...."Pope Joan is a myth and no serious scholar today believes the story to be true. It was first claimed in the 13th century by Jean de Mailly, a Dominican chronicler, that a woman in male disguise succeeded Pope Leo IV in 855," said Holt. "After reigning for two years she gave birth to a child and died soon thereafter. Although many medieval Christians believed in this myth, there is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the story"....
people love myths over reality, especially leftists who live in lala land anyways
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I saw a program several years ago that showed there is a shrine in Rome at the spot where this fictional Pope Joan died.
People still leave flowers there.
It also looks attractive as a cudgel with which the feminists can beat the Catholic Church.
Meanwhile, America’s first female pontiff, Pope Pooftus XVIV, already has broken a number barriers.
Heh, Pope Joan again. Nothing like a fictional woman with a title that means “Father” . . .
**”Pope Joan is a myth and no serious scholar today believes the story to be true.**
NO, there has never been a female Pope. Your post has the proof.
(Except in San FranSicko)
As much as the left would like to believe there was, there is no evidence that a female pope ever existed.
The gay feminists are busy bees.
No, but the Anglican Church had a female head, like two or three times.
This last female head just endorsed gay marriage.
There was a TV show about that last year. I tried watching it, but it got boring.
“Legend has it that in the ninth century the Roman Catholic Church was ruled briefly by a “Pope Joan,” who disguised herself as a man,...”
Legend has it that Mr. Big Foot was seen in Central Park, too...
Interesting that a legend such as there being a woman pope is more scandalous than warring factions of religious orders within the Roman Catholic Church over one groups' principles about the ownership of property. Those that believed the orders should not be about amassing wealth were threatened with execution - and some WERE executed - if they refused to approve the Church's building of its temporal fortune. Somehow, I think the Franciscans had it right. Maybe the new Pope Francis will carry on that tradition. It appears he has already made public his eschewing of the finery, pomp and frills. (Think he might have read Free Republic when we were talking about this?)
There's that extraterrestrial, "some" again. Maybe we should pronounce it so-may to make it sound more authoritative, when the "some" is always characterized by the subculture of the "sexual perversion" description.
I don’t see why anyone even cares...
Papal history is full of stuff like this.
“Otto I subsequently summoned a council which demanded that John present himself and defend himself against a number of charges. John responded by threatening to excommunicate anyone who attempted to depose him. Undeterred, the emperor and the council uncanonically deposed John XII, who by this time had gone hunting in the mountains of Campania, and elected Pope Leo VIII in his stead.”
“Edward Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire, (Harvard University Press, 2009), 150.”
[Otto I] didn’t like what Pope John XII was doing so he deposed him and put in his own Pope, Leo VIII. Doh!
So why all the denial? Pope Joan is pretty small potatoes compared to all the other little “oopsies” with which the Catholic Church has to contend.