Whenever people use the term “literal” it often causes confusion because that word has taken on its own new meaning for interpretation based on how we use it every day in other applications. Sometimes people say “literal” interpretation when what they really mean is a “literalist” interpretation. That method is simply putting the words of a sentence on the table and finding the meaning of each word, then applying all their meanings to find what the sentence means.
A true “literal” interpretation means you apply the rules and norms
of literature to your interpretation as you try to determine what the writer was intending to say. It means you recognize some things as metaphorical (Jesus: “I am the door…”), hyperbole (“All of Capernaum came out to hear Him”), or other forms as appropriate. Could be poetry, idiom, or narative. Whatever the case may be, its an attempt to understand the meaning rather than only words.
The Catechism, in 115-119 discusses “The senses of Scripture” as being literal exegesis (following the rules of sound interpretation), spiritual, allegorical, moral, and anagogical.
It’s difficult to understand exactly what the speaker is saying. As you’ve written it, it sounds like he disagrees with the exegetical methods or the interpretations from them. It’s not unusual for some to criticize the Church for this, usually because they believe none of Catholic doctrine has a source in Scripture, it’s all something made up by Popes and Cardinals in the back room.
That’s not to say your speaker was one who thinks that way. You’d have to find out
why he says what he does.
