This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 17, 2021. |
"Bellarmine had not enough deep knowledge of his own nature or Christian experience to be able to appreciate the Augustinian doctrines of the corruption of man and the necessity of divine grace to any good movement of the will."
"Bellarmine's exposition of the views and arguments of the Protestants is surprisingly full and accurate, so much so that the circulation of the book in Italy was for a time not encouraged. He fails, like most of his contemporaries, in understanding the principle of historical development, and his belief in authority, pressed to an extreme, injured his sense of truth and allowed him to handle both the Bible and history in an arbitrary manner."
This is quite obviously a Protestant POV. To write that a Doctor of the Church had "not enough deep knowledge of...Christian experience" is risible.66.133.249.120 10:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Second. Horrible POV. Sounds like quotes were lifted from 19th century apologetics.
The quotes above have been edited out, leaving this critique irrelevant. ----
In my opinion burning of Giordano Bruno should be mentioned in the begining of article – Giordano Bruno#Trial and death Superborsuk 00:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, this whole article on Cardinal Bellarmine is written from an overwhelmingly Catholic point of view, and is unsuitable for an unbiased encylopedia. There should be mention of the torture and deaths of Giordano Bruno and Giulio Cesare Vanini, in which Bellarmino was a major participant. It is unacceptable for a Saint to be an unrepentant murderer without some explanation. Ronpeek 08:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
He is listed under feast days for May 13, yet the info box says September 17. Which is correct...? Thanks --Midx1004 21:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
His feast day is on the 17 of September, which happens to be today.Daneaboy (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Does not make sense and should be rewritten. Who is Gaetano?
4.243.167.224 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Daniel F. Baedeker
The external links section of the article had advertised this website as containing "primary source texts from his writings". However, the website appears to contain nothing but dummy links, as it has done for some months. It doesn't appear to contain any primary source texts at all, nor does it appear to have done so in the past. I have therefore commented out the link so Wikipedia readers won't be misled into wasting their time by following it. I don't believe the link should be reinstated until the webpage it points to does in fact post some primary source texts. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The link has since been removed altogether, fwiw. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose removing much of what is in the section on his Disputationes to Disputationes, or Disputationes (Robert Bellarmine). It is too much information on one of his works to be in this article, but the information should be retained. Any objections? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Done; moved it to Disputationes. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the adjective "correct" as a disputable and unnecessary qualification of "Copernican doctrines". Strictly speaking, Copernicus's system is not "correct" (the Sun is not truly immobile, for instance), but in any case there seems to me to be no good reason why this article needs to try and inform its readers of the precise epistemic status of Copernicus's system.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
A link to this site was recently readded to the article after I had removed it as a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. I had already removed it twice before with edit summaries indicating that it violated the guidelines on external links. Each time it has been subsequently readded without any edit summary or discussion on this talk page to justify its inclusion.
The site in question is a blog whose entire current contents comprises the 3 posts on the page you will see if you click on the link to it. Two of these posts each contain a short, single-paragraph excerpt from Bellarmine's writings on alleged errors in the Book of Concord. The third is a brief statement of opinion about Bellarmine's importance. I can see no reason why this blog should be considered an exception to criterion 11 of the guidedline on links to be avoided. In my opinion, Wikipedia's readers who follow the link are likely to consider it to have been a waste of time, and should not be misled into doing so by apparent claims that the site contains "New translations of [Bellarmine's] writings". I have therefore reworded the label on the link and tagged it as unsuitable. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable argument for retaining it, I intend to remove it again.
—David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your concern in moderating the Bellarmine page is much appreciated. The translations provided on that on that website come from Bellarmine's Iudicium De Libro Concordia Lutheranorum, error 1; error 6 (1628 ed.) Tomus II, 553-554; 555. This same text of Bellarmine's can be found in Fevre's critical edition vol. VII, pgs. 103, 108. Measures will be taken to document all translations from Bellarmine's works on that site to alleviate any concerns of authenticity. It would be appreciated if links to that site of new translations be not taken down.---Scipio125
I understand your concern and welcome the moderation. The Bellarmine page is a very significant one on Wikipedia and should be maintained with utmost care. My objective is to translate Bellarmine's writings and to make them available to the wider public. Having reread the guidelines I understand why a blog cannot be included on this external link given its mutable nature. Would it, however, be permissible to create links to static pages of significant portions of new translations of his works, providing appropriate documentation? My goal is to make information about Bellarmine more readily available to the general public, I would like to translate significant portions of his work such as his Iudicium de Libro Concordiae as I progress with the translation and link them through Wikipedia's website so that more users can know of their existence. Eventually I plan to make them available in their entirety. However, the completion of an entire volume takes time and it is nice to make these materials available even as in an abbreviated form for the wider public sooner than later. Your input on the best course of action would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scipio125 (talk • contribs) 03:41, August 8, 2009
Thank you for the response to my questions. By all means go ahead and remove the link to the site. I will increase the amount of material and consult the other editors in the future concerning a link. Thanks again for your input. Best ---Scipio125 8 August 2009.
It would be awesome for this page of reference to be linked up with many of his complete works on Google Books! Is that illegal or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.186.100.114 (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the article
In 1602 he was made archbishop of Capua. He had written strongly against pluralism and non-residence, and he set an example himself by leaving within four days for his diocese, where he devoted himself to his episcopal duties, and put into effect the reforming decrees of the Council of Trent.
What is meant by "non-residence" in this context?
Top.Squark (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit added the following footnote to a sentence in the section of the article on The Disputations:
There are a couple of problems with this:
In my opinion, the alleged quotation is not significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the article, even if only in a footnote. Unless someone can show that it is much more important than it would appear to be to me, I believe this footnote should be deleted.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an edit war going on about a sentence in the lede that says that Bellarmine is best known "by some" for his geocentrism. It is far from clear to me that his geocentrism is notable, since geocentrism was widely accepted back in the day, and Bellarmine was far from being its most zealous booster. Also, the "by some" is a weasle phrase, and I have to wonder whether the view of this particular "some" is notable. I support removing this clunky sentence. Rwflammang (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a long cited section about the bellarmine jug on Bartmann jug:
"The popular alternative name 'Bellarmine' is recorded earliest in 1634, and is in popular tradition associated with the cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), a fierce opponent of Protestantism in the Low Countries and northern Germany. The reason for the association with Bellarmino is not entirely clear but was possibly conceived by Dutch and English Protestants to ridicule the cardinal.[4] Another possibility is his anti-alcohol stance.[5][6]"
I feel like this should be added to this article as well. Any objections?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I came to this page because I couldn't figure out why a 20th Century Pope would canonize an inquisitor who'd been dead for over 300 years. Having read the article, I still can't figure it out.
Would there be some super secret Catholic Conspiracy involved in this oversight? Was the Pope trying to promote a return to the anti-scientific view of the universe that St. Robert upheld? There is no mention of Bellarmine's canonization on the Pope's wiki page and only a passing mention of his being named a Scholar. Is there something special about Bellarmine's being named both? ¬¬¬¬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickjack (talk • contribs) 02:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Bellarmine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
What should be made, but I think something should, of Robert Filmer's Patriarcha (1680), which begins by attacking Bellarmine as allowing space for arguments against monarchy: Filmer, Sir Robert (1949). Peter Laslett (ed.). Patriarcha and other political works. Oxford: Blackwell.? Wikiain (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed up the new ref to the trial of Fulgenzio Manfredi, but is it something for which Bellarmine is "widely remembered"? Maybe this should be moved to the body of the article and further information added. Wikiain (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)