Cult of Tarot Forum

I am making an in depth study of La Papesse. The most in depth I've ever done. So I'm looking at every single detail in the card.



And I was looking at that white piece of cloth that covers her hair under her tiara and I started researching head coverings and their importance at the time. And it got me thinking of a most curious verse in 1st Corinthians where Paul speaks of why it is necessary, when in worship, for men to have their head uncovered and for the woman to have it covered.


But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

(...........................................)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.


Now the Bible is written in allegorical form. The head refers to the higher consciousness (as does the word "mountain", like when Moses when up to the mountain to converse with God and to receive the 10 commandments). It's the Greek Nous - the area where contemplation and spiritual illumination from above takes place.

The whole chapter can be read here : https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV. It's a very difficult passage to understand.

I would like to know if anyone here would have an idea of what is meant by "a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS."

I think this has some bearing on the Papesse.

Diana wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 09:56 I would like to know if anyone here would have an idea of what is meant by "a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS."

I think this has some bearing on the Papesse.

i appreciate your intense look at the Papess, Diana.
i personally wouldn't be so sure about the importance of the Paul quote, however, any more than head coverings were de rigor for nuns and women generally in some sects. but putting aside my own opinions, first corinthians is generally accepted as being by Paul, as well as his secretary Sosthenes. also putting aside questions of Paul's presumed authority, there are parts of first corinthians which we know have been edited and added to for specific "political" one might say reasons - the famous case being the declaration that women should be silent in church. one can tell by the text that it's been added and paul elsewhere is clear that women's participation in church is crucial. my point is one of the most unreliable things going is scripture. that said, if we want to understand how believers thought of the passage, there has been some debate on the matter. some think it means men should have short hair and women long hair. some think women should always have their head covered, like Mennonites. there are even some - Lightfoot and Bushnell - who interpret the passage to mean women should have their heads uncovered.

what is meant specifically by "because of the angels?" debatable. some say it means a woman's head would be a distraction for the angels. it's not hard to extarct from this that it's really a distraction for the men in church. re: the interpretation that stresses that Eve was created because man cannot exist alone, the headdress is a sign to the angels of woman's authority.

again, i personally consider it a straight-forward misogynist convention. looked at closely, the suggestion is a woman has no soul, properly speaking, in communion with god except through the authoritative mediation of her husband. further, only a woman with a husband is considered here at all. as in islam, the male perspective here may be in part that men are trying to protect the woman, which in a certain psychological sense may be true, keeping them innocent, mysterious, and hooded as the virgin mary often is seen (thereby keeping them man's patrimony). further, allegorically, we may see this hooded quality an inversion of male circumcision, and so an enshrinement of sorts of the hymen. even further, we may be reminded of the moment christ died, and the veil of the temple was rent in twain.


.

Diana wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 09:56 I am making an in depth study of La Papesse. The most in depth I've ever done. So I'm looking at every single detail in the card.


Papesse grimaud.jpg



And I was looking at that white piece of cloth that covers her hair under her tiara and I started researching head coverings and their importance at the time. And it got me thinking of a most curious verse in 1st Corinthians where Paul speaks of why it is necessary, when in worship, for men to have their head uncovered and for the woman to have it covered.


But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

(...........................................)

For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.


Now the Bible is written in allegorical form. The head refers to the higher consciousness (as does the word "mountain", like when Moses when up to the mountain to converse with God and to receive the 10 commandments). It's the Greek Nous - the area where contemplation and spiritual illumination from above takes place.

The whole chapter can be read here : https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV. It's a very difficult passage to understand.

I would like to know if anyone here would have an idea of what is meant by "a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS."

I think this has some bearing on the Papesse.

