Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Lost Memories]

I mean, those arguments could go much farther in arguing that Muhammad was a prophet than Joan being a saint.

Once again, could you please write a summary of the main events of the story of Joan of Arc?

Cause, I have the feeling, you may be missing the whole picture here. Or you may be missing some pieces, at all.

[Kowani]

Meme for the laughs, but the sociological implications of Agincourt were huge for medieval warfare going forward, both in battle tactics and overall philosophy of war.

Oh sure, but nobody today hears the St. Crispin's Day speech and thinks "This is bullshit!"

also English longbows had a draw weight of I think 70 pounds. These weren't dipshit farmers.

I suspect not now, no. But a French audience at the time might have grumbled a little.
But that’s because we’re so far removed from the cultural currents of medievalism that it has no emotional weight for us, outside of the most nationalistic. And even then, those people would be more happy about the English victory, not the mass deaths of French nobles and Genoese mercenaries.

[Punished UMN]

Which is why we should meet the idea that success equals God's favor with a great deal of skepticism.

Except there are a number of issues with Muhammad that have nothing to do with his military successes, you know like his teachings.

Weren't you guys just advancing the idea that you can't even win a war without God's favor?

[Tarsonis]

God didn't send a peasant girl with holy visions to save England when William the Conqueror invaded it. In fact, He doesn't seem to have a major problem with wars of conquest in general. I'm not sure what the English did in 15th century France that made Him think "right, the wee buggers have crossed the line this time!"

Then I suppose it is clear that God is French, then :^)

Just a meme, of course. But regardless of the whys behind it, St. Joan has left quite a legacy as a holy figure and has inspired people to do good things in an active way. Maybe that was all that she was meant to do.

And the pope was Venetian,....I dunno how that adds up.

[Tarsonis]

Except there are a number of issues with Muhammad that have nothing to do with his military successes, you know like his teachings.

Weren't you guys just advancing the idea that you can't even win a war without God's favor?

Um no, but that was a hallmark of Muslim ideology during the period.

[Punished UMN]

I mean, those arguments could go much farther in arguing that Muhammad was a prophet than Joan being a saint.

Once again, could you please write a summary of the main events of the story of Joan of Arc?

Cause, I have the feeling, you may be missing the whole picture here. Or you may be missing some pieces, at all.

I don't know the details, but I'm aware that a peasant girl claimed to have visions from St Michael, helped lift the siege of Orleans, and was subsequently captured and executed by the English.

[Punished UMN]

Weren't you guys just advancing the idea that you can't even win a war without God's favor?

Um no, but that was a hallmark of Muslim ideology during the period.

If God intended England to win, they would have.

Sure, but there's no way of knowing what God actually intended.

What's this then?

[Tarsonis]

Um no, but that was a hallmark of Muslim ideology during the period.

Sure, but there's no way of knowing what God actually intended.

What's this then?

If God wants you to win, you will win.
Winning, does not mean that God intended you to win.

[Lost Memories]

But regardless of the whys behind it, St. Joan has left quite a legacy as a holy figure and has inspired people to do good things in an active way. Maybe that was all that she was meant to do.

That's what I think to be the point too.


Otherwise why having any king as saint? They were likely involved into wars too, so does that exclude them automatically?
Are saints supposed to be perfect human beings? Who is actually holding this conception of sainthood?
What decides the sainthood of someone, on the heavenly level?
What is used to define or declare someone a saint, here on earth?

[Old Tyrannia]

God didn't send a peasant girl with holy visions to save England when William the Conqueror invaded it. In fact, He doesn't seem to have a major problem with wars of conquest in general. I'm not sure what the English did in 15th century France that made Him think "right, the wee buggers have crossed the line this time!"

Then I suppose it is clear that God is French, then :^)

Just a meme, of course. But regardless of the whys behind it, St. Joan has left quite a legacy as a holy figure and has inspired people to do good things in an active way. Maybe that was all that she was meant to do.

I'm not disputing that, just the idea that God intervened in the Hundred Years' War on the side of the French because the English were "in the wrong." They may well have been, but England's conduct in that war hardly stands out in all of history as being particularly deserving of divine rebuke. I actually think that even if Joan's visions weren't supernatural in nature, she still merits recognition as a woman of remarkable faith, and can still reasonably be regarded as a saint on the basis of that and her reputed posthumous miracles alone. I know some Anglicans venerate her.

[Tarsonis]

Then I suppose it is clear that God is French, then :^)

Just a meme, of course. But regardless of the whys behind it, St. Joan has left quite a legacy as a holy figure and has inspired people to do good things in an active way. Maybe that was all that she was meant to do.

