On pp 1-2 of Robert Sungenis' new 564 page book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of: "The Realist Guide to "Religion and Sicence" we find this remarkable passage: "A good friend of mine who is a priest in the SSPX confided the following to me: 'Let me just note that being in the SSPX for over 35 years now, there have always been priests who did not accept 6-day Creation, and who would not even have considered geocentrism as an option , and who were open to certain forms of evolution.  The SSPX has always been a mix of ideas of everything that was still considered orthodox in the 1960s.  Those in authority have feared to accept new creationist and geocentric proofs which have come forth since the 60's, and have willed to keep a 60's - 70's mentality, despite new proofs, or have not been willing to consider as serious science anything which has come forth from geocentric or creationist arguments.  I know, however, several priests open to geocentrism, etc., in the SSPX.  You will also note that Father Robinson's book [The Realist Guide to "Religion and Sicence] was curiously published by Gracewing Publishers and not an SSPX publisher such as the Angelus Press.  Perhaps Father Robinson wanted a wider readership, at the same time Angelus Press might have realized that such a book would rock the boat among SSPX faithful."

I personally know of one SSPX priest who in a seemingly rather daring move a few years ago not only invited Dr. Sungenis to his parish to speak on geocentrism, but also set up a public debate between Sungenis and another individual on the subject of geocentrism at the local state university.  The university audience was initially rather hostile to Sungenis, but in the end he carried the day when a final vote tally was taken of all those in attendance.

In all seriousness, can anyone think of a worse (and more dangerous and more scandalous) book that has ever been officially sold by the SSPX in their entire history than The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX?  Surely, this is one of the greatest testaments to how far astray the leadership in the SSPX has gone.  They need to be made aware in the strongest of terms that the book is outright modernism, plain and simple.

https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science

Robert Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of: "The Realist Guide to "Religion and Science" provides a very thorough and devastating analysis and rebuttal of Fr. Robinson's book from a completely traditional Catholic perspective.  See https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/new-book-by-robert-sungenis-scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/

http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/

Modernist science (i.e. which was started by anti-catholic Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ (i.e. the "modernists) to attack the Church) is opposed to the Church Fathers' teachings and also the Magisteriums of the Middle Ages (when the Church was at the HEIGHT of orthodoxy).  Fr Robinson supports modern science at the expense of the Church Fathers and previous magisterial teachings.  Ergo, Fr Robinson is a modernist (in this one area).

You're defending Heliocentrism and I'm attacking evolution (the errors of evolution could've never come about without the errors of heliocentrism first, but evolution's errors are far more nefarious than heliocentric's sun worship (which is satanic, by the way)).  The Church Fathers' didn't have much to say on flat earth/geo/heliocentrism, but they had GOBS to say about Genesis, and Adam/Eve and creationism.  Science doesn't support evolution, neither does the Church and neither does the Bible.  

Fr Robinson's main error is that he drives a wedge between Scripture and the Church, by falsely ignoring the Church Fathers and lying that the Church has never taught anything related to Science/creationism.  Therefore, he argues, we are free to believe what modern science says (even though the facts don't support evolution) about Genesis, because the origins of the world are in the realm of science and not religion.  Pure Garbage.

Fr does not directly say these things, but he implies them. If you read Sungenis’ response to his book on the other thread, Sungenis explains how Fr glosses over certain facts which erroneously allows him to accept modern science’s views, even when they are contrary to the history of the Church.  

.
Pope Pius XII did a dangerous thing when he left open the door for Catholics to believe in evolution.
.
The bottom line is that evolution always has as its primary goal, to undermine the dogma of original sin.

I believe in evolution. John Henry Newman and Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange both said evolution is compatible with Catholic teaching. Evolutionism isn’t, but one can accept evolution without being a materialist.
http://iteadthomam.blogspot.com/2010/09/garrigou-lagrange-on-evolution-aka.html
 http://inters.org/Newman-Scarborough-Darwin-Evolution

If you believe in evolution, you’re a modernist by philosophy.  You implicitly accept that “science” (ie heretical lies posing as facts) is superior to Faith.  The account of Genesis must be accepted with the simple faith of a child and to challenge the ages-old Church view of creationism is to exalt man’s reason above revelation.  It is to exalt man’s “modern” understanding above the wisdom of the saints of the “dark ages”, who were the pillars of and cause for the growth of our entire Western civilization.  

Until you come to realize that evolution and modern science is a satanic attack on Catholicism, a subversion of the material over the spiritual and an attempt to exalt man’s intellect over Divine Truth, then you’ll continue in your philosophical errors, even if you don’t explicitly agree with the errors that evolution (in any degree) represents.  It is our fate that we modern men are so awash in error and half-truths (since Protestantism in the 1500s) that we have all compromised our Faith in some manner, even if just mentally.  But we must continue to strive and pray for wisdom so that God will enlighten us and renew our minds. I’ll pray for you.

Your mind is  just clouded by fundamentalist thinking. That’s not how Catholics read Scripture

It is statements like this that cause many of our children to leave tradition.

Nonsense! 

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.) 

More nonsense.
.
The PBC has no authority at all. It is purely a consultative body.
.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_en.html

The new Pontifical Biblical Commission
On 27th June 1971, in the context of the great work of post-conciliar reform, Paul VI, with the Motu proprio Sedula cura (cfr. AAS 63 [1971], 665-669), established new norms for the organisation and functioning of the Biblical Commission, in order to make its activity more fruitful for the Church and better adapted to the contemporary situation.
.
This apostolic Letter marks a radical change for the role and organisation of the Commission. In fifteen brief articles the new structure is defined: the Members are no longer Cardinals, who are assisted by consultors, but teachers in biblical sciences coming from various schools and nations, who are distinguished ‘for their learning, prudence and Catholic respect for the ecclesiastical Magisterium’ (art. 3).
.
From this change of structure there follows necessarily a change of nature and of functions. Since it is no longer composed of Cardinals, on the model of the Roman Congregations, the new Biblical Commission becomes a consultative body, placed at the service of the Magisterium and linked to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Prefect of which is also the President of the Commission (cfr. art. 1).