I'm so glad you wrote about Christina. She's my namesake and therefore I've considered her one of my patron saints since I first found out about her.
I have a little print that I found, I think on Etsy, that shows her in a pink dress and with large pink wings, holding a rosary and standing barefoot before an altar with a crucifix and candles and with a dove over her head.
This is by far the best thing I've read about her. I love the insights about her purgatorial experiences and appreciate the details about her early biographers.
There really WERE hagiography shops—in Wales and elsewhere—that stitched together pious motifs to concoct saint’s lives. But that’s never the whole story. Here’s Thomas of Cantimpré, who spent 20 years writing an encyclopedic natural history, and wrote Christina’s life 8 years after her death by interviewing witnesses, and seems genuinely confounded. Margaret of Antioch’s story goes down easy because it was certainly and obviously fabricated. I feel like Christina represents a genuine challenge, even to me, because it meets any reasonable standard of a primary historical source.
This sounds so weird, imagine being at her funeral and suddenly seeing her fly to the roof. Sounds so demonic. Also drinking milk from one's own breast and living in trees, sounds preternatural, not Miraculous. Either her story is fabricated or something is really wrong here.
I love her!!!
I'm so glad you wrote about Christina. She's my namesake and therefore I've considered her one of my patron saints since I first found out about her.
I have a little print that I found, I think on Etsy, that shows her in a pink dress and with large pink wings, holding a rosary and standing barefoot before an altar with a crucifix and candles and with a dove over her head.
This is by far the best thing I've read about her. I love the insights about her purgatorial experiences and appreciate the details about her early biographers.
She's just so delightfully weird and strange.
There really WERE hagiography shops—in Wales and elsewhere—that stitched together pious motifs to concoct saint’s lives. But that’s never the whole story. Here’s Thomas of Cantimpré, who spent 20 years writing an encyclopedic natural history, and wrote Christina’s life 8 years after her death by interviewing witnesses, and seems genuinely confounded. Margaret of Antioch’s story goes down easy because it was certainly and obviously fabricated. I feel like Christina represents a genuine challenge, even to me, because it meets any reasonable standard of a primary historical source.
This sounds so weird, imagine being at her funeral and suddenly seeing her fly to the roof. Sounds so demonic. Also drinking milk from one's own breast and living in trees, sounds preternatural, not Miraculous. Either her story is fabricated or something is really wrong here.