|
|||||
|
The Burning Issue: Was St. Joan the first Protestant martyr? A Debate with a persistent revisionist. |
|
The following are the contents of a lengthy debate I carried on with a Protestant concerning the claim that Joan of Arc was the first Protestant martyr. He just wrote me one day, out of the blue, and started this debate with me. He titled the original email "Burning Issue". I put his claims to rest several times, and for some reason he didn't get it! It got quite interesting, as you will read(if you have the patience to read this completely!) Note some of his debating tactics: carrying on with points I already clearly refuted; claiming I havent refuted his points when in fact I addressed them each one by one; claiming I had agreed with or said things that in fact I didn't, probably hoping I might get lost with where I was going; claiming to know more than I do about my own religion(directly or indirectly), of which he was obviously not a member; and insulting Catholicism. For the sake of his anonymity, I have shortened any occurence of his name to just his initials, KW. Separate writings are separated with a row of asterisks.(*)
|
|
From: KW ***************************************************************** From: Patrick Price KW, I respect your opinion, but I must inform you it is based on mistaken beliefs. When a clergy member such as a bishop or archbishop does not follow the will of the Magisterium of the Church, they are automatically separating themselves, EXCOMMUNICATING themselves, from the Church, even when its not formally declared by the Pope. And, I must say also that the clergy, even of the Church Jesus himself founded, are still human and can be influenced by corrupt political agendas. Joan abhorred the idea of Protestantism(threatening to lead her forces against the Hussites), and whats more, she is quoted in her trial records as declaring the Pope in Rome to be the true Pope. Joan ALSO wanted to appeal to the Pope, in Rome, for help! What more evidence do you need that she was devoutly Catholic? She also confessed to a Catholic priest, and received Holy Communion from a Catholic priest. Its pretty safe to say that she did not die a Protestant martyr, but a Catholic one. -Patrick ****************************************************************** From: KW Sir: You obviously did not read my email carefully. I concur with your belief that Joan was a devout Catholic but I disagree with you to the point that she was one at the time of her death and during much of the Trial of 1431, as is evidenced from the trial transcripts. Bluntly speaking, the Church that Joan was born into was a corrupt and evil institution and the Inquisition was particularly cruel and unjust. A Pope, in the 13 th century, even legalized torture and use of false confessors in order to extract information from accused heretics. Because of the then ubiquitous and evil nature of the Church in Joan's time, it is hard to imagine how much more corrupt and evil the judges of her trial were relative to the Church in general. That fact is Joan defied the entire Church and would not have submitted to the Pope for reasons I already mentioned. The popes during her trial, for reasons I have already mentioned, would not have interfered in the trial so if Joan was willing to submit to the pope, the Pope would have turned down her appeal anyway. Excommunication is not official only when a bishop, Pope or high-ranking member of the church hierarchy officially decrees excommunication. By you line of reasoning regarding excommunication most, or at least a great many Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, during the Middle Ages, because of their corruption and immorality, were “ automatically separating themselves, EXCOMMUNICATING themselves, from the Church, even when its not formally declared by the Pope”. You have failed to refute the following: 1. Joan was subjected to almost five months of brutal interrogation and prosecution the Church ending in her execution in the Vieux March on May 30, 1431. For the next 18 years, not a single Catholic cleric or member of any European royalty, ever condemned her trial and conviction on heresy (one possible exception: a future Pope Pius 2 made favorable mention of her in his memoirs). In fact, a large number of clerics, in and outside of France, openly condemned her during and after the trial. Many were suspicious of her true nature before her trial began and for a reference read an account of Joan by the German Inquisitor Johann Nider in book he wrote (“Formicarium”) shortly after Joan died in which Nider noted that many people, not all of them English of Burgundians, openly expressed doubt as to the spirit in which she was led. 2. Joan trial of 1431 was reversed purely on a technicality for reasons I mentioned in the previous email. The Pope at the time (Calixtus 4), never officially approved of the conclusions of the Trial of 1456 and never placed his seal on the copy of the trial record that were sent to him. 3. For almost 4 hundred years Joan was virtually forgotten largely due to the fact that the Church, in cahoots with the French government, repressed her memory. Soon after the Trial of Nullification of 1456. Charles 7, with the approval of the Holy See, passed a law outlawing the very mention of her name and legacy and the records of both the trials of 1431 and 1456 were not made public until the middle of the 19th century when Jules Quicherat made a translation into modern French. 