The following is the latest attempt by a revisionist to convince me that Joan of Arc died a "Proto-Protestant". Allen Williamson of the Joan of Arc Archive has been encouraging me and assisting me with this debate, because this revisionist has debated with him as well. This man's argument is based on 2 misconceptions: a) that medieval Catholic theologians regarded the Pope and the clergy to be infallible and deserving, even above God, of submission by members of the Church, and b) Joan never submitted to the Church. While I can't help people's stereotypes, I certainly can prove Joan submitted to the Church, and I intend to do so during this debate(keep in mind, as of this update the debate is not yet finished - it might be a while before anyone whosoever can convince the guy.)

Before getting on to the debate, a few points:

Thomas Aquinas, the renowned medieval theologian, and the various Popes and clergy(everywhere) who have promoted Aquinas' doctrines should themselves be considered Protestants if Joan is to be considered one on this revisionist's argument. Thomas Aquinas, in his Scriptum Super Sententiis, states "it is better to die excommunicated" than to violate God's law. Hildegard of Bingen, the famous 11th century abbess, in her Scito Vias Domini, writes that in the case of a wrongful excommunication, it is the clergy responsible for the excommunication that will incur God's wrath, not the excommunicated. In order to counter all this, this revisionist has the tenacity to claim that Thomas Aquinas' teachings were not wholly embraced by the Church! Well, what about the Summa Theologica? In it, Aquinas states that an unjust excommunication has no effect. There's no question that the Summa is widely regarded as the authority on Catholic theology and Church teaching, yet Mr. Revisionist thinks otherwise.

**********

From: Kenneth
To: Patrick
Date: 12/3/02

Patrick: Enclosed is my analysis of Joan's trial regarding the Pope. I maintain, and continue to maintain , that your views are un-scientific, narrow and subjective You state that the Universal Church is composed of the Church in Heaven and the Church on Earth and you give no proofs to substantiate your beleifs. It is simply your opinion, based on dogma that you were taught about during your catholic "education". If you beleive god was excommunicating clerics throughout the middle ages, then how did you determine what God was thinking and on whom and where he performed acts of excommunicating? If thousands of clerics were excommunicated by God, give one an example - name the persons being excommunicated, the place and time and the reasons God excommunicated them. You simply cannout because what you beleive in has nothing to do with reality or even Scripture.You make statements you beleive to be true without proof - which is medeival, unscientific and subjective. Your view on Joan's willingness to submit to the Pope was taken out of context and failed to consider other statements she made which contradict yor claim. Read the enclosed file JoanD.doc in which I proved you are wrong about Joan. The scientific method deals with possibilities which must be weighed against evidence and objective analysis. You have a pre-conceived notion about what is or should be and fail to acknowledge evidence/analysis which contradict your unfounded beleifs.

Kenneth Walsh, PHD

(Patrick's note - Ken's referral to "God doing the excommunicating" was referring to my attempt(however unsuccessful) to use Virginia's argument - she stated to me that he(in the clergy) who does not do the will of the Church is automatically excommunicating himself from the Church - I personally don't know of any proof other than scripture, so I may have to abandon that avenue)

**********

From: Patrick
To: Kenneth
Date: 12/3/02

Kenneth:

For thing, Jesus never promised his Church would be free of corruption. In fact, he promised there would be, in the parable of the tares among the wheat(Matthew 13:24-30). He also promised that the Church would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit(John 16:13); it is safe to say that by this He is saying the church would always have his authority('all truth'). There is only one way to reconcile both these sayings that happened to come from one and the same Son of God: Whoever is not in line with the Church Jesus founded does not have his authority. This means that any prelate who does not teach His truth does not have his authority anymore, and is excommunicated(by matter of reasoning). Go ahead, call biblical evidence 'subjective' and 'unscientific'. I won't stop you. Biblical evidence is all a matter of faith. As of right now I dont have any more time or energy to pour into this debate, because its getting near the end of my school term and I'm getting pretty busy. I'll get back to you once I'm finished.

