Top 5 Myths About the Papacy
- Published November 5, 2007 - 51 Comments
November 5th is traditionally remembered in England as the day that Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the British parliament. It is still common today, to see anti-Catholic and anti-Papacy symbols on this day because Guy Fawkes was a Catholic. In some towns in England people even burn an effigy of the Pope on the 5th. Therefore, it seemed fitting to do a list about the common myths relating to the Catholic Church and the Popes.
5. The Pope is the Great Beast
The charge that the pope is the beast of Revelation 13, because his tide adds up to 666, is especially popular with Seventh-Day Adventists, but it’s also widely repeated in some Protestant circles. In the case of VICARIVS FILII DEI, they do add up to 666. Isolate the numbers and this is what you get: 5 (v) + 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1 (i) + 5 (V) + 1 (i) + 50 (L) + 1 (i) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) = 666.
But there are problems with this. The first is that Vicarius Filii Dei, or “Vicar of the Son of God,” is not now, nor has it ever been, a title of the bishop of Rome. The second problem is that virtually no one, including many unsuspecting lay Catholics, knows that this papal “title” is a fabrication. To an untrained ear, it sounds enough like one of the pope’s real titles, Vicarius Christi (Vicar of Christ), to pass the test. Unfortunately for those who traffic in this particular piece of pope fiction, the real title, Vicarius Christi, adds up to only a measly 214, not the infernal 666.
Oh – and for the Seventh Day Adventists reading this who stubbornly refuse to believe that this is not an official title for the Pope (nor ever has been), using the same math exercise we did above, the name of the woman who started the Seventh-Day Adventist church, Ellen Gould White, also adds up to 666 in Latin. (L + L + V + L + D + V + V + I = 666).
4. The Papacy is a Medieval Invention

Pope Linus (reigned after St Peter: 67 AD – 79 AD)
The earliest account we have of a bishop of Rome exercising authority in another diocese comes from Pope St. Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80. In it he responds to the Corinthians’ plea for his intervention. In the letter, he says: “But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in sin and no small danger” – clearly showing that he believed he had a special authority and demanded obedience.

Pope Clement I (reigned: 88 AD – 99 AD)
Pope Victor I (reigned 189-199) worked to settle a dispute among the bishops of the East and West over when to celebrate Easter – known as the Quartodeciman controversy. The other bishops recognized his unique authority when they followed his directive to convene local and regional synods to deliberate on the issue. Most of the bishops decided to adopt his proposal that the whole Church celebrate Easter on the first Sunday after Passover. Those who didn’t, he threatened with excommunication. The fact that no bishop in the world — not a single one — disputed his authority as bishop of Rome to carry out such an excommunication is a powerful piece of evidence that the early Church recognized the unique authority of the bishop of Rome.
St Irenaeus in the first century wrote of the Church in Rome: “For with this church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree; that is, all the faithful in the whole world, for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved for the benefit of the faithful everywhere”.
3. The Pope Cannot Make Mistakes
This myth has arisen from a misunderstanding of Papal infallibility. This is the actual definition of Papal Infallibility:
I. The Pope must be making a decree on matters of faith or morals
II. The declaration must be binding on the whole Church
III. The Pope must be speaking with the full authority of the Papacy, and not in a personal capacity.

Pope Pius IX (1846 – 1878)
This means that when the Pope is speaking on matters of science, he can make errors (as we have seen in the past with issues such as Heliocentricity). However, when he is teaching a matter of religion and the other two conditions above are met, Catholics consider that the decree is equal to the Word of God. It can not contradict any previous declarations and it must be believed by all Catholics. Catholics believe that if a person denies any of these solemn decrees, they are committing a mortal sin – the type of sin that sends a person to hell. Here is an example of an infallible decree from the Council of Trent (under Pope Pius V):
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema.
The last section of the final sentence “let him be anathema” is a standard phrase that normally appears at the end of an infallible statement. It means “let him be cursed”. Catholics believe that the Pope can err in non-religious matters, and that he has done so on many occasions throughout history.
2. Pope Joan
But the facts of history show otherwise. The primary proofs that this is all just a fable are these: First, the earliest point that we can trace the legend to is the mid-13th century, but the legend didn’t really gain wide currency until the late 14th century. No evidence of any kind exists from the ninth century (when Pope Joan was alleged to have reigned), nor do we see any in the 10th through 12th centuries. None of the annals or acts of the popes that were written between the ninth and 13th centuries (and none after that, either) mention her.
