Comments on: Is the story of the loaves and the fishes really a miracle, as in a supernatural experience where Jesus literally changes a little bit of food into a whole bunch? I heard a priest tell me it was just about “sharing.” http://www.bustedhalo.com/questionbox/is-the-story-of-the-loaves-and-the-fishes-really-a-miracle-as-in-a-supernatural-experience-where-jesus-literally-changes-a-little-bit-of-food-into-a-whole-bunch-i-heard-a-priest-tell-me-it-was-just/ an online magazine for spiritual seekers. Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:35:19 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Steve Pickenshttp://www.bustedhalo.com/questionbox/is-the-story-of-the-loaves-and-the-fishes-really-a-miracle-as-in-a-supernatural-experience-where-jesus-literally-changes-a-little-bit-of-food-into-a-whole-bunch-i-heard-a-priest-tell-me-it-was-just/#comment-5832 Steve Pickens Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:27:21 +0000 http://www.bustedhalo.com/?p=9686#comment-5832 Mr. Paprocki must not have heard of the Catholic Church's support of form criticism which limits the inerrancy of the bible to the fact that it relates the story of man's interaction with a saving God. The bible is not a historical record but a collection of literature. Some elements are purely imagery not fact. The multiplication of the loaves a fictional tale told to depict Jesus as a new Moses. Like the story of George Washington and the cherry tree (I cannot tell a lie) the important part of the story for the authors was that Jesus appear as important a leader as Moses. It made no difference to the author whether the event happened or not because, in his or her mind, the story depicts an important truth. Think Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah. These aren't history but they still convey important lessons about the nature of God and man from the author's point of view. You don't have to suspend skepticism or rationality to be a believer. Mr. Paprocki must not have heard of the Catholic Church’s support of form criticism which limits the inerrancy of the bible to the fact that it relates the story of man’s interaction with a saving God. The bible is not a historical record but a collection of literature. Some elements are purely imagery not fact.
The multiplication of the loaves a fictional tale told to depict Jesus as a new Moses. Like the story of George Washington and the cherry tree (I cannot tell a lie) the important part of the story for the authors was that Jesus appear as important a leader as Moses. It made no difference to the author whether the event happened or not because, in his or her mind, the story depicts an important truth. Think Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah. These aren’t history but they still convey important lessons about the nature of God and man from the author’s point of view.
You don’t have to suspend skepticism or rationality to be a believer.

]]> By: G.K. Thursdayhttp://www.bustedhalo.com/questionbox/is-the-story-of-the-loaves-and-the-fishes-really-a-miracle-as-in-a-supernatural-experience-where-jesus-literally-changes-a-little-bit-of-food-into-a-whole-bunch-i-heard-a-priest-tell-me-it-was-just/#comment-5816 G.K. Thursday Sat, 22 Aug 2009 04:36:44 +0000 http://www.bustedhalo.com/?p=9686#comment-5816 I have to side with Steve here. Many older priests were not educated well in the Scriptures, especially in the 1960s and 70s. They were given a mostly liberal gloss, with little preparation in the original languages, and with an orientation away from "supernaturalism". How many of your readers recall the heated controversy over Henri de Lubac's attempt to radically unify the supernatural with the natural with regard to human desire for the summum bonum? Although in itself de Lubac's approach may have been a good theological move, it also led some pop theology of the 60s and 70s to unify the natural and the supernatural in such a way that the latter became little more than a function of the former. This "intrinsicism" was condemned as a form of Modernism by Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907). However, the tendency to prefer this crass confounding of the supernatural with the natural stands behind these kind of misinterpretations of Scripture.Because of the lack of proper Scriptural training many older priests still propose these sorts of interpretations. Thank God that Joe Paprocki gave a very thoughtful and balanced answer. I have to side with Steve here. Many older priests were not educated well in the Scriptures, especially in the 1960s and 70s. They were given a mostly liberal gloss, with little preparation in the original languages, and with an orientation away from “supernaturalism”. How many of your readers recall the heated controversy over Henri de Lubac’s attempt to radically unify the supernatural with the natural with regard to human desire for the summum bonum? Although in itself de Lubac’s approach may have been a good theological move, it also led some pop theology of the 60s and 70s to unify the natural and the supernatural in such a way that the latter became little more than a function of the former. This “intrinsicism” was condemned as a form of Modernism by Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907). However, the tendency to prefer this crass confounding of the supernatural with the natural stands behind these kind of misinterpretations of Scripture.

Because of the lack of proper Scriptural training many older priests still propose these sorts of interpretations. Thank God that Joe Paprocki gave a very thoughtful and balanced answer.

]]> By: cathyfhttp://www.bustedhalo.com/questionbox/is-the-story-of-the-loaves-and-the-fishes-really-a-miracle-as-in-a-supernatural-experience-where-jesus-literally-changes-a-little-bit-of-food-into-a-whole-bunch-i-heard-a-priest-tell-me-it-was-just/#comment-5813 cathyf Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:13:20 +0000 http://www.bustedhalo.com/?p=9686#comment-5813 Steve, there is a lot of richness to the miracle stories...For example, in the loaves and fishes, we are told that Jesus multiplied a small amount to feed the crowd, as opposed to simply creating the requisite feast from nothing. Which he obviously could have done -- it would have been no more miraculous that way. I have heard several homilies over the years pointing out the role of the person who supplied the loaves and fish that Jesus started with, and what we can learn from this about *our* role in the Kingdom of God.If that point were poorly delivered, or a listener were being deliberately obtuse, I'm sure that those homilies could be represented as saying "the miracle was really about sharing." Let's just say I've learned over the years that you need more than fourth-hand heresay to launch a full-bore heresy hunt. Steve, there is a lot of richness to the miracle stories…

For example, in the loaves and fishes, we are told that Jesus multiplied a small amount to feed the crowd, as opposed to simply creating the requisite feast from nothing. Which he obviously could have done — it would have been no more miraculous that way. I have heard several homilies over the years pointing out the role of the person who supplied the loaves and fish that Jesus started with, and what we can learn from this about *our* role in the Kingdom of God.

If that point were poorly delivered, or a listener were being deliberately obtuse, I’m sure that those homilies could be represented as saying “the miracle was really about sharing.” Let’s just say I’ve learned over the years that you need more than fourth-hand heresay to launch a full-bore heresy hunt.

]]> By: Stevehttp://www.bustedhalo.com/questionbox/is-the-story-of-the-loaves-and-the-fishes-really-a-miracle-as-in-a-supernatural-experience-where-jesus-literally-changes-a-little-bit-of-food-into-a-whole-bunch-i-heard-a-priest-tell-me-it-was-just/#comment-5811 Steve Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:32:27 +0000 http://www.bustedhalo.com/?p=9686#comment-5811 It is remarkable that Catholic priests would ever argue such nonsense that this is miracle is really about "sharing." Doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) undermines the doctrine of the Eucharist and he should be corrected and/or the local Bishop should be notified.It is no coincidence that the Eucharist is promised immediately after this in John 6. It is remarkable that Catholic priests would ever argue such nonsense that this is miracle is really about “sharing.” Doing so (either intentionally or unintentionally) undermines the doctrine of the Eucharist and he should be corrected and/or the local Bishop should be notified.

It is no coincidence that the Eucharist is promised immediately after this in John 6.

]]>