-Patrick
P.S. Where, exactly, is your "PhD" from? I've heard you call yourself a "professor".

**********

From: Kenneth
To: Patrick
Date: 12/4/02

I have a PHD in Theoretical Physics. Read the article i wrote, and then get back to me.

Kenneth

**********

From: Patrick
To: Kenneth
Date: 12/7/02

Kenneth:

I have read your 'analysis'. Your entire argument is based on 2 misconceptions:

1. You wrongly believe that medieval Catholic theologians considered the clergy, such as bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and popes, to be god-like figures with the power to condemn souls via excommunication, and who had to be obeyed even above God himself. Therefore, you can claim that Joan's admission 'so long as God is served first' is merely a heretical attempt to serve God.

2. You also believe that Joan never submitted to the pope or Church Militant to any degree at all.

As to the first misconception:

By your argument, Thomas Aquinas, the premier medieval catholic theologian himself, and Hildegard of Bingen and all the popes who promoted their teachings are protestants as well, since their teaching about papal submission and excommunication are far more extreme than anything Joan said, even the "God served first" statement. Thomas Aquinas said "it is better to die excommunicated" by the clergy rather than to submit to something which is contrary to God's law. If this is so "protestant" and "heretical", then why was Aquinas revered so much by the Catholic clergy of Joan's day? Hildegard of Bingen warned of the consequences clergy will pay for wrongfully excommunicating a person:

"But you shall not bind an innocent person; for when you bind such a one you bind yourselves in bonds of dire guilt."

They both point out that excommunication is neither infallible or damning. Placing God first is not anti-Catholic, as many Protestants like to believe. Since I have demonstrated that that is the case, your theory then falls apart, once Thomas Aquinas's and Hildegard of Bingen's revered doctrines are considered.

As to the second misconception, concerning Papal submission, I have two points:

Joan's accusers themselves could not have believed in Papal supremacy, or 'Unam Sanctam'. They believed in conciliar authority(Sacrosancta), in other words the power of the councils over the Pope. Several of Joan's antagonists, especially Pierre Cauchon, and Nicholas Lami, even tried to depose Pope Eugenius IV at the Council of Basle.

Joan on numerous occasions expressed a willingness and even desire to submit to *non-partisan* Church authorities and even the Pope. On the subject of submitting to the Church Militant, the bailiff at Joan's trial, Jean Massieu, quoted Joan as saying she did not understand the terms "Militant" and "Triumphant", but wished to submit to the Church like a good Christian. She said, quote:

"You are asking me about the Church Triumphant and Militant; I don't understand those terms; but I wish to submit to the Church, as a good Christian should."

Pierre Cauchon also refused Joan's request to have her responses examined by the clergy:

"...she replied that her responses should be seen and examined by clerics, and they would tell her whether there was anything in them contrary to the Christian faith..."

The trial record, as I'm sure you can understand, was selectively edited by Cauchon and his cronies to make the trial seem more legitimate. Consider this quote from Isambart de la Pierre, a Dominican friar from Rouen(which also reveals she submitted):

"[after he advised Joan to submit to the Council of Basle] ... immediately, in great anger and indignation, the Bishop of Beauvais began to shout: 'Be quiet, in the Devil's name!' and told the notary that he should be certain to never write down the submission she had made to the General Council of Basle. As a result of these things and several others, the English and their officers threatened me horribly that if I did not keep my mouth shut they would throw me in the Seine." Consider also, this quote from the same friar: "Some of those involved in the trial, namely the Bishop of Beauvais, proceeded from a motive of bias; whereas some, such as the English theologians [e.g., William Haiton], from spite and vengeance; and others, the Parisian theologians, were bought through bribery. Still others were induced by fear, such as the Vice-Inquisitor [Jean LeMaitre] and some others whom I do not recall. And this [the trial] was done at the instigation of the King of England, the Cardinal of Winchester, the Earl of Warwick, and other Englishmen, who paid the expenses in this trial."

