What do you think?
Rate this book
On Councils: Their Nature and Authority
In On Their Nature and Authority, St. Robert Bellarmine answers the attack of the early Protestant Reformers on by treating on all matters pertaining to Councils. Beginning with definitions and terms, Bellarmine explores in summary all the Councils approved in his day, as well as those only partially approved and those not approved at all. Then he examines their purpose and foundations in Scripture, the Fathers, and history. In the second book, Bellarmine examines the authority of Councils according to the same standard, proving especially that the Pope is above Councils and is the one to summon and confirm them. To prove his case he musters his considerable scholarship and answers not only the arguments of Luther and Calvin, but of each early Protestant to show that approved Councils do not contradict each other, and the Church does not put Councils above the Word of God.
266 pages, Paperback
Published April 3, 2017
2 people are currently reading
16 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 of 1 review
October 26, 2025
This book is an extract from volume 2 of Robert Bellarmine’s De Controversiis, which went through various editions between 1586 to 1593. In its day, the Controversies was considered one of the most significant and influential presentations of Catholic thinking, and several Protestant universities founded Professorships specifically to refute Bellarmine’s Controversies.
This particular book is the extracted section of the Controversies which focuses on the specific issues surrounding the Authority of Ecumenical Councils. Those issues were a particularly significant problem because, as Bellarmine explains in the preface, the whole point of having Ecumenical Councils was that they were supposed to be a mechanism for resolving serious disagreements in the Church. But when the authority of the Councils was rejected by Luther, Melanchton, Calvin (etc), that led to a situation of effectively unresolvable disagreements between Catholics and Protestants.
Protestant critics said that they would only accept the authority of Scripture to resolve disagreements, but then (as with all texts) there were disagreements about the interpretation of the text of Scripture. So, in the absence of an agreed authoritative interpreter, the appeal to Scripture as an ultimately authority ended up being effectively an appeal to have no ultimate authority for resolving theological disagreements. Bellarmine states that that position undermines the whole point of having a Revealed Religion. After all, what is the point of Christ coming to earth and revealing truths, if no one can now reach an agreed interpretation of what those truths are?
Bellarmine justified his view by appealing to some Scripture texts, but he also appealed to the authority of Apostolic Tradition, as the basis for viewing Councils as the ultimate authoritative interpretation of Scripture. (Bk 1, Chp.4).
The points Bellarmine made are interesting historically in the context of the counter-reformation, and they are also significant theologically as being (still) pertinent live issues in the background of the disagreements between Protestantism and Catholicism.
This book also has an added significance for modern Catholics in that it presents a theology about Ecumenical Councils which is relevant to the modern disagreements about the interpretation of the authority of Vatican II (1965). One of the points which Bellarmine makes very clearly is that not everything stated by an Ecumenical Council is a truth (Bk.2, Chp.7). All the proceedings of councils must be received with respect and submission (Bk.2, Chp.10), but the only words of councils which should be considered to be infallibly true are the words which are explicitly set forth as being an obligatory point of faith (Bk.2, Chp.12).
Traditionally, people could tell which texts of the councils fell into that category of being points of faith, as they were accompanied by formulaic sets of words, such as ‘anathama.’ Vatican II, declined to use those formulas, so, some theologians appeal to Bellarmine as a basis for querying the status of significant portions of Vatican II.
As a translation of technical medieval Latin, this book puts the text into an excellent, easy to read, modern, English. However, there was one point which was somewhat jarring, when the text refers to what ‘the Parisians think…’ (Bk.2, Chp.11). When the original Latin referred to Parisians, it was referring to the Paris faculty of theology. That doesn’t come through in the English translation, and it would have been helpful to make that point a little clearer.
The translator took a policy decision to avoid footnotes as much as possible. That was a good decision as it makes the text seem more accessible. However, there were a couple of places where footnotes were really needed. This particularly arises with Bellarmines own references. I tried to look up some of his references to patristic authorities and I could not always find what he claimed texts were saying. This is not to say that Bellarmine is wrong, as textual references and citations were not always standardised. So, a little assistance in footnotes would have been welcome.
Similarly, there were occasional points where Bellarmine’s own argument is questionable, and that could helpfully have been pointed out to readers. Perhaps the most obvious example occurs in Bk.2, chap.4 where Bellarmine claims that disputes about the canonicity of Scriptural texts in the early Church was settled by an Ecumenical Council. Really? Which Council? Bellarmine is noticeably vague and makes no actual reference to a particular council. Arguably, that’s because he is wrong, and there is no text that can be cited. It is not until the councils of Florence and Trent in his own era, that there are conciliar texts defining the canon.
