Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Merry on November 20, 2019, 01:53:42 PM
-
It is said that St. Joan of Arc raised someone from the dead. Does anyone know who that was, where it happened, and when?
Several inquiring minds would like to know!
-
What do you know - I ran across the answer myself from Last Trad. on the Can the Orthodox be Saved discussion --
St. Joan of Arc prays and brings a dead baby back to life so that it might be baptized. -Baby said to have been dead for 3 days
In the Spring of 1430, Joan had just arrived in Lagny-sur-Marne, France, where she was to lead the French forces there against the English. It was there, in the midst of war, that the miracle occurred.
According to her own testimony, she was called upon to join some other young women who were praying in a Church beseeching God and the Blessed Virgin Mary on behalf of a dead baby, that it might be revived long enough to baptize it. Here is Joan's own testimony:
"I was told that the girls of the town were gathered before the statue of Our Lady and wanted me to come and pray to God and Our Lady to bring a baby back to life. So I went and prayed with the others. And finally life appeared in him, and he yawned three times. Then he was baptized, and soon afterwards he died, and was buried in consecrated ground.
For three days, I was told, he had shown no signs of life, and he was as black as my jacket. But when he yawned his color began to come back. And I was on my knees there with the other girls, praying before Our Lady."
-
I love St. Joan of Arc
-
I love St. Joan of Arc
St Joan of Arc is a bit neglected these days whereas she should be at the forefront of the world's problems thanks to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Indeed Is St Joan not the human form of St Michael the Archangel?
Another story about St Joan of Arc appears in the writings of Diana Vaughan, the Palladist who converted to Catholicism and wrote about the foundation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the Devil's association with them. Diana Vaughan was probably murdered and then said to have been a fiction of a guy called Taxil, a fiction to try to undermine both Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Pope Leo XIII's encyclical on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. Look up Diana Vaughan on Wiki and see how successful Taxil's claim turned out to be wirth both in Church and State believing diana never existed so that her stories about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ would not be taken seriously nor leo XIII's humanum Genus.
It seems the problem for the Palladist freemasons arose when - according to Diana Vaughan - Joan of Arc, by means of a spiritual manifestation, did battle with three of Lucifer’s angelic demons troubling her because of her promise to a Catholic priest not to blaspheme the Blessed Virgin in any way ever again. She describes the fight hearing the noises of the defeated devils as 'like screaming pigs. This intervention, after much soul-searching, led her to convert to Catholicism. Then, feeling deceived and cheated in religious and metaphysical matters up to this time, she tried to make amends by bringing the truth into the open, hoping to convert all her ‘brothers and sisters’ within the Palladian sect to Christianity.
Here Diana recalls her meeting with Baphomit:
There was no candle, lamp, or fire, to light the room, and still I was not in the dark… I approached the wall and found it covered all over with little jets of flame like pin heads, but they did not tremble nor move, and were like a sweat of fire. I put my hand over to it, and felt a soft heat, given out that did not burn the skin. They were green flames, such as I have never seen before… There, in the acute angle of the room Baphomet was conspicuous, and never appeared so hideous to me before…
[After many hours] the flames began to get bigger, and illuminate the whole room brilliantly. Then I saw Lucifer before me, seated on a throne of diamonds, without having announced his apparition by any movement or noise whatever. I did not see how he sat down, or got up, only that he appeared in the place of Baphomet, as if he was always there. With profound respect I knelt down before him but he forbade me with a gesture, and said to me, “Get up, my daughter, to kneel is humiliating, and I do not want to humiliate those I love, and by whom I am loved.” Now I understand the whole imposture, thanks to the only true God, that illuminated my understanding, to see through the tricks of Satan. The head deceiver, was filled with pride, and appeared to me exactly as I wanted to see him. It would be impossible to describe the manly beauty that appeared to me on that memorable occasion. I have not words to describe his ravishing beauty, nor is there the slightest comparison between him and the statues of Apollo, or any one else. From head to foot, only his figure appeared, covered with cloths of gold, or rather shining gold pieces, beautifully arranged in harmony and in variety at the same time. Let the reader imagine a coat of mail, formed of pieces of gold the size of pearls, all red, green, and, yellow mixed indistinctly, loose and moveable, so that they showed the irreproachable lines of his classical form, displaying at the same time a heavenly richness, greater than ever was dreamt of by any artist, even the most enthusiastic admirer of the rich, sumptuous, and beautiful. How entranced I was. How deceived, thinking I saw in Satan, God, and giving him my adoration blindly, and calling him my divine master. May my tears serve to blot out the blindness of my father, who blinded me, whom a saint of Christ [Joan of Arc], came to cure at last. Cursed be Lucifer, who destroys so many souls with his lies. You the divine master, vile rebel, vile slave, most degraded, may you be cursed forever.
Now whereas most go along with the story that Diana Vaughan was a fiction that undermined LeoXIII's encyclical on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, others knew she was a real person who lived. References to her were made by other Freemasons but others searched for her and found the folowing:
To make a long story short, the parish priest of Loigny confirmed Diana Vaughan’s visit by means of a visual reproduction and also the signature she had left in his church’s log. It was not the name Diana Vaughan that she had signed, for anybody could have forged that signature, but Juvana Petroff, a mysterious name known only to her and the priest to whom it made sense. It was later revealed as her baptismal name that she took when taking her confession of faith in the Catholic Church.
But more, as only God can arrange from eternity, this fateful day at Loigny happened to coincide with the five hundredth anniversary of the death of Joan of Arc, sworn enemy of the Devil and made a saint in 1933.
-
Thank you, Cassini. I have heard it said that St. Joan was perhaps the loneliest saint in the history of the Church.
And to know she helped someone from on high like this, just adds to her magnificence. Thank you, and God bless you.
-
Don't tell SeanJohnson, but St. Joan wore mens' clothing and fought against men in battle.
-
St. Joan of Arc was an ethnic (French) nationalist and a Catholic nationalist.
-
Don't tell SeanJohnson, but St. Joan wore mens' clothing and fought against men in battle.
Joan of Arc was one in a billions.
Did she really fight against men? Fighting at that time consisted of using swords and clubs, I seriously doubt she actually fought with men. I always understood she was a leader and not a sword wheeling killing machine.
-
Don't tell SeanJohnson, but St. Joan wore mens' clothing and fought against men in battle.
Please supply the reference that she wore mens' clothes.
thank you
-
Please supply the reference that she wore mens' clothes.
thank you
This seems like a good article on the subject: http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_male_clothing.html (http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_male_clothing.html)
To summarize, there is little question that she wore men's clothes and that this was the main excuse for her execution. However, the execution was not justified because St. Joan did so for reasons that the Church considered a valid exception to the rule.
The relevant sources are of several types. A number of the tribunal members themselves (see below) later admitted that Joan of Arc had said she clung to her soldiers' outfit as a desperate means of discouraging rape - since the type of clothing in question had numerous cords by which the long boots and hosen [see note at right] could both be fastened to the tunic, thereby making it difficult for a rapist to pull them off. A dress, on the other hand, offered no such protection against her abusive guards: she was being guarded by English soldiers, in violation of the standard Inquisitorial practice of placing female prisoners in the custody of nuns (precisely in order to prevent the problems that Joan of Arc was facing). As with so many other crucial items, this was left out of the transcript of the Condemnation trial, unless one counts the few partial versions of quotations which were later related in full by the eyewitnesses: e.g., the transcript does say that she asked to be placed in a Church prison with women (alluding to the abovementioned Inquisitorial practice), and it also includes a brief version of her statements protesting that her actions were perfectly lawful under the rules of the Church - alluding to the provision in medieval theology which permitted necessity-based cross-dressing (click here (http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_male_clothing_theology.html) to see examples from the "Summa Theologica" and 15th century theologians). The eyewitnesses later clarified these statements by relating a fuller version of her quotations on the matter; moreover, necessity-based cross-dressing was hardly unknown in that era: an especially ironic example is that of the sister-in-law of the English Regent (http://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofarc_male_clothing_jacqueline.html), who disguised herself as a soldier at one point in order to escape from the custody of Duke Philip of Burgundy in 1425. No one tried to put her on trial for heresy.
-
Did she really fight against men? Fighting at that time consisted of using swords and clubs, I seriously doubt she actually fought with men. I always understood she was a leader and not a sword wheeling killing machine.
As I understand it, she did not fight; she was a standard bearer. In effect, she acted as a mascot or morale builder. She was also involved in strategy and planning. She did, however, carry a sword at times.
-
What do you know - I ran across the answer myself from Last Trad. on the Can the Orthodox be Saved discussion --
St. Joan of Arc prays and brings a dead baby back to life so that it might be baptized. -Baby said to have been dead for 3 days
In the Spring of 1430, Joan had just arrived in Lagny-sur-Marne, France, where she was to lead the French forces there against the English. It was there, in the midst of war, that the miracle occurred.
According to her own testimony, she was called upon to join some other young women who were praying in a Church beseeching God and the Blessed Virgin Mary on behalf of a dead baby, that it might be revived long enough to baptize it. Here is Joan's own testimony:
"I was told that the girls of the town were gathered before the statue of Our Lady and wanted me to come and pray to God and Our Lady to bring a baby back to life. So I went and prayed with the others. And finally life appeared in him, and he yawned three times. Then he was baptized, and soon afterwards he died, and was buried in consecrated ground.
For three days, I was told, he had shown no signs of life, and he was as black as my jacket. But when he yawned his color began to come back. And I was on my knees there with the other girls, praying before Our Lady."
Can someone explain how a saint raising the dead is compatible with the dogma of the particular judgment and predestination?
The question pertaining to the particular judgment regards -from the time of our Lord’s ascension- the dogma that all enter the particular judgment at the moment of death, and receive in that moment an immutable sentence. Therefore, if someone were raised from the dead, would not they die again, and enter into a 2nd particular judgment?
And if so, could not their eternal destiny be different then at their first judgment (eg., because the saved could fall into grave sin, or the damned could repent after such a resurrection)?
Or, if it be argued that such a one as would be resurrected by a saint, transpiring as it would only by a special act of God, such a resurrected person would be incapable of altering their eternal and original destiny, then it would need to be explained how this second earthly life would not represent a justification of condemned Protestant predestination (and additionally, an implicit confiscation of free will): There is nothing the resurrected can do to change his destiny.
My instinct tells me there must be some doctrinally correct harmonization which preserves Catholic dogma regarding the particular judgment in this account, or it would long since have been suppressed/condemned, yet the solution escapes me.
Can anyone help me out?
-
Don't tell SeanJohnson, but St. Joan wore mens' clothing and fought against men in battle.
And who started that Hundred Years' War?
-
Sean, when such souls happen to speak later, they indicate that their judgment was suspended for whatever reason by a merciful God, due to their lack of baptism and they were sent back to obtain it - sometimes dying afterwards, sometimes not. Or through the intercession of Our Lady, they were granted mercy at their judgment and the time and means necessary to obtain the lacked baptism. Simply, in their most fortunate cases, an extraordinary mercy. Millions of the unbaptized of the New Dispensation, do not receive such an allowance.
-
Sean, when such souls happen to speak later, they indicate that their judgment was suspended for whatever reason by a merciful God, due to their lack of baptism and they were sent back to obtain it - sometimes dying afterwards, sometimes not. Or through the intercession of Our Lady, they were granted mercy at their judgment and the time and means necessary to obtain the lacked baptism. Simply, in their most fortunate cases, an extraordinary mercy. Millions of the unbaptized of the New Dispensation, do not receive such an allowance.
In other words, there are exceptions to dogma?
-
So, can you explain these events?
-
So, can you explain these events?
The dogma is infallible.
The alleged events are not infallible.
I would like to believe the events, so long as they conform to dogma.
Since the Church has not condemned the account, there must (?) be some resolution.
I am asking if someone can instruct me on what that resolution is (e.g., error in my understanding, etc).