SSPX Priest Publicly Chastises Fr. Robinson and Angelus Press for Modernist Book


No doubt, many critical reviews of Fr. Paul Robinson’s (SSPX) shockingly modernist book “The Realist Guide to Religion and Science” have been expunged from the Angelus Online website, in order to protect the manufactured 5-star rating.

I can say this with absolute certitude, since my own critical submission was deleted a mere 6 hours after having posted it!

This time, however, there is a fortuitous fly in the proverbial ointment:

One of Fr. Robinson’s brother priests has actually submitted a blistereing indictment of both the book, and Fr. Robinson, in the Angelus Online reviews, and no doubt, the Angelus isn’t yet quite sure how to handle it.

That the SSPX has actually marketed such a book, promoting evolution and rejecting the consensus exegesis of the saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church regarding the creation account in Genesis, is staggering.

But it did send the clear message to Rome which seems to have been the intent:

The SSPX is coming to terms with modernism, and getting on board.

For months, we have wondered where the outrage of the emasculated and branded SSPX was.

Well, at least one of them seems not to have been completely deadened to the odious modernism infecting nearly the entire corps of the Society from the top down (“The fish rots first at the head”), and which pervades Fr. Robinson’s putrid book:

The appraisal of Fr. Gerard Rusak (who no doubt has already received calls from the US and Canadian Districts) follows:

"Failure to consider all the evidence

Father Gerard Rusak, FSSPX , Nov 2018

“While Father Robinson excels on philosophical points in the first six chapters of his book (1 star), he accepts the unproven hypotheses of the Big Bang (with its long ages needed for evolution) and he rashly embraces heliocentrism. Meanwhile, he brushes aside those who do not agree with him using insufficient arguments (see below). His interpretation of the Bible is more in accord with a liberal interpretation of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum #11 rather than with the traditional teaching of the Church on the inerrant nature of Holy Scripture. This allows him to pick and choose among facts related in the book of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. He also ignores the longstanding decrees of the Church against Galileo and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church [on] these same questions. On these last issues, his insufficient arguments have been completely refuted by a book by Robert Sungenis: “Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church” (564 pages).
I thank the Angelus Press in advance for posting this review and request them to add to their list of books the above book of Robert Sungenis so that both sides of the question may be heard. Or should they not wish to do so, to withdraw Father Robinson’s book from sale from this their website.
I may add that I know other SSPX priests and faithful like myself who are shocked at the publication of this book for at least some if not all, of the above reasons.”


Wonder what Fr. Ruzak would think if he knew one of his priestly brothers (Fr. Celier in France) published his own book with a Foreword written by a Freemason (a personal friend of his), and that the purpose of this book was to persuade the SSPX clergy to go along with a practical accord (i.e., reject the position of Archbishop Lefebvre after the 1988 consecrations)?



Fr. Ruzak accuses Fr. Robinson of interpreting Scripture in the modernist fashion of Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, #11, but he clearly meant #12 (i.e., Paragraph 11 is perfectly orthodox, but is immediately contradicted and eroded by paragraph #12), which states:

"12. However [Always a “however!”], since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)"

So, when #12 speaks of “literary forms,” it is advocating in “V2 speak” overlooking the plain and/or literal meaning of the text, in order to draw from the text a merely moral (i.e., not historical) lesson, which is (allegedly) really what the inspired writers wanted to communicate (and it is therefore not the historical accounts of the Scriptures which are inerrant, but the lesson the accounts wished to impart).

This is precisely what I was taught in conciliar seminary Old Testament class.

It is how the rationalists (who deny the supernatural order, and therefore miracles), can claim to accept the inerrancy of Scripture:

Faithless, they simply concoct an exegesis which removes the stumbling block!



Fr. Gerard Rusak, SSPX


I am told Fr. Rusak’s condemnation has now been removed from the review section of Angelus Online.

As predicted.


Now we’re just waiting for Fr. Rusak to receive his new “assignment” … in Timbuktu :grin:



In the medieval universities they promoted something called the “disputatio” and in a bit of irony the SSPX seems to prove that it doesn’t want to have an actual rational debate on this question. I say irony because the SSPX would normally be advocates of the scholastic method, no? If Fr. Rusak is wrong, prove that he is wrong or establish some sort of formal debate.

The undergraduate, or artist (that is, a student of the liberal arts), attended lectures, took part in occasional disputations in class, and attended the formal disputations of others. His professors — or masters, as they were known — typically lectured on an important text, often drawn from classical antiquity. There was heavy emphasis on Aristotle. Alongside their commentaries on these ancient texts, professors gradually began to include a series of questions to be resolved through logical argument. Over time, the questions essentially displaced the commentaries. Here was the origin of the question method of scholastic argument, of the kind found in St. Thomas Aquinas" Summa Theologiae .

Such questions were also posed in what was known as the ordinary disputation. The master would assign students to argue one or the other side of a question. When their interaction had ceased, it was then up to the master to “determine,” or resolve, the question. To obtain the Bachelor of Arts degree, a student was expected to determine a question by himself to the satisfaction of the faculty. (Before being permitted to do so, however, he had to prove that he possessed adequate preparation and was fit to be evaluated.) This kind of emphasis on careful argument, on marshaling a persuasive case for each side of a question, and on resolving a dispute by means of rational tools sounds something like the opposite of the intellectual life that most people associate with medieval man. But that was how the degree-granting process operated. (I myself have taken mischievous delight at imagining poor Messrs. Knight and Lomas trying to defend their anti-Catholic nonsense before an audience of true scholars.)

What is the SSPX afraid of?


Yes, let’s see where is the most remote area of the world where he can’t make a “scene”?


He will establish the SSPX’s first mission in northwest Greenland.


The most thorough and best documented critique of this poisonous book is without a doubt the new 575 page book by Dr. Robert Sungenis: Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church – A Critical Analysis of:The Realist Guide to Religion and Science." See


I just received it, but have yet to read it; I have high expectations for it👍


So happy to hear that! You will absolutely not be disappointed. It is an incredibly good book. I can hardly stop reading it.


With the long weekend, and the ability to stay up later than normal, I am hoping to read the first couple hundred pages by Monday (and the whole thing in a couple weeks).

When I finish it, I intend to write a review here.