Textually, the book is well presented. However, I did notice at least one typo. In Book 2, Chp.5 the text refers to a point ‘which we spoke in another place when were treat about the pope…’ The words ‘were treat’ should be ‘we were treating’
Overall, however, this is a well presented and long overdue translation of an important theological text into modern English. It requires no prior expertise to appreciate the issues and arguments, as the points are largely self-explanatory. It will be of relevant to anyone interested in Reformation issues, or to the modern issues of Traditionalism and Vatican II.
This particular book is the extracted section of the Controversies which focuses on the specific issues surrounding the Authority of Ecumenical Councils. Those issues were a particularly significant problem because, as Bellarmine explains in the preface, the whole point of having Ecumenical Councils was that they were supposed to be a mechanism for resolving serious disagreements in the Church. But when the authority of the Councils was rejected by Luther, Melanchton, Calvin (etc), that led to a situation of effectively unresolvable disagreements between Catholics and Protestants.
Protestant critics said that they would only accept the authority of Scripture to resolve disagreements, but then (as with all texts) there were disagreements about the interpretation of the text of Scripture. So, in the absence of an agreed authoritative interpreter, the appeal to Scripture as an ultimately authority ended up being effectively an appeal to have no ultimate authority for resolving theological disagreements. Bellarmine states that that position undermines the whole point of having a Revealed Religion. After all, what is the point of Christ coming to earth and revealing truths, if no one can now reach an agreed interpretation of what those truths are?
Bellarmine justified his view by appealing to some Scripture texts, but he also appealed to the authority of Apostolic Tradition, as the basis for viewing Councils as the ultimate authoritative interpretation of Scripture. (Bk 1, Chp.4).
The points Bellarmine made are interesting historically in the context of the counter-reformation, and they are also significant theologically as being (still) pertinent live issues in the background of the disagreements between Protestantism and Catholicism.
This book also has an added significance for modern Catholics in that it presents a theology about Ecumenical Councils which is relevant to the modern disagreements about the interpretation of the authority of Vatican II (1965). One of the points which Bellarmine makes very clearly is that not everything stated by an Ecumenical Council is a truth (Bk.2, Chp.7). All the proceedings of councils must be received with respect and submission (Bk.2, Chp.10), but the only words of councils which should be considered to be infallibly true are the words which are explicitly set forth as being an obligatory point of faith (Bk.2, Chp.12).
Traditionally, people could tell which texts of the councils fell into that category of being points of faith, as they were accompanied by formulaic sets of words, such as ‘anathama.’ Vatican II, declined to use those formulas, so, some theologians appeal to Bellarmine as a basis for querying the status of significant portions of Vatican II.
As a translation of technical medieval Latin, this book puts the text into an excellent, easy to read, modern, English. However, there was one point which was somewhat jarring, when the text refers to what ‘the Parisians think…’ (Bk.2, Chp.11). When the original Latin referred to Parisians, it was referring to the Paris faculty of theology. That doesn’t come through in the English translation, and it would have been helpful to make that point a little clearer.
The translator took a policy decision to avoid footnotes as much as possible. That was a good decision as it makes the text seem more accessible. However, there were a couple of places where footnotes were really needed. This particularly arises with Bellarmines own references. I tried to look up some of his references to patristic authorities and I could not always find what he claimed texts were saying. This is not to say that Bellarmine is wrong, as textual references and citations were not always standardised. So, a little assistance in footnotes would have been welcome.
Similarly, there were occasional points where Bellarmine’s own argument is questionable, and that could helpfully have been pointed out to readers. Perhaps the most obvious example occurs in Bk.2, chap.4 where Bellarmine claims that disputes about the canonicity of Scriptural texts in the early Church was settled by an Ecumenical Council. Really? Which Council? Bellarmine is noticeably vague and makes no actual reference to a particular council. Arguably, that’s because he is wrong, and there is no text that can be cited. It is not until the councils of Florence and Trent in his own era, that there are conciliar texts defining the canon.
Textually, the book is well presented. However, I did notice at least one typo. In Book 2, Chp.5 the text refers to a point ‘which we spoke in another place when were treat about the pope…’ The words ‘were treat’ should be ‘we were treating’
Overall, however, this is a well presented and long overdue translation of an important theological text into modern English. It requires no prior expertise to appreciate the issues and arguments, as the points are largely self-explanatory. It will be of relevant to anyone interested in Reformation issues, or to the modern issues of Traditionalism and Vatican II.
Displaying 1 of 1 review