Well, I heard it at Mass today

  • Thread starter Thread starter rivera01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The deacon who gave the homily yesterday did not dismiss the miracle as an episode of flash-mob sharing. He said that we have to give our best efforts, and when we can’t see any way for things to turn out right, we trust anyway, and that can become the setting of a potential miracle. :cool:

I’ve heard the “selfish middle-eastern people realized the little boy was sharing, so they felt guilty and pulled out their own lunches to pass around” story. I’ve also heard it explained as a quiet picnic with Jesus and the disciples, and since Jesus said something important at the picnic that the disciples thought was worth remembering, they expanded the little non-miraculous meal into the astonishing feeding of 5,000+ on a teeny bit of food as a way of preserving their memories. 🤷
 
The monk that gave the homily at our abbey spoke of it in the context of the Eucharistic readings from the Gospel of John and how all this is a prelude to the teaching that Jesus truly is the Bread of Life.

It’s a prelude and a material demonstration, IMHO, on how all those who Eat of This Bread will never go hungry.

Like many of Jesus’s acts it required material cooperation from those who placed their faith in Him.

I think the sharing is nice, but really the most important aspect is not the sharing as much as giving up what one has and trusting Jesus. He will provide for us if we trust in him.

So in reality I think the underlying message isn’t so much “sharing” as it is trust in Jesus which of course is none other than faith. Those who share what they have are showing trust that even if they give up what they have, God will always provide what we need.
 
I can’t speak for what the OP might have actually been told during the homily, but most Catholics are already aware of who Jesus is and of His miracles. The real question is whether Jesus wants us to take yesterday’s Gospel and come out understanding what a great stand-up guy He is that we should make Him king, Who alone will take care of all the poor? Or whether when we see someone else in need that we have pity on them and share what we have, out of love and brotherhood?

Saint Martin of Tours wasn’t even baptised yet when he presented half of his sumptuous military cloak to a starving and cold beggar, and Jesus came to him in a dream wearing that same half cloak, not because Martin thought Jesus was a miracle-worker and king, but because he saw his King in the lowly beggar and shared what he had with Him.

http://www.allsaintsbrookline.org/celtic_saints/saint_images/martin.jpg
 
An earlier commenter had a good point: how was there so much left over from these people sharing what food they’d brought? Did everyone bring food, and more than they could have eaten? If not everyone brought food, that means the people who did bring food brought far more than they could have eaten.

And to say that sharing was the miracle is veiled anti-semitism. It implies that the Jewish people who came to hear Jesus speak were selfish and inhospitable. And that, despite having brought their own food with them, they expected Jesus to feed them.
 
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. :mad:
I think you have a good point. I believe the deacon is just trying in his own way to help us to a better understanding of christian charity.

But sharing is not a miracle.

When someone shares with others, I never hear of anyone saying, “look, he did a miracle”.

A miracle is multiplying food so it does not run out. There are examples of it in the old testiment as well. Try 2 Kings 4;42, the first reading of the mass that day where oil did not run out using the same jar.

This particular miracle of the loaves and fish was performed at the end of the third year of Jesus’ public life. He saved this for the end to reinforce the real wonder of changing bread and wine into his own body and blood. So that we could see he does have power over natural things to do with them as he wills. To help us to accept his words, “This is my body.”

To see beauty in sharing is good. To see an actual miracle is convincing and more to the point and more to his purpose of preparing us to believe in the food that has come down from heaven. One of the early doctors of the church used this same idea.

When he saw that the people had no food, he was moved to pity for them. He knew they needed food or they would faint on their travel home. So he had them recline on the grass and gave them food. Which also shows he is interested in all our needs.

Just a thought.
 
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. :mad:
My pastor mentioned that interpretation as the interpretation a seminary classmate shared with the rest of the class for which the rest of the class trounced on him.

I like my pastor. 🙂
 
The sharing feels more miraculous than the other, and it is a good lesson for all.
And if many deacons and priests teach the story this way, it must mean that the way they are telling it may be correct. You would be open to accept that, yes?
WHAT? Surely you aren’t saying that many deacons and priests teach the story and that the numbers (which by the way you don’t provide) MUST mean it MAY be correct?

As though a certain percentage (which again you don’t provide) of people saying something thereby provides a VALIDATION of what they say?

FEELS more miraculous?

