as spiritual science, nor can there ever be. Even a spiritual science based on its central focus can only contribute to the mill of death.
>
> It will inevitably become intellectualized and “fossilized.”
>
> Moreover, spiritual science never truly existed because the essential criterion for any science is that it must be testable and universally applicable.
>
> In reality, in relation to the religious element, it was liberal theology or “theology on its own initiative,” and in an anthropological or psychological sense, a generalization of personal psychological experiences.
>
> While the experiences themselves are mystical, they cannot claim scientific status—neither universally applicable nor verifiable. It follows that so-called “spiritual science” can only be psychologically convincing on the basis of faithful endorsement by a particular group of people, and objectively, only on the basis of trust in the account of the witness, i.e., authority.
>
> No pope has ever demanded of humanity such a degree of trust as the “spiritual scientist” or initiate Rudolf Steiner.
>
> The pontiffs represent a tradition with hundreds of witnesses, while the “spiritual scientist” draws on his own experiences and their interpretations, not on tradition, and—whether intentionally or not—demands an authority that rivals that of the Pope.
>
> Alas, like an anti-Pope.
>
> None of this is spiritual science, which does not mean that there isn’t, or never was, knowledge of the spirit.
>
> But knowledge of the spirit is not science; it is inner certainty—a condition that cannot be imposed on another. In any case, it must forgo any claim to universal validity or scrutiny. It is rooted in the most personal inner experience and can perhaps only be shared with very close companions bound by destiny.
>
> This is the spiritual transformation that has occurred in the Valentin Tomberg of the 1930s. He no longer has any connection to spiritual science, which he now considers abstract.
>
> The physical change since then has also been immense. He celebrated his 70th birthday nearly a week ago and recently underwent a major operation from which he has barely recovered. He finds socializing and communicating with people rather difficult. Today, he can only endure the life of a recluse. For example, he spent his 70th birthday with a party of seven visitors, the consequence of which was a painful, sleepless night and several days of depression!
>
> You see, dear Mr. –, you will not encounter the Valentin Tomberg of the 1930s. The distance that separates me from him today is as great as two incarnations. Truly, I should now have a different name, but for civil reasons, that is not possible. Nothing is further from me today or would be more exhausting than to see the ashes of the anthroposophical past stirred up…
>
> Please spare me discussions about the *Studies*, methods of work, and similar matters, which are now entirely alien to me.
>
> Today, my life is prayer and contemplation—that, and only that, is what I live for; not study.
>
> In the sincere hope that you will understand.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> Valentin Tomberg
As everyone is aware, there are very few people, even among the spiritually inclined, who truly manage to develop a deep connection with anthroposophy. I personally found it easier to engage with Heidegger’s philosophy and find grounding in it than to study Steiner’s spiritual works and truly understand them. This is worth noting, given how challenging Heidegger is considered even in academic circles. It is an immense task to read Steiner’s teachings, internalize them without turning them into dogmatic beliefs, and then walk the inner path that leads, in full consciousness, beyond the threshold—while avoiding the dangers that are abundant on such paths. Tomberg emphasizes these dangers in *Meditations on the Tarot* (*MoT*), and I think we all know spiritual people who have become unhinged or deluded themselves into believing they are holy. I myself have noticed certain tendencies that can overtake one without being fully aware of them.
And where does one turn for help or guidance when encountering such dangers? Personally, I would be reluctant to seek out the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach for such support. This is not to say that Steiner deliberately ignored these dangers; on the contrary, he warned about them, though not in every part of his vast body of work. It is one thing to follow his path 110 years ago, when Steiner was there as a master and guide for his students, and quite another to do so today, after online Zoom conferences with his followers. I am not saying there are no masters today, only that we live in a very different context than in Steiner’s time.
The other question I would like to raise is whether Steiner’s emphasis on knowledge also carries inherent dangers. In our era, science was born to satisfy the drive for epistemic certainty, which was the ideal of Enlightenment philosophers and finds its culmination in skeptical materialists. People shy away from taking seriously anything that cannot be guaranteed by this epistemic certainty. Why believe, when the ideal is knowledge (in the sense described)? Today, belief is often misunderstood as clinging to unprovable hypotheses or convictions. However, this is a false conception. Belief is trust in the unknown, to which one surrenders one’s will without having cognitively understood it (Tomberg describes this vividly in *MoT* as the reversed Hanged Man). It is all too easy to engage with occultism out of one’s own curiosity and run the risk of being overtaken by impulses. Steiner was profoundly different from most people in his development, education, and abilities. There is such a vast gap between him and the average person that I am not sure it can be bridged at all. In contrast, the Church manages to provide the ordinary person with a community that fosters spiritual growth and guidance through the tradition established by Christ and centered on Him. In Tomberg, a remarkable synthesis emerges, one that can build a bridge and create a connection.
Many people believe in reincarnation and karma—theosophists, Hindus, New Agers… However, I have noticed in myself that through reading Steiner, these “laws” now feel like a reality in which we are embedded. Yet I can also imagine how these ideas can be influenced by Ahrimanic and Luciferic impulses, as happens with many occultists and spiritualists. Could an understanding of reincarnation lead to neglecting this life, and an understanding of karma to determinism?