Immoral to Play Chess? Yes, according to St. Peter Damian

[ClayPots47]

Okay, so, despite all this, you and others here still claim he denied the Immaculate Conception as though he never supported it?

I can’t speak for “The others”. And we’re going around in circles here, because I already said, Aquinas questioned the idea initially, then formally rejected it, but by the end of his life, he revisited it and considered it a possibility. Some of those theologians Garrigou-Lagrange referred to, take the above position, others interpret Aquinas’ writings to say he did support, other that he didn’t. What can be said, is that he did not share Duns Scotus theology.

And even then, he speaks infallibly only when he is in conformity with the teachings of the Church

Moot point since nobody is arguing this point.

.Even when they are holy and what they write is in conformity with the teachings of the Church?

Already addressed in my last statement where I wrote: " unless the Church Herself teaches it as worthy of belief."

I’m not saying so, either. I’m saying that if you had to choose, e.g., between an atheist’s argument regarding, e.g., contraception, versus that of a saint of the Church, all else being equal, whose argument would be more authoritative?

The saint’s, if what they teach is in conformity with Church teaching, but it has nothing to do with them being a saint. If I had to choose between the average Joe Catholic and an atheist, if the average Joe Catholic was in conformity with Church teaching, their argument would weight greater. It isn’t the saint that has authority, it is what the Church teaches that does. Saints have been known to make errors, and give opinions regarding things that the Church has never adopted. Examples are the existence of Limbo, and the after life of unbaptized infants. Some taught that Limbo was the eternal abode of the the unbaptized infants. Some taught that such infants are condemned to eternal hellfire. The Church has adopted neither position. This is why we should not accept everything they write and teach as authoritative, and why the Church does not require that we accept their revelations, as it is private revelation. St Peter Damian proposes one thing, St Francis de Sales and St Teresa of Avila says another. Who’s authority do you accept when you have saints who oppose each other? Since it private revelation, you take none, or you take the one(s) who has the same position as the Church. The authority lies with the Church, not the saint.

 

[Hadrianus]

The answer to this question is simple: The bishops as successors of the Apostles possess authority in these matters. They do not condemn the playing of chess. Therefore question closed. Saints are canonized for their heroic virtues, but not for their every opinion. If one must choose between the opinion of a saint and the teaching of the episcopal magisterium the latter wins every time.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, it does. Thanks

I would say, in this case, that we should not believe A unreservedly or unqualifiedly.

But it’s NOT BINDING.

The Church doesn’t teach that the pronouncements of the Doctors of the Church on any and every topic have more weight simply because they are Doctors of the Church!

It accepts their expertise on select topics and adopts some of their reasoning on those topics, that is all.

Like any other doctor, the Church Doctors have their certain subjects that they are experts on. St Thomas Aquinas was not an expert on mysticism - Sts Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross are the leading lights there. Nor was he especially knowledgeable on Marian devotion - that honour belongs to St Alphonsus Liguori. Or liturgical music - St Gregory the Great. Or translation of scripture - St Jerome.

So like any other doctor, there are topics on which laypeople are equally knowledgeable as Doctors. Just like I might know as much as most medical doctors about car repairs, cooking or gardening or what have you.

 

[ClayPots47]

Geremia;9277106:

Yes, it does. Thanks

I would say, in this case, that we should not believe A unreservedly or unqualifiedly.

But it’s NOT BINDING.

The Church doesn’t teach that the pronouncements of the Doctors of the Church on any and every topic have more weight simply because they are Doctors of the Church!

How many have tried to explain this? I don’t know about you, but this discussion makes me want to bang my head against a wall, :banghead: or smack my forehead :doh2: or bawl my eyes out in frustration. :crying:

:whacky:

 

[presidentjlh]

Saints cannot make infallible proclamations on faith or morals unless they do such as Pope. Often, saints, being human, lacked knowledge on some issues that we understand better today, so took on opinions that we would not find acceptable now. This does not mean they were sinning, they did not have full knowledge.

 

[Geremia]

How many have tried to explain this? I don’t know about you, but this discussion makes me want to bang my head against a wall, :banghead: or smack my forehead :doh2: or bawl my eyes out in frustration. :crying:

:whacky:

I think I’ve p(name removed by moderator)ointed that we’re discussing here: how to assess the credibility given to private revelations. Check out this book: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026313356

 

[Geremia]

How many have tried to explain this? I don’t know about you, but this discussion makes me want to bang my head against a wall, :banghead: or smack my forehead :doh2: or bawl my eyes out in frustration. :crying:

:whacky:

I think I’ve p(name removed by moderator)ointed that we’re discussing here: how to assess the credibility given to private revelations. Check out this book: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026313356 It has sections on credibility.

 

[LilyM]

I think I’ve p(name removed by moderator)ointed that we’re discussing here: how to assess the credibility given to private revelations. Check out this book: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026313356 It has sections on credibility.

But this isn’t even a matter of it being private revelation. It quite simply isn’t revelation at all.

St Peter Damian didn’t claim that he had a vision of Our Lady or a locution from Our Lord or what have you whereby it was ‘revealed’ to him that playing chess was wrong. THAT would be private revelation.

St Peter Damian’s comments are nothing other than his private opinion. Your quote in your original post even calls it exactly that, in the very first sentence - his OPINION.

As such it is even less authoritative than private revelation, which is binding only on the individual to whom it is revealed (ie who sees the apparition or hears the locution) and not binding on anyone else.

Private opinion is not even binding on the individual who makes the comment! There would be nothing wrong if St Peter Damian had written a second letter to the chess-loving Bishop saying ‘you know what, I’ve thought some more about it, and since you don’t gamble on your chess games I actually now believe they’re fine’.

 

[ClayPots47]

I think I’ve p(name removed by moderator)ointed that we’re discussing here: how to assess the credibility given to private revelations. Check out this book: hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026313356

I’m not about to check out yet another book, when this was already addressed in the link I gave you concerning the teaching of the Church on the subject. Here is a quote from that link.

Sources of Private Revelations. Approved private revelations derive from two sources. First, there is the mysticism of the Servants of God who have been proposed for canonization. When the diocese which initiated the Cause has concluded its investigation and forwarded the documentation to Rome, the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints undertakes its own study of the person’s life. If the Congregation determines that he or she lived a life of heroic virtue this decision necessarily includes the judgment that the writings, including any mystical ones, are not contrary to faith and morals. If the Holy Father concurs the person is declared Venerable. The later canonization of the person (generally considered an act of papal infallibility), only heightens the credibility of the person’s writings and the pious regard Catholics should have for them, according to the standard given by Benedict XIV.

Credibility has been addressed by the Church, which teaches that while we are to hold the writings and teachings of the saints in high regard, we are not required accept them.

No private revelation can ever be necessary for salvation, though its content may obviously coincide with what is necessary for salvation as known from Scripture and Tradition.