4. From 1869 to 1920 (process period leading to canonization), virtually no Catholic ever wrote a book or mentioned praise of her in any article or magazine mainly because, during that time, Joan’s memory and character came under a barrage of attacks by leading Catholic clerics and especially the Devils Advocate. She was finally canonized in 1920 and largely for political reasons. The Vatican wanted to appease the French government in order to normalize diplomatic relations with France and world opinion was then favorable to the French who, a few years previously, wee invaded by Germany during WW1. So I find it amusing that some Catholics regard her as one of their own saints even though devotion, of some Catholics to Joan, did not begin almost 500 years after her death. It is also a fact, even though Joan of Arc is the most famous of the Catholic Saints, her name is rarely mentioned in Catholic circles. If want to know more about the Joan and the problems the Church was facing in regards to her canonization read Dr. Kelly’s “Joan o Arc’s Last Trial: The Attack of the Devil’s Advocate”. KW ************************************************************************************ From: Patrick Price Kenneth, I hope you realize I will not carry this on forever with you. Your conclusions, for the most part, are based on attacks on the Catholic Church, half truths, and selective reading of the evidence. But, for now, I will try my best to refute them with the time I have right now. I have been warned about your tendency to not accept evidence, or consider one's arguments, but endlessly try to shove misinformation down the throats of those who know better. You said: "You obviously did not read my email carefully. I concur with your belief that Joan was a devout Catholic but I disagree with you to the point that she was one at the time of her death and during much of the Trial of 1431, as is evidenced from the trial transcripts." The fact is she was a Catholic when she died. She received Holy Communion from a CATHOLIC priest after Confession with a CATHOLIC priest as often as they would let her, AND, the morning she died, even AFTER she knew she would be put to death. She asked for a CATHOLIC monk to hold a crucifix before her as she burned. If she were wanting to separate herself from the Church, she would have said something. The fact is she abhorred the idea of Protestantism or of being a member of a different Christian denomination(i.e. the Hussites). You said: "Bluntly speaking, the Church that Joan was born into was a corrupt and evil institution and the Inquisition was particularly cruel and unjust. A Pope, in the 13 th century, even legalized torture and use of false confessors in order to extract information from accused heretics. Because of the then ubiquitous and evil nature of the Church in Joan's time, it is hard to imagine how much more corrupt and evil the judges of her trial were relative to the Church in general." Resorting to ad hominem attacks on the church will not make your case for you. I'm well aware of the Inquisition. I'm well aware of the Pope legalizing torture. I'm well aware of Popes instituting the Crusades. I'm well aware of a lot of things that Popes have done that some Protestants will use to attack the Pope. But, unlike you, I'm also aware that even though we hold in faith the Pope to be St. Peter's successor, we still regard our Popes as imperfect human beings and subject to political agendas. Was St. Peter perfect? No. He denied Christ 3 times! You say: "That fact is Joan defied the entire Church and would not have submitted to the Pope for reasons I already mentioned. The popes during her trial, for reasons I have already mentioned, would not have interfered in the trial so if Joan was willing to submit to the pope, the Pope would have turned down her appeal anyway." Joan did NOT defy the entire Church - She defied the authorities prosecuting her. She appealed to Rome, and whats more, identified the Pope in Rome as the true Pope. READ THE TRIAL RECORDS. They're available for anyone to read. And, THEY ARE THE AUTHORITY on Joan's mindset during the trial. You can't say whether or not the Pope would turn down her appeal - it took so long to communicate with a country so far away that the prosecutors in Joan's trial deemed it unpractical and unnecessary - yes, it was unfair, but that was the character of her corrupt prosecutors. You say: "By your line of reasoning regarding excommunication most, or at least a great many Bishops, Cardinals and Popes, during the Middle Ages, because of their corruption and immorality, were “ automatically separating themselves, EXCOMMUNICATING themselves, from the Church, even when its not formally declared by the Pope”." Yes, maybe so. They may have been separating themselves from the Catholic Church by their own actions, no matter how many did it. The fact of of the matter is when a bishop defies the magisterium, he is separating himself. And another fact is, that a great portion of the clergy led holy, pious lives. Thats an undisputable fact. You say: "1. Joan was subjected to almost five months of brutal interrogation and prosecution the Church ending in her execution in the Vieux March on May 30, 1431. For the next 18 years, not a single Catholic cleric or member of any European royalty, ever condemned her trial and conviction on heresy (one possible exception: a future Pope Pius 2 made favorable mention of her in his memoirs). In fact, a large number of clerics, in and outside of France, openly condemned her during and after the trial. Many were suspicious of her true nature before her trial began and for a reference read an account of Joan by the German Inquisitor Johann Nider in book he wrote (“Formicarium”) shortly after Joan died in which Nider noted that many people, not all of them English of Burgundians, openly expressed doubt as to the spirit in which she was led." The fact that she kept her faith all through 5 months of brutal interrogation is amazing. If you have any respect for Joan, why dont you listen to what she said