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

[webdezyn]

The Church teaches that Jesus really multiplied the fish and loaves. When things are blurry look to the Church to clear things up. they have the authority given by Christ to interpret the bible and teach the members of the Church.

.

 

[DrCat]

I like Mother Angelica’s comeback for comments against the miracles as recorded in the Gospels: “Were you there?” If the person says “no” (and it’s obvious he will have to), the next comment should be “Then I’ll trust the report of those who were there – the Apostles.”

Welcome home.

John

 

[dcmac]

Ohio Bob,

It wouldn’t likely have been raw fish. Rather it would have been cured. Curing fish is a very common practice today in the Holy Land and it is logical to assume it was he case then as well. I once heard Jeff Cavins, or some other EWTN personality, say that the fish would likely have been Talapia. I have had cured Talapia and boy is it very good. So, I doubt that there was a handing out of raw fish…especially given the Mosaic laws for proper food preparation. Of course I am not an expert on Mosaic Law and don’t know if it is kosher or not…I will ask my e-friends at the Association of Hebrew Catholics site and get back.

P.S. This whole “miraclphobia” of the left is so retarded. I was once taught in a Bible Study by a nun that the parting of the Red Sea was not really what happened, but rather that they passed through some reeds that were ankle deep in water. To which my only thought is that the recording of the miracle is in error, for the miracle in that case truly lies in God drowning Pharaoh, his men and all the horses in ankle deep water.

 

[Keith_Barrett]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that there are two senses in which we can interpret scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The spiritual sense can be further divided into three senses: the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical. But it is important to note, that all three spiritual senses derive from the literal sense.

Furthermore, in looking at the gospels, I like to differentiate between what Jesus’s actions and words indicate and what the author’s intentions were in telling the story.

Therefore, in the case of the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, you have to start from the understanding that the story is literally true, before you get to any allegorical
interpretations (see Robin L. in TX’s post in this thread) or any moral interpretations (see all the posts on the whole “teaching about sharing” issue). Here I have to say, IMHO, the allegorical and moral senses of this piece of scripture probably have more to do with the writer’s intentions than with Jesus’s own intentions.

I think Jesus performed a miracle in order to feed a hungry crowd. I also think that this does not preclude us from reading more into the miracle. If we want to interpret this as a story about sharing, then this interpretation only fits if we look at it in the light of Jesus sharing himself with the crowd and how this may be a foreshadowing of his institution of the Eucharist. The idea of the people sharing with one another, while this may be true to a certain extent, is of minor consequence, because there was patently not enough food to go around. To elevate this issue to anything more than an incidental occurance, is to subvert the literal sense of the scripture. This, as I have indicated above, is contrary to Catholic teaching.

 

[OhioBob]

dcmac:

Ohio Bob,
It wouldn’t likely have been raw fish. Rather it would have been cured. Curing fish is a very common practice today in the Holy Land and it is logical to assume it was he case then as well. I once heard Jeff Cavins, or some other EWTN personality, say that the fish would likely have been Talapia. I have had cured Talapia and boy is it very good. So, I doubt that there was a handing out of raw fish…especially given the Mosaic laws for proper food preparation.

Thanks for the info. I know it seemed like a silly thought, but I had always wondered about that part of it. It didn’t lessen my belief in the miracle but it did tend to muddy up my imagery about how the event may have taken place.I assumed there was a cultural divide that was limiting my understanding of the context.

I’m also not much of a fish person. Now if Jesus had multiplied pizza, that would have been something!

 

[Brad]

If Jesus did not rise from the dead then why would someone be a Catholic priest or even a Catholic layperson? The whole religion would be based on a scam. If Jesus did rise from the dead then how could you not believe that he multiplied the loaves and fishes?

I heard a story at a conference a few years ago:

A professor was explaining to his class that Jesus did not literally walk on water - what happened, in fact, was that the lake was unusually dry and he was able to walk in areas that were usually too deep. A student raised his hand yelling “it’s a miracle, it’s a miracle”. The professor asked him what he was talking about. The student replied “It’s a miracle! Peter sunk into dry land!”.

