Müller: A Camera Couldn't've Captured the Resurrection

[Mrs_Sally]

I guess I don’t understand the relevance of the whole thing. Why Is it important?

I never imagined I would see Jesus rise sputtering like a drowning victim when taking his first breaths. I didn’t imagine him elevating with angels around him either. I imagined everything as happening in the blink of a second.

What is the point of the speculation?

I’m with you. I don’t see why this is controversial, or even something to be debated, but then again I’m not a theologian.

 

[Melchior_1]

I guess I don’t understand the relevance of the whole thing. Why Is it important?

I never imagined I would see Jesus rise sputtering like a drowning victim when taking his first breaths. I didn’t imagine him elevating with angels around him either. I imagined everything as happening in the blink of a second.

What is the point of the speculation?

The only reason why it’s important is because it could be seen that someone, for some reason, wants to discredit Archbishop Müller by saying his beliefs or speculation are heterodox.

 

[clem456]

I’m with you. I don’t see why this is controversial, or even something to be debated, but then again I’m not a theologian.

it’s important because pride is the 5th cardinal virtue?? And pride cannot be truly practiced until we debate the undebatable ad nauseum?? Just my guess…

 

[Mrs_Sally]

it’s important because pride is the 5th cardinal virtue?? And pride cannot be truly practiced until we debate the undebatable ad nauseum?? Just my guess…

 

[MikeDunphy]

You’re missing what he’s talking about. Read below at what Tim wrote. That’s what the Archbishop is talking about. Can a camera capture transubstantiation?

More than a camera can capture does not imply nothing for a camera to capture. A camera can take a picture of the Eucharist after transubstantiation.

The archbishop, on the other hand, apparently wrote:A shooting film camera could neither have held/shot in picture and sound the resurrection-ongoing/occurrence that is in essence the carrying out/actualisation of the personal relation of the father with the Son in the Holy Ghost, nor the easter-apparitions of Jesus in front of his disciples.
Source: English, German

A camera could not have recorded the Easter-apparitions of Jesus?? Again, then what *would *this hypothetical camera have recorded when our Lord was physically interacting with His disciples after His resurrection?

fsspolgs.org/images/misc13.jpg

That’s an excellent post Tim. Thanks for sharing that. Great ideas in there.

I’m thinking of the Shroud of Turin. If it is truly the shroud of Jesus, there is no way that it could have been recorded. The scientists who are looking at it are thinking that the body passed through the cloth leaving its imprint in the molecular structure of the cloth, very much like the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is on the tilma. The molecular structure of the tilma has actually been altered. While it appears to be a simple tilma, it’s not decomposing like it should have. The threads are actually the color that they reflect. They are not died. This means that the hemp used to make it had to come in those colors, which we know is not the case.

How can one capture such change on camera? How can one observe such change with the human eye, if one does not know what one is looking at?

Look at the tilma again. We now know that the bishop and those in his company were not looking at an image on Juan Diego’s tilma. They were looking at Mary in real time. A close examination of the eyes on the tilma reflect the images of those who were looking at her, because the moisture on the cornea reflects that which is opposite the person. They didn’t realize that they were looking right into Mary’s eyes, because they did not know what they were looking at. They thought they were looking at a 2-dimensional image, when in fact they were staring into the eyes of a 3-dimensional person.

Mueller’s hypothesis has possibilities. It may be possible that those who did not see the risen Christ missed him, because they did not know what they were seeing or who they were seeing, just as the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not know and Mary did not know. They saw a man, but they did not know, until he revealed himself to them.

It’s fascinating. The how . . . that’s above my pay grade. I’ll stick with ascetical and mystical theology. The anatomy of the soul and the mind of God are much easier to understand than what God does with his mind.

Abp Müller as reinterpreted by Brother JR is a large step up from Abp Müller speaking for himself on this issue. IMHO.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Abp Müller as reinterpreted by Brother JR is a large step up from Abp Müller speaking for himself on this issue. IMHO.

We are discussing a small quote from a larger work that was translated for a news article. None of us have read the entire chapter - not even Br JR. However, Br JR is a theologian and has studied this sort of thing and the rest of us haven’t.

I don’t think he is saying anything different than the Archbishop, he is 1) speaking English (not German) and 2) taking the time to lay out the background, which we might also get from the entire chapter or from the years of study he’s put in.

