Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Southern Cross Review Nr. 70

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    Dear Friends and Subscribers, The new Southern Cross Review is now anxiously awaiting your visit at www.SouthernCrossReview.org Two political entities which
    Message 1 of 14 , May 10 3:18 PM
      Dear Friends and Subscribers,
      The new Southern Cross Review is now anxiously awaiting your visit at www.SouthernCrossReview.org
      Two political entities which have long fascinated me – the Roman Catholic Church and the State of Israel. Their seemingly remote similarities are analyzed this issue in the "Editor's Page".
      In "Fiction" our old friend the Argie-gringo Roberto Fox travels from Buenos Aires to Berlin on a special op. There's also a story by a new (for us) author, Michael Conn. Don't be put off by the conservative title. It's far from boring. And oh yes, Mark Twain gave permission to publish one of his lesser known stories.
      In "Current Events" don't miss Yonni Sanchez's bilingual adventures in a Cuba Libre which is far from libre. Noam Chomsky chomps on the Middle East mess to tell us of a solution that won't happen.
      "Features": I finally found an Argentinean who loves Cyd Charisse as much as I do – José Pablo Feinman. His article about her is extravagantly charming. Last issue we published an old story by J. D. Salinger. Now some old letters of his to an old army buddy have surfaced. They tell of a Salinger who is quite the opposite of the grouchy old man of our prejudices. Then comes an erudite article by Stanley Fish about the unnecessary opposition of Reason and Faith.
      In "Education" Don Fost describes a Silicon Valley Waldorf School where many parents are high paid computer geeks who prefer a low tech education for their children. And Prof. David Elkind laments the fact hat today's children have forgotten how to play – really play, not mess around with computer games.
      In "Anthroposophy" we continue the Rudolf Steiner's Fifth Gospel and anthroposophical movement lectures and introduce a new subject: Steiner's last lectures about Karmic relationships. We also offer the complete Genesis lectures as an ebook. Bringing up the rear is the review by Peter Staudenmaier of a massive book about anthroposophy by Helmut Zander. The book is in German, the review is in English.
      The bottom line is Poetry: T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land.
      Enjoy!
      Frank Thomas Smith
      Editor
      www.SouthernCrossReview.org
    • Frank Thomas Smith
      http://southerncrosreview.org Sorry folks. Just trying to make the address come out clickable. Frank
      Message 2 of 14 , May 10 3:27 PM
        http://southerncrosreview.org
        Sorry folks. Just trying to make the address come out clickable.
        Frank
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear Friends and Subscribers,
        > The new Southern Cross Review is now anxiously awaiting your visit at www.SouthernCrossReview.org
      • Frank Thomas Smith
        er...ah..um...It would help if I spelled it right: http://southerncrossreview.org f.
        Message 3 of 14 , May 10 3:31 PM
          er...ah..um...It would help if I spelled it right:
          http://southerncrossreview.org
          f.

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
          >
          > http://southerncrosreview.org
          > Sorry folks. Just trying to make the address come out clickable.
          > Frank
        • Barbara Puky
          You need to spell it cross in http://southerncrosreview.org B ;) To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com From: eltrigal78@yahoo.com Date: Mon, 10 May 2010
          Message 4 of 14 , May 10 4:40 PM
            You need to spell it "cross" in
            http://southerncros review.org
            B ;)
             

            To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
            From: eltrigal78@...
            Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 22:27:45 +0000
            Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Southern Cross Review Nr. 70

             
            http://southerncros review.org
            Sorry folks. Just trying to make the address come out clickable.
            Frank
            --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@ ...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear Friends and Subscribers,
            > The new Southern Cross Review is now anxiously awaiting your visit at www.SouthernCrossRe view.org




            30 days of prizes to be won with Hotmail. Enter here
          • fs13997
            Frank, Yet, there is more to the picture than meets the eyes. Although there is problem that need to be removed, it is always suspect when the media
            Message 5 of 14 , May 10 9:55 PM
              Frank,
              Yet, there is more to the picture than meets the eyes. Although there is problem that need to be removed, it is always suspect when the media concentrate against one subject that exercises a function opposite to the liberal agenda. These attacks against the Church move from an intent to destroy Christianity, not just from an objective quest for the truth. So, someone ends up at the center of media attention and others do not.

