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

[otjm]

Because I, the OP, have constantly quoted him here and only about one person has actually considered his quotes I’ve posted, and pretty much everyone else hijacked the thread.

St. Thomas is still recommended even in 1983 Code 252 §3 (commentary):So, I wanted to discuss how Card. Müller’s views agree with or contradict “the mysteries of salvation” as expressed by “St. Thomas as a teacher.”

They neither agree with nor contradict St Thomas.

That is the point Br. JR has been trying to make, and the point you obviously don’t get.

It is a bit akin to an engineer talking about the length vs. the diameter of a clarinet, while someone else is talking about the effect of emboucher as it relates to a specific piece of music.

 

[otjm]

They’re both addressing the Resurrection.

And an engineer and a music teacher are both talking about a clarinet.
So what? They are not discussing the same thing about the clarinet, and neither of their conversations has anything to do with the other.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I wanted to discuss how Card. Müller’s views agree with or contradict “the mysteries of salvation” as expressed by “St. Thomas as a teacher.”

In article 1 of the question from the Summa you mentioned in your original post, St. Thomas wrote that glorified bodies [including the glorified body of our Lord] retain [and add to] their natural properties:The glory of the body will not destroy nature but will perfect it. Wherefore the body will retain the color due to it by reason of the nature of its component parts
The archbishop, on the other hand, apparently says that glorified bodies do not retain their natural properties, and can no longer be naturally seen.

I agree with you, he contradicts St. Thomas on this point.

 

[JReducation]

In article 1 of the question from the Summa you mentioned in your original post, St. Thomas wrote that glorified bodies [including the glorified body of our Lord] retain [and add to] their natural properties:The glory of the body will not destroy nature but will perfect it. Wherefore the body will retain the color due to it by reason of the nature of its component parts
The archbishop, on the other hand, apparently says that glorified bodies do not retain their natural properties, and can no longer be naturally seen.

I agree with you, he contradicts St. Thomas on this point.

The Archbishop’s statement is answering a different question from the question that Thomas is answering. If one reads the entire chapter, one realizes this very quickly. One also realizes that the Archbishop is drawing from Augustine and Bonaventure who are better resources for the question on the table. The question that the Archbishop is answering was whether or not one can actually see the glorified body during the resurrection event.

Aquinas is answering whether or not the body looks different after it’s been glorified.

They’re not the same question. The question that the Archbishop is answering did not exist until the 19th century. Fortunately, Bonaventure drew from Augustine and they agree that one cannot see metaphysical realities, but only their result. If one applies this to the resurrection, what the Archbishop concludes is that one can see Christ after the glorification, only and if he chooses to be seen, but one cannot see the actual glorification, since one cannot see metaphysical realities.

Neither the Archbishop, Augustine, Bonaventure or Aquinas are posting their positions as infallible. They are giving an opinion on something. They are not dictating dogma. They’er theologians doing what theologians do best, speculating, explaining, commenting, examining, and trying to connect the dots.

Nothing of what any of them has said changes the dogma that the tomb was empty and that the Risen Christ was seen by his disciples.

What is the big fuss? These other questions are not questions that people in the pews ponder. If you tried to preach on that on a Sunday morning you’d bore the congregation to death and you would not be teaching anything helpful to the Christian in his daily life. This is the kind of stuff that is interesting for scholars.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[MikeDunphy]

And an engineer and a music teacher are both talking about a clarinet.
So what? They are not discussing the same thing about the clarinet, and neither of their conversations has anything to do with the other.

If the music teacher, while discussing the technique needed to play the clarinet, mentions that it is a single reed instrument, and the engineer, while discussing the quality of sound produced by the clarinet, mentions that it is a double reed instrument, then they have managed to contradict each other, even though they are discussing entirely different topics. On the particular question of what kind of reed a clarinet has, one is right and one is wrong. They may or may not contradict each other in other areas.

