Catholicism & Creation

Who has said to our savants: "This phenomenon is due to the deluge; that phenomenon had nothing to do with it?" Do not such distinctions appear founded less on solid reasoning than on the apprehension of a miracle, or rather on the dread of the extent of the action of a miracle?

- Msgr. Jean-Joseph Gaume, Catechism of Perseverance, Vol. 1 (Dublin, 1886), p. 120.

https://www.youtube.com/live/7dwipVD3GjQ?is=F4LEIQkklhnhQo8E We should probably change the title and thumbnail of the video, because Alex Poe and I didn't have the chance to review the Pinesap vs. XboxLive Republican debate before the stream (we both have kids, it happens), so there wasn't actually much commentary. Hopefully soon there will be a proper analysis from Integrity. As AR said on the stream, it was a false dialectic of sorts - both parties were right, in a primary sense. Pinesap's references to some modern pre-concilair ecclesiology (Dom Paul Nau, etc.) was particularly interesting.

For on the first day He produced light, indeed not simply from nothing, but, what is a marvelous work of divine power, from the very opposite of light, namely from darkness... On the second day He likewise produced the firmament, or expanse, from sheer nothingness, for no matter appeared from which it could have been brought forth. On the third day the earth indeed, at God's command, brought forth plants and trees, but instantaneously, without any preceding alteration and without any seminal power. On the fourth day He fixed the shining stars in the heavens, having brought them forth by no other means than His omnipotent power. On the fifth day the waters poured forth birds and fishes, but in a moment, and not by their own power but solely by the power of God. For how could waters, entirely devoid of life and sensation, have bestowed life and sensation upon living creatures? Likewise, on the sixth day God commanded the beasts and cattle to spring forth from the earth as from a womb; not by its own power or fertility, but solely by the command of God the Creator.

- Rev. Fr. Claude Frassen, O.F.M., Disquisitiones Biblicae in Universum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1705), Q. V, p. 8.

Apparently, a clarification is needed here. At the end of this video, in reference to my forthcoming paper on the Flood, I said that the Global Flood should be held as a "pious belief." As a friend pointed out, I should have been clearer, as many people take that phrase to simply mean a safe belief that has no theological certainty. I meant it in the sense that Suárez uses it, i.e., a belief held by the church, the contrary of which has not been condemned as heretical, per se. As the Doctor Eximius explains, there are varying degrees of theological certainty among these beliefs. Some are so certain that the contrary opinions are temerarious and erroneous, especially if they go against the Fathers or even indirectly touch upon greater matters of the faith. In my forthcoming paper, I establish the the local flood theory, if taken to its logical conclusions, is temerarious and erroneous. This is not to accuse all local flood theorists of the mortal sin of temerity, of course, but we may judge the opinion when viewed universally.

Part 2 of my series on Dei Verbum: shorturl.at/Bs1Du This article covers the teachings of the Popes and Doctors on Scripture's historical and scientific inerrancy, and how the Modernists at Vatican II vocally rejected these teachings during the Council. Part 3 will examine how this rejection shaped the final text of the Council's declaration on Scripture.

As regards the body, Adam indeed was produced from the clay, while Eve came forth from Adam's rib. Yet in neither case was there any seminal power capable of forming the human body. Rather, this formation took place not through any transformation or successive motion, as the generation of bodies ordinarily does, but instantaneously and by the sovereign command of God alone, which is characteristic of creation.

- Rev. Fr. Claude Frassen, Disquisitiones Biblicae in Universum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1705), Q. V, p. 8.

Creation in a strict sense means bringing something out of nothing, but the Bible also uses this word to describe the formation of new things out of preexisting matter. As Fr. Frassen notes here, both meanings denote an instantaneous act of God. When God made each thing in this world, living or not, he made it in an instant.

Now creation properly so called requires three conditions: 1. that something come into being from no pre-existing matter; 2. [or,] that it come from matter incapable of and unprepared for the form introduced into it; 3. that it be produced without any prior disposition, without motion, and in an instant. In the first manner God produced heaven and earth; in the second, all those things narrated in the first chapter of Genesis as having been made during the six days.

- Rev. Fr. Claude Frassen, O.F.M, Disquisitiones Biblicae in Universum Pentateuchum (Paris, 1705), Q. V, p. 8.

My favorite part of Plato's Timaeus is when Timaeus explains that, in the absence of divine revelation, human reason can only speculate about the origin of the world, without attaining certainty.

But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible... If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further.

My favorite part of Plato's Timaeus is when Timaeus explains that, in the absence of divine revelation, human reason can only speculate about the origin of the world, without attaining certainty.

But the father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible... If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire no further.

When I posted about Ven. Mary of Agreda, I noted that I didn't know of any other Catholic visionaries who claimed to have been revealed the true age of the world. I recently found out that there is one other: Anne Catherine Emmerich. 

I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time that I beheld Jesus teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Phar­isees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He told them that the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was Himself thirty-one years old.

- The Life of Jesus Christ, Vol. I, Ch. 9. Again, this is private revelation, so make of it what you will. It's interesting that her account conflicts with that of Ven. Mary. I must point out however that Ven. Mary's testimonies have historically received much greater scrutiny and censure from the Church and seem to be less trustworthy - not that she lied, but it seems hard to distinguish certain opinions from revealed truth in them. The accusations against Clemens Brentano's character and the claim that he heavily embellished Emmerich's visions are not nearly as well-founded as many make them out to be. The writings also accurately describe things that neither Emmerich nor Brentano could have had any knowledge of, like the house of Mary at Ephesus (her description was used to identify the building, which the Church made into a shrine and pilgrimage spot), and specifics of the Hebrew calendar.

One thing many theologians talk about is how the work of redemption is greater than the work of creation, and therefore was accomplished over long ages, in contrast to the creation, which was swift.

There are two works of God, by which all things that have been made are brought to completion. The first is the work of founding, by which those things were made which were not; the second is the work of restoration, by which those things were repaired which had perished. The work of founding is the creation of the world with all its clementis. The work of restoration is the incarnation of the Word with all its sacraments, whether those which went before the incarnation from the beginning of the age, or those which follow after up to the end of the world. The first works, therefore, were made for service, that they might be subject to man while he stood by righteousness. But the second were made for salvation, that they might raise up man as he lay by fault: therefore these are the greater. For this reason the former, as being a slight and scanty token of the divine power, were completed in a short time, that is, in six days only. But the latter, as excelling in comparison with the former and having a greater effect of power, cannot be brought to completion save in six ages.

- Hugh of St. Victor, De Scripturis et Scriptoribus Sacris, Ch. II.

Read my new article on Integrity Magazine, Part 1 of a series on Dei Verbum's rupture with Tradition. https://integritymagazine.org/2026/07/27/vatican-ii-vs-tradition-dei-verbums-attempt-to-overturn-church-teaching-on-the-authorship-of-the-gospels/

Someone dropped this link in one of my GCs. Utterly arcane pull. 🧙‍♂️🧪 https://www.halos.com/

Bishop Sanborn (one of the best bishops out there) starts with a good formulation: pending a formal judgement which would make us obligated, we are still obliged, by the unanimous consensus of the Scholastics and the Fathers, to treat Genesis literally. However, without any prejudice to him, I must in charity point out two things the good Bishop got wrong:  1. The numbers of years in the chronologies. The Septuagint chronology gives about 5200-5500 years between Creation and Christ, which would make the world about 7200-7500 years old. The Hebrew/Vulgate Chronology gives roughly 4000 years between Creation and Christ, making the world roughly 6000 years old. 2. More importantly, St Augustine did NOT say the creation could have taken place over a very long time: he said the exact opposite, many many times!

Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at the plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.

- St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 4, ch. 33, 51-52. This issue is simply not reducible to the meaning of the word yom. While the theory of a long and slow period of creation is not condemned as contrary to the faith, it is an objectively erroneous position which creates serious theological difficulties. I dare say that many of the arguments for it, when examined carefully, appear borderline temerarious in account of their opposition to the ex professo teaching of the Fathers and Scholastics. Nor need they be entertained, because the findings of true science accord very well with a recent creation. This is not Bishop Sanborn's mistake: he is simply reading material from the 19th century, which saw the tragic proliferation of shoddy patristic and scholastic study in the theological manuals, at least as far as this topic is concerned. I pray that one day Traditionalists are able to see through and move beyond the falsehoods spun about this topic by the 19th century Concordists. If any of you are close with the good Bishop, I humbly encourage you to share this with him. I think he would find a lot of valuable material for scrolling through this channel. Benedicite, omnia opera Domini, Domino!

How old is the earth?

Bishop Sanborn starts with a good formulation: pending a formal judgement which would make us obligated, we are still obliged, by the unanimous consensus of the Scholastics and the Fathers, to treat Genesis literally. Here are two things the good Bishop got wrong:  1. The numbers of years in the chronologies. The Septuagint chronology gives about 5200-5500 years between Creation and Christ, which would make the world about 7200-7500 years old. The Hebrew/Vulgate Chronology gives roughly 4000 years between Creation and Christ, making the world roughly 6000 years old. 2. St Augustine did NOT say the creation could have taken place over a very long time: he said the exact opposite, many many times!

Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at the plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.

- St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 4, ch. 33, 51-52. I pray that one day Traditionalists are able to see through and move beyond the falsehoods spun about this topic by the 19th century Concordists.

One thing everyone should understand in this discourse is the different uses of the term "figurative". As the Saints explain, figurative language is not inherently opposed of the literal sense, unlike symbolic or mystical language. A historical narrative can use figures of speech. When the Saints and Theologians oppose a "figurative" interpretation of Genesis, they mean a purely figurative interpretation, which opposes a straightforward understanding of the words. Conversely, when they speak of figurative language in Genesis, they are referring to figures of speech meant accommodate readers who would not easily grasp technical language. We find figures of speech in the early chapters of Genesis, such as anthropomorphic language about God ("speaking, breathing, etc.") . But this does not mean that these descriptions are not proper descriptions of how the events historically took place. As St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine explain, Moses used simple, sensory language, "according to appearances", precisely because the people were not adapted to precise terminology, and were ignorant of spiritual things. This means that Moses accurately yet simply described the beginning of the world as it pertains to commonly known physical things. People sometimes cite the Theologians and Saints saying that Genesis was written in language accommodated to simple people to argue that it is not to be understood on a proper or literal sense. But this truth actually reinforces why the text ought to be taken literally and historically, and the words should not be read in an asbtruse or tortured and specious sense - otherwise, the intended audience could not have grasped the true meaning. When Pius XII writes that the early chapters of Genesis are written "in simple and figurata (often translated as metaphorical, but really more properly as figurative) language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured", this actually redounds more to a straightforward reading of the words, rather than a contrived or artificial one meant to adapt them to scientific hypotheses about origins. To do so would be to impute a technical meaning to the words which Moses did not intend.