Tertia Pars
Lecture 127: Christ's Resurrection: Appearances, Forms, and Arguments

Transcript
================================================================================

I'm on the Mount of Galilee, huh, according to Matthew's account there, right, huh? The nine that Marcus says, huh, yeah, because you're not yet, you're not going to, what, live with them anymore on the earth, right? Ten on that day, not in the, what, earth, but elevated in the cloud, huh, when you ascend into heaven, right? Right? But not all are, what, written as John, what, confesses, right, or says it in the Gospel, right? You know, it's everything, you have to be books, you know, okay? He was with them before he ascended into, what, heaven, right? And this to their consolation, right? Once 1 Corinthians 15 is said that he was seen by more than, what, by fun and brothers at the same time, and then he was seen by, what, James, huh? About which apparitions in the Gospel there is no mention, so there might be other ones. I would think, you know, he would have appeared to the Blessed Virgin, obviously, right? Yeah. And there's no account of that, huh? It's just too private a family matter, I guess. It would seem to me that you'd have to assume that, right? It would make any sense that it's not too private with a mother. I mean, if anybody needed consulting, she did, right? Yeah. That's what he was doing with me. No one saw him rise, huh? Now to the fourth, huh? It should be said that as Christendom says, Expounding that which is said in Matthew 26. After I have risen, I will precede you in, what, Galilee, right? Not, he says, in, what, that faraway place, right? That he might appear to them, did he go? But in the, what? In the Gentile, right? In the Gentiles, huh? And in those regions in which, with him, they would, what? Spend much time, right, huh? That they might believe that the one who, what? Was crucified is also the one who resurrected. For an account of this, he said that he would go in Galilee, that he might, what? They might be liberated from the fear of the, what? Jews, right, huh? Thus, therefore, as Ambrose says upon Luke, the Lord commanded to the disciples that they would, what? See him in Galilee, right, huh? But they, on account of their fear, residing inside the, what? Conclave, right? To the doors locked, I guess. I guess conclave means, what? With the key? Isn't that the, Clavis means key, right? Conclave, yeah. That's what the conclave were the elect, the Pope, right, that's what the key. Locked in, right? Yeah. Chanked it out. I tell you, I like the Pope. But, residing in fear, right, in the conclave, he first showed himself to them, right, huh? Nor is this a, what? Transgression of the promise, right, huh? But rather a hurry from, what? From the dignity, right? A fulfilling of it from, what? Benignity, right? I never did quite understand, Father Boulay, he was talking about this being another attribute of God, Benignitas, right? Which he had discovered or was bringing out anyway. I never got his whole development of that, Father Boulay, huh? But this is an example of it, huh? Festinata expendig ditata, huh? Afterwards, huh? There are souls being confirmed, right, huh? He, what? Or nothing stands the way if we say that there were fewer in the conclave, but more in the, what? Mountain, right? 500 and so on. For as Eusebius says, the two evangelists, to it, Luke and John, right, huh? Only to these 11 write, to write down that he appeared in Jerusalem, right, huh? But the other two in Galilee, yeah, about which Paul reminds us saying, remembers saying, then he appeared to more than, what, 500 brothers together, right, huh? But it is a more true solution that before Jerusalem, to those, what, being hidden, right? Or twice he was seen, right? For their consolation. And Galileo, not suddenly or once or twice, but with much power, right, he made his showing, right? Giving himself to, what, living to them after the passion and many signs, as Luke testifies in the Acts. Or, as Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the Gospels, that what was said by the angel and the Lord, right, that he received them in Galilee, should be taken, what, prophetically, right? For in Galilee, according to the signification of his meaning, transmigration, right, it should be understood that from the, what, Israeli, people of Israel, he was going to migrate, you might say, to the, what, Gentiles, to which the apostles preaching did not believe, right? So it's Jews, right? Or the Gentiles did not believe, unless he himself prepared a way for them in the hearts of men. And this is understood, he preceded them in Galilee, right? I suppose preparing the way, huh, in the Gentiles, for them to receive the preaching of the apostles, that would you say? Yeah. Okay. According, as Galilee has interpreted, revelation, right, huh? Not in the form of the servant should be understood, but in that in which he is equal to the father, which he promised to his lovers, whom preceding us he did not deserve. Anyway. That's a little different, that last objection, from the other one, it's not so much on the topic of the article, but it's a certain text to be reconciled, right, huh? What does it mean, right? Because you might say from the one in the text, he's not going to be seen until he's accepting Galilee, right? And they, well, got to see in what sense that was meant, right? Whether Christ ought to appear to the disciples in another effigy, or another