Constantine the Great never canonized?

  • Thread starter Thread starter juggernaut
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

juggernaut

Guest
I believe that Emperor Constantine is considered a saint in the Eastern Churches and his mother, St. Helena is a Catholic saint, but why was he never canonized in the Latin-Rite Churches? If it weren’t for him, Christianity would never have spread throughout the Roman Empire and Europe would not have become Christian so easily.
 
juggernaut said:
I believe that Emperor Constantine is considered a saint in the Eastern Churches and his mother, St. Helena is a Catholic saint, but why was he never canonized in the Latin-Rite Churches? If it weren’t for him, Christianity would never have spread throughout the Roman Empire and Europe would not have become Christian so easily.
Click to expand...
There are a LOT of Saints that the RC Church has not gotten around to canonizing. 😉 I don’t think the RC Church has ever canonized the emperor Theodosius either.

As an RC, I think the Eastern Churches are right in regarding them as Saints.
 
the Church did not have a formal canonization process in that era of history
 
When I was growing up, he was always refered to as St Constantine by the dear sisters at good old Christ the King School in Pleasant Hill, California. I was an adult before I knew he was not formally cannonized!
 
puzzleannie said:
the Church did not have a formal canonization process in that era of history
Click to expand...
Yes, that is quite true, and given that, I highly doubt there was ever a formal canonization for S Helena either.

In the Eastern and Oriental Churches, Ss Constantine and Helen are usually commemorated together. On the Maronite calendar, for example, the joint commemoration is May 21st.
 
On the Maronite calendar, for example, the joint commemoration is May 21st.
Same as on the Byzantine Calendar.
 
His feast on the UGCC calendar, along with St. Helena, is on May 21st and is, as I recall, of polyeleos rank (a greater feast without a full vigil).
 
Not that I’ve ever personally done so, but would it be in proper form to pray to these people with the presumption they are saints if they haven’t been “formally canonized”? Is this similar to the issue of personal revelation - you can do it but you can’t encourage it?

Oh, and while I’m at it are canonizations infalliable? I mean the modern sort, the more formalized process now directed by the Papacy.

Just curious.

Stephen
 
newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
Canonisation is not as old as the veneration of the first saints. Just because there came a new procedure doesn’t mean the old saints have to undergo it, although there has been some verification of the list of saints by Rome.
 
3Sanctus said:
Not that I’ve ever personally done so, but would it be in proper form to pray to these people with the presumption they are saints if they haven’t been “formally canonized”? Is this similar to the issue of personal revelation - you can do it but you can’t encourage it?

Oh, and while I’m at it are canonizations infalliable? I mean the modern sort, the more formalized process now directed by the Papacy.

Just curious.

Stephen
Click to expand...
You can actually ask anyone dead to pray for you, I ask my grandmother to pray for me quite often also my grandfather on occasion, even if they are in purgatory they can still pray for you, that’s how miracles are done, if you didn’t pray to none saints then no miracles done by God would be attributed to that particular dead persons prayers and they wouldn’t proven to be in heaven and we wouldn’t have any canonized saints! 😉 And yes this would be a private devotion and not ever a public one.

Remember anyone in Heaven is considered a saint (which is why you see a lot of people declared “Blessed” or “Venerable” called saints offhand), it is just the Western Church/Catholic Church has come up with a way of proving it for verification via the canonization process.

As for second question, yes modern canonizations are infallible.
 
What is the technical distinction betweens saints, blesseds, and venerables? Are they all considered to be in heaven or are only saints?
 
3Sanctus said:
What is the technical distinction betweens saints, blesseds, and venerables? Are they all considered to be in heaven or are only saints?
Click to expand...
Saint: infallibly declared to be in heaven, has at least 2 miracles, and at least one of those posthumous, documented.

Blessed: Officially Believed to be in heaven. At least one miracle documented.

Venerable: Worthy of Veneration, Officially suspected of being in heaven.

Following is tongue firmly in cheek, but still:
In general, at venerable, you can be added to the local calendar, and they may make an Icon. At Blessed, they start composing hymns. At Saint, they generally start writing propers…
 
3Sanctus said:
What is the technical distinction betweens saints, blesseds, and venerables? Are they all considered to be in heaven or are only saints?
Click to expand...
venerable is someone who Rome has declared to be worthy of public veneration can have prayer cards made etc but has no feast day and churches can’t be named after them, the process of this happening begins on the local diocesan level with the individual once the bishop dose an extensive investigation on the persons life and if he finds them worthy he (the bishop) declares them “Servant of God” and sends the paperwork to Rome where they do their own research before making them “Venerable” and investigations continue.

Once they have been found worthy they are declared “Blessed”, that is “worthy of belief”, they are an official saint but lack the title here on earth because it has kind of evolved into an honor thing, if the Venerable person was not a Martyr then one miracle has to be attributed to their intersession before they can be declared Blessed, this is to prove they are in heaven.

To get the title Saint one more miracle is needed, and then the person is declared to be definitely in the Beatific Vision/Theosis.

As a note I’m not sure if “blessed” is infallible but “saint” definitely is, no questions asked.
 
I always thought that he was never canonized because he was a pagan right up until the moment of his death. He was baptized just before he died, so there was no need for a formal process to recognize him, and all of his great works on this earth were done while he was still a pagan (thus, no Christian example to give to future generations).

St. Helena is recognized as a Saint on the Latin Rite calendar - I don’t remember the exact date.
 
He was not a pagan in belief right up until his life. It was common practice in those days to receive baptism near your death or later in life. He performed many great acts of devotion to Our Lord and proved to be a model Emperor.
 
Some Catholic encyclopedia’s give them title Saint.
Not sure if I can link to these features as of yet, being new.
 
He was not a pagan, which would imply he kept worshipping the idols of the Greek Pantheon. He was a catechumen and since he was baptized on his deathbed there can be hardly any doubt he is in heaven. In any case, his commemoration can be found in the Byzantine Rite Liturgical books published by Rome.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 
Once they have been found worthy they are declared “Blessed”, that is “worthy of belief”, they are an official saint but lack the title here on earth because it has kind of evolved into an honor thing, if the Venerable person was not a Martyr then one miracle has to be attributed to their intersession before they can be declared Blessed, this is to prove they are in heaven.
This is NOT what “Blessed” or “Beatus” means–that is, “worthy of belief”–about departed worthies in a Catholic context.

I’ll let you do your homework.
 
juggernaut said:
I believe that Emperor Constantine is considered a saint in the Eastern Churches and his mother, St. Helena is a Catholic saint, but why was he never canonized in the Latin-Rite Churches? If it weren’t for him, Christianity would never have spread throughout the Roman Empire and Europe would not have become Christian so easily.
Click to expand...
True, Constantine was essential in the spread of Christianity. But, he was baptized on his death bed. He did not live a full, baptized life in Christ.
 
jeanne71350 said:
True, Constantine was essential in the spread of Christianity. But, he was baptized on his death bed. He did not live a full, baptized life in Christ.
Click to expand...
The practice back then for everyone was to be a catechumen for quite a long period of time. It was not uncommon and admittedly was eventually frowned upon and changed, but that was nearly 100 years after St. Constantine. I don’t think its quite fair to hold
St. Constantine and every other person of the early Church up to the same cultural standards of the later Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top