Did the Feeding of the 5,000 Really Happen? Modernism in the Church

[Silver_Thread]

I believe this teaching was floating around in the seminaries in the early 90’s. My pastor suggested this in one of his homilies back then. I researched it and found that the Church Magesterium condemned this teaching! But …who listens to the Magesterium?The formation of priests after VII leaves much to be desired. I believe we must do our homework and confront (in the spirit of love) those who teach such things. It is our duty!

 

[YankeeRC]

I accept it as a literal truth, although I was taught as a child in the 1970’s–in Catholic school by a nun–that it was ‘probably a symbolic story’ and very likely people shared and then sharing caught on in the crowd and so on. Sort of a feel the love in the roomkind of thing.

Man’s (meaning all of mankind’s) mind can’t understand these things, man’s mind cannot understand Christ in the Eucharist. Man cannot understand why God would allow himself to die on a cross when he has infinite power at his command. Man cannot accept such stories. Man is too smart for such things.

I personally am so sick and tired of where man’s flawed thinking has gotten this world that I conscioulsy choose to believe with childlike faith in the word of our God.

 

[Silver_Thread]

Amen to that! I meant in the 90’s the church condemned this teaching. It did start shortly after VII not that VII instigated it.

 

[buffalo]

There were two feedings - one 5000 the other 4000.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe this teaching was floating around in the seminaries in the early 90’s. My pastor suggested this in one of his homilies back then. I researched it and found that the Church Magesterium condemned this teaching! But …who listens to the Magesterium?The formation of priests after VII leaves much to be desired. I believe we must do our homework and confront (in the spirit of love) those who teach such things. It is our duty!

Can you provide the document, at least its name, where the Church condemns the error of the teaching?

 

[malphono]

This thread was resurrected from 2004???

 

[MIKE46]

Ah yes, heinrich Paulus’ explanation the loaves and fishes. It has been around since the 1820’s when he published it in a book. Paulus was what is termed a rationalist. He and other rationalists believed that every miracxle in scriptrure could be explained in rational terms. So, he devised often torturous complex explanations of the miracles to prove his point. The loaves and fishes story was one such explanation. Another was Jesus walking on the water. In that one as you remember, the Apostles took a boat out to sea while Jesus prayed. Later, when a storm rose up Jesus walked on the water out to them . Peter, stepped out of the boat at Jesus command and started walking towards Jesus. Suddenly realizing where he was he began to sink and Jesus pulled him up and they got into the boat Paulus explanation was that the storm winds were so strong that the Apostles thought that they were in the middle of the lake, but in fact were still on the shore. Jesus walking to them in ankle high water seemed to be walking on water and nothing more. In this example Paulus ignores what the text says.

Another miracle was the ressurrection. In that story Paulus changed the essential facts of the story.Jesus did not die, but merely fainted and recovered later in the tomb. However, his followers who thought he had died assumed he had ben raised from the dead.

These and other stories pretty much took over mainline protestant seminaries in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and along with other modernist ideas led directly to the splintering off of the fundamentalist groups from the mainline protestant assemblies… At the same time these ideas infected Catholic seminaries in increasing numbers. The Jesuit order seemed to be particularly caught up in this mindset… These days such theories are commonly tauight at Catholic seminaries and have been for some time as what is collectively termed alternate explanations of scripture.

These stories and interpretations are not innocent and alternative attempts at understanding scripture. No their aim is much more serious than that. Much more serious indeed. These ideas and concepts seek to do one thing and one thing only. Deny the existance of miracles and further deny the divinity of Christ himself.

