Talk:Episcopa Theodora

Episcopa as "bishop's wife"
I wasn't aware there was a large body of ancient texts using "episcopa", let alone ones that clearly referred to bishops' wives. I understand the critics as saying "episcopa" might be a bishop's wife, but we really don't know. They are arguing against the idea that "episcopa" is definitely a female bishop. It's not even entirely clear what a "deaconess" was, and those were mentioned a few times. Gimmetrow 20:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there are extant ordination services for deaconnesses&mdash;not really that shadowy, all told. St. Epiphanius of Salamis, for instance, describes their role pretty explicitly.


 * In any event, though, whether there is a "large" body of texts or not regarding the use of episcopa for the wife of a bishop, it seems to be the only sort of scholarly reference that there is. Or cf. also Canon 13 of the Council of Tours (567 AD): "If an Episcopus does not have an episcopa, let no throng of women follow him."  (This would make no sense if were speaking of someone other than his wife.)


 * I don't really think that the scholarly establishment of Church history regards there as having been female bishops in the mainstream Orthodox/Catholic tradition (which is essentially counter to the claim of those who would reform the RCC along those lines). So, yes, I agree that the argument is primarily a negative one, but the positive statement is usually made that episcopa most often referred to a bishop's wife.  &mdash; Preost  talk contribs 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense enough. My point about deaconesses was, even given the textual sources, some claim they were merely deacons' wives (by analogy with presbytera, etc).  Granting the ordination rites, mainstream Catholic/Orthodox theology would still likely say it was not an ordained ministry (in the sense of "holy orders")  Gimmetrow 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is biased and unacademic. Suggesting that only "radical feminists" and women with something to gain are interested in an important figure in early church history is ignorant. Using words like "debunked" for an unresolved historical debate is naive. Moreover, the article's syntax suggests to readers that this a topic they ought not to pursue further because the case is closed on only one aspect of this woman's life. However, if you insist on making this whole wiki about the case for female bishops, then I feel compelled to note that there are a number of recent peer-reviewed articles that present cogent cases for episcopa as female bishops. For a particularly persuasive one, see Methuen, Charlotte. "Vidua -- Presbytera -- Episcopa: women with oversight in the early church." Theology 108, no. 843 (May 1, 2005): 163-177. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.47.197.5 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Logic
The following sentence from the text, "Although there is no recorded consecrator of Episcopa Theodora due to dubious or spotty historical records, it is necessary to consider that female ordination, if it truly existed in the 9th century, would most likely have been repeated and sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Churches, yet neither permits female ordination to the present day,"  contains POV statements, 'dubious or spotty historical records' and 'it is necessary to consider', and 'would most likely have been' and then presents an illogical inference, that an act would have been repeated or sanctioned. The tradition of only two branches of Christianity is being considered; 'down to the present day', there are branches of Christianity which do permit female ordination. This is 'begging the question.'

One may look at the issue of married bishops for a real parallel. There was a time when all bishops were married, and the fact is well attested. Should we conclude that, since the RC Church and Eastern Orthodox Church no longer permit the practice, that it never existed? --Vicedomino (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath
Whatever debate burned and flickered out here, the current version of the page confusingly has a second section that is a counterpoint to a nonexistent "Feminist" section - I'm not about to decide what should or shouldn't be included on the page, but if this is the content that's staying, it could really use a rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.198.60 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)