Visited my college daughter's parish with her this evening and was regaled yet again with how Jesus couldn't do anything without us. He couldn't even feed the people until the disciples first brought him the loaves and fishes, I guess so he had something to work with. Jesus could do nothing without our cooperation. And then he told the disciples to feed the people themselves. And he made no qualifications- didn't ask whether or not they were worthy.
Invoking Flannery here. And going to Mass in my own parish tomorrow.
His point was very clear as he kept hammering over and over, that Jesus could not do anything unless the disciples (and later, we) acted first. He stopped just short of saying that this was the great miracle of sharing, but it wasn't difficult to grasp his intent from the whole of his homily. The fact that he told the disciples to feed the 5000 themselves seemed to indicate to him that nothing miraculous had happened.
My pastor today spun the story that way as well, but he was more frank about the idea that people's hearts were moved to help each other, to feed each other. And then he added that the twelve baskets were symbolic of the twelve apostles who were sent out to the world, and that we were also to continue feeding those in need from our excess.
I don't always understand the finer points of things and sometimes I miss some nuance, but I do know that when the hair on the back of my neck stands up that something is amiss.
Rather than trying to explain the miracle and make it something understandable, why can't they just marvel at the miracle? Why can't the point just be that the people were inexplicably fed without trying to solve the "how?" Too many times the outcome of this sort of thinking is going to be that Jesus is nothing special, but simply a persuasive man.
I found it enlightening to read Jimmy Akin's take on this. There have been many cases where people attempted to explain away miracles, because then it's easier to think of Jesus as just a really great guy.
I have a tough time using this kind of logic to explain away Jesus' first miracle, turning water into wine. Yes, He was asked (directed?) by his mother, and He asked that the water jars be brought to Him. In my mind, this doesn't make Jesus incompetent to act without others somehow enabling him.
The reason that "I" music doesn't really belong in the church is because we are a church. Pope Francis again recently high-lighted that a "personal relationship with Jesus" can never be much unless it is through His Church.
The explanation of a miracle is to demonstrate something about Jesus Christ. For example, the feeding of the 5,000 is a fulfilment of Isaiah 55, ("Come to the Water, All you who are thirsty...") but also a foreshadowing of the Holy Eucharist.
... and I did is that as the "Entrance Song" just to placate anyone who would otherwise complain that I'm "too traditional."
Entrance: Come to the Water (yup, that one) Offertory: Alleluia, Sing to Jesus (HYFRADOL) Communion 1: Let All Mortal Flesh (PICARDY) Communion 2: Soul of My Saviour (ANIMA CHRISTI) Communion 3: Sing My Tongue the Saviour's Glory (Pange Lingua Gloriosi) Recessional: Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow (OLD HUNDRETH)
The Congregation was really that big that it necessitated 3 communion hymns, although the Pange Lingua was sung only by the cantors; two men, unaccompanied plainsong, as the distribution of Holy Communion had only just finished at the end of the second hymn.
I did in addition to the Antiphons: Entrance: Alleluia, Sing to Jesus Offertory: Come to the Water Communion: Soul of My Savior Recessional: Now Thank We All Our God.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.