              Yet, religions are to go away since our goal is the unity of religions. In the meantime, the Church is still, of all the churches, the closest to the spiritual truths. It is well known that even a figure like Evola, who not only was a pagan, but worked to replace the Catholic Church with Paganism through the action of the magical chain of the Group of UR, yet, in his deathbed recommended his own to go the Church. At the political level that action failed for the intervention of a Jesuit priest. The meaning of that suggestion was that the Church was the only 'spiritual' structure that could guarantee some sort of relationship with the spiritual.

              Getting to your 'reforms" I noticed that you suggest to strike chastity, which, together with practices like 'silence,' any esotericist knows is a major source of 'magical' power for the Church (or for any institution).

              Then of course a priest who has the Holy Spirit can forgive sins. But, those are not easy to find.

              The political status of the Church is a relative concept today, but how many other groups should do the same, then? How about the evangelicals? They are most active politically.

              What the Church should probably do is to move closer to traditional elements, i.e. what was lost with the Vatican II, be more conservative, and do not give in to outside influences concerning internal affairs (like the Pacelli story). There is a need of a balance to counterbalance the widespread relativism, which is the real problem of our era.







              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
              www.SouthernCrossReview.org
              >
            • Frank Thomas Smith
              Federico, Ok if I put this in Letters next issue? Thanks, Frank
              Message 6 of 14 , May 11 9:43 AM
                Federico,
                Ok if I put this in "Letters" next issue?
                Thanks,
                Frank

                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@...> wrote:
                >
                > Frank,
                > Yet, there is more to the picture than meets the eyes. Although there is problem that need to be removed, it is always suspect when the media concentrate against one subject that exercises a function opposite to the liberal agenda. These attacks against the Church move from an intent to destroy Christianity, not just from an objective quest for the truth. So, someone ends up at the center of media attention and others do not.
                >
                > Yet, religions are to go away since our goal is the unity of religions. In the meantime, the Church is still, of all the churches, the closest to the spiritual truths. It is well known that even a figure like Evola, who not only was a pagan, but worked to replace the Catholic Church with Paganism through the action of the magical chain of the Group of UR, yet, in his deathbed recommended his own to go the Church. At the political level that action failed for the intervention of a Jesuit priest. The meaning of that suggestion was that the Church was the only 'spiritual' structure that could guarantee some sort of relationship with the spiritual.
                >
                > Getting to your 'reforms" I noticed that you suggest to strike chastity, which, together with practices like 'silence,' any esotericist knows is a major source of 'magical' power for the Church (or for any institution).
                >
                > Then of course a priest who has the Holy Spirit can forgive sins. But, those are not easy to find.
                >
                > The political status of the Church is a relative concept today, but how many other groups should do the same, then? How about the evangelicals? They are most active politically.
                >
                > What the Church should probably do is to move closer to traditional elements, i.e. what was lost with the Vatican II, be more conservative, and do not give in to outside influences concerning internal affairs (like the Pacelli story). There is a need of a balance to counterbalance the widespread relativism, which is the real problem of our era.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@> wrote:
                > www.SouthernCrossReview.org
                > >
                >
              • fs13997
                Frank, I revised my post to adapt it to the format and character of your review journal. Some themes were only applicable to a forum, due to its intrinsic
                Message 7 of 14 , May 11 12:32 PM
                  Frank,
                  I revised my post to adapt it to the format and character of your review journal.
                  Some themes were only applicable to a forum, due to its intrinsic informal aspect, rather than to a publication. Yet, I will address the story of the group of UR, hopefully next summer, on the AN list, in the course of my postings on the history of the Society in Italy.
                  So, if you want you can put the following in the Letters section in next issue. All the best.
                  Federico

                  "The Catholic Church has a big problem, as it recently acknowledged, and of course no one is trying to condone those failures. Yet, the Roman Church has many enemies and they will use any means to bring it down. The matter of these attacks boils down to what evidence can be gathered and be used against it. In this case it took many years for fact gathering because of the Church's ability to avoid public discussion by settling matters. However, we should remember that the institution and what it represents are two different things. If, on the one hand, the institution needs to implement measures directed at avoiding such incidents from repeating, and to prevent itself from covering up previous illegal activities, on the other hand, the Church as holder of higher truths is not affected by these events. The validity of its truths are independent from the acts of those who represent it.
                  Therefore, there should be a distinction between attacking the acts of members of such institution and attacking the validity of the institution itself.
                  We should exercise care in noticing whether the attacks are limited to the actual liabilities of the persons involved or whether they attempt to put into discussion the very existence of the institution.
                  Going to the question of whether the Catholic Church is an obsolete institution that has no need to exist, it may be noted that, from the perspective of the Spiritual Science, which is to develop a unity of religions, the question should be extended to the other religions as well.
                  In addition, in your editorial you mentioned some 'reforms' that the Roman Church should implement. One of these reforms asks the Church to get away with its chastity requirement. From as esoteric perspective, chastity is a source of forces, like the practice of silence required to certain orders and, therefore, its elimination would negatively affect the spiritual force of the Church.
                  Also, you suggest that a priest cannot forgive sins. On what basis? If a priest has the Holy Spirit, a rare occurrence, then he may forgive sins.
                  As to the political power of the Roman Church, there are other religious groups who exercise a tremendous political influence, so why not the Roman Church?
                  Indeed, in our time, because of the plague of relativism, we need a counterbalancing force to the action of those groups who put a lot of effort in spreading relativistic ideas in order to create a valueless and easily manipulable society. A society where the Roman Church has no reason to exist."

