Pope Donus ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter corrgc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

corrgc

Guest
I read this on a Protestant web site. Can anyone shed some light on the validity of this statement ?

In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed “the little man who never was.” Poor “pope” Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its “unbroken line” - its glorious “Title Deed.” Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six “popes,” and removed the “sainthood” of four others!

Thanks!
 
I found it as well on the new advent

newadvent.org/cathen/05133a.htm

elected Pope in 676 was Pope for one year 5 months and 10 days.

There are many errors when a protestant tells you something about your own Church and its beliefs.

I was recently told that we had a female Pope, but after much research I found that this Pope was rummored to be a female, but instead it was a young man, and it was a rumor that got started outside of our Church, and people took that rumor for the truth even today.

Do you have the website that claims such a thing?

I know there was one time in history that there were two men claiming to be Pope, but the Church has always stated that one of them was and the other was simply not, again the protestant circles fully believe that at one time we had two popes.
 
40.png
Ghosty:
Even today there are multiple people claiming to be Pope. 🙂

popemichael.homestead.com/
Click to expand...
Wow. I don’t know how to respond to that. That is crazy.
 
John Paul III:
I found it as well on the new advent

newadvent.org/cathen/05133a.htm

elected Pope in 676 was Pope for one year 5 months and 10 days.

There are many errors when a protestant tells you something about your own Church and its beliefs.
Click to expand...

This time, the Protestant is correct.​

I was recently told that we had a female Pope, but after much research I found that this Pope was rummored to be a female, but instead it was a young man, and it was a rumor that got started outside of our Church, and people took that rumor for the truth even today.
Click to expand...

That old story goes back at least as far as the Dominican chronicler Martin of Poland in 1261 (in case anyone thinks it’s a Protestant invention).​

Do you have the website that claims such a thing?

I know there was one time in history that there were two men claiming to be Pope, but the Church has always stated that one of them was and the other was simply not, again the protestant circles fully believe that at one time we had two popes.
Click to expand...

The list in the Catholic Encyclopedia is from before 1947 when the list was corrected; it has clearly adopted some corrections, including the elimination of “Donus II” from the list for 973 or 974. It can be found in the Catholic Almanack, with the notes. The Haydock Bible of 1812-14 includes both Donuses, in 676, and 973. The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967, vol. 4 page 1010, “Donus”, mentions the phantom Donus.​

There used to be two Popes Donus; & one was indeed removed: not the real one, of 676; but a phantom Donus, thought to be Pope in 973: which was a rather confused year, because the validity of some of the Popes of that time was uncertain in any case. Probably a second Donus was made out of an abbreviation for domi]nus, which is the title “lord”, regularly in use for high-ranking churchmen. The original “do’nus” would then be a title of one of the other Popes of the time. Take away the mark over the abbreviated word that shows it is an abbreviation - and one has a new name of a Pope in the list. Add the number, to keep the list straight - and you have a ready-made Donus II.

The same kind of thing has lead to doubts about Saints: the eleven thousand martyred virgins of Cologne probably began as XI MM VV - “Eleven martyrs, virgins” and became XI M VV - 11000 Virgins (already known to be martyrs).

As for the three claimants to the Papacy (three, after 1410) - the two who were not Gregory XII in Rome are regarded as having been “Popes in their obediences” - that is, their acts are valid for the areas which acknowledged their legitimacy. Gregory resigned in 1417 at the Council of Constance; John XXIII was deposed; and I forget who the other was. The whole thing is hideously complicated. Martin V was elected at the Council - and things have been (more or less) plane sailing ever since. ##
 
If the information given below by Gottle (?) is accurate, then it means a simple thing as the list of Pope’s may be inaccurate. What does this say about the rest of Church history ? What about the Church Fathers ? Could it be that they were “phatoms” as well ?

CORRGC

Gottle of Geer said:
## This time, the Protestant is correct. ##

The list in the Catholic Encyclopedia is from before 1947 when the list was corrected; it has clearly adopted some corrections, including the elimination of “Donus II” from the list for 973 or 974. It can be found in the Catholic Almanack, with the notes. The Haydock Bible of 1812-14 includes both Donuses, in 676, and 973. The New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967, vol. 4 page 1010, “Donus”, mentions the phantom Donus.​

There used to be two Popes Donus; & one was indeed removed: not the real one, of 676; but a phantom Donus, thought to be Pope in 973: which was a rather confused year, because the validity of some of the Popes of that time was uncertain in any case. Probably a second Donus was made out of an abbreviation for domi]nus, which is the title “lord”, regularly in use for high-ranking churchmen. The original “do’nus” would then be a title of one of the other Popes of the time. Take away the mark over the abbreviated word that shows it is an abbreviation - and one has a new name of a Pope in the list. Add the number, to keep the list straight - and you have a ready-made Donus II.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
corrgc:
If the information given below by Gottle (?) is accurate, then it means a simple thing as the list of Pope’s may be inaccurate. What does this say about the rest of Church history ?
Click to expand...