But even in the picture you posted, we would have no idea - just from the photo - if the priest was holding up a consecrated host or an unconsecrated one. They LOOK exactly the same, even though we KNOW (through faith) that they are very, very different.

 

[clem456]

What’s really interesting is, this debate mirrors those you see between Christians and Atheists on these forums, that go round chasing tails for pages and pages. Those debates that go round and round dealing with the provability of things which transcend proof.:whackadoo:

 

[TimothyH]

I guess I don’t understand the relevance of the whole thing. Why Is it important?

I never imagined I would see Jesus rise sputtering like a drowning victim when taking his first breaths. I didn’t imagine him elevating with angels around him either. I imagined everything as happening in the blink of a second.

What is the point of the speculation?

I think of it often, whenever I meditate on the Ressurection of our Lord in the rosary. What was it like for God who had become man to be raised from the dead?

There is a powerful scene in the movie “Barabbas” where Anthony Quinn who plays the title character asks the resurrected Lazarus, “What was it like to be raised from the dead?” and Lazurus replies that he was never asked that. Everyone wanted to know what it was like to be dead, but no one had ever asked him what it was like to be raised. Lazarus then breaks a morsel of bread from a loaf and hands it Barabbas.

There is a little hand written prayer taped to the wall in the altar server’s vestry in my Church, right above the light switch. It says in part, “Help me to remain free from distractions and to always remember that in assisting at the altar, I am assisting the priest in the resurrection of life.”

One day while getting dressed to serve and reading that prayer it dawned on me. That’s the key. Christ’s ressurection is Eucharistic. When the priest changes the bread and wine at the consecration, that is a small glimpse of what it was like in that tomb. Christ’s resurrection is Eucharistic.

Scott Hahn says that the transformation of the world at the end of time will be Eucharistic.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. (Revelation 20:21)

The Eucharist is the resurrection of life, and that is what I hope to happen to me some day. The Eucharist lets us glimpse the ressurection of Christ which happened at sunrise on that first Easter hidden in that tomb, and the Eucharist points us forward to the ressurection of the dead and transformation of the world at the end of time. I think that’s why it matters, because the resurrection is Eucharistic, and that is what we are recieving a fortaste of at Mass.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:54)

I think that’s why it matters. At least that’s why for me.

-Tim-

 

[clem456]

"…if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part ; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child ; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face ; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

I’m trying to figure out how the camera thing fits in here…

 

[TrueLight]

A camera could not have recorded the Easter-apparitions of Jesus?? Again, then what *would *this hypothetical camera have recorded when our Lord was physically interacting with His disciples after His resurrection?y Brother JR is a large step up from Abp Müller speaking for himself on this issue. IMHO.

Yeah that part doesn’t make sense.

 

[TrueLight]

I think of it often, whenever I meditate on the Ressurection of our Lord in the rosary. What was it like for God who had become man to be raised from the dead?

There is a powerful scene in the movie “Barabbas” where Anthony Quinn who plays the title character asks the resurrected Lazarus, “What was it like to be raised from the dead?” and Lazurus replies that he was never asked that. Everyone wanted to know what it was like to be dead, but no one had ever asked him what it was like to be raised. Lazarus then breaks a morsel of bread from a loaf and hands it Barabbas.

There is a little hand written prayer taped to the wall in the altar server’s vestry in my Church, right above the light switch. It says in part, “Help me to remain free from distractions and to always remember that in assisting at the altar, I am assisting the priest in the resurrection of life.”

One day while getting dressed to serve and reading that prayer it dawned on me. That’s the key. Christ’s ressurection is Eucharistic. When the priest changes the bread and wine at the consecration, that is a small glimpse of what it was like in that tomb. Christ’s resurrection is Eucharistic.

Scott Hahn says that the transformation of the world at the end of time will be Eucharistic.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. (Revelation 20:21)

The Eucharist is the resurrection of life, and that is what I hope to happen to me some day. The Eucharist lets us glimpse the ressurection of Christ which happened at sunrise on that first Easter hidden in that tomb, and the Eucharist points us forward to the ressurection of the dead and transformation of the world at the end of time. I think that’s why it matters, because the resurrection is Eucharistic, and that is what we are recieving a fortaste of at Mass.

Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. (John 6:54)

I think that’s why it matters. At least that’s why for me.

