Does anyone know what the condemned propositions of Rosmini were, in a nutshell? And what led to the objections to them being rescinded by the Vatican in 2001?

Can't help with the second but for the first, I have two condemned propostions here.

#In the order of created things there is immediately manifested to the human intellect something divine in itself, such that it belongs to the divine nature.

#The being (esse) that we intuit must necessarily be something of the necessary and eternal bBein (entis), of the cause that creates, determines, and perfects all contingent beings; and that is God.


Those are the only 2 propositions that I could find that are condemed, but there may be more.

Hello caleb,

The following link should be of some help:

NOTE on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and Work of Fr. Antonio Rosmini Serbati

This covers all the propositions, I believe, as well as the scandalous Rosmini rehabilitation. One wonders why Ratzinger would even bother, except to exonerate certain modern theologians who are bent on ontologistic ideas.

http://www.christianorder.com/features/ ... bonus.html

Well, I have been reading the 40 propositions of Rosmini, which were given a very 'light' condemnation by the Holy Office. I must say that I have a lot of trouble figuring out what they mean, much less why they're at variance with Catholic doctrine.

I agree with you... I have been reading the 2 Bonaventure posted, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around them without knowing the philosophical vocabulary he used... When I read it understanding the words as I would use them, I see a possibility of a pantheistic hint here or there... or something almost hegelian...

But, I don't know the case, so that is all I will say... I'm sure the statements were condemned based on his explanation.

FJ

The two propositions Boneventure posted essentially boil down to the confusion of the natural and supernatural orders. If knowledge of God, according to grace, is intuitive and connatural to man, then the gratuity of the supernatural order is destroyed and the supernatural becomes simply the heights of the natural, not something instrinsically disproportionate.

If you think those two are hard, try this:

16. Initial being through divine synthesis referred by intelligence, not as an intelligible but merely as essence, to the real finite ends, causes the finite beings to exist subjectively and really.

Yeah... this, to me, wreaks of hegel... But, what do I know?

FJ

I think you mean "reeks" of Hegel. Cars were not invented in Hegel's lifetime, so there never could have been a Hegelian wreck.

But what is wrong with this proposition, exactly? It seems to me to say basically that Divine Intelligence wills the essence of a creature and then throws it into finite existence. But there's nothing wrong with that proposition. So I assume this is proposing something else or adding something to an otherwise orthodox idea.

That's exactly it... I can't really make heads or tails of it. And it looks like (from what I have read since you brought this up) that the Church couldn't as well... When you read his stuff using the defnitions a Scholastic would use, then it does seem really hegelian... And Hegel had a very strange pantheistic (some say) thing going on...

But, I just read that he was exonerated because you aren't supposed to read him as a Scholastic at all... he sort of has his own vocabulary, and when you use his definitions apparently all the heretical themes disappear... (I am just too stuck on using these words the way they are classically used)

I think Bonaventure's examples were worse, but this last one of yours, imho, mingles the natural with the supernatural too much. Almost as if there is a necessary connection between the two that has bearing on BOTH... as if both need each other... It also says that the finite exists "subjectively and really"... this is an odd phrase. Again, I am only interpreting him as only I can... It SOUNDS like he is making the divine viewpoint only a subjective one... But, that this is also real. Well, the Scholastic would make the divine viewpoint the objective. I dunno... it all seems very strange to me... I can see why the Church was scratching her head...

FJ

Rosmini, and the condemnation he received, is a subject of confused perceptions and moral debates that I think it inadvisable to get into. He was a Kantian divinist (think about it before finding this contradictory), his condemnation was based against a certain idea of what that might be.

Rosmini was condemned because of objective standards; to suggest otherwise is to impugn the authority of the Magisterium.

Matthew,

Rosmini was not condemned. In fact, Rosmini is the premier Italian theologian of the nineteenth century, a friend of Pius IX, and a primary voice of the Church against the Enlightenment. Rosmini himself submitted his works to the Holy See and abided by the Church's judgments during his lifetime. Before his death, the Holy See removed the few works of his that had been on the Index.

After he died, forty propositions from writings that were published posthumously (and obviously without his knowledge) were condemned, but without recourse to the traditional theological censures.

The question arises: If during Rosmini's lifetime, he submitted his works, abided by the judgment of the Inquisition, and eventually found his works exonerated and removed from the Index, why is it suspicious that the very weak, posthumous decree of the Holy Office would also be re-evaluated by the CDF later?

For anyone who doubts the service that Rosmini paid to the Church, look into a copy of The Origin of Thought or Society and Its Purpose. Rosmini's political works deny the Revolutionary and democratizing tendencies of the nineteenth century and argue instead that government is doomed unless it has as its aim the essential goal of the salvation of souls. One of Rosmini's major projects was to battle the modern trend of denying the essense of things.

I wouldn't say he was 'exonerated' at all. He was a bright star at first indeed, much like Maritain, but after some time, he was merely tolerated, silenced, and eventually some of his ideas were condemned as erroneous. These things can take some time to work out and Leo XIII clearly supported the decree. Whether it was 'weak' (whatever that means) or had no degrees of censure is beside the point. What is true then must be true now, otherwise the Magisterium is a mockery. The condemned propositions had ontologistic and fideistic leanings. Oddly enough, it is precisely those trends in thought that are prevelant today in the Church.

The point I was trying to make was this: Rosmini did not publish, nor did he intend to publish, the works that contain the forty condemned propositions. They were found among his private journals and were published by his followers after he died. The only propositions of Rosmini that have been condemned by the Holy Office are those from these posthumous works. (Of course, that says nothing about the propositions except that Rosmini did not deem them worthy of publication.) During his lifetime, Rosmini abided by the Holy See's judgments. This is why Rosmini is not a Hans Kung or something. Rosmini sought the judgment of the Vatican, and he abided by it. Eventually, his works were removed from the Index.

None of the works that he himself authorized have been condemned. So to call The Origin of Thought a book that can't be read safely is a mistake. This is a book of Rosmini's that should be read.

That's fine, but it still stands to reason that the propositions condemned whether verbatim or in germ can be considered Rosminian errors and as such, always valid. I certainly would not compare Rosmini to Hans Kung or even De Lubac who's lust for novelty and error was hidden beneath a thin veil of orthodox terms like a devious coward who would not allow anyone to know that he was being subversive to the faith.