Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Constantine the Great
I was reading about him in a book, and although it highlighted his many achievements and his promotion of Christianity, it also mentioned his less than worthy deeds [some of which, I guess were necessary due to his position as Emperor.] Aside from that, his involvement with Christianity [Post Nicea] seemed to be sympathetic towards Arius' cause, probably due to his close friendship with Eusebius of Nicodemia [who was at one point a strong Arian.] He was even responsible for the first exile of Pope Athansius.
So why does the Church consider him a saint?
So why does the Church consider him a saint?
Comments
So to answer your question - there seems to be no good reason to consider him a Saint on his own virtue - more politics than prayer was involved here I think.
PFM
This was the first banishment of Athanasius, which lasted about two years and a half. It was only brought to a close by the death of Constantine, and the accession of Constantine II (his oldest son- 'Constantine had 3 boys Constantine II, Constantius II, and Constans).
I think he is considered a saint He accepted Christ in the end of his life.. but also fought for the unity of the church (although many argue this was done to preserve his throne).
I hope that this message finds you all well. I will not post a lengthy response to this topic, but will advise the following: we should be slow to critique or criticize liturgical texts. This is where we find the culmination of the explanation of our faith, and as such, it should be noted that we should question ourselves or our own understanding of things before we say that a text is in error. The Midnight praises that have been cited should have a similar rubric and standard applied to them. By no means do I mean to criticize you personally, Marenhos, and I pray that you do not take it this way.
A quick glance at the Synaxarium will reveal whether or not the Coptic Orthodox Church regards Constantine the Great as a saint; though it is certainly not all inclusive of each and every saint that is regarded in that fashion within the Church, those saints who are mentioned within it have certainly arrived there for a reason.
As such, here is a link to the Coptic Synaxarium concerning this particular individual: http://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Coptic-Books/Coptic-Synaxarium-or-Synaxarion_English/07-Baramhat/Coptic-Calendar_28-Paramhat.html
Pray for my weaknesses,
childoforthodoxy
Constantine is a great Emperor by all worldy measures, maybe he exceeds Ceasar and rivals Augustus in the Roman political world. A very able military commander as well and rivals other greats like Pompei.
Spiritually, these are the facts about Constantine:
1) He was baptized an Arian at his death bed. This excludes him automatically from the sphere of salvation, let alone sainthood.
2) He persecuted the Church and the Orthodox and has expelled The Great Athanasius from Alexandria. That makes him a persecutor of the Church same as his sons and grandsons, most of them Arians and puts him in the same category of Diocletian. There are no valid history of any remorse on his side for his barbaric actions against the Coptic Church.
3) He supported the Arians. He released Arius, ordered his return to his office to spread more heresy, allowed Eusebius the Arch-arian to spread heresies in Constantinople and was his personal advisor and has never ceased till his death to support Arians with all the resources of the Empire.
Constantine was a politician but never a saint. There is no excuse for his actions from a spiritual point of view and there is nothing like " he had to act this way because of his position" when his actions are those of a persecutor of the Church.
He was the one who ordered Arius to be reinstated to priesthood in Constantinople and was escorted like a hero by an empirial army against the wishes of the Church and Bishop Alexander. It is the same day that Arius died like a dog in a public restroom, being torn in two.
I would understand if the Chalcedonian so-called church would include the likes of Constantine and Justinian and all this garbage among their saints because they are not christians to begin with but rather a political entity who remained only christians as long as they were supported by an Emperor and they needed to appease them or rather, lick their feet.
However, because the true Church (us) never appeased anybody nor cared about politics till recent times, the inclusion of this figure as a saint is a mistake that needs to be corrected.
I would understand if the Chalcedonian so-called church would include the likes of Constantine and Justinian and all this garbage among their saints because they are not christians to begin with but rather a political entity who remained only christians as long as they were supported by an Emperor and they needed to appease them or rather, lick their feet.
However, because the true Church (us) never appeased anybody nor cared about politics till recent times, the inclusion of this figure as a saint is a mistake that needs to be corrected.
Hi Stavro,
Agree totally but I think its unfair to censure the Chalcedonians exclusively for this since we've also inserted Constantine's name into the hagiography of our church. If we universally never cared about appeasing political interests his name simply wouldn't be there.
God bless,
LiD
maybe he was included for political reasons, but I think it is more of a glitch attributed to ignorance or following false accounts of Constantine rather than political reasons.
It is an out-of-character incident in the case of the Coptic Church, who never played politics till recent times, whereas in the case of the Chalcedonians it is coherent and insync with their approach to the faith, [Moderated].
Their existence depended always on earthly power after they were foresaken by the Lord in 451 a.d. They ceased to exist in territories where they were not protected and chose instead to convert to Islam. Not much difference happened to their main pillars of belief because Islam's position regarding Christ is the same as Chalcedon's.
Where there is Christ, there is the Orthodox Church. Where there is an Emperor, there are the Chalcedonians.
I will ask you again to moderate your tone. I have moderated your last post for abuse and will begin to remove posts if they continue in the same vein.
You may disagree with our Pope, bishops and priests, but being rude, aggressive and abusive is never Christian.
Your posts are unfortunately filled with passion and error. The Fathers of the Church never denigrated the Emperor, even when he was persecuting them, and for 100 years after Chalcedon our Fathers were happy to have the support of a variety of Emperors. Most of the Chalcedonians fell under Islamic rule at the same time as non-Chalcedonians. And it is the case that many non-Chalcedonian communities have also ceased to exist because of Islam. Even the Coptic community is a small percentage of what it was.
It is easy to be angry, and post abuse. It is harder to think prayerfully and carefully about these things, as our bishops have done. In all the cases where I have thought I disagreed with our bishops I have had to moderate my stance when I have given their views and my own a carefulyl reflective criticism.
Perhaps what you should do, before you continue to criticise the Church, is to reflect on why Emperor Constantine was added to the Synaxarium, holding out the possibility that it was a deliberate act. It may well be that your personal opinions are not those of the Church, and that you, and us all, have much to learn if we humbly submit to the teaching of the Church rather than insisting that our own opinions are always right.
Father Peter
I was reading about him in a book, and although it highlighted his many achievements and his promotion of Christianity, it also mentioned his less than worthy deeds [some of which, I guess were necessary due to his position as Emperor.] Aside from that, his involvement with Christianity [Post Nicea] seemed to be sympathetic towards Arius' cause, probably due to his close friendship with Eusebius of Nicodemia [who was at one point a strong Arian.] He was even responsible for the first exile of Pope Athansius.
So why does the Church consider him a saint?
I ask myself this question every day. The answer I get from most people was that Christianity flourished under him. However, if it makes you feel any better, the Roman Catholic Church do not at all consider him a saint. However, he's "liked" by them.
For example - if you look at the facade of Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris, his statue is there as a commemoration to the fact that thanks to him, Christianity flourished, and the Church of Notre Dame, Christianity in general, flourished also. But they still won't make him a saint.
Yeah, you are right, he went off and sided with Arius! And then he went off and excommunicated Athanasious - the 22nd Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
But, if its any consolation, he corrected all that and re-instated Saint Athanasious in the end. However, I think that the Constantine's error was a bit grave - not in terms of excommunicating Saint Athanasious, but the attention and platform he gave to the Arius followers. He should have had them all arrested and thrown in jail.
Stavro - as I mentioned, Saint Constantine is NO saint in the Catholic Church - a LOT of that has to do with the fact that he did in fact he sent in exile Saint Athanasious. Saint Athanasious is close to them as he is to us. I just call him a saint simply because I'm Orthodox.. that's it. The Catholics do not.
We are Orthodox, we belong to the Church, we humble ourselves before the teaching of the Church. We don't make it up for ourselves as we go along.
St. Macarius saw a company of prophets and saints, including St. John the Baptist and Emperor Constantine, gathered around the Saint until he delivered his pure spirit in dignity and in honor. St. Macarius wept and said, "Blessed are you, 0 Maximus."
Also on the Feast of St. Bishoy (8th of Abib) you'll find the follwoing:
St. Bishoy struggled in much asceticism and many worships that made him worthy to see the Lord Christ. Emperor Constantine appeared to him in a vision, saying, "Had I known how great is the honor of monks, I would have abandoned my kingdom and became a monk." St. Bishoy told him, "You have banished the heathen worship and exalted Christianity, and has not Christ given you anything?" Emperor Constantine answered him, "The Lord has given me many gifts, but none of them is like the honor of the monks."
I'm certain St. Macarius the Great and St. Bishoy the Beloved of our Good Saviour, would not agree with many of us if we start condemning Emperor Constantine. He would not have been present with St. Joh the Baptist at St. Maximus' departure if he were in hades for his evil deeds; and likewise he would not have appeared to St. Bishoy to describe the honour of the monks unless he was a saint who was with the Lord in Paradise.
If something's in our Liturgical texts and Psalmodies that we don't necessarily agree with, it's usually because the Church Fathers who are much wiser than us and who were inspired by the Holy Spirit knew something we don't!
But we do need to begin our reflections with what the Church teaches and not with what our own opinions are, so we begin with a recognition that the Church DOES consider St Constantine a saint, and then study the texts of the Church to see what in particular in his life is made a matter of commendation.
Father Peter
do what you see fit as far as moderating goes.
What you consider abuse is just the truth that is hard to be dealt with by an excumenist. I reject heresy and heretics, following the steps of the Fathers. Maybe, so are yours. I wish you dedicate half of the energy you spend to protect heretics in promoting the position of the Church as expressed by the Fathers. Maybe because you are a non-Copt so you take the freedom to mispresent us. It could be also because you exclusively follow Chalcedonian resources when it come to history. For whatever reason, it is known that Chalcedonians fell under islamic rule in 1451, 8 centuries after the conquest of Egypt and Syria, and within no time they became muslims by choice. Half the population were islamized when Muhamed the Second conquered Constantinople, the rest within a couple of generations.
The Copts are 20% of the population, and we have stood for the faith and have been martyred for the Truth in millions. It is a totally different story. Never were we protected by an Emperor, but the CHalcedonians were and you could not be so ignorant to miss this fact. Please refrain from misrepresentation of the Coptic History. I do not believe that prayer, in Spirit and Truth, can lead to direct opposition to the Fathers. I wish you follow this advise of yours because you seem to lack any discretion as evident from your open support of heretics.
Have a nice day.