Diana,

I'm not well read into the Bible, I was however compelled to read this passage Cor. 11:2-26 and see what I'd make of it. I found the Dutch translation I read is quite different than the English translation! The nuance is way different. I attempted to unravel the text to help you place this "Because of the Angels" in a layman's terms. Who knows what my Biblical ignorance might bring about

I understand the passage like this: A man should not cover his head because he is gods splendor. Covering it would alter er interfere with the 'form' (formal/shape/appearance) of unity/connection of God/man when in prayer. They are alike, and interacting as equals. (created in his image etc) So why should a man alter his appearance? It would be sort of rude towards the creator. The woman how ever is the splendor of mén. They are required to have long hair according to the passage, men are not. They are required to be distinct from men. Covering the head? ..."they might as well shave their head" (11-6) The passage, at least in the Dutch translation of Corinthians "because the angels" uses it in the sense of the slang: "for the love of god".. she should have rulership over her head. At least thats how I read it. I think it also says (in the larger (con)text) man needs woman, and woman needs man. Both are needed, to be separate and distinct. That is why she needs to be distinct by covering her head, the mán cant as he is created in the image of God, and cannot be allowed to alter this image, especially when in prayer. The "authority" (on her head) might then be read as "symbol/marker/something suggesting position. She only has authority by "being her role"? I say this because of course Cor 11:2-16 says women are not created in Gods image, they are however pivotal in the existance for men. Men nééd women. Thats a sort of authority I feel. An authority embodied and illustrated by wearing a head covering.

Thin ice here for me, I enjoyed giving it a try tho.

M

strangely, what Monk says is quite accurate (ha ha). that is, what we have here is the male built church dictating the strictures of its earthly power. and it's in this sense that the issue of the papess's headdress and woman as subsidiary to man and the prejudice for the genesis story where adam is created first over the story where man and woman are created at the same time really matters vis-a-vis one of the fundamental meanings of the papess card itself, and that is the degradation of the female by the male as a short term power grab but a long-term fuck up. i have talked about this elsewhere, but by female i mean what the tarot means by female - all things so associated. this includes the female aspect of god - ie -sophia, the holy spirit, etc. - and the female side of man - the soul, the subconscious, etc. this degradation is structural, which is why it appears so early in the major arcana, yet the alchemical wedding or individuation or whatever you want to call the enlightenment that one sees in the tarot's trajectory is impossible without the correction of this degradation. in the meantime, the papess waits patiently in the dark, like hecate or the spark of god in the darkness of matter that is being human.

chiscotheque wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 18:55
i personally wouldn't be so sure about the importance of the Paul quote, however, any more than head coverings were de rigor for nuns and women generally in some sects. but putting aside my own opinions, first corinthians is generally accepted as being by Paul, as well as his secretary Sosthenes. also putting aside questions of Paul's presumed authority, there are parts of first corinthians which we know have been edited and added to for specific "political" one might say reasons - the famous case being the declaration that women should be silent in church. one can tell by the text that it's been added and paul elsewhere is clear that women's participation in church is crucial. my point is one of the most unreliable things going is scripture. that said, if we want to understand how believers thought of the passage, there has been some debate on the matter. some think it means men should have short hair and women long hair. some think women should always have their head covered, like Mennonites. there are even some - Lightfoot and Bushnell - who interpret the passage to mean women should have their heads uncovered.

Yes there is of course that more mundane side which is just a mumble jumble of the previous traditions with a new twist. All this business about hair and veils and uncovering and covering and what to cover and what not to cover has been going on since forever. And still going on. In North America and other continents, you probably have less of this, but here in Europe at least, there's a huge hullabaloo about the Muslim veil - there's been a whole new lot of polemic about this in France - for about the millionth time.

The Austrians were the laughing stock of social media when, after introducing a law banning facial coverings in public,the Austrian police fined a man 150 Euros dressed as a shark who was promoting the opening of a new electronics shop in Vienna. He was dressed in a pink and grey shark suit with a head covering.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 92116.html

I read later that it was a stunt - to prove the absurdity of the new law.

Anyway, back to the topic on hand. I was very interested to read what you said about how things have been so obviously added later on by other hands for their own purposes in Corinthians. Reading Corinthians is a bit like watching a movie. I can almost see them - how they were dressed and seated in their place of worship - and all the sounds and the smells. And I like the writing style. I find it very elegant.

