Three Reasons the Church’s Enemies Hate The Immaculate Conception

TFP ^ | 12.08.06 | Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

[Coleus]

The following text is adapted from a lecture Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira gave on June 15, 1973.  It has been translated and edited for publication without his revision.  Note, in this text, he uses the words Revolution and Counter-Revolution as he defined them in his book Revolution and Counter-Revolution.  In this sense, the Revolution is a centuries-old process, motivated by pride and sensuality, and therefore egalitarianism and liberalism, that dominates the modern world and seeks to destroy Christian civilization.  Counter-Revolutionaries are those dedicated to defeating this process and defending the rights of God. –Ed.

…One of the truly Counter-Revolutionary acts of Pope Pius IX’s pontificate was the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception. 

There are three reasons the definition of this dogma was especially Counter-Revolutionary and therefore hateful to the enemies of the Church.  

First Reason: An Anti-Egalitarian Dogma
As you know, this dogma teaches that Our Lady was immaculate at her conception, meaning that, at no moment, did she have even the slightest stain of Original Sin. Both she, and naturally Our Lord Jesus Christ, were exempt from that rigid law that subjugates all other descendants of Adam and Eve.  Thus, Our Lady was not subject to the miseries of fallen man.  She did not have bad influences, inclinations and tendencies.  In her, everything moved harmonically towards truth, goodness and therefore God.  In this sense, Our Lady is an example of perfect liberty, meaning that everything her reason, illuminated by Faith, determined as good, her will desired entirely.  She had no interior obstacles to impede her practice of virtue.

Being “full of grace” increased these effects.  Thus, her will advanced with an unimaginable impetus towards everything that was true and good.  Declaring that a mere human creature had this extraordinary privilege makes this dogma fundamentally anti-egalitarian, because it points out an enormous inequality in the work of God.  It demonstrates the total superiority of Our Lady over all other beings.  Thus, its proclamation made Revolutionary egalitarian spirits boil with hatred.

Second Reason: The Unsullied Purity of Our Lady
However, there is a more profound reason why the Revolution hates this dogma.  The Revolution loves evil and is in harmony with those who are bad, and thus tries to find evil in everything.  On the contrary, those who are irreproachable are a cause of intense hatred.  Therefore, the idea that a being could be utterly spotless from the first moment of her existence is abhorrent to Revolutionaries.  For example: Imagine a man who is consumed with impurity.  When besieged by impure inclinations, he is ashamed of his consent to them.  This leaves him depressed and utterly devastated.

Imagine this man considering Our Lady, who, being the personification of transcendental purity, did not have even the least appetite for lust.  He feels hatred and scorn because her virtue smashes his pride.  Furthermore, by declaring Our Lady to be so free from pride, sensuality and the desire for anything Revolutionary, the proclamation of the Immaculate Conception affirmed that she was utterly Counter-Revolutionary.  This only inflamed the Revolutionary hatred of the dogma all the more.

Disputing the Doctrine: A Counter-Revolutionary Struggle

Declaring that Our Lady was so free from pride, sensuality and the desire for anything Revolutionary, affirmed that she was utterly Counter-Revolutionary and inflamed the Revolutionary hatred of the dogma all the more.

For centuries, there were two opposing currents of thought about the Immaculate Conception in the Church.  While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that everyone who fought against the doctrine was acting with Revolutionary intentions; it is a fact that all those who were acting with Revolutionary intentions fought against it.  On the other hand, all those who favored its proclamation, at least on that point, expressed a Counter-Revolutionary attitude. Thus, in some way the fight between the Revolution and Counter-Revolution was present in the fight between these two theological currents.

