My Priest says the miracles weren't really miracles?

[BuffaloNickels]

I have to say that I’m slowly having my spirit crushed in this parish, and when I told some other Catholic I was told that my priest is preaching heresy.

Just for one example - the miracle of the fish and the loaves. We were told that the real “miracle” was just getting people to share. That women with children and families would have been gathering there, and in lack of Mickey Ds back then - would have brought their own food and drink and that all it was, was one big potluck.

Is there an official church teaching on this matter somewhere? would the Pope say that it was a true miracle or just a picnic-pot-luck?

 

[Brendan]

I have to say that I’m slowly having my spirit crushed in this parish, and when I told some other Catholic I was told that my priest is preaching heresy.

Just for one example - the miracle of the fish and the loaves. We were told that the real “miracle” was just getting people to share.

So your priest thinks that getting a bunch of Jews to actually share something is so miraculous that it should be considered a sign of Divinity? And that such an occurance should be so noteworthy as to be recorded in Sacred Scripture for all future generations to ponder?

Is your priest really that anti-Semitic?

 

[Marsha_Adams]

If your priest doesn’t believe that Jesus really multiplied the loaves and fishes, does he really believe that transubstantiation occurs when he consecrates the host? If not, you may need to find another parrish.

 

[LindaSK]

We had a missionary who came and preached on this very passage. He, in his homily, also spoke of the sharing aspect of the feeding of the five thousand. It seemed he really downplayed it as a ‘miracle.’

When our priest returned, I was very quick to question him about this. His explanation was that, as a missionary, he was there primarily to elicit donations to support their missionary efforts, and his focus was on encouraging us to share with those who have far less than we do. Our priest was very clear that this indeed is a ‘miracle.’ In fact, it is the only one mentioned in all four gospels.

I would approach the priest - in charity.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Don’t let one person’s misconceptions of Christian teaching (even if that person with the misconception is your priest) affect **your **understanding of Christian teaching.

Be strong like St. Paul and hold fast to the traditions you know and not to any of these little ‘post modern’ things.

Your priest won’t be there forever, and he may not even keep this opinion forever either. More and more this type of thinking is having a sort of ‘last gasp’ as the often aging proponents feel they have to inflict–I mean, instruct–it before the “spirit of V2” disappears under the ‘chokehold’ of us pesky ‘traditional’ Catholics. In another 20 years or so, this type of teaching will be only a footnote, mentioned with more sorrow than anger as a cockeyed teaching which has mercifully died out along with other heresies.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I have an easier time believing in Biblical miracles than I do modern miracles. It seems like it doesn’t take much to be a miracle today. Perhaps we’re so desperate for them that we’ll make them where they are questionable.

 

[Just_Lurking]

From Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible by Raymond Brown (from Q 48):

Yet, I warn very strongly against a modernization of the miracles in a liberal fashion, e.g., explaining the multiplication of the loaves in terms of Jesus touching the hearts of those present so that they opened their knapsacks and brought out hidden food. That is absolute nonsense: it is not what the Gospels narrate, but rather an attempt to evade the import of what is narrated. Another example is to explain his walking on the water in terms of shallow depth. The explanation is shallow, not the water.

 

[bpbasilphx]

While I personally believe that Jesus materialized more bread and fish, is it not even a GREATER and MORE DIFFICULT miracle for God to move hard and selfish hearts to generosity? Remember, He does not ravish, but will only woo.

There’s also a third miracle that only one person I know has mentioned: That the multitudes were so caught up in Jesus’s words that they forgot about food for 3 days.

All of these are equally miraculous.

 

[TheRock88]

I would find another parish (you dont want to start beleiving heresies), pray for the priest (if he’s teaching heresies, this could be very damaging to the congregation) and also report him to the bishop.

 

[oksoitworked]

yeah, praying for the priest (and the clergy in general) should be #1. Deficiencies / heresy in the clergy can be attributed to the lack of prayers for them by the laity.

