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 nαzιanzus. 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 nαzιanzus, 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 
Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book (Read 14497 times)