For years the popular religious rumour – true or false – has circulated that a woman (shock and horror!) had once alighted on the so-called “throne of Peter.” Well it certainly wasn’t Simon Peter’s throne, of course. Peter never made it to Rome, and in fact the Holy Bible contains no evidence of where or when he even died. So if the Holy Bible says nothing about this specific fact, then we are not meant to know or understand anyway. But the suspicious suggestion that a woman may just have been pontificating in judgment on her church and others, and naturally wearing the blasphemous triple tiara, still swirls around church cloisters today. And why not?, say the feminists with fury. But we at this ministry will just shrug and say, “So what? Who cares?”

According to catholic canon law, only men are permitted to be ordained as priests. Now, why can’t women become fully inducted teaching imams for all teaching in mosques, or rabbis as well? And yes, I know there some liberal ones. Buddhist monks are always men, for instance. Yes, I know there are some Buddhist nuns: orange would certainly look snazzy and does, on some women, but one rarely hears much talk about or demands from the feminists as to the lack of women in those top jobs. And what about the ordained Greek and Russian Orthodox churches? Aren’t they always men (mostly with beards) who seem inclined to own and drive swanky Mercedes cars (well, they certainly did when I witnessed them in Patmos some years ago); I do wonder why.

The way things are shaping up in the gender horizon, it’s more likely we may see a transgender pope, perhaps clothed in white, of course, waving from the “pope-mobile.” And, of course, carrying that hideous deformed and blasphemous broken cross for all ignorant catholics to kneel down and worship (Deut. 27:15 warns about this, so check it out), also clothed in a snug-fitting white cassock, perhaps from the talent of the Gianni Versace fashion house. Of course, I could say more about the blasphemy of the mass or “the cup of devils” (1 Cor. 10:21) that Paul warns about, but obviously,y Joan had no problem with it either herself.

How the naïve are tragically deceived.

The popular argument promoted today by the smart cardinals/theologians ensconced in the ivory towers of the Vatican is that all the chosen apostles of Christ were men. Very true and no surprise in that, but the church of Rome has nothing to do with Biblical Christianity as established in the Holy Bible by the apostles. Throughout history, the true remnant has survived persecution, mainly from the catholic church and their hired mercenaries. The Roman church was a purpose-built religion established in the fourth century by Constantine, cleverly fusing together parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the gods of ancient Rome. For example, the fish god Dagon was and still is depicted by the familiar bishops’ mitres (turn the hat sideways, my friend, and it becomes the shape of a fish; and don’t forget Vulcan, the fire god. He’s in there as well in the rituals). As a matter of fact, certain concealed symbols of Baphomet and Apollonius, an early depiction of that antichrist, are also represented in the Vatican symbols shown today from the past, though I suggest it’s the old boys’ clerical clique that they want to maintain and manage, something they seem to be fulfilling rather well.

However, back to those rumours still circulating today that a female pope had once graced the papal throne. What happened that sustains the legend even now? Well, it seems that by 857 AD, the people of Rome had come to love and respect Pope John VIII. In fact, after a two-year reign, things seem to be going well for this pope, at least on the surface, until one day when the pontiff was walking or being transported towards the Lateran palace, the papal accommodation at the time (St. Peter’s Basilica would not be constructed until much later, financed by papal indulgences, by the way). Somehow, in down a darkened alley, the pope stumbled and collapsed, clearly in deep pain. The unexpected had happened – the pontiff was in full labour and a baby quickly appeared in full view of the shocked public.

There was a natural outcry, with anger and rage shown as the poor woman was ushered away, and apparently stoned to death outside the city walls. Apparently, the defenceless baby was also murdered, perhaps with the mother: these were angry catholics and no pity shown here, it seems. Well, that’s the story that’s been repeated ever since.

So, who was this cross-dressing maid who, it seems, had remarkable beauty, plus intellect and ambition as well.

Joan was her baptismal name. Perhaps as a young girl she had been involved or inducted into a sect of women seeking ordination into the catholic priesthood. She also seems to have entered into a relationship with a cleric, with the two possibly becoming lovers.

I noticed there are some oblique references to her being the daughter of English missionaries, maybe an early form of the Anabaptists, perhaps.

