Symbolic Verses Literal Scripture. How Can You Tell It Apart?

[Quantum_Entity]

Does the Church teach any method of reading Scripture and determining if what you are reading is literal--that is it happened in reality as written--or symbolic--that is it's allegorical or points to a truth or teaching?

I've heard many people--including priests--interpret various verses or passages as either literal or symbolic, often conflicting each other in their view (that is, one person says a verse is literal and the other says that it’s symbolic).

Does the Catholic Church have any guideline a reader of the Bible should use to differentiate between the two? I know all Scripture has value, but there is a part of me that would like to know what should be taken literally and what should be taken as symbolic. I guess that’s the history nut in me coming out…

It bothers me when I hear a priest use something that I have established as literal, like the miracles of Jesus or stories revolving around Him, such as one about the crippled man that was lowered though the ceiling and healed, etc. as symbolic.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='The Catechism of the Catholic Church']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 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 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[/quote]

[Quantum_Entity]

Wow, that was easy! Rock and roll. I'll have to mark that in my Catechism. Thanks!

I don't think you can get any more authoritative or concise than that, but does anyone have anything else?

And...well, maybe some examples? You see, the Red Sea crossing was one that I always took to be literal, as well as representative of baptism, etc.

I went to a Baptist college for a year and EVERYTHING was literal. When I returned to Catholicism about 5 years ago, it wasn't so cut and dry. It can be frustrating when you hear two different views from two different people about a single verse or passage--in the same denomination, even. Naturally Baptists and Catholics will have differing views, but two Catholics...even if they're priests!? Ahhhh... *my head a-splode*

[kafka]

Res, Your post didnt answer his question.

He is wondering whether there is a method of discerning for the first level of Sacred Scripture. The first level could be called the literal, direct or explicit level.

The first level directly or explicitly expresses truth in a literal or figurative way (sometimes mixing both), and the author, inspired and guided by the Spirit, only writes and asserts what he knows in his own mind. It is the plain meaning of the text in which the words signify a historical event, a teaching, a law, a parable, etc.

Is there a recommended method of discerning? Not that I know of. Oftentimes one has to rely on grace and reason to make a judgment. One must interpret Scripture in light of the entire Catholic Faith, the O.T. in light of the N.T., Magisterial teachings, theological teachings.

Its a continual process.

I'm sort of tired now so I dont have much more to say right now. You might want to read a short blog I wrote:
[url="http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2008/08/levels-of-meaning-in-sacred-scripture.html"]http://greatcatholicmonarch.blogspot.com/2...-scripture.html[/url]

[Resurrexi]

Here is an interpretation of the Resurrection according to each of the four senses:

The literal sense--Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary, who at dusk on Friday was taken down from the Cross and buried, has victoriously left the tomb.

The allegorical sense--Jonas being vomited out by the whale after being in its belly for three days is a type of Christ's Resurrection.

The moral sense--As Christ rose from the grave, we should, though God's grace, arise from the grave of our sins.

The anagogical sense--As Christ rose gloriously from the dead, so too will the just be raised up gloriously by God at the general judgment.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Quantum_Entity' post='1884493' date='Jun 5 2009, 08:32 PM']It bothers me when I hear a priest use something that I have established as literal, like the miracles of Jesus or stories revolving around Him, such as one about the crippled man that was lowered though the ceiling and healed, etc. as symbolic.[/quote]

It should bother you if priests are saying that. To say that Christ did not really perform miracles is contrary to the teachings of the Church:

"Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven" (Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, [i]Dei Verbum[/i] 19)

[kafka]

good post Res, however I think his initial question was whether or not there is a method of discerning if a passage of Scripture is literal, or allegorical or both, e.g.

Like the passage of Jonah in the whale. Is there a method for knowing if that is a literal/historical event or a mere symbolic story?

That is what I thought he was asking. I didnt think he was asking about the different senses of Sacred Scripture although that is good to learn about too.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' post='1884530' date='Jun 5 2009, 09:52 PM']good post Res, however I think his initial question was whether or not there is a method of discerning if a passage of Scripture is literal, or allegorical or both, e.g.

Like the passage of Jonah in the whale. Is there a method for knowing if that is a literal/historical event or a mere symbolic story?

That is what I thought he was asking. I didnt think he was asking about the different senses of Sacred Scripture although that is good to learn about too.[/quote]

All Scripture should be interpreted according to the literal sense, since that is the sense upon which the others are base.

In interpreting Scirpture, we must always follow what the Church decreed at the Council of Trent:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [this sacred and holy Synod] decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never intended to be at any time published." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1507)

In regards to the narrative of Jonas and the whale, it is considered an historical even by the Fathers.

(BTW, I'm sure that you know all of this Kafka, this is mainly for the original poster )

Edited June 6, 2009 by Resurrexi

[kafka]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1884563' date='Jun 5 2009, 11:04 PM']All Scripture should be interpreted according to the literal sense, since that is the sense upon which the others are base.

(BTW, I'm sure that you know all of this Kafka, this is mainly for the original poster )[/quote]
yes I do.

There is a subtlety though, the literal sense may employ a figure of speech or mix historical even with figure of speeches in what it asserts. e.g. Adam and Eve were historically the first parents of the human race who literally lived in Paradise, however the fruit of the true of good and evil may be symbolic for pride, or some other sin. One need not interpret that as Adam or Eve literally eating the fruit while they committed their act of disobedience to God.

Which is also good for everyone to know.