QUEBEC-RESEARCH-L Archives

Archiver > QUEBEC-RESEARCH > 2005-04 > 1114357711


From: "Lisa Lepore" <>
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Witch Hunts
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:48:31 -0400
References: <9b.5e2bc32c.2f9c4519@aol.com> <00a901c54875$d6980e30$0b02a8c0@athlonxp>


Diane & List -

I looked up your question in the Catholic Encyclopedia
on line here
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08427c.htm

According to the information there, the problem goes back to
John XV, a Roman named John, the son of a Roman presbyter Leo.

Some historians of the time incorrectly recorded a man named John,
son of Robert who served as Pope for 4 months before the John, son
of Leo. It botched up the numbers of the popes named John from that
point on. The true John XV [son of Leo] was often called called John
XVI.

In their list of Popes, all the Popes name John from this time on
have 2 numbers listed after their names.

Lisa

----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Lebrun" <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Q-R] Witch Hunts


> I am beginning to think that you`re on a witch hunt!!!!!
>
> By the way, as you suggested, I have referred my 264th-265th pope to
my
> parish priest. Could not answer me. He has the same book I have so
he has
> turned the matter over to someone, an expert on popes, to find the
answer
> and tell me the reason for our book saying 264th and the media 265th
and
> whether or not it was about John XX.... Was there a John XX and if
not, why
> was that number skipped!!!!! I will eventually have an answer!
>
> Diane Lebrun

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:40 PM
> Subject: [Q-R] Witch Hunts
>



This thread: