I added two sections before the one I made the title from, after I already published.
Councils, Virgin Birth, Yahweh, and Geocentrism | Robert Sungenis Live
Robert Sungenis | 1.X.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnMiahMbNWs
57:05 I would say, it's sufficient if the Church Father is prior to an obvious and still relevant split in the Church.
Why? In Matthew 28:20 we know the true Church is not defectible. So whatever was before a major split has to be the real Church, and therefore a consensus within that has to reflect the real teaching of Christ.
When it comes to how distant we are from the Apostles, we are far less than an order of magnitude further away than St. John of Damascus was. But we are more than an order of magnitude further away than St. Ignatius of Antioch was. Now, not only the Apostolic fathers (including Ignatius but not Irenaeus), but also Church Fathers (up to St. John of Damascus) are taken into account.
While recent Apologetics has taken advantage from Apostolic Fathers knowing people who had known Jesus, the rule of faith as per Trent, Leo XIII and Vatican I make the consensus of Church Fathers operative. In a sense, a consensus of CCFF automatically includes a consensus of Apostolic Fathers, but AAFF may not have mentioned the subject, since we have far less text by them than by CCFF in general.
59:35 No, they do not have to be in consensus to be authoritative. They have to be in consensus to be collectively infallible. Authoritative is less than infallible.
I disagree with Michael Lofton that Consensus of CCFF doesn't equal magisterium, unless it simply means "strict limitation of what is obligatory and what isn't" because they will express the same thing differently, and it may be hard to from CCFF alone see where the agreement is strictly obliging and where it is only recommended.
But I agree with him, even when they disagree, even when they cannot be all of them infallible, each is an authority (only applies to canonised CCFF, Tertullian is not one of them).
59:57 "for us to consider, that what they taught was taught by the Apostles"
OK, that's where we are no longer speaking of just authoritative, but infallible.
Each CF makes it to some degree probable that what he taught was taught by the Apostles, but only all CCFF together (if they spoke on a certain point) makes it certain.
1:00:39 If I check the martyrology:
2 May
Alexandriae natalis sancti Athanasii, ejusdem urbis Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, sanctitate et doctrina clarissimi; in cujus persecutionem universus fere Orbis conjuraverat. Ipse tamen catholicam fidem, a tempore Constantini usque ad Valentem, adversus Imperatores ac Praesides et innumeros Episcopos Arianos strenue propugnavit; a quibus plurimas perpessus insidias, profugus toto Orbe actus est, nec ullus ei tutus ad latendum supererat locus. Tandem, ad suam Ecclesiam reversus, illic, post multos agones multasque patientiae coronas, quadragesimo sexto sui sacerdotii anno migravit ad Dominum, tempore Valentiniani et Valentis Imperatorum.
28 Aug.
Hippone Regio, in Africa, natalis sancti Augustini Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris eximii, qui, beati Ambrosii Episcopi opera ad catholicam fidem conversus et baptizatus, eam adversus Manichaeos aliosque haereticos acerrimus propugnator defendit, multisque aliis pro Ecclesia Dei perfunctus laboribus, ad praemia migravit in caelum. Ejus reliquiae, primo de sua civitate propter barbaros in Sardiniam advectae, et postea a Rege Longobardorum Luitprando Papiam translatae, ibi honorifice conditae sunt.
27 March
Sancti Joannis Damasceni, Presbyteri, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, cujus dies natalis agitur pridie Nonas Maji.
7 Dec (after Vigil of Immaculate Conception)
Sancti Ambrosii Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, qui pridie Nonas Aprilis obdormivit in Domino, sed hac die potissimum colitur, qua Mediolanensem Ecclesiam gubernandam suscepit.
12 March Romae
sancti Gregorii Primi, Papae, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris eximii; qui, ob res praeclare gestas atque Anglos ad Christi fidem conversos, Magnus est dictus et Anglorum Apostolus appellatus.
In other words, the CCFF do not end in pre-Constantinian times.
1:02:18 While St. Justin was a premillennialist, he mentioned the position of St. Augustine as held by some, which he didn't condemn.
1:04:20 St. Augustine, however didn't believe that. [angelic theory on Genesis 6]
1:05:27 We can kind of test the probability of St. Paul (and St. Jude) holding to the Angelic theory about Genesis 6.
The test may not be conclusive to all, but has some probability. What did Jews at the time believe?
Now, Josephus didn't accept Christ (except some say he did just before he died), but he was close enough to people before the rejection of Christ to have some view on the uncorrupted Hebrew tradition, and here is
what he says in book 1:
Chapter 3. 1. Now this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations: but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their fore-fathers; and did neither pay those honours to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shewn for virtue, they now shewed by their actions a double degree of wickedness. Whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many Angels of God (14) accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good; on account of the confidence they had in their own strength. For the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call Giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did: and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions, and their actions for the better. But seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married. So he departed out of that land.
1:11:46 Lots of the errors of Russia are also errors of the US or UK.
Holodomor wasn't spread around the world, but has its parallel in the manmade and strictly Capitalist Potato Famine (a Capitalistic behaviour condemned in Rerum Novarum). The Irish wouldn't have died if their landlords had allowed them to eat the wheat they had themselves with own hands grown, but no, wheat was outside contractual obligation, and the landlord wanted business as usual selling wheat in Belfast or Glasgow or London.
Lots of psychiatry and power to it, common theme between US (up to Cuckoo's Nest, and beyond) and USSR. Banning marriage of girls who are minors, even if they are past puberty ... happened in 1917 or the ensuing years in Russia, happened in many, not all, states of US around the same time.
To answer the question why such things are called "errors of Russia" and not "errors of Russia and United States" ... in the United States, there has been resistance to them. I mentioned the film with Jack Nicholson, and young marriages still happen in the US, even if Puritans frown on them.
1:13:28 What has Rasputin to do with Communism?
Probably the guys
who opposed Rasputin* have more to do with Communism. Rasputin may have discredited the Czar to the Bourgeoisie and the more Masonic of the Boyars, but
not to the people. However, when the people actually did support Communism, it was partly because of the War (which Germany had won on the East Front), partly under people agreeing with the guys who thought Rasputin was a shame. And not for the reason mentioned by some Beta Israel band, from Germany who should have stuck to Brown Girl in a Ring or Psalm 137.
[Tried to add:]
In fact, as WW I was Caesar opposing Caesar, katekhon opposing katekhon and indirectly taking each other out of the way,
Rasputin by trying to get a peace could have saved Russia from the Revolution:
He might (might!) have been trying to convince the government via the Tsarina a few months before his death to negotiate an armistice with the Central Powers, but as long as Nikki was the Tsar, there was no chance for Rasputin -or anybody else- to make him seek terms with his cousin Willy.
* I was right.
Historian Oleg Platonov was intrigued by the fact of a well thought-out slander campaign against Rasputin. It was launched in 1910, as if at the wave of a wand by some unseen manipulator - simultaneously and in most of the press. ...
"…I came across the book by Nina Berberova People and Lodges (Russian masons of the 20th century), based on archive materials and written testimonies of members of the Masonic organization. From the materials presented in the book, it follows that all people down on my list were masons."
The Byzantine Forum: Who was Rasputin?
answer by Mike L. from 3/11/10 07:06 PM (#3450680)
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/345054/who-was-rasputin
1:29:30 "so they have the background they need to figure out these things"
As a non-physicist, I would say most people who presume only physical factors (masses, vectors, inertia, graviation ... possibly gyroscope effects) are relevant for movements on the scale of celestial bodies conclude from that in favour of Heliocentrism.
If we assume God or angels or both are also involved, we don't need to get deep into physics to see how Geocentrism is perfectly possible. Epistemically, it's preferrable.
I know what it's like to sit in front of a library, and watch cars go by. I did it while writing a letter on the topic. I see the cars as if they are moving, and also conclude it's the cars, not I, which are moving.
I know what it's like to sit in a train and watch landscape go by. I had done so while getting to that library. I see a train platform as if moving, and I conclude the train I'm in is moving.
These two phenomena are not equal in frequency. If I feel myself moving as in walking or biking, that automatically corrects the impression, I don't even register the possibility of a house being what moves, that feeling automatically corrects the visual impression. So, it's on this earth only when I sit still in a moving vehicle that I see things move and conclude I'm the one that's moving. Even apart from frequency, the inversion of movement in analysis compared to impression, that's an extra assumption. Occam says not to multiply assumptions beyond the necessary.
In other words, when I see the train platform move, I conclude I'm the one moving because I know train platforms are grounded in earth and trains have wheels, because I know the same train but two different platforms means different streets outside the train station and quite a few more things that are ultra obvious, but which nevertheless are true and could need mentioning in a context like this one.
If I take your approach, God set up a system where the universe by rotating makes the place of the Earth the centre and keeps Earth non-rotating by a gyroscope effect, I am accepting a watchmaker analogy, and am basically going for the God of Voltaire.
If on the other hand I take the approach of St. Thomas, God set up a system which He rotates around Earth each day, where individual celestial bodies are moved by angels, where "parallax" isn't an actual parallax, but a flourish by an angelic mover, just as St. Thomas thought about retrogrades, I am more like accepting Geocentrism as a proof of God having inexhaustible power and showing it off visibly since creation. The Horsehead nebula hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. Betelgeuse being as star only bigger than the Solar system (still not visible, but concluded, usually by Heliocentrics) hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. The flagellum of the bacterium hasn't been visible to human observers since Creation. None of these three things were visible or concluded by the time St. Paul wrote Romans 1. And St. Paul didn't consider one needed Newton's or Einstein's physics to understand the visible proofs of God either.
"Creation is beautiful, so it takes a Creator with a sense of beauty"
"Man has a mind, but is non-eternal, so needs to be based on eternal mind"
"The Universe turns around Earth each day, and stars and planets don't collide and put everything in disorder, so enormous and inexhaustible power is linked to wisdom"
When I go with St. Thomas and Aristotle, I go with St. Paul. I think the last of these is, as argument equally strong, but as observation more obvious, than the second. As to the first, by itself, it would be compatible with Polytheism "the gods who run this earth have a sense of beauty" ... and it's perhaps even compatible with Cthulhu "the gods in outer space have no sense of beauty" ...
So, St. Paul is the ultimate endorsement of Aristotle (with many reservations) and of St. Thomas (with quite a lot fewer ones). As far as we mean endorsements from authority. He has however been pretended to have been anti-Aristotelian. Here:
Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ
[Colossians 2:8]
No, "elements" doesn't refer to the "four elements" of Aristotle. It refers to a concept in Democritus and Epicure, to us better known as "atoms" ... and Epicure was a Geocentric, but considered the causes of the Geocentrism we observe were in the present and the ongoing purely mechanistic. Tradition says Colossians 2:8 attacks Epicure. Karl Marx (before he apostasised) came up with "no, it's Aristotle" ... I obviously prefer tradition over Karl Marx.