I'm not disputing that, just the idea that God intervened in the Hundred Years' War on the side of the French because the English were "in the wrong." They may well have been, but England's conduct in that war hardly stands out in all of history as being particularly deserving of divine rebuke. I actually think that even if Joan's visions weren't supernatural in nature, she still merits recognition as a woman of remarkable faith, and can still reasonably be regarded as a saint on the basis of that and her reputed posthumous miracles alone. I know some Anglicans venerate her.

Perhaps God just wanted the 100 years war to be over, and knew the only way to do that was to expell the English from the Continent (except for Calais for some reason)

[Salus Maior]

Once again, could you please write a summary of the main events of the story of Joan of Arc?

Cause, I have the feeling, you may be missing the whole picture here. Or you may be missing some pieces, at all.

I don't know the details, but I'm aware that a peasant girl claimed to have visions from St Michael, helped lift the siege of Orleans, and was subsequently captured and executed by the English.

This is a pretty decent summary.

[Punished UMN]

I don't know the details, but I'm aware that a peasant girl claimed to have visions from St Michael, helped lift the siege of Orleans, and was subsequently captured and executed by the English.

This is a pretty decent summary.

That's more of a sypnopsis

[SimTropican]

+ The SimTropican Orthodox Church and The SimTropican See +
There has been a lot of good discussion so far and I enjoy reading all the different views from Christians and non Christians like Mormons as well as other non-Christian groups. Here are a Few Thoughts;

A Christian's reaction to sin and Sin:
As some noted down below it's not a Christian response to hate any person themselves but rather hate the sinful actions and behaviors. Any tough love we may enact on any person or persons is with the desire for them to come back to the faith and live according to the law God has passed down by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. While it may seem hateful and mean, we recognize in the eternal realm sin by it's very nature separates a person from God and the entire point of the Holy catholic and apostolic church is the motion of being drawn back to God. All throughout the Holy Scriptures is God bringing Mankind back to Himself by the person of God the Son in the Holy Trinity. This has been practiced by Sacred Tradition all throughout Church History as well while temporally separating someone from God by keeping them from Holy Mysteries (Holy Eucharist) which is literally Christ's Immaculate Body and Blood, it's to draw someone back to Christ by helping guide their souls back to good health. We do this not because we hate the persons but because to keep them from taking their on condemnation but with the hope that they may once again be in full communion with Christ and His Church.
This is also the case with reacting to those who have sinned like some here mentioned the Sin of adultery. Christian Orthodoxy sees any sort of reaction to sin, not as a punishment (Since we'll all face the Judgement Seat of Christ on that last day) but as a medicine to get back in good graces with Christ's Church. While unlike legalistic religions that'll take a strictly materialist and physically punish people. We look to Our Lord's example in John 8:7 in Holy Scriptures recognizing if we were to be like the legalists and fundamentalists we would need to be cast down ourselves. Rather it's the position of the Church to immediately cut that person off from the Sacraments such as the Divine Mysteries as mentioned above for Spiritual healing since that's what's most hurt by sin. It's also seen in a very individual case by case where our clergy are trained and given the resources to guide the victims of sin into preparing their hearts and minds as well as making peace with those effected before receiving the divine mysteries. Protestants here would probably use the phrase "Love the Sinner not the Sin" which is not wrong, but there's so much more to it. It is our hope that all people fallen to sin and falsehoods will come to the Christian Faith so in the same way killing someone in a state of sin is robbing them of a chance of making right with Almighty God. While we recognize the ways God works in the salvation of souls is a mystery we can't understand we do know what he revealed by Holy Traditions like Holy Scriptures.

Christian Orthodoxy's view of the relations between Church and State:
While opinions vary among the various Patriarchs and Autonomous churches of the Orthodoxy Church it's commonly agreed upon that Church and State shouldn't be two completely different entities but rather one for the common interests and goodwill. The SimTropcan See (the Official Seat of the SimTropican Orthodox Church) has made it clear that like two sides of the coin they should exist together like two sides of the coin. We believe that while not going so far as a Theocracy where the clerics decide the laws and have all say, the mutual existence of the two should each be tasked with the common interests of the society (Matters of state in upholding the matters temporal and the church of the matters spiritual. When we "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." We believe that all things belong first to God and thus do everything as an offering to God. Similarly we believe that all temporal powers belong also to God being subject to his judgement. So rather than a secular understanding we see all things belonging to God and earthly powers as being another way of living as a sacrifice to God. We than draw the conclusion that good Governments that exist according to this as seen in Sacred Tradition and all throughout Church Tradition works in a partnership with the church for the betterment of all citizens. This doesn't have to oppose Freedom of Religion either, while SimTropican practices this partnership, We believe the choices are best at the hands of the individual and government as merely an referee. This means morality isn't forced down by government but rather society in general voluntarily chooses uphold that Christian lifestlye.

