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

R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Mr. Tomberg

Expand Messages
  • VALENTINA BRUNETTI
    Hi Frank and Tarjej In th 1940s Pope PIO XII asked the prominent Jesuitic Professor Father Tacchi Venturi to examine Steiner s work in order to have a decision
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 1, 2004
      Hi Frank and Tarjej

      In th 1940s Pope PIO XII asked the prominent Jesuitic Professor Father
      Tacchi Venturi to examine Steiner's work in order to have a decision if
      Excommunicate or not the work
      . The fact was that the Anthroposphical Society was born after Theosophy
      excommunication and so the "faithful" had no full direction about RS's work
      and GAS.
      After a couple of years Tacchi Venturi stated that "he was not able to
      decide about it".
      So the Anthro-people are half in and half out of the Church..........
      (Let's say this to a Roman citizen born Catholic,,,,,)


      Andrea

      PS: : Woijtyla, who read Steiner in his youth, was given in 1979 by
      Scaligero's "Traetise" and he seemed very interested in it.
      He is also (or was) a faithful reader of Tomberg's Tarot

      A.
      ----- Original Message -----

      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Mr. Tomberg


      At 01:00 01.10.2004, Frank wrote:

      >As far as I know, the index no longer exists (correct me if I'm wrong),
      >but if it did, RS would certainly be on it. I remember when I was a kid,
      >once a year during Sunday mass the priest said everyone had to abide by
      >the Index under pain of sin.

      Last time I heard about the index was in 1987, from a dear elderly widow in
      Houston who was a Roman Catholic and an anthroposophist. We were in the
      same anthroposophical study group that gathered once a week. She kept
      telling me that she had to hide her anthroposophical books from her devout
      daughter, who kept threatening her mom with excommunication, reminding her
      that she was reading books that were on the Pope's index. She said she kept
      hiding Steiner-books from her daughter and, seeing my reaction, asked me in
      earnest if I disagreed with how she was handling the problem. I said that
      although I wouldn't have put up with that kind of thing in my own family, I
      felt I was in no position to give advice one way or the other about how she
      should handle *her* family problems.

      Incidentally, I just checked the online telephone directory and discovered
      that this lady is still around, probably in her nineties. I'll give her a
      call one of these days. She's the sweetest Republican I've ever met :)

      I learned something else about Catholicism and Anthroposophy from this
      study group, however. There was a young lady among us with Catholic roots
      who was about to move to California in order to attend Rudolf Steiner
      College in Fair Oaks. She told us that Pope John Paul II was reading
      Steiner, and that he had discovered this through the Mystery Dramas in
      connection with some work he was doing for a theater back in Poland. We
      talked about this issue for some length. As it turns out, at least
      according to Catholic insiders, the works of Rudolf Steiner are in the
      Vatican library, available to the Cardinals and similar papal royalty only
      - not to the priests and most certainly not to the lay people.

      This make a lot of sense, because what is likely to happen if the lay
      people in the Roman Church should be allowed to read anthroposophy and
      perhaps even be given anthro-books by their priests? Sooner or later,
      they'd come across the following:

      "The naïve man, who acknowledges as real only what he can see with his eyes
      and grasp with his hands, requires for his moral life, also, a basis for
      action that shall be perceptible to the senses. He requires someone or
      something to impart the basis for his action to him in a way that his
      senses can understand. He is ready to allow this basis for action to be
      dictated to him as commandments by any man whom he considers wiser or more
      powerful than himself, or whom he acknowledges for some other reason to be
      a power over him. In this way there arise, as moral principles, the
      authority of family, state, society, church and God, as previously
      described. A man who is very narrow minded still puts his faith in some one
      person; the more advanced man allows his moral conduct to be dictated by a
      majority (state, society). It is always on perceptible powers that he
      builds. The man who awakens at last to the conviction that basically these
      powers are human beings as weak as himself, seeks guidance from a higher
      power, from a Divine Being, whom he endows, however, with sense perceptible
      features. He conceives this Being as communicating to him the conceptual
      content of his moral life, again in a perceptible way - whether it be, for
      example, that God appears in the burning bush, or that He moves about among
      men in manifest human shape, and that their ears can hear Him telling them
      what to do and what not to do."

