Saint CONSTANTIN le Grand, empereur

 

Portrait de l’empereur Constantin Ier (vers 272-337 ap. J.-C.), Colossal marble statue at the Musei Capitolini, Rome

Saint Constantin Ier le Grand

Empereur romain (+ 337)

Les Églises d'Orient fêtent tout spécialement et ensemble l'empereur et sa mère. L'Église en Occident les fête séparément. Hélène était l'épouse d'un obscur centurion romain à qui elle avait donné un fils. Mais voici que les circonstances font du centurion un empereur, l'empereur Constance II. Jugée trop peu décorative par le nouvel empereur parvenu au pouvoir, elle est répudiée sans autre forme de procès. Humblement, elle se retire, mais son fils lui reste fidèle et, quand il sera, lui aussi, devenu empereur en 306 sous le nom de Constantin, "égal des apôtres" comme l'appelle l'Orient chrétien, il rappellera sa mère et la comblera d'honneurs. On ne sait qui des deux devint chrétien le premier et convertit l'autre. Constantin arrête les persécutions et favorise l'Église, convoque le concile de Nicée, bâtit à Rome une basilique sur le tombeau de Pierre. Sainte Hélène veut voir la Terre Sainte, retrouve ce qu'elle pense être les reliques de la croix, fonde des basiliques à Bethléem et au Mont des Oliviers. Tout cela conduit Constantin à être placé aussi parmi les saints. Il l'est sans aucun doute car il est monté tout droit au ciel ayant attendu l'heure de sa mort pour recevoir le baptême.

"Constantin Le Grand, aux racines de l'Europe", tel est le titre du congrès international qui s'est tenu au Vatican du 18 au 21 avril 2012, organisé par le Conseil pontifical des sciences historiques à l'occasion du 1.700 anniversaire de la bataille du Ponte Milvio et de la conversion de l'empereur Constantin. (VIS) ... Cette conversion est à l'origine de la géographie européenne telle qu'on la connaît aujourd'hui. Constantin, empereur chrétien (Radio Vatican)

- en Vidéo, la conférence de Jean-Marie Salamito, Les chrétiens de Rome, de saint Paul à Constantin le Grand, tv.catholique.fr.

SOURCE : https://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/1190/Saint-Constantin-Ier-le-Grand.html

Constantin, le saint empereur

Un saint que vénèrent les Églises orientales ? Un homme d’État cynique ? Un prince éclairé ? Le premier empereur romain chrétien est un sphinx pour les historiens. Etonnant empereur...

Par Frédéric Valloire

Publié le 2 février 2012 à 6h00

Un saint que vénèrent les Églises orientales ? Un homme d’État cynique ? Un prince éclairé ? Le premier empereur romain chrétien est un sphinx pour les historiens.

Etonnant empereur romain que ce Constantin Ier le Grand, qui divise les historiens autant qu’il les passionne – au point que deux biographies en français viennent de le tirer de l’ombre dans laquelle il était plongé. Constantin est né vers 275 à Naissus (Nis, en Serbie), dans une région d’Illyrie féconde en soldats qui sauvèrent l’Empire des crises du IIIe siècle. Son père, Constance, surnommé Chlore à cause de son teint pâle, était alors un jeune officier à l’état-major impérial ; sa mère, Hélène, une servante d’auberge. Aucun n’était chrétien. De l’enfance de Constantin et de son adolescence, on ne sait presque rien, sauf qu’il eut vers 303 un fils, Crispus, d’une épouse ou d’une concubine.

La carrière de son père est mieux connue ; elle facilitera celle du fils. En novembre 284, un Illyrien, Dioclétien, est proclamé auguste (empereur) par ses troupes. L’année suivante, pour des raisons militaires, il s’adjoint un compatriote, Maximien, à qui il confie le rétablissement de l’ordre en Gaule, ce qu’il réussit. Dioclétien lui donne le titre d’auguste, tout en conservant le pouvoir. Lui, c’est Jupiter, l’autre, c’est Hercule.

Mais Dioclétien va plus loin et imagine une sorte de directoire à quatre dans lequel chaque auguste est flanqué d’un césar… C’est ainsi que Galère devient le césar de Dioclétien et Constance Chlore, celui de Maximien.

Et chacun doit défendre et gérer sa propre fraction de l’Empire : le couple Maximien-Constance se voit confier l’Occident. Pour sceller l’ensemble, des liens de parenté sont institués. Constance Chlore épouse la fille de Maximien : de ce mariage naîtront six enfants, demi-frères ou demi-soeurs de Constantin. Dernier ajustement : au terme de vingt ans de règne, les augustes abdiqueront, les césars prendront leur place et de nouveaux venus les remplaceront.

Constantin se retrouve donc à la cour de Dioclétien, à Nicomédie (Izmit, en Turquie). Gage de la fidélité de son père, il y apprend le grec et la rhétorique, se frotte aux lettres et à la philosophie. Il s’initie au métier des armes, participe à des expéditions militaires où il s’illustre par ses exploits. Spectateur de la persécution des chrétiens en 303, il assiste également à la cérémonie d’abdication de Dioclétien, le 1er mai 305. Tous attendent sa nomination comme césar. Mais il n’est pas retenu. Le principe dynastique est écarté.

Craignant pour sa vie, Constantin rejoint dans une folle chevauchée son père à Boulogne, l’accompagne dans des opérations militaires au nord de la Bretagne (Grande-Bretagne). Un an plus tard, le 25 juillet 306, à la mort de leur césar (Constance), ses soldats le proclament auguste. A-t-il usurpé le titre ? Va-t-on vers une crise ? Le système du directoire à quatre empereurs s’affaiblit fortement. Deux ans plus tard, les empereurs ne sont plus quatre, mais sept !

Constantin choisit la liberté, installe son pouvoir à Trèves et, en s’appuyant sur la Gaule, l’Espagne et la Bretagne, conduit une politique de plus en plus personnelle tout en repoussant les peuples germaniques et en se forgeant une armée fidèle et dévouée. Cette fois, il veut le pouvoir, mais seul.

Prudent et audacieux, appréciant avec réalisme les rapports de force, passant de la diplomatie au raid militaire, utilisant mariage et assassinat, il procède étape par étape, saisit sa chance, la consolide. Une habile campagne d’Italie que conclut la bataille du pont Milvius contre l’autre empereur, Maxence, lui ouvre les portes de Rome, où il entre le 29 octobre 312.

Une alternance de périodes d’entente et de combats avec son dernier rival, l’empereur d’Orient Licinius, s’achève par la victoire totale de Constantin à l’automne 324. Il a su réunifier l’Empire grâce à une vingtaine de campagnes sans aucune défaite. Un génie militaire ? Son neveu Julien (le futur apostat), qui ne l’aimait guère, lui reconnaît cette qualité.

Au revers de ses monnaies, il frappe “Soleil invaincu”

Au cours de cette longue marche vers le pouvoir, trois faits majeurs marquent sa politique. En 310, alors qu’il se rend à Trèves, il visite le temple d’Apollon Grannus à Grand, dans les Vosges. C’est là qu’il a, ou croit avoir, une vision qu’il exploitera dans sa propagande pour renforcer sa légitimité : le voici devenu le protégé et le compagnon d’Apollon, ou mieux encore du “Soleil invaincu” à qui la domination sur l’Empire est promise. Jusque dans les années 320, la formule Sol invictus figurera au revers de ses monnaies.

Dans la nuit qui précéda la bataille du pont Milvius, il avait eu une nouvelle vision. Jamais Constantin ne la mentionnera dans ses écrits. Les auteurs anciens divergent : pour les uns, païens, cette vision provient de divinités célestes ; pour les autres, chrétiens, d’un signe de foi dont la forme est discutée, peut-être le chrisme.

L’historien Pierre Maraval penche aujourd’hui pour la mise en scène d’un « événement purement psychologique », à savoir la décision de Constantin de confier son sort au dieu suprême, qu’il oppose aux dieux de ses prédécesseurs. Et dans ce dieu, Constantin reconnaît le Dieu chrétien grâce à qui il a obtenu sa victoire. Au lendemain de la bataille, il manifeste sa faveur aux chrétiens, restitue à l’Église les biens confisqués pendant la persécution de 303, fait don à l’évêque de Rome du palais du Latran.

Dans les premiers mois de l’année 313, à Milan, Constantin et Licinius se rencontrent pour fixer une politique générale en matière religieuse. Les mesures qu’ils prennent forment l’“édit de Milan”. Pour la première fois, les chrétiens obtiennent, comme tous les sujets de l’Empire, « la liberté et la possibilité de suivre la religion de leur choix ».

Cet édit, Constantin l’accompagne par des décisions personnelles : privilèges accordés aux clercs, construction d’églises, intervention dans l’Église d’Afrique du Nord divisée par la querelle donatiste. Entre 312 et 324, son engagement au service de la foi chrétienne s’accentue : dans la lettre qu’il adresse au concile d’Arles, il se réfère pour la première fois au Christ et dénonce ses erreurs passées.

Pourtant, alors qu’il a adhéré au christianisme et que rien ne permet de mettre en doute sa sincérité, il assure la fonction de pontifex maximus, « chef de la religion de Rome », un titre qu’il prend au sérieux. Car un souci l’habite, l’unité de son Empire, dont les habitants appartiennent à une multitude de religions. Pour la garantir, il instaure une dynastie : sa mère, Hélène, son épouse, Fausta, reçoivent le titre d’augusta, ses trois fils et son neveu, celui de césar. À cette dynastie, il faut une ville, une “nouvelle Rome”, capable de survivre aux prédictions qui annoncent la fin de la Rome de Romulus et Remus : ce sera Constantinople, l’ancienne Byzance.

Décidée en 324, fondée selon les rites religieux païens cette même année, la ville est dédicacée en mai 330, lorsque Constantin s’y installe. La ville grecque est métamorphosée par des constructions gigantesques : murailles, palais, hippodrome, thermes, statue colossale de l’empereur au centre du forum, église de la Paix (Sainte-Irène), église des Saints-Apôtres, destinée à être le mausolée impérial.

Voir régner la concorde parmi ses sujets accompagne le souci de l’unité. Toute la politique de Constantin entre 324 et sa mort, le 22 mai 337, y tend, même si l’entente au sein de la famille impériale est compromise par la disparition brutale et mal expliquée (un assassinat ? ) de son fils Crispus et de son épouse, Fausta, en 326.

Ainsi, l’intervention de Constantin dans les conflits internes de l’Église ne relève pas d’un “césaro-papisme” anachronique mais de la volonté de faire cesser dans les Églises d’Orient les désordres que créent des controverses théologiques, telle celle provoquée par la doctrine arienne. Il organisera donc le premier concile oecuménique, tenu à Nicée en mai 325. S’il célèbre sa victoire sur Licinius, le mot d’ordre envers les vaincus est celui de la clémence. S’il bâtit de nombreuses églises en Orient, en particulier à Jérusalem, il construit des basiliques à Rome (Saint-Pierre, au Vatican), plus volontiers à l’extérieur de la limite religieuse de la ville qu’à l’intérieur. Cela pour ne pas froisser l’aristocratie païenne, dont les temples restent intacts mais à laquelle les sacrifices sanglants sont interdits. S’il met sur pied une législation importante, vertueuse et sévère, fidèle à la tradition romaine, c’est plus pour maintenir l’ordre que pour répondre à des principes chrétiens ; c’est aussi ce qu’attendent tous les habitants de l’Empire, chrétiens compris. Ses réformes militaires et administratives poursuivent un but identique, consolider la sécurité et l’unité du monde romain.

En entremêlant valeurs traditionnelles, normes légales et principes chrétiens, l’empereur Constantin cherche à être efficace et à prévenir les injustices. Sa mort et ses funérailles résument cette complexité. Quand il comprit, près de Nicomédie, qu’il se trouvait au terme de sa vie, il décida de recevoir le baptême, une pratique courante à cette époque.

Sa dépouille embauméhttps://www.valeursactuelles.com/node/29474/edit?destination=admin%2Fcontent%2Ffilter%3Fpage%3D1e et parée des insignes de sa fonction fut emmenée à Constantinople, où l’armée, les corps constitués et le peuple se prosternèrent devant elle. Puis elle fut placée dans un sarcophage de porphyre au centre de l’église des Saints-Apôtres, entourée des cénotaphes des douze compagnons du Christ. Le Sénat de Rome lui décerna l’apothéose, ce qui le rangeait au nombre des dieux. Pour les uns, Constantin était devenu un saint, pour les autres, un divus, un divinisé.

À lire

La Véritable Histoire de Constantin, textes réunis et commentés par Pierre Maraval, Les Belles Lettres, 206 pages, 13 €.

Constantin le Grand, de Pierre Maraval, Tallandier, 396 pages, 23,90 €.

Constantin, le premier empereur chrétien, de Vincent Puech, Ellipses, 408 pages, 23 €.

SOURCE : https://www.valeursactuelles.com/histoire/constantin-le-saint-empereur

21 mai, la fête de Saint Constantin et Sainte Hélène

Publié le 18/05/11 à 11:40

Le 21 mai, par tradition l’Eglise orthodoxe bulgare honore la mémoire de l’empereur romain Saint Constantin et de sa mère – Sainte Hélène. Initialement souverain des territoires du Nord-Ouest de l’empire romain (à partir de 306), il parvient à réunifier toutes les provinces sous son règne et devient seul et unique empereur en 324. Né dans la ville de Niš, qui se trouve aujourd’hui en Serbie, il grandit dans une époque marquée par les persécutions contre les chrétiens. L’édit de Milan, qu’il promulgue en 313, met fin aux persécutions des communautés chrétiennes dans l’Ouest de l’empire. A l’Est, c’est l’empereur Galère qui instaure le principe de la liberté religieuse, par un édit publié en 311 dans la ville de Serdica (c’est l’un des toponymes qui désignaient au Moyen Age la ville de Sofia).

Le règne de Constantin Ier, qui est le premier empereur romain à s’être converti au christianisme, marque un tournant dans le développement de l’Eglise. Son attachement à la nouvelle religion est à l’origine de sévères critiques à l’égard de sa politique qui est montrée du doigt par un grand nombre de dignitaires à Rome. C’est la raison principale de sa décision – annoncée en 324 – de transférer la capitale impériale sur les bords du Bosphore, dans la ville de Byzance, dont la localisation stratégique entre l’Europe et l’Asie offre un emplacement de choix pour la « Nouvelle Rome ». La cité est officiellement proclamée capitale de l’empire romain le 11 mai 330. Après la mort de l’empereur en 337, la ville prend le nom de Constantinople et reste pendant plus d’un millénaire la capitale de l’empire byzantin.

L’exceptionnelle contribution de Constantin Ier à l’essor du christianisme lui vaut le titre de « 13ème apôtre », qui lui est donné souvent par les chrétiens orthodoxes. Le père Kliment Harizanov de la Faculté de Théologie à l’Université de Sofia, nous explique les raisons de cette ferveur populaire pour l’œuvre de Saint Constantin et de Sainte Hélène :

Plovdiv - le plus ancien templs dédié à St Constantin et à Ste Hélène, datait du 4e siècle. Le nouvel édifice date de 1832.

« Effectivement, ils sont parmi les personnages les plus respectés et les plus vénérés par l’Eglise orthodoxe, qui les qualifie d’apôtres pour leur vie et leur œuvre de diffusion de la foi chrétienne dans le monde médiéval – une mission comparable dans son importance à celle des disciples du Christ. C’est intéressant également de souligner que c’est précisément l’empereur Constantin qui a décrété le dimanche jour férié. »

Pour nous Bulgares, mais aussi pour tous les chrétiens d’une manière générale, la mission de Saint Constantin et de Sainte Hélène possède une importance capitale, étant donné qu’elle met fin aux cruelles persécutions, dont étaient victimes les chrétiens et ouvre la voie pour le développement de cette religion en Europe. Il est important de souligner également l’attachement de l’empereur à la ville de Serdica où il passait beaucoup de temps dans une grande et splendide demeure qui se dressait là où se trouve aujourd’hui le centre-ville de la capitale bulgare. La construction de la basilique Sainte-Sophie qui est la plus ancienne église de Sofia, a été aussi, aux dires des historiens, une initiative approuvée et soutenue par l’empereur Constantin Ier.

Version française : Tsvetan Nikolov

По публикацията работи: Svetlomira Ivanova

SOURCE : https://bnr.bg/fr/post/100122293/21-mai-la-fte-de-saint-constantin-et-sainte-hlne

Le 21 mai, nous célébrons la mémoire des Saints empereurs, couronnés par Dieu et Egaux-aux-Apôtres, CONSTANTIN le GRAND et sa mère HELENE (1)

Saint Constantin le Grand, le premier empereur chrétien, devenu par la grâce de Dieu "Apôtre du Seigneur parmi les rois", était fils du brillant général Constance Chlore et de Sainte Hélène. Il naquit à Nissa (Nish) (vers 280) et grandit sur les champs de batailles, apprenant de son père non seulement l'art de la guerre, mais aussi le sage gouvernement de ses sujets et la clémence à l'égard des Chrétiens.

Peu après sa proclamation (288), Dioclétien devant gouverner un empire trop grand, menacé de toutes parts par les barbares et troublé par d'incessants complots, confia à son ami Maximien le gouvemement de l'Occident et, quelques années plus tard (293), il plaça deux césars comme auxiliaires des deux augustes : Galère Maximien en Orient et Constance Chlore en Occident, avec juridiction sur la Grande-Bretagne, la Gaule et l'Espagne. Afin de s'assurer la fidélité de ce dernier, il l'obligea à répudier Sainte Hélène pour épouser la fille de Maximien, et il garda de plus le jeune Constantin en otage à Nicomédie, sa capitale. Constantin passa donc son adolescence parmi les moeurs païennes, à la cour de Dioclétien puis de Galère, où il se distingua par son allure majestueuse et sa vaillance dans les combats, mais surtout par sa droiture morale et sa bonté, qui lui attiraient la sympathie de tous ceux qui l'approchaient. Il resplendissait par les vertus vraiment royales de la chasteté et de la mansuétude, qui l'élevaient au-dessus des intrigues et des bassesses coutumières aux milieux de cour. Mais ces qualités suscitèrent aussi des jalousies, en particulier de l'empereur Galère, qui l'envoyait constamment dans des campagnes périlleuses d'où Constantin sortait chaque fois victorieux, en en tirant un surcroît de gloire.

Après la démission de Dioclétien et de Maximien, les deux césars, Galère et Constance Chlore, furent élevés à la dignité d'auguste. Instruit des complots tramés contre son fils, Constance, malade et vieillissant, demanda que Constantin vienne le visiter. Echappant de justesse aux hommes envoyés pour le retenir, Constantin se précipita en Grande-Bretagne, où il eut la joie de revoir son père qui lui confia la succession de l'empire d'Occident, et lui recommanda d'aider et de protéger les Chrétiens violemment persécutés depuis les édits de Dioclétien. Constance Chlore trouva peu après la mort, à York, et Constantin fut aussitôt proclamé empereur par l'armée (25 juillet 306). Mais, entre temps, Galère, qui se considérait comme le premier empereur, avait désigné deux césars : Maximin Daïa pour l'Orient et Sévère pour l'Occident, avec Rome pour capitale. A la mort de Constance Chlore, il éleva ce dernier à la dignité d'auguste ; mais Sévère fut renversé par une révolte du peuple, suscitée par la garde ,prétorienne, et remplacé par Maxence, le fils de Maximien, qui fit bientôt régner à Rome une tyrannie sanguinaire et pleine de débauches. Maxence conclut un accord avec Constantin, auquel il laissait le pouvoir sur les régions les plus occidentales, avec Arles pour capitale. Constantin, respectant ces conditions, gouverna la part qui lui était échue avec justice et bonté ; il était aimé du peuple et redouté des Germains ainsi que des tribus barbares. Mais cette situation dura peu de temps, car Maxence entra bientôt en friction avec son père qu'il avait associé au pouvoir. Maximien se réfugia dans le royaume de Constantin, mais il tenta aussitôt de s'emparer du pouvoir grâce à la complicité de sa fille Fausta, la seconde épouse de Constantin, femme fourbe et intrigante, qui fut par la suite la cause de bien des malheurs pour le pieux empereur. Le complot fut dévoilé et Maximien mit fin à ses jours (310).

Galère, informé des événements qui troublaient l'empire d'Occident, et avide de s'accaparer tous les pouvoirs, désigna alors Licinius comme césar d'Occident et marcha vers Rome avec une puissante armée. Vaincu par Maxence, il battit en retraite et se retouma contre Constantin. Mais ce demier lui infligea une défaite complète et Galère périt lamentablement, après avoir promulgué un édit modérant la persécution générale qui faisait rage en Orient (311). Maximin Daïa, païen fanatique et persécuteur achamé des Chrétiens, prit alors le titre d'auguste de l'empire d'Orient, et Maxence, resté seul à Rome, entreprit une campagne contre Constantin, en vue de s'arroger la totalité de l'empire d'Occident. Appelé au secours par les Romains qui souffraient de la tyrannie de Maxence, Constantin réunit ses troupes, passa les Alpes (septembre 312) et, conquérant aisément les villes d'Italie du Nord, il parvint jusqu'aux environs de Rome, où Maxence avait concentré des forces bien plus considérables.

Monté sur une hauteur, Constantin considérait avec perplexité la supériorité de ses adversaires lorsque, en plein midi, apparut dans le ciel une immense croix, constituée d'étoiles, autour de laquelle étaient écrits ces mots en grec : « Par ce signe tu vaincras ». La nuit suivante, le Christ Lui-même apparut à l'empereur et Lui commanda de confectionner une croix semblable à celle qu'il avait contemplée dans sa vision et de la placer comme étendard à la tête de son armée. Le signe de la victoire resplendit alors de nouveau dans le ciel, et Constantin crut de toute son âme que Jésus-Christ est le seul vrai Dieu, le Créateur du ciel et de la terre, qui donne la victoire aux rois et guide toute chose vers la fin qu'Il a prévue avant l'origine du monde. Dès le lever du jour, il fit confectionner une grande croix en argent et donna l'ordre de la placer à la tête de ses troupes, à la place des aigles impériaux, comme "signe de victoire sur la mort et trophée d'immortalité". Dès lors Constantin commença à se faire instruire sur la Doctrine Chrétienne et s'adonna assidûment à la lecture des Livres Saints. Lors de la bataille décisive du pont Milvius, le 28 octobre 312, ce fut la Croix qui remporta la victoire. Maxence, en prenant la fuite, s'engagea sur le pont de bateaux qu'il avait fait construire, mais ce dernier s'effondra à son passage et le tyran périt englouti, avec tous ses officiers, comme autrefois Pharaon et ses cavaliers dans la mer Rouge (cf. Ex. 15).

Rendant grâce à Dieu pour cette victoire qui inaugurait une nouvelle ère de l'histoire humaine, Constantin fit une entrée triomphale dans Rome, qui le saluait comme son libérateur, son sauveur et son bienfaiteur. Il fit aussitôt élever le signe de la Croix sur les principaux monuments de la ville et l'on érigea une statue de l'empereur tenant en main la Croix, comme signe de victoire et emblème de son autorité reçue du Christ (2). Il fit restituer tous les biens confisqués par Maxence, rappela les exilés, libéra les captifs et fit rechercher les Reliques des Martyrs victimes de la Grande Persécution. A l'occasion de cette victoire sur Maxence, la religion chrétienne, si longtemps honnie et persécutée, pouvait désormais sortir de l'ombre et jouir de la protection du souverain. Tout en restant distincte du pouvoir politique, l'Eglise était désormais en mesure d'inspirer les gouvernants et de transformer en profondeur la vie des hommes et des états, pour leur inspirer les principes évangéliques. Quelques mois après, Saint Constantin rencontra Licinius à Milan (313) et les deux empereurs, qui se partageaient dès lors le monde, signèrent un Edit mettant fin à la persécution et donnant licence aux Chrétiens de pratiquer librement leur religion dans tout l'Empire. Constantin fut alors proclamé auguste suprême et on célébra le mariage de Constantia, sa sœur, et de Licinius.

Illuminé par la grâce de Dieu, le Saint empereur n'accorda pas seulement la liberté générale, mais il encouragea aussi le développement du Culte Chrétien. Il accorda des subventions pour construire des églises et orner dignement les tombeaux des Martyrs, restitua les biens des Confesseurs et des Martyrs confisqués par l'Etat et les fit attribuer à l'Eglise lorsque ces derniers n'avaient pas laissé d'héritiers. Il rendait honneurs aux Evêques qu'il recevait à sa table et il assistait aux Conciles locaux pour faire régner la paix et la concorde.

Alors que la lumière de la vérité brillait ainsi en Occident, les ténèbres de l'idolâtrie et de la tyrannie continuaient d'être entretenues en Orient par Maximin Daïa, qui déclara la guerre à Licinius. Celui-ci le vainquit en Thrace (30 avril 313) et, devenu maître de l'empire d'Orient, il intensifia la persécution. Il imposa des restrictions aux évêques (2), ferma des églises, exila les Chrétiens en vue et confisqua leurs biens, et il fit cruellement châtier tous ceux qui venaient en aide aux détenus. Il imposa aux dignitaires d'offrir des sacrifices et fit régner l'injustice et la violence dans tous les domaines de l'administration. Apprenant ces mesures tyranniques prises en Orient contre les Chrétiens, Saint Constantin leva une puissante armée, guidée par le signe de la Croix victorieuse, et, à la faveur d'une campagne contre les barbares en Panonnie, il pénétra sur le territoire de Licinius (322). Après une première défaite à Andrinople, le tyran se replia à Byzance puis fut définitivement vaincu à la bataille de Chrysopolis (18 septembre 324). Constantin triomphant, au nom du Christ et de la Vérité, s'employa dès lors à offrir l'Empire romain réunifié en présent au Roi des rois, et tel un nouvel Apôtre il fit proclamer jusqu'aux extrémités de l'Orient et de l'Occident, de la Mésopotamie à la Grande-Bretagne, la foi au Dieu unique et en Son Fils incamé pour notre Salut. Usant de mansuétude envers les prisonniers de l'armée ennemie, il fit aussitôt appliquer en Orient les mêmes mesures en faveur de l'Eglise que celles qu'il avait décrétées auparavant en Occident. Dans un édit proclamé dans tout l'Empire, il déclarait que Dieu seul devait être considéré comme la cause de ses victoires et qu'il avait été choisi par la Providence pour se mettre au service du bien et de la vérité. Il plaça de nouveaux magistrats dans les provinces, auxquels il interdit d'offrir des sacrifices païens, et envoya dans toutes les contrées soumises à son autorité des lettres condamnant l'idolâtrie et exhortant à la conversion. Il incitait tous ses sujets à suivre son exemple, mais sans contraindre personne. L'Empire, régi par un seul empereur, présentait alors une image du Royaume de Dieu, déjà présent sur la terre, où tous les hommes réconciliés pouvaient jouir de la paix et élever vers Dieu de continuelles hymnes d'actions de grâces.

A ce nouvel Empire Chrétien, qui devait durer mille ans (4), il convenait de donner une capitale, mieux placée que Rome géographiquement et exempte des souvenirs de l'idolâtrie et de la tyrannie. Inspiré par un signe divin, le pieux empereur fixa son choix sur la petite ville de Byzance, qui occupait une position charnière entre l'Orient et l'Occident. Guidé par un Ange, il marqua lui-même les limites de la nouvelle ville, et donna l'ordre au maître d'œuvre, Euphrata, de n'épargner aucune dépense pour la doter de monuments et de voies publiques dépassant en gloire et magnificence toutes les autres villes du monde. Lors de la fondation de la cité, le 8 novembre 324, Byzance reçut le nom de Constantinople et de Nouvelle-Rome, et fut dédiée par la suite à la Mère de Dieu. Au centre du palais on dressa une immense Croix ornée de pierres précieuses et sur le forum on plaça au sommet d'une colonne de porphyre la statue de Constantin, dans laquelle était placée de Saintes Reliques, et on déposa au pied de la colonne les corbeilles ayant servi au miracle de la multiplication des pains. Les travaux furent menés en grande hâte et, à l'occasion du vingt-cinquième anniversaire du règne de l'empereur (11 août 330), on célébra avec faste l'inauguration de la nouvelle capitale.

Aussitôt après sa victoire sur Licinius, le premier souci de Saint Constantin fut de rétablir et de confirmer l'unité de l'Eglise, gravement menacée par 1'hérésie d'Arius (5), qui, d'Egypte, s'était répandue dans différentes contrées, à la faveur d'un décret de Licinius interdisant la réunion des synodes locaux. Après avoir envoyé, par l'intermédiaire d'Hosius de Cordoue, des lettres d'exhortations à l'Archevêque d'Alexandrie, Alexandre, et à Arius, dans lesquelles il exprimait sa souffrance devant la division, l'empereur convoqua tous les Evêques de l'univers à Nicée, pour le premier grand et Saint Concile OEcuménique (6) (325). Cette première assemblée des Evêques venus de toutes les extrémités du monde était une parfaite expression de la plénitude de l'Eglise et de l'unité de l'Empire Chrétien. L'empereur y siégeait au milieu des Evêques, rayonnant dans un vêtement de pierreries. Il ouvrit les sessions en adressant une action de grâces à Dieu pour cette réunion, et il exhorta les participants à la paix et à résoudre les divisions semées par le démon dans la Maison de Dieu. Il participa aux débats et, par sa douceur et sa pondération, réussit à réconcilier les opposants. On procéda alors à la condamnation d'Arius et de ses partisans (7), et on résolut de célébrer Pâques partout à la même date, en signe d'unité de la foi. Pour conclure les sessions du Concile, Saint Constantin convia tous les Pères, à l'occasion du vingtième anniversaire de son règne, à un grand banquet, qui fut une somptueuse préfiguration du Royaume de Dieu, puis il les renvoya en paix dans leurs diocèses, munis de riches présents.

L'année suivante (326), l'impératrice Hélène, qui venait d'être baptisée, entreprit un pèlerinage en Palestine (8), au cours duquel on découvrit l'emplacement du Calvaire et, grâce à une révélation miraculeuse, la Croix du Seigneur enfouie sous terre (cf. 14 sept.). Saint Constantin ordonna alors d'ériger à cet endroit une somptueuse basilique dédiée à la Résurrection, laquelle fut inaugurée en 335, à l'occasion du trentième anniversaire de son règne. Sainte Hélène visita aussi d'autres Lieux saints et fit construire des basiliques à Bethléem et au Mont des Oliviers ; elle délivra les captifs et répandit de larges aumônes dans tout l'Orient. A l'issue de ce pèlerinage, elle rendit pieusement son âme à Dieu, à l'âge de quatre-vingts ans. Ses funérailles eurent lieu à Constantinople ; par la suite, son corps fut transféré à Rome (9).

La sécurité des frontières ayant été assurée par un habile jeu d'alliances, et les barbares ayant transformé leurs glaives en instruments agricoles, le pieux souverain put passer en paix le reste de son règne et s'occuper d'affermir les fondements et les institutions du nouvel Empire Chrétien. Il encouragea par tous les moyens l'expansion du Christianisme et transforma aussi en profondeur les lois romaines, en vue de les soumettre à l'esprit de charité et de mansuétude de l'Evangile. Dès son élévation au pouvoir, il avait décrété que le dimanche serait jour chômé dans tout l'Empire, il avait aboli la peine de mort par crucifixion, avait interdit les combats de gladiateurs et sévèrement châtié les rapts et les attentats à la pudeur. Par la suite, il encouragea l'institution de la famille, comme base de l'édifice social, en limitant le divorce, condamnant l'adultère et en légifèrant sur les droits d'héritage. Il fit également lever les lois jadis promulguées contre ceux qui restaient sans progéniture, afin d'encourager le monachisme qui connaissait alors un grand essor, et accorda de larges dons aux vierges consacrées, qu'il respectait jusqu'à l'adoration. Lorsque le siège de l'administration fut définitivement transféré à Constantinople (330), l'empereur y interdit la célébration des fêtes païennes et empêcha l'accès des païens aux charges de l'Etat. Se considérant comme l'"Evêque des choses extérieures", il apparaissait dans tout son gouvernement comme une image vivante de Dieu, qui répand généreusement ses bienfaits sur tous. Il distribuait abondamment les aumônes à tous ceux qui étaient dans le besoin, Chrétiens ou non, soutenait les veuves et se faisait le père des orphelins. Il protégeait les pauvres contre les exactions des puissants, et il favorisa la prospérité de ses sujets en allégeant d'un quart l'impôt annuel et en faisant réviser l'évaluation des propriétés pour la répartition des charges fiscales.

Calme, paisible et maître des passions qui tourmentent en général les puissants, il s'était fait représenter sur les monnaies debout, le regard toumé vers le ciel, affirmant ainsi que le souverain doit être un homme de prière et un intercesseur pour la paix et la concorde de son royaume. Dans son palais, il s'était réservé une salle, où chaque jour il s'isolait pour prier et méditer les Saintes Ecritures, et il passait souvent ses nuits à rédiger des discours, dans lesquels il exhortait le peuple à l'amour de la vérité et de la vertu. Apprenant un jour que quelqu'un avait jeté une pierre sur une de ses effigies, l'empereur, à qui on avait demandé de châtier le coupable, se passa la main sur le visage en souriant et dit : « Je ne sens aucune plaie et suis en pleine santé », et il laissa l'homme repartir librement. Quiconque l'approchait pour obtenir une grace était sûr d'être satisfait, et l'on pouvait croire en ces temps, que Dieu régnait véritablement parmi les hommes.

Peu après le trentième anniversaire du règne, célébré par des fêtes grandioses (335), le roi de Perse, Sapor II, déclencha une persécution contre les Chrétiens de son royaume, puis, rompant son alliance avec Constantin, il envahit l'Arménie. Le pieux empereur leva alors une puissante armée pour partir à la défense des Chrétiens, et décida de participer en personne à la campagne. Mais il tomba malade à Hélénopolis et fut transporté en hâte jusqu'aux environs de Nicomédie, où il reçut le Saint baptême, que par respect il avait retardé depuis tant d'années. Refusant de revêtir de nouveau la pourpre impériale, il rendit son âme au Roi du ciel et de la terre, le jour de la Pentecôte 337, encore vêtu de la tunique blanche des néophytes. Après avoir prononcé une prière d'action de grâces, ses demiers mots furent : « Maintenant Je sais que je suis vraiment bienheureux, maintenant je sais que je suis devenu digne de la vie éternelle, maintenant je sais que je participe à la Lumière divine. » Son corps fut aussitôt transporté à Constantinople, où après de somptueuses funérailles en présence de tout le peuple, il fut déposé dans l'église des Saints Apôtres, au milieu des sarcophages vides des douze Disciples du Seigneur. Celui qui, converti par une révélation semblable à celle de Saint Paul, Apôtre des Nations, avait soumis par son oeuvre colossale l'Empire romain à la doctrine du Christ, fut ainsi glorifié au-delà de tous les autres empereurs et c'est à juste titre qu'il est vénéré depuis comme Egal-aux-Apôtres (10).

1). Cette notice de St. Constantin nous offre l'occasion de rappeler que le Synaxaire se place sur un autre plan que celui de l'histoire politique. La vénération de St. Constantin le Grand, comme tous les éléments "constantiniens" qui ont été préservés dans le Culte Orthodoxe, visent à l'édification de l'Eglise et à la confirmation de sa dimension eschatologique. La gloire de l'Empire n'est autre que le symbole et l'anticipation de la gloire du Royaume de Dieu. C'est ainsi, et non comme une nostalgie impériale, que les fidèles vénèrent les Saints Empereurs et prient encore aujourd'hui, à l'époque des démocraties laïcisées, pour la confirmation de l'"Empire".

2). Certains synaxaires et l'office de ce jour (Gloire au Père des Vêpres), affirment de manière erronée que St. Constantin fut baptisé par St. Silvestre, lors de son entrée dans Rome. En fait, l'empereur demeura tout le reste de sa vie catéchumène, comme c'était alors souvent le cas, et ne fut baptisé qu'à l'approche de sa mort.

3). C'est alors que fut martyrisé S. Basile d'Amasée (cf. 26 av.).

4). Jusqu'à la prise de Constantinople par les Turcs, en 1453.

5). Cf. la notice de St. Athanase, 18 janv.

6). La mémoire de ce Concile est célébrée le Dimanche entre l'Ascension et la Pentecôte.

7). Malheureusement, après le synode, les intrigues de Constantia, soeur de l'empereur, réussirent à faire rappeler l'arien Eusèbe de Nicomédie, et à faire déposer St. Eustathe d'Antioche et exiler St. Athanase. L'arianisme et ses variantes continuèrent de troubler la paix de l'Eglise pendant de nombreuses années, quasiment jusqu'au Second Concile CEcuménique (381), qui marqua le triomphe définitif de l'Orthodoxie.

8). Il semble que Ste Hélène accomplit ce pèlerinage en expiation du double meurtre qui venait d'assombrir le règne de son fils. Crispus, le fils de la première épouse de Constantin, avait été accusé d'avoir tramé un complot contre son père. Peu après l'avoir livré à la mort, l'empereur réalisa qu'il s'agissait d'une accusation mensongère suscitée par Fausta, qui désirait assurer ainsi la succession au profit de ses trois fils, et il la fit exécuter. Ces événements tragiques sont la raison principale pour laquelle les historiens mettent en doute la Sainteté personnelle de Constantin. Mais il convient de replacer ces actes dans les conditions de l'époque, où le monarque concentrait toute l'autorité judiciaire et avait pouvoir de vie et de mort sur ses sujets. Ces historiens omettent d'ailleurs de relever les marques de repentir de l'empereur, que laissent supposer le reste de sa conduite et de son gouvernement, inspirés par les principes évangéliques.

9). On peut voir son sarcophage au musée du Vatican.

10). Répondant aux objections courantes sur la canonisation de St. Constantin, Christos Yannaras écrit : « L'Eglise n'a pas reconnu sa Sainteté en utilisant un étalon de perfection morale individuelle ( ... ) Seul le lien de la Sainteté avec la vérité de l'Eglise (comme prémices du Royaume de Dieu), et non avec les vertus individuelles, peut nous conduire à apprécier correctement le fait de la canonisation de Constantin le Grand. De même que l'Eglise a vu dans la personne des Apôtres les fondements de l'Edifice Divin, dont la "Pierre d'angle" est le Christ, en la personne de Constantin elle a vu l'Egal-aux-Apôtres, le fondateur de l'universalité et de la mondialité visibles de l'Eglise ( ... ) Dans la personne de Constantin le Grand, l'Eglise comprit que la vérité de sa nature universelle : assumer le monde entier, le transfigurer en Royaume de Dieu, prenait des dimensions historiques concrètes. » 

Vérité et unité de l'Eglise, éd. Axios, 1990, pp. 71-72.

SOURCE : http://calendrier.egliseorthodoxe.com/sts/stsmai/mai21.html

Constantine the Great

Also known as

Flavius Valerius Constantinus

Profile

Son of an imperial Roman officer, Constantius, and Saint Helena, Constantine attended the court of Diocletian and later fought under Galerius, the Eastern Emperor. On the resignation of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, Constantius was made emperor but died in 306, and Constantine was raised to the dignity of Cæsar, by the army in Britain. Maxentius, the tyrannical profligate son Maximian, was proclamed cæsar in Rome. Galerius and Licinius acknowledged Constantine as emperor, and in 311 war broke out between Maxentius and Constantine. With a small army, Constantine invaded Italy. He was victor at Susa, Turin, and Verona. Assured by a vision that he would triumph in the sign of Christ, he marched on Rome and completely defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, 28 October 312. Shortly after, with his brother-in-law Licinius, he issued the Edict of Milan, granting liberty of worship to the Christians in 313. In 314 the treachery of Licinius in the East led Constantine to attack him at Cibalre, and later at Castra Jarba, but a peace was soon arranged, which lasted for eight years. Licinius then began to persecute the Christians and infringe on Constantine’s rights. The latter routed his army near Chalcedon. Constantine, now sole emperor, transferred his capital to Constantinople, and devoted himself to promoting the moral, economical, and political welfare of the empire. He remained a catechumen till shortly before his death, when he received Baptism. As Pontifex Maximus, although he protected the rights of heathenism, he abolished offensive forms of worship, and suppressed divination and magic. He bestowed many favors on the Church, granting clerics immunity from taxation and military service, allowing the Church the right of inheritance, and removing the legal disabilities attendant on celibacy. He forbade the abduction of young girls, and did much for the welfare of children, women, and slaves. He adorned the churches magnificently, and strictly obeyed the precepts of Christianity.

Born

c.275 at Nish, Serbia

Died

337 of natural causes

Additional Information

True Historical Stories for Catholic Children, by Josephine Portuondo

other sites in english

Catholic Online

Saints Stories for All Ages

Wikipedia

sites en français

Fête des prénoms

images

Wikimedia Commons

MLA Citation

“Constantine the Great“. People of the Faith. CatholicSaints.Info. 21 December 2016. Web. 20 May 2022. <https://catholicsaints.info/constantine-the-great/>

SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/constantine-the-great/

Constantine the Great

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.

Historical appreciation

Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine's decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.

Long before this, belief in the old polytheism had been shaken; in more stolid natures, as Diocletian, it showed its strength only in the form of superstition, magic, and divination. The world was fully ripe for monotheism or its modified form, henotheism, but this monotheism offered itself in varied guises, under the forms of various Oriental religions: in the worship of the sun, in the veneration of Mithras, in Judaism, and in Christianity. Whoever wished to avoid making a violent break with the past and his surroundings sought out some Oriental form of worship which did not demand from him too severe a sacrifice; in such cases Christianity naturally came last. Probably many of the more noble-minded recognized the truth contained in Judaism and Christianity, but believed that they could appropriate it without being obliged on that account to renounce the beauty of other worships. Such a man was the Emperor Alexander Severus; another thus minded was Aurelian, whose opinions were confirmed by Christians like Paul of Samosata. Not only Gnostics and other heretics, but Christians who considered themselves faithful, held in a measure to the worship of the sun. Leo the Great in his day says that it was the custom of many Christians to stand on the steps of the church of St. Peter and pay homage to the sun by obeisance and prayers (cf. Euseb. Alexand. in Mai, "Nov. Patr. Bibl.", 11, 523; Augustine, Enarration on Psalm 10; Leo I, Sermon 26). When such conditions prevailed it is easy to understand that many of the emperors yielded to the delusion that they could unite all their subjects in the adoration of the one sun-god who combined in himself the Father-God of the Christians and the much-worshipped Mithras; thus the empire could be founded anew on unity of religion. Even Constantine, as will be shown farther on, for a time cherished this mistaken belief. It looks almost as though the last persecutions of the Christians were directed more against all irreconcilables and extremists than against the great body of Christians. The policy of the emperors was not a consistent one; Diocletian was at first friendly towards Christianity; even its grimmest foe, Julian, wavered. Caesar Constantius, Constantine's father, protected the Christians during a most cruel persecution.

Constantine grew up under the influence of his father's ideas. He was the son of Constantius Chlorus by his first, informal marriage, called concubinatus, with Helena, a woman of inferior birth. For a short time Constantine had been compelled to stay at the court of Galerius, and had evidently not received a good impression from his surroundings there. When Diocletian retired, Constantius advanced from the position of Caesar to that of Augustus, and the army, against the wishes of the other emperors, raised the young Constantine to the vacant position. Right here was seen at once how unsuccessful would be the artificial system of division of the empire and succession to the throne by which Diocletian sought to frustrate the overweening power of the Praetorian Guard. Diocletian's personality is full of contradictions; he was just as crude in his religious feelings as he was shrewd and far-seeing in state affairs; a man of autocratic nature, but one who, under certain circumstances, voluntarily set bounds to himself. He began a reconstruction of the empire, which Constantine completed. The existence of the empire was threatened by many serious evils, the lack of national and religious unity, its financial and military weakness. Consequently the system of taxation had to be accommodated to the revived economic barter system. The taxes bore most heavily on the peasants, the peasant communities, and the landed proprietors; increasingly heavy compulsory service was also laid on those engaged in industrial pursuits, and they were therefore combined into state guilds. The army was strengthened, the troops on the frontier being increased to 360,000 men. In addition, the tribes living on the frontiers were taken into the pay of the State as allies, many cities were fortified, and new fortresses and garrisons were established, bringing soldiers and civilians more into contact, contrary to the old Roman axiom. When a frontier was endangered the household troops took the field. This body of soldiers, known as palatini, comitatenses, which had taken the place of the Praetorian Guard, numbered not quite 200,000 men (sometimes given as 194,500). A good postal service maintained constant communication between the different parts of the empire. The civil and military administration were, perhaps, somewhat more sharply divided than before, but an equally increased importance was laid on the military capacity of all state officials. Service at court was termed militia, "military service". Over all, like to a god, was enthroned the emperor, and the imperial dignity was surrounded by a halo, a sacredness, a ceremonial, which was borrowed from the Oriental theocracies. The East from the earliest times had been a favourable soil for theocratic government; each ruler was believed by his people to be in direct communication with the godhead, and the law of the State was regarded as revealed law. In the same manner the emperors allowed themselves to be venerated as holy oracles and deities, and everything connected with them was called sacred. Instead of imperial, the word sacred had now always to be used. A large court-retinue, elaborate court-ceremonials, and an ostentatious court-costume made access to the emperor more difficult. Whoever wished to approach the head of the State must first pass through many ante-rooms and prostrate himself before the emperor as before a divinity. As the old Roman population had no liking for such ceremonial, the emperors showed a constantly increasing preference for the East, where monotheism held almost undisputed sway, and where, besides, economic conditions were better. Rome was no longer able to control the whole of the great empire with its peculiar civilizations.

In all directions new and vigorous national forces began to show themselves. Only two policies were possible: either to give way to the various national movements, or to take a firm stand on the foundation of antiquity, to revive old Roman principles, the ancient military severity, and the patriotism of Old Rome. Several emperors had tried to follow this latter course, but in vain. It was just as impossible to bring men back to the old simplicity as to make them return to the old pagan beliefs and to the national form of worship. Consequently, the empire had to identify itself with the progressive movement, employ as far as possible the existing resources of national life, exercise tolerance, make concessions to the new religious tendencies, and receive the Germanic tribes into the empire. This conviction constantly spread, especially as Constantine's father had obtained good results therefrom. In Gaul, Britain, and Spain, where Constantius Chlorus ruled, peace and contentment prevailed, and the prosperity of the provinces visibly increased, while in the East prosperity was undermined by the existing confusion and instability. But it was especially in the western part of the empire that the veneration of Mithras predominated. Would it not be possible to gather all the different nationalities around his altars? Could not Sol Deus Invictus, to whom even Constantine dedicated his coins for a long time, or Sol Mithras Deus Invictus, venerated by Diocletian and Galerius, become the supreme god of the empire? Constantine may have pondered over this. Nor had he absolutely rejected the thought even after a miraculous event had strongly influenced him in favour of the God of the Christians.

In deciding for Christianity he was no doubt also influenced by reasons of conscience--reasons resulting from the impression made on every unprejudiced person both by the Christians and by the moral force of Christianity, and from the practical knowledge which the emperors had of the Christian military officers and state officials. These reasons are, however, not mentioned in history, which gives the chief prominence to a miraculous event. Before Constantine advanced against his rival Maxentius, according to ancient custom he summoned the haruspices, who prophesied disaster; so reports a pagan panegyrist. But when the gods would not aid him, continues this writer, one particular god urged him on, for Constantine had close relations with the divinity itself. Under what form this connection with the deity manifested itself is told by Lactantius (How the Persecutors Died 44) and Eusebius (Life of Constantine I.26-31). He saw, according to the one in a dream, according to the other in a vision, a heavenly manifestation, a brilliant light in which he believed he descried the cross or the monogram of Christ. Strengthened by this apparition, he advanced courageously to battle, defeated his rival and won the supreme power. It was the result that gave to this vision its full importance, for when the emperor afterwards reflected on the event it was clear to him that the cross bore the inscription: HOC VINCES (in this sign wilt thou conquer). A monogram combining the first letters, X and P, of the name of Christ (CHRISTOS), a form that cannot be proved to have been used by Christians before, was made one of the tokens of the standard and placed upon the Labarum. In addition, this ensign was placed in the hand of a statue of the emperor at Rome, the pedestal of which bore the inscription: "By the aid of this salutary token of strength I have freed my city from the yoke of tyranny and restored to the Roman Senate and People the ancient splendour and glory." Directly after his victory Constantine granted tolerance to the Christians and next year (313) took a further step in their favour. In 313 Licinius and he issued at Milan the famous joint edict of tolerance. This declared that the two emperors had deliberated as to what would be advantageous for the security and welfare of the empire and had, above all, taken into consideration the service which man owed to the "deity". Therefore they had decided to grant Christians and all others freedom in the exercise of religion. Everyone might follow that religion which he considered the best. They hoped that "the deity enthroned in heaven" would grant favour and protection to the emperors and their subjects. This was in itself quite enough to throw the pagans into the greatest astonishment. When the wording of the edict is carefully examined there is clear evidence of an effort to express the new thought in a manner too unmistakable to leave any doubt. The edict contains more than the belief, to which Galerius at the end had given voice, that the persecutions were useless, and it granted the Christians freedom of worship, while at the same time it endeavoured not to affront the pagans. Without doubt the term deity was deliberately chosen, for it does not exclude a heathen interpretation. The cautious expression probably originated in the imperial chancery, where pagan conceptions and pagan forms of expression still lasted for a long time. Nevertheless the change from the bloody persecution of Christianity to the toleration of it, a step which implied its recognition, may have startled many heathens and may have excited in them the same astonishment that a German would feel if an emperor who was a Social Democrat were to seize the reins of government. The foundations of the State would seem to such a one to rock. The Christians also may have been taken aback. Before this, it is true, it had occurred to Melito of Sardes (Eusebius, Church History IV.33) that the emperor might some day become a Christian, but Tertullian had thought otherwise, and had written (Apology 21) the memorable sentence: "Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares" (But the Caesars also would have believed in Christ, if either the Caesars had not been necessary to the world or if Christians too could have been Caesars). The same opinion was held by St. Justin (I, xii, II, xv). That the empire should become Christian seemed to Justin and many others an impossibility, and they were just as little in the wrong as the optimists were in the right. At all events, a happy day now dawned for the Christians. They must have felt as did the persecuted in the time of the French Revolution when Robespierre finally fell and the Reign of Terror was over. The feeling of emancipation from danger is touchingly expressed in the treatise ascribed to Lactantius (How the Persecutors Died), concerning the ways in which death overtook the persecutors. It says: "We should now give thanks to the Lord, Who has gathered together the flock that was devastated by ravening wolves, Who has exterminated the wild beasts which drove it from the pasture. Where is now the swarming multitude of our enemies, where the hangmen of Diocletian and Maximian? God has swept them from the earth; let us therefore celebrate His triumph with joy; let us observe the victory of the Lord with songs of praise, and honour Him with prayer day and night, so that the peace which we have received again after ten years of misery may be preserved to us." The imprisoned Christians were released from the prisons and mines, and were received by their brethren in the Faith with acclamations of joy; the churches were again filled, and those who had fallen away sought forgiveness.

For a time it seemed as if merely tolerance and equality were to prevail. Constantine showed equal favour to both religious. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights. The one thing he did was to suppress divination and magic; this the heathen emperors had also at times sought to do. Thus, in 320, the emperor forbade the diviners or haruspices to enter a private house under pain of death. Whoever by entreaty or promise of payment persuaded a haruspex to break this law, that man's property should be confiscated and he himself should be burned to death. Informers were to be rewarded. Whoever desired to practise heathen usages must do so openly. He must go to the public altars and sacred places, and there observe traditional forms of worship. "We do not forbid", said the emperor, "the observance of the old usages in the light of day." And in an ordinance of the same year, intended for the Roman city prefects, Constantine directed that if lightning struck an imperial palace, or a public building, the haruspices were to seek out according to ancient custom what the sign might signify, and their interpretation was to be written down and reported to the emperor. It was also permitted to private individuals to make use of this old custom, but in following this observance they must abstain from the forbidden sacrificia domestica. A general prohibition of the family sacrifice cannot be deduced from this, although in 341 Constantine's son Constantius refers to such an interdict by his father (Cod. Theod., XVI, x, 2). A prohibition of this kind would have had the most severe and far-reaching results, for most sacrifices were private ones. And how could it have been carried out while public sacrifices were still customary? In the dedication of Constantinople in 330 a ceremonial half pagan, half Christian was used. The chariot of the sun-god was set in the market-place, and over its head was placed the Cross of Christ, while the Kyrie Eleison was sung. Shortly before his death Constantine confirmed the privileges of the priests of the ancient gods. Many other actions of his have also the appearance of half-measures, as if he himself had wavered and had always held in reality to some form of syncretistic religion. Thus he commanded the heathen troops to make use of a prayer in which any monotheist could join, and which ran thus: "We acknowledge thee alone as god and king, we call upon thee as our helper. From thee have we received the victory, by thee have we overcome the foe. To thee we owe that good which we have received up to now, from thee do we hope for it in the future. To thee we offer our entreaties and implore thee that thou wilt preserve to us our emperor Constantine and his god-fearing sons for many years uninjured and victorious." The emperor went at least one step further when he withdrew his statue from the pagan temples, forbade the repair of temples that had fallen into decay, and suppressed offensive forms of worship. But these measures did not go beyond the syncretistic tendency which Constantine had shown for a long time. Yet he must have perceived more and more clearly that syncretism was impossible.

In the same way religious freedom and tolerance could not continue as a form of equality, the age was not ready for such a conception. It is true that Christian writers defended religious liberty; thus Tertullian said that religion forbids religious compulsion (Non est religionis cogere religionem quae sponte suscipi debet non vi.--To Scapula, near the close); and Lactantius, moreover, declared: "In order to defend religion man must be willing to die, but not to kill." Origen also took up the cause of freedom. Most probably oppression and persecution had made men realize that to have one's way of thinking, one's conception of the world and of life, dictated to him was a mischief-working compulsion. In contrast to the smothering violence of the ancient State, and to the power and custom of public opinion, the Christians were the defenders of freedom, but not of individual subjective freedom, nor of freedom of conscience as understood today. And even if the Church had recognized this form of freedom, the State could not have remained tolerant. Without realizing the full import of his actions, Constantine granted the Church one privilege after another. As early as 313 the Church obtained immunity for its ecclesiastics, including freedom from taxation and compulsory service, and from obligatory state offices--such for example as the curial dignity, which was a heavy burden. The Church further obtained the right to inherit property, and Constantine moreover placed Sunday under the protection of the State. It is true that the believers in Mithras also observed Sunday as well as Christmas. Consequently Constantine speaks not of the day of the Lord, but of the everlasting day of the sun. According to Eusebius, the heathen also were obliged on this day to go out into the open country and together raise their hands and repeat the prayer already mentioned, a prayer without any marked Christian character (Life of Constantine IV.20). The emperor granted many privileges to the Church for the reason that it took care of the poor and was active in benevolence. Perhaps he showed his Christian tendencies most pronouncedly in removing the legal disabilities which, since the time of Augustus, had rested on celibacy, leaving in existence only the leges decimarioe, and in recognizing an extensive ecclesiastical jurisdiction. But it should not be forgotten that the Jewish communities had also their own jurisdiction, exemptions, and immunities, even if in a more limited degree. A law of 318 denied the competence of civil courts if in a suit an appeal was made to the court of a Christian bishop. Even after a suit had begun before the civil court, it would still be permissible for one of the parties to transfer it to the bishop's court. If both parties had been granted a legal hearing, the decision of the bishop was to be binding. A law of 333 commanded the state officials to enforce the decisions of the bishops, a bishop's testimony should be considered sufficient by all judges and no witness was to be summoned after a bishop had testified. These concessions were so far-reaching that the Church itself felt the great increase of its jurisdiction as a constraint. Later emperors limited this jurisdiction to cases of voluntary submission by both parties to the episcopal court.

Constantine did much for children, slaves, and women, those weaker members of society whom the old Roman law had treated harshly. But in this he only continued what earlier emperors, under the influence of Stoicism, had begun before him, and he left to his successors the actual work of their emancipation. Thus some emperors who reigned before Constantine had forbidden the exposure of children, although without success, as exposed children or foundlings were readily adopted, because they could be used for many purposes. The Christians especially exerted themselves to get possession of such foundlings, and consequently Constantine issued no direct prohibition of exposure, although the Christians regarded exposure as equal to murder; he commanded, instead, that foundlings should belong to the finder, and did not permit the parents to claim the children they had exposed. Those who took such children obtained a property right in them and could make quite an extensive use of this; they were allowed to sell and enslave foundlings, until Justinian prohibited such enslaving under any guise. Even in the time of St. Chrysostom parents mutilated their children for the sake of gain. When suffering from famine or debt, many parents could only obtain relief by selling their children if they did not wish to sell themselves. All later laws against such practices availed as little as those against emasculation and pandering. St. Ambrose vividly depicts the sad spectacle of children being sold by their fathers, under pressure of creditors, or by the creditors themselves. All the many forms of institutions for feeding and supporting children and the poor were of little avail. Constantine himself established asylums for foundlings; yet he recognized the right of parents to sell their children, and only excepted older children. He ruled that children who had been sold could be bought back in contradistinction to children who had been exposed; but this ruling was of no avail if the children were taken into a foreign country. Valentinian, therefore, prohibited the traffic in human beings with foreign lands. The laws forbidding such practices continually multiplied, but the greater part of the burden of saving the children fell on the Church.

Constantine was the first to prohibit the abduction of girls. The abductor and those who aided him by influencing the girl were threatened with severe punishment. In harmony with the views of the Church, Constantine rendered divorce more difficult, he made no changes where the divorce was agreed to by both parties, but imposed severe conditions when the demand for separation came from one side only. A man could put away his wife for adultery, poisoning, and pandering, and retain her dowry, but if he discarded her for any other cause, he was to return the dowry and was forbidden to marry again. If, nevertheless, he remarried, the discarded wife had the right to enter his house and take everything which the new wife had brought him. Constantine increased the severity of the earlier law forbidding the concubinage of a free woman with a slave, and the Church did not regard this measure with disfavour. On the other hand, his retention of the distinctions of rank in the marriage law was clearly contrary to the views of the Church. The Church rejected all class distinctions in marriage, and regarded informal marriages (the so-called concubinatus) as true marriages, in so far as they were lasting and monogamous. Constantine, however, increased the difficulties of the concubinatus, and forbade senators and the higher officials in the State and in the pagan priesthoods to contract such unions with women of lower rank (feminoe humiles), thus making it impossible for them to marry women belonging to the lower classes, although his own mother was of inferior rank. But in other respects the emperor showed his mother, Helena, the greatest deference. Other concubinatus besides those mentioned were placed at a disadvantage in regard to property, and the rights of inheritance of the children and the concubines were restricted. Constantine, however, encouraged the emancipation of slaves and enacted that manumission in the church should have the same force as the public manumission before State officials and by will (321). Neither the Christian nor the heathen emperors permitted slaves to seek their freedom without authorization of law, the Christian rulers sought to ameliorate slavery by limiting the power of corporal punishment; the master was allowed only to use a rod or to send a slave to prison, and the owner was not liable to punishment even if the slave died under these circumstances. But if death resulted from the use of clubs, stones, weapons or instruments of torture, the person who caused the death was to be treated as a murderer. As will be seen below, Constantine was himself obliged to observe this law when he sought to get rid of Licinianus. A criminal was no longer to be branded in the face, but only on the feet, as the human face was fashioned in the likeness of God.

When these laws are compared with the ordinances of those earlier emperors who were of humane disposition, they do not go far beyond the older regulations. In everything not referring to religion Constantine followed in the footsteps of Diocletian. In spite of all unfortunate experiences, he adhered to the artificial division of the empire, tried for a long time to avoid a breach with Licinius, and divided the empire among his sons. On the other hand, the imperial power was increased by receiving a religious consecration. The Church tolerated the cult of the emperor under many forms. It was permitted to speak of the divinity of the emperor, of the sacred palace, the sacred chamber and of the altar of the emperor, without being considered on this account an idolater. From this point of view Constantine's religious change was relatively trifling; it consisted of little more than the renunciation of a formality. For what his predecessors had aimed to attain by the use of all their authority and at the cost of incessant bloodshed, was in truth only the recognition of their own divinity; Constantine gained this end, though he renounced the offering of sacrifices to himself. Some bishops, blinded by the splendour of the court, even went so far as to laud the emperor as an angel of God, as a sacred being, and to prophesy that he would, like the Son of God, reign in heaven. It has consequently been asserted that Constantine favoured Christianity merely from political motives, and he has been regarded as an enlightened despot who made use of religion only to advance his policy. He certainly cannot be acquitted of grasping ambition. Where the policy of the State required, he could be cruel. Even after his conversion he caused the execution of his brother-in-law Licinius, and of the latter's son, as well as of Crispus his own son by his first marriage, and of his wife Fausta. He quarrelled with his colleague Licinius about their religious policy, and in 323 defeated him in a bloody battle; Licinius surrendered on the promise of personal safety; notwithstanding this, half a year later he was strangled by order of Constantine. During the joint reign Licinianus, the son of Licinius, and Crispus, the son of Constantine, had been the two Caesars. Both were gradually set aside; Crispus was executed on the charge of immorality made against him by Constantine's second wife, Fausta. The charge was false, as Constantine learned from his mother, Helena, after the deed was done. In punishment Fausta was suffocated in a superheated bath. The young Licinianus was flogged to death. Because Licinianus was not the son of his sister, but of a slave-woman, Constantine treated him as a slave. In this way Constantine evaded his own law regarding the mutilation of slaves After reading these cruelties it is hard to believe that the same emperor could at times have mild and tender impulses; but human nature is full of contradictions.

Constantine was liberal to prodigality, was generous in almsgiving, and adorned the Christian churches magnificently. He paid more attention to literature and art than we might expect from an emperor of this period, although this was partly due to vanity, as is proved by his appreciation of the dedication of literary works to him. It is likely that he practiced the fine arts himself, and he frequently preached to those around him. No doubt he was endowed with a strong religious sense, was sincerely pious, and delighted to be represented in an attitude of prayer, with his eyes raised to heaven. In his palace he had a chapel to which he was fond of retiring, and where he read the Bible and prayed. "Every day", Eusebius tells us, "at a fixed hour he shut himself up in the most secluded part of the palace, as if to assist at the Sacred Mysteries, and there commune with God alone ardently beseeching Him, on bended knees, for his necessities". As a catechumen he was not permitted to assist at the sacred Eucharistic mysteries. He remained a catechumen to the end of his life, but not because he lacked conviction nor because, owing to his passionate disposition, he desired to lead a pagan life. He obeyed as strictly as possible the precepts of Christianity, observing especially the virtue of chastity, which his parents had impressed upon him; he respected celibacy, freed it from legal disadvantages, sought to elevate morality, and punished with great severity the offenses against morals which the pagan worship bad encouraged. He brought up his children as Christians. Thus his life became more and more Christian, and thus gradually turned away from the feeble syncretism which at times he seemed to favour. The God of the Christians was indeed a jealous God who tolerated no other gods beside him. The Church could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other religious bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another.

Constantine himself preferred the company of Christian bishops to that of pagan priests. The emperor frequently invited the bishops to court, gave them the use of the imperial postal service, invited them to his table, called them his brothers, and when they had suffered for the Faith, kissed their scars. While he chose bishops for his counsellors, they, on the other hand, often requested his intervention-- e.g. shortly after 313, in the Donatist dispute. For many years he worried himself with the Arian trouble, and in this, it may be said, he went beyond the limits of the allowable, for example, when he dictated whom Athanasius should admit to the Church and whom he was to exclude. Still he avoided any direct interference with dogma, and only sought to carry out what the proper authorities--the synods--decided. When he appeared at an oecumenical council, it was not so much to influence the deliberation and the decision as to show his strong interest and to impress the heathen. He banished bishops only to avoid strife and discord, that is, for reasons of state. He opposed Athanasius because he was led to believe that Athanasius desired to detain the corn-ships which were intended for Constantinople; Constantine's alarm can be understood when we bear in mind how powerful the patriarchs eventually became. When at last he felt the approach of death he received baptism, declaring to the bishops who had assembled around him that, after the example of Christ, he had desired to receive the saving seal in the Jordan, but that God had ordained otherwise, and he would no longer delay baptism. Laying aside the purple, the emperor, in the white robe of a neophyte, peacefully and almost joyfully awaited the end.

Of Constantine's sons the eldest, Constantine II, showed decided leanings to heathenism, and his coins bear many pagan emblems; the second and favourite son, Constantius, was a more pronounced Christian, but it was Arian Christianity to which he adhered. Constantius was an unwavering opponent of paganism; he closed all the temples and forbade sacrifices under pain of death. His maxim was: "Cesset superstitio; sacrificiorum aboleatur insania" (Let superstition cease; let the folly of sacrifices be abolished). Their successors had recourse to religious persecution against heretics and pagans. Their laws (Cod. Theod., XVI, v) had an unfavourable influence on the Middle Ages and were the basis of the much-abused Inquisition. (See PERSECUTIONS; CONSTANTINOPLE.)

Herbermann, Charles, and Georg Grupp. "Constantine the Great." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 20 May 2022 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Rick McCarty.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Copyright © 2021 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

SOURCE : https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

True Historical Stories for Catholic Children – Constantine the Great

Constantine, the first Christian ruler of the Roman empire, was born, in the ancient city of Haissus, near the Danube River, in the year 274. He was the son of Constantius and his wife Helena, who is honored as one of the saints of the Church.

The Roman empire had become so vast in extent before the birth of Constantine, that it was difficult for one ruler to govern all of it, and, therefore, the realm was divided into four provinces, each governed by a Caesar. Constantine’s father was the Caesar of the West, a territory comprising, besides Spain and Britain, the ancient province of Gaul, now the countries of France, Belgium, Switzerland, and the western part of Germany. The four – Caesars were jealous of one another, and quarrels were frequent among them. The Emperor Diocletian, the principal of the four rulers, was so suspicious of Constantius, that Constantine was sent to Rome, as a pledge for his father’s loyalty. While the young hostage was in Rome, war broke out in Egypt, and he accompanied Diocletian and the Roman army to that country, serving with great distinction throughout the campaign. After the return of the army from Egypt, Constantine joined the forces of the Caesar of the East, Galerius, who was conducting a war against the Persians. Galerius was a man of ignoble and jealous nature, and when he saw that Constantine was very popular with the army, he repeatedly exposed the young soldier to unusual danger, in the hope of ridding himself of a rival whom he feared.

In the year 305, the two Roman rulers of superior rank abdicated, and were succeeded by Constantius, Constantine’s father, and by Galerius, the same who had commanded the Roman army in Persia. It was his province to appoint another Caesar, an honor which belonged, in all justice, to Constantine. But Galerius not only refused to give him the well-merited appointment, but actually detained him, a sort of prisoner in Rome, until compelled, by repeated letters from Constantius, to allow Constantine to return to Gaul.

Constantius desired his son’s aid in some military enterprises he was preparing to undertake, and Constantine joined him at Boulogne, where they embarked, with the army, for Britain. They landed safely and reached York without accident, when Constantius was suddenly taken ill and died, leaving Constantine at the head of the army, in a foreign land. The young prince was much beloved by the troops, who clamored that he be made Caesar in his father’s place. But this position was subordinate to the ruler in Borne, and Galerius was the deadly enemy of Constantine. He did not wish to offend Galerius, but it was also necessary to avoid losing the favor of the army, who wished him to succeed his father as Caesar of Gaul. At length, he allowed himself to be declared his father’s successor, writing, at the same time, a carefully worded letter to Galerius, explaining the circumstances of his assuming the purple, at the solicitation of the army, and regretting that the great distance from Borne had not permitted him to delay until the approbation of Galerius could be obtained. The receipt of this letter threw Galerius into a passion, and he at first declared that he would never recognize Constantine as Csesar of Gaul. Wise counsel prevailed, however, and Constantine returned unmolested with his army to Gaul, which he governed with wisdom and vigor. The barbarians of the North suffered several severe defeats at his hands, and a line of forts built along the River Rhine prevented their entrance into Gaul. The country became very prosperous, partly owing to Constantine’s wise policy of toleration towards the Christians, who came from Rome in large numbers to escape the persecutions of Galerius.

While Constantine was laboring for the welfare of his subjects in Gaul, great events were transpiring in distant Rome. A revolt took place against Galerius, resulting in the overthrow of the tyrant, and the elevation to power of six emperors, among them Maximian, whose daughter Fausta was Constantine’s wife. Maximian and his son Maxentius both claimed the sole right to reign over Italy, and an unnatural conflict between the father and son was begun. Maxentius finally triumphed and drove his father into Gaul. The fugitive sought protection at the court of his son-in-law Constantine, who received him kindly and caused him to be treated with the respect due to his rank, generosity which was repaid with treachery by the false Maximian.

During Constantine’s absence from his court at Arles, upon a necessary military expedition to the Rhine, Maximian basely tried to overthrow his son-in-law and usurp his place. When Constantine heard of this plot, he marched with all speed to Arles. Maximian fled to Marseilles, closely pursued by Constantine, who would have laid siege to the city, had not the frightened inhabitants consented to deliver the usurper into his hands. Maximian, upon learning of his betrayal, committed suicide. This was the first of a series of events which led to the establishment of Constantine, as the sole emperor of the West. His brother-in-law, Maxentius, wishing to depose the ruler of Gaul, and reign over that country in his place, was preparing for an invasion, when Constantine was warned, by an embassy from Rome, of this design against him. He anticipated Maxentius by marching into Italy with a large and well-drilled army. He had crossed the Alps, and was on the plain of Piedmont, in Northern Italy, before Maxentius knew that he had left Gaul. The two armies met, and, after Constantine had gained brilliant victories at Turin and Verona, there occurred the decisive battle of the Milvian bridge, near Rome. It was before this battle that Almighty God was pleased to work the miracle which was the means of converting Constantine, as well as thousands of his subjects, to the True Faith. The troops were preparing for the conflict, when a luminous cross appeared suddenly in the sky, having the words inscribed on it, “In hoc signo vinces.” By this sign, conquer. Constantine and his army gained a complete victory, by which he became sole emperor of the West. His colleague, Licinius reigned in the East, and the two emperors jointly issued a proclamation, revoking all former edicts against the Christians, placing them on an equal footing with other Roman subjects, and ordering all their confiscated property to be returned to them.

To understand how greatly the Church benefited by this proclamation, it is necessary to know something about her condition, during the three hundred and thirteen years that had elapsed from the time of Our Lord’s crucifixion to the reign of Constantine.

On the first Pentecost, when the twelve humble apostles began to preach the gospel in Jerusalem, the entire known world was practically under the dominion of the Roman emperor, whose power over his subjects, was almost without limit. The Romans were pagans, worshiping gods and goddesses, some of them the personification of various evil passions. When the Christian religion was brought to Rome, by the glorious apostles, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, many converts were made, who at once became the object of furious and unrelenting persecution. The emperor Nero began these persecutions in the year 64, the Christians were thrown to the wild beasts in the arena of the Coliseum, or covered with tar and pitch, they were set on fire and stationed in Nero’s gardens at night to light them in place of torches. It was during this persecution that Saint Peter and Saint Paul suffered martyrdom. Then followed ten persecutions of the Christians under various emperors, during which countless thousands of martyrs gave up their lives for the Faith. If there were nothing else to prove the divine origin of the Church, the fact that she survived these terrible persecutions, would be sufficient.

As it was necessary for the Christians to practise their religion secretly, churches were established in the catacombs, which were also used as burial-places for the dead. The catacombs were subterranean apartments under the city of Rome, where, on rude stone altars, the holy sacrifice of the Mass was daily offered up. The candles used on our altars to-day, are placed there, partly to remind us of the trials undergone by our fore- fathers in the Faith, who, being compelled to worship God secretly in the darkness of the catacombs, found it necessary to use candles to light the altar. The catacombs are filled with proofs of the antiquity of our holy Faith. Resides the altars, there are stone confessionals, very much like those in our churches to-day, – a proof that confession was practised among the early Christians.

The reign of Constantine was the beginning of a glorious era for the Church. Emerging from the catacombs, the Christians were at liberty to practise their holy religion openly and without fear. Constantine himself built the beautiful church of Saint John Lateran, and, in his eagerness to see it completed, he helped to dig the foundations with his own hands. The triumph of Christianity was complete, and the divine symbol of the cross was everywhere seen. It was inscribed on the shields of Constantine’s soldiers, as well as on the standard which was borne before them in battle. The emperor had himself enrolled among the catechumens or candidates for baptism, although he did not receive the sacrament until shortly before his death.

The next important event in the life of Constantine was a war, lasting several years, with his colleague, Licinius. The origin of this war is somewhat obscure, but it was probably brought about by Licinius’ treachery. In a battle fought at Adrianople, Constantine totally defeated his enemy, and became the sole emperor of the East as well as of the West.

It was the ardent desire of Constantine to found a city which had never been profaned by the worship of idols. After casting about for a site for the new city, he decided upon a beautiful location at the junction of the Bosporus and the Propontis, or Sea of Marmora as it is now called. Constantinople was built, a splendid city of churches, palaces, baths and gardens. The sum allotted to the building of the walls, porticos and aqueducts, incredible as it may seem, was equal to something over twelve million dollars of our money. Constantine urged the progress of the work, with so much energy, that, in a few years it was completed, and the birthday of Constantinople celebrated with a solemn consecration of the city to the Blessed Virgin.

Saint Helena, the pious mother of Constantine, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, while the city of Constantinople was being built. Although advanced in years, her desire to find the true cross of Our Lord, prompted her to undergo the fatigues and dangers of the journey to the Holy Land. After a weary search, three crosses were found, buried, and near them the inscription and nails used at the crucifixion. It remained to ascertain which of the three crosses was the one Saint Helena had gone in search of. At the suggestion of the bishop of Jerusalem, each one of the crosses was permitted to touch, in turn, a woman afflicted with an incurable disease. Immediately upon touching the third one, the woman was cured, and thus the True Cross was found. Saint Helena caused a portion of the holy relic to be sent to the new city of Constantinople, where it was received by Constantine with great reverence, and enshrined in the church of Saint Sophia.

In spite of the many pressing cares of his station, Constantine found opportunity to arrange, with infinite prudence and care, a plan of education for his five sons. Most of the Koman emperors who had preceded him, had been addicted to many vices, the result, Constantine thought, of their having been brought up in luxury and indolence. He inaugurated quite a different system of training for his sons. The young princes were compelled to rise early, to subsist on the plainest fare, and to practise all kinds of athletic exercises, such as leaping, running, and wrestling. They also became very proficient in horsemanship as well as in the use of all the weapons of that period. But, while their bodies were trained with care, the cultivation of their minds was not neglected. The most pious and learned prelates, as well as celebrated Greek and Homan teachers, were invited by Constantine to take up their residence at court, and to instruct his sons in the articles of the Christian Faith, and in all branches of profane learning. The emperor himself instructed the young princes in the science of government, and the knowledge of mankind. They were admitted to a share in the government of the Homan empire at a very early age. The young Constantine was appointed to hold his court in Gaul, where his father had first ruled. Constantins governed the East, and the third son Constans had Africa and Italy for his portion.

The Church which had enjoyed peace since the conversion of Constantine, was assailed, in the year 320, not, as in former times, by pagans, but by one of her own sons. Arius, a Catholic bishop, began to teach the Arian heresy, as it was called, which denied the divinity of Our Lord. To refute this dangerous heresy, which soon found many adherents, the first general council of the church was held at Hicsea, and the Hicene creed composed. Constantine was present at the council of Nicaea, and became a persistent enemy of Arianism. The emperor banished Arius to the remote country of Illyricum, but the heresiarch returned after a time to Constantinople, where he died a very sudden and terrible death.

In the year 336, Constantine celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of his prosperous and glorious reign, and, a few months after the joyous festival, was seized with an illness which proved fatal. He did not die in his beloved city of Constantinople, but in Nicodemia, a city of Asia Minor famed for its medicinal baths. It was in the vain hope of restoration to health, by means of these baths, that Constantine journeyed to Nicodemia. The great emperor was baptized upon his death-bed, and edified all the assembled prelates, by the fervor with which he received the holy sacrament. After his baptism, he refused to resume his robes of imperial purple, preferring the white garb of the catechumen, which he prized more highly, he said, than the insignia of his exalted rank. Having arranged all his affairs, and directed that his body be interred in the church of the Apostles at Constantinople, the great emperor peacefully breathed his last, 22 May 337, in the sixty-fourth year of his age, and the thirtieth of his reign. His body, dressed in the imperial robes, lay in state on a golden bed in the royal palace at Constantinople, where there was universal mourning over the loss of a ruler who was so justly beloved by all his subjects.

The reign of Constantine was glorious, not only temporally, but spiritually also. Besides professing his belief in the Catholic faith, he issued a proclamation, advising all his subjects to become members of the one true Church. Shortly after the battle of the Milvian bridge, he caused medals to be struck, on which the emperor was represented kneeling before a cross. In many other ways, he manifested his love for the Christian religion, and his zeal for its advancement. The city of Constantinople was placed under the patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and no pagan temple was permitted within its precincts.

Constantine is justly regarded as one of the true sons of the Church, and he is honored by the presence of his effigy in the vestibules of two of Rome’s most ancient and important churches, Saint Peter’s and Saint John Lateran.

– text taken from True Historical Stories for Catholic Children, by Josephine Portuondo, 1907

SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/true-historical-stories-for-catholic-children-constantine-the-great/

EMPEROR CONSTANTINE THE GREAT (306–337). THE IMPORTANCE OF HIS FAITH IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

V. Rev. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook

SOURCE: The Journal of the Chicago Pastoral School
by V. Rev. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook

This paper was submitted during the Fall '08 semester as a class assignment for course “101 — History and Principles of the Orthodox Church”. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook is the rector at St. Lawrence Orthodox Church in Felton, California. He and his wife operate an Orthodox business supplying large icon reproductions called Orthodox Images.

St. Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles, First Christian Emperor of Rome, builder of Constantinople and founder the Byzantine Empire. He is a military victor, effective ruler and glorified saint. There is no doubt that his contribution to world history and that of the Orthodox Church is indeed spectacular. Eusebius describes him as “such an emperor as all history records not ” [1] and Ware places him “at a watershed in the history of the Church.” [2] As Meyendorff asserts, “No single human being in history has contributed…to the conversion of so many to the Christian faith.” [3] Norwich reiterates this opinion on a global scales stating that “No ruler in all of history…has ever more fully merited his title of ‘the Great’….[Constantine has] serious claim to be considered…the most influential man in all of history..” [4] Among Constantine’s most significant acts and initiatives of importance in church history are his legal initiation of freedom for Christianity with the Edict of Milan (313), his calling of the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea (325), and moving the capital of the empire from pagan encrusted Rome to Constantinople (330).

However, popular and academic loyalty regarding his status as ‘first Christian emperor’ and ‘saint of the Church’ has wavered over time. Dominant opinions have ebbed and flowed in their evaluation of Constantine’s role specifically as a Christian. A religious role of importance that, as Schmemann describes it, no one denies but the evaluators of which are “diametrically opposed.” [5]

On the one hand, hagiography and hymnography of the Orthodox Church guilelessly distills down the historical perspective on Constantine to that of a great saint called explicitly to an apostleship directly by God. “Like Paul, he received a call not from men,” [6] reads the troparion for his feast. Eusebius, who personally associated with Constantine, insists that he was “adorned with every virtue of religion.” [7] In thePrologue of Ochrid, compiled by the newly glorified St. Nikolai Velimirovich, Constantine conquers Maxentius having followed an iron processional cross (rather than the Chi-Rho symbol on shields) and is immediately afterward, rather than on his death-bed, catechized and baptized by a Bishop Sylvester prior even to the Council of Nicaea! [8] Confident that his role in Church history is divinely inspired and pleasing to God, the Orthodox Church, with Christ-blessed childlike faith glorifies Constantine and joyfully overlooks all personal weaknesses he may have had. He is our brother in Christ and, knowing our own sinfulness and spiritual sloth; we gladly disregard his faults and remember his virtue in hope of the same merciful treatment.

On the other hand, Constantine has been attacked consistently by those considering his personal flaws as proof of his manipulation of Christianity for personal and political gain. We see this occurring as early as 498 with the publication of that “implacable enemy of the Christian name” [9] Zosimus” Historia Nova and continuing until today. “For a long time scholars interpreted [the panegyrist of 310] to mean that Constantine had professed some sort of Apolline faith…the strongest indication that Constantine was pagan….” [10] Many Christian historians and authors themselves seem to approach Constantine’s conversion with such uncertainty that he is either glossed over quickly, as do Ware (five paragraphs), [11] Meyendorff (beginning only with the Edict of Milan), [12] and Chadwick (“It was a military matter.”) [13] Of contemporary Orthodox authors, Schmemann appears to make the greatest effort to synthesize the ambiguities of Constantine’s conversion. Without an accurate context, many of Constantine’s words and actions are easily criticized.

Yet careful study of forth-century Roman culture and the fledgling socio-cultural structure of persecution-era Christianity suggests otherwise. Constantine was forced by circumstance to balance the complexities between a newly legalized Christianity, that he adamantly supported, and the well-established, pagan expectations of the imperial throne that were in direct conflict with Christian moral ideology. Schmemann concludes, “However many mistakes and perhaps even crimes there may have been in his life…it is hard to doubt that this man had striven unwaveringly toward God.” [14] However, Meyendorff almost flippantly labels him as “an adept of solar monotheism” probably having “some sort of conversion experience” and changing “practically nothing” but rather ordered the execution of his own son, Crispus, and wife, Fausta, [15] while sponsoring the council of Nicaea. He goes on to conclude that “it is perhaps misleading to call Constantine ‘the first Christian emperor’”. [16] Chadwick concurs, stating, as if it were a well-documented fact, that Constantine “was not aware of any mutual exclusiveness between Christianity and his faith in the Unconquered Sun.” [17]

A Defense of His Faith

In presenting the importance of Constantine’s role in the history of the Orthodox Christian Church, it appears most essential to defend that aspect of Constantine’s role in Christian history that is most vulnerable to criticism; his faith. The great historic events of his life and reign are relatively indisputable. Yet a defense of the virtue of his character must be renewed for the preservation of his rightful place as neither a theoria-dwelling saint of the highest degree of holiness, nor a politically manipulative dictator, but as a servant of Christ, clay in the hands of the Master, willing to be formed according to His will; a man “under the protection of the Cross and in direct dependence upon Christ.” [18]

Therefore, the focus of this study regarding the context of Constantine’s life and faith remains on his relation to the Church as catechumen and his primary spiritual obligation being the perseverance of faith against demonic attack. We now take up the topic of his personal faith, recalling that “one must treat with caution the contradictory evaluations of the age of Constantine, indiscriminate condemnation as well as unconditional justification.” [19]

Conversion: The Milvian Bridge or Before?

Historically, Constantine’s battle with Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge marks the beginning of a reunified Roman empire and the end of an era fraught with much political division and competition between numerous Augustuses and Caesars. The event, for both Christians and pagans, was filled with divine symbolism and content. “Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge seemed a signal manifestation of celestial favor.” [20] The Roman senate erected a commemorative arch with a depiction of the battle and the inscription, “by the prompting of the deity”. [21] Pagans believed this deity to be the Unconquered Sun, while Christians believed it to be Christ, the Son. Most scholars of Christian history today, especially that of Klaus M. Girardet, agree that Constantine had converted to Christianity by this time (312). For the Chi-Rho inscription was already on the shields of his soldiers (it would appear on his coins as well in 315) and, most dramatically, he did not follow the established tradition of traveling the via sacra to the Capitol in order to make pagan sacrifice to Jupiter.

For the next two and a half months, Constantine would “generously subsidize from his private purse twenty-five already existing titular churches and established several new ones; he also instructed his provincial governors to do likewise throughout his dominions.” [22] Girardet documents that, “No Roman Emperor before Constantine had ever done this. Eusebius of Caesarea was to see in Constantine the first emperor who was a ‘friend of God’ and thus chosen to proclaim his message to the world. Girardet sees no reason to contradict Constantine's historian.” [23]

There is not doubt that from 312 onwards that Constantine “saw himself as supreme guardian of the Christian Church.” [24] But, as has been suggested from the time of Lactantius (240–320), Constantine’s conversion may have taken place even earlier. A conservative estimation is that of at least a year earlier (311) when, as reported by Eusebius, he first saw the Chi-Rho in the sky inscribed with the phrase “By this [sign] conquer.” [25] However, given that his mother was of Britain and may have converted to Christianity before her son, exposure to Christianity, its influences, and perhaps even his own conversion, began in Constantine’s youth. This is not documentable, but certainly probable.

The oral tradition of Great Britain claims that Helena was a daughter of the King of Britain, Cole of Camulodunum, who allied with Constantius to avoid more war between the Britons and Rome. [26] Her image in the form of a stature atop a very tall column stands in the center of Colchester to this day. “Constantine, the flower of Britain,” writes Huntingdon, “of British stock and origin, whose equal Britain has not produced before or since.” [27] It is known for certain that Britain was missionized by the time of Helen and Constantine. The first British martyr, Alban, may have suffered as early as 208. Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, and Jerome all infer that there were indeed Christians in Roman Britain, perhaps as early as 200. [28] Others however, such as Sozomen, do not claim that Helen was British, but do assert that Constantine embraced Christianity while ruling there and in Western Europe. “[Constantine’s] dispute with Maxentius, the governor of Italy, had created so much dissension in the Roman dominions, that it was then no easy matter to dwell in Gaul, in Britain, or in the neighboring countries, in which it is universally admitted Constantine embraced the religion of the Christians, previous to his war with Maxentius, and prior to his return to Rome and Italy: and this is evidenced by the dates of the laws which he enacted in favor of religion.” [29]

All of this evidence weighs in favor of the opinion that Constantine was exposed to Christianity early in life, that he was tolerant of Christianity, if not promoting it, in his early rule. And that his apparent “delay” in making Christianity the imperial religion, and postponement of baptism, are not evidence that he was a pagan with mere affections for Christianity. Conversely, they are evidence that he was deeply convinced of the truth of Christ from early on and worked diligently for its assertion within the empire, step by step, as allowed by the providence of God.

Schmemann similarly asserts confidence in Constantine’s personal faith, stating, “One point is beyond question: the sign he saw and under which he won his decisive victory was in his own mind a Christian symbol, and from that time on he counted himself a Christian.” [30] Then, in consistency with the complexity of this topic, he simultaneously opens an avenue for doubt, speculating, “Did he actually become one? Not until his deathbed, twenty-five years after the battle of the Milvian Bridge, did he receive baptism, the only symbol the Church accepts of becoming a Christian. (It had been his dream to be baptized in the Jordan, perhaps a reason for his long postponement). Then what had he been before?” [31]

Yet how can he have ‘counted himself a Christian’ and yet not be one ‘until his deathbed’? A ‘Christian’ is one who believes in and follows Christ. It is the thoroughly Orthodox point of view that even those joined to heretical bodies of heterodox are not stripped of their title as Christians, even though they have not received Orthodox baptism and are not members of the Apostolic Church; the only repository of the fullness of grace. Though they may far from Christ and His Church, they are not necessarily rejecting the truth of Christ but are pursuing Him from within the circumstances in which they find themselves. [32] Neither is salvation, by extreme economia, restricted to only those who received the actual rite of baptism. This is demonstrated clearly by the many lives of martyred saints who were baptized, not in the Orthodox rite, but in their own blood. An example of this is found in the account of the holy martyr Polyeuctus (January 9) who experienced wonders as a catechumen but never baptized.

Constantine was indeed a “Christian emperor”, as Schmemann cannot avoid eventually titling him. [33] But Schmemann seems to have overlooked the actual spiritual and official state of Constantine”s relationship to the Church. He concludes brilliantly that, “All the difficulties and distinctive qualities of Byzantium, all the ambiguity of the ‘age of Constantine’ in Church history, result from the primary, initial paradox that the first Christian emperor was a Christian outside the Church, and the Church silently but with full sincerity and faith accepted and recognized him. In the person of the emperor, the empire became Christian without passing through the crisis of the baptismal trial.” [34] True, a full member of the Orthodox Church is one who has been baptized. And baptism had not been received by Constantine, nor the empire as a whole, an imperial example that would not be followed by Vladimir and the Slavs. But as to Schmemann’s assertion that Constantine is a Christian ‘outside the Church,’ and his unanswered question of ‘what had he been before?”, the spiritual, if not technical, answer is certainly ‘a catechumen”. The validity of this statement we will explore shortly.

Apostle Among Kings

Constantine’s role in church history is three-fold: historical, political, and spiritual. And in many ways, his role parallels both the three-fold process of ‘spiritual status’ in Church membership: catechumens, baptized member, and glorified saint, and the three-fold process of deification: purification, illumination, perfection. All speculative criticism of his personal faith and relationship with the Church are reduced to ‘slander and propaganda’ [35] once the observer has submitted to the accurate historical, political and spiritual context of Constantine’s life.

Even the ‘executions’ of his son and wife have an authentic context. The context cannot dispel the sorrow of the events, but it does mitigate their often-embellished horror. In 326, Constantine ordered a trial at the local court of Pola in Istria, where his son Crispus was condemned to death and executed. Soon after, Constantine reportedly had his wife Fausta, daughter of Maximian and sister of Maxentius, killed by suffocation in an over-heated bath. In addition, there is general agreement that efforts were made at the time to obscure details.

Critiques of Constantine’s character often cite these deaths as proof of his utter depravity. However, recent scholarship, such Alessio Torino’s The Cripus Tragedy, has returned decisively to the opinion that the degree of intrigue culminating in the deaths of Crispus and Fausta was of such offense that an obscuring effort is to be expected. In hindsight, Zosimus himself, an outright enemy of Constantine’s faith, and the Byzantine historian Ioannes Zonaras, provide the most compelling account. [36] Fausta, wife and daughter of Constantine’s enemies, apparently viewed her stepson Crispus with extreme jealousy since he competed with her sons for imperial favor. Conspiring against Crispus only a month after Constantine had decreed adultery punishable by death, [37] Fausta feigned impassioned love for her stepson and the idea of an illicit relationship. Crispus, like Joseph tempted by the Egyptian woman, denied her. Fausta retaliated by reporting to Constantine that Crispus had disgraced him in an attempt to rape her. Trusting the false testimony of Fausta, and being personally shamed so soon after his decree against such things, Constantine gave his beloved son over to trial and execution. Shortly afterwards, Constantine discovered the terrible truth and Fausta dies; perhaps by the will of Constantine, perhaps in suicide, neither is known with certainty. Constantine’s personal grief and shame over the deceit-ridden tragedy puts an immediate end to any chronicling of the events.

Although without doubt horrific, an objective view of the historical context admits that these events are not outside the sphere of an emperor’s experiences and duties; let alone an emperor who is burdened practically and spiritually with the complete transformation of a pagan empire. Historically, Constantine is a great military conqueror with all the violence and heavy-handed domination that is absolutely inherent to ancient Roman roles and society. Politically he is an ‘apostle among kings’ [38] and in submission to all the realities of developing and defending an Orthodox social world-view (which itself was relatively undeveloped at the time) within the precarious context of Roman imperial government. Spiritually, he was a catechumen: one devoted to the Christ and whose primary spiritual focus is that of demonic warfare for the preservation of faith.

Historical, Political & Spiritual Context

Detailed research and authorship has been developed regarding Constantine’s role in history and politics. Objective reading quickly establishes that one’s willingness to practice a wide variety of actions that are far from the Christian ideal is an inescapable reality of the culture and society of Constantine’s era. Examples of such historical-political circumstances can be readily found in the lives of such great saints as Alexander Nevsky, Stephan, first Christian king of Serbia, Vladimir, enlightener of Russia, and many others who, in their god-given conviction to bring a people to Christ, found violence and political manipulation to be essential, necessary evils given the context of their lives: that is, “the time, the place, and the persons involved”. Orthodox Christians must not shy away from the ability of God’s will being done, even amidst such unchristian circumstances. Consider, if only for a moment, the martyrdom of Nestor (October 27), who asked a blessing from spiritual guide, St. Demetrios, to slay another man, and was granted it. To deny the possibility of God’s hand in the midst of violence and political machination is to prefer historical tidiness and a blind eye to fallen human nature over the power of God in Trinity, and to disregard that “the kingdom of God suffers violence and the violent take it by force.” This is a difficult reality for a weak and fearful generation.

However, the Orthodox student of history must come to peace with the reality that Constantine was both a God-appointed apostle to the Roman empire, and, more difficult to grasp, a convert to Christianity at a time when there was no Christian culture or nation. His seeming defiance of Christian morality in such actions as the execution of Licentius, and that of his son Crispus and wife Fausta, are in fact actions that are arguably not only acceptable within the society and culture that formed Constantine as a person, but are dutiful actions in defense of the pagan, imperial throne which he inherited and is trying to sanctify. Both the apostolic and persecution eras of the Church had included the growth and development of Christian community. But the coexistence of Christianity within Judaism of the first era, and its subjugation to the catacombs of the second, rendered the development of distinct Christian society and culture unessential and impossible respectively.

Therefore, Constantine’s burden from the moment of his conquest over Maxentius, and for which there is no precedent for him to follow, is to discover a way of infusing Roman culture and society with Christianity, without rioting the pagan majority, and without compromising the dogmas of Orthodox society and culture as it existed in its undeveloped state. “He was anxious not to alarm those of this subjects who still clung to the old gods. But he certainly did not hesitate refusing to take part in the traditional sacrifice to Jupiter.” [39] This is the context for interpreting such actions as his continuing to use the Unconquered Sun on his coinage, the inclusion of pagan symbolism and art, even in Constantinople (although he places the pagan goddess Cybeles in a posture of Christian prayer and infuriates her devotees [40]). These points of potential criticism, when combined with his unending use of the Chi-Rho on the shields of his soldiers, his immediate, personal, financial support of the churches, and his constant increasing of Christian rights from the expansion of religious tolerance to the eventual extreme of persecuting Christian heretics, all collaborate as a whole to demonstrate his methodical conversion of Roman culture and society from paganism to Orthodoxy. His is the era of emerging, not established, Christian society and culture. And like all births, it is violence and blood for the sake of new life.

Constantine: The Catechumen

Schmemann assertion that Constantine is a Christian ‘outside the Church’, is understandable but unnecessary. It also reflects the fact that, historically, the awareness of the catechumenate as a specifically defined membership to the Church degenerated, in general (as did the deaconate as a specific and permanent priestly calling), with the thorough institutionalization of the Church that occurred with its successful enculturalization (and later nationalization) after the era of Constantine. “During the first centuries of Christianity those who wished to become members of the Church were first subjected to a long preparation….Later on, the class of Catechumens dropped out owing to the prevailing custom of infant baptism.” [41] And yet what history demonstrates is that the entire empire itself, along with Constantine as a person, will be effectively catechized, baptized, and established as it follows the same steps of conversion as does each person.

In the Age of Martyrs (100 – 312), the catechumenate had already developed beyond its simple form of the Apostolic era. “In the ages of persecution it became necessary to exercise great caution in admitting persons to membership in the Church. The danger of falling away, or even of betrayal, must be guarded against by a careful doctrinal and moral training. Hence the institution of the catechumenate and the Discipline of the Secret. The work of the Apologists had been to remove prejudices against Christianity, and to set forth its doctrines and practices in such a way as to appeal to the fair-minded pagan. If anyone was moved to embrace the true religion, he was not at once admitted, as in the days of the Apostles. At first he was treated as an inquirer, and only the fundamental doctrines were communicated to him. As soon as he had given proof of his knowledge and fitness he was admitted to the catechumenate proper, and was further instructed. After some years spent in this stage he was promoted to the ranks of the Competentes, i.e. those ready for baptism. As might be expected, he was now instructed more especially in the rites for this purpose. Even when he had been initiated, his instruction was not yet at an end. During the week after Easter, while the grace of first fervor was still upon him, the various rites and mysteries in which he had just participated were more fully explained to him.” [42]

By the second ecumenical council (Constantinople, 381), the existing office and protocol of the catechumenate was canonically recognized. “On the first day we make the Christians; on the second, catechumens; on the third, we exorcise them by breathing thrice in their face and ears; and thus we instruct them and oblige them to spend time in the Church, and to hear the Scriptures; and then we baptize them.” (Canon viii) [43] Vlachos points out with enthusiasm that “the fact that they were first called Christians and then Catechumens is quite remarkable.” [44] He goes on to document that the purpose of being made a Christian, made a Catechumen, and then baptized is to struggle against the devil and the passions, begin spiritual therapy, and be illumined respectively. [45] One’s purpose as a catechumen was “to overcome the final assaults of the demons, while catechumens, and to be pried little by little from their iron grip.” [46] In some local traditions, the names of un-enrolled initiates and catechumen were inscribed in a special book listing those membered to the Church “That is why they were regarded as Christians, though they had not yet received baptism.” [47]

Within a hundred years of Constantine’s death, the catechumenate would clearly depict two methods of approaching baptism: 1) those who, tracing their practice directly to Constantine, postponed baptism until late in life or the deathbed, and 2) those ‘preparing for holy illumination’ by baptism at Pascha. [48] Constantine clearly belongs to the first group. While establishing the Church by the power and influence of the imperial throne, he is himself being ‘pride from the demons iron grip’ as he moves toward baptism. Given the nature of Roman law, the common practice of capital punishment, and the brutality of hereto un-Christianized Roman culture which was the indisputable context of Constantine’s struggle, combined with his open support of the Church, it is most probable that he put off baptism, not for a lack of faith, but as it was discerned to be good by him and his Christian counselors, and as it was common “to postpone baptism especially if one’s official duties included the torture and execution of criminals.” [49] The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 215) states clearly, “If someone is a military governor, or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease [his occupation] or he shall be rejected [from Baptism].” [50]

Historians consistently interpret this postponement of baptism as a sign of weak faith, but does not the mind of the Church interpret it as a sign of reverence? Inspired to victory by mystical Christian signs, and presiding over the hundreds of holy bishops at an ecumenical council, would not even the simplest of men have learned to approach baptism and the faith of the martyrs with fear and trembling? Baptism was to be a complete transformation of one’s life unto sinlessness and the practice of paenitentia una permitted “only one penance and pardon in a lifetime.” [51] This early rigorism created a spiritual atmosphere within which “many deferred baptism until their deathbed, since baptism bestowed pardon of all sins and eternal life.” [52]

Would Constantine be considered a greater saint if he had received baptism earlier in life and then continued to fulfill the imperial duties that were in conflict with the developing Christian social morality of his era, perhaps ending his days in excommunication? The only satisfactory explanation for his prolonged catechumenate is that his understanding of Christianity was thorough, hence his delay, and that he was profoundly aware that the establishment of holy Orthodoxy demanded that he fulfill the duties of a hereto pagan throne with all its dark complexities and compromises. His goal was not spiritual self-satisfaction or even purification (hesychia, stillness, and the idea of withdrawal from the world had not yet even developed), it was the conversion of a pagan, multi-national empire.

Schmemann excels in synthesizing the historical and personal dynamics of Constantine’s conversion, saying, “In Constantine’s mind the Christian faith, or rather, faith in Christ, had not come to him through the Church, but had been bestowed personally and directly for his victory over the enemy — in other words, as he was fulfilling his imperial duty. Consequently the victory he had won with the help of the Christian God had placed the emperor — and thereby the empire as well — under the protection of the Cross and in direct dependence upon Christ. This also meant, however, that Constantine was converted, not as a man, but as an emperor. Christ Himself had sanctioned his power and made him His intended representative, and through Constantine’s person He bound the empire to Himself by special bonds. Here lies the explanation of the striking fact that the conversion of Constantine was not followed by any review or re-evaluation of the theocratic conception of empire, but on the contrary convinced Christians and the Church itself of the emperor’s divine election and obliged them to regard the empire itself as a consecrated kingdom, chosen by God.” [53]

What Do We Know For Certain?

John Julius Norwich, throughout his trilogy Byzantium, sets a splendid example of checking historical inquiries with rhetorical safeguards such as “But what actually happened?” or “What do we know for certain?” We must ask ourselves the same. As Orthodox Christian students of history, what do we know for certain in regards to Constantine’s faith? We know for certain that Constantine was exposed to monotheism and religious tolerance from an early age by way of his father, Constantius, whom he emulated in many ways. Constantius was a strict adherent to Sun-God worship and Constantine, having considered the systematic failure of those who practiced polytheism, “felt it incumbent on him to honor his father’s God alone”. [54] And according to Lactantius, Constantine consistently followed his father’s use of tolerant policy towards Christianity from his proclamation as Augustus.

We know for certain that Constantine had the opportunity to encounter Christianity early in life while in Britain, Western Europe and the Middle East where he met Eusebius of Caesarea. We know for certain that he accounted himself, at the absolute minimum, obligated to Christ, if not fully converted, from before his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge (312). We know for certain that he avoided pagan rites and supported the Church financially and legally immediately upon his taking the imperial throne. We know for certain that by 325 he was personally presiding over the First Ecumenical Council, hearing the greatest minds and souls of Orthodoxy defend the faith and sacrifice for truth. We know for certain that by 330 he had moved the capital of the empire to Constantinople and required participants in government to be Christian. We know for certain that Constantine liberated and established the Church completely, even erring in the extreme by persecuting heretics and pagans.

We know for certain that one does not have to be baptized in the Orthodox Church to be referred to as a Christian. But this fact is overlooked in most historical commentary whether it is an Orthodox, heterodox or secular source. We know for certain that in making a complete conversion to Christ there can be a significant duration of time between first identifying with being a Christian and the culminating act of receiving holy baptism. Examples of this are seen in the lives of Martin of Tours (who had a vision of Christ as a catechumen), Augustine of Hippo, and the much more recent conversion of Seraphim Rose. We know for certain that during Constantine’s era it was common to defer baptism due to the rigors of full membership”s purity and that the mystery of repentance was available only once in a lifetime.

We also know for certain that, having spent thirty years (half his life) as a functional, if not literal, catechumen he received baptism immediately upon believing that his opportunity to do so was at its end. “He was baptized…he now longer put on imperial robes…and the joyous certainty of the nearness of Christ and His eternal light never again left him….And the greatest earthly hope of the Church, and the dream of the triumph of Christ in the world, became associated with his name.” [55] We know that he was blessed to repose on Pentecost, May 22, 337. What better day, than the birthday of the Church in this world, to receive a man into the bosom of Abraham who has given birth to the Church in civilization? And lastly, we know for certain that no compilation of facts, historical criticism, or faithless speculation has ever reversed his acceptance in Christ”s holy Church as the highly venerated Constantine, the Great, Equal to the Apostles. Poorly documented events and persons in history are common targets of both dreamily legendary or manipulatively hostile speculation. Yet viewed objectively, great confidence may be taken in titling Constantine the ‘first Christian emperor’.

Epilogue

Imagine how difficult would it be for a soul seeking salvation to also rule Byzantium? Could our weak souls even endure a visit there? One day St. Anthony received a letter from the Emperor Constantius, asking him to come to Constantinople, and he wondered whether he ought to go or not. So he said to St. Paul, his disciple, “Ought I to go?” The other replied, “If you go, you will be called Anthony, but if you stay here, you will be called Saint Anthony.” [56] If such is the challenge to a monk visiting the capitol, how much greater would be the spiritual pitfalls for the empire’s ruler? If the United States was converted to Orthodoxy in only 18 years, would anyone consider that ‘slow’ or ‘timid’ product of Christian leadership? God’s call to Constantine was great, as was the man.

Endnotes

1. Eusebius. “Life of Constantine” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1(Peabody, MA, Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 1994), pg. 484.

2. Ware, Timothy. “Byzantium I” The Orthodox Church (Baltimore, MD, Penguin Books, 1964) pg. 26.

3. Meyendorff, John. “Church and Empire” Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood, NY, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989) pg. 7.

4. Norwich, John Julius. Byzantium: The Early Centuries (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996) pg. 32.

5. Schmemann, Alexander. “The Triumph of Christianity” Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977) pg. 62.

6. “Troparion for Constantine the Great” The Menaion. May 21.

7. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History. (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1964) pg. 438.

8. Velomirovic, Nikolai “St. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles” The Prologue of Ochrid. (Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Western America: May 21, 1999)

9. Gilles, Pierre Antiquities of Constantinople. (New York, NY: Italica Press, 1988) pg. 12.

10. Elliott, Thomas G “The Language of Constantine’s Propaganda” Transactions of the American Philological Association. (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990) pg. 349.

11. Ware, Timothy “The Beginnings” The Orthodox Church. (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1964) pg. 24-27.

12. Meyendorff, pg. 7.

13. Chadwick, Henry “Constantine and the Council of Nicaea” The Early Church (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1993) pg. 125.

14. Schmemann, pg. 80.

15. This is the slander of Julian the Apostate propagated by Zosimus.

16. Meyendorff, pg. 6.

17. Chadwick, pg. 126.

18. Schmemann, pg. 66.

19. Schmemann, pg. 62.

20. Chadwick, pg. 125.

21. Ibid.

22. Norwich, pg. 40.

23. Shlosser, Franziska E “Klaus M. Girardet: Die Konstantinische Wende” Bryn Mawr Classical Review. (Bryn Mawr, PA. Bryn Mawr Press, 2006) pg. 2.

24. Norwich, pg. 42.

25. Eusebius Life of Constantine pg. 490.

26. Huntingdon, Henry Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) pg. 61.

27. Ibid.

28. Hayes, Alan L Early Christianity (to A.D. 843). (Toronto, CA: Toronto School of Theology, 2008) pg. 19.

29. Sozomen “Historia Ecclesiastica” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol.2. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994) pg. 243.

30. Schmemann, pg. 65.

31. Ibid. pgs.65-66.

32. Drozdov, Metropolitan Philaret “Will the Non-Orthodox Be Saved?” Orthodox Life, Vol. 34, No.6. (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery Press, 1984) pg. 2.

33. Schmemann, pg. 70.

34. Ibid. pgs. 65–66.

35. Schmemann, Alexander “The Church Year” In Celebration of Faith. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994) pg. 50.

36. Drijvers, Jan Willem Helena Augusta. (Boston, MA: Brill Publishers, 1992) pg. 61.

37. Metallinos, Fr. George Constantine the Great & Historical Truth (Audio transcription). (Athens, Greece: University of Athens School of Theology, 2008) pg. 8.

38. Holy Transfiguration Monastery “Constantine, Equal to the Apostles (May 21)” The Great Horologion. (Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery Press, 1997) pg. 489.

39. Norwich, pgs. 42-43.

40. Chadwick, pg. 127.

41. Callinicos, Constantine The Greek Orthodox Catechism. (New York, NY: Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, 1960) pg. 3.

42. Scannell, T “Christian Doctrine” The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909)

43. Vlachos, Hierotheos “Catechism in the Tradition of the Church” Entering the Orthodox Church. (Levadia, Greece: Apostolic Diakonia, 2004) pg. 20.

44. Ibid., pg. 21.

45. Ibid., pg. 22.

46. Field, Anne “The Meaning of the Exorcisms” From Darkness to Light. (Ann Arbor, MI. Servant Publications, 1978) pg. 78.

47. Kucharek, Casimir The Sacramental Mysteries: A Byzantine Approach. (Allendale, NJ: Alleluia Press, 1976) pg. 92.

48. Meyendorff, pg. 71.

49. Chadwick, pg. 127.

50. Hippolytus, 16:10.

51. Kucharek, pg. 235.

52. Ibid., pg. 247.

53. Schmemann, pgs. 65-66.

54. Eusebius Life of Constantine pg. 490.

55. Schmemann, pg. 80.

56. Schmemann, pg. 80.

Bibliography

Barns, Timothy Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

— The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

— Early Christianity and the Roman Empire. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.

Callinicos, Constantine The Greek Orthodox Catechism. New York, NY: Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, 1960.

Chadwick, Henry The Early Church. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1993.

Drijvers, Jan Willem Helena Augusta. Boston, MA: Brill Publishers, 1992.

Drozdov, Metropolitan Philaret “Will the Non-Orthodox Be Saved?” Orthodox Life, Vol. 34, No. 6. Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery Press, 1984.

Elliott, Thomas G. “The Language of Constantine’s Propaganda” Transactions of the American Philological Association. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pgs. 349-353. 1990.

Eusebius Ecclesiastical History. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1964.

— “Life of Constantine” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994.

Field, Anne “The Meaning of the Exorcisms” From Darkness to Light. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1978.

Gilles, Pierre Antiquities of Constantinople. New York, NY: Italica Press, 1988.

Hayes, Alan L. Early Christianity (to A.D. 843). Toronto, CAN: Toronto School of Theology, 2008.

Holy Transfiguration Monastery “Constantine, Equal to the Apostles (May 21)” The Great Horologion. Boston, MA: Holy Transfiguration Monastery Press, 1997.

Huntingdon, Henry Historia Anglorum: The History of the English People. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Kucharek, Casimir The Sacramental Mysteries: A Byzantine Approach. Allendale, NJ: Alleluia Press, 1976.

Metallinos, Fr. George Constantine the Great & Historical Truth (Audio transcription). Athens, Greece: University of Athens School of Theology, 2008.

Meyendorff, John Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989.

Norwich, John Julius. Byzantium: The Early Centuries. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

Schmemann, Alexander Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977.

— “The Church Year” Celebration of Faith. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994.

Shlosser, Franziska E. “Klaus M. Girardet: Die Konstantinische Wende” Bryn Mawr Classical Review Bryn Mawr, PA: Bryn Mawr Press, 2006.

Sozomen “Historia Ecclesiastica” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 2. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1994.

Staniloae, Dumitru Orthodox Spirituality. South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002.

Torino, Alessio The Crispus Tragedy. Rome, Italy: National Academy, 2008.

Vlachos, Hierotheos “Catechism in the Tradition of the Church” Entering the Orthodox Church. Levadia, Greece: Apostolic Diakonia, 2004.

Ward, Benedicta The Desert Christian. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1975.

Ware, Timothy The Orthodox Church. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1964.

Zosimus New History (Four Vols.). London, England: Green & Chaplin, 1814.

6/4/2013

SOURCE : https://orthochristian.com/61927.html

Equal of the Apostles and Emperor Constantine with his Mother Helen

Commemorated on May 21

Troparion & Kontakion

The Church calls Saint Constantine (306-337) “the Equal of the Apostles,” and historians call him “the Great.” He was the son of the Caesar Constantius Chlorus (305-306), who governed the lands of Gaul and Britain. His mother was Saint Helen, a Christian of humble birth.

At this time the immense Roman Empire was divided into Western and Eastern halves, governed by two independent emperors and their corulers called “Caesars.” Constantius Chlorus was Caesar in the Western Roman Empire. Saint Constantine was born in 274, possibly at Nish in Serbia. In 294, Constantius divorced Helen in order to further his political ambition by marrying a woman of noble rank. After he became emperor, Constantine showed his mother great honor and respect, granting her the imperial title “Augusta.”

Constantine, the future ruler of all the whole Roman Empire, was raised to respect Christianity. His father did not persecute Christians in the lands he governed. This was at a time when Christians were persecuted throughout the Roman Empire by the emperors Diocletian (284-305) and his corulers Maximian Galerius (305-311) in the East, and the emperor Maximian Hercules (284-305) in the West.

After the death of Constantius Chlorus in 306, Constantine was acclaimed by the army at York as emperor of Gaul and Britain. The first act of the new emperor was to grant the freedom to practice Christianity in the lands subject to him. The pagan Maximian Galerius in the East and the fierce tyrant Maxentius in the West hated Constantine and they plotted to overthrow and kill him, but Constantine bested them in a series of battles, defeating his opponents with the help of God. He prayed to God to give him a sign which would inspire his army to fight valiantly, and the Lord showed him a radiant Sign of the Cross in the heavens with the inscription “In this Sign, conquer.”

After Constantine became the sole ruler of the Western Roman Empire, he issued the Edict of Milan in 313 which guaranteed religious tolerance for Christians. Saint Helen, who was a Christian, may have influenced him in this decision. In 323, when he became the sole ruler of the entire Roman Empire, he extended the provisions of the Edict of Milan to the Eastern half of the Empire. After three hundred years of persecution, Christians could finally practice their faith without fear.

Renouncing paganism, the Emperor did not let his capital remain in ancient Rome, the former center of the pagan realm. He transferred his capital to the East, to the city of Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople, the city of Constantine (May 11). Constantine was deeply convinced that only Christianity could unify the immense Roman Empire with its diverse peoples. He supported the Church in every way. He recalled Christian confessors from banishment, he built churches, and he showed concern for the clergy.

The emperor deeply revered the victory-bearing Sign of the Cross of the Lord, and also wanted to find the actual Cross upon which our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified. For this purpose he sent his own mother, the holy Empress Helen, to Jerusalem, granting her both power and money. Patriarch Macarius of Jerusalem and Saint Helen began the search, and through the will of God, the Life-Creating Cross was miraculously discovered in 326. (The account of the finding of the Cross of the Lord is found under the Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross, September 14). The Orthodox Church commemorates the Uncovering of the Precious Cross and the Precious Nails by the Holy Empress Helen on March 6.

While in Palestine, the holy empress did much of benefit for the Church. She ordered that all places connected with the earthly life of the Lord and His All-Pure Mother, should be freed of all traces of paganism, and she commanded that churches should be built at these places.

The emperor Constantine ordered a magnificent church in honor of Christ’s Resurrection to be built over His tomb. Saint Helen gave the Life-Creating Cross to the Patriarch for safe-keeping, and took part of the Cross with her for the emperor. After distributing generous alms at Jerusalem and feeding the needy (at times she even served them herself), the holy Empress Helen returned to Constantinople, where she died in the year 327.

Because of her great services to the Church and her efforts in finding the Life-Creating Cross, the empress Helen is called “the Equal of the Apostles.”

The peaceful state of the Christian Church was disturbed by quarrels, dissensions and heresies which had appeared within the Church. Already at the beginning of Saint Constantine’s reign the heresies of the Donatists and the Novatians had arisen in the West. They demanded a second baptism for those who lapsed during the persecutions against Christians. These heresies, repudiated by two local Church councils, were finally condemned at the Council of Milan in 316.

Particularly ruinous for the Church was the rise of the Arian heresy in the East, which denied the Divine Nature of the Son of God, and taught that Jesus Christ was a mere creature. By order of the emperor, the First Ecumenical Council was convened in the city of Nicea in 325.

318 bishops attended this Council. Among its participants were confessor-bishops from the period of the persecutions and many other luminaries of the Church, among whom was Saint Nicholas of Myra in Lycia. (The account about the Council is found under May 29). The emperor was present at the sessions of the Council. The heresy of Arius was condemned and a Symbol of Faith (Creed) composed, in which was included the term “consubstantial with the Father,” at the insistence of the Emperor, confirming the truth of the divinity of Jesus Christ, Who assumed human nature for the redemption of all the human race.

After the Council of Nicea, Saint Constantine continued with his active role in the welfare of the Church. He accepted holy Baptism on his deathbed, having prepared for it all his whole life. Saint Constantine died on the day of Pentecost in the year 337 and was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles, in a crypt he had prepared for himself.

SOURCE : https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2022/05/21/101452-equal-of-the-apostles-and-emperor-constantine-with-his-mother-he

Galerius and Constantine: Edicts of Toleration 311/313

Both in the case of the edict of toleration by Galerius and that by Constantine and Licinius, the original Latin text is to be found in Lactantius, and merely a Greek translation in Eusebius, (H. E., Bk. VIII, 17, and X, 5). Both Mason and Allard take this view. (For discussion of the authorship of the De more. Pers. and the genuineness of the Edict of Milan see appendix to Vol. 11 of Gibbon, ed. by Bury.. 1896.)

EDICT OF TOLERATION BY GALERIUS- 311 A. D.

(Ch. 34.) Among other arrangements which we are always accustomed to make for the prosperity and welfare of the republic, we had desired formerly to bring all things into harmony with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, and to provide that even the Christians who had left the religion of their fathers should come back to reason ; since, indeed, the Christians themselves, for some reason, had followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity, which perchance their own ancestors had first established; but at their own will and pleasure, they would thus make laws unto themselves which they should observe and would collect various peoples in diverse places in congregations. Finally when our law had been promulgated to the effect that they should conform to the institutes of antiquity, many were subdued by the fear of danger, many even suffered death. And yet since most of them persevered in their determination, and we saw that they neither paid the reverence and awe due to the gods nor worshipped the God of the Christians, in view of our most mild clemency and the constant habit by which we are accustomed to grant indulgence to all, we thought that we ought to grant our most prompt indulgence also to these, so that they may again be Christians and may hold their conventicles, provided they do nothing contrary to good order. But we shall tell the magistrates in another letter what they ought to do.

Wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the republic may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes.

(c.35)This edict is published at Nicomedia on the day before the Kalends of May, in our eighth consulship and the second of Maximinus.

from Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. ch. 34, 35. Opera, ed. O. F. Fritzsche, II, P. 273. (Bibl. Patt. Ecc. Lat. XI, Leipzig, 1844.)

The "Edict of Milan " (313 A. D.)

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I Licinius Augustus d fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought -, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases ; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.

Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happems anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency,. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed.

from Lactantius, De Mort. Pers., ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI).

Both texts translated in University of Pennsylvania. Dept. of History: Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European history, (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press [1897?-1907?]), Vol 4:, 1, pp. 28-30

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.

Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.

(c)Paul Halsall Jan 1996

halsall@murray.fordham.edu

SOURCE : https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/edict-milan.asp

San Costantino il Grande Imperatore

21 maggio (Chiese Orientali)

Naisso, Serbia, 280 ca. – Nicomedia, Turchia, 337

Etimologia: Costantino = che ha fermezza, tenace, dal latino

Il grande imperatore romano Costantino, il primo a convertirsi al cristianesimo, ha goduto e gode tutt'oggi di un gran culto da parte delle Chiese Orientali, sia cattoliche che ortodosse, e nel ‘Sinassario Costantinopolitano’ egli è celebrato il 21 maggio, insieme a sua madre Sant'Elena († 329 ca.).

In Occidente il culto fu abbastanza tiepido, concentrandosi soprattutto in luoghi che ebbero un forte influsso bizantino come Calabria, Sicilia, Sardegna o che vi furono trasportate delle reliquie come in Inghilterra e Boemia; il ‘Martirologio Romano’ non porta il suo nome, quindi la sua memoria liturgica è solo annoverata come accada per molti santi nei calendari di varie diocesi, mentre la madre Elena è celebrata al 18 agosto.

I meriti di questo grande imperatore, giustamente chiamato Costantino I il Grande, sono indiscussi, specie per la lungimiranza con cui seppe comprendere e valutare, l’inarrestabile forza del cristianesimo, che sebbene da tre secoli perseguitato e con innumerevoli martiri, si espandeva con il suo contrapporsi alle ideologie del mondo pagano, in ogni angolo dell’immenso Impero Romano.

Flavio Valerio Costantino nacque a Naisso, odierna Nissa in Serbia nel 280 ca., figlio di Costanzo I Cloro allora semplice ufficiale e da Flavia Elena sua moglie morganatica, cioè inferiore di grado sociale.

Quando suo padre fu nominato “cesare” nel 293, Costantino venne allevato a Nicomedia alla corte di Diocleziano (243-313), sia per educarlo ad essere in futuro associato all’Impero, sia per garanzia dello stesso Costanzo Cloro (chiamato così per il pallore del viso).

Accompagnò Diocleziano in Egitto nel 296 e poi al servizio di Galerio, ‘cesare’ collega di suo padre; come tribuno militare combatté contro i Persiani e i Sarmati.

In virtù del nuovo sistema politico della tetrarchia, nel 305 il padre Costanzo I divenne imperatore e richiamò presso di sé il figlio Costantino, che lo seguì in Britannia in una campagna contro i Pitti e nel 306 alla morte del padre, per acclamazione dei soldati ne assunse il titolo e il comando.

Volendo riassumere, per evitare una cronologia storica troppo lunga, bisogna dire che nel ventennio successivo, fu costretto a combattere fra alleanze e guerre, con gli altri pretendenti al trono (Massimiano, Massenzio, Licinio, Galerio e Massimino Daia), riuscendo ad imporsi come unico imperatore solo nel 324.

In questa lotta per il potere, non furono risparmiati assassinii di rivali, né guerre fra gli opposti eserciti romani e in questo scenario avvenne il 28 ottobre 312, la grande battaglia sulla Via Flaminia al Ponte Milvio, quando Costantino affrontò Massenzio suo cognato (perché ne aveva sposato la sorella Fausta); Costantino riportò una grande vittoria mentre Massenzio morì annegato nel Tevere.

La leggenda narra, che la vigilia della battaglia, Gesù apparve in sogno all’imperatore, chiedendogli di scrivere sugli scudi dei suoi soldati le prime due lettere del Suo nome (in greco XP); inoltre il giorno seguente Costantino I avrebbe visti stagliarsi contro il sole una croce e nel cielo la scritta: “In hoc signo vinces”.

Da questo scaturì, agli inizi del 313, il famoso ‘editto di Milano’ , che firmato anche da Licinio, associato alla guida dell’impero, proclamò la libertà di culto per i cristiani, ordinando anche la restituzione dei loro beni confiscati.

Iniziò così la nuova era cristiana, che scalzerà completamente il paganesimo, portando una nuova valutazione dell’essere umano composto di anima e di corpo, la sua identità di creatura di Dio, rigenerata dal sacrificio di Cristo, la sua uguaglianza davanti a Dio, senza più caste e schiavitù e il concetto di libertà per tutti.

L’aspetto storico di Costantino lo vede ancora come baluardo ai Barbari, favorendo la loro evangelizzazione e permettendo il loro inserimento (300.000 persone) entro il territorio dell’Impero.

Fece uccidere nel 326, per contrasti e congiure di palazzo, il proprio figlio Crispo accusato dagli invidiosi fratellastri e dalla matrigna Fausta, di attentare al suo onore e poi sempre reagendo spietatamente, fece uccidere la stessa moglie Fausta, sospettata di adulterio.

La tragedia di corte, influì enormemente sul suo carattere e sulla sua politica religiosa, forse per rimorso e pentimento, forse per le rimostranze del clero, forse anche per la sua ricerca e tendenza al monoteismo, che l’avvicinò all’inizio al culto del Sole.

La sua conversione al Cristianesimo, in realtà avvenne alla fine della sua vita, quando sul letto di morte, prima di spegnersi il 22 maggio 337, fu battezzato dal vescovo ariano Eusebio di Nicomedia, città della Bitinia presso cui si trovava alla testa del suo esercito, per combattere Sapore II re di Persia.

Dare una valutazione su Costantino imperatore, non è compito di questo presente lavoro, del resto sono infiniti i testi storici che hanno analizzato il suo governo, qui accenniamo soltanto a qualche aspetto.

Si prefisse di unificare un impero vacillante, anche se di fatto la profonda spaccatura fra le tradizioni culturali e spirituali della parte bizantina e quella romana, era ormai insanabile.

Fece coniare nuove monete d’oro (solidi), che rimasero la base di scambio fino alla fine dell’impero bizantino.

Divise l’Impero in quattro prefetture; costituì con membri permanenti il nuovo consiglio della corona (sacrum consistorium); il Senato di Roma e quello di Bisanzio, vennero trasformati in semplici consigli cittadini; riorganizzò l’esercito di cui si proclamò comandante supremo.

L’imperatore Costantino intervenne anche nelle questioni di dottrina religiosa e presiedette il primo Concilio Ecumenico della Chiesa, tenutosi a Nicea nel 325; in effetti egli si atteggiò a “episcopus externis”, vescovo esterno, della Chiesa.

Nel 326 iniziò la costruzione di Costantinopoli, sul luogo della antica città greca di Bisanzio, dandole il suo nome e trasferendovi la capitale dell’Impero.

Promosse direttamente o indirettamente attraverso i suoi familiari, la costruzione di molti edifici sacri, che ancora oggi, nonostante le profonde trasformazioni., hanno conservato la denominazione di “costantiniano”.

Fra i più importanti: a Roma, la basilica del S. Salvatore (oggi S. Giovanni in Laterano); la basilica di Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, fondata dalla madre s. Elena dopo il pellegrinaggio ai Luoghi Santi, voluto anche dal figlio; le primitive basiliche di S. Pietro e S. Paolo sulle tombe dei due Apostoli; la basilica di S. Lorenzo sulla via Tiburtina; la basilica di S. Agnese sulla Nomentana.

In Palestina, le basiliche della Natività a Betlemme, della Resurrezione a Gerusalemme e dell’Ascensione sul Monte degli Ulivi; a Costantinopoli la celebre basilica dei SS. Apostoli, in cui fece erigere la sua tomba, ai lati del sarcofago sorgevano dodici stele, commemorando ognuna un apostolo e ciò ha contribuito a promuovere in Oriente il culto di Costantino come “isapostolos”; inoltre tante altre chiese sparse in tutto l’Impero d’Oriente.

Costantino lasciò l’Impero, della cui unità spesso viene considerato l’artefice, diviso tra cinque eredi: i suoi tre figli, Costantino II, Costante e Costanzo II e i due nipoti Dalmazio e Annibaliano.

Questa suddivisione, in contrasto con la sua politica ed esperienza, portò funeste conseguenze con uccisioni e guerre tra i designati successori, che nel disordine indebolirono l’Impero, accelerando la sua divisione e facilitando l’invasione dei Barbari.

In nome di una “Donazione di Costantino”, documento inviato dall’imperatore a papa s. Silvestro I (314-335) in cui si dà il conferimento al vescovo di Roma del primato su tutte le Chiese del mondo e della sovranità civile su Roma, l’Italia e l’Occidente, sorse nel Medioevo il potere temporale dei Papi.

Al nome di Costantino si lega il trionfo del Cristianesimo sul mondo pagano e di lui si è fatto il modello perfetto del principe cristiano, e come tale, specie in Russia, si paragonavano a lui i principi orientali.

Dopo la sua morte, i cortigiani, l’esercito, il popolo di Costantinopoli, gli resero gli onori della venerazione dei ‘beati’ e dopo la morte, ottenne ciò che aveva desiderato in vita, cioè di essere associato agli Apostoli, non solo con la sepoltura nel tempio a loro dedicato, ma ricevendo anche gli onori e le preghiere a loro rivolte nelle chiese e nelle celebrazioni liturgiche.

La rivalità tra l’Oriente e l’Occidente ecclesiastico, a causa della controversia ariana del IV secolo e tra Costantinopoli e Roma per motivi di prestigio, portò gli orientali a proclamare Costantino “uguale agli Apostoli”, emulo di Pietro e paragonabile a Paolo.

Ecco perché la sua tomba fu onorata come quella di un santo e il suo nome invocato come quello di un martire per ottenere grazie. Nell’iconografia orientale è spesso rappresentato con s. Elena ai lati della Croce.

Autore: Antonio Borrelli

SOURCE : http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/54250

Jean Gaudemet. « La législation religieuse de Constantin », Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France  Année 1947  122  pp. 25-61 : https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhef_0300-9505_1947_num_33_122_3034

Voir aussi : http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/symbols/

https://www.prayer-bracelet.com/blog/saint-constantine-the-great-part1/