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.

[Sloth]

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.

The doctrine of 'original sin' is apostate. Each man or woman is morally accountable only for his or her own actions, not those of ancestors. (see Ezekiel 18:4-20).

[nanetteclaret]

Iscool, let me try to explain.

In the first centuries of Christianity, many books and letters were written, which were circulated among the Churches for reading and study. The Church did not have a list of books that said "These, and only these, books are inspired by the Holy Spirit" until the late 300s. The books that we know as the list of Scripture were used, as well as other books, and no one knew which were inspired and which weren't. The Church decided that a list needed to be drawn up and the non-inspired books weeded out. The Council of Hippo met in 393 AD, the First Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and the Second Council of Carthage in 419 AD. The Councils prayed that the Holy Spirit would direct them to make the correct choices, and there was some debate. For instance, some of the attendees wanted to include the "Epistle of Clement" because, after all, he was a friend of St. Paul (see. Phil. 4:3) and others wanted to exclude Revelation! Finally, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Books were descerned to be divinely inspired and that is how we got our Bible that we have today (including the so-called Apocryphal books).

When we say the Bible did not appear until the late 300s, we mean that the list of divinely inspired books did not appear until then, and that many other books had been used and studied as well up until that time.

[nanetteclaret]

You are missing the point. We are not arguing that things were not written, we are saying that there was much oral teaching at the same time - the traditions that St. Paul told us to hold fast to - that were just as important as the written word.

[trisham]

Regarding predestination, from the Holy See:

599 Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus (was) delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396 "He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM

[kawaii]

scripture also teaches us ALL have sinned.

[nanetteclaret]

Thanks.

[xzins]

Based on the following verses, which traditions should we keep and which are not binding?


2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

Mr 7:9 He was also saying to them, "You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Mr 7:13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."

[kawaii]

1 i love your reverse chronology.

2. St Paul indeed did deliver the traditions of the church, like the Eucharist, and venerating icons. The churches Peter and Paul setup were passed on to subsequent bishops.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

One more important point about the relationship between these early Christians and the Apostles: They WROTE BACK

Amen! Your verses show how vital the written word of the preached Gospel was to all the early Christians...and ever onward.

And the reason for that is because God has told us it is through His word that He will transmit His blessing of grace through faith.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." -- Romans 10:17

[xzins]

So, you are agreeing that they had no choice but to accomplish that to which they were predestined.

As DrE is fond of pointing out: there isn't a lot to worry about -- or even be pained about -- if we remember who's in control.

[Sloth]

scripture also teaches us ALL have sinned.

Yes, but 'all' of what? 'All' clearly doesn't mean Jesus (or, according to Catholics, Mary)... and it doesn't mean infants, either.

[trisham]

:) Not that you need any help. Your knowledge is most impressive.

[xzins]

I dealt with Thess first, so it made sense then to go backward to the Lord's words. :>)

In any case, which traditions are we to keep and which are we not to keep.

BTW, show me a verse in which the Apostle Paul supports icon veneration/worship. You're going to really surprise me if you can.

[DungeonMaster]

I think that it is you that is in a conundrum. There is a single focused point that I am making and have made. Your every effort to change the subject is being ignored.

Statement: Sola Scriptura is not in the bible.

My point: Yes it is right there where I pointed out.

response: Change the subject to the source of the bible. Change the subject to irrelevant math problems.

Conclusion: The casual observer probably wonders why you are so offended by what the bible says and by people that read and believe it.

[trisham]

So, you are agreeing that they had no choice but to accomplish that to which they were predestined.

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

Not at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact:

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy

[xzins]

I have no idea what that means. Can you explain it?

[kawaii]

There isn't a verse because the epistles St Paul wrote were not 'the written version of everything I've told you to do and not to do'. They were written to correct incorrect practices.

Archaological evidence proves that Christians venerated icons in the Early church.

That St Paul does not have an epistle correcting that bheavior is strong evidence of his support for it.

[kawaii]

So scripture was finished by the time of St Peter right?

So then any scripture that came after that cannot be scripture right?

[xzins]

Show me the archeological information and the datings....links, I mean, of course.

I'm remembering my surveys of the NT history, and I recall original century things like names on columns, sarcophogi, etc., but I don't remember any icons.

[trisham]

I have no idea what that means. Can you explain it?

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

I don't think I can say it more clearly than the Holy See:

599 Jesus' violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God's plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus (was) delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396 "He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

The link which explains the issue more fully is in my previous post #324.