Benedict XVI dead at 95

[clau clau]

I am more concerned with St. Benedict the 14th (inside joke) than 16th.

I read a nice kids book about St. Benedict of Nursia last weekend.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Holy-Twins-Benedict-Scholastica-Kathleen-Norris/31396132261/bd?cm_mmc=ggl-_-UK_Shopp_Tradestandard-_-product_id=UK9780399234248USED-_-keyword=&gclid=Cj0KCQiA5NSdBhDfARIsALzs2EDucXzjj75yRBjsiV4ZoTvghFHnd8a0sWOoUwjsvWIPuwO1JOn6sCMaAtSGEALw_wcB

[Greg]

If any of this video is correct then I don't fancy his chances.

[clau clau]

If any of this video is correct then I don't fancy his chances.

Do you think you will get on the heavenly beach before the german?

I'll get me coat ...

[awkward customer]

What do you make of the fact that Benedict didn't call out Bergoglio for his manifest formal heresy? 

Didn't he recognise it?  Or was he one himself?

This confirms they were comfortable with each other.

https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/an-insiders-view-of-benedicts-resignation

Of course they were comfortable with each other.  They were both on the same side, the side of the Vatican II revolt.

[Goldfinch]

If any of this video is correct then I don't fancy his chances.

Considering Wojtyła is a saint, there's no reason Ratzinger can't be one.

[Bonaventure]

If any of this video is correct then I don't fancy his chances.

Considering Wojtyła is a saint, there's no reason Ratzinger can't be one.

Don't forget about Montini.

[Goldfinch]

If any of this video is correct then I don't fancy his chances.

Considering Wojtyła is a saint, there's no reason Ratzinger can't be one.

Don't forget about Montini.

Given the fact that his cult is practically non-existent, I often forget about him.

[Santantonio]

Sylvester was Pope when Emperor Constantine united the Roman Empire to the Catholic Church.

This isn't really true. It was Theodosius I who established Catholicism as the state religion. Constantine just allowed the Church official freedom, toleration, and support. He didn't even become a member of the Church until his deathbed, and even that is unclear since he was baptized by an Arian (that's not even getting into his tacit repudiation of Nicaea toward the end of his life, the lifting of Arius' exile, giving Arius and Arians places at court, and the fact all his sons were either Arian, Semi-Arian, or apostatised).

Regarding the katechon types in Thessalonians, the union isn't so much about having to be full but rather operational and not conflicting is sufficient. Regarding the baptism, the older legend and the art suggests that Syvester did baptise Constantine.

"It is recorded that Pope Sylvester baptized Constantine. The historical evidence for this pontificate for this era is sorely lacking for such an important time in Church history. What is known of Sylvester is given to us through the Vita beati Sylvestri. The lack of historical record, however, does not mean the events of history did not happen"
https://communio.stblogs.org/2009/12/pope-saint-sylvester-i.html

The legend regarding Pope St. Sylvester is of later origin, from the fifth century, and is logistically infeasible. The following are historical facts:

Constantine was baptized on his deathbed in 337.

He was at his Villa in Nicomedia at the time.

Pope St. Sylvester died in 335, and even when alive was always in Rome; preferring instead to interact with the Imperial Court via legates such as St. Hosius of Cordoba and the Bishop of Thessalonica (at that time under the Pope's patriarchal jurisdiction).

The Imperial Court Chaplain was, at this time, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Bishop Eusebius, later Patriarch of Constantinople, was secured his See at Nicomedia by Constantine.

Bishop Eusebius was also the same man who secured from Constantine an Imperial pardon for Arius and an end to his exile.

Unless Pope St. Sylvester descended from Heaven to baptize Constantine, or was actually still alive and bilocated, it is impossible that he could have baptized him. Eusebius of Nicomedia, on the other hand, fits all the facts quite comfortably and we have records from around the time that list him as the one who baptized Constantine.

You are correct. The Acts of Sylvester tried to cover up the fact that Constantine was baptised by an Arian.
I will only add that it was still under Sylvester's reign that pagan Rome came to accept Christianity, the tides were turning, and since B16 died on the same day, when the tides seem to be turning the other way, and that he may have been the true Pope, not Francis, it could be seen as related to the katechon phenomena.

[Jmartyr]

It is not about orthodoxy. It is about a feeling for the divine.