Do Catholics interpret the Bible literally?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catechumen08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catechumen08

Guest
Hi, this is something that I’ve been wondering about. I’ve read that this is what some Protestants do, but Catholics give more emphasis to the meaning and spirit of the Bible. Is this the case?

Thanks in advance!
 
Some parts we interpret literally, some we do not. The Bible is 73 different books all written in different ways and for different purposes. There are historical records, instructional letters, prophecies, allegories, parables, poetry, songs, and various other things.

But you are right that the meaning and spirit are what is most important. As St. Jerome said:

“And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning.”

👍
 
historical accounts like the gospels, acts, and some of the OT books like exodus are all literal. However books like revelation, and the creation stories of genesis are not trying to convey literal historic accuracy, but the meaning the author meant to convey is still there.
 
historical accounts like the gospels, acts, and some of the OT books like exodus are all literal. However books like revelation, and the creation stories of genesis are not trying to convey literal historic accuracy, but the meaning the author meant to convey is still there.
Thanks, AaronsStaff. I guess my question is more along the lines of who made that initial determination as to which books to take literally, and which books to not take literally?

Anyway, speaking of genesis, just a interesting tidbit of information I saw somewhere. I think the Pope recently said something about evolution, and how it can be reconciled with the Bible and the evidence can be interpreted within the confines of the Bible.
 
That’s very interesting! How is that determination made?
Through a lot of study and research–knowing the cultural norms and the literary styles that were employed, seeing how the Early Church Fathers interpreted them, etc. For example, prophecies like Daniel and Revelation fit in the apocolyptic genre–they therefore have very heavy symbolism and shouldn’t be taken strictly literally (e.g. we shouldn’t expect to see an actual woman riding around on a real monsterous beast). On the other hand, the letters of St. Paul give concrete instruction to the faithful–for the most part we take what he says at face value (of course, he also uses literary devices like metaphors and similies). Likewise, books like Kings, Chronicles and Esdras are meant to be literal historical accounts.

Of course, most books in the Bible work on multiple levels. For example, actual historical events that happen to the Israelites are also symbols and foreshadows of greater spiritual realities that God will more fully reveal in Christ and His Church.
 
An interesting question concerning this is when did catholics stop interpretating the bible literally? When i studied mediveal history many catholics believed the genesis account to be literal but now very few do. My problem now arises when one considers what we take literal and what we dont… why is it we take this literally but not the other… when in the past it was. It gets very confussing… i had a talk with a very liberal catholic priest who essentially said all of Jesus’ miracles were meant to protray something, that they didnt happen literally… and he only accepted the ressurecton as literal… now that seems strnage, for why does he deny everything else but that.
 
The church’s view and overall interpretation of the Bible has never changed: it is part of the threefold sources of faith: Tradition, Scipture, and the Magisterium. As to the specific passge of the Creation Story in Genesis, I don’t think that any Pope has ever issued a definite statement Ex Cathedra on it. I could be wrong, though.
 
An interesting question concerning this is when did catholics stop interpretating the bible literally? When i studied mediveal history many catholics believed the genesis account to be literal but now very few do. My problem now arises when one considers what we take literal and what we dont… why is it we take this literally but not the other… when in the past it was. It gets very confussing… i had a talk with a very liberal catholic priest who essentially said all of Jesus’ miracles were meant to protray something, that they didnt happen literally… and he only accepted the ressurecton as literal… now that seems strnage, for why does he deny everything else but that.
The Church has formally condemned the idea that Jesus’ miracles were not real. As for Genesis, St. Anselm taught that the six days were not to be understood as our days as we know them. In cases of science, we stick to the consent of the Fathers until a demonstration is made that their understanding of science in the Scriptures is not teneable. If we read St. Robert Bellarmine’s letter concerning Gallileo, we see that he is willing to accept heliocentrism only if a sufficient demonstration is made–Gallileo had not provided one yet (in fact, the necessary evidence of star shifts would not be available for centuries later).
 
Don’t forget that Catholics have always taught the literal interpretation of His Body and Blood in the bread of life discourse. Our separated bretheren teach varieties of figurative interpretation.
 
Don’t forget that Catholics have always taught the literal interpretation of His Body and Blood in the bread of life discourse. Our separated bretheren teach varieties of figurative interpretation.
This is one of the Gotchas when talking to a protestant. If they say they believe in it literally, then you ask about the Real Presence. They will tell you that this is figurative, but yet they say they believe literally. Some quandry, huh?
 
This is how Catholics are to read scripture:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE
109
In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
[112](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/112.htm’)😉 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
[113](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/113.htm’)😉 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
[114](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/114.htm’)😉 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115
According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

[116](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/116.htm’)😉 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/117.htm’)😉 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/119.htm’)😉 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
 
Years ago Catholics were not allowed to self-interpret the Bible, and even today, we are told to be cautious with free interpretation.

A Catholic bible with footnotes, usccb.org/nab/bible/ and certainly a Spiritual director would be very helpful.

If we feel an interpretation which disagrees with official teaching, we must discuss this with a confessor or other spiritual director.

Lux
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top