                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Federico,
                  > Ok if I put this in "Letters" next issue?
                  > Thanks,
                  > Frank
                  >
                • Frank Thomas Smith
                  Ok, Federico, I ll use this on SCR. But now, for the list, I d like to reply to your post. ... F: I don t think the Church settled matters, only swept them
                  Message 8 of 14 , May 11 4:38 PM
                    Ok, Federico, I'll use this on SCR. But now, for the list, I'd like to reply to your post.
                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > "The Catholic Church has a big problem, as it recently acknowledged, and of course no one is trying to condone those failures. Yet, the Roman Church has many enemies and they will use any means to bring it down. The matter of these attacks boils down to what evidence can be gathered and be used against it. In this case it took many years for fact gathering because of the Church's ability to avoid public discussion by settling matters.

                    F: I don't think the Church settled matters, only swept them under the rug.

                    FR: However, we should remember that the institution and what it represents are two different things.

                    F: I don't get that. We know what the institution is. What does it represent? (Reading below, I guess you mean "higher truths".)


                    FR: If, on the one hand, the institution needs to implement measures directed at avoiding such incidents from repeating, and to prevent itself from covering up previous illegal activities, on the other hand, the Church as holder of higher truths is not affected by these events. The validity of its truths are independent from the acts of those who represent it.

                    F: But is the Church really the holder of higher truths? Which higher truths does it posses which are not accessible to anyone interested enough? Why the exclusivity?

                    FR: Therefore, there should be a distinction between attacking the acts of members of such institution and attacking the validity of the institution itself.

                    F: Any institution in no more than a function of its members, especially its hierarchy.

                    FR: We should exercise care in noticing whether the attacks are limited to the actual liabilities of the persons involved or whether they attempt to put into discussion the very existence of the institution.

                    F: I don't think the acts have put existence of the Church into question, but certain attributes, such as the ones listed in my essay.

                    FR: Going to the question of whether the Catholic Church is an obsolete institution that has no need to exist, it may be noted that, from the perspective of the Spiritual Science, which is to develop a unity of religions, the question should be extended to the other religions as well.

                    F: You seem to be saying that spiritual science (anthroposophy?) is a religion. I beg to differ.

                    FR: In addition, in your editorial you mentioned some 'reforms' that the Roman Church should implement. One of these reforms asks the Church to get away with its chastity requirement. From as esoteric perspective, chastity is a source of forces, like the practice of silence required to certain orders and, therefore, its elimination would negatively affect the spiritual force of the Church.

                    F: I have nothing against celibacy - or chastity if you prefer - as long as it's voluntary. To make it a requirement for priesthood is, imo, hypocritical and counter-productive. You don't mention the prohibition of women for the priesthood, which today is no more that misogyny.

                    FR: Also, you suggest that a priest cannot forgive sins. On what basis? If a priest has the Holy Spirit, a rare occurrence, then he may forgive sins.

                    F: According to the Church *all* priests can forgive sins, including those far distant from the Holy Spirit.

                    FR: As to the political power of the Roman Church, there are other religious groups who exercise a tremendous political influence, so why not the Roman Church?

                    F: I was referring to the fact that the Roman Church *is* a state, a theocracy, which went out centuries ago...should have, that is.

                    FR: Indeed, in our time, because of the plague of relativism, we need a counterbalancing force to the action of those groups who put a lot of effort in spreading relativistic ideas in order to create a valueless and easily manipulable society. A society where the Roman Church has no reason to exist."

