Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Right, and I can see how this is quite difficult for those coming from Anthroposophy (in its post-Steiner form), especially, to appreciate. Unlike the hypothetical future scenario where the Catholic Church becomes a dominating world power and dampens the Impulse for everyone (which could be a real threat, not just for the CC, but for practically all major cultural organizations), the threat of spirit-seeking souls completely missing the opportunities for moral-cognitive development provided through individualities like Tomberg has already manifested and continues to. It is the threat of absolutizing "Steiner said", and because some of his indications are highly critical of the Churches and their modern roles in spiritual life, we never give works like MoT a chance and instead paint such individualities (and perhaps the Church itself) as unwitting enemies of Christ. We all need to try and remain aware of how such perspectives practically influence the souls around us. The adversarial forces would like nothing better than for spiritual seekers to fractionize in this way and paint each other as mutually exclusive opponents, rather than co-contibutors to the shared Impulse. Of course, I am not the first to point this out, and it seems practically everyone who is intimately familiar with both Anthroposophy and Tomberg-MoT feels the same way (including Salman, Martin, Powell, Bamfield, and others).

Perhaps we are all prejudiced in some way, but I can only trust my intuitive experience in this domain. Experiencing the inner organic process of MoT was very similar to the first time PoF 'clicked' for me - I knew that I was in the presence of something utterly unique and profound, which was opening unsuspected degrees of freedom for my inner life. It was clearly born out of spiritual depth of experience. Other commentators have pointed out that, since Steiner, practically no one else has attained the capacities to do true supersensible research except for Tomberg. That also rings true to me based on trying to experience his inner process. And they have likewise pointed out that many Anthroposophical leaders ostracized Tomberg exactly for that reason, because his capacity to extend PoF-spiritual science in a novel direction was seen as a direct affront to the Ambassador of spiritual science. He was practically excommunicated. We should be careful not to fall into this same trap, as these are real-time threats of spiritual fragmentation that are unfolding at a time when we need to leverage all the reservoirs of Wisdom possible to become spirit-open and resist the subsensibsle and subhuman currents.

Right, the absolutizing leading to fracturing you mention is what Tomberg is describing in his warning not to turn Rudolf Steiner into the "anti-Pope." The Pope is the principle of unity of the whole physical human community and serves his proper role so long as he remains spirit-open. (There is of course the spirit-closed egregore of the Church, which at various times comes to the fore more intensely than the essential ecclesia universalis.) Rudolf Steiner's impulse is meant to leverage and fructify that spirit-openness but cannot do so if through his followers he competes with the Pope at the level of authority , for — like we have much discussed — this is the precise opposite of spiritual science's function. This competition then becomes a source of endless fracture and relegation to the plane of competing horizontal authorities, undermining both the Church's function as the steward of Universal Law and Anthroposophy's function as the torchbearer of personal certainty.

Perhaps we are all prejudiced in some way, but I can only trust my intuitive experience in this domain. Experiencing the inner organic process of MoT was very similar to the first time PoF 'clicked' for me - I knew that I was in the presence of something utterly unique and profound, which was opening unsuspected degrees of freedom for my inner life. It was clearly born out of spiritual depth of experience. Other commentators have pointed out that, since Steiner, practically no one else has attained the capacities to do true supersensible research except for Tomberg. That also rings true to me based on trying to experience his inner process. And they have likewise pointed out that many Anthroposophical leaders ostracized Tomberg exactly for that reason, because his capacity to extend PoF-spiritual science in a novel direction was seen as a direct affront to the Ambassador of spiritual science. He was practically excommunicated. We should be careful not to fall into this same trap, as these are real-time threats of spiritual fragmentation that are unfolding at a time when we need to leverage all the reservoirs of Wisdom possible to become spirit-open and resist the subsensibsle and subhuman currents.

Yes, Tomberg's work was the first body of work outside Steiner in which I encountered what appeared to be the actual spirit of Anthroposophy. This isn't to say that I haven't found any value in others' work, but the majority of Anthroposophical writing is obviously and undoubtedly in the category of schematic-intellectual elaborations of Steiner. There are steep guardrails around what can and cannot be said in Anthroposophical circles. I encounter this on a regular basis in the study groups I attend. If one phrases something in an even slightly original way, it is often immediately rejected as "not quite what Steiner said." Or if one casts doubt on a claim from an esteemed Anthroposophist — say about the reincarnation of so and so — it is usually rebutted that the researcher has valiantly pieced together the "evidence" from trusted Anthroposophical sources. By this means the anti-Church is built, a rival Intellectual Soul organization largely evacuated of any real spiritual science. I suppose I'm not saying anything we haven't already discussed at this point.