 

[patg]

There is no way this is even related to heresy. There is no dogmatic requirement to believe that this story (or most of the other miracle type stories) relate a literal miracle. The church specifically names those which must be believed as a Catholic.

Most of the “miracles” aren’t even unique to Jesus - there were a number of documented Jewish holy men who performed similar feats. The value of most of the miracle stories is that they point out to the Jews that Jesus was a “Holy Man”.

Your priest may be guilty of exposing acceptable options and theories to people who aren’t totally aware of the actual teachings related to scrupture analysis. You might want to read the Instruction Concerning the Historical Truth of the Gospels (available onliine).

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Dogma teaches that the Bible is Inerrant. Saying that Jesus did not do what the BIble says He did suggest that the Bible is in error, therefore this could be considered a heresy.

More importantly, if Jesus did not multiply the loaves and the fishes, if all He did was encourage everyone to share, the WHY did the people follow Him all the way around the Sea of Galilee so Jesus could give them more food?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Dogma teaches that the Bible is Inerrant. Saying that Jesus did not do what the BIble says He did suggest that the Bible is in error, therefore this could be considered a heresy.

More importantly, if Jesus did not multiply the loaves and the fishes, if all He did was encourage everyone to share, the WHY did the people follow Him all the way around the Sea of Galilee so Jesus could give them more food?/quote

Now Marsha, don’t try to confuse all the postmodern ‘scholars’ with things like facts, faith, tradition, and above all, the nature of God. Don’t you know that to them, it isn’t even necessary for Jesus to have even existed? The resurrection didn’t happen, humanity is perfect the way it is, and nothing matters other than celebrating ‘marvelous human me’ in whatever ‘mythos’ one chooses, and jettisoning anything ‘miraculous’ as simply the human ‘storyteller’ imagination at work. . . .

 

[patg]

Dogma teaches that the Bible is Inerrant.

It does teach the Inerrant truth. Many literary forms are available to do that, including fiction. There is no Dogma of the Loaves.

Saying that Jesus did not do what the BIble says He did suggest that the Bible is in error, therefore this could be considered a heresy.

That is no true at all. Even the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI state that Jesus did not do or say everything as described in the NT. Read the* Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels* or* Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know.*

More importantly, if Jesus did not multiply the loaves and the fishes, if all He did was encourage everyone to share, the WHY did the people follow Him all the way around the Sea of Galilee so Jesus could give them more food?

Because that is how the author created the story to teach the intended truth.

 

[FCEGM]

I have to say that I’m slowly having my spirit crushed in this parish, and when I told some other Catholic I was told that my priest is preaching heresy.

Just for one example - the miracle of the fish and the loaves. We were told that the real “miracle” was just getting people to share. That women with children and families would have been gathering there, and in lack of Mickey Ds back then - would have brought their own food and drink and that all it was, was one big potluck.

Is there an official church teaching on this matter somewhere? would the Pope say that it was a true miracle or just a picnic-pot-luck?

Everytime this Gospel is proclaimed I begin my prayers to Mary that the priest in his homily will be prevented from confusing his people and leading them astray. This article from This Rock magazine addresses the problem and the don’t-dare-call-it-a-miracle homilists.

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0801fea4.asp

 

[patg]

Marsha Adams;6192860:

Now Marsha, don’t try to confuse all the postmodern ‘scholars’ with things like facts, faith, tradition, and above all, the nature of God. Don’t you know that to them, it isn’t even necessary for Jesus to have even existed? The resurrection didn’t happen, humanity is perfect the way it is, and nothing matters other than celebrating ‘marvelous human me’ in whatever ‘mythos’ one chooses, and jettisoning anything ‘miraculous’ as simply the human ‘storyteller’ imagination at work. . . .

Now Marsha, make sure you understand the *Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation *and the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels and exactly what the Church dogmatically states you must believe literalistically (only a small handful of things) before you automatically adopt a more fundamentalist view. Of course either view is all right with the church and neither are heresy.

