The irony of Constantine's sainthood among Eastern Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hail_Linus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hail_Linus

Guest
I find it ironic that the Eastern Orthodox consider Constantine the Great a Saint (I also personally believe this). Constantine’s biggest fear was that God would punish him and the empire if he permitted a schism to occur.

To understand Constantine’s mindset I have a portion of one of his letters below. This is from a letter Constantine wrote to Aelafius, deputy praetorian prefect of Africa, after learning the Donatists refused to accept the Church Council’s decision and wanted to appeal the case directly to him:

“Since I am informed that you too are a worshipper of the Highest God, I will confess to your gravity that I consider it absolutely contrary to the divine law that we should overlook such quarrels and contentions, whereby the Highest Divinity may perhaps be moved to wrath, not only against the human race, but also against me myself, to whose care He has, by His celestial will, committed the government of all earthly things, and that He may be so far removed as to take some untoward step. For I shall really and fully be able to feel secure and always to hope for prosperity and happiness from the ready kindness of the most mighty God only when I see all venerating the most holy God in the proper cult of the*** catholic religion*** with harmonious brotherhood of worship.”

It seems clear to me that St. Constantine would not be happy at all about the Schism.

Any thoughts?
 
Sigh…

I see where you’re going with this, but I can only remind that “catholic” and “Catholic” are different things entirely, and that the Eastern Orthodox are not at all happy about the schism. They see why it’s there, they don’t pretend it shouldn’t be (given the relative stances of the EO and RC that absolutely exclude the possibility of restored communion), but I’ve never met a single one who is anything near happy about it. Yes, they think they’re on the right side of it, but then doesn’t everyone think that about his own church? Of course.
 
dzheremi said:
Sigh…

I see where you’re going with this, but I can only remind that “catholic” and “Catholic” are different things entirely, and that the Eastern Orthodox are not at all happy about the schism. They see why it’s there, they don’t pretend it shouldn’t be (given the relative stances of the EO and RC that absolutely exclude the possibility of restored communion), but I’ve never met a single one who is anything near happy about it. Yes, they think they’re on the right side of it, but then doesn’t everyone think that about his own church? Of course.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think I understand what I am getting at. I am saying Constantine would have never permitted the Schism to occur, no matter who was at fault, and even when both sides are at fault. You really do not see the irony?

I am not trying to pick a fight. As a matter of fact, I agree with the Eastern Orthodox that he is a Saint and do not know why we do not consider him a saint?

I just want to hear other perspectives.
 
No, I do not see the irony, because Constantine passed on centuries before the Great Schism became finalized. It is possible that if he had been emperor at the time of the schism, things could have turned out differently. It is also possible that things would have turned out the same. I don’t really see what the quote you’ve provided is meant to illustrate. Plenty of other saints have been similarly committed to particular visions of Christianity unity that, because we are fallible and sinful humans every one of us, has not been realized.

And I’m not entirely sure the position of Constantine within the Catholic Church. I would guess that the Latins do not consider him a saint, but then I find pages like this one on what seems to be an RC website where he is referred to as a saint. And surely he must be considered a saint in the Byzantine Catholic tradition, unless places like St. Constantine Ukrainian Catholic Church in Minneapolis represent some new schismatic form of Ukrainian Catholicism that I am unaware of.
 
dzheremi said:
No, I do not see the irony, because Constantine passed on centuries before the Great Schism became finalized. It is possible that if he had been emperor at the time of the schism, things could have turned out differently. It is also possible that things would have turned out the same. I don’t really see what the quote you’ve provided is meant to illustrate. Plenty of other saints have been similarly committed to particular visions of Christianity unity that, because we are fallible and sinful humans every one of us, has not been realized.

And I’m not entirely sure the position of Constantine within the Catholic Church. I would guess that the Latins do not consider him a saint, but then I find pages like this one on what seems to be an RC website where he is referred to as a saint. And surely he must be considered a saint in the Byzantine Catholic tradition, unless places like St. Constantine Ukrainian Catholic Church in Minneapolis represent some new schismatic form of Ukrainian Catholicism that I am unaware of.
Click to expand...
Well I cannot force you to see what I see.

I would like to thank you for that link. I am going to investigate his sainthood further. I really admire Constantine and I would be very pleased to learn he was considered a Saint in the Catholic Church.
 
Hail_Linus said:
… I agree with the Eastern Orthodox that he is a Saint and do not know why we do not consider him a saint?

I just want to hear other perspectives.
Click to expand...
In the early church all canonizations were local. A diocese would canonize a saint and invite other dioceses and synods to share their joy.

Some other dioceses or provinces would also wish to honor the saint and ask for relics, then they would put the new saint on their calendar as a way of recognizing the person too.

Now they didn’t have to put the saint in their calendar, they did this because they wanted to. So the local calendars probably varied quite a bit (that doesn’t mean the persons were definitely not considered saints in other places, but that they were not comemorated everywhere).

It was much later that the Papacy took this authority upon itself to canonize saints under it’s jurisdiction (I think the 12th century). The Roman Calendar then became the standard. There are still some saints from before this time in the calendars of some RC European dioceses that are not present in the Roman calendar, but I would be hard pressed to identify any right now (I think I recall Alex once wrote about St John Cassian being a remembered as a saint in Marseille).

I am pretty sure the Eastern Catholic churches canonized Saint Constantine long before the schism, if so I suppose he will be found on Eastern Catholic calendars as well as Orthodox calendars, but I think someone else would have to confirm that. (One hint might be to identify the oldest standing church named in his honor.)

Interestingly, as far as I can tell the Holy Theotokos and the Apostles never underwent a formal canonization process by any churh, they were simply assumed to be saints.

