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.’”

[ebb tide]

Can I, as usual, expect multiple posts from you in the near future?

It’s been your pattern; but usually you take over 12 hours to gather your muddled, inane comments.

[ebb tide]

There you go with your multiple posts!

Let’s keep a running count, shall we?

[af_vet_1981]

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.

Beautiful

• 9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.
• 10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?
• 11 And his brethren envied him; but his father observed the saying.

The imagery of the woman parallels that of Joseph's dream:
1. Each is about a person who God raised up very high to be honored by the brethren
2. In Joseph's dream his father Jacob interprets the dream as the sun is Jacob, the moon is Rachel, and the stars are the other sons of Jacob; hence the composite is Israel.
3. In John's vision Miriam is encompassed and adorned by Israel, and, by extension, all the other people of God who are grafted into the good olive tree.

[MHGinTN]

Your religion, catholicism, has been pushing that errant line ever since adopting the replacement theology so long ago.

[boatbums]

The foundation for the teaching is rooted in Scripture

Don't you think if Scripture was really the foundational "root" for the teaching of the Assumption of Mary the Catholic church wouldn't have waited almost 2000 years to declare it? What about all the supposed apparitions of Mary, didn't they have a greater influence on that decision?

I know the Immaculate Conception relied heavily on such visions and apparitions when that dogma was declared in 1854.

[MHGinTN]

As to these 'apparitions' asserted to Mary the Mother of Jesus, the Fatima events have been proven to be 'something else' when the lies promoted by the Catholic religion have been researched. And researched using the actual written eyewitness acounts that can be found int he archives at Fatima, Portugal, recorded by a Catholic Priest who interviewed so many from the witness population. There is also the photgraphic evidence of an UFO which buzzed the crowd and caused damage to people and vehicles during the big event.

It is almost amusing how ardetnly the catholic religion ignores scripture warnings ... 'satan can come as an angle of light' even.

[MurphsLaw]

Show us through God’s Word that your myths are true. Can you show us scripture that plainly supports this Maridolatry.? If you can we will not call it man-madeup mythology. But if you cannot show scripture plainly supporting this Mary stuff, who is the idolator, who is the denier of truth?

Who is the idolator?
I have never used that term nor have I suggested you are an "idolator" if that is your assertion to me. It's not a word a Catholic would use anyway, and it's a stupid word to use for anyone who believes in the Resurrected Christ. "Dualist" is probably a more accurate term there.
Given that, I don't give a rats rump in being called an idolator anyhow... If God holds me accountable for loving the Mother of our Lord- who God Chose to fill with Grace- and to be thankful to God for his Will in having prepared her as the purest vessel possible to Bring Christ into our World- he will know it is out of Love that I hold Mary the same way she held our Lord...

You know I can show you the infusputabke OT typology of Mary prefigured as the Ark of the New Covenant, a Holy womb like no other. Her pre-figurement as The Ark to bear Christ is as strong as any, and parallels Isaiah's prophesy for John the Baptist to herald and Baptize those into his Coming.
But lets be honest, that holds no consideration for you- Does it?

Your mary-stuff.. mythology poking recalled a time when I worked with an Atheist some years back. "Prove to me Jesus wasa real person- and not a made up myth"...
Well, the Bible of course" ! I said...

"Well the Bible is just full of unproven stories that has no verifiable evidence!"

Well he was right of course... there is no proof...until I learned about Tacitus. (Or maybe I already knew, it was a some time ago...) Anyway I did not realize the full impact of the historical Christian evidence I was certain to win the day with.
Christ(us) is mentioned as we can confidently point to there, but beyond that...whoops:
Tacitus
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations,called Christians by the populace.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Now I ask you.... would you have a problem being called by the pagans of that time.... "Christians,... HATED for their Abominations...and a "MISCHIEVIOUS SUPERSTITION" temporarily "checked" by Nero's homicidal persecution thereof??

I think the evidence is pretty clear of the Truth in our Christian " superstition"... Maybe it wasn't so rational back in those first decades after the Crucifixion as we like to tell ourselves.

I say, Guilty as Charged.

[MurphsLaw]

Don't you think if Scripture was really the foundational "root" for the teaching of the Assumption of Mary the Catholic church wouldn't have waited almost 2000 years to declare it?