Sosthenes - I'd never heard of him. I read that he was seized and beaten by the mob in the presence of Gallio, the Roman governor. Some people must have been mightily angry with him.

That being said, "head" and "hair" and "veils", beyond their literal interpretation, have other hidden dark meanings. So beyond the seeming mundane and nonsensical things we seem to be reading, and I am now also taking into account that there are things that were not of Paul (and his authority that can at times be questioned), it's still a very curious passage.

what is meant specifically by "because of the angels?" debatable. some say it means a woman's head would be a distraction for the angels. it's not hard to extarct from this that it's really a distraction for the men in church. re: the interpretation that stresses that Eve was created because man cannot exist alone, the headdress is a sign to the angels of woman's authority.

again, i personally consider it a straight-forward misogynist convention. looked at closely, the suggestion is a woman has no soul, properly speaking, in communion with god except through the authoritative mediation of her husband. further, only a woman with a husband is considered here at all. as in islam, the male perspective here may be in part that men are trying to protect the woman, which in a certain psychological sense may be true, keeping them innocent, mysterious, and hooded as the virgin mary often is seen (thereby keeping them man's patrimony). further, allegorically, we may see this hooded quality an inversion of male circumcision, and so an enshrinement of sorts of the hymen. even further, we may be reminded of the moment christ died, and the veil of the temple was rent in twain.


.

Yes, it's very mysognistic. That's undebatable. The same misogyny found in so many religions still today.

I've always had this feeling - but I've never found it validated or even supported anywhere - that maybe she must cover her hair because otherwise she won't for some reason be able to HEAR the angels. I've can't shake this notion that springs from seemingly nowhere.

Thanks for the other musings and ideas. Every bit helps to untangle the mystery of life.

Monk wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 22:13

Diana,

I'm not well read into the Bible, I was however compelled to read this passage Cor. 11:2-26 and see what I'd make of it. I found the Dutch translation I read is quite different than the English translation! The nuance is way different. I attempted to unravel the text to help you place this "Because of the Angels" in a layman's terms. Who knows what my Biblical ignorance might bring about

I understand the passage like this: A man should not cover his head because he is gods splendor. Covering it would alter er interfere with the 'form' (formal/shape/appearance) of unity/connection of God/man when in prayer. They are alike, and interacting as equals. (created in his image etc) So why should a man alter his appearance? It would be sort of rude towards the creator. The woman how ever is the splendor of mén. They are required to have long hair according to the passage, men are not. They are required to be distinct from men. Covering the head? ..."they might as well shave their head" (11-6) The passage, at least in the Dutch translation of Corinthians "because the angels" uses it in the sense of the slang: "for the love of god".. she should have rulership over her head. At least thats how I read it. I think it also says (in the larger (con)text) man needs woman, and woman needs man. Both are needed, to be separate and distinct. That is why she needs to be distinct by covering her head, the mán cant as he is created in the image of God, and cannot be allowed to alter this image, especially when in prayer. The "authority" (on her head) might then be read as "symbol/marker/something suggesting position. She only has authority by "being her role"? I say this because of course Cor 11:2-16 says women are not created in Gods image, they are however pivotal in the existance for men. Men nééd women. Thats a sort of authority I feel. An authority embodied and illustrated by wearing a head covering.

Thin ice here for me, I enjoyed giving it a try tho.

M

Monk, you've done a helluva good job as a layman during your examination of this text. I think fresh eyes are sometimes just what one needs. And it's good also that you looked in another version and language. I use the King James Bible almost exclusively because of the poetry of the language - it's probably the greatest piece of English literature. When I read, I like a bit of poetry !

I can't comment on your post right now but I'd like to have an early night (it's soon 1 am). However, I was so pleased to read what you wrote that I had to come and thank you and to tell you already that there are a couple of things (maybe more I didn't count) which I find most most interesting. So I look forward to coming back to this tomorrow.

Monk wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 22:13
I understand the passage like this: A man should not cover his head because he is gods splendor. Covering it would alter er interfere with the 'form' (formal/shape/appearance) of unity/connection of God/man when in prayer. They are alike, and interacting as equals. (created in his image etc) So why should a man alter his appearance? It would be sort of rude towards the creator. The woman how ever is the splendor of mén. They are required to have long hair according to the passage, men are not. They are required to be distinct from men. Covering the head? ..."they might as well shave their head" (11-6) The passage, at least in the Dutch translation of Corinthians "because the angels" uses it in the sense of the slang: "for the love of god".. she should have rulership over her head. At least thats how I read it. I think it also says (in the larger (con)text) man needs woman, and woman needs man. Both are needed, to be separate and distinct. That is why she needs to be distinct by covering her head, the mán cant as he is created in the image of God, and cannot be allowed to alter this image, especially when in prayer. The "authority" (on her head) might then be read as "symbol/marker/something suggesting position. She only has authority by "being her role"? I say this because of course Cor 11:2-16 says women are not created in Gods image, they are however pivotal in the existance for men. Men nééd women. Thats a sort of authority I feel. An authority embodied and illustrated by wearing a head covering.

Thin ice here for me, I enjoyed giving it a try tho.

M

Monk, again, I'm very happy that you translated this into layman's terms and also by using your Dutch bible. It is the one I see on wikipedia called the Statenvertaling ? Which contains the apocrypha after the New Testament with a "warning for the reader ?"

I was very interested to see that the translation in Dutch for "because the angels" has the meaning of "for the love of god". So the covering of her head is due to her love of god - for the angels ? So Man cannot alter his image, but Woman can... by covering her head and this gives her rulership. Although the text is, as chiscotheque, at first glance hugely anti-woman, it's not really so because the woman has a clear authority. You are perhaps right that she has authority over the man due to the fact that the man needs the woman.

Now, if we consider Man and Woman not in the literal sense, but in the sense that we use it in the tarot and in other related matters, we are talking here of the male ASPECT and female ASPECT, not the actual fleshy man and woman. It's this aspect that I'm interested in - the literal is one thing, the symbolism and the analogy another. So I think behind these words of Paul (or his secretary or others) is something much deeper than just how one should be attired when going into a place of worship or when praying.

The Magician would represent the Male. The Papesse the Female. The Magician who connects with the as-above-as-below and the Papesse who reflects (Papesse is more of water element - she reflects) what has been put in motion. Without reflection the whole connecting business of the Magician will be rendered useless.

Her covering of her head seems, according to these instructions, to be essential for the angels (messengers/messages) to carry out their duties. And this is where I get stuck.

I'm not making any sense am I.

Hair was a big issue for Rudolf Steiner and the anthropophosists. "With women, cutting the hair short is not exactly good, and that is because women have the ability to produce silica more in the organism, and so they should not cut their hair really short too often; for then the hair absorbs silica - which the woman has already in her - from the air and forces it back into the organism. This makes woman inwardly hairy, prickly; she then has "hairs on her teeth" (a German expression meaning a "tough woman"). This is then something that is not so apparent; one has to have a certain sensitivity to notice it, but a little bit of it is there. Their whole manner is rather prickly then; they become inwardly hairy and prickly; and cutting off one's hair does then have an influence, especially in young people". I seem to recall that Steiner recommended that children under 7 should not have their hair cut. And silica seemed to have a huge importance for Steiner.

All that I can contribute to this conversation is some insight regarding the Orthodox Jewish view of why a woman, specifically a married woman should cover her head. Of course Paul was a Jew. All Jews were Orthodox Jews until the 1800's.

This is an explanation that I have heard from a Chabad, or Orthodox Jewish source... Once a marriage is consummated, the Jewish woman becomes extraordinarily beautiful and spiritually powerful. This could be blinding and very distracting to others. So this light is hidden beneath a head covering, or hat, or wig even up to the present for Orthodox Jewish women. Traditionally men also always cover their heads, in Orthodox Jewry (and in other denominations during prayer). So Christian practice seems to have deviated from this -- but not in the case probably of the Hierophant or Pope -- who traditionally continues to have his head covered with that little skullcap. La Papesse , is of course the female counterpart of the Hierophant or Pope.

Natural Mystic Guide wrote: ↑05 Jan 2020, 17:48 All that I can contribute to this conversation is some insight regarding the Orthodox Jewish view of why a woman, specifically a married woman should cover her head. Of course Paul was a Jew. All Jews were Orthodox Jews until the 1800's.

I was really hoping you'd come in to give some insight from a more ancient source.

What happened in the 1800s for things to change ?

This is an explanation that I have heard from a Chabad, or Orthodox Jewish source... Once a marriage is consummated, the Jewish woman becomes extraordinarily beautiful and spiritually powerful. This could be blinding and very distracting to others. So this light is hidden beneath a head covering, or hat, or wig even up to the present for Orthodox Jewish women. Traditionally men also always cover their heads, in Orthodox Jewry (and in other denominations during prayer). So Christian practice seems to have deviated from this -- but not in the case probably of the Hierophant or Pope -- who traditionally continues to have his head covered with that little skullcap. La Papesse , is of course the female counterpart of the Hierophant or Pope.

So marriage gives one spiritual power and beauty. Again, I translate as I always do these words like "marriage" into their spiritual interpretation.

There is this miracle of Jeshua/Jesus in the chapter of Matthew in the Gospel of John in the New Testament. His first one recorded. He goes to a marriage and they've run out of wine (must have been some party !!! ), so he changes water into wine of superior quality. Most Christians, because the majority of Christian churches and denominations have denied Jeshua's voice (they've gone further than other traditions who "just" deny the woman her voice - it's quite astonishing how they don't listen to a single thing he said), believe that story only in the literal meaning. And they go all woo and wow about it - this great magician who pulled a rabbit out of a hat (but they don't call him a magician - that would be satanistic for them). But as the Bible is allegorical, one must take this into account!! It's a mystical marriage that is being spoken of. So what you have added to this thread is very helpful indeed.

It is in Christian mysticism not a surprise that the first miracle was one that took place at a wedding and that water was transformed into wine. One sees a natural order of things.

This topic is too much swords for my taste.

Like the Papess is saying: «Hey! Stay out of my brain and body!»

The heavy crown can also indicate that she’s a victim of social dumping.

CO

Crying Owl wrote: ↑06 Jan 2020, 22:34
The heavy crown can also indicate that she’s a victim of social dumping.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Actually, it's not a heavy crown. It's a triple tiara which, when discussing the Papesse in the TdM, always ends up by being debated and pondered.

From wiki :

There is no certainty about what the three crowns of the Triple Tiara symbolise, as is evident from the multitude of interpretations that have been and still are proposed. Some link it to the threefold authority of the "Supreme Pontiff: Universal Pastor (top), Universal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (middle) and Temporal Power (bottom)". Others interpret the three tiers as meaning "father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar of Christ".The words that were used when popes were crowned were: Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse patrem principum et regum, rectorem orbis in terra vicarium Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum ("Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar on earth of our Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom is honour and glory for ever and ever").

Yet others have associated it with the threefold office of Christ, who is Priest, Prophet and King, or "teacher, lawmaker and judge". Another traditional interpretation was that the three crowns refer to the "Church Militant on earth", the "Church Suffering after death and before heaven", and the "Church Triumphant in eternal reward". Yet another interpretation suggested by Archbishop Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo, who designed Pope Benedict XVI's tiara-less coat of arms, was "order, jurisdiction and magisterium", while a further theory links the three tiers to the "celestial, human and terrestrial worlds," which the pope is supposed to symbolically link. Lord Twining suggested that just as the Holy Roman Emperors were crowned three times as king of Germany, king of Italy and Roman emperor, so the popes, to stress the equality.

************

They are not used anymore for new Popes. Pope John Paul II, in his 1996 Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici gregis, removed all mention of a papal coronation, replacing it with a reference to an "inauguration".

The fact that in many TdMs, her tiara touches the top of the card... and sometimes the top is not visible, is also very significant. I prefer a deck that has this feature.

Also the Papesse has a Moon aspect to her, and the triple tiara could have a reference to the triple moon goddess. So not only a Christian symbol, but also pagan.

Dear Diana.

Please forgive me for being so easy and maybe silly in my reply to your serious topic. I read your opening arguement first and I fond it interesting though I don’t get a real grasp of it. But when I started to read the replies, I suddenly felt so heavy and burdened. So I tried the easy way out which was no success.

I have big respect for your writings and work with TdM. I know you from AT but I had a different nickname then.

I have to admit that I’m afraid to bring in christianity into a tarot forum, because I have sensed so much hate when I have discussed it in another tarot forum (not AT or Cult). It made me think twice before I bring in any religious topics.

I want to discuss it, but I need to be more housewarm and safe here first.

The same goes the other way. I have a chrstian active friend that comments tarot as «hopeless» and I can literary feel his hate in my body when I talk about things he don’t like. There is so many hateful people, Diana. I see myself as soft and tolerate so I need to take care.

CO

That's okay, Crying Owl. There is no harm in some lightheartedness in a serious thread. But your comment on social dumping made no sense to me at all.

In all tarot discussions, books and articles, there will always be some commentary on spiritual things. The Tarot and spirituality go hand in hand. Of course, there are lots of people who are not interested in this aspect, and there's no harm in that. The Tarot can also just be used for a tool for fortune telling and why not. People have told fortunes since forever.

In all the tarot books I read (mostly French) there is always always some reference to the Bible or to other scriptures. There will always be something coming up which relates to such matters - Hinduism or Buddhism or whatever. Hinduism can teach us some interesting things about the Chariot for instance.

Verses 1.3.3–11 of Katha Upanishad deal with the allegoric expression of an individual as a chariot. The body is equated to a chariot where the horses are the senses, the reins are the mind, and the charioteer is the intellect. The master of the chariot is the Self, on forgetting which the charioteer intellect becomes absorbed in the field of action. The verses conclude by describing control of the chariot and contemplation on the Self as ways by which the intellect acquires Self Knowledge.

He who has the understanding of the driver of the chariot and controls the rein of his mind,
he reaches the end of the journey, that supreme abode of the all–pervading.

All these teachings are part of our culture as a human race and they are the finest we have.

So there's no harm in quoting the bible and any other scripture if it relates to the Tarot. If it has a real bearing on it. It would be hard to talk about the Tarot without it. Just like at one point, there's always going to be some talk of Plato. Or Jung. Or some other fine woman or gentleman who has through their work made us understand the world we live in a bit better.

I recently brought up Judaism in a thread on dreams. I'm not trying to plug Judaism by doing so. It just made sense for me to do it in that thread. And it was tricky for me to so, because I know scant little about Judaism. I will now be looking into what the Sufis say about dreams - so I'll be bringing an Islamic touch to the thread. Not to plug Islam though. Then I hope to go onto Jung, as I've at LAST bought his book dream interpretation which I've never read.

I quote the bible all the time. Mainly because they are the scriptures I know best and which I consider to be the greatest record of spiritual consciousness that has ever been written. I am NOT a Christian though - even if I think Jeshua/Jesus was the Master teacher of all Master teachers. If someone calls me a Christian, I'll bonk them on the head. Ouch.

What nickname did you have on AT, or do you prefer not to say ?

words themselves have no more power than we afford them. while they can be tedious unquestionably, they are as light and empty as air - if they hurt, it is we who have sharpened the blade.

similarly, words and other representations are some of the unavoidable human tools used when discussing and expressing the inner workings of the psyche, or what some call the divine, the supernal, and god. the real problem arises in taking these expressions too literally, absolutely, as if they weren't subjective representations but rather eternal Truths. in short, larding words with sticks and stones.

This, in part, is why i couldn't care less what Paul or someone masquerading as Paul insisted was how a church somewhere should conduct its service. Paul was naturally a heap of contradictions, and many of his prescriptions were stupid. is it really possible to understand what he was getting at and why? - unlikely and probably, in the end, undesirable.

as counter-intuitive as it seems, many Gnostics actually claim Paul as one of their own, arguing that Paul wrote in code so as not to upset the other more orthodox sects. so, for instance, when Paul talks about Jews and Greeks, what he's really talking about according to Gnostics are people half-way on the path of learning (Jews) who follow the rules of Yahweh, the Demiurge. The Greeks or Gentiles who embrace Christianity don't need to follow those rules because they are enlightened by Gnosis and follow Christ's lead (the Imitation of Christ) who overthrew many of the old rules strictly imposed by the Pharisees. for instance, Christians don't need to be circumcised. this, in part, is why women needing to wear head-dresses is strange, because that is a hang-over from Jewish tradition, which mixed with its inherent misogyny seems contrary to Paul's MO.

Gnostics, however, would also say that when Paul talks about "men" and "women" it's code for the enlightened - those with Gnosis called pneumatics- and those who wish to understand but can't really manage it and so simply follow rules - those without Gnosis, called psychic. in this formulation, "women" are psychics, those who haven't attained enlightenment. is Paul just being political, dealing with the misogyny of the time? or being misogynist himself? or being coded and esoteric? consider that last somewhat troubling line from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas:

Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

is Jesus here trying to deal with Peter's infamous misogyny by suggesting he will actually turn Mary into a male? or is he using Peter's language to say the power of his (Jesus') message will make the weak and the last, first and whole?

further, vis-a-vis the Papess, if Peter, primary symbol of the pope, is such an ego-tripping jerk whose attitude to those he considers less than himself is so painfully "unchristian", doesn't this suggest not only some implicit negative meanings for the Hierophant card but also positive meanings in the HP (Hierophances) card as well - namely, that like Mary Magdalene she is ridiculed by the terrestrial power machine that is the male church but is the true core (heart) of Christ's church - the true bride of christ - and, like the meek, will inherit the earth (The World card - anima mundi). This is why i think she represents the human soul patiently awaiting communion with the Holy Spirit - the scintilla animae, awaiting reunion with god - and why she is akin to Sophia (Gnsosis, the Holy Spirit) herself, since Sophia is the envoy from god but also an emanation of god who supplied mankind with the scintilla (soul) to begin with.


.

I wrote to someone who knows a lot about the Bible and all its translations and things about this head covering and angels. He wrote back to say "Hi, if you strain at gnats, you'll let the camel through. Have a nice day."

So that's settled then.

Quite by chance yesterday, I think I found the answer to this head covering and the angels while listening to a documentary on the book of Enoch.

The book of Enoch (not in the Bible) was apparently hugely popular in early Christianity. It's all about the fallen angels who mated with the daughters of the earth and from this were produced terrible giants who created absolute havoc.

The professor who was giving the lecture on the Book of Enoch mentioned that this is why Paul said that women must cover their heads "because of the angels". He said this relates to the tradition of the Fallen Angels. So this would mean that women should cover their heads to protect themselves from the fallen angels and not to start any hanky panky with them.

Diana wrote: ↑04 Jan 2020, 09:56 I am making an in depth study of La Papesse. The most in depth I've ever done. So I'm looking at every single detail in the card.


Papesse grimaud.jpg



And I was looking at that white piece of cloth that covers her hair under her tiara and I started researching head coverings and their importance at the time.

Hi Diana, my take on the white cloth on the head of the TdM Papesse. It might be taken from the Visconti Papesse:
On the Visonti card the cloth is the head wear of a nun. My interpretation is on this webpage:

https://www.anne-marie.eu/en/tarot-2-th ... priestess/

Does this help?