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

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

Summa Theologica, III, q. 27, art. 3 Click the Page2159 link, then the magnifier top left. Read his own words on the subject.

Should we judge what this great saint said about this important topic just by reading one quote of his works? See this.

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

Thistle was not demeaning Aquinas, nor considering him less than faithful. There were different schools of thought back then, Aquinas and Bonaventure were one, they questioned whether she was immaculately conceived, while Duns Scotus proposed that she was indeed immaculately conceived. Initially, Aquinas proposed the idea that Mary was immune from both original and actual sin, but later in the Summa he dismissed that idea. At the end of his life, he rethought his original position and accepted the possibility. Garrigou-Lagrange explains this, which is why the differing opinions exist among theologians.

By "different opinions," I meant "different opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception," not the various peoples' views of the Immaculate Conception itself. See this.

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

Uh.. no they don't have more authority than the average joe

On matters pertaining to faith and morals, they do have more authority. I'm not claiming they have more authority on all matters.

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by The_Scott

Well, bathing was considered a luxury. It's not so much effeminate priests

Masculine priests can certainly bath. I think the saint was opposed to bathing not because of the bathing per se but because of the occasion of sin bathing might present, e.g., being naked and perhaps even alone with oneself.

Originally Posted by The_Scott

but more of an opposition to "rich" and "luxourious" clergy.

That could be, too, although if the rich were not the only ones to bath in the Middle Ages, then definitely by the 18th century, when St. Nicholas of the Holy Mountain lived, most everyone bathed.

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by Geremia

It's not a single man's opinion. It's an interpretation of St. Thomas based on many other great theologians' interpretations. What multiple people say is more likely to to be true than what one single person says (cf. the Summa article "Whether the evidence of two or three persons suffices?").

Let's see what that interpretation is (from Reality ch. 37 Mariology):Continued below…

Good heavens. I'm not talking about the Immaculate Conception. I'm saying why do you take Fr G's word for it that St Peter Damian is an authority on things like chess, when both the Magisterium (in the Catechism) and other equally eminent saints feel free to contradict him and blatantly disregard his authority, such as it is?

THAT is the important question, and one which you have singularly failed to respond to.

[thistle]

Originally Posted by Geremia

By "different opinions," I meant "different opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception," not the various peoples' views of the Immaculate Conception itself. See this.On matters pertaining to faith and morals, they do have more authority. I'm not claiming they have more authority on all matters.

You still haven't responded to LilyM's question and I don't want to continue derailing the thread by talking about The Immaculate Conception. However, St Thomas Aquinas' views on this were clear and unambiguous.

His own words in The Catechetical Instructions of Thomas Aquinas:

QUOTE

Christ excelled the Blessed Virgin in this, that he was conceived and born without original sin, while the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, but was not born in it.

UNQUOTE

No room for different opinions or interpretations. It is clear. He did not believe in The Immaculate Conception.


Now back to the thread, if you would be so kind to answer LilyM's question.

[ClayPots47]

Originally Posted by Geremia

By "different opinions," I meant "different opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception," not the various peoples' views of the Immaculate Conception itself..

I know what you meant, it doesn't change what I wrote. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe. We are still talking about tomatoes. The theologians different opinions is the same as various views. So let me repost what I said, with the addition of what you meant added in bold; "There were different schools of thought back then, Aquinas and Bonaventure were one, they questioned whether she was immaculately conceived, while Duns Scotus proposed that she was indeed immaculately conceived. Initially, Aquinas proposed the idea that Mary was immune from both original and actual sin, but later in the Summa he dismissed that idea. At the end of his life, he rethought his original position and accepted the possibility. Garrigou-Lagrange explains this, which is why the differing opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception," exist among theologians." Still reads the same to me.

Originally Posted by Geremia

On matters pertaining to faith and morals, they do have more authority. I'm not claiming they have more authority on all matters.

They don't have more authority on matters pertaining to faith and morals, but the pope has. Because the pope can speak infallibly as part of his office as pope. The Church does not teach what you claim. And I posted what the Church teaches regarding private revelation, which includes the writings and teachings of the saints. We are to hold them in high regard, but they have no authority,;we are not required to believe or accept anything they wrote or taught, unless the Church Herself teaches it as worthy of belief.

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by LilyM

I'm saying why do you take Fr G's word for it that St Peter Damian is an authority on things like chess

What did I say that made you think that?

Originally Posted by LilyM

, when both the Magisterium (in the Catechism) and other equally eminent saints feel free to contradict him and blatantly disregard his authority, such as it is?

They "blatantly disregard his authority"? Most saints probably don't even know who St. Peter Damian was.

