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.

[wagglebee]

What would the reaction of Protestants be if Catholic ping list holders picked a Protestant thread and the entire thread 1000+ posts over several days was consumed with Catholics arguing that sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. was totally wrong and heretical? What would the reaction be even if this had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the general topic of the thread? And if such a thread exists, could you please provide a link?

[Religion Moderator]

For an explanation of the guideline concerning open/closed threads, when challenges and ridicule are allowed/disallowed, see post 344 on this other thread.

[P-Marlowe]

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

The article is a direct insult to all who do not believe in the Catholic Church's doctrine on the "Immacualte Conception". So you Catholics are free to call Protestants all manner of names including, "lovers of evil and in harmony with those who are bad, and who try to find evil in everything" and we're just supposed to sit idly by and take it?

This is not the Catholic Forum, it is the Religion Forum. If you want to avoid seeing any criticism of Catholicism, I'd suggest you find another forum. There are plenty of Catholic only forums out there where you can call us protestants every name in the book and we won't respond. But when you do it on an open forum, it is an open invitation to respond.

[trisham]

Good question. As I've said before, I rarely visit the "Protestant" threads, except to read. I have posted a few times in the past, but most of my time is spent on "Catholic" threads.

I would probably, in the words of my mother in law, "take the gas pipe" if I had to moderate here. :)

[wagglebee]

I would be inclined to say that the "venom" on any of these threads is fairly minimal. There are two or three individuals who seem more prone to it than others. And I know that there have been a few times out of frustration that I have said things that in retrospect I shouldn't have, and I suspect that others have done the same.

I do know for me personally, that several of the Protestants I argue with on here are people who I greatly respect and interact often with on other threads (generally pertaining to morality and pro-life) without any disagreement. There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION IN MY MIND of any Protestant's love for and devotion to our Lord and as long as they feel likewise about me, then I have no personal issue with any of them.

[trisham]

I'm afraid you have misunderstood me. No problem.

[trisham]

I do know for me personally, that several of the Protestants I argue with on here are people who I greatly respect and interact often with on other threads (generally pertaining to morality and pro-life) without any disagreement. There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION IN MY MIND of any Protestant's love for and devotion to our Lord and as long as they feel likewise about me, then I have no personal issue with any of them.

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

Amen. Well said.

[Religion Moderator]

I am more concerned with patterns than individual cases, whether sources or posters (everyone can a bad day now and again.)

For instance, if a website has a few hateful articles that speaks poorly of the website - but the website itself is not on my "do not allow" list. However, if the website has a pattern of hateful articles, then I will not tolerate it here.

So if you believe tfp.org should be treated the same as chick.com - then convince me by a preponderance of evidence that tfp.org is a hate mongering website/organization.

[nanetteclaret]

***We know from Scripture that Jesus did not sin. The same can not be said for Mary.***

This is untrue, since nowhere in Scripture does it state that Mary sinned.

[adiaireton8]

So you think that the doctrine of original sin is false because you think that where both parents are Christians, the blood of Christ removes all sin (including original sin) from the parents, and therefore there would be no cause of the original sin in their child.

If through the blood of Christ we are in this life perfectly restored to the pre-Fall state, do you think all Christians should, at least when only around other baptized Christians, and when the temperature is sufficiently warm, like Adam and Eve not wear any clothes?

The Church teaches that although baptism removes original sin, it does not remove concupiscence, i.e. the disordered desire by which we have a disposition or inclination to sin. The Church also teaches that the manner in which original sin is propagated is a mystery. Concupiscence in the [biological] parents, however, is sufficient for there being original sin in the offspring, even if both parents have been baptized and so have been cleansed of original sin. This is part of the reason why Mary had to be kept pure not only from original sin, but also from concupiscence, by means of her immaculate conception. For if she had been tainted by original sin, then even if she had, say, received a Christian baptism prior to conceiving Christ, concupiscence would have remained in her, and original sin thereby transmitted to her offspring.