                    F: How about anthroposophy in that role?
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Federico,
                    > > Ok if I put this in "Letters" next issue?
                    > > Thanks,
                    > > Frank
                    > >
                    >
                  • fs13997
                    ... Amswer: Agree, I meant settled matters as in settlements, i.e. what you said.(do I need to clarify this point?) ... Answer: I know you don t, but when
                    Message 9 of 14 , May 11 6:26 PM
                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Ok, Federico, I'll use this on SCR. But now, for the list, I'd like to reply to your post.
                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > "The Catholic Church has a big problem, as it recently acknowledged, and of course no one is trying to condone those failures. Yet, the Roman Church has many enemies and they will use any means to bring it down. The matter of these attacks boils down to what evidence can be gathered and be used against it. In this case it took many years for fact gathering because of the Church's ability to avoid public discussion by settling matters.
                      >
                      > F: I don't think the Church settled matters, only swept them under the rug.

                      Amswer: Agree, I meant "settled matters" as in settlements, i.e. what you said.(do I need to clarify this point?)


                      >
                      > FR: However, we should remember that the institution and what it represents are two different things.
                      >
                      > F: I don't get that. We know what the institution is. What does it represent? (Reading below, I guess you mean "higher truths".)

                      Answer: I know you don't, but when you get rid of one you get rid of the other. The real aim for many is indeed to get rid of the whole thing. Yes, the Church through the Pontifex (bridge maker) represents the link between this and the higher world and the Church is the custodian of the higher truths.


                      >
                      >
                      > FR: If, on the one hand, the institution needs to implement measures directed at avoiding such incidents from repeating, and to prevent itself from covering up previous illegal activities, on the other hand, the Church as holder of higher truths is not affected by these events. The validity of its truths are independent from the acts of those who represent it.
                      >
                      > F: But is the Church really the holder of higher truths? Which higher truths does it posses which are not accessible to anyone interested enough? Why the exclusivity?

                      Answer: It depends where one stands. For its followers the truth presented by the Church is their point of reference. The Roman Church seems to be more faithful about many revealed 'truths' than other institutions. For example, the "filioque." I can see the transition that led to the Protestant development as a need to move from blind faith to individual freedom of interpretation,. However, such development led to many distortions. Yet, there are 'truths' that are not part of the Roman Church, like the doctrines of reincarnation and karma, etc. Still, such want of truths is counterbalanced by the Christian message. Therefore, the movement should likely move from non-Christian to Christian beliefs, and not the opposite because it would lead to the loss of the Christian message. Of course Christian Churches strongly oppose any incorporation of doctrines not strongly rooted in their tradition.


                      >
                      > FR: Therefore, there should be a distinction between attacking the acts of members of such institution and attacking the validity of the institution itself.
                      >
                      > F: Any institution in no more than a function of its members, especially its hierarchy.

                      Answer: But the members can be replaced, the institution cannot. As you may have noticed I did not comment to your suggestion to remove the hierarchy. Steiner addressed the issue of hierarchy commenting sarcastically on Dante's De Monarchia (as explained by Scaligero in a lecture) and showing that such structure, a relic of the roman empire strucutre, is a past model, just think of Stalin's hierarchical structure.


                      >
                      > FR: We should exercise care in noticing whether the attacks are limited to the actual liabilities of the persons involved or whether they attempt to put into discussion the very existence of the institution.
                      >
                      > F: I don't think the acts have put existence of the Church into question, but certain attributes, such as the ones listed in my essay.

                      Answer: You only suggested that it "should wither away like an old soldier" or reform. You have even hinted that it should disappear, although you specified that that is not your viewpoint. That is like saying that the wound cannot be cured. Of course you prescribe a cure, but after following your prescription it would be vary hard to recognize that it is the Roman Church.


                      >
                      > FR: Going to the question of whether the Catholic Church is an obsolete institution that has no need to exist, it may be noted that, from the perspective of the Spiritual Science, which is to develop a unity of religions, the question should be extended to the other religions as well.
                      >
                      > F: You seem to be saying that spiritual science (anthroposophy?) is a religion. I beg to differ.
                      >

                      answer: I agree with you that it is not a religion. But it may help understanding religions. I would not want to feed the critics expectations. I only said that a goal is to overcome religious differences.


                      > FR: In addition, in your editorial you mentioned some 'reforms' that the Roman Church should implement. One of these reforms asks the Church to get away with its chastity requirement. From as esoteric perspective, chastity is a source of forces, like the practice of silence required to certain orders and, therefore, its elimination would negatively affect the spiritual force of the Church.
                      >
                      > F: I have nothing against celibacy - or chastity if you prefer - as long as it's voluntary. To make it a requirement for priesthood is, imo, hypocritical and counter-productive. You don't mention the prohibition of women for the priesthood, which today is no more that misogyny.

