We have been asked several times about what people call "the lack of documentation regarding the existence of a female pope." Catholic Answers ridicules the idea that such a person ever existed in history. We believe that such a story is a credible item of history Jesuit educationalists and historians have well nigh buried. This message may prove to be rather dull hearing, but there appears to be no other way we can present the results of much digging on the part of many people.

The Roman Catholic Institution claims an Apostolic Succession, which assumedly gives a sacred validity to all Romish ecclesiastical acts of consecration, massing, absolution, etc., through her alleged succession of popes. The Roman Catholic hierarchy claims that their pope derives his authority from Peter, whom they allege was the first pope. If one of these popes may have been a female, then, according to Rome’s own doctrine (that a female cannot administer sacred functions), all ecclesiastical acts of the papessa are null and void, because no one can tell whether their ordinations, consecrations, etc. are valid, or that such has come down to them from some illegal, unrecognized, unecclesiastical, unauthorized, voided acts of a female pope.

Hence, Rome’s boasted apostolic succession would fall to the ground, and with it, religious perjury and religious-deceit. Roman Catholic authorities are extremely sensitive about Pope Joan, the female papessa. Historical records, however, are stubborn and refuse to yield their assertion of such a person sitting upon the papal throne.

Romanists endeavor to silence historical assertions and to destroy historical data by overshouting authorities with scorn. Protestants are made to feel that their forebears invented a fable for propaganda purposes out of hatred for the Roman Catholic church. It was, indeed, widely believed, to be true in the Middle Ages, that a woman reigned as papessa between the pontificates of Leo IV and Benedict III, that she died giving birth to a child during a solemn procession; mentioned in a manuscript of the ninth century (ascribed to Marianus Scotus); and related in the chronicles of Martinius Polonus in the twelfth century.

Addis and Arnold inform us: "It was not until the 15th century that doubts arose, and the Calvinistic Blondel first demonstrated the unhistorical character of the legend. He was followed by Leibnitz (in the legend) and by nearly all historians since" (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, 1917). It was, nonetheless, almost universally believed by Romanists long after the Middle Ages. Belief in the fact was based on evidence of the same value as innumerable stories of miracles, or wonderful deeds of saints, now still commonly taught as being true in the Roman church. How then, can a Romanist adhere to the latter class of legend, while denouncing Pope Joan as a fable? Laws of evidence must be applied impartially.

In the Roman Catholic approved history of the papal succession, it is stated that "some mention should be made of the Popess Joan, a female who is supposed to have occupied the Holy See at this period" (Pageant of the Popes). {But) Rome has been consistently trying to stifle this record. This glaring blot on the church’s history is vigorously denied and described by papal apologists as "that old legend"; "the discredited fable"; "yoke of an ignorant scholar and debauchee"; "a wayward impulse of Dominicans and Minorites"; "anti-papal propaganda of scabrous nature"; "violence to the apostolic succession"; and "romantic fiction."

In spite of all denials, the story of Papessa Joan (born of English parents at Mainz) is firmly embedded in the testimony of history, and the name cannot be eradicated without injustice to history itself. These views are not shared by Thoidis, who devoted several pamphlets to this enigma in Rome’s history (Several Titles: Pope Joan).

Strangely, Romanists shudder at the very thought of a female pope. They can endure the filth which disfigured the papacy in several male popes, but the very thought of a female pope (good or bad) sends them into a fluttering dither! Baronius, the Roman Catholic analyst, for instance, calls Pope Boniface a "disgusting monster"; but this seems to leave the modern Romanist unmoved. Tell him a lady once occupied the papal chair and he will bare his teeth!

But where are the many proofs of Pope Joan being a fable? Hundreds of chroniclers and writers relate in detail the time, place, and other circumstances of the female pope. These are not written in subsequent ages, but by men who lived from the time of her arrival in Rome, and to the pontifical throne.

The date of Pope Joan’s accession to the Chair of St. Peter is given as 855. She was a beautiful, talented and learned girl, who, at an early age, assumed male garments. She went to Rome, gained distinction and popularity, and was selected pope on the death of Pope Leo IV. The fact is that no one has put forward any convincing reason for the non-existence of this female pope. The account of her succession to the papal throne is overwhelming.

