According to legend, Pope Joan was a woman who concealed her gender and ruled as pope for two years, from 853-855
ce. Her identity was exposed when, riding one day from St. Peter's to the Lateran, she stopped by the side of the road and, to the astonishment of everyone, gave birth to a child.
The legend is unconfirmed. Skeptics note that the first references to Pope Joan only appear hundreds of years after her supposed reign. However, supporters argue that the Church may have attempted to erase all evidence of her existence from the historical record.
Who Was Pope Joan?
Pope Joan was said to have been born an Englishwoman. She concealed her gender to pursue her scholarly ambitions -- the life of a scholar not being allowed to a woman at that time. Calling herself John Anglicus, she travelled to Athens where she gained a reputation for her knowledge of the sciences. Eventually she came to lecture at the Trivium in Rome where her fame grew even larger. Still disguised as a man, she became a Cardinal, and when Pope Leo IV died in 853
ad was unanimously elected pope.
As Pope John VIII she ruled for two years. However, while riding one day from St. Peter's to the Lateran, she had to stop by the side of the road and supposedly gave birth to a child. According to one legend, upon discovering the Pope's true gender, the people of Rome tied her feet together and dragged her behind a horse while stoning her, until she died. Another legend has it that she was sent to a faraway convent to repent her sins and that the child she bore grew up to become the Bishop of Ostia.
True or False?
It is not known whether the story of Pope Joan is true. The first known reference to her occurs in the thirteenth century, 350 years after her supposed reign. Around this time her image also began to appear as the High Priestess card in the Tarot deck.
The Catholic Church at first seemed to accept the reality of Pope Joan. Marginal notes in a fifteenth century document refer to a statue called "The Woman Pope with Her Child" that was supposedly erected near the Lateran. There was also a rumor that, as a result of Pope Joan, for many years the chairs used during papal consecrations had holes in their seats, so that an official check of the pope's gender could be performed.
During the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the Catholic Church began to deny the existence of Pope Joan. However, at the same time, Protestant writers insisted on her reality, primarily because the existence of a female pope was a convenient piece of anti-Catholic propaganda.
Modern scholars disagree about the historicity of Pope Joan.
Pope Joan Haiku (submitted by Hoax Museum visitors)
My girlfriend thinks she's
always right — infallible —
just because she's Pope.
(by AB)
|
Oh what a surprise!
Pope is different to most
John is really Joan
(by sharruma)
|
Powerful priestess,
who ruled in guise of a man,
birth was your downfall
(by psyche_ky)
|
Is Pope Joan laughing?
Rebirth to all is sacred;
Birth to one is sin.
(by rhia)
|
Accepted as man
Proving more than mere Pope
A lady unknown
(by Cameo Shavell)
|
One question remains,
Enquiring minds must know:
Who is the father?
(by Brad)
|
Mother of one child -
Leading millions of faithful
-
Which is the harder?
(by Lynsioux)
|
Courageous woman!
Procreates as Cath'lics must.
Impugned. . . . Pope no more!
(by Hope De Cleene)
|
That's how it was then
Woman was door to hell
unless nun Or Mum
(by sara)
|
Joan the Antipope
Could not have made true bishops
or binding statements.
(by Dano)
|
Pope Joan is a myth,
perpetuated by fools,
and anti-Cath'lics.
(by Joseph Earnest)
|
What a story
so full of interesting lore
idiots bicker forevermore.
(by Jeff Hoaxworthy)
|
John was no angel
Quickly nursery plans were made
Plan B needed here!
(by #1F)
|
Pope Joan, beauty queen
as vibrant as a rainbow
always in our hearts
(by Imogen bowers)
|
Pope Joan, what a gal
was she real or was she not?
don't fight about it
(by Imogen 'the ripper' Bowers)
|
|
Links and References
- Stanford, Peter. (1998). The Legend of Pope Joan. Henry Holt and Company. New York.
Comments
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm
Actually, the first scholarly debunking of the Pope Joan myth came from Protestant scholars in the 17th century, who already realized then that this bit of propaganda was a dead end. Of course, judging from some of the responses here, they weren't heeded. So much for blaming it on Protestants, when Protestants themselves were one of those who helped the Church debunk the myth.
"However, Popess Joan was already mentioned in a chronical written a long time before the reformation."