Let’s see what would be more miraculous:

A bunch of people deciding to SHARE food (something which a lot of people do routinely). . .

or a MAN who looks just like you and me managing to take 5 loaves and 2 fish and TURNING THEM INTO ENOUGH FOOD TO FEED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, WITH LEFTOVERS.

Oh gee, yeah, SHARING is SO much more miraculous. . .:rolleyes:

Because surely Jewish men NEVER shared food.

Don’t these people even bother to think about how anti-Semitic their 'assumptions are, that a whole PEOPLE would need a MIRACLE to MAKE them share???
 
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. :mad:
That “sharing” bit was in a best seller book when I was a kid and I am older than dirt. Actually, that “real miracle of sharing” is a rather unknown, modern form of Arianism; however, due to its apparent truthfulness, it is rarely recognized as such.
 
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. :mad:
That “sharing” bit was in a best seller book when I was a kid and I am older than dirt. Actually, that “real miracle of sharing” is a somewhat unknown, modern form of Arianism; however, due to its apparent truthfulness, it is rarely recognized as such.
 
An exceptionally accurate and thorough exposition is here:

(I’m not going to do the usual quote boxing, so that people may be able to quote if desired):

"Loaves and Fishes
Fashionable Priests and the "Miracle of Sharing"

**By: Steve Ray **

One Sunday I visited a parish in another city and learned something new. The multiplication of loaves didn’t really happen. The greedy people following Jesus in the wilderness had loaves and fishes stuffed up under their robes. The disciples didn’t know about this surplus of hidden food, but this parish priest did!

Although the priest said he was taught in seminary that Jesus kept pulling bread and fish out of the basket, he learned the real truth from the natives in Mexico. They taught him that the Gospel writers misunderstood what really happened. What really happened is that Jesus preached to the crowd about caring and sharing and they responded by bringing out food from under their robes that they had been hiding from each other. Once everyone learned how to share, there was plenty for everyone with twelve basketfuls left over.

The story was told with great humor and passion, but the denial of the miraculous and the undermining of the clear intent of Scripture was accomplished nonetheless. And in the course of telling a good story, the priest actually placed the onus of this false teaching in the laps of the poor people in Mexico. Unhappily, this priest is not alone in his misunderstanding. It seems this interpretation has quite a following. I’ve read it in books and magazines, and I’ve heard it in other homilies. For some theologians and priests, the real miracle was not the multiplication of loaves, but the act of caring. Jesus was able to convince selfish people to share: the real miracle.

Let’s take a look at a few of the many problems with this interpretation. There are six accounts of feeding the multitudes given in the Gospels Jesus fed the people on at least two occasions—once 5,000 men and another time 4,000 men; once with five loaves and two fish and again with seven loaves and a few fish; once with twelve baskets of remaining bread and in another five baskets.

Was Jesus Unaware of Custom?
Jesus and the disciples knew the people and the customs of the times. If it was customary for people to carry hidden food under their robes, Jesus and the disciples would have known. But Jesus and his disciples—unlike this “wiser-than-Jesus” priest—didn’t realize there was a hidden treasure of food.
The Twelve came to Jesus and made a request. They needed food to feed hungry people, or they needed to send them away. They never mentioned or taught anything about hidden food and sharing. Are we to believe that if Jesus intended the message to be about sharing that at least one of the writers would not have stated so or shared the homily Jesus preached about sharing?

Rather, three of the Gospel writers say “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place.” The priest seemed to know something the disciples were totally oblivious to—there was plenty of food and no one needed to go into town to find food. Silly disciples!

Jesus and the disciples knew there was no abundance of bread hiding in secret picnic baskets. As St. Jerome said, “Wherein he calls the apostles to breaking of bread, that the greatness of the miracle might be more evident by their testimony that they [the people] had none [no food]” (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, I.2).
But if that is not enough, let’s look carefully at the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:32:

“Then Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and I am unwilling to send them away hungry, lest they faint on the way’” (cf. Mark 8:2-4).
Jesus states clearly that the people had been with him in the deserted area for three days. Even if they had originally brought hidden food, it would have been eaten over the three days of being in the wilderness. Jesus clearly stated that they had no food.
It doesn’t seem likely that Jesus was completely ignorant of the situation and was mistaken in thinking the people were really hungry. **We can’t believe that Jesus knew there was plenty of hidden food and was just lying about the situation to make a point. **Why should I believe what a priest says rather than what Jesus says?

