Canonization of Joan of Arc

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 30 2005, 10:25 PM']I have no clue what you're talking about. God is no respector of persons. As is clearly shown in the parable of the laborers in the field, God gives everyone the same reward for their labor, be it great or small. I do believe that God gives his followers gifts and missions, but the reward for that is the same as the mother who spends her whole life doing nothing but taking care fo her children.
[right][snapback]705820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Psalm 18:
20: The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he recompensed me.

Matthew 5:
1: Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down his disciples came to him.
2: And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:
3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
6: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7: "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
8: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11: "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.
12: Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you

Matthew 10:41
41: He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

Different rewards for different people

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Aug 29 2005, 11:41 PM']Does anyone else find it at least odd, or perhaps suspect, that the Church canonized someone convicted and burned for heresy and witchcraft?
What does this say about the authority of the church to excommunicate, thus presumably to show someone as being in a state of grave sin?  Does this show a weakness in St. Peter's authority over the keys of heaven?
Does excommunication impart grave mortal sin?
[right][snapback]704643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The short answer to your question is a definitive "no."

First, excommunication does not equal mortal sin, it is simply a disciplinary measure that can be exercised by a bishop or the Pope. While excommunication means that you can no longer receive the Sacraments licitly without being reunited with the Church, it does not necessarily mean that you are in a state of mortal sin, nor can it impart such a state to the offender.

That having been said, hat happened with Joan of Arc clearly does NOT call into question "St. Peter's authority over the keys of heaven." The US Government has condemned innocent people to death numerous times, and while it is certainly a reprehensible thing to do, the government does not lose authority on account of it. In the same way, the successor of Peter does not lose authority on account of a bad prudential judgement like that.

In Christ,

Jeff

[Theoketos]

[quote name='"Mathew 20:10-16"']    When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.  And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'  He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you.  Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?  (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?' Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."[/quote]


[quote name='Mikhail' date='Aug 30 2005, 09:25 PM']I have no clue what you're talking about. God is no respector of persons. As is clearly shown in the parable of the laborers in the field, God gives everyone the same reward for their labor, be it great or small. I do believe that God gives his followers gifts and missions, but the reward for that is the same as the mother who spends her whole life doing nothing but taking care fo her children.
[right][snapback]705820[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think that CMom is going in the right direction. Though your question about what the parable thus means instead must be answered.

I went back and read what the Early Fathers had to say about your parable. Her is what they had to say...

{And for those of you who will not read it, basically it is the opinion of the Fathers that this parable speaks about those who will live at the end of the world, and the reward they will recieve, even though thier work will be cut short.}


[quote name='"Gregory of Nazianzus"']They get alike a denarius who have wrought since the eleventh hour, (for they sought it with their whole soul,) and who have wrought since the first. They, that is, who were called from the beginning of the world have alike received the reward of eternal happiness, with those who come to the Lord in the end of the world. [/quote]

[quote name='John Chrysostom'] And this not with injustice. For he who was born in the first period of the world, lived no longer than the determined time of his life, and what harm was it to him, though the world continued after his leaving it? And they that shall be born towards its close will not live less than the days that are numbered to them. And how does it cut their labor shorter, that the world is speedily ended, when they have accomplished their thread of life before? Moreover it is not of man to be born sooner or later, but of the power of God. Therefore he that is born first cannot claim to himself a higher place, nor ought he to be held in contempt that was born later. And when they had received it, they murmured against the good man of the house, saying. But if this we have said be true, that both first and last have lived their own time, and neither more nor less; and that each man's death is his consummation, what means this that they say, We have born the burden and heat of the day? Because to know that the end of the world is at hand is of great force to make us do righteousness. Wherefore Christ in His love to us said, The kingdom of heaven shall draw nigh. Whereas it was a weakening of them to know that the duration of the world was to be yet long. So that though they did not indeed live through the whole of time, they seem in a manner to have borne its weight. Or, by the burden of the day is meant the burdensome precepts of the Law; and the heat may be that consuming temptation to error which evil spirits contrived for them, stirring them to imitate the Gentiles; from all which things the Gentiles were exempt, believing on Christ, and by grace being saved completely. [/quote]

This makes sense considering the audiance to which Matthew is writting. Namely a catechized Jewish community. So the lesson here is about Isreal now sharing the reward because it now shares the mission with the latter workers (gentiles).

Edited August 31, 2005 by Theoketos

[picchick]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 31 2005, 10:19 AM']The short answer to your question is a definitive "no."

First, excommunication does not equal mortal sin, it is simply a disciplinary measure that can be exercised by a bishop or the Pope. While excommunication means that you can no longer receive the Sacraments licitly without being reunited with the Church, it does not necessarily mean that you are in a state of mortal sin, nor can it impart such a state to the offender.

That having been said, hat happened with Joan of Arc clearly does NOT call into question "St. Peter's authority over the keys of heaven." The US Government has condemned innocent people to death numerous times, and while it is certainly a reprehensible thing to do, the government does not lose authority on account of it. In the same way, the successor of Peter does not lose authority on account of a bad prudential judgement like that.

