Mosaics of female bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter katy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

katy

Guest
A guy I work with is married to a “woman priest” and he insists they are going to Rome to view ancient mosaics of woman bishops. What the heck is he talking about? I told him that could not be true, but he is adamant.
 
katy said:
A guy I work with is married to a “woman priest” and he insists they are going to Rome to view ancient mosaics of woman bishops. What the heck is he talking about? I told him that could not be true, but he is adamant.
Click to expand...
He’s bought into a hare-brained idea that because there is a mosaic depicting the mother of Pope Pascal (I think) in the 9th century, and she is called “episcopa”, which is CLAIMED to be the ‘feminization’ of episcopus’ or bishop, that it ‘proves’ there were women bishops.’

Which is nonsense. She is called episcopa because the WIFE OR MOTHER of a bishop was given the ‘female version of the title. Like saying, “Mr. and Mrs. Bishop”, in an era when people did not really use surnames so much but relied on being known as “John (the) baker”, “James John’s(son)” (John’s father could have been named Mark, or Tybalt, or anything). If there are three respected women in town named Lucy, and one was the wife of the baker, instead of calling her Lucy the daughter of Maud, it was easy to say "Lucy Baker’ even though Lucy herself was not the baker. Her husband was.

So what if another Lucy was the mother of a bishop? Easy answer? She is LUCY BISHOP.

And if you’re in ROME and the language is LATIN, remember that in Latin, nouns are male and female. If you are a man (vir) you are BELLUS (male) and if you are a woman (femina) you are BELLA. You can’t be “vir bella” or femina bellus!

Of course that answer is too logical for these poor deluded "womynpriest’ people. Pray for them.
 
So are all of them supposed to be bishops? He seems to think there were more than one.
 
CatholicLife said:
This is the mosaic.
http://sojo.net/sites/default/files/article/image/mosaic of women leaders.jpg
Click to expand...
That looks like Mary. In the Byzantine tradition (which heavily influenced early Italian Christianity) Mary is always depicted as being garbed in the Byzantine equivalent of a chasuble simply to draw a parallel between the Theotokos and the priest who acts as a theotokos.

In regards to the episcopa, the same tradition is still relevant in Semitic culture. If there’s a married priest (khoury) his wife is called a khouriyya. Now, literally, if one studied Arabic one would say that’s a woman priest. However, a khouriyya is not a woman priest, she’s simply a priest’s wife.
 
I think this website would do well to establish a standard of civility that excludes worlds like “hare-brained.” No one knows definitively the explanation behind these interesting mosaics and other evidence of female leaders in the early church. Methinks the use of such language betrays the author’s discomfort with the distinct possibility that what he ridicules just may have been true.
 
Alabotacat said:
I think this website would do well to establish a standard of civility that excludes worlds like “hare-brained.” No one knows definitively the explanation behind these interesting mosaics and other evidence of female leaders in the early church. Methinks the use of such language betrays the author’s discomfort with the distinct possibility that what he ridicules just may have been true.
Click to expand...
I’ll modify my words to ‘off the wall’. . .😃 or ‘unproven’ or ‘reaching’. . .

BTW, I’m a woman. 😃 Have been for 57 years. I like being a woman, I like men, I like children, apple pie, and my mom (she’s almost 84).

And you’re entitled to your opinion about what ‘youthinks’ but you’re wrong.

They are interesting mosaics, indeed they are beautiful, but we do know (and Pope John Paul II, soon to be saint, made it perfectly clear). there never were, there never are, and there never will be woman ‘ordained’ as priests, because the Church has no authority to do so. Not then, not now, not ever.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
He’s bought into a hare-brained idea that because there is a mosaic depicting the mother of Pope Pascal (I think) in the 9th century, and she is called “episcopa”, which is CLAIMED to be the ‘feminization’ of episcopus’ or bishop, that it ‘proves’ there were women bishops.’

Which is nonsense. She is called episcopa because the WIFE OR MOTHER of a bishop was given the ‘female version of the title. Like saying, “Mr. and Mrs. Bishop”, in an era when people did not really use surnames so much but relied on being known as “John (the) baker”, “James John’s(son)” (John’s father could have been named Mark, or Tybalt, or anything). If there are three respected women in town named Lucy, and one was the wife of the baker, instead of calling her Lucy the daughter of Maud, it was easy to say "Lucy Baker’ even though Lucy herself was not the baker. Her husband was.

So what if another Lucy was the mother of a bishop? Easy answer? She is LUCY BISHOP.

And if you’re in ROME and the language is LATIN, remember that in Latin, nouns are male and female. If you are a man (vir) you are BELLUS (male) and if you are a woman (femina) you are BELLA. You can’t be “vir bella” or femina bellus!

Of course that answer is too logical for these poor deluded "womynpriest’ people. Pray for them.
Click to expand...
…this is the coolest thing I’ve read all day
 
Alabotacat said:
I think this website would do well to establish a standard of civility that excludes worlds like “hare-brained.” No one knows definitively the explanation behind these interesting mosaics and other evidence of female leaders in the early church. Methinks the use of such language betrays the author’s discomfort with the distinct possibility that what he ridicules just may have been true.
Click to expand...
While I agree that terms like hare-brained should not be used, it would be better to not assume anyone’s motives.

The womenpriest thing pops up here regularly.

The mosaic is unidentified and its provenance is unknown. The fact is, there were never women priests in the Church’s history.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
Alabotacat said:
I think this website would do well to establish a standard of civility that excludes worlds like “hare-brained.” No one knows definitively the explanation behind these interesting mosaics and other evidence of female leaders in the early church. Methinks the use of such language betrays the author’s discomfort with the distinct possibility that what he ridicules just may have been true.
Click to expand...
The earlier poster didn’t call the persons “hare-brained”, she referred to an idea as hare-brained.
Not just in this forum, but in oral and written communications in general, we tend to be much too civil, too delicate, in referring to ideas that go beyond just being “hare-brained” but downright dishonest. We can’t judge the heart of any one person, but we can judge politically driven movements that exploit religious connections, loyalties, and power to further their own ideology. Calling the ideas hare-brained is too mild.
 
Tantum, I am tempted not to reply because your response is so lacking in civility, let alone charity. BUT–I will try again. John Paul II may well have shut the door to female priests in the present time, but he cannot change history, and there is much evidence that the church built on Jesus’ clear overturning of the ancient norms regarding women. The writings of the early church writers contain many references to females presiding at the Eucharist. Although your quoting JPII (about women priests in our time) serves to emphasize your own outlook, it has nothing to do with interpreting the art and writings of the past.

And for what it’s worth to you, Tantum, this is all written by a female very happy to be a woman, wife, and mother.
 
Alabotacat said:
Tantum, I am tempted not to reply because your response is so lacking in civility, let alone charity. BUT–I will try again. John Paul II may well have shut the door to female priests in the present time, but he cannot change history, and there is much evidence that the church built on Jesus’ clear overturning of the ancient norms regarding women. The writings of the early church writers contain many references to females presiding at the Eucharist. Although your quoting JPII (about women priests in our time) serves to emphasize your own outlook, it has nothing to do with interpreting the art and writings of the past.

And for what it’s worth to you, Tantum, this is all written by a female very happy to be a woman, wife, and mother.
Click to expand...
Every evil ideology in the last century, especially legalized abortion, was packaged as the fulfillment of some trend, that began many centuries ago. But people centuries ago weren’t ready to accept it (Communism, Nazism, Euthanasia, gay marriage), so it got postponed by the power structure. But in our own time we can see clearly, what earlier people (like JPII) weren’t prepared to accept. So now we have to push, to expedite the sacred trend into effect. This is not just the reinterpretation of history, it almost personifies history, to make it a spiritual force we must obey; rather than obeying the pope, for instance.
 
The Greek word for priest is presbyteros. In Greek Catholic Churches, the wife of the priest is often called presbytera even though she is not a priest. I assume that episcopa is used in a similar way for the bishop’s mother. 🙂
 
Alabotacat said:
Tantum, I am tempted not to reply because your response is so lacking in civility, let alone charity.
Click to expand...
Huh. I’ve re-read Tantum’s post several times, and I don’t see it as being uncivil or uncharitable in the least. To each his own, I guess…
 
Alabotacat said:
Tantum, I am tempted not to reply because your response is so lacking in civility, let alone charity. BUT–I will try again. John Paul II may well have shut the door to female priests in the present time, but he cannot change history, and there is much evidence that the church built on Jesus’ clear overturning of the ancient norms regarding women. The writings of the early church writers contain many references to females presiding at the Eucharist. Although your quoting JPII (about women priests in our time) serves to emphasize your own outlook, it has nothing to do with interpreting the art and writings of the past.

And for what it’s worth to you, Tantum, this is all written by a female very happy to be a woman, wife, and mother.
Click to expand...
Can you provide us this evidence of which you claim to have?
 
There have never been female priests or bishops in the Catholic/Orthodox Churches in apostolic succession. Anyone, however liberal, who is familiar with Christian history knows this.
 
Alabotacat said:
Tantum, I am tempted not to reply because your response is so lacking in civility, let alone charity. BUT–I will try again. John Paul II may well have shut the door to female priests in the present time, but he cannot change history, and there is much evidence that the church built on Jesus’ clear overturning of the ancient norms regarding women. The writings of the early church writers contain many references to females presiding at the Eucharist. Although your quoting JPII (about women priests in our time) serves to emphasize your own outlook, it has nothing to do with interpreting the art and writings of the past.

And for what it’s worth to you, Tantum, this is all written by a female very happy to be a woman, wife, and mother.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. There never have been and never will be womenpriests. I’ve read their material and it’s clear that they’ve made things up. That is, unless you can provide obvious, checkable sources. They’ve just set themselves up for automatic excommunication.

But we’ll be back to this again, again, again…

Ed

Did I mention again?
 


As has been mentioned, these cannot be Catholic Bishops. But three of them seem to have halos … so likely these are depictions of female SAINTS. Which, if those who desperately WANT there to have been female Bishops in the past think about it, is an even HIGHER rank (not that THAT matters either so much).

That is … they’d have achieved something that each living Bishop still awaits and hopes for.

Don’t ask me what the deal is with the woman who has the square behind her head.

She may not be a saint, but she has a point … or two … in her favor maybe?! 🤷 :dancing:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top