Constantine the Great

[Austere]

Is he not considered a saint in the Eastern Catholic Churches? And if he is a saint in the Eastern Rite, does that not make him a saint in Roman Rite since they are in Communion with Rome? If this is the case, is it just that he’s not celebrated on the liturgical calender? Would it be alright if that’s the case to pray to him for intercession? Responses from Byzantine Catholics or of any Eastern Church in Communion with Rome would be extremely helpful. And for those of you in the Eastern Churches, isn’t his feast day in May alongside his mother St. Helena?

 

[Catholic4Christ]

And for those of you in the Eastern Churches, isn’t his feast day in May alongside his mother St. Helena?

This is a side note, and you may know this so feel free to disregard since it’s a little off topic, but in the west St Helen’s feast is August 18. I believe this is the traditional date of her death though I am not 100% on that.

 

[Austere]

This is a side note, and you may know this so feel free to disregard since it’s a little off topic, but in the west St Helen’s feast is August 18. I believe this is the traditional date of her death though I am not 100% on that.

I didn’t know that now my friend, thank you for letting me know! I thought I read somewhere that in the Eastern Rite, Constantine and Helena share the same feast day.

 

[dmar198]

if he is a saint in the Eastern Rite, does that not make him a saint in Roman Rite since they are in Communion with Rome?

If my understanding is correct, his veneration in the eastern Catholic Churches puts him in a similar category to Blesseds. Blesseds are people whose veneration the Church has permitted by some official act but not yet commanded for the whole Church. In the Catholic Encyclopedia’s summary, “if [the Church] only permits such [veneration], or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, [that] is a decree of beatification.” source In this case, the official act permitting the veneration of Constantine, if my understanding is correct, is the act whereby various eastern churches were restored to full communion with Rome. It is my understanding that, as part of this reconciliation, they were told that they did not need to change their liturgical calendars. To me, that would seem to be an official permission to keep venerating the people on their calendars, including Constantine.

My above analysis is suspicious to me because there are lots of things I’m unsure of: has the Church officially said something permitting the use of eastern calendars? If it has, is that in Fact an equipolent beatification for the people on that calendar? It is only my own analysis that tells me it meets the definition given in the Catholic Encyclopedia. But I could definitely be wrong, and even if I’m right, the Catholic Encyclopedia could be wrong. Is it really true that a beatification is when the Church makes some act specifying that a particular person or group may be venerated? And what about the “or” in the Catholic Encyclopedia? It says that beatifications are when the Church permits someone’s veneration “or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church.” I don’t think the latter example happened in Constantine’s case, but I Do think his veneration has been officially permitted because I think the Church has officially approved eastern calendars that include him. If that is correct and if the Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, then that appears to count as a beatification under their first definition: official permission to venerate an individual or a group.

If the above analysis is correct, then Constantine would be equivalent to a Blessed: his veneration is officially permitted, especially in eastern regions, and he may therefore be prayed to. Anyone who wishes to venerate a Blessed is permitted to do so, you don’t have to be in the particular region where they receive special veneration.

There are also several important differences between Beatification and Canonization, one of which I think is worth pointing out here: it is my understanding that beatifications are not infallible because they are not a command to the whole Church to venerate someone. When the Church commands the whole Church to do something we can be sure it is not commanding us to sin, and that is why I think some theologians consider canonizations infallible: the Church’s holiness is incompatible with the idea that it could require everyone under pain of sin to venerate someone evil. Beatifications, however, are Not a command made to the whole Church under pain of sin, they are rather a permission to venerate, or a binding of only a particular region – and I suppose the Church can be wrong about such things. Thus, Bl. Constantine the Great may have his veneration Permitted, but until he is Canonized by the universal Church (or equipolently canonized) I don’t think we can be capital-c Certain that he is in heaven.

Based on the above analysis, I personally conclude that Constantine’s situation fits the definition of being a Blessed. Therefore:

Bl. Constantine the Great, pray for us!

I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[Austere]

If my understanding is correct, his veneration in the eastern Catholic Churches puts him in a similar category to Blesseds. Blesseds are people whose veneration the Church has permitted by some official act but not yet commanded for the whole Church. In the Catholic Encyclopedia’s summary, “if [the Church] only permits such [veneration], or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, [that] is a decree of beatification.” source In this case, the official act permitting the veneration of Constantine, if my understanding is correct, is the act whereby various eastern churches were restored to full communion with Rome. It is my understanding that, as part of this reconciliation, they were told that they did not need to change their liturgical calendars. To me, that would seem to be an official permission to keep venerating the people on their calendars, including Constantine.

My above analysis is suspicious to me because there are lots of things I’m unsure of: has the Church officially said something permitting the use of eastern calendars? If it has, is that in Fact an equipolent beatification for the people on that calendar? It is only my own analysis that tells me it meets the definition given in the Catholic Encyclopedia. But I could definitely be wrong, and even if I’m right, the Catholic Encyclopedia could be wrong. Is it really true that a beatification is when the Church makes some act specifying that a particular person or group may be venerated? And what about the “or” in the Catholic Encyclopedia? It says that beatifications are when the Church permits someone’s veneration “or if it binds under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church.” I don’t think the latter example happened in Constantine’s case, but I Do think his veneration has been officially permitted because I think the Church has officially approved eastern calendars that include him. If that is correct and if the Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, then that appears to count as a beatification under their first definition: official permission to venerate an individual or a group.

