Years ago a friend of Fr. PR's was in UL Speed Engineering School; the guy was a Protestant, and took instruction and ended up converting to Catholicism.  This guy brought up the theory of "Black Holes" with me, postulating that matter is sucked into these Black Holes and consequently destroyed.  I wrote him a small refutation stating that sound philosophy is, "Matter can undergo change, but can never be destroyed."  Insofar as matter exists, it is good, and good can never be destroyed; and that evil in the philosophical sense, is a privation.  A one-winged bird suffers the privation of a wing, and this is evil, in the sense it is a consequence of evil, lacking something due to its nature. This was the short of it.  There were multiple issues with his philosophic principles which he failed to see.  

The guy took a job with Ratheon down in Texas and eventually lost the faith.  It is apparent, and experience has proven time and again, that many people enter the godless universities, and without having solid philosophical principles, their thoughts become corrupted, and they abandon the Faith.  But in the end this man left the Faith because of the flesh, and, as any informed Catholic knows, people almost never leave the Faith because of some intellectual aberration. 

That is bat-shit insane. I'm sorry. There's only one reason to adopt "random chance and millions of years" to explain all the wonders of this brilliant-design-and-order-filled Creation, and that's to escape the reality that God created the world, God created US, we have an immortal soul, we have been given Commandments by God, we owe God our love, obedience, and respect, and we will be judged by God one day.

It's like he can't quite bring himself to go whole-hog on the Modernism. No matter. Fr. Paul Robinson is the priest equivalent of Pope Paul VI, who was a divided man, a split personality. I'll never forget the artwork that was done of him -- it accurately captured his essence. I wish I had a copy of it.

But remember, Paul VI implemented the Novus Ordo Missae, while also declaring that "The smoke of satan" has entered the Church. He was a two-faced man. A torn man, a tragic figure.

Exactly-the Fr. Robinson book (and his overall outlook) struck me as a kind of chimera; it is composed of discordant parts and is split between different viewpoints. He doesn't want to go "full-throttle", and so adopts a very strange, discordant middle ground which seems to be biased from a personal liking for Big Bang cosmology. From the very first "kick-off" event of the book at St. Mary's, I was astounded by just how much undue credibility he assigned to the Big Bang cosmology and all of its adherents. He treats it as though it is all a rock-solid idea, when even mainstream astronomers are starting to doubt/revise what is thought of Big Bang cosmology!

And then he blends the orthodox Thomistic arguments in with all of this novelty, and argues that St. Thomas supports it (or at least doesn't contradict it). I'm not sure how many people read the book/were influenced by it, but it might be worthwhile for someone with an advanced theology/philosophy background to do a full "dissection" and analysis of it, especially of the way he uses (or misuses) his Thomistic references.

Maybe slightly off-topic, but it was also fascinating to observe the reactions to the book when it was "advertised" by Fr. Robinson in-person. Some were interested/favorable, but to be honest many seemed either confused or highly suspicious of it. There definitely seems to be a camp that favors him (how else would he be making all these videos/talks), but it would be interesting to assess how significant it really is...

The "Smoke of Satan" that Montini was referring to was in the form of criticism of Vatican2 and the NOM. He was not saying that the NOM was the result of Satan. The Smoke was coming from the naysayers, like Cardinal Ottaviani.

That's debatable, what he meant. But nevertheless I'll concede your point for the sake of argument.

How about a better example?

VATICAN II

Have you ever read those docuмents? One foot firmly in the camp of Tradition and love of the Catholic Faith, and the other foot firmly in the camp of the World and complete contradiction with said Faith. And statements from EACH OF THESE SIDES often followed upon one another immediately!

Vatican II is the classic chimera, blending Catholicism with Conciliarism. But once again, lets ask ourselves: Which of these sides grew more powerful in successive years and generations? The modernism. Vatican II did its job -- it made a break with Tradition, and it set the gears of heresy in motion. Human nature, Original Sin, darkness of the Intellect, and the influence of the World did the rest.

