Female pope; and 2 Popes running concurrently?

[Studens]

Interestingly enough, in this list you’ve cited, Robert, there is not only no John XX, but also no John XVI:

List of Popes - New Advent Article

The author of the article that Talitha originally posted made a big deal of the fact that there was no John XX, and that the absence of such a papal name over a two-century stretch seemed like a deliberate cooking of the books to confuse people. Well the absence of John XVI occurs over a seven-year stretch — hardly one we could reasonably expect to go unnoticed.

Now I don’t doubt the possibility that there could have been a female pope. People don’t usually go around checking the sex of people who seem to be a little borderline in that department, and as a result, lots of cases of mistaken gender have occurred throughout the histories of many human societies. But I do have a hard time believing that well-trained scholars poring over the list of popes in a deliberate attempt to erase one John without it catching public scrutiny would erase not one John but two, and have one such erasure occur in a span of just seven years and three popes (138 to 141), where anyone counting Johns would see it straightaway.

I think it’s much more likely that the absence of Johns XVI and XX is due to either some medieval tradition related to those two numbers (kind of like hotels without 13th floors), or some prominent antipope installing himself with that name, thus making it a bit unwise for the right pope to take the name thereafter.

I admit I do have some difficulty accepting arguments that include such silly claims as this one about the missing John XX. Especially when the publisher of the arguments seems to have an axe to grind — and I would guess that hypatia-lovers.com would have a whole barrelful of anti-Christian axes itching for the stone.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Talitha:

Please, go to Rome, as others seeking truth about these matters have.
My witness in this was unimpeachable and saw the records.

Name them. So far the best you have came up with is some shady source.

Talitha:

Even Rome is capable of error from that historical perspective.

Rome is not capable of error in the matter of faith and morals.

Talitha:

That should not perturb those of true faith

The true Faith is Catholicism – which never had a female Pope and never will have female ‘priests’, either.

Talitha:

It was of a different time when Rome was struggling for supremacy.

Rome has always had supremacy and definitely would not elect a female ‘Pope’ (Pope means papa which means father) when it was ‘struggling for supremacy’, as you say.

Talitha:

An interesting and humorous part of the Church’s history.

An interesting part that never happened.

Talitha:

The most interesting fact is that the female Pope episode was not even refuted by Rome for several centuries; part of their tradition was that it had to be recorded in archives which still exist even after their suppression.

Maybe it was never refuted because no one was ever serious about it?

All the evidence you’ve posted so far has been conjecture… nothing more, nothing less.

 

[thistle]

Its interesting that the two people attacking the Catholic Church here are the OP who gives no religion and he/she is supported by a Mormon (a false religion).
What does that say about such nonsensical claims!!

 

[Petergee]

BlestOne:

Did you all notice how much more the Pope Joan stories surfaced after the media tried to make the selection of the sucessor to JPII through the media? I laughed so hard when they reported it just like a political campaign…all the while plugging away for female priests and other liberal “reforms” It got so bad I found myself torn between yelling at the TV and laughing my butt off. Like, how did they think they would be able to influence a bunch of sequestered cardinals! What a waste of airtime!

My thoughts exactly. And even funnier when the even the most “respectable” mainstream media spouted all kinds of wild assertions about who was allied with whom in the conclave, and who was “winning” the conclave votes, about which the reporters could not possibly know anything. Not to mention the stories quite seriously canvassing the likelihood that they would elect a Pope who would promptly declare that contraception, sodomy, and even abortion, are not sinful, and that Catholics would therefore be obliged to believe this! But my personal favourite was the “expert” media opinion that the then Cd Ratzinger’s hard hitting speech against “moral relativism” just before the conclave was “an admission that he knows he can’t win”!

 

[Studens]

thistle:

he/she is supported by a Mormon (a false religion).
What does that say about such nonsensical claims!!

If you mean this about me, then it seems my post has been grossly misunderstood.

I was intending to point out some flaws in the article we were linked to in the original post, flaws that I think undermine its credibility.

So I don’t think you could say that I support the claims alluded to in the original post.

