Father Mike didn't actually say that Jesus did not in fact multiply loaves and fishes, but he implied that "commentators" say the real miracle "might have been" inspiring the people to all share their packed lunches like good socialists.
At my family's home parish, the FSSP priest described this theory of the miracle as Jesus simply guilting each member of the crowd into pulling out "the soggy fish sandwich" he had been carrying around in his pocket, a description which apparently originated with Fr. Benedict Groeschel. He also went on to explain in no uncertain terms that "this is a heretical understanding of this gospel."
This episode is apparently a big deal, as it appears in all four Gospels. Obviously a remarkable miracle occurred. Could it really have been just about sharing? This isn't Sesame Street.
Think about it. The priest today apparently accepted as fact that idea that nobody would set out on a pilgrimage without packing food. But would any of them have packed enough for more than three days in the wilderness? Even if they did, was there any real need to share? If each had enough food for himself, everyone would have just eaten his own food. What's so miraculous about sitting down on a hillside and having lunch? Would you really want to swap for someone else's tuna salad if you had your own? Alternatively, were the people holding out for a free lunch despite having enough food? It seems like the modernists have backed themselves into a bad Semitic stereotype if the jaw-dropping miracle in question was simply teaching Jews to share.
|CB - Round-up|