-A8

[jkl1122]

Did I say that the Bible said that Mary sinned? No, I said that we can't know from Scripture that she did not sin.

[P-Marlowe]

What would the reaction of Protestants be if Catholic ping list holders picked a Protestant thread and the entire thread 1000+ posts over several days was consumed with Catholics arguing that sola scriptura, sola fide, etc. was totally wrong and heretical?

Quite frankly I don't think I've seen more than a couple of protestant threads in the last few months where that has not happened. Nearly every Protestant Thread is eventually visited by the Catholic Swarm at some point and then the thread devolves into another mostly catholic thread. Then after the Catholics hijack the thread, they complain that it is the protestants who are attempting to hijack the thread.

It is a viscious circle. But we don't complain. We welcome the Catholic Swarm.

[P-Marlowe]

the website itself is not on my "do not allow" list.

Are you speaking of the Jack Chick website?

[wagglebee]

I'm not referring to a thread that is titled in such a way as to at least peak Catholic curiosity. I mean a thread that seems totally innocuous

[DogwoodSouth]

"...I said that we can't know from Scripture that she did not sin."

Exactly. And in the same fashion, we cannot know from Scripture that Mary sinned. So on a matter of faith such as this, where the Scriptural record is ambiguous (although, as I've pointed out in previous posts, if anything, the wording of the Scriptures seem to indicate Mary's sinlessness), surely we Catholics cannot be criticized for accepting the long-held view of the Church, the defender of the Apostolic faith and the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," right?

[Religion Moderator]

No, I'm speaking of a hypothetical website. Tfp.org (the source of this article) would be an example.

Does this article accurate represent the pattern of behavior at tfp.org? I don't think so, but feel free to convince me.

Another example might be the website of a church which has a copy of the fabricated oath often attributed to the Knights of Columbus. That they have one hateful page does not mean the church itself is a hate monger, they could be misinformed on that particular point but otherwise not hateful.

Jack Chick's website (like Jesus-is-Lord.com) has a pattern of hateful articles and thus I have disallowed it.

[Religion Moderator]

There are two kinds of threads on the Religion Forum: open and closed.

Open threads are like a town square. All beliefs are to be treated with an even hand. Challenges, ridicule and the like are allowed - providing the discussion does not turn personal.

Closed threads are like the closed door of a chapel or church. The assembly is not to be disturbed, and I will remove challenges, ridicule and the like. Devotionals and prayer threads are closed.

But there is a third type of closed thread which can be declared for a gathering of like minded believers, a caucus. Caucuses may be used to discuss liturgy, missions, business, theology. But a caucus must never be "anti-" another confession either in the article or in the replies. If that happens, the thread will be open to rebuttal.

By its title alone, this thread would have never qualified for a caucus. Rebuttals are always allowed when a thread contains assertions which are "anti" any other confession.

[P-Marlowe]

This is untrue, since nowhere in Scripture does it state that Mary sinned.

Is she numbered among the "all" in Romans 3:23? Is she numbered among the "all" in 1 Tim 2:4 or 2 Pet 3:9?

Romans 3:23 states that "all" have fallen short of the Glory of God. Since Christ is God he would be exempt. But Mary is not God. Thus she would have to be considered to have both sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

When Paul wrote this he was undoubtedly aware of Mary's position, so if he felt that she was exempt, he would not have said "all" without exception, he would have said all have fallen short of the Glory of God and the Glory of Mary.

[wagglebee]

That they have one hateful page does not mean the church itself is a hate monger, they could be misinformed on that particular point but otherwise not hateful.

Just to clarify, the Catholic Church has NO AFFILIATION with this website.

[nanetteclaret]

I was Presbyterian once, too. Our Blessed Mother led me home last year (after an almost 20 year detour in the Episcopal church).

I will say that the Presbyterian church gave me an excellent grounding in Bible study. (Except for the Bible verse explanations which didn't make any sense.)

:)