[Salus Maior]

I'm not disputing that, just the idea that God intervened in the Hundred Years' War on the side of the French because the English were "in the wrong." They may well have been, but England's conduct in that war hardly stands out in all of history as being particularly deserving of divine rebuke. I actually think that even if Joan's visions weren't supernatural in nature, she still merits recognition as a woman of remarkable faith, and can still reasonably be regarded as a saint on the basis of that and her reputed posthumous miracles alone. I know some Anglicans venerate her.

Perhaps God just wanted the 100 years war to be over, and knew the only way to do that was to expell the English from the Continent (except for Calais for some reason)

Calais is English by Divine Mandate confirmed.

[Lost Memories]

This is a pretty decent summary.

That's more of a sypnopsis

It's actually pretty brief and to the point:

Saint Joan of Arc (January 6th 1412 – May 30th 1431), or Jehanne la Pucelle, was born on the Feast of the Epiphany in the village of Domrémy to Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée. Her father was a fairly well-to-do peasant who owned 50 acres of land and who also acted as provost on behalf of his village. Jeannette (as she was known in her youth) was one of five siblings, including her brothers Jacquemin, Jean, Pierre, and her sister Catherine. Her parents were good Catholics and brought up their children in the Faith. Joan herself testified that she learned her prayers and beliefs at the feet of her mother, who also taught her to spin and sew and handle other domestic duties, so that Joan could say later: “In sewing and spinning I fear no woman in Rouen.” She was a simple, honest, pious girl, who went often to Mass, confession, and fasted. Her child-hood friends described her as being shy, quiet, sincere, kind and sensible.

One day, in mid-summer while she was in her father’s garden, at about noon, Joan heard a Voice speak to her. She was twelve at the time. She came to understand that the Voice belonged to St. Michael the Archangel, who charged her to be a good girl and go to church often. As the years passed, they became more pressing, and Saints Catherine and Margaret also spoke to her as well. Not only did she hear the saints who spoke to her, but she saw them as well. She said later that: "I saw them with the eyes of my body as plainly as I see you, and when they left me I cried, for I wanted them to take me with them." When she was sixteen, she resolved to obey the voices that so incessantly commanded her to go to France and crown the Dauphin in Rheims. Towards the middle of December, she left with her uncle Laxart to Vaucouleurs to persuade Sir Robert de Baudricourt to send her an escort to Chinon. At first he laughed in her face, but she persisted, and eventually he gave her his permission to proceed to Chinon and to the Dauphin.

She set out with six companions on February 23rd. They made the journey to Chinon (about 300 miles) in eleven days through enemy territory. After waiting several days, she was granted an audience with the Dauphin on March 9th. Despite hiding in a crowd of courtiers, she found him and spoke to him about the need to save France. The Dauphin took her aside and the two spoke in private for some time. Joan gave the Dauphin a sign that confirmed his belief in her. However, before they could proceed, they sent Joan to Poitiers to undergo an ecclesiastical examination in order to establish whether she had any credibility. After three weeks of questioning her examiners "declared her to be of irreproachable life, a good Christian, possessed of the virtues of humility, honesty and simplicity." The test for her claims would be whether or not she could raise the siege at Orléans. The Dauphin gave her a small army and had her outfitted in fitting military attire. She arrived at Orléans on April 29th, 1429. At first she was barred from taking part in the military councils but she nevertheless voiced her opinions and boldly urged the French commanders to take the offensive. They attacked the English on May 4th. Five days later, after a series of astounding assaults, the English were driven from the city and Orléans was saved.

On June 9th, Joan began a bold campaign to regain the Loire river valley. She took Jargeau on June 12th, Meung-sur-Loire on June 15th, and Beaugency on June 17th. On the 18th, Joan’s army caught up with the reinforcements of Sir John Falstolf and defeated him soundly at the Battle of Patay. The Army left Gien on the 29th to escort the Dauphin to Rheims to be crowned King. On the way there, they took the cities of Auxere on July 3rd, and Troyes. The Army finally reached Rheims on July 16th, and the Dauphin was crowned King on the 17th.

