I was happy to see this review by Brother Benet S. Exton of St. Gregory's University, Shawnee, Oklahoma:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/columns.php?sub_id=4
You can get the book from Amazon:
To Order Book from Amazon
Thank you.
Sedes Stercoraria is a chair with a rather large hole cut into its seat.
Sedes comes from the Latin for 'seat' (as with sede vacante) while Stercoraria can be best interpreted as having to do with the posterior. A picture of a Sedes Stercoraria shown at this link clearly illustrates why one would call this a 'posterior related seat.'
It is said that popes, c. 11th century, upon being elected had to sit on a Sedes Stercoraria so that their masculinity could be verified. That Sedes Stercoraria did exist is not in debate. The Vatican Museum and the Parisian Lourve are both claimed to have extant examples from Rome's St. John Lateran, then, and even now, the official cathedral of the Pope.
Sedes Stercoraria is seen by some as validating the claim that there had been a female pope, viz. 'Pope Joan.' The way they see it, a Sedes Stercoraria was needed to preclude the possibility of another female from becoming pope.
I do not believe that there was a 'Pope Joan.' I say so, without demur, on page 82 of my "Popes and the Tale of Their Names" book. I have not been able to find a credible gap in the documented series of 9th century papacies to justify her presence, nor any pope or antipope named 'John' that could have been female.
Yesterday while responding to an e-mail about 'Pope Joan' and the Sedes Stercoraria it suddenly dawned on me that there is indeed a very plausible explanation as to why a Sedes Stercoraria may have been used.
If it was indeed used, it was to check for masculinity not in the context of gender -- but in the context of 'intactness.'
The First Council of Nicaea [Turkey], in 325, the very first of the ecumenical councils, was convoked by Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337), the liberator of Christianity, who even attended some of the sessions. The primary goal of this council, which was attended by 1,800 bishops, was to satisfactorily resolve the 'Arian controversy;' i.e. the exact nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. In addition to formulating the Nicene Creed, that codified the faith and rebuked Arianism, this Council also implemented twenty new canon laws. The very first of these was the prohibition of self-castration!
Castration would appear to debar one from being a priest. This may have been a custom inherited from the very early days of Judaism.
Mutilation of rivals to impede them from performing certain functions was a somewhat prevalent trait during the Middle Ages. Pope Leo III (795-816), for example, was viscously attacked four years after his unanimous election. Among other atrocities, they tried to cut off his tongue so that he would not be able to conduct his duties as pope.
Against such a backdrop one could understand why there might have been a desire to make sure that a pope-elect had not been previously mutilated.
So, I think, that the Sedes Stercoraria, if used, had nothing to do with the ascertaining of gender. Instead, it was probably a means to establish that a pope-elect was 'unaltered.'
Thank You.
With my 'Pope Names' book now readily available, I am spending much of time thinking ahead to the next papal election, whenever it may be -- and hopefully it won't be soon.
Though Pope Benedict XVI, now 81, does not make the 'top 10' of the oldest popes, one has to remember that when elected, three days after his 78th birthday, he was the 5th oldest to have been elected in the last 500 years. Furthermore, taking the lead from Pope John XXIII, Pope Benedict did quip that the prior Benedict had served but briefly [i.e. 7 years and 4 months]. So to start thinking ahead to the next election, hopefully to be ahead of the curve with the facts, dynamics and potential 'politics,' is not unreasonable, and in no way macabre.
I have some very germane posts on my Papal Election specific BLOG. You may want to check those out. I show you where you can find the real odds for the next pope and the accuracy of these odds.
Given that cardinals lose their right to vote when they turn 80, I highlight the inexactness of the current Vatican rules in calculating this crucial 80th birthday. I also give you a heads up that some of the lists on the 'College of Cardinals' may not be up to date.
Talking of which, I am continuing my painstaking, hand checking of 'College of Cardinals' list. Yesterday, I was making sure that all the 'geographic' references were accurate. During that process I was struck by the potential 'disenfranchisement' of certain smaller nations. For example, right now, Slovakia has two cardinals. That looks good. But they are both over 80. Therefore, they cannot vote. The same is true for Belarus, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Angola, Mozambique, Uganda, Madagascar, Ivory Coast, Mauritius Islands, Egypt, Taiwan and Lebanon. They all have a cardinal each, but in each case that cardinal is over 80. I could be wrong, but I can see people getting upset that their 'community' won't have a say in the next election.
This issue cannot be easily fixed! There can ONLY BE 120 cardinal electors. That is, at present, sacrosanct -- unless Pope Benedict XVI opts to change it. Right now there are 116 cardinals under 80. So, per the current rules, there can only be four more under-80 cardinals inducted -- until next January when the next cardinal turns 80.
Thank you.
I started studying papal history, in earnest, a few years ago. It didn't take long before I was getting confounded (more than usual) by a lack of specificity when it came to papal names. Though there is an Everest of work on the popes, much of it the result of meticulous research, I kept on drawing blanks when I wanted to dig into matters related to papal names.