Where’s the Sharing Lesson?
The line goes something like this: “The people had plenty of food but they were hoarding it. Jesus taught them to share so they all pulled out their surplus of food from under their robes and everyone shared with his neighbor. That is the lesson! Jesus did not do a physical miracle; the real miracle was convincing selfish people to share with others.”
But read the Gospel accounts of the multiplication of loaves and fishes, and see if you can find even a hint of this “sharing interpretation.” Nothing is said about Jesus teaching the crowds at this point, much less that he taught them about sharing. Scripture never mentions or even hints that Jesus exhorted everyone to pull up their robes to reveal their hidden stashes of food. In fact it is never even implied.

Except for the Resurrection, the multiplication of loaves is the only miracle told in all four Gospels. It was considered important enough to include in all four. And here we come to the next big problem. If these events were so important, why do the writers not offer the slightest clue that sharing was the primary import of the event?
Interestingly, Jesus does not address the crowd at all. He speaks only to his disciples. The dialogue goes on between Jesus and his disciples. The only time the crowd is addressed is when they are told to sit down in groups—not to teach them generosity. So, where are we told that Jesus taught them about sharing? If he did teach them to share their hidden food, why did the Gospel writers fail to inform us—in six separate accounts? If this was the main point of the story, shouldn’t it show up at least once?

Where Did It Come From?
Matthew informs us about two separate occasions of feeding the multitudes (Matt. 14 and 15). Matthew 15:36 makes it clear what happened and where the miraculous bread came from. It came from the hands of Jesus, not the people. Matthew writes “[Jesus] took the seven loaves and the fish; and giving thanks, he broke them and started giving them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people.”
Is there any indication here that the bread just appeared among the crowd and kept growing as everyone pulled out food and began to share? Did the “multiplication” begin from the hands of the people to the mouths of their neighbor? Of course not. Nor did the bread start appearing first in the hands of the generous crowd and move to the hands of the disciples then to the hands of Jesus. It was the other way around. It went from the hands of Jesus who took, blessed, broke, and gave it into the hands of the disciples, who passed it to the people.
As St. Jerome affirmed, “The multitude receives the food from the Lord through the apostles; as it follows, and he gave the loaves to his disciples, and the disciples to the multitude” (Thomas Aquinas, Catena Aurea, I.2).
It took a lot of bread and fish to feed 10,000–20,000 people or more. (Jesus fed 5,000 men on one occasion, not counting women and children. Add one woman and one child for each man and you already are at 15,000.) The fragments of bread left over filled many baskets. The Gospel writers even say the remaining bread represented a “superabundance.” What was the source of the remaining superabundance? Had the remaining fragments come from the picnic baskets? Or were the fragments left over from the loaves blessed and multiplied by Jesus? Here is what John says:
So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. Therefore when the people saw the sign which he had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” (John 6:13-14)
The people had seen a supernatural miracle (John refers to supernatural miracles as “signs” throughout his Gospel), so they declared that he was “truly the Prophet who is to come” (based on Deut. 18:15-18). And seeing the miracle they wanted to make Jesus the king (John 6:15).

[cont’d]
 
Jesus, the New Moses
In the Gospels Jesus is presented as the New Moses. At the Transfiguration (interestingly, right after the miracle of the loaves and fishes), Jesus meets Moses on the mountain. They talk about his “exodus” soon to take place. Moses had led the first Exodus, passing through the Red Sea (baptism, 1 Cor. 10:1-4), and then providing miraculous bread in the wilderness (just as Jesus gave the bread in the wilderness and the Eucharist for our journey). Jesus is now the new Moses on a mountain, with a shining face, engulfed in a cloud and leading an exodus—all referring back to Moses on the mountain of Sinai.

When the miracle of the multiplication of loaves is told in the Gospel of John, it is immediately related to the manna in the wilderness. The people saw the connection between Moses and Jesus, the manna and the miraculous bread. Jesus was the Prophet who had been promised. The people wanted to make him a king, not because he taught selfish people to share, but because he had done a stupendous miracle like their ancestors had seen in the wilderness of Sinai.

