Theory: Schism: 7 Loaves | Heresy: 5 loaves + 2 Fish

[spauline]

Here is some ideas I’ve been perusing.

Any time Christ gives us Sanctifying Grace, he is feeding us spiritually, the pinnacle of which is the Eucharist. But, of course, the greatest forms of spiritual feeding are the Sacraments. Now, consider this, with the several big big dogmas of faith, we have one line Scriptures that dogmatically address this:

I. Original Sin (Romans “Through Adam, all have sinned”)
II. Papal Infalliblity (Matt. 16:18 “And you are ROCK…”)
III. Confession (John 20? “Whosever sins you forgive…”)
IV. **Eucharist **(“This is my Body…”)

But, I’m wondering, considering the unimaginable importance of the Sacraments, why is it that until now, the Church has to fish out the seven sacraments from the Scriptures here and there, and in which usually there is nothing explicitly stating its a Sacrament? I mean, wouldn’t it be nice that there should be some concrete, in your face simple verses that communicate the mystery of the Sacraments?

I definitely think so. The Sacraments are in no conceivable way minor realities in the Church. An entire quarter of the Catechism is focused exclusively on these miracles of grace. Catholicism without the Sacraments is no longer Catholicism. Sacraments are an intrinsic reality of unimaginable importance for the Redemption of humanity. For the Sacraments communicate the greatest of graces that God the Father wishes to mediate to us. And if that were not enough, the Sacraments not only communicate grace but their very language and form are catechetical and teaching realities of the mysteries of God, of Love, of holiness, of gift and reception, of sacrifice. And it is absolutely no minor issue in Catholicism that rifts in the ecclesial communion cause loss of grace in what concerns the separating communities that are in heresy. For to lose five sacraments is a great loss, one in which the person just barely hangs on to the supernatural life. And there is absolutely no question that the rifts in the Body of Christ caused by heresy (and here I speak most especially of the great heretical separation of the Protestant Rebellion) have had devastating implications for the efficacy of the Gospel. Indeed, Christ prayed that they may be one, in order that the world may believe, and because they have not been one, the world has indeed lost faith.

Considering the implications of this, I personally find it difficult to imagine that God would not give a clearer expression of the Seven Sacraments in Scripture other than that we need to fish them out of the text here and there. For to be certain, Scripture no where comes out and blows a trumpet explicitly, saying, “Hello, Hello, there are Seven Sacraments, and here they are with their form and matter spelled out.” But I would, on the other hand, believe that the miraculous feeding of the multitudes would be the perfect place for such a text to demonstrate the seven sacraments and also the issue of how Christian disunity will disrupt it. For if anything, Christ feeds us every time he gives us Sanctifying Grace, and, again, the Seven Sacraments are the most important way He does this.

… continued below

 

[spauline]

… continued…

So here is what i suggest:

There are two types of separation in Christ’s Body that each have implications for the Sacraments:

1.** Schism**
2. Heresy

Each of these has different consequences for the sacramental life. In merely schism (which is the general condition of the Orthodox Sees), all 7 sacraments are retained.

In heresy, 5 sacraments are lost, retaining only 2, Baptism and Marriage.

Now get this:

In 2 of the Gospels, there is a story in which Christ feeds 4,000 with 7 loaves and few fish.

In all 4 Gospels, there is the story of Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish.

Now consider this: there are 5 Apostolic Sees. The Orthodox have 4 of them. But since Rome, by way of intrinsic necessity, possesses the fullness of Apostolicity, it, by way of implication, nevertheless possesses the fullness of Apostolic Tradition of all 5 sees.

In the East, the primary separation is** schism**, so that they have** 4 Apostolic Sees** and 7 sacraments .

In the West, where all 5 Apostolic fullness is retained, the primary separation has been heresy, and those separated in this only have 2 sacraments, lacking the other ***5 ***that Catholics have in addition.

Connotation:

1. The Eastern **Schism **is prefigured in the first feeding of 4,000 people with 7 loaves : the 4 “4,000”]separated Apostolic Churches in schism nevertheless have all 7 sacraments.
2. The Western Heresy is prefigured in the second feeding of 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish: Catholics, who have the fullness of all 5 “5,000”] Apostolic Sees, have all 7 sacraments (5 + 2), but the heretics have only 2 of them.

For more elaboration on the 5 loaves and 2 fish, one may read this: Five Loaves and Two Fish: the Seven Sacraments.

Blessings to all!
Scott

 

[icxc_nika]

Considering the implications of this, I personally find it difficult to imagine that God would not give a clearer expression of the Seven Sacraments in Scripture other than that we need to fish them out of the text here and there. For to be certain, Scripture no where comes out and blows a trumpet explicitly, saying, “Hello, Hello, there are Seven Sacraments, and here they are with their form and matter spelled out.” But I would, on the other hand, believe that the miraculous feeding of the multitudes would be the perfect place for such a text to demonstrate the seven sacraments and also the issue of how Christian disunity will disrupt it. For if anything, Christ feeds us every time he gives us Sanctifying Grace, and, again, the Seven Sacraments are the most important way He does this.

Scott,

I find your theory rather intresting, and I appreciate the time that you have taken to put this material together, however…

I don’t understand how you are getting to point B from point A.

You start your discussion with your dismay about the sacraments being hidden in scripture. It is a strange concept for you to imagine that the Holy Scripture somehow is not a “how to” manual, that many protestants fall prey in believing.

I apologize for any perceived rudeness: but you then profer this notion that “the miraculous feeding of the multitudes would be the perfect place for such a text to demonstrate the seven sacraments”

I have never heard of any church teacher using this parable in any such context.

It simply appears that you are taking the covert nature of some of our scripture, and using an even more hidden, and strange ideations to prove your prophesy.

Certainly we realize that in the early hurch, many of the sacraments were hidden, on purpose, due to the persecution that the Christian suffered. We have from our current day liturgies, left over, unchanged from this era, that Proclaim " The Doors, the Doors, Gaurd the Doors" in direct reference to the Christians preparing to hear the Word of God. Obviouisly referencing the faithful to post a gaurd, to be sure that no one is spying on them, and preparig to turn them over to the Romans for persecution.

Holy Scripture is understood on many different levels. Only the truely faithful can begin to have the Word of God opened to them on th deepest level, and again, it only makes sense to those whom the Holy Spirit wishes to breath on.

The traditions of our Church were gaurded, and faithfully handed down. That is the nature of the sacraments, virtually unchallenged by Christians until th time of the Protestants.

I unfortunately have to conclude, that your reading of scripture, and your final assessment and interpretation of these passages, is berift of legitamacy.

 

[spauline]

Scott,

You start your discussion with your dismay about the sacraments being hidden in scripture. It is a strange concept for you to imagine that the Holy Scripture somehow is not a “how to” manual, that many protestants fall prey in believing.

I apologize for any perceived rudeness: but you then profer this notion that “the miraculous feeding of the multitudes would be the perfect place for such a text to demonstrate the seven sacraments”

I have never heard of any church teacher using this parable in any such context.

It simply appears that you are taking the covert nature of some of our scripture, and using an even more hidden, and strange ideations to prove your prophesy.

Certainly we realize that in the early hurch, many of the sacraments were hidden, on purpose, due to the persecution that the Christian suffered. We have from our current day liturgies, left over, unchanged from this era, that Proclaim " The Doors, the Doors, Gaurd the Doors" in direct reference to the Christians preparing to hear the Word of God. Obviouisly referencing the faithful to post a gaurd, to be sure that no one is spying on them, and preparig to turn them over to the Romans for persecution.

Holy Scripture is understood on many different levels. Only the truely faithful can begin to have the Word of God opened to them on th deepest level, and again, it only makes sense to those whom the Holy Spirit wishes to breath on.

The traditions of our Church were gaurded, and faithfully handed down. That is the nature of the sacraments, virtually unchallenged by Christians until th time of the Protestants.

I unfortunately have to conclude, that your reading of scripture, and your final assessment and interpretation of these passages, is berift of legitamacy.

Dear icxc nika,

Thank you for your response. Yes, I am aware that the Scriptures are not a how to manual. I realize there is Tradition. But Catholics also believe in doctrinal development, and theology students are urged to delve deeper into Scripture and find ever greater riches. I realize this is only speculation, but it certainly is Catholic in its theology and makes sense on many levels. But I know its just a suggestion.

And thanks again for sharing.

scott

 

[Digitonomy]

You are really adding apples and oranges here. Why you would add 5 apostolic sees and 2 sacraments of Protestants in the same equation is a bit cryptic to me. And it’s not clear how you decided what are the units on the other side of the equation… perhaps the 5 apostolic sees in the West, when tarnished by the Protestant reformation which has only 2 valid sacraments, are afflicted by the 7 deadly sins? Or maybe the 2 symbolizes the hypostatic union and the 5 is the Pentateuch. And how do the earlier schisms in the Church fit in, such as those with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians?

Numerology is very slippery, especially when there is NO guidance on the topic you’ve discussed from the early Church. As a result, I am very skeptical about all numerology, and particularly “new” numerology, such as you’ve presented. On the other hand, numerology was much more common during the period of the early Church than it is today, so it’s quite possible there are lessons like you’ve suggested that have been lost.

 

[spauline]

You are really adding apples and oranges here. Why you would add 5 apostolic sees and 2 sacraments of Protestants in the same equation is a bit cryptic to me. And it’s not clear how you decided what are the units on the other side of the equation… perhaps the 5 apostolic sees in the West, when tarnished by the Protestant reformation which has only 2 valid sacraments, are afflicted by the 7 deadly sins? Or maybe the 2 symbolizes the hypostatic union and the 5 is the Pentateuch. And how do the earlier schisms in the Church fit in, such as those with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians?

Numerology is very slippery, especially when there is NO guidance on the topic you’ve discussed from the early Church. As a result, I am very skeptical about all numerology, and particularly “new” numerology, such as you’ve presented. On the other hand, numerology was much more common during the period of the early Church than it is today, so it’s quite possible there are lessons like you’ve suggested that have been lost.

well, now, I don’t think you are reading carefully enough: the 5 in the 5,000 is the Apostolic Sees, not the 5 in five loaves. The five loaves are the five SACRAMENTS that require the episcopate that Heretics lose. So, I’m not sure what your objection is? In other words, there are two different 5’s, one in the 5,000 (Apostolic Sees) and one in the five loaves (five sacraments that heretics lose because they don’t have the earth, or episcopate, from which “loaves” are drawn.)

Look, and I only said it’s a suggestion. I mean, perhaps in the Early Church, it was not entirely clear what was and was not a Sacrament, let alone how the two different types of separation in Christ’s Body have implications for the Sacraments. Only later do these things become clearer through doctrinal development.

And no, I do not at all contest the Pentateuch and Hypostatic Union interpretation. I mean, come on, Scripture can have many layers of meaning all at once. It doesn’t at all need to be “this interpretation is correct, and all others are false.” Big example would be the woman of Revelation 12. Several layers are possible all at the same time. On one layer, the woman can be Mary and have a preterist interp. On another layer it can be the Church and spiritual historicism.

I’m just saying, the theology that I am suggesting is thoroughly Catholic and uses metaphors that the Scriptures themselves suggest, that is, in the earth and the sea. So, I’m not sure why you’re so upset about this?

 

[Digitonomy]

So, I’m not sure why you’re so upset about this?

I certainly didn’t mean to sound upset. Just skeptical.

You put your theory out there for comment, and that was my assessment: Numerology is inherently slippery, and unless you have a solid anchor on which to elaborate a theory (e.g., it’s clear that John meant A by the first number, because of the analogy he made three verses earlier…), you can pretty much throw together any numbers and assign meaning to them, even if you’re just grasping at straws.

Listen to a few sermons by Louis Farrakhan and you will better understand my skepticism about this technique of exegesis.

 

[spauline]

I certainly didn’t mean to sound upset. Just skeptical.

You put your theory out there for comment, and that was my assessment: Numerology is inherently slippery, and unless you have a solid anchor on which to elaborate a theory (e.g., it’s clear that John meant A by the first number, because of the analogy he made three verses earlier…), you can pretty much throw together any numbers and assign meaning to them, even if you’re just grasping at straws.

Listen to a few sermons by Louis Farrakhan and you will better understand my skepticism about this technique of exegesis.

Who is Louis Farrakhan?

 

[spauline]

I certainly didn’t mean to sound upset. Just skeptical.

You put your theory out there for comment, and that was my assessment: Numerology is inherently slippery, and unless you have a solid anchor on which to elaborate a theory (e.g., it’s clear that John meant A by the first number, because of the analogy he made three verses earlier…), you can pretty much throw together any numbers and assign meaning to them, even if you’re just grasping at straws.