Joan urged haste in attacking the enemy in Paris, but the King’s court argued for caution. The Burgundians instead reinforced Paris and broke the truce with France. The French fought an English force at Montépilloy on August 15th. The Army then began its assault on Paris on September 8th. They were ordered by the King to withdraw, however, much to Joan’s disappointment. She told the King repeatedly that God had given her “a year and a little longer” in which to campaign, but the king dallied about and wasted time. On December 29th, Joan’s family was ennobled by the King as a reward for her valor, and Joan herself was granted a coat-of-arms.

In the meantime, Joan was eager to take advantage of the time she knew she had left. The citizens of Compiègne sent her a plea for help against the English, and so Joan, with a little band of faithful soldiers, set out to raise the siege. Her troops had made a bold attack against the Burgundian camp when the gates of Compiègne were shut on her and her companions in the rearguard. She was pulled off her horse and was captured on May 23rd, 1431 along with her brother Pierre. The Burgundians imprisoned her at Beaurevoir Castle where she tried several times to escape, including once jumping from a 70 foot tower. She was fairly unhurt, but she was moved to Arras to await ransom. The King of France, Charles VII, did nothing to save her. So the Burgundians negotiated with their English allies, and eventually sold Joan to them for the sum of 10,000 livres tournois.

Joan was moved to the English-held city of Rouen in Normandy, France. Her enemies knew that the best way of ruining her and discrediting both her and the king she had set up was by initiating an ecclesiastical trial which would find her guilty of some theological error. Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais (a very pro-English partisan) oversaw the trial. Joan’s trial from start to finish was highly illegal for dozens of reasons. Joan’s later nullification trial found so many glaring errors and illegalities in the way her judges proceeded that they were astounded. The trial was little more than a thinly disguised political trial, where Joan’s guilt and fate was already pre-determined. Cauchon had no authority to begin a trial, first of all, since he didn’t have any jurisdiction over her, and because he had been explicitly paid by the English to condemn her. Secondly, they could find no evidence against her with which to initiate a trial. They began anyway. She was given no legal advisor, which she was obliged under ecclesiastical law to have, and the whole jury was made up of pro-English partisans. The Vice-Inquisitor, Jean Lemaitre, complained of the grossly unorthodox outset of the trial but was shut up under threat of death. Numerous other clergy also objected, and were subsequently bullied, threatened, imprisoned or dismissed from the trial. The trial began in February 21st 1431 and lasted until May 23rd. Joan objected to her illegal treatment numerous times, including the fact that if her trial was truly an ecclesiastical trial she was obliged to be guarded by nuns in an ecclesiastical prison, instead of in her castle prison guarded by three men who tormented her and threatened her. Despite the terrible conditions she was subjected to, the lack of sleep, the constant threat of her guards trying to assault her, and the crushing pressure of trying to outwit the judges who were paid to condemn her, she bore it all boldly and with great spirit. Her answers in the minutes of the trial show her remarkable intelligence, her simple guilelessness, and her fervent faith. Many times the trial should have ended as she submitted herself again and again to the judgment of the Pope. But her judges were determined to have her.

Despite that, it is a real credit to Joan for being able to keep up her spirited defense as long as she could. Her judges weren’t able to get anything out of her. The best they could do was try to attack her on the point of wearing men’s clothing. They finally managed to trap her after she signed a document saying she would no longer wear men’s clothing or wear military dress. She signed this (being illiterate) without knowing what was written on the paper, without it being properly explained to her, and under the threat of death. She signed (against her conscience) on the promise that she would be put into an ecclesiastical prison guarded by women. She was given a dress to wear but was sent back to her own prison cell. Soon afterwards, one of her guards tried to rape her, she managed to repulse him however, despite being chained. The next day she found that her dress had been taken away and all she had to wear were her military clothes. The judges entered her cell to see her wearing the forbidden clothing, and gleefully had her sentenced to death as a relapsed heretic.

When told of how she was to be executed, she cried out: "Alas! Am I to be so horribly and cruelly treated? Alas! That my body, clean and whole, which has never been corrupted, should this day be consumed and burned to ashes! Ah! I would far rather have my head chopped off seven times over, than to be burned!" The morning of May 30th, 1431, she went to confession and received the Eucharist (which, if her captors had really deemed her to be a heretic, would have been forbidden her). She was taken to Vieux-Marché in Rouen and tied to a stake. She asked the priests there to bring a crucifix from one of the churches out so that she could see it until she died. An Englishman also made a little cross for her, which she put next to her heart. Her last words were “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!” Her ashes were thrown into the Seine. As writer Andrew Lang later said "that the world might have no relic of her of whom the world was not worthy.” Afterwards, her executioners cried out that they had burnt a saint and that they greatly feared to be damned. Another English soldier standing nearby who had hated Joan fiercely later confessed to a priest that he saw a white dove fly out from the flames.

The Hundred Years war continued for another twenty-two years, and ended once the English had been driven out of France. At the request of Joan’s mother Isabelle Romée and the Inquisitor General, Pope Callixtus III authorized a Nullification Trial for Joan, to investigate whether her trial had been legal and fair. The retrial began in 1452. The judges sifted through all of the court records, testimonies of witnesses and all the evidence gathered from all sides. They discovered all of the horrendous illegalities of her previous trial and implicated Pierre Cauchon (now dead) of heresy for having condemned an innocent woman to death, particularly for secular reasons and for temporal gain. She was declared innocent on July 7th 1456, and moreover said to be a martyr.

Joan of Arc was beatified April 18th, 1909 and officially canonized on May 16th, 1920.

[The New California Republic]

I said considered a saint, as in he is included in the only and very closest possible modern equivalent to them that Anglicanism has, so in all but name.

He's not considered a saint though, that's my point.

As I said, its closest possible equivalent.

[The Marlborough]

God armed David and Samson, there's no reason He couldn't have done the same here, even if he didn't intend for France to win overall.

If God intended England to win, they would have.

Once again, not everything done by humans is God's will or intention.

[The Marlborough]

I'm not disputing that, just the idea that God intervened in the Hundred Years' War on the side of the French because the English were "in the wrong." They may well have been, but England's conduct in that war hardly stands out in all of history as being particularly deserving of divine rebuke. I actually think that even if Joan's visions weren't supernatural in nature, she still merits recognition as a woman of remarkable faith, and can still reasonably be regarded as a saint on the basis of that and her reputed posthumous miracles alone. I know some Anglicans venerate her.

Perhaps God just wanted the 100 years war to be over, and knew the only way to do that was to expell the English from the Continent (except for Calais for some reason)

If this were the case then the English would have won because they were in control of most of France and had successfully taken the Crown of France. It would have been easier and less bloody to just have the English roll over what remaining French opposition there was.

[The Marlborough]

Once again, could you please write a summary of the main events of the story of Joan of Arc?

Cause, I have the feeling, you may be missing the whole picture here. Or you may be missing some pieces, at all.

I don't know the details, but I'm aware that a peasant girl claimed to have visions from St Michael, helped lift the siege of Orleans, and was subsequently captured and executed by the English.

I think the basis of sainthood is more to do with her being a martyr on account of falsely being accused of heresy and being unjustly executed for it as opposed to her military exploits.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

-snip-

This is an out-of-character thread in an out-of-character subforum, friend.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I don't know the details, but I'm aware that a peasant girl claimed to have visions from St Michael, helped lift the siege of Orleans, and was subsequently captured and executed by the English.

This is a pretty decent summary.

I like this one better, personally.

[Tarsonis]

Perhaps God just wanted the 100 years war to be over, and knew the only way to do that was to expell the English from the Continent (except for Calais for some reason)

If this were the case then the English would have won because they were in control of most of France and had successfully taken the Crown of France. It would have been easier and less bloody to just have the English roll over what remaining French opposition there was.

Not necessarily. Resistance to foreign occupation is a real pain in the TW franchise. It Britain occupies France, the war continues. France expells a the British, both sides retain their homes and the war can end much cleaner.

[Celritannia]

Question.

Was Mary, Mother of Jesus 16 or younger when she gave birth to him?

[Luminesa]

Question.

Was Mary, Mother of Jesus 16 or younger when she gave birth to him?

It's a bit of a guess, but the age is considered anywhere between 12-17. 15-16 is the most widely-accepted answer. Mary would have been considered an adult in Judaism, but because she was pregnant out-of-wedlock, she would have been in grave danger if she had been discovered. It's a little tricky. From a cursory search, 15-16 is about the most accepted age.

This is from Catholic Answers, borrowing a little from the Protoevangelium of James:
To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the document, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

While the Protoevangelium of James is a bit of an odd document since it is not considered biblical (though it is considered historical), several of the Church Fathers uphold that Mary was at the least 12, was betrothed to Joseph when she was considered an adult, and probably had Jesus a while later. I wish I could find a document with hard numbers, but that's not really easy to find.

If you'd like to take a look at the link, here it is below!:
https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin