Standing on Higher Ground: The History of the Papacy

[Trollheart]

So, I hear you all moan, he's lost it at last. After vampires, serial killers, histories of this country and that country, animation and aviation he's reduced to the most boring topic of all time: popes.

What? Boring did I hear you say?

Boring?

Let me tell you, nothing could be farther from the truth! The history of the papacy is littered with lies, corruption, sex, racism, misogyny, wars, betrayal, and power hungry men who would stop at nothing to get what they wanted. Boring? It's like the Roman Empire, only without the sex. Well, okay, with the sex. But without the war. No, wait a minute, it has that too. Well, without the betray - okay, basically the long, two thousand year plus story of the papacy is just like the history of the Roman Empire, but with just the one god.

It's also incredibly amusing that because one man who may or may not have been the son of God (who himself may or may not exist) gave authority to another over his people, this authority has carried through two millennia and continues to hold sway over the faithful, sending them into paroxysms of ecstasy whenever he even appears before them. But the real question is: how did this institution , which was originally intended to be the idea of a shepherd leading his flock and caring for them, turn into century after century of men setting themselves up as little less than kings and emperors, and lining their own coffers while the ministration to the faithful could go fuck itself? And how, after so many corrupt popes, did the whole thing - on the surface, at least - turn itself back to the business of looking after God's people?

I feel the history of the Papacy should be a very interesting thing to research - not always; surely there were Popes who did little in their term, just spent their time nodding off and calling for mugs of milky tea, but certainly in the earlier days they all but reigned like kings or emperors, so there should be a lot of meat there. And while of course the "bad Popes" are going to be more interesting to write about, I don't intend this to be a hatchet job: many of the Popes supported the arts, were patrons of literature and architecture, even helped the poor and contributed to world history in a positive way. So I will be taking the good with the bad, and trying to draw a picture of what the Papacy has looked like over the now two thousand years and counting of its existence. As you probably all know, I am a non-believer, but my intention is not to denigrate or jeer at the institution of the Papacy, and I will give as balanced and fair an account as I can manage.

But it should not and cannot be overlooked that it was the Catholic Church that instigated the Crusades, the Inquisitions and who ordered certain books - and many people - to be burned, the Church which actively held back advances in science because they did not fit in with their teachings and were therefore seen as heretical, and who kept women and minorities down, believing this to be the "will of God." Popes often sponsored or even commanded armies, wars and land grabs, allowed loveless marriages for the sake of alliance building, and helped to keep Europe in the Dark Ages. On the flip side, as noted, and certainly during the Renaissance, they were the patrons of the arts, builders of cathedrals, hospitals, schools and of course churches, and provided for the poor and the destitute.

Whether true or not we shall see, but the TV series The  Borgias implied that Popes were not just elected - at least, at that time in history - but could buy, bribe, threaten or even murder their way into the job. In many ways (and again, how much of this is fantasy, distortion of the truth or pure lies I don't know at the moment) the Vatican seems to have been, for some considerable time, almost a forerunner of the Mafia, with hired killers, poisonings, suppression of the truth and, of course, twisted sexual practices. I'd like to say that was just a few bad apples, but this is not something I know, so you'll have to find out as I do, as we descend into the murky forgotten dusty crypts of the Vatican and unearth the stories of the men behind the office down through almost two millennia.

Of course, I say the Vatican, but the independent city-state was only established less than a century ago, in 1929. Prior to that, all popes presided from Rome (though there were a few exceptions as we will see) as this was of course the centre of the Roman Empire, which changed from a pagan worship to a Christian one on the conversion of the Emperor Constantine the Great, allowing the new sect, which had up till then been persecuted by the Romans, its adherents tortured and killed, its priests hunted down, to be practiced in public and in safety.

[Trollheart]

Part I: Foundations (1st to 10th Century)

Chapter I: Upon This Rock: The Founding of Christianity and the Beginning of the Papacy

FIRST CENTURY

Total popes: 5
Oldest:TBA

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
(Matthew 16:18)

Papal Name: Saint Peter
Actual Name: Shimon Bar Yonah
Born: c. 1 AD
Year elected: c. 30
Country: Israel (Judea)
Region: Capernaum
Duration of Papacy: approx. 34 years
Roman Emperor(s) in his time:Caligula, Claudius, Nero (talk about a baptism of fire!)
Bulls: n/a
Achievements: Established Christianity
Enemies: Romans, Jews, other religions, almost everyone
Wars Engaged in or Supported: n/a
Died: c. 64-68
Death: By crucifixion (said to be upside-down)
Buried: Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome, where the Vatican now stands