Listen to a few sermons by Louis Farrakhan and you will better understand my skepticism about this technique of exegesis.

but I don’t really understand? The ultimate reason we exist is to possess a sharing of the Divine Life and Love of God, which is Sanctifying Grace, and this grace is clearly prefigured in the very essence of our Creation in the sense that the fact that we need physical sustenance is but ultimately a predestined Will of God to teach us we need spiritual sustenance. And the Sacraments are the ultimate expression and fulfillment of this sustenance. hence, I am simply making a common sense approach that the greatest way to be fed spiritually is precisely by the Sacraments, which not only communicate grace to strengthen our wills, but also teach us intrinsically, by their very signs, the mysteries of our Redemption.

So I cannot really understand how you can say my analogy is way off base? That it is ludicrous speculation? I have friends that think this is great interpretation.

 

[DL82]

You are really adding apples and oranges here. Why you would add 5 apostolic sees and 2 sacraments of Protestants in the same equation is a bit cryptic to me. And it’s not clear how you decided what are the units on the other side of the equation… perhaps the 5 apostolic sees in the West, when tarnished by the Protestant reformation which has only 2 valid sacraments, are afflicted by the 7 deadly sins? Or maybe the 2 symbolizes the hypostatic union and the 5 is the Pentateuch. And how do the earlier schisms in the Church fit in, such as those with the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians?

Numerology is very slippery, especially when there is NO guidance on the topic you’ve discussed from the early Church. As a result, I am very skeptical about all numerology, and particularly “new” numerology, such as you’ve presented. On the other hand, numerology was much more common during the period of the early Church than it is today, so it’s quite possible there are lessons like you’ve suggested that have been lost.

How about the 2 fish being the two sacraments of initiation, Baptism & Confirmation (evangelism being the act of being ‘fishers of men’ Matthew 4:9) and the 5 loaves as the five sacraments for ‘feeding’ the faithful?

 

[Digitonomy]

Who is Louis Farrakhan?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

He was fond of throwing all sorts of doubtful numerical references into his sermons.

spauline:

The ultimate reason we exist is to possess a sharing of the Divine Life and Love of God, which is Sanctifying Grace, and this grace is clearly prefigured in the very essence of our Creation in the sense that the fact that we need physical sustenance is but ultimately a predestined Will of God to teach us we need spiritual sustenance. And the Sacraments are the ultimate expression and fulfillment of this sustenance. hence, I am simply making a common sense approach that the greatest way to be fed spiritually is precisely by the Sacraments, which not only communicate grace to strengthen our wills, but also teach us intrinsically, by their very signs, the mysteries of our Redemption.

Yep, I think you’ve got that exactly right. However, I don’t believe mixing in the numbers in any way strengthens your argument.

 

[spauline]

How about the 2 fish being the two sacraments of initiation, Baptism & Confirmation (evangelism being the act of being ‘fishers of men’ Matthew 4:9) and the 5 loaves as the five sacraments for ‘feeding’ the faithful?

Absolutely. The beauty of Scripture is that many layers of meaning can be seen. So I wouldn’t dismiss your little tidbit here. Amen, we are fishers of men, and Baptism and Confirmation are closely connected there. I think that all sorts of meanings could be seen in Scripture. I don’t think necessarily the that the full implications of what Christ and His Apostles left with us was evident in the very beginning. For there indeed is doctrinal development in which deeper meanings come to light as Church history progresses.

 

[spauline]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

He was fond of throwing all sorts of doubtful numerical references into his sermons.
Yep, I think you’ve got that exactly right. However, I don’t believe mixing in the numbers in any way strengthens your argument.

Well, I guess you would have to qualify numerological references. From what I understand, there are inherent symbolisms of numbers in the Catholic Tradition: Seven Sacraments, Seven Cardinal Sins / Virtues. Seven days of Creation extended to eight. Seven heads of the beast extended to eight. 40 days in the desert. 70 weeks of years. ten commandments, ten horns, two horns of the false prophet, seven horns of the Lamb. Seven primary gifts of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation. Two Witnesses, Two Testaments, Two forms of Tradition: Oral and Written. And then there are those mysterious threes. Three times Jesus falls in carrying his Cross. Three times Peter denies Christ and three times he is reconciled. Three times Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane to let the cup pass. For three days and three nights, Joseph and Mary search for Jesus. Three times Jesus speaks to Mary Magdelene in the Resurrection. The Jews traverse three sub ages in their Old Covenant (Augustine), which, again by Augustine, prophesy of the Gospel. The general saint passes through overlapping but ultimately three big stages of the way: the purgative, the illuminative, and the unitive.

In light of this, I cannot understand, seeing the immeasurable importance of the Sacraments, that you attack an idea that is firmly rooted in Catholic theology and highly appropriate?

