Search results
Political rule is so natural and necessary to the human race that it cannot be withdrawn without destroying nature itself; for the nature of man is such that he is a social animal.
- Followers
We would like to show you a description here but the site...
- Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr Quotes. facebook; twitter; googleplus; We used...
- Followers
Oct 6, 2024 · Bellarmine’s quotes continue to resonate with people from various walks of life, offering timeless wisdom and guidance. His deep understanding of theology and spirituality shines through in his words, providing profound insights and thought-provoking perspectives.
Sep 6, 2017 · Bellarmine’s Louvain Lectures of the 1570’s and letter of 1615 show that he was willing to consider unusual ideas and that, over a span of multiple decades, he believed that scripture should be interpreted in light of scientific evidence.
Aug 26, 2013 · It is hagiographic in nature, but it contains useful primary sources and it gives a sense of Bellarmine’s reputation among his contemporaries. Raitz von Frentz, Emmerich. Der ehrwürdige Kardinal Robert Bellarmin S.I., ein Vorkämpfer für Kirche und Papsttum, 1542–1621 .
deeper insights into the nature of the universe. As a quip, however, naming Galileo as the better theologian and Bellarmine as the better scientist has enough truth to it, to earn a chuckle.
1542 – 1621. Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was a Jesuit cardinal and a celebrated professor of theology at the Roman College, of which he became rector in 1592. Bio. Titles. Presidents, Kings, Tyrants, & Despots. Edward Bellarmine grapples with the problem of a subject’s obedience to kings or popes (1610) Robert Bellarmine. Full Quote.
People also ask
Who wrote Bellarmine's biography?
Was ist Robert Bellarmin?
Was Bellarmine a better scientist than Galileo?
Why was Bellarmine a theologian?
What is the significance of St Robert Bellarmine?
Who were Bellarmine's parents?
Sep 14, 2016 · Meanwhile, Bellarmine’s correct assessment that Galileo didn’t really have the final word was not only correct, but highlighted (though he didn’t realise it) the need for a new way of thinking about science, one that recognises the essential nature of provisional hypotheses.
