The Founding of the Christian Community

GA 344 — 19 September 1922, Dornach

Fourteenth Lecture

[ No stenographer was present at this discussion. The individual points of the discussion were presented by Gottfried Husemann and are reproduced here in slightly abbreviated form. No notes are available from the beginning of this discussion hour.]

Regarding the question of enlarging the circle:

Rudolf Steiner: The circle now exists as a closed circle, but it must now expand through itself. I cannot be involved in the admission or non-admission of an additional member.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: The steering committee and the leaders would have to decide what conditions they actually have to set in relation to the previous education of the person to be accepted.

Rudolf Steiner: Of course it must be decided from case to case, from personality to personality. Internally, of course, the matter is clear from what I said yesterday and today. But of course you need an administration.

Since these questions have come to me, I would just like to ask you to state what points of view are being put forward. I do not claim to have an opinion and I do not want one. Of course, it may be the case that people who have the rituals now found churches for their part. We have to bear that in mind, and it would require us to take a position on it at some point.

Emil Bock: The fact is that some have not found their way back to the original community; they have not come to Breitbrunn. Now they would have to approach the community like anyone else. And with others it was their own will not to join, or they resigned at our advice before the original community was constituted. In one case we were in a very difficult situation; we felt that we really could not use someone. For the future, some people are already thinking about how to arrive at clear thoughts regarding admission. Perhaps this will be possible with reference to the text proposed yesterday.

Rudolf Steiner: As far as the admissions are concerned, I do not want to have an opinion, because I believe that the decision about admissions and also about being together should be made by you, quite apart from me. It is my task to give everything that is spiritual in the matter, including the spiritual aspects that extend into the organization; it is my task to relate how it can extend into it. It is my task to say how it could be. As for the fixing of the fees, I do not want any opinion at all in this direction, because I do not want to bear any responsibility for it.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: The decisions have been made by the six trustees.

Rudolf Steiner: And there are no others who signed up in Dornach at the time?

Emil Bock: Yes, there are others, for example, those who think they should complete their exams first, for example, Dr. Schwedes and others. They have gone about their signature somewhat.

Rudolf Steiner: Are there not others who have signed without returning?

Emil Bock: Yes, what Klein and Heisler had done, the memorandum business, will be added, whereby new facts have arisen.

Rudolf Steiner: But that is a mistaken view. Something new is only within the wall, not outside of it. The purpose of the memorandum was not to expand or reduce the circle, but only for those within the circle to say what they want. Johannes Werner Klein: We had set ourselves the task of gathering those people who had signed who were now quite firm in their decision. But that was not meant to exclude the others. There are some who have forgotten they signed.

Rudolf Steiner: It can only be this. The memorandum cannot be considered. The only thing that should be considered is that the people of that time did not take their signature seriously.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Yes, but a selection had also been made.

Emil Bock: But they are just not included now.

Rudolf Steiner: But what does the writing of the memorandum have to do with the signature that was given at the time? It would be understandable if those who signed [in the fall of 1921] but then did not receive a request to write the memorandum had now said: We hear that there is a request to write a memorandum; what is that? We protest against it! — That would have been possible. But not coming because they were not asked to write the memorandum is not something that could have followed from it. So it could well have happened that Klein would have said: I will arbitrarily choose fifteen men to have the memorandum written by. - That would have been an act that simply stands on its own, because it was only done on his own mandate.

Emil Bock: In fact everyone was informed about it afterwards.

Rudolf Steiner: Of course, this is not a matter for which we have to spend time now. But I think we have to remember that there are a number of personalities who at that time actually stood up for themselves with their signature, but who are simply not there at present.

Emil Bock: They also received the rituals and everything that was given at the time, so that there is at least the real possibility that someone might do something with it on their own initiative. After all, the text of the consecration ceremony could be stolen in shorthand. But I don't know if we can arm ourselves against that other than by making sure that our effectiveness is quite strong.

Rudolf Steiner: You mean the text of the act of consecration? Emil Bock: Yes, it could be misused.

Rudolf Steiner: It is a remarkable fact that I ask you to consider: that the text of the Catholic Mass could be stolen in so many places and has not actually been stolen, with the exception of those who have read black masses. There are actually no incorrect masses read.

A participant asks about black masses.

Rudolf Steiner: Black masses are a kind of black magic that belong to the many phenomena that also exist in the world. The reading of black masses is even a thing that was quite common in Europe before the war.

