A reader writes:
The Director of Religious Education at my parish in PA just told me yesterday that Jesus may not have multiplied the loaves and fishes. First, I was told this by a women in my rosary group, so I went to the DRE because the women told me the DRE would agree with her and I was incredulous. My world was rocked because she did agree with her. I believe he did multiply the loaves and fishes and it was a miracle. Do you know what the current teaching is on this? I can’t imagine the DRE is teaching something she knows to be false. Was it taught at one time? In 2011, what is the Church’s stand on that miracle or lack there of. Please help!
Argh. Give me strength! This dumb reading of the Gospels became trendy about two decades ago due to a commentary by a guy named William Barclay. It has no standing magisterially. That doesn’t mean the Magisterium condemns it (the Magisterium does not micro-manage Scriptural exegesis like that). Nor does it mean the Magisterium commends it. It simply means that the Magisterium is not about dealing with the minutiae of how theologians, DRE’s and Sunday school teachers read individual Gospel stories, as a general rule. It’s sort of like the question of whether a person should go play in the street. The Church offers basic guidelines on prudence, common sense, etc. But the Church does not micromanage where parents allow their children to play. There may be places where playing in the street is fine. There may be places where it’s suicide. There’s no one size fits all Magisterial take on the general question of playing in the street.
In the same way, the Church tends to allow for a lot of freedom in reading Scripture and seldom issues decrees on what is and is not permitted. So a Catholic can play with the idea that, for instance, the Ten Plagues of Egypt were natural events, albeit providentially timed natural events (for instance, a mud slide upriver turned the waters red, the frogs therefore fled the river, they died and that attracted flies, etc.). You don’t *have* to buy that (and I don’t) but there’s nothing fundamentally contrary to Catholic faith in that (lame) reading of Exodus because we believe that God is the creator of nature and therefore can use natural means to do his work.
In the same way, one can play with the (exceedingly lame) “explanation” of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes where everybody was so moved by Jesus’ warm fuzziness that they all shared their lunches. The Church does not forbid this stupid way of reading the text, just as the Church has never issued an infallible decree that 2+2 does not equal five, nor a formal dogma that you should not play in traffic.
Nonetheless, all these things are wrong and stupid, as is the naturalistic reading of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. That’s because all common sense is against it. The notion that it is a wonder worthy of mention in all four Gospels that ancient Near Eastern semites shared their food is something that *only* suburban American cheapskates could believe. The duty of hospitality and sharing one’s bread with the stranger is ancient and deep-rooted in Near Eastern culture. It did not take Jesus’ warm fuzziness to prompt it, nor would anybody have remarked on it as something amazing.
No, what impressed the Gospel writers was that, well, Jesus multiplied loaves and fishes miraculously. What also impressed them was that Jesus himself directly connected this sign with the miracle of the Eucharist, which has now been multiplied to feed a billion souls every day.
So your teachers are wrong, having doubtless absorbed this silly theory from some source they trust without giving it any thought—because they trust the source. The Church does not condemn this dumb theory—or endorse it. It’s just trendy in certain circles for no more reason than that it is trendy.
Now: how to get people who buy this dumb theory to reconsider? One good way to reach people who believe it is to point out the racism inherent in the story: as though it’s a miracle for Near Eastern people to share their lunches.
Indeed, one of the fun things to do is to induce PC whiplash with such folk by bringing up another favorite trope common in these circles: the notion that the Sin of Sodom was not, you know, sodomy but “unhospitality.” According to this PC updating of Genesis 19, the big problem with the men of Sodom was not homosexuality, but that they did not give Lot and his family a good welcome. Prescinding from the fact that the threat of homosexual rape (Genesis 19:5) is a particularly acute form of inhospitality, the advocates of this particular bit of exegetical rubbish accidentally make extremely clear the fact that the duty of hospitality did not suddenly occur to the crowd of 5,000 people at the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes. It was something they had engrained in their culture for millennia—and still do. I recall a Palestinian Christian friend remarking to me that the “Miracle of Caring and Sharing” reading of John 6 was a slap in the face any person from the Middle East. “My father would let our family *starve* before a guest went hungry.” Only piggy suburbanites find it amazing, let alone miraculous, that ancient Jews would share their food.
So bottom line: The Magisterium has, so far as I know, nothing to say about this dim and dumb reading of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, just as it has issued no formal teaching about playing in traffic. That said, I would say that both are extremely dumb ideas that have literally the entire Catholic exegetical tradition against them up till about 20 years ago, and I look forward to the complete demise of the Miracle of Caring and Sharing exegesis (which is already in decline and on its way out). It’s a brief hiccup in biblical interpretation that gained momentary popularity with the Woodstock Generation. God grant it a swift death and a forgotten grave in some footnote somewhere.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for the clarity with this. When I first encountered this dumb (love that word when used appropriately) interpretation I laughed right out loud. My ‘friend’ was horrified that I would offend Jesus in that way?! I’m offending Jesus by laughing but she was not offending Jesus by thinking - even for a moment - that it was not a miracle? ‘Goodness, gracious, sakes, alive!’ as the late, great John Wooden was inclined to say.
Thank you Mark. I’ve been waiting for someone to say that the idea of a ‘Miracle of sharing’ is ‘exceeding lame’. Well put.
Hadn’t heard this debate before but, as a D.R.E. I want to thank you for the instruction. I learned something new today and I believe that’s part of my job description. :-)
Gracias Mark!
The Church has in fact made a judgement about the authenticity of Christ’s miracles.
Pope Pius XII cites and expounds upon the teaching of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council:
The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.” In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.” When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
(DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, n. 1)
And further:
Pope Leo XIII Exercises Papal Infallibility
And the passage in question from Providentissimus Deus is as follows:
But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS, n. 20).
Great post, Mark. This is an exegetical pet-peeve of mine, as a biblical scholar.
I would add two points: First, William Barclay ultimately got this idea from the nineteenth century German rationalist, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlieb Paulus (1828)—how’s that for a German name! So it’s actually quite an old idea, which, as you rightly point out, made its way into Catholic pulpits via William Barclay’s much used commentary (strangely recommended by Archbishop Fulton Sheen).
Second, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does speak to this, though not in a direct way, when it teaches regarding these passages in the Gospels: “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” (CCC 1335). In this brief passage, the Church clearly interprets these accounts as “miracles” of “multiplication” that point forward to the miracle of the Eucharist. IN short, Jesus was no messianic Mr. Rogers.
It happens *twice* in Mark. If you watch the stage play by Max McLean (which starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCdUsH6WcnQ ) you get a sense of *why it is narrated for two separate incidents. Because later, when the disciples say “Lord what shall we eat?” ol’ Jesus can give them The Look. Like, weren’t you paying attention?
Brant:
Thanks for the awesome German name. I didn’t know the pedigree. Thanks also for the CCC take. The determined naturalist can, of course, do to it what he does to the biblical text. But yeah, it’s pretty obvious that the Church regards the event as supernatural (as the biblical writers obviously do) and not merely as a sign of Our Capacity for Generosity Inspired by God’s Invitation. Blech.
@Ye Olde Statistician:
Both Matthew and Mark record two multiplications; First, feeding 5000 (not counting women and children) from a predominantly Jewish area; then feeding four thousand from a predominantly Gentile area. In a later conversation with his clueless disciples, He reminds them of just this after he warns them about being wary of the leaven (Yeast) of the pharisees. (And reminds them “How many baskets of fragments did you pick up?” (from each multiplication)
John and Luke only record the first multiplication.
There are some “Scripture scholars” who try to provide naturalistic explanations for miracles described in the Bible. If you don’t believe in miracles, what about the Resurrection? And if you don’t believe in His Resurrection, why are you spending time in church, or on a Catholic website? See Paul’s response in First Cor. 15, esp. v. 19.
He is Risen!
TeaPot562
Mark-
All right, already. Quit picking on suburbanites! Talk about racism!
Or, to quote your own words back at you…well, okay, with a little judicious editing…:-)
“That said, I would say that the notion that suburbanites are inherently ‘piggies’ who wouldn’t think about sharing their food and hospitality with others was considered ridiculous—and rightly so—till about 20 years ago, and I look forward to the complete demise of the ‘piggie suburbanite cheapskate’ exegesis (which is only thinly veiled racism and bigotry in reverse, usually propagated by the ‘social justice Gospel’ crowd). It’s a brief hiccup in the command to love one another that gained popularity with the Woodstock Generation, when a horde of half-stoned spoiled brats painted all of the houses and families in which most of them grew up as populated by mindless swine who thought only of money, social standing, and ‘getting ahead.’ Fortunately, it’s losing traction with thinking Christians, and I pray God grant it a swift death and a forgotten grave in some footnote somewhere.”
Where you live doesn’t dictate HOW you live. Period.
P.S. Unfortunately, I remember the first time I encountered this “Miracle” explanation; I WISH it had only been a DRE who propagated it. It was a Carmelite priest, from the pulpit. It felt sqitsy then, and it feels like an outrage now.
JB
Teapot:
YOS is a Catholic in good standing who did not in any way suggest that miracles don’t happen. Merciful heaven but some comboxers are ready to leap to conclusions and kick people out of the Church on the basis of nothing. Sheesh!
Mark: I believe that you are anointed with the divine gift of recognizing and ridiculing stupidity. I rejoice in it—that is, in your gift, not the stupidity.
I first heard this from the pulpit as well, about 15 years ago. It gave me a sick feeling inside, reminding me of the smell of the demythologization school of biblical study. It keeps spreading like other cancers because there are people who want to deny the miraculous and supernatural, who refer any natural explanation instead.
That “explanation” is not only lame for the reasons you gave, Mark, but also because the story itself implies a miraculous multiplication of food by Jesus. They wanted to make him king afterward! If the people just shared their food, and that alone had been deemed marvelous enough to put into the gospel, then why didn’t the gospel writers bother to mention it?
Because it didn’t happen that way.
Critical thinking has gone the way of the dodo.
Gawrsh, all I done did was note how the first loaves and fishes thingie wasn’t enough. O’ JC had to go and rub it in a second time. And even then the apostles later asked where they would get bread. Mark’s narrative purpose is clear; and so is Jesus’ didactic purpose in performing the miracle, not once, not even twice, but (when we consider the Eucharist thereby prefigured) innumerable times since. And still some folks don’t get it. The bread really is inexhaustible.
Still… If the Gospel is a living thing, as we like to think, it may be no coincidence that this notion—that the miracle was one of inspiring-others-to-share—has become popular in OUR day and age. Palestinian Jews of the first century may have needed no miracle to share with their fellow Jews. But Late Modern Westerners in the grip of a vague and inchoate Nietzschean/Randian triumph of the will may need to hear precisely that message.
After all, Augustine, whose chops are generally supposed pretty good, he being a Father of the Church and all, once said that
“When, again, not some one interpretation, but two or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning the writer intended remain undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with the truth. And if a man in searching the Scriptures endeavors to get at the intention of the author through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, whether he succeeds in this endeavor, or whether he draws a different meaning from the words, but one that is not opposed to sound doctrine, he is free from blame so long as he is supported by the testimony of some other passage of Scripture. For the author perhaps saw that this very meaning lay in the words which we are trying to interpret; and assuredly the Holy Spirit, who through him spoke these words, foresaw that this interpretation would occur to the reader, nay, made provision that it should occur to him, seeing that it too is founded on truth. For what more liberal and more fruitful provision could God have made in regard to the Sacred Scriptures than that the same words might be understood in several senses, all of which are sanctioned by the concurring testimony of other passages equally divine?”—On Christian Doctrine, Book III ch. 27.
That’s really insightful. In other words, the caring and sharing moral sense reading of the text can be fruitful, so long as it doesn’t cancel out the literal sense reading. (As St. Thomas says, all other senses are dependent on the literal sense).