Don't you think that logic then similarly condemns the modern inventions of saving oneself by proclaiming Jesus as a personal Lord/Savior? Or scriptural evidence proclaiming the (nicodemus) ideal of being "born again" salvation not found in two millenia? OR the later invention 500 years ago of sola scriptura...or once saved, always saved... that have no explicit usage in Scripture either and only appear 1500 -2000 years later as well?

[Mark17]

It is almost amusing how ardetnly the catholic religion ignores scripture warnings ... 'satan can come as an angle of light' even.

Reporting in from the typhoon ravaged southern Visayan region. 👍 We survived the typhoon, though some did not. Widespread damage, with only sporadic internet. FR is the only web site I can get. E mail and cell phone service, dead.
Anyway, I believe the Mary apparitions, are fallen angels, appearing as angels of light, to deceive people. It would appear the fallen angels have been largely successful, unfortunately. The moment millions breathe their last, they will be in for the shock of their entire existence. A shock from which they will never recover, not for all eternity. Why do so many, seem to willingly rush headlong to the lake that burns? Oh well. That’s on them.

[Elsie]

Can I, as usual, expect multiple posts from you in the near future?

Yes.

I find SO many errs packed into each reply you make, so to unwind them all takes a while.

[Elsie]

It’s been your pattern; but usually you take over 12 hours to gather your muddled, inane comments.

That's because the restraints make typing really hard; so I have wait until meal-time to get back to you guys.

[Elsie]

Let’s keep a running count, shall we?

I did not know that your pocket mouse could count!

[Elsie]

Each is about a person who God raised up very high to be honored by the brethren

It is VERY lacking in evidence that 'GOD' had any input into raising up MARY.

Your chosen religion has done that.

[Elsie]

In John's vision Miriam is encompassed and adorned by Israel, and, by extension, all the other people of God who are grafted into the good olive tree.

Golly!

I've missed the part where Mary was mentioned.

Let's see if I can find it...

Revelation 12 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

² And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.

³ And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems:

⁴ And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.

⁵ And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

⁶ And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her a thousand two hundred sixty days.

⁷ And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels:

⁸ And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.

⁹ And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

¹⁰ And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.

¹¹ And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death.

¹² Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.

¹³ And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman, who brought forth the man child:

¹⁴ And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.

¹⁵ And the serpent cast out of his mouth after the woman, water as it were a river; that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.

¹⁶ And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river, which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

¹⁷ And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

¹⁸ And he stood upon the sand of the sea.

 

 

Nope: no Mary here.

[Elsie]

 John 19:26-27

26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 

27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

 

 

Let's look a little bit closer and learn more about the person who wrote Revelation.

You will find the identity of the writer in Revelation 1:4. That person was John.

Who Was John?

In the New Testament, you just can’t say John wrote the book because there were a few important people named John in that time. The author of Revelation is the apostle John, or as he called himself the disciple whom Jesus loved. John is the author of five books in the New Testament:

- The Gospel of John (this is where he identifies himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved)
- 1 John
- 2 John
- 3 John
- Revelation

---

I wonder why, in the last book of the Bible, John gets so darned impersonal about the woman whose care was entrusted to him by none other than Jesus: the Son of GOD.

[Elsie]

How many children did Mary have after Jesus?
The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55–56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus.

 

---

CATHOLICS said this??  https://religionandcivilsociety.com/catholics/best-answer-why-did-jesus-give-mary-to-john.html
 

 

 

[Elsie]

I say, Guilty as Charged.

Then let the sentencing begin:

Revelation 22:18-19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[Elsie]

...If any man shall add unto these things...

I wonder if APPARITIONS that do this get the same sentence??

[Elsie]

---

The 15 promises

(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)

1	Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces.
2.	I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.
3.	The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies
4.	It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.
5.	The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
6.	Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.
7.	Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.
8.	Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.
9.	I  shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.
10.	The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.
11.	You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
12.	All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.
13.	I  have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death
14.	All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ.
15.	Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

 

"The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem,

no matter how difficult it is, wheter temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families...that cannot be solved by the Rosary.

There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."

Sister Lucia dos Santos

[Elsie]

Or scriptural evidence proclaiming the (nicodemus) ideal of being "born again" salvation not found in two millenia?

How long has Jesus' warning been carved in stone??

Call no man father...