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.

[trisham]

In the Religion forum, on a thread titled Three Reasons the Church’s Enemies Hate The Immaculate Conception, xzins wrote: Jesus knew before it happened.

Are you suggesting that the devil is more powerful than our Lord?

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

Sorry. I misunderstood your last post.

No, I am not suggesting that the devil is more powerful than God. Please read my previous posts.

[trisham]

I'm not sure what point you are making.

[kawaii]

You're suggesting then that no teachings after St Paul are valid?

Should we do away with the Book of Revelation since St John wrote it after St Paul's letter to the Thesselonians?

[wagglebee]

If memory serves me, EVERYTHING that St. John wrote was AFTER St. Paul's martyrdom.

[nanetteclaret]

What I'm saying is that the traditions of Ignatius, etc. are the SAME ONES that the Apostle Paul taught by word or epistle. You will get a clearer picture if you read the writings of the Early Fathers.

[nanetteclaret]

I forgot about that one - I think it was the earliest writing. Excerpts are in the "Faith of the Early Fathers" book.

[blue-duncan]

"Chapter 15. Bishops and Deacons; Christian Reproof. Appoint, therefore, for yourselves, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proved; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Therefore do not despise them, for they are your honored ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel. But to anyone that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.


Well, so much for the "tradition" of apostolic succession!

[nanetteclaret]

Sorry, what is your point?

[adiaireton8]

Well, so much for the "tradition" of apostolic succession!

If you knew the fathers, you would know that nomination of candidates for the episcopal office by the laity was not uncommon, but that ordination of the selected candidate was always by a bishop, not by the laity (since laity were not themselves ordained, they could not give what they did not have).

-A8

[Nihil Obstat]

Not quite. How the bishops were chosen may have changed, but not apostolic succession. Consecration hasn't changed.

[armydoc]

Babies haven't sinned (because they can't). Persons who are severely mentally disabled haven't sinned (again, they can't).

I beg to differ. A clear, mature, adult mind is not a prerequisite to sinning. Our very human nature is sinful. Our actions, from the moment of our birth, are sinful. Psalm 51:5(NIV) "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." My kids have all shown overt sinful acts from an early age. Open defiance. Greed. Conversely, a baby or feeble-minded adult can posess faith. Witness the in-utero John the Baptist's display of faith when the in-utero Saviour passed by. We sin from birth because we are sinners from birth. It is our nature to the core. Lack of cognitive recognition of the sinfulness of an act does not negate its sinfulness. Now, a better argument is if a young child or a feeble-minded adult can have a "saving faith". I believe they can (again, I cite the John the Baptist example).

[adiaireton8]

What do you think sin is? What is the difference between sin and evil?

-A8

[kawaii]

Then it must not be part of the church for xzins, since it didn't come BEFORE St Paul told the Thesselonians not to forget what he'd taught them.

[Nihil Obstat]

that chapter also clarifies how the earliest Christians understood Paul's teaching of the requirements to be a bishop.

[wmfights]

How the bishops were chosen may have changed, but not apostolic succession.

Isn't one of the central claims of this theory that the Apostles directly appointed Bishops?

[wagglebee]

St. Paul was martyred sometime between 65 and 67 AD. The EARLIEST accepted date for any of the Gospels is Mark in about 65 AD. NONE of the other Gospels or anything other than the Pauline epistles were written prior to Paul's death. This is not "Catholic tradition," this is fact supported by other early Church writings and essentially ALL Biblical scholars. To illustrate, Acts describes Paul's martyrdom, it COULDN'T have been written during his lifetime.

[kawaii]

you should cc xzins...

i can't beleive anyone would interpret St Pauls words the way xzins does, so as to exclude anything Paul hadn't taught.

[Nihil Obstat]

Isn't one of the central claims of this theory that the Apostles directly appointed Bishops?

the appointment doesn't matter. The consecration is what matters for apostolic succession.

Right now, the communist government of China is trying to appoint "Catholic" bishops. They are not real bishops (or even real Catholics). Just because they are appointed bishop by the government of China doesn't mean anything. They would only be real bishops if they were consecrated by a bishop acting in good faith with the Church.

hope that helps

[wagglebee]

I meant to ping you to 396, sorry.

[nanetteclaret]

It's not just a theory - it's the truth. There is historical evidence to back it up. Here is an example:

Clement's Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 (A.D. 80):
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

Clement was St. Paul's friend, and is mentioned in Philippians 4:3: “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with CLEMENT also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.”