Modernism is very prevalent in the Church. It must be combatted. If you need a good reference read the encyclical PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS from 1907 - it was a grave problem then. See link:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

I am still learning about this (and still appalled that it has been allowed to continue to such a degree). What I have discovered is that “scholars” with a modernist viewpoint believe that John Henry Cardinal Newman claimed that the opinion of theologians in schools carries at least the same weight at that of the teaching Magesterium of the Church, even if those opinions conflict with permanent and/or infallible teachings. This is plainly wrong - Newman did not mean this - and even if he did, it is wrong according to Church teaching.

If a theologian or priest has a view in contrary to the teaching of the Church, they should take it up with the Church hierarchy, NOT teach it as truth from the pulpit!

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Funny, my second post should include my remembrance of a CS Lewis line:

“the sort of theological liberalism that swallows the camel of the Resurrection and strains out the gnat of the multipication of loaves and fishes”

 

[skate]

Thanks for the C.S. Lewis line, it’s perfect! :tiphat:
Lion of Narnia:

Funny, my second post should include my remembrance of a CS Lewis line:

“the sort of theological liberalism that swallows the camel of the Resurrection and strains out the gnat of the multipication of loaves and fishes”

 

[RNRobert]

Brad:

If Jesus did not rise from the dead then why would someone be a Catholic priest or even a Catholic layperson? The whole religion would be based on a scam. If Jesus did rise from the dead then how could you not believe that he multiplied the loaves and fishes?

I heard a story at a conference a few years ago:

A professor was explaining to his class that Jesus did not literally walk on water - what happened, in fact, was that the lake was unusually dry and he was able to walk in areas that were usually too deep. A student raised his hand yelling “it’s a miracle, it’s a miracle”. The professor asked him what he was talking about. The student replied “It’s a miracle! Peter sunk into dry land!”.

I
Modernism is very prevalent in the Church. It must be combatted. If you need a good reference read the encyclical PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS from 1907 - it was a grave problem then. See link:

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

I am still learning about this (and still appalled that it has been allowed to continue to such a degree). What I have discovered is that “scholars” with a modernist viewpoint believe that John Henry Cardinal Newman claimed that the opinion of theologians in schools carries at least the same weight at that of the teaching Magesterium of the Church, even if those opinions conflict with permanent and/or infallible teachings. This is plainly wrong - Newman did not mean this - and even if he did, it is wrong according to Church teaching.

If a theologian or priest has a view in contrary to the teaching of the Church, they should take it up with the Church hierarchy, NOT teach it as truth from the pulpit!

didn’t embrace Christianity until 1991, and I didn’t become Catholic until 1996. One of the things that had turned me off from Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular were things like the Inquisition.

HOWEVER, after being a Catholic for a few years and seeing the pernicious and downright EVIL effect that liberalism and modernism has had on the church, I can perfectly understand why they burned heretics in those days. Not that we should (or even could) go back to those days, but I think the church leadership really needs to put it’s foot down on these things.

Addtionally, if these people can’t accept the church’s teaching, why don’t they leave? Continuing to stay and work in an organzation that you don’t believe in is a form of prostitution, I think. Of course, many of these people are working to corrupt the church deliberately, which is more damnable, IMHO.

 

[Keith_Barrett]

Lion of Narnia:

Funny, my second post should include my remembrance of a CS Lewis line:

“the sort of theological liberalism that swallows the camel of the Resurrection and strains out the gnat of the multipication of loaves and fishes”

Which book does this come from? I read “The Screwtape Letters” a couple of months back (got it from the local library) and thought it was brilliant. Definitely recommended reading.

 

[RNRobert]

Keith Barrett:

Which book does this come from? I read “The Screwtape Letters” a couple of months back (got it from the local library) and thought it was brilliant. Definitely recommended reading.

The quote from C.S. Lewis comes from his paper entitled “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” which can be found in the book Christian Reflections or the abridged version, The Seeing Eye.

 

[Brad]

RNRobert:

didn’t embrace Christianity until 1991, and I didn’t become Catholic until 1996. One of the things that had turned me off from Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular were things like the Inquisition.

HOWEVER, after being a Catholic for a few years and seeing the pernicious and downright EVIL effect that liberalism and modernism has had on the church, I can perfectly understand why they burned heretics in those days. Not that we should (or even could) go back to those days, but I think the church leadership really needs to put it’s foot down on these things.

Addtionally, if these people can’t accept the church’s teaching, why don’t they leave? Continuing to stay and work in an organzation that you don’t believe in is a form of prostitution, I think. Of course, many of these people are working to corrupt the church deliberately, which is more damnable, IMHO.

I don’t have the answers, but I know one good thing that comes from this is that it has encouraged people to vigorously pursue, understand, and defend the Faith. I thank God for the grace he has given me to do this. In fact I thank God for the dissenting priests when I learn something new about my faith or when it encourages me to go to Eucharistic adoration. What also helps is I always remember that I am following Jesus, not a man.

However, at the same time, I am vigilant to contest and combat false teaching because there are many in the pews, and in particular children, that do not have the ability to discern the good from the bad and this has eternal consequences

 

[Charliemac]

RNRobert:

Addtionally, if these people can’t accept the church’s teaching, why don’t they leave? Continuing to stay and work in an organzation that you don’t believe in is a form of prostitution, I think. Of course, many of these people are working to corrupt the church deliberately, which is more damnable, IMHO.

I ask myself this question all the time, and come up with pretty much the same answers.

1. 
   *]Evil does exist in the world, and it is at the root of a spiritual war to corrupt mankind, and attack the Church
   *]The first strategy is to get people to doubt that evil exists, and to get them to buy into small “cultural” changes just one step at a time. (If you want to boil a frog put him in cold water and heat it slowly until he is dead. If you put him in hot water he’ll jump out)
   *]The second strategy is to deny those little things, they are not arguments, just differances in detail. They aren’t big issues. Don’t deny the miracle, people will object - just make it smaller. Don’t deny the Gospels, just deny that they were written by the Evangelists (In the interest of academic freedom I suppose). Don’t deny the Eucharist, but soften your explanation of the “Real Presence,” to make it more acceptable for interfaith dialogue.
   *]There are many Catholics who have sold out to the culture, but to leave would mean they accept a truth about themselves that they would rather deny. So they go about trying to change things within the Church. Look what has happened in most Protestant churches where divorce, homosexuality are OK now because they accepted by the culture. If the Church ever agrees with the culture (it cannot, but those without faith do not know this) then they will be vindicated.
   
   Those who don’t believe in the “Loaves & Fishes” don’t believe in miracles. They probably don’t believe in the Real Presence or are on the way to doubting this, and the other Truths of our Faith. They need our best arguments, and must should always be in our prayers.
   
   So, why don’t they leave? I so often agree with you, but maybe the real answer is because there is still hope for them. Hope, that you and I and others like us step up, and give witness to the Truth. The Truth is not a something but a Someone.
   
   "Oh Lord I believe, help my unbelief. I hope in You, dispel all doubt and fear. I love You, give me an undivided heart."
   
   Charliemac

 

[Funky_Cedars]

RNRobert:

HOWEVER, after being a Catholic for a few years and seeing the pernicious and downright EVIL effect that liberalism and modernism has had on the church, I can perfectly understand why they burned heretics in those days.

oh, thank you for that one, got a nice hearty laugh at that.
ps. whats IMHO mean?
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

 

[RNRobert]

Funky Cedars:

oh, thank you for that one, got a nice hearty laugh at that.
ps. whats IMHO mean?
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

IMHO: In My Humble Opinion. :tiphat:

Glad I could help!

 

[Britta]

I have followed this thread and it seems I may be the only one who finds it easy to see the possibility that the miracle is in the sharing. As I said before, I do not deny Christ’s ability to perform miracles but again, which is harder…for Him to perform a miracle or to change the hearts of people without taking away free will? I really don’t see how looking at it this way denies the Churches teaching nor denies the fact that Jesus performed a miracle. Either way you decide to look at it, He did perform a miracle.

Matt 16:9 was mentioned as to why the Apostles did not have faith to deny the idea of sharing. However, it seems to me that if fishes and loaves had multiplied as a result of Jesus, I would have more faith to believe than if I had witnessed thousands of people sharing what they had. Jesus is constant, people are fickle. Trusting Him is much easier. Just a thought.

On another note, some are concerned that by being open to the idea of this miracle being more about sharing, we are in the clutches of evil and being lead astray. In that regard, I would assert that this would deny the power of Jesus to overcome all evil. As He said, the gates of Hell will not prevail. Besides, I am sure that when the Immaculate Conception was considered and then proclaimed, the same arguments were being made.

God is always in control, no matter what.

 

[twf]

I think it’s important to realize that the Scriptures encompass a wide variety of genres. We must keep this in mind as we interpret Scripture. If a book is written as a historical narrative, take it as true history. If a book is written as an allegory, take it as an allegory. Jesus’ parables should be taken as parables. Lukes accounts of historic events should be taken as historic events (offering spiritual insights, of course). The historical authenticity of the New Testament is really mind boggling. While Protestant, I highly recommend Lee Strobels The Case for Christ…there is no excuse to doubt the historical accuracy of the Gospels.

 

[Mijoy2]

Seems rather funny to me that the same people who claim to believe God created the earth can’t bring themselves to believe other miracles of the Bible such as the one in this thread.

That’s like claiming Superman is: “more powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, faster then a speeding bullet”.
But I don’t believe he can get the top of this jar of mustard.

 

[Funky_Cedars]

Britta:

As I said before, I do not deny Christ’s ability to perform miracles but again, which is harder…for Him to perform a miracle or to change the hearts of people without taking away free will? I really don’t see how looking at it this way denies the Churches teaching nor denies the fact that Jesus performed a miracle. Either way you decide to look at it, He did perform a miracle.

1st, nothing is hard for God, so neither would be ‘harder’. but why think that getting them to share would necessarily be indicatative something along the lines of ‘miraculous activity’ or even more? this requires a presumption which nothing in the writing suggests- that some of the crowd had plenty of food but were extremely selfish and were adamantly refusing to share it with those who were hungry but had no food of their own. no one knows that J would need to ‘change the hearts of’ anyone in the crowd to get them to share, that requires one to take on a very negative view of the crowd.
and how many had food? if any of the people were carrying food, why weren’t most of them doing so? so were there 4750 who had food? half of the crowd? 1/10? just 18 people? and given that there was so much excess food, was it really significant for J to convince those who were so abundantly burdened with food to give a little bit to their neighbor?
finally, as i asked earlier, if the miracle was in changing the hearts of the crowd and not in multiplying food, why does God lie about it and make up the story as written? especially a story which seems to make clear that there was no food available and then J gave the people some thing to eat- like Daddy had done when we were in the desert after leaving egypt. or do we also think that there really wasn’t manna in the morning as a gift from G-d as scripture tells us, rather Moses went aroung every night and convinced those with food to lay it out for the others? cause if the feeding of the 5,000 occured like Daddy tells it, it would seem that J was 1) providing His credentials by immitating His Father, and 2) giving a preview of His Eucharist. neither of these occurs if He just convinced folks to share.
if it went like some revisionists suggest, Daddy becomes unreliable at best, tho’ ‘deceitful’ seems to be more descriptive. either way, He’d be a lousy god whom i would not bother to worship. fortunately, He is neither fickle nor a liar.
thanks for listening, love and peace, terry

 

[Matt16_18]

As an aside, has anyone else here seen Viva Christo Rei (sic)

I have seen this video, and it a fine example of the miracle of the multiplication of food in our times. Does anyone know where I can buy a copy of this video? I would love to buy it for our RCIA program.