A participant: To gain supernatural powers through it?

Rudolf Steiner: Yes, and also to serve the devil through this, just as one can serve God through the right mass.

Emil Bock reminds the group of the text of the “Confession” that was discussed yesterday.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: We have talked about it quite a bit, but have not yet come to a conclusion about one sentence. It is the sentence: “Should a separation be brought about by me, ... I want to acknowledge.” Now I am not thinking of myself, but I want to think of those who are to sign it, and I cannot quite get away from the thought that was hinted at yesterday: that they are promising something for a [later] point in time when it could really happen that the separation occurs. Instead of the words “I will recognize it”, I would rather suggest “I recognize it”. We have now decided to hear how you assess the whole matter. Rudolf Steiner: I would like to hear as many votes as possible on such an important matter, because it is something that should be wanted by this closed circle with one voice, without coercion. I have already spoken to you three about the difficulty of this matter. The difficulty lies precisely in the fact that in our time a person's momentary, passing convictions play such a powerful role that one is inclined to join something too hastily or to set ideals for oneself that one then abandons. For the individual person, of course, this is something that he must work out with his karma. But the matter is immediately different when a community is to exist that also has a common cult as a community. There is already the necessity that the community itself has something to say about a separation, both about the separation that is brought about by the individual and about the separation that is brought about by the community. But we can limit ourselves to the first point, because the community should hardly have the option of excluding someone for any other reason than this. I can't think of any other good reason; there shouldn't be any good reasons other than this.

A participant: In the case of mental illness?

Rudolf Steiner: Then the only reasons for not celebrating it and not teaching it are mental illness, but there is no reason to exclude it. That would be a different matter, [which would have to be discussed]. For how a certain discipline should be handled would have to be decided only on the basis of what should be decided about the expulsion. So let us assume that a person who has already been admitted later acts against you, that should not be the slightest reason to expel him. Therefore, I say that if that is not a reason to expel him, then it would not be a reason to refuse him admission. Mental illness, like other illnesses, cannot be a reason for expulsion, but only a reason to withdraw the functions from the person concerned. But of course he can always find reasons for himself to separate from the community.

Now, I said at the time in the studio, which I now had to suggest again, that there must be something that deprives the person who leaves of the right to make any judgment, and that the community has the right to morally evaluate the leaving. But there is something that hangs in the air if the person in question does not recognize this judgment. I said at the time, in response to your objections: Of course, this still does not prevent the individual from resigning and saying: I recognize that the community judges my resignation morally, but I will now start the fight against it and see if I can bring about a different moral judgment that will prevail over the community's moral judgment. – One would just have to find an equivalent for it. When someone resigns, they will usually always find it justified that they are resigning. The judgment cannot depend on that at all, but the judgment, the moral evaluation of their resignation, must depend on something other than them.

[The discussion about the wording of the loyalty oath continues.]

One participant suggests adding the wording “in the spirit of community” to the pledge of allegiance.

Rudolf Steiner: This raises the difficulty of identifying the instance that decides.

The same participant: There is no such thing as a bad external instance, only a spiritual instance.

Rudolf Steiner: There is the difficulty of deciding whether the leadership is bad or not. That is the difficulty, for example, for someone who wants to challenge a papal decision. In the spiritual worlds, of course, the decision is clear, but who should bring it to a decision on earth? There is no guarantee that our perception will not degenerate, just like anything else. Then on the side of those who are in opposition, there could be spirituality. That could happen. With regard to the future, something would have to be included in the wording to the effect that someone would say: If I were to oppose, it would be for reasons that the leadership is no longer on the right path.

A participant: Most of us were Protestants. If we now found the new community, would we not be breaking away from the Protestant Church, even though we previously agreed with the Protestant Church in our hearts? We are breaking away because we are convinced that something higher, something more valuable, has now been given.

Rudolf Steiner: You can break away from the Protestant Church because there are no spiritual foundations there. So it is only a matter of bringing the spiritual into the text. We have already discussed how to handle this so that people do not just leave in a careless way. We will consider the further formulation. It is not necessary for us to come to further decisions now. Perhaps there are other things on the table.

