Posted on 12/08/2021 2:19:08 PM PST by MurphsLaw
s it possible for a memorandum to be a masterpiece? A few paragraphs long, dashed off ex tempore, for a friend, not polished? Various columns in TCT have appreciated masterpieces – a poem, a painting, a musical work. But could a memorandum ever be accounted a “masterpiece”?
I have in mind Newman’s “Memorandum on the Immaculate Conception” – written off by the Cardinal,” his editor says, “for Mr. R. I. Wilberforce, formerly Archdeacon Wilberforce, to aid him in meeting the objections urged by some Protestant friends against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.”
,br>
That’s it, “written off” – a memorandum is something written off, dashed off, tossed off.
Surely a master can “dash off” a masterpiece: witness the Gettysburg Address, a Shakespeare sonnet, a Scarlatti sonata. And so we look to Newman’s “Memorandum” without worries as truly a spiritual masterpiece.
Newman begins: “It is so difficult for me to enter into the feelings of a person who understands the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and yet objects to it, that I am diffident about attempting to speak on the subject.” He adds, “I was accused of holding it, in one of the first books I wrote, twenty years ago. On the other hand, this very fact may be an argument against an objector – for why should it not have been difficult to me at that time, if there were a real difficulty in receiving it?”
Already, astonishing brilliance. He imagines someone raising difficulties, and his task would be to understand those difficulties and reply to them. But he can’t see any difficulties. Maybe he’s incompetent even to speak on the subject?
He turns this concern on its head. Many years ago, as a young Anglican minister, long before the pope’s definition, Newman had already come to hold that doctrine, naturally and easily. But he couldn’t have done if it had involved difficulties. So he has the requisite competence, which is to speak to the naturalness of the doctrine!
Here is that earlier passage, from the Parochial and Plain Sermons:
Who can estimate the holiness and perfection of her, who was chosen to be the Mother of Christ? If to him that hath, more is given, and holiness and divine favour go together (and this we are expressly told). . . .What must have been her gifts, who was chosen to be the only near earthly relative of the Son of God, the only one whom He was bound by nature to revere and look up to; the one appointed to train and educate Him, to instruct Him day by day, as He grew in wisdom and stature? This contemplation runs to a higher subject, did we dare to follow it; for what, think you, was the sanctified state of that human nature, of which God formed His sinless Son; knowing, as we do, that “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and that “none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?”
Then come a series of devastating arguments as to why there are no difficulties in the doctrine. If there is no difficulty in saying that Eve was created without sin – if there is no risk of turning her into a deity – what is the great difficulty in saying that Mary was created without sin? If we hold that John the Baptist was cleansed of original sin in the womb, then why not Mary from an even earlier point in the womb? If there is no difficulty in saying that you and I are cleansed from original sin at some later point in our lives by baptism – if our saying so in no way detracts from the merits of the Lord – then wouldn’t Mary’s being cleansed even earlier in her life make her even more dependent on the Lord?
"We do not say that she did not owe her salvation to the death of her Son. Just the contrary, we say that she, of all mere children of Adam, is in the truest sense the fruit and the purchase of His Passion. He has done for her more than for anyone else. To others He gives grace and regeneration at a point in their earthly existence; to her, from the very beginning."
Newman then considers the antiquity of the doctrine. Why? Because “No one can add to revelation. That was given once for all; – but as time goes on, what was given once for all is understood more and more clearly.” You might wish to copy out these lines as proof of what Newman meant by “development of doctrine.” It did not allow for any new revelation. What it means, rather, is this: “The greatest Fathers and Saints in this sense have been in error, that, since the matter of which they spoke had not been sifted, and the Church had not spoken, they did not in their expressions do justice to their own real meaning.”
He focuses on the contrast between Mary and Eve in the earliest writings of the Fathers, and especially the proto-evangelion: “See the direct bearing of this upon the Immaculate Conception... There was war between the woman and the Serpent. This is most emphatically fulfilled if she had nothing to do with sin – for, so far as any one sins, he has an alliance with the Evil One.”
Newman’s masterpiece concludes: “I say it distinctly – there may be many excuses at the last day, good and bad, for not being Catholics; one I cannot conceive: ‘O Lord, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was so derogatory to Thy grace, so inconsistent with Thy Passion, so at variance with Thy word in Genesis and the Apocalypse, so unlike the teaching of Thy first Saints and Martyrs, as to give me a right to reject it at all risks, and Thy Church for teaching it. It is a doctrine as to which my private judgment is fully justified in opposing the Church’s judgment. And this is my plea for living and dying a Protestant.’”
Yes we should spend hours and hours and hours discussing whether or not Mary was a virgin. And then more hours, and then more hours.
Because this will solve all the worlds problems. There is Nothing More important to discuss.
A person who believes Immaculate Conception is a dunce.
Happily wearing my dunce cap here....
The girls of my generation got pregnant from the toilet seat.
Good point. The “Immaculate Conception” refers to Mary. Because she was completely free of sin — immaculate — she was deemed worthy of carrying and giving (virgin) birth to Jesus. In Spanish she’s “La Immaculata.” But yeah, it’s probably pointless even to discuss such niceties.
I was thinking about this today. Maybe our Protestant friends choose not to believe all Catholicism teaches about Mary but I do not understand the hostility. Won't we all be without sin in heaven? Why couldn't God create a human without original sin to bear His Son? Why wouldn't He? It is in fact appropriate for Him to do so.
That was boys and syphilis. Always the toilet seat.
Me too.
Deplorably duncing my way through life...
“A person who believes Immaculate Conception is a dunce.”
Is any faith an act of stupidity? Or only the things you don’t believe.
Other than the fact that catholicism and all that it professes is a perversion and heresy of Christianity, and that it's filled with paganism and it turns all it's petitioners into lazy mislead sheep, we're fine with it.
Duns Scotus wrote the defense of “Immaculate Conception.” For his illogic, he earned the term “Dunce”
Hail Mary,
Full of grace
The Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou amongst women
And blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of our death
Amen
https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
If Mary remained a virgin, then that means poor Joseph her husband was too.
Because Mary is so associated with the Holy Catholic Church, and the only thing Protestants agree on is that they think the church is wrong.
Who’s the woman that embittered your heart?
Well, I don't believe that Immaculate Conception is a dunce. I believe it's a traditional understanding of Our Lady's nature that was defined as dogma in I think 1854.
But your excellent handle has me wondering: Jan Sobieski is renowned as a Catholic King who saved Europe. By his time, the feast of the Immaculate Conception was widely celebrated as a feast day. Do you have reason to think he was a dunce? Or that he didn't believe that Our Lady was conceived without original sin?
Man Attacks DC Basilica’s Our Lady of Fatima Statue by Cutting Off Hands, Hammering Face
Do you spend a lot of time searching for articles to stir the pot with “Protestants”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.