CathInfo.com

From the apologetics work Radio Replies volume 4 (Vol 4 : 1,650 questions and answers on Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Paganism and Communism from the radio information session over the 13 years from 1941 to 1954.)

459. Has the Copernican system been accepted by all astronomers?

As opposed to the geocentric system of Ptolemy, Copernicus taught the heliocentric system, holding that the earth revolves around the sun. He arrived at that idea as a result of his studies of the movements of the sun and moon and planets which he undertook in the interests of reforming the calendar. And his conclusion has been accepted by all astronomers. No one today would dream of disputing it.

Incredible!  Hard to believe such a good work as Radio Replies would put forth such a scandalously erroneous answer as they clearly do above.  I checked it out for myself at http://www.radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=copernicus&db=4 and sure enough Radio Replies Volume 4 published in 1954 does indeed state the above!

As declared by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, science cannot contradict the Faith:

Even today, many commonly-held tenets of natural science are merely theories, not certainties. This is not the case with the Catholic Faith, which is a certainty.

The Church’s magisterium authoritatively teaches on the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. As Pope Pius XII taught in Divino Afflatu Spiritu:

Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”). Such expressions are not scientific teachings about the cosmic world.

So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.

Nothing has been so badly abused as Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Providentissimus Deus.  While the Sacred Scriptures did not have as the direct object of their Revelations matters of natural science PER SE, they nevertheless did reveal many such things PER ACCIDENS.  Same thing can be said of history.  As St. Robert discussed, even if such things were not infallible ex parte objecti, as the subject matter of science and history cannot be objects of "faith" per se, they are nevertheless infallible and inerrant ex parte dicentis ... because of He Who authored the texts.  This is why Galileo's theories were condemned as heresy.  How can science be heresy?  Because to contradict Sacred Scripture impugns the inerrancy of God Himself, the Holy Spirit, Who authored the Sacred Scriptures.'

This is just repackaged Modernism from SSPX, and Father Paul Robinson's book takes it to the next level.  I recall back in my day, in the early 1990s, there was one seminarian who said he believed in evolution, and everyone to a man was stunned at that.  Now I'm sure you're considered a freak if you don't believe in the Big Bang, and especially if you're a geocentrist, and heaven forbid if you believe in a "Young Earth" or even that human beings have been around only for about 6,000 years.  Flat Earthers would get immediately expelled, even though they claim here that this has nothing to do with the faith ... just like Bishop Williamson was expelled for expressing an opinion about a historical (or non-historical) event.  So they speak out of both sides of their mouth.