Produced by the media Bishop Barron and his "fiery boys"... 

Yep, the flame boys or flaming boys.

For all that the Conciliars tout Mr. Barron as some conservative, he's a textbook Modernist, having articulated numerous heresies in public.  That shows you how perception has shifted.  Barron would have been defrocked by St. Pius X and would never have even sniffed episcopal consecration.  And the chief error all boils down to EENS-denial and religious indifferentism.  I've listened to a lot of the conservative EWTN personalities, and many of them are completely solid ... until they touch upon the subject of EENS, at which point the wheels come off their wagon and they go full heretical.

That's how they played this game.  Wojtyla went out there as a "conservative" on morals and held the line, and feigned some public displays of piety, was occasionally photographed with a rosary in his hands ... and thus was turned into St. JP2 the Great.  Because of his conservatism on moral issues, and his fake reputation for sanctity, the Conciliar conservatives bought his heresies on doctrinal matters, just like you administer poison by hiding the taste in sugar.  Now that Wojtyla destroyed dogmatic theology, Bergoglio is coming in to finish the job by destroying moral theology.

Correct Ladislaus.

First let us see what the Catholic Church teaches:

‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ (Lateran Council IV, 1215)

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) (Vatican Council I, 1870)

‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming.

‘From nothing’ means God did not make things out of things that existed, as evolution would have you believe. God finished His Creation, the Earth and the sky, and all active in them, completed in their whole substance. Most of the Church Fathers held all these were done in a literal six-day Creation until Saint Augustine proposed that all was created complete immediately but presented in Genesis by way of six-days metaphor to emphasise each order of His Creation.

‘So then, although it is without any stretch of time being involved that God makes things, having ‘the power to act available to him whenever he will,’ (Wisdom of Solomon 12:18) all the same the time-bound natures made by him go through their temporal movements in time.’--- St Augustine, commentaries on Genesis.


In any case, both describe a perfect finished creation in no more than six days.    

Just so others know what Fr Paul Robinson, SSPX, is up to out there, teaching the following to their seminarians.

‘This position of the Flood as being geographically universal meets with serious scientific difficulties. For one, how can you get enough rain to cover the entire earth?... In other words, the laws operating on the Earth today cannot be applied to the time of Noah… One of the motivations for Brown to postulate water coming from below [the Earth] is that the Bible describes the waters of the Flood as coming both from the ‘fountains of great deep’ and the ‘floodgates of Heaven’ (see Gen, 8:2) …. Clearly this is a popular, but not a scientific description.’--- Fr Paul Robinson. The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, Gracewing, 2018, pp. 274-275.

Wow, this is even worse than I thought.

In any case, Fr. Robinson dismisses the clear description that the waters of the flood covered the ENTIRE earth above the highest mountain tops.  Now, it's possible that the mountains weren't quite as high as they are now, since there was a huge amount of geological upheaval, most likely during the time of the great flood, that created mountains, but there's no ambiguity that Sacred Scripture quite clearly says that the ENTIRE earth was covered and to ABOVE the highest mountains.

Now in this quote he also dismisses the waters coming from the "fountains of the great deep" as popular rather than scientific.  What does that mean?  Just poetry?  What is this "popular" view of the fountains of the great deep, Father?  See, a Catholic (or even Prot) who believes in the inerrancy of the Sacred Scriptures would ask perhaps where these waters came from, how they were generated, etc. ... but never question that there were waters coming up from below the earth's surface.

But even recent "scientific" findings throw egg all over Fr. Robinson's face.  I saw one study where it says that there's more water in and beneath the crust of the earth than in all the oceans combined.  We've only ever dug down about 9 miles, so we have absolutely no idea what's down there, and there's nothing to rule out vast underground oceans below that point.  God could have caused a rupture of the earth's crust to allow waters to flow up.  Scientists simply make up their nonsensical theories about what's under the earth's surface, present them as fact, especially to young children in school, but then are constantly "baffled" when their various theories are invalidated.  Similarly, if you believe in space, the Webb telescope (and other "scientific" findings) are invalidating the Big Bang and the "expanding universe".  So it was very foolish for Fr. Robinson to hand his hat on the latest passing scientific theory ... at the expense of Sacred Scripture.  I recall in reading some passages from the Church Fathers about the shape of the earth where one Father called out the constant churn in the latest fashionable theory about the matter, with one displacing the next every few years.  But I guess these "Biblicists" happened to be wiser that Fr. Robinson.

With his derogatory term "Biblicist", an insult to the Church Fathers and to the Doctors and theologians through at least the time of St. Robert Bellarmine, and, what's worse, an insult to the Holy Ghost, the Author of Sacred Scripture, and all who have revered Sacred Scripture as the Word of God, Fr. Robinson puts both his irreverence and his hubris / extreme arrogance on display.

Fr. Robinson has also championed the concept of "uniformitarianism," which was popularized by an individual who openly expressed contempt for Sacred Scripture and made it his life's mission to destroy belief in it, a buddy of Chuck Darwin, Chuck Lyell.  Really?  When, as Fr. Robinson claims, the earth is 4.6 billion years old, we can be sure that conditions haven't changed ever and that the earth was basically the same 4.6 billion years ago as it is now?  Does he have any idea how long that is and how many things can change, from atmospheric conditions to geology?  How does he know there wasn't a water canopy above the earth (one theory)?  He does he know the atmosphere wasn't far more humid?  How does he know that there weren't fluctuations in radiological phenomena, due to shifts of the earth's magnetic fields?  Fr. Robinson knows absolutely nothing and is supremely arrogant despite his pretensions to being all-knowing.  He clearly looks down on the average, uneducated Trad Catholic, complacent in his "erudition" while actually showing himself to be supremely ignorant.

Fr. Robinson also rejected appeals from Traditional Catholics to sign objections of conscience against the jab.

Fr. Robinson is a Modernist masquerading as a Traditional Catholic priest.

Just so others know what Fr Paul Robinson, SSPX, is up to out there, teaching the following to their seminarians.

‘This position of the Flood as being geographically universal meets with serious scientific difficulties. For one, how can you get enough rain to cover the entire earth?... In other words, the laws operating on the Earth today cannot be applied to the time of Noah… One of the motivations for Brown to postulate water coming from below [the Earth] is that the Bible describes the waters of the Flood as coming both from the ‘fountains of great deep’ and the ‘floodgates of Heaven’ (see Gen, 8:2) …. Clearly this is a popular, but not a scientific description.’--- Fr Paul Robinson. The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, Gracewing, 2018, pp. 274-275. 

The Flood was a supernatural act of God, not a natural flood. But Fr Robinson demotes it to a ‘scientific’ natural flood, denying Moses his account.

‘[12] And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. [18] For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: [19] And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains.’--- Genesis.

In his book, The City of God, St Augustine, in his chapter, ‘Of the ark, and the Deluge, that the meaning thereof is neither merely historical, nor merely allegoric,’ defends a world covered in water and how the Ark saved man and all the living creatures that lived on its lands. St Augustine adds:

‘Who but an atheist… First they imagine it impossible that any flood should become so huge as to exceed the height of any mountain fifteen cubits…’(Chapter  XXVII)

Moreover, the mountainous worldwide sediments present evidence of a global flood? Take also the vast deposits of silt and salt found in the Euphrates Valley in Iran, a high plateau 4000 to 5000 feet above sea level. Is that not enough scientific evidence to show the Flood had to be global? Does Fr Robinson's 'science' believe these could have been caused by local floods? Not very scientific is he?

And the SSPX threw out Bishop Williamson instead of this heretic?