Since the two events are tied together—especially by John—then we could ask, was the manna really a miracle in the wilderness of Sinai or had Moses simply taught the people to share? Did the Israelites all sneak out of their tents at night to scatter manna around the desert? Had they been hoarding manna in their tents or under their robes?
I don’t think so. God had performed a genuine, certifiable miracle and the people knew it. And they knew it with Jesus too.

As the new Moses, Jesus could do no less than the Moses of old. The people would not have been impressed with anything less than a stupendous miracle. And impressed they were! Look at their reaction: They tried to make Jesus a king. If he had just given a lesson on generosity, they would have gone around patting each other on the back—they would have been the heroes, the ones to receive praise for sharing. But they had seen the miraculous, supernatural hand of God. Jesus was the Prophet promised by God and they wanted him to be king.

The Number of Perfection
John’s Gospel is a masterful composition constructed with intricate detail that holds together like a gorgeous tapestry. He opens with “the Word was God” and concludes with “My Lord and my God.” Everything in between proves the divinity of Jesus. John describes seven miracles which he calls signs. He even numbers the first two signs to encourage us to keep counting. The seven are these:
  1. changing water into wine,
  2. healing the official’s son,
  3. healing the cripple at Bethesda,
  4. walking on water,
  5. multiplying loaves,
  6. healing the blind man, and
  7. raising Lazarus from the dead.
On the eighth day, the start of a new week, he rises from the dead—the eighth miracle/sign which shows a new beginning on the eighth day. These signs point to the divinity of our Lord. He uses seven because that is the number of perfection—seven days, seven sacraments, etc. When God makes an oath in Hebrew, it is literally “God sevens himself.” John’s use of seven signs is remarkable.

To delete one of the miracles and say it is just a “caring, sharing” moment among people in the crowd is to destroy the symmetry John weaves into his Gospel. You end up with six miracles, and in Scripture six is the number of man and incompleteness.
Violating Scripture in one place has the effect of a ball of yarn rolling down a hill. It begins to unravel everything and to do violence to the fabric of the Scriptures and the faith.

Who Do You Believe?

Each Gospel account of the feeding the thousands was intended to report a divine miracle. In other words, the four Gospel writers did not set out deceive their readers. If, however, we accept what these homilists propose, denying the miraculous in these stories, then we are accusing the eyewitness Gospel writers of one of two things: 1) being ignorant of what really happened, or 2) deliberating trying to deceive their readers.
Even if it were not a miraculous multiplication of loaves, the writers thought it was miraculous and wrote to inform us that they had seen what they thought was a miracle. And those reading the accounts thought the writers intended to report a real miracle. Eyewitnesses were still alive when the Gospel accounts were written. ***If there had been no miracle, they would have scoffed at the New Testament writings and exposed them as lies. ***

And believing Jesus actually performed a miracle was not just the universal belief of the early Church. For 2,000 years, readers have believed not only that the writers intended to relay their eyewitness account of a miracle but that Jesus actually performed such a miracle.
What actually happened in the wilderness long ago? There are only three options: 1) there was no miracle, only “sharing”—the Gospel writers were ignorant and just thought it was actually a miracle; 2) there was no miracle, only “sharing” and the writers conspired to deceive their readers into thinking it was a miracle; or 3) it was a miracle, and the Gospel writers reported it accurately.
The correct option is not as complicated as some people seem to think. We must also remember that as the Second Vatican Council taught in Dei Verbum that all that the Scripture writers affirm as true is without error. The passage about the multiplication of the loaves and fish certainly affirms a miracle.

Do You Not Yet Understand?
It seems like Jesus is asking this question again, this time to those who stray from the truth and fail to listen and understand. Listen to what Jesus says in the context of the multiplication of the loaves:
And they discussed it with one another, saying, “We have no bread.” And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?” (Mark 8:16-21)

SIDEBARS
Read the Different Accounts of the Miracle
The six accounts of the multiplication of loaves found in the Gospels:
  1. Matthew 14:15-21
  2. Matthew 15:32-39
  3. Mark 6:35-44
  4. Mark 8:1-9
  5. Luke 9:12-17
  6. John 6:1-13
What is a Miracle?
A miracle is not simply a natural event which seems bigger than life. A miracle is the hand of God acting within nature to produce an effect that neither man nor nature unaided could do on its own. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s entry on Miracles:

A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the known laws of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life, e.g., Lazarus (John 11), the widow’s son (1 Kgs. 17). A miracle is said to be outside, or beside, nature when natural forces may have the power to produce the effect, at least in part, but could not of themselves alone have produced it in the way it was actually brought about. Thus the effect in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces, or it takes place instantaneously without the means or processes which nature employs. In illustration we have the multiplication of loaves by Jesus (John 6), the changing of water into wine at Cana (John 2). . . . A miracle is said to be contrary to nature when the effect produced is contrary to the natural course of things.

