Pope John VIII ruled for two years. However, while riding one day from St. Peter's to the Lateran, he had to stop by the side of the road and, to the astonishment of everyone, gave birth to a child. It turned out that Pope John VIII was really a woman. In other words, Pope John was really Pope Joan.
Comments
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 2 of 8 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Sure wish this could be documented - it would be such a great part of history ! People today don't realize that the Roman Catholic Church, ie. the Roman Empire still exist today, only the name was changed to protect the guilty. Why do we still use the Gregorian Calandar ? Let's get rid of all these Roman Catholic practices !!!
Posted by Mikel on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:17 PM
An official Catholic reubttal of this hoax can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08407a.htm
Posted by Pat in NZ on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 02:38 AM
Am real interested of the stories read recently about the female Pope.May I know whether this is true
Posted by Kandoro Hussein Kandoro in Africa Tanzania on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:46 PM
I believe that the story about Popess Joan is true. I don't doubt that some of the details are a bit over the top, but we all know that the Vatican is known for hiding evidence that could damage their reputation, the easy way out is to blaim the protestants. However, Popess Joan was already mentioned in a chronical written a long time before the reformation. So, where there is that much historical smoke, shouldn't there be a fire?
Posted by Hagen in Kortrijk, Belgium on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 07:53 AM
Pope Joan was real. Mel Gibson is filming the movie about her now. It is going to all come out and rock the Catholic Church and its treatment of women. Let's ALL keep looking for truth!
Posted by Joan (Yes! My name REALLy is JOAN!) in Boca Raton, Florida on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:26 PM
I just finished the novel, Pope Joan. It has piqued my curiosity ro find out more. Church history seems to skip over many things and perhaps Joan was among the missing.
Posted by Jacqueline Forester Harrington in N. California on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 12:40 PM
I do not give a shit wether this is real or not. It is absolutely hilarious! I cannot believe some of these people are taking this totally seriously.
Posted by Webby on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 12:54 PM
It seems to me that those who take this "Pope Joan" seriously are of the same crowd that thinks the Da Vinci Code is real. 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.
Posted by Jonathan on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 09:22 AM
Does anyone outside Chic Publications still believe this hoax? If so, it is time to remove the tin foil hat. <QUOTE> Some time ago some misguided writers wrote of a "Pope Joan" who was supposed to have reigned from 855 to 857. The Encyclopedia Britannica says that she is pure myth. The Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, written by J. N. D. Kelly (a Protestant) says the legend of a woman Pope "scarcely needs painstaking refutation today, for not only is there no contemporary evidence for a female Pope at any of the dates suggested for her reign, but the known facts of the respective periods makes it impossible to fit one in." Recommended reading: This Rock, The Magazine of Catholic Apologetics & Evangelization, December 1990, page 25 Rumble, Rev. Dr. Leslie & Carty, Rev. Charles Mortimer, Radio Replies, First Volume, TAN Books & Publishers, Rockford, IL 61105, 1979, paragraph 455 Madrid, Patrick, Pope Fiction, Basilica Press, San Diego, CA, 1999, pages 167-177 </QUOTE>
Posted by Ed on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 04:29 AM
The line of popes was broken several times, if we count the times when we had anti-popes, two popes at the same time, and I think at one point we even had three. I think the numbering for the pope John's is off because one of the "anti-popes" was John XX or thereabouts, but his side lost the battle of who was really the pope. If I'm not mistaken (been 30 years since I had to read the history of the catholic church) there was at least one pope who was roumoured to be the lover of the Prince of Poland -- doesn't mean a female pope, it means a gay one.
Posted by Jude on Sun Sep 04, 2005 at 01:06 AM
Page 2 of 8 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
