Literal or not?

[Gloria_de_G]

I know that I’m relying heavily on Aquinas here, and again I’m not claiming that those who take a more “literal” view are contradicting Catholic teaching. I’m just saying that they are not speaking for Catholic teaching either, since its greatest and most orthodox exponent didn’t take this position.

So I guess there are two issues here:

1. Use of the word misleads Protestants
2. it may indicate a view which clashes with the classic exposition of the doctrine and certainly should not be taken as the Catholic view.

In short, what I can say with confidence is that Aquinas’s view is misleadingly described as “literal.”

Pretty much; the opposite of ‘literally’ is ‘figuratively’. Jesus is not ‘figuratively’ present in the Eucharist…

Dear Edwin, I thought that the best thing was to quote literally what Saint Thomas Aquinas says about the body and blood of Christ, and that will make things much easier:

“The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: “This is My body which shall be delivered up for you,” Cyril says: “Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour’s words with faith; for since He is the truth, He lieth not.”
(…)
" Some men accordingly, not paying heed to these things, have contended that Christ’s body and blood are not in this sacrament except as in a sign, a thing to be rejected as heretical, since it is contrary to Christ’s words.”

(SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS, OF THE CHANGE OF BREAD AND WINE INTO THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST (EIGHT ARTICLES) ARTICLE ONE)

Hope this helps…
In the love of the Church,
Gloria

.

 

[edwest2]

The Catechism tells us how to interpret Scripture.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

In my bible study we were discussing the old testament. My instructor was talking about how some of the stories written were written with an “audience” in mind. Therefore, a lot of what is written can’t be take as “fact”. Some of the stories are embellished to make a point or to get a message across to a certain group of people.
So when we come to the last supper, there is much discussion between faiths on if the body and blood is actually true body and true blood. The Catholic church takes it literally. Other faiths say it’s a symbolic. Jesus spoke in parables often, using symbolism and metaphors…it’s all so confusing.
So how do we determine what we should take literal and what we shouldn’t when it comes to the Bible?

Well in terms of the Body and Blood of Christ, NO matter what
the molecular structure and so forth say, it is, not for all intents
and purposes, but IS the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

In matters like the Creation Story, Adam&Eve, Tree, Flood, and so forth, at least up until
Abraham, we are not meant to take it literally, no harm in doing so, just don’t try to prove
it as literal scientific fact and pretend you have all the scientific know-how behind it all.

Revelation is another book that is not to be taken as literal, but uses a lot of imagery to
convey certain ideas, THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A LITERAL RED DRAGON!

I now recommend you to this video, may help in some ways,
talks about the similar things as your instructor has, “written
for a certain audience” and so forth:
youtube.com/watch?v=PzWK2rpLCwk

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Revelation is another book that is not to be taken as literal, but uses a lot of imagery to
convey certain ideas, THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A LITERAL RED DRAGON!

Well Judas, the dragon is not literal but the TWO WITNESSES YES!!!
That is why** the one who has wisdom** calculate the number of the beast, because it is a number of a man… therefore we need wisdom to understand what is literal and what is not. So let us pray to God to give us wisdom!

May this helps,
In the love of His Revelation,
Gloria

.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well Judas, the dragon is not literal but the TWO WITNESSES YES!!!
That is why** the one who has wisdom** calculate the number of the beast, because it is a number of a man… therefore we need wisdom to understand what is literal and what is not. So let us pray to God to give us wisdom!

May this helps,
In the love of His Revelation,
Gloria

.

Oh yes, of course. No figurative imagery applies to them.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

In my bible study we were discussing the old testament. My instructor was talking about how some of the stories written were written with an “audience” in mind. Therefore, a lot of what is written can’t be take as “fact”. Some of the stories are embellished to make a point or to get a message across to a certain group of people.

So when we come to the last supper, there is much discussion between faiths on if the body and blood is actually true body and true blood. The Catholic church takes it literally. Other faiths say it’s a symbolic. Jesus spoke in parables often, using symbolism and metaphors…it’s all so confusing.

So how do we determine what we should take literal and what we shouldn’t when it comes to the Bible?

The stories of the Bible are all true. But they are not verbatim reports like a magazine article or a news report on television.

To illustrate, in Exodus the plagues from God kill the Egyptians’ livestock in their entirety during a plague. But then a hailstorm from God kills all the remaining Egyptian livestock. And then somehow the animals are still alive (though killed twice before) to endure having their firstborn killed off during the Passover.

If this were a literal report it would mean that God was killing and resurrecting the animals of the Egyptians just to kill them off again (a miracle that would likely have called off any need for further plagues the first time it happened). This would have had to take place at least twice for any of the animals to be left over to die again at Passover.

What on earth is going on here, huh?

Worry not. You see, the account of the Exodus is written in the genre of a great opera or “tale” or “legend,” like the “Legend of Paul Revere” (a.k.a. “Paul Revere’s Ride”) which tells of a real person and a real historical event. Legends aren’t false, but they do “stretch the truth” in order to make a point or to make truths stand out better.

Though Americans are taught the legend of Paul Revere as if it were history, it is only an interpretation or re-telling of history. The same history means defeat when the British describe it, but when we Americans tell it we emphasize different details because the same history means something different to us.The legend of Paul Revere is written in the genre of poetry, and though it is not literal it is still true.

That is the same way with the Bible. We are talking about religious truths. History doesn’t yield truths on its own or if you don’t learn from it. And sometimes humans don’t learn history’s truths if you don’t present them in a way that gets to the heart. Hitler wasn’t convinced he was wrong even in the end, was he? If you don’t reach the heart the truths don’t matter much. So presentation is everything!

Who would have paid much attention to the story of the Von Trapp family if it were not made into the musical “The Sound of Music”? Is the modern opera “Evita” any less true just because it is presented to us in song?

So while the Bible always tells us the truth, we should expect to read it on its own terms, in the various genres the writers used so we could see the truths stand out. It may not be “facts” like we are used to today, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the truth from God.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

As to how literal Jesus was being at the Last Supper, one has to turn to see how the Church has understood his words since its beginning.

Writing in the 150s, Justin Martyr gave us a description of early worship, detailing why participation in the Eucharist was limited:

None is allowed to share [in the bread and wine] unless he believes the things which we teach are true…For we do not receive them as ordinary bread and ordinary wine, but as Jesus Christ our Savior.

Other early witnesses agree with this view, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist was developed from it.

What most don’t realize was that this was the prevailing view by the time canonization of the Christian Scriptures began to be an issue. The texts chosen and verified by the canons of Eusebius and Athanasius by 367 AD were selected because they agreed with this view, not because they established it.

 

[Contarini]

Sorry for not responding earlier.

I should make it clear once again that I’m not challenging the Real Presence or the official language used by the Church. I’m saying on the contrary that “literal” is a misleading and confusing term and that it’s better to stick with the language of substance and transformation and mystery.

To get back to the OP: the OP is raising the legitimate point that Catholics interpret the Bible in a less literal way than conservative Protestants generally, but here appear to be doing things the other way round. I know that some Catholics like to use this for apologetics: “see, we are the ones who really take the Bible literally.” And that’s the kind of move I’m resisting.

Language about interpreting the Bible literally certainly goes way back, as does anxiety and debate about just what a “literal” interpretation means. Historically, the anxiety often focused on OT prophecy, since it had been established since the time of Augustine that doctrine had to be proved by the literal sense. The Reformation raised the stakes, because the Protestants mistrusted the institutional Church and appealed to Scripture as the final arbiter. That meant that they had to establish a robust “literal sense” that would bear the weight of all “necessary” teaching, without an infallible Church/Tradition to share the load, as it were.

But when contemporary American Protestants talk about reading the Bible literally, their language owes at least as much to the Enlightenment and the Revolution as it does to the Reformation, let alone the early Church. American Protestants have from the beginning of the nation taken a particular delight in championing “simple,” face-value interpretation of the Bible. Mark Noll has shown how this approach to the Bible made it hard to argue for the abolition of slavery and maybe even contributed to the Civil War. But this approach is still alive and well today.

