Posted on 12/28/2005 10:48:42 AM PST by infoguy
Check out the promotional ad for this Thursday evening's (December 29, 2005) episode of ABC's Primetime. The promo is for the story, "On the Trail of Pope Joan" (audiotape on file; emphasis mine):
"Diane Sawyer takes you on the trail of a passionate mystery. Just as intriguing as The Da Vinci Code. Chasing down centuries-old clues hidden even inside the Vatican. Could a woman disguised as a man have been Pope? Thursday night. One astonishing Primetime."
It doesn't get much uglier than this, folks. Quite simply, there was never a female pope, or "Pope Joan." The tale is a complete fabrication dating back to the 13th century - nearly 400 years after the reported "reign" of the so-called "Joan." For reliable summaries of the bogus tale, see this and this. Scholars debunked the fable hundreds of years ago, and recent books (this and this, for example) have further repudiated it.
Over the centuries, the "Pope Joan" story has been used as a slanderous tool to tarnish the Catholic Church and degrade Catholics. In his acclaimed 2003 book The New Anti-Catholicism, Philip Jenkins writes, "The Pope Joan legend is a venerable staple of the anti-Catholic mythology" (page 89). Jenkins adds,
"Though it has not the slightest foundation ... [f]rom the sixteenth century through the nineteenth, the tale was beloved by Protestants, since it testified to Catholic stupidity ... [Today] Pope Joan enjoys a lively presence on the Web, where feminist anti-Catholics celebrate her existence much as did seventeenth-century Calvinists" (page 89).
That a major network like ABC would lend credibility to such a vicious anti-Catholic smear is deplorable.
What could be worse? Donna Woolfolk Cross' novel, Pope Joan, seeks to advance the stature and validity of the fictional character, and a movie of this book is currently in production. Yikes.
"Can you imagine the uproar during Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur if someone had a parallel tagline about Jews?"
It would be pulled very quickly.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. After all, how many people actually watch ABC?
The real irony here is that WorldNetDaily reported the story (accurately.)
WND is a Dispensationalist-Protestant outfit. Not exactly friendly to the RC's.
Actually, it WOULD be a big deal--
Truth is the FIRST casualty in any war.
Don't forget that the CIA spread AIDS in the black community.
The word translated to rock, to is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning.
The word for "rock" is petra; the word for "Peter" is Petros. If Jesus wanted to name Simon "Rock" he cannot call him "Petra" because "petra" has feminine gender in Greek; he has to change it to "Petros" to give it a masculine declension. That's all the difference means.
And there are a number of fine Protestant Bible scholars who will agree with that.
Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock.
Nothing makes more hash of the verse than to suppose otherwise. "I for my part say to you, Simon bar-Jonah, you are "pebble", and on myself the big rock I will found my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Sources?
And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Ah I see, so only Peter would have the keys to the kingdom of heaven and only Peter could bind or loose on earth what would be loosed on heaven. Of course this would stand in direct opposition to the promises of many other parts of the Holy Bible wouldn't it? Christ was promising that to all of us when He made that statement.
Luke 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 15:25
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
I'm quite certain of it. Let's see Comforter, Spirit of Truth which comes from the Father, and will teach me all things. Without the mention of one priest. Or were these verses only to Peter as well?
Peter was a disciple of Jesus Christ. And revered and loved and regarded as such and still is by Christ.
I reject your assumptions.
I've read several translations now and there's even more affirmation that the words of Christ were as I've understood them to be so I am secure in my faith as to Saint Peter's relationship with Christ, and feel no threat nor perceive no spiritual threat in my understanding when reverently regarding both of them, either, or.
Do you read Greek? Have you discussed your presumed translation of the statement by Christ with those who do? Otherwise, it seems you have a perspective worked out that attempts to justify for emotional reasons, and perhaps you are misguided because of that.
I also find from what you just wrote that if you disregard and reject the words as they are recorded of Jesus Christ, few to none on FR and the internet are going to assist your knowledge. You're settled into rejecting the good news.
Yeah dimwit, I made it all up. Try doing a Google search on Pope Joan, MORON!
Did I say you made it all up? NO.
But one who spreads the lies of another is equally a liar all the same. You are a LIAR.
So, you reject these statements, then?
15
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
I believe you have animosity that is quite human in origin (fallen) and for why, I have no idea, about the Catholic Church.
And that you offer very poor witness as to any type of faith or ideology you profess, which isn't Christianity but some sort of negation of Christianity to suit your own terms. Meaning, you struggle with the weight of humanism, for lack of any other term for it.
Are you saying that today's church has any relation to what the early Christians had in the first century?
Do they look the same?
Do they act the same?
Do the saints operate in the same fashion?
Is the knowledge of the Lord the same?
If you think it is, then maybe its not my perspective that is out of kilter...
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.