Talk:Saint Christopher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
 |
Saint Christopher is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Decius
"Fourth year of the reign of the 3rd century Roman emperor Decius"? Decius only reigned for three years (249 - 251). Should it be corrected to third year? User:Dimadick
No, it should not be "corrected". All the extant hagiographies agree on that point, even though Decius did not have a fourth year to his reign. Both facts need to be mentioned.Dogface 17:02, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Carol Rose's "Giants, Monsters and Dragons" suggests that his description as a cynocephalus (dog-headed cannibal) was derived from a mistranscription of "Canaanite" to "canine", and that the stories about his origins as a devil-worshipper were derived from the need to explain away this version of the legend. I don't know how much of this is her extrapolation and how much of this is derived from her sources. -Sean Curtin 23:56, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Other Information
- Due to the perception of Saint Christopher being 'dog headed' there is the belief that he is also the patron saint of werewolves. His appearance can be seen as a sign of lycanthropy.
I removed this bit to talk. Does anyone have any references for the notion that werewolves have a patron saint? -- Smerdis of Tlön 12:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just one information. Im native Croatian from island of Rab, our patron is St. Christopher also there is a relikvium box in our St. Marys church that is containing head of St. Christopher which helped (head) liberate island from norman attack. Up to this day we celebrate dias victoriae (something in may) and dias natalis also known as fjera (25,26,27 july)
[edit] Other uses
"For other uses see Saint Christopher"? It refers to itself. Where is the disambig page? This needs to be updated. --Noetic Sage 04:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Demotion
The article says: "In the West, Saint Christopher was removed from the Universal Calendar of Saints based on a lack of specific historical evidence regarding the details of his life. Contrary to popular belief, he was not "de-canonized" or declared not to be a saint. He is still considered to be a saint in the Catholic Church"
What I'd like to know is whether this treatment of St. Christopher represents the worst treatment a saint receives. Was st. Christopher not decanonized because he's considered more legitimate than saints that have been de-canonized, or have no saints ever been decanonized? How serious is St. Christopher's demotion compared to how other questionable saints have been treated? Does his not be decanonized represent actual confidence in him, or is it simply policy never to decanonize saints? Jonathan Tweet 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Canonisation of Saints is considered infallible, since the Church would otherwise be publically celebrating someone who is not actually in heaven, so once a Saint, always a Saint. The list of Saints on the universal Calendar, though, can and has changed over the centuries, but they're not "decanonised". PaulGS 22:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] decanonization
In the above commentary it says saints are never decanoninized. However, in the section entitled "Stripped of Sainthood by the Vatican" (bottom of page) it says that he was. Does this need to be fixed/clarified?
Yes, it does. I've moved this section to the end of the "Roman Catholic" section, changing what needs to be changed. A lot of people think he's no longer a saint, but all that happened was a removal from the calendars, both universal and local. The same is true of St. Philomena, who's also still a saint. PaulGS 03:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Places' section
There was a section headed 'places' that began with the words 'not good' and then listed some cities and the country in which they lie. There was no other information other than the names of the places, so I removed it. If anyone knows what this section is for, please feel free to re-add it. Phileas 19:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Physically challenged"?
"A very tall and physically challenged Roman man named Reprobus, referred to as a giant by those who knew him, vowed to serve Jews and became a Christian. - "Physically challenged"? What is this supposed to mean here? - Writtenonsand 10:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Giant
Since we don't believe in giants any more, the article is constrained to present this bit of tortured mumbo-jumbo: "One legend states that Christopher was a very tall and physical Roman man, originally named Reprobus, who was referred to as a giant by those who knew him, ". Very tall "Roman" indeed! You'd think it was Abraham Lincoln. "Those who knew him' is a nice touch, too: verisimilitude! This is low stuff. Can the credibility be raised a little? Apparently no one dares quote any of the texts: too gruesome and zany? --Wetman 16:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Links
The notes link points to www..com which is obviously wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.121.93 (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