Originally Posted by LilyM

THAT is the important question, and one which you have singularly failed to respond to.

Well, it's probably due to a lack of my understanding your question. Could you please clarify? Thanks

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by thistle

Now back to the thread, if you would be so kind to answer LilyM's question.

Let me try to understand the question:

Definitions:
Argument A = argument by a non-canonized Catholic
Argument B = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments C,D,E,…etc = arguments by non-canonized theologians about Argument B and quoted in Argument A

Question:
How can I give credence to Argument A if its author is not canonized and Argument B's author is?

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

I know what you meant, it doesn't change what I wrote. You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-mah-toe. We are still talking about tomatoes. The theologians different opinions is the same as various views. So let me repost what I said, with the addition of what you meant added in bold; "There were different schools of thought back then, Aquinas and Bonaventure were one, they questioned whether she was immaculately conceived, while Duns Scotus proposed that she was indeed immaculately conceived. Initially, Aquinas proposed the idea that Mary was immune from both original and actual sin, but later in the Summa he dismissed that idea. At the end of his life, he rethought his original position and accepted the possibility. Garrigou-Lagrange explains this, which is why the differing opinions regarding interpreting St. Thomas's views on the Immaculate Conception," exist among theologians." Still reads the same to me.

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

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

They don't have more authority on matters pertaining to faith and morals, but the pope has. Because the pope can speak infallibly as part of his office as pope.

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

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

The Church does not teach what you claim. And I posted what the Church teaches regarding private revelation, which includes the writings and teachings of the saints. We are to hold them in high regard, but they have no authority

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

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

,;we are not required to believe or accept anything they wrote or taught

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?

Originally Posted by ClayPots47

, unless the Church Herself teaches it as worthy of belief.

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by Geremia

Let me try to understand the question:

Definitions:
Argument A = argument by a non-canonized Catholic
Argument B = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments C,D,E,…etc = arguments by non-canonized theologians about Argument B and quoted in Argument A

Question:
How can I give credence to Argument A if its author is not canonized and Argument B's author is?

Not quite:

Argument A = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments B and C = arguments by two other doctors of the Church
D = authoritative statement of Magisterial teaching contained in the Catechism

Why believe A (St Peter Damian)

when B (St Francis de Sales) and C (St Teresa of Avila) both say the opposite of A,

when D says the opposite of A,

and when D also says that all of A B and C are private non-binding revelation and says that D trumps all of A B and C.

Now does my question make sense?

[Lujack]

Originally Posted by Geremia

Let me try to understand the question:

Definitions:
Argument A = argument by a non-canonized Catholic
Argument B = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments C,D,E,…etc = arguments by non-canonized theologians about Argument B and quoted in Argument A

Question:
How can I give credence to Argument A if its author is not canonized and Argument B's author is?

Because Argument B's author is canonized for the holiness of his life, not for his veracity on every argument that he should make?

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by Lujack

Because Argument B's author is canonized for the holiness of his life, not for his veracity on every argument that he should make?

Unless he's a doctor, wouldn't there be a much stronger link between the saint's holiness and the veracity of the saint's writings?

[Geremia]

Originally Posted by LilyM

Not quite:

Argument A = argument by a doctor of the Church
Arguments B and C = arguments by two other doctors of the Church
D = authoritative statement of Magisterial teaching contained in the Catechism

Why believe A (St Peter Damian)

when B (St Francis de Sales) and C (St Teresa of Avila) both say the opposite of A,

when D says the opposite of A,

and when D also says that all of A B and C are private non-binding revelation and says that D trumps all of A B and C.

Now does my question make sense?

Yes, it does. Thanks

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

[Baelor]

Originally Posted by Geremia

Unless he's a doctor, wouldn't there be a much stronger link between the saint's holiness and the veracity of the saint's writings?

That does not make the belief correct. I fail to see why that link would hold. Furthermore, saints can be identified with one aspect of morality in particular, and so according to your own reasoning that would diminish their credibility in other aspects of morality.

The fact that a saint said it ought to be (controversial, I know) irrelevant. Their reasoning for the claim is what matters.

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by Geremia

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

And here (my underlining above) is the key.

The authority with which any Saint writes comes not from their being a Saint, but from their writings being in comformity with the Church...which is to say that such authority relates to Church authority, not the personal authority of any given Saint.

If I write a book on faith and morals, no one would be bound by my authority...I have none. But if what I write is in comformity with the Church, you might say that what I write has authority, in as much as it properly represents the teachings of the Church.

Where a Saint - or any clergy or lay person - writes/teaches something that has no support in Church teaching, it has no authority over us.