If the story were indeed fact, then Joan would be the first English pope that we know of. There would later be of course Nicholas Breakspear who named himself Adrian IV (1154-1159 AD). He later died rather mysteriously, it seems, possibly by poisoning, a then popular method used to dispose of obstacles to the church in those days, maybe even today, but with more modern and sophisticated substances used, of course.

Joan was born in 818 AD in Mainz (Germany). There is a possibility that her birth was in England (she was often referred to as “Joan the English” by chroniclers of that period), but of course, that was a long time ago and fiction can become facts very easily.

If Joan were blessed with brains and beauty plus an added splash of ambition, then the only way to assert herself would have been found in male-dominated monastery life.

Somewhere along the avenue, she encounters a novice monk and apparently falls in love with him, then acquires a monk’s habit to assimilate herself in the bleak monastic lifestyle, with the abbot apparently never noticing this courting couple under his roof, a pure Hollywood scenario from a B-movie, of course.

In 830 AD, Joan somehow finds herself in Athens, of all places, with her lover. The pair seems to have made an impression on all who met them in the smart Athenian society of the church, of course. Perhaps the ambience of Athens with its liberal values would have appealed to Joan, and of course, its worship of pagan gods as well wouldn’t have done any harm either. In Acts 17:23, the Apostle Paul also encountered an unknown god during his visit to this city of sorcery and sin.

Did Joan perhaps remember those same words herself with devotion or doubt through her own Bible studies? Who knows! Somehow, she later arrived in Rome, perhaps via some travelling clerical caravan, and here’s where the story gets interesting, I think. She brought a letter of introduction to a cardinal, no less. The city ‘was akin to a ninth-century shanty town,’ writes Peter Stanford. She may also have attached herself to a cardinal, seeing her language skills were much admired.

According to one commentator, Rome was: “Bawdy monks, scheming cardinals, cross-dressing saints, intrigue, melodrama, corruption, and violence” seemed to reign supreme in the eternal city at the time. But, is the atmosphere any better today? In fact, a recent revealing report from a Vatican observer in Rome indicates that construction is almost complete for the largest “gay” sauna in Europe soon to be opened, and it seems either funded or supported by the former Vatican’s Secretary of State; strange times we live in for these end times, isn’t it?

Joan may even have been of use in the pope’s private office in translating important and politically sensitive documents.

Why and how Joan wanted to excel in this claptrap of clerical cannibalism is anyone’s guess. She lived in a time when the true Christian church were alive and thriving, it seems. That living thread has continued through the ages, and continues to this day in the true born-again believer of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now in Rome, Joan seems to have gained herself a popular reputation with her charm and charisma.

“Joan was now a celebrity. Students admired her eloquence, philosophers respected her wisdom, cardinals noted her theological knowledge, and papal courtiers loved her for her generosity. When pope Leo IV died in 855 AD Joan was uneasily elected as his elected successor. She took the papal throne as Joan VIII.” Wow, I bet the bells rang that day! But they were unaware that this pontiff had a hidden lover – nothing new about that, of course – even recent popes have kept that secret concealed, and I do wonder if she was ever rumbled about sex in her Vatican apartments, or were the servants sworn to secrecy by the threat of the sword? They usually were.

But one day whilst accompanied by her court and proceeding down the so-called “Vicus Papisa” or “the street of the woman pope”, as it is now called, then leading from the Coliseum to the Lateran church in Rome, the unexpected happened to this pope: she went in to labour as her waters broke, and I expect her entourage around her went into shock as well. Not surprisingly, popes, today avoid journeying down that street of dreams or nightmares, which is all superstition.

Now what happened afterwards to the mother popess and her child and lover is still clouded in speculation and suspicion.

From what I can uncover from my own research this pitiful woman was beaten, humiliated, manacled, imprisoned, and tortured, along with her defenceless baby. Sounds to me rather like the wicked future inquisition tactics utilised by the Roman church against the defenceless souls who stood up to the bully of the pope and his Swiss mercenaries and wicked Dominican monks.

So was this just an early feminist flutter pursued by a naïve Joan that ultimately led to her murder? Or was it just naked ambition that would only cease in her death?