                      Answer: In fact I only pointed at the consequences. It is a tough choice. We know that the union of two individuals, eventually leading to children, represent a failure from an esoteric perspective. The two should reconstitute the one, not give rise to he three.


                      >
                      > FR: Also, you suggest that a priest cannot forgive sins. On what basis? If a priest has the Holy Spirit, a rare occurrence, then he may forgive sins.
                      >
                      > F: According to the Church *all* priests can forgive sins, including those far distant from the Holy Spirit.

                      Answer: Maybe because they think all priests have the Holy Spirit. Recent events suggest that might not be the case.

                      >
                      > FR: As to the political power of the Roman Church, there are other religious groups who exercise a tremendous political influence, so why not the Roman Church?
                      >
                      > F: I was referring to the fact that the Roman Church *is* a state, a theocracy, which went out centuries ago...should have, that is.


                      Answer: I don't know if the world needs a theocracy. Tibet used to be a theocracy, maybe still is, but they tried to replace it with more complacent priests. The point you were making concerns political power and I replied that it is not the only religious group exercising massive political power. Also, although being 'de facto' a state I am not sure it has been officially recognized as such.


                      >
                      > FR: Indeed, in our time, because of the plague of relativism, we need a counterbalancing force to the action of those groups who put a lot of effort in spreading relativistic ideas in order to create a valueless and easily manipulable society. A society where the Roman Church has no reason to exist."
                      >
                      > F: How about anthroposophy in that role?


                      answer: should we start a new thread about that role?


                      > >
                      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Federico,
                      > > > Ok if I put this in "Letters" next issue?
                      > > > Thanks,
                      > > > Frank
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • Kim Graae Munch
                      Mankind is moving from belief to knowledge, and as long as there exist people who don t have knowledge there is need for the various belief-systems we have
                      Message 10 of 14 , May 12 12:21 AM
                        Mankind is moving from belief to knowledge, and as long as there exist people who don't have knowledge there is need for the various belief-systems we have today. These belief-systems are not holy, they are the librarians of the external knowledge until people have gained internal knowledge.

                        Various groups, as atheist, satanist, and new artificial western pagan religions, together with extreme Islamic groups, attacks especially Christian churches and Christian thought all over the Earth, as also Steiner have described in connection with the Ahrimanic deception. If you can undermine Christian belief then people, who have not yet reached knowledge, which are the great majority, would have no defense against materialism.

                        That there is corruption, in various disguises, within religious institutions cannot surprise, as they are served by fallible humans. It's the responsibility of the members of the churches to keep the corruption at bay, they have the religious institutions they deserve, as these are not better than their members.

                        Kim

                        --- Den ons 12/5/10 skrev fs13997 <fs13997@...>:

                        Fra: fs13997 <fs13997@...>
                        Emne: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Southern Cross Review Nr. 70
                        Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                        Dato: onsdag 12. maj 2010 03.26

                         



                        --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@ ...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Ok, Federico, I'll use this on SCR. But now, for the list, I'd like to reply to your post.
                        > --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "fs13997" <fs13997@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > "The Catholic Church has a big problem, as it recently acknowledged, and of course no one is trying to condone those failures. Yet, the Roman Church has many enemies and they will use any means to bring it down. The matter of these attacks boils down to what evidence can be gathered and be used against it. In this case it took many years for fact gathering because of the Church's ability to avoid public discussion by settling matters.
                        >
                        > F: I don't think the Church settled matters, only swept them under the rug.

                        Amswer: Agree, I meant "settled matters" as in settlements, i.e. what you said.(do I need to clarify this point?)

                        >
                        > FR: However, we should remember that the institution and what it represents are two different things.
                        >
                        > F: I don't get that. We know what the institution is. What does it represent? (Reading below, I guess you mean "higher truths".)

                        Answer: I know you don't, but when you get rid of one you get rid of the other. The real aim for many is indeed to get rid of the whole thing. Yes, the Church through the Pontifex (bridge maker) represents the link between this and the higher world and the Church is the custodian of the higher truths.

                        >
                        >
                        > FR: If, on the one hand, the institution needs to implement measures directed at avoiding such incidents from repeating, and to prevent itself from covering up previous illegal activities, on the other hand, the Church as holder of higher truths is not affected by these events. The validity of its truths are independent from the acts of those who represent it.
                        >
                        > F: But is the Church really the holder of higher truths? Which higher truths does it posses which are not accessible to anyone interested enough? Why the exclusivity?

