Understanding the Loaves and Fishes Miracles

[Strider]

Continued from above

There are a few really big keys here for understanding the Scripture, and I hilighted those.
One more thing; I don’t depend just on myself to interpret Scripture. I let the Magesterium help me.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
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.158 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.159

So, you see, Alan, while there is no rule that says our thoughts and ideas have to be clones of each other, I live by a rule that says my thoughts must agree with the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, and the Magesterium says the loaves were multiplied.

There is something, though, that I think you and I agree on. The Sermon on the mount, I believe, produced many miracles of the heart. These miracles, I believe, were not of the sort, “I should probably share some of my bread with this hungry guy next to me,” but of the sort, “I hate,” being changed to “I love.”
Of course, we’ll never know for sure. Those miracles aren’t visible.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

my quest for understanding in this thread has been successful. it seem that it has spun out of control. both alan and spider have good points, but after strider’s last post I agree with him on how this is an important event and not a philosophical run around the bush (ie it was never meant to be or said that it was a miracle)
this thread needs to die now

 

[roymckenzie]

AlanFromWichita:

I heard an interesting talk about this by a Cistercian monk. I don’t think his claim was that this is what really happened (since we weren’t there and couldn’t possibly know), but offered it as a likely possibility. It’s been awhile since I heard it so I may not get the details right; nevertheless I will try to give an overview.

Essentially his idea was that the many people who had traveled to hear Jesus weren’t traveling empty. Most of them carried packs in which they had food, but were not about to open their packs in such a crowd because nobody had enough they felt they could share. When they saw the faith of Jesus and the boy who gave up his loaves and fish for the cause, they were moved to break open their own packs and share, and as it turns out they had nothing to fear because they had plenty for everyone.

---

On the surface, this story, if true, may seem to relegate the incident to a non-miracle, but the way he framed it I got the impression it was highly unusual for the people to behave that way in a crowd. The miracle was the stirring in their hearts that caused them to open up. Personally I think if this explanation were true it would speak a great deal of Christ because it shows that Christ inspired the people in the crowd to get over their fears and use the God-given resources they already had. That could be a much more useful miracle for a Savior of souls to perform than to simply “conjure up” some grub and feed them for one meal; this way He is teaching them with His example rather than dazzling them with His magic.

Alan

That is a common false explanation.

I spent some time in the Middle East and that is not how the people are. They share their food and are happy to do it. You would insult someone from that part of the world it you told them it was a miracle of sharing.

The miracle was exactly what it said it was. The multiplication of the food not the sharing of the food.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Catholic Dude:

this thread needs to die now

:tiphat:

Bye bye, and die, thread, die!

Alan

 

[stumbler]

There is a beautiful discussion of this in the April '96 issue of This Rock magazine. It can be read here:

Will You Also Go Away
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9604fea1.asp

It discusses the miracle in the sweep of salvation history (and pretty well demolishes the “sharing” interpretation).

Peace,

 

[AlanFromWichita]

stumbler:

Will You Also Go Away
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9604fea1.asp

As long as we’re in dead horse beating mode, I’ll throw in some more “last” words.

The article in thisrock, as well as strider’s last post, make some good points that lead more toward a supernatural multiplication as opposed to sharing, as a more likely explanation for what happened.

The only problem I have is that the article seems to follow in a pattern I’ve heard before, that essentially if we accept an alternate interpretation of this one event, then the whole gospel comes crashing down, the church wouldn’t be the church, and in fact that Christ would not be the Messiah. Gee whiz; if that’s all the case that disturbing one story like that throws the whole thing off then it would seem that even though our house – though perhaps built on rock – is a house of cards.

To do this required a real miracle. If anyone who had seen the miracle had suggested that the bread had simply been hidden in the robes of the people, he would have been denying the messianic role of Christ. Nothing has changed in 2,000 years. To suggest now that the bread did not appear in a miraculous way is still a denial that Christ fulfilled the messianic role.

So if people shared bread, then Christ was not the Messiah. This logic is just as strained as they make the logic of the “sharing” scenario out to be.

I’ve seen the same pattern in other arguments on other topics. If you don’t accept interpretation A of some literal passage in favor of B, then God may as well not exist, we may as well not have a church, Christ suffered for nothing, etc. That kind of argument gets pretty old.

In the final analysis? There are some good arguments here that support miraculous multiplication, leaving the original question discussed, but unanswered. For me, I was not there and do not know, and I’m OK with that.

Speculating about different literal interpretations for scripture is interesting, but when it becomes competitive and exclusive then it brings us to distraction where we miss the spiritual forest for the trees.

Alan

 

[stumbler]

AlanFromWichita:

Speculating about different literal interpretations for scripture is interesting, but when it becomes competitive and exclusive then it brings us to distraction where we miss the spiritual forest for the trees.

It seems to me that you are setting up a straw man here. Nobody is foreclosing the possibility of alternate explanations. But at a minimum, shouldn’t the alternate be compatible with sacred Scripture and Tradition? Shouldn’t the alternate lead you deeper into faith? Shouldn’t the alternate explain more, not less?

For example, the “sharing” interpretation sure seems to run counter to Scripture. As previously posted by enanneman above (and also in the TR article), Matt 15:32 clearly and unambiguously (IMHO) denies a “sharing” view. For sharing to be true, Jesus must have made a false assertion.

I can understand why some might chafe at the notion that “freedom of thought” is being foreclosed somehow. But isn’t it rather that you being set free to frolic in the truth? Chesterton wrote eloquently on this very issue .

I’ll close with a quote from a church father:
“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.”
– Saint Augustine, (354 AD - 430 AD)

 

[patg]

Ok, since this isn’t going to die, how about a few more ideas:

This is one of the rare stories that appears in all four canonical gospels, which indicates how important it was for the early church.

Now, imagine that we are living in the early morning of Christianity, after the crucifixion but before the gospels were written. How do we transmit this experience to others, who have not shared it?

We remember episodes from his life, and ponder what special significance they might have. John Meier (writing under the imprimatur…) speculates that what underlies this miracle story is an actual event in Jesus’ life, “some especially memorable communal meal of bread and fish, a meal with eschatological overtones celebrated by Jesus and his disciples with a large crowd by the Sea of Galilee.” In attempting to communicate the significance of Jesus, we have, first of all, this actual memory ofJesus sharing a meal with a crowd of his followers. If we are Jews, it may bring a piece of Scripture to mind, a passage from the Second Book of Kings involving one of the great prophets, with whom it would be meaningful to compare Jesus:

A man came. . . bringing. . . twenty loaves of barley and fresh ears of grain in his sack. Elisha said, “Give it to the people and let them eat.” But his servant said, “How can I set this before a hundred people?” So he repeated, "Give it to the people and let them eat, for thus says the Lord, ‘They shall eat and have some left.’ " He set it before them, they ate, and had some left, according to the word of the Lord.
Now remember that the Jews found meaning by associating the present with the past. But we are convinced that Jesus was not simply equal to Elisha - he was more than the prophets, he was their culmination. So instead of one hundred people, it becomes five thousand. Instead of twenty loaves, five. Jesus’ miracle is more miraculous than Elisha’s. And the ending is the same, for what God said of old still holds: “They shall eat and have some left.”

Something like this may have been the first stage of development, the first step in translating the inexplicability of Jesus Risen to those who had not experienced it firsthand. But there was more.

Mark’s final product contains telltale phrases. The apostles are concerned about the people going hungry, and Jesus orders: “You give them something to eat.” This is chain-of-command talk; the early church is telling the faithful who is in charge: we twelve. Stick with us and we’ll take care of you. Why twelve baskets of leavings? The twelve apostles, of course: heads of the twelve tribes of the new Israel. So also within Mark’s final miracle story is a bit of political maneuvering.

Of course “Who feeds the people?” answers the question of authority, but the deeper questions are: What are the people hungry for? What are they given to eat? Why are we talking about food in the first place?

Because it is what he talked about. Eating together was one of his ways of showing the kingdom. Shared meals were the kingdom of God on earth. Why? What is eating but accepting an outside being into the body: con-suming, being one with? If God is Being par excellence then God’s unity comprises all objects, and by blessing and consuming this object I am making myself aware of that mystery: I am accepting God into myself, reacquainting myself with Being. The early church was aware that Jesus emphasized this special way of looking at the act of eating. We know they were aware of it because of the many different ways food and eating feature in the gospels: the multiplication of loaves and fishes (so important to Mark and Matthew that it happens twice in their gospels), turning water into wine, parables about banquets, a prayer to “give us each day our daily bread,” the commandment to eat with others, to exchange healing for food.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

stumbler:

It seems to me that you are setting up a straw man here. Nobody is foreclosing the possibility of alternate explanations. But at a minimum, shouldn’t the alternate be compatible with sacred Scripture and Tradition? Shouldn’t the alternate lead you deeper into faith? Shouldn’t the alternate explain more, not less?

I disagree that alternate explanations are welcome, but I’ll disregard that for the moment. Compatible with Scripture, yes. Tradition, maybe – most people would say yes to that I’d guess.

Lead into deeper faith and explain more – I don’t think so, as that is entirely subjective. In the case at hand, I think the “sharing” idea explains more because it gives a process whereas it was open-ended and up to speculation before. Also I think it is more useful as a model I can use, because I, not being God, simply don’t have the faith to feed 5000 people but I can learn to show confidence which can pierce other peoples’ stubbornness – therefore as far as leading me into a deeper faith I could contest that too.

For example, the “sharing” interpretation sure seems to run counter to Scripture. As previously posted by enanneman above (and also in the TR article), Matt 15:32 clearly and unambiguously (IMHO) denies a “sharing” view. For sharing to be true, Jesus must have made a false assertion.

Those are very good points. For those reasons I am leaning away from the “sharing” explanation for my own understanding.

I can understand why some might chafe at the notion that “freedom of thought” is being foreclosed somehow. But isn’t it rather that you being set free to frolic in the truth? Chesterton wrote eloquently on this very issue .

I’ll take some time to read that. Thank you.

I’ll close with a quote from a church father:
“Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.”
– Saint Augustine, (354 AD - 430 AD)

I like that. Sometimes it is hard to see the truth when one believes it can’t be so. Here’s a quote I heard from a philosopher, “you would be surprised to learn how many things there are that aren’t so.”

Alan

 

[stumbler]

AlanFromWichita:

I disagree that alternate explanations are welcome, but I’ll disregard that for the moment.

Again with the straw man. I didn’t say they would be “welcome”. Since the Church thinks in terms of the eternal, any alternates likely need pass the test of time before they are accepted. Think “centuries,” not “film at eleven.”

AlanFromWichita:

Compatible with Scripture, yes. Tradition, maybe – most people would say yes to that I’d guess.

At a minimum any new understanding, must be compatible with Scripture AND Tradition. I would recommend Newman’s brilliant “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” found here:
newmanreader.org/works/development/
Or for a broader overview:
ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ13.HTM

If it’s not found in Tradition, is it really worth pursuing? I strongly doubt it – and I’m not trying to be anti-intellectual here. The Church contains two thousand years of teachings by some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen. You and I can but scratch the surface of that. Why pursue novelty, but for pride?

AlanFromWichita:

In the case at hand, I think the “sharing” idea explains more because it gives a process whereas it was open-ended and up to speculation before.

Aren’t all the miracles subject to the same speculation? By what “process” was the cripple cured? Was the bone replaced? Was it healed in place? Did Jesus just send the crowd into an alternate parallel dimension wherein the cripple never was crippled? Did Jesus just use a splint on the leg, thereby providing a model for community healthcare? Didn’t it hurt to have a malformed limb straightened? How could the atrophied muscles handle the new stress? Did Jesus simply recognize the case as not physical, but psychological? Was the crippled simply overcome with emotion which allowed his endorphins to mask the pain of walking? Was it all a carny set up to teach about God’s forgiveness?

To facetiously quote someone above: “I think the ‘splint’ idea explains more because it gives a process whereas it was open-ended and up to speculation before.” Thanks but “no thanks,” for down that path madness lies.

AlanFromWichita:

Also I think it is more useful as a model I can use, because I, not being God, simply don’t have the faith to feed 5000 people but I can learn to show confidence which can pierce other peoples’ stubbornness – therefore as far as leading me into a deeper faith I could contest that too.

This miracle is a great foreshadowing of the Bread of Life, the role fo the priesthood in the Eucharist, echoing the manna in the desert, fulfilling OT prophecies of the Messiah, and speaking to the coming banquet of Heaven. The “sharing” idea provides none of that, and is, frankly, cold due to it’s isolation from the rest of Scripture.

As for useful models, the Church is teeming with them. Feed 5000? Read what Mother Theresa did. Groundbreaking intellect? Read Augustine or Aquinas or Newman. Teach the multitudes? Mother Angelica. And thousands more like them.

AlanFromWichita:

Here’s a quote I heard from a philosopher, “you would be surprised to learn how many things there are that aren’t so.”

Only outside Church teachings.
Understanding that was a “lightbulb” moment for me.

 

[Strider]

AlanFromWichita:

The article in thisrock, as well as strider’s last post, make some good points that lead more toward a supernatural multiplication as opposed to sharing, as a more likely explanation for what happened.
In the final analysis? There are some good arguments here that support miraculous multiplication, leaving the original question discussed, but unanswered. For me, I was not there and do not know, and I’m OK with that.
Speculating about different literal interpretations for scripture is interesting, but when it becomes competitive and exclusive then it brings us to distraction where we miss the spiritual forest for the trees.Alan

Which is exactly the reason Jesus established the Magesterium (Mt 18:18). Without authoritative teaching and Apostolic succession, one could just break off and form another Protestant denomination over a disagreement of interpretation. We don’t have to speculate. We can read the Catechism or the Church Fathers and know.
It’s just that easy. 2000 years of study and teaching produces the Truth, who, as Fr. Corapi emphasizes, is someone.

 

[Exporter]

There has been a Jesuit Priest ( Father Thomas) in El Paso, Texas for over fifteen years. He started ministering to El Paso youth and poor from the start. About 10 years ago he started going across the Border into Mexico to visit the convicts in the prison close to the Border. He had a few helpers from the Church.He would take a big box of peanut butter/jelly sandwitches and a big cooler of lemonade for them. There were usually 100 prisoners there.

One day the wife of the Episcobal Bishop went with them. But this day about 30 prison guards pushed into the line for servings. There were over 100 prisoners too. The box of sandwitches was almost empty as was the limonade. They told Fr. Thomas, and he took the ladle for the limonade. All prisoners were served and they had some left over. On the drive back to El Paso the wife of the Bishop was austounded. Later that week it was printed in the news paper - Miricle in Mexican Prison. The Bishop’s wife had written the story. I get a news letter from them monthly.

 

[trogiah]

RodK:

T Where else in the Bible is the benevolence of the masses manifest? The Bible is about God’s goodness, not mans’.

In Acts there is at least one account of many people taking all they possessed and laying it at the feet of the Apostles.

 

[trogiah]

Stephen-Maguire:

The point being is, if Jesus forgave his sins and left it at that, the crowd would surley have laughed.

9:2 And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: “Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.”

9:3 And behold some of the scribes said within themselves: He blasphemeth.

9:4 And Jesus seeing their thoughts, said: "Why do you think evil in your hearts?

9:5 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee: or to say, Arise, and walk?

9:6 “But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins,” (then said he to the man sick of palsy,) “Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house.” 9:7 And he arose, and went into his house.

From the quotes you have provided, It seems that the forgiveness of sins, without any additional actions, was not at all a laughable thing to do.

 

[trogiah]

“When the crowd saw that neither Jesus nor his disciples were there, they themselves got into boats and came to Capernaum looking for Jesus.
25
And when they found him across the sea they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26
Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled.
27
Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, 15 which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”
28
So they said to him, “What can we do to accomplish the works of God?”
29
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in the one he sent.””

The above quote immediately follows the story of the Loaves and Fishes in John’s gospel. It would seem to have some bearing on understanding the miracle.

However we understand how the miracle took place, if our understanding leads us to believe that Jesus is the one who will lead us to God’s kingdom, then the miracle has served its purpose. If it leads us to follow Jesus hoping for a free lunch, then we have missed the point.

I also find the thought of thousands of stingy hearts (or even just one) being opened to be a miracle worthy of the name. That line of thought does not seem supportable in some of the accounts of the Loaves and Fishes but I will keep the thought as a possibility because it seems like an inspired moment.

Thought I would offer you a little support Alan. You have much more persistence than I.

peace to all

-Jim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

trogiah:

Thought I would offer you a little support Alan. You have much more persistence than I.

LOL, thank you! Can you imagine what it would be like if I actually was disagreeing with anyone?

stumbler:

Again with the straw man. I didn’t say they would be “welcome”. Since the Church thinks in terms of the eternal, any alternates likely need pass the test of time before they are accepted. Think “centuries,” not “film at eleven.”

Oh, OK. You didn’t say “welcome” but “not foreclosing” about the idea. Welcome, not unwelcome = potayto, potahto.

stumbler:

If it’s not found in Tradition, is it really worth pursuing? I strongly doubt it – and I’m not trying to be anti-intellectual here. The Church contains two thousand years of teachings by some of the most brilliant minds the world has ever seen. You and I can but scratch the surface of that. Why pursue novelty, but for pride?

Some people are just naturally curious. Enquiring minds, you know.

Aren’t all the miracles subject to the same speculation? By what “process” was the cripple cured? Was the bone replaced? Was it healed in place? Did Jesus just send the crowd into an alternate parallel dimension wherein the cripple never was crippled? Did Jesus just use a splint on the leg, thereby providing a model for community healthcare? Didn’t it hurt to have a malformed limb straightened? How could the atrophied muscles handle the new stress? Did Jesus simply recognize the case as not physical, but psychological? Was the crippled simply overcome with emotion which allowed his endorphins to mask the pain of walking? Was it all a carny set up to teach about God’s forgiveness?

Excellent. Now you’re getting with it, it seems. All events described in writing are subject to having the gaps filled in by the imagination of the reader. Whether this is harmless or dangerous, it is very natural part of the process of pattern recognition of the human mind. Many times people only look at an incomplete figure as a whole, since their mind smoothly fills in the blanks. Other times people look more closely and speculate on the blanks.

To facetiously quote someone above: “I think the ‘splint’ idea explains more because it gives a process whereas it was open-ended and up to speculation before.” Thanks but “no thanks,” for down that path madness lies.

You’re getting closer. There is one distinction you have made here that helps explain. If it is I whom you are “facetiously” quoting, then your analogy may seem to have the same tone (novel idea sounds better than more commonly thought idea) but not the same reasoning (details are better than no details). The reason I thought the novel idea was interesting was not that it provided details, but it provided inspiration for something I can do to carry on the work of Christ.

You make a good point, though, in that the “sharing” idea can be considered a subset of mechanisms by which the “miracle” of feeding the masses was performed.

Among other reasons, I read the Bible to imagine how I can be Christ-like, and be transformed into His spiritual likeness through the written Word. As you might note, I have not taken sides in claiming which, if either, explanation is correct. I’ve only sided against anyone who would presume to know authoritatively what did or did not happen.

How strongly are you against the “sharing” concept? Would you bet your eternal life on it? What importance is it that others also reject the notion of “sharing” interpretation? Maybe down that road madness lies, but then again if I’m thought of as mad then I’m in good Company.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

stumbler:

Did Jesus just send the crowd into an alternate parallel dimension wherein the cripple never was crippled? Did Jesus just use a splint on the leg, thereby providing a model for community healthcare?

Dear stumbler,

I just wanted to focus on these two sentences a bit. First, I really like the “alternate parallel dimension” thing. It sounds really way out, but with God nothing is impossible. Since God transcends the time-space fabric as we know it, that would be one way of getting the job done. You seem pretty creative for having brought it up. As is clear, there are other explanations but I thought this one was particularly compelling.

As far as the splint on the leg, I think that analogy is very apropos considering the argument I gave in favor of the “sharing” thing. It isn’t exactly the same, because in this case Jesus still did all the actual work, but close.

Alan