It’s important to remember that even if there had been a female impostor pope, this would just mean that an invalid election had taken place, nothing more. Other invalidly elected claimants to the papal office have come and gone over the centuries, and the fact that a woman made that list would simply mean that a woman made that list. She would not have been pope – no one invalidly elected would be.
This is probably also a good time to point out that in order to be validly elected as Pope, you must be over the age of reason (generally considered to be 7 years old), you must be male, and you must be baptized.
1. Sedes Stercoraria
In the item above we discussed the Pope Joan myth, the is the first step of disproving the myth of the Sedes Stercoraria. If Joan never existed, the need to prove the elected Pope male also does not exist.
The thrones with holes in it at St John Lateran’s do indeed exist, and were used in the elevation of Pope Pascal II in 1099 (Boureau 1988). In fact, one is still in the Vatican Museums another at the Musée du Louvre. They do indeed have a hole in the seat. However, the reason for the hole is disputed, but as both the seats and their holes predated the Pope Joan story, and indeed Catholicism by centuries, they clearly have nothing to do with a need to check the sex of a pope. It has been speculated that they originally were Roman bidets or imperial birthing stools, which because of their age and imperial links were used in ceremonies by popes intent on highlighting their own imperial claims.
The humanist Jacopo d’Angelo de Scarparia who visited Rome in 1406 for the enthronement of Gregory XII in which the pope sat briefly on two “pierced chairs” at the Lateran, said: “the vulgar tell the insane fable that he is touched to verify that he is indeed a man”.
In Closing
To close this article, I thought it might be nice to have a little polyphonic music related to the topic of the list – so here is Tu Es Petrus (Thou art Peter) by Palestrina (probably the greatest writer of Ecclesiastical Music) – written during the 1500s as the 5th antiphon at Vespers on the Feast of S. Peter and Paul. Palestrina was appointed to the Julian Chapel by Pope Julius III. He could be considered to be the musical equivalent of Michelangelo.

























November 5th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Oh, organized religion and all its silly rules. I think a Top 10 list of failed coups would have been better.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Any myths about 666 are void, because the bible never mentions it, i think its 663
In relation to pope joan and seredas, isnt there another list on here about how a female became pope and for a while after cardinals had to look at the popes testicles and say something in latin
November 5th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I havent heard of any of those myths before.
JMurf: its 616. Theres a funny story about a bus service in Moscow which changed its number from 666 to 616
November 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
JMurf: the bible refers to six hundred and sixty six in Apocalypse 13:18:
You can read it here: http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73013.htm
As for your other point, I have not done a list that includes Pope Joan – I have always known it was a myth so I wouldn’t have included it on anything factual
Cardinals have never had a ritual for looking at the testicles of the newly elected Pope.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Really? It’s 616? I had no idea? Also, the article was really informative and had some quite interesting bits of history. Incidentally, the area code just north of where I live, and a bit west as well, is 616! Ours used to be, but it’s been changed for a few years to 269. Funny coincidence.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:30 am
StewWriter: it is 666
See my biblical quote in comment 4.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Jfrater: this is the quote from the King James translation:
“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.”
but it doesnt really matter anyway.
The number was changed to 616 after they found fragments of the new testament dating from the 3rd century.
Theres an article about it here:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/11134/beasts-real-mark-devalued-to-616
November 5th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Well technically Papacy is a Medieval Invention, many eastern churchs did not aknowledge the supreme rule of a roman pope, and instead remained loyal to their traditional beliefs.
Just because no bishop “disputed his [Pope Victor I] authority as bishop of Rome” this does not indicate that they accepted it, or aknowledged it, they simply could have dismissed the seemingly outragous claim.
The beleifs and practices of true christians lie with the early churches (Armenian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox).
November 5th, 2007 at 10:03 am
dangironhide: I appreciate the age of the papyrus section found, but one piece of papyrus does not hold a lot of weight against the fact that virtually all other Greek texts from the early Christian era render it 666. Also, this codex is still a copy of a copy – and the difference between 666 and 616 in Greek is χξς (666) and χιϛ (616) – additionally, many people believed the section to be a reference to Nero – and his number is 666 not 616.
