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.’”
I have a different because:
Luke 11:53-54As he said these things to them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to be terribly angry, and to draw many things out of him; lying in wait for him, and seeking to catch him in something he might say, that they might accuse him.
Elisha smote the water and Moses smote the rock.
Which came first?
So Elijah’s spirit did not go with him to heaven?
Hmmmm
Revelation 12 And a great sign was seen in the heaven, a woman arrayed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars,
2 and being with child she doth cry out, travailing and pained to bring forth.
3 And there was seen another sign in the heaven, and, lo, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his head seven diadems,
4 and his tail doth draw the third of the stars of the heaven, and he did cast them to the earth; and the dragon did stand before the woman who is about to bring forth, that when she may bring forth, her child he may devour;
5 and she brought forth a male child, who is about to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, and caught away was her child unto God and His throne,
6 and the woman did flee to the wilderness, where she hath a place made ready from God, that there they may nourish her -- days a thousand, two hundred, sixty
. 7 And there came war in the heaven; Michael and his messengers did war against the dragon, and the dragon did war, and his messengers,
8 and they did not prevail, nor was their place found any more in the heaven;
9 and the great dragon was cast forth -- the old serpent, who is called `Devil,' and `the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world -- he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.
10 And I heard a great voice saying in the heaven, `Now did come the salvation, and the power, and the reign, of our God, and the authority of His Christ, because cast down was the accuser of our brethren, who is accusing them before our God day and night;
11 and they did overcome him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life -- unto death;
12 because of this be glad, ye heavens, and those in them who do tabernacle; woe to those inhabiting the land and the sea, because the Devil did go down unto you, having great wrath, having known that he hath little time.'
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast forth to the earth, he pursued the woman who did bring forth the male,
14 and there were given to the woman two wings of the great eagle, that she may fly to the wilderness, to her place, where she is nourished a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent;
15 and the serpent did cast forth after the woman, out of his mouth, water as a river, that he may cause her to be carried away by the river,
16 and the land did help the woman, and the land did open its mouth and did swallow up the river, that the dragon did cast forth out of his mouth;
17 and the dragon was angry against the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, those keeping the commands of God, and having the testimony of Jesus Christ.
The scene is stretching from the time of God taking Israel as His wife to the time during the Tribulation when satan is so angry at Israel for bringing forth the Messiah, and satan tries to kill Israel but God supernaturally protects her to the end of the Tribulation. Have you never read the twelfth chapter of The Revelation? If the imagery is of Mary where are the following attacks on Israel to be placed in your mythos?
As you are probably aware, I disagree with 99% of Catholic positions. That’s just the way it is bro. It’s not likely to change, in the next 3 trillion eons. 😄 I don’t even know if we have the same Jesus. Remember, it’s not enough to have faith in Jesus. We must have faith in the RIGHT Jesus. I know I do, though I don’t know if you do. Call no man father bro, and worship the RIGHT Jesus.
Wow, Catholicism will cherry pick and twist any Scripture to deify Mary.
If the woman in Revelation is Mary, then the reference to “the rest of her seed” means that she was not perpetually a virgin as she had other children.
That's B.S.
[26] When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
You guys just have to go out your way to denigrate the Blessed Mother.
When I was a Catholic, back in the Jurassic period, I was so ignorant, I didn’t even know there was such a thing, as the book of Revelation, so I never heard of any of this stuff, but the woman of Revelation 12, is Israel, not Mary. Mary has been dead, for 2,000 years, how on earth could she be in future events? Answer: she’s not. Mary has never heard any prayer, from anyone and she never will. She would be mortified if she knew some religions had turned her into a demi goddess, and all her apparitions, are fallen angels, masquerading as Mary.
Show us where in Scripture the term “Blessed Mother” is found.
Show us where anything besides “mother of Jesus”, “mother of my Lord”, or “woman”, is used as an identifier for Mary.
Show us where in Scripture is "sola scriptura".
Do you deny Jesus is God? If not, "mother of Jesus" = Mother of God.
Good point MM. We all know, Mary and Joseph did the evil deed. They had sexual relations. Oh, the horror of horrors. They probably enjoyed sex. I guess it means Mary was not ever virgin. 😂 I don’t know, but I wonder if this Demi goddess status of Mary, was related to the vestal virgins? Also, if I am not mistaken, wasn’t the Babylonian captivity, the punishment, for worshipping the queen of heaven? I don’t know what they called her then, but they call her Mary now. 😀😁
Then if Mary is the mother of God, she’s also the mother of God the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.
They too are God, are they not?
Yup, God punished the Jews for worshipping the queen of heaven and clearly some people never learn from history.
You have a very poor understanding of the Holy Trinity.
Most protestants do, however.
he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son.
or...
After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother.
Are any of your insults getting any traction?
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.