Mosaics of female bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter katy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please, folks!

It is womyn priests.

None of them would go anywhere near a spelling that had “men” as part of it!

Not much amazes me more than the blindness of radical feminists to see that the characteristics which they reject in men are exactly what they have adopted.
 
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...
The was an article I read some months ago, which I can’t seem to find online any longer, which recalls the story of a bishop who mistakenly prayed the prayers for the ordination of a bishop upon an abbess.

The guy may also be confusing abbesses with “woman bishops.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
janeway529 said:
The was an article I read some months ago, which I can’t seem to find online any longer, which recalls the story of a bishop who mistakenly prayed the prayers for the ordination of a bishop upon an abbess.
Click to expand...
In the end it wouldn’t matter. Since valid sacraments require proper form, matter, etc. Since she was not a male (proper matter), the Sacrament would have been invalid and nothing would have happened. Also, if it was done accidentally, that also invalidates the Sacrament, since conveying of Sacraments requires intention as well.
 
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...
That women were never ordained as priests in the Church is a teaching which all Catholics must accept.

To reject this is to be in schism.
 
Zekariya said:
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. 🙂
Click to expand...
It is the same in Judaism. The Rabbi’s wife is called the Rebbetzin.

-Tim-
 
The woman in the mosaic is Episcopa Theodora (the mother of Pope St Paschal I). She is called episkopa because she is the mother of an episkopos (bishop).

See: ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=450315&Pg=Forum25&

A square halo means that the person in the Icon was still living when it was painted. 🙂

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 (or wife back when there were married bishops).
 
Well…she would have to be a protestant “priest”…so obviously she has to try and justify her own heretical position against the truth of Catholic dogma.
 
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...
JPII only reiterated a Dogma, an infallible teaching of the Church since Her inception to Her Death. It did not “start” with JPII as much as it was reiterated. I love history as much as the next person but we have to be very careful not to be lead down roads by snake oil salesmen with agendas. And that is what you have been fed.
 
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.
bzkoss236;11143610:
Can you provide us this evidence of which you claim to have?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this as well but have never seen any of the writings. It would be very interesting if such writings exist. If anyone can provide a link or reference, I would certianly like to look.

-Tim-
 
CaptFun said:
http://sojo.net/sites/default/files/article/image/mosaic of women leaders.jpg

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:
Click to expand...
great points you make, isn’t the the woman on the left depicted wearing a habit? a habit will be a square in a two dimensional picture, were’nt bishop’s mitres pointed at this time?
the woman 2nd left is wearing what looks like a crown or a tiara so she would be royalty; I don’t see anything in this picture that even suggests they are bishops.
 
nodito said:
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…
Click to expand...
Too many people today think being frank and disagreeing with them is being “uncivil” and “uncharitable”.
 
Alabotacat said:
The writings of the early church writers contain many references to females presiding at the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
If there are many references, it should be easy to provide a link to some of these, or at least an attributed quote.
 
The Church has not ordained women.

The Church is not ordaining women.

The Church will not ordain women.

Because

The Church cannot ordain women.

Period.
 
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...
Ala, I don’t have time right now to respond fully to you but I’ll be happy to discuss this later. I think though that your own outlook is what you are attempting to present as ‘fact’ and my words as ‘merely an opinion’. Now, either we are both claiming to teach ‘fact’ (and so, one or the other must be right), or one is claiming fact and one opinion, or we are both claiming opinions, in which case even though we differ, we can’t make a real decision as to who is right. However, I think that what I have said aligns with Catholic Magesterial teaching on faith and morals and so is in fact authentic and will not be changed. I also think your 'writings of the early church contain many references to females presiding at the Eucharist is, well, 'interesting, because I’ve made rather an extensive study myself of this whole question, though I’m ‘only’ a layperson and not a history professor, and I really have not seen this substantiated. So far it has all been opinion of various ‘scholars’ and no concrete evidence, whereas the distinct lack of female ‘priests’ in Judaism AND in the Orthodox, as well as the Catholic Church, is rather striking. Anyway, I’d be interested to hear your point of view.
 
edwest2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, Ed, the heretics started ordaining Women to the prieshood in the 3rd century… And were outside the church. Lots of evidence of “Catholic Women Priests” is actually of Gnostic and other heretical offshoots…
 
bzkoss236 said:
In the end it wouldn’t matter. Since valid sacraments require proper form, matter, etc. Since she was not a male (proper matter), the Sacrament would have been invalid and nothing would have happened. Also, if it was done accidentally, that also invalidates the Sacrament, since conveying of Sacraments requires intention as well.
Click to expand...
The ordinand is not the matter of the sacrament, he is the subject.

The matter is typically said to be the laying on of hands.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

JUST imagined Winston Churchill narrating this.
Love the table thumping crescendo! Pip, pip!
40.png
L_Marshall:
The Church has not ordained women.

The Church is not ordaining women.

The Church will not ordain women.

Because

The Church cannot ordain women.

Period.
 
Elizium23 said:
The ordinand is not the matter of the sacrament, he is the subject.

The matter is typically said to be the laying on of hands.
Click to expand...
Lol, thanks. That makes more sense. I knew I was forgetting something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top