These are the woids you’ve been looking for!

[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.]

droids-are-google

“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.

As such…..

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.

Advertisements

About The Codgitator (a cadgertator)

Catholic convert. Quasi-Zorbatic. Freelance interpreter, translator, and web marketer. Former ESL teacher in Taiwan (2003-2012) and former public high school teacher (2012-2014). Married father of three. Multilingual, would-be scholar, and fairly consistent fitness monkey. My research interests include: the interface of religion and science, the history and philosophy of science and technology, ancient and medieval philosophy, and cognitive neuroscience. Please pray for me.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to These are the woids you’ve been looking for!

  1. Crude says:

    Codg,

    I’m not sure what you’re taking away from the translation here, works. For one thing, the Pope makes a reference to 1 Kings 17, which clearly is a miracle.

    I think what may be throwing you here is that the Pope is emphasizing sharing as the central act of importance on the part of the disciples. He doesn’t seem to be denying the miraculous aspect of the loaves and fishes – instead he’s saying that what was central here wasn’t the miracle itself, but what precipitated the miracle (the sharing.)

  2. vermontcrank1 says:

    Dear B. C. Consider that Mr. Akin is acting like Sem and Japeth in cloaking the putative nekkidness of his Father.

    One will always be blessed for mimicking Sem and Japeth but who desires to court a cursing by mimicking Cham?

    Take it from one who has specialised in aping Cham; that just leads to apologies and forgiveness-begging and it aids and abets AntiChrist.

  3. A similar Marxist mangling of a Biblical text occurs in the Pope’s recent version of the Genesis account of Cain and Abel, as given in paragraph 2 of his “Message for the World Day of Peace”, 1 January 2014.

    At a time when the Vatican has behaved towards the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the same way and for similar reasons as Cain behaved towards his brother Abel, the pope chooses to interpret this profound religious text in terms of schoolboy Marxism.

    The “Message for the World Day of Peace” is all about “fraternity”, as in “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”, the French Revolution’s battle-cry against the Catholic Faith, echoed in Rousseau’s “Workers of the world unite!”, and now again, incredibly, by the Vicar of Christ in this message.

    In this document, the Pope refers to “fraternity” about 40 times, rather more often than he refers to Our Lord Jesus Christ.

  4. Branch says:

    Wow.

    Crude, from the above: “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.”

    Yes, he references a ‘miracle’ – the ‘miracle’ of the disciples’ charity. Sleight of hand.

  5. vermontcrank1 says:

    Dear Hermit Crab. I just went and read the message of Our Holy Father but I missed the Marxism you found. It’s been a while since I dabbled in ol’ Marx but I don’t recall him stressing that we are all the descendants of Adam and Eve; as I recall, ol’ man Marx was not too keen on God and His creation.

  6. Branch says:

    “Significantly, Akin linked to, but did not address the Pope’s claims in Brasil, and did not even mention the Pope’s heretical comments to Caritas Internationalis.”

    It’s the Wizard of Oz phenomenon.

  7. Crude says:

    Yes, he references a ‘miracle’ – the ‘miracle’ of the disciples’ charity. Sleight of hand.

    Nope. I’m talking about: It’s simply that the loaves did not run out. As if the yeast and the oil of the widow [in I Kings 17] had not run out.

    Like I said, I think what the Pope is doing here is not denying that a real miracle occurred. He’s emphasizing the act he sees as central to the miracle. It’s not ‘the miracle of sharing’, which I will be the first to say is stupid, Pope or not. He’s saying that what was central there, what made the miracle (not what WAS the miracle) is being generous with what little was had.

    I have no problem criticizing the Pope when I think he says something wrong. I think his comments on capitalism, for example, are way too simplistic and ultimately are flawed. But I think the Pope also deserves the benefit of the doubt when things aren’t clear, and he’s not clear here.

  8. Dale Price says:

    To add another book to your acquisition file, Ricciotti’s excellent “Life of Christ” is easy to acquire from a used bookstore. Many of his works were translated into English in the 40s and 50s. Make sure it’s the 703 page version. A 400 page “popular” version was also published, but I can’t speak to that one.

  9. Branch says:

    The Pope said: “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.” I think that’s pretty clear.

    By definition, a miracle is supernatural. That Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes is precisely what was miraculous. That Christ took what the disciples had and was able to feed a multitude with it, and then for there to be leftovers, is impossible naturally speaking. That is what is noteworthy.

    Further, in John (6:5-15), it is not the disciples who share at all: “There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish; but what good are these for so many?” It wasn’t even their food!