Also, prior to the discovery of this codex, we knew that there had been early references to the number as 616 – for example, 1 century before the presumed date of the writing of the codex you refer to, Saint Irenaeus (born in the second century) refuted it:
November 5th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Raz: We should remember that when the Great Schism occurred, the majority of Christianity accepted the Western view that the Papacy was legitimate. And remember – Jesus said “Thou art Peter” not “You are all Peter”
November 5th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Hey Raz, nice to see another Orthodox in here
November 5th, 2007 at 10:17 am
jfrater: with regard to religion words like majority mean nothing to me, if the majority of the world converted to islam, it would not effect my beliefs, just as the MAJORITY of christians shunned the latter day saints movement, because it was ‘different’ and so outragous it was therefore deemed unacceptable, i shall choose to reject the catholic popes rule, becuase that idea and practice does not coincide with any bible teaching and is simply not necessary.
A true christian should know that power should not be an issue, nobody should be concerned with having a leader, and should lead themselves in their spirituality and closeness to god, and if help is required it lies within the bible, and with priests.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Raz: sure – I agree that majority does not make right – though I still think that the Catholic perspective does not require the removal or dispute of any of the early church father’s writings – whereas the Orthodox need to presume that there are certain errors in the writings of the Church fathers that did support the papacy.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:25 am
jfrater: Amen, brother! Oh, wait…
November 5th, 2007 at 10:29 am
It would seem (yet again) that I need to do more research into this. I wish I could remember where I first read about it being 616, as I remember it haveing a really convincing argument as to why it was 616.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
jfrater: i wont go as far as making unsubstantiated claims, but from my perspective, it appears the early catholic church distanced itself from the rest, without the best intentions, but that is simply my opinion.
I respect all christians as they are my brothers, and im proud that christianity (in any form) is so widespread, but simply, i will stay true to my beliefs, while you stay true to yours…..
November 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am
dnagonironhide: It is possible that when lightly covering the subject, the age of the document would make it seem a plausible argument in favor of 616, but a deeper look in to the Church fathers casts a very different light – in fact, the same is entirely true of the Nag Hammadi Library which many people take as gospel with little knowledge of its history.
Raz: I would expect nothing less and agree completely with you on the second point (obviously I don’t think the Catholic Church distanced itself from anything though)
The best thing about the List Universe is the fact that we can debate topics that are generally forbidden from polite conversation without it turning in to a fight! So, on that note, welcome to the site
November 5th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Lol thanks man, I appreciate that…Keep up the great listing work
November 5th, 2007 at 10:59 am
The number of the beast is 666, the symbolism is as follows: 6 is the measure of man (7 being divinity), it is mocking the holy trinity, and is representative of the devil’s supposed “more human than human” mentality. I have heard the claims that the number is 616 or something else but there is no symbolism in the number then and all of these things in religions history have some sort of symbolic meaning, something to stay with us after we have heard it.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
I heard about the whole 666 thing was that it was 616, but then some early monk either mistranslated or decided 666 would sound better. That’s just something I heard on TV though (And we all know how reliable that is).
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I heard the 616 thing on the BBC programme ‘QI’ hosted by Stephen Fry.
Its a very intresting programme that explains all those myths but i can’t remember how it came to be 666
I must have read the testicle thing on another site
November 5th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
“I must have read the testicle thing on another site”
Cracked.com?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
cracked did do a recent post on the papacy – that partly inspired me to write this one – to correct the terrible factual errors they made
November 5th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Good call, they had me believing all of that.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Hobolad: I was horrified to see it reach the front page of digg – they even said specifically that the genital chair was true and cited another page as evidence – and they were pointing to something like the National Enquirer – I was stunned that diggers would let trash like that reach the front page.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Tu Es Petrus
finally got a ‘listen’…thank you. excellent choice to end this list w/.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:07 am
JMurf: Thats where I heard it! I’ll have a read of ‘The book of general ignorance’ again & see what it says in there
November 8th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
most religions were simply practical jokes that got out of hand
November 8th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
The greek for 666 is εξακοσιοι εξηκοντα εξ literally six hundred sixty six.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:00 am
I hope I’m not the only person who has the mental image of a potential Pope sitting on a chair with a guy laying underneath on his back, announcing “Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a new Pope!”
November 9th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Drogo: until you said that – yes – you were
November 9th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Here is the complete phrase of Apocalypse 13:18
The bold words mean six hundred and sixty six (as Hans has said above).
