Three Reasons the Church’s Enemies Hate The Immaculate Conception

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.

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.

So you don't really mean "Therefore...if it is not in the scriptures...it is not so." What you really mean is something like: "If it is not in the scriptures ... it is not part of the gospel". Right?

Luke says "these things". I think we can safely say Luke was not conserned about 2+2. It is so obvious that he wasn't talking about 2+2 that it seems strange to discuss it.

An interesting point. If Ezek. 28 and Isa. 14 speak about the fall of Satan (Lucifer)to the earth prior to the creation of life on earth, and Jesus says He saw Satan fall and Satan is the Prince of this world, I wonder why God decided to place man in such a vulnerable situation as the world under the power of Satan?

"Scriptures" at the time this was writtten means the Old Testament. There were no New Testament "Scriptures" at the time Luke wrote Acts. That didn't happen until the late 300s.

Besides, Acts 17:11 does not even address the concept of "sola scriptura." "Sola" means "only." The verse doesn't say anything at all about "Scripture only." It merely says they searched to see if what they heard was true.

Besides, Acts 17:11 does not even address the concept of "sola scriptura." "Sola" means "only." The verse doesn't say anything at all about "Scripture only." It merely says they searched to see if what they heard was true.

They searched the scriptures to see if these things were true. So..what of things they didn't find in the scriptures?

It is not a very good sidestep to say that it might not have been Judas.

That simply passes the buck to SOMEONE will do it, and it cannot be changed.

Too bad for that someone, huh?

But the truth is that the scriptures (and Jesus) make clear that it had to be one of Jesus' leaders (apostles.) Ps 69, 109, Acts 1.

Jesus chose them and there was no turning back. He acknowledged that one WOULD BE LOST.

No turning back.

265 posted on 12/14/2006 8:59:40 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)

Scripture wasn't even written down by the time of Acts. It was taught by word of mouth.

The woman is Mary and has always been Mary, because the "enmity" is Jesus Christ, who crushed the head of the serpent.

You are amazing at this chameleon routine! You place your entire Faith on Scripture alone! And yet, you cannot define where this book comes from! Did it fall from the sky or was it just handed to you. Is the Gospel of Thomas in it or did Maccabees get struck from it in the Reformation?

You can't define the Canon because it is not in the book you rely on solely for salvation! And Sola Scriptura is not defined as the requisite for salvation in the Bible either!

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola5.htm

Kindly see this by Jimmy Akin.

268 posted on 12/14/2006 9:03:42 AM PST by Frank Sheed ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)

Scripture wasn't even written down by the time of Acts. It was taught by word of mouth.

OHHHH, so the didn't search the scriptures daily! Interesting.

You are amazingly predictable at this old trick of changing the subject.

Let me say it again. "The Scriptures" were the Old Testament books - the prophecies about Jesus. They searched to make sure the prophecies had been fulfilled.

I challenge you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Eveything in it is explained by Holy Scripture - even verses which Protestants tend to ignore! After you have read it, we will discuss whether or not the Catholic Church is Bible-based.

Let me say it again. "The Scriptures" were the Old Testament books - the prophecies about Jesus. They searched to make sure the prophecies had been fulfilled.

Obviously they only had the OT. What they were verifying was the gospel. Paul spoke for 3 days in the verses before to those who were not as commendable, he didn't just say a little. And again, when they search the OT scriptures daily to see if the things Paul said were true, if they weren't in the scriptures they weren't.....

Not so.

Read Luke's intro to his Gospel.

He makes clear that he researched everything, to include sourches.

Also, why would a country full of scribes (guys who write all the time) be opposed to taking and keeping notes?

That'd be like a country full of journalists not jotting a few things down.

It was not an illiterate culture.

274 posted on 12/14/2006 9:15:11 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)

The subject is that you are in a conundrum you will not discuss. You'll discuss 2 + 2 = 4 is not in the Bible and is not relevant but will not touch this point. Guess I know why.

Sola scriptura and sola fide were Reformation made. The Reformers didn't want a clergy so they gave you the Book and said "It's all in here. Figure it out yourself." Now, 30,000 denominations later, you still continually splinter.

What you need frankly is a Pope! That is how Jesus designed His Church to begin with... You are welcome to join us anytime. We'd love to have you!

Francis X.

275 posted on 12/14/2006 9:15:25 AM PST by Frank Sheed ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)

Is the Gospel of Mary in your Bible? How about the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas? I wonder why not?

276 posted on 12/14/2006 9:20:20 AM PST by Frank Sheed ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." --G.K. Chesterton)

We know when the gospels of the New Testament were written and it wasn't till long after Christ death and ressurection.

Actually, we don't "know" when they were written. There are some educated guesses about when they were written.

But, that's not what I was disagreeing with. I was disagreeing with the notion that they were orally transmitted

Luke disagrees with that.

The nature of that entire culture disagrees with that.

278 posted on 12/14/2006 9:25:28 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)

The previous verse, 10, says that Paul and Silas were in "the synagogue of the Jews," which obvoiusly contained only the Old Testament scriptures. The Bereans were searching them to see if the prophecies had really been fulfilled. The Gospel was the "Good News" that the prophecies had been fulfilled.

280 posted on 12/14/2006 9:26:17 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)

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.