CM's conception that S/E flys in the face of 2( only 1 is needed) scientific proofs-- Newton and Bradley.

St Robert Bellarmine--' If Copernicanism( or any part of it-- my comment) were verified, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the scriptures that seemed contrary and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say something is false which has been proven'.

This will be dismissed by CM because of his allegation that Card Bellarmine is a 'BoD heretic'.

http://firstjesuits.wordpress.com

Of course, this was before the Theory of Relativity (developed by Poincaré, Lorentz, and then, finally, Einstein), so you have one scientific theory which explains another.  The Scriptures are not false, that is, the Sun does move relative to the Earth, and the Earth moves relative to the Sun.  Cardinal Bellarmine was, of course, unaware of the scientific concept of relativity, as was Newton himself.  What BoD ideas did Cardinal Bellarmine subscribe to?

In this case I was not using the term relativity in the sense of physics but your conception of the motion of Sun AND Earth w/o using the terms helio or geocentrism is quite correct.

If there is a center of the Universe, we do not know where it is nor does it matter. Earth is the center of the Universe in a spiritual sense because revealed truth tells us Jesus has been here. EENS

Alright Don, have at it: Interesting discussion on geocentrism

I simply asked if Bellarmine taught BoD.  After more looking into it, here is what I have found thus far:

Quote from: strobertbellarmine.net/fenton/BodyandSoul.pdf

Such is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine. Taken in their proper context, the terms body and soul of the Church prove to be instruments employed by St. Robert in establishing his contention "that there is one Church and not two," and that this one Church of Jesus Christ is as visible an organization as any civil society. It was not St. Robert, but rather the followers of Luther and of Calvin who distinguished between a visible and an invisible Church. This was the very error which the great Doctor of the Church set out to overthrow.

St. Robert speaks of the three theological virtues as the soul in or of the Church. Manifestly there can be no such thing as a "member of the soul of the Church" in this sense. Faith, hope and charity constitute neither a body nor a society. The people whom St. Robert designated as "of the soul of the Church" are, in the light of his own teaching, those who possess the virtues which are found within the Catholic Church and which the heretics had claimed as requisite for membership in the Church. Those who are "of the soul and not of the body" are precisely the individuals who have these virtues without being actually members of Church. Neither the soul nor the persons who are said to be "of" that soul could be considered as forming a society in any way distinct from the one visible Church of
Jesus Christ.

I have a few times in the past described you as accusing St Robert as a BoD heretic and you have not objected until now.

The phoney Sungenis again....

Did he teach BoD or didn't he?  If he did, he's to be held as a BoD heretic.  If he didn't, then he is not to be held as a BoD heretic.

If he had been canonized by a pope rather than by an antipope, then there would be no question.  The canonization in the external forum would be a loud and clear legal declaration from the Church that he is believed to have lived and died in the state of grace, and who are we to argue with the Church?

But it was Pius XI that 'canonized' him.

Why are you asking me if Bellarmine taught BoD because I have no idea. BoD and NFP are distractions anyway. You are alone here is declaring Pius XI(XII) an anti-pope.

CM apparently does not accept the scientific proofs of Newton and Bradley who independently collaborate and corroborrate article one of Copernicanism.

I only post on CathInfo.