Do these images prove that early Christianity had FEMALE priests?

[thomasjj70]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/43161129.jpg

While checking my facebook this morning, I stumbled upon Fr. James Martin, SJ’s facebook post referenced below, he linked to this story:

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2510473/Vatican-unveils-frescoes-Catacombs-Priscilla-paintings-FEMALE-PRIESTS.html#ixzz2lCCdeQQe

Fr. James Martin, SJ’s Facebook Reference
facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151717446571496&set=a.139618381495.120357.46899546495&type=1&theater

After a five-year restoration, newly restored frescoes, dating to 230 or 240 AD, in the Catacombs of Priscilla in Rome, have been revealed by the Vatican. They are stirring up controversy because one depicts a woman at prayer, which some claim shows her celebrating the Eucharist. A Vatican official has dismissed those claims: “These are readings of the past that are a bit sensationalistic but aren’t trustworthy,” said Fabrizio Bisconti, the superintendent of the Vatican’s sacred archaeology commission.

I’ll leave this analysis up to church historians and art historians, but it’s worth noting that the woman in the fresco is standing in the traditional “orans” position, the ancient gesture for both personal prayer (icons of Mary often show her in this position) and leading prayer. The “orans” gesture is used today by presiders at Mass.

Some questions for scholars to ask about the fresco would include: Who else is pictured standing in the “orans” position in images in the third century? Is it common for women to be depicted in the “orans” position? Is there significance to her standing in the middle of the group of figures? Is she wearing a dalmatic, the traditional vestment of the deacon (indeed, the dalmatic pictured looks similar to current-day ones), or simply the standard garb for women in the third century? Does the composition imitate others where men are leaders of prayer? Is there any link to the Eucharist, or to eucharistic meals, in the overall composition? Etc.

Here is a link to the AP story, with multiple photos:

I just thought I would share, more to possible provide a topic for a future Catholic Answers Apologist article…
Similar to this one:
www.catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

 

[McCall1981]

Why is it always Fr. James Martin with these things? He’s the one that made up the women Cardinals thing too

 

[thomasjj70]

At times it is difficult to discern people’s motives or even if they have them, especially on facebook, thus I usually wait for other’s, that are more uniquely intune to these matters, to comment… Why always Fr. James Martin SJ? I do not know.

I know after Fr Martin posts a link similar to this on current events, I typically wait a few days and read the same topic on The National Catholic Register to provide clarity… :getholy:

 

[josephback]

The Church I was confirmed in has a similar picture behind the altar of Mary’s Assumption. To me the image in the link could just as well be a women prophet. There’s the dove on either side to symbolize the Holy Spirit, and above her is the Good Shepherd symbol of Christ. Where’s the altar for her to celebrate Mass? People will impose their own agenda on the past.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here we go again…

I’m pretty sure that – if there were actually women priests in the early Church – we would have a bit more historical evidence than some creative interpretations of a few frescoes.

Ah well, that wouldn’t make for good copy…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t even think taffy can stretch as far as his conclusions…

I have to give it to him… if it weren’t so depressing, I’d be impressed by his level of disregard for… well… reality… It takes a lot of effort to be that ignorant! Ad-hominem attacks aside, does he actually believe this stuff, or is he just looking for press?

 

[China123]

I have never really understood all the talk about women priests. As a woman, I am not sure why it is important that women HAVE to be priests. Women provide and have provided an important prescence in the Church and throughout history. Are women being ordained the only measure modern women have of measuring their “worth” in the Church? I have never understood the argument or the need for women priests. The division in the sexes has always baffled me too . My worth is just as important as anyone else in God’s eyes so

Don’t want to start anything or DO NOT need a discussion on the matter but just my 2 cents is all.

 

[Darryl1958]

There were women priest in Christianity. The images prove what is already known.

Early Christianity however includes Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics of diverse sorts, as well as groups more identifiably what we now regard as orthodox.

The Biblical record shows some of the controversy as the orthodox doctrine developed into what it is now today, with Paul speaking of women prophesying in the church in one breath, and in another saying that women need to keep silent in church

 

[on_the_hill]

Why is it always Fr. James Martin with these things? He’s the one that made up the women Cardinals thing too

I’m not familiar with Fr. James Martin. If he is known to roil the waters, how has the Church regarded him?

 

[seekerz]

There were women priest in Christianity. The images prove what is already known.

Early Christianity however includes Marcionites, Ebionites, Gnostics of diverse sorts, as well as groups more identifiably what we now regard as orthodox.

The Biblical record shows some of the controversy as the orthodox doctrine developed into what it is now today, with Paul speaking of women prophesying in the church in one breath, and in another saying that women need to keep silent in church

A controversy that spans the ages? In other words, the more things change, the more they remain the same…

 

[KrazyKat]

DID like him on Facebook for a very short period of time. Does not take long to catch the drift.

Controversy does not enlighten the spirit.

 

[Petaro]

Here we go again…

I’m pretty sure that – if there were actually women priests in the early Church – we would have a bit more historical evidence than some creative interpretations of a few frescoes.

Ah well, that wouldn’t make for good copy…

Very wise comment. Extrapolation from a work of art does not make good history. Why a modern Jesuit? Shaking my head and biting my tongue at the same time keeps me out of mischief.:AMDG

 

[on_the_hill]

Well, yeah. I looked at the online pictures. From looking at them, I’m not sure one can be sure those are women portrayed. They look like women, or maybe they’re men with long hair?

 

[Robert_Bay]

Here is an explanation from Fr. Patrick Michaels placed on Fr. Martin’s timeline.

Patrick Michaels: Art history is a field that is still subject to guesswork, but it should be educated guesswork rather than wishful thinking. There is a lot that we do not know for certain, because there are no documents that prove anything. We have Dan Brown to thank for everyone thinking that they can just impose meaning on things. There are rules of interpretation that you need to follow. What Fr. Martin suggests - other images of the orant - is one of them: How does the image show up elsewhere in catacomb art? That the figure is the celebrant for Eucharist is another case in point. It removes the image from its context (i.e. the other two images in the panel), and has meaning imposed on it rather than being read from it. This is what Signore Bisconti was referencing. The main painting in the Archisolio di Velatio has had a number of interpretations appended to it. The “orans” position of the female (it is presumed to be the same woman in the other two images, which is why it is assumed to be a woman) was borrowed from pagan Roman funerary art, as were many of the earliest Christian images, i.e. The Good Shepherd certainly comes from Scripture, but the image is borrowed from the “Crioforo”, or the “lamb-bearer”, which, for the Romans, referred to an act of charity or philanthropy (note the comparison in the small museum at S. Clemente in Rome). The orant in Roman funerary art was the representation of the virtuous individual. It seems that because of the use of this stance for prayer by the community (some have gone back to it while praying the “Our Father”) in early Christianity, it was an easy translation to one at prayer, and since it is funerary art, it seems to have referenced entering a state of perfect prayer in eternity. In earlier years the woman in blue, to our right of the central figure, was thought to be Mary with the Christ child in her lap, but since they are all in the same space, they would probably need to be read together. The most cogent explanation I have heard for this image came from one of the religious women who often lead the tours: The image represents three significant moments in a woman’s life (presumably the woman who was buried here) - her marriage (on our left), the birth of her child (on our right), and her birth into eternal life (the central figure), which because of its size suggests that this was the most important event of her life. It makes the most sense given the context and juxtaposition of the images. There are other images that suggest Eucharistic celebrations in the same catacomb, but they are hard to distinguish from images of the commemorative meal celebrated by Romans at the grave of their loved ones (refrigerium or “refreshment”). It has been one of the more powerful images that I have seen in my travels (even before restoration), and continues to be one of inspiration for me to actually try to understand the language of Early Christian Art. It may be the key to re-establishing a visual language for Christianity in our own time.

facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151717446571496&set=a.139618381495.120357.46899546495&type=1&theater#

 

[MarcoPolo]

Dan Brown formulated a whole theology of Jesus’ “wife” based on the appearance of the Apostle John in the Last Supper painting. It’s a lot easier to treat a painting as a Rorschach blot to see what one wants to see rather than locate an authentic historical document to validate one’s desires.

 

[robwar]

considering that this is a UK paper, I think this fresco is depicting Our Holy Mother Mary. She is holding up her hands and it doesn’t look like she is celebrating the Eucharist. Maybe this is depicting Her assumption. It just doesn’t stop does it. One very ancient fresco with the imagination of an anti-Catholic press is all that this is.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I don’t have much by way of positive expectations for what Fr. Martin has to say about anything, and I don’t want to assume the worst, but if Fr. Martin is innocent of trying to coax heretical sentiments, then he should at least include some crystal clear statements whenever he talks about these things that make it clear that he is not coaxing heretical sentiments. He should say something to the effect of, “The orans position is used today mostly by priest celebrants during Mass and other liturgies, but at the time it was common for private Christian prayer, so it is very unlikely that the artist was trying to represent a woman priest, which is impossible anyway.” Such a statement is respectful of the topic at hand, but there is no possibility of interpreting it in a way that could foment heresy.

Unfortunately that is just too unambiguous.

 

[opus101]

What is it about the painting that indicates that it is a woman? I wish there was a close-up view. Looks like a young man to me.

 

[Darryl1958]

A controversy that spans the ages? In other words, the more things change, the more they remain the same…

Christianity was much, much, much more heterodox in the beginning that today.

Probably by the time Timothy was written, I would say that the issue of female leadership of any kind within the ecclesiastical structure of orthodoxies was settled.
But the Montanists, for example, of which the very conservative and orthodox Tertullian was one, was a group based on the prophecies(many wrong by the way) of two women.

Women played an integral role in the foundation of the Christian church, even in the various churches that laid the foundation for the orthodoxies of today.

Thecla, wit her acts widely circulated in the early times, and her consideration by the Eastern orthodox to be the 'of the apostles;, is an indication of just how prominent women were in early Christianity, even before Christianity actually, as it was Jesus that came to the Samaritans through the intercession of the Samaritan woman at the well.

The feminism of those years and these are quite different too, in the idea that the independence of women of those days from the harshness of domestic life of childbirth wa achieved through virginity. A pure life did not require procreation either, since resurrection was the result of virginity.
Today, feminists arrive at the same ends through the Pill and contraception. Resurrection plays a secondary role.

 

[MarcoPolo]

how prominent women were in early Christianity

I don’t know anyone who doesn’t agree that women were integral in the formation of early Christianity, from Mary and Mary Magdalene to Perpetua and Felicity and on and on. This discussion is about whether or not there were females ordained to the priesthood, which of course there were not because it is an impossibility, and which of course this image does not depict as Church teaching, much less “prove,” as the sensational headline suggests.