I was struck that the sixth 'pope' to succeed St. Peter was named Sixtus I -- given that 'sixtus,' in Latin, denotes sixth. I was surprised that St. Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon (c. 178), one of the early writers on Christianity, when enumerating the Bishops of Rome that followed the Apostles wrote, without expressing any surprise that: "... then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; ..." [In Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) Vol III, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3.]
The sixth after St. Peter being named 'Sixtus' seemed rather propitious.
Then there was St. Anacletus, the second 'pope' after St. Peter, who was listed in the martyrs celebrated at Mass as just 'Cletus.' That appeared to have been quite a slip, particularly given that 'Anacletus' is a Greek word for 'blameless' -- an attribute that St. Paul had said was a prerequisite for a bishop in <Titus 1:7>. Yes, it was true that freed slaves were often called 'Anacletus,' because of the blameless aspect, but that alone would not explain why this early 'pope' was referred to by two names -- especially when this resulted in people thinking that there has been two separate 'popes,' one Greek, one Roman, one called 'Cletus' and the other 'Anacletus.' Being an ex-slave was not an impediment to becoming a pope. St. Callistus I (sometimes Callixtus I), best known now for the Roman catacombs named after him, was well known as a slave.
Then there was St. Zephyrinus. He became 'pope' at a time when there was growing tension between Rome and the churches in the East -- to do with when Easter should be celebrated. 'Zephyrinus' is Greek for the West Wind. So a 'pope' that is elected at a time when the West is trying to impose its wishes on the East just happened to have a name that connotes changes from the West.
My curiosity, akin to that that killed the cat, was aroused.
I had to start looking into papal names, their meaning and the history of papal name changes.
The outcome of that research is this book "The Popes and the Tale of Their Names."
I could, as ever, be wrong, but I think you will like this book. It has a lot of brand new information. I even managed to come up with the rationales for all 125 documented papal name changes -- with only about 30%, clearly demarcated, being suppositions on my part. I also came up with a revised history of papal name changes.
Lets take Julius II, the so called 'warrior pope,' who gave us Michelangelo's immortal Sistine Chapel ceiling. You will find claims that he assumed this name because he admired Julius Caesar or wanted to follow in the footsteps of the 4th century pope St. Julius I. In reality he did not change his name! Julius is not an assumed name. His birth name was Giuliano della Rovere -- with 'Giuliano' being an Italian variant of 'Julius.' So he is another 16th century pope, along with Hadrian VI and Marccellus II, that retained his birth name. You will be hard pressed to find this anywhere else than in my book.
Written by Anura Guruge
A longtime friend of mine from Canada, a staunch Catholic with a historic Italian surname, told me that I should, in this BLOG, address the question as to who was the first pope. This is in a way a trick question.
Apostle St. Peter (Simon bar Jonah), the rock upon which the Church was founded, is credited, categorically, by the Catholic church as being the first pope. The primacy afforded to the pope is based upon there having been an unbroken succession of popes starting with St. Peter. Thus, St. Peter, by definition, is the first pope. But for the sake of veracity it is now necessary to introduce some caveats.
Even without debating St. Peter's role in setting up or running the Roman church, it suffices to say that St. Peter probably did not consider himself as a bishop, or pope. He was an Apostle, the Prince of Apostles at that.
The Catholic pope and the Bishop of Rome, at a minimum for the last 1,700 or so, have been one and the same. The Bishop of Rome is the Catholic pope and that pope is always the Bishop of Rome.
It is now believed that Rome did not have a monoepiscopal [i.e., headed by a single bishop] structure till c. 140. St. Pius [c. 140/142 - c. 154/155], the ninth in line, after St. Peter is thought to have been the first sole Bishop of Rome.
Until the 3rd century, 'pope', from the Greek pappas meaning father, was commonly used to refer to any priest or bishop.
St. Siricius [Dec. 384 - Non. 399] is credited with being the first Bishop of Rome to appropriate the title 'pope' in its current Catholic connotation -- albeit, not on an exclusive basis.
St. Siricius was succeeded by St. Anastasius I who reigned for 2 years. His successor was St. Innocent I (Dec. 401 - Mar. 417). Innocent I proved to be a very assertive pope who did much to further the cause of papal primacy. Consequently he earned the sobriquet 'the first pope.'
The exclusivity that the term 'pope' now enjoys within the Western Church came to be in the 11th century when it was so mandated by St. Gregory VII (Apr. 1073 - May 1085). A document from 1075, attributed to Gregory VII, with the heading Dictatus papae (Pronouncements of the pope), specified 27 propositions pertaining to the rights of the pope; one of them stating: 'His title is unique in the world.' Dictatus papae, however, was not a papal bull, encyclical or decretal. Instead, it was more in the lines of what today would be known as a 'memo to file.'
Written by: Anura Guruge
$8.70 (U.S.) plus shipping.