Third Reason:  The Exercise of Papal Infallibility
There is still another reason this dogma is hateful to Revolutionaries: it was the first dogma proclaimed through Papal Infallibility.  At that time, the dogma of Papal Infallibility had not yet been defined and there was a current in the Church maintaining that the Pope was only infallible when presiding over a council.  Nevertheless, Pius IX invoked Papal Infallibility when he defined the Immaculate Conception after merely consulting some theologians and bishops.   For liberal theologians, this seemed like circular reasoning.  If his infallibility had not been defined, how could he use it?  On the contrary, by using his infallibility, he affirmed that he had it.

This daring affirmation provoked an explosion of indignation among Revolutionaries, but enormous enthusiasm among Counter-Revolutionaries.  In praise of the new dogma, children all over the world were baptized under the name: Conception, Concepcion or Concepta to consecrate them to the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.

Pius IX: Bringing the Fight to the Enemy
It is not surprising that Pius IX so adamantly affirmed Papal Infallibility.  Very different from those who succeeded him, he was ever ready to bring the fight to the enemy.  He did this in Geneva, Switzerland, which then was the breeding ground of Calvinism, which is the most radical form of Protestantism.  When Swiss laws changed to allow a Catholic Cathedral in Geneva, Pius IX ordered that a statue of the Immaculate Conception be placed in the middle of the city, to proclaim this dogma in the place where Calvinists, Lutherans and other Protestants denied it more than anywhere else.  This is an example of Pius IX’s leadership in the fight against the Revolution. It is therefore entirely proper that all Catholics entertain a special affection for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which is so detested by the enemies of the Church today.

To read another commentary on the Immaculate Conception, click here.
To read Fr. Saint-Laurent's commentary on the Immaculate Conception, click here.
To order your free copy of a picture of Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, click here.

[trisham]

Can Protestants honestly say that they do this? Sure, many will pay lip service to her being a "great woman," etc. But in normal conversation how many of them have EVER referred to the Blessed Mother as "Blessed"?

*************

I don't know. I doubt it.

Our reverence for the Blessed Mother may perhaps best be understood by our Protestant friends from this:

"Mary - "Blessed is she who believed"

148 The Virgin Mary most perfectly embodies the obedience of faith. By faith Mary welcomes the tidings and promise brought by the angel Gabriel, believing that "with God nothing will be impossible" and so giving her assent: "Behold I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."12 Elizabeth greeted her: "Blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord."13 It is for this faith that all generations have called Mary blessed.14

149 Throughout her life and until her last ordeal 15 when Jesus her son died on the cross, Mary's faith never wavered. She never ceased to believe in the fulfilment of God's word. and so the Church venerates in Mary the purest realization of faith."

From The Holy See:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PV.HTM

[Campion]

If we follow False doctrine the we are following someone or something other than Christ and commit spiritual fornication.

So, since you reject original sin, is it okay with you if I consider you to be a spiritual fornicator?

[P-Marlowe]

It is a judgment call. As I said, this article pushes the envelope. But the source website's focus does not seem to be mongering hatred. Nevertheless, it is on my radar now.

Why is Jack Chick's website considered a Hate Site and a web site that would post this article would not be so considered?

This is as bad as anything Jack Chick puts out. FWIW, Jack Chick's website is dedicated to bringing people to Jesus and Jesus alone. Now his methods may be suspect, but there are a number of articles and tracts on that site that have nothing to do with bashing the Catholic Church. Further, Chick's catholic bashing is primarily aimed at the Catholic Church itself and not against the individual members.

I don't think you can say the same for the focus of this article. It essentially calls everyone who dares to criticize the idea of the Immaculate Conception as "lovers of evil and in harmony with those who are bad, and who try to find evil in everything."

I did note that there is not so much as a stitch of scripture in this article. Just a lot of venom.

[Jaded]

You must not have seen last weekend's threads.

[bremenboy]

So, since you reject original sin, is it okay with you if I consider you to be a spiritual fornicator?