in her trial records? The fact of the matter is that she was loyal to Rome. The reason clerics did openly condemn her during her trial was because of misinformation, and because they were threatened against doing so by people like Cauchon. The reason not a single cleric condemned her trial was because they feared reprisal by the English. It was not safe, especially for other countries, to openly pronounce her innocence until well after the war was over. The reason many were suspicious of her before her trial began was because the English could not fathom the idea of God not being on their side in a war, and thusly, she must be a heretic if she was on the other side. It's human nature - when one is so convinced of a political idea, they will believe things like God being on their side, even when there is no spiritual basis for doing so. You say: "2. Joan trial of 1431 was reversed purely on a technicality for reasons I mentioned in the previous email. The Pope at the time (Calixtus 4), never officially approved of the conclusions of the Trial of 1456 and never placed his seal on the copy of the trial record that were sent to him." I dont know what your sources are, but the Rehabilitation trial was opened at the request of the Pope(Callixtus III), whom Joan's mother sent a letter to about the matter. A whole statement of reasons for the reversal of her verdict is available. The Pope at the end of the trial(Pius II) may have been in doubt of Joan's mission, but he discerned Joan's heavenly character. You say: "3. For almost 4 hundred years Joan was virtually forgotten largely due to the fact that the Church, in cahoots with the French government, repressed her memory. Soon after the Trial of Nullification of 1456. Charles 7, with the approval of the Holy See, passed a law outlawing the very mention of her name and legacy and the records of both the trials of 1431 and 1456 were not made public until the middle of the 19th century when Jules Quicherat made a translation into modern French." She was not forgotten any more than any average Catholic saint. A constant stream of paintings, stained glass windows, etchings, and plays were made of Joan. More so than any other French saint. Even St. Therese of Lisieux enjoyed dressing up and playing Joan. Once again, I dont know what your sources are, but the memory of Joan was not "repressed" or made "illegal". You say: "4. From 1869 to 1920 (process period leading to canonization), virtually no Catholic ever wrote a book or mentioned praise of her in any article or magazine mainly because, during that time, Joan’s memory and character came under a barrage of attacks by leading Catholic clerics and especially the Devils Advocate. She was finally canonized in 1920 and largely for political reasons. The Vatican wanted to appease the French government in order to normalize diplomatic relations with France and world opinion was then favorable to the French who, a few years previously, wee invaded by Germany during WW1." For one thing, you've forgotten Jules Michelet, who wrote one of the more highly respected biographies of Joan of his time(granted, it was not written in the time period you specified). And, resources werent exactly available to write too much yet about Joan. Records hadn't been translated yet. And, before the process of canonization began she was just a historical figure - and for the time period she lived in, a book written about her every 20 years or so a few hundred years later is a lot of exposure for someone who is not a canonized saint. For another, the process of canonization did not begin until around 1900. The Vatican may have canonized her for political reasons, but political reasons are never the sole reason for canonization. Miracles were attributed to her intercession, and the whole purpose of a Devil's Advocate, or "Promoter of the Faith", is to make the best possible case against *anyone's* canonization. The interest and honour of the Church are concerned in preventing any one from receiving those honours whose death is not juridically proved to have been "precious in the sight of God." You said: "So I find it amusing that some Catholics regard her as one of their own saints even though devotion, of some Catholics to Joan, did not begin almost 500 years after her death. It is also a fact, even though Joan of Arc is the most famous of the Catholic Saints, her name is rarely mentioned in Catholic circles." You can't possibly think that's convincing. The reason devotion of Catholics to Joan did not begin until about 500 years after her death was because she was not a canonized saint yet(duh). Think about it. We catholics don't just pray to anyone. If one is not canonized by the Church, Catholics cant be certain if a person is worthy of devotion. That is the best example of your selective examination of evidence in this email - You chose to ignore the fact that Catholics only devote themselves to saints, not secular or even protestant historical figures. And for 500 years, Joan was not a canonized saint. Are you a member in "catholic circles"? You dont sound like one. So you dont know how often she's mentioned. She is quite popular in "catholic circles". I couldnt find your book anywhere on the net. Please tell me more about the book if you want me to read it so badly. Also, stop using ad hominem attacks, half truths, and selectivity in forming your arguments. You could make your case a lot more convincingly if you use all the evidence. But then again, once all the evidence is examined in the case of Joan of Arc, only one conclusion is possible - Joan of Arc was not only a devoted Catholic all her life, but in spite of her grueling trial and horrible death, Joan of Arc remained a Catholic TO THE END. -Patrick ************************************************************************************* From: KW Sir: Fact 2. Besides, you have yet to refute any of my arguments. KW ************************************************************************************ From: Patrick Price Sir: You said: So did she or didn't she? You dont seem to be sure yourself. Not everyone acts weird before they die. Christian martyrs(no matter what denomination you think they are), are reputed to be calm and serene before they die. Joan was no different. She soon realized the consequences of signing the abjuration her prosecutors placed before her. She also knew darn well the consequences of her rejecting her own abjuration. She couldn't deny Christ, however, just to save her own skin. So she recanted her aburation. She was resigned to death after that. That clearly shows that she was in a clear state of mind. Therefore, my argument concerning her receiving the sacraments still stands. The whole trial was an illegal and illogical thing for the church authorities to do. The Church has to give a person benefit of the doubt when administering the sacraments. It is illegal for them to withhold the sacraments from someone. Joan knew that as well. But you don't. It's also perfectly understandable why Joan would not say the name of any of the saints or popes when she was was burning. Why would she call on the Pope? You really believe she thought the Pope would help her now? She knew only Jesus would. From this argument of yours, you apparently believe Catholics need to invoke the pope or a saint or an angel when in distress in order to be Catholic. You really think only Protestants worship Jesus? You obviously dont understand that the Church worships God alone in the Holy Trinity, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's that simple. We don't worship anyone else. We ask Mary and the saints and angels to pray for us, and we believe the Pope to be the successor of Peter, but thats it. Invoking Jesus name and no one else's when she was being burnt does NOT indicate a drift away from Catholicism. Thats the most ridiculous and inane argument youve presented so far. You said: For one thing, it is clear from your speedy reply that you have not entirely read my 11 kilobyte reply to you this morning. I refuted each and every one of your arguments. Once again, your arguments are based on misinformation, half truths, and selectivity. Since you persist in saying I have not refuted any of your arguments, when I clearly have, it is clear that you a) havent read the email, or b)you cant accept the idea that you MAY be wrong, and/or c)you're so bent on your Protestant ways that you simply can't accept Joan being anything but Protestant. If you truly admire her and what she did, then you should accept her for what she was, instead of making her something she wasn't. I don't want to hear from you again until you a)read my email and understand the arguments I'm making, and b)learn about Catholicism before you start making arguments against it. Thank you. -Patrick ************************************************************************************ From: KW Sir: You replied: “You clearly do not understand Catholic
terminology - The term "Church Triumphant" refers to the part of the UNIVERSAL
Church in which reside the Trinity, Mary, the Saints and Angels. The term
"Church Militant" refers to the Church that remains on Earth - with all
the Popes, clergy, and faithful. They refer to 2 parts of the SAME Church.
Joan was not clear on this terminology, and the prosecutors were taking
advantage of it. You, also, are apparently not clear on this terminology.
Joan soon realized the Pope could not intervene - he was too far away.
I explained this already.” Fact 1. I clearly understand Church terminology and so did Joan but you apparently don’t understand the content of the above trial excerpt. From the above excerpt of Joan’s trial, the prosecutor clearly explained to Joan what the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant was and apparently she understood. Even before terminology was explained to her she replied "I refer myself to God Who sent me, to Our Lady, and to all the Saints in Paradise. And in my opinion it is all one, God and the Church; and one should make no difficulty about it. Why do you make a difficulty?" At this point Joan was unclear about the “Church” but taken in the context of the above excerpt, by “Church’ she was referring the Church Victorious (Triumphant) for after the terminology was explained to her, she stated quite clearly that she will submit herself only to the Church Victorious (Triumphant) and I have bold italicized the excerpt above for reference. It looks like Joan was trying to confuse her judges rather than vice-versa. So twice in the above trial excerpt she made it clear to whom she would submit to. Joan referred to the Church Triumphant as the Church Victorious and the two last terms are identical and she understood what the 2 separate parts of the Universal Church were (1. Church Triumphant (Victorious) 2. Church Militant) and being smart enough to know that Church Triumphant and Church Victorious were synonymous terms. Fact 2. Whether the Pope had time to hear her case is beside the point - The fact is he would not have for reasons I mentioned previously. Fact. 3. Public opinion was decidedly against Joan at the time of her capture. Charles’s own Archbishop of Rheims condemned Joan after she was capture in Compeigne and Charlie’s 7 abandoned Joan and choose another visionary instead. Read Johan Nider’s account of Joan from the Medieval Source Book and for your information, I am enclosing an except from Nider’s book in the attached file nider_on_joan.doc. The reason why no one spoke out against her trial was because the prevailing opinion was