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.

[Northern Yankee]

Thanks for the ping, Jay

Tis my honor!

[Mad Dawg]

Thanks.

[Mad Dawg]

He was born in a manger. It doesn't get more unclean than that.

Speaking as former live-stock farmer, I can say that ain't so. Nice clean hay is very clean. And that's what you put in a manger.

sheesh!

[JohnnyM]

Here is what I dont understand. The argument is made that Mary needed to be pure/clean in order for her to give birth to Jesus, therefore she had to be immaculately conceived. Meaning she was born to an unclean, sinful mother, but, by the grace of God, was born without the stain of original sin. Why then could God not do this with Jesus? Why take this extra, unnecessary step?

JM

[G Larry]

Mary is not just some incidental member of Christ's family line. She carried Christ in her womb for 9 months!

You clowns would be just as happy if Mary was a prostitute, your hatered is so vile!

[Frumanchu]

Hijacked? It's hijacking a thread to respond when someone claims you're an "enemy of the church" and hate something?

Sorry we're not willing to let such garbage go unanswered.

[G Larry]

No, it's like "you guys" are so blinded by hatered of Mary, that you never miss a chance to belittle her.

You clowns think "full of grace" means Mary was 'kinda nice'.

[DungeonMaster]

But, cooperating with your insistence on adhering to Sola Scriptura (an unbiblical doctrine in and of itself, I might add),

Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Therefore...if it is not in the scriptures...it is not so. Also known as sola scriptura.

Time for a tagline change.

[Frank Sheed]

Here is what I dont understand. The argument is made that Mary needed to be pure/clean in order for her to give birth to Jesus, therefore she had to be immaculately conceived. Meaning she was born to an unclean, sinful mother, but, by the grace of God, was born without the stain of original sin.

Okay so far...

Why then could God not do this with Jesus? Why take this extra, unnecessary step?

ERROR ALERT! Ummm....Jesus is God, the Word, the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. He is a Divine Person with two natures: one is human, the other is Divine. That is difficult to comprehend but it is true as He told us so. So what do you mean in your question, "Why then could God not do this with Jesus"? A Divine Person entered a human person who was "without stain" and became flesh of this woman. It is called the Incarnation and is wrongfully celebrated at Christmas when He was born. It actually took place when she told the angel Gabriel, "Be it done unto me according to your word." At that instant, God entered humanity by the power of the Holy Spirit and the God-Man was conceived.

[Pyro7480]

Which Scriptures? At the time of Acts 17:11, the New Testament hadn't been compiled, and parts probably hadn't been written yet.

[bonfire]

Darn good question.

[wagglebee]

Therefore...if it is not in the scriptures...it is not so.

This is the essential fallacy of the false doctrine of sola sriptura.

Obviously, we can all agree that if somethiis IS IN sripture that IT IS TRUE. But that doesn't mean that something that is not contained in false.

To illustrate this absurdity: By this sola scriptura standard, the nearly two decades between the Lord's visit to the Temple and the start of His public ministry is mentioned nowhere, so it must not have happened or else it would be in scripture.

In his Gospel, John specifically states that the Lord performed other miracles that ARE NOT INCLUDED in scripture.

[wagglebee]

At the time of Acts 17, almost none of the New Testament had been written.

[Frank Sheed]

Time for a course correction. Point out the passage indicating the books in the Canon of Scripture in the Bible or abandon your position....If Acts indicates Sola Sciptura, point to the verse in the Books of the Bible that tells us what comprises the "Scriptura". Not gonna find it.

[DungeonMaster]

Which Scriptures?

Very noticable change of the subject.

[DungeonMaster]

This is the essential fallacy of the false doctrine of sola sriptura.

It's exactly what Acts 17:11 is saying. Go to the scriptures to see if these things are true. Obviously if these things are not in the scriptures, they are not true. Otherwise there is no reason for the verse.

[DungeonMaster]

Very noticable change of the subject.

[trisham]

We can go to her, not just for our needs, but to ask her help in growing closer to the Lord. In the prayers of the rosary, we say to her, The Lord is with you!

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

Thank you for posting this.

[trisham]

Lord, I thank you for the gift of Mary. She gives me an example of a life perfectly united to your will. Help me today to live as she did, to give myself without thinking of myself, and to be open to what you want to do through me today.

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

Thanks. I needed that. :)

[MacArthur]

Excellent article!