November 15th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Raz: I thought you might be interested in this recent statement released by the Orthodox Church (though not accepted by the Russian Orthodox Church yet): http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE2ZqiTV4s4gZzk49_TW4C9IrrgA
The joint statement by the Orthodox Patriarchs and Catholic Church states that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) is the first Bishop of the Church, with the Patriarch of Constantinople second. There is universal agreement (excluding Russia of course) that the Pope is the head of the entire Church, including the Orthodox, but there are still theological issues as to what that position enables him to do. With some luck they will be sorted out and the 1,000 schism will come to an end!
From the article:
November 28th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Hmmmmm
May 14th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Many biblical scholars believe (including myself) that the Catholic church is the mother of all prostitutes, as referred to in Revelation.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:22 am
regardless of weather or not his title adds up to 666 all catholic church officials have offiacially condemmed themselves to hell for the crime of simony, and as for the complete misuse of religion, i could think of no-one more suited to being the anti christ than an official who would put money above god despite the fact that his job is to promote the opposite
July 7th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
5 (v) + 1 (i) + 100 (c) + 1 (i) + 5 (V) + 1 (i) + 50 (L) + 1 (i) + 1 (i) + 500 (d) + 1 (i) = 666.
This adding up to 666 is completly idiotic. In “VICARIVS FILII DEI” there’s 16 characters an they add only 11. And despite that, why first V is count as 5(v) and the second as 50(L)?
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I’d just like to say… I’m Lutheran, attending a Lutheran Bible school, and have been studying medeival history since I was ten… And I’m not HALF as nerdy as y’all.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:49 am
I think Catholicism must be the most convoluted and complicated religion I’ve read about (Scientology may be worse but I haven’t read all that much about it). Why? Is it because it has such a long history? Or just because it can
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
What about the Sella Stercoraria. You’re mentinonig that one of them is in The Louvre in Paris. It’s not there or at least it’s not exposed. The chair in Rome is in the St. John of Lateran. That doesn’t mean (ofcourse) that the ritual was done the way the myth is telling. There is no doubt about the use of theese ‘pierced’ chairs in the ceremony of the new pope.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
John: the chairs are not used now and there is no record of them ever being used.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I don’t want to live in a world where there is no testicle chair for me to believe in!
October 7th, 2008 at 7:01 am
It was my belif that the beast (666) referred to in the bible was Nero? Have not got the chance to substantiate this, but I do believe it even says it in the bible, or perhaps a commentry to the bible? Has anyone else heard of this?
November 11th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Just believe what you believe… respect others belief….
we have no right to judge others belief….
the beast refers to our sins…
December 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
On Pope Joan:
“According to certain ancient canons, only cardinals should be chosen pope. However, Alexander III decreed that “he, without any exception, is to be acknowledged as pontiff of the Universal Church who has been elected by two-thirds of the cardinals.” As late as 1378, Urban VI was chosen, though not a cardinal. A layman may also be elected pope, as was Celestine V. Even the election of a married man would not be invalid. Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” http://www.newadvent.com
The current practice, however, requires the Pope to be elected from the Cardinals, Archbishops or Bishops.
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
Sorry but the beast cannot refers just to our sins…
According to Daniel 7:17 and 23, in prophetic language a Beast is a political power. It’s a country! In Revelation 13 and 17, the beast and the Whore that sits on the beast, represent both the same power: The Roman Catholic Church. It’s the same power as the little horn power of Daniel 7. Martin Luther was just right on that point! Look at history, it had political and religious power over Western Europe between 538 and 1798 as the Bible describe it. (1260 days, 3 and half year, 42 months.. using the one day equal one year prophetic principle.) Then the deadly wound was healed… Read you Bible. The Antichrist is the Roman Catholic church
February 27th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Please think carefully about the above information
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Lmao. People’s rules, people’s myths. All created by lonely people. No God, the world is impartial. Jeez, just live your life, stop trying to write a fairy tale… =]=]=] I wonder how many theists are going to jump on me.
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 pm
jfrater: i would really like to know what your religion is..
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
John: ” using the one day equal one year prophetic principle”
Who exactly made up the one day equals one year thing? It has absolutely no basis in the Bible or Christian history….
Spook: I was raised as a Catholic
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm
John: You may also want to read Martin Luther’s work “On the Jews and Their Lies” – he is hardly to be considered an expert in anything to do with morality.