Author Topic: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture" (Read 4001 times)

Jaynek · « **on:** December 31, 2017, 10:22:23 AM »

It seems that some people here are misunderstanding how to interpret Scripture due to a misunderstanding of the term "literal sense of Scripture" as used in Church teachings. This usage comes from St. Thomas Aquinas, who in turn based it on even older Christian writings.

In a passage from quite near the beginning of the Summa Theologica he wrote:

Quote

The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article10

Some here seem to think that Church teachings about the literal sense of Scripture mean that we ought to take everything in it literally, but that is not what St. Thomas (or any subsequent teachings) meant. After the passage quoted above he wrote:

Quote

The parabolical sense is contained in the literal, for by words things are signified properly and figuratively. Nor is the figure itself, but that which is figured, the literal sense. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, the literal sense is not that God has such a member, but only what is signified by this member, namely operative power. Hence it is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.

Thus, accepting that the literal sense of a passage is without error refers to its intended meaning and is not a matter taking figurative language literally.

Sometimes the Church explicitly identifies Scripture as figurative or not. For this reason we know with certainty that Our Lord's words "Take ye, and eat. This is my body" are to be taken literally and not as a figure of speech.

Similarly, we understand Scripture passages describing physical phenomenon were not meant "to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time" as Pope Leo XIII taught.

In both these cases, we are accepting the literal sense of Scripture as being without error.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #1 on:** December 31, 2017, 10:31:35 AM »

Jaynek promotes a false notion of literal Scripture interpretation that in no way resembles the Church's.

She promotes a liberal view that is entirely false.

She promotes modernism's errors.

Jaynek · « **Reply #2 on:** December 31, 2017, 11:11:09 AM »

I saw a good example to illustrate these points on another thread. A flat earther claims that Revelation 1:7 shows that the earth is flat.

Here is the verse:

Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, and they also that pierced him. And all the tribes of the earth shall bewail themselves because of him. Even so. Amen

What is the literal sense of this verse? Its literal sense is its intended meaning. This verse means that Our Lord will come again from heaven and be manifest to all and he will judge the living and the dead. Note how this truth is "profitable unto salvation". Any orthodox Catholic has no difficulty in accepting it as being without error.

But what happens when one denies Pope Leo's teaching that "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men ... the essential nature of the things of the visible universe, things in no way profitable unto salvation." Ignoring that the whole point of this verse is to teach us about the Second Coming, one sees an implication about the shape of the earth. A person doing this is not following the literal sense of Scripture. He is imposing his own meaning on it.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2017, 11:25:45 AM »

You skipped (purposely):
"And every eye shall see Him"
Will they or not?
If earth is a globe they cannot, rendering the Bible in error.
If earth is a flat plane they can, rendering the Bible both TRUE and LITERAL.

Your salvation profits from always first taking the literal meaning, as St. Augustine teaches, and every Pope after him.

Truth is Eternal · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2017, 11:26:18 AM »

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government "space agencies" show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #5 on:** December 31, 2017, 12:10:51 PM »

Jaynek: do you believe God made earth in six literal 24 hour days?

Jaynek · « **Reply #6 on:** December 31, 2017, 12:24:06 PM »

Quote

Pope Saint Pius X: Responses of the Biblical Commission
– The Authority of the Decisions of the Biblical Commission –
[There are some who] have not received or do not receive such decisions with the proper submission, even though they are approved by the pontiff.
Therefore, We see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission...

Question 8. Can the word yom (day), (which) is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, be understood both in its literal sense as natural day and also in a non-literal sense as a certain space of time; and is it permitted to discuss this question among exegetes?

Response: Yes.

https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #7 on:** December 31, 2017, 12:41:11 PM »

So you believe in a "non literal space of time day"?

Jaynek · « **Reply #8 on:** December 31, 2017, 12:59:39 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 31, 2017, 12:24:06 PM

https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/

This is also my personal view and How I have taught it to my children. I believe that either interpretation is possible and that neither implies error in Scripture.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #9 on:** December 31, 2017, 01:09:30 PM »

Do you believe creatures evolve?

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #10 on:** December 31, 2017, 01:22:32 PM »

Do you believe the earth does not move?

Jaynek · « **Reply #11 on:** December 31, 2017, 05:41:50 PM »

I believe that atheistic evolution is an extremely serious error and reject it. Theistic evolution might be true if it meets the conditions stated in Humani Generis:

Quote

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the docuмents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

I lean more toward theistic evolution than creationism, but do not have strong opinions on it.
I think either view is compatible with Catholicism.

I do believe that the earth moves. I think that Scripture, interpreted by Catholic exegetical principles, does not teach that I must believe in a stationary earth. I therefore accept the current scientific consensus.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #12 on:** December 31, 2017, 05:56:19 PM »

Pardon my French but what the h*#! is theistic evolution?
Nevermind.
Any Catholic worth their salt rejects evolution and accepts creationism.
Secondly, you directly contradict the Bibleif you believe the earth moves.
You may not think the Bible says earth is flat specifically, but it does explicitly say in multiple verses that earth does not move.
Thank you for revealing your true self: a true modernist, thru and thru.
You have lost all credibility to offer any opinions on theology or science.
Jaynek: adherent to VII, heliocentrism, and evolution, and non-literal Creation.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2017, 06:29:58 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 31, 2017, 05:41:50 PM

I lean more toward theistic evolution than creationism, but do not have strong opinions on it.

Well, you need to research this question more deeply. Any kind of evolution, including theistic, is complete crap ... and I do hold it to be contrary to Sacred Scripture.

Jaynek · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2017, 07:25:31 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 31, 2017, 06:29:58 PM

Well, you need to research this question more deeply. Any kind of evolution, including theistic, is complete crap ... and I do hold it to be contrary to Sacred Scripture.

I understand Humani Generis as implying that theistic evolution (with the stated conditions) is acceptable for Catholics. Why do you think differently?

Author Topic: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture" (Read 4001 times)

Jaynek

What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Smedley Butler

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Jaynek

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Smedley Butler

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Truth is Eternal

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Smedley Butler

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Jaynek

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Smedley Butler

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Jaynek

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Smedley Butler

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Smedley Butler

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Jaynek

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Smedley Butler

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Ladislaus

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"

Jaynek

Re: What Church teaching means by "literal sense of Scripture"