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

Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Mr. Tomberg

Expand Messages
  • gaelman58
    ... Father ... decision if ... Theosophy ... RS s work ... able to ... Church.......... ... by ... So it follows, Andrea, that anyone claiming that Steiner is
    Message 1 of 2 , Oct 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > (Let's say this to a Roman citizen born Catholic,,,,,)
      > Andrea
      > PS: : Woijtyla, who read Steiner in his youth, was given in 1979
      > 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
      > >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
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > College in Fair Oaks. She told us that Pope John Paul II was
      > 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
      > 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
      > people in the Roman Church should be allowed to read anthroposophy
      > perhaps even be given anthro-books by their priests? Sooner or
      > 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
      > 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
      > 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
      > power, from a Divine Being, whom he endows, however, with sense
      > features. He conceives this Being as communicating to him the
      > 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
      > (that is, one who sees the Absolute, the Being-in-itself, as
      > 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
      > freedom is out of the question.
      > "Metaphysical as well as naïve realism, consistently followed out,
      > 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
      > authority of a perceptible being or of one conceived on the
      analogy of a
      > perceptible being, or eventually to the authority of the abstract
      > voice which it interprets as 'conscience'; the metaphysician, who
      > infers the extra-human reality, cannot acknowledge freedom because
      he sees
      > man as being determined, mechanically or morally, by a 'Being-in-
      > It may be entertaining to see what kind of contortionist
      > acrobatics may be attempted in order to reconcile Steiner's
      > 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.