Yes, a chronicle written by the Middle-Age equivalent of a New York gossip sensationalist columnist. He was spinning a yarn, and even then, his chronicle makes some obvious historical lapses. If this is the standard by which we will believe history, then there is a tale of alien landings in Roswell I'd like you to do a dissertation on.
Sometimes, the historical smoke comes from a historical arsonist.
"It has piqued my curiosity ro find out more. Church history seems to skip over many things and perhaps Joan was among the missing."
Not enough of a gap to effectively justify a conspiracy theory, much less an actual verifiable theory, on a Papissa.
Now for some points to consider:
Not one contemporaneous historical source among the papal histories mentions anything about her; also, no mention is made of her until the middle of the thirteenth century even though there is a mountain of historical documents of the time period, some of which openly speak out against the Church. Now it is incredible that the appearance of a "popess", if it was an historical fact, would not be noticed by any of the numerous historians from the tenth to the thirteenth century. In the history of the popes, there is no place where this legendary figure fits in. In his writing, Martinus Polonus, places her between Leo IV and Benedict III, but she cannot be inserted there, 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 written charter, which still exists, 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.
Which is not to disclude the possility that any number of factions (not necessarily Protestant -- this was a time when the Holy Roman Empire named and burned heretics over not mcuh more than a misspelling) might have gotten a huge boot out of promulgating the most scandalous story they could think of -- that the HRE had actually been led for a (brief) time by a stinking, lustful WOMAN!!!
Me, I'm a newbie to the research, but in thanks for an interesting discussion, here's my haiku:
Is Pope Joan laughing?
Rebirh to all is sacred;
Birth to one is sin.
More importantly, the very idea of "Pope" Joan is impossible- "Antipope", perhaps, but not "Pope". For a woman to be a Pope is a metaphysical impossibility- the prohibition on a woman holding the position isn't just a matter of administration, it's considered a fixed reality, akin to the law of gravity. Even if the entire college of cardinals voted today to establish a woman as "Pope", she could never hold the position, by the mere fact of being a woman. If a woman claimed to be Pope, or was claimed to be a Pope by others, the best she could do is "Antipope"- a false Pope.
Yes, it's possible that people could have mistaken a woman for a man, but upon discovery of said "Pope"'s true gender, the Church would have immediately declared the entire Papal reign invalid! No such action was ever documented to have occured because a "Pope" was revealed to have been a woman. There HAVE been Papal reigns declared invalid, for various reasons, but all of those are well-documented and highly public cases.
There's also no explanation for why this story didn't seem to cause any sort of stir until hundreds of years after it allegedly took place. The revelation of a female "Pope" would have caused an unprecedented theolical mess. If she had "ordained" any bishops, their ordinations would have become invalid, and any pronouncements she had made would have been rescinded. The simple fact is that such changes could not have avoided major documentation. Far from attempting to "hide" or "cover up" Antipope Joan, the Church would have been forced to bring it into the open and deal with the major problems created by it.
Even if you accept the (preposterous) legend as true, the idea that there ever was a "Pope" Joan is manifestly false. The best we could possibly do is Antipope Joan, and there's no evidence of that.
Anyway, just to restate my main point, the Church has always acknowledged the existence of Antipopes, because their "reigns" cause severe problems if they go unaddressed. I don't see why Antipope Joan would be any different. If someone like Joan existed, the problems of not addressing her existence would be far, far greater than the problems that might be caused by addressing it. An invalid Papal reign is not a matter that can be swept under the table, even if some parties might want to do so.
lubwama
The evidence is shaky, sure, but that's why Joan is so interesting. The evidence I've seen is as follows.
The discrepancies in timelines given may well be unavoidable, as we do not have a full historical record.
The Catholic Church is known for cover-ups and denials of both historic people and events, as well as revising the facts to suit their purposes. [This is how the Burning Times happened. Midwives and healers were no longer respectable people, but deemed witches who consort with the Devil, all on the say-so of the Church.]
These facts bring me to one conclusion: if indeed there was a Pope Joan, the Church is likely to have spread all kinds of disinformation, and eradicated her from all records. At that point, they could take the official "She never existed" position, and point to their revised records and say that she's just a myth. The evidence is inconclusive either way.
Until history proves me wrong, I believe she was real.
I think, fictional or not, she still provides a fine example of a strong woman; she went against society in a time when women were little more than property.
This statement betrays a knowledge of history based on reading sources about as credible as "Chariots of the Gods". Try finding reliably researched historical evidence for your claims, and try finding rational defenses for your bizarre suspicion of Vatican documents.