                        Answer: It depends where one stands. For its followers the truth presented by the Church is their point of reference. The Roman Church seems to be more faithful about many revealed 'truths' than other institutions. For example, the "filioque." I can see the transition that led to the Protestant development as a need to move from blind faith to individual freedom of interpretation, . However, such development led to many distortions. Yet, there are 'truths' that are not part of the Roman Church, like the doctrines of reincarnation and karma, etc. Still, such want of truths is counterbalanced by the Christian message. Therefore, the movement should likely move from non-Christian to Christian beliefs, and not the opposite because it would lead to the loss of the Christian message. Of course Christian Churches strongly oppose any incorporation of doctrines not strongly rooted in their tradition.

                        >
                        > FR: Therefore, there should be a distinction between attacking the acts of members of such institution and attacking the validity of the institution itself.
                        >
                        > F: Any institution in no more than a function of its members, especially its hierarchy.

                        Answer: But the members can be replaced, the institution cannot. As you may have noticed I did not comment to your suggestion to remove the hierarchy. Steiner addressed the issue of hierarchy commenting sarcastically on Dante's De Monarchia (as explained by Scaligero in a lecture) and showing that such structure, a relic of the roman empire strucutre, is a past model, just think of Stalin's hierarchical structure.

                        >
                        > FR: We should exercise care in noticing whether the attacks are limited to the actual liabilities of the persons involved or whether they attempt to put into discussion the very existence of the institution.
                        >
                        > F: I don't think the acts have put existence of the Church into question, but certain attributes, such as the ones listed in my essay.

                        Answer: You only suggested that it "should wither away like an old soldier" or reform. You have even hinted that it should disappear, although you specified that that is not your viewpoint. That is like saying that the wound cannot be cured. Of course you prescribe a cure, but after following your prescription it would be vary hard to recognize that it is the Roman Church.

                        >
                        > FR: Going to the question of whether the Catholic Church is an obsolete institution that has no need to exist, it may be noted that, from the perspective of the Spiritual Science, which is to develop a unity of religions, the question should be extended to the other religions as well.
                        >
                        > F: You seem to be saying that spiritual science (anthroposophy? ) is a religion. I beg to differ.
                        >

                        answer: I agree with you that it is not a religion. But it may help understanding religions. I would not want to feed the critics expectations. I only said that a goal is to overcome religious differences.

                        > FR: In addition, in your editorial you mentioned some 'reforms' that the Roman Church should implement. One of these reforms asks the Church to get away with its chastity requirement. From as esoteric perspective, chastity is a source of forces, like the practice of silence required to certain orders and, therefore, its elimination would negatively affect the spiritual force of the Church.
                        >
                        > F: I have nothing against celibacy - or chastity if you prefer - as long as it's voluntary. To make it a requirement for priesthood is, imo, hypocritical and counter-productive. You don't mention the prohibition of women for the priesthood, which today is no more that misogyny.

                        Answer: In fact I only pointed at the consequences. It is a tough choice. We know that the union of two individuals, eventually leading to children, represent a failure from an esoteric perspective. The two should reconstitute the one, not give rise to he three.

                        >
                        > FR: Also, you suggest that a priest cannot forgive sins. On what basis? If a priest has the Holy Spirit, a rare occurrence, then he may forgive sins.
                        >
                        > F: According to the Church *all* priests can forgive sins, including those far distant from the Holy Spirit.

                        Answer: Maybe because they think all priests have the Holy Spirit. Recent events suggest that might not be the case.

                        >
                        > FR: As to the political power of the Roman Church, there are other religious groups who exercise a tremendous political influence, so why not the Roman Church?
                        >
                        > F: I was referring to the fact that the Roman Church *is* a state, a theocracy, which went out centuries ago...should have, that is.

                        Answer: I don't know if the world needs a theocracy. Tibet used to be a theocracy, maybe still is, but they tried to replace it with more complacent priests. The point you were making concerns political power and I replied that it is not the only religious group exercising massive political power. Also, although being 'de facto' a state I am not sure it has been officially recognized as such.

                        >
                        > FR: Indeed, in our time, because of the plague of relativism, we need a counterbalancing force to the action of those groups who put a lot of effort in spreading relativistic ideas in order to create a valueless and easily manipulable society. A society where the Roman Church has no reason to exist."
                        >
                        > F: How about anthroposophy in that role?

                        answer: should we start a new thread about that role?