 

[FCEGM]

From the Catechism:

547 Jesus accompanies his words with many “mighty works and wonders and signs”, which manifest that the kingdom is present in him and attest that he was the promised Messiah.268

548 The signs worked by Jesus attest that the Father has sent him. They invite belief in him.269 To those who turn to him in faith, he grants what they ask.270 So miracles strengthen faith in the One who does his Father’s works; they bear witness that he is the Son of God.271 But his miracles can also be occasions for “offence”;272 they are not intended to satisfy people’s curiosity or desire for magic Despite his evident miracles some people reject Jesus; he is even accused of acting by the power of demons.273

1335 The miracles of the multiplication of the loaves, when the Lord says the blessing, breaks and distributes the loaves through his disciples to feed the multitude, prefigure the superabundance of this unique bread of his Eucharist. The sign of water turned into wine at Cana already announces the Hour of Jesus’ glorification. It makes manifest the fulfillment of the wedding feast in the Father’s kingdom, where the faithful will drink the new wine that has become the Blood of Christ.

But, then, maybe He didn’t actually turn water into wine, either.

 

[chaunceygardner]

There are several layers to this story, including the emphasis on community and sharing, the role of the Apostles, the connection between this story and the OT story of Manna in the desert, and the connection between hunger for food and hunger for the Word of God. Much to meditate about.

It is in Mark Chapter 8 (2nd occurrence) that the people have been with Jesus for three days, but that doesn’t mean that they hadn’t eaten for three days. That statement could be there to show that they had run out of food in that time. If Jesus KNEW that the people had more food with them and would share it, then He would have been lying when He said that they “have nothing to eat” Can’t imagine that. And Jesus, considering who He was, would know if the people had enough food to share. If He stated otherwise to make a point, He would also be deceiving everyone and being less than honest. Not very likely.

Plus, if prior to this the people were holding on to the food they had, after everyone was done would they have “given up” all that extra food, or would those who had “leftovers” in front of them packed it away for later? I vote for option 2. So I think the “sharing” explanation is missing the obvious problems it presents and also lessens the meaning of what occurred.

There are certainly deeper meanings to these stories than “just” a miracle. Jesus uses them as a teaching moment for His disciples, as is reported later in Mark 8:

He enjoined them, “Watch out, guard against the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.”
They concluded among themselves that it was because they had no bread.
When he became aware of this he said to them, “Why do you conclude that it is because you have no bread? Do you not yet understand or comprehend? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes and not see, ears and not hear? And do you not remember, when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many wicker baskets full of fragments you picked up?”
They answered him, “Twelve.” “When I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many full baskets of fragments did you pick up?” They answered (him), “Seven.”
He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”

To me there is a message within this about trusting the Lord, and how those who open themselves to God’s love receive it in abundance. Jesus provides “food for the soul” that nourishes the spirit of His disciples in the same way that He provided food for their bodies. Jesus also demonstrates that nothing is impossible in the Kingdom of God that He has been proclaiming prior to the miracle(s).

So to say that there is another explanation besides the power of God here seems like a stretch, but there is also much more meaning to it than the outward sign of a miracle. There was a purpose and a meaning to everything that Jesus did and everything He taught. We should always read these stories and the parables with that in mind and contemplate what Jesus is trying to teach us.

 

[TheRock88]

Does your priest believe in any miracles of the bible or is it just the one of the loaves and fishes he disputes?

 

[BuffaloNickels]

He seems to dismiss a lot of the Bible as actual fact, that just happened to be the one I particularly remembered the story as to why he claimed it wasn’t a miracle. So far it seems like he’s chalked the whole old testement as just an inspired fictional story. He admits that the “stories” are there for a reason and that they are inspired, but more of one giant parable. He did pass off the wine at Cana as not a big deal too, but I don’t remember the sermon that went with that one.