Thanks for providing this elaboration. Just reading something like this is a good dose of humility, since it helps me realize how unfamiliar I am with the nuances of the Church process. It is all too tempting to feel like these details are irrelevant, and we can reach the proper judgments simply through the big picture of the spiritual evolutionary process, but the spiritual scientific stance is there to remind us of how that can easily go astray. It is certainly the case that we often try to avoid the inner dynamics by zooming into all sorts of details that we intellectually patch together and which help us rationalize our avoidance, but as long as we remain conscious of this tendency and utilize the details as loose anchor points for our independent intuitive process, we then realize how they are indispensable for forming a healthy orientation. We shouldn't forsake this patient process of exploration, no matter how concerning the ideas on the 'other side' feel to be. What we express shouldn't be aimed at practically ending the exploration-discussion, as it often feels to be from the Anthroposophical side on this topic of the Church and its current and future significance.

With that said, I think that I have a better feel for your position. When you say that you don't see the 'far-off possibility' of a more Tombergian approach to the one-life dogma as a problem, it is because you see the Church as realistically functioning in a distinct domain of preserving the intellectual soul from complete atrophy. In other words, if somehow this far-off possibility were to become a near-term reality, you would welcome it with open arms.. But based on your understanding of the current situation, it makes little sense to place hope in something that is simply impossible to attain in the near future, and instead, we should focus on how the Church can be leveraged in its existing constitution for the benefit of the Peter souls across various domains of cultural life. In other words, the prospect for widespread clairvoyance didn't seem to manifest at the scale that Steiner anticipated, and while a few souls are prepared to take that next step, most souls are dealing with the much more pressing problem of unwinding the steps that we have already collectively taken. Is that about right, at least in part?

Yes, that's pretty much my position exactly. The Church has always been a hospital, but this function is becoming more and more pronounced and will likely continue to do so. If the John stream were to become more prominent within the Peter stream, it's very possible that a deepened awareness of this increasingly pronounced function of Peter's would even arise on the part of the Church, in contradistinction to the Church structure/hierarchy itself serving a culture-sculpting role. Those days are arguably over, and a primary element of John-within-Peter will necessarily be an increase of autonomous cultural streams flowing out of and bowing to the Intellectual-Soul-protecting apparatus.

I won't reiterate all of the cautions that I have already shared in this respect, and which Cleric has also pointed to in various ways. You seem to be quite open and receptive to contemplating the risks involved with this general inner stance, and how we may have blind spots with respect to how things may look differently from the clairvoyant perspective. Another thing to keep in mind is how common it is today for people to invoke apocalyptic conditions and scenarios to justify various rushed outer policies and programs. Everyone appeals to 'saving the world' when it isn't quite understood how patient development of higher knowledge (which is not to say isolated, secret, etc.) still holds the best hope and is the direct wish of the Christ-centered higher worlds in our time. If the Church leadership continues to obstinately refuse to take the Tombergian approach as anything more than a 'thought exercise', then I would see this as a major problem, just as I do when the Anthroposophical Society does the same thing and fails to develop any truly spiritually deepened souls within its ranks. (and in some ways this is even worse, since that is the explicit function of Anthroposophy as Steiner intended it)

The bolded is where we might still have a slightly different stance, if what you mean by "take the Tombergian approach" is for the Church to begin teaching this approach directly, that is, catechetically. Becoming increasingly open to it is what I would consider movement in the right direction. The autonomous cultural streams I mentioned above would be the primary seat of progressive activity. Although, eventually I would hope to find these developments flowing through into preaching, where priests are at liberty to direct their flocks in a more personal way. I have even heard some more esoteric than usual homilies coming from younger priests and deacons in the past few years. Dogma, again, is still the guiding star here.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

I owe Cleric a much fuller response, but I am short on time this weekend and wanted to just jump in quickly to note that Tomberg's vision of the Second Coming far more nuanced than what has been indicated here. I can't remember off the top of my head whether the quotations are from MoT or from other works in his Catholic oeuvre (I will attempt to find them), but what Tomberg essentially does is tie together the Church's eschatological vision with the mysteries of Vulcan and Spirit Man. He describes at some length how the "resurrection body", a core tenet of the Catholic faith, should be interpreted in the light esoteric wisdom. In no sense is Tomberg suggesting a "flattened out" Second Coming where the subsequent planetary incarnations we come to know through SS no longer come about.