-Tim-

By Eucharistic, as it pertains to this thread, are you saying Christ had the appearance of being dead, but for those with “eyes to see”, he appeared alive?

 

[CardManningFan]

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face ; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

I’m trying to figure out how the camera thing fits in here…

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologiæ:

There is no deception in this sacrament [of Communion]; for the accidents which are discerned by the senses are truly present. But the intellect, whose proper object is substance as is said in De Anima iii, is preserved by faith from deception. …] faith is not contrary to the senses, but concerns things to which sense does not reach.

So, by “see,” St. Paul is not speaking of seeing with a bodily eye, but with the “intellectual eye,” to which faith pertains. Regarding “Whether the body of Christ, as it is in this sacrament, can be seen by any eye, at least by a glorified one?,” St. Thomas writes:

I answer that, The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ’s body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ’s body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ’s body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye. Secondly, because, as stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ’s body is substantially present in this sacrament. But substance, as such, is not visible to the bodily eye, nor does it come under any one of the senses, nor under the imagination, but solely under the intellect, whose object is “what a thing is” (De Anima iii). And therefore, properly speaking, Christ’s body, according to the mode of being which it has in this sacrament, is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellect, which is called the spiritual eye.

Moreover it is perceived differently by different intellects. For since the way in which Christ is in this sacrament is entirely supernatural, it is visible in itself to a supernatural, i.e. the Divine, intellect, and consequently to a beatified intellect, of angel or of man, which, through the participated glory of the Divine intellect, sees all supernatural things in the vision of the Divine Essence. But it can be seen by a wayfarer through faith alone, like other supernatural things. And not even the angelic intellect of its own natural power is capable of beholding it; consequently the devils cannot by their intellect perceive Christ in this sacrament, except through faith, to which they do not pay willing assent; yet they are convinced of it from the evidence of signs, according to James 2:19: “The devils believe, and tremble.”

This is not the case for Christ’s resurrected body, as St. Thomas notes in the passages I cited earlier.

 

[JReducation]

I guess I don’t understand the relevance of the whole thing. Why Is it important?

What is the point of the speculation?

The question about the Resurrection Event has been around for more than 100 years. Augustinians, Franciscans and now Dominicans are joining in the discussion. When Proestant theologians started doing historical research on the Scriptures, the secular community, especially those members of the Modernist Movement of that time, challenged that no one had actually reported seeing Christ rise. This is absolutely true. No one has ever reported having seen Christ rise. Every report is about the Risen Christ.

The Franciscans and Augustinians were the first to come to the aid of Protestant Scripture Scholars, because they had one thing that most Protestant theologians are short on, philosophy. You can’t be a Catholic theologian without a very broad base in philosophy. In this case, metaphysics is key.

That’s the relevance of the discussion that began in the late 1800s.

The archbishop, on the other hand, apparently wrote:A shooting film camera could neither have held/shot in picture and sound the resurrection-ongoing/occurrence that is in essence the carrying out/actualisation of the personal relation of the father with the Son in the Holy Ghost, nor the easter-apparitions of Jesus in front of his disciples.
Source: English, German

A camera could not have recorded the Easter-apparitions of Jesus?? Again, then what *would *this hypothetical camera have recorded when our Lord was physically interacting with His disciples after His resurrection?

This is why I said that the camera is more distracting than helpful here. Were I a Systematic Theologian writing on this subject, I would not have used the camera, because the non - systematic theologian can easily be derailed from the hypothesis itself.

fsspolgs.org/images/misc13.jpg

Abp Müller as reinterpreted by Brother JR is a large step up from Abp Müller speaking for himself on this issue. IMHO.

I’m going to politely ask you to rephrase that or recant it. I’m not reinterpreting Archbishop Mueller. I’m putting him in the context of a discussion that has been going on between Systematic Theologians and Scripture Scholars for more than a century. I’m not a Systematic Theologian; therefore, I will not argue with one. I can only place this in context, identify the hypothesis, and at best say that I see nothing, so far, that is contrary to faith. I have not read the entire work and I don’t plan on it, because it’s not an area of theology in which I’m trained and I probably would not understand half of the nuance anyway.

If you want me to shut up, I will do what the rest of the clergy and religious who once participated on this forum have done.

I will leave. Just say so. But I will not be disrespected like that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I will leave. Just say so. But I will not be disrespected like that.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Brother, sai quanto ti stimo, OK?