    As if that wasn’t enough, John himself articulates the significance of this: “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.” What the people did not do is turn to the disciples to applaud their generosity.

    Now, if you’re saying that in the ‘sharing’, the disciples displayed supernatural charity – and so it was miraculous – is eisigesis, it is misleading. There is no moralizing in the Gospel about ‘sharing’.

    It’s also nothing new: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/loaves-and-fishes

  10. Did you miss this (taken at random):

    “Moreover, if on the one hand we are seeing a reduction in absolute poverty, on the other hand we cannot fail to recognize that there is a serious rise in relative poverty, that is, instances of inequality between people and groups who live together in particular regions or in a determined historical-cultural context. In this sense, effective policies are needed to promote the principle of fraternity, securing for people – who are equal in dignity and in fundamental rights – access to capital, services, educational resources, healthcare and technology so that every person has the opportunity to express and realize his or her life project and can develop fully as a person.” (paragraph 5)

    A statement such as “effective policies are needed to promote the principle of fraternity … so that every person has the opportunity to express and realize his or her life project and can develop fully as a person” could have been taken straight out of the Communist Manifesto. I particularly relish the phrase “realize his or her life project”. What would OLJC think of such a proposition?

    The whole document reeks of Marxism.

  11. Dale Price says:

    I honestly–truly–agree with giving the benefit of the doubt. It’s required. And I’ve had some moment where I’ve re-read stories about the Pope’s actions which have shown my worries to be a hyper-sensitive reaction. As always, check yourself. It’s essential advice.

    Yes, the qualifier is near….

    But I think there comes a point where you just have to cut bait and say, “yeah, that was a gaffe.” “There’s no polishing that turd.” It doesn’t mean I wash my hands of him, but I simply admit that’s he’s sloppy and prone to this sort of thing, and it’s going to be an enduring saddle sore for this pontificate.

  12. Branch says:

    I could see once being a gaffe, Dale, but on five different occasions, and read in light of the rest of the Pontificate, I don’t think so.

  13. For clarity’s sake, this is the nub of the issue, and, being spoken two weeks before his Corpus Christi “exegesis”, provides crucial context for all his claims on this matter:

    “they were not multiplied–no, it’s not true. It’s simply that the loaves did not run out. As if the yeast and the oil of the widow [in I Kings 17] had 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”

    He explicitly denies a multiplication, and that, in order to sublimate the “layman’s” understanding into a higher spiritual truth.

    I understand the duty to cover the nakedness of Noah, but when he keeps kicking the blanket off–!

  14. Crude says:

    By definition, a miracle is supernatural.

    ‘Supernatural’ has next to no meaning anyway, nor does ‘natural’. Side point, but I don’t think that’s helpful.

    That Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes is precisely what was miraculous.

    Yep, agreed.

    Now, if you’re saying that in the ‘sharing’, the disciples displayed supernatural charity – and so it was miraculous – is eisigesis, it is misleading. There is no moralizing in the Gospel about ‘sharing’.

    I’m saying that the Pope seems to be saying that the act of charity despite having little resources was precisely what set the stage for the miracle, and in a teaching sense, is the centrally important part. I stress: in a teaching sense. The miracle is still a miracle, it’s simply that, according to the Pope,

    Like I said, I really have no problem calling the Pope out on an error. But I don’t think it’s clearly happening here. I think he’s emphasizing what lesson he sees as important to take away from the multiplication of loaves, not saying ‘Oh the miracle never actually happened, the REAL miracle was the sharing!’

    And hey, I could be wrong. But really, you say ‘Five separate times!’, but I’m looking at these five times and… it’s five incidents of meandering, convoluted talk.

    That said, I vaguely recall a quote talking about ‘What if the real miracle wasn’t multiplying the bread and fishes, but the sharing?’ and the reply, ‘If that’s the case, then the hell with it.’ I agree. I don’t think the Pope’s saying that, and if he is, I’ll just say he’s wrong and move on.

  15. Dale Price says:

    When I summon up all the charity available when I analyze someone’s words (not easy, given my job), I can strain mightily and sorta find an orthodox understanding for some of them. However, it’s not the natural interpretation of the words, and I keep flashing back to the legal principle of construing words against the drafter, who is master of the document…but I can sorta see Jimmy’s argument on some of it. I also like Jimmy Akin and appreciate his work, so that plays into it, too. But I don’t think it’s wrong to expect better from an educated Catholic cleric with several decades’ experience preparing and preaching homilies. It’s definitely not asking too much of a man who is the Pope and knows he’s under a microscope.

    But I can’t make the leap for the June 2 text. That one is a no go zone. And it stains the rest of the ones by association. Unless we’re talking about the “rather than/ more than” translation problem, but I’d need some powerful persuasion on that point.

    So, I really don’t think we’re all that far apart.

  16. Crude says:

    He explicitly denies a multiplication, and that, in order to sublmiate the “layman’s” understanding into a higher spiritual truth.

    What he says is ‘No, no, there was no multiplication. It’s simply that the loaves did not run out.’ And that, to me, is boggling, so I end up not knowing what the heck he’s saying at all. Especially given the whole ‘barrels left over’ part.

  17. Dale Price says:

    But I don’t think it’s wrong to expect better from an educated Catholic cleric with several decades’ experience preparing and preaching homilies. It’s definitely not asking too much of a man who is the Pope and knows he’s under a microscope.

    And, lest we forget, a Pope who chose to offer extensive homiletical advice in EG, too.

    I’d buy another Irony Meter, but I keep pulling out shrapnel when they explode, as they usually do in the modern world.

  18. Branch says:

    Crude,

    But to make the explicit distinction that the miracle was NOT the multiplication but the sharing, even if that does not mean he is denying the multiplication, is still problematic, no? For then what is important is not God’s action but our sharing. That could be, well, pelagian, no?

  19. Crude says:

    But to make the explicit distinction that the miracle was NOT the multiplication but the sharing, even if that does not mean he is denying the multiplication, is still problematic, no? For then what is important is not God’s action but our sharing. That could be, well, pelagian, no?

    See, he doesn’t say ‘but the sharing’. He says some bizarre thing about how it wasn’t the multiplication, it was ‘that it didn’t run out’. As I said to Codg – I have no idea what the heck the Pope is talking about there.

    And he’s not saying ‘the miracle was the sharing’, and anyone who tells me that that is the miracle, I’ll roll my eyes at. Including the Pope. He’s saying that the sharing was essential, that was the key act. Or so I take him to be saying.

    I’m more than willing to eat my words if I see reason to here, but I honestly, truly do not see them yet. I’m not bending over backwards to defend the Pope on all counts – he’s dead wrong on capitalism (though I have my own disagreement with free marketers) and I’ll say as much.

  20. Branch says:

    Look at the entry above from June 2. It’s the third of the five different occasions on which this theme was addressed by the Holy Father.

  21. Crude says:

    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.

    And he’s insisting that the loaves and fish do not run out, so I’m still left wondering what he’s talking about. Seriously, I’m not trying to be blind here. If he said there was no multiplication or actual act of God here, an intervention in the natural order, and that the miracle was sharing… I’ll say well, the Pope’s wrong, and that sure is dumb. But when he’s going on about how ‘the loaves and fish didn’t run out!’ and how everyone was fed, it looks like he’s still talking about a miracle to me.

    I’ll grant this is some muddled stuff from the Pope, but I think I granted that from the start.

  22. Branch says:

    I don’t see the confusion, for in each instance, the emphasis is clear:

    “it’s simply the greatness of God and of love made [real] in our hearts”

    ““[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.”

    “This is the miracle: rather than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.”

    “only when we are able to share do we become truly rich; everything that is shared is multiplied! ”

    “[Let us] share in Christian charity what we have with those who face such numerous obstacles to meet such a basic need.”

    The constant them is sharing, giving, solidarity. It’s horizontal. Moral.

  23. Crude says:

    The constant them is sharing, giving, solidarity. It’s horizontal. Moral.

    And I already explained where I think the Pope is coming from on that. You need more than a ‘constant theme of sharing, giving and solidarity’, because that theme is still compatible with an actual ‘supernatural’ miracle taking place. The Pope says more than once it’s not a multiplication, but the miracle was that ‘the bread didn’t run out!’ (I wonder why he’s leaving out the fish?) But if the bread didn’t run out, and it wasn’t multiplication, what is he talking about? That people were miraculously fed to full/truly nourished with the tiniest scraps? Granted, that’s a miracle too if that’s what he’s saying. Odd way of reading it.

    If the Pope comes out and says ‘the miracle was sharing’ in a way I find clear, I’ll just say that’s what he said and call it nonsense. Someone else tried that on Akin’s site – the whole bit of ‘Which is more miraculous – multiplying bread and fishes, or getting people to share?’ and I said, uh, the latter one. Let’s not be stupid here.

