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.’”
Ill defined? How is the Scriptural definition “ill defined”?
1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
And Paul was talking to the Corinthian church here, not the one at Rome.
1 Peter 2:4-5 As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 2:19-22 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Looks like Peter and Paul clearly recognized that the church, the body of Christ, is comprised of believers.
Next chance you get take a look through the Religion Forum threads you have started which garnered the most dialog from non-Catholics and figure out if the "agitation" resulted from people who just knee-jerk reject everything that's Catholic or did it come from some direct provoking either within the OP or from something another Catholic commented that was negative towards non-Catholics. I'm pretty sure you will find that we leave you guys alone most of the time. It's no skin off my nose if you want to hold to your beliefs and celebrate your traditions. But when my beliefs are denigrated, condemned or mocked, I tend to want to defend my faith. You will have to search long and hard to find any recent threads that are intentionally provocative towards Catholics. I'm not saying they have never happened, just that it's not common - and, believe me, there ARE plenty to choose from if I wanted to stir up descension.
The only reason I got involved in this thread was because of the author's praise of Newman and his conclusions that Protestants don't have any legitimate reasons to reject the Immaculate Conception and will have to answer to God at their final judgment for why they left or failed to join the Catholic church. It rubbed me the wrong way because it presumes there can't possibly be good reasons. Then of course when certain others piped up and started condemning and personally attacking it garnered more responses.
Also, this seems to be your MO to post these kinds of threads. It's not the first time I have asked you for your motivation for doing so. Forgive me if I am wrong, but to me it comes across as trolling for a reason to claim persecution.
It was a feast day all over the world. Not enough? You want every fact and theological insight defined as dogma on your schedule? It's a big universe. Theology is a science. While some things are conveniently revealed, for which we are thankful, others have to be understood through reason from other things already known.
At least we Prots forced the Catholics to somewhat get back on track.
Your words.
You want every fact and theological insight defined as dogma on your schedule?
Nope.
One thing at a time is sufficient for me.
While some things are conveniently revealed, for which we are thankful, others have to be understood through reason from other things already known.
One must be careful not to create a Calvinosaurus from the 'things already known'.
Maybe not, but I don’t think he was “thirsty,” either, if you know what I mean. 😀🙃😊 (They did the evil deed) 👍👍👍👍👍 He was, however, around long enough, to have a bunch of other kids, with Mary. Among them, being James, the head of the Jerusalem church, and Jude, both of whom, wrote New Testament books, with Jude 6, being a most intriguing verse, requiring a good understanding of Genesis 6. 😀😁😊 Some who get it, are Chuck Missler, Trey Smith, Chuck Smith, Hal Lindsey, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Arnold Genekowitsch Fruchtenbaum, Merrill F Unger, Allen Nolan, Michael Heiser, Amir Tsarfati, Flavius Josephus, Old Testament rabbis, to name a few. 😄🙃😀😁😊👍
But to the one who is not even yet conceived in the spiritual dimension, explaining that state of activity is like trying to describe a painting to a person who is not only blind in this temporal dimension, but clings to an association of others without sight who reject that distinction between light and dark even exists, let alone a spectrum of coloration that enriches the benefit of vision.
More clearly put in case my language was loose about St. John the Baptist and Original Sin:
Only Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist get feasts for their birthdays.
A saint’s feast day is usually celebrated on the day of his death, or his birth into Heaven.
This is because only those three people have ever been born without original sin. Jesus and Mary were also CONCEIVED without original sin. John the Baptist, however, was conceived as usual, with original sin. But THEN, he was baptized with a baptism of desire before his birth when he recognized Jesus as God in the womb of Mary. And leapt within his mother’s womb. So he wasn’t conceived without sin, but he was born without sin. This further prepared him for his mission.
Only Jesus and Mary are in heaven with their bodies. The Baptist, like the rest of us, will need to wait until the general Judgment at the end of days for his body and his soul to be reunited, in his case, in Heaven for sure.
It’s a question.
Only Jesus was conceived without a sin nature and never sinned in His entire life.
Catholic claims about Mary and John are completely without Scriptural support.
Neither Mary nor John needed to be without sin to fulfill their roles that God assigned them in His plan of redemption.
More assertion without FACT to back them up.
John the Baptist, however, was conceived as usual, with original sin.
Could you please make up your mind?
True, but why?
Can’t you stay on the subject matter? (it’s a question, too.)
You know what MM? As a lifelong Catholic, there are two things I never heard of. Number one, signal graces. I never heard of signal graces. Number two. I never heard John the Baptist was sinless. These two, I never heard, till I got on Free Republic. Maybe it was partially because, I hated being catechised, so I rarely paid attention in Catechism class. For that, as it turns out, I am thankful. 😀😁🤗
Don’t worry Mark; as NONE of the ‘Catholics’ from day 1 to 400 years later never heard of them either!
👍😀
Never heard that John was sinless either. Must be a new one someone fabricated.
A simple mistake.
You found it.
Kindly forgive me.
If true confusion persists please let me know. Otherwise, I will presume you know what I meant to type.