Up to the Reformation, the existence of a female pope who reigned from 855 to 858, between Leo IV and Benedict III "was undoubtedly considered to be genuine historic fact" (Brewer and Grimaldi, Historic Note Book). As a matter of fact, almost without exception, in every textbook before the Reformation, Pope Joan is recognized as an historic figure either in the text itself, or in marginal notes. The following collection of knowledgeable opinions, from all classes of Romanists, will prove how universal, before the Reformation, was the belief in the existence of Pope Joan.

Abbes:

Abbe Langlet Dufreanois says: "I am astonished at the obstinacy of Catholics of the present day, in denying the existence of Joan. One ought, on the contrary, to seek at all costs to establish the truth of this history, because she contributed a great honour to the Holy See; for, according to the testimony of all the best historians, Joan reigned as pope with piety and wisdom""(Methods pour etudier l’histoire, 1739, p.349).

Annalists:

Archbishops:

St. Antonius, the Archbishop of Florence believed sincerely in Pope Joan (A.B. Grimaldi, Churchman’s Magazine).

Authors:

Gilfid Arthur (1058) was an author who placed Joan as a pope between Leo and Benedict. Godfrey of Viterbo (1160?) was another. Alamaiarie D’Auger (1362) gives many details concerning Joan (D’Auger, Nomenclature Chronologique des Exeguis Rome). Amabrie (1370), in his work in Leyden Library, admits Joan existed and reigned as pope (The Privileges and Rights of Emperors and Kings).

Leonichos Chalcondyle, a Greek author of Athens, says, "It is certain that a woman did arrive at the pontificate of Rome," and refers to this in two of his works (L. Chalcondyle: Sedes Stercoreria and Chaise Pierce). Other authors who definitely believed and wrote of the Papessa Joan include Sabellicus (1436); Sigebertus Gemblacensis (1100); Rawisius Textor; Volaterranus; Nauclerus; Carion; Christianus Massoeus; Anselmus Rid; Bishop Jewel; and Salamsius.

Bishop John’s title was Cinq-Eglises, and he mentions the use of the Sedes Stercoraria (the marble stool), instituted in consequence of Joan’s usurpation of the papal throne, as a matter of historic record. Even the fact that a newly crowned pope seated himself upon the Sedes, a species of marble commode, theoretically allowing a physical examination, was adduced as infallible authentication of the story of Joan. The ridicule of the Protestants caused this to be discontinued and suppressed after Leo X. Bishop Jacobitus mentions this means taken to prevent another unidentified female pope.

Biographies:

Rhoidis remarks that in the 15th century after the invention of printing, biographies of Pope Joan were so extremely multiplied that even a selection of such can hardly be made. But all of them demonstrate Rome’s belief in the existence of Pope Joan.

Busts:

In 1400 the Bishop and Canons of Sienna Cathedral had a series of terra cotta busts of various popes placed in their cathedral. Among them, between Leo and Benedict, was the bust of a woman labeled John VIII Foemina Anglia. One of the popes requested the Duke of Tuscany to change the name so it was altered to "Zachary." Another pope ordered it destroyed. The inquisition subsequently forbade the Siennese and the clergy ever to allude to Joan.

Canons:

Canon Rancesco Petrarch, celebrated poet, constantly mentions Pope Joan, and says that she was the cause of a locust plague in Italy. The accounts of her decease, however, record the procession and service was to rebuke, anathematize, and rid the land of the locusts (Lives of Emperors and Popes Up to 1227).

Cardinals:

Cardinal Pandulphe, in his biography of a Pope, makes mention of the sedes stercoraris, the marble commode. David Blondel and Cardinal Baronius, both outright opponents of the she-pope theory, were nevertheless faced with the irresistible tradition of a papessa. They were driven into explanations of a tale, such as would dispose of the fact of a lady pope, but the tradition itself could not be explained away.

Chancellors:

John Charles Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, titled "The Most Christian Doctor," in a sermon before Pope Benedict XIII, remarked "Rome also has been deceived, when she recognized a female pope for so long a time." So Pope Benedict XIII believed in a female pope!

