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.’”
We Prots understand where YOU are coming from as well.
True; but what we know NOW is sufficient.
Even your first pope agrees!!
Because believing such would require dismissing quite a few verses that Rome included in the Book when she compiled it.
Whil;e she was alive, Mary carried cells from the gestating Jesus. I have enum,erated this phenomenon at FR before. BUT when she died, all her cells died, including the ones she carried from gestating Jesus.
As a Catholic, totally believing all Catholic dogma, you have been taught that Mary was taken bodily into Heaven. That is magic thimnking because there is not a single passage in The Word of God which supports such a dogma.
Each person can make that decision as to what is interesting and how to invest time in discussions, as long as the forum rules are observed. I did not understand why one who is not interested would make those comments but now, if I understand your comments, the intent was to get other people not to discuss the topic.
Hassle me for an answer.
Gee whiz bro, why is it so hard to believe, that Jesus had half brothers and half sisters? I know certain false religions, say these were his cousins. Ah, nope. Different Greek words. Hey, if people want to believe false doctrines, like that, they may feel free to knock themselves out. I, on the other hand, will NEVER fall for that. I did, when I belonged to a false religion, but never again.
The foundation for the teaching is rooted in Scripture, specifically in John’s mysterious and apocalyptic vision recorded in Revelation 12.
First and foremost, the woman of Revelation 12 is identified as Mary, the one “who brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron . . . [the one] caught up to God and his throne” (Rev 12:5). Revelation 12, however, also uses imagery that reveals the woman to be Daughter Zion, the Queen-Bride of Israel, and the Mother of the Church.
In likening the woman to the Queen Bride of Israel, his description of her echoes Isaiah, who said that Israel would be arrayed like a radiant Queen Bride (Is 60:19–20, 62:3–5). Solomon’s bride in the Song of Solomon is similarly described (Songs 6:10). John drives this point home by telling us that the woman wears a crown of twelve stars, an obvious symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel.
But, throughout Revelation, the twelve tribes are also reckoned as signs of the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the new Israel, the Church (Rev 7:4–8, 21:12–14). So, just as Daughter Zion was a symbol of the chosen people of God—Israel—the woman in Revelation is also a symbol of the new people of God, the Church. Paul, in language similar to that of Revelation, called the Church “the Jerusalem above . . . our mother.” He also spoke of the Church as the Bride of Christ (Gal 4:26; Eph 5:31–32). Likewise, John referred to the Church as a “Lady” (2 Jn, v. 5). The woman of Revelation, however, is more than a symbol for the Church. She is also its mother with “offspring” in addition to the one male child to whom she gives birth. And those children are described in Revelation as those who believe in Jesus.
In Revelation 12 we see a great battle which is a dramatic portrayal of the fulfillment of God’s promise in the Garden of Eden. The serpent lies in wait beneath the woman, preparing to devour her off spring. The birth of her son becomes the occasion for mortal combat. During the battle, the woman flees into the desert—to a place especially prepared for her by God. Later, after the devil’s defeat, John sees the woman given eagle’s wings to fly to a place in the desert where she would be nourished by God. John’s language recalls Jesus’ words to his Apostles in John 14:1–3. The language of preparing a place is also often used in the New Testament to describe the destiny God has planned for his children (Mt 20:23, 25:34; 1 Pet 1:5; 1 Cor 2:9). John’s words also evoke God’s care for Israel in the wilderness (Ex 19:4; Deut 1:31–33, 32:10–12, 8:2–3).
The picture Revelation paints serves as the biblical outline for the Church’s dogma of Mary’s Assumption. Mary is Daughter Zion, the woman who gave birth to the world’s Savior. Because she is the New Eve, she is free from the shadow of sin and its consequences. This includes the long-term separation of soul and body that exists for the rest of us as we wait for the resurrection of the body at the end of time. Mary has been taken up into heaven by God to join her Son in the place He prepared for her. And in that place, as Christ the King’s mother, she sits at His right hand, wearing the crown of the Queen Mother. Additional scriptural evidence for Mary’s Assumption lies in the fact that there are at least two foreshadowings of it in the Old Testament as seen with Enoch and Elijah.
Do not take the mark when commanded to you, should you survive the great departure chaos.
When was this carved in stone?
This fella really gets around!
Matthew 11:14
"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of Heaven has been taken by storm and eager men are forcing their way into it. For the Law and all the prophets foretold it till the time of John and—if you can believe it—John himself is the 'Elijah' who must come before the kingdom.
HMMMmmm...
Luke 12:5
But I will show you whom you should fear: fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
The Bible painted nothing. Rome is the player in the game that did this.
Her 'outline' is much like the image Calvin has in his head of his prehistoric dinosaur.
He finds just enough scraps in the ground to build up an entire beast.
'Tis a shame that Rome has forgotten the old adage about ASSUMING.
Hear me roar!!
Nope.
The basis of the theology of the Catholic church is Christ.
The foundation for the teaching is rooted in Scripture, specifically in John’s mysterious and apocalyptic vision recorded in Revelation 12.
First and foremost, the woman of Revelation 12 is identified as Mary, the one “who brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron . . . [the one] caught up to God and his throne” (Rev 12:5). Revelation 12, however, also uses imagery that reveals the woman to be Daughter Zion, the Queen-Bride of Israel, and the Mother of the Church.
In likening the woman to the Queen Bride of Israel, his description of her echoes Isaiah, who said that Israel would be arrayed like a radiant Queen Bride (Is 60:19–20, 62:3–5). Solomon’s bride in the Song of Solomon is similarly described (Songs 6:10). John drives this point home by telling us that the woman wears a crown of twelve stars, an obvious symbol of the twelve tribes of Israel.
But, throughout Revelation, the twelve tribes are also reckoned as signs of the twelve Apostles, the representatives of the new Israel, the Church (Rev 7:4–8, 21:12–14). So, just as Daughter Zion was a symbol of the chosen people of God—Israel—the woman in Revelation is also a symbol of the new people of God, the Church. Paul, in language similar to that of Revelation, called the Church “the Jerusalem above . . . our mother.” He also spoke of the Church as the Bride of Christ (Gal 4:26; Eph 5:31–32). Likewise, John referred to the Church as a “Lady” (2 Jn, v. 5). The woman of Revelation, however, is more than a symbol for the Church. She is also its mother with “offspring” in addition to the one male child to whom she gives birth. And those children are described in Revelation as those who believe in Jesus.
In Revelation 12 we see a great battle which is a dramatic portrayal of the fulfillment of God’s promise in the Garden of Eden. The serpent lies in wait beneath the woman, preparing to devour her off spring. The birth of her son becomes the occasion for mortal combat. During the battle, the woman flees into the desert—to a place especially prepared for her by God. Later, after the devil’s defeat, John sees the woman given eagle’s wings to fly to a place in the desert where she would be nourished by God. John’s language recalls Jesus’ words to his Apostles in John 14:1–3. The language of preparing a place is also often used in the New Testament to describe the destiny God has planned for his children (Mt 20:23, 25:34; 1 Pet 1:5; 1 Cor 2:9). John’s words also evoke God’s care for Israel in the wilderness (Ex 19:4; Deut 1:31–33, 32:10–12, 8:2–3).
The picture Revelation paints serves as the biblical outline for the Church’s dogma of Mary’s Assumption. Mary is Daughter Zion, the woman who gave birth to the world’s Savior. Because she is the New Eve, she is free from the shadow of sin and its consequences. This includes the long-term separation of soul and body that exists for the rest of us as we wait for the resurrection of the body at the end of time. Mary has been taken up into heaven by God to join her Son in the place He prepared for her. And in that place, as Christ the King’s mother, she sits at His right hand, wearing the crown of the Queen Mother. Additional scriptural evidence for Mary’s Assumption lies in the fact that there are at least two foreshadowings of it in the Old Testament as seen with Enoch and Elijah.
The mark is the belief in the non biblical pre tribulation rapture philosophy.
You have taken the mark, mhg
And luke 12 goes on to say
9 But whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.
But you, Elsie, deny Christ by rejecting the True presence in the Eucharist.
You act like those in John 6:66 As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
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.