 

[spauline]

for that matter, how can you deny that ecclesiological rifts have sweeping implications for salvation history and the Church age, for if the Sacraments are the very foundation of grace for the fulfilled Redemption of humanity, and if ecclesiological rifts have a same sweeping implications for the Gospel, I find it difficult to believe that you as a Catholic would attack this? Doesn’t make any sense to me?

 

[spauline]

…And then there are those mysterious threes. Three times Jesus falls in carrying his Cross. Three times Peter denies Christ and three times he is reconciled. Three times Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane to let the cup pass. For three days and three nights, Joseph and Mary search for Jesus. Three times Jesus speaks to Mary Magdelene in the Resurrection. The Jews traverse three sub ages in their Old Covenant (Augustine), which, again by Augustine, prophesy of the Gospel. The general saint passes through overlapping but ultimately three big stages of the way: the purgative, the illuminative, and the unitive.

…

BTW, about the mysterious threes, the Book of Revelation has a threefold structure: the Seals (purgative), the Trumpets (illuminative), and the unitive/martyrdom (Bowls).

 

[Digitonomy]

Well, I guess you would have to qualify numerological references. From what I understand, there are inherent symbolisms of numbers in the Catholic Tradition…

Digitonomy:

On the other hand, numerology was much more common during the period of the early Church than it is today, so it’s quite possible there are lessons like you’ve suggested that have been lost.

spauline:

In light of this, I cannot understand, seeing the immeasurable importance of the Sacraments, that you attack an idea that is firmly rooted in Catholic theology and highly appropriate?

I don’t want to sound petty, but since you seem genuinely confused by my perspective, I’ll try to answer a few of your points with how I see them.

1. 
   *]I will repeat where my skepticism lies. You are composing an entirely new exegesis of the scripture, simply by matching the numbers with corresponding Church teachings that you feel would be appropriate to insert there. Fine, if that’s helpful to you. But I would say the same to someone who felt that the number of letters in Bush’s vs Clinton’s name was meaningful… I am skeptical that the meaning you propose was intended by the author of the scripture, or the Divine Author. I think it’s a mere coinidence. The list of numerical references you just cited have a more solid grounding in tradition.
   *]The immeasurable importance of the Sacraments isn’t really helpful in overcoming my skepticism. I would be equally skeptical if you were proposing a similar theory about something completely trivial, like say the number of fibers in the cloth weave of the garb worn by scriptural figures.
   *]Just because a theory is highly appropriate doesn’t make it true.
   *]Numerology is firmly rooted in Catholic theology, although in my personal opinion (and that’s all it is) the approach was given entirely too much weight in the early Church, and I think it’s proper that the focus in the last millenium hasn’t included that as much.
   
   
   spauline:
   

   and if ecclesiological rifts have a same sweeping implications for the Gospel, I find it difficult to believe that you as a Catholic would attack this?

   I’m not sure I agree that ecclesiological rifts necessarily have sweeping implications for the Gospel, if I understand what you’re saying. The Gospel existed before most of the ecclesiological rifts. A person could live an isolated existence, completely unaware of the rifts taking place in other parts of the world, and his Gospel would not be affected.
   
   
   spauline:
   

   Doesn’t make any sense to me?

   Ok, this isn’t really a question - you’re making a statement, so there’s no need for a question mark. Sorry, unnecessary punctuation is a pet peeve of mine.
   
   I wouldn’t take this personally. Any time you share a theory for comment here or elsewhere, there will usually be people who see it as you do, and people who don’t see it that way. I’m one of the latter.:tiphat:

 

[icxc_nika]

… continued…

So here is what i suggest:

There are two types of separation in Christ’s Body that each have implications for the Sacraments:

1.** Schism**
2. Heresy

Each of these has different consequences for the sacramental life. In merely schism (which is the general condition of the Orthodox Sees), all 7 sacraments are retained.

In heresy, 5 sacraments are lost, retaining only 2, Baptism and Marriage.

Now get this:

In 2 of the Gospels, there is a story in which Christ feeds 4,000 with 7 loaves and few fish.

In all 4 Gospels, there is the story of Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish.

Now consider this: there are 5 Apostolic Sees. The Orthodox have 4 of them. But since Rome, by way of intrinsic necessity, possesses the fullness of Apostolicity, it, by way of implication, nevertheless possesses the fullness of Apostolic Tradition of all 5 sees.