Chroniclers:

It was recorded in 1493, at Cologne, that Joan was one of the popes, and she is seen in a portrait wearing the tiara and holding an infant in her arms. This is not the only chronicle supporting the fact of her existence and crowning. Rhoidis says there are many chronicles of great age by Romanists, generally ecclesiastics, which, in various ways, allude to the She Pope. Marianus Scotus, learned theologian of the l0th century, and a loyal Romanist, wrote, "Leo IV has, as his successor, a woman named Joan, who occupies the throne of Peter during two years, five months and four days" (Pandulphe, Life of Gregory VI).

Councils:

The Council of Constance was held in 1414, and at that most impressive assembly of cardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, canons, theologians and priests, the heroic martyr, John Hus, taunted the vast crowd and the emperor with having had a profligate female pope, and not one in the learned gathering dared to contradict him on that point!

Demons:

The aged author, Euglusius (1416) alleges that, during the birth of Pope Joan’s child, a demon appeared in the air exclaiming, Papa pater patrum peperit papissa papellum. Now surely, without them believing at that time in a female pope, there would be no point at all in recording of this superstitious satire!

Dominicans:

Dominican monks strongly supported the reality of Pope Joan. Martinus Polonius, Dominican bishop and historian, and adviser of Popes XI and Nicholas III, gives a full account of Pope Joan. This is high testimony! -To Be Continued-

("The Papessa, Whose Name Was Joan"; Reprinted with permission from The Protestant Challenge, The Voice of The Canadian Protestant League, September-October 1994; 600 Woodview Road; Burlington, Ontario L7N 8A3; Jonas E. C. Shepherd, Editor).

_______________________________________

* A Computer -Gary McGee of Woodward, Oklahoma, has obtained a 286 Compaq computer formerly used by the U.S. Land Bank, and has programmed it for our needs. Helping him with this project was his father, Curtis McGee of Clinton, Oklahoma and Daniel Stone of Gore, Oklahoma. We are well into another book since receiving it. We are very grateful. Thank you, brethren.

** Ponderables--1.) I wonder if light imposes its influence upon darkness, or if it allows all to remain dark? 2.) Of the so-called "Religious Right" --No true Christian should be ashamed to be labeled "Religious", and to be labeled "Right" has being labeled "wrong" beat by a long shot. 3.) American society must be gravely perverted when after God blesses the American people with a strong economy, the Federal Reserve Board punishes the American people by raising interest rates.

*** News --1.) On October 24, a United Nations Flag was raised over the state capitol in Lansing, Michigan in remembrance of the anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. More than 1000 state militia showed up fully armed against a force of approximately 75 policemen. In 30 minutes, the flag came down, and the high school bands left (The Baptist Trumpet, November-December 1994; 2711 South East Street, Indianapolis, Indiana; Dr. Greg Dixon, Editor).

2.) Sarah Brady --"Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed" (Baptist Trumpet).

Text: Mark 12:41-44

The text reveals a woman who was a widow. In a day when women did not work outside the home, she had no visible means of support. All her living amounted to 2 mites, yet, she cast this in as her offering that day in the Temple. She was a member of the weaker sex, she was a widow, and she was impoverished, yet, she reasoned, all can afford to give.

Although men view our offerings according to what others can afford, Christ receives our offerings according to what we have. All others gave that day out of their abundance, but this woman cast in her all --everything. She had no CD’s, no mutual funds, no insurance policies, and people who look through carnal eyes will quickly tell you this woman could not afford to give: yet she freely gave.

Her deed that day escaped the notice of men. Nothing is known to have been recorded of it in secular history. And. without a doubt, human nature being what it is, the men in her day would have condemned her for her deed, just as they would today. Therefore, it is likely that she quickly threw in her 2 mites to escape their notice. But what she did was so significant that our Lord has preserved its remembrance. For nearly 2000 years, people have read about it, although it is likely that no one in her city knew what she did.

Contrary to popular belief, this poor widow did not act irrationally: such actions are normal for people of her faith. Christ receives our offerings if we give them with a willing mind. It is the affection of the heart, and not bare religious display that distinguishes people.

Nearly 2000 years have passed since our Lord pointed out her remarkable faith, yet, how few have wanted to be like her! That day in the Temple, no one emulated her piety. Others could have done what this poor widow did, but no one wanted to be like her.

Consider first, that people are responsible to do what they can. God does not accept people according to what other people can do. Second, what God’s people do may appear as nothing in the eyes of men, but they may be highly regarded by God. And, third, what child of God does not want to do more than he can?