The main problem, I fear, is that very few of the people who appeal to the caring and sharing reading of the text do so with the intention of preserving the literal sense. The typically do it to replace the literal sense because they have a prejudice against miracles and a prejudice in favor of water liberal Protestant moralism.
But that doesn’t negate your point, which is interesting. Our individualist culture *can* stand with a good dose of old-fashioned biblical communitarianism. I suspect, however, that there are less roundabout and confusing ways of getting that across, like a straightforward exegesis of Jesus command to give to whoever asks of us.
I live in Pennsylvania, too, and unfortunately I’m not surprised.
When my oldest child was preparing for First Communion about twenty years ago, I attended a mandatory religious “education” session for parents at which a nun informed us that the Church didn’t believe in that “Real Presence” stuff anymore. Then we wonder why people are leaving the Church.
Afew summers ago when our Pastor was on vacation we had a series of priests come to fill in on the weekends ..to celebrate the masses, hear confessions, etc. One Sunday the priest substituting also gave the homily on Matthew’s gospel of feeding the four thousand or what is called the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. At one point he proceeded to tell this very conservative congregation much the same thing as this Pa. DRE
said…that the real miracle perhaps was that the message Jesus preached was so moving that all those in attendance opened their baskets and began to share with one another from their personal stash! I was astounded for
I had NEVER heard this miracle interpreted in such a blasphemous manner. I had always understood it as a foreshadowing of the Eucharist. It left me quite rattled and it was difficult recollecting myself for the rest of the mass. I did not have the opportunity to speak with the priest when mass concluded but I did later speak to several parishioners who had attended the same mass. I was even more astounded to learn that not ONE of them heard him say this! Either it goes to show that nobody is listening to the Sunday homily OR the Holy Spirit is alive and well and knows how to distract people at the proper time. ( Of course there is always the possibility that Ol Scratch was busy whispering in MY ear that Sunday morning!) Some time later I heard Mother Angelica’s “take” on this kind of exegesis and believe me, she left no room to doubt what Jesus was trying to teach the Apostles and us in turn….and it wasn’t trying to get Johnny to share with Timmy his peanut butter sandwich! I can also tell you that this priest never returned to substitute again! Ever! I think someone found out he was not only subbing for Father..but he was
substituting nonsense for sound teaching. I think if this was only about sharing and caring than we have trouble further explaining all the baskets of left-overs collected by the Apostles as someone pointed out here. It seems like one more attempt by those who would water down the
faith so it becomes more “palatable ” to those who can only believe what
they can easily grasp! Why bother! Happy to hear those people have left or are on their way out. If they cannot be convinced they should not be teaching their “substitute” versions!
Thanks Mark,
Jesus is alive He has risen Alleluia!
For those who can get a copy I would suggest the video “Viva Christo Rey”
where there is a clear witness of the multiplication of food in recent times along with countless other miracles. I heard Ft Rick Thomas speak here in NZ and it was a wonderful witness.
Maybe that why the satanic anger is so loose in Juarez today.
My own beloved pastor issued this same exegesis in his homily one Sunday. Since we were good friends, I let him know what I thought of his interpretation. If it was not miracle, then there was no need to include it in the Gospel. And hospitality is indeed at the very heart of Middle Eastern culture.
I had been away from the Church for awhile, OK a Looong while (40+ years) and knew that I either didn’t remember or never learned much about my faith and beliefs so I attended a Foundations in Ministry class put on by our diocese. It seemed every week we were taught that some part of the Old or New Testament did not happen the way described (or the way interpreted).
It began with the story of Noah and the Ark and included the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fish Gospel. I must say I was shaken to learn that truth of the bible was so fluid.
Gary@..Yes this is a very sad commentary on how things are in many of the so-called “catchizing” classes where apparently they interpret the command “to go forth and teach all Nations” as meaning teaching any way you think will increase not the Faith but the numbers. How sad and how blasphemous. All I can advise you is to go carefully…and know something about the parish where these classes are being held. Ask what sources they use in their instruction ( series of publications, etc) and then check them out with someone you know is capable of evaluating them. And pray to the Holy Spirit for quidance. God bless!
