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]

Still, we don't worship saints. Or Mary.

[xzins]

venerate

worship

a difference without a distinction

[adiaireton8]

Just because you are unaware of the distinction does not mean that there is no distinction.

-A8

[P-Marlowe]

We don't venerate our famous Christians, we study them. They're humans.

We only "venerate" C.I. Scofield, the patron saint of dispensational lawyers.

Notice the Halo in the shape of a Bible. It is the sola scriptura halo. I'm hoping to earn one someday for all my hard work here at free republic.

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. (Luke 11:52 KJV)

It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.

[trisham]

And?

[trisham]

LOL!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What if ..... you found out that Calvin's ideas were wrong? Could you admit it? What would you do? Have you thought of that possibility?

Oh, believe me. He's tried.

And as God has willed, he seems to be finding a lot of truth among the Reformer's works.

"I do not doubt that there has been some ignorance in their having reproved this mode of speech, -- that the Virgin Mary is the 'Mother of God' -- I cannot dissemble that it is found to be a bad practice ordinarily to adopt this title in speaking of this Virgin: and, for my part, I cannot consider such language as good , proper, or suitable…for to say, the Mother of God for the Virgin Mary, can only serve to harden the ignorant in their superstitions." -- John Calvin to the Foreigners’ Church in London, 10/27/1552

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And Mary.

[trisham]

Mary is the Mother of God, however. Regardless of what is one's religion, if one is a Christian, I can't see how it can be otherwise.

[wmfights]

"Certainly St Paul left someone in charge of the churches he founded when leaving to preach elsewhere,..."

That's not what Scripture shows. Paul never directly appointed a Bishop. He always put his authority equal to or behind the local leaders of a church. He taught what the qualities a congregation should look for in a leader, especially charismatic gifts.

[wmfights]

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."

A pretty self serving position. Especially in light of the fact that no record exists of the Apostles appointing Bishops, or more importantly putting this in Scripture. The top down hierarchy developed later.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

If Mary were the mother of God, then that means someone or something preceded God.

And that's absurd.

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ who would be born of a virgin in order to fulfill prophecy and to provide Jesus' human incarnation.

It's just not that difficult. All the bells and whistles detracts from the glory that is God's alone. People who venerate, worship and/or pray to anyone other than the Trinitarian God of all creation do so at their peril.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Amen. The answer is always there in Scripture.

[bonfire]

Amen.

[nanetteclaret]

Did you not read? The passage I quoted was written by Clement in AD 80 - during the time some of the Epistles were being written, and before John wrote anything.

1 Timothy 3:1-7
"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a BISHOP, he desireth a good work. A BISHOP then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Where do you suppose the bishops came from in the first place?

[nanetteclaret]

P.S. Paul was writing to Timothy in the above passage.

I Timothy 1:1-2
PAUL, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; Unto TIMOTHY, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

[wmfights]

P.S. Paul was writing to Timothy in the above passage.

I don't see Paul appointing Bishops here, does your "tradition" tell you that this is what he is doing? I see Paul instructing what the qualities in the individual should be. The actual selection was determined by the congregation in the early church.

The top down hierarchy developed later.

The only Apostle who might be considered a Bishop is James, the brother of Jesus, but if you read Acts 15 you will see that decisions involved the entire congregation.

[armydoc]

I was simply trying to understand where you are coming from. If you think evil is synonymous with sinful, then either you think there are no natural evils (e.g. major birth defects, tsunamis that kill thousands of peoples, childhood leukemia, miscarriages, etc.) or you think that such things are sinful.

No, I don't believe such non-human things such as diseases or natural disasters are "sinful". They are, however, the result of sinful man- such things came about only after the initial rebellion of man towards God. If you want to say those things are "evil", fine. I don't have a problem saying that "sinful" is a subset of "evil".

[Frank Sheed]

If Mary were the mother of God, then that means someone or something preceded God.

And that's absurd.

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ who would be born of a virgin in order to fulfill prophecy and to provide Jesus' human incarnation.

Jesus Christ is a Divine Person with a human nature and a Divine nature. Therefore, He is God-Man (read the references in John in which He reveals His relation to the Father speaking as a man). Since Jesus is both God and man, and since Jesus was born of a woman, Mary, His mother, is the mother of God. Doubt that if you will, but it is the literal Truth. It doesn't mean she anteceded the Divine; it is, thus, a Mystery called the Incarnation ("and the Word was made Flesh and made His dwelling among us"). This is why the Orthodox use the term "Theotokos". If you doubt that, you don't know anything about the Trinity. Your argument is pure Arianism against which St. Athanasius fought a mighty battle. Jesus was not JUST human. He was God-man.

[Coleus]