As for Cleric's diagram of the Peter and John streams progressing toward and ultimately converging in the omega point, I'm a bit confused as to where this image is coming from, as it is not what we have discussed. This has been a rather extended conversation (for which I am grateful!), so it might not be remembered that we discussed the relationship between the Peter and John streams in relation to the alternation between head and limbs within the successive incarnations of a single individuality. The vision is for all the Peters to ultimately have become Johns by the time of a certain eschatological horizon line (which at the moment remains unspecified, but that I would be very interested in collectively exploring). The image is a true spiraling together, not a parallel operation where those who have been Peters the entire time magically arrive at the "omega point" saved.

[Federica]

I'm a bit disappointed that you bring these quotations back up, given the amount of time that has been spent in this thread discussing how to interpret such remarks in the light of Tomberg's project. It's like pointing to the spirit-vacated Christ on the Cross and saying, "look, he's dead - there's no arguing with the fact that what we are looking at is a dead body." This kind of thinking absolutely must be transcended in order to read Tomberg.

Hint: Tomberg's letters to Bernhard Martin (more often quoted from Prokofieff's polemic than Martin's own book) are spiritual exercises in themselves.

By the way, Rodriel, I am seeing from various sources (sympathizing with VT) that the 1970 letter in question was not written to Bernhard Martin, but to Willi Seiss - the person who, 15 years later, would publish VT's work. What do you think about that? In any case, the following doesn't seem to apply to that letter:

When he wrote to Bernhard Martin, for instance, he was writing to a person who he knew full well was highly familiar with his work. He could reasonably and responsibly assume (or at least hope) that Martin would assess the personal statements being made in light of the broader context and come to the conclusion that the words are meant not as discursively interpreted opinions but as instructions and invitations for action.

[Federica]

I owe Cleric a much fuller response, but I am short on time this weekend and wanted to just jump in quickly to note that Tomberg's vision of the Second Coming far more nuanced than what has been indicated here. I can't remember off the top of my head whether the quotations are from MoT or from other works in his Catholic oeuvre (I will attempt to find them), but what Tomberg essentially does is tie together the Church's eschatological vision with the mysteries of Vulcan and Spirit Man. He describes at some length how the "resurrection body", a core tenet of the Catholic faith, should be interpreted in the light esoteric wisdom. In no sense is Tomberg suggesting a "flattened out" Second Coming where the subsequent planetary incarnations we come to know through SS no longer come about.

As I see it, you owe him a few of those fuller responses, starting from the one about the amniotic sac, which you promised, but never brought forth. In any case, speaking of second coming, VT wrote in MoT about Jesus Christ who "will be present there":

The last judgement will be the last crisis. The Greek word for judgement
is krisis (κρίσις), i.e. crisis. Friedrich Schiller said rightly that “the history of
the world is the judgement of the world”, i.e. it is a continual crisis, the stages
of which are “historical epochs”. The last judgement will therefore be the
culminating point of history. It will be simultaneously the aim, the meaning
and the summary of history—history condensed, i.e. the crisis that is in
question in all the particular crises of history. For this reason Jesus Christ,
who is the moral and spiritual centre of gravity of history, will be present
there. The second coming will be the objective manifestation of the stake of
history. In this sense Jesus Christ will be the “judge” at the last judgement.
His presence alone will set in relief all that which is not like him, all that
which is incompatible with him for the awakened conscience.
But he will not restrict himself to being present; he will participate in the
last judgement and will take an active part, namely that of judge.

As for Cleric's diagram of the Peter and John streams progressing toward and ultimately converging in the omega point, I'm a bit confused as to where this image is coming from, as it is not what we have discussed.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

By the way, Rodriel, I am seeing from various sources (sympathizing with VT) that the 1970 letter in question was not written to Bernhard Martin, but to Willi Seiss - the person who, 15 years later, would publish VT's work. What do you think about that? In any case, the following doesn't seem to apply to that letter:

My apologies, Federica. Yes, you are right. The letter you excerpted from was indeed Seiss's and not Martin's. I just reviewed them both, and though their contents are quite similar, the letter to Seiss -- having been composed a decade and a half later -- is a bit more intensely centered around Tomberg's change of identity. I don't believe my error changes the below at all, however, as both letters were written in response to eager admirers of Tomberg's anthroposophical work, hoping to hear the Catholic-converted author's updated reflections on this earlier work.