I have read at least 4 books by priests of the Catholic Church who preferred the Big Bang story of origins in preference to the supernatural revelation in Scripture:

Fr Ernest Hull, SJ: Galileo and His Condemnation, London Catholic Truth Society, 1913.
Fr Sean Kealy, CSSP: Science and the Bible, Columba Press, 1987.
Fr Brendan Purcell: From the Big Bang to Big Mystery, Veritas Publications, 2012.
Fr Paul Robinson SSPX: The Realistic Guide to religion and Science, Gracewing, 2018.

All four ignored the Dogmas on creation

And then there is Fr. Georges Lemaître, the physicist who originated the Big Bang theory and who always seems to get trotted out by contemporary neo-Thomists as the poster boy for what is possible when one uses one's God-given gifts of reason and inquiry.... Was Lemaître just another modernist academic masquerading as a priest, or was he a promising mind led astray by a corrupted formation?

Let's recall that Fr. KEVIN Robinson is a fine priest who should not be confused with the "other" one. I particularly like that he stays abreast of genuine science and he is always looking to the welfare of his flock.

I believe this be the dangerous priest we speak of yes???

Fr. Robinson gets to have the dishonor of being corrected by MARTIN LUTHER of all people.

Yes, Martin Luther is the good guy in this particular quote! (Remember, there is no such thing as "pure evil" especially in human beings! Outside of Hollywood movies and cartoons, of course.)

Martin Luther’s best-known doctrine:

‘If someone equipped with the tools of reading could reinterpret the text of either the Bible or the Book of Nature – independent of intervening layers of authority – whole new possibilities of understanding could emerge in the natural sciences as well as in theology.’--- The First Copernican, p.21.

In 1539 the Catholic Bishop John Dantiscus of Warmia in Poland published an expulsion order from there against all dissidents from Roman Catholicism. As a canon under Bishop Dantiscus, Copernicus was given a personal warning ‘not to be led astray by those under suspicion of the main heresy that he had in mind: Lutheranism.’ Two months later, however, the Lutheran Rheticus arrived at Frauenburg to meet Copernicus to offer him ‘assistance’ in developing his ‘new conception of the heavens.’ As his quest was supposedly ‘astronomical and not theological,’ this Lutheran was not considered a threat in any way, not even to Bishop Dantiscus, who heard of their friendship. For the next two years Copernicus and Rheticus worked together to get De revolutionibus finished. We see then that the heliocentric heresy, conceded to more and more by many from then onwards, had its origins connected to Luther’s Protestant doctrine.

The modern, secularised world-view was nurtured by the religious consciousness of modern Europe. Robert Merton, for example, argued that Puritanism and Pietism [Lutheran reforms] played a role in modern science [see p.125]. With Pietism however, we are coming close to the occult philosophy and it is possible that early modern esotericism was of special importance in preparing the way for the Scientific Revolution.’--- B. J.Gibbons, Spirituality and the Occult, Routledge, 2001, p.40

Kepler was a Lutheran.

Galileo said: ‘I am about to go to Rome, summoned by the Holy Office, which has already suspended my Dialogue. From reliable sources I hear the Jesuit Fathers have managed to convince some very important persons that my book is execrable and more harmful to the Holy Church than the writings of Luther and Calvin.’ ---  M. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.72.

 On the other hand:

‘Which [universe] is right? It would be very simple to me which is right, if it were only a question for human import. But the wise and truthful God has expressed Himself on this matter in the Bible. The entire Holy Scriptures settles the question that the Earth is the principal body of the universe, and it stands fixed, and that the Sun and the Moon only serve to light it.’-- Lutheran Teachers’ Seminary, St Louis, Astronomische Uterredung, 1873.

The above quote, taught in a Lutheran seminary, shows more faith in the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures concerning its revelation of a geocentric world in 1873 than did Catholic churchmen of the Holy Office of that time and since. Moreover, to our knowledge, there is no record of any Catholic Church institution defending a geocentric reading of the Bible after 1820.