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.’”
half-way there!
Af_vet,
The woman is also a combination of stars that the sun travels through in the fall.
And the moon ends up under her feet.
A sign that speaks of a birth of a man child.
Caught up to heaven and to rule the nations with a rod of iron..
That sign used to have the sun traveling through it in the summer.
A couple thousand years ago.
About 40 days before the day Anna the prophetess,and Israel, was to afflict their souls night and day..
Nowhere near December 25 or February 2..
More like the 1st day of the Father’s 6th month and His 10th day of 7th month, Day of Atonement.
Religion needs to be careful, it might stumble into Truth and destroy inherited lies..
Your Catholic mind made a switch from the topic of the Mary stuff to whether there is proof Jesus lived among men. I am not surprised at such moving of the goal posts, it is natural when you cannot offer ANYTHING from scripture which supports the mythos regarding the blessed Mother of Jesus. I leave you to your myths. But since you don’ty believe in the Pre-Trib Rapture removal of The Body of Christ Believers, may I just caution you to not take the mark when commanded of you, if you survive the horrendous chaos which follows the removal / escape from the Wath of The Lamb.
Do not take the mark when commanded to you, should you survive the great departure chaos.
Preview of Rev 13:17
PS: when service is restored; determine to have a bugout stash you can access.
Odd those who lobby to literally forbid that word אַבָּא, never seem to lobby for literally plucking out an eye or cutting off a hand, as if there was no sin.
They do indeed sir. The apparitions that claim to be Mary, are not Mary at all. They are fallen angels, and deception is their goal. I used to be in a certain false religion, which you know. I used to believe in this false doctrine about Mary, but not any more. 😀😁
Today is the first day we have seen the sun in about 5 days. Still have sporadic, super slow internet, but they are working on it. We have a bug out plan, if push comes to shove. We head to my in laws farm, up in the wilderness, in the mountains. Lots of Catholics up there. I have managed to lead some out of the church. It’s a beautiful thing. 😀😄😂😆👍
I know of at least one freeper, who has indeed suggested you DO exactly that, if you are going to interpret scripture literally, so don’t say it hasn’t been suggested. It has, and if you haven’t sliced off your hand, I must ask why not? I will clue you in bro. It’s not to be taken literally, like you may think. This is kindergarten Sunday level of doctrine bro. You can’t get any simpler or more basic than this, and yet, some people don’t get it. They also can’t figure out what “call no man father” means. Do not take the mark of the beast, when commanded to do so. 👍🤗
Really ? Do you disagree that is better for you to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire ?
Yes it is, so when will you slice off your hand? How many times do I have to tell you? Don’t interpret everything literally. How many times bro? How many times? I will NEVER, NEVER agree with your interpretations. I am pretty sure you can’t even understand what “call no man father” means. My son, who is now a US Air Force pilot, understood the concept perfectly, when he was 4 years old, yet, adults can’t grasp it. That’s disturbing bro, but I know why people can’t grasp it.
As I mentioned, kindergarten Sunday school class material bro. It doesn’t get any easier that that. If you can’t understand what “call no man father” means, how on earth are you going to stay out of that “ever lasting fire, you mentioned? It might be right difficult bro. DO NOT take the mark of the beast, when commanded to.
How about literally calling no man father?
Y’all need to relabel your priests.
And pope.
Oh my, where to begin? I don't think you are genuinely asking these questions in order to know the answer but more as a tit-for-tat rejoinder because your feelings are wounded by my earlier logical questions. I can show you from Scripture EVERY single thing you are claiming is a "later invention" or lacking explicit usage in Scripture - and these HAVE BEEN shown to you on other threads. Why should I spend time doing so again when it won't make any difference?
It's curious, though, that you are insisting on Scripture to prove what you probably imagine are Protestant novelties while you swallow whole whatever your religion declares is truth when there is no and never has been a Biblical basis for a dogma or doctrine. The development of doctrine is only valid when you guys do it? What I think is your real problem is you don't view Holy Scripture as the authority for the rule of the Christian faith. You don't believe that God has given us His word in a form that has been preserved for thousands of years so that we can know what HE has revealed about Himself, our purpose in life, how He wants us to live and to have assurance of our salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. And He has given us the indwelling Holy Spirit Who will lead us into all truth if we are open and honestly seeking to know it. It's only hard to understand Scripture if one is dull of hearing or is untaught, unstable or twisting them to their own destruction.
It’s not hard unless your church demands you do something that Jesus forbade and tells you you have to obey it over Jesus or risk your eternal salvation.
I choose option E, all of the above. 🙃 When people are willing victims of 1st Corinthians 2:14, it’s no surprise their false religions, are chock full of false doctrines. When they can’t even understand the absolute most simple concept in the Bible, “call no man father,” I would say they are in deep kimchi, and are men who face a dark and lonely grave. (Jamall Badry) False religionists have a bleak eternity facing them. And the kicker is, when you warn them, they laugh at you.
Unfortunately for false religionists, God will get the last laugh. Proverbs 1:26-28. Something tells me, it’s probably not a good thing, if God laughs at people, but it’s coming, just as sure as the day is long. It’s best to get your eternal destiny solved now, rather than waiting till one dies, to see if one goes to Heaven or not. That is a 99.9999%, virtual guarantee, that person will spend a long long time in the flames. Don’t do it.
...he typed; sneeringly.
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.