that she was a heretic and a threat to the Church not because anyone feared the English. Why would the Almanacs have to fear about condemning Joan’s trial when they were already at war with the English? Why would a non-Frenchman or non-Englishman have to fear about condemning the outcome of a trial that occurred in a different country? Cheers! (nice touch) KW (Patrick's note - he included Johan Nider's account of Joan, available at Fordham.edu, as a file attachment in this email.) ************************************************************************************* From: Patrick Price Fact 1. Joan, being a simple peasant, had a simple spirituality. She would not distinguish between a Triumphant church and a Militant church. To her there was no point in distinguishing the two, since they were of the same Universal church(I never said she did not understand after they defined the terms to her - she knew what they were saying - but the concept was probably new to her). That does not suggest at all that she was not Catholic by disagreeing with the authorities. She also simply said she was sent by God. By saying she refers herself to God and Mary and the saints and angels she meant that she does their bidding over anyone's on earth, if the bidding of those on earth conflicts. She was doing the will of the victorious Church, and that was the best she knew how. Submitting herself to the Church Militant was a matter not worth discussing, because she knew their purpose for asking that question. That by no means indicates that she was not Catholic. She knew they were not acting with the authority of the Catholic Church, but were in 'cahoots' with the English. Fact 2. The reason the Pope would not be able to help Joan was not because of your reasoning - it was because the University of Paris(Paris, as you hopefully know, was hostile to Joan and to Armagnacs) excercised influence over the whole Church through the periodic councils called by the Avignon Popes. Through exploiting highly visible heresy trials, the University hoped to regain effective rule over Christianity. It was not because the Pope feared infuriating the English or the French. However big an issue Joans trial may have been to Martin V, he also had the daunting task of proving the Roman Papacy's legitimacy over the Avignon Papacy. Fact 3. The fact is, that Johan Nider's account is based on hearsay(yes, I have read the thing - and he says himself it is hearsay). He was also an Inquisitor, and a zealous witch-finder, not unlike Joe McCarthy of the 20th century. The Archbishop of Reims wrote to his archdiocese that Joan's capture was her own fault, and Charles VII likely agreed. It was not a condemnation of Joan - it was simple ungratefulness. This contrasted sharply with the public mindset, which was overall one of shock and disbelief, and that through God's power, no power on earth could keep Joan captive. The Archbishop of Embrun, Jaques Gelu, urged his archdiocese to pray for her release. People made prayerful processions barefoot, and held Masses as prayers for her release. But then again, public opinion does not prove anything, it just proves public opinion. It is not helpful to your own case - it makes no case about Joan herself. Joan died Catholic - get over it. -Patrick ************************************************************************************* From: KW Patrick: “Fact 1. Joan, being a simple peasant, had a simple spirituality. She would not distinguish between a Triumphant church and a Militant church. To her there was no point in distinguishing the two, since they were of the same Universal church(I never said she did not understand after they defined the terms to her - she knew what they were saying - but the concept was probably new to her). That does not suggest at all that she was not Catholic by disagreeing with the authorities. She also simply said she was sent by God. By saying she refers herself to God and Mary and the saints and angels she meant that she does their bidding over anyone's on earth, if the bidding of those on earth conflicts. She was doing the will of the victorious Church, and that was the best she knew how. Submitting herself to the Church Militant was a matter not worth discussing, because she knew their purpose for asking that question. That by no means indicates that she was not Catholic. She ! knew they were not acting with the authority of the Catholic Church, but were in 'cahoots' with the English.” Refutation: Now you admit that Joan knew what the Church Militant, Triumphant, and Victorious were and I made it clear to you that Joan knew the about church terminology, which now you see to agree, and in the final part of the excerpt she indicated the she had nothing more to say about the Church Militant (Pope included). Ergo, Joan was defying the entire Church Militant - making her a heretic and not a devout Catholic as you still incredibly continue to claim. She was not so simple as you think and she was smart enough, despite having a limited education, to answer her judge’s questions intelligently despite the enormous physical/psychological stresses that were imposed upon her. I already explained to you why Joan made references to the Pope (only 2x during the trial), which was a ploy to delay her trial, and at least one of the witnesses during the trial of 1456 testified that Joan told him that she would not even submit to the Pope. The Devil’s Advocate also expressed the same opinion as to Joan’s references to the Pope. Her interrogators were acting with the authority of the Church since all were legitimate members of the Church hierarchy and anointed by the Pope, none were ever excommunicated and were in communion with the Pope even though post-schism tensions still exited. Joan was cognizant of this fact which can be inferred I her statement that nothing more to say about the Church Militant (Pope included). She defied the Church Militant because she felt she was a visionary and answerable only to God and the Church Victorious. It is also true, as I have mentioned before, that the trial of 1431 was nullified purely on a technicality so the Church never said she was not truly a heretic but not legally a heretic but a heretic nonetheless. Your arguments are subjective and not consistent with the facts or even from the excerpt I previously quoted and you seem to contradict yourself about why the Pope would not intervene in her trial or if Joan understood church terminology. “Fact 2. The reason the Pope would not be able to help Joan was not because of your reasoning - it was because the University of Paris(Paris, as you hopefully know, was hostile to Joan and to Almanacs) exercised influence over the whole Church through the periodic councils called by the Avignon Popes. Through exploiting highly visible heresy trials, the University hoped to regain effective rule over Christianity. It was not because the Pope feared infuriating the English or the French. However big an issue Joans trial may have been to Martin V, he also had the daunting task of proving the Roman Papacy's legitimacy over the Avignon Papacy.” Refutation 2. Your statement above is correct but incomplete; you failed to mention that the English controlled the University of Pairs during the early 15th Century. The point you made above is another reason why the Pope would not have intervened in Joan’s trial but not the only one. Apparently we both agree that the Pope would not have got involved in the trial even if he could have which apparently contradicts your previous statement as to why the Pope could/would not get involved (he was too far away). Joan was informed by her judges as to the reasons why the Pope could not have heard her case which explains why her defiance of the Church Militant increased as the trial evolved and why she would not submit to the Church Militant (Pope Martin 5 and Euglenius 4 included). I agree that the reason for Joan’s trial was not political to the point that the University of Paris were trying to promote their influence in the post-schismatic Church and I do believe the English played a minor role but this fact strongly indicates that Joan’s trial were of a purely religious nature and not political trial rigged by the English. “Fact 3. The fact is, that Johan Nider's account is based on hearsay(yes, I have read the thing - and he says himself it is hearsay). He was also an Inquisitor, and a zealous witch-finder, not unlike Joe McCarthy of the 20th century. The Archbishop of Reims wrote to his archdiocese that Joan's capture was her own fault, and Charles VII likely agreed. It was not a condemnation of Joan - it was simple ungratefulness. This contrasted sharply with the public mindset, which was overall one of shock and disbelief, and that through God's power, no power on earth could keep Joan captive. The Archbishop of Embrun, Jaques Gelu, urged his archdiocese to pray for her release. People made prayerful processions barefoot, and held Masses as prayers for her release. But then again, public opinion does not prove anything, it just proves public opinion. It is not helpful to your own case - it makes no case about Joan herself.” Refutation 3. Nider’s account is not just based on hearsay. He was a leading Inquisitor who has access to a great deal of information though his many contacts all over Europe. The Inquisition justified their arrest warrant for Joan on the basis of public suspicion and had an obligation to root out heresy. According to Dr. Charles Wood of Dartmouth College, the overwhelming public opinion concerning Joan at the time of her capture was generally negative. Many doubted if was still a messenger of God, if she ever was one, or I the spirit of God, if she ever was in the spirit of God. The simple fact is that Joan lost every single battle she engaged in during the last few months of her life and chose military action when peaceful negotiation was an alternative. Her capture was a sign to almost all that God was longer on her side, which explains while Charles did nothing help her and why few people came to her defense. The Church issued a summons for her arrest two days after her capture at Compeigne for the simple reason that many people were suspicious of her as was indicated in Nider’s account. Would God let his messenger be captured when she openly declared that she was sent by God to drive the English from France? KW ************************************************************************************* From: Patrick Price 1. You accuse me of being too subjective in my debating
- yet you pull illogical, ridiculous conclusions from the evidence. For
example, you said: "...in the final part of the excerpt she indicated
the she had nothing more to say about the Church Militant (Pope included).
Ergo, Joan was defying the entire Church Militant - making her a heretic
and not a devout Catholic as you still incredibly continue to claim."
Your reasoning does not follow. All she said was that she had nothing
more to say about the Church Militant. She *never said* she would not
submit to it. Your conclusion does not follow from this. She simply said
she had nothing more to say. In that comment, she was not defying anybody
- Pierre Cauchon OR the Pope(she didnt even mention the Pope, yet you
think the comment applies especially to him). She simply had nothing more
to say. Another thing I can tell from this is that you still seem to believe
that somehow, all archbishops and bishops have no free agency, and are
somehow programmed robots who always do the will of the magisterium automatically.