Emil Bock: I would like to go back to the example that one can forbid someone to exercise his priestly functions, that one reckons with keeping someone away from teaching or celebrating. What is the form of the exclusion? Should it not be expressed somehow? What can still be included in the formulation with regard to the possibility of exclusion, insofar as it exists? And with regard to the personality, the question arises: Is it not the case that one must at least risk a judgment about the suitability of a personality? If someone wants to work with us, is there not a necessity that one considers certain people, as far as one can judge them honestly, unsuitable and then also holds them back? Are there guidelines for this in order to be more specific? Rudolf Steiner: As I said before, this seems to be a spiritual question, not a matter that can be formulated. In each individual case, one must simply be able to form an opinion about the person in question as to whether one can ordain him or not.

Emil Bock: I don't quite understand how what you said can be reconciled with the idea that if something is not a sufficient reason to exclude a person, then it could also not be a reason not to accept someone. — He could be with us, he could also celebrate and fall prey to moral temptations – then we cannot excommunicate him, as far as I can see. But if that were no reason to exclude him, neither would it be a reason not to accept him.

Rudolf Steiner: There would be no reason not to accept him either.

Emil Bock: What then is the criterion for recognizing a person as worthy of admission?

Rudolf Steiner: The question is whether or not you believe that he can properly perform his priestly functions. That is the only question. You will have no reason not to accept someone who can be expected to perform his priestly functions in the right way, so that the conditions I mentioned this morning as the “three points” are also fulfilled. This basic formula should form the actual spirit for the admission. You will have no interest in not accepting someone who can meet these three points. The thing is that there could, of course, be a difference. You could say: of someone who has qualities like those that are present in this case, we do not believe that he can perform the priestly functions in the individual cases. I would negate it, I would not believe that he cannot do it.

Emil Bock: It is precisely in this matter that we would like to ask for your judgment, because we cannot judge it. Rudolf Steiner: Yes, if the person in question is otherwise capable of performing the priestly functions, I do not consider the mentioned qualities to be an obstacle. And if it is not an obstacle, then it could not be a reason not to accept him. He would have to be incapable of performing the priestly functions.

Emil Bock: Should there not be something about how the leadership can impose a period of abstention from the practice of priestly functions on someone?

Rudolf Steiner: This would have to be carried out as a kind of “disciplinary order”; and that will probably be something that develops continuously, because one will have to think of all the things that can occur. But that someone can be suspended because of this or that thing, before the community [to read the sacrifice of the mass], that must of course be carried out. But you can't, for example, stop him from reading the sacrifice of the mass for himself.

Emil Bock: There are a whole series of points that we still have to discuss together.

Rudolf Steiner: I will tell you quite openly what is to be said about this from the spiritual world. But precisely those administrative matters that you should stipulate in the spirit that is indicated here, so that it is really part of this joint initiative before you leave here.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: It is just a bit much for anyone to have to sign a disciplinary code as well.

Rudolf Steiner: You need only add: “I also recognize the disciplinary regulations of which I have been made aware.” Friedrich Rittelmeyer: There is still the question for us: Who has the right to accept and ordain priests?

Rudolf Steiner: That is a question that has already been considered. And perhaps it should be stipulated that no priests can be admitted without the decision of the governing body.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: So the leadership could then give up the right to ordain someone?

Rudolf Steiner: This is something that you, as an original community, should discuss. You are an original community and should discuss it, and then of course it should remain as it has now been stipulated. But now it is still possible for you, as an original community, to discuss how succession should possibly come about, whether by mere co-election or whether you would accept a certain degree of co-determination from a larger community in some form. Of course, it must not come down to an ordinary democratic vote. But there are still various other conceivable cases, for example, if an Oberlenker is to be appointed, groups could be formed that, if they are large enough, could make proposals, so that these proposals would simply be put forward. And even if the Oberlenker were not obliged to consider one of these names under any circumstances, it could still be very instructive to find out who is to be recognized. It would not be a democratic vote, but it is still conceivable that some way or other could be found to ascertain the mood of either just the priesthood or the whole community on a larger scale.

Friedrich Rittelmeyer: We would also very much like to talk about the distribution of cities, as well as when, in your opinion, the cultus can begin and what preconditions still need to be met. Rudolf Steiner: So we will deal with that tomorrow, again at half past ten. Then we will have to talk about the sacrament of penance and extreme unction.

In addition, the Hebrew verse and the two Timothy verses must be spoken at the priestly ordination, not at the ceremony itself but in a subsequent address when the ceremony is over.