In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]706196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

One thing that I think that it is important to address is that St. Joan of Arc was condemned because of witchcraft, heresy and other things that would constitute mortal sin. These were revoked by the Church upon further and fair examination of her through witnesses and reviewing her previous trial.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='picchick' date='Aug 31 2005, 05:05 PM']One thing that I think that it is important to address is that St. Joan of Arc was condemned because of witchcraft, heresy and other things that would constitute mortal sin.  These were revoked by the Church upon further and fair examination of her through witnesses and reviewing her previous trial.
[right][snapback]706699[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Right, a person can be excommunicated on account of mortal sin (ie a catholic who knows it is a mortal sin and automatically excommunicatable offense to commit abortion) or what appears to be mortal sin (ie Joan of Arc), however, the excommunication itself does NOT impart a state of mortal sin to a person who is not already in mortal sin.

[picchick]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Aug 31 2005, 07:17 PM']Right, a person can be excommunicated on account of mortal sin (ie a catholic who knows it is a mortal sin and automatically excommunicatable offense to commit abortion) or what appears to be mortal sin (ie Joan of Arc), however, the excommunication itself does NOT impart a state of mortal sin to a person who is not already in mortal sin.
[right][snapback]706863[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Oh I didn't mean to say that excommunication was a mortal sin. I was just saying that the things she "did" that made her excommunicated were mortal sins.

[scardella]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Aug 29 2005, 11:41 PM']Does anyone else find it at least odd, or perhaps suspect, that the Church canonized someone convicted and burned for heresy and witchcraft?[/quote]

As has been said earlier, the trial was a complete sham. It's been noted by everything that I have read (but I've only read 2-3 accounts). So, if the trial was a sham, then it's certainly not inconcievable that the Church canonized her. She, in fact, was not a heretic or witch. What's the problem? A corrupt trial? Unfortunately that happens from time to time. It was not an infallible pronouncement, as said earlier.

[quote]What does this say about the authority of the church to excommunicate, thus presumably to show someone as being in a state of grave sin?  Does this show a weakness in St. Peter's authority over the keys of heaven?[/quote]
Nothing and no. The abuse of power never destroys its use. Excommunication is a power of the Church. Its proper use is as a tool of shepherding, though it is a harsh one. Its goal, ultimately, is to bring the sheep back into the flock. However, we have all seen that abuse of power happens, even in the Church. The keys are in St. Peter's hands, and whom he entrusts it. In practice, it is the Pope and magisterium who have that authority, not a rogue cleric.

[quote]Does excommunication impart grave mortal sin?[/quote]
I'll trust what others have said, and add this: the keys are to bind and loose sins already present. They cannot sully a pristine soul. Furthermore, sin arises from one's own will, and excommunication is an external action upon the person. Therefore, it is impossible for excommunication to impart sin upon a person.

[son_of_angels]

Did she not dress as a man, and thus commit known mortal sin? (Just asking to hear y'all's opinion)

[avemaria40]

i believe that passage was in reference to homosexual behavior. St. Joan did it to preserve her modesty, purity and chastity. Esp. in a war zone where the soldiers would've treated her brutally if she dressed as a woman, and esp. in prison where her guards on multiple times molested her and attempted to rape her. It's not a mortal sin if ur protecting ur purity. Otherwise she could have been raped. btw, the Bishop who tried her got excommunicated after he died

Edited September 5, 2005 by avemaria40

[Good Friday]

[quote name='son_of_angels']Does anyone else find it at least odd, or perhaps suspect, that the Church canonized someone convicted and burned for heresy and witchcraft?
What does this say about the authority of the church to excommunicate, thus presumably to show someone as being in a state of grave sin? Does this show a weakness in St. Peter's authority over the keys of heaven?
Does excommunication impart grave mortal sin?[/quote]
First, it has to be noted that the court which originally convicted St. Joan of Arc was a low ecclesiastical court, which was sympathetic to the English -- St. Joan of Arc's enemies. In other words, this particular ecclesiastical court was a kangaroo court. It tried and convicted her for trumped up charges. A higher ecclesiastical court later exonerated her, and it was only after that exoneration that she was subsequently canonized -- much, much later.

This has nothing to do with the authority of St. Peter to bind and loose. That authority was indeed exercised -- not by the ecclesiastical kangaroo court, but by the higher court which later exonerated St. Joan of Arc and by the pope who later canonized her.

I think your understanding of excommunication is also somewhat flawed.

[son_of_angels]

So, what you are saying, is that if someone goes to Hell because of lack of access to the sacraments, they can have a get out of Hell free card later on in time?

Otherwise, what is the point in excommunication if it does not prevent someone's access to God's means of grace?

[Theoketos]

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Sep 7 2005, 11:58 AM']So, what you are saying, is that if someone goes to Hell because of lack of access to the sacraments, they can have a get out of Hell free card later on in time?

Otherwise, what is the point in excommunication if it does not prevent someone's access to God's means of grace?
[right][snapback]714428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To the first question: In the sense that if one were not culpable in being unable to recieve the sacraments one would recieve these "get out of Hell free" cards. On the back it would say invinciable ignorance. (That is both a Neo Thomistic and a Thomistic Term)

The point of Excommunication is not to send the person to Hell, but instead to purify them and protect the community of the faithful. As Saint Paul says:
[quote name='1Cor 5:5']" You are to deliver this man to Satan 4 for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord."

[/quote]

So excomunication is an ecouragement to be purified.

[son_of_angels]

just playing "devil's advocate." Perhaps this was one of Satan's arguments at St. Joan's heavenly trial