In your reasoning, whatever a bishop does, must be the will of the Church
at large. I mean come on, its a bishop! That thinking is dead wrong. I
have explained this to you many times, yet it is not sinking in. Therefore,
if a bishop is literally capable of doing things against the will of the
Magisterium, then it follows that one can defy that bishop without removing
him/herself from the Church. 2. You said: "her defiance of the Church Militant increased as the trial evolved and why she would not submit to the Church Militant (Pope Martin 5 and Euglenius 4 included). " Once again, your reasoning does not follow. For one thing, she said, and I quote: "But for myself, I hold and believe that we should obey our Lord the Pope who is in Rome." She affirms that later on in the same response to her questioners: "As for me, I believe in our Lord the Pope who is at Rome." What more evidence is needed? This is Joan's own word on the matter - and from this, it follows that again, your comment about her defying the entire Church Militant by defying a single bishop or a few clergy members is wrong - she herself was saying that she felt we should obey the Pope! I find it amazing that someone who seems to want to identify with Joan as much as you do would believe that she would say things she doesnt really mean. You also mention that the English controlled the University of Paris, but you apparently agreed with something I don't remember saying, about the trial not being political. It was all political. If the English controlled the University of Paris, and the University of Paris(thusly the English themselves) were trying to exert its influence in the Church by exploiting heresy trials, then it follows that the trial was purely political. 3. Public opinion and suspicion causes people to act, unfortunately, whether it is right or wrong, whoever hears the suspicion. I'm sure you can see that. Joan was doing things a girl had never done before. Of course people thought it was out of place and a little suspicious. Once people with open hearts met her however, they understood her. There is plenty of evidence for that. That is why public suspicion cannot be trusted. That is why Johan Niders account cannot be used to determine if she was a faithful Catholic. Nothing subjective here, just common sense. -Patrick ************************************************************************************* From: KW Patrick: You said: Refutation: Joan made this remark about the Pope early in the trial before she was informed as to the reasons why the Pope would not have intervened - and it wasn't because he was to far away - a pint which both you and I now agree. She never made reference to the Pope again until months later on May 24, 1431 when the Church (Militant) threatened to burn her if she did not recant. During the process of trying to coax her into submitting to the Church, he made a brief remark about submitting to the Pope; taken in the context of which was said (the possibly of burning was real and imminent), it is obvious that Joan’s seconfd and last remark about the Pope was made out of fear and not sincerity - a quixotic effort by Joan to delay her trial and execution. This, by the way, was the opinion of the Devil’s Advocate who violently opposed her canonization. Later, when the question about submitting to the Church (Militant) was asked again, as noted in the trial excerpt I referenced, the Pope is not mentioned and she indicated that she would refer only to the Church Victorious (Triumphant) which includes the Pope and she had nothing more to say about submitting the Church Militant simply because she had already indicated who she would submit/refer to (The Church in heaven above) and obviously understood church terminology which you continue to disbelieve. So far you have failed to refute many of my arguments because you quote text out of context and resort to religious rather than scientific reasoning. You have so far failed to address or refute the following: 1. Pope Calixtus 4 never approved or placed his seal
on the record of the trial of 1456. In addition, you seem to contradict yourself. KW ************************************************************************** From: Patrick Price Kenneth, Why are you so bent on convincing me of your twisted viewpoint? I'm tired of this. I refute your arguments over and over, yet you claim over and over again that I haven't. On May 24th, the very day you said she defied the Pope and said she would not submit to the Church Militant, she said: "As to my submission to the Church, I have answered the Clergy on this point. I have answered them also on the subject of all the things I have said and done. Let them be sent to Rome to our Holy Father the Pope, to whom after God I refer me as to my words and deeds." She ALSO said, THAT SAME DAY: "I refer me to God and to our Holy Father the Pope." Explain to me precisely, HOW IS THAT DEFYING THE POPE??? You can call it quixotic all you want. There's no basis for that claim. Still you continue to believe she was saying things she didnt really mean. It is widely believed among the best scholars, that of any well known person who has ever been put on trial, she has done the best job of any in staying calm and confounding her prosecutors. She said, even after her death sentence, "Because it is more lawful and suitable for me to resume it and to wear man's dress, being with men, than to have a woman's dress. I have resumed it because the promise made to me has not been kept; that is to say, that I should go to Mass and should receive my Savior and that I should be taken out of irons." and then... "I would rather die than be in irons! but if I am allowed to go to Mass, and am taken out of irons and put into a gracious prison, and [may have a woman for companion].... I will be good, and do as the Church wills." and later on... "I have done nothing against God or the Faith." She was in a clear state of mind and still considered herself a member of the Faith. I've already explained to you the purpose of the Devil's