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.

[Frank Sheed]

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM

General

Whatever may be the position theologically that one may take today on the subject of Mariology, one is not able to call to one's aid 'reformed tradition' unless one does it with the greatest care . . . the Marian doctrine of the Reformers is consonant with the great tradition of the Church in all the essentials and with that of the Fathers of the first centuries in particular . . . . .

In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary's holiness and perpetual virginity . . .

{Max Thurian (Protestant), Mary: Mother of all Christians, tr. Neville B. Cryer, NY: Herder & Herder, 1963 (orig. 1962), pp. 77, 197}

The title 'Ever Virgin' (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]).

{Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) }

Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the 'Magnificat' caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles' Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective 'Catholic', but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.

{J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6}

[adiaireton8]

I don't have a problem saying that "sinful" is a subset of "evil".

We agree on that then. So, what is the difference between evil (unqualified) and sinfulness? The Church has taught that sinfulness is deliberate disbodience of God, in violation of one's reason and right conscience. If a child is not yet to the age of reason, then the child cannot deliberately offend God or willfully violate its reason or right conscience. What distinguishes sinfulness from evil simpliciter is that sinfulness involves the will of a rational creature knowingly acting against God, reason, or right conscience; evil simpliciter, however, need not involve the will of a rational creature.

-A8

[Running On Empty]

Perhaps a "top-down" heirarchy was there all along, just not addressed in terms we use today.

Catholics are not congregationalists because they do not believe that authority rests in the congregation. They believe it rests in the hierachial model. In this model, authority must be held accountable. If it fails, then authority will pay the price. It is a paradigm, if you will, based on sherperding and not on sheep. References to shepherding as accountability can be found in Jeremiah and Ezekial, just two Biblical of a number of Biblical examples.

I am not in any way an intellectual with debating skills--these were not in God's life plan for me. But I do have faith and it rests in Christ Jesus and the Church He founded and that Church does not derive its authority from the congregation. If that were so, the congregation would be accountable for the authority and not the other (proper) way around.

The accounting must stop at some point at the top.

[Frank Sheed]

Seem to be doing fine, R.O.E.

;-o)

[nanetteclaret]

Theotokos (Greek) = God-bearer or Mother of God

The Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. declared Mary to be “Theotokos,” the “God-bearer” or “Mother of God.” This was to clarify that Jesus was the Second Person of the Trinity and not two distinct persons (the Nestorian heresