What do you think?
Rate this book
Doctrina Christiana: The Timeless Catechism of St. Robert Bellarmine
This catechism can be considered as a valid and effective catechetical tool for the work of the evangelization, a work which has to be realized with a new missionary zeal towards those who don’t know the Catholic faith and as well towards those who know it defectively and insufficiently. May those who will read this catechism and those who will use it in the noble and meritorious work of teaching Christian doctrine, may be equipped with the sure and sacred doctrine of the Catholic faith, in order to stand, having their loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; and their feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, they shall take the shield of faith, wherewith they shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked (cf. Eph 6: 14-16). In this way they will be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks them the reason of their hope, with meekness and fear (cf. 1 Peter 3: 15-16). -Bishop Athanasius Schneider, from the Foreword For the first time, St. Robert Bellarmine’s long Catechism, written in the form of a dialogue, has been made available in the English Language. This Catechism was composed by St. Robert Bellarmine in 1598 and received Papal approbation from several Popes, most notably Pope Clement VIII and one of the greatest theologians to ever sit on the throne of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XIV. It was translated into Latin for use throughout the Church and has run through a number of editions throughout the centuries. Being written as a dialogue, it goes beyond the rote memorization of other catechisms (including that of Baltimore) by giving a deep explanation of the teachings of the faith with comparisons and parables. What is wholesome about this Catechism is not only the soundness of its doctrine, but the warmth that a great theologian that was accustomed to dealing with complicated matters of theology descends to lovingly explain the basic truths of faith in a manner that average laity can easily understand. It is not for nothing that St. Robert was made the Patron of all Catechists!
271 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1618
33 people are currently reading
116 people want to read
About the author
Robert Bellarmine
360 books37 followersSaint Robert Bellarmine, SJ was an Italian bishop, cardinal, theologian, and an influental figure of the Counter-Reformation. He was canonized a saint in 1930 by Pope Pius XI and named a Doctor of the Church in 1931. He is also known as Roberto Bellarmino.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 9, 2019
8.5/10 on the work: 2.5/10 on the translation.
A great work marred by significant translation errors and very unidiomatic, undergraduate-like translation which obscures the sense of the work and impedes comprehension. Sadly, most of the Mediatrix/Grant translations (both that I am familiar with, this and 'On Divine Tradition') fall prey to the same problems, which make me very wary of buying more (though most English Bellarmine is of their translation) instead of just advancing my Latin and reading the original. In reading both this and Franzelin's 'Divine Tradition', I found it necessary at times to have recourse to the Latin to make sense of the translation - not to mention the Latin flows better and is easier reading.
Without further ado, some examples:
In chapter 1, Bellarmine cites an analogy from St Augustine about how when you build a house, you have to build the foundation, then the walls, and then, as Grant has it, "the roof and different hardware." Hardware? Surely what Bellarmine expects to be installed after the roof is what we would call the FURNITURE, even if "hardware" would be a perfectly apt translation of the word "instrumenta" in another context. Incidentally, Grant here repeats Bellarmine's citation of Augustine, "Ser. 22 de verb. Domini."; a reference to a modern edition, which would number this sermon 20/A, would have been welcome. In chapter 2, Bellarmine mentions the divine nature and proceeds to give a definition of it, introduced by the idiomatic phrase "hoc est," meaning "that is" (Oxford Latin Dictionary "hic" 10c). But Grant translates it literally as "this is": "accordingly it could only be one true Godhead, this is, only one nature and essence, infinite power..."
And yet what Bellarmine actually said is that the divine nature is infinitely powerful. While Bellarmine would certainly confess that God's nature is His infinite power (infinita potestas), here he has used an adjective (potens) to modify the predicate "nature and essence," modified by the adverb "infinitely" (infinite).
This literalism continues to mar the translation in chapter III, when St Robert begins to explain the Apostles' Creed. To the question of why God is called the Father, Grant has him say that God is the Father of Jesus Christ by nature; "the Father of all goods" by adoption; and the Father of all creatures by creation. But in this context, we must understand "bonorum" as meaning "the Father of all the good," or better, "the Father of all good men."
Grant's weakness in basic Latin grammar then makes a muddle of an analogy involving a soldier. Here is what Bellarmine has written: "But if you shall say that God is not able to die or to sin, and therefore cannot do all things; I respond, that to be able to die and to sin is not power, but weakness, and if it should be said of a certain pugnacious soldier, that he can conquer all, and cannot be conquered by anyone, certainly nothing is taken away from the strength of that man by saying that he cannot be conquered, because to be able to be conquered is not strength, but weakness."
Grant has: "But if someone would say that God cannot die or sin, so He can't really do everything; then I answer that to die and sin are not in potency, but impotency, and if one were to speak about any aggressive soldier you like, that he cannot conquer all things nor indeed can be conquered by any one, then one has not really detracted from his strength by saying that he cannot be conquered, because to be conquered is not strength but weakness."
First of all, the phrase "not in potency, but impotency" cannot be passed over in silence. Perhaps it was influenced by a misguided idea that we are dealing here with the Scholastic metaphysical concept of potency and and act. But what's much worse is that Grant has made the analogy about the soldier rather confusing by changing him from an invincible soldier who can conquer all into an invincible soldier who can conquer only some. Evidently he has some concept that "nec" means "nor," but doesn't realise that it doesn't have to join two clauses that are both negated as in "neither...nor."
In a question about how Christ could die when he is God, Bellarmine writes in explanation of Christ's two natures: "In quantum porro Deus est, non potest pati nec mori: in quantum autem homo est, pati morique potest." That is, "moreover, inasmuch as he is God, he can neither suffer nor die: inasmuch, however, as he is a man, he can suffer and die." Grant amazingly turns Bellarmine's attention to the immortality of the divine nature, having him write: "Again, insofar as God is, He can neither suffer nor die, but insofar as He is man, He can suffer and die." I really do not know how Grant muddled through the book if a clause like "[Christus] Deus est" caused him such difficulties.
In the immediately following question, Grant does not seem to understand what Bellarmine is saying about Christ's atonement. The question is why so many men are damned if Christ has made satisfaction for the sins of all. Bellarmine writes, "Christ indeed has abundantly made satisfaction for the sins of all men, but all the same it is necessary for that satisfaction to be applied by this man and by that one to himself in particular." In his translation, Grant capitalises "Himself," indicating that it is necessary that each man apply Christ's sacrifice to Christ.
In another question, it is asked whether Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the Father "in quantum Deus solum est, an vero etiam in quantum homo?", that is, "only inasmuch as he is God, or also inasmuch as he is man?" Grant writes, "insofar as He alone is God." If "solum" were an adjective meaning "alone," it would have to be "solus" to agree with the subject "Christus" (just as the predicate "Deus" does). If morphology did not reveal this adverb's meaning to Grant, the context should have.
Examples could be multiplied, like when Grant uses the word "His" not understanding that the pronoun "cuius" refers to the theological virtue of faith rather than God. Ultimately, enough of the meaning gets through that you can learn from this book. The only translation choice that really suggests theological error is when Bellarmine says the grace of forgiveness of sins cannot be found outside the Church, and it is translated in a way that can be taken to mean no grace at all can be found outside the Church. Still, the translation repeatedly makes you hope there has been some mistake and an early draft has been published as the Kindle edition, as the note-to-self "[revise]" that has been left in the text suggests. In my opinion, your money is better spent on a Latin textbook so you can read Bellarmine yourself.
A great work marred by significant translation errors and very unidiomatic, undergraduate-like translation which obscures the sense of the work and impedes comprehension. Sadly, most of the Mediatrix/Grant translations (both that I am familiar with, this and 'On Divine Tradition') fall prey to the same problems, which make me very wary of buying more (though most English Bellarmine is of their translation) instead of just advancing my Latin and reading the original. In reading both this and Franzelin's 'Divine Tradition', I found it necessary at times to have recourse to the Latin to make sense of the translation - not to mention the Latin flows better and is easier reading.
Without further ado, some examples:
In chapter 1, Bellarmine cites an analogy from St Augustine about how when you build a house, you have to build the foundation, then the walls, and then, as Grant has it, "the roof and different hardware." Hardware? Surely what Bellarmine expects to be installed after the roof is what we would call the FURNITURE, even if "hardware" would be a perfectly apt translation of the word "instrumenta" in another context. Incidentally, Grant here repeats Bellarmine's citation of Augustine, "Ser. 22 de verb. Domini."; a reference to a modern edition, which would number this sermon 20/A, would have been welcome. In chapter 2, Bellarmine mentions the divine nature and proceeds to give a definition of it, introduced by the idiomatic phrase "hoc est," meaning "that is" (Oxford Latin Dictionary "hic" 10c). But Grant translates it literally as "this is": "accordingly it could only be one true Godhead, this is, only one nature and essence, infinite power..."
