drosophila

Is John XX missing or just hidden?

John A. Broussard

Thanks for the site reference. It's a good one. The notion that there was once a Pope Joan is intriguing.

The explanation there about the missing Pope John is even more intriguing and much more confusing.

sorompio

I read in Pepe Rodriguez "Fundamental Lies Of Catholic Church" that the list of the first 30 popes or so is a complete fake. Forgery from head to toe.

Toto

I can't find a reference to Mr. Rodriguez' work.

It seems excessive to claim that all of the first 30 popes were a complete fake, although I can imagine that there might be some historical uncertainty about the popes before Constantine. We seem to owe the list of Popes to Tertullian and Eusebius primarily, who were closer to the events, but were also church propagandists who were concerned about establishing historical links between their own church and Jesus.

List of Popes from Wikipedia

Peter, the first Pope, is probably a fictional character. (See Drews' The Legend of Saint Peter.) The Peter of the NT probably never got as far as Rome, if there was in fact a historical character behind the Peter mentioned in various places there. Linus is a very vague historical figure, as is the third alleged Pope. But Clement I, the third Pope, left some writings.

Lógos Sokratikós

Far out! Now that's a datum! Samaritan High Priest, who would've guessed?

Anyway, I'm sure it's not on purpose that Catholics say this, like to annul these other guys. I really think theysay it just out of what we call in Spanish supina ignorancia (they just don't investigate to know for sure, they just lazily :snooze: suppose it's so, and start to spread the nonsense -now that sounds very familiar... ).

Joshua Adams

What is meant, exactly, by an "unbroken line"? Do they mean that there has always been a Pope for the last two millenia? This is trivially false, as there's a sede vacante every few years.

If those don't count, what on earth could possibly constitute a break in the line?

Sounds like another shibboleth to me. Kind of like the claim that the Church has never been divided, with the Protestants being false churches that sprouted up on their own, separately. (Yes, I've heard this one). This argument is used because somewhere, apparently Jesus promised his church would be united forever, and therefore his True Church(TM) cannot have split.

Chris Weimer

Um, even forgetting the Protestant churches, there's still the Eastern Orthodox Church schism way back in the day.

John A. Broussard

Wasn't the term "Pope" a very late title--4th Century I believe? And that may not be just a quarrel over words. If the original title back in the 2nd Century was Bishop of Rome, then other bishops (viz., the Bishop of Damascus) probably more nearly approached being the "Head" of the Church.

Wallener

"Pontif" comes directly from Constantine's pagan title, "Pontificus Maximus" being the designation for all Roman Emperors once they decided to claim deity status for themselves. "Pope", I believe, derives from "papa", or "father", and is not an exclusively RC honorific.

Chris Weimer

Verbum Latinum Diei:

popa, -ae m. [cf. πέπω] - a Roman priest's assistant or minister, who slew the victim.

Definitions from Chambers Murray Latin-English Dictionary