What Did the Fathers of the Church Teach?
The men who were authentic witnesses to the apostolic teaching knew the culture and language far better than we do today and were not blinded by modern relativism and skepticism. They believed that God existed and could perform real miracles within the physical world he created ex nihilo, and they were careful to preserve the Apostolic Tradition. Here are just a few of many of examples of what they taught about the loaves and fishes. "

[read the rest at http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/loaves-and-fishes]
 
Referring to the sentence in blue in post 31:

It would make zero theological or literary sense, to the writers and the readers, to believe that the same Jesus who knew and disclosed the secrets of various people in the gospels, would somehow not know about all this hidden food.

It really slays me how so many otherwise educated and self-proclaimed “educated” people are unable to use common sense, not to mention unable to appreciate any textual consistency whatsoever when approaching scripture, even if they might be horrified at the notion of interpreting secular ancient texts with a 21st century lens. Somehow, it’s acceptable to “interpret” (with no training or with bad training) scripture as if

~the evangelists were idiots
~Our Lord was deficient in IQ
~We moderns are way smarter than those dumb ancients
 
John 6:1-15 was the quoted reading in the OP. According to the Bible version used by the American Catholic Church, here’s what happened (John 6:3-9):
Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. The Jewish feast of Passover was near. When Jesus raised his eyes and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, he said to Philip, “Where can we buy enough food for them to eat?” He said this to test him, because he himself knew what he was going to do. Philip answered him, “Two hundred days’ wages* worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little [bit].”One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, said to him, “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves* and two fish; but what good are these for so many?”
This passage says nothing about sharing. Jesus asked how they would feed the crowd. Philip didn’t turn around and say that they should have brought their own food. Andrew found a boy with five loaved and two fish. While Hollywood might have it this way, the boy is not said to have come to Jesus offering to share the little he had for the good of all present.

It is said that this moderist interpretation (sharing what they already had vs. the Lord providing from what was available) is actually quite a dangerously secular point of view, as it argues that we do not need Christ to provide what the world already has given.
 
It is said that this moderist interpretation (sharing what they already had vs. the Lord providing from what was available) is actually quite a dangerously secular point of view, as it argues that we do not need Christ to provide what the world already has given.
The modernist interpretation is like a stealth stab at the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Reminds me of the early days of the Jesus Seminar. However, most people are more familiar with the concept that Jesus is a prophet among prophets meaning that Jesus is the same as human prophets. That list of human prophets gets quite interesting at times.
 
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. :mad:
What an annoying hipster.
 
I had this nonsense preached today at my parish, and had to constrain myself to sit still and try not to just get up and leave. I converted to the Catholic Church for Catholicism. If I wanted Arianism or the Jesus Seminar, I would have gone there.

As the article by Steve Ray proves, a simple reading of the other Gospel accounts proves the lie to this nonsense.

Matthew 14:13 When Jesus heard of it, he withdrew in a boat to a deserted place by himself. The crowds heard of this and followed him on foot from their towns. 14 When he disembarked and saw the vast crowd, his heart was moved with pity for them, and he cured their sick. 15When it was evening, the disciples approached him and said, “This is a deserted place and it is already late; dismiss the crowds so that they can go to the villages and buy food for themselves.” 16 [Jesus] said to them, “There is no need for them to go away; give them some food yourselves.” 17 But they said to him, “Five loaves and two fish are all we have here.” 18Then he said, “Bring them here to me,” 19 and he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the fragments left over—twelve wicker baskets full. 21 Those who ate were about five thousand men, not counting women and children.*

The Apostles and Jesus were not dummies. But this “theory” about sharing assumes they are.
 
It was disappointing to hear the “sharing is the real miracle” homily because, this episode in the Gospel is an anticipation to the teaching on the Eucharist 3 chapters later, an opportunity that the deacon had, and didn’t take advantage. I don’t want to sound arrogant or that I know much more than the deacon, but these modernist interpretations are really so annoying.
 
