Posted on 06/21/2010 9:45:25 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Catholics have long been told there has only been one English pope - Adrian IV in the 1150s. But according to many medieval chronicles, John Anglicus - John the English - reigned from AD855 for two years, seven months and four days before the astonishing revelation that he was, in fact, a she called Joan.
Many of the medieval Books Of Popes, the principal source for the history of the papacy during the Dark Ages, record the tale of a young girl born of English missionary parents.
Raised in Germany at Fulda - the final resting place of St Boniface, who had travelled there from his native Devon to convert pagans - it is said she was clever and spent all her time in the libraries Boniface had established.
When she was 12, she was told she could not continue her studies alongside the boys in her class, but had to marry and have children.
She refused and, donning a monk's cowl and ankle-length tunic to pass herself off as a man, ran away in the company of what some chroniclers say was her teacher, others her lover.
They headed for Greece, a centre of learning, and Joan is said to have impressed all of Athens with her learning. By the 840s, she set off again - for Rome.
It was there that she caught the eye of Pope Leo IV, best remembered for building the defensive Leonine walls that still surround part of the Vatican.
Believing, like everyone else, that she was a man, he promoted her to his inner circle and, as he lay dying, recommended her as his successor.
Popes at that time were often elected by popular acclaim of Roman citizens and, thanks to Leo's patronage, Joan got the nod.
By all accounts, she was a
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Related threads:
Jeopardy Question Last Night: "Who is Pope Joan?"
Pope Joan (Diane Sawyer looks at FEMALE POPE)
ABC Pushes Anti-Catholic "Pope Joan" Tale
ABC-TV DISCOVERS “POPE JOAN”
ABC's Bogus "Pope Joan" Story Also Hocked Debunked "Rule of Thumb" Myth
The Fable of “Pope Joan” [Debunks Diane Sawyer on ABC]
The lady was a pope
Movie About "Pope Joan" Set for Release
Pout Like A Pope, Baby! [Catholic Caucus]
Pope Joan film sparks Roman Catholic Church row
Um, sounds like the Catholic version of “Yentl.”
Pure nonsense. There are no such “Books of the Popes” citing any such Pope Joan. The first mention of any such pope was in the 13th century, 400 years later. In that story, clearly a fiction Pope Joan reigned in 1099. The problem with taking that assertion seriously is that Pope Urban II, who called forth the Crusades, reigned in 1099. He died July 29th and a mere two weeks later, Pope Paschall II reigned.
Those who would try to parlay the fiction into legend or slander realized they’d have to pick a much earlier date for the alleged Pope Joan, so chose the ninth century. The dates of the Popes’ reigns in the ninth century are well recorded, so no such pope could have existed then, but such knowledge was certainly much scarcer among the townspeople:
If I created a story about a Governor Baker of California in 1973, Freepers would quickly object that Reagan was governor then. However, if I spoke of a Governor, I’d be quite credible.
I saw this referred to on the History Channel once ...
“Finally, there is the peculiar pierced chair in the Vatican Museum. A host of medieval travellers record its use in the election ceremony for popes. Before an appointment could be confirmed, the candidate had to sit in the chair, which has a large key-shaped hole cut in its seat. The youngest deacon present would kneel down and reach up and under the chair through the hole to check its occupant was a man.
Why else would the Church employ what is popularly known as the ‘ball-feeling chair’ if Joan had never existed?”
Later histories placed the reign of Pope Joan between the reigns of Leo IV and Benedict III. Leo died and Benedict was elevated in 855. But could a female pope have ruled then?
Among the commonfolk, the date, six centuries prior, must have seemed plausible... unless one knew what was going on just after 855: The Photios controversy.
The emperor of Constantinople had deposed the Patriarch of Constantinople. All the priests of Constantinople were loyal to him, however, so no successor could be chosen among them. Therefore, the emperor elevated a layman to become bishop. The bishop of Rome, the pope, siding with the deposed patriarch, objected that such an elevation was improper. The emperor insisted the Roman patriarch had no such authority to object. Thus began the controversies which would result in the Great Schism between Orthodox and Catholic churches.
So, according to the Pope Joan legend, this all unfolded immediately following Pope Joan. How could extensive debates which followed never make any reference to the supposed fact that the See of Rome had just been occupied by someone canonically unfit to be a bishop? To the fifteenth-century scalliwag, A.D. 855 seemed like a remote and unknowable date. But to a historian, it was a particularly well-documented and well-detailed era of Catholic history.
So why create such a scurrilous tale if it were truly fictitious?
The legend probably comes from Pope John XI, not, as the story would have it Pope John VIII. John XI was from Italy, not England. John’s mother was ruler of Rome. He was a weak, ineffectual ruler, dominated by her, until she was overthrown. Then, he was afforded virtually no temporal (”secular”) power. His reign was considered by many to be the deepest humiliation of the papacy. Pope Joan may be a conflation of John XI and his mother, whom critics may well have scoffed was a “de facto pope.”
