Pope Joan film sparks Roman Catholic Church row

The Telegraph ^ | 20 Jun 2010 | Nick Squires

[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

[RnMomof7]

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.

You know this how?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You know this how?”

Simple.

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.

[vladimir998]

Catholic Encyclopedia Pope St. Leo IV (Reigned 847-55) A Roman and the son of Radoald, was unanimously elected to succeed Sergius II, and as the alarming attack of the Saracens on Rome in 846 caused the people to fear for the safety of the city, he was consecrated (10 April, 847) without the consent of the emperor. Leo received his early education at Rome in the monastery of St. Martin, near St. Peter's. His pious behaviour attracted the notice of Gregory IV, who made him a subdeacon; and he was created Cardinal-Priest of the church of the Quatuor Coronati by Sergius II. As soon as Leo, much against his will, became pope, he began to take precautions against a repetition of the Saracen raid of 846. He put the walls of the city into a thorough state of repair, entirely rebuilding fifteen of the great towers. He was the first to enclose the Vatican hill by a wall. To do this, he received money from the emperor, and help from all the cities and agricultural colonies (domus cultae) of the Duchy of Rome. The work took him four years to accomplish, and the newly fortified portion was called the Leonine City, after him. In 852 the fortifications were completed, and were blessed by the pope with great solemnity. Whilst the work of refortifying the city was in progress, a great fleet of the Saracens sailed for Rome, seemingly from Sardinia, but it was completely destroyed off Ostia by the allied fleets of Rome, Naples, Amalfi, and Gaeta, and by a tempest (849). When the rebuilding of the walls of Rome was accomplished, Leo rebuilt Portus, and handed it over to a number of Corsican exiles, whom the ravages of the Saracens had driven from their homes. Other cities too in the Roman duchy were fortified, either by the pope himself or in consequence of his exhortations. Leo also endeavoured to make good the damage which the Saracen raid of 846 had done to the different churches. St. Peter's had suffered very severely, and though as a whole it never again reached its former magnificence, Leo managed to make it in parts at least more beautiful than it had been before. St. Martin's, where he had been educated, the Quatuor Coronati, of which he had been the priest, the Lateran Palace, the Anglo-Saxon Borgo, Subiaco, and many other places both in Rome and out of it were renovated by the energetic Leo. It was by this pope that the church of S. Maria Nova was built, to replace S. Maria Antiqua, which the decaying Palace of the Caesars threatened to engulf, and of which the ruins have recently been brought to light. In 850 Leo associated with Lothair in the empire his son Louis, by imposing on him the imperial crown. Three years later "he hallowed the child Alfred to king [says an old English historian] by anointing; and receiving him for his own child by adoption, gave him confirmation, and sent him back [to England] with the blessing of St. Peter the Apostle." The same year (853) he held an important synod in Rome, in which various decrees were passed for the furtherance of ecclesiastical discipline and learning, and for the condemnation of the refractory Anastasius, Cardinal of St. Marcellus, and sometime librarian of the Roman Church. Equally rebellious conduct on the part of John, Archbishop of Ravenna, forced Leo to undertake a journey to that city to inspire John and his accomplices with respect for the law. It was while engaged in endeavouring to inspire another archbishop, Hincmar of Reims, with this same reverence, that Leo died. Another man who, till his death (851), defied the authority of the pope was Nomenoe, Duke of Brittany. Anxious to be independent of the imperial authority Nomenoe, in defiance both of Leo and Charles the Bald, not only deposed a number of bishops, but made new ones, and subjected them to a metropolitan see (Dol) of his own creation. It was not till the thirteenth century that the Archbishop of Tours recovered his jurisdiction over the Breton bishops. For consecrating a bishop outside his own diocese, St. Methodius, Patriarch of Constantinople, had suspended Gregory Asbestas, Bishop of Syracuse. St. Ignatius, who succeeded St. Methodius, in consequence forbade Gregory to be present at his consecration. This led Gregory to break all bounds. St. Ignatius accordingly caused him to be deposed, and begged the pope to confirm the deposition. This, however, Leo would not do, because, as he said, Ignatius had assembled bishops and deposed others without his knowledge, whereas he ought not to have done so "in the absence of our legates or of letters from us". Despite the fact that Leo was then in opposition to the Patriarch of Constantinople, one of his dependents, Daniel, a magister militum, accused him to the Frankish Emperor Louis of wishing to overthrow the domination of the Franks by a Greek alliance. Leo had, however, no difficulty in convincing Louis that the charge was absolutely groundless. Daniel was condemned to death and only escaped it by the intercession of the emperor. Shortly after this Leo died, and was buried in St. Peter's (17 July, 855). He is credited with being a worker of miracles both by his biographer and by the Patriarch Photius. His name is found in the Roman Martyrology. Sources Liber Pontificalis, ed. DUCHESNE, II, 106 sq.; his letters in P.L., CXV, CXXIX; the letters of Hincmar in P.L., CXXVI; the annals of Hincmar etc. Mon. Germ. Hist.: Script., I; Life of St. Ignatius and other documents in LABBE, Concilia, VIII; cf. LANCIANI, The Destruction of Ancient Rome (London, 1901), 132 sq.; THURSTON, The Roman Sacring of King Alfred in The Month (Oct., 1901); FORTESCUE, The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), 136 sq.; DE BROLO, Storia della Chiesa in Sicilia (Palermo, 1884), II, 265 sq.; MANN, Lives of the Popes, II (London, 1902), 258 sqq. About this page APA citation. Mann, H. (1910). Pope St. Leo IV. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved June 21, 2010 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09159a.htm MLA citation. Mann, Horace. "Pope St. Leo IV." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 21 Jun. 2010 . Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Herman F. Holbrook. "Prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for Peter." Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York. Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

[RnMomof7]

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

[Tax-chick]

I do not believe in the papacy

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.

[RnMomof7]

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

[Tax-chick]

Unexpected!

[Tennessee Nana]

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...

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

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.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“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.

[HungarianGypsy]

for later reading

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“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.

[boatbums]

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!!!

[Petrosius]

What is the BIG DEAL about a historical Pope Joan???

None, unless you are interested in the truth.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

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.

[Campion]

If the church wanted to make a female pope disappear in those days they could easily do that

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.

[Cronos]

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?

[Petrosius]

Zeta Reticuli 5. Get your facts straight. ; )