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.’”

[boatbums]

Scripture identifies Jesus as the “son of Mary” and also as the “Son of God”. Does that confuse you even more? Like I said, you need to learn more about the Holy Trinity.

Yes, Jesus is the son of Mary and He is God incarnate - He took on human flesh at a specific time and place - but He is eternal and has ALWAYS existed. Mary is the "God bearer" (theotokos). Metmom certainly has no confusion about the Holy Trinity. Catholicism, on the other hand, has a warped understanding of it which is why they view Mary as if she is like God with the power to save them and is worthy of their veneration and devotion to her more than to Jesus. You are going beyond what is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Just because we disagree with you about the titles and veneration given to Mary it doesn't mean we are "confused" about the Holy Trinity. In fact, I believe we have a better grasp of this major tenet of the faith than most Catholics do.

QUESTION

Is Mary the mother of God (Theotokos)?

ANSWER

The phrase mother of God traces back to the third century and continues to be used in some liturgical churches, including the Roman Catholic Church. One of the topics at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 was the use of the Greek term Theotókos (literally, “God-bearer” or “the one who gives birth to God”) in reference to Mary. That council’s use of Theotokos was meant to counter the heresy of Nestorianism, which cleaved the nature and person of Christ in two: Christ’s human and divine natures were completely divergent and unconnected. According to Nestorius, Mary gave birth to Christ but not to God; Mary was the mother of His humanity, which was totally distinct from His divinity—Jesus was two persons sharing one body, essentially. The Council of Ephesus affirmed the full deity of Christ and unity of His person by saying that Mary did indeed bear God in her womb. Mary is the “mother of God” in the sense that, since Jesus is God and Mary is the mother of Jesus, she is the mother of God. The Word became flesh (John 1:14), and Mary mothered Him.

We should distinguish the term Theotokos from mother of God, because there is a subtle yet important difference. The term mother of God could be taken wrongly as implying that Mary was the source or originator of God, similar to how Juno was the mother of Vulcan in Roman mythology. Of course, Christianity teaches that God is eternal and that Jesus Christ has a pre-existent, divine nature. The idea that Mary is the mother of God in the sense that she was the source of God or somehow predated God or is herself part of the Godhead is patently unbiblical.

The term Theotokos, on the other hand, is more specific and less open to being misconstrued. Theotokos simply implies that Mary carried God in her womb and gave birth to Him. Mary was the human agent through whom the eternal Son of God took on a human body and a human nature and entered the world. The term Theotokos was a succinct expression of the biblical teaching of the Incarnation, and that is how the Council of Ephesus used the word. Mary is the “God-bearer” in that within her body the divine person of God the Son took on human nature in addition to His pre-existing divine nature. Since Jesus is fully God and fully man, it is correct to say that Mary “bore” God.

Even though the term Theotokos was originally used to help explain the Incarnation, many people today use the term, or the related mother of God, to communicate something different. Through the years, many legends accumulated around the person of Mary, and she became an object of worship in her own right. About 350 years after the Council of Ephesus used the term Theotokos in reference to Mary, the Second Council of Nicaea declared, “We honor and salute and reverently venerate . . . the image of . . . our spotless Lady the all-holy mother of God.” This shows the trend within the Roman Church to move from a focus on the Incarnation of God to a veneration of the “Mother of God,” even to the point of honoring her images and praying to her as the “Queen of Heaven,” “Benefactress,” and “Mediatrix.” The necessity of such veneration is not implied by the term Theotokos, but some people wrongly infer it.

Roman Catholic leaders teach their followers to go to Mary to find help in their time of need: “From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of ‘Mother of God,’ to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 9, Paragraph 6, 971). The Eastern churches still use the term Theotokos, and they sing hymns called theotokia to Mary. This portion of a theotokion is from the liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church: “You are the pride of virgins, O Mary the Theotokos. / You are the soul’s city, where the Most High lived, who sits upon the throne, of the Cherubim. . . . / O Virgin Mary, the holy Mother of God, the trusted advocate, of the human race. / Intercede on our behalf, before Christ whom you have born, that He may grant unto us, the forgiveness of our sins” (from The Friday Theotokia – Watos).

