Talk:Robert Bellarmine

message: "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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: I do not concur. The trial of Bruno was not a big enough focus of his career to merit mention in the introduction. I note that Bellarmine is not mentioned in the introduction of the Giordano Bruno article, but is relegated to a subsection. Rwflammang (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Giulio Cesare Vanini was executed in Toulouse, not Rome. What did Bellarmine have to do with his death? If this article is biased, then Vanini's is biased too; Bellarmine gets no mention in it. Rwflammang (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget his protracted prosecution of Gallileo and his denunciation of the Copernican system. Those action, not his theological arguments, are the points for which he is best known today, and therefore are what ought to be emphasized in a secular encyclopedia. It's also inaccurate to call him a "murderer." If the deaths of Bruno (and tens of thousands of other people condemned by the Inquisition) were "murder," then the guilt belongs to the Church itself, not to Bellarmine personally. He didn't even levy the sentence himself, he simply concurred in the judgment -- which does make him complicit -- but was reportedly haunted by it ever after because he had failed to persuade Bruno to the "official truth." Finally, Ronpeek is apparently under the delusion that contradictory secular opinion has anything whatever to do with the Church declaring someone a saint. There are any number of bloody-handed saints whom the Church regards as having acted in its best interests. --Michael K SmithTalk  15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Giordano Bruno

message: 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)
thread_title: Need confirmation of his feast day

message: Does not make sense and should be rewritten. Who is Gaetano?
4.243.167.224 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph after "New Duties"

message: 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)
thread_title: Unhelpful external link

message: 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)
thread_title: Disputationes

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copernican doctrines "correct"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Quite awesome, and not illegal. It just needs to be done, and it is not necessarily a trivial task since he was quite prolific. Rwflammang (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Books 

message: 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)
replies: text: There was once a problem of bishops not living within their own dioceses; they would take multiple bishoprics and only live in one. Obviously it's hard to teach, govern and sanctify your flock when you don't live amidst them, particularly when you haven't airplanes and email. That's why Bellarmine was a critic. I've explained the term in the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-residence? 

message: A recent edit added the following footnote to a sentence in the section of the article on The Disputations:
:"There has been a misquote around from his disputation on controversies concerning the Pope, misquote and referenced correction being available at "
There are a couple of problems with this:
*"There is a misquote around ..." is too vague to be verifiable. The blog article cited as source gives the following  as the alleged misquotation:
::"If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church is obliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad."
:but cites no specific source as having maintained that the quotation was actually uttered or written by Bellarmine.   From a web, google book, and google scholar search, the only sources I was able to find which did  make such an allegation were an article Why I abandoned Papism by one Paul Ballester-Convolier (or Ballaster-Convolier, or Ballester Convallier, or maybe some other combination thereof), a bishop of some Orthodox branch of Christianity, and four websites which reproduced it.  Although this article attributes the quotation to Bellarmine, it does not say that it appeared in The Disputations.  In fact, it gives no indication whatever of when or where Bellarmine is supposed to have written or uttered the quoted words.
*The blog cited as having supposedly debunked the quotation is clearly not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.
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)
thread_title:  Alleged misquotation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bellarmine Jugs 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's a good question, but one that Wikipedia is not equipped to answer for you, unless you have a reputable source that provides answers. Kortoso  (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, just why was this Cardinal Inquisitor made a saint? 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317111653/http://thesaurus.cerl.org/record/cnp01259823 to http://thesaurus.cerl.org/record/cnp01259823
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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: ? Wikiain (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bellmarine and Filmer, ''Patriarcha'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fulgenzio Manfredi