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

[robertaf]

Greetings Church

The miracle of multiplication still happens in the Church. They have been documented by witnesses. Some are multiplication of food. I had a miracle of this sort with the Holy Eucharist. I posted it in Miracles do happen. I will post it again here. I hope this is not against the rules.

This is an Eucharistic Miracle.
About 18 years ago, I was a Eucharistic Minister in a Southern California parish. One particular Sunday, I was to serve the Precious Blood.
Father was known for being a bit stingy with the amount of wine he Consecrated. He often came up short.
This particular Sundday, we had some Baptisms and had large groups of family members show up, more than expected.
Then, without anyone knowing or remembering the Knights all showed up with their families. It looked like an Easter or Christmas Mass, the Church had folks standing out on the steps outside. It was a mob scene.
At any rate, Father consecrated just a little extra wine because of the Baptism, not really enough for that.
I ended up serving out of the large pewter chalice and we had 3 other Eucharistic ministers serving the preceous blood out of 3 smaller ones.

(continued on next page)

 

[robertaf]

We had been distributing Communion for a while when the other three Eucharistic Ministers started running out. Each one walked over behind me and looked down into the largest chalice. I was below half when the first one ran out. Father and the Deacon had also glanced over to check. By the time the third Minister ran out, I had about half inch of Precious Blood left and looked up to see the line still clear out the doors of the church. I looked at Our Lord and said, “Jesus, there is not enough of your precious Blood to serve everybody”. At that, my cup was instantly full to the brim! It was strange because the outside of the pewter fogged up to the line where it was full. I gasped and when I did, Father and the Deacon looked to see why, by now I was weeping. Father just smiled.

I continued to serve everyone in line, as they saw the full chalice it was becoming obvious what had happened. When everyone in the Church had been served, the chalice was still completely full and had to be consumed by all of the ministers, the Deacon and Father. He was a very traditional Portuguese Priest but was not in the least way surprised. He told us that miracles of the Eucharist should be expected as Jesus is certainly a Miracle Worker.

If any one in that Church had questioned the Real Presence before, I am sure they did not after this. My devotion to the Holy Eucharist is a great thing in my life.

PRAISE BE TO GOD!

 

[Britta]

Funky Cedars:

1st, nothing is hard for God, so neither would be ‘harder’.

You’re right. Nothing is hard for God. But in that regard, while leaving us our free will, I am sure He gets pretty frustrated with us when we go against His. Look at the OT Jews, Judges and Kings to be exct. Over and over again, God gave them over to their sins. He did not get in their way. It is only until they fell on their knees and begged for His help did He raise up another Judge/King to free them.

but why think that getting them to share would necessarily be indicatative something along the lines of ‘miraculous activity’ or even more?

Anytime we love one another as God would have us, it is a miracle. I have a tendency to see miracles in the simplest ways and this is one of them. The amount of sharing and concern we had for one another after 911 was a miracle.

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.

As to the amount of food, this comes from the logical position that these people were traveling quite extensively. They were used to this type of travel. I would venture to say that each family had plenty for the trip. Who has ever taken a long trip with their family and not gone prepared. I don’t believe there were many, if any, who had nothing.

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?

How is it that he lied about it?

a story which seems to make clear that there was no food available and then J gave the people some thing to eat

I find it hard to believe that these people came so unprepared to feed their families.

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

How is His ability to show love and bring people to love one another and share what they have make Him unreliable, deceitful, and a lousy God?

Just as a side note, I don’t know truthfully if I adhere to this particular position but I find it an interesting way to explain it. Bottom line - a miracle happened. I just don’t see why seeing it either way makes it “sooooo” bad. Some have even gone to say that those who believe this should leave the church. Very extreme position. When we place Jesus in a nice little box and then that idea is challenged, it can create some rather heated and extremely dangerous attitudes. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and questions. I really find these different interpretations interesting.

 

[Matt16_18]

Robertaf

At that, my cup was instantly full to the brim! It was strange because the outside of the pewter fogged up to the line where it was full. I gasped and when I did, Father and the Deacon looked to see why, by now I was weeping.

It brought tears to my eyes just reading your story.

 

[ferdie]

Robertaf

At that, my cup was instantly full to the brim! It was strange because the outside of the pewter fogged up to the line where it was full. I gasped and when I did, Father and the Deacon looked to see why, by now I was weeping.

It brought tears to my eyes just reading your story.

Same here. God has ways of cheering up His children. I was so physically and spiritually down today but reading Robertaf’s witness made me praise God and I offered my sufferings to him. Now I’m happy again.

 

[Funky_Cedars]

Britta:

I would venture to say that each family had plenty for the trip…I don’t believe there were many, if any, who had nothing…How is it that he lied about it?..I find it hard to believe that these people came so unprepared to feed their families…How is His ability to show love and bring people to love one another and share what they have make Him unreliable, deceitful, and a lousy God?

ok, if everyone had food, basically He got them to have a potluck and collected the extra food. why not just say that? it could make a nice story, ‘as it drew late, the Lord called the crowd to prepare their dinner meals and place them in small portions on their salad plates. then He blessed the meal and asked His disciples to pass the servings amongst the crowd, seeing to it that no one went hungry. after everyone ate their fill, the extra portions were collected and filled 12 baskets.’ but if that is what happened, why does Daddy instead say ‘hey, check this out! My Boy fed well over 5,000 folks with only 5 loaves and 2 fish!’? what possible purpose can this serve? why tell a story that must be dismissed for us to understand; ‘disregard the disciples telling J that there was no way for them to feed the crowd and asking Him to dismiss the crowds so they could find food; the crowds would have been carrying enough food to feed themselves. disregard the part about the food being multiplied; food was only passed about.’ that doesn’t make sense. if my understanding is supposed to be based on the literal first (CCC 116), why bother telling stories which i must first disregard literally in order to understand? He muddies it up so it’s clear? it almost sounds like that song by cliff richards, ‘(got to be) cruel to be kind’. (that was cliff richards, wasn’t it?)
anywho, that’s my freak on this issue; i just don’t get why Daddy would have made up stories about J. and if He, i’d feel deceived.
again thanks, love and peace, terry
oh, if you could say a prayer for jim, that’d be cool.

 

[Ghosty]

RNRobert: I too was a major critic of the Inquisition, and now that I’m Catholic I often find myself wishing that we had an active group like that today. No torture or death sentances, but rather legal methods consistant with our values today. I personally think that it would be MORE charitable for the Church to use Excommunication more often; there are too many souls in jeopardy because the Church takes a too-soft hand, it seems, at times. In Europe the faith of the people is falling away, and in the U.S. it is bewing perverted to the point of blatant heresy. Maybe I’m too headstrong in my faith and devotion to orthodoxy, but I honestly feel sorrow and pain when I see so many lost souls around me, who fail to see God because of the deception of others. I just pray that they are truly invincibly ignorant.

robertaf: Beautiful testimony! I pray that someday I am able to witness such an open miracle. I believe in the Real Presence 100%, and I want to see the joy on the faces of skeptics when they realize they are really partaking of the Body and Blood.

 

[RNRobert]

This thread reminds me of something I read in a footnote of one of C.S. Lewis’s essays. Lewis was over at his bishop’s house for dinner. After dinner, while the bishop was out of the room, Lewis noticed a book entitiled Windsor Sermons by one Alec Vidler. Lewis read one essay entitled the ‘The Sign at Cana.’ When the bishop returned, he asked Lewis is opinion of the book. Lewis told him that he thought it quite incredible that we should have to wait 2,000 years for a theologian called Vidler that what the church has always regarded as a miracle was, in fact, a parable! :whacky:

G.K. Chesterton also comes to mind. In *Orthodoxy *he wrote:

"For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them. Why, I cannot imagine, nor can anybody tell me. For some inconceivable cause, a “broad” or “liberal” clergyman always means a man who wishes at least to diminish the number of miracles; it never means a man who wishes to decrease that number. It always means a man who is free to disbelieve that Christ came out of his grave; it never means a man who is free to believe that his own aunt came out of her grave. It is common to find trouble in a parish because the parish priest cannot admit that St. Peter walked on water; yet how rarely do we find trouble in a parish because the clergyman says that his father walked on the Serpentine (a lake in Hyde Park, London)?

He later says “The only thing which is still old-fashioned enough to reject miracles is the New Theology.”

 

[kparlet]

dts:

How about the Feeding of the 5,000? Did Christ really create enough bread and fish to feed so many? What say ye?

I believe it forshadows His ability to multiply himself in the Eucharist.

 

[csr]

Use of symbolic numbers does not indicate that events did not occur as described.

Also, the multiplication did not violate anyone’s free will.

 

[JoaoMachado]

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. 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.
.

I have to admit, that put a grin on my face!:yup:

I for one, absolutely agree that the mulitplication really happened! One thing I have been studying, is the dietary laws and what they mean. One of the things the Israelites could not eat was shell fish, or anything that crawled at the bottom of the ocean. In reading the Epistle of Barnabas, *“And thou shalt not eat,” he says, “the lamprey, or the polypus, or the cuttlefish.” He means, “Thou shalt not join thyself or be like to such men as are ungodly to the end, and are condemned to death.” In like manner as those fishes, above accursed, float in the deep, not swimming [on the surface] like the rest, but make their abode in the mud which lies at the bottom. *

Apparently the ocean waters had a very symbolic meaning of the heavens, the bottom of the ocean symbolized the earth and so forth. So, when Jesus multiplys the loaves and fishes, where does fish come from? The waters of the ocean, which mean Heaven, so He is giving us the Bread from Heaven.
*John 6:32 DRB
(32) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.

***Jesus did it,
The Apoostles wrote it down,
I believe it!

God bless,

Joao
**All the sudden I am in the mood for a ham sandwhich?:ehh:
**

 

[Mike_O]

dts:

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?

Consider this simple question: what reason would the Gospel writers have to lie about these miracles?

There were sufficient numbers of people about to see the Lord heal the blind, the lepers, the sick, and the dead.

There were sufficient people to hear His teachings.

Why add extra miracles that never occurred?

Answer: Because they were real.

 

[Buckeyejoe]

If you have 5000 people attending a Mass during a spiritual conference, does Jesus not appear in all 5000 pieces of bread? (Eucharist).

The placement of the feeding of the 5000 in John’s gospel JUST precedes the discourse on the Eucharist the Bread from Heaven.
This bread was multiplied to feed 5,000, likewise Jesus can multiply His Presence to be in hundreds of millions of hosts every Sunday at Mass around the world.

 

[bboop]

We are in RCIA currently, too. There is a huge pile of Liberal Garbage being taught there. I think the best text for RCIA would be, is, the Catechism, which we are very familiar with. The class seems to be more of a propaganda tool to inculcate yet more Catholics into ‘dissenting theology.’ Challenge any statement you do not perceive to be True. The sheep are being led astray. The Shepherd could NOT be happy.

I take so much of the Bible literally. People who explain ‘Loaves and Fishes’ as ‘everyone shared their picnics’ are seeing it through their own (small) minds. What does it say in the Bible? Something about ‘My mind is not your mind,’ says the Lord. (pardon my terrible Biblical memorization…). That our minds are too small to conceive of His glory, to understand His majesty. ie, Just because we cannot explain the MIRACLE of the Loaves and the Fishes adequately, in scientific-materialistic terms, does not mean it did not happen. It only means our minds are too limited to fully comprehend it. That is why they call it a Miracle, and it is why they call Him God.

 

[TheGrowingGrape]

The very suggestion that the Multiplication miracle of the 5000 is a metaphor is heresy. If your RCIA program is teaching this, then I’d leave. Go find an older priest, and do your catechism via home study.** Anyone who teaches this is an idiot!!!**

The multiplication miracle happened LITERALLY. It is NOT a metaphor for people sharing. I think it’s good to share things, but think about it … they had only a couple of fish to begin with and a couple of rolls to begin with. Unless each person was filled by a single crumb and by a tiny cube of fish meat, then it would be phycially impossible to share!!!

When you apply science and math to the multiplication event, all the numbers point to a miracle. It is physically impossible otherwise.

 

[Robin_L.in_TX]

The biggest problem with thinking that the people had enough food secreted about their persons to feed such a crowd is Mark 8:2-4 (and probably other verses in the other Gospels as well.

[2] “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat;
[3] and if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come a long way.”
[4] And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?”

Jesus was speaking to his disciples and KNEW that the crowd had no food. I, for one, believe Jesus’ testimony rather than that of theologians more than 2,000 years removed for the incident. Liar, lunatic or lord. I say, Lord!

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX

 

[Praise_Singer]

Brad:

The student replied “It’s a miracle! Peter sunk into dry land!”.

You get a rec for this; I can’t stop laughing…

 

[Brad]

Praise Singer:

You get a rec for this; I can’t stop laughing…

Yes - I wish I was this clever - I would like to commend the student, whoever it is.

 

[Brad]

Robin L. in TX:

Jesus was speaking to his disciples and KNEW that the crowd had no food. I, for one, believe Jesus’ testimony rather than that of theologians more than 2,000 years removed for the incident. Liar, lunatic or lord. I say, Lord!

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX

A big, giant AMEN!!! I just made that statement in church the other day. You must have read Lee Strobel’s book?

 

[RNRobert]

Robin L. in TX:

Jesus was speaking to his disciples and KNEW that the crowd had no food. I, for one, believe Jesus’ testimony rather than that of theologians more than 2,000 years removed for the incident. Liar, lunatic or lord. I say, Lord!

This reminds me of what C. S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying that really foolish thing that people often say about him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic- on the level of a man who says he is a poached egg- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.