Rome’s wicked influence still continues today in these end times as the world is set for the awaited appearance of the antichrist and his fiendish Vatican partner, the false prophet. Do not delay, dear friend, at all, but repent and become gloriously born again. Amen.

Source

The She-Pope, Peter Stanford

Postscript

I am not sure if the baby’s father was manhandled. Those tortures had no respect for anyone, young or old, infants or invalids. In a 1600-AD woodcut, this popess, along with her baby and lover, are seen hanging from a prepared stake. In fact, she is shown wearing the triple tiara; however, another popular theory has her being incarcerated in a monastery in Ostai with her baby being farmed out for adoption. At least they didn’t wall her up alive.

Of course, any replicas of this disgraced popess were defaced or destroyed.

Historian Georgina Masson claims that, “both she and it [the baby] were killed [murdered] by the outraged populace and buried by the roadside.” Martin Luther, on a visit in 1510 AD to Rome, described the place as “hell on earth” seeing a memorial to Joan. In his description “a woman in a heavy papal style cloak, holding a child and scaptere.” Well, this does fit with an image of Joan, so Luther must have seen something. Of course, the catholic would claim this was pitiful protestant “propaganda.”

In the 1930s paganism was enjoying a revival with one account ending, “with Joan giving birth in the street to a baby boy who had the number 666 on both palms.” Well, that’s clear enough.

By contrast, Christopher Moor’s musical Pope Joan was an out-and-out celebration of the she-pope. Did they have any catchy tunes I wonder?

Of course, to the feminists, this is justified by what they have stated along: that it was men continually keeping women down and especially the catholic church. Of course, no mention of Muslims, Buddhists or others.

We mustn’t forget the movies either, and doesn’t Hollywood always love a mystery? At least two are already in the can (1972; 2009), and a third possibly on the horizon. And no, I have not seen either of them and have no wish to. There is even a mention of a tarot/card game which shows the lady’s likeness called The pope Joan board (I’ll certainly give that occult one a miss, as well). Of course, many books and essays have admired the so-called legend of the “she-pope.” Some have even suggested rather tentatively that she boasted a high level of male hormones that would allow her to masquerade as a man. Of course, the long garments of that period and priests’ cassocks are indeed similar, and interestingly the author mentions that it has been suggested that Mrs Thatcher and other women leaders produced high levels of male hormones to match their masculine role in a masculine world. Well, I hadn’t heard that before about the so-called “Iron Lady,” but I did hear years ago about her preference for exclusive electrical hydro-rejuvenating bath treatments; this was reported to me by an elderly (now deceased) nun, then a friend of the family who had an interest in Mrs Thatcher’s career, for some reason.

There is also a musical celebrating Joan’s brief life as well, and no, I haven’t seen it.

Peter Stanford interestingly writes, “Joan [historically] was caught in the cross fire. A serious of catholic historians queued up to kill her off, a sacrifice [it seems] for the greater good of Rome.” Well, maybe, yet by then Rome was in lost in blasphemy and drenched in the blood of the Spanish Inquisition yet to arrive in Europe and pursued and plotted from Rome that would later claim millions of innocent lives of all those people who would not buckle under the popes’ tarnished triple tiara.

The former ex-Jesuit Michael Walsh remarks that, “The ninth century was so utterly confused that the odd pope may possibly have dropped out here and there; the whole system was so corrupt.” Well, it still is cloaked in conspiracy and corruption and has been since Emperor Constantine created his own religion back in 325 AD or thereabouts. In other words, there is no credibility at all to a universal jurisdiction or a direct line back to Peter (and hence God) that catholics always foolishly boast about. One side note to this amusing yet awkward legend is the so-called and disgusting Sedia Stercoraria chair. An old woodcut shows pope Innocent 1644 AD seated in the sedia stercoraria chair and having his testicles felt by a young cardinal as a way of ensuring that he is a man. I wonder what “fortunate” cardinal had that disgusting job placed on his ermine shoulders!!

In conclusion, is it all just useless speculation about the so-called “she-pope”? And does it really matter? Because as far as we are concerned, she was unsaved. Indeed, her future soul would have been better prepared if she had followed the Bible’s teachings, and not the counterfeit creed of Rome.

“It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27).

 

GPB

November 2015

(All Rights Reserved)