I do indeed support the original poster as a person, however, a person who should not be subjected to attack or scorn, regardless of his or her feelings about the idea of a Pope Joan.

 

[Mike_D30]

Studens:

If you mean this about me, then it seems my post has been grossly misunderstood.

I was intending to point out some flaws in the article we were linked to in the original post, flaws that I think undermine its credibility.

So I don’t think you could say that I support the claims alluded to in the original post.

I do indeed support the original poster as a person, however, a person who should not be subjected to attack or scorn, regardless of his or her feelings about the idea of a Pope Joan.

I agree that the poster should not be ridiculed, but to come here and say such faith damaging claims like they are common knowledge with no proof isn’t a very nice thing to do. It can hurt peoples faith unecesarily, it’s not right to make such claims like they 100% verifiable when they are anything but that. That poster deserves to be called out on the carpet to provide evidence (which is what I’ve seen here, not riducule and scorn).

As a Mormon would you appreciate someone going onto FAIR, and just stating “Joseph Smith was an occultic ritualist who ripped off Masonic rituals and duped the masses into believing these occult rituals were necesary to obtain salvation. I have ‘infallible’ proof to this, my friend saw it in the first presidents vault, good day everyone”…

Would that sit well with you or would require some evidence after such a slander?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Studens:

Interestingly enough, in this list you’ve cited, Robert, there is not only no John XX, but also no John XVI:

The author of the article that Talitha originally posted made a big deal of the fact that there was no John XX, and that the absence of such a papal name over a two-century stretch seemed like a deliberate cooking of the books to confuse people. Well the absence of John XVI occurs over a seven-year stretch — hardly one we could reasonably expect to go unnoticed.

Now I don’t doubt the possibility that there could have been a female pope. People don’t usually go around checking the sex of people who seem to be a little borderline in that department, and as a result, lots of cases of mistaken gender have occurred throughout the histories of many human societies. But I do have a hard time believing that well-trained scholars poring over the list of popes in a deliberate attempt to erase one John without it catching public scrutiny would erase not one John but two, and have one such erasure occur in a span of just seven years and three popes (138 to 141), where anyone counting Johns would see it straightaway.

I think it’s much more likely that the absence of Johns XVI and XX is due to either some medieval tradition related to those two numbers (kind of like hotels without 13th floors), or some prominent antipope installing himself with that name, thus making it a bit unwise for the right pope to take the name thereafter.

I admit I do have some difficulty accepting arguments that include such silly claims as this one about the missing John XX. Especially when the publisher of the arguments seems to have an axe to grind — and I would guess that hypatia-lovers.com would have a whole barrelful of anti-Christian axes itching for the stone.

Studens;

No great mystery at all, really…

Enthroned 985; d. April, 996. After John XIV had been removed by force, the usurper, Boniface VII, reigned eleven months, dying in July, 985. A Roman named John, the son of a Roman presbyter Leo, was then elected pope, and crowned between 6 August and 5 September, 985. A few later chroniclers (Marianus Scotus, Godfrey of Viterbo) and some papal catalogues give as the immediate successor of Boniface another John, son of Robert, who is supposed to have reigned four months, and is placed by a few historians in the list of popes as John XV. Although this alleged Pope John never existed, still the fact that he has been catalogued by these historians has thrown into disorder the numeration of the popes named John, the true John XV being often called John XVI.

The issue regarding the numeration of the “Johns” does not support the existence of a female pope. It’s a myth. It really is a myth.

Don’t you think that with all the scandals the church has weathered - including a handful of real scoundrels as popes, that if it were true that a woman obtained the titular head of the Church by fraud, that would be “copped” to by a later Pope like JPII. All of the credible historians who have looked at the issue come away with nominal - if any - historical support for the myth. The only reason the myth has staying power is that people with anti-catholic agendas give it life.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Studens:

If you mean this about me, then it seems my post has been grossly misunderstood.

I was intending to point out some flaws in the article we were linked to in the original post, flaws that I think undermine its credibility.

So I don’t think you could say that I support the claims alluded to in the original post.