When he wrote to Bernhard Martin, for instance, he was writing to a person who he knew full well was highly familiar with his work. He could reasonably and responsibly assume (or at least hope) that Martin would assess the personal statements being made in light of the broader context and come to the conclusion that the words are meant not as discursively interpreted opinions but as instructions and invitations for action.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

As I see it, you owe him a few of those fuller responses, starting from the one about the amniotic sac, which you promised, but never brought forth. In any case, speaking of second coming, VT wrote in MoT about Jesus Christ who "will be present there":

The last judgement will be the last crisis. The Greek word for judgement
is krisis (κρίσις), i.e. crisis. Friedrich Schiller said rightly that “the history of
the world is the judgement of the world”, i.e. it is a continual crisis, the stages
of which are “historical epochs”. The last judgement will therefore be the
culminating point of history. It will be simultaneously the aim, the meaning
and the summary of history—history condensed, i.e. the crisis that is in
question in all the particular crises of history. For this reason Jesus Christ,
who is the moral and spiritual centre of gravity of history, will be present
there. The second coming will be the objective manifestation of the stake of
history. In this sense Jesus Christ will be the “judge” at the last judgement.
His presence alone will set in relief all that which is not like him, all that
which is incompatible with him for the awakened conscience.
But he will not restrict himself to being present; he will participate in the
last judgement and will take an active part, namely that of judge.

As for Cleric's diagram of the Peter and John streams progressing toward and ultimately converging in the omega point, I'm a bit confused as to where this image is coming from, as it is not what we have discussed.

From my perspective, the amniotic sac issue has been dealt with at this point from a number of different angles. I didn't think it necessary to return to that image specifically, but we certainly can if there's a specific element of it that you feel hasn't been sufficiently examined.

I'm not sure what you think the VT quote you've just provided reveals about my assessment of Cleric's diagram.

[Cleric]

As for Cleric's diagram of the Peter and John streams progressing toward and ultimately converging in the omega point, I'm a bit confused as to where this image is coming from, as it is not what we have discussed. This has been a rather extended conversation (for which I am grateful!), so it might not be remembered that we discussed the relationship between the Peter and John streams in relation to the alternation between head and limbs within the successive incarnations of a single individuality. The vision is for all the Peters to ultimately have become Johns by the time of a certain eschatological horizon line (which at the moment remains unspecified, but that I would be very interested in collectively exploring). The image is a true spiraling together, not a parallel operation where those who have been Peters the entire time magically arrive at the "omega point" saved.

It comes literally from Tomberg:

Because just as the heart is not called upon to replace the head, so is John not called upon to succeed Peter. The heart certainly guards the life of the body and the soul, but it is the head which makes decisions, directs, and chooses the means for the accomplishment of the tasks of the entire organism—head, heart and limbs. The mission of John is to keep the life and soul of the Church alive until the Second Coming of the Lord. This is why John has never claimed and never will claim the office of directing the body of the Church. He vivifies this body, but he does not direct its actions.

And the spiral metaphor I borrowed from you.

This is part of the reason why the way of Peter should spiral together with the way of John. What Tomberg masterfully achieves in MoT is a translation of Anthroposophical method into the language of Catholic tradition, showing the two to be complementary and reciprocally fructifying.

As far as the alternating John-Peter incarnations - the arrows in my diagram were supposed to depict the streams, not the individual destinies, just as in the army, say, the infantry is a kind of stream that has its continuity no matter who dies or retires and what new recruits come in.

I owe Cleric a much fuller response, but I am short on time this weekend and wanted to just jump in quickly to note that Tomberg's vision of the Second Coming far more nuanced than what has been indicated here. I can't remember off the top of my head whether the quotations are from MoT or from other works in his Catholic oeuvre (I will attempt to find them), but what Tomberg essentially does is tie together the Church's eschatological vision with the mysteries of Vulcan and Spirit Man. He describes at some length how the "resurrection body", a core tenet of the Catholic faith, should be interpreted in the light esoteric wisdom. In no sense is Tomberg suggesting a "flattened out" Second Coming where the subsequent planetary incarnations we come to know through SS no longer come about.

But the bold would be even worse. It's already a stretch to tie the Second Coming with the transition to Jupiter (since the incarnations will be over far, far earlier than that, and the Church, as it is, becomes null when death is no longer part of existence). But pushing it all the way to Vulcan? The collective Spirit Man of humanity will have a Macrocosmic purely spiritual existence at that stage, but there will still be the Roman Catholic Church (Peter stream) that is not to be meddled with by the John stream, and there will still be anticipation for the sudden appearance of Jesus, resurrection of the dead, and judgment?

