My last line was intended to be conciliatory, after I had dared to disagree with you. No disrespect was intended. And I’m sorry, but I still say that you are giving the archbishop’s comment a better interpretation than it deserves.
Abp Müller said that our Lord could not have been recorded on film at or after His resurrection. You did not. As far as I can tell, you believe that our Lord was physically present in the world in the time between His resurrection and ascension. As far as I can tell, Abp Müller does not; otherwise, why wouldn’t a camera have been able to record Him? The two of you seem to be saying different things. Your version is better.
Thank you for that compliment. But it’s not true. I don’t have the background and training that Archbishop Mueller and Pope Benedict have. Those guys are trained in this area of theology. I’m not. My are is the soul and the mind of God, simpler stuff. This other stuff is above my pay grade and my IQ.
I do feel that the camera example was a bad one to use, precisely because of this. It distracts from the point that Christologists are making. They’re not denying that Jesus was on earth between the Resurrection and the Ascension. They are saying several other things.
- No one saw the resurrection. What was seen was the Risen Christ, not the actual rising.
- Not everyone saw the Risen Christ. He selected those whom he wanted to see him. There are no accounts of the multitudes surrounding him during those 40 days as there are of the multitudes up to the crucifixion. Had he been easily perceivable, there would have been large number of reports. There are not. The reports of those who saw him are isolated.
- From the point of metaphysics, the glorified body is unlike your body and min. This is where the Archbishop makes the mistake of bringing in the camera. I would have left it out. I see where he’s going with this. He’s trying to say that because the glorified body is different the mechanics of photography is not going to capture it, because it’s not designed for that type of matter.
The problem with introducing the camera here is that the camera is not the subject of the hypothesis. The subject of his hypothesis is that Christ was not visible to everyone after his resurrection and that this as intentional. This hypothesis is sustained by a premise, had Christ wanted a public display of his resurrection, he would have arranged it to have eye witnesses to the resurrection event. There are none.
We have eye-witnesses to the Risen Christ, not to the resurrection. As someone put it, the verb. I call it the event or the action of rising. For example, at the Ascension, the apostles see Christ rising away until they can see him no more. This is not a typical body. Typical bodies do not rise away like that. This is a glorified body that has been relieved of the burdens of humanity and retained what man was meant to be at the moment of creation.
How do I know that this is what Archbishop Mueller is talking about this? Because he is part of a school of theologians that have been studying this since the 1890s. They have been writing and discussing this point for over 100 years. If one takes the Archbishop’s single paragraph out of that context, it sounds as if he’s saying that Christ was not visible during the 40 days of Easter. But you can’t take him out of that context, because he belongs to that school of Christologists and philosophers.
Someone asked a similar question not long ago. Don’t ask me who, because I read so many things that I don’t remember my sources. Someone asked if the body and blood that we receive at Holy Communion is the same body and blood that was born in Bethlehem. Pope Benedict responded that it was not. At first glance, that’s a shocking answer. But as one goes further down his statement, he explains that the body and blood that we receive at Holy Communion is the glorified body and blood of Christ. At Bethlehem, Christ had not yet been glorified. Therefore, it is the same person, but there has been a significant change. This body that we receive cannot die, get hungry, get sleepy or tired. The body in Bethlehem could and did.
This school of theology is looking at the post-resurrection Christ and saying, there was a change and that change was not observable to all, only to some. Not everyone saw the Risen Christ. No one saw him rise. The apostles could not explain the difference in essence. They could only explain what they saw. They did not have the philosophical tools to explain what had changed. They were able to describe the changes, which later philosophers and theologians try to explain what they are and how they happened. The jury is still out, because philosophers and theologians don’t agree with each other. It may be one of those things that we will never be able to explain until we get to heaven, just as we can’t explain the Trinity.
I’m not interpreting Mueller, I’m putting him in context. When I put him in context, I understand what he’s saying and where he’s coming from. The problem here is that not many people on the forum know or are familiar with most of these writings. What people are getting is a fragment of what one member of this school wrote. A fragment of one school is not much to go on, if you’re not familiar with the school.
What is being quoted is not to be taken at face value, because it’s part of a bigger tapestry. What the conclusion will be, I have no idea, nor do I really care, because I’m not a philosopher.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
I know Aquinas was a gentle, humble friar who would cringe if he heard us talk about him today.