The chair, first used in the twelfth century (three centuries after Pope Joan supposedly reigned) was used by Roman emperors many, many centuries before Pope Joan supposedly reigned. The supposed use for checking out whether the Pope has balls is of a satirical origin.
I also saw on the History Channel that Jesus was really a genetically impaired woman, that he married Mary Magdeline, that he was only celibate because he was impotent, that he never existed, that someone else was substituted for him on the cross, etc., etc., etc.
The History Channel is absolutely notorious for its persistently anti-Christian trash. But if it tells you something that is specifically anti-Catholic, then it must be telling the truth, huh?
One other supposed support for Pope Joan:
For centuries, Papal processions have avoided a narrow street called “Via Papessa.” Supposedly, this is where Pope Joan was killed.
The problem is that the reason for processions avoiding it is obvious: it’s too narrow. Further, “Via Papessa” may seem to an English ear to be an Italian feminizaition of “Il Papa,” “the Pope.”
Nope. “Il Papa” means, simply, “The Dad.” Feminizing that would be “Mama,” not “Papessa.” Along that street, in the 10th century, when it was named, there lived a wealthy family named “Pape.” The matriarch, “La Papessa,” built a chapel on that street.
As early as the 15th century, when the first stirrings of what might be called a more disciplined approach to history had begun, the story of Joan was being called into question. When the fable was used as anti-Catholic fodder during the Reformation, Catholic historians began to question its historicity. And soon, oddly enough, their perspective was confirmed by a French Calvinist historian.David Blondel (1590-1655) was a Protestant living in the Netherlands who effectively used the early tools of historical study to dismantle the myth of Pope Joan. Tracking the history of the popes during that period and the lack of any contemporary mention of Joan in what would have been, if true, an astounding event to be exploited by papal enemies, he dismissed the legend. His fellow Protestants of the era dismissed Blondel because, as Pierre Bayle said, "the Protestant interest requires the story of Joan to be true."
But the story is protean, so it persists. These days, it serves the secular agenda as an example of the supposedly "hypocritical" origins of priestly celibacy and the all-male clergy in the Catholic Church. The presumption is that such propaganda will cause the Church to change her practice in these areas. That's not going to happen, of course, but it will be an effective polemic in certain circles against the Church's moral teaching.
Eventually, the story will probably serve as the first combination foot ointment and salad dressing.
No big deal here, this is possibly a remake.
I watched a movie called Pope Joan in the either late seventies or early eighties.
Where she gets pregnant to the local king, not sure which one, because he knows her secret and has his way with her.
In the end she falls down in the street going into labour in front of crowds of worshippers and when they realise what is happening promptly stone her to death. Was a good movie/
Twip! for your dip! Twip! for your do!
If this has happened. Photius would have been screaming about it. We hear no claims of a female pope till the 12th century.
Kind of funny though it was a Catholic legend debunked by a Calvinist.
Curiously, I’ve read where the Benedictines are partly responsible for its popularity, finding a morality play in it. Presumably, they had no intention for it to be taken as true and as a slander against the papacy, but I do wonder their moral had been.
For the record:
The film was released over a year ago. Another was made in 1970. The “journalist” is just writing about the movie because he is hawking his own propaganda book, “The She-Pope.”
For the record:
The film was released over a year ago. Another was made in 1970. The “journalist” is just writing about the movie because he is hawking his own propaganda book, “The She-Pope.”
You wrote:
“Why else would the Church employ what is popularly known as the ‘ball-feeling chair’ if Joan had never existed?””
Two points:
1) The existence of the chair in no way implies the existence of a “Pope Joan”
2) where is the evidence this charis even exists first? I have seen people mention it, but isn’t there more than hearsay?
It seems to me that this is all very suspect. First of all, the seat in question is called sedia stercoraria whioh clearly means it is a toilet chair (a commode if you will). Also, the person who first claimed that this chair was used in papal election of coronation ceremonies - a Dominican named Robert of Uzès - described it from one of his VISIONS. He never actually saw it. He just saw it in a vision so who knows how accurate that info is?
The simple fact is that “Pope Joan” is a made up story with no basis in history whatsoever.
>> It’s all true. Pope Joan is a true feminist. She is a model to lesbians and bisexuals and transvestites everywhere. Kuds to Alex for supporting this LGBT movement <<
Bwah-ha-ha-ha! Now that there is funny.
Actually, the chair does exist. But its creation predates the legend of Pope Joan by many centuries, and its use was a couple centuries after Pope Joan supposedly lived. And given how many robes and that the pope wears during his coronation (when it was used), can you possibly imagine how awkward it would have to be to sit on the throne in such a way as to allow someone underneath to reach up and check gender?
Ya know, I didn’t even notice this whopper:
“Popes at that time were often elected by popular acclaim of Roman citizens and, thanks to Leo’s patronage, Joan got the nod.”
Elected by popular acclaim????
Ya know, I didn’t even notice this whopper:
“Popes at that time were often elected by popular acclaim of Roman citizens and, thanks to Leo’s patronage, Joan got the nod.”
Elected by popular acclaim????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.