Yes. You can consider me anything you like If You must. 1Pe 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

Jud 1:10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Neither the later Luther nor Calvin believed in Mary's bodily assumption into heaven nor in any immaculate conception concering Mary's own birth. Both held cursory opinions on the continued chastity of Mary which were discarded, for all intents and purpose, as they matured in the faith. Regardless, a belief in Mary's continued chastity after marriage does not require a mystical, supernatural act of God to support it, which is inherent in the fabricated, non-Scriptural beliefs that Mary rose into heaven bodily and that she herself was born without sin.

Keep your eye on Jesus Christ.

A "ROMAN CATHOLIC" MARTIN LUTHER QUIZ

"While retaining a belief in perpetual virginity, Luther did so in undogmatic terms, making sure that Mary was not to be deified for such an attribute. He implied in the Table Talk that it was Mary’s choice to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ, rather than her continued virginity being a miraculous gift from God.

However, Luther did not hold a lifelong belief in Mary’s immaculate conception. The Quote above from Luther’s "Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God” was brought to cyber-space via Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. A Catholic apologist quoted Luther from Grisar’s book and disregarded both the historical context of Luther’s writings, as well as Grisar’s explanation of the quote. If one looks up the reference, Grisar states, “The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.” The reason for their disappearance is that as Luther’s Christo-centric theology developed, aspects of Luther’s Mariology were abandoned. Grisar recognizes this. In regards to this Luther quote, Grisar says, “As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.”

In regard to Therese’s Calvin quote, it really isn’t certain that Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. A few quotes from Calvin have been used by Catholics to prove his adherence to it, yet a close reading of the quotes doesn’t really prove anything definitively. Calvin’s main point in his comment on Matthew 1:25 is that the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. Calvin calls it “folly” at one point, when describing those who wish to make a text say more than it does. Those who would make a necessary inference where the Gospel writer has only made a possible inference engage in folly (according to Calvin). So it can’t really be concluded that Calvin is teaching here Mary’s perpetual virginity, it sounds to me as if Calvin is simply being careful. While I myself would make a possible inference from these passages that Mary had other children, It cannot be concluded that Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, or her “sinlessness”, only that Calvin held the gospel writer does not explicitly say, one way or the other. Interestingly, this conclusion was reached similarly by William Bouwsma in his book, John Calvin: A 16th Century Portrait. He says in a footnote on p.275, "Among matters on which (Calvin) discouraged speculation were the order of angels and the perpetual virginity of Mary."

[blue-duncan]

And we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

I won't mention the blessing of the bread here.

[trisham]

I did note that there is not so much as a stitch of scripture in this article.Just a lot of venom.

************

And? There's no venom on the part of some of the Protestants on this and other Catholic threads? I rarely visit the Protestant threads, because I do not believe. I choose not to ridicule, bait or insult other's beliefs. I don't see much in the way of restraint from some Protestants toward we Catholics, however.

[bremenboy]

the Doctrine of Original sin is false How do you know that?

Think if a man and his wife become Christians and have a child were would the orgianl sin come from if from Adam then the Blood of Christ dosen't take a way all sin. Do you belive that the Blood of Christ takes a way all sin?

[DogwoodSouth]

"where is that veres" (sic)

With all due respect, the verse referred to is Luke 1:28, the angelic salutation given to Mary. Aside from the importance of the Greek kecharitomene (aforementioned and examined in a previous post), I'd also point out Gabriel's use of the word word translated into Greek as "chaire." This word, translated into Latin as "ave," is no ordinary greeting, but instead indicates the exalted status of the recipient. When the archangel greeted Mary with this word, it was on par, to the earliest audience of Luke's gospel, with the imperial salute "Ave Caesar!" reserved only for the emperor of the Roman Empire. The only other times this term is used in the whole of the New Testament is once when Judas greets his Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane and four times when our Lord was greeted in mocking solemnity by the Roman soldiers immediately before the crucifixion.

So, the greeting (chaire) is nearly as important as the name (kecharitomene) when attempting to understand the important tenets of faith contained therein.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Mary - "Blessed is she who believed"

All believers have been blessed by God.

[trisham]

Yes. So they have been.

[jo kus]

At the very least, one would think that those who don't adhere to these doctrines, would have a "live and let live attitude"

you responded: While I am aware of the long history of the Catholic Church and there Live and Let Live attitude

WHO are you addressing? I never made the above comments...

what you fail to understand is that before you can prove Immaculate Conception. You Must first prove original sin. which is another false doctrine.

I don't have to prove any such thing. The Immaculate Conception doesn't require that idea. The doctrine of original sin merely delayed the doctrine's definition as the Church figured out how the two co-existed.

What you fail to understand is that NOWHERE does the Scripture give warrant for people to leave the Church or reject God's prophets and apostles because "they are wrong and I'm right". Yet, there you stand, proud in your condescending attitude that proclaims all the incorrect doctrines of Catholicism without giving any explanation. Apparently, this is all based on your superior wisdom and knowledge of God and Sacred Scriptures, something that has apparently alluded the Church for 2000 years...

Regards

[Running On Empty]

I agree. And some non-Catholic posters particularly come to mind in this regard. The ones who I am thinking of have posted some really strong stuff and because it was suppposedly "not ad hominem", their posts were not cited.
Those posts were no different in tone or substance from this one that is the object of complaints.

[trisham]

The ones who I am thinking of have posted some really strong stuff and because it was suppposedly "not ad hominem", their posts were not cited.

************

Some are here searching, some are here proselytizing, some are here to cause a commotion. Some are in fear of what they do not understand. The last two groups can be disruptive, and have made some very disturbing posts.

[wagglebee]

While retaining a belief in perpetual virginity, Luther did so in undogmatic terms, making sure that Mary was not to be deified for such an attribute. He implied in the Table Talk that it was Mary’s choice to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ, rather than her continued virginity being a miraculous gift from God.

The Church has NEVER sought to deify the Blessed Virgin. I agree that she could have chosen not to remain a virgin, she had free will. And as I have noted multiple times on other threads, modern Lutheran teachings regarding Mary are far more similar to Catholicism's teachings than they are to those of other Protestant denominations.

[netmilsmom]

We went a whole 5 posts on this one.

[P-Marlowe]

And? There's no venom on the part of some of the Protestants on this and other Catholic threads?

Perhaps you could point some out. I see a lot of criticixm of Catholic Dogma, but little in the way of personal attacks or attacks on the character of those who hold to those doctrines. I dare say that many here take any criticism of the Catholic Church or their doctines or dogmas as an insult to their intelligence or an insult to them personally. Well I can't help that. I don't think I would call anyone who believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as "evil" as the author of this screed has called all who criticize it. I would simply point out that there is no scriptural basis for it and there is no contemporary evidence of it being taught for about 300 years after Pentecost.

If it were central to the gospel message, then it would be in scripture. If it were taught as doctrine in the first century, then we would expect to see evidence of that fact. The best that can be said is that there may have been rumors of the Immaculate Conception sometime after all the Apostles were dead but it was never taught by them.

Now if that is "venom" to you, then I'd suggest you buy some anti-venom at the pet store and try to avoid any serious discussions of religious doctine in the future. If it is not venom, then perhaps you can point all of us to an example of what you consider venom. I find that most of the Protestant posters are quite congenial when discussing these matters. Show me where I am wrong.

[trisham]

With all due respect, I haven't the time to go back and mine all of the Catholic threads I have been on for your edification. I'm sure the Admin Moderator is well aware of some of the ugliness that has taken place, however.

May I suggest that if Protestants want to visit these threads they are welcome, but insulting or jeering at our faith is not.

[P-Marlowe]

You must not have seen last weekend's threads.

I was intimately involved in them.

I don't think I saw much in the way of "venom" from either side. There was a lot of heated debate on the meanings of words and the authority of the Catholic Church and the usual disagreements, but most of them were cordial and any ribbing was mostly done in jest (from both sides).