advocate - IT'S HIS JOB TO TRY TO STOP ANYONE'S CANONIZATION. That way, no one who is not deserving of the title of saint, will not get the honor. The Devil's Advocate has a part in everyone's canonization process. Joan was no different. You say: "1. Pope Calixtus 4 never approved or placed his seal on the record of the trial of 1456." Joan's mother wrote an appeal to Pope Nicholas V, however, the request for a retrial was not granted until Callixtus III was the Pope. That itself shows that Callixtus had faith in the trial. "2. Joan’s 1431 trial was nullified mostly on a technicality." Exactly, what was this technicality? There were a few BIG reasons the trial was overturned: "Having seen the request of the said Plaintiffs, their leeds, reasons, and conclusion set down in writing under the form of Articles, putting forward a declaration of nullity, of iniquity, and of cozenage against a certain Process in a pretended Trial for the Faith, formed lone and executed in this city against the above named woman..."(that means done without the authority of the Church) "We declare, that on certain points the truth of her confessions has been passed over in silence; that on other points her confessions have been falsely translated a double unfaithfulness, by which, had it boon prevented, the mind of the Doctors consulted and the Judges might have boon led to a different opinion: We declare, that in these Articles there have been added without right many aggravating circumstances, which are not in the aforesaid Confessions, and many circumstances both relevant and justifying have been passed over in silence: We declare, that even the form of certain words has been altered, in such manner as to change the substance: " Those are some pretty big technicalities! "3. Joan was totally forgotten by the Church for over 400 years." I have already explained to you that she was NOT forgotten for over 400 years. I've explained all the ways she was NOT forgotten. More than once. Read that extra long email I sent you 2 days ago. You might learn something. "4. The judges of her trial wee members of the same evil medieval catholic system (Church Militant). Pierre Cauchon was himself appointed by a Pope and was a personal friend of Martin 5 and Euglenius 4. Her trial was no more corrupt and sinister than the Church (Militant) was in general. By defying part of the Church (Militant) she defied the Church in its entirety. The Devil’s Advocate made mention of the fact that Joan had an obligation, as a catholic, to submit to the judgment of the Church at Rouen and yet she defied them constantly for almost 5 months and was burned for doing so. This fact alone is strong evidence for a “Protestant “ martyrdom and contradicts her image of a catholic saint, which wasn’t proclaimed until almost 500 years after her death. In fact, the plea to declare her a catholic saint was first made in 1869 - 438 years after her death. Apparently, he Catholic Church didn’t think much of her for a very long time." First of all, if you don't stop attacking my religion, I will stop replying to you. I'm fed up with your protestant, ad-hominem, anti-Catholic attacks. I have explained over and over again that she DID NOT defy the entire church militant - REPEATEDLY, about 4 or 5 times(let's see, probably once each email)! I have given you proof *with* scientific reasoning, yet you still rant on and on about how she defied the entire church! GET A FRICKIN' CLUE. Read my arguments and think about them. "1 You mentioned that the English had nothing to do with her trial and now you admit they did." I NEVER said that the English had nothing to do with the trial. You made that up to confuse me. "2.You mentioned that the reason the Pope did not get involved in her trial was because he was too far and now you admit that he was afraid offending both the university of Paris and the English." Joan was told the Pope was too far away - read it in the trial record. I never said, either, that the Pope was afraid of offending the U. of Paris OR the English - I said he was concerned with proving his legitimacy over Avignon - its called 'politics'. Before you write your next reply, read my email(for that matter, all of them) THOROUGHLY, think about what I'm saying(in other words, GET A CLUE), stop your anti-Catholic ranting, and THEN maybe write your next reply. -Patrick ************************************************************************** From: Patrick Price KW, 1. Repeatedly, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge whenever I have refuted any point of yours. Incredibly, you carry on with your old point as if I had not refuted it or you blatantly say I havent addressed it when I clearly have. Either of these actions mean that you cannot come up with anything to refute my point, and you don't want to admit as much. You claim I also don't understand my own Church - and you, a protestant, think you understand it better. 2. You repeatedly attack and condemn the Catholic faith(a faith which I believe in with all my mind and heart), which is a most irritating, despicable, intolerable act. I did not write to you out of the blue and attack whatever religion you belong to. What's more, to call the Catholic Church an evil institution is essentially the same thing as calling Jesus a liar - Jesus himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. He also said, He would be with us always, even to the end of time. So get off your anti-Catholic ranting. 3. Your argument for Joan being a protestant martyr is based primarily upon your hate for the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church can be presented as an evil institution, then the case for Joan being a protestant martyr is all the more credible. Without that idea, your case falls apart. -Patrick ************************************************************************************* No more correspondence from Mr. Walsh - I apparently either convinced him or completely frustrated his argument somehow - the latter being a bit more likely, considering human nature. |