Even if you, like me, doubt that Jesus Christ was or is the Son of God and that he rose from the dead, there is good historical evidence that a man of that name lived and preached in the area around Judea in what we have come to call AD 30 or so, and that he had followers, of which Simon Peter is said to have been one. As noted in the quote from The Gospel of Matthew above, Jesus is reputed to have told Peter (then called Simon, or Shimon) that he was to lead his church after Jesus's death, and for this reason he renamed him Peter, or the rock. No, not that one. As a result of this, Peter is seen in Christian belief as being the first ever pope. It might not be the greatest endorsement of him that he denied even knowing his master three times (as Jesus prophesied) but then, we all do things we later wish we hadn't when we're scared, and who among us has not lied to protect his own skin, so maybe we can forgive him that little slip.

The Bible (the only semi-historical record we have of events leading up to Jesus's death) tells us that after his rabbi was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane the Apostles, the followers and disciples of Jesus, legged it and split, all heading in different directions, hiding from the Romans, whom they feared would arrest them too. It's fair to say that, while Peter had his long dark night of the soul, punctuated with a dreadful full stop by the crow of the cock, none of the other Apostles were exactly rushing to give themselves up either. After all, when it comes right down to it they were just men, and simple men at that: their leader, whom they had hoped and believed would change the world, had just been taken by the military force occupying their country, and to them it must have been something like expecting to hang around while the Nazis took Anne Frank. Well, nothing like that, but certainly you didn't rush up to the SS and say "Here I am! Arrest me too!"

No. To give its authors credit, there are no wild stories invented about how the Apostles all stuck with Jesus, surrounding him and stopping his arrest, and giving themselves up too. While Peter did literally strike a blow for freedom in Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him and allowed himself to be taken. The Bible, whether you believe it or not, has no reason to lie about this. The authors could have made out there had been a glorious standoff, a popular uprising that swept Jesus to power. Or that, being the Son of God, he had simply vanished, or his captors had been cowed by his majesty and divinity, and fallen on their knees before him. This is not what we're told happened. The story given is brutal and honest, without frills or fables, without miracles or daring escapes. Jesus, when it came down to it, was taken without resistance, and the Christian sect lost its leader.

And after Jesus had been crucified (if you wish to believe he appeared to the Apostles, including Peter, three days later, that's your right, but I don't) Peter set about carrying out the mammoth task his master had set for him, that of carrying on and spreading the faith, taking the Good News to all nations, scattering the seed Jesus had sown far and wide. He would find this was harder than it seemed.

Christians being Christians, and men being men, almost immediately the new sect (not yet a church) began to disagree on various points of dogma. It should be perhaps noted that there is no record of Jesus, the undeniable (for Christians) head of the new church, ever specifying who could and could not "join up". In fact, he said that "anyone" who believes in me, shall have eternal life. He did not say "any Jew" or "any Gentile" (non-Jew) or even "anyone but the Romans". He said everyone, which included everyone; everyone of every faith who was prepared to believe in and follow his teachings could be considered a Christian, and was allowed enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

His followers, however, didn't quite see it that way.

A row broke out between Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. James believed that Christians (I'm not sure if they were called that yet, but you know what I mean) should adhere, um, religiously to the traditions of Judaism. Paul in particular believed that in order to be accepted into the new sect, which he saw as Jewish (which it pretty much was, then) converts must follow Jewish law, the Law of Moses. This included, inevitably, a popular Jewish operation in the trouser area. But not too many of those who wanted to switch sides had much interest in losing their foreskin, and Paul was of the belief that "no snip, no service, no salvation", or words to that effect. Peter, on the other hand, pointed out that Jesus - remember him? Our master? Died on the cross, returned from the dead, ascended into Heaven? Oh come on! You must remember him! Nice guy, long hair, beard, wouldn't hurt a fly? Yeah, yeah, that's the one, you remember now - had never set these preconditions on being accepted as part of his flock. While travelling Judea preaching, had he ever once asked to see a fore - well, let's not go there, but basically the point being made was that if Jesus had not ordered it then it was all cool. All friends together, and even Moses might have agreed.

But on such points of disagreement schisms develop, and so it was with the fledgling religion. Only barely born, not even able to talk or do anything for itself, it was already throwing tantrums and demanding this and that. Peter decided to take the dispute to the only one left on Earth who could be said to be related to Jesus (the only male; females of course did not count, despite the inclusion of Mary Magdalene into the Apostles by Jesus), his brother, James, called the Just. He ruled as follows:

"My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."
— Acts 15:7–11

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
— Acts 15:19–20

In other words, basically what I said: if Jesus didn't demand this of his followers, then what do you think gives you the right to? Chill out man, and let them keep their fucking foreskins. It's their souls we want, their hearts and minds. What is it with you and genitalia anyway? You some sort of queer or something?

Well, maybe not the last. But the decision was made, and so Gentiles would be allowed to become Christians without having to sacrifice their best friend's overcoat. Paul, of course, was not going to take this lying down, and thundered in a letter to the Galaxians, sorry Galatians "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat the Gentiles (sorry, sorry: that's eat WITH the Gentiles. Ah, the difference one word can make! From potential cannibal to a nice cup of cha). But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. (Sounds like some sort of self-support group). The rest of the Jews joined in this charade and even Barnabas was drawn into the hypocrisy." (Oh no! Not Barnabas! All right, I'll stop now).

It seems that Paul was losing support, and the schism between the two leaders began to widen. Theological scholars and experts disagree about a whole lot of things, including the possibility that the Peter mentioned as having a face-off with Paul was not that Peter but another one. There are differing opinions as to how the two men got on in later life - some even postulate that they were both martyred at the same time. None of that really concerns us, as I intend to concentrate on the popes and not Saint Peter, but he has to be covered as he was the first pope. I make no claims as to theological knowledge about the man, and admit that all we know about him comes from the Bible and either his own writings or those of other Apostles, some of whom, like Paul, may have been predisposed towards blackening his name and placing himself in the best light possible. Good luck to them both: I don't care. I'm just trying to position Peter historically as to what he did to kick off the original GOP that now all but rules the Earth.

Peter is said to have served as Bishop of the ancient Greek city of Antioch, now in modern Turkey, for seven years, then headed over to what would eventually - after a very long time, and long after he was dust himself - become the centre of Christian power, the Italian capital city and stronghold of the Roman Empire, Rome itself. Before even Antioch though, Peter would have a confrontation with a man who would challenge his power, and provide him with his first major challenge since the death of Jesus.

[Trollheart]

Simon Magus

But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, "This man is the great power [Gr. Dynamis Megale] of God."[17] And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, "Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost." But Peter said unto him, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought [Gr. Epinoia][18] of thine heart may be forgiven thee, for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity." Then answered Simon, and said, "Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."
— (Acts 8:9–24)

Reading the above it can be seen that while Simon Magus, a Samaritan, wished to be an Apostle he coveted the power rather than the desire to convert. He even went so far as to try to pay for the power, which really ticked Peter off, and he kicked him out of the city and denounced him. On arriving in Rome (before Peter) he seems to have set himself up as Jesus, telling everyone that he was the saviour, and performing "miracles" - he is said to have been a magician and a sorcerer (what's the difference? Dunno) and to have been able to levitate himself off the ground. Unlike (or, perhaps archly, like) the man he was impersonating, he fell in with a bad woman by the name of Helen, and the Romans clapped at his magic and even made him a god.

It's quite amazing the myths that grew up around this guy. I mean, some writers seem to have believed he actually was God. I mean, literally. The Big Cheese, old Scarypants himself, as Rik Mayall once said, though he was referring to the Devil at the time. Epiphanius (from whom, I wonder, is it possible we get the word epiphany?), Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, wrote that - oh wait just one tension-popping moment! I've heard of this guy. Wasn't he the one who refuted Origen in my journal about the Devil, moaning that he was wrong about his interpretation of God or something? And it seems that he didn't believe what I'm about to relate, but did in fact refute it in his Panarion (it means bread-basket - why did he title it so?) which is a work basically demolishing all Christian sects whose specific beliefs he did not agree with. Spent a lot of his time refuting, did our Epiphanius; seems to have been pretty much all he did. Nobody could refute like him. A dab hand at the old refuting, this lad.

So then, Epiphanius tells and then refutes (see?) the story that God was sitting around bored one day, long long ago, so long ago that even I don't remember what I was doing. Long before he had the spiffing idea of creating a universe, even. And a thought popped into his head, known as his First Thought, and for some unfathomable reason given a name and even a sex, female. The thought was called Ennoia (which, I have to be honest, sounds very close to annoy doesn't it?) and gave him this idea, literally translated from the pages of Panarion:

"Fuck me but I'm bored sitting around here with nothing to do. I am great after all. Why isn't somebody here praising me? I need to be praised, and constantly too. No point in hiring some dumbos who will drop in twice a week for a quick "Hosanna" and then feck off home, leaving me lonely and bored and un-praised. Nah, I need full-time staff. See to it will you Ennoia?"

(Okay I lied. Back to Ennoia and her great thought):

And so she did. She made herself into an idea, this thought called Annoy ya and this thought was this: where in the name of blue jumping fuck am I going to find professional sycophants for this guy? Congress hasn't been invented, Trump is trillennia from being born, and this copy of God News is three months old! I know! I'll make them, I will. What a good idea."

And so she did. Down to - well, I really don't know. Down to nowhere really. If this was, as the account suggests, the Beginning, then really nothing should have existed, should it? There should have been nowhere to go. What does it say in that bestseller of fiction? "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and something something was without form something." I don't know: I haven't opened a Bible since I was a kid, and even then I was bored. But religion - especially Christianity - is full of these paradoxes, and they're never explained, mostly because they can't be. The old f-word is used so often  - no, not that one! Faith I mean - it becomes a catch-all for everything that's too hard, or even impossible to explain, sort of "a wizard did it" kind of thing.

Anyhoo, this thought went somewhere, and created the angels. Masterstroke. Smashed it. God will be really happy now, thought Ennoia, and headed back up to tell him the Good News. Well, tried to anyway. Seems the angels, for some reason, according to this account, were none too pleased to have been created. Kind of like your annoying teenage son fuming "I didn't ask to be born!" Well, they didn't, and they were, on the whole, pretty pissed off about it. They grabbed Enoia - of whom, it is said, they were jealous - and jammed her into a female body.

Now, again, help me out here. Man had not been created, much less woman. The angels were the first living beings to be made by God, or his thought at any rate, so without the actual concept of male and female, how did they manage to...? Look, let's just leave all this inconvenient logic behind us, yeah? Go crazy otherwise. So they put poor old Ennoia into a female body and proceeded to, um, humiliate her down through the ages, as Man came swaggering onto the scene, much later. The angels, according to this account (which might have been part of the reason poor old Epiphanius spat out his unleavened bread or whatever he was eating and said "Oh no you fucking don't lads!") created the world as a prison for Ennoia, gave her the finger, said, "That'll teach you to create us, you bitch!" and slouched off to Heaven, where God greeted them, not with joy or love, but with a sharp glance at his watch and a frown, asking "where the hell have you guys been? Get to work immediately and don't expect any fucking lunch break!"

Maybe the angels had a point in not having wanted to be born. I mean, when your entire existence consists of telling one ageing white guy how great he is, you might as well be in Donald Trump's staff! Anyway at some point God must have thought "Where the hooting heck is that thought of mine?" and the angels shrugging uncomfortably and changing the subject by commenting loudly on how shiny his hair was, and how he only look a quadrillion gazillion years old and they could not believe he was so much older than that, surely not, he decided the only thing he could do was get up off his divine ass and lever himself up off of the couch (with the assistance of an infinite number of angels, all of whom did groan and grunt and sweat most profusely but yea, did refrain from suggesting the old guy sign up for a gym membership or maybe take more walks) and go looking for her.

In perhaps the first ever instance of finding yourself, this account goes on to say he discovered her on Earth, and was mightily pissed. He descended to Earth, possibly making admiring remarks about the architecture, and found his thought Ennoia was in the body of a woman called Helen. He came to her in the shape of (thought I'd forgotten, didn't you? Thought my mind was wandering again) Simon Magus, speaking thus:

"And on her account," he says, "did I come down; for this is that which is written in the Gospel 'the lost sheep'. - Epiphanius, Panarion, 21.3.5

His explanation then seems to have been a little, shall we say, distracted as he went on.

"For as the angels were mismanaging the world, owing to their individual lust for rule, he had come to set things straight, and had descended under a changed form, likening himself to the Principalities and Powers through whom he passed, so that among men he appeared as a man, though he was not a man, and was thought to have suffered in Judaea, though he had not suffered."

Right. Glad we got that sorted then. But he wasn't finished, oh no.
"But in each heaven I changed my form," says he, "in accordance with the form of those who were in each heaven, that I might escape the notice of my angelic powers and come down to the Thought, who is none other than her who is also called Prunikos and Holy Ghost, through whom I created the angels, while the angels created the world and men."

Oh-kay. Well, it's no wonder Eipihanius blew a fuse, is it? While it's a given that trying to figure logic into religion is a waste of time, there are some basic details here  that seriously challenge standard Christian dogma.

First: the idea of God's thoughts, or any part of him, being female. Surely this is not what the Church, an institution which delights in keeping women down and which, through its teachings via the Bible, holds all of womanhood liable for humanity's unceremonious ejection from the Garden of Eden, wants to preach? God is a man. There is no argument. God is superior. Man is superior. Therefore, God must be a man. QED. How dare anyone suggest any part of him be female? And his thoughts? As we all know, the brain is the seat of the human personality, so what is being suggested here is that the most important part of God - his brain - is (at least in part) female, which is tantamount to saying God is female!

Heresy!

Second: the account claims that this female thought created the angels, not God. Well, I mean, yes, essentially it's still God, but I can imagine Epiphanius fuming at the idea of "any part of God being female" and that part being given the glory of bringing the angels into being. I doubt he would have been amused.

Heresy!

Third: The angels create Earth and imprison Ennoia (God, basically) there. What happened to "God moved on the waters" or whatever? Everyone knows the big man made the Earth, no damn angels. Angels are good at singing and praising and occasionally fighting for the Lord, doing the odd Annunciation to unsuspecting virgins, but creating the Earth? Do me a favour, son. Next you'll be asking me to believe there's more than one God!

Heresy!

Fourth, and finally: God comes down to Earth, not as Jesus, not to take on the sins of men (well, women really, but we'll give them a pass - for now) and to bring eternal salvation, but to save his whore?

Heres - well, you get the picture.

So Epiphanius roundly condemned and branded Simon Magus as a heretic, as had Hippolytus, another well respected theologian, a century before when he wrote, rather more damningly, "But the liar was enamoured of this wench, whose name was Helen, and had bought her and had her to wife, and it was out of respect for his disciples that he invented this fairy-tale."

You've got to wonder, don't you, if this "wench Helen" (sometimes called Helena) is linked to or based on or in any way related to she of the Trojan War, that "face that launched a thousand ships" and who is of course blamed by Homer for the war, continuing a longstanding tradition of putting it all on the woman. Women aren't allowed on ships because they're bad luck. Women for a long time couldn't vote, or own property. Women married to kings were blamed if they couldn't get pregnant, or, if they did, if they lost the child. Women were burned as witches (seldom ever men) and women were stalked  by killers like Jack the Ripper. All the way back to poor unfortunate Eve, who after all was just a bit peckish and took the Yelp review of the  big tree from that nice snakelike fellow, women have been oppressed, put upon, blamed and punished for almost every evil that has befallen man.

At any rate, Hippolytus goes on to describe how Peter (yes I know, we're getting there, we're getting there) took on the heretic: Until he came to Rome also and fell foul of the Apostles. Peter withstood him on many occasions. At last he came ... and began to teach sitting under a plane tree. When he was on the point of being shown up, he said, in order to gain time, that if he were buried alive he would rise again on the third day. So he bade that a tomb should be dug by his disciples and that he should be buried in it. Now they did what they were ordered, but he remained there until now: for he was not the Christ.

Oops! I suppose there's such a thing as believing your own press too much, huh? I can just see the poor old disciples of Simon, standing around, looking at their watches (yes, yes!) and turning to each other after four days, shrugging and slowly dispersing. Backed the wrong horse again.

[Trollheart]

Not surprisingly, there are several accounts of Simon Magus's death, and many of his encounters both with Saint Peter and Saint Paul, who seem to have put their theological and ideological differences aside at least long enough to team up against the common enemy. One story tells of Magus riding a chariot through the air pulled by demons (uh-huh) which the two saints bring crashing to the ground by the power of prayer, killing Magus or, as it puts it in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (346 AD) "their prayers brought him to earth a mangled corpse." Then there were the Acts of Peter, believed written by Photoshop sorry Photios (c. 810/820 - 893) in which Peter actually challenges Magus to what amounts to I guess a magical smackdown. Magus is performing magic such as levitating himself from a tower (which might be slightly - but only slightly - more believable and explainable than riding through the air in a chariot pulled by demons!) and declaring he is going to Heaven. Peter throws down the gauntlet, praying to God to fix this imposter, and so he does. Magus falls mid-flight and breaks his leg in three places. Reading between the lines, it seems the inefficiency or ineptitude of the local doctors exacerbated the problem, and he died in pain.

The Acts of Peter and Paul, not to be confused with the above, author unknown but sometimes attributed to some head called Marcellus, note that the emperor Nero was a believer in Magus and had Peter and Paul imprisoned for three days, expecting Simon Magus to rise, Jesus-like, after three days. Needless to say, he was ever so slightly disappointed, so much so that he ordered the crucifixion of the two lads.

Though he didn't cheat death, necessitating the stowing by a crestfallen and angry Nero of the banner WELCOME BACK SIMON MAGUS I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN YOU and his cancellation of the ticker-tape parade, there are many accounts of Simon Magus's supposed magic. Mind you, it's important to be careful here. We have about as much evidence for them as we do for the works or miracles of Jesus, and who can say for sure what, if anything, happened, especially given that the accounts are all written by friendly hands, men who would want to place their leader in the best possible light? With that in mind though, here's what Magus is reputed to have done.

Seizing the chance to take over from him while he was away in Egypt at some magic symposium or other, one of his followers took it into his head to pronounce himself the leader, or as Simon Magus had described himself, the Standing One (I would assume some early Biblical times version of last man standing?) and when Simon came back and challenged him, here's what apparently happened.

"Dositheus, when he perceived that Simon was depreciating him, fearing lest his reputation among men might be obscured (for he himself was supposed to be the Standing One), moved with rage, when they met as usual at the school, seized a rod, and began to beat Simon; but suddenly the rod seemed to pass through his body, as if it had been smoke. On which Dositheus, being astonished, says to him, 'Tell me if thou art the Standing One, that I may adore thee.' And when Simon answered that he was, then Dositheus, perceiving that he himself was not the Standing One, fell down and worshipped him, and gave up his own place as chief to Simon, ordering all the rank of thirty men to obey him; himself taking the inferior place which Simon formerly occupied. Not long after this he died."

From what I can work out, this account comes from something called Histories and Recognitions, by a guy called Clement, who is believed either not to have existed or to have been someone who just wrote stuff down without any proof. They call this a "romance", which I guess is as close as it comes to describing it as fiction. He also (Magus, not the possible Clement) did a Dorian Grey by enslaving the soul of a young boy to act as his familiar, keeping it trapped by use of the boy's image in his room. Right.

When Simon Magus again debates Peter on the nature of Jesus, and how he, Simon, is better placed to know the mind of the Saviour (despite having, he says, only conversed with him in dreams and visions, whereas Peter has spoken to him literally in the flesh - and denied him, though I think he leaves that part out) Peter takes him apart philosophically and theologically thus:

"But can any one be educated for teaching by vision? And if you shall say, "It is possible," why did the Teacher remain and converse with waking men for a whole year? And how can we believe you even as to the fact that he appeared to you? And how can he have appeared to you seeing that your sentiments are opposed to his teaching? But if you were seen and taught by him for a single hour, and so became an apostle, then preach his words, expound his meaning, love his apostles, fight not with me who had converse with him. For it is against a solid rock, the foundation-stone of the Church, that you have opposed yourself in opposing me. If you were not an adversary, you would not be slandering me and reviling the preaching that is given through me, in order that, as I heard myself in person from the Lord, when I speak I may not be believed, as though forsooth it were I who was condemned and I who was reprobate. Or, if you call me condemned, you are accusing God who revealed the Christ to me, and are inveighing against Him who called me blessed on the ground of the revelation. But if indeed you truly wish to work along with the truth, learn first from us what we learnt from Him, and when you have become a disciple of truth, become our fellow-workman."

And mic drop.

But we have got a little off the beaten path here, and this is supposed to be about Saint Peter. His battles, both physical and philosophical, with Simon Magus are only a small part of his story, though they do come near its end, as he ends up being crucified a matter of days after Simon's death. But let's not forget Simon Magus was in Rome long before Peter, who was hanging out at Antioch for seven years. What did he do in that time, between kicking out Simon Magus and later facing him down in the final confrontation? Well he seems on the face of it to have been quite a pragmatic man. Judaism is notorious for its insistence on adherence to its rites - no Jew can eat pork, all Jewish boys must go through the Bah Mitzvah and so on, but this wasn't Judaism, or if it was, it was a new offshoot of it, and Peter must have known that, like every new idea, it was going to take some persuading before people would try it.

For one thing, you have to consider the times. Jews had clung desperately to their religion in the face of an occupying force who believed in multiple gods, and while in general the Empire recognised that to try to force all Jews to convert would kick off riots across the entire region, they were still made to feel like they were ignorant, superstitious fools. So, considering how important their religion was to them, is it any wonder they resisted the idea of another new guy on the block, who seemed to take the best of their religion but add some of its own, and asked them to convert? They wouldn't exactly have been lining up, especially since the new sect was already outlawed and unrecognised by Rome, given that its now-dead leader had been classified and executed as an enemy of the state. Why should they ally themselves with such rebels and bring trouble down on their heads, when the Romans were - grudgingly - allowing them to pursue their own religion?

If he was to get anyone to sign up, Peter must have realised that he had to make it as attractive as possible, and placing restrictions on membership was not going to help. Besides, Jesus had not mentioned any such terms and conditions, had he? So while Jews had to eat "kosher" meat, why should Christians? Was it necessary for Christians to be circumcised? This was a big bone (sorry) of contention between Peter and Paul, the latter of whom thought the snip was definitely in order, but Peter knew most men would not go for this, and would then say "nah you're all right mate I'll stay where I am". Of course then Jews converting were going to be pissed, as they would already have lost their outer shell, as it were, and would probably resent that the new guys hadn't to go through the same no doubt painful process (so much more for them, one would shudderingly imagine, than for the Jewish lads, who would not even remember the ceremony, having been babies at the time).

So Peter did what he could to make joining up as easy and hassle-free as possible, though of course there were still rules that had to be followed. One god, lads. Just the one. Leave the others behind. No, you fucking can't have just Mercury too. I don't give a toss if he's only a little one, he's not welcome. Aphro-what? Goddess of love? Do me a favour.

Paul did not agree. Paul was, I guess what we'd call a hardliner, a traditionalist. Not forgetting of course that all the Disciples were Jews originally, Paul believed all Jewish traditions and conditions should be brought forward into the new religion, making it more an offshoot of Judaism than a totally new religion. He therefore reviled the Gentiles (non-Jews) who refused to do the things mentioned above, and more, and decreed they should be shut out of the new religion, not allowed to follow Jesus. But as I say, Paul and Peter obviously reconciled, or at least declared a truce, as they're depicted as working together for much of the accounts that mention them.

They are, for instance, both said to have founded the Church of Corinth (in ancient Greece) and Rome: "You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time" - (Dionysius of Corinth, Fragment of a Letter to the Roman Church, Chapter III). However there may be doubt about this, as apparently in his Epistle to the Romans, Paul namechecks his homies in Rome but Peter is conspicuous by his absence. Three to five years later, about AD 60 - 62, again no mention of Peter during Paul's two-year stay in Rome.

The death of Peter  or rather, his acceptance of it -  is commemorated in story and in a painting by the fifteenth-century artist Annibale Carrachi, which depicts the legend. Christ is seen carrying his cross towards Rome, while Peter, under sentence of death, is getting out of Dodge. He asks his master "Domine, Quo Vadis?" (Lord, where are you going?) to which Jesus replies "Eo Romam vado iterum crucifigi" (I am going to Rome to be crucified again). On realising that Jesus has to die twice because of his cowardice (what?) Peter decides to return to Rome and face his fate. All highly idealised, as is the idea he was then crucified upside-down, possibly due to the incompetence of Lucius Malefistus Stupidus, an intern on his first day on the job who had held the instructions the wrong way up. Or, according to various Christian dogmas, because he did not believe himself worthy of dying as Christ did, or again to illustrate that the Romans had everything upside-down, arse-about-face, and that he was, even right up to the end, a fucking clever clogs who never knew when to shut his fool mouth.

Whatever the truth, that was the end (at least, the human end - don't ask me about what happened next, if anything) of Saint Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope of the new Christian Church. Of course, back then the word pope was not even invented and the Church was still a persecuted sect, but later, when things cooled down and it became accepted, legal and then official, and eventually the most literal example of local boy done good as Christianity became the biggest religion in the entire world, there was time to write about Saint Peter and to adopt him as being the very first pope.

As something of a postscript to this, in 1939 fragments of bone were unearthed in what was believed to be a shrine just beneath St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, said to be the grave of the saint himself. Now, it was apparently the current pope at the time, Paul VI, who confirmed the bone fragments were those of Saint Peter. What exact skill a pope has in archeology, forensics or anthropology I don't know, but he was seen as the central authority and almost thirty years after their excavation the bones were pronounced as being those of the first pope of the Christian Church. More tricky was working out whether this was indeed the place of the saint's burial or just the site of his execution, and that, well, they're still working on that. Still, it does seem to prove, if nothing else, that the man actually existed. Of course, technically speaking these bones surely can't be identified (DNA would be useless, as I doubt the Roman Empire kept a database to check it against) so they could in all likelihood be the bones of anyone. Like almost everything to do with the Church, and religion in general, I guess it's a matter of faith. You either believe or you don't.

Following Peter the line of succession is a little blurred, a lot disputed and not very well documented, but in general these are the more or less agreed-upon men who took up the baton, sometimes called the "shadow popes", which, though it sounds like some sort of cabalistic organisation working dark deeds in the Vatican, merely refers to their doubtful provenance. I suppose as the Christian Church was then a) new and b) under persecution by Rome, the chances of anyone writing down for instance minutes of meetings wherein a new pope was elected were slim, and even if anyone did, they're lost to history now, so we go with what we have.

[Trollheart]

And next we have this guy.

Papal Name: Linus
Actual Name: Linus
Born: c. AD 10
Year elected: c. AD 67
Country: Italy
Region: Volterra
Duration of Papacy: 9 years
Roman Emperor(s) in his time:Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian (that's a LOT of arses on the Imperial throne, but then, this was the time of the Four Emperors)
Bulls: None
Achievements: Not really an achievement, but witness to the sacking and burning of Jerusalem
Enemies: Roman Empire, all Peter's inherited enemies
Wars Engaged in or Supported: None, though he lived and ruled during the Jewish-Roman War
Died: c. AD 76
Death: Probably from natural causes. There are those who claim he was martyred, but this is believed unlikely.
Buried: (possibly) Vatican Hill

Like I say, there's very little to go on with the first batch of popes, as I guess they spent their time moving around and avoiding the Romans, but what we do know of Linus is that he's agreed to have been the second pope, ordained by Saint Peter (and later canonised himself, in a move which would become almost a posthumous perk of the office) and (remembering that there are differing views and you really don't want to get bogged down in these theological arguments and debates) is said to have been with Saint Paul near the time of his death or perhaps even when he died, in Rome. What is almost certainly not in doubt though is that Linus was the first Italian pope, and that virtually every other pope for two thousand years would be from that country, with a very few small - but often important - exceptions.

Can you then, I wonder, describe Linus as the first Roman pope? Italy being the heart of the Roman Empire, I think you could, and this then seriously predates the later conversion of Constantine the Great to Christianity and the wider acceptance of, and indeed imposition of the world's favourite religion throughout Rome, and later the world. I suppose the idea of travelling to Rome to set up the new Church was to "beard the dragon in its lair", so to speak, or even walk into the lion's den, almost literally. Rome was the centre of the empire's power, so if Christianity was to flourish it would have to take on the control and command centre of the religion which worshipped false gods, and in so doing take on the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. Like they say, go big or go home.

An interesting point about Linus is that, if the dates given are correct (and of course they may be off a year or two here or there, but are generally accepted to be more or less accurate) then he would have been the first pope to see Jerusalem, the centre of Jewish - and later Christian - faith destroyed by General, later to be Emperor Titus in AD 70. Following the Jewish Riots of 66 (get your kicks, huh?) when Jewish forces seized control of Jerusalem, the First Jewish-Roman War was initiated, and when Nero died in 68 there was a mad scramble for power, as the Year of the Four Emperors began the first Roman civil war. As you might expect from the name, 69 was the year that four separate emperors sat on the imperial throne - Galba, Otho, Vitellius and finally Vespasian, who would rule for ten years before being succeeded by his son, Titus.

As a general, Titus distinguished himself in the Jewish-Roman War and it was he who was responsible for sacking the city and burning the temple in 70, and also he who oversaw the completion of the new amphitheatre which was to become known as the Colosseum. He would also live through the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79, a matter of a few months after he had taken the throne. Titus, then, though feted both as a Roman general and emperor by history (his rule was said to be one of the wisest and most benign in decades, particularly after the cruelties and insanities perpetrated by Nero and Caligula before him) was a hated figure among Jews, and also the burgeoning new Christian religion, for his destruction of Jerusalem and his sacrilegious burning of the temple.

Linus would have found himself under immense pressure, trying to keep his faith and his people together in the face of such barbarity, and while the Christians were presumably not involved in the Jewish-Roman War, he must have felt for and sympathised with them. I mean, I don't know how the new sect felt about the war, whether they had any stake in it, but they surely would not have been on the side of Rome, and having been only less than a century ago most likely Jews themselves, it must have hit hard. To some extent, you could perhaps compare Linus to the guy who's entrusted with the keys to the office for the first time only to have the place turned over. The old adage was true, and all roads did indeed lead to Rome. Rome was the cultural, religious, military and artistic centre of the world, so any new religion wanting to spread its message would have to set up here.

I find it surprising, yet when I think about it now perhaps I should not, that early Christianity jostled and jockeyed for position with other new religions and sects, all of which wanted to attract the attention of the people, and all of which based themselves in Rome. In a way, I get the feeling of a kind of reality show idea - Last Religion Standing!? - where the one that could attract the most converts would be the one to survive, while the others would fade away or at least be less popular and not spread as far.

How very Darwinian, huh?