Similarly, although St. Thomas was writing about the nature of glorified bodies, and the archbishop, apparently, was writing about why multitudes of people did not see our Lord after his resurrection, they disagree about whether He was visible to a natural eye [or camera].

 

[MikeDunphy]

What is the big fuss? These other questions are not questions that people in the pews ponder. If you tried to preach on that on a Sunday morning you’d bore the congregation to death and you would not be teaching anything helpful to the Christian in his daily life. This is the kind of stuff that is interesting for scholars.

I am happy to report that the archbishop affirms that our Lord’s appearances were more than just figments of the disciples’ imaginations. But I am concerned that his reasoning would tend to lead people towards thinking just that.

I agree with you that we should not make too big a fuss about this. I can say that I think the archbishop is wrong about this without making him out to be demonic. As you mentioned, even St. Thomas got one wrong.

 

[Melchior_1]

I am happy to report that the archbishop affirms that our Lord’s appearances were more than just figments of the disciples’ imaginations.

I’m sorry, people thought he meant otherwise? As in, people thought he was denying the Resurrection?

 

[TrueLight]

Similarly, although St. Thomas was writing about the nature of glorified bodies, and the archbishop, apparently, was writing about why multitudes of people did not see our Lord after his resurrection, they disagree about whether He was visible to a natural eye [or camera].

He did appear to a lot of people according to St. Paul.

1 Corinthians 3:

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,b and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

 

[dans0622]

…Müller’s position agrees with the sed contra of St. Thomas’s Summa article "Whether a glorified body will be necessarily seen by a non-glorified body?:"St. Thomas counters this erroneous understanding in the body of the article…

Hello,

It’s a good thing to agree with a “sed contra” in the Summa. Right? That is St. Thomas’ understanding of the topic. What follows in an article is an explanation/expansion of it as well as specific refutations of the objections. The “on the contrary” is contrary to the preceding objections.

Dan

 

[JReducation]

He did appear to a lot of people according to St. Paul.

That number in St. Paul is highly questionable. We’re not sure if he’s actually counting or using it to mean “many”. The ancient Jews used numbers for quantities, but they also used them as qualifiers.

Obviously, he appeared to more than one or two people. Exactly how many?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[otjm]

Similarly, although St. Thomas was writing about the nature of glorified bodies, and the archbishop, apparently, was writing about why multitudes of people did not see our Lord after his resurrection, they disagree about whether He was visible to a natural eye [or camera].

As Br. JR has pointed out, that is not what the archbishop is writing about. My analogy stands - Thomas was writing about something different, and the archbishop is not discussing Thomas’ observations.

The archbishop is talking about that instant in time when Christ’s dead mortal body was in the tomb, and specifically the next (apparent) instant in time when Christ resurrected - that point in time when He was rejoined to his (now) glorified body.

As has been noted, the issue is a matter of higher level of theological positing, not an issue which epople in the pews relate to. Further, it is an issue upon which the Magisterium has never made a pronouncment except for the fact that we believe it happened. The have not addressed how it happened, how an outside observer might see it; only that they have related what Scripture has taught us - the guards did not see him come out of the tomb (or if they did, Scripture does not report it); and the remainder of the reports indicate that the glorified body of Christ was both the same and not the same - the same in that it still showed the wounds (as Christ showed Thomas the apostle and as Christ ate with the apostles as they came ashore) and yet not the same, as the disciples on the road to Emmaeus did not recognize Christ thought they physically walked with Him, and as Mary did not recognize Him as she spoke with Him.

My anaolgy stands.

The archbishop is writing about that instant in time, and whether or not someone could see the actual process of the mortal daed body being glorified - and he posits that it could not. St Thomas did not address this issue. At all. It didn’t even come up until centuries after Thomas met his Maker.

 

[otjm]

I am happy to report that the archbishop affirms that our Lord’s appearances were more than just figments of the disciples’ imaginations. But I am concerned that his reasoning would tend to lead people towards thinking just that.

Truth is always good. However, when one operates on the level of highly trained theologians, one is far more likely to understand what another one of them is positing. When people who have no training to speak of in theology start to operating on the correctness or incorrectness of a theologian, they are entering territory they not only have no training in, but most often one that they also have little or no understanding of. And that leads to people - untrained laity - passing opinions on issues they have no business passing on.

The difficulty is that information which used to be reserved for those who were trained is now widely availabe to those who are untrained, and they are in turn subject to commentary by others who imply training but have it not. It is bad enough that professional theologians, true to the Magisterium, have had reputations destroyed or seriously damaged in the not-that-far-distant-past; it is all the worse when we now have laity, who can send something viral within minutes, doing the same.

MikeDunphy:

I agree with you that we should not make too big a fuss about this. I can say that I think the archbishop is wrong about this without making him out to be demonic. As you mentioned, even St. Thomas got one wrong.

You certainly can disagree with the archbishop, and I would agree that your disagreement is not necessarily making him out to be demonic. However, if you cannot understand the point the archbishop is writing about and confuse it with other unrelated commentary from other theologians, you might consider withholding that opinion at least until you can define with clarity that there are two separate issues - one the archbishop speaks of, and one that St. Thomas speaks of.

I don’t mean to be harsh, but I ahve experienced this matter of judging what one does not understand in other theological issues by other theologians. Training in critical thinking is often lacking by those laity who, having no training in critical thinking, let alone in the theological area under discussion, start rendering opinions to others. The Internet is fast becoming an area of libelous opinions that are picked up within groups and then broay cast about as if we were discussing something that a sophomore in college might grasp, rather than something that is really on the level of post-doctoral work.

 

[kompaz]

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

If I may, because this is an interesting point –

There is a theory that the image on the Shroud was created by irradiating it with high-energy radiation (gamma rays). I.e., the Christ’s body had emitted gamma rays in process, and that gamma radiation imprinted the image on the Shroud. Actually, it looks like someone has verified this by injecting himself with a radioactive isotope, wrapping in a cloth and using a gamma-sensitive detector to photograph himself: freechristianteaching.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=159

If that is true, it would have some very interesting implications.

First of all, the Resurrection would be actually observable: a gamma-sensitive detector would see the event. A human too close to the event would get radiation burns or be outright killed. (No record of injuries of soldiers guarding the tomb… But we don’t know how close they actually were.)

Second, that amount of radiation would break molecular bonds in Jesus’ body. Which means that the resurrected body could not have been physical. I.e. whatever it was, it was definitely not made of the same molecules which formed Jesus’ body.

Also, more to the topic of the thread: there is a confusion between “seeing” and “perceiving”.

“Seeing” involves sight, i.e. photons hitting the photosensitive cells in the retina. If Jesus’ resurrected body was not physical, it would not reflect/emit photons, then he could not be seen (nor recorded by the camera). In this sense, Muller would be correct.

However, it could be possible that such non-phycial body could be perceived by the minds of his disciples. After all, there is ample evidence od people perceiving things which are not physically there (Fatima, Medjugorie, etc.). Which would also explain why the resurrected Jesus had no problem going through the closed door etc.

Whether the non-phycal object being perceived yet unseen was actually there is a whole different question…

 

[TimothyH]

…and the remainder of the reports indicate that the glorified body of Christ was both the same and not the same - the same in that it still showed the wounds (as Christ showed Thomas the apostle and as Christ ate with the apostles as they came ashore) and yet not the same, as the disciples on the road to Emmaeus did not recognize Christ thought they physically walked with Him, and as Mary did not recognize Him as she spoke with Him.

His Transubstantiated Body…

For the elements, in variable harmony among themselves, like strings of the harp, produce new melody, while the flow of music steadily persists. And this can be perceived exactly from a review of what took place. For land creatures were changed into water creatures, and those that swam went over on to the land. Fire in water maintained its own strength, and water forgot its quenching nature; Flames, by contrast, neither consumed the flesh of the perishable animals that went about in them, nor melted the icelike, quick-melting kind of ambrosial food. For every way, O LORD! you magnified and glorified your people; unfailing, you stood by them in every time and circumstance. (Wisdom 19:18-22)

His Eucharistic Body…

Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.” (John 20:29)

The thought of it takes my breath away.

The archbishop is writing about that instant in time, and whether or not someone could see the actual process of the mortal daed body being glorified - and he posits that it could not. St Thomas did not address this issue. At all. It didn’t even come up until centuries after Thomas met his Maker.

It’s like asking if you can see transubstantiation.

I like your posts.

-Tim-

 

[JReducation]

If I may, because this is an interesting point –

There is a theory that the image on the Shroud was created by irradiating it with high-energy radiation (gamma rays). I.e., the Christ’s body had emitted gamma rays in process, and that gamma radiation imprinted the image on the Shroud. Actually, it looks like someone has verified this by injecting himself with a radioactive isotope, wrapping in a cloth and using a gamma-sensitive detector to photograph himself: freechristianteaching.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=159

If that is true, it would have some very interesting implications.

First of all, the Resurrection would be actually observable: a gamma-sensitive detector would see the event. A human too close to the event would get radiation burns or be outright killed. (No record of injuries of soldiers guarding the tomb… But we don’t know how close they actually were.)

Second, that amount of radiation would break molecular bonds in Jesus’ body. Which means that the resurrected body could not have been physical. I.e. whatever it was, it was definitely not made of the same molecules which formed Jesus’ body.

Also, more to the topic of the thread: there is a confusion between “seeing” and “perceiving”.

“Seeing” involves sight, i.e. photons hitting the photosensitive cells in the retina. If Jesus’ resurrected body was not physical, it would not reflect/emit photons, then he could not be seen (nor recorded by the camera). In this sense, Muller would be correct.

However, it could be possible that such non-phycial body could be perceived by the minds of his disciples. After all, there is ample evidence od people perceiving things which are not physically there (Fatima, Medjugorie, etc.). Which would also explain why the resurrected Jesus had no problem going through the closed door etc.

Whether the non-phycal object being perceived yet unseen was actually there is a whole different question…

I know nothing about molecular physics. But if this is the case, the there is greater reason to believe that no human being would have seen the resurrection moment. There is a molecular activity going on that would kill the typical person.

As to the camera, I keep throwing that out, because I believe that was a bad example to use. First of all, they didn’t have the technology. Second, they didn’t believe that Jesus would rise; therefore they would not have been standing there to click the camera at the right instant. Third, what difference does it make?

The key is that the tomb was empty and his disciples, which includes people beyond the apostles, saw him.

We believe that not many saw him, because there is written record in Jewish or Roman history that any of them saw him. There are references in ancient Roman writings and some later Jewish writings to the hullabaloo in Jerusalem. But the writers neither confirm nor deny that Jesus was seen. They’re almost like passing comments such as,

“Oh by the way, something strange happened in Jerusalem recently and everyone is rattled by it.”

That tells us enough to know that there was an event. It doesn’t tell us that non-believers saw Jesus. It does not deny it either. We’re free to explore the possibilities. There is no doctrine that says who did and who did not see him.

The Aquinas vs Mueller argument does not work. Aquinas is telling us what one sees when one looks at a glorified body. Mueller is telling us what he believes happens at the moment of transformation from a typical human body to a glorified body and says that this transformation can’t be seen. Therefore, those who saw Jesus, could not see the transformation itself. They only saw Jesus. These two men are speaking about the Risen Christ, but Aquinas is speaking about that which can be perceived through the senses and Mueller is speaking about that which happens beyond the senses. Neither of them has said that his position is dogmatic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[MikeDunphy]

MikeDunphy;9616196:

Similarly, although St. Thomas was writing about the nature of glorified bodies, and the archbishop, apparently, was writing about why multitudes of people did not see our Lord after his resurrection, they disagree about whether He was visible to a natural eye [or camera].

As Br. JR has pointed out, that is not what the archbishop is writing about.

1. 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.
2. 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.

And just as a reminder, here is the quote from Abp. Müller I’ve been talking about:

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.

(Corrected sources: English, German)

I don’t think that the archbishop’s attempt to answer the unanswerable question of what could have been seen during the “resurrection event” is much of concern. But the above quote is, where he says that after the resurrection, Jesus would have no longer been visible to cameras. It sounds too much like saying that He was present in the disciples’ heads but not in reality. It also contradicts what St. Thomas wrote about the appearance of glorified bodies.

 

[MikeDunphy]

The archbishop is talking about that instant in time when Christ’s dead mortal body was in the tomb, and specifically the next (apparent) instant in time when Christ resurrected - that point in time when He was rejoined to his (now) glorified body.

However, if you cannot understand the point the archbishop is writing about and confuse it with other unrelated commentary from other theologians, you might consider withholding that opinion at least until you can define with clarity that there are two separate issues - one the archbishop speaks of, and one that St. Thomas speaks of.

Do you understand that when the archbishop talks about “the easter-apparitions of Jesus in front of his disciples”, he is not talking about the moment of the Resurrection, he is talking about the time afterwards? Until you get that, we are just going to keep talking past each other.

 

[JReducation]

And just as a reminder, here is the quote from Abp. Müller I’ve been talking about:

(Corrected sources: English, German)

I don’t think that the archbishop’s attempt to answer the unanswerable question of what could have been seen during the “resurrection event” is much of concern. But the above quote is, where he says that after the resurrection, Jesus would have no longer been visible to cameras. It sounds too much like saying that He was present in the disciples’ heads but not in reality. It also contradicts what St. Thomas wrote about the appearance of glorified bodies.

You have to read the quote in the context of the chapter and in the context of the whole school of theology that is looking at this phenomenon.

You must pay special attention to the piece that is in the middle, which is the key to their discussion.

“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.”

Let’s take that in two parts.

Part 1: No one can photograph to carrying out of the personal relation of the Father with the Son in the Holy Spirit at the moment of resurrection. This is pretty logical. The moment of the resurrection is the triumph of the Trinity.

Part 2: No one could probably capture the Easter-apparitions, does not mean that no one saw Jesus. In Christology the term “Easter-apparitions” refers to the actual moment when Christ materializes before their eyes. Even the synoptic Gospels themselves do not explain it the same way. One says that he walked through the wall and another said that he appeared before them. Whether he walked through a wall or he suddenly appeared, the actual act of becoming solid flesh and blood before them would probably be something that could not be captured by the human eye. So what did the human eye see? They saw Jesus. They did not see how it happened, unlike Star Trek where we see human beings converted into energy and reconstructed as matter in some other place.

They saw Jesus appear and disappear. They did not him “beam in” and “bean out”. The how, is still a mystery. That’s what Systematic Theologians are grappling with here.

If we don’t pay attention to the entire discussion that began in the late 1800s, we won’t understand the terminology and we will end up thinking that it means something else.

Put the quote in the context of the entire work and put the work in the context of Christological research since the 1800s, then it all makes sense. One can then see that no dogma is being called into question and no new dogma is being proposed, but that this is a discussion in Systematic Theology and Metaphysics and we can live with that. Let the Systematic Theologians burn their brain cells. It does not affect us in the least.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[MikeDunphy]

If the archbishop was simply writing about the moment of the Resurrection, and about the first moment of each occasion after that, when He returned in the flesh to His disciples, then there is no problem.

But was he really just talking about single instants in time?

Of course, a camera, or an animal (or a man) won’t register anything instantaneously. Any sort of action in this world takes at least a little time. That is trivially true. So trivial, I strongly suspect the archbishop meant something else. I could be wrong, of course.

 

[MikeDunphy]

He did appear to a lot of people according to St. Paul.

1 Corinthians 3:

A good reminder. Thanks.