Well, I heard it at Mass today

[Stylites]

I missed most of the homily. My mind was full of conspiracy theories as to how the feminist taliban got to our pastor because the Gospel we heard said Jesus fed 5000 PEOPLE.

Matthew 14:21 is clearer on the number of people who witnessed this miracle: “And the number of them that did eat, was five thousand men, besides women and children.”

So the actual number could have been tens of thousands of people.

Also, men are people, too!

 

[Mike30]

This particular interpretation has been around since the days of the Enlightenment, mid 1700’s to mid 1800’s more or less. It was put forth by a theologian by the name of Heinrich Paulus, who attempted to find rational explanations of all of Jesus’ miracles. To him there were no such things as miracles as the world and everything in it was subject to natural laws which could not be acted upon by any outside force.

He was also responsible for several other similar stories, Jesus walking on the water for one and the Resurrection as another. Both of these miracles were explained away as purely normal events that uneducated people thought were supernatural because they did not understand them. However to the modern educated man of the Enlightenment these stories were merely normal, natural events that could now be understood.

These views came to be taught at Seminaries, mainly protestant ones at first, but made their way into Catholic Seminaries later. They served one purpose and one purpose only. To deny the divinity of Jesus and his ability to perform miracles.

It is sad that these interpretations are still floating around.

 

[Elizabeth502]

They might have been “floating around” for quite some time, Mike. (And thank you for the further background. ) However, what seems to have generated a more modern interest in “explaining away Jesus’ miracles” is the shift that some over-interpreted Vatican 2 to be, in emphasis: away from the Vertical in favor of the Horizontal. Somehow, God is not “real” unless and until realized in each of us.

It is an emphasis that places more significance on mankind than on God. While it’s true that God chooses to use people as his instruments of grace and continuing redemption, the way in which this preference for mankind tends to be translated by modernists is that man is primary; God is secondary; man is the mover; God is dependent.

The other spinoff of that trend is that it assumed that the original meaning of the Scripture is insignificant, only its contemporary application (and loosely interpreted) is valid and useful. The danger of this is that triviliazing the original meaning makes it impossible to unwrap an authentic contemporary meaning; further, it makes Scripture vulnerable to contemporary expectations applied in reverse. (Also not authentic.)

 

[zz912]

This is a huge theological issue that we do not have time or expertise to debate here. I do not pretend to know the answer to the “Jesus’ knowing” issue. But in light of what you have written, keep this passage in mind also:

Mark 5
""And he went with him, and a great multitude followed him, and they thronged him. 25 And a woman who was under an issue of blood twelve years, 26 And had suffered many things from many physicians; and had spent all that she had, and was nothing the better, but rather worse, 27 When she had heard of Jesus, came in the crowd behind him, and touched his garment. 28 For she said: If I shall touch but his garment, I shall be whole. 29 And forthwith the fountain of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of the evil. 30 And immediately Jesus knowing in himself the virtue that had proceeded from him, turning to the multitude, said: Who hath touched my garments? 31 And his disciples said to him: Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou who hath touched me? 32 And he looked about to see her who had done this. 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 34 And he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole: go in peace, and be thou whole of thy disease.

So what does Jesus know and when did he know it? Do we really know the answer to that question? The only thing we do know…? He can work the mircaculous with the cooperation of faith and sharing of our lives. In fact we see in the Gospels that in his own hometown he could work very little, because of their lack of cooperation in faith. Interesting…

1. Don’t have time and expertise? A message board is designed so that we have time to discuss these things. People can leave a message and others can respond when they have time. Expertise? This board has some serious expertise from my experience in reading the boards.
2. Jesus knew who had touched His garment. He was testing the woman, and foreshadowing the Sacrament of Confession. It proves that even though God knows what we have done, we still must come to Him and confess our actions to Him.

 

[clem456]

1. Don’t have time and expertise? A message board is designed so that we have time to discuss these things. People can leave a message and others can respond when they have time. Expertise? This board has some serious expertise from my experience in reading the boards.

Ok thanks I appreciate the encouragement. I do realize all that. I was referring to my time and expertise and not wanting to derial the thread.