      And:

      "Whereas the materialistic dualist makes man an automaton whose actions are
      only the result of a purely mechanical system, the spiritualistic dualist
      (that is, one who sees the Absolute, the Being-in-itself, as something
      spiritual in which man has no share in his conscious experience) makes him
      a slave to the will of the Absolute. As in materialism, so also in
      one-sided spiritualism, in fact in any kind of metaphysical realism
      inferring but not experiencing something extra-human as the true reality,
      freedom is out of the question.

      "Metaphysical as well as naïve realism, consistently followed out, must
      deny freedom for one and the same reason: they both see man as doing no
      more than putting into effect, or carrying out, principles forced upon him
      by necessity. Naive realism destroys freedom by subjecting man to the
      authority of a perceptible being or of one conceived on the analogy of a
      perceptible being, or eventually to the authority of the abstract inner
      voice which it interprets as 'conscience'; the metaphysician, who merely
      infers the extra-human reality, cannot acknowledge freedom because he sees
      man as being determined, mechanically or morally, by a 'Being-in-itself'."

      It may be entertaining to see what kind of contortionist intellectual
      acrobatics may be attempted in order to reconcile Steiner's epistemology
      with Roman Catholic dogma on the basis of this text.


      Tarjei
      http://uncletaz.com/





      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • gaelman58
      ... Father ... decision if ... Theosophy ... RS s work ... able to ... Church.......... ... by ... So it follows, Andrea, that anyone claiming that Steiner is
      Message 2 of 2 , Oct 1, 2004
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "VALENTINA BRUNETTI"
        <okcgbr@t...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Frank and Tarjej
        >
        > In th 1940s Pope PIO XII asked the prominent Jesuitic Professor
        Father
        > Tacchi Venturi to examine Steiner's work in order to have a
        decision if
        > Excommunicate or not the work
        > . The fact was that the Anthroposphical Society was born after
        Theosophy
        > excommunication and so the "faithful" had no full direction about
        RS's work
        > and GAS.
        > After a couple of years Tacchi Venturi stated that "he was not
        able to
        > decide about it".
        > So the Anthro-people are half in and half out of the
        Church..........
        > (Let's say this to a Roman citizen born Catholic,,,,,)
        >
        >
        > Andrea
        >
        > PS: : Woijtyla, who read Steiner in his youth, was given in 1979
        by
        > Scaligero's "Traetise" and he seemed very interested in it.
        > He is also (or was) a faithful reader of Tomberg's Tarot


        So it follows, Andrea, that anyone claiming that Steiner is on some
        kind of banned reading list is factually wrong,yes?
        >
        > A.
        > ----- Original Message -----
        >
        > Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Mr. Tomberg
        >
        >
        > At 01:00 01.10.2004, Frank wrote:
        >
        > >As far as I know, the index no longer exists (correct me if I'm
        wrong),
        > >but if it did, RS would certainly be on it. I remember when I was
        a kid,
        > >once a year during Sunday mass the priest said everyone had to
        abide by
        > >the Index under pain of sin.
        >
        > Last time I heard about the index was in 1987, from a dear elderly
        widow in
        > Houston who was a Roman Catholic and an anthroposophist. We were
        in the
        > same anthroposophical study group that gathered once a week. She
        kept
        > telling me that she had to hide her anthroposophical books from
        her devout
        > daughter, who kept threatening her mom with excommunication,
        reminding her
        > that she was reading books that were on the Pope's index. She said
        she kept
        > hiding Steiner-books from her daughter and, seeing my reaction,
        asked me in
        > earnest if I disagreed with how she was handling the problem. I
        said that
        > although I wouldn't have put up with that kind of thing in my own
        family, I
        > felt I was in no position to give advice one way or the other
        about how she
        > should handle *her* family problems.
        >
        > Incidentally, I just checked the online telephone directory and
        discovered
        > that this lady is still around, probably in her nineties. I'll
        give her a
        > call one of these days. She's the sweetest Republican I've ever
        met :)
        >
        > I learned something else about Catholicism and Anthroposophy from
        this
        > study group, however. There was a young lady among us with
        Catholic roots
        > who was about to move to California in order to attend Rudolf
        Steiner
        > College in Fair Oaks. She told us that Pope John Paul II was
        reading
        > Steiner, and that he had discovered this through the Mystery
        Dramas in
        > connection with some work he was doing for a theater back in
        Poland. We
        > talked about this issue for some length. As it turns out, at least
        > according to Catholic insiders, the works of Rudolf Steiner are in
        the
        > Vatican library, available to the Cardinals and similar papal
        royalty only
        > - not to the priests and most certainly not to the lay people.
        >
        > This make a lot of sense, because what is likely to happen if the
        lay
        > people in the Roman Church should be allowed to read anthroposophy
        and
        > perhaps even be given anthro-books by their priests? Sooner or
        later,
        > they'd come across the following:
        >
        > "The naïve man, who acknowledges as real only what he can see with
        his eyes
        > and grasp with his hands, requires for his moral life, also, a
        basis for
        > action that shall be perceptible to the senses. He requires
        someone or
        > something to impart the basis for his action to him in a way that
        his
        > senses can understand. He is ready to allow this basis for action
        to be
        > dictated to him as commandments by any man whom he considers wiser
        or more
        > powerful than himself, or whom he acknowledges for some other
        reason to be
        > a power over him. In this way there arise, as moral principles, the
        > authority of family, state, society, church and God, as previously
        > described. A man who is very narrow minded still puts his faith in
        some one
        > person; the more advanced man allows his moral conduct to be
        dictated by a
        > majority (state, society). It is always on perceptible powers that
        he
        > builds. The man who awakens at last to the conviction that
        basically these
        > powers are human beings as weak as himself, seeks guidance from a
        higher
        > power, from a Divine Being, whom he endows, however, with sense
        perceptible
        > features. He conceives this Being as communicating to him the
        conceptual
        > content of his moral life, again in a perceptible way - whether it
        be, for
        > example, that God appears in the burning bush, or that He moves
        about among
        > men in manifest human shape, and that their ears can hear Him
        telling them
        > what to do and what not to do."
        >
        > And:
        >
        > "Whereas the materialistic dualist makes man an automaton whose
        actions are
        > only the result of a purely mechanical system, the spiritualistic
        dualist
        > (that is, one who sees the Absolute, the Being-in-itself, as
        something
        > spiritual in which man has no share in his conscious experience)
        makes him
        > a slave to the will of the Absolute. As in materialism, so also in
        > one-sided spiritualism, in fact in any kind of metaphysical realism
        > inferring but not experiencing something extra-human as the true
        reality,
        > freedom is out of the question.
        >
        > "Metaphysical as well as naïve realism, consistently followed out,
        must
        > deny freedom for one and the same reason: they both see man as
        doing no
        > more than putting into effect, or carrying out, principles forced
        upon him
        > by necessity. Naive realism destroys freedom by subjecting man to
        the
        > authority of a perceptible being or of one conceived on the
        analogy of a
        > perceptible being, or eventually to the authority of the abstract
        inner
        > voice which it interprets as 'conscience'; the metaphysician, who
        merely
        > infers the extra-human reality, cannot acknowledge freedom because
        he sees
        > man as being determined, mechanically or morally, by a 'Being-in-
        itself'."
        >
        > It may be entertaining to see what kind of contortionist
        intellectual
        > acrobatics may be attempted in order to reconcile Steiner's
        epistemology
        > with Roman Catholic dogma on the basis of this text.
        >
        >
        > Tarjei
        > http://uncletaz.com/
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.