St. Constantine the Great

[call_me_2d]

looking at his history, i keep wondering how he was a saint.

anyone shed anymore history with this saint?

 

[Sphinx777]

Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus (27 February c. 272 – 22 May 337), commonly known in English as Constantine I, Constantine the Great, or (among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Christians) Saint Constantine (/'kɒnstɛntaɪn/), was Roman emperor from 306, and the undisputed holder of that office from 324 until his death in 337. Best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine reversed the persecutions of his predecessor, Diocletian, and issued (with his co-emperor Licinius) the Edict of Milan in 313, which proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire.

The Byzantine liturgical calendar, observed by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches of Byzantine rite, lists both Constantine and his mother Helena as saints. Although he is not included in the Latin Church's list of saints, which does recognize several other Constantines as saints, he is revered under the title "The Great" for his contributions to Christianity.

Constantine also transformed the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium into a new imperial residence, Constantinople, which would remain the capital of the Byzantine Empire for over a thousand years.

See also: Constantine I and Christianity

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Constantine was never canonized as a saint.

Fact is, he didn't convert to Christianity, until he was on his death bed, and he only did so as insurance, just in case the Christians were right.

Jim

 

[call_me_2d]

from what i've been able to put together, in a nutshell, He was THE man to make the practice of Christianity possible without becoming a martyr.. Lots of wars and fighting and fires and screaming and tons and tons of pagans.. And at the end of his years baptized a christian and then made a saint... can saints be war generals?

 

[call_me_2d]

Constantine was never canonized as a saint.

Fact is, he didn't convert to Christianity, until he was on his death bed, and he only did so as insurance, just in case the Christians were right.

Jim

How can he not be converted when he fought for it? he made his empire a christian one and started the wide spread killing of pagans.

And from what i've been reading, He made Christianity possible to practice without getting killed.

 

[D'Ann]

The CC does not consider him a saint. The Eastern Orthodox may, but I'm not sure.

Here is what the Catholic Church teaches on Constantine the Great.