 

[Janet1983]

Ah yes, heinrich Paulus’ explanation the loaves and fishes. It has been around since the 1820’s when he published it in a book. Paulus was what is termed a rationalist. He and other rationalists believed that every miracxle in scriptrure could be explained in rational terms. So, he devised often torturous complex explanations of the miracles to prove his point. The loaves and fishes story was one such explanation. Another was Jesus walking on the water. In that one as you remember, the Apostles took a boat out to sea while Jesus prayed. Later, when a storm rose up Jesus walked on the water out to them . Peter, stepped out of the boat at Jesus command and started walking towards Jesus. Suddenly realizing where he was he began to sink and Jesus pulled him up and they got into the boat Paulus explanation was that the storm winds were so strong that the Apostles thought that they were in the middle of the lake, but in fact were still on the shore. Jesus walking to them in ankle high water seemed to be walking on water and nothing more. In this example Paulus ignores what the text says.

Another miracle was the ressurrection. In that story Paulus changed the essential facts of the story.Jesus did not die, but merely fainted and recovered later in the tomb. However, his followers who thought he had died assumed he had ben raised from the dead.

These and other stories pretty much took over mainline protestant seminaries in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and along with other modernist ideas led directly to the splintering off of the fundamentalist groups from the mainline protestant assemblies… At the same time these ideas infected Catholic seminaries in increasing numbers. The Jesuit order seemed to be particularly caught up in this mindset… These days such theories are commonly tauight at Catholic seminaries and have been for some time as what is collectively termed alternate explanations of scripture.

These stories and interpretations are not innocent and alternative attempts at understanding scripture. No their aim is much more serious than that. Much more serious indeed. These ideas and concepts seek to do one thing and one thing only. Deny the existance of miracles and further deny the divinity of Christ himself.

Do you have any sources to prove what you are saying?

 

[djeter]

I am currently in RCIA. While I realize it may not be appropriate to take all of the Bible literally, where is the line?

In my readings and discussions, I have encountered many Catholics who say that the Creation account is not really literal and it OK to be an evolutionary theist. OK, there may be some wiggle room there.

How about the Feeding of the 5,000? Did Christ really create enough bread and fish to feed so many? Recently, I have even heard attempts to spiritualize that miracle among others.

It seems to me that there is an extreme tinge of modernism afoot in the the Catholic church. What say ye?

I posted an essay by Gil Bailie about the miracle of the loaves and fishes. Bailie shows us it was not getting a few loaves and dried fish to multiply – the miracle was far more than that. Seen in the broader context of Jesus’ ministry, what the miracle actually was is very different from the obvious.

The essay made me see that the miracles Jesus performed are less important as miracles as the reasons why he performed them in the first place: "Jesus’ burning passion was to free those he encountered from the grip of religious mystification and scandalous delusion whose effects were to harden the human heart and turn people into accomplices in cruelty and lovelessness.

In trying to bring about this liberation, Jesus seems to have found the popular appetite for miracles exasperating. At times he fled from crowds looking for a miracle worker, and he resolutely refused to perform miracles simply for the purpose of demonstrating his ability to perform them."

Even though we are separated 2000 years from the miracles, the modern consciousness still seems to share that popular appetite of the time.

When I first posted this several weeks back, many seized upon it as denying the miracle, but I never saw that in it. Bailie (to me anyways) was trying to show why Christ employed the miracle.

Once you need to explain the God man’s “miracles,” it’s only another hop skip and a jump to how the incarnation or the resurrection was “symbolic” but not “real” and at that point you may as well say all your faith is just so much mumbo-jumbo. So I answer yes, but also look to the spiritual truths in the story. Unfortunately I really wasn’t given that option though.

Never fall into that trap of denying miracles. but neither embrace another extreme of needing the miracles to validate the Lord’s divinity. Bailie hits just the right balance for me.

You can find it all here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/02/16/jesus%e2%80%99-real-miracles/

dj

 

[Cristiano]

This thread was resurrected from 2004???

Yes, I realized it too late. I was ready to check “No. This story just teaches a spiritual truth.” just to see steam coming out of people ears.

 

[crazzeto]

I believe that it is literally true, and that Christ did this not only to feed the multitude but also to convey a deeper spiritual meaning to us.

 

[MIKE46]

Do you have any sources to prove what you are saying?

Yes I do actually and I am glad that you asked.

