[MitzaLizalor]

Recently in another thread several of us were amazed to see the following contribution:

Originally Posted by Romeo Rovagnati

Orthodox Churches may be more tolerant … since they believe that Saint Christopher was a Dog-man.

I will be using "New Advent" (a Romish source) throughout because I'd like to know how catholicism views its current theological position. If it did not exist as a distinct body of dogma prior to various schisms, why did it take so long for truths (as they see them) to emerge? Whence did they arise? This will be quite a short post; excessive verbosity is available in the links. Here is the first quote:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm—• An accident of political development has made it possible to divide the Christian world, in the first place, into two great halves, Eastern and Western. The root of this division is, roughly and broadly speaking, the division of the Roman Empire made first by Diocletian (284-305), and again by the sons of Theodosius I (Arcadius in the East, 395-408; and Honorius in the West, 395-423), then finally made permanent by the establishment of a rival empire in the West (Charlemagne, 800). The division of Eastern and Western Churches, then, in its origin corresponds to that of the empire. Western Churches are those that either gravitate around Rome or broke away from her at the Reformation. Eastern Churches depend originally on the Eastern Empire at Constantinople

That covers the first millennium during which various groups regarded one another as heretics. Rome, in considering itself custodian of the original message, describes all the splinter groups as falling away but equally the splinter groups regard Rome as having fallen away. This comes through very well in "New Advent" even though it's written from a Romish perspective, which is why I'm using it. Here is the second quote:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm—• St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, had accused [Nestorius] to Pope St. Celestine of heresy, and the pope had replied on 11 August, 430, by charging St. Cyril to assume his authority and give notice in his name to Nestorius that, unless he recanted within ten days of receiving this ultimatum, he was to consider himself excommunicated and deposed. The summons was served on Nestorius on a Sunday, 30 November, or 7 December, by four bishops sent by Cyril. But Nestorius was evidently well informed of what he was to expect. He regarded himself as having been calumniated to the pope, and he did not choose to be given over into the hands of Cyril. The latter was, in his opinion, not merely a personal enemy, but a dangerous theologian, who was reviving to some extent the errors of Apollinarius.

.....Cyril accuses Nestorius (a rival bishop) of heresy
....Nestorius reckons Cyril "a dangerous theologian" who was reviving some other heresy
...Each group consider the other(s) to be heretics
..Every schism produced splinter groups regarding themselves as correct
.It's heretics all 'round

Church of the East	Persian etc.	sloughed off 431
Oriental Orthodox	Copts (Egypt, Ethiopa) Indian Armenian (Caucasus)	splintered 451
Eastern Orthodox	Greek Orthodox Russian Orthodox etc.	following The Great Schism
Western (catholic)	Roman Catholic Greek Catholic (Carpathians) etc.	Rome calls this The Eastern Schism

All of the above regard themselves as custodians of correct dogma, with all but themselves sloughing off from whatever grouping they were a part of following the previous schism. In every case it was some new or slightly different idea that triggered the dispute, prior to which the dispute had not existed. As mentioned in "New Advent" disputes could have developed slowly over several years (centuries, even) or arisen very quickly but the fact remains that once there was agreement and later there was not. This raises a very interesting point. First however I'll collate just four of many such disagreements here:

EVENT	EFFECT. .date
Ephesus	431
Chalcedon	451
Great Schism	1054
Florence	repudiation 1472

OK, that's enough background. Now back to saints with dogs' heads. Romeo Rovagnati indicates that he does not regard Christopher as ½ dog ½ man. He suggests that true dogma is preserved in Rome and that everyone else is following heresy. And yet before schism the orthodox and catholic doctrine had been the same, otherwise the schism would have been sooner. Where was the true teaching across that millennium? Where did the new teaching come from? The canine-headed image is well enough described in orthodox rationale as associated with crossing rivers, the Anubis in other words, so if it was preserved back then (and is still preserved in orthodox iconography) where did the "truth" come from and how was it preserved? Rome and the Eastern tradition were in harmony and the dog saint was current then. It's a question worth considering.



1. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14413a.htm
2. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm
3. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm
4. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06744a.htm
5. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
6. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
7. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of...and_Modern_Era
8. https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-...t-christopher/

[Alvin Moss]

It may be possible that wearing a dog's head was fashionable in bygone days. Or possibly that icon is a popular cartoon, such as dogs playing poker.

[MitzaLizalor]

The imagery is certainly old enough and from their own account derives from "crossing things" such as rivers. There have definitely been priests who wore weird headgear, jackal perhaps or fish. What puzzles me though is where what NOW is accepted as The Truth (as defined by Romeo Rovagnati in this case or by [hilite]catholicism more generally[/U])

Originally Posted by Romeo Rovagnati

The only answer that I can give to this question is: good people go to Heaven (and by good I mean those according to the Catholic tradition). Now, are furries good people?

where was that truth hiding during the period when something DIFFERENT was accepted as true?

We had been discussing furries and since not every furry chooses fur—feathers & scales are also used—any costume would qualify as would idolatrous depictions of costumes. This is clear in the post:

Also, while no Catholic Church would ever admit a furry in, I believe that Orthodox Churches may be more tolerant towards them, since they believe that Saint Christopher was a Dog-man.

NOW such iconography is unacceptable but it WAS acceptable for the millennium prior to orthodoxy separating from catholicism so where was this new "truth" hiding for all those centuries? Was it actually preserved somewhere or was it just made up for convenience, later?

I've highlighted relevant portions in both quotes.

[Basilissa]

My understanding of the reason why the Catholic church separated from the Orthodox church, is that it wasn't because of their beliefs but because of politics.

The bishop of Rome couldn't stand the fact that the bishop of Constantinople was his equal in terms of religious authority, and dreamed of becoming the sole head of all Christianity. Bishop of Constantinople rightfully wouldn't hear of it, and that resulted in the Catholic sect splintering off what was at the time the mainstream Christian church.

Catholics even believe in a "saint" who fought dragons! Which is ridiculous, as we all know, dragons went extinct during the Flood because they were late to the Ark of Noah. So a Catholic saint fighting dragons, that's really not too far from believing in saints with animal heads like some pagan deities.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

...Catholics even believe in a "saint" who fought dragons!...

I like how the horse is all "Can you just leave me out of this? No fun!!1!"

[WWJDnow]

I don't know much about Christopher. But stranger things have happened, such as Balaam's donkey speaking to him:

And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? Numbers 22:28

So if God wanted a dog faced saint, He easily could have arranged it. Though, to be perfectly honest, I'm leaning toward the view that the guy was just plain ugly.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by WWJDnow

So if God wanted a dog faced saint, He easily could have arranged it. Though, to be perfectly honest, I'm leaning toward the view that the guy was just plain ugly.

If Our Lord had wanted a so-called "saint" who looked like a dog, he might perhaps have chosen a woman, given that "a dog" is a colloquial term for a particularly unattractive female.

[MitzaLizalor]

Satan on the other hand would want you to worship the thing, whatever it was. There is a difference between what can be confirmed from history and what is just made up – or carried over from paganism as seems to be the case with catholicism and orthodoxy. Reading through their arguments and excommunications and heresies and dogmas, what a rudderless ship they are! It doesn't matter whether positions concerning "icons" or "images" or "statues" or "relics" were adopted in the 4th or the 5th or the 8th centuries because every so-called determination of what they were supposed to believe simply produced a new schism.

Each party thought they had a true position at the time and still do, except for the fragment currently disbelieving in Limbo which evidently they had no problem with before.

Let's say NO LIMBO is the correct position. Where was this "truth" preserved during the preceding centuries? Where did the (very recent) enlightenment come from?

Again, for centuries the Anglicans got along with whatever Anglicans do. Then all of a sudden up pops John Wesley with something different. He was opposed to schism but the Methodists hived themselves off anyway and went with their version of "truth" which obviously differed from Anglicanism otherwise they'd still be Anglicans.

Up until that point everyone had been in agreement, generally speaking. Then something happens: Wesley gets informed of the "actual" truth which was sufficiently different from what had been accepted before for a break to occur. If what he claims is correct, he needs to answer the question. Where was The Truth preserved during the previous centuries of error? Where did his enlightenment come from? And if it came from God why did He not reveal it before?

It's exactly the same as when the Anglicans splintered off from the catholics and when the catholics splintered off from orthodoxy over and over century upon century never agreeing on anything, not even on Christ. This comes through very well in the "New Advent" links if anyone can be bothered wading through so much treacle. At least the Methodists weren't burning people at the stake or chopping off heads.

Originally Posted by Basilissa

………a Catholic saint fighting dragons, that's really not too far from believing in saints with animal heads like some pagan deities.

Is that a wyvern in your picture?

[Romeo Rovagnati]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

Is that a wyvern in your picture?

No, that's a dragon. Wyverns looks like this:

[MitzaLizalor]

And your point is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by MitzaLizalor

And your point is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Who knows what his point is. He is probably just thinking about his new altar boy.

The problem with painting representing dragons is that they are often done by people who have never seen a live dragon. And that is a pity.

[MitzaLizalor]

OK - we'll go with a guivre, then. Otherwise maybe he's hoping for a bump up up to prelate status in an emergency appointment. Frank's been pretty active in this department, hasn't he?

Guivre: compare and contrast