And yet what Bellarmine actually said is that the divine nature is infinitely powerful. While Bellarmine would certainly confess that God's nature is His infinite power (infinita potestas), here he has used an adjective (potens) to modify the predicate "nature and essence," modified by the adverb "infinitely" (infinite).
This literalism continues to mar the translation in chapter III, when St Robert begins to explain the Apostles' Creed. To the question of why God is called the Father, Grant has him say that God is the Father of Jesus Christ by nature; "the Father of all goods" by adoption; and the Father of all creatures by creation. But in this context, we must understand "bonorum" as meaning "the Father of all the good," or better, "the Father of all good men."
Grant's weakness in basic Latin grammar then makes a muddle of an analogy involving a soldier. Here is what Bellarmine has written: "But if you shall say that God is not able to die or to sin, and therefore cannot do all things; I respond, that to be able to die and to sin is not power, but weakness, and if it should be said of a certain pugnacious soldier, that he can conquer all, and cannot be conquered by anyone, certainly nothing is taken away from the strength of that man by saying that he cannot be conquered, because to be able to be conquered is not strength, but weakness."
Grant has: "But if someone would say that God cannot die or sin, so He can't really do everything; then I answer that to die and sin are not in potency, but impotency, and if one were to speak about any aggressive soldier you like, that he cannot conquer all things nor indeed can be conquered by any one, then one has not really detracted from his strength by saying that he cannot be conquered, because to be conquered is not strength but weakness."
First of all, the phrase "not in potency, but impotency" cannot be passed over in silence. Perhaps it was influenced by a misguided idea that we are dealing here with the Scholastic metaphysical concept of potency and and act. But what's much worse is that Grant has made the analogy about the soldier rather confusing by changing him from an invincible soldier who can conquer all into an invincible soldier who can conquer only some. Evidently he has some concept that "nec" means "nor," but doesn't realise that it doesn't have to join two clauses that are both negated as in "neither...nor."
In a question about how Christ could die when he is God, Bellarmine writes in explanation of Christ's two natures: "In quantum porro Deus est, non potest pati nec mori: in quantum autem homo est, pati morique potest." That is, "moreover, inasmuch as he is God, he can neither suffer nor die: inasmuch, however, as he is a man, he can suffer and die." Grant amazingly turns Bellarmine's attention to the immortality of the divine nature, having him write: "Again, insofar as God is, He can neither suffer nor die, but insofar as He is man, He can suffer and die." I really do not know how Grant muddled through the book if a clause like "[Christus] Deus est" caused him such difficulties.
In the immediately following question, Grant does not seem to understand what Bellarmine is saying about Christ's atonement. The question is why so many men are damned if Christ has made satisfaction for the sins of all. Bellarmine writes, "Christ indeed has abundantly made satisfaction for the sins of all men, but all the same it is necessary for that satisfaction to be applied by this man and by that one to himself in particular." In his translation, Grant capitalises "Himself," indicating that it is necessary that each man apply Christ's sacrifice to Christ.
In another question, it is asked whether Christ is said to sit at the right hand of the Father "in quantum Deus solum est, an vero etiam in quantum homo?", that is, "only inasmuch as he is God, or also inasmuch as he is man?" Grant writes, "insofar as He alone is God." If "solum" were an adjective meaning "alone," it would have to be "solus" to agree with the subject "Christus" (just as the predicate "Deus" does). If morphology did not reveal this adverb's meaning to Grant, the context should have.
Examples could be multiplied, like when Grant uses the word "His" not understanding that the pronoun "cuius" refers to the theological virtue of faith rather than God. Ultimately, enough of the meaning gets through that you can learn from this book. The only translation choice that really suggests theological error is when Bellarmine says the grace of forgiveness of sins cannot be found outside the Church, and it is translated in a way that can be taken to mean no grace at all can be found outside the Church. Still, the translation repeatedly makes you hope there has been some mistake and an early draft has been published as the Kindle edition, as the note-to-self "[revise]" that has been left in the text suggests. In my opinion, your money is better spent on a Latin textbook so you can read Bellarmine yourself.
June 15, 2023
Not the best translation, I had to find an older English translation (linked) to help read this properly, but interesting stuff! https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/reposit...
December 14, 2016
As a re-vert, I found the book a great summary of The Churches Deposit of Faith. This same Deposit is under great attack today from secularism and modernism AND from within. Many prelates have not considered the sins against the Holy Ghost (who is the Truth)...but, more than that this is really a beautiful condensed guide to holiness.
October 22, 2016
Bellarmine breaks down the questions into simple but effective responses. A great tool for any catechism class and for one's own study. A hidden treasure
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews