Can Catholics Believe in a Literal Six-Day Creation?
Jimmy Akin | 22 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X_4c7yneC0
Let me break down a few things about 100 + years ago.
In 1920, a Jesuit in Paris got imprimatur from his bishop (not from Rome) to publish a Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique.
In it on Hexaëmeron, he proposed, for what I thought the first time, the Framework hypothesis, or "six days is a literary form" ... but he did go through the earlier theories and what he thought wrong with them. I was wrong by one year, French Dominicans in École biblique of Jerusalem were proposing this already in 1919.
This is by the way my view on when the Great Apostasy
began ... but only small scale. Or was prepared.
Now the earlier theories were:
- six literal days directly continguous to the first act of creation ("literalism")
- the six days are long periods ("périodisme" / "day age theory")
- the six days were literal, but a restoration of creation after a disaster after a longer existance of heaven and earth than what came after ("gap theory")
EACH had defenders in written publications up to 1890's, and the only which went back to before Lyell, before the 1830's, was the first one. In France or specifically Paris (I think the latter), literalism was still prevailing in the 1860's and day age had taken the upper hand in the 1880's.
In 1909, the most famous defender of day age, Fulcran Vigouroux, answered dubia in Rome, and he stated in answer VIII (I think) not that day age was a perfectly licit interpretation, but that it was semantically or philologically possible and could be discussed freely, so both with full endorsement and full rejection, between theologians.
In the exact same year, the Pope, St. Pius X, canonised St. Clement Maria Hofbauer. His doctor, a convert from Judaism, a good friend of his, was one of the guys enumerated in the 1920 article as defending literalism.
Johannes Emmanuel Veith.
Now the Jesuit, his name was Mangenot, by the way, Émile Mangenot, also gave a breakdown on what he thought was wrong with each theory previous to his own framework theory.
Literalism - the Pyrenees are far older than the Alps, and even so there was not enough water to cover the Pyrenees to full height. In other words, if you could argue that the Alps had risen after the Flood, you couldn't do so for the Pyrenees, where the height is incompatible with Genesis 7:19—20. Notably, if the current height was the one back in the Flood. But he argued it must be, the Pyrenees were flatter than the Alps, because they had been as pointed at first and then worn down by time. I'd argue the Pyrenees are flatter because they rose by a different process, if folding by a different degree of folding.
Day Age — all attempts to identify creation days with known geologic periods or eras or epochs had failed.
Gap theory — no major disaster at the beginning of the Quaternary.
I agree on both of these, with a caveat that a defender of Gap Theory could try to exaggerate the importance of the Younger Dryas if he wanted.
Two more things.
1) For the full position of Fulcran Vigouroux, let's not stop at Day Age. He also believed in a large regional Flood, universal as to mankind but not earth, and survival of pre-Flood fauna and flora elsewhere, and in some kind of species fixism. He also believed that Genesis 5 was strict chronology, but Genesis 11 could contain gaps (beyond the only some versions omission of II Cainan). If needed. Preliminarily, he considered Adam had been created c. 5500 BC, using the full LXX chronology. He never got any indication that Genesis 11 actually needed more time, and he never retracted taking these chapters literally, and so he never backtracked on Adam in 5500 BC. He also never got any chance of defending a regional only Flood, as he had done by 1909 for the word yom in the Day Age interpretation.
2) At this time no one had seen any carbon dates. No one had any reason to doubt that a Neanderthal or a Cro Magnon, if fully human (denying which I consider another part of apostasy), were alive after 5500 BC. Even with the two Old Earth theories. (Cardinal Wiseman was the more famous one for Gap Theory).
Now, if a Neanderthal dates by carbon to 47 000 BP (which one near but not in Gorham Cave does) and if he was fully human, which he was, and if the Church up to this time was right that Adam didn't live "700 000 years ago" (as per not-fully Trinitarian WLC), but c. 5500 BC or most probably later, then we cannot uphold any Old Earth theory with good logic.
Only on a young earth could carbon 14 levels have been still this low.
1:31 Where is that one?
Sounds like Framework theory.
In both the Diocese of Stockholm and the now Archdiocese of Paris (which was a Diocese in the Middle Ages), Novus Ordo Catholics have met me with an attitude as if § 283 at least exacted
obsequium religiosum and therefore effectively
prohibited at least openly professing and arguing for literal six days, literally 6000 to 7000 + years ago in a cosmos that's Geocentric and possibly 1 or 2 or 3 light days in radius.