You should certainly not be disrespected like that. Use the ignore button, but please do not deprive the many of us (the vast majority of us, I am absolutely sure) who hold you in very high regard. This forum is made a better place *for us * by your presence, sir.

 

[Melchior_1]

The question about the Resurrection Event has been around for more than 100 years. **Augustinians, Franciscans and now Dominicans are joining in the discussion. ** When Proestant theologians started doing historical research on the Scriptures, the secular community, especially those members of the Modernist Movement of that time, challenged that no one had actually reported seeing Christ rise. This is absolutely true. No one has ever reported having seen Christ rise. Every report is about the Risen Christ.

**The Franciscans and Augustinians were the first to come to the aid of Protestant Scripture Scholars, because they had one thing that most Protestant theologians are short on, philosophy. ** You can’t be a Catholic theologian without a very broad base in philosophy. In this case, metaphysics is key.

So essentially Protestants started talking about it, and the bolded decided to lend a hand via their philosophy skills? No arguments from me on that one, if you want things done right, go with the pros (I somehow think the Augustinians would be “decent” with philosophy).

Brother, sai quanto ti stimo, OK?

You should certainly not be disrespected like that. Use the ignore button, but please do not deprive the many of us (the vast majority of us, I am absolutely sure) who hold you in very high regard. This forum is made a better place *for us * by your presence, sir.

Agreed!

 

[JReducation]

So essentially Protestants started talking about it, and the bolded decided to lend a hand via their philosophy skills? No arguments from me on that one, if you want things done right, go with the pros (I somehow think the Augustinians would be “decent” with philosophy).

Remember, Franciscans and Augustinians are known for being master philosophers. The Augustinians, obviously have St. Augustine. The Franciscans have more doctors than any other religious order. All but one are philosophers. Then there are Franciscans, Augustinians, Carmelites and Dominicans whom the Church never named Doctors of the Church, but have made significant contributions to systematic theology, because of their philosophical knowledge: John Duns Scotus, Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Meister Echhert.

The Franciscans and Augustinians had no trouble working alongside Protestant scholars, because they’ve done this for centuries at Oxford, Paris, Princeton, and many other interfaith universities. These Protestant scholar were no lightweights. These were the Scott Hahns of that time. They are not your pastor at the local church or under the tent who can quote the bible.

They were trying to do genuine research and they welcomed the help of the mendicants. Later the Dominicans, Jesuits and some secular clergy have become invovled in historical biblical research.

What makes it a very specialized field is that the goal is not to explain the Bible. The goal is explain what we believe as a result of the Bible, that is not said in the Bible. One of the best men in this area was John Dun Scotus. Even Aquinas and Bonaventure were not strong on the Bible. They were good in philosophy. Another great scholar in this area was Anthony of Padua. If we had John Scotus and Anthony around, they could probably explain answer this question in a year. Then Aquinas could put it through his litmus test to make sure that it’s said in a way that is logical.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

What makes it a very specialized field is that the goal is not to explain the Bible. The goal is explain what we believe as a result of the Bible, that is not said in the Bible. One of the best men in this area was **John Dun Scotus. **

Unrelated to the thread, but this is not the first time you mentioned this man. Is there a collection of his work you would recommend?

 

[JReducation]

Unrelated to the thread, but this is not the first time you mentioned this man. Is there a collection of his work you would recommend?

Anything that you can find on the Immaculate Conception. He was the man who proved it. He’s an English Franciscan philosopher.

Start Here

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Melchior_1]

Anything that you can find on the Immaculate Conception. He was the man who proved it. He’s an English Franciscan philosopher.

Start Here

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

This is some of the best stuff on the Immaculate Conception I have ever read, but I may be biased because I have said many similar things before even reading his work.

 

[JReducation]

This is some of the best stuff on the Immaculate Conception I have ever read, but I may be biased because I have said many similar things before even reading his work.

Scotus is very good. He defeated Aquinas and Bonaventure in this debate. That’s like taking down the Twin Towers of Catholicism. Some say that his argument settle it for the Church. He’s an excellent philosopher and theologian. He was just declared Blessed in a rather odd way.

The Franciscans have been pushing for this for centuries, but no miracle. Finally, Pope John Paul II, waved the miracles and beatified him in 1993. Franciscan men are reverently requesting that he be canonized. We’ll see what happens.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV