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.

[Iscool]

I see....so Jesus was born of a stained vessle?

It's like you guys don't understand why Jesus (God) became flesh...

[adiaireton8]

Two causes operate overdeterministically when either would bring about the effect, but only one or the other is sufficient to bring about the effect.

-A8

[Iscool]

Until Protestants can learn to contemplate Scriptures in a more fuller sense, trying to understand what God has said to us (the Bible is not only a historical book), they won't understand the doctrines of Mary, which are merely recognition of Mary's special place in salvation history that reflects on Christology and Ecclesiology.

Uh, you mean the bible doesn't say what we want it to say so we'll add and remove a bunch of stuff until we're happy with the results...

And we'll call it 'contemplating scripture in a fuller sense'...

Snake oil is still snake oil regardless of the packaging...

[Pyro7480]

Ah, that now "old" argument that you keep on trotting out.

[P-Marlowe]

I assume then that you are in agreement with nanette that you can veto God's choice? So if God chooses you, you can veto that choice?

Have either of you two ever read the story of Jonah?

Do either of you two believe that the story is literally and factually true?

[1000 silverlings]

see....so Jesus was born of a stained vessle?

Jesus' family line contains more than one stained vessel. That's what makes Him human.

[adiaireton8]

I assume then that you are in agreement with nanette that you can veto God's choice? So if God chooses you, you can veto that choice?

You're still thinking of God's choice and our choice in an overdeterministic manner, as if the two choices compete with each other. God does not make our choice for us, otherwise *we* would have *no* choice. God's eternal plan takes into account our choices. And so we cannot veto God's eternal plan, since our veto is included in that eternal plan. But we can reject God's offer of grace, and in that sense 'veto' God's choice.

As for Jonah, yes I've read it, and yes I believe it to be literally and factually true.

-A8

[Mad Dawg]

Jesus' family line contains more than one stained vessel. That's what makes Him human.It sounds like you are suggesting that it is sin which makes us human. Wouldn't that be a problem?

[P-Marlowe]

As for Jonah, yes I've read it, and yes I believe it to be literally and factually true.

God chose Jonah for a task which he refused to do. What happened to Jonah when Jonah tried to veto God's choice of him as a prophet to the Ninevites? Did God honor his free will choice?

BTW most Catholics that I have discussed this with on these threads seem to believe that the Jonah story was a fable or a parable.

Do you believe that God made the heavens and the earth and all that in them is in six days?

[Mad Dawg]

This article makes me uneasy. If we get done with all the us v. them stuff, I'd like to hear some opinions about it.

[P-Marlowe]

But we can reject God's offer of grace, and in that sense 'veto' God's choice.

If you reject God offer of grace, then you were never chosen.

You don't veto God's choice at that point, you ratify it!

[Mad Dawg]

Okay, I have a question. My recollection, an increasingly unreliable thing, is that if you call a thread "Caucus" then people ought not to come in and tangle. Did I just make that up out of my head or is that a real rule?<p..And if it isn't it should be, and if it IS, then we ought to use it more often. Sometimes it's probably good to sharpen our claws in each other on the big ol' questions, but a lot of the time we don't get to look into nuance because we're all busy with somebody who says that the people who disagree with him may be perfectly nice people but WOW are they wrong!

[LiteKeeper]

How about the fact that there is no Scirptural basis, and in fact, there is evidence to the contrary?

[Frank Sheed]

[P-Marlowe]

[Frank Sheed]

Nonetheless, it is a "humorous" non sequitur despite any contentions to the contrary!

[P-Marlowe]

Indeed, it was cute. I may even edit it "a bit" and use it later.

[Frank Sheed]

Two can Photoshop that game, Pilgrim!

;-o)

[P-Marlowe]

[nanetteclaret]

God chooses all of us or we would not have been created. We are the product of His love. He has given us free will so that we can choose to reject Him. He does not want us to love Him because we fear Him, but because He is Love itself. But He does say, "Not everyone who saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 Salvation is determined by us doing the will of the Father. We have a choice to do it or not.

Predestination is not Scriptural.

And I do believe the story of Jonah is literal. All Scripture is inspired by God and says exactly what He wants it to say.