The length of a day is not science, it's math and/or history, or a combination thereof.  The account of Genesis and the length of creation is ALSO a matter of HISTORY, not STRICTLY science.  The Church Fathers are called "fathers" because they learned directly from the Apostles.  We cannot sweep away their opinions on a whim.

Banezian MUST sweep them aside, since his beliefs do not correspond to theirs.  In order to hold his modern, liberal views, he must minimize the fathers to make room for his novel interpretation of scripture.  Anyone who holds the same faith and interpretation of scriptures as that of the fathers is labeled a "fundamentalist" by him and Robinson.

Since your and Fr. Robinson's ideas concerning the interpretation of Genesis are novelties, not seen in Catholic theology prior to the 19th Century, I challenge you to back up your interpretation of Genesis using the Fathers of the Church.  Your view is new, it is novel, and shows that you (and Father Robinson) have been infected by the liberalism that was slithering its way into the theology manuals of the last century and a half.  You will not find your interpretation of Genesis reflected in any of the writings of the fathers, doctors, popes, saints or councils.

.
Especially considering how modern scientists have been bowing and scraping to their idols:
Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin, who were amateurs, btw.
.
The vast ages of the geological record are all based on conjecture and have no basis in fact.
.
We have clearly seen firsthand how strata forms in a matter of seconds, not hundreds of millions of years. 
.
Ice cores taken in Greenland have been presumed to have strata and layers that represent years, when it has been found to be otherwise.
.
The layers that theorists presume to be seasons or years turn out to be due to a change in wind direction, which can happen many times a day.
.
The same layers are observed in the built-up snowpack 2' thick on a car's windshield that was in a blizzard for ONE DAY. 
.
A 200' deep shaft in the Greenland icepack to uncover and retrieve a P-38 exposed the same strata that had been thought to be millennia.
.
But the P-38, found at the bottom, was known to have landed on the Greenland surface in 1943, not 2,000 BC.
.
Mt. St. Helens erupted just a few years ago and formed what appears to be identical strata indicating 20 million years, in ONE DAY. 
.
A seal's carcass washed up on a beach in Hawaii, with fresh meat stuck to the bones, obviously having recently died, perhaps one month.
Sample bones were dried and sent to a lab for analysis.
.
The laboratory was not informed as to the condition of the carcass with fresh meat, and the results came back: 20,000 years old!
.
So much for the reliability of modern scientific dating of ancient fossils.

Of course other interpretations of Genesis 1 were not held before the 19th century, because they didn’t have the science that we have. The theory of evolution had not been proposed and carbon dating was not discovered. They worked with what they had. I recommend Fr. Robinson’s series on Scripture and science
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/scripture-and-science-the-voices-of-authority-part-1
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/scripture-and-science-the-voices-of-authority-part-2
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/scripture-and-science-the-voices-of-authority-part-3

I have read Fr. Robinson's book.  In fact, I pretty much grew up with Fr. Paul.  We went to the same chapel and used to hang out a lot before he went off to the seminary.  I'm not impressed by him (for a variety of reasons) or his arguments. 

So again, you ADMIT that your interpretation of Genesis is NOT of apostolic origin, that it was never held by the Fathers, and that it is new.

Three solid reasons to reject it. 

It takes a wicked amount of pride and arrogance to think you're smarter or know more than the Fathers. 

Anyone who holds the same faith and interpretation of scriptures as that of the fathers is labeled a "fundamentalist" by him and Robinson.

Right, the modernist tactic of calling orthodox catholics "antiquated" or "old fashioned", etc.  As if the Church needs "updating" to become more in line "with the times".

The fact of the matter is that one cannot come up with a new interpretation of Scripture unless you have FACTS to back it up.  There are NO scientific facts to back up a re-definition of day or the idea that the creation days happened over millions of years.  In absence of these facts, the new interpretation is unnecessary and baseless.

Give it you best shot Stan.  Knock it out of the park and we'll go from there.

Better to get some principles agreed first. Do you think it is possible for natural science to "prove" anything? If you don't, there's no point discussing it.

Sorry to interrupt this topic but the Forum should be reminded that AFTER the 1903 Conclave fiasco Pope Pius X appoints Cardinal Rampolla as Chmn of Pontifical Biblical Commission.....

Well, in that case, we could reject all opinions of the PBC since the chairman was a Freemason.  

[you that I'm just yanking your chain]

Sungenis Is a ridiculous fundie who makes the Church look bad with his fundamentalism.

Really?  I consider him to be a liberal.  

I don't believe in evolution, but I won't condemn everyone who does. The Biblical Commission made it clear that Catholics could interpret days as periods of time. (And if anyone thinks the Biblical Commission can be easily dismissed, remember that Lamentabili was a decision of the Holy Office approved in forma specifica by St. Pius X, same as decisions of the Biblical Commission.)

Furthermore, as to the claim that it's "modernist philosophy", most leading Thomists of the 20th century, including Garrigou-Lagrange, taught that some form of evolution from pre-existing matter was conceivable, within limits. Ott, another author trads should be familiar with, says "while the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Fundamentals, p95).

What does a possible metaphorical use of the term "day" have to do with evolution?  Evolution is stupid and it undermines Catholic teaching.

You can diverge from a strict literal sense only to the extent of understanding certain things metaphorically, not in dismissing them as false.

It's a contradiction against Scripture to say that God created man from anything but the "clay of the earth".  To say that God created man from monkeys is heretical.  There's no way it can be reconciled with Scripture.