In the East, the primary separation is** schism**, so that they have** 4 Apostolic Sees** and 7 sacraments .

In the West, where all 5 Apostolic fullness is retained, the primary separation has been heresy, and those separated in this only have 2 sacraments, lacking the other ***5 ***that Catholics have in addition.

Connotation:

1. The Eastern **Schism **is prefigured in the first feeding of 4,000 people with 7 loaves : the 4 “4,000”]separated Apostolic Churches in schism nevertheless have all 7 sacraments.
2. The Western Heresy is prefigured in the second feeding of 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish: Catholics, who have the fullness of all 5 “5,000”] Apostolic Sees, have all 7 sacraments (5 + 2), but the heretics have only 2 of them.

For more elaboration on the 5 loaves and 2 fish, one may read this: Five Loaves and Two Fish: the Seven Sacraments.

Blessings to all!
Scott

It’s just a bit too convoluted.
As I began, I appreciate the thought you have put into it, but it seems to be too much of a stretch.

The 5 representing the fullness of the 5 sees, vs. the 4 for the orthodox. It’s a bit too much. Why not 3 of the sees as was orignially the number of them.

The loaves and the fish are not entirely consistant with the same meaning either.’

The more I look at the addition, and substraction, and then 4,000, 5,000, the fish, and bread… the more confused and hungry I get.

Sorry, but it seems a bit too convoluted.

 

[spauline]

I don’t want to sound petty, but since you seem genuinely confused by my perspective, I’ll try to answer a few of your points with how I see them.

1. 
   *]I will repeat where my skepticism lies. You are composing an entirely new exegesis of the scripture, simply by matching the numbers with corresponding Church teachings that you feel would be appropriate to insert there. Fine, if that’s helpful to you. But I would say the same to someone who felt that the number of letters in Bush’s vs Clinton’s name was meaningful… I am skeptical that the meaning you propose was intended by the author of the scripture, or the Divine Author. I think it’s a mere coinidence. The list of numerical references you just cited have a more solid grounding in tradition.
   *]The immeasurable importance of the Sacraments isn’t really helpful in overcoming my skepticism. I would be equally skeptical if you were proposing a similar theory about something completely trivial, like say the number of fibers in the cloth weave of the garb worn by scriptural figures.
   *]Just because a theory is highly appropriate doesn’t make it true.
   *]Numerology is firmly rooted in Catholic theology, although in my personal opinion (and that’s all it is) the approach was given entirely too much weight in the early Church, and I think it’s proper that the focus in the last millenium hasn’t included that as much.
   I’m not sure I agree that ecclesiological rifts necessarily have sweeping implications for the Gospel, if I understand what you’re saying. The Gospel existed before most of the ecclesiological rifts. A person could live an isolated existence, completely unaware of the rifts taking place in other parts of the world, and his Gospel would not be affected.Ok, this isn’t really a question - you’re making a statement, so there’s no need for a question mark. Sorry, unnecessary punctuation is a pet peeve of mine.
   
   I wouldn’t take this personally. Any time you share a theory for comment here or elsewhere, there will usually be people who see it as you do, and people who don’t see it that way. I’m one of the latter.:tiphat:

1. 
   OK, well, I guess we all have a right to opinion. But I don’t know, I just like to meditate on the meanings of the truths of our faith. I find the notion that deep spiritual realities are veiled in the Tradition a very fascinating thing. But, I don’t know, guess we agree to disagree.
   
   

 

[spauline]

It’s just a bit too convoluted.
As I began, I appreciate the thought you have put into it, but it seems to be too much of a stretch.

The 5 representing the fullness of the 5 sees, vs. the 4 for the orthodox. It’s a bit too much. Why not 3 of the sees as was orignially the number of them.

The loaves and the fish are not entirely consistant with the same meaning either.’

The more I look at the addition, and substraction, and then 4,000, 5,000, the fish, and bread… the more confused and hungry I get.

Sorry, but it seems a bit too convoluted.

Well, I don’t know, I guess you would find this difficult to accept in addition because you are Orthodox?

 

[icxc_nika]

Well, I don’t know, I guess you would find this difficult to accept in addition because you are Orthodox?

Orthodox have always accepted the truth.

If your analysis was more cogent, perhaps it would be more compelling.

However your mathematical acrobatics, your long division, and your failure to show a tangable relationship btw the loaves and fish is enough for me to equate your analysis with cloud gazing.