1. Jesus knew who had touched His garment. He was testing the woman, and foreshadowing the Sacrament of Confession. It proves that even though God knows what we have done, we still must come to Him and confess our actions to Him.

We discussed this very issue in our parish Saturday scripture study last week.Our scripture study leader, a Monsignor, and taught Scripture in the seminary for a number of years does not interpret this passage in this way.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I’ve never heard a priest, via homily or any other method, claim that this was anything other than a miracle. However, I brought it up with my kids today and asked them if they understood what the real miracle was. Right away my oldest daughter said, “The real miracle was sharing.” I asked her what she meant by that. She knew she’d been told that before, but couldn’t remember by whom or in what context. I can only assume it was in school. I then explained what the truly miraculous part of the story was and discussed the other view as well. My oldest daughter was the only one who’d heard any of the sharing & caring hogwash.

 

[fbl9]

I have no doubt that some of you have heard it today as well. The infamous, “the real miracle was sharing” from today’s Gosple from John 6:1-15…the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. A deacon from a different parish, who was recently ordained in June gave the homliy. At first he was telling how people use to travel in those days, then he said that the real miracle was that the young man giving up his food giving it to Jesus, mean while I was saying on the inside; please don’t say it, please don’t say it… Then, that inspired others who had food with them to share with those who didn’t…facepalm. What a great diservice that homilies or explinations like these do to the Evangelists, the witnesses of the miracle, and to Christ Himself. Christ raises a girl from the dead, changes water to wine, raises Lazarus from the dead after 4 days, etc, etc, etc, and He can’t multiple a few loaves and fishes? Come on, give me a break.

The sharing explination to this reading doesnt account for the 12 baskets left over.

I heard the the same, i had high hopes for this priest. Our last two would never used this homily.

 

[zz912]

We discussed this very issue in our parish Saturday scripture study last week.Our scripture study leader, a Monsignor, and taught Scripture in the seminary for a number of years does not interpret this passage in this way.

Well that is his personal interpretation. Considering the Jesus is God, and knows everything, I’m pretty sure He knew who touched His cloak.

 

[rivera01]

Well that is his personal interpretation. Considering the Jesus is God, and knows everything, I’m pretty sure He knew who touched His cloak.

I totally agree with you, I think trying to correlate passsage of the woman with the hemorrhage and the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, with Jesus being “unaware” doesnt fit here. Plus we have the testimony of the ECF’s, here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on that passage:

Pseudo-Chrys., Vict. Ant. e Cat. in Marc.: Now the virtues of Christ are by His own will imparted to those men, who touch Him by faith. Wherefore there follows, “And Jesus, immediately knowing in Himself that virtue had gone out of Him, turned Him about in the press, and said, Who touched My clothes?” The virtues indeed of the Saviour do not go out of Him locally or corporally, nor in any respect pass away from Him. For being incorporeal, they go forth to others and are given to others; they are not however separated from Him, from whom they are said to go forth, in the same way as sciences are given by the teacher to his pupils. Therefore it says, “Jesus, knowing in Himself the virtue which had gone out of Him,” to shew that with His knowledge, and not without His being aware of it, the woman was healed. **But He asked, “Who touched me?” although He knew her who touched Him, that He might bring to light the woman, by her coming forward, and proclaim her faith, and lest the virtue of His miraculous work should be consigned to oblivion. **

It goes on, “And His disciples said unto Him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched Me?” But the Lord asked, “Who touched Me,” that is in thought and faith, for the crowds who throng Me cannot be said to touch Me, for they do not come near to Me in thought and in faith.

There follows, “And He looked round about to see her that had done this thing.”

Theophylact: **For the Lord wished to declare the woman, first to give His approbation to her faith, secondly to urge the chief of the synagogue to a confident hope that He could thus cure his child, and also to free the woman from fear. For the woman feared because she had stolen health. **

Wherefore there follows, “But the woman fearing [p. 99] and trembling, &c.”

Bede, in Marc., 2, 22: Observe that the object of His question was that the woman should confess the truth of her long want of faith, of her sudden belief and healing, and so herself be confirmed in faith, and afford an example to others.

Using this citation from the Gospel to try and make an attempt to say that, well if Jesus didnt know who touched him, then He may have not known they had food with them, doesnt fit.