The Marvel Of The Catholic Church . . . The Four Senses Of Sacred Scripture

By RAYMOND DE SOUZA

Part 15

Since the first heresies attacked the early Church, and all the way up to Luther and to the ecclesiastical dissenters of our days, Bible interpretation has been a source of division. Ever since the Devil concocted the idea that every Tom, Dick, and Harriet could interpret the Bible allegedly by the “light of the Holy Spirit,” sects have multiplied like rodents. Once you ignore the Magisterium of the Church of Jesus Christ and trust in your own discernment, you are bound to navigate your boat without a rudder and hit the rocks on the wrong shore.
Many times dissenters have taken a text out of context in order to create an argument against the Church. Forgetting as they do that each part of the Bible must be understood in the context of the book, the historical setting, the cultural context, and according to the Living Tradition of the Church, they place their own preferences and whimsical choices ahead of the teaching of the Church, to whom the Old Testament was entrusted and who wrote the New Testament.
The fact is that there are four distinct senses in Sacred Scripture, according to the Apostolic Tradition. First of all, there are the Literal (or historical) sense and the Spiritual sense. The Literal sense is the clear meaning of the words in themselves. It serves as the basis for the interpretation of the Spiritual sense in its different forms.
The Spiritual sense refers to not only the literal words of Scripture but also to the things and events of which it speaks, which can be signs of other realities. Here there is a threefold distinction: the Spiritual sense can be: a) allegorical, also known as typological; b) moral, also known as tropological; and finally c) the anagogical.
These distinctions are very important in order not to confuse the different senses of Scripture. So let us make a little effort to memorize them: First distinction: Literal and Spiritual senses. Second distinction: The Spiritual can be allegorical, moral, and anagogical. Good. Let us move on:
The allegorical meanings have a prophetic touch to them, as they can be prefigures of what refers to Jesus Christ. For instance, the manna from the sky given to the Hebrews in the desert was a prefigure, or an allegory, of the Holy Eucharist, Christ, the true Bread from Heaven. Israel and Jerusalem in particular were prefigures of the Church of Jesus Christ. The Paschal Lamb of Exodus was a prefigure of Jesus, the Lamb of God. Adam was a prefigure of Jesus, as St. Paul teaches (“Adam was a type of the One who was to come” — Romans 5:14).
The moral sense refers to the fact that all Scripture is written for our edification in faith and virtue, in exhortations to live a life according to God’s will, en route to holiness. In the Psalms, Jerusalem is usually interpreted as the righteous soul wherein God dwells.
The anagogical sense: The word comes from the Greek word anagog, meaning a leading upward. It means that the words and realities of both the Old and the New Testaments have eternal significance, meaning, applications for our growth in virtue en route to Heaven. Examples: The Church here in the world is an image of the Church in Heaven; Jerusalem can mean: the city; the Church; the soul; heavenly glory.
Now, the four meanings or senses can be found everywhere in the Bible, but not necessarily in each and every verse. Sometimes there are only two senses, or even only one, like the historical or literal sense. And here is precisely where those afflicted by subjective relativism walk the tight rope just to land in the mud. Just as there are various senses in Scripture, there are also various false principles of interpretation. Let us take a look at them as well. There are six of them.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission identified them as recently as 1964, right in the middle of the Second Vatican Council, probably because of the modernist tendencies that emerged during and especially after the event, under the guise of the new “form history method” or “form critical method.” Here is the text:
“Certain exponents of this method, led astray by rationalist prejudices, refuse to admit 1) that a supernatural order exists, 2) or that a personal God intervenes in the world by Revelation properly so-called, 3) or that miracles and prophecies are possible and have actually occurred. 4) Others proceed from a false notion of Faith, as if Faith did not care for historical truth, and is even irreconcilable with it. 5) Others deny almost a priori the historical value and character of the documents of Revelation. 6) Finally, others, downplaying the authority of the Apostles as witnesses of Christ, and their office and influence in the primitive community, extol the ‘creative capacity’ of the community itself. All these aberrations are not only opposed to Catholic Doctrine, but are also devoid of any scientific foundation.”

Defined Doctrines

In the postconciliar era, modernists have promoted these false notions for biblical interpretation, resulting in the confusion in which we find ourselves today in the Church, when even bishops and cardinals hold views contrary to Sacred Scripture and Tradition, as we have seen in the recent synods.
But to us, faithful Catholics, these notions are per se incompatible with the teachings of the apostles. The defined doctrines of inspiration of Scripture and its inerrancy flatly deny the rationalist theories, as if God could deceive the people by misrepresenting the life and teachings of His Son. It would also mean that in spite of Jesus Christ’s promises to be with His Church till the end of time, the apostles, Popes, and bishops have misunderstood His teachings for nearly 2,000 years, until those bright minds of modernists emerged from the wet ground like mushrooms after a rain. Impressive!
The beliefs of the early Christians, included as they are in the vast literature of the Church fathers, prove ad nauseam that not one single author had ever suggested, let alone admitted, that the Gospels could be interpreted in the modernistic way of contemporary dissenters. The Church fathers lived immensely closer to the reported events, unlike the modernists who came nearly 2,000 years too late.
Yes, the Bible does contain the word of God given to us in written form. Together with the Apostolic Tradition, orally transmitted and carefully guarded by the Magisterium of the Church, we can have the certitude that its teachings — the Magisterium’s teachings — convey to us everything we need to know in order to work out our salvation, assisted by the sacraments that Jesus gave us.
Bible studies are very important for us to know God’s word, provided they are preceded by a solid knowledge of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Our Mother, the Ark of Salvation and Gate of Heaven.
Next article: What is faith? Investigating the first theological virtue.

+ + +

(Raymond de Souza is an EWTN program host; regional coordinator for Portuguese-speaking countries for Human Life International [HLI]; president of the Sacred Heart Institute, and a member of the Sovereign, Military, and Hospitaller Order of the Knights of Malta. His website is: www.RaymonddeSouza.com.)