                        > >
                        > > --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@ > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Federico,
                        > > > Ok if I put this in "Letters" next issue?
                        > > > Thanks,
                        > > > Frank
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >


                      • JoAnnS
                        ... Hi Kim, I d just like to note, as a Neo-Pagan (and thus as a member of a new artificial western pagan religion ), I have no quarrel with Christians. Nor
                        Message 11 of 14 , May 12 10:22 AM
                          --- Kim Graae Munch wrote:
                          > Various groups, as atheist, satanist, and new artificial western pagan religions, together with extreme Islamic groups, attacks especially Christian churches and Christian thought all over the Earth, as also Steiner have described in connection with the Ahrimanic deception. If you can undermine Christian belief then people, who have not yet reached knowledge, which are the great majority, would have no defense against materialism.


                          Hi Kim,

                          I'd just like to note, as a Neo-Pagan (and thus as a member of a "new artificial western pagan religion"), I have no quarrel with Christians. Nor do I have any need or desire to "attack" them or convert them to my religious beliefs. Can you say the same about the Christians' reaction to Pagans -- new or old? Heck, just in your statement above -- which refers to my religion as "artificial" -- you are being disrespectful of my experiences and beliefs as well as of my Godesses and Gods. Then again, since you lump us together with "atheist, satanist and ... extreme Islamic groups," I suspect you don't actually know much about Neo-Paganism except that, you know, it isn't Christian.

                          If you did know more about Paganism, you would know that most Pagans hold that God/dess is immanent -- that every one, every thing, is sacred. Nature and the material world *are* the manifestations of the Gods. Thus, materialism is rejected as a matter of thealogy.

                          Just my 2 cents Canadian and as always, Your Maya May Vary....

                          JoAnn
                        • Kim Graae Munch
                          Hi JoAnn, I classify dead religions as artificial when they have a revival without any living tradition to build on, like the celtic pagan s building on Iolo
                          Message 12 of 14 , May 12 11:17 AM
                            Hi JoAnn,
                            I classify dead religions as artificial when they have a revival without any living tradition to build on, like the celtic pagan's building on Iolo Morganwg's writings, which may or may not be invented from Kabalah.

                            For some months ago I read a pagan homepage where the owner wrote that many pagan's became atheist's when leaving paganism, which I interpreted as they where just playing around in opposition to Christian thoughts. I have some experience with believers in the Nordic gods, and I don't trust their believing except having a good time with mjød (mead) and flæskesteg (roastet pork), and a fun way to demonstrate against Christian church. Another kind of paganism are the belief systems where they have removed the non feminine parts of the trinity, and that I also see as distancing Christian thought.

                            I don't know what your belief system are, so I don't know if it fall's within what I have described above, but are you a believer or knower? Personally I don't believe in any religion or a specific esoteric organization either, but there is truth in most of them.

                            Kim

                            --- Den ons 12/5/10 skrev JoAnnS <sr_joanna@...>:

                            Fra: JoAnnS <sr_joanna@...>
                            Emne: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Southern Cross Review Nr. 70
                            Til: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                            Dato: onsdag 12. maj 2010 19.22

                             

                            --- Kim Graae Munch wrote:
                            > Various groups, as atheist, satanist, and new artificial western pagan religions, together with extreme Islamic groups, attacks especially Christian churches and Christian thought all over the Earth, as also Steiner have described in connection with the Ahrimanic deception. If you can undermine Christian belief then people, who have not yet reached knowledge, which are the great majority, would have no defense against materialism.

                            Hi Kim,

                            I'd just like to note, as a Neo-Pagan (and thus as a member of a "new artificial western pagan religion"), I have no quarrel with Christians. Nor do I have any need or desire to "attack" them or convert them to my religious beliefs. Can you say the same about the Christians' reaction to Pagans -- new or old? Heck, just in your statement above -- which refers to my religion as "artificial" -- you are being disrespectful of my experiences and beliefs as well as of my Godesses and Gods. Then again, since you lump us together with "atheist, satanist and ... extreme Islamic groups," I suspect you don't actually know much about Neo-Paganism except that, you know, it isn't Christian.

                            If you did know more about Paganism, you would know that most Pagans hold that God/dess is immanent -- that every one, every thing, is sacred. Nature and the material world *are* the manifestations of the Gods. Thus, materialism is rejected as a matter of thealogy.

                            Just my 2 cents Canadian and as always, Your Maya May Vary....

