Is Constantine a Saint?

[DL82]

Do Orthodox and/or Byzantine Catholics regard the Emperor Constantine I to be a saint? Has he ever been canonised by the Catholic Church?

If so, why, if not, why not?

I’m trying to understand the Church’s historical relationship to political power, and I think it’s one of the key areas where the different understandings in East and West help shed light on one another.

Was Constantine a Christian emperor, or was he more of a pro-Christian emperor?

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

The Orthodox and at least the Byzantine Catholics do indeed honor Constantine I as a saint. I don’t know that he’s ever been officially canonized by the Church of Rome. The Eastern “canonization process” is a little different than the Western one. Saints in the East are usually recognized as such through popular acclaim, not canonical mandates. That is why so many “local” or “national” saints can emerge. For example, St. John Maximovich is a recognized saint for the Orthodox churches in the U.S. and is honored as such. However, although he may be recognized in other countries, he might not necessarily be venerated (with a liturgical feast day).

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

http://stpauls-medina.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/icon_constantine_helena.jpg

He sure is. Sts. Constantine and Helena, pray to God for us!

 

[Joe_5859]

Do Orthodox and/or Byzantine Catholics regard the Emperor Constantine I to be a saint? Has he ever been canonised by the Catholic Church?

If so, why, if not, why not?

I’m trying to understand the Church’s historical relationship to political power, and I think it’s one of the key areas where the different understandings in East and West help shed light on one another.

Was Constantine a Christian emperor, or was he more of a pro-Christian emperor?

He’s never been canonized as a saint in the Catholic Church to my knowledge. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not mention anything about him being canonized, and I’ve never seen him listed as one (in places like here).

From what I have read, he wasn’t baptized until his death bed.

His mother, St. Helen, was canonized and is often credited with discovering the relics of the True Cross.

There have been other world leaders who have been canonized, though. St. Louis IX, king of France, is one.

 

[Joe_5859]

He sure is. Sts. Constantine and Helena, pray to God for us!

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that the Orthodox considered him a saint. Good to know. That’s a beautiful icon.

 

[choy]

i believe there was no canonization process at the time Constantine died. i’m not sure about the process on how Saints were recognized at that time, i believe that the Church just declares one to be a Saint based on the merits of what was known in your life

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that the Orthodox considered him a saint. Good to know. That’s a beautiful icon.

Byzantine Catholics, and possibly other Eastern and Oriental Catholics, also honor him as a saint. So it would seem that at least some parts of the Catholic Church do honor him, just not the Roman part.

 

[Joe_5859]

Byzantine Catholics, and possibly other Eastern and Oriental Catholics, also honor him as a saint. So it would seem that at least some parts of the Catholic Church do honor him, just not the Roman part.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that there were differences in the lists of saints between the Romans and the other Catholics. In retrospect, that makes sense considering that many of the Eastern Churches have traditions that go way back, and, at the time, there was no formal canonization process.

Thanks for giving me my “you-learn-something-new-everyday” moment for today.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that there were differences in the lists of saints between the Romans and the other Catholics.

On a related note, you have some Eastern Catholic Churches which venerate and seek the intercession of saints who firmly rejected the post-schism manifestation of Roman Catholicism, such as St. Gregory Palamas by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. St. Gregory had some very negative things to say about the Pope of Old Rome and the Roman Catholic Church.

You also have different Eastern traditions that have respective saints on different ends of theological disputes, but then when a union was created with Old Rome at a later time, these churches continued to venerate their respective saints in their own theological patrimonies. As a result, the Roman Catholic method of absorption of Eastern churches in unia at times can seem completely theologically inconsistent and tends toward relativism concerning important issues. Was anybody right in such disputes? Were they both simultaneously correct?

Is dogmatic theology really just arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Certainly not. Just to be clear, I am not asserting that certain theological concessions are not made when Eastern Christians schism and join with Old Rome, as I know for a fact that the Chaldean Catholic Church had to reject certain Nestorian Christological views explicitly before the union would be valid, but this was also in a time when Old Rome wasn’t so relativistic.

These sorts of issues cannot simply be smoothed over by pretending they didn’t happen, and it unfortunately shows that a great many matters of theological and historical significance can be quickly brushed aside if one will only submit to the authority of the Pope of Rome. To me, this shows where the heart of the Roman Catholic Church lies: in the institution and power of the Papacy itself, not in the unchanging Orthodox faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[dvdjs]

St. Gregory had some very negative things to say about the Pope of Old Rome

What, exactly, were the very negative things said of the Pope?

As a result, the Roman Catholic method of absorption of Eastern churches in unia at times can seem completely theologically inconsistent and tends toward relativism concerning important issues. Was anybody right in such disputes? Were they both simultaneously correct?

First, to talk about the unia, without qualification, as a Roman Catholic method of absorption would be inflammatory and insulting, were it not such utter nonsense. Save it for non-catholic fora.

More to the point, your reasoning is totally flawed. It is well understood that the glorification of someone as a saint does not confer ex post facto infallibility upon them. It is not a stipulation that their ideas were right, in particular in any disputes. I am certain that essentially no Orthodox hold to Gregory Nazianzen’s thinking on limbo, but he is a saint. Few hold to Gregory of Nyssa’s thinking on universal salvation, but he is still recognized as a saint. Few accept Chrysostoms’s thoughts on the sinfulness of the immaculate Theotokos, but he is a Saint. And there is nothing whatsoever that is “theologically inconsistent” about that recognition.

A swing and a miss. But why the swing?

 

[Hesychios]

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that there were differences in the lists of saints between the Romans and the other Catholics. In retrospect, that makes sense considering that many of the Eastern Churches have traditions that go way back, and, at the time, there was no formal canonization process.

Thanks for giving me my “you-learn-something-new-everyday” moment for today.

I think that it is very informative to study this, it’s not just a matter of “we do it differently”.

In the early church, each ‘diocese’ had it’s own saints, and commemorated them on it’s own altars. Dioceses also very early shared their lists of saints, exchanging notations on their calendars. The bishop would announce (one would assume joyfully) that it had a new saint and others would want to venerate the holy person too, asking for prayers, and request relics to place in the altar of a local church.

This was standard in the western church as well as the eastern, there was no difference.

Much later (11th or 12th century), the Papacy monopolized this process and made it’s own ‘local’ calendar the standard. This was after the great schism and the new ruling was not taken up by any eastern Orthodox Catholic dioceses.

Not all of the local saints in the west made it into the Roman (universal) calendar. Saint John Cassian for example is only publicly venerated in his home diocese of Marseilles (southern Gaul) and just about all over the Orthodox world because these dioceses adopted his veneration. The church at the city of Rome apparently did not like him enough to take on his veneration.

It is not surprising then, that there would be differences today, but one might think that Constantine would have made the lists in Rome, since he was the promulgator of the Edict of Milan, sponsored the councils at Arles and at Nicea I, and at one time was considered to have made significant donations to the Roman church (the Lateran palace was probably deeded by him, enabling the bishop to convene a synod in Rome in 313AD). Still, the church at the city of Rome has it’s own criteria and we respect that.

One might be surprised to realize that Saint Mary, Saint Peter, Saint Paul and all of the Apostles were never formally canonized by any church! There is no documentation, the church acclaimed them saints in a rather spontaneous popular fashion.

 

[Ghosty]

Was anybody right in such disputes? Were they both simultaneously correct?

The same problem comes up in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, however. St. Gregory Palamas also emphatically believed in the Immaculate Conception, which is rejected by many, if not most, Eastern Orthodox today.

St. Symeon the New Theologian taught that unordained monks could absolve sins just as a priest or hieromonk, a belief that is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy.

I don’t bring these examples up in order to say “you too!”, but rather to point out that erroneous beliefs don’t automatically detract from the Holiness of an individual, and oftentimes we can find something erroneous in anyone’s thinking. No one is completely free from such errors.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Harpazo]

**The same problem comes up in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, however. St. Gregory Palamas also emphatically believed in the Immaculate Conception, which is rejected by many, if not most, Eastern Orthodox today.

St. Symeon the New Theologian taught that unordained monks could absolve sins just as a priest or hieromonk, a belief that is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy. **

I don’t bring these examples up in order to say “you too!”, but rather to point out that erroneous beliefs don’t automatically detract from the Holiness of an individual, and oftentimes we can find something erroneous in anyone’s thinking. No one is completely free from such errors.

Peace and God bless!

Hmm, not sure if the OP was asking about anything like that. I’m unsure of what your motives are for this post. It appears that you are trying to take a shot at Orthodoxy, which I find to be rather unfortunate. Perhaps the polemics should be saved for some other forum?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Patchunky]

Do Orthodox and/or Byzantine Catholics regard the Emperor Constantine I to be a saint? Has he ever been canonised by the Catholic Church?

If so, why, if not, why not?

I’m trying to understand the Church’s historical relationship to political power, and I think it’s one of the key areas where the different understandings in East and West help shed light on one another.

Was Constantine a Christian emperor, or was he more of a pro-Christian emperor?

Yes, his feast day is May 21st, the same day as his mother’s

 

[Madaglan]

How can one equal to the Apostles not be a saint?

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by Hesychios:

Not all of the local saints in the west made it into the Roman (universal) calendar. Saint John Cassian for example is only publicly venerated in his home diocese of Marseilles (southern Gaul) and just about all over the Orthodox world because these dioceses adopted his veneration. The church at the city of Rome apparently did not like him enough to take on his veneration.

Unfortunate for St. John Cassian, his criticisms of certain aspects of St. Augustine’s writings on free will and grace were strongly reproved by Prosper of Aquitaine and other defenders in the West of St. Augustine’s views on free will and grace.

It is not surprising then, that there would be differences today, but one might think that Constantine would have made the lists in Rome, since he was the promulgator of the Edict of Milan, sponsored the councils at Arles and at Nicea I, and at one time was considered to have made significant donations to the Roman church (the Lateran palace was probably deeded by him, enabling the bishop to convene a synod in Rome in 313AD). Still, the church at the city of Rome has it’s own criteria and we respect that.

To my understanding, Constantine was not baptized Christian until very near death. His calling of the Council of Nicaea, promulgation of the Edict of Milan, making of church donations, etc. were all done when he was not yet a baptized Christian. Perhaps this fact has something to do with it.

 

[Aramis]

Do Orthodox and/or Byzantine Catholics regard the Emperor Constantine I to be a saint? Has he ever been canonised by the Catholic Church?

St. Constantine’s icon was on the tetrapod Sunday last… so yes.

If so, why, if not, why not?

I’m trying to understand the Church’s historical relationship to political power, and I think it’s one of the key areas where the different understandings in East and West help shed light on one another.

Was Constantine a Christian emperor, or was he more of a pro-Christian emperor?

Emperor St Constantine allowed all religions, but was called by Christ to end the persecutions. He was the Emperor who allowed open practice of the faith, and who called the first ecumenical council, which said council’s decisions still guide the churches (Catholic, Orthodox, even some protestants!) to this day.

 

[marlo]

On a related note also, there are Orthodox churches which venerate and seek intercession of St. Francis of Assisi, they even use the prayer he made.
Who can Argue with St. Francis?

On a related note, you have some Eastern Catholic Churches which venerate and seek the intercession of saints who firmly rejected the post-schism manifestation of Roman Catholicism, such as St. Gregory Palamas by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. St. Gregory had some very negative things to say about the Pope of Old Rome and the Roman Catholic Church.

You also have different Eastern traditions that have respective saints on different ends of theological disputes, but then when a union was created with Old Rome at a later time, these churches continued to venerate their respective saints in their own theological patrimonies. As a result, the Roman Catholic method of absorption of Eastern churches in unia at times can seem completely theologically inconsistent and tends toward relativism concerning important issues. Was anybody right in such disputes? Were they both simultaneously correct?

Is dogmatic theology really just arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Certainly not. Just to be clear, I am not asserting that certain theological concessions are not made when Eastern Christians schism and join with Old Rome, as I know for a fact that the Chaldean Catholic Church had to reject certain Nestorian Christological views explicitly before the union would be valid, but this was also in a time when Old Rome wasn’t so relativistic.

These sorts of issues cannot simply be smoothed over by pretending they didn’t happen, and it unfortunately shows that a great many matters of theological and historical significance can be quickly brushed aside if one will only submit to the authority of the Pope of Rome. To me, this shows where the heart of the Roman Catholic Church lies: in the institution and power of the Papacy itself, not in the unchanging Orthodox faith once delivered to the saints.

 

[marlo]

he was also baptised by an Arian Bishop

Unfortunate for St. John Cassian, his criticisms of certain aspects of St. Augustine’s writings on free will and grace were strongly reproved by Prosper of Aquitaine and other defenders in the West of St. Augustine’s views on free will and grace.

To my understanding, Constantine was not baptized Christian until very near death. His calling of the Council of Nicaea, promulgation of the Edict of Milan, making of church donations, etc. were all done when he was not yet a baptized Christian. Perhaps this fact has something to do with it.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

From what I remember reading about Constantine, he was no saint. I always thought it was rather ironic that he was baptized by an Arian Bishop considering he put off his baptism so that he might have all the blood on his hands washed away before his death.