3:03 How about you decide whether
your version of Catholicism allows or prohibits my cases on more than one blog, but essays in English would be on
Creation vs Evolution
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/
for Genesis 1 to 11 being:
- up to creation of man prophecy
- from creation of man history
- as history accurate (with some possible, in my view probable terminological surprises)
- and accurate about anywhere it touches on science as in how the world always works (including Geocentrism, but there I'd prefer Joshua 10 or Romans 1 as proof texts).
When it comes to what one can believe about Adam, you are
so concerned to give all the possibilities that the magisterium allows, not limited to your own position, but when it comes to making a case for literal accuracy, you are suddenly squeamish about there being other positions than yours. I have not hidden your exposé of "Adam as representative" on my blog.
And I have made an update on that not necessarily being your position, but it was one of three positions you exposed as possible.
I hold that the "Adam as rhetoric figure" position changes the nature of the freewill involved in the fall, collectives not enjoying freewill, so that one really reduces to Supralapsarian Calvinism, and instead of hiding "Adam as representative" I argued against it. For instance, why would an as yet unfallen humanity need to approach God by a representative?
3:56 Here is the exact quote from Pius XII, Humani Generis:
38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.
I get the feeling that he is a canon lawyer who is out of his depth and makes concessions without knowing exactly what they mean, but he restricts them in such a way that they end up meaning "it's history, but the telling is somewhat sketchy and can contain figures of speech" ...
The wording "simple and metaphoric" is not exactly enlightening, and "adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured" is not very relevant. To the questions here asked.
Because you can have Walt Disney retell Paul Revere to boys reading Huey Dewey and Louie, reading from the Junior Woodchucker's handbook and that is adapted to US proletarian five to nine year olds who are a population very little cultured, but it's still an accurate story of Paul Revere as far as it goes.
I recently, after hearing El Pendón Estrellado, heard a more full and accurate retelling of Paul Revere, on a channel dedicated to the American Revolution. There was no factual contradiction to what Huey, Dewey and Louie had said.
4:18 So, Genesis 1 to 11 is not Thucydides (I don't see it as all that different from Livy), and it is not Theodor Mommson (whom Pacelli must have come to know as Nuncio in Germany).
That's a very far cry from endorsing anything like a Literary Framework theory.
4:31 "but it does not favor that position."
Do you mean it does not favour the position it is accurate as far as it goes? I'd disagree about Pius XII. And I obviously disagree with that position.
Or do you just mean it does not favour the position it is a detailed account that can be used as reference for normal human curiosity? I'd agree with both you and Pius XII and on this being the actual status of genre of these chapters.
4:47 ouch
Young Earth Creationism is
not just the denial of significant time (more than a week) between the first creation act and the creation of Adam.
It's
also the affirmation of Abraham being in twenty-odd generations from Adam, which involves Genesis 5 and 11.
It's also the affirmation that Bronze and Iron age are post-Flood rediscoveries of metallurgy, while the original discovery by Tubal-Cain was in the pre-Flood culture we presumably haven't found yet. Or rather, I'd say, Neanderthals represent the pre-Flood about like Chingachgook represents the 18th and Winnetou the 19th CC AD. But we do not have any pre-Flood Versailles or Radebäul in our archaeology.
It's also the affirmation that carbon 14 levels have been lower and have risen since then, and this is relevant as far into the Bible as Genesis 14. Asasonthamar is Engaddi, and it's archaeology has no significant population between the Chalcolithic (carbon dated from reed mats to 3500 BC), and the Iron age. BUT in Genesis 14 there are Amorrhites there, and Abraham being c. 80, this must have been c. 1936 BC. The kind of fluctuations in atmospheric C-14 content that archaeologists acknowledge do not go down to 82 pmC, which the 1564 extra years imply.
What did Horace say about the nodding of another poet in Ho-?
Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus (had to look it up). But on this issue, you dormitas pretty often, Sir!
5:00 "Catholics are perfectly free to adopt that position."
Why then are my writings basically treated as if on the Index, when defending them?
I have plenty of essays which would not from your position be schismatic, as they don't mention my views on Novus Ordo or on who's the real Pope. I started out with it while still going to SSPX, while it enjoyed the lifting of excommunications, which is still to this day endorsing the same pope as you as being pope. Or actally earlier, but I started showing it to the parish St. Ambroise in this period. Great hospitality as to food, but not a great welcome to a Young Earth Creationist!
[the video isn't over, but I end on this question]
