Is literal interpretation of Revelation valid among Catholics?

[DIERM]

Besides, it seems that @DIERM is making precisely the argument that, since words & meanings change over time, so does the literal meaning of the text… and that’s just not true!

You still are missing the difference between the literal meaning and the literal sense.

The literal meaning is subjective. The literal sense is objective. It is the subjective that causes problems in the world; truth is always objective.

 

[Gorgias]

The literal meaning is subjective.

That’s the crux of the discussion here. You seem to be saying that the literal meaning is found in the reader, not the writer, and therefore, is mutable. That seems to confuse “interpretation of words” with “content”.

However, if all you’re saying is that different people interpret things differently, then that’s reasonable. I don’t think I’d label that the “literal meaning”, though. “Meaning as received by reader”, maybe, though…?

 

[Bithynian]

I have never heard this distinction made.

The Catechism leaves it purposefully ambiguous as “literal sense” (sensus litteralis according to the Latin) has been defined in various ways throughout Christian history.

Most have agreed that it’s primarily oriented towards the words and the grammatical structures that organise these words: the “plain meaning” as some refer to it.

But words (and their meanings) don’t exist in a vacuum, and so most contemporary scholars and theologians (Catholic and non-Catholic) agree that the literal sense must reflect the context of where it is written.

This is where the differences arise: what contexts do we include? Social? Cultural? Religious? Historical? Do we only include the author’s context? What about the intended reader at the time the text was written? And who is the author and who is the reader?

For e.g. Aquinas (ST 1.1.10) wrote that “the literal sense is that which the author intends… and the author of Holy Scripture is God who comprehends everything”. On the other hand, Pope Pius XII in Divino afflante Spiritu wrote that “the literal meaning of words intended and expressed by the sacred writer”, and much of the encyclical characterises the “sacred writer” as the human author.

 

[fhansen]

Not sure how a big portion of it even could be interpreted literally. But the literal is the place to start with any biblical interpretation. From there the Church teaches about the non-literal or beyond-literal understandings.

 

[SaberBob]

Some ideas about the"literal" meaning of scripture, especially for Apocalyptic literature, vis David Currie:

1. The symbolic meaning of numbers trumps the actual numerative value. Like “the Lord’s cattle on a thousand hills” does not limit God’s cow ownership to a particular 1000 hills, it means some vast quantity.
2. Cosmically described events do not describe literal astronomical events, rather the sudden change in political and social systems. Language in the OT describing the fall of Babylon as cosmic events is also used in the NT describing the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the ending of temple-sacrificial worship Judaism.