A Masterpiece on the Immaculate Conception

The Catholic Thing ^ | December 8th, 2021 | Michael Pakaluk

[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.’”

[Mark17]

It reminds me of that song “I am my own Grandpa.”

MM, I didn’t know you are a blasphemer. 🤗 How can this be? 🙃 It’s more than I can stand. How can I ever survive, knowing you are a blasphemer? Oh, the horror of horrors. 👍😀😊🙃😄😀😁😂😃😆🤣 Actually, I agree with you. 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍 As in the days of Noah.

[moonhawk]

Luke 1:43

[Grey182]

[3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth...” - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

I am pretty sure you had lots of Catholic ancestors. And at least one of them ‘got itchy ears’.

[MurphsLaw]

People do not access Jesus through a church.

Access? Heck yeah...
Jesus Christ is alive in any Church that has valid Consecration of the Eucharist. It's been that way for 2000 years. CHRIST promised us he would build a Church and that's what the Apostles did. So you don't agree...I get that. Justin Martyr witnessed for the Sacrifice of the Mass...1900 years ago. Dont believe me? Look it up.

The Holy Spirit draws men to Christ and they go to Jesus Himself for salvation. No church ever saved anyone.

I never said- and the Catholic Church does not promote -that we are saved by the "Church". Why do you say that?
If that is your inderstanding- it is incorrect

The Holy Spirit draws people to Christ?

I was baptized into the Faith by my Parents... The Holy Spirit was there too.... but in that Water of Rebirth....if that's what you mean... and Billy Graham was not wasting his time either...

[MurphsLaw]

St. John Henry Newman - the person quoted in the OP regarding the Immaculate Conception - not ironically is known as the father of the theory of the development of doctrine:

Finally.. was that so hard? A post that goes to the heart of the topic- which does or doesn't really even need to be discussed.
But this is fresh air rather, and a true focus- rather than the usual "Catholic bad"....
I don't know why it's ironic, but you posted a refutation to the development of doctrine.
Do you disagree  with the process of doctrine evolving over time?

[MurphsLaw]

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.

Trolling for Jesus ! LOL.... no... you make a valid point... but no the Catholic "persecution" on FR exists regardless whether I post or not. I would say forum posts, outside ones of liturgical content or reference,  probably run 90/10 or maybe 80/20 in opposition to Catholicism. God knows the Pope us doing all he can to bring the negativity on the Church, sinful prelates as well, give Freepers ample quarter to run down the Church.
The distortions that I feel you and others offer here need to be refuted and corrected. You do the same with me...as you should... and I expect nothing less.. Though while most Catholics will tend to be passive in this current climate, afraid to proclaim their Faith- it has energized me to give that defense so desperately lacking.
I contend what you see as undesirable, is only push back that is not very common on FR - and you're just not used to it.
Is a short essay about the IC doctrine on the Feast Day of the IC - that gives the reader a simple, genius way of looking at a historical viewpoint trolling? I see it as informative...and anyone who takes offense with something as simple  as the IC is missing the boat. Is it important to Catholics? Yes... but NEED NOT BE to anyone outside of it. If one desires the Blessed Virgin to be sinful so what. I personally dont have an issue and feel that post was pretty innocuous on a "trolling" scale. Now my post about the high ranking Anglican Bishop converting to  Catholicism during this current climate was gonna have everyone going to the mattresses- this goes with out saying. But the gravity of that conversion deserved to be noted and discussed- as it was.
This IC post? Um no. I don't see it. NOT a hill to die on. January is gonna be fun though.

[MurphsLaw]

Seeing as the Feast of the Immaculate Conception is such a beloved remembrance for Catholics, could you not have found an article to Caucus that didn't mention Protestants?

A few issues with your post.
1. As I told you before, I DID NOT find- and was NOT looking for an article about the IC. I subscribe, it hut my email the morning of the IC- and I liked the simple genius it's message.
Please remember anyone is free to read posts.... Catholic or Protestant. Truth be told, again, most Catholics - excluding radtrads and gladtrads of course- DO NOT EVEN KNOW what the IC doctrine is. Yes, I do seek to change that.
2. I rarely caucus a post. To me that seems cowardly anyways. If Christ cannot be common ground for discussion, what can? How can the truth be found if we need to hide behind a caucus.
Do ya disagree with any of the Popesmack threads? I doubt it. Don't see very much distaste for the postings...

[metmom]

Yes, Jesus said He would build HIS church.

That does not by default mean a specific denomination, despite the claims of Catholicism.

People come to Jesus by faith in Him, not by eating a wheat wafer someone claims contains Jesus. Jesus is received by faith, not ingestion.

[Mark17]

Can I help you to understand that better with more references from The Word of God?.

I think the answer to that, is no, you can’t. If someone has a dead spirit, as in 1st Corinthians 2:14, you can post the entire Bible, and they won’t understand any of it, till the Holy Spirit, illuminates their dead spirit.
You know, I live in the belly of the beast, but the majority of the false religionists, that I talk to, are willing to listen. The word of God doesn’t return void. When people are confronted with the truth, it is not a static situation. They either grow closer to God, or further away. See you in the clouds, bro, at the pre trib rapture. I have a feeling, that God has determined, that when that last person, has come to faith in Him, He is going to do a harpazo on us 🤣😄😁😀

[Elsie]

A trip down memory lane...

https://genius.com/Willie-nelson-im-my-own-grandpa-lyrics

[Elsie]

...whether by word, or our epistle.

I am so glad you've shown that their words line up with their WRITINGS.

[MHGinTN]

You are so deeply indoctrinated that you are unable to see, spiritually. 'Conversion' from one ORG to another ORG is as deep as your soul can focus. Think: was Newman a Christian BEFORE his 'conversion'? Did he become a Christian by/through/because of his 'conversion'?

Romans 8:6-8

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Do you comprehend the differences between the Law of/from Moses and the Law of Life in Christ?

Do you understand that 'the flesh' is a unit of behavior mechanism (the soul) and the physical body, thus in the unregenerate man the spirit is imprisoned in the carnal behavior mechanism? Have you read that the Word of God is more powerful than any two-edged sword, able to separate soul and spirit? That passage does not say 'the org is powerful to separate the soul and spirit. That separation can ONLY be done by the Holy Spirit power, not the power of an ORG.

1 Corinthians 15:49
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

[MHGinTN]

1 Corinthians 2: 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Org-speak sounds lofty and spiritual, but is only carnal resonance. Why do you maintain your level of fealty to the ORG ritual road? Do you imagine it earns soemthing for your spirit/ ... or is it massaging your carnal man, to lull him into complacency toward the spiritual reality of spiritual deadness?

[MayflowerMadam]

Nope. No Catholic ancestors.

[MurphsLaw]

People come to Jesus by faith in Him, not by eating a wheat wafer someone claims contains Jesus. Jesus is received by faith, not ingestion.

I get it, I get it.
You oppose the Eucharist as most non-Catholics do.
But the early Church did not and you are then Disagreeing with them as well.
Does the 2000 year history not count for anything?
Did you look into Justin Martyr as mentioned?

He wrote this of the Church Sacramental tradition in mid 2nd century:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” –

[metmom]

But the early Church did not and you are then Disagreeing with them as well. Does the 2000 year history not count for anything?

Disagreeing with church history means nothing.

Scripture is the only thing that is Truth and needs to be agreed with.

Longevity does not turn something into truth.

There are other major religions which have been around longer than Catholicism. Are they truth too, since they’ve been around longer?

[boatbums]

Daughter of the Father, Mother of the Son, Bride of the Holy Spirit. Each different Persons of the Holy Trinity. Yet, each is completely One. One God. I think your beef is with God, not Catholics.

Please show where in Scripture Mary is the "Bride of the Holy Spirit". The so-called "beef" isn't with God. It's with Catholicism that declares things Christians are obligated to believe when God's word says nothing about it. If your contention is that the Catholic church can mandate anything she declares as "de fide", then explain how this idea doesn't contradict:

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

What we DO know from Scripture:

1. All believers are sons and daughters of Almighty God. (Galatians 3:26)
2. All believers are members of the Bride of Christ (II Corinthians 11:2)
3. Israel is the wife of the LORD (Ezekiel 16:8-21; Jeremiah 3:1,6-8,14; Hosea 2:2-7)

Not a thing about Mary being the wife of the Holy Spirit. She was legally married to Joseph. As a believer, Mary IS a member of the Bride of Christ.

[af_vet_1981]

Yes we should spend hours and hours and hours discussing ...

A simple question: why did you respond to a thread you profess to not be interested in ?

[MHGinTN]

Do you understand what the word remembrance means? If, as your religion of catholiciism asserts, the real Jesus is eaten in the Eucharistic ritual, why would Jesus say to do this bread and wine ritual to remember Him and His offering His flesh and blood for us? To do a memorial for soemone who has died is to remember them, which remembering is not a memorial if they are there with you. Your blasphemous ritualcannibalizes if the Real Jesus is being eaten.

On the other hand, if you eat the bread and sip the wine REMEMBERING what His Flesh and Blood accomplished for you SPIRITUALLY, THEN the ritual is a remembrance and attention to what you believe.

And as Paul explained, if you do this ritual unworthily, not believing what the bread and wine represent or do this ritual unrepentantly, THEN you are guilty of pretending the cannibalizing of the flesh and blood of Jesus.

But the Catholic blasphemy goes even further, asserting that with the physical items eaten in the Eucharist, your priest is serving to you the actual soul (behavior mechanism) and deity of Jesus! As if you can get spiritual empowerment through your alimentary tract! THIS is what the pagans did with their idols and the food they sacrificed to their idols! They believed the food turned into the idol, and that paganization was adopted by the Roman Catholic ORG. Perhaps to pull more pagans into the ORG?

That paganization ritual as asserted by your priesthood is only the most eggregious blasphemy. The deification of the blessed Mother of Jesus, the granting of sin indulgenses, the power of the rosary repetitions, the wearing of 'blessed' scapulae, theconfessional as cleansing form sin, well those are rituals which support the work based religion that is catholicism but not Christianity as the Word of God has presented.

BUT, you are in luck! Jesus told you that blasphemies against Him can be forgiven. But take care/be warned because He also said blasphemies against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven men. ... To assert that your priesthood can serve the flesh and blood and behavior mechanism and SPIRIT of God With Us, well THAT is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit if you believe you receive His Spiritual empowerment by doing some ritual repetedly.

[MHGinTN]

"... THAT is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit if you believe you receive His Spiritual empowerment by doing some eating ritual repetedly. That magic thinking is on par with working to never step on a crack int he sidewalk so you will not have an accident. The Eucharist as practiced by catholiciism and a few Protestant derivatives is blaspheming the Spiritual nature of God. We are told that God is Spirit and MUST BE WORSHIPED IN spirit and truth (a remembrance!), not eating bread and wine believing these items are magically transmogrified into real flesh and blood and none physical soul and Spirit of GOD! THIS is the carnal heart of catholiciism, and too close to blasphemy against The Holy Spirit!