Anyway. As said, I don't find joy rubbing in such a way on that level. If anything, it only sucks in our attention at the scale of sparks flying from crossing swords, while we completely miss the deeper elastic streams of destiny, which steer us to sympathize with one narrative or another.

The consistent thread that runs along all of the discussion is that, effectively, the kind of embodied existence that we are familiar with from the last few millennia is pushed as far as possible into the future. And together with this the Roman Catholic Church, which is the backbone, or the cross, on which the intellectual soul can have its seemingly secure existence within the cave. And this is how things will be until the Second Coming, whenever that might be. Isn't it strikingly obvious that something fights for its prolonged existence? That it is ready to subtly twist any intuition in such a way that it secures a narrative by which its existence will be fully relevant and necessary all the way until the Omega point? And while existence beyond the Omega point is in no way denied (the Reign of God), whatever that might be is deemed completely irrelevant (at most a matter of personal concern) as far as the Salvation operation is concerned (we'll see what it's like when we get there). This effectively implies that all the way to the Second Coming, there will be a threshold of death, demarcating embodied existence from the Heavenly. Only in this way the embodied intellect can feel fully content with the Church and dogma. Yet, it is precisely the Teachers of the twentieth century who tried to steer attention toward a kind of humanity for which the threshold of death will have diminishing weight. In the very beginning of this discussion I tried to paint a picture of the Nighttime Ecclesia, and how the two poles will become more and more diffused into each other. This asks us to completely reimagine what humanity's existence is, and asks us to urgently reconsider the picture of an embodied creature that seeks moral perfection by having this mode of existence immanent all the way to the end-point.

I tried to say that this kind of looking at things effectively ignores the kind of development that looks forward precisely toward the kind of human culture where the threshold of death will become diffused (initially at least at the level of consciousness; at the physical level it will be a sharp event for quite more time). Ignoring this prevents the influx of ideas and Cosmic Thinking that are as vital as the air for human beings who will have to increasingly manifest science, art, and religion directly from consciousness within the spiritual depth of reality. Expecting that such things are only relevant beyond the Second Coming, when Jesus will put an end to death, is the definition of ignoring them. I don't know why this was seen as a caricature.

Anyway. I think we have tilled the soil more than enough. At this point, I don't think explicating these things further could have any beneficial effect besides more sword sparks. I'll, of course, continue to follow the thread with interest. I'm open to have my eyes cleansed and see how Tomberg's strategy was far more sophisticated than it seems. But so far all we get is that things are subtle, nuanced, etc., but ultimately we never get to a point that can reconcile (1) the existence of embodied intellect (and its social RCC backbone/cross) secured up to the end-point of history, with (2) the spiritual scientific view that sees human culture moving into an increasingly spiritualized existence where the threshold of death diffuses, and together with it the Church (at least in its present form, not speaking of the Celestial Ecclesia, which is a spiritual unity, woven in the fabric of exsitence, and not an institutional replica of the Cosmic relations). Expecting that some subtleties will somehow solve this problem in the future is almost like the scientist who still hopes that somehow the seeming impossibility of abiogenesis will be resolved in the future when more data is available. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

[AshvinP]

But first, we need to clarify the bold - when you say 'take VT seriously in what he communicates', you seem to mean 'in what he communicates after he converted to Catholicism' (and mostly what we can discern from private letters to friends). Because as soon as we start taking seriously his extensive lecturing on topics like the etheric Christ and the second coming up until the early 1940s, then your portrayal of his vision that coincides with the flattened vision of the exoteric Church simply falls apart. So, in order to take your portrayal seriously, we need to imagine VT repudiated everything he learned and communicated in the past, even though he never actually did that. We should only take him half-seriously, in that sense, for your portrayal to stand up.

I'll leave it there, but we do have an indication of a major shift, and AFAIK, it is a fact that he didn't want his pre-Catholic works to be republished. Of course, we may choose to ignore, for example, the famous letter of 1970, where he admits to feel alien to his past self, but this is precisely where we have to consider what to take seriously, and what we would like to dismiss in order to preserve an aura that we would much rather prefer VT to abide in. This is something everyone will have to solve on their own. I just wanted to point out that things become very clear if we consider that through his transformation, he found a higher Truth in the Church, while his past self seemed to be busy in a more abstract attempt to solve the Great Mystery. A thing to contemplate: just because we may write extensively on spiritual scientific topics, fueled by intuitive thinking, it doesn't mean that we are able to fully enter the Spirit of the endeavor. It is fully possible that in the face of his later deep immersion in the Catholic mysteries, he felt much greater security and certainty than he was able to experience while working intuitively on spiritual scientific topics.

