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.’”
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
The scriptures referenced in my reply to you answers your question sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction and for training..
It is also written, All have sinned and fall short of His Glory.
Yes, or no. If you please.
I am pleased to use scripture..
It’s the offensive sword that a believer has..
The bible says that God provided both Adam and Eve clothes from animal skins to clothe them.
A sign of an atoning animal sacrifice that was needed to atone for their transgressions..
Had they no sin, no animal skin and blood atonement would have been needed.
And had they not sinned, they would not have died that day.
To our knowledge, no one on earth has lived longer than 1 day.
Adam lived 930 years.
Because 1 day is as a 1,000 years, Adam did indeed die that day.
Just as God promised..
(genesis 2:17)
For in that day you eat of it, you shall surely die.
Were you heading towards Adam and his responsibilities and his Headship?
No.
What "premise of the doctrine" do you think "infers" (I believe you mean "implies") that? Jesus is a divine person , with a divine will which is perfectly in agreement with his human will. He was incapable of sin. Nothing in the dogma of the IC claims that Mary was incapable of sin.
Nothing in Scripture teaches that original sin is some sort of disease transmitted exclusively by fathers to their children. That may be your understanding, but the Bible doesn't require it.
Our understanding is that it's more like a failure to transmit grace and other gifts which, had the fall not occurred, would have been transmitted in the natural process of childbearing.
I don't understand why that's even controversial.
You don't believe your own Catechism?
One common source. . .
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age".41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium. Catechism of the Catholic Church
Duns Scotus was a guy. Oh, you play for the other team, got it.
C'mon! You don't really believe that, do you? There are a great many things we agree on.
Speaking as a former Catholic, now an Evangelical Protestant, can you please explain to me: Why would I reject the Catholic dogma about Mary's sinlessness if it were truly a divinely-revealed truth? We hold probably 90% of the same beliefs as Catholics and the Orthodox do. Why is it some Catholics insist it is because of a hatred of Mary and the Catholic church that "Protestants" disagree with them about the IC? I deeply admire, respect and love Mary and her courage and faith are a wonderful example for us all. I'm looking forward to getting to know her in Heaven.
All irrelevant to the lie that has been posted.
God saved her from falling into Original Sin & helping her avoid sin throughout her life. Thus God is her Savior.
These dogmas don’t appear out of thin air, btw. “New dogmas” are items the Church has always believed in, BUT were declared dogmas only after they came under attack by others.
Even the Orthodox Church has said virtually the same thing, but stopped a millimeter short of explicitly declaring it, but the language is all there.
Newman's condescension and condemnation are pretty blatant in the ending paragraph of the OP:
I've yet to see a Religion Forum thread - and I've been here since 2006 - on the subject of the Immaculate Conception that remained respectful. That's too bad.
No thanks to the protestants.
So we should just ignore the Scripture that states ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God? If Mary had to be conceived without sin in order to be the bearer of Jesus who had “no connection whatever, at any time, to sin.”, then why didn’t Mary’s mother also have to be conceived without sin? And her mother and her mother’s mother, etc.? Is it inconceivable that Jesus - who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin - could have been born of a regular human woman and remained sinless? He IS God with us. It’s not “shortchanging” Mary, it’s being consistent with Divine revelation.
Please speak for yourself, not "the majority of Catholics", because you don't.
I mention serpent seed as a symbol.
It’s a biological process though in the natural, but has a spiritual theme too.
Man’s sperm looks like a serpent.
Females egg looks earth like
Sperm is cast to the egg. And Conception occurs.
The bible appears to have 3 people that were not conceived that way.
Adam, dust from the ground
Eve, formed from the rib
Christ, Conceived of the Holy Spirit
Human flesh was to be eternal.
No corruption.
Until sin.
Then, the wages of sin is that human flesh is no longer eternal.
It’s got a shelf life..
All humanity has that flesh.
That flesh is sinful.
That’s the same flesh Mary had.
That’s the same flesh Christ had.
Christ now has Glorified, immortal, never to decay flesh after His death,burial and resurrection. He truly is First Fruits of all of those who have fallen asleep.
He is now also the High Priest
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin.
His Holy Divinity is incapable of being tempted. God can’t be tempted.For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone.”
So what was tempted?
It’s got to be His flesh was tempted.
The same flesh we all receive.
But again, with one thing different..
Our fathers seed vs. His Father’s Holy Spirit
That’s what I was trying to explain..
Christ either came in the flesh or not.
You may not feel like that’s what’s being discussed in John’s warning about Antichrist.
I read it differently.
And what’s really odd, is that it isn’t even a doctrine about Christ.
It’s about His Mother.
Who is not Divine.
It’s a confusing doctrine that travels down a path that I see as teaching that Mary and Christ were not born with the same sinful human flesh nature..
And if by itself, it wouldn’t be as alarming , but it is a doctrine that focused on Mary like the 15 Promises that this same Immaculately Conceived Mary was declaring.
And testing those 15 promises with scripture, and they are certainly not scriptural.
I look for the Immaculate Conception and there is one there.
Christ.
Conceived of the Holy Spirit
Mary.
Not so much.
I wouldn’t be the first to call the Papacy Antichrist.
It doesn’t help itself with Immaculate Conception of Mary, Mary’s 15 promises, false goddess frigg day as a substitute for Passover.
They set themselves to be at odds with the scriptures.
The scriptures is the only place for Truth.
His Word is Truth..
I don’t see Immaculate Conception of Mary in scripture.
I don’t see the 15 Promises of Mary in scripture.
I don’t see false goddess frigg day in scripture.
It’s almost like Christ’s prediction came true.
There were going to be False Christ’s.
And Paul warns about another Jesus and another gospel.
There may be another Mary added in.
Take care in this wilderness
I don't understand why that's even controversial.
What I don’t understand is, if this is such an all-important belief that Christians must accept, why God didn’t see fit to include it in His sacred word? I can show you in multiple places in Scripture that Jesus IS Almighty God incarnate (in the flesh) and He was sinless so that He could be the perfect, spotless sacrifice for the sins of the world. There’ zip about Mary being that. I would think it shouldn’t take twelve centuries for the church to finally get around to defining that dogma. Did Jesus teach His Apostles to believe it? Did the Apostles believe it? Did they teach others to believe it? No. That’s why I disagree with it. It has nothing to do with dishonoring Mary.
And what “lie” are you accusing me of?
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.