That makes me wonder, how many other issues are fabricated? 🤗
Wait...what?
I didn’t make a mistake.
John the Baptist, unlike Jesus of course, and unlike Mary (I realize you disagree), WAS affected by Original Sin.
At the moment he was conceived in Elizabeth’s womb, the Baptist’s soul contracted Original Sin. This is normal for sons and daughters of Adam.
A miracle happened at the Visitation.
At that moment, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit acted, cleansing Jesus’ cousin the Baptist of Original Sin.
And, if I may add, the Baptist, a very saint in his mother’s womb, never looked back.
The below, written by another, and citing a passage from a sermon by St. Augustine, may be found at the following webpage:
http://www.romancatholicidentity.com/2009/06/birth-of-st-john-baptist.html?m=1
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2009
Birth of St. John the Baptist
Besides Christmas and the Nativity of the Blessed Mother, there is only one saint whose birthday is celebrated in the Liturgy of the Church, St. John the Baptist. Usually a saint is remembered on the day of his death—or birth into eternal life—but the Blessed Mother and St. John the baptist share a common dignity of being born free from original sin, thereby meriting the celebration of their actual birthday. (Mary was conceived and born free of the stain of original sin and John the Baptist was cleansed at the Annunciation when, in the presence of Christ, he leapt for joy in the womb of his mother.) This should come as no surprise for it was Jesus who said, “I tell you, among those born of women, no one is greater than John”.
Taken from the Office of Reading of today’s solemnity:
A sermon of St Augustine
The voice of one crying in the wilderness
The Church observes the birth of John as in some way sacred; and you will not find any other of the great men of old whose birth we celebrate officially. (The feasts of the Immaculate Conception and of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin had not yet been introduced.) We celebrate John’s, as we celebrate Christ’s. This point cannot be passed over in silence, and if I may not perhaps be able to explain it in the way that such an important matter deserves, it is still worth thinking about it a little more deeply and fruitfully than usual.
John is born of an old woman who is barren; Christ is born of a young woman who is a virgin. That John will be born is not believed, and his father is struck dumb; that Christ will be born is believed, and he is conceived by faith.
I have proposed some matters for inquiry, and listed in advance some things that need to be discussed. I have introduced these points even if we are not up to examining all the twists and turns of such a great mystery, either for lack of capacity or for lack of time. You will be taught much better by the one who speaks in you even when I am not here; the one about whom you think loving thoughts, the one whom you have taken into your hearts and whose temple you have become.
John, it seems, has been inserted as a kind of boundary between the two Testaments, the Old and the New. That he is somehow or other a boundary is something that the Lord himself indicates when he says, The Law and the prophets were until John. So he represents the old and heralds the new. Because he represents the old, he is born of an elderly couple; because he represents the new, he is revealed as a prophet in his mother’s womb. You will remember that, before he was born, at Mary’s arrival he leapt in his mother’s womb. Already he had been marked out there, designated before he was born; it was already shown whose forerunner he would be, even before he saw him. These are divine matters, and exceed the measure of human frailty. Finally, he is born, he receives a name, and his father’s tongue is loosed.
Zachary is struck dumb and loses his voice, until John, the Lord’s forerunner, is born and releases his voice for him. What does Zachary’s silence mean, but that prophecy was obscure and, before the proclamation of Christ, somehow concealed and shut up? It is released and opened up by his arrival, it becomes clear when the one who was being prophesied is about to come. The releasing of Zachary’s voice at the birth of John has the same significance as the tearing of the veil of the Temple at the crucifixion of Christ. If John were meant to proclaim himself, he would not be opening Zachary’s mouth. The tongue is released because a voice is being born – for when John was already heralding the Lord, he was asked, Who are you and he replied I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness.
John is the voice, but the Lord in the beginning was the Word. John is a voice for a time, but Christ is the eternal Word from the beginning.
Please try not to be insulting and condescending.
At Lourdes, the Blessed Virgin Mary said: I am the Immaculate Conception.
She did not misspeak.
Adam nor Eve were, for a time, also immaculate. However, unlike Mary, they were not conceived. Instead, Adam and Eve were created by the very hand of God.
(Thus both scripture and now Mary herself prove that the human race did not descend from apes.)
Eve, immaculate from the moment of her crration, nevertheless sinned. Disobedience was her tragic downfall.
Catholics refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary Mary as the new Eve. Mary was immaculate from the moment of her conception. Like Eve, Mary was human, had free will, and could have exercised that free will in a way contrary to the mind of God. It may seem “inconceivable”, so to speak, but Mary was capable of sinning. She was not superhuman. She, though immaculate, like Eve, could have sinned, like Eve. Unlike Eve, however, Mary did not sin, but remained perfectly obedient to God.
In asking everyone to confirm that they believe that Eve sinned, I was asking everyone to acknowledge that one is not rendered impervious to temptation, impervious to sin, simply because one is free both of Original Sin, and of the stain of Original Sin.
Eve fell, despite possessing absolute purity.
Mary did not fall. When Gabriel came, she gave her Fiat. When the sword pierced her heart, she remained steadfast.
Behold your mother.
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.