First, a reputable source on the so-called "Burning Times":
"The figure Starhawk cited
This is modernist theological claptrap from progressive Catholic groups who want to get ordination for women. There were never any women Bishops (such a thing is metaphysically impossible, for one thing, but whatever you may think of the practice, that is neither here nor there). The title "Bishopess"- of which I have only personally seen ONE example, though a precious few others may have existed- was purely an honorific title that mirrored a secular practice of giving mothers of men in high status the same titles as their sons- for example, an Emperor's mother might be called "Empress", just as a bishops mother was called "Bishopess".
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=450315&language=en
The other example I can think of is the tale of St. Brigid being "ordained" a bishop. Aside from the fact that in the tale presented, there are many reasons (aside from her being a woman) that would have rendered such an ordination invalid (no proper intent, for one thing), there is also no evidence that she ever performed any Episcopal duties. Finally, anyone familiar with the tales of the Irish saints knows quite well that they are often wildly absurd and utterly without basis in fact- great tales, but many of them aren't true.
-
-
-
Yes, this is about the level of scholarship we have in support of the Pope Joan myth. Because scholars cannot pin down every single year of every single Papal reign or prove beyond a doubt that every Pope was who he said he was, you are therefore entitled to believe in a preposterous and totally undocumented story with no basis in any know facts or a logical interpretation of history. Bravo.
And an old lady who gives birth (without modern treatments), you think it's possible?
Me i think no, it's a Hoax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan#Analysis_and_critique
Dick also pointed out the different versions vary too much be credible. Did she live in the 9th, 11th or 12th century? Was she revealed shortly after being elected or did she rule for a couple of years? Was she lynched or not? Variations of such important parts indicate there being no foundation on fact whatsoever.
However, even if there had been a Pope Joan, it would not undermine the idea of apostolic succession, properly understood. There is no claim of "an unbroken line" from Peter to the present... how could there be? Every time a pope resigns or dies, there is an interregnum. The longest was 3 1/2 years, longer than the purported papacy of Joan, so at worst, the church would consider her an invalid bishop, and that the See of Rome had been vacant those two years. No problem.
The so-called “legend” of Pope Joan might not be a medieval tale. Since more than a millennium the story of a woman ascended to the papal throne during the ninth century, disguising herself as a man, is passed off as a fabrication whose purpose was to throw discredit upon the Catholic Church. According to this “tale”, after two years of pontificate Joan would have been unmasked because of the premature birth of her baby, occurred while she was leading a procession through the roads of Rome and then stoned to death by the faithful that were attending the ceremony. Roughly one thousand two hundred years later, Pietro Ratto - teacher of history and philosophy, journalist and writer - publishes his striking Le Pagine strappate - Ripped pages (editor Elmi’s World). This original book narrates about Ratto’s fascinating research on a copy in vernacular of Delle vite dei Pontefici (About Popes lives) dated 1552 by Bartolomeo Sacchi known as “Platina”, and his comparative analysis of this ancient text and two later versions of the same book: one dated 1562, written in latin and the other one dated 1650, written in vernacular, both subject to the revision of the Vatican’s Library director, Onofrio Panvinio. Thanks to the comparison of the three editions Ratto discovers the evidence of the deceit - such as the revision of dates and Popes’ names of the two following centuries - used by the Catholic Church to make thinner and thinner the differences between the 1552 version and the 1650 one starting from the death of Lion IV (885) till the final realignment of the chronologies, obtained with the consecration of Benedict IX, in December 1032. All measures taken in order to reabsorb Joan’s two-years pontificate in an attempt to erase from history the unbearable outrage of a woman on the papal throne.
Pietro Ratto, Le pagine strappate, Elmi's World.
Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/PagineStrappate?ref=hl
http://www.incontrostoria.it/Papessa.htm
Including the Shroud of Turin which is actually the burial shroud of a 12th century crusader knight who died in the Levant and was an ancestor of the House of Savoy the royal family who bought it from a lesser descendant of his brother!
Look at his hands in the image! He was holding his sword when they buried him! Every knight is buried with his sword and his is actually kept in the royal armory in Turin, Italy next to the Chapel of Saint John where the shroud is kept which is the same exact name as the Chapel he was originally buried in in the Levant!
Now, the real mystery is...how was the image produced? I know.
If you ask me I think the chances are high of more than one woman posing as a man in the search of knowledge of freedom.