The problem with the modernism of Fr Robinson goes back to 1741 when churchmen lost faith in the word of God, and succuмbed to false human reason. Modern science is now entrenched so much that there is little chance of its being rejected by anyone as false science. Fr Robinson is no worse that Pope Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and all popes since. Every one of them , some knowingly like the three here, most unknowingly, presided over the progress of Modernism, the heresy of all heresies. Oh Yes, we know how Pius IX, Pius X, and Benedict XV tried to stop modernism in its tracks, including Vatican I, but to no avail as all had to abide by the concessions of the Church to the heliocentric science and biblical interpretation of 1741-1835.

The Galilean reformation contradicts what I and many others thought could never happen in the Catholic Church. To fall into formal or material heresy is not what I thought God would allow popes to do. But He allowed it to happen. What I found is that He never allowed the 1616 decree to be officially contradicted. But He allowed his popes to ignore it and all the heresies that it supported, heresies condemned for 1000 years and condemned as heresies again at the trial of Giordano Bruno in the 1590s.
Today, these heresies are totally ignored as fundamental nonsense or non existent by the Church. Other worlds, defined many times as a heresy that contradicts the word and intention of the Trinity, is now part of Rome's work. We now have a pope who calls himself Francis who said in public he would baptise a Martian. How many Pythagorean heresies are inherent in that remark? Another world; a soul outside the 'Go teach ye all nations;' that the Bible must have erred, disregarding a papal decree defining formal heresy in 1616 and accusing the Church of falsely putting Galileo on trial for heresy in 1633? All these heresies and false accusations have been part of the false teaching that began like so:

1820. His Holiness  [Pope Pius VII] has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’      

1822. ‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’

In other words, you will be punished if you deny the heliocentrism of modern astronomers. In truth it states you will be punished if you insist heliocentrism is heresy or the true revelation of Scripture.
Now all records of this loss of faith were placed out of sight from the Flock. Well today we know why they were. Heresy after heresy had to be ignored because Rome had approved of the rock upon which these heresies were built upon. Reinterpretations of Genesis were changed and Rome could do nothing about, having approved such changes in two Encyclicals. And all this happened before Vatican II. So now we know why the Fr Robinsons have no problem claiming tradition and orthodoxy while regurgitating science that is inherestly heretical.

Correction;

In other words, you will be punished if you deny the heliocentrism of modern astronomers. In truth it states you will be punished if you insist heliocentrism is heresy or NOTthe true revelation of Scripture.

If you think Popes ignored a defined dogma of the Church since 1820 (1758, more likely), then you are saying the Church abandoned the Truth and positively misled the faithful for 200 or 260 years. This is not traditional Catholicism anymore.

However, you still have not shown that the 1616 decree defined doctrine.

Furthermore, one could argue on a strict reading that it doesn't apply to a cosmology which considers both the earth and the sun in motion.

Stan, again we (Cassini & myself) ask you, "For the record, are you a Big Bang heliocentric guy?"  As for geocentrism, as of 1616 and 1633 it was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Church officially designated the heliocentric view as a "formal heresy."  The status of that doctrine has not changed, since there has been no official statement from the Church in nearly 400 years that has rescinded it in any form or degree.

Stan, again we (Cassini & myself) ask you, "For the record, are you a Big Bang heliocentric guy?"  As for geocentrism, as of 1616 and 1633 it was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Church officially designated the heliocentric view as a "formal heresy."  The status of that doctrine has not changed, since there has been no official statement from the Church in nearly 400 years that has rescinded it in any form or degree.

Cassini claimed it was the 1616 decision of the Index that established doctrine. I don't see that it did, and I provided several reasons.
You two are the ones claiming the Church defined a doctrine back then that the Church has not taught in some 200 years. Not me. What I believe or don't believe won't make your arguments any better.