  24. ErnstThalmann says:

    And how are we to imagine this alleged “sharing” of the disciples to be charitable in the first place? They were not acting on their own volition but on command, were they not? Their participation was merely mechanical. How is that “sharing”? The whole affair was that of Jesus! He ordered them to bring food, they fought the idea but reluctantly obeyed, and He took things from there. The disciples have absolutely no causative relationship to the matter whatsoever. They may as well have been automatons.

    Someone help me here, what was Jimmy “Yep, lets torture ’em” Akin’s part in all of this if he had one? Did he actually try to provide another of his 9 point “pooper-scoopers”, were his remarks veiled in another of his “secret messages”, or did he simply skip over this gaffe?

  25. Exactly! Jesus basically duped/cajoled the disciples into giving their food (or the boy’s), just so He could perform the miracle.

    Also, this was an ELEVEN-POINT rescue by Akin.

  26. ErnstThalmann says:

    “What he says is ‘No, no, there was no multiplication. It’s simply that the loaves did not run out.’”

    In this context, clearly a distinction without a difference. I mean how to turn a silk purse into a sow’s ear? And this from a man who at Mass is at the center of a miracle everyday? Amazing!

  27. Branch says:

    “But if the bread didn’t run out, and it wasn’t multiplication, what is he talking about? That people were miraculously fed to full/truly nourished with the tiniest scraps?”

    No, that isn’t it. Not if there were twelve basketfuls full of fragments left over.

  28. tamsin says:

    My Spanish is poor, but if I translate more directly, it sounds pretty emphatic:

    they not multiply, no, no is true. Simply the breads they not run out. Like how they not ran out the flour and the oil of the widow. They not run out. When one says “multiply” can confuse oneself and believe that magic made. No. No, no, simply is such the greatness of God and of the love that he puts in our hearts, that if we love, that which we have not runs out.

  29. Once again, I’m trying to see the big picture of how all of his statements form one picture, rather than cite a single line as the silver bullet.

    “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… [and] what we have does not run out.”

    M’kay, so, the traditional conception of the physical proliferation of more from less (with a physical superabundance left over to collect) is wrong. What is multiplied is God’s love in our hearts. Gotcha.

    “[T]his 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.”

    He claims that this same principle of miraculous sharing holds good in secular society as well. Solidarity is the miracle in both the Church and the world.

    “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….”

    He describes sharing as a conditional mechanism for proliferation. Sharing a given amount becomes more.

    “This is the miracle: [more] than a multiplication it is a sharing, inspired by faith and prayer.”

    He argues that what makes the incident *significant* is not the multiplication (in whatever sense he claims to understand it), but the sharing.

    “[O]ne can always ‘add more water to the beans’! Is it possible to add more water to the beans? … 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!”

    Once again, he presents the very act of sharing as the mechanism of multiplication (“everything that is shared is multiplied”), going so far as to reduce the abundance to a literal thinning of the gruel (“add more water”).

    “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“.

    This last claim is from his Caritas speech video, in which he explicitly says that there is enough food to feed the world. What’s needed, in other words, is not a miraculous multiplication of a small amount of food, but rather the miracle of us humans willing to share what will not run out–that is what he says the point of the “parable” is.

    This whole thing is just one more case of Pope Francis’s pastoral orthodoxy scraping by on the thinnest of fig leaves. If he had been reported to say this prior to March 13, 2013, we’d all know his kind. But now–behold, the magic of Papal Auto-Tuning!

  30. ErnstThalmann says:

    I just read Akin’s “pooper-scooper” on this one. Does this man have even an ounce of personal integrity? I’ve witnessed White House press secretaries with more authenticity than this clown. It says enough of Frank and Frank’s remarks that someone like Akin is defending him. If the Catholic Church must depends upon loyalty of the kind Jimmy Akin displays, we’ve got a short future, trust me.

  31. Pingback: I like theology… | FideCogitActio : "Omnis per gratiam"

  32. vermontcrank1 says:

    Or, it could have been lifted from the Solidarism developed by the great Catholic Economist , Fr Heinrich Pesch, SJ

  33. Indeed. The pope’s economics is not a source of my concerns.

  34. Tony says:

    This is irretrievable trash, of course.

    At the best, the Pope is guilty of trying out a metaphor and then switching gears on it without warning. At the worst…well, it is hard to say what is worst except just outright error which (were it an official teaching) would border on heresy. Thank God he is not engaged in formally defining anything here.

    At the start, he tries to make sense out of the the event by assuming a mental picture: Christ takes a loaf and passes it to the first person, who must pass it to the second, and so on. If any person stops the flow by taking some or all of it to eat, then so does the next person, and the next, and the game is up and the person at the end of the row (much less at the end of the crowd) gets none. But what actually happens (according to this myth) is that NOBODY stops the train, every single person shares by handing on the loaf to the next person. So EVERYBODY gets a loaf in his hands, and yet there is bread left over. No multiplication necessary. The loaves never run out because no person takes out a piece for themselves.

    That’s where the metaphor starts. Of course, Papa Frankie quickly realizes that the metaphor cannot be maintained, because (a) people really will fall over from hunger before they get back to town, and (b) there’s those 12 baskets left over. So he changes gears and stops trying to present the metaphor in detail, it cannot actually succeed. So he switches to a different metaphor, that of the disciples sharing from their own stock. Of course that rotten egg provides no explanatory value either, since they refuse when Christ asks them to provide for the people.

    Naturally, the Pope’s rhetoric here is part and parcel with communism as practiced in the 20th century: it is better that the people all starve to death all together as one people than that some people hold out and invest in higher-productivity agricultural investments.

  35. I rather this homily….

    “The masses were generally interested only in wonders and in security. When He multiplied the loaves and fishes, He startled their eyes. When He filled their stomachs he satisfied their sense of social justice. That was the kind of king they wanted, a bread king. “What else can religion do for man, anyway except give him social security;” they seemed to ask. The masses tried to force Him to become a king. That is what Satan wanted, too! Fill gullets, turn stones into bread, and promise prosperity—this is the end of living for most mortals. Bur Our Lord would have no kingship based on the economics of plenty. To make Him King was His Fathers business, not theirs: His Kingship would be of hearts and souls, not digestive tracts. So the Gospel tells us He fled into the mountains Himself alone, to escape their tinsel crown and tin sword. How close the masses were to salvation. They wanted life; He wanted to give life. The difference was in their interpretation of life. Is it the business of Christ to win followers by elaborate social programs? This is one form of life. Or is it the business of Christ to be willing to lose all the stomach-minded at the cost of reaching the few with faith, to whom will be given the Bread of Life and the Wine that germinates virgins? From that day on, Christ never won the masses; within twenty months they would shout, “Crucify!” as Pilate would say, ‘Behold your King.’ ”
    – Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen (A.D. 1895-1979)

  36. Brock Fowler says:

    What if the Pope is not the issue? What if the issue is not whether we cover him, or don’t cover him? What if Christ did not found the Church to benefit the Pope? What if it is not all about the Pope?

    What if millions of souls are more important that the one soul of the Pope–and the misguided effort of covering his mistakes? What if holiness includes truth and transparency?

  37. unknownsaint says:

    Wow, thanks for the laugh. Reading Jimmy Akin was truly hilarious. Now, we need a three step process to understand what Pope Francis says. Truly hilarious.

  38. padreallen says:

    Interesting comments Brock. One of Pope Francis’ aims is to decentralize the Papacy, and for the Bishop of Rome to have less import in the lives of local Churches. One way to help bring this about is certainly by speaking and recording every word, without concern for the impact. I don’t think he wants any of what he says covered, or explained, at all; it’s not an issue to him. Changing the nature of the papacy *is* an issue, for him (clearly outlines in EG and other statements.)

  39. tamsin says:

    I went and read the story of the widow more closely. Perhaps “dumb” catholics are to be let to believe the widow’s flour bin refilled miraculously each time she withdrew a cup of flour, while “smart” catholics know she was just sandbagging and the king called her out on it. Miracle, or sandbaggery. Potential plenty. The miracle of everybody in the crowd emptying their pockets.

  40. ErnstThalmann says:

    Padreallen,

    This decentralization is scary stuff after JPII and Benedict made such efforts over thirty plus years to insure that the Catholic faith was proclaimed in an authoritative way. In it I see the seed of the German Bishops Conference authorizing communion for the divorced and remarried. Muller, in my view, has taken a great risk in expounding the Benedictine vision of bishops conferences and, in the teeth of the German Conference’s defiance, and could easily see himself canned in preparation for Frank’s approval of this craziness.

    I came into the Catholic Church largely on the basis of a hope that I’d found theological certainty under the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Ratzinger, du Lubac, von Balthasar, and other theologians were quite instrumental in my conversion. Feeling this certainty melt away has given me much to think about, among other things, leaving the Church. I’ve put too much into my faith to have it abused by some clown that hasn’t the presence of mind to respect it. If the communion-for-remarrieds thing is given approval or is simply allowed to occur without meaningful resistance by this Pope, I’m likely out of the Catholic Church and will not look back. If one cannot have certainty in a Pope, then the time has come to disconnect ones faith from those that disfigure it.

  41. Branch says:

    Ernst,
    Please do not leave. Even if the Pope errs in scandalous ways, the Church alone has the Truth in full.

  42. Branch says:

    Not directly related, but an article on the displacement of saving souls by ‘social justice’: http://www.traditionalknight.com/uploads/Perricone2013JunePreferentialOption.pdf

  43. I’m assuming you’re not actually arguing what you seem to be arguing here, namely, that Scripture has no tropological sense, or that, contrary to the repeated teaching of the Fathers, the miracles teach no moral lessons. This is precisely one of the reasons why sarcastic fisking is not a very suitable way of doing theology; it makes it difficult to know what your own argument actually is. What, exactly, are you suggesting is the theological problem with the line of reasoning in the passage in question?

  44. PadreAllen says:

    “I came into the Catholic Church largely on the basis of a hope that I’d found theological certainty under the then Cardinal Ratzinger. Ratzinger, du Lubac, von Balthasar, and other theologians were quite instrumental in my conversion. Feeling this certainty melt away has given me much to think about, among other things, leaving the Church. I’ve put too much into my faith to have it abused by some clown that hasn’t the presence of mind to respect it. If the communion-for-remarrieds thing is given approval or is simply allowed to occur without meaningful resistance by this Pope, I’m likely out of the Catholic Church and will not look back. If one cannot have certainty in a Pope, then the time has come to disconnect ones faith from those that disfigure it.”

    Ernst, you are not the only one who is troubled by the sudden and often alarming lack of doctrinal security. And God bless him, but our Holy Father actually dismisses “those who long for an exaggerated doctrinal security.” However, I disagree with you regarding having certainty in the Pope and leaving the Church.

    The Church isn’t something which accords to anyone’s whims, from any of us laity to the Pope himself. Although I do agree with you that the situation is discouraging. A Pope that you don’t like is bound to happen at some point in your lifetime. It’s going to be interesting to see where the Church is headed.

    I’m committed to the “Keep Calm and Catholic On,” philosophy. I say let’s pray, let’s see what happens, and let’s see what the Cardinals start saying and doing as well. It’s no time to be abandoning the Ark of Salvation, as there’s never a good time for that.

  45. 1) There were seven edible items at the start of the “parable.”

    2) The Pope flatly denies that they were “multiplied.”

    3) He also claims that vast amounts of edible items were collected by the end of the “parable”.

    4) You do the math. Either he has a truly Humpty-Dumpty disdain for speech, or he’s tacitly, perhaps even inadvertently, admitting that the basketfuls of food were there all along. I’m disinclined to make “moral” sense out of simple nonsense.

  46. ErnstThalmann says:

    Well, one problem, even if one were to assign a wholly spiritual sense to the biblical account, is that that would require a certain correspondence with the text itself. Here we have the Pope, in effect, rewriting the text. He’s not spiritualizing it with his sharing claims – they are bogus anyway – he’s just bastardizing it. The guy is a loose cannon and this has just got to be case #6 or #7 of these speculative journeys of his. He uses Scripture as a point of departure but that’s where the connections end. He simply makes up the faith to fit whatever pedagogical point he wishes to stress. That’s frightening.

  47. This is precisely my point: most of your sarcastic comment had nothing whatsoever to do with this at all, but with his moral interpretation (go back and count how many sentences in your previous comment you devote to each); which shows just how all-over-the-place your argument is here. And it is a serious issue: most of your sarcasm in the previous comment would work just as well on Augustine’s explicit insistence that the primary importance of the miracle is that the five loaves signify the Old Testament. I’m on record as saying that criticism of the pope is perfectly fine, but one thing you cannot let yourself do with an argument of that sort is get out of focus. And the argument you’ve been giving here is largely just a theological disaster — vague insinuation of Modernism on a tenuous basis; a complete lack of clarity, until this comment, about what you see the actual problem as being; and almost all of your comments directed to a moral interpretation of the miracle as if it that were somehow the problem. It doesn’t really make sense to criticize Francis for lack of clarity if you’re not going to hold yourself to the same standard. Usually you’re making a clear effort, but in this post you have completely fallen down.

Be kind, be (relatively) brief, be clear...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s