Constantine the Great

  • Thread starter Thread starter josh987654321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

josh987654321

Guest
Hi, (I hope this is in the right section)

I would just like to ask for some more information in regards to Constantine the Great, especially in regards to the following.
  1. Constantine’s Private revelation of the Chi Rho (Greek monogram of Christ) in the sky with ‘In Hoc Signo Vinces’ (In this sign you shall conquer) and his victory over Maxentius outside Rome in ‘The battle of the Milvian Bridge’.
The sources I have tried have said different things about it, however, they all agree about Constantine’s adoption of the Chi Rho, but to what degree they differ.
  1. Does the Catholic Church recognize him as a saint?
  2. There has been much conjecture about Constantine and I don’t trust alot of sources, as many of them I believe are putting their own spin on the events to suit their own ends.
So any info on him that can be trusted would be great, I would like to get the facts as close as possible to the truth.

Thank you

Josh
 
He is celebrated on the Byzantine calendar and, along with his mother, has the title “Equal to the Apostles”. His feast day is May 21.
 
He is celebrated on the Byzantine calendar and, along with his mother, has the title “Equal to the Apostles”. His feast day is May 21.
So he is a saint? I know that he honored (or worshipped) the unconquered Sun ?
 
So he is a saint? I know that he honored (or worshipped) the unconquered Sun ?
From what I have read, he progressed from paganism to Christianity and was baptized shortly before he died. Thus due to the Baptism before death, Id say that would be why he is considered a saint.

I hope this helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Josh, you’ll find all your questions, and many more, answered in this little book: A.H.M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe. It’s quite old now, first published in 1962, but don’t let that put you off.

amazon.com/Constantine-Conversion-Europe-H-Jones-ebook/dp/B004SMQJTW/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440667531&sr=1-1&pebp=1440667535182&perid=0PT6B52QAY731YQP1NZG
Mind if I ask how many pages it is? And I sure wish it wasn’t so expensive, I’m not sure whether I’ll get it. Thank you though. 🙂

God Bless

Josh
 
Mind if I ask how many pages it is? And I sure wish it wasn’t so expensive, I’m not sure whether I’ll get it. Thank you though. 🙂

God Bless

Josh
Josh:

My copy is the Penguin (Pelican) edition, 255 pages, published in 1972. I bought it new at the time, in Britain, where it cost me 40 pence (the price is printed on the back cover). It’s a pity it has now become so expensive. You can get it secondhand – the U.S. edition, not the Penguin – for $7.99, including shipping within the U.S.A.:

abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=jones&sts=t&tn=constantine+and+the+conversion

[Edit]
Sorry, just noticed you’re in Australia, not the U.S. Here’s a copy of the Penguin edition for A$10.60, from a bookseller in Fitzroy Falls, NSW:

abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=5685622781&searchurl=n%3D200000013%26sts%3Dt%26sortby%3D20%26tn%3Dconstantine+and+the+conversion%26an%3Djones

Regards
Bart
 
Hi, (I hope this is in the right section)

I would just like to ask for some more information in regards to Constantine the Great, especially in regards to the following.
  1. Constantine’s Private revelation of the Chi Rho (Greek monogram of Christ) in the sky with ‘In Hoc Signo Vinces’ (In this sign you shall conquer) and his victory over Maxentius outside Rome in ‘The battle of the Milvian Bridge’.
The sources I have tried have said different things about it, however, they all agree about Constantine’s adoption of the Chi Rho, but to what degree they differ.
We have two or three versions of the story from two people who were close to Constantine (and who claimed received their accounts from him).

Lactantius (Constantine’s advisor and tutor to Constantine’s son) in his version - the earliest (written somewhere just a few years after the battle itself: AD 313/316) and the tersest one - claims that in the night before the battle, Constantine had a dream where he was commanded to draw “the heavenly sign” on the shields of his soldiers.

Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of CHRIST. Having this sign, his troops stood to arms. The enemies advanced, but without their emperor, and they crossed the bridge. The armies met, and fought with the utmost exertions of valour, and firmly maintained their ground. In the meantime a sedition arose at Rome, and Maxentius was reviled as one who had abandoned all concern for the safety of the commonweal; and suddenly, while he exhibited the Circensian games on the anniversary of his reign, the people cried with one voice, “Constantine cannot be overcome!” Dismayed at this, Maxentius burst from the assembly, and having called some senators together, ordered the Sibylline books to be searched. In them it was found that:—

“On the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish.”

Led by this response to the hopes of victory, he went to the field. The bridge in his rear was broken down. At sight of that the battle grew hotter. The hand of the Lord prevailed, and the forces of Maxentius were routed. He fled towards the broken bridge; but the multitude pressing on him, he was driven headlong into the Tiber.
Eusebius (who also a favorite of Constantine’s) has two versions of the story. In the first one, found in his Church History promotes the belief that the Christian God helped Constantine but does not mention any vision (yet). He essentially portrays the battle biblically, drawing a connection between the collapse of the Milvian Bridge and Maxentius’ drowning with the drowning of the Egyptians in Exodus.

Constantine, who was the superior both in dignity and imperial rank, first took compassion upon those who were oppressed at Rome, and having invoked in prayer the God of heaven, and his Word, and Jesus Christ himself, the Saviour of all, as his aid, advanced with his whole army, proposing to restore to the Romans their ancestral liberty.

But Maxentius, putting confidence rather in the arts of sorcery than in the devotion of his subjects, did not dare to go forth beyond the gates of the city, but fortified every place and district and town which was enslaved by him, in the neighborhood of Rome and in all Italy, with an immense multitude of troops and with innumerable bands of soldiers. But the emperor, relying upon the assistance of God, attacked the first, second, and third army of the tyrant, and conquered them all; and having advanced through the greater part of Italy, was already very near Rome.

Then, that he might not be compelled to wage war with the Romans for the sake of the tyrant, God himself drew the latter, as if bound in chains, some distance without the gates, and confirmed those threats against the impious which had been anciently inscribed in sacred books—disbelieved, indeed, by most as a myth, but believed by the faithful,— confirmed them, in a word, by the deed itself to all, both believers and unbelievers, that saw the wonder with their eyes.
  • Church History IX, 9.1-11
 
No, the Catholic Church (Roman Rite) does not recognize him as a saint.
I don’t think that’s the best way to put it. He is not celebrated as a saint in the Latin Church; however, he is celebrated as a saint in the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite. Since those Churches are in communion with the Latin Church, I would say that the Latin Church does recognize Constantine the Great as a saint, without liturgically celebrating his status as a saint.
 
Since those Churches are in communion with the Latin Church, I would say that the Latin Church does recognize Constantine the Great as a saint, without liturgically celebrating his status as a saint.
Could you provide an authoritative Church (Roman) document which states that it does recognize Constantine as a saint?
 
No, the Catholic Church (Roman Rite) does not recognize him as a saint.
The Byzantine Catholic Church does not have St. Terese on our calendar, along with scores of other western saints, ancient and modern. That doesn’t mean we don’t recognize them as saints.
 
Could you provide an authoritative Church (Roman) document which states that it does recognize Constantine as a saint?
Why is this necessary? It is a bit like the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. If one church canonizes a saint, that canonization is recognized by all the Churches in the communion. Would you deny, for example, St. Charbel (Maronite) saint, because he is not on the Roman calendar? Centralization of canonizations in Rome is a fairly new way of doing things.
 
The Byzantine Catholic Church does not have St. Terese on our calendar, along with scores of other western saints, ancient and modern. That doesn’t mean we don’t recognize them as saints.
Still not an indication that the Roman Church recognizes Constantine as a saint. Which makes sense. He was tolerant of Christians, and stopped (for the most pat) persecutions against them. But he was also tolerant of paganism. He converted only on his deathbed and was reportedly baptized by an Arian heretic who had himself persecuted many non-Arian Christians. Constantine had his very own son killed because he thought the son was conspiring against him. Just because he came to aid of Christians does not make him a saint. If the Eastern churches want to venerate him (which isn’t the same as recognizing him as a saint), that’s their choice. The EO have canonized him as a saint, which seems odd given his very unsaintly behavior.

