Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book  (Read 9249 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online klasG4e

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2063
  • Reputation: +1164/-166
  • Gender: Male

Offline cassini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1799
  • Reputation: +1005/-121
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2018, 03:54:09 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • I see Angelus Press have now discarded the comment by Fr Rusak. Let us see if he ends up in the African Jungle where he can do no harm to Big Bang SSPX.

    They ought to be ashamed of themselves. This amounts to a hoax getting people to buy a Modernist book on the back of the SSPX. I wonder if there is an American law that covers such censorship of negative comments?


    Online klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2063
    • Reputation: +1164/-166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #47 on: November 18, 2018, 07:43:49 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I see Angelus Press have now discarded the comment by Fr Rusak. Let us see if he ends up in the African Jungle where he can do no harm to Big Bang SSPX.

    They ought to be ashamed of themselves. This amounts to a hoax getting people to buy a Modernist book on the back of the SSPX. I wonder if there is an American law that covers such censorship of negative comments?

    And here is the latest review they have posted.  I wonder how long it stays up!


    This book contradicts the Church Fathers
    Audrey, Nov 2018
    While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1799
    • Reputation: +1005/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #48 on: November 19, 2018, 04:28:52 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • And here is the latest review they have posted.  I wonder how long it stays up!


    This book contradicts the Church Fathers
    Audrey, Nov 2018
    While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.

    Feel free to post the following on Angelus's website. Let us stop this Big Bang creation nonsense. 

    ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists [or the SSPX's Fr Robinson]. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]



    [1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.



    Online klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2063
    • Reputation: +1164/-166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #49 on: November 19, 2018, 09:29:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Feel free to post the following on Angelus's website. Let us stop this Big Bang creation nonsense.

    ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists [or the SSPX's Fr Robinson]. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]



    [1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
    They are now blocking submission by putting up "Not all the fields have been filled out correctly!"  even though I filled out all the fields properly.  Also, I noticed that they are now down to a total of 13 reviews.  What a bunch of games they are playing!


    Offline ihsv

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 680
    • Reputation: +914/-116
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #50 on: November 19, 2018, 09:55:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They're clearly going to continue censoring any reviews on Angelus Press.  So, the solution is to hit them where they CAN'T censor: 

    I'm actually surprised that the amazon rating is as high as it is.  

    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. - Nicene Creed

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #51 on: November 19, 2018, 10:27:24 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • (1) ...To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy.
    (2) .... Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. ’
    [1]

    [1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
    Pera is an atheist, and the points in the passage you quote are standard atheist objections to the proofs for the existence of God. Why would you quote this (and paste it to other forums) in apparent approval?

    The first (1) passage is saying that the proofs for the existence of God only get you to Deism. There are many answers to this, but one is scope - proofs of existence shouldn't be expected to do more than prove existence.

    The second (2) passage is saying if God is known by reason, then God is not an object of faith. That is a more central issue. Catholics say that reason can know things, and specifically, it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that reason without revelation can know that God exists. The Church doesn't say that every human gets there, nor has the Church dogmatically defined that any specific proof is valid.

    So in practice, God is an object of faith for people (most people) who do not fully grasp a proof for existence of God from reason. And even for those who do fully grasp a proof for existence, the proofs don't necessarily get at everything we know about God from revelation, which still remains an object of faith.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 511
    • Reputation: +153/-220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #52 on: November 19, 2018, 10:38:25 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • When one has to CENSOR comment rather than challenge the content of that comment, this places that lot as no better than any anti-Catholic group.
    Interesting. You say censorship is anti-Catholic.
    Does that also apply to putting "downvotes" on old posts that criticise the rotten arguments of geocentrists?


    Online klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2063
    • Reputation: +1164/-166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #53 on: November 19, 2018, 11:37:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting. You say censorship is anti-Catholic.
    Does that also apply to putting "downvotes" on old posts that criticise the rotten arguments of geocentrists?
    Maybe you can tell us what the "rotten arguments" were.  By the way Stan, are there any good arguments for geocentrism and if so what are they?

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1799
    • Reputation: +1005/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #54 on: November 19, 2018, 02:09:49 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Pera is an atheist, and the points in the passage you quote are standard atheist objections to the proofs for the existence of God. Why would you quote this (and paste it to other forums) in apparent approval?

    The first (1) passage is saying that the proofs for the existence of God only get you to Deism. There are many answers to this, but one is scope - proofs of existence shouldn't be expected to do more than prove existence.

    The second (2) passage is saying if God is known by reason, then God is not an object of faith. That is a more central issue. Catholics say that reason can know things, and specifically, it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that reason without revelation can know that God exists. The Church doesn't say that every human gets there, nor has the Church dogmatically defined that any specific proof is valid.

    So in practice, God is an object of faith for people (most people) who do not fully grasp a proof for existence of God from reason. And even for those who do fully grasp a proof for existence, the proofs don't necessarily get at everything we know about God from revelation, which still remains an object of faith.

    Pera may be an atheist but he hit the nail on the head here above. The Big Bang is atheism's ROCK. Pius XII, tried to make an atheist rock Catholic dogma. Big Bang is the mother of all evolution therories. For me evolution is nonsense. To match God with nonsense when we have direct creation by God as revealed in Genesis is a betrayal of tradition, no matter who says it is not.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1799
    • Reputation: +1005/-121
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #55 on: November 19, 2018, 02:13:08 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Interesting. You say censorship is anti-Catholic.
    Does that also apply to putting "downvotes" on old posts that criticise the rotten arguments of geocentrists?

    I have written on this forum that I do not approve of 'downvotes.' I prefer to answer the rotten arguments against geocentrism as revealed in the Bible.


    Online klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2063
    • Reputation: +1164/-166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #56 on: November 19, 2018, 07:15:43 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • And here is the latest review they have posted.  I wonder how long it stays up!


    This book contradicts the Church Fathers
    Audrey, Nov 2018
    While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.

    This one star review may have been up for less than 24 hours,  In any event, it has now been disappeared down the Angelus Press memory hole, that place assigned for inconvenient reviews.

    Online klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2063
    • Reputation: +1164/-166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #57 on: November 20, 2018, 10:19:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This one star review may have been up for less than 24 hours,  In any event, it has now been disappeared down the Angelus Press memory hole, that place assigned for inconvenient reviews.
    Now, the review has been put back up, but now Fr. Robisnon has posted a reply to it as seen below.

    This book contradicts the Church Fathers
    Audrey, Nov 2018
    While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.

    FROM FR. ROBINSON:
     Dear Audrey,
     

     I am a little uncertain as to whether you have read my book. The reason for my doubt is that, while it does deny geocentrism, it does not deny the Great Flood. Rather, it affirms that the Flood happened. Moreover, it puts forward the standard pre-Vatican II Catholic position that the Flood was ethnographically universal, while not being geographically universal. (see chapter 7 for this)
     
     Secondly, you seem to imply that the Fathers held a belief in a literal creation, while I do not. On the contrary, I affirm a literal creation in the fullest way possible in chapter 2 of my book.
     
     If, on the other hand, you are referring to the way in which the Fathers understood the word ‘day’ of Genesis 1, then there was certainly not unanimity on that question and so it is impossible to follow all of the Fathers. Those who want to follow the Syrian and Latin Fathers will hold that God created the world in six natural days of 24 hours each. Those who want to follow the Cappadocian Fathers will hold that the universe was created instantaneously and developed from there. Those, finally, who want to follow the Alexandrian Fathers will hold that ‘day’ is only to be understood figuratively and does not refer to any actual chronological time (by the way, St. Athanasius was of this opinion and it was one of the opinions of St. Augustine).
     
     If you have not yet had a chance to read the book, I warmly invite you to do so. There are many important distinctions to be made in this discussion which are set out in the book. And you will find there essentially the same teaching—at least on Scriptural matters—that I received at the seminary and which is standard at SSPX seminaries.
     
     God bless, Audrey.
     
     Fr Robinson

    Online klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2063
    • Reputation: +1164/-166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #58 on: November 20, 2018, 08:21:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Now, the review has been put back up, but now Fr. Robinson has posted a reply to it as seen below.

    This book contradicts the Church Fathers
    Audrey, Nov 2018
    While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.

    FROM FR. ROBINSON:
     Dear Audrey,
     

     I am a little uncertain as to whether you have read my book. The reason for my doubt is that, while it does deny geocentrism, it does not deny the Great Flood. Rather, it affirms that the Flood happened. Moreover, it puts forward the standard pre-Vatican II Catholic position that the Flood was ethnographically universal, while not being geographically universal. (see chapter 7 for this)
     
     Secondly, you seem to imply that the Fathers held a belief in a literal creation, while I do not. On the contrary, I affirm a literal creation in the fullest way possible in chapter 2 of my book.
     
     If, on the other hand, you are referring to the way in which the Fathers understood the word ‘day’ of Genesis 1, then there was certainly not unanimity on that question and so it is impossible to follow all of the Fathers. Those who want to follow the Syrian and Latin Fathers will hold that God created the world in six natural days of 24 hours each. Those who want to follow the Cappadocian Fathers will hold that the universe was created instantaneously and developed from there. Those, finally, who want to follow the Alexandrian Fathers will hold that ‘day’ is only to be understood figuratively and does not refer to any actual chronological time (by the way, St. Athanasius was of this opinion and it was one of the opinions of St. Augustine).
     
     If you have not yet had a chance to read the book, I warmly invite you to do so. There are many important distinctions to be made in this discussion which are set out in the book. And you will find there essentially the same teaching—at least on Scriptural matters—that I received at the seminary and which is standard at SSPX seminaries.
     
     God bless, Audrey.
     
     Fr Robinson

    Now we have a very interesting development.  Robert Sungenis has pulled no punches in dealing a real solid hammer's blow to this response by Fr. Robinson.  A traditional Catholic should applaud Sungenis' traditional Catholic critique of Fr. Robinson's SSPX sponsored and promoted writing.  Fr. Robinson and the leadership of the SSPX must be held accountable for Fr. Robinson's remarkable departure from Catholic tradition.

    Response to Fr. Robinson’s: “This book contradicts the Church Fathers”
    Audrey, Nov 2018

    “While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed
    that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in
    fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark
    matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous
    opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and
    Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers
    in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church
    Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.”


    FROM FR. ROBINSON:
    Dear Audrey,

    Fr. Robinson: I am a little uncertain as to whether you have read my book. The reason
    for my doubt is that, while it does deny geocentrism, it does not deny the Great Flood.
    Rather, it affirms that the Flood happened. Moreover, it puts forward the standard pre-
    Vatican II Catholic position that the Flood was ethnographically universal, while not
    being geographically universal. (see chapter 7 for this)

    R. Sungenis: Unfortunately for Fr. Robinson, the Bible does not speak of an “ethnographically
    universal” flood, but only of a geographical universal flood. It is precisely why Genesis 7:19
    says: “The waters rose greatly on the Earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens
    were covered.” Please notice that the only way to cover all the high mountains is to have the
    water rise above the highest mountain on the Earth. Also notice that these are not just mountains
    in Noah’s ethnographic vicinity, but mountains “under the entire heavens,” not just a small
    section of the heavens.


    The Bible is also clear that ALL of mankind was destroyed in the Flood and that only eight
    people survived (1Pet 3:20), and hence the ethnicity of the human population or its ethnographic
    dimension had nothing to do with it.

    As for the label, “standard pre-Vatican II Catholic position,” this is little more than an
    anachronism that makes it appear that because local flood theories (as opposed to a global flood)
    existed among some Catholics prior to Vatican II, this somehow positions local flood theories as
    if they sprung from the tradition of the Church. That is false. The modernist’s views of a local
    Flood were already in vogue in the late 1800s among liberal Catholics, the same liberal Catholics
    who were touting Evolution and that most of Genesis was myth. After Vatican II, their
    unorthodox views just became more prominent. Prior to the liberals of the 1800s, the Catholic
    Church, from the Fathers through the medievals, believed in a global flood.

    Fr. Robinson: Secondly, you seem to imply that the Fathers held a belief in a literal
    creation, while I do not. On the contrary, I affirm a literal creation in the fullest way
    possible in chapter 2 of my book.


    • R. Sungenis: Fr. Robinson is misdirecting. His book only affirms that God literally created the
      world, period. He does not affirm the details or the chronological sequence stated in Genesis 1;
      and, in fact, does everything he can to avoid them. That is because he believes in the Big Bang,
      which states that the stars come before the Earth, whereas Genesis 1 says the Earth came before
      the stars. He also believes that God created new species over millions of years after the Creation
      period in Genesis 1, but the Bible knows of no such thing.

      Fr. Robinson: If, on the other hand, you are referring to the way in which the Fathers
      understood the word ‘day’ of Genesis 1, then there was certainly not unanimity on that
      question and so it is impossible to follow all of the Fathers. Those who want to follow
      the Syrian and Latin Fathers will hold that God created the world in six natural days of
      24 hours each.

      R. Sungenis: But you won’t find any of this in Fr. Robinson’s book, yet it is the Latin Fathers
      who make up the bulk of the Church writing about these issues. Nor does he have anything in his
      book showing that the Fathers believed in a global-geographic flood. There wasn’t one
      dissenting voice.

      Fr. Robinson: Those who want to follow the Cappadocian Fathers will hold that the
      universe was created instantaneously and developed from there.

      R. Sungenis: That is false. There were three Cappadocian Fathers: Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and
      Gregory Nazianzus. Of the three, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa were in agreement that the Days of
      Genesis were 24-hours.

      Basil: “Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a
      night.…If it therefore says ‘one day,’ it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and
      night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one
      day – we mean of a day and of a night” (Hexameron 2, 8 ).

      Gregory of Nyssa: Gregory confirms the views of Basil on the details of the Creation in the
      following passage: “Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the
      saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed”
      (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69).

      As for Gregory Nazianzus, he does not address any specifics concerning the Days of Creation. If
      Fr. Robinson has a quote from him that the universe was created instantaneously, I’d like to see
      it. In any case, none of these Cappadocian Fathers believed in the long-age universe Fr.
      Robinson believes in.

      Also notice how Fr. Robinson makes no room for the eastern Fathers who believed in a six-day
      creation, such as:

      Chrysostom: “Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a
      single moment,’ he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts’...so that,
    • accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we
    • do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings” (PG, Homily 3, col 35);
    • Cyril of Jerusalem: “In six days God made the world.…The sun, however resplendent with
      bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve
      us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment...The sun was formed by a mere command,
      but man by God’s hands.” (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5); “...but the earth is from the waters: and
      before the whole six days’ formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon
      the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world...” (Catechetical Lectures 3, 5);

      Clement of Alexandria: “For the creations on the different days followed in a most important
      succession” (Stromata, Book VI, Ch 16).

    Fr. Robinson: Those, finally, who want to follow the Alexandrian Fathers will hold
    that ‘day’ is only to be understood figuratively and does not refer to any actual
    chronological time (by the way, St. Athanasius was of this opinion and it was one of the
    opinions of St. Augustine).

    R. Sungenis: St. Athanasius did not believe the Days of Genesis 1 were figurative. Those who
    think he did simply misread his statement from Discourse Against the Arians, Discourse II, 48.
    There Athanasius says:

    “For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second,
    but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was
    the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants;
    thus too has the race made after God’s Image come to be, namely men; for though
    Adam was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole
    race.”

    In other words, Athanasius is saying that when the stars and sun were made, they were not made
    at different days or times but only during the Fourth Day; when the birds and fish were made,
    they were also made in one day, the Fifth Day, and so on. He gives no hint in his other writings
    that he believed in an instantaneously created universe.


    As for the “Alexandrian Fathers,” no one entertained the idea that the Days of Creation were
    more than 24 hours, so it is a misnomer to say, “those who want to follow the Alexandrian
    Fathers,” as if there were many of them. The only Father to even entertain the Six Days were not
    literal was Augustine, but he never abandoned the position that the Six Days were literal.
    Unfortunately, Augustine entertained a non-literal view based on his misread of the biblical text
    which came to him in various mistranslated Latin texts (e.g., Vetus Latina Biblia), and since
    Augustine didn’t read Greek very well, he misconstrued the meaning of Sirach 18:1. Instead of
    reading it properly as “God created all things without exception,” he read it erroneously as “God
    created all things at once.”

    Fr. Robinson: If you have not yet had a chance to read the book, I warmly invite you to
    do so. There are many important distinctions to be made in this discussion which are set

    out in the book. And you will find there essentially the same teaching—at least on
    Scriptural matters—that I received at the seminary and which is standard at SSPX
    seminaries. God bless, Audrey. Fr Robinson.

    R. Sungenis: The SSPX gives us a mixed bag of information and conclusions, and that is
    because it has never really hammered out the facts of either the science or the biblical exegesis. I
    invited you to read my commentary on the SSPX’s position as it relates to the issues Fr.
    Robinson has stated above, which can be found at https://gwwdvd.com/2018/11/13/response-to-the-sspxs-2011-press-release-on-geocentrism/   


    November 20, 2018


    Online klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2063
    • Reputation: +1164/-166
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #59 on: November 21, 2018, 06:25:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The below quote by Fr. Rusak is one of the rotating TESTIMONIALS found at the bottom of this linked page: https://gwwdvd.com/blog/
    The good Padre has been a staunch defender of geocentrism and the work of Robert Sungenis.

    Quote
    This serious presentation of the cosmology of the universe is totally in line with the Holy Scriptures inspired by God. In addition, it proposes what seems to be the best cosmological model to fit today's most recent scientific evidence. Unbiased persons viewing this DVD set will certainly be impressed and encouraged on to further study. Believers will be strengthened in their Faith, while doubters will seek, as always, other explanations for what appears to be evident.
    Fr. Gerard Rusak

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16