Talk:Saint Christopher

message: "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)
replies: text: A load of rubbish, since the Romans didn't use the term "Canaanite".Dogface 14:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Decius

message: :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)
thread_title: Other Information

message: "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)
thread_title: Other uses

message: 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)
thread_title:  Demotion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Decanonization

message: The Church removed them from The List of Saints in 1961.
Saint Christopher was placed back on the list within the month. Saint Philomena within the week.
Neither of them on the Liturgical Calendar list of Saints.
(I hope this helps).
MacOfJesus (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Canonization

message: 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)
thread_title:  'Places' section 

message: "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)
replies: text: That his head was that of a canine. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Physically challenged"? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Giant

message: 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)
thread_title: Broken Links

message: Am I the only one who finds the language of the article as it currently stands, as somewhat, hmm, fishy...? There don't seem to be all that many specific attributions to the speculations offered, and that is just the tip of the iceberg... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: Please remove this section. Mrchris (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the popular culture section is a definite problem here and, in fact, has been sitting on my "to do" list for some time. Although it should not be removed entirely. There should be a section on popular culture in the article because of the tremendous influence of the Saint Christopher iconography and symbolism throughout modern times. However, this huge list of random trivia far outweighs its importance in comparison to the rest of the article (and let's face it, every mention in film, art, music and literature could expand this list to several hundred thousand items). It is definitely counter to WP:TRIVIA guidelines. I propose to delete the list and replace it with several sentences relating the use of the iconography in media, the popularity of medals and statues in culture, and provide two our three pertinent examples.  — CactusWriter | needles 08:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A sort list of (famous) people who wear a medal maybe? Mrchris (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in popular culture 

message: I deleted some off-the-mark speculation about the origins of the dog-head legend.  While the word "cannibal" does seem very close to "canine," it actually has no etymological connection and so it isn't the origin of description.  Moreover, various legends describe the character of St. Christopher as being both dog-headed and cannibalistic, and artistic renderings visually depict him as dog-headed, so this isn't just rhetorical flourish.  I see no evidence or citation that it was the general style at the time to describe barbarian people as "dog-headed," and quite to the contrary, this was supposed to be a very peculiar and notable feature of this particular character in the stories about him, along with the fact that he was 20-feet tall or so.  As the Eastern Orthodox hymn, already quoted on the page, testifies "Your physique was overwhelming and your face horrifying."
Parallaxvision (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical verifiability 

message: The Wikipedia article on Saint Pishoy, a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria says that in the western church he is known as Saint Christiphorous (or the one who carried Christ on his shoulders). There are no links between the two articles. I am far from knowledgeable about such matters, so I would like some one more acquainted with the topic to comment or make changes to the articles. Silverchemist (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. After searching around, I think there might be some people in the Coptic Church that make a connection between Bishoy and Christopher -- but I haven't seen any reliable source. I find no mention in books like Christianity in the land of the pharaohs: the Coptic Orthodox Church by Jill Kamil or The Saints of Egypt by De Lacy O'Leary. Or Coptic Church websites like this.  I did find  this blog entry on the Coptic Media Network. And it only talks about similarities in their hagiographies -- not an actual "these two people are the same". Of course, it isn't an RS source. One of the problems with searching is the numerous name variations for Bishoy (Pishoy, Bishoi, Bishai, Pshoi). I've edited the Pishoy page to reflect the possible parallel between these two, but I also added a cite tag. I don't think we should add it here until we find a solid source.  — CactusWriter | needles 11:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Any discussion of a connection between Pishoy and Christopher is moot unless a reliable outside source is found which makes that connection. As yet, none has been provided. (And it is doubtful -- the assumed dates of their lives don't intersect. It appears any similarity is mostly hagiographic -- both North African natives who have legends about carrying Jesus-in-disguise). Until someone presents a solid reference, the connection is irrelevant.  — CactusWriter | needles 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Pishoy connection? 

message: How could St.Christopher be born in 312 AD and die in 251 AD?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.182.120 (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. That change slipped in a while ago and I have reverted it to "unknown", however, it is actually an alternative death date; according to the article he either died under the reign of one emperor or the other. Elizium23 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  birth and death 

message: Does there need to be so much detail on the date of his feast on the lead? Doesn't this stuff belong in the info box or in the body.
There are numerous problems with the lead. The use of "still" to describe his celebration. (Is he due to expire?) The wording of the lead makes it sound like Paul VI issued Mysterii Paschalis specifically to demote Christopher, and that, "the church declared that this commemoration was not of Roman tradition", even though Mysterii Paschalis does not so much as mention Saint Christopher.
I'm going move this stuff out of the lead, and re-word it. Rwflammang (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight on calendar 

message: There is probability, that a man becoming the prototype of Christopher suffered the rare type of the genetic mutation named as a hypertrichosis universal (hypertrichosis universalis) or by the syndrome of werewolf, as a result of that the body of human practically is fully covered by thick hair, including the face. Perhaps a christian saint had the nickname, interpreted by followers as description of his appearance. The riddle of so exotic iconography of  Christopher-cynocephaly remains unsolved. << p.s. Sorry for quality of my English :) >>   Iskatelb 12:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version medical aspect: Hypertrichosis, as a prototype of Christopher-cynocephaly 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saint Christopher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080916161951/http://www.rcbo.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=376&Itemid=100000001 to http://www.rcbo.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=376&Itemid=100000001
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The lede must summarize the body and not introduce novel assertions. Accordingly, I have removed some (but not enough) of the text in the lede. Anyone with a reliable secondary source is welcome to add content. Elizium23 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede section must summarize the body 

message: 1, Saint Christopher was a man of great size and strength who devoted himself to Jesus by helping travelers cross a dangerous river. One day a child asked to ride on Christopher's shoulders across the river, but the infant seemed to grow heavier and heavier with every step.￼
2,St. Christopher is one of the only saints not mentioned in the Bible. In fact, there is no actual proof that he existed at all. In 1969, the Catholic Church removed him from the universal calendar, but did not revoke his canonization.
Now why did the Catholic removed saint Christopher in the universal calendar? O. Christopher kelechi (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they now think he probably never existed. In fact very very few saints are mentioned in the Bible, for obvious chronological reasons. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question about saint Christopher