I do indeed support the original poster as a person, however, a person who should not be subjected to attack or scorn, regardless of his or her feelings about the idea of a Pope Joan.

First, I don’t think that the articles are flawed in their reasoning. But I think, perhaps, the numeration of the popes was not clarified as it should have been. Then again, should the list take into consideration the myths of anti-catholics, or should it be true to history?

Second, I did not take away from your post the idea that you supported the myth, only that you thought the articles I linked to the thread did not entirely defeat the possibility of Talitha’s completely unsupported assertion. As you can see from the above post, I disagree - but I disagree in charity.

Finally, I agree with you that Talitha should be supported as a person who is entitled to her own opinions - just as I and others on this forum are persons who have the right to question those opinions and assert our own positions in response. I heartily endorse the notion that ad hominem attacks on these forums are improper. Those who engage in such conduct should be ashamed for their unchristian (and/or un-mormon if you prefer ) behavior.

(BTW, my brother is a practicing member of the LDS Church and he, too, is entitled to his own opinions. I still love him and support his right to his beliefs, but if he says something wrong about the Catholic Church you’d better believe I’m going to call him on it and I expect the same from him. In our discussions of the fundamentalist points of view, I often remind him - jokingly - that he may be a member of an “apostate religion”, but my Church is the “Whore of Babylon.” )

-Peace

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Actually reading the previous posts, I’m not seeing any significant ad hominems. I see plenty of savage attacks on her theories, but that is perfectly fair and to be reasonably expected.

Scott

 

[Studens]

Robert in SD:

Studens;

No great mystery at all, really…

Although this alleged Pope John never existed, still the fact that he has been catalogued by these historians has thrown into disorder the numeration of the popes named John, the true John XV being often called John XVI

.
The issue regarding the numeration of the “Johns” does not support the existence of a female pope. It’s a myth. It really is a myth.

This sort of thing is exactly the kind of thing I would expect as the cause for the missing John XVI, as well as the missing John XX. What I most definitely would not expect is that anyone went back to fix the records to erase a female pope and left not one missing John but two. That was my very point with my earlier post — the article puts so much stock on the missing John XX as evidence for the female pope, but ignores the much more glaring absence of John XVI. The absence of John XX might arguably have been caused by this kind of doctoring the records were it not for the fact that John XVI is also missing. But since John XVI is also missing, it seems pretty clear that no one went back to fix the records at all, and that John XXI did not take the name John XX for some reason like the one you have mentioned as the explanation for John XVI. The way I see it, the argument of that original article fails precisely because there is no John XVI. Do you see what I’m saying here?
Robert in SD:

Don’t you think that with all the scandals the church has weathered - including a handful of real scoundrels as popes, that if it were true that a woman obtained the titular head of the Church by fraud, that would be “copped” to by a later Pope like JPII. All of the credible historians who have looked at the issue come away with nominal - if any - historical support for the myth. The only reason the myth has staying power is that people with anti-catholic agendas give it life.

Now I don’t see why this story, whether it’s based on fact or not, would in any way weaken the credibility of the Catholic Church. The idea behind the story is that a woman deceived the College of Cardinals and was elected as pope. Then when the College of Cardinals found out about the deception, they declared the woman’s “papacy” null.

This seems just like the hypothetical situation in which a woman is married to another woman by deceiving her bride and her priest, convincing them both that she is in fact a man. When the bride comes to learn that her groom is actually a woman, she goes to the priest, and the “marriage” is declared null. It was never a legitimate marriage in the first place, because it was based on deception. Does the nullity of that marriage undo the priest’s authority? Of course not! It simply undoes the alleged “marriage”.

The same would hold true for the election of a female pope. If a woman were ever elected pope through deception, then when the cardinals found out about, they would undo her alleged “papacy”. Would that in any way diminish the authority of the College of the Cardinals? Of course not! It would only undo the crime of the deceptive woman.

So even if there ever was a female pope (and I don’t have enough evidence either way to form a good opinion on the topic), it does nothing whatsoever to weaken the authority of the Catholic Church. Nothing. Nothing at all.