I had this nonsense preached today at my parish, and had to constrain myself to sit still and try not to just get up and leave. I converted to the Catholic Church for Catholicism. If I wanted Arianism or the Jesus Seminar, I would have gone there.

As the article by Steve Ray proves, a simple reading of the other Gospel accounts proves the lie to this nonsense.

*Matthew 14:13 When Jesus heard of it, he withdrew in a boat to a deserted place by himself. The crowds heard of this and followed him on foot from their towns. 14 When he disembarked and saw the vast crowd, his heart was moved with pity for them, and he cured their sick. 15When it was evening, the disciples approached him and said, “This is a deserted place and it is already late; dismiss the crowds so that they can go to the villages and buy food for themselves.” 16 [Jesus] said to them, “There is no need for them to go away; give them some food yourselves.” 17 But they said to him, “Five loaves and two fish are all we have here.” 18Then he said, “Bring them here to me,” 19 and he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass. Taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. 20They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up the fragments left over—twelve wicker baskets full. 21 Those who ate were about five thousand men, not counting women and children.

The Apostles and Jesus were not dummies. But this “theory” about sharing assumes they are.
I agree it is a dumb theory! (and a very wrong theory). Please be aware that this is not what the Church is teaching officially…it is nothing more than the wrong opinions of others.

I am so glad to hear those who can refute them and stand up for the truth! In these times we Catholics need to inform ourselves and prayerfully stand up to the errors all around us! May the Lord help us.
 
There were very pragmatic reason for the authors of the Gospels to add the feeding of the multitides to what they wrote. Remember Sunday’s first reading?

A man came from Baal-shalishah bringing to Elisha, the man of God,
twenty barley loaves made from the firstfruits,
and fresh grain in the ear.
Elisha said, “Give it to the people to eat.”
But his servant objected,
“How can I set this before a hundred people?”
Elisha insisted, “Give it to the people to eat.”
“For thus says the LORD,
‘They shall eat and there shall be some left over.’”
And when they had eaten, there was some left over,
as the LORD had said.
(2 Kgs 4:42-44)


Jews were very knowledgeable about their own scriptures and the writings of the prophets. In the event as described by John, the people instantly recognized what Jesus was doing as an expansion on what Elisha did. Elisha fed one hundred but Jesus fed five thousand.

***When the people saw the sign he had done, they said, “This is truly the Prophet, the one who is to come into the world.” *(Juhn 6:14)

The people instantly recognize Jesus as a prophet mightier than Elisha, one of the greatest prophets who ever lived. In fact, Elisha had just raised a boy from the dead in the verses prior to his feeding 100 with twenty loaves. Feeding a great multitude shows Jesus power as greater than Elisha’s. As we say in our modern world, Jesus had “Instant credibility” as a prophet.

There were many stories of priests who ate the Bread of the Presence which was kept in the Holy Place in the temple, who ate a small morsel and were completely satisfied. This too was widely known by the Jews at the time of Jesus and the fact that everyone was satisfied by a small morsel would have indicated to the crowd that Jesus was not giving them ordinary bread, but very, very special bread - the “Bread of the Presence” or the “Bread of the Face of God” as it was called. Jesus would have been recognized as a great and mighty priest through the event.

Remember from the Old Testament that only priests ate the Bread of the Presence. In allowing the crowd to eat the miraculous Bread of the Presence, Jesus was making them priests, restoring the common priesthood which the Israelites lost at Mt. Sinia because of disobedience and which was given to the Levites.

There are many lessons to be learned, once we get past the arguments about what the miracle really was, and God is trying to teach us something here, about who Jesus is and how we can trust him. But in order to see what God wants us to know so that we can spend eternity with him, we have to stop arguing about what the miracle really was.

The real miracle was that God became man and dwelt among us, and loved us so much that he gave his life for us, and rose from the dead.

All of Jesus actions are revelation - God revealing something about himself. That is what I want to understand, and not dwell on whether things really happened or not or what the nature of the miracle really was.

-Tim-
 
And please remember to go easy on your preists and deacons. They are ordinary men with lives like you, and they sometimes make mistakes.

Especially go easy on your deacons, because they are your servants. They have families and jobs which come before their role as a deacon. They are human, so have some mercy.

-Tim-
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top