Please explain to me how Thomas Aquinas, with his extreme doctrines and the popes who promoted them, is still revered by clergy as a Doctor of the Church, yet Joan cannot be considered a Catholic even though her view on submitting to the Church, is a bit less radical than Aquinas's. Aquinas said "it is better to die excommunicated" than to commit acts contrary to God's law, and Joan said she would submit "so long as our Lord is served first." Is that not even nearly the same thing as Aquinas said?

-Patrick

**********

From: Kenneth
To: Patrick
Date:12/7/02

You erroneously beleive that all what the catholic saints and scholars said and beleived in were entirely embrased by the Church. Aquinas' dictum of "it is better to die excommunicated by the clergy" rather than to submit to something which is contrary to God's law is his own personal belief and it was never part of official Chruch dogma. God's law is what the church teaches as God's Law which includes submission to the authority of the Church. Show where it says in the catecism or and papal encyclicals that catholic chrucn teaches that "better to die excommunicated by the clergy.." than to go aganst one conscience. The Church allows its members to follow ther conscience only if it is consistent with the official teachings of the church and entails obedience to the Church. Protestant theology holds that one must follow one.s conscience solely through the authority of God's word - the Bible and without the intercession of clergy.

How could you possibly beleive that the medeival Chruch, which demanded blind obedience from the laity and brutally suppressed/burned/tortured dissenters who followed their own conscience and were excommuicated for their beliefs could also beleive "it is better to die excommunicated by the clergy" ? Your reference about Aquinas is contradictory. Of the thousands that were excomminated and burned by the official organ of the Church, the Inquistion, were justified in adhering to their personal beiefs, than why did the Chruch condemn them in the first place if the Church adhered fully to Aquinas' theology? Of the millions condemned by the Inquisition only a handful had their condemnations nullified by the Church so apparently not to many excommucated heretics were jusified, in the eyes of the Church, in adhering to God's will. And don't give any bull about God excommunicating simply because you can't prove it.

You should also remember that many of saints and scholars of the Church were often at odds with the Church, even the Pope, and often got into hot water, or I should hot fire, because of their beleifs.

Kenneth

**********

From: Patrick
To: Kenneth
Date: 12/8/02

Then why, if Thomas Aquinas' doctrines are not embraced by the Catholic Church and his teachings are merely his opinion, is he called a "Doctor" of the Church? "Doctor" is a formal, official title given to a saint "on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine."(Catholic Encyclopedia.) Why, then, is the Summa Theologica considered to be among the greatest works of Catholic teaching(where he says nearly the same thing - that an unjust excommunication has no effect)? Are you going to go so far as to say that the Summa is not and never was embraced by the Catholic Church?

I shouldn't need to point anything out in the Catholic Catechism. The Summa's reputation alone should be evidence enough that Thomas Aquinas' teachings were widely accepted as authoritative by all clergy. The Catechism is a summary, not an exhaustive list of Catholic theologic ideas and teachings(however, it frequently refers to previous exhaustive works, such as the SUMMA, and the Code of Canon Law, among others). In fact the Catechism actually only devotes one paragraph to directly discussing excommunication.

Thomas Aquinas was not saying excommunication has no place in the Church(In fact, he actually explains why the Church does it in the Summa). He was merely discussing cases of unjust excommunication. He was saying that it is better to die UNJUSTLY excommunicated than to violate God's law. Therefore, the Church is not going against Aquinas' teachings by excommunicating someone.

Until you get over your stubborn, erroneous, stereotypical belief that clergy were considered to be God-like figures worthy of submission over that of God, I can't really debate any further with you.

Thomas Aquinas was never of the belief that the Church's clergy was composed of perfect, infallible people. If he actually was, then there would never have been any need to discuss "unjust excommunication".

Sometimes, you have to read between the lines. It's a shame I don't see you doing it.

-Patrick