I would take seriously that he felt alien to his past self, which, however, does not mean he unlearned everything he previously worked through. A major shift in priorities does not mean a complete rejection of past knowledge. (by the way, it's interesting to contemplate how Tomberg was not the only Anthroposophist who decided it was best to convert to Catholicism after the war)

It occurred to me that another aspect should be addressed, and is perhaps much more important. It is this idea that the Catholic project (by that, I only mean VT 's and Rodriel's vision for the Church) envisions an exoteric Peter stream that remains exactly as it is now, i.e., "to maintain the ambassador in the same way, as if nothing had ever happened". It is deemed that the Church can't metamorphose along with the infusion of the John stream. This is a common axiom within Anthroposophy, usually rooted in "Steiner said", and it seems this axiom has been imported without question here (even though I have shared many quotes which reveal the situation wasn't so black and white with Steiner, either). I know your overall criticism is not at all based on "Steiner said", but it still seems like this particular assumption has been unquestioningly adopted. Rodriel already mentioned how it is a caricature of his position, and it's hard to see it differently when every indication that is given toward the Church's possibility of transformation is brushed aside. When he speaks of recent transformations, I imagine this is felt like finding straws in a haystack, or putting single water droplets into a 10-gallon bucket.

From Federica's perspective, any such indications are irrelevant to the point where even thinking and speaking about them is a waste of time and a distraction from the living Christ impulse. I doubt you would ever take such an extreme stance. But it's still unclear whether you allow for any other possibility except the Church retaining its same outer form as something like a holding pen for backward souls. It's unclear whether you allow for any possibility in which it may progressively embody the Impulse, precisely through something like VT's pedagogy. As we have discussed, if VT's teaching on The Judgment (Letter XX), for example, was livingly pursued by a significant number of priests or parishioners, the exoteric Church and its dogma, as we picture it now, would become a completely different thing. It would become a new wineskin for the new wine. The Magic Eye images concealed within the cult and dogma would begin shining through, just as they may start to do for natural scientific models and theories, which are otherwise misorienting to the highest degree. No Anthroposophist faults Steiner when he emphasizes that we don't need to "do battle" with natural scientists and their misleading theories, but to spiritualize how we see those theories.

It seems like such possibilities are all lumped into the category of "wishful thinking", no matter what. So the Catholic project is either wishful thinking or a desire to maintain the static form of the exoteric Church until the End, but it cannot possibly be anything else. I cannot help but feel that it is a caricature based on the present snapshot of the Church, a way too narrow and rigid understanding of the possibilities that once were and again could be. It is also simply begging the question, which is whether the inflowing of John can indeed revivify the Church and spiral it along the direction of the Spirit that works through the Christian Community (which is not to say it must become the latter). Steiner's discussions with the CC participants already contain a lot of clues as to how an established religious community steeped in ritual and dogma can also become an indispensable tool for higher development. He indicates that it is not only useful, but necessary for such religious communities to play a distinct role (from the Anthroposophical communities) if the Impulse is to be fulfilled for the new age and the growth of the new man. 

I have no idea to what extent VT or Rodriel's transformative vision for the Church will be realized, but to axiomatically rule it out seems like an unexamined prejudice against the Church, a subtle wish for it to fade away into oblivion under all evolutionary circumstances, for it to be irrelevant and unneeded. Then, with such an inflexible vision, it obviously makes sense why it is a problem when VT and Rodriel ally themselves with the Church and see it enduring until the End. Yet even Steiner doesn't take such a rigid view of the Church, which is another detail that has gone ignored. When he says it is unique and extensive, not doomed like other religious communities, and something completely different, is he also succumbing to the VT vision of static remainder until the End? I suppose most Anthroposophists would take it to be an indication that the Church will indeed remain in a static form and become a spring of Evil, a den of black magic, or something similar. Assuming we don't lapse into such an extreme position (especially given the context of the lectures), what do we imagine Steiner is pointing toward?