                            JoAnn


                          • fs13997
                            JoAnn, Right. New or old. Who says that old paganism is ever gone. In Italy paganism has survived the passage of time and even inside anthroposophy there
                            Message 13 of 14 , May 12 11:47 AM
                              JoAnn,

                              Right. New or old. Who says that 'old' paganism is ever 'gone.' In Italy paganism has survived the passage of time and even inside anthroposophy there are pagans who practice the exercises and the path given by Steiner and study the texts. Yet, there are many currents of paganism and they may differ a lot one from another. Italy, for example is tied to the roman pagan tradition, for the most. See for example the work of Evola. To call it artificial or a revived tradition does not seem always correct, maybe in the situation described by Kim, because the pagan tradition has been alive through all these centuries.


                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "JoAnnS" <sr_joanna@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > --- Kim Graae Munch wrote:
                              > > Various groups, as atheist, satanist, and new artificial western pagan religions, together with extreme Islamic groups, attacks especially Christian churches and Christian thought all over the Earth, as also Steiner have described in connection with the Ahrimanic deception. If you can undermine Christian belief then people, who have not yet reached knowledge, which are the great majority, would have no defense against materialism.
                              >
                              >
                              > Hi Kim,
                              >
                              > I'd just like to note, as a Neo-Pagan (and thus as a member of a "new artificial western pagan religion"), I have no quarrel with Christians. Nor do I have any need or desire to "attack" them or convert them to my religious beliefs. Can you say the same about the Christians' reaction to Pagans -- new or old? Heck, just in your statement above -- which refers to my religion as "artificial" -- you are being disrespectful of my experiences and beliefs as well as of my Godesses and Gods. Then again, since you lump us together with "atheist, satanist and ... extreme Islamic groups," I suspect you don't actually know much about Neo-Paganism except that, you know, it isn't Christian.
                              >
                              > If you did know more about Paganism, you would know that most Pagans hold that God/dess is immanent -- that every one, every thing, is sacred. Nature and the material world *are* the manifestations of the Gods. Thus, materialism is rejected as a matter of thealogy.
                              >
                              > Just my 2 cents Canadian and as always, Your Maya May Vary....
                              >
                              > JoAnn
                              >
                            • Kim Graae Munch
                              There are lots of original pagan traditions, I talk about artificial, and mentions at least two, Nordic gods and Celtic lore, none of the followers you find in
                              Message 14 of 14 , May 12 12:15 PM
                                Message
                                There are lots of original pagan traditions, I talk about artificial, and mentions at least two, Nordic gods and Celtic lore, none of the followers you find in the public media have any relation to a living tradition.
                                I have written Chakana – The Incan Cross where there still are some living traditions.
                                Kim
                                 
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of fs13997
                                Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:48 PM
                                To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: SV: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Southern Cross Review Nr. 70

                                 

                                JoAnn,

                                Right. New or old. Who says that 'old' paganism is ever 'gone.' In Italy paganism has survived the passage of time and even inside anthroposophy there are pagans who practice the exercises and the path given by Steiner and study the texts. Yet, there are many currents of paganism and they may differ a lot one from another. Italy, for example is tied to the roman pagan tradition, for the most. See for example the work of Evola. To call it artificial or a revived tradition does not seem always correct, maybe in the situation described by Kim, because the pagan tradition has been alive through all these centuries.

                                --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, "JoAnnS" <sr_joanna@. ..> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- Kim Graae Munch wrote:
                                > > Various groups, as atheist, satanist, and new artificial western pagan religions, together with extreme Islamic groups, attacks especially Christian churches and Christian thought all over the Earth, as also Steiner have described in connection with the Ahrimanic deception. If you can undermine Christian belief then people, who have not yet reached knowledge, which are the great majority, would have no defense against materialism.
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi Kim,
                                >
                                > I'd just like to note, as a Neo-Pagan (and thus as a member of a "new artificial western pagan religion"), I have no quarrel with Christians. Nor do I have any need or desire to "attack" them or convert them to my religious beliefs. Can you say the same about the Christians' reaction to Pagans -- new or old? Heck, just in your statement above -- which refers to my religion as "artificial" -- you are being disrespectful of my experiences and beliefs as well as of my Godesses and Gods. Then again, since you lump us together with "atheist, satanist and ... extreme Islamic groups," I suspect you don't actually know much about Neo-Paganism except that, you know, it isn't Christian.
                                >
                                > If you did know more about Paganism, you would know that most Pagans hold that God/dess is immanent -- that every one, every thing, is sacred. Nature and the material world *are* the manifestations of the Gods. Thus, materialism is rejected as a matter of thealogy.
                                >
                                > Just my 2 cents Canadian and as always, Your Maya May Vary....
                                >
                                > JoAnn
                                >

                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.