I feel Saint Constantine would be appalled at our schism. But he wasn’t naive, he wouldn’t be entirely surprised, just disappointed.
 
Why is this ironic only for the Eastern Orthodox? The responsibility for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schims rests on both churches.
 
Hesychios said:
I am pretty sure the Eastern Catholic churches canonized Saint Constantine long before the schism, if so I suppose he will be found on Eastern Catholic calendars as well as Orthodox calendars, but I think someone else would have to confirm that. (One hint might be to identify the oldest standing church named in his honor.)
Click to expand...
Yes, we just celebrated his feast day last Saturday.
dcointin said:
Why is this ironic only for the Eastern Orthodox? The responsibility for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schims rests on both churches.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Hail_Linus said:
No, I don’t think I understand what I am getting at. I am saying Constantine would have never permitted the Schism to occur, no matter who was at fault, and even when both sides are at fault. You really do not see the irony?

I am not trying to pick a fight. As a matter of fact, I agree with the Eastern Orthodox that he is a Saint and do not know why we do not consider him a saint?

I just want to hear other perspectives.
Click to expand...
I for one am glad Constantine is not formally canonized in the Rman Catholic Church. He murdered his own son and wife, at the behest of his mother Helena.
 
dcointin said:
Why is this ironic only for the Eastern Orthodox? The responsibility for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox schims rests on both churches.
Click to expand...
I find irony on both sides. The Eastern Orthodox seem to hold Constantine in higher esteem even thought Constantine despised and feared Schisms. The Catholic Church I feel does not honor him enough and yet he did so much to prevent schisms and respected the Papal office (regardless of the issue of infallibility).
 
ConstantineTG said:
So what do you think of St. Paul? 🤷
Click to expand...
Well st. Paul Is my favorite apostle 😛 I know he was a persecutor of the early church, but repented of his sins and moved on to become, in my opinion, the most influential apostle there was. But Constantine, being raised Christian by his mother, and then having his wife suffocated in a hot bath and his son poisoned, should have known better. (His mother also, for supporting such actions) I suppose he could have repented, but his character seems very shady to me.
 
The_Fly said:
Some seem to forget that saints were once sinners. Some of the best saints were the worst sinners
Click to expand...
I guess that is what makes them so great. To be so much deep in sin and yet they found a way to break free from the clutches of sin. Its like the best businessmen are those who make their money from nothing, rags to riches, rather than those who are already rich. They know what it takes to be successful. For those who are the worst sinners, the fact that they figured out how to turn back from such a predicament made them closer to God.
 
Guitarjesus7 said:
Well st. Paul Is my favorite apostle 😛 I know he was a persecutor of the early church, but repented of his sins and moved on to become, in my opinion, the most influential apostle there was. But Constantine, being raised Christian by his mother, and then having his wife suffocated in a hot bath and his son poisoned, should have known better. (His mother also, for supporting such actions) I suppose he could have repented, but his character seems very shady to me.
Click to expand...
Many have been shady, its the fact that they were able to turn back from that is the point of their heroism in the faith.
 
Wow…I guess some of you would have a coronary at the Ethiopians’ canonization of Pontius Pilate, then! If that isn’t a testament to the truth of Hesychios’ post on the history of canonization, I don’t know what is! 🙂
 
Guitarjesus7 said:
I for one am glad Constantine is not formally canonized in the Rman Catholic Church. He murdered his own son and wife, at the behest of his mother Helena.
Click to expand...
All people today have the luxury of being born into Christian world. People continue to do evil but at least now they know it. The Pagans didn’t even know it was evil to leave an unwanted baby on the street so someone else could take it. In the Pagan world this was not immoral. Constantine’s conversion did not happen over night.

Anyone who is in heaven is a Saint. Theologically speaking he is most likely in heaven. Even though he became Christian in his heart he apparently waited until just prior to death to get baptized and confirmed. If this is true then all sin including temporal effects were wiped away and he would not need to go to purgatory.

BTW, I know this does not sound Christian, but isn’t it a shame he didn’t have his other son, Constantius II, killed instead. That heathen certainly was a nasty little trouble maker.😃
 
ConstantineTG said:
Many have been shady, its the fact that they were able to turn back from that is the point of their heroism in the faith.
Click to expand...
I agree with this statement. And I would agree that Constantine was very important in the early church. But making him a saint seems to be going a bit too far. God can work through sinners, but that doesn’t mean the sinner is saved.

But These are only my opinions regarding the matter. I wish you all the best.
 
Guitarjesus7 said:
Well st. Paul Is my favorite apostle 😛 I know he was a persecutor of the early church, but repented of his sins and moved on to become, in my opinion, the most influential apostle there was. But Constantine, being raised Christian by his mother, and then having his wife suffocated in a hot bath and his son poisoned, should have known better. (His mother also, for supporting such actions) I suppose he could have repented, but his character seems very shady to me.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t his son and wife accused of some kind of crime, like adultery or treason? Would not execution have been justified under such a circumstance? I don’t think enough is reliably known about this incident to condemn Constantine.
 
ChristIsTheWay said:
Wasn’t his son and wife accused of some kind of crime, like adultery or treason? Would not execution have been justified under such a circumstance? I don’t think enough is reliably known about this incident to condemn Constantine.
Click to expand...
His wife, fausta, was found innocent afterward.

In 310 Constantine beat and strangled the old Emperor Maximian, whose daughter Fausta he had married; and in 312 (the labarum year) he set out for Rome to try his strength against his brother-in-law Maxentius.
– The Story of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe

He was also baptized by Eusebius of nicomedia, (a very prominent Arian priest bent on destroying the church) who Constantine seems to have been under the influence of for some time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top