Again, I am not at all decided on the extent of the Church's role in advancing free spirituality in the years to come, but I am decided on the fact that it is presumptuous and, moreover, dangerous, to rule it out from the beginning. If we indeed hold a prejudice in this respect, and it has colored our entire understanding of VT and Rodriel's vision and project, then the way we present such things to other spirit-seeking souls could ripple into terrible consequences. Then the Church's insignificance for higher development practically becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It maintains its old crab shell and fades into oblivion just when it's needed the most, not because it is fundamentally incapable of accommodating the John stream, but because we have taken it upon ourselves to excise it from that stream and the social organism, mistaking it for a tumor.

[Cleric]

I would take seriously that he felt alien to his past self, which, however, does not mean he unlearned everything he previously worked through. A major shift in priorities does not mean a complete rejection of past knowledge. (by the way, it's interesting to contemplate how Tomberg was not the only Anthroposophist who decided it was best to convert to Catholicism after the war)

It occurred to me that another aspect should be addressed, and is perhaps much more important. It is this idea that the Catholic project (by that, I only mean VT 's and Rodriel's vision for the Church) envisions an exoteric Peter stream that remains exactly as it is now, i.e., "to maintain the ambassador in the same way, as if nothing had ever happened". It is deemed that the Church can't metamorphose along with the infusion of the John stream. This is a common axiom within Anthroposophy, usually rooted in "Steiner said", and it seems this axiom has been imported without question here (even though I have shared many quotes which reveal the situation wasn't so black and white with Steiner, either). I know your overall criticism is not at all based on "Steiner said", but it still seems like this particular assumption has been unquestioningly adopted. Rodriel already mentioned how it is a caricature of his position, and it's hard to see it differently when every indication that is given toward the Church's possibility of transformation is brushed aside. When he speaks of recent transformations, I imagine this is felt like finding straws in a haystack, or putting single water droplets into a 10-gallon bucket.

From Federica's perspective, any such indications are irrelevant to the point where even thinking and speaking about them is a waste of time and a distraction from the living Christ impulse. I doubt you would ever take such an extreme stance. But it's still unclear whether you allow for any other possibility except the Church retaining its same outer form as something like a holding pen for backward souls. It's unclear whether you allow for any possibility in which it may progressively embody the Impulse, precisely through something like VT's pedagogy. As we have discussed, if VT's teaching on The Judgment (Letter XX), for example, was livingly pursued by a significant number of priests or parishioners, the exoteric Church and its dogma, as we picture it now, would become a completely different thing. It would become a new wineskin for the new wine. The Magic Eye images concealed within the cult and dogma would begin shining through, just as they may start to do for natural scientific models and theories, which are otherwise misorienting to the highest degree. No Anthroposophist faults Steiner when he emphasizes that we don't need to "do battle" with natural scientists and their misleading theories, but to spiritualize how we see those theories.

It seems like such possibilities are all lumped into the category of "wishful thinking", no matter what. So the Catholic project is either wishful thinking or a desire to maintain the static form of the exoteric Church until the End, but it cannot possibly be anything else. I cannot help but feel that it is a caricature based on the present snapshot of the Church, a way too narrow and rigid understanding of the possibilities that once were and again could be. It is also simply begging the question, which is whether the inflowing of John can indeed revivify the Church and spiral it along the direction of the Spirit that works through the Christian Community (which is not to say it must become the latter). Steiner's discussions with the CC participants already contain a lot of clues as to how an established religious community steeped in ritual and dogma can also become an indispensable tool for higher development. He indicates that it is not only useful, but necessary for such religious communities to play a distinct role (from the Anthroposophical communities) if the Impulse is to be fulfilled for the new age and the growth of the new man. 

I have no idea to what extent VT or Rodriel's transformative vision for the Church will be realized, but to axiomatically rule it out seems like an unexamined prejudice against the Church, a subtle wish for it to fade away into oblivion under all evolutionary circumstances, for it to be irrelevant and unneeded. Then, with such an inflexible vision, it obviously makes sense why it is a problem when VT and Rodriel ally themselves with the Church and see it enduring until the End. Yet even Steiner doesn't take such a rigid view of the Church, which is another detail that has gone ignored. When he says it is unique and extensive, not doomed like other religious communities, and something completely different, is he also succumbing to the VT vision of static remainder until the End? I suppose most Anthroposophists would take it to be an indication that the Church will indeed remain in a static form and become a spring of Evil, a den of black magic, or something similar. Assuming we don't lapse into such an extreme position (especially given the context of the lectures), what do we imagine Steiner is pointing toward?

