Topic: St Constantine the Great

[Mickey]

We see this phenomenon even in Orthodoxy.

Yes. And it is understandable in Holy Orthodoxy.  Veneration of saints is often a grass roots process--a village or town will sometimes venerate a saint long before any type of official recognition.  One jurisdiction may venerate a saint not recognized by another, etc.  Also, there does not have to be proof of miracles and thorough investigations in a legalistic way before there can be a recognition of sainthood (such as it works in Rome--from the top down).

The Eastern Catholic Churches have, since Vatican II, have been given an enormous amount of freedom.  Do not mistake me: they are subject to the Roman pontiff.  However, since at least the pontificate of JPII, they have been given quite a long leash, so to speak.

Yes. And that is the confusing part.  There are many (such as papist on this forum) who decry the recognition of St Gregory Palamas by the Ruthenians.  But having said that, it is particularly confusing that Rome would not recognize a pre-schism saint such as Constantine the Great--someone whom the East refers to as "Equal-to-the Apostles".

[Schultz]

Yes. And that is the confusing part.  There are many (such as papist on this forum) who decry the recognition of St Gregory Palamas by the Ruthenians.  But having said that, it is particularly confusing that Rome would not recognize a pre-schism saint such as Constantine the Great--someone whom the East refers to as "Equal-to-the Apostles".

It is, indeed, confusing, but it still doesn't change the fact that, as Deacon Lance said, St. Constantine is a saint of the Catholic communion by virtue of the fact that he is a recognized, as such, by at least one of its sui juris churches.

I don't try to understand how or why, but I accept that the Vatican does nothing to stop his veneration.  Until Rome says, "No, you can't do that," (and I know it may take years for that to happen...Rome isn't as authoritarian or omnipresent as many of her detractors think), we must accept that St. Constantine is a saint of the eyes of Rome who just happens to not be, for whatever reason, on the calendar of the Roman Rite (or, presumably, the Ambrosian and Mozarabic).

[Mickey]

It is, indeed, confusing, but it still doesn't change the fact that, as Deacon Lance said, St. Constantine is a saint of the Catholic communion by virtue of the fact that he is a recognized, as such, by at least one of its sui juris churches.

In other words, if only one sui juris Catholic Church venerates a saint--then that person is a saint of the Catholic Church?  So then... St Gregory Palamas is a saint of the Catholic Church?  Is St Photios venerated by any of the sui juris Churches?  If so...would he be considered a saint of the Catholic Church?

I will rephrase...since at least one sui juris Catholic Church venerates Constantine the Great as a saint---it means that he is indeed recognized as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church?

[Schultz]

It is, indeed, confusing, but it still doesn't change the fact that, as Deacon Lance said, St. Constantine is a saint of the Catholic communion by virtue of the fact that he is a recognized, as such, by at least one of its sui juris churches.

In other words, if only one sui juris Catholic Church venerates a saint--then that person is a saint of the Catholic Church?  So then... St Gregory Palamas is a saint of the Catholic Church?  Is St Photios venerated by any of the sui juris Churches?  If so...would he be considered a saint of the Catholic Church?

I will rephrase...since at least one sui juris Catholic Church venerates Constantine the Great as a saint---it means that he is indeed recognized as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church?

That is my reading of it, yes.  I'm sure others (and we know who I'm talking about) will disagree, but, until Rome says otherwise, I will consider myself right.

[Papist]

Constantine did not live a very saintly life. So can some one help me to understand why it is shocking that many Latins do not venerate him?

His life showed a gradual move from paganism to Christianity.  Much of what is thrown about as examples of his alleged unholiness are slanders or anachronisms.  The good far outweighs the bad, and the move from sinfulness to piety is a great example for others to follow.  St Constantine the Great, pray to God for us!

Was he not baptized on his death bed and then only by an Arian?

[Mickey]

I will consider myself right.

I bow to your superior knowledge. 

[David Carroll]

Was he not baptized on his death bed and then only by an Arian?

Doesn't matter.  As long as he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Eusebius could have been a gay, paraplegic, down-syndromed Satanist with AIDS for all that matter.  The state or beliefs of the baptizer doesn't matter.  This is all in accordance with the declaration of Pope Stephen I.

Read the seventh line in this article:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288a.htm

[lubeltri]

We see this phenomenon even in Orthodoxy.

Yes. And it is understandable in Holy Orthodoxy.  Veneration of saints is often a grass roots process--a village or town will sometimes venerate a saint long before any type of official recognition.  One jurisdiction may venerate a saint not recognized by another, etc.  Also, there does not have to be proof of miracles and thorough investigations in a legalistic way before there can be a recognition of sainthood (such as it works in Rome--from the top down).

It's grassroots in Rome, too.

Consider the very typical case of Venerable Anne de Guigne. This is taken from the official website of her cause:


The first article about Anne de Guigné was written by Father Bernadot a short time after her death on January 14th 1922; He considered her to be a true saint and was going to write about her life himself, but being too taken up by his various activities, he entrusted the task to one of his friends, Father Lajeunie.This booklet, published deliberately without any great publicity, was a surprising success. More than 100,000 copies were sold and spontaneously translated into Italian, German, English, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Chinese and Singhalese.

From that time on, countless letters arrived showing that Catholics had complete confidence in their "little saint." Many pilgrims came to pray on her grave in Annecy-le-Vieux and in the room where she died in Cannes.

Confronted with these spontaneous manifestations and having received the sign from heaven he had asked for, the Bishop of Annecy started the procedure for canonisation on January 21st 1932.

http://www.annedeguigne.fr/index.php?lang=en&page=107

Causes for sainthood start at the local level, beginning with popular support, a request to the local bishop, and so on. Rome does not get involved if this spontaneous support does not materialize. In this case, Anne was declared "Venerable" in 1990.

As for Rome's adjudication of cases which advance, she does not want to put someone on her calendar for universal liturgical veneration unless she has every possible assurance that the person has (1) lived a life of heroic virtue, and (2) is interceding in heaven.

This "legalism" of which you derisively speak is the thorough investigation of a person's life and virtues.

[Papist]

Was he not baptized on his death bed and then only by an Arian?

Doesn't matter.  As long as he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Eusebius could have been a gay, paraplegic, down-syndromed Satanist with AIDS for all that matter.  The state or beliefs of the baptizer doesn't matter.  This is all in accordance with the Council of Carthage in 255 AD under Pope Stephen I.

But EO sacramental theology tends towards the "no sacraments outside the Church" mentality. It would seem that from an EO perspective, he was not ever truely Baptized.

[David Carroll]

But EO sacramental theology tends towards the "no sacraments outside the Church" mentality. It would seem that from an EO perspective, he was not ever truely Baptized.

I, personally, would not endorse this view.  That is unless, of course, this view was made mandatory by the Ecumencial Patriarch or general synod.  I have seen or heard too many stories of Grace being bestowed by mysteries of non-EO Churches to responsibly accept that point of view.

[Mickey]

It's grassroots in Rome, too.

Not usually.

This "legalism" of which you derisively speak is the thorough investigation of a person's life and virtues.

Wrong. It is fine to review a person's virtuous life.  The legalism that I "not so derisively speak", comes from some need to prove that three miracles have ocurred.   

[Papist]

It's grassroots in Rome, too.

Not usually.

This "legalism" of which you derisively speak is the thorough investigation of a person's life and virtues.

Wrong. It is fine to review a person's virtuous life.  The legalism that I "not so derisively speak", comes from some need to prove that three miracles have ocurred.   

It starts grass roots. It always does. And I am not sure what the problem is with requiring three miracles?

[lubeltri]

So, Mickey, is investigating whether your local "weeping" icon of the Theotokos is not a fraud or some other naturally explainable phenomenon also "legalism" as you say?

[Papist]

I fear that at time the term "legalism" is thrown around without much thought behind it.

[David Carroll]

I fear that at time the term "legalism" is thrown around without much thought behind it.

"Legalism much thought."

[GregoryLA]

Was he not baptized on his death bed and then only by an Arian?

Doesn't matter.  As long as he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Eusebius could have been a gay, paraplegic, down-syndromed Satanist with AIDS for all that matter.  The state or beliefs of the baptizer doesn't matter.  This is all in accordance with the Council of Carthage in 255 AD under Pope Stephen I.

But EO sacramental theology tends towards the "no sacraments outside the Church" mentality. It would seem that from an EO perspective, he was not ever truely Baptized.

I think earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Eusebius was still in the Church.

[Mickey]

is investigating whether your local "weeping" icon of the Theotokos is not a fraud or some other naturally explainable phenomenon also "legalism" as you say?

Have the Orthodox tried to scientifically test the myrh which streams from Icons--or the reasons by which it flows?  I do not know. But even if this did happen at some time, (and if it has, I do not believe it is the norm), it is not the same as as trying to substantiate three miracles attributed to an individual before he/she can be glorified by Rome.

That seems to be the epitome of legalism.

[Papist]

is investigating whether your local "weeping" icon of the Theotokos is not a fraud or some other naturally explainable phenomenon also "legalism" as you say?

Have the Orthodox tried to scientifically test the myrh which streams from Icons--or the reasons by which it flows?  I do not know. But even if this did happen at some time, (and if it has, I do not believe it is the norm), It is not the same as as trying to substantiate three miracles attributed to an individual before he/she can be glorified by Rome.

That seems to be the epitome of legalism.

The post seems legalistic about what is or is not legalistic.

[justlurking]

As a Catholic, the only thing I find weird about our canonization process, is that it seems to imply that experimentaly praying to people not yet declared saints are good, because a miracle might happen and we may discover that they are real saints.

[Papist]

As a Catholic, the only thing I find weird about our canonization process, is that it seems to imply that experimentaly praying to people not yet declared saints are good, because a miracle might happen and we may discover that they are real saints.

It starts grass roots like that for the EOs as well. I think we both accepts that the Holy Spirit guides this part of the Process.