CathInfo.com

I just finished listening to this, and it's an unmitigated disaster and also demonstrates a great deal of mendacity on the part of Fr. Robinson.

So, first he tries to equate evolution with chemical processes, such as elements combining for form various molecules, etc.  That's his deceptive way of rendering the term "evolution" acceptable.  But no one is discussing chemistry or even micro-evolution when rejecting the term "evolution".  But he tries to justify the term deceptively, the same way that macro-evolutionists point to micro-evolution as proof for evolution.  He goes a step further back and tries to use chemical processes to make the term acceptable.

Then he lies about (distorts) the record of the Fathers, making it seem as though the Church Fathers were all over the map in interpreting Genesis.  He states that a "lot of Latin Fathers" believed in an instantaneous creation.  In point of fact, this was the theory almost exclusively of St. Augustine, and he wasn't certain of it.  Then he cites "Origen" as his authority for the "allegorical" interpretation of Genesis.  Not only was Origen condemned (and thus one of the few "Fathers" not considered a saint) for numerous heresies, his position was much more nuanced, as a lot of Fathers had DUAL interpretations of the Scriptures, one historical and the other allegorical, and held that both meanings were there.
https://creation.com/origen-origins-and-allegory

Then he goes on to praise Lyle's "uniformitarianism."  Lyle was an openly-declared enemy of the Sacred Scriptures and boasted of his desire to gut belief in them.  Kolbe Institute has done great work to show that uniformitarianism is condemned by the Church and always has been.

Then he makes the absurd false claim (lie) that 24-hour days of creation were invented by Protestants, despite having earlier admitted that the majority of the Church Fathers actually held this view (despite his earlier appeals to Origen and a "lot of Latin Fathers", aka St. Augustine).

He is not incorrect that St. Pius X permitted holding that the term "day" could have been longer than 24-hours, but he's obviously using this as the smokescreen to cover the rest of his unacceptable views of Sacred Scripture.  St. Pius X also declared that Genesis must be held to be historical and inerrant as a historical work, but Fr. Robinson rejects that view and ignores that aspect of the PBC's clarifications under St. Pius X.

Finally he appeals to all these "pre Vatican II" theologians who held his Modernist views, pretending that anything pre-V2 was acceptable.  This garbage has been around in "Catholic" circles for hundreds of years.  St. Pius X had to condemn Modernism well over 100 years ago, and the assertion that if a pre-V2 theologian held a position, it must be Catholic, is utterly absurd.

This was an extremely deceptive tactic to introduce and inject his Modernist views of Sacred Scripture into the minds of Catholics using the Trojan horse of the possible metaphorical (not allegorical) use of the term "day".  If he stopped there, I'd have no issues with him.  But we know full well that he doesn't stop there, and uses that as leverage to undermine the historicity of Sacred Scripture in general, and thus bring down on himself the condemnation of the same PBC that he deceptively appeals to as justification for his Modernism.

For those interested in the Days of Creation/Genesis issue, I fully endorse and recommend the videos of Ken Ham, a Protestant, who covers this issue almost perfectly.

Yes, Protestant Ken Ham gets this right, while a TRAD, VALIDLY ORDAINED PRIEST Fr. Robinson gets it wrong! That's how it goes sometimes.



For those of you in C-level Executive positions, making 6-figure salaries, you can skip ahead to the real meat at 2:30 if you need to save a couple minutes.

He makes many good points, including:

1. No one disputes the meaning of "day" when they talk about how many days they marched around Jericho, or how many days Jonah was in the belly of the whale. But when it comes to Creation, they fall all over themselves for alternate definitions.

2. Most important: there is no other way to interpret the Hebrew "Yom". There are certain "markers" which force the interpretation as "24 hour day". For example, when you mention morning and evening, when you put a number next to it, etc., then it means a 24 hour day. Long story short, the Holy Ghost went OUT OF HIS WAY to put in not just one, but multiple markers, kind of like He knew that idiot modernists and evolutionists in the 20th/21st century would try to play with the meaning of this particular part of Scripture.

I really need to refer you to the actual video however. I found it enlightening, fascinating, and I learned something. I don't know much about Hebrew, so I have to rely on others who do.

I just finished listening to this, and it's an unmitigated disaster and also demonstrates a great deal of mendacity on the part of Fr. Robinson.

So, first he tries to equate evolution with chemical processes, such as elements combining for form various molecules, etc.  That's his deceptive way of rendering the term "evolution" acceptable.  But no one is discussing chemistry or even micro-evolution when rejecting the term "evolution".  But he tries to justify the term deceptively, the same way that macro-evolutionists point to micro-evolution as proof for evolution.  He goes a step further back and tries to use chemical processes to make the term acceptable.

I read parts of the Fr. Robinson book, and he holds a bizarre "hybrid" position which involves this strange concept. He endorses what he labels "cosmic evolution" which involves the whole Big Bang situation (that the Big Bang was basically evidence of God's "act of creation", concepts of star and galaxy formation, star formation, chemical processes, etc.).

Then, later on in the book towards the end, he entirely rejects biological macroevolution ( monkey to man etc.) on the basis of philosophy (partly from St. Thomas or others), as well as lack of biological evidence. So the end result is pretty weird...he believes in the Big Bang cosmologists (what he calls "cosmic evolution") for formation of the universe, but (correctly) rejects macroevolution of animals (biological evolution) for formation of species. Altogether, a very strange and seemingly inconsistent combination...