Constantine the Great

tt=29
Life


His coins give his name as M., or more frequently as C., Flavius Valerius Constantinus. He was born at Naissus, now Nisch in Servia Nis, Serbia --Ed., the son of a Roman officer, Constantius, who later became Roman Emperor, and St. Helena, a woman of humble extraction but remarkable character and unusual ability. The date of his birth is not certain, being given as early as 274 and as late as 288. After his father's elevation to the dignity of Caesar we find him at the court of Diocletian and later (305) fighting under Galerius on the Danube. When, on the resignation of his father, Constantius was made Augustus, the new Emperor of the West asked Galerius, the Eastern Emperor, to let Constantine, whom he had not seen for a long time, return to his father's court. This was reluctantly granted. Constantine joined his father, under whom he had just time to distinguish himself in Britain before death carried off Constantius (25 July, 306). Constantine was immediately proclaimed Caesar by his troops, and his title was acknowledged by Galerius somewhat hesitatingly. This event was the first break in Diocletian's scheme of a four-headed empire (tetrarchy) and was soon followed by the proclamation in Rome of Maxentius, the son of Maximian, a tyrant and profligate, as Caesar, October, 306.
During the wars between Maxentius and the Emperors Severus and Galerius, Constantine remained inactive in his provinces. The attempt which the old Emperors Diocletian and Maximian made, at Carmentum in 307, to restore order in the empire having failed, the promotion of Licinius to the position of Augustus, the assumption of the imperial title by Maximinus Daia, and Maxentius' claim to be sole emperor (April, 308), led to the proclamation of Constantine as Augustus. Constantine, having the most efficient army, was acknowledged as such by Galerius, who was fighting against Maximinus in the East, as well as by Licinius.
So far Constantine, who was at this time defending his own frontier against the Germans, had taken no part in the quarrels of the other claimants to the throne. But when, in 311, Galerius, the eldest Augustus and the most violent persecutor of the Christians, had died a miserable death, after cancelling his edicts against the Christians, and when Maxentius, after throwing down Constantine's statues, proclaimed him a tyrant, the latter saw that war was inevitable. Though his army was far inferior to that of Maxentius, numbering according to various statements from 25,000 to 100,000 men, while Maxentius disposed of fully 190,000, he did not hesitate to march rapidly into Italy (spring of 312). After storming Susa and almost annihilating a powerful army near Turin, he continued his march southward. At Verona he met a hostile army under the prefect of Maxentius' guard, Ruricius, who shut himself up in the fortress. While besieging the city Constantine, with a detachment of his army, boldly assailed a fresh force of the enemy coming to the relief of the besieged fortress and completely defeated it. The surrender of Verona was the consequence. In spite of the overwhelming numbers of his enemy (an estimated 100,000 in Maxentius' army against 20,000 in Constantine's army) the emperor confidently marched forward to Rome. A vision had assured him that he should conquer in the sign of the Christ, and his warriors carried Christ's monogram on their shields, though the majority of them were pagans. The opposing forces met near the bridge over the Tiber called the Milvian Bridge, and here Maxentius' troops suffered a complete defeat, the tyrant himself losing his life in the Tiber (28 October, 312). Of his gratitude to the God of the Christians the victor immediately gave convincing proof; the Christian worship was henceforth tolerated throughout the empire (Edict of Milan, early in 313). His enemies he treated with the greatest magnanimity; no bloody executions followed the victory of the Milvian Bridge. Constantine stayed in Rome but a short time after his victory. Proceeding to Milan (end of 312, or beginning of 313) he met his colleague the Augustus Licinius, married his sister to him, secured his protection for the Christians in the East, and promised him support against Maximinus Daia. The last, a bigoted pagan and a cruel tyrant, who persecuted the Christians even after Galerius' death, was now defeated by Licinius, whose soldiers, by his orders, had invoked the God of the Christians on the battle-field (30 April, 313). Maximinus, in his turn, implored the God of the Christians, but died of a painful disease in the following autumn.
Of all Diocletian's tetrarchs Licinius was now the only survivor. His treachery soon compelled Constantine to make war on him. Pushing forward with his wonted impetuosity, the emperor struck him a decisive blow at Cibalae (8 October, 314). But Licinius was able to recover himself, and the battle fought between the two rivals at Castra Jarba (November, 314) left the two armies in such a position that both parties thought it best to make peace. For ten years the peace lasted, but when, about 322, Licinius, not content with openly professing paganism, began to persecute the Christians, while at the same time he treated with contempt Constantine's undoubted rights and privileges, the outbreak of war was certain, and Constantine gathered an army of 125,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, besides a fleet of 200 vessels to gain control of the Bosporus. Licinius, on the other hand, by leaving the eastern boundaries of the empire undefended succeeded in collecting an even more numerous army, made up of 150,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry, while his fleet consisted of no fewer than 350 ships. The opposing armies met at Adrianople, 3 July, 324, and Constantine's well-disciplined troops defeated and put to flight the less disciplined forces of Licinius. Licinius strengthened the garrison of Byzantium so that an attack seemed likely to result in failure and the only hope of taking the fortress lay in a blockade and famine. This required the assistance of Constantine's fleet, but his opponent's ships barred the way. A sea fight at the entrance to the Dardanelles was indecisive, and Constantine's detachment retired to Elains, where it joined the bulk of his fleet. When the fleet of the Licinian admiral Abantus pursued on the following day, it was overtaken by a violent storm which destroyed 130 ships and 5000 men. Constantine crossed the Bosporus, leaving a sufficient corps to maintain the blockade of Byzantium, and overtook his opponent's main body at Chrysopolis, near Chalcedon. Again he inflicted on him a crushing defeat, killing 25,000 men and scattering the greater part of the remainder. Licinius with 30,000 men escaped to Nicomedia. But he now saw that further resistance was useless. He surrendered at discretion, and his noble-hearted conqueror spared his life. But when, in the following year (325), Licinius renewed his treacherous practices he was condemned to death by the Roman Senate and executed. Henceforth, Constantine was sole master of the Roman Empire. Shortly after the defeat of Licinius, Constantine determined to make Constantinople the future capital of the empire, and with his usual energy he took every measure to enlarge, strengthen, and beautify it. For the next ten years of his reign he devoted himself to promoting the moral, political, and economical welfare of his possessions and made dispositions for the future government of the empire. While he placed his nephews, Dalmatius and Hannibalianus in charge of lesser provinces, he designated his sons Constantius, Constantine, and Constans as the future rulers of the empire. Not long before his end, the hostile movement of the Persian king, Shâpûr, again summoned him into the field. When he was about to march against the enemy he was seized with an illness of which he died in May, 337, after receiving baptism.

There is more information. I pray that you will find it interesting.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

 

[D'Ann]

I think that you have him confused with another Constantine. Here is some information on another Constantine:

Pope Constantine

tt=21

Consecrated 25 March, 708; d. 9 April, 715; a Syrian, the son of John, and "a remarkably affable man". The first half of his reign was marked by a cruel famine in Rome, the second by an extraordinary abundance. For some time he had trouble with Felix, Archbishop of Ravenna, whom he had himself consecrated. Relying on the secular power, the new bishop refused to offer the pope due obedience. It was only after he had tasted of dire misfortune that Felix submitted. Constantine received as pilgrims two Anglo-Saxon kings, Coenred of Mercia and Offa of the East Saxons. They both received the tonsure in Rome and embraced the monastic life. (Bede, Hist. eccl., V, xix, xx.) St. Egwin, Bishop of Worcester, went to Rome along with them and obtained from the pope various privileges for his monastery of Evesham. ("Chron. Abbat.de Evesham", in R. S.; "St. Egwin and his Abbey of Evesham", London, 1904.) The extant documents regarding this monastery which bear this pope's name are all spurious. (They are to be found in Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", III, 281.) But his privilege for the monasteries of Bermondsey and Woking (ibid., 276) may be genuine.
In 692 the Emperor Justinian II had caused to assemble the so-called Quinisext or Trullan Council. At this assembly, which was attended only by Greek bishops, 102 canons were passed, many of which established customs opposed to those of Rome. By canon xiii the celibacy of the Greek secular clergy became a thing of the past; and by canon xxxvi, a further step was taken in the direction of rendering the Patriarch of constantinople quite independent of the Holy See. Justinian made every effort to secure the adhesion of the popes to these decrees. But one after another they all refused. At length he sent an order to Constantine to repair to Constantinople. Leaving behind him, according to the custom at the time, the archpriest, the archdeacon, and the Primicerius, or chief of the notaries, to govern the Church in his absence, he set sail for the East (709) with a number of bishops and clergy. Wherever his vessel touched, he was, by Justinian's orders, received with as much honour as the emperor himself. He entered Constantinople in triumph, and at Justinian's request crossed over to Nicomedia, where he was then residing. Strange to say, this cruel prince received the pope with the greatest honour, prostrating himself before him and kissing his feet. After receiving Holy Communion at the hands of the pope, he renewed all the privileges of the Roman Church. Exactly what passed between them on the subject of the Quinisext Council is not known. It would appear, however, that Constantine approved those canons which were not opposed to the true Faith or to sound morals, and that with this qualified approval of his council the emperor was content.
Soon after Constantine's return to Rome (Oct., 711), Justinian II was dethroned by Philippicus Bardanes. The new emperor strove to revive Monothelism, and sent a letter to the pope which the latter caused to be examined in a synod and condemned. Further, as the emperor burnt the Acts of the Sixth General Council, restored to the diptychs the names which that council had caused to be erased, re-erected their images, and removed the representation of the council which was hanging in front of the palace, the pope and the people of Rome placed in the portico of St. Peter's a series of representations of the six <A href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm">general councils, and refused to place the new emperor's name on their charters or their money. They also declined to place his statue, according to custom, in the official chapel of St. C&#230;sarius on the Palatine, the site of which has just been discovered (1907), or to pray for him in the Canon of the Mass. To punish the Romans for these daring measures, a new duke was sent to Rome, and they would no doubt have had much to suffer but for the opportune deposition of Philippicus by the orthodox Anastasius (Whitsun Eve, 713). The new emperor made haste to dispatch to Rome, through the Exarch Scholasticus, a letter in which he professed his orthodoxy and his adhesion to the Sixth General Council, which had condemned Monothelism. Constantine also received a letter from John, the Patriarch of Constantinople, acknowledging that the "apostolical pre-eminence of the Pope is to the whole Church, what the head is to the body", and that "according to the canons he is the head of the Christian priesthood". John assured the pope that, while co-operating with the Emperor Philippicus, he had always been orthodox at heart, and that the decree, drawn up at the council in which the heretical emperor had hoped to re-establish Monothelism (712), was really orthodox in sense, although not apparently so in words. (See John's letter in the epilogue of the Deacon Agatho, in Mansi, "Coll. Conc.", XII, 192.) Among other distinguished men who came to Rome in the days of Constantine was Benedict, Archbishop of Milan. He came not only to pray at the shrines of the Apostles, for he was a man of such remarkable holiness that he was distinguished for it in all Italy (Paul the Deacon, Hist., VI, xxix), but also to discuss with the pope as to whose immediate jurisdiction belonged the Church of Pavia. At one time, certainly in the fifth century, the bishops of Pavia were subject to the bishops of Milan and were consecrated by them. For some reason, perhaps because the Lombards made Pavia their capital, its bishops had ceased to be dependent on those of Milan, and had become directly subject to the popes. Accordingly, when it had been proved to Benedict that for some long time at least they had been consecrated at Rome, he definitely surrendered his claim to jurisdiction over them. The visit of a pope to a city at any distance from Rome being so comparatively rare, the people of several places at which Constantine touched in his journey to and from Constantinople were only too pleased to be able to avail themselves of the opportunity of getting him to consecrate a bishop for them. It is on record that he consecrated twelve in this way, and, at the customary times and places, no less than sixty-four.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04294b.htm

 

[D'Ann]

There is another document, but it is a forgery. Please read the below comment:

Donation of Constantine

tt=70
(Latin, Donatio Constantini).

By this name is understood, since the end of the Middle Ages, a forged document of Emperor Constantine the Great, by which large privileges and rich possessions were conferred on the pope and the Roman Church. In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Biblioth&#232;que Nationale, Paris, manuscript Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris".



This document is without doubt a forgery, fabricated somewhere between the years 750 and 850. As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known and demonstrated. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (De Concordanti&#226; Catholic&#226;, III, ii, in the Basle ed. of his Opera, 1565, I) spoke of it as a dictamen apocryphum. Some years later (1440) Lorenzo Valla (De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, Mainz, 1518) proved the forgery with certainty. Independently of both his predecessors, Reginald Pecocke, Bishop of Chichester (1450-57), reached a similar conclusion in his work, "The Repressor of over much Blaming of the Clergy", Rolls Series, II, 351-366. Its genuinity was yet occasionally defended, and the document still further used as authentic, until Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (ad an. 324) admitted that the "Donatio" was a forgery, whereafter it was soon universally admitted to be such. It is so clearly a fabrication that there is no reason to wonder that, with the revival of historical criticism in the fifteenth century, the true character of the document was at once recognized. The forger made use of various authorities, which Grauert and others (see below) have thoroughly investigated. The introduction and the conclusion of the document are imitated from authentic writings of the imperial period, but formul&#230; of other periods are also utilized. In the "Confession" of faith the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is explained at length, afterwards the Fall of man and the Incarnation of Christ. There are also reminiscences of the decrees of the Iconoclast Synod of Constantinople (754) against the veneration of images. The narrative of the conversion and healing of the emperor is based on the apocryphal Acts of Sylvester (Acta or Gesta Sylvestri), yet all the particulars of the "Donatio" narrative do not appear in the hitherto known texts of that legend. The distinctions conferred on the pope and the cardinals of the Roman Church the forger probably invented and described according to certain contemporary rites and the court ceremonial of the Roman and the Byzantine emperors. The author also used the biographies of the popes in the Liber Pontificalis, likewise eighth-century letters of the popes, especially in his account of the imperial donations.
The authorship of this document is still wrapped in obscurity. Occasionally, but without sufficient reason, critics have attributed it to the author of the False Decretals or to some Roman ecclesiastic of the eighth century. On the other hand, the time and place of its composition have lately been thoroughly studied by numerous investigators (especially Germans), though no sure and universally accepted conclusion has yet been reached. As to the place of the forgery Baronius (Annales, ad. an. 1081) maintained that it was done in the East by a schismatic Greek; it is, indeed, found in Greek canonical collections. Natalis Alexander opposed this view, and it is no longer held by any recent historian. Many of the recent critical students of the document locate its composition at Rome and attribute the forgery to an ecclesiastic, their chief argument being an intrinsic one: this false document was composed in favour of the popes and of the Roman Church, therefore Rome itself must have had the chief interest in a forgery executed for a purpose so clearly expressed. Moreover, the sources of the document are chiefly Roman. Nevertheless, the earlier view of Zaccaria and others that the forgery originated in the Frankish Empire has quite recently been ably defended by Hergenr&#246;ther and Grauert (see below). They call attention to the fact that the "Donatio" appears first in Frankish collections, i.e. in the False Decretals and in the above-mentioned St-Denis manuscript; moreover the earliest certain quotation of it is by Frankish authors in the second half of the ninth century. Finally, this document was never used in the papal chancery until the middle of the eleventh century, nor in general is it referred to in Roman sources until the time of Otto III (983-1002, i.e. in case the famous "Diploma" of this emperor be authentic). The first certain use of it at Rome was by Leo IX in 1054, and it is to be noted that this pope was by birth and training a German, not an Italian. The writers mentioned have shown that the chief aim of the forgery was to prove the justice of the translatio imperii to the Franks, i.e. the transfer of the imperial title at the coronation of Charlemagne in 800; the forgery was, therefore, important mainly for the Frankish Empire. This view is rightly tenable against the opinion of the majority that this forgery originated at Rome.
A still greater divergency of opinion reigns as to the time of its composition. Some have asserted (more recently Martens, Friedrich, and Bayet) that each of its two parts was fabricated at different times. Martens holds that the author executed his forgery at brief intervals; that the "Constitutum" originated after 800 in connection with a letter of Adrian I (778) to Charlemagne wherein the pope acknowledged the imperial position to which the Frankish king by his own efforts and fortune had attained. Friedrich (see below), on the contrary, attempts to prove that the "Constitutum" was composed of two really distinct parts. The gist of the first part, the so-called "Confessio", appeared between 638 and 653, probably 638-641, while the second, or "Donatio" proper, was written in the reign of Stephen II, between 752 and 757, by Paul, brother and successor of Pope Stephen. According to Bayet the first part of the document was composed in the time of Paul I (757-767); the latter part appeared in or about the year 774. In opposition to these opinions most historians maintain that the document was written at the same time and wholly by one author. But when was it written? Colombier decides for the reign of Pope Conon (686-687), Genelin for the beginning of the eighth century (before 728). But neither of these views is supported by sufficient reasons, and both are certainly untenable. Most investigators accept as the earliest possible date the pontificate of Stephen II (752-757), thus establishing a connection between the forgery and the historical events that led to the origin of the States of the Church and the Western Empire of the Frankish kings. But in what year of period from the above-mentioned pontificate of Stephen II until the reception of the "Constitutum" in the collection of the False Decretals (c. 840-50) was the forgery executed? Nearly every student of this intricate question maintains his own distinct view. It is necessary first to answer a preliminary question: Did Pope Adrian I in his letter to Charlemagne of the year 778 (Codex Carolinus, ed. Jaff&#233; Ep. lxi) exhibit a knowledge of the "Constitutum"? From a passage of this letter (Sicut temporibus beati Silvestri Romani pontificis a sanct&#230; recordationis piissimo Constantino magno imperatore per eius largitatem sancta Dei Catholica et Apostolica Romana ecclesia elevata et exaltata est et potestatem in his Hesperi&#230; partibus largiri dignatus, ita et in his vestris felicissimis temporibus atque nostris sancta Dei ecclesia, id est beati Petri apostoli, germinet atque exultet. . . .) several writers, e.g. D&#246;llinger, Langen, Meyer, and others have concluded that Adrian I was then aware of this forgery, so that it must have appeared before 778. Friedrich assumes in Adrian I a knowledge of the "Constitutum" from his letter to Emperor Constantine VI written in 785 (Mansi, Concil. Coll., XII, 1056). Most historians, however, rightly refrain from asserting that Adrian I made use of this document; from his letters, therefore, the time of its origin cannot be deduced.
Most of the recent writers on the subject assume the origin of the "Donatio" between 752 and 795. Among them, some decide for the pontificate of Stephen II (752-757) on the hypothesis that the author of the forgery wished to substantiate thereby the claims of this pope in his negotiations with Pepin (D&#246;llinger, Hauck, Friedrich, B&#246;hmer). Others lower the date of the forgery to the time of Paul I (757-767), and base their opinion on the political events in Italy under this pope, or on the fact that he had a special veneration for St. Sylvester, and that the "Donatio" had especially in view the honour of this saint (Scheffer-Boichorst, Mayer). Others again locate its origin in the pontificate of Adrian I (772-795), on the hypothesis that this pope hoped thereby to extend the secular authority of the Roman Church over a great part of Italy and to create in this way a powerful ecclesiastical State under papal government (Langen, Loening). A smaller group of writers, however, remove the forgery to some date after 800, i.e. after the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor. Among these, Martens and Weiland assign the document to the last years of the reign of Charlemagne, or the first years of Louis the Pious, i.e. somewhere between 800 and 840. They argue that the chief purpose of the forgery was to bestow on the Western ruler the imperial power, or that the "Constitutum" was meant to indicate what the new emperor, as successor of Constantine the Great, might have conferred on the Roman Church. Those writers also who seek the forger in the Frankish Empire maintain that the document was written in the ninth century, e.g. especially Hergenr&#246;ther and Grauert. The latter opines that the "Constitutum" originated in the monastery of St-Denis, at Paris, shortly before or about the same time as the False Decretals, i.e. between 840 and 850.
Closely connected with the date of the forgery is the other question concerning the primary purpose of the forger of the "Donatio". Here, too, there exists a great variety of opinions. Most of the writers who locate at Rome itself the origin of the forgery maintain that it was intended principally to support the claims of the popes to secular power in Italy; they differ, however, as to the extent of the said claims. According to D&#246;llinger the "Constitutum" was destined to aid in the creation of a united Italy under papal government. Others would limit the papal claims to those districts which Stephen II sought to obtain from Pepin, or to isolated territories which, then or later, the popes desired to acquire. In general, this class of historians seeks to connect the forgery with the historical events and political movements of that time in Italy (Mayer, Langen, Friedrich, Loening, and others). Several of these writers lay more stress on the elevation of the papacy than on the donation of territories. Occasionally it is maintained that the forger sought to secure for the pope a kind of higher secular power, something akin to imperial supremacy as against the Frankish Government, then solidly established in Italy. Again, some of this class limit to Italy the expression occidentalium regionum provincias, but most of them understand it to mean the whole former Western Empire. This is the attitude of Weiland, for whom the chief object of the forgery is the increase of papal power over the imperial, and the establishment of a kind of imperial supremacy of the pope over the whole West. For this reason also he lowers the date of the "Constitutum" no further than the end of the reign of Charlemagne (814). As a matter of fact, however, in this document Sylvester does indeed obtain from Constantine imperial rank and the emblems of imperial dignity, but not the real imperial supremacy. Martens therefore sees in the forgery an effort to elevate the papacy in general; all alleged prerogatives of the pope and of Roman ecclesiastics, all gifts of landed possessions, and rights of secular government are meant to promote and confirm this elevation, and from it all the new Emperor Charlemagne ought to draw practical conclusions for his behaviour in relation to the pope. Scheffer-Boichorst holds a singular opinion, namely that the forger intended primarily the glorification of Sylvester and Constantine, and only in a secondary way a defence of the papal claims to territorial possessions. Grauert, for whom the forger is a Frankish subject, shares the view of Hergenr&#246;ther, i.e. the forger had in mind a defence of the new Western Empire from the attacks of the Byzantines. Therefore it was highly important for him to establish the legitimacy of the newly founded empire, and this purpose was especially aided by all that the document alleges concerning the elevation of the pope. From the foregoing it will be seen that the last word of historical research in this matter still remains to be said. Important questions concerning the sources of the forgery, the place and time of its origin, the tendency of the forger, yet await their solution. New researches will probably pay still greater attention to textual criticism, especially that of the first part or "Confession" of faith. As far as the evidence at hand permits us to judge, the forged "Constitutum" was first made known in the Frankish Empire. The oldest extant manuscript of it, certainly from the ninth century, was written in the Frankish Empire. In the second half of that century the document is expressly mentioned by three Frankish writers. Ado, Bishop of Vienne, speaks of it in his Chronicle (De sex &#230;tatibus mundi, ad an. 306, in P.L., CXXIII, 92); &#198;neas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy (Adversus Gr&#230;cos, c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758); Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, mentions the donation of Rome to the pope by Constantine the Great according to the "Constitutum" (De ordine palatii, c. xiii, op. cit., CXXV, 998). The document obtained wider circulation by its incorporation with the False Decretals (840-850, or more specifically between 847 and 852; Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorian&#230;, Leipzig, 1863, p. 249). At Rome no use was made of the document during the ninth and the tenth centuries, not even amid the conflicts and difficulties of Nicholas I with Constantinople, when it might have served as a welcome argument for the claims of the pope. The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael C&#230;rularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the "Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea". The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regi&#226; potestate et ecclesiastic&#226; dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesi&#230;, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis pap&#230;, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summ&#226; glori&#230;, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71). St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88). Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations. The authenticity of the document, as already stated, was doubted by no one before the fifteenth century. It was known to the Greeks in the second half of the twelfth century, when it appears in the collection of Theodore Balsamon (1169 sqq.); later on another Greek canonist, Matth&#230;us Blastares (about 1335), admitted it into his collection. It appears also in other Greek works. Moreover, it was highly esteemed in the Greek East. The Greeks claimed, it is well known, for the Bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) the same honorary rights as those enjoyed by the Bishop of Old Rome. By now, by virtue of this document, they claimed for the Byzantine clergy also the privileges and perogatives granted to the pope and the Roman ecclesiastics. In the West, long after its authenticity was disputed in the fifteenth century, its validity was still upheld by the majority of canonists and jurists who continued throughout the sixteenth century to quote it as authentic. And though Baronius and later historians acknowledged it to be a forgery, they endeavoured to marshal other authorities in defence of its content, especially as regards the imperial donations. In later times even this was abandoned, so that now the whole "Constitutum", both in form and content, is rightly considered in all senses a forgery. See FALSE DECRETALS; SYLVESTER I; STATES OF THE CHURCH; TEMPORAL POWER.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

 

[call_me_2d]

* starts breathing again* i almost understood all of that forged doct hehe i'll read over again... wish me luck

 

[JimR-OCDS]

How can he not be converted when he fought for it? he made his empire a christian one and started the wide spread killing of pagans.

And from what i've been reading, He made Christianity possible to practice without getting killed.

His interest wasn't in Christianity per se, but rather, maintaining peace in the Roman empire.

There was conflict between pagans and Christians, where pagans blamed everything from the weather to illnesses, on the Christians. Then of course, there was the schism in Christianity with the Aryan heresy. So, He wrote the edict of religious tolerance, around 315AD, making Christianity legal. He also found favor with the Pope, and even donated Roman public buildings to the Church. However, his brother was aligned with Aryans, and protested. Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, and left the Bishops of the Church, to hammer out the doctrines which the Church would follow.

He was not a Christian however, and never converted until his death bed.

After his death, when his brother took over as Emperor, he began persecution of the Christians once again.

There is much false information put out by anti-Catholics, that Constantine founded the Catholic Church and wrote its doctrines.
Some people, not knowing any better, have bought it, and need to be re-educated.

D'ann posted the article from Newadvent.org, which is an old version of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Newer versions don't refer to Constantine the Great, but rather, the document of Constantine, where he recognized the authority of the Pope in the Christian Church.

Jim

 

[Ave Maria]

Very interesting thread! I'll make sure to subscribe to this thread!

 

[D'Ann]

Yup, Jim, you are right. I usually am careful when quoting the New Advent because it is an older version of the Catholic Encyclopedia. I think in this case, there was a better clarification as to the part that Constantine played in this era of history.

My hope is that the information is helpful. I like how you simplified the information... it is much easier to understand and read without reading through all of the old stuff.

 

[D'Ann]

Very interesting thread! I'll make sure to subscribe to this thread!

Cool.

 

[call_me_2d]

""St. Constantine the GreatFeastday: May 21
337

Junior Emperor and emperor called the &#8220;Thirteenth Apostle&#8221; in the East. The son of Constantius I Chlorus, junior emperor and St. Helena, Constantine was raised on the court of co-Emperor Diocletian. When his father died in 306, Constantine was declared junior emperor of York, England, by the local legions and earned a place as a ruler of the Empire by defeating of his main rivals at the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. According to legend, he adopted the insignia of Christ, the chi-rho, and placed it upon his labarum - the military standards that held the banners his armies carried into battle to vanquish their Pagan enemies. His purple banners were inscribed with the Latin for &#8220;In this sign conquer.&#8221; Constantine then shared rule of the Empire with Licinius Licinianus, exerting his considerable influence upon his colleague to secure the declaration of Christianity to be a free religion. When, however, Licinius and Constantine launched a persecution of the Christians, Constantine marched to the East and routed his opponent at the battle of Adrianople. Constantine was the most dominating figure of his lifetime, towering over his contemporaries, including Pope Sylvester I. He presided over the Council of Nicaea, gave extensive grants of land and property to the Church, founded the christian city of Constaninople to serve as his new capital, and undertook a long-sighted program of Christianization for the whole of the Roman Empire. While he was baptized a Christian only on his deathbed, Constantine nevertheless was a genuinely important figure in Christian history and was revered as a saint, especially in the Eastern Church.""




This is what i've been able to find out.

 

[Sphinx777]

""St. Constantine the GreatFeastday: May 21
337

Junior Emperor and emperor called the “Thirteenth Apostle” in the East. The son of Constantius I Chlorus, junior emperor and St. Helena, Constantine was raised on the court of co-Emperor Diocletian. When his father died in 306, Constantine was declared junior emperor of York, England, by the local legions and earned a place as a ruler of the Empire by defeating of his main rivals at the battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. According to legend, he adopted the insignia of Christ, the chi-rho, and placed it upon his labarum - the military standards that held the banners his armies carried into battle to vanquish their Pagan enemies. His purple banners were inscribed with the Latin for “In this sign conquer.” Constantine then shared rule of the Empire with Licinius Licinianus, exerting his considerable influence upon his colleague to secure the declaration of Christianity to be a free religion. When, however, Licinius and Constantine launched a persecution of the Christians, Constantine marched to the East and routed his opponent at the battle of Adrianople. Constantine was the most dominating figure of his lifetime, towering over his contemporaries, including Pope Sylvester I. He presided over the Council of Nicaea, gave extensive grants of land and property to the Church, founded the christian city of Constaninople to serve as his new capital, and undertook a long-sighted program of Christianization for the whole of the Roman Empire. While he was baptized a Christian only on his deathbed, Constantine nevertheless was a genuinely important figure in Christian history and was revered as a saint, especially in the Eastern Church.""




This is what i've been able to find out.

Source

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Has anyone ever seen that humongous statue of Constantine before?

These marble fragments are from a colossal seated statue of Constantine, about 30 feet high. The body was made of less valuable materials, while the exposed parts (head, hands, feet) were made of marble. Like the colossal statues of gods placed in Greek temples, this statue of the Emperor was originally placed in the west apse (apse of the short end) of the Basilica Nova of Maxentius and Constantine in the Roman Forum........

source: http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/romanconstantine/constantine.html





The hand; the foot, and the art historian who is 5' 8&#189;", gives a sense of scale

 

[call_me_2d]

Hmm the Chi Rio was adapted by St. Constantine the Great

 

[call_me_2d]

*cough cough* the Chi Rho.

 

[Sphinx777]

Hmm the Chi Rio was adapted by St. Constantine the Great

The Labarum was a typographic ligature formed from Chi (&#967 and Rho (&#961, which had particular symbolic significance to the Romans, Greeks, and to the Christians of Late Antiquity in general.

It originated as a marginal note added to oracular texts by Greek scribes, to mark a particularly valuable or relevant passage; the combined letters Chi and Rho standing for chreston, meaning good. It was later used on the 3rd Century BC coinage of Ptolemy III Euergetes (between an eagle's feet), that of the 3rd century AD Roman Emperor Decius, and as a vexillum (military standard) by Constantine I and several subsequent emperors. Christians also used the symbol to represent the first two Greek letters of the word Christ (Greek: &#935;&#929;&#921;&#931;&#932;&#927;&#931;, or &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#972;&#962.

Despite the Imperial use of the symbol by Decius, who heavily persecuted Christians, and earlier pre-Christian usages, later Christian writers argued that Constantine used the symbol to represent his Christian allegiance. Constantine's actual religious affiliation is disputed, and his reasons for using the symbol could equally be based on the scribal meaning of auspicious, or deliberately choosing a symbol with a meaning ambiguous between the two.

The etymology of the word labarum is unclear; it is perhaps to be derived from Latin /lab&#257;re/ 'to totter, to waver' (in the sense of the "waving" of a flag in the breeze).

 

[Tonks]

The CC does not consider him a saint. The Eastern Orthodox may, but I'm not sure.

The Latin church...no. I'm pretty sure that several of the Eastern Rites do, however, so in that sense at least part of the Catholic Church considers him a saint, no?