Yeah, Father Paul Robinson, contrary to the words of Sacred Scripture that describe the Flood as inundating ALL the earth, to the point that the highest mountains were covered by water, holds to the "Local" or "Regional" Flood theory, with his rationale being that there could never be enough rain to cover the entire earth.  This begs the question that there isn't a firmament holding waters away from the earth, and it ignores that fact that the fountains of the deep also burst forth.  Father Robinson also ignores Sacred Scripture's description of the "Deep", which were the waters beneath the earth.  Not to mention that Local Flood is absurd on the face of it.  In the many decades that it took Noah to build the ark, he could have just packed up and moved out of the region.  Why was there a need to take all the animals aboard?  God too could have just caused any animals that would be in danger of extinction (i.e. those that were to be found ONLY in the region where the Flood occurred) to migrate, as there's at tradition that God had the animals come to Noah's ark.  How is it that the ark remained afloat for 40 days before Noah even opened the window and the flood waters remained for 150 days?  If a Local Flood, it would have dissipated in hours just due to the water leveling.

Basically Father Robinson's Local Flood theory reduces the Flood to a fairy tale.  That's contrary to anything believed by any Church Father.  It's heretical.  Father Paul Robinson is a Modernist heretic.  I do not make this accusation lightly, but the Holy Office and St. Robert Bellarmine would have condemned him as a heretic ... and rightly so.  He's as bad as any of the Modernist Jesuits that I tussled with for years (8 years of Jesuit education between Jesuit High School and Jesuit University).

Genesis 6: 18-24
So how do I read this as Local Flood without undermining all of Sacred Scripture?  You can't, unless I don't understand what the meaning of "all" is and what the meaning of "is" is.  I guess that the Hebrew language was very confusing, where many means all (the consecration), and evidently all means many (Genesis Flood).  Hey, I have an idea ... just flip the words in the Hebrew Lexicon.  And once you turn the Flood and the Creation account into fairy tales, what else in Sacred Scripture is a fairy tale, a metaphor, an allegory, etc.?  It undermines the authority of all Sacred Scripture.  That is why I saw dozens of young men at Jesuit High School lose the faith, primarily due to the undermining of Sacred Scripture by the Modernist Jesuits.

Not defending Paul robinson


but if he is a heretic for this, how do you reconcile with humani generis saying evolution of the human body could be debated

Like I’m sure you believe pius xii was wrong to allow that.  But since he was in your view a true pope and you aren’t r and r, you’d have to say someone could follow what he said and not be a heretic right? 

Not defending Paul robinson


but if he is a heretic for this, how do you reconcile with humani generis saying evolution of the human body could be debated

Like I’m sure you believe pius xii was wrong to allow that.  But since he was in your view a true pope and you aren’t r and r, you’d have to say someone could follow what he said and not be a heretic right?

Father Paul Robison is verbatim contradicting the Genesis account of the Flood.  Theistic evolution is a bit more slippery.  Pius XII certainly made a grave mistake in permitting it to be studied, but he did not approve of it, simply allowed discussion of it within certain parameters.  That was a prudential error.  But there's nothing openly and directly contradictory between some theory of theistic (God-guided) evolution and anything in Sacred Scripture.

Think of it this way.  Holy Office (with St. Robert Bellarmine) declared heliocentrism heretical on the grounds that it contradicted Sacred Scripture and the unanimous Patristic interpretation thereof.  Father Paul Robinson is doing exactly that.  His Local Flood theory contradicts verbatim the Sacred Scriptures which clearly state that all flesh was destroyed, all the earth covered above the highest mountains, etc.  Theistic evolution doesn't directly and verbatim contradict anything explicitly in Sacred Scripture.

Just read again the citation from Genesis about the Flood.  Now, try to come up with an explanation for why "Local Flood" does not butcher the sense and the credibility of Sacred Scripture, which does not mince any words but emphatically and repeatedly states that all flesh was destroyed, all the face of the earth covered, that no flesh remained on earth except for Noah and those on the ark, that the tallest mountains were covered by 15 cubits, that the flood waters lasted 150 days, that 40 days passed with the ark afloat before Noah even opened the window, etc.?  How can that POSSIBLY be reconciled with Local Flood?  Really, the only way would be to reduce the Genesis Flood account to a fairy tale of some kind, a myth.  If Genesis exaggerated by claiming that all the earth was covered with water, then maybe Our Lord was exaggerating (to get a point across) some of his moral teachings or some other points of doctrine.

Now let's say I'm a young Traditional Catholic and read this book being promoted by SSPX and read about the Local Flood.  Then I pick up and read the Book of Genesis.  What do I do with that if I'm that young man?  Well, the obvious answer is that the Genesis Flood account is just a fanciful story, a myth, a fairy tale.  Then what do I do with the rest of Sacred Scripture?  What other fairy tales, allegories, and metaphors might lurk in Sacred Scripture?