Again, I am not at all decided on the extent of the Church's role in advancing free spirituality in the years to come, but I am decided on the fact that it is presumptuous and, moreover, dangerous, to rule it out from the beginning. If we indeed hold a prejudice in this respect, and it has colored our entire understanding of VT and Rodriel's vision and project, then the way we present such things to other spirit-seeking souls could ripple into terrible consequences. Then the Church's insignificance for higher development practically becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It maintains its old crab shell and fades into oblivion just when it's needed the most, not because it is fundamentally incapable of accommodating the John stream, but because we have taken it upon ourselves to excise it from that stream and the social organism, mistaking it for a tumor.

As I said earlier, if the RCC can transform - so much the better. I don't dismiss this possibility axiomatically, and I certainly don't think anyone should try to excise it. Developing humanity should not be on the soul market, competing with other religions for believers. Souls should be drawn where they feel that the Spring of Life is active.

What we talk about is very simple. If VT is trying to approach and help the transformation of the RCC from within, all great. But Rodriel speaks of something significantly more. He says that the actual Michealic impulse has now been planted in the RCC by VT, and it is there that it will reach its unfoldment. Meanwhile, we need to accept its trimmed-down version as a necessary sacrifice, and hope that it will regain the missing parts in lockstep with the eventual transformation of the Church. You see, it is one thing to help the Church-hospital perform its service - and I'm not saying that this is an unnecessary service - but here we're talking about a completely different scenario for the way humanity should develop, which is centered around the RCC. Now, everything in this development depends on how the RCC behaves, how it wants or doesn't want to transform, and so on. To use a Trumpism, to me, this is simply a 'bad deal'. Human progress should be centered around the Living Christ, whom everyone seeks and communes with in complete freedom. And this is where the Teachers of the Michaelic impulse point at, no matter from what race, nation, or religious tradition we emerge. If any Church or whatever organization wants to join in this High Ideal, they are more than welcome. But to center this development around an institution, which at present doesn't even consider this inner consciousness-expanding path to the Christ, simply makes no sense.

[AshvinP]

As I said earlier, if the RCC can transform - so much the better. I don't dismiss this possibility axiomatically, and I certainly don't think anyone should try to excise it. Developing humanity should not be on the soul market, competing with other religions for believers. Souls should be drawn where they feel that the Spring of Life is active.

What we talk about is very simple. If VT is trying to approach and help the transformation of the RCC from within, all great. But Rodriel speaks of something significantly more. He says that the actual Michealic impulse has now been planted in the RCC by VT, and it is there that it will reach its unfoldment. Meanwhile, we need to accept its trimmed-down version as a necessary sacrifice, and hope that it will regain the missing parts in lockstep with the eventual transformation of the Church. You see, it is one thing to help the Church-hospital perform its service - and I'm not saying that this is an unnecessary service - but here we're talking about a completely different scenario for the way humanity should develop, which is centered around the RCC. Now, everything in this development depends on how the RCC behaves, how it wants or doesn't want to transform, and so on. To use a Trumpism, to me, this is simply a 'bad deal'. Human progress should be centered around the Living Christ, whom everyone seeks and communes with in complete freedom. And this is where the Teachers of the Michaelic impulse point at, no matter from what race, nation, or religious tradition we emerge. If any Church or whatever organization wants to join in this High Ideal, they are more than welcome. But to center this development around an institution, which at present doesn't even consider this inner consciousness-expanding path to the Christ, simply makes no sense.

But Rodriel just stated to me above,

If the John stream were to become more prominent within the Peter stream, it's very possible that a deepened awareness of this increasingly pronounced function of Peter's would even arise on the part of the Church, in contradistinction to the Church structure/hierarchy itself serving a culture-sculpting role. Those days are arguably over, and a primary element of John-within-Peter will necessarily be an increase of autonomous cultural streams flowing out of and bowing to the Intellectual-Soul-protecting apparatus.
...
Becoming increasingly open to it is what I would consider movement in the right direction. The autonomous cultural streams I mentioned above would be the primary seat of progressive activity.

It seems like you are subtly substituting what you are speaking of for what 'Rodriel speaks of', even though he has indicated differently several times already. I see the same thing happening with 'taking VT's statements seriously', which means 'taking my interpretation of his statements, based on my partial understanding of his whole work, seriously'.

I don't know, perhaps I am completely misunderstanding Rodriel's vision of this process, and I'm sure he can correct me on this point if that is the case. But as I see it, he has been continually trying to modify this understanding of his position, i.e. that the development and communication of all higher knowledge will now depend completely on what the Church does or doesn't do, to little avail.