Any mention on CI as to whether or not Bp. W is a FE or GE?

I've not heard of His Excellency having an opinion on the matter.  I know that the group "Flat Earth Trads" are/were Resistance supporters, and support Bishop Williamson, but I do not believe that the feeling is mutual.

I've not heard of His Excellency having an opinion on the matter.  I know that the group "Flat Earth Trads" are/were Resistance supporters, and support Bishop Williamson, but I do not believe that the feeling is mutual.

When you were in the seminary was there ever any classroom discussion regarding geocentrism vs heliocentrism and if so what was the consensus, if any?  I am of the impression that the subject was more or less ignored.  I don't think His Excellency had much interest in it.

Excerpt from a letter of Fr. François Laisney published at https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/fr-laisneys-support-of-the-realist-guide

“You joined some thoughts about a sentence in Fr Paul Robinson’s excellent book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, questioning what he writes ‘against a geographically universal flood.’ It is quite providential that your letter arrives so close after the feast of the Ascension. Indeed, the homily of St Gregory at Matins of that feast sheds light on that very matter. In the third reading of that homily, ninth lesson of Matins, St Gregory says:

When then, He had rebuked the hardness of their heart, what command did He give them? Let us hear. "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." Was the Holy Gospel, then my brethren, to be preached to thing insensate, or to brute beasts, that the Lord said to His disciples: "Preach the Gospel to every creature"? Nay, but by the words "every creature" we must understand man, in whom are combined qualities of all creatures. Being he hath in common with stones, life in common with trees, feeling in common with beasts, understanding in common with angels. If, then, man hath something in common with every creature, man is to a certain extent every creature. The Gospel, then, if it be preached to man only, is preached to every creature.

Now let us reflect on what St Gregory teaches. Our Lord Jesus Christ said: ‘preach the Gospel to every creature.’ And St Gregory explains: it does not apply to every creature, but only to every man. Thus, we are not obliged to go onto the moon to preach to the stones there, nor to go to Mars or Venus, nor any other planet or star. We may stay on the earth and even there, we are not obliged to preach to every penguin in Antarctica: it is sufficient to preach to every man.

Similarly, when Moses says in the book of Genesis “And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered – opertique sunt omnes montes excelsi sub universo caelo” (Gen. 7:19), it is sufficient to say: it covered the whole heaven where men were living, so that all men were engulfed in the Flood, not necessarily the top of Mount Everest, because there was no one there, nor anywhere around, because men had not yet spread over the earth: it was before the tower of Babel.

Do you see the parallel of such interpretation with that of St Gregory? As St Gregory is not opposed to the truth of the Gospel when he applies the universality of the words of our Lord merely to all men, so is Fr Paul Robinson not opposed to the truth of Genesis when he applies the universality of the flood merely to all men. He does not say the Scriptures is wrong, he says its universality is that of all men (and women!). Such interpretation is not a denial of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, it is rather proposing the right interpretation of the Scriptures and is in perfect conformity with St Gregory according to the exegetical principals of St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine.

I'm not sure how this exegesis advances the theory of Fr. Robinson: According to Abbe Laisney's application of this hermeneutic (i.e., the flood need not be universal; it suffices that it covered all the lands where men lived), the flood would still have had to have been universal, since men were located in nearly every region of the world, even if perhaps not on the mountain tops.  So to destroy all men in all parts of the inhabited world, how does the flood not need to be universal?

The only way this hermeneutic works, if if all men inhabited only one region of the world (which I have never heard anyone advance).

He [Fr. Chazal] isn't a geo-centrist, .

I just received an email from him today in which he stated: "I think the earth is at the center of the universe"

When you were in the seminary was there ever any classroom discussion regarding geocentrism vs heliocentrism and if so what was the consensus, if any?  I am of the impression that the subject was more or less ignored.  I don't think His Excellency had much interest in it.

I recall no discussion of geocentrism/heliocentrism inside the classroom or outside.  That leads me to the impression that there was no interest in it.  For me, I had never really heard about the claims of geocentrism, so it wasn't even "a thing" for me.

Excerpt from a letter of Fr. François Laisney
Similarly, when Moses says in the book of Genesis “And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered
...
[This does] not necessarily [mean] the top of Mount Everest, because there was no one there, nor anywhere around, because men had not yet spread over the earth: it was before the tower of Babel.

So Sacred Scripture says that "all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered" ... ALL under the WHOLE HEAVEN.  We have the Holy Spirit deliberately adding the emphasis of ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven precisely to rule out Laisney's (and Robinson's) heretical "interpretation".

Laisney is a dirty Modernist heretic and should be treated as a vitandus along with Robinson.

Laisney is quite possibly a Modernist infiltrator.  His book about Baptism of Desire is an absolute atrocity, wherein, in one case, he was caught deliberately using ellipses to basically leave out a "not" that would have shown the Church Father in question believed and taught the exact opposite of what Laisney claimed.  Laisney also lied in that book that there was a "universal consensus" of the Church Fathers in favor of BoD.  It's quite the opposite, where 5-6 Church Fathers explicitly rejected it, while 1-2 (arguably and at best) floated the speculation.

Laisney then continues in this Modernist Manifesto:

Now when we study the book of nature, we find fossils that “tell” us that they are very old. Did God create dead fossils that appear to be so old, but in fact never lived? Were they created dead? Not a single Father of the Church ever claimed that! We should rather believe that God is as true in the Book of Nature as in the Scriptures!
...
At the end of your reflections you mention the principle of uniformity. This principle states simply that the Laws of nature, as we know them today, have been the same since the beginning of creation and shall remain the same until the end of time. Such principle is most certainly not opposed to the faith.

Here we have Laisney bowing down to the "Goddess Reason" (of French Revolution fame), equating the "Book of Nature" with the Sacred Scriptures.  On one level, it's true that God authored both nature and Sacred Scripture, but to elevate nature to being on the same footing as Supernatural Revelation is borderline blasphemous.

Of course, what Laisney is promoting here is not that NATURE is on the same footing as Scripture, but rather that MODERN SCIENCE (who INTERPRET fossils being "very old") has the same degree of AUTHORITY and INERRANCY as the Sacred Scriptures ... nay, rather, more.  If there's a contradiction between the interpretations (often admittedly driven by an atheistic agenda) of Modern Science and the Sacred Scriptures, it is the Sacred Scriptures that must give way, and the interpretations thereof by the Church Fathers, and so now we must throw overboard the Church Fathers as ignorami and also do violence to Sacred Scripture, to the point of saying there can be scientific or historical error in Sacred Scripture.  Since the Sacred Scriptures did not "intend" to teach about science (also parroted by Father Peter Scott), that equates to there potentially being scientific ERROR in Sacred Scripture.

So, in other words, Modern Science is more inerrant than Sacred Scripture, and Lyell and Darwin were more enlightened and intelligent than the Church Fathers. Disgusting.

Modern Science's claim that fossils are "very old" has been thoroughly debunked.

Modern Science has been driven by a deliberate and conscious AGENDA to destroy faith and to undermine the Scriptures.  In fact, the term "uniformity" (i.e. the principle of "uniformitarianism") was coined by Charles Lyell, a bosom buddy and pen pal of Charles Darwin.  In the correspondence between these two scuм, Lyell admits to basically making it all up, and not caring whether it's true or not, so long as with it he can gut Christianity and the Sacred Scriptures.  Darwin said similar things.

So here we have a Traditional Catholic championing the scientific philosophy of two avowed enemies of the Church who admit to making things up precisely to undermine Sacred Scripture over Sacred Scripture itself.

So when Laisney is pretending to praise the Book of Nature, he's actually championing the Book of Darwin and Lyell over the Sacred Scriptures.

This is wicked, and Laisney needs to be rejected as a manifest heretic and a non-Catholic.  If he does not convert, he'll indeed find out the true Catholic meaning of the term, "Outside the Church There Is No Salvation".

BTW, Big Bang theorists (among whom we have Robinson, Laisney, etc.) only cling to this magical (and admittedly made-up by a vowed enemy of Christianity) "law" of "uniformitarianism" when it's convenient to attack Sacred Scriptures.  Otherwise, as the Big Bang began to fail, its proponents have had to invent a period of time where the laws of nature were "suspended" or "different" ... to account for serious problems with it. 

Of course, even outside of "uniformitarianism", the Big Bang VIOLATES the known laws of nature, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the first being that matter and energy cannot be created (or destroyed), the second, of entropy, one facet of which is that disorganization / chaos cannot ever tend toward organization / order.

But these absolute and sacrosanct "laws of nature" (per Laisney) only remain inviolate when convenient in order to attack Sacred Scripture.  For, you see, God cannot violate them during Creation, but Mother Goddess Nature can certainly do so ... when the math behind Big Bang starts to fail.