appearance, yeah. To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that Christ ought not to appear to the disciples in another effigy, huh? For that is not able to appear in its truth except what is, huh? But in Christ there was not except one, what? Effigy. One appearance, one shape, you might say. If therefore Christ appeared in some other one, it was not a true appearance, but a what? Fictitious, huh? But this is inconvenient, right? Not fitting. Because as Augustine says in the book on the 83 questions, if he deceives, he is not truth, right? But Christ is truth, right? Therefore it seems that Christ ought not to appear to disciples in some other what? Appearance, yeah. Isn't the Blessed Virgin, you know, when she appears in these different countries, doesn't she appear as a native, right? Like Sir Our Lady of Guadalupe looks like an Aztec or something, you know? And she might appear, you know, like an Oriental to the Oriental people, right? Is that false? Or does it signify she's all things to all men? It's all because it's her, right? I mean, Christ can't, you know, or Mary can't look like an Oriental and look like that, you know? There's a little problem there, right? Moreover, nothing can appear in another, what? Effigy? Than it has, except the eyes of those seeing are detained by some, what? But these kinds of prestigious, prestigia, when they come about by the magical arts, do not, what? Since they come about by the magical arts, are not suitable for Christ, right? According to that of 2 Corinthians, what coming together is there of Christ to, what? Be liable. Therefore, it seems that you ought not to, what? Appear in some, what? Other effigy, right? Moreover, just as by sacred scripture, our faith is made sure, so the disciples are made sure about the faith of the resurrection through the apparitions of Christ. But as Augustine says in the epistle to Jerome, if either, what? One lie is received in sacred scripture, right? The whole of sacred scripture, the whole authority of sacred scripture is made infirm, right? I'll tell that to these monoscriptural scholars. Therefore, if either in one apparition Christ appears to his disciples other than he was, right? They are made infirm whatever after the resurrection they saw in Christ, which is unsuitable, right? Therefore, he ought not to appear in another, what? Effigy. But against the, I mean, but against this is what is said in Mark 16. After this, he was shown to, what? Two of them walking, right? In another effigy, right? Going to the, what? Country village there or something. What's the town's going to do about this now? I answer it should be said, that has been said, The resurrection of Christ ought to be made known to men in the way in which divine things are revealed to them, right? But divine things are made known to men according as they are diversely, what? Effective, I suppose, in their affections, right? For those who have a mind benedispositive, well-disposed, right? They perceive divine things, yeah, secundum veritatem, according to the truth, right? But those who have a mind not well-disposed, huh? They perceive divine things with a certain confusion of doubt or what? Error, huh? So, a lot of people there, the world and even the church, right? Have a mind not well-disposed, right? And so they receive things with a certain, what? Confusion of doubt or error, right? For the animal man does not perceive those things which are of the Spirit of God, as is said in 1 Corinthians 2. And therefore, Christ is some disposed to believe. After the resurrection, he appeared in his, what? Effigy, right? Okay, so therefore, Christ is some who are disposed to believe, right? After the resurrection, he appeared in his own effigy, his own appearance. But to those in another effigy he appeared who already are seen to, what? Grow tepid, right, I suppose? About the faith, right? Whence they said we had hoped that he would, what? Redeem Israel now there. In some kind of doubt. Whence Gregory says in the homily, such he showed himself to them in the body as he was in them, in their mind, huh? Because still in their hearts when they were wandering, right? Perigreenis from the faith, he, what? Pretended to, what? As if he's going to go further, right? As if he himself were a, what? Yeah, or a traveler, right? Perigreenis. What about this first thing here about fictitious, huh? False and so on. The first, therefore, it should be said that as Augustine says in the book on the questions of the gospel, not everything that we, what? Invent, huh? Fingibus. Is a lie, right, huh? But when that we, what? Then it is. Yeah, that signifies nothing, right, huh? Then it is a, what? A lie, yeah. But when our fiction refers to some, what? Meaning, it is not a, what? A lie. A lie. But some figure of the truth, huh? Otherwise, all things which, by wise men and holy men, right, are also by the Lord himself, right, all that is said figuratively, right, would be regarded as, what? Yeah, as lies, right? Because according to a custom understanding, truth does not consist in such things said, huh? But just as things said, so also things imagined are made without lie to signify something, right? And thus it is, what? What does John the Baptist call the Pharisees there? Yeah. Well, is he lying there? Because they're not vipers. And Christ speaks of them as being white and sepulchers or something, filled with sick bones and so on. Is he lying there? And one of those passages I use for talking about figurative speeches where Thomas is commenting