Mike_D30:

I agree that the poster should not be ridiculed, but to come here and say such faith damaging claims like they are common knowledge with no proof isn’t a very nice thing to do. It can hurt peoples faith unecesarily, it’s not right to make such claims like they 100% verifiable when they are anything but that. That poster deserves to be called out on the carpet to provide evidence (which is what I’ve seen here, not riducule and scorn).

There have been many good requests for evidence. There has also been ridicule and scorn, and if you reread the thread honestly, you’ll see it.

Mike_D30:

As a Mormon would you appreciate someone going onto FAIR, and just stating “Joseph Smith was an occultic ritualist who ripped off Masonic rituals and duped the masses into believing these occult rituals were necesary to obtain salvation. I have ‘infallible’ proof to this, my friend saw it in the first presidents vault, good day everyone”…

I would appreciate it, as I always appreciate a good joke.

Mike_D30:

Would that sit well with you or would require some evidence after such a slander?

I wouldn’t personally feel a need to respond to such claims. The truth can defend itself, and no lie will be better off by my defending it.

But if someone were to say they had heard this thing and wanted to know what to make of it (which is how I read Talitha’s initial post in this thread), I might be inclined to give a more detailed response. But never a response that questioned the worth of any of the individuals involved — only that of the ideas.

 

[Mike_D30]

Studens:

There have been many good requests for evidence. There has also been ridicule and scorn, and if you reread the thread honestly, you’ll see it.

I already said any means to ridicule and scorn I don’t agree with

Studens:

I would appreciate it, as I always appreciate a good joke.

I doubt you would just rest on you laurels if someone made such claims.

Studens:

I wouldn’t personally feel a need to respond to such claims. The truth can defend itself, and no lie will be better off by my defending it.

That’s you, our religion demands we stand up for the faith, and counter any attacks on it. maybe that’s the disconnect.

Studens:

But if someone were to say they had heard this thing and wanted to know what to make of it (which is how I read Talitha’s initial post in this thread),

If you want to talk about reading the thread honestly perhaps you should read the first post, then second post of Talitha, many posters attempted to address the question until the second post where Talitha essentially claimed her initial inquiry as a FACT and that she had infallible proof. Then it was essentially an attack, and requests for her to provide such infallible proof are neither unwaranted, nor is taken offense to such an attack.

Studens:

I might be inclined to give a more detailed response. But never a response that questioned the worth of any of the individuals involved — only that of the ideas.

Kudos to you! Be mindful of Pride in thinking you are better than those who aren’t as “Christlike” as yourself. Pride is the worst sin, it’s what made the devil fall, and what every other sin is built on. The moment we begin to think we are better than others, is the moment we should cut ourselves down to size. I’m guilty of this at times when I see a homeless person, or dealing with an atheist, or even my friend who has a substance abuse problem and can’t hold a job, but it’s not something I am unaware of, or that I don’t repent of.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Talitha:

Please, go to Rome, as others seeking truth about these matters have.
My witness in this was unimpeachable and saw the records.

.

I went to Rome and was given complete access and searched for 21 days, 8 hours, 53 seconds and never came across the evidence even though I looked long and hard for it. Hmmmm! I quess your unimpeachable witness is wrong. Why not tell us who this witness is so I can go back and find where he found it!

Peace!

 

[Talitha]

Interesting posts.

My witness? One of my Sisters, a professed Nun who is in Italy; her research checked and endorsed by our Abbess. Both reputable; both utterly trustworthy.

One thing I have learned as an academic is that there are many “versions” or interpretations of history.

And I cannot see how these events, which I believe to be true, could weaken faith, or that they constitute an attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

It most certainly was not my intention to make such an attack. Nor do I think that what I wrote constitutes an attack.

No human being is perfect; and neither is any institution. The events exposed here in Ireland, of generations of child abuse, which the Bishops here covered up until they were forced by court orders to reveal their records, show that clearly and appallingly.

Ask google for the Ferns report.

Nor is mentioning this an attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

People make mistakes; so do institutions. . Respect and trust grow as does faith when there is total integrity and admission of mistakes.

 

[Mike_D30]

Talitha:

Interesting posts.

My witness? One of my Sisters, a professed Nun who is in Italy; her research checked and endorsed by our Abbess. Both reputable; both utterly trustworthy.

One thing I have learned as an academic is that there are many “versions” or interpretations of history.

And I cannot see how these events, which I believe to be true, could weaken faith, or that they constitute an attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

It most certainly was not my intention to make such an attack. Nor do I think that what I wrote constitutes an attack.

No human being is perfect; and neither is any institution. The events exposed here in Ireland, of generations of child abuse, which the Bishops here covered up until they were forced by court orders to reveal their records, show that clearly and appallingly.

Ask google for the Ferns report.

Nor is mentioning this an attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

People make mistakes; so do institutions. . Respect and trust grow as does faith when there is total integrity and admission of mistakes.

If you’re Catholic you have to know that a claim of two consecutive Popes, and a female Pope breaks the line from Peter to our current Pope and completely undermines out faith.

As a Catholic you have to be aware that this is a direct attack on our religion. Not just something comparable to the sex abuse scandal which is essentially tares amongst the wheat. But breaking the line of Popes destroys the Catholic faith rendering it completely worthless since it holds no keys and lineage to Peter i.e. no authority to the head of the Church Christ gave to Peter. If the Church has no authority, we’re all living a lie.

I’m sorry but saying you know a nun who came up with this is nonsense, bring some proof, some sort of verifiable evidence. Like I said investigative journalists would pay you millions for “infallible proof”, as their efforts have been in vain.

You original posted “I heard this rumor and I was really taken back by it, what do you guys think?”. Then it evolved into “I have infallible proof and know it’s true”. I’m sorry but I think your posts are very deceptive and definite attacks on the Church. And for people whose faith may be on the rocks posts like yours can be very damaging especially since you don’t corraborate anything. If you are a believer you have to be aware that what you are doing can be very effective in leading people away from Christ.

 

[Eden]

Why are you combining abuse scandals in Ireland with the fable of Pope Joan?

Do you think that credible news stories side by side with your fable make the fable true?

You continue to bear false witness against the Church in the name of “truth”.

www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm

PROOFS OF ITS MYTHICAL CHARACTER

The principal proofs of the entirely mythical character of the popess are:

1. Not one contemporaneous historical source among the papal histories knows anything about her; also, no mention is made of her until the middle of the thirteenth century. Now it is incredible that the appearance of a “popess”, if it was an historical fact, would be noticed by none of the numerous historians from the tenth to the thirteenth century.

2. In the history of the popes, there is no place where this legendary figure will fit in.

Between Leo IV and Benedict III, where Martinus Polonus places her, she cannot be inserted, because Leo IV died 17 July, 855, and immediately after his death Benedict III was elected by the clergy and people of Rome; but owing to the setting up of an antipope, in the person of the deposed Cardinal Anastasius, he was not consecrated until 29 September. Coins exist which bear both the image of Benedict III and of Emperor Lothair, who died 28 September, 855; therefore Benedict must have been recognized as pope before the last-mentioned date. On 7 October, 855, Benedict III issued a charter for the Abbey of Corvey. Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, informed Nicholas I that a messenger whom he had sent to Leo IV learned on his way of the death of this pope, and therefore handed his petition to Benedict III, who decided it (Hincmar, ep. xl in P.L., CXXXVI, 85). All these witnesses prove the correctness of the dates given in the lives of Leo IV and Benedict III, and there was no interregnum between these two popes, so that at this place there is no room for the alleged popess. Further, is is even less probable that a popess could be inserted in the list of popes about 1100, between Victor III (1087) and Urban II (1088-99) or Paschal II (1099-1110), as is suggested by the chronicle of Jean de Mailly.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

thistle:

Its interesting that the two people attacking the Catholic Church here are the OP who gives no religion and he/she is supported by a Mormon (a false religion).
What does that say about such nonsensical claims!!

