Skip to comments.Pope Joan film sparks Roman Catholic Church row
Posted on 06/21/2010 7:38:53 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
The film has fuelled disagreements over whether Pope Joan really existed or, as the Church has always maintained, she was a mythical figure used by the early Protestant Church to discredit and embarrass Rome.
For a Church that even in the 21st century remains staunchly opposed to the idea of female priests, a female Pope was anathema.
To make matters worse, the deception is said to only have been found out when Joan gave birth during a procession through the streets of Rome.
The medieval epic stars a German actress, Johanna Wokalek, as the female Pope, the American actor John Goodman as Pope Sergius and David Wenham, an Australian last seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as her lover, a knight named Gerold.
It is based on a highly contentious story that in the ninth century, a baby girl was born in Germany to English parents, who had moved to the Continent as Christian missionaries.
According to the legend, she grew up to be an unusually intelligent young girl and, frustrated by a lack of opportunity for women, disguised herself as a boy in order to enter a Benedictine monastery, calling herself Brother John Anglicus.
She studied for a while in Greece before arriving in Rome, where she so impressed the Vatican with her abilities that she became a cardinal and was eventually elected pontiff in 853, after the death of Pope Leo IV.
She supposedly ruled as head of the Church for nearly three years, before her deception was found out.
One improbable account insists that she was riding a horse near the Colosseum when she suddenly went into labour.
The crowd, shocked and angered to find that the Holy Father was in fact a holy mother, either stoned her to death or tied her to
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
They point to one particularly extraordinary artefact as evidence that she existed a wooden chair with a hole in the seat which, it is claimed, was used for 600 years to establish the gender of would-be popes in the wake of the Pope Joan scandal.
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]
Yeah, that was what I was thinking too...
“Pope Joan” never existed and there is no evidence whatsoever that she did.
There are no bona fide documents from her - not a single one.
There are no contempory documents which attest to her.
There are no witnesses to her - not a single one.
Only liberals and bigots believe in the story.
An apt place for their "theories".
Replica of a marble commode used in the Vatican, Europe, 1601-1900
This is a copy of a commode used in the Vatican, the residence of the Pope, who is the leader of the Catholic Church. Underneath the commode, a chamber pot would have been placed and emptied after use. The item was bought from a private collection in 1932 by one of Henry Wellcomes collecting agents, Captain Peter Johnston-Saint.
Try again. From the article: a wooden chair with a hole in the seat which, it is claimed, was used for 600 years to establish the gender of would-be popes in the wake of the Pope Joan scandal.
If "Pope Joan" was elected Pope in 853, the deception uncovered three years later, and the chair not created/used until after the scandal, the Catholic apologist will have to produce a wooden commode that dates 856-1456.
What’s not a myth is the current practice of ordaining women, on purpose. But it’s not the Catholics who do this but rather the Protestants. You won’t see a sensationalized movie about it though.
This story is pure myth. The first of a female pope was by Jean de Mailly in the 13th century and he placed the event in 1099. There are no contemporary citations from the 9th or any other century. An amusing story but only ignorance or anti-Catholic bigotry would insist that it is true.
That should have read: “The first mention of a female pope ”
No “Pope Joan” was ever elected let alone in 853.
Pope Leo IV was already pope in 853 and continued as such until he died in 855.
Consider the source of the posting. 'Nuff said.
True, but the anti-Catholics' minds are made up - no use confusing them with facts...
Ping me when you talk about me.
But why? I've pinged you every time I've talked about you!
My grandparents had wooden commodes very similar to the marble item in your picture. Even after they got a bathroom in the house, the “thunderboxes” were kept in the basement for emergencies (such as 30 people in a 1-bath house during deer season).
I remember some years ago while I was working at the Archdiocese of Boston my boss (the Cabinet Secretary for Institutional Advancement) trying to convince an intern than “Pope Joan” existed.
I complained to Bishop Richard “Tricky Dick” Lennon’s office about what he was doing and was ignored......
But the total lack of evidence is, itself, evidence of the cunning effectiveness of the Vatican coverup! Also, everyone knows that prior to 856 there were no privies; people just, you know, squatted wherever and whenever the need arose.
Seriously, when did the Telegraph turn into the Weekly World News?
I complained to Bishop Richard Tricky Dick Lennons office about what he was doing and was ignored......
The same bishop who was moved over to the Cleveland Diocese!
Church closures anger ethnic enclaves
You know this how?
“You know this how?”
We have a number of documents and monuments attesting to Pope Leo’s life before election his as pope, his election, his reign and his death. No such records for Joan actually exist in anything like a time contemporary to her supposed reign. There are zero contemporary records about her life, her supposed election, her reign. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
By the way, yes, God the Father is a Person. Personhood is not dependent upon corporality. When we die - unless the resurrection has already happened - we will be in heaven (we all hope) and will only be souls at that point. We will still be persons.
Again, personhood is not dependent upon corporality. The Angels are persons. They are not corporal beings.
You never responded to that point last week. I thought I would post this to you for your convenience.
He who writes history gets to define it ..
If the church wanted to make a female pope disappear in those days they could easily do that
I do not believe in the papacy, and there are many questions on the order of popes as there are writings about the church having 2 popes at the same time .
But Church history would never admit it ..so who knows maybe there was a female pope.. I am under no obligation to take anything Rome says seriously .
In truth You do NOT KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT.you just choose to believe the churches history
Do you also not believe in the moon landing, wearing seatbelts, and the fact that the World Trade Center was hit by planes piloted by Moslems, not blown up by Jews in the basement?
The Papacy is a fact of history.
A History written by the catholic church at its foundation.. have there been popes..yea ..but there is no apostolic succession taught in the scripture and there was no papacy until Constantine 300 years after Christ...So they are just men that are elected to oversee a church.. I suspect many of them today are burning in hades
Although Catholic tradition, beginning in the late second and early third centuries, regards Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and, therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed, what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop.--Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, HarperSanFrancisco, 1997, p.25
The first of a female pope was by Jean de Mailly in the 13th century
Which Jean de Mailly was that ???
In the 13th century he would have had to be a Lombard or an AnaBaptist..
the Jean de Mailly of the 15th Century (born about 1485) was a Catholic...
as were the next 2 generations...
His great grandson Pierre was a Huguenot..he fled from France into the Netherlands after the St Bartholemew Day Massacre and named his son Caspar (Gaspard) in honor of Admiral Gaspard di Coligny, who was killed in 1572...
Caspar’s son, Pierre, changed the name to Mabille when he came to New Amsterdam...his name is among the 151 family names of the Huguenots who founded New Rochelle, NY in 1685 as Mabille..
By the next generation the name had been changed again to Mabie/Mabee/Mabe/Maby/etc
Yes the d’Mailly family were strong French Protestants...
But not in the 13th Century...
The mid-ninth century was one of the darkest parts of the Dark Ages - the Vikings were at the peak of their depredations in Northern Europe while seagoing Saracens were simultaneously overrunning the lightly defended area of Italy and the nearby islands. Spain was held by the Moors, the Balkans were under the rule of barbarian Bulgars and Serbs, and the Byzantine Empire was fighting a losing battle against the Saracens in Syria. Since people had strong doubts that there would be a next generation, record-keeping was not a high priority.
“He who writes history gets to define it ..”
Defining something doesn’t make its reality appear or disappear.
“If the church wanted to make a female pope disappear in those days they could easily do that”
Incorrect. The Church would have been absolutely powerless to make writings already written disappear from archives around the known world. Only someone who is either extremely ignorant about record keeping in the Middle Ages or who has paranoid delusions about the Church could think otherwise.
“I do not believe in the papacy, and there are many questions on the order of popes as there are writings about the church having 2 popes at the same time .”
There are NO QUESTIONS WHATSOEVER about the reign dates of Leo IV.
“But Church history would never admit it ..so who knows maybe there was a female pope.. I am under no obligation to take anything Rome says seriously .”
It isn’t Rome saying it - it’s EVERY reputable historian, every archive, and contemporary Greeks too. You’re up against hiostory itself.
“In truth You do NOT KNOW WITHOUT DOUBT.”
Yes, actually I do - if anything historical can be known without doubt then this well documented fact can be too.
“you just choose to believe the churches history”
I just choose to believe history.
for later reading
“Since people had strong doubts that there would be a next generation, record-keeping was not a high priority.”
And yet we have more than enough records to show that Leo IV was pope when supposedly Pope Joan was reigning. They records were in Rome, Frankish Gaul, Constantinople and numerous other places.
What is the BIG DEAL about a historical Pope Joan??? Why is the very thought that it could have happened so maligned, denied and people who accept its possibility so condemned? Some even go so far as to say it was a “Protestant” invention even though the reformation didn’t even happen until seven centuries later!
The story was she was so intelligent that she deceived even the bishops and cardinals who ordained her. It was a deception! They didn’t do it knowingly. She was the one who did wrong. There were other MALE popes who were guilty of far worse things. Methinks they doth protest too much!!!
None, unless you are interested in the truth.
Since the Papacy was the center of Western Christendom at the time, one of the few things known with certainty from that period was who was the Pope, when he entered office and when he died.
And if we're going to start "reasoning" that way, we can start talking about female popes in the ninth century, Martian popes in the eleventh, and popes from the planet Zeta Reticuli 7 in the fourteenth.
It's what's known to logicians as a "non-falsifiable theory". It's latching on to something while asserting that it's perfectly reasonable that there's no actual evidence for it.
What is the BIG DEAL about Chinese having landed on the moon on May 9thm, 1734? Why is the very thought that it could have happened so maligned, denied and people who accept its possibility so condemned?
Zeta Reticuli 5. Get your facts straight. ; )