on a passage in St. Paul where he speaks ironically, right? And Thomas is saying, well, he's not lying here. And then he stops to explain what irony is, right? That's one of the figures of speech, right? But where you say, the answer is what you mean, huh? Example I always gave in class was, if I come up here on the weekend, I find you drunk under the table. I say, what a fine example of an Assumption College student. Am I lying? You know what I mean, right, huh? So if someone's mean to us, we'll have to say, gee, you're nice. Now, are we lying? See, they're speaking, what? Figuratively, right? So when Christ appears, this is not speaking, but something. Like, speaking figuratively, right? When he appears in another, what, effigy, right? Is he being false? Is he deceiving? In regards to those who didn't have much faith, he appeared to them that way. But what about Mary and I? Well, I mean, at first she was, you know, thought his body had just been moved by the... She wasn't firm yet, I don't know. To the second it should be said, that as Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the Gospels, the Lord was able to, what? To transform his flesh, right? That, in another true thing, sometimes, also before his passion, that he was transformed in the mountain, right? And his face, what, shined as a sun. But not now was it done, right? For not, in congruence, obviously, we take this impediment in our eyes to have been from Satan, but they not know what? Jesus, right? Once Luke 24 says that their eyes were held, lest they would, what? Know him. But they're held by the demons, or what? See what he's saying there, right? I mean, he's quoting Augustine there, right? But not always by the demons, the mountain was not that. But non ita num factum es. This is not a taking case in this case, right? Where it might be due to Satan, right? But the one in the mountain was not, right? But he could change his appearance, right? Now, the third objection was saying, how can they be certain about this, right? The one line scripture, right? To the third, it should be said that that reason would follow if from the sight of an alien effigy, right? They were not then reduced to truly sin, right? The effigy of Christ. For as Augustine there says, so much by Christ was made permission that in the foresaid way, their eyes were held. But up until the, what? Sacrament of the bread, right? When he broke the bread, and they recognized him, right? That partaking, that by the unity of his body, they're partaking of that, I guess, there was removed, once understood to remove the impediment of the enemy, right? That they might know Christ, right? Once there is joined, that are added, that open were their eyes to knowing him, right? Not that before, they walked with eyes closed, but there was in them something that did not allow them to, what? Recognize what they saw, which some humor or cloud could do, right? Okay. Do I take a break now, or do I want to take a break here before we get down to the last two articles here? or do I want to take a break here? I want to take a break here. I want to take a break here. I want to take a break here. I want to take a break here. I want to take a break here. I want to take a break here. To the fifth, one proceeds thus, it seems that Christ ought not to declare the truth of resurrection by arguments, whereas Ambrose says, take away arguments, for faith is sought, the famous quote there. But about the resurrection of Christ, faith is sought, right? Therefore, arguments have no place. Moreover, this is another quote that you always see. Moreover, Gregory says, faith does not have merit to which human reason, what? His experience, right? But to Christ, it does not pertain to take away the merit of faith. Therefore, to him, it does not pertain to confirm resurrection through, what? Arguments, huh? Moreover, Christ came into the world that through him men might obtain, what? Beatitude, right? According to that of John chapter 10, I came that they might have life and they might have it more abundantly. But through showings of this sort of arguments, it seems to be given or placed a impediment to human beatitude, huh? Because as is said in John 20, from the mouth of the Lord, about two times, I guess, blessed are those who have not seen and believed, right? Therefore, it seems that Christ doth not, by some arguments, to make known his, what? Resurrection, huh? But against this is what is said in Acts chapter 1, verse 3. That Christ appeared to the disciples during those 40 days in multis argumentis, huh? Okay? Speaking about the kingdom of God, huh? Yeah, it's an interesting text, huh? I answer, it should be said, that argument is said in two ways, huh? Sometimes argument is a certain reason making belief about some doubtful thing, right? Producing belief about some doubtful thing. Sometimes an argument is said some sensible sign, right? That is brought in to the making known of some, what? Truth, huh? For thus, also Aristotle sometimes, in his books, uses the name of, what? Argument, huh? There's a reference there to analytics. In the first way, then, taking argument, Christ does not prove to the disciples his resurrection by arguments, huh? Because such a proof, argumentative proof, would proceed from some, what? Beginnings, some principles. Which, if they were not known to the disciples, nothing would be made known to them, to them, huh? Because from the unknown, something cannot be made, what? Known, huh? If, however, it were known to them, huh? It would not, what? Transcend human, what? Reason, huh? And therefore, it would not be efficacious to constructing the faith of the resurrection, which exceeds human reason, right? For it's necessary that beginnings are taken from the same genus, as is said in the first book of the Plot's Journalism. But he proves his resurrection to them through the authority of sacred scripture, which is the foundation of faith, when he says, it's necessary for all things which are written in the law and in the Psalms and the prophets about me, as is said in Luke 24. If, however, one takes in a second way argument, then Christ is said to have declared his resurrection of arguments. Insofar as, through certain most evident signs, he shows himself to truly have risen, right? Whence also in the Greek, where we have in multis argumentis and latina, in place of argument is placed, take miriam, huh? Which is a, what? Evidence sign to proving something, right? Mm-hmm. Okay, that's a word you find Aristotle, too, huh? Take miriam for the strong sign. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, just in regular life, an example of that. It's for a strong sign, right, huh? You know, Augustine defines sign as what strikes the senses and brings to mind something other than itself, right? But then this very strong sign is called tech miriam in Aristotle, right, huh? This is, this is the thing used, the word used, apparently, and translated by argumentum, but, you know? But this is one in the Greek. Thomas sounds a little bit of Greek, I guess. Okay. So, did you think about, I'm sorry, did you think of that? Of a tech miriam? Yeah. One example is that of the, the woman has milk in her breast, right, as a sign she's had a child. Good, okay. Yeah. So, signum evidens, right? That's kind of like the definition. Yeah. Which signs of the resurrection of Christ he shows to his disciples for two reasons, huh? First, because the hearts of them, right, were not disposed that they would, what, easily accept faith at the resurrection. Whence he himself says to them, Luke 24, Oh, stupid, oh, stupid, and slow in heart to believing, huh? Okay. In Mark 16, huh? The exprobavit, huh? He upbraided the incredulity of them, right? And the hardness of their, what, heart, you know? I think I mentioned that, you know, I was reading Thomas there in the Roman version of the sentences, and he's talking about how grace and the love of God, and he's talking about the love of God, and how the love of God can continually grow, right? There's no limit to how much you can grow. But no matter how much your love of God grows, it can never equal the love of God that someone who sees God face to face has. And it can never equal, this is why, you know, I went to Mass this morning, and they were, they happened to have the passage from Matthew, right, where Christ is saying about, you know, John the Baptist, right? And I think that's one way to understand those words, right? No one born a woman is greater than him, but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven, right, is greater, huh? So if the one who's least in the kingdom of heaven, who sees God face to face, he loves God more than John the Baptist does, huh? And then the other thing Thomas says, you can never love God as much as the Blessed Virgin does, or as the Apostles, right? And so it's stupid, he says, to think you're going to arrive at a love of God as great as they have, right, huh? But that doesn't mean you can't keep on, what? More and more, yeah, yeah. So, but even so, you can't rather do it, but they're still teatardy, right? And the hardness of their heart, right? So it's party for themselves, right? But secondly, that through signs of this sort shown to them, they could render more efficaciously, or their testimony would be rendered more, what, efficacious, right? According to that of 1 John 1. What we have seen and heard in our hands have, what? Touched, yeah, held, yeah. This we testify, right, huh? Okay. Now to the first argument, the one from the text from Ambrose, huh? To the first it should be said that Ambrose there speaks of arguments proceeding by, what? Human reason, which are invalid for showing those things which are of, what? Faith, right? So we don't go to the philosopher to show that Christ rose from the dead, right? Right. Okay. You know, and he did not get those kind of arguments, right, huh? But of course... The Greek text is more clear because it uses the word for evident sign, right? Rather than for philosophical argument. Now, the text from Gregory there, those are both texts that are quoted a lot, you know, and Thomas will ask whether theology should proceed argumentatively, right? And these are always in the objections, you know. These two texts, I've seen them before. The second should be said that the merit of faith is from this, that man, from the command of God, believes what he does not see. Whence only that reason excludes merit, which makes one see by knowledge that which is proposed to be believed, right? And such is a demonstrative reason, right? But these kind of reasons Christ did not bring in to declaring his resurrection. He didn't have a demonstration like you have in geometry, right? On the staggering theorem or something like that. To the third, it should be said, as has been said, that the merit of the attitude which faith causes is not wholly excluded unless man does not wish to believe except those things which he, what? Sees. But that someone, those things which he does not see, that he believes through some, what? Visible signs, some signs seen, does not wholly take away faith, nor its merit, right? Just as Thomas, to whom it is said, because you have seen me, you believe, right? Now, as Thomas says, it's one thing he saw, another thing that he believed, right? He saw the wounds and he believed he was, what? God. So he believed what he did not see, right? But he saw something, right? That disposed him to believe what he did not see. But it is a more perfect faith that does not require aids of this sort to believe, right? Whence, to convince them of the defect of faith in some, the Lord says, unless you see, what? Signs and wonders you do not believe, huh? And according to this, can be understood that those who are so, of such prompt soul, that they believe God even not seeing, what? The signs are blessed in comparison to those who do not believe unless they see, what? Such, right? But Thomas is saying then that the signs are there both for the apostles because of the weakness of their faith, which Christ, you know, stulti, arguably, but also to make their testimony for us more credible, right? Okay. And so they often talk about Thomas as being important for us, right? Okay. Now, what are the arguments or signs that Christ induced sufficiently make known the truth of resurrection? To the sixth one proceeds thus, it seems that the arguments which Christ brings in do not sufficiently make known the truth of his resurrection, huh? For nothing that Christ showed, what? His disciples after the resurrection that also the angels, appearing to men, right, either did not show or were not able to, what? Show, huh? For the angels frequently in human effigy showed themselves to men, right, huh? And spoke with them and conversed and ate, right? Like they're in the ancients. As if they were true men, right? And just as is clear in Genesis chapter 18 about the angels whom Abraham received with hospitality, right? In the book of Tobias about the angel who led and re-led them, right? And nevertheless, the angels did not have true bodies naturally united to them, right, huh? Which is required for the resurrection, huh? Sounds like an objection from a modern philosopher, right? How he's telling his senses. Not therefore the signs which Christ showed to the disciples were sufficient to make known his, what? Resurrection, right? Moreover, Christ rose by glorious resurrection. That is having at the same time human nature with glory, right, huh? But some things that Christ showed to disciples which seemed to be contrary to human nature just as that from the eyes of them he vanished, right? And that he came into them the doors being closed, huh? And some things seemed to be contrary to glory that he ate and drank with them, right, huh? And that he also had the scars, you might say of the wounds, right? Therefore, it seems that those arguments were not sufficient nor suitable to showing the faith of the resurrection, huh? Moreover, the body of Christ was not such that after the resurrection it ought to be touched by mortal man. Once he himself says to Magdalene do not touch me, right, huh? If I have not yet ascended to my father, huh? Therefore, it is not suitable to manifesting the truth of the resurrection that he showed himself touchable, right, huh? To his disciples, huh? Moreover, among the gifts of the glorified body especially would seem to be clarity, right? Which nevertheless in the resurrection is shown by no sign, no argument. Therefore, it seems insufficient those arguments to manifest the quality of the resurrection of Christ and he rose glorious, right, huh? I guess with Moses even Moses they had it to cover up his face because it was just too bright, you know, huh? Remember when I first went out with Rosie after I'd given her her ring, you know, and she had it on and so on and we were out to make a friend of mine and he said, Rosie, would you cover it up? You know, it's just too bright. It's kind of a nice way of covering the same thing and all that, you know. Didn't read it very nicely. It wasn't a prayer. Yeah, yeah. It was his face when it increased. But against this is that Christ who is the very wisdom of God, huh? About which it is said sweetly, huh? And suitably disposes all things as is said in Sapientia 8, right? What? This book has a fifth objection. Oh, well, that's not in here. It came from a more recent codecism. It's not in the older edition. Okay. It does have an ad quintem, but it doesn't give the fifth objection here, but I know it's over here. It gives the ad quintem. So when we get to that, you can give us the objection. I answer, it should be said that Christ made known his resurrection in two ways. To wit, by testimony and by argument or a sign. and both making known in its own kind was what? Sufficient, huh? Now there is used a two-fold testimony to making known his resurrection to disciples, of which neither of which can be what? But it. The first of which is the testimony of the angels, huh? That's interesting. who announced to the woman the resurrection as is clear through all the, what? Evangelists, huh? Another is the testimony of the, what? Scriptures, huh? Which he himself proposed to the showing of his own, what? Resurrection, as is said in Luke 24. Is that the discourse to the disciples of Emma, sorry? He started to go through the Scripture and all these things are going to take place, right? That's interesting. Testimony of the angels and the testimony of the sacred Scripture, huh?