Here’s a post by another forum member (from a different thread) who essentially states what I’ve been saying:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7673432&postcount=7
 
In his later Life of Constantine (AD 337), Eusebius gives a detailed account of a vision (claiming that he had heard the story from the then already-deceased Constantine himself). (Oh yeah, he again repeats the Exodus motif he used earlier for the battle here.)

He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle. He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.

At dawn of day he arose, and communicated the marvel to his friends: and then, calling together the workers in gold and precious stones, he sat in the midst of them, and described to them the figure of the sign he had seen, bidding them represent it in gold and precious stones. And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing.

In this version of the story, Constantine, while marching with his army, looks up to the noonday sun and sees, along with his army, “a cross of light” (it isn’t specified just what shape or form this cross was) with the words Εν Τούτῳ Νίκα En toutō níka. He was unsure of the meaning of the apparition at first, but the following night he had a dream where Christ appeared and explained to him that he should use the sign against his enemies. He then has a military standard made, the labarum, as a result of the dream.

In Tyrannius Rufinus’ translation of books 10 and 11 of Eusebius’ Church History, the story gets even more elaborate. He adds the story of Constantine’s vision and dream and the construction of the labarum from Life of Constantine, but he changes the details: for one, only Constantine saw the vision (which occurred somewhere during the early hours), and he saw it in a dream. “While sleeping he saw toward the east the symbol of a cross gleaming with a fiery glow in the sky.” Rufinus adds in angels who here declare En toutō níka to Constantine. It was after seeing these angels that Constantine made the labarum. (Rufinus adds that he even made a golden cross for himself to hold!) In fact, Rufinus more explicitly portrays Constantine as already being almost Christian: he was already “a supporter of the Christian religion and a worshipper of the true God” but he had not yet accepted “the symbol of the Lord’s suffering.”

Where it kinda gets complicated is, that aside from the two authors who knew Constantine - Lactantius and Eusebius - the other contemporary witness to the battle, the Arch of Constantine, isn’t very explicit. In the inscription in the arch, Constantine claimed to have received victory due to being “inspired by the divine” (instinctu divinitatis). But it isn’t clear just to what the ‘divine’ refers to at this point, since up to 324, Constantine still mainly used the imagery of the then-popular solar deity Sol Invictus in his official documents (such as coins), after which he began to use more overtly Christian symbols lik the chi-rho for his official propaganda.

Where it gets difficult is the fact that the chi-rho symbol was not really specifically Christian: it was also a common abbreviation for the word χρηστός chrestos ‘good’ / ‘useful’. (You might say there’s a potential pun involved here, since by this time the words Christos and chrēstos were beginning to be pronounced / would have been pronounced nearly the same in Greek.) In fact, it’s pretty much used for any other word that have the letters chi (X) and rho (P) in it. In fact, a few scholars argue that it isn’t entirely clear whether Lactantius was actually talking about the chi-rho or another symbol, the so-called staurogram (aka tau-rho).

 
Could you provide an authoritative Church (Roman) document which states that it does recognize Constantine as a saint?
Constantine is recognized as a saint by Catholic Churches in communion with Rome, therefore, Constantine is a Catholic saint. True, he is not liturgically commemorated in the Latin Church, but then again, there are multitudes of western saints that we Eastern Catholics do not commemorate. The fact that we do not commemorate them liturgically does not mean that we refuse to recognize that they are saints.
 
If the Eastern churches want to venerate him (which isn’t the same as recognizing him as a saint), that’s their choice. The EO have canonized him as a saint, which seems odd given his very unsaintly behavior.

Here’s a post by another forum member (from a different thread) who essentially states what I’ve been saying:
This is a distinction without a difference. We venerate saints. We don’t venerate those who are not saints, and we most especially don’t commemorate them liturgically.

Here is a Ukrainian Catholic Church named after Saint Constantine.

stconstantine.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top