Nothing whatever​

What about the Church Fathers ? Could it be that they were “phatoms” as well ?

CORRGC
Click to expand...

No need to worry 🙂​

Because not all problems are of the same kind. It does not follow, that because a pope was a phantom in the way described, every thing else in Church history is utterly unreliable. That’s like supposing that the Parthenon is not made of marble, because there are flecks of sandstone in it.

Listing Popes is not as simple as it looks - the resulting list is simple, sure: but behind that simple list lie centuries of theology, canon law, history, politics, manuscripts, printing, scribal conventions for reading words, and so on. In texts written by fallible human beings, mistakes will occur - whether the text be that of a gospel, a list of bishops of Rome, or a shopping list.

Printed texts of the Bible, of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church also come from a great mass of work of that kind. So do a lot of books. But why should that be worrisome ?

To deal with problems, we should use our intellects - not our imaginations. A manuscript error in an edition of a work by St. Augustine, does not make every thing he wrote worthless or dubious: it is a single error, and should be accounted for as such - we must not draw far-reaching conclusions from one blunder, but deal with each as it comes: that is why scholarship is so necessary in the Church. ##
 
We should also remember that it wasn’t exactly a long period of time that this “phantom” Pope occupied the See of Rome. In fact, according to the updated lists they do seem to know the actual name of the guy who was Pope for the whole year of 973, so I’m not sure how the older lists appeared. It seems like a very, very minor hiccup in record-keeping, and one that doesn’t even change the list very much, and doesn’t at all interupt the Succession.

It should also be remembered that there’s no completely official listing of Popes, so it’s not a matter of Divine teaching authority either.

Peace and God bless!
 
40.png
corrgc:
I read this on a Protestant web site. Can anyone shed some light on the validity of this statement ?

In 1947, the Vatican made changes regarding 74 popes. It removed “the little man who never was.” Poor “pope” Donus had been listed as a pope in 973. But in 1947 the Vatican dropped him from its “unbroken line” - its glorious “Title Deed.” Why? Because they found he had never even existed! In addition, the Vatican dropped six “popes,” and removed the “sainthood” of four others!

Thanks!
Click to expand...

The source of that report appears to be: jesus-is-lord.com/unbroken.htm​

The Roman Catholic church claims it has an “Unbroken List of Popes from Peter to Today.” It calls this List “the Title Deed of the Roman Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...

Popular apologists may have said so - no Catholic historian would (one hopes) be so silly. The CC derives its stability from Christ, which is a theological fact: not one of history - so it does not derive its stability from historical sources, however good. Historical documentation is a witness to faith, but it can’t possibly take its place. The answer to mediocre instruction in the Church’s history, is good instruction in it, and good research: it is because the Church should never be afraid of the past that scholars study the history of devotion to Saints, in exhaustive detail.​

A Jan. 18, 1947 news report from the Vatican states that “Pope Donus” was found to be “a person who never existed!” In addition, designation of sainthood was removed from Felix II, Liberius, Anastasio, Stephen III, Stephen V! And poor, deluded, unsuspecting Roman Catholic people had been praying to these non-existent “saints” for centruies with the official approval of the same Roman Catholic Church that now says it was all a mistake! What a horrible fraud!
Click to expand...

  • Felix II - there are several Felices: the one intended is probably the one who was intruded into the see of Rome in 355, after the arrest and deportation of Liberius. IOW, “Felix II” was technically an anti-pope. He died at some date after 365. In due course, he was confused with a Felix who was a martyr, and was treated liturgically as a Pope and martyr.​

  • Liberius - it is mildly surprising to find him listed as a Saint: this may have been the result of the fact that all his predecessors are traditionally regarded as such, and so were many of his immediate successors. His own status as a Saint may be the result of a copyist’s error.
  • Anastasius - which one is meant ? Anastasius II (496-8) ?
  • Stephen V - was regarded as a Saint in some parts of Italy: it may have been lack of universal and early regard as one that explains his loss of status.
There is no fraud here; a fraud and a mistake are entirely different things. All in Heaven are saints, no matter what they were on earth; indeed, all Christians are saints, as belonging to Christ the King of Saints.

These listings as Saints were recorded in the Roman Martyrology. The first edition of this was published in 1584, and used older collections of lists, of varying value. They in turn relied upon documents of which some may have been lists not of feast-days of departed bishops, but lists of their dates of death. If this is what is behind the listing of almost all the Roman bishops of the first 500 years as Saints, the confusion between the two types of document would be very natural. Some, such as Symmachus (498-514), were not thought of as Saints until centuries after their deaths. ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top