The multiplication of loaves: What if it were only a matter of people sharing?, or Why it had to be a miracle

18th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Matthew 14:13-21

Taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples, who in turn gave them to the crowds. They all ate and were satisfied.

It is well known how the modernist and rationalist interpreters of Sacred Scripture will attempt to twist the multiplication of the loaves (indeed, we should say “multiplications”, since Jesus did this more than once) from a miracle into an instance of sharing.

“It wasn’t a miracle,” they tell us. “Or, rather, the miracle was that our Lord got the people to share!” Now, I don’t intend here to point out that such “scholars” have little understanding of the Gospels – how the event is clearly related as a miracle, how the crowds (according to St.  John) wanted to make Jesus a political King on account of the fact that he could solve all their material problems with his power, how our Savior himself reminds the Apostles that he had fed the multitudes with only some loaves and a few fish (remember, he was with them on the boat and told them to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees).

I could do all this, many have done so before – it is the very necessary project of apologetics (the first phase of theology). However, I wish to consider the multiplication according to the higher science of theology proper: What would it mean if this were only a case of sharing? And, What did Christ tell us when he worked this great miracle?

In defense of St. Martha, On the sanctification of work

Work is necessary, and it must be sanctified

July 29^th, Feast of St. Martha

And the Lord answering, said to her: Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and art troubled about many things: But one thing is necessary. Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her. (Luke 10:41-42)

To be clear: We do not intend to "defend St. Martha" against the Lord, but rather to defend her from the popular (and sentimental) caricatures with which the modern world has obscured the true meaning of Christ's words. Today, it has become popular to speak of the importance of following Mary’s example in this dispute between the two sisters from Bethany. Certainly, Mary did chose the best part – which is the life of prayer. Still, we must recall that most of us (i.e. most of those reading this blog and also all the contributors) are called to the active life in the world – we are called to the life of work, which is symbolized by St. Martha.

Let the priests bless the bread!, The multiplication of the loaves and the new English translation of the Mass

Christ's hand is raised in blessing at the multiplication of the loaves

18^th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Matthew 14:13-21

Taking the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, he said the blessing, broke the loaves, and gave them to the disciples.

What the priest used to say at Mass: “The day before he suffered, he took bread in his sacred hands, and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said; TAKE THIS …”

What the priest will say at Mass: “On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread into his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks, he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: TAKE THIS …”

The Institution Narrative of Eucharistic Prayer I (above) is quite clearly modeled on the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves. As St. Thomas Aquinas notes (together with many others), the Gospels do not relate that Christ looked up to heaven at the Last Supper, but we may presume this action since it was prefigured at the multiplication of loaves and has been maintained in the earliest tradition of the Church.

What is particularly encouraging about the new English translation of the Roman Missal is the inclusion of the language of blessing in the Institution Narrative. While before – in Eucharistic Prayers I and III – the Latin word benedixit was translated as “He gave you […] praise” [completely confusing the two distinct actions of giving thanks (tibi gratias agens) and blessing (benedixit) by supplying the word “praise”]; the new translation will happily include the notion of blessing – “he said the blessing”.

What is more, Eucharistic Prayer IV will be modified from “he took bread, said the blessing, broke the bread, and gave it to his disciples” to “he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to his disciples” – which is much more faithful to the Latin benedixit and to the biblical inspiration of the liturgical text. It will now be very clear that the blessing is directed toward the bread itself, which is about to be consecrated.

This is what we should like to point out in our current article: The liturgical language of the Mass must be rooted in the biblical language of the Gospels (and, as applicable, of the whole Bible). A consideration of Christ’s blessing of the bread just before the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fish will serve to explain why the new translation of the Institution Narrative is far more biblical than that which has been used in the English-speaking world since the 1970s.

How sad it is that the old (i.e. the current) English translation hid this act of blessing for so many years. Starting in Advent 2012, a wonderful thing will occur: The priest will once again be permitted to bless the bread at Mass!  

The pearl of great price: The Eucharist, the child, the poor. Sermon of July 24th

A homily from last Sunday, delivered by Father Ryan Erlenbush at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Miles City, MT. 
How we find the pearl in the ordinary circumstances of our daily life: Through attendance at Mass every Sunday, through gracious acceptance of children within marriage (i.e. using Natural Family Planning and not contraception), and through being generous to the poor.

Father Ryan's Sunday Sermons: The pearl of great price: The Eucharist, the child...: "St. Anthony of Egypt sold all he had, entered the desert, and endured every trial with joy - he had found the pearl of great price! 1..."

The New Theological Movement: The Contributors

Fr. Ryan Erlenbush

Fr. Erlenbush is a Catholic priest of the Diocese of Great Falls – Billings in Montana, USA. He was ordained on 23 June 2009. Completing his seminary studies at the North American College in Rome, he received an STB from the Pontifical Gregorian University and both an MA and an STL from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum), focusing on dogmatic theology.

Fr. Erlenbush posts his homilies at Father Ryan's Sunday Sermons.

Fr. Erlenbush had previously written articles under the pseudonym Reginaldus, referring to two heroic Dominican priests: Reginald of Piperno who was the close friend and confessor of St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange who is surely the greatest Thomist of our day.


The contributors to The New Theological Movement had previously adopted pseudonyms. For an explanation of this, see our article in defense of pseudonymous blogging.

Why isn't Joachim mentioned in Jesus' genealogy?

July 26^th, Feast of Sts. Joachim and Anne, parents of the Blessed Virgin Mary

As we look at the two genealogies of Christ given in the Scriptures (Matthew 1:1ff and Luke 3:23), we might wonder why it is that St. Joachim is not mentioned as an ancestor of Jesus. It is no surprise that St. Anne would not be mentioned (since few women are), but we ought to be a bit alarmed at the lack of St. Joachim – since, he is the closest male blood-relative of our Savior.

Some – thinking themselves wise – may reply too quickly: “Well, of course Joachim isn’t mentioned! The genealogies are traced not through Mary, but through Joseph. Hence, since Joachim is Jesus’ ancestor through Mary, it is obvious that he wouldn’t be listed in the genealogy through Joseph!” Such persons are quite ignorant of the great diversity of Catholic opinion on this question.

In fact, many of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church – as well as the best of the biblical scholars (we refer especially to Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide) – have maintained that the genealogy given in Luke is the natural genealogy through Mary, while that in Matthew is the legal (and regal) genealogy through Joseph.

“How can this be?,” some will cry, “The Bible clearly states that the genealogies are both through Joseph – first as ‘son of Jacob’ (in Matthew), then as ‘son of Heli’ (in Luke).” Pointing our readers to our previous article on Mary’s genealogy, we turn now to a careful study of where Joachim lies hidden in the text of St. Luke’s Gospel.

Keeping them straight: James the Greater and James the Less

St. James the Greater, of Compostela

July 25^th, Feast of St. James the Greater

“St. James the Apostle, brother of blessed John the Evangelist, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa about the time of the Paschal Feast, being the first of the Apostles to receive the crown of martyrdom. His sacred bones were translated on this day from Jerusalem to Spain, and buried in the furthest parts of that country, in Galicia, and are piously venerated with great honour by the people of that country, and by the mighty concourse of Christians who go thither to perform their religious duties and vows.” (from the Roman Martyrology)

Devout Catholics often feel a certain anxiety when a feast of one of the St. James-es occurs. We often wonder: Which James is this again? And what did that James do? And how many Jameses are there anyways?

There are, in fact, as many as five different Jameses presented in the Scripture – and to these, there are also many extra-canonical traditions regarding the Jameses. In this little article, we will not so much attempt to give all the scriptural and patristic proofs of the general tradition, but will instead strive to put forward (clearly and concisely) the scriptural and traditional accounts about the different Jameses.