Apropos of what the Palestinian Christian said, I’m struck by the implicit anti-Semitism in the reading.
“So, you’re saying that the ‘real miracle’ is that Jesus persuaded Jews to share?”
Yikes.
I must say I was shaken to learn that truth of the bible was so fluid.
Comes from confusing “truth” with “fact.”
YOS@ ...What is “truth” and “fact”???????? What is it you are trying to say??? Just find this statement a little strange and incomprehensible…sort of like what I find about your “thinking” as expressed here. Would appreciate a clarification! Thanks!
“Fact” comes from the participle of a verb, factum est, which means “that which has the property of having been made or accomplished.” A “fact” is thus a “feat,” as in Jane Austen’s phrase, “gracious in fact as well as word.” This meant “gracious in deeds/acts as well as word.” This can be seen more clearly in German: Tatsache which is literally “Deed-matter.”
“Truth” otoh is from old Anglo-Saxon and means “faithful, trustworthy,” or “having or characterized by good faith.” One may lay a true line of bricks, a carpenter may snap a true line. The Beach Boys urged us to be true to our school. A couple becomes be-trothed [i.e., be-truthed], pledging to be true [faithful] to each other. “Truth” is thus closer to “faith” than to “fact.” To be faithful to your Gspusi is to be true to her. To have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ means to be true to him and since he said “I am the Way” it means to follow that way. Anyone who does not follow that Way, no matter what facts he may hold to, is not being true. Every sin against the Son will be forgiven, JC told his disciples once, but sins against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
The triumph of scientism has caused the usage “true-to-the-facts” to swamp the distinction in the popular mind. But something may be factual without being true. Think of all those surveys that “prove” one thing or another. The facts are there; but the inferences drawn are not true. The historian John Lukacs once noted that the more precise a fact like the population of Philadelphia, the less true it is. By the time the fact is written, people have been born, died, moved in, moved out.
Similarly, something may be true without being factual. G.K.Chesteron noted this once in regards to the fable “Beauty and the Beast.” Not a word of it is factual; but the story is true. And the truth of the story is this: “Sometimes you must love someone before he becomes lovable.” It was, he said, a very Christian fable.
Thanks…. But my specfic question concerned your use of quotation marks ( “truth”..“fact”) which seemed to undo somewhat the generally understood usage and seemed to imply the idea of relativism where my truth is just as good and useful as your truth morally speaking… Or where truth depends upon which set of facts one might draw upon to arrive at truth!Sort of like the infamous and misleading quote of our former President who answered a question at his impeachment trial with… “Well, depends upon what your definition of the word is..is “! Well, Mark says you’re a Catholic in good standing…have to take his word for it..but a safer assumption might also be that you are a retired lawyer! with a penchant for thinking like a modern relativist! The quotes used above are most interesting and entertaining but this kind of reasoning when applied to Truth with a T “muddies” the waters of Absolutes by casting everything into the shadow-land of doubt..especially for those whose catechetical knowledge may not be on a firm foundation. And leaves one scratching the ol head trying to figure out just where you do stand on the question put forth here about the biblical interpretation of Jesus’miracles which in the old days of catechesis were taught as signs of His Divinity.
The only important stance for us, of course,regarding Biblical interpretation, is the stance of the Church which apparently some are continuing to distort.
Nothing new here but does keep one on their toes…if not their knees!
“Well, depends upon what your definition of the word is..is “!
OTOH, Aristotle wrote:
In what sense is it asserted that all things are one? For ‘is’ is used in many senses.
- The Physics, Book I, Part 2
+ + +
a safer assumption might also be that you are a retired lawyer! with a penchant for thinking like a modern relativist!
Nah. I’m an applied statistician and management consultant in the field of quality.
+ + +
The quotes used above are most interesting and entertaining but
this kind of reasoning when applied to Truth with a T “muddies” the waters of Absolutes by casting everything into the shadow-land of doubt.
Oh, dear. And I got a lot of it from Aristotle, Augustine, and the like. Maybe they were Bad Catholics, too. I first ran into the truth/fact distinction years ago in a history book by John Lukacs, from whom I had the pleasure of studying Hist.West.Civ. back in the days before “Western Civ.” became a pejorative. Then I encountered it in the writings of G.K. Chesterton, another Bad Catholic, I suppose.
I have never heard that making distinctions between words muddied things up. Rather, one is more likely to muddy things up if one blurs the distinction and mistakes one idea for another. Especially, the blurring between truth and fact made by modern scientism. Couple that with a sort of crypto-Protestant literalism and it’s Nelly-bar-the-door. If Augustine could say that some passages could bear different meanings, who am I to tell him he was wrong?
In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense. For St. Paul says: ?Now all these things that happened to them were symbolic.?And he explains the statement in Genesis, ?And they shall be two in one flesh,?as a great mystery in reference to Christ and to the Church.—On the literal meanings of Genesis, Bk I, Ch. 1.
There is a nice set of catecheses from Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna on creation, in which he distinguishes between the supposed facts of the Genesis 1 Intro and seven truths that are contained in them. http://www.erzdioezese-wien.at/content/artikel/a10066 The cardinal is the editor of the Catholic Encyclopedia and a close companion of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, so his thoughts are not entirely weightless.
@YOS
Thank you, a most interesting and thought provoking set of comments.
I found the distinction between “fact” and “truth” interesting and useful. It’s hard to discuss things if people are ascribing different meanings to words.
God is absolute, sadly we have to talk about Him with words which are only approximate. It’s why so many of us get ourselves into so much trouble in these sorts of discussions.
So “our former President” was an Augustinian scholar??? Who knew!!!
None of these were “Bad Catholics” that I know of..nor were they infallible either ...but like you I would not pick a fight with them.
As for the Austrian Cardinal…his “catecheses” has taken a strange
turn as of late…according to what we read…but maybe it’s all in the translation? I will take a look at the ural you included ...and see what the former close companion of Cardinal Ratzinger has to say. ( or was that the close companion of the former Cardinal Ratzinger…oops!! A Freudian slip..maybe!
Steve Ray has an even more detailed debunking of this “sharing miracle”:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0801fea4.asp
Good one Mark.My friends mum studied Catholic Theology in the 80’s and taught this garbage in schools.You cant even challenge them on subjects like this because they learned it at a Catholic Uni.I am going to put this in my FB notes(is that ok?) and send the link to a few people.I love how your mind works !
God bless Kathleen
Kathleen:
Feel free to put this in your FB notes.
Thanks for this well stated clarification. In my parish about 10 years ago we had an extremely intelligent and gifted priest preach this very same “stuff” that the only miracle that occurred that day was that a lot of selfish people shared their lunches…...He has, by the way, left the priesthood.
This is one of the most irritating things I’ve ever heard in a homily. I asked a friend (priest and Church historian)about it and he said what you did: William Barclay’s commentaries. He also mentioned an essential fact:
Barclay was a Protestant who downplayed anything with sacramental significance in the scriptures. The reason this interpretation makes Catholics feel sick is that it guts a story with strong Eucharistic overtones!
Our Parish Priest this week and last week said the fishes and loafs were a miracle but not a miracle. That the people shared their abundance with others was the miracle. Not that Jesus multiplied the fishes. When I heard this denial of God’s power I was upset but the second week mention was more than I could sit still for. I stood up and looked at the Priest for a moment and then left. I am still upset about this lack of faith from the Shepard of this Parish. I liked this Catholic Church but cannot sit in and affirm this kind of disbelief. I don’t know what to do but find another Priest that does believe the truth of the Gospels.
@Lou…This is happening in far too many parishes around the country. I
think I understand your frustration but you need to take this further. If
you can, follow Mark’s advice and approach with charity your pastor, and tell him your concerns. If he seems indifferent and does not make the moves you deem acceptable, then follow thru with your Vicar of Priests. Go to the Nuncio if it takes that as this is happening in too many parishes. It must not go unchecked! God bless you with courage and tenacity.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.