These views of Mary represent a theological shift away from Christ as our sole Redeemer and Intercessor (1 Timothy 2:5) and an overemphasis on Mary as the “Mother of God.” (https://www.gotquestions.org/Mary-mother-God-theotokos.html)

[boatbums]

I reject sola scriptura. So I’m not about to use sola scriptura as a defense.

I reject the thought that you know what that term even means. I know it's been explained hundreds of times to you over the years, but it doesn't seem to have registered in your memory bank. Tell me, does God-breathed Holy Scripture not have the highest authority over matters of the Christian faith?

[Mark17]

You know BB, I left the Catholic Church many decades ago, and have been a born again Christian for that long. I don’t recall ever hearing the term solo scriptura. As far as I can remember, the first time I ever heard the term, sola Scriptura, was here on Free Republic. I am still not positive of what it means. What I THINK it means, is that I don’t accept anything else except the Bible, as a legitimate authority. If that is the definition of sola scriptura, then I accept that. Does this mean, that the writings of people like Clarence Larkin, Spurgeon, Donald Gray Barnhouse, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Hal Lindsey, Chuck Smiyh and Chuck Missler, are no good? No. It simply means, we compare whatever they say, to the written word of God. 😀😂

[Mark17]

Israel is male, men do not give birth to children, women give birth to children.

First, let me say, I definitely believe the woman in Revelation, to be Israel. Israel contains men and women. Israel is not just male. There are plenty of women in Israel. Now, using your logic. The bride of Christ. Since a bride is always a female, does this mean that men will be excluded from the bride of Christ, since brides are females? I think not. The woman of Revelation, is Israel. And another thing, how can Mary give birth anymore, since she has been dead for a long time. If a woman, who has been dead for 2,000 years, gives birth, it would surely be a first.

[metmom]

If you understand God, you have WAY too small a God.

You need a way bigger one.

[Elsie]

Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with the logic here:

It appears that your answer is, "No."

[Elsie]

You have just confirmed by belief that you cannot comprehend the Holy Trinity.

You have shown, by example, that you can not find error in the logic of her statements.

[Elsie]

Simply saying”You’re wrong” is no argument at all.

Apparently they learn this response in catechism classes.

[Elsie]

Elizabeth’s salutation to Mary refers to Her as being both blessed and a mother.

So?

Is this supposed to be an explanation of why her logic is wrong?

[Elsie]

Rather, you are denying Christ’s divinity by rejecting Her title as “Mother of God”.

Nope. We REJECT Romes 'authority' to create such a 'title' in light of what Rome has recorded in the book she assembled - so long ago.

---

You have nothing to support your contention or position in Scripture.

Isn't it funny how this sounds when coming from a Catholic!!

[Elsie]

Mom; "'Tis a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human Catholic heart."

(Sorry Evertt...)

[Elsie]

Get back to me when you do.

I do understand!!

[Elsie]

Scripture identifies Jesus as the “son of Mary” and also as the “Son of God”.

And Rome takes a few of these words, adds Mother to them, and comes up with "Mother of GOD"

[Elsie]

Like I said, you need to learn more about the Holy Trinity.

I want to learn!!

Please, please, PLEASE!!!

Teach me!

And, while you are at it, teach me more about Mary's special powers that Rome has found out about.

[Elsie]

So I’m not about to use sola scriptura as a defense.

But surely there MUST be SOMETHING in the Book that Rome assembled that can at least lend a little support for all of your assertions; right?

[Elsie]

The Magnificat is beautiful in its revealing of Mary's submission to God's purpose.

Submission?

She may as well; for the angel told her flat out what WAS going to happen!

He(it?) didn't wait around to see if she was on board with the alarming news.

---

Luke 1:26-38  Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

^{26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shalt come upon thee, and the power of the most High shalt overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shalt be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shalt be impossible with God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.}

---

---

(shall / shalt is NOT 'asking' Mary if she'll do something for GOD)

This is not CONSENTING, as the angel TOLD her what WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. 

What Mary said after that fact had NO influence on what WAS going to take place!

[Elsie]

This shows the trend within the Roman Church to move from a focus on the Incarnation of God
to a veneration of the “Mother of God,” even to the point of honoring her images
and praying to her as the “Queen of Heaven,” “Benefactress,” and “Mediatrix.”

 

 

 

---

---

 

The way it's written:

 

Galatians 4:4-5

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, ⁵ to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

 

 

 

The way Rome teaches it:

 

Galatians 4:4-5

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a....

 

Co-Redemptrix, 
Ark of the Covenant,

Beloved daughter of the Father,
Favoured Daughter of the Father,

Cause of Our Joy,

Cause of our Salvation,
Comfort of the Afflicted,
Destroyer of Heresy,
Ever-virgin ,
Gate of Heaven,
God-bearer,

Great Mother,
Health of the Sick,

Heavenly Chariot,
Help of Christians,
Holy Mary,
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of Virgins,
House of Gold,
Joy of the Just,
Majesty,
Mirror of Justice,
Morning Star,
Most Holy,
Mother Admirable,
Mother Inviolate,
Mother Most Amiable,
Mother Most Chaste,
Mother Most Pure,
Mother of Christ,
Mother of Divine Grace,
Mother of God,
Mother of Good Counsel,
Mother of Mercy,
Mother of Orphans,
Mother of Our Creator,
Mother of Our Redeemer,
Mother of Sorrows,
Mother of the Church,
Mother of the Poor,
Mother of the Word,

Mother of the Word Incarnate,
Mother Thrice Admirable,
Mother Undefiled,
Mystical Rose,
Nova Eva (the New Eve),
Our Lady of Compassion,
Our Lady of Confidence,
Our Lady of Victory,
Our Lady, Star of the Sea,
Our Mother of Perpetual Help,
Queen Assumed Into Heaven,
Queen Conceived Without Original Sin,
Queen of All Saints,
Queen of Angels,
Queen of Apostles,
Queen of Confessors,
Queen of Families,
Queen of Heaven,
Queen of Martyrs,
Queen of Patriarchs,
Queen of Peace,
Queen of Prophets,
Queen of the Most Holy Rosary,
Queen of Virgins,
Ravisher of Hearts,
Refuge of Sinners,

Resplendant car,
Seat of Wisdom,
She Who Shows the Way,
Singular Vessel of Devotion,
Spiritual Vessel,

Spouse of the Holy Spirit,

Sovereign Mistress of the Angels, 
Tabernacle of the Lord,

Temple of the Holy Spirit,
Temple of the Most Holy Trinity,
Throne of Wisdom,
Tower of David,
Tower of Ivory,
Treasure House of God's Graces,
Untier of Knots,
Vessel of Honor,
Virgin God-bearer,
Virgin Most Faithful,
Virgin Most Merciful,
Virgin Most Powerful,
Virgin Most Prudent,
Virgin Most Renowned,
Virgin Most Venerable

Virgin of virgins,                           born under the law, ⁵ to HELP redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship; sooner or later; and not spend TOO much time in Purgatory.

 

 

 

[Mark17]

Apparently they learn this response in catechism classes.

It’s been so long since I went to catechism class. Since I didn’t like being in catechism class, to begin with, I don’t know if we were taught that. I didn’t pay enough attention, to know for sure. 😀😄😁🙃😊

[Elsie]

 

 

 

 

...move from a focus on the Incarnation of God to a veneration of the “Mother of God,” ...

(Note the largest central statue here)

 

https://www.themarianroom.com/the-ready-assistance-of-mary/

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

This expresses, with Scriptural back up, that Our Lady stood at the Cross. 

 

https://www.themarianroom.com/the-virgin-mary-tower-of-ivory/

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Thou shalt despair not, Oh Forgetful One,
that these threads still need some fun.
Well-taught catechisms,
leads to no religious schisms.
Obey not Mary, but the Son.