Scott;

The above statement is an ad hominem attack. The point being made is that the positions of the two individuals are less credible than the Catholic position only because (a) one person states no religious affiliation; and (2) one person is a mormon. There is no attempt to address the fallacy in the argument, only an attack upon the two persons. This sort of comment does not advance the Catholic argument against the Pope Joan myth. It only tears down other persons for being non-Catholic.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Talitha:

Interesting posts.

My witness? One of my Sisters, a professed Nun who is in Italy; her research checked and endorsed by our Abbess. Both reputable; both utterly trustworthy.

One thing I have learned as an academic is that there are many “versions” or interpretations of history.

And I cannot see how these events, which I believe to be true, could weaken faith, or that they constitute an attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

It most certainly was not my intention to make such an attack. Nor do I think that what I wrote constitutes an attack.

No human being is perfect; and neither is any institution. The events exposed here in Ireland, of generations of child abuse, which the Bishops here covered up until they were forced by court orders to reveal their records, show that clearly and appallingly.

Ask google for the Ferns report.

Nor is mentioning this an attack on the Roman Catholic Church.

People make mistakes; so do institutions. . Respect and trust grow as does faith when there is total integrity and admission of mistakes.

With all due respect to your sister and her Abbess, assertions coming from some quarters of religious life is far from Orthodox and any claims by them has to be verified.

All we have from you is that they are reputable; and both utterly trustworthy. which is an assertian which in itself has to be verified.

Pax

Brian

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Robert in SD:

Scott;

The above statement is an ad hominem attack. The point being made is that the positions of the two individuals are less credible than the Catholic position only because (a) one person states no religious affiliation; and (2) one person is a mormon. There is no attempt to address the fallacy in the argument, only an attack upon the two persons. This sort of comment does not advance the Catholic argument against the Pope Joan myth. It only tears down other persons for being non-Catholic.

Yes, and you will note that I didn’t say there were NO ad hominems, just that there were no significant ad hominems. One could easily dismiss this one as usesless net chatter that doesn’t warrant a response or getting in a wad. Also, note that none of the op’s opponents piled on this comment. Every other post has been perfectly acceptable. ONE person throws in a wicked one-liner and for some reason that means all of us are to be subjected to an ad hominem lecture. Report an ad hominem to the mods.

Scott

 

[Studens]

Robert in SD:

First, I don’t think that the articles are flawed in their reasoning. . . .

Second, I did not take away from your post the idea that you supported the myth, only that you thought the articles I linked to the thread did not entirely defeat the possibility of Talitha’s completely unsupported assertion. . . .

I guess I still wasn’t clear enough. I was trying to point out the flaws in this article:
hypatia-lovers.com/AncientWays/section15.html
This is the article we were linked to in the original post.
Robert in SD:

I heartily endorse the notion that ad hominem attacks on these forums are improper.

I’m glad others feel the same way about this.
Robert in SD:

Those who engage in such conduct should be ashamed for their unchristian (and/or un-mormon if you prefer ) behavior.

I consider anyone Christian who believes that Jesus is God. That includes Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, and many many others. So I would not prefer unMormon instead of unChristian — but I do thank you for making me feel welcome.

Mike_D30:

I doubt you would just rest on you laurels if someone made such claims.

Not my laurels!

Mike_D30:

our religion demands we stand up for the faith, and counter any attacks on it. maybe that’s the disconnect.

That may well be the source of the disconnect, as you say.

Mike_D30:

you should read the first post, then second post of Talitha,

Until her more recent post, I could see another possible reading of these posts.

Mike_D30:

Be mindful of Pride in thinking you are better than those who aren’t as “Christlike” as yourself.

Thank you for the reminder.

 

[Tom]

Talitha:

My witness? One of my Sisters, a professed Nun who is in Italy; her research checked and endorsed by our Abbess. Both reputable; both utterly trustworthy.

I take it you are a Nun of the Catholic Church? Not trying to be nit-picky, just trying to learn, what exactly is a “professed Nun”? What order is your “Abbess”? Additionally, your sister, sister and Abbess may be utterly trustworthy, I’m not questioning them personally, I’m questioning their source, since we don’t know what it is.