St. Joan of Arc's Case and Papal Infallibility

New Zealand Tablet, Volume LII, Issue 2, 14 January 1925, Page 13

St. Joan of Arc's Case and Papal Infallibility

(By M. 0. L. in New. York Truth.) ~~

lii treating.of Joan of Arc a recent writer implies that her sentence and execution and subsequent canonisation prove the failure of the Papal Infallibility, and seems to be under the impression that one Pope contradicted the other in estimating the character and status of the martyred Maid of Orleans. What is the explanation)? Papal Infallibility is not compromised in the least. So far from one Pope contradicting the other, the canonisation in the 20th century of St. Joan harmonizes with the decision of the court constituted by the Pope in the 15th, when the sentence pronounced upon her by a local tribunal—under the presidency not of the Pope, but of the Bishop of Beauvais—who was not infallible—was reversed and annulled. Where is the contradiction between Pope and Pope? Father Thurston, S.J., writes that the first trial was conducted not only without reference to the Pope, but in defiance of Joan's appeal to his Holiness. The-court which reversed that decision was constituted by the Pope, and the illegality of the former proceedings'made clear. Even before that "keen observers like Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, afterwards Pope Pius 11., though still in doubt as to her mission, had discerned something of theheavenly character of the Maid." How is the Infallibility proved a failure? Very often such glib assertions are made by persons • who do not know what is -meant by Papal Infallibility, and without that knowledge it " is impossible to arrive at sane and sound conclusions regarding it. To. clear the air I quote the dogmatic definition: ' "The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra; that ■ is, when exercising the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians,, of his

supreme authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church,, is possessed of that Infallibility with; which the Divine Redeemer has willed His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith or morals; whence it follows that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of -the Church irref ormable.' As Father Ryder writes, the truth that the Pope is the centre of faith has from the beginning found expression in the acceptance of communion, with Rome as a test of orthodoxy, and. the acknowledgement that the Pope's confirmation is the all-sufficient and essential seal of orthodox instruction. "Rome has spoken, the cause is finished,", the famous crystallisation of St. Augustine's words, illustrates that. . Perhaps the writer who called forth this explanation will tell us what the Pope had . to do with the condemnation of St. Joan, and how his infallibility was involved. ~~ It is possible that the necessity of their case constrains non-Catholics to attack • the In-; fallibility; certainly it is strange to find reasonable beings presumably in earnest about their salvation, adhering to a church which admits that it may teach them error, may lead them astray. How do they persuade themselves that a church which confessedly may teach error is the Church which 1 Christ commissioned to teach all nations,, and to which He promised the perpetual -presence of the Holy Ghost, the -safeguard against false doctrine? One would not trust one's body to a guide who^openly: confessed., that he might lead one over, a precipice or; into a bog. ' Why be less careful" of the. cnnl ?