If the above analysis is correct, then Constantine would be equivalent to a Blessed: his veneration is officially permitted, especially in eastern regions, and he may therefore be prayed to. Anyone who wishes to venerate a Blessed is permitted to do so, you don’t have to be in the particular region where they receive special veneration.

There are also several important differences between Beatification and Canonization, one of which I think is worth pointing out here: it is my understanding that beatifications are not infallible because they are not a command to the whole Church to venerate someone. When the Church commands the whole Church to do something we can be sure it is not commanding us to sin, and that is why I think some theologians consider canonizations infallible: the Church’s holiness is incompatible with the idea that it could require everyone under pain of sin to venerate someone evil. Beatifications, however, are Not a command made to the whole Church under pain of sin, they are rather an endorsement of veneration by a particular region, or a binding of only a particular region – and I suppose the Church can be wrong about such things. Thus, Bl. Constantine the Great may have his veneration Permitted, but until he is Canonized by the universal Church (or equipolently canonized) I don’t think we can be capital-c Certain that he is in heaven.

Based on the above analysis, I personally conclude that Constantine’s situation fits the definition of being a blessed. Therefore:

Bl. Constantine the Great, pray for us!

I hope that helps. God bless!

Excellent explanation and answer, thank you my friend!

 

[Mintaka]

First off, Constantine would fall under the category of a “pre-conciliar saint.” Basically, if the Church, or certain dioceses in the Church, were calling you a saint before the rules for canonization kicked in… you’re a saint. Bishops were able to acclaim people as saints, and so was the public. (Although realistically, it was the bishop putting you on the local church’s calendar, and commemmorating you on your saint’s day, that kept your name and fame alive as a saint.)

Secondly, yes, the approval of Eastern churches’ saint calendars, when they reunited with Rome, meant that all their saints are also saints to folks in the Latin/Roman Rite and in all other Catholic Rites. They are not blesseds, and it doesn’t matter whether or not the pope canonized them.

Yes, this does create some pretty humorous results, with saints who were in communion obediently with their own local church patriarchate, but were adamantly against reuniting with Rome during their lives. Presumably they know better now! (Anyway, it’s no different than saints who feuded with each other during life.)

Thirdly, it should be pointed out that pretty much every diocese in Europe and the East has plenty of saints that haven’t made it onto the “universal calendar.” That doesn’t mean they aren’t saints or aren’t worthy; it just means that they are primarily commemorated in the places they were from. (But really, priests from other dioceses can commemorate them if they want.) It was only in the 15th or 16th century that St. Patrick went onto the universal calendar; before that, he was just a saint remembered in Ireland, and in parts of Germany, France, Italy, etc. where Irish monks had made him beloved.

There are still plenty of saints who are only names to us, and who are usually no longer commemorated with saints’ days because they are so obscure. But the old martyrologies and calendars tell us their names, their dates of death, and where they were from. They are real saints; they are just very obscure ones.

So yup, it’s St. Constantine.

 

[Vico]

Is he not considered a saint in the Eastern Catholic Churches? And if he is a saint in the Eastern Rite, does that not make him a saint in Roman Rite since they are in Communion with Rome? If this is the case, is it just that he’s not celebrated on the liturgical calender? Would it be alright if that’s the case to pray to him for intercession? Responses from Byzantine Catholics or of any Eastern Church in Communion with Rome would be extremely helpful. And for those of you in the Eastern Churches, isn’t his feast day in May alongside his mother St. Helena?

In the Byzantine Catholic Calendar of Saints in the back of the Divine Liturgy of Our Holy Father Basil the Great (2006, Byzantine Seminary Press), which was promulgated in 2007 for the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. is:

May 21

• The Holy Emperor Constantine (337) and his Mother Helen (327), Equals to the Apostles.
• Feast with Polyeleos at Matins

 

[Austere]

In the Byzantine Catholic Calendar of Saints in the back of the Divine Liturgy of Our Holy Father Basil the Great (2006, Byzantine Seminary Press), which was promulgated in 2007 for the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh, U.S.A. is:

May 21

• The Holy Emperor Constantine (337) and his Mother Helen (327), Equals to the Apostles.
• Feast with Polyeleos at Matins

Thank you for clarifying my friend!

 

[Catholic4Christ]

Since we’re talking about Constantine, I felt it would be relevant (and I hope not pedantic) to mention that the phrase in your signature, Austere, should be in hoc signo vinces. The Latin word signes means something else (and is not a noun).

Would that many Churches had this beautiful and meaningful phrase inscribed over the crucifix, and that we each remembered it when making the sign of the Cross. It really does sum up the root of our faith, especially while we are in Easter week after Christ conquered sin and death by the Cross.

 

[Austere]

Since we’re talking about Constantine, I felt it would be relevant (and I hope not pedantic) to mention that the phrase in your signature, Austere, should be in hoc signo vinces. The Latin word signes means something else (and is not a noun).

Would that many Churches had this beautiful and meaningful phrase inscribed over the crucifix, and that we each remembered it when making the sign of the Cross. It really does sum up the root of our faith, especially while we are in Easter week after Christ conquered sin and death by the Cross.

I realized my friend, it’s signo isn’t it? I’ll have to go change that! You’re absolutely right my friend, it is a phrase that all Catholics should live by; by the Cross you will conquer sin.

 

[Vivian42]

Are you talking about orthodoxy? If so, Constantine the Great and St. Helen are both celebrated on the 21st of May.
Even though Constantine himself wasn’t really a saint.

 

[Axiosaxiosaxios]

He is commemorated at liturgy in the Melkite Church, I know that for sure. He is in the Horologion along side his troparion.