First I reccomend you read, Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte des Urchristentums ; A two volume set published in 1828 by Heinrich Paulus… English translations are available. In it you will find the gems that Paulus tried to push forth as rational explanations of all miracles in scripture, not just the ones I mentioned.

Second, I reccomend that you read the writings of Professor Bart Ehrman, a Professor of Religion, in fact I believe that he is the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He is a self proclaimed agnostic, but is highly knowledgeable about early Christianity from a historical perspective. In fact, he is a world renowned expert in the field of early scriptural writings. He goes into a great deal of detail in this area. He has a lecture series on it which is available online.

Third, I reccomend that you familiarize yourself with the courses taught at Catholic as well as Protestant Seminaries and see what sources they use for the development of their religious studies programs. You may be quite surprised at what you find.

That is if you have any doubt that this garbage is still being taught.

For the impact on the Protestants I would recomend in addition to the above a lecture series given by Pastor Tom Nelson from the Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas entitled Church History, which includes a segment on the development of the fundamentalist movement in Protestantism and the effects of rationalism, modernism and relativism on the Protestant understanding and intrepetation of scripture. It is a very informative lecture series, if highly prejudiced against the institutional Catholic Church and is available on tape and I believe CD from the Denton Bible Church.

 

[frenchbeatle]

I’ve heard this idea myself from a group at my old church. The group basically said that all the miracles in the NT were made up by the Apostles to make people believe in Jesus.

Needless to say, I left the group soon after.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<< Quote: I am currently in RCIA. While I realize it may not be appropriate to take all of the Bible literally, where is the line?

In my readings and discussions, I have encountered many Catholics who say that the Creation account is not really literal and it OK to be an evolutionary theist. OK, there may be some wiggle room there.

How about the Feeding of the 5,000? Did Christ really create enough bread and fish to feed so many? Recently, I have even heard attempts to spiritualize that miracle among others.

It seems to me that there is an extreme tinge of modernism afoot in the the Catholic church. What say ye? >>>>>

Mal: to which I respond - Why is it not appropriate to take all of the Bible Exegesis appproved by Holy Mother the Church as expounded upon by Numerous Saints , Doctors ,Theologians , Popes , and Church Councils.

Secondly - are these so called Catholics who claim to be Catholic more qualified to teach than the Church itself? I imagine we could find a Cafeteria Catholic to justify just about every heresy if we looked hard enough couldnt we?

Third - do you believe in the Real Presence? Because if you do that Miracle ( to an even greater extent) is taking place every single day isnt it. Now do you have to taste the Bread and Fish before you will believe? Or is the fact that the Same Power that rained mannna from heaven and multiplied the Loaves and Fishes comes to you in an even greater miracle - in the Flesh and Blood.

So to answer your question - yes indeed there is the Heresy of Modernism infesting many Churches and methinks you have come across some of it. But dont assume all Catholics dont understand the teachings of Holy mother the Church as GOD’s Truth and arent ashamed to say so even if ridiculed by non Catholics. And keep one thing in mind -GOD himself wrote Scripture through those whom he inspired to take pen -and he wrote Scripture in such a way that only the worthy would take the time to understand that GOD’s Word is multi dimensional and understood by the Spirit through HIS Grace and that his CHURCH Alone can dicern its contextural meaning for the laity.

And of course if you need to verify what I say - for the Multiplication get a copy of the Douay Rheims and read the Holy Gospel according to St John Chapter 6 in its entirety and as to why Scripture is written the way it is written read 1 Corinthians Chapter 2 in its entirety. The Church teaches us to Live our Faith - to pray do penance recieve the sacraments to fast to suffer to offer sacrifice and to grow in spirit. Try doing those things for a year and then read Scripture and see if your perception changes or not. Those who are quick to critisize the literal interpretation of Scripture from a worldly perspective will come to a worldly conclusion - just as GOD expects. But if you want the Word of GOD you need to do more than simply read.

pax

 

[Layman]

I’ve read accounts of ordinary sorcerors producing food out of thin air so I see no obstacle to the Son Of God, having mastery over matter and energy, producing food to feed a multitude.