[The following May 16 passage is based on my translation of the Spanish, not the least because the “official” Zenit report includes not a word of the pertinent claims. As such, my translation is subject to ongoing future revisions… All emphases mine.]
“Respecto a los panes y los peces quisiera agregar un matiz: no se multiplicaron, no, no es verdad. Simplemente los panes no se acabaron. Como no se acabó la harina y el aceite de la viuda. No se acabaron. Cuando uno dice multiplicar puede confundirse y creer que hace magia, no. No, no, simplemente es tal la grandeza de Dios y del amor que puso en nuestros corazones, que si queremos, lo que tenemos no se acaba. Mucha confianza en esto.”
“With respect to the loaves and fishes that were collected I’d like to add a nuance: they were not multiplied–no, it’s not true. It’s simply that the loaves did not run out. Like the yeast and the oil of the widow [in I Kings 17] did not run out. When one speaks of multiplying [one can be] confused [to] believe that it’s magic–[but] no. No, no, it’s simply the greatness of God and of love made [real] in our hearts, so that if we want, what we have does not run out. Much confidence in this.” — [May 16, 2013]
“[W]here does the multiplication of the loaves come from? The answer lies in Jesus’ request to the disciples: ‘You give them…’, ‘to give’, to share. What do the disciples share? The little they have: five loaves and two fish. However it is those very loaves and fish in the Lord’s hands that feed the entire crowd. … And this tells us that in the Church, but also in society, a key word … is ‘solidarity’, that is, [making] what we have, our humble capacities, available to God, for only in sharing, in giving, will our life be fruitful. … The Lord in the Eucharist makes us follow His path … of sharing, of giving – and what little we have, what little we are, if shared, becomes wealth, because the power of God, which is that of love, descends into our poverty to transform it.” — [May 30, 2013]
“Jesus senses our problems, he senses our weaknesses, he senses our needs. … From this small amount [offered by the disciples], God can make it suffice for everyone. Jesus trusts in the heavenly Father without reserve; he knows that for him everything is possible. Thus he tells his disciples to have the people sit down in groups of fifty — this is not merely coincidental, for it means that they are no longer a crowd but become communities nourished by God’s bread. Jesus then takes those loaves and fish, looks up to heaven, recites the blessing — the reference to the Eucharist is clear — and breaks them and gives them to the disciples who distribute them… and the loaves and fish do not run out, they do not run out! This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.” — [June 2, 2013]
“[W]hen we are generous in welcoming people and sharing something with them…we are enriched. I am well aware that when someone needing food knocks at your door, you always find a way of sharing food; as the proverb says, one can always ‘add more water to the beans’! Is it possible to add more water to the beans? … Always? … Let us always remember this: only when we are able to share do we become truly rich; everything that is shared is multiplied! Think of the multiplication of the loaves by Jesus!” — [July 25, 2013]
“The parable of the multiplication of the loaves and fish teaches us exactly this: that if there is the will [on our part], what we have never ends. On the contrary, it abounds and does not get wasted. … [Let us] share in Christian charity what we have with those who face such numerous obstacles to meet such a basic need [as hunger].” — [December 9, 2013]
Since at least mid-October–not long after I began “discerning” him, actually–I’ve known that something is “off” in Pope Francis’s account of the miracle of the fish and loaves. For better or worse, however, it was only tonight that I discovered how defective and pernicious his confusion is. For perspective (with some Dramamine!), consider these claims from one of the archangels of Modernism, Alfred Loisy:
“[T]he chief apparition stories are … myths of the institution of the Supper, myths, we might say, of the Risen Christ’s co-presence at table, his commensality, with his disciples and believers. The disciples at Emmaus recognize him ‘in the breaking of bread.’ In the supplement to John the Risen Christ offers bread and fish to the disciples, as in the multiplication of the loaves (xxi, 13). Here the fish is itself symbolic. The meaning lies in the symbol of eating together; the material of the meal is of secondary importance.
“These myths reveal the original meaning of the Supper. In the first stage the only symbolism the meaning required was that implied by common participation in the same food eaten together under the belief that the Christ-to-come was invisibly present. We can see from the Didache (ix, 2) how thanksgiving for the spiritual gift of salvation, and for the hope of it, presently found its way into the thanks given for the food of the body, and how the former was substituted for the latter. Here is the ‘Eucharist,’ the formula of thanksgiving, to be pronounced before the holy meal began, and first of all over the wine cup….
Giuseppe Ricciotti, in his Vita di Gesù Cristo (n° 372), explains:
“Para Loisy, la multiplicación de los panes es una alegoría mística (aunque la relaten los tres Sinópticos) y simboliza la misma doctrina del discurso sucesivo de Jesús sobre el pan vivo, pero ni la multiplicación ni el discurso son realidades históricas”
For Loisy, the multiplication of the bread is a mystical allegory [a parable?] (though it is related by the three Synoptic Gospels), and symbolizes the same (ensuing) teaching by Jesus about the living bread, yet neither the multiplication nor the discourse are historical realities.”
I owe it to this post for alerting me to this devastating error, and the related quotation from Ricciotti.
I do not know where to go from here. This is the baldest modernism, and it comes straight from the mouth of the Vicar of Christ. All of this was spawned by Jimmy “I’m Not Dead Yet” Akin’s recent
bit of damage control exploration of Pope “Whitman” Francis’s reported claims on this. Significantly, Akin linked to, but did not address the Pope’s claims in Brazil, and did not even mention the Pope’s heretical comments to Caritas Internationalis. Perhaps he will address these grave defects… but something tells me that he won’t.
All of the above must be kept in the context of Pius X’s Pascedni Dominici Gregis #18:
In [their] writings and addresses [Modernists] seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.