I think it’s a mistake for Catholics to suppose that their belief in the Real Presence results from what American Protestants would call a literal hermeneutic. It’s simply not true that Catholics take Jesus’ words at the Last Supper in their “natural,” face-value sense. What is going on here is a great mystery, not something obvious or commonsense.

That’s the context for my concerns. I hope that makes my position a bit clearer!

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Sorry for not responding earlier.

I should make it clear once again that I’m not challenging the Real Presence or the official language used by the Church. I’m saying on the contrary that “literal” is a misleading and confusing term and that it’s better to stick with the language of substance and transformation and mystery.

To get back to the OP: the OP is raising the legitimate point that Catholics interpret the Bible in a less literal way than conservative Protestants generally, but here appear to be doing things the other way round. I know that some Catholics like to use this for apologetics: “see, we are the ones who really take the Bible literally.” And that’s the kind of move I’m resisting.

Language about interpreting the Bible literally certainly goes way back, as does anxiety and debate about just what a “literal” interpretation means. Historically, the anxiety often focused on OT prophecy, since it had been established since the time of Augustine that doctrine had to be proved by the literal sense. The Reformation raised the stakes, because the Protestants mistrusted the institutional Church and appealed to Scripture as the final arbiter. That meant that they had to establish a robust “literal sense” that would bear the weight of all “necessary” teaching, without an infallible Church/Tradition to share the load, as it were.

But when contemporary American Protestants talk about reading the Bible literally, their language owes at least as much to the Enlightenment and the Revolution as it does to the Reformation, let alone the early Church. American Protestants have from the beginning of the nation taken a particular delight in championing “simple,” face-value interpretation of the Bible. Mark Noll has shown how this approach to the Bible made it hard to argue for the abolition of slavery and maybe even contributed to the Civil War. But this approach is still alive and well today.

I think it’s a mistake for Catholics to suppose that their belief in the Real Presence results from what American Protestants would call a literal hermeneutic. It’s simply not true that Catholics take Jesus’ words at the Last Supper in their “natural,” face-value sense. What is going on here is a great mystery, not something obvious or commonsense.

That’s the context for my concerns. I hope that makes my position a bit clearer!

While I cannot speak for others, I can say that I understood that this is where you were coming from. The point I was making and which other Catholics generally have hidden within their answers is that our understanding in NOT based on any reading of Scripture.

The words of Christ and the Liturgy of the Eucharist came before any of the writings of the New Testament were made. What is written in Scripture is based on what the Church already understood, not the other way around. The texts about the Last Supper that are included in the New Testament canon are only there because they match with the already set belief of the Church on the matter. The Church did not wait for these words to be written before it came up with this belief.

In a way the argument of some who base their understandings on just a reading of Holy Writ is somewhat moot. The belief and the practice of the Liturgy came first. The written Scriptures came after.

Thus you are correct that a “literal hermeneutic” is not involved. The Catholic understanding comes directly from the Person of Christ and from his apostles. The Scripture comes from this truth that the Church already possessed before pen was applied to parchment.

 

[aragonjohn1]

according to what the catholic church has taught on the reading of God gift; the holy scriptures

1. Pope Leo XIII,
   Encyclical Letter On the Study of Sacred Scripture,
   Providentissimus Deus, 1893
2. Pope Benedict XV,
   Encyclical Letter Commemorating the Fifteenth Centenary of the Death of St. Jerome,
   Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920
3. Pope Pius XII,
   Encyclical Letter Promoting Biblical Studies,
   Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943
   etc…

there are many senses and interpretation of the Bible ( there are infinite meanings in truth because God inspires love ) one of the several is literal interpretation. literal interpretation is usually but not always interpreted as being in literal as would have been understood in that time.

God bless

 

[John_6]

A priest once told me that the Catholic Church interprets “literally” only the parts of the
bible that refer to the sacraments. The protestants, on the other hand, interpret all of the
bible literally. That does not mean that the Catholic Church does not instruct and guide
about the meaning of scripture.
Where is the confusion? It is the protestants who interpret literally and can each come out
with different “takes” on the same scripture.

If the protestants interpret the bible literally then they should believe in the real Body and Blood. As far as I am concerned there is nothing more clear in the bible than that.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

If the protestants interpret the bible literally then they should believe in the real Body and Blood. As far as I am concerned there is nothing more clear in the bible than that.

Absolutely. And those who come to realize that usually end up “coming home”. (And as I
like to say, “Come home, we’ll leave the lights on.” )

 

[Contarini]

If the protestants interpret the bible literally then they should believe in the real Body and Blood. As far as I am concerned there is nothing more clear in the bible than that.

To you, because you read with Catholic lenses.

No one actually interprets the Bible literally. It’s a myth, a superstition. Catholics should not try to exploit Protestant superstitions in order to convert Protestants.

Edwin

 

[John_6]

To you, because you read with Catholic lenses.

No one actually interprets the Bible literally. It’s a myth, a superstition. Catholics should not try to exploit Protestant superstitions in order to convert Protestants.

Edwin

Yes, thank God, I do read with Catholic lenses I thought that is what Sola Scriptura is. Literal interpretation of the bible. .

 

[Contarini]

Yes, thank God, I do read with Catholic lenses I thought that is what Sola Scriptura is. Literal interpretation of the bible. .

The “classic” view of Sola Scriptura is really just the denial of the Church’s infallibility in interpreting Scripture, combined with the “material sufficiency” position which is itself, as far as I know, orthodox. (This combination leads to what is called “formal sufficiency,” which is heretical.) Certainly this position causes more weight to rest on a literal interpretation of Scripture. It must, in the Protestant view, be possible to ascertain true doctrine based on a “due use of the ordinary means,” without recourse to a divinely guided, infallible Church.

However, the version of Sola Scriptura most of us run into in American Protestantism is much more radical, and yes, it does depend on what many American Protestants (especially fundamentalists) call a “literal” interpretation–i.e., taking Scripture at “face value.”

That is what I refer to as a “myth” and a “superstition.” What it really means is that people read Scripture through whatever lenses they have received from their culture, their particular religious upbringing, and their personal predilections and preoccupations. And they call this “taking Scripture straight, without interpretation.” (I’m describing the most extreme, fundamentalist version, admittedly.) If you try to correct them by pointing them to the broad, deep, rich tradition of the Church as a healthier context for rightly interpreting Scripture, they wrinkle their noses and say that this is too complicated and is obviously an attempt to substitute human interpretations for the Word of God.

That is what we (traditional Christians generally, often including more traditional forms of Protestantism) are up against.

Hence, I think it’s a bad idea for Catholics to claim to be the ones who are “really” interpreting Scripture literally, even though I see why on this point (and even more on baptism) it’s tempting.

Consistent literalism is impossible. It’s a monstrosity. You may gain a short-term success by this tactic in some cases, though probably only if people are predisposed to believe you on other grounds. But you will be teaching a bad hermeneutic, and that’s damaging in the long run. To tell people “be a consistent literalist and take the words of institution literally” is to call them on the inconsistency of what they think they believe. But when you put it that way, you aren’t actually exposing the fallacy of literalism–you’re challenging them to take their fallacy more seriously. And if they try to do this impossible thing, they will just be “fundamentalist Catholics,” and will be very confused people with a poor understanding of the Tradition.

Edwin

 

[John_6]

.

Hence, I think it’s a bad idea for Catholics to claim to be the ones who are “really” interpreting Scripture literally, even though I see why on this point (and even more on baptism) it’s tempting

.

I don’t think that Catholics say this ( I have been reading the posts on the literal interpretations in John 6–my favorite by the way). I do believe that we say that when Jesus says this is my body they believe him. Why wouldn’t they?

I was told by a priest that Catholics are not a people of the Bible. It took me a long time to understand what he meant. I now agree with him. I believe that we are a people of Tradition, handed down by the apostles, plus Sacred Scripture and our Traditions have roots in Scripture. Catholics have been practicing their Traditions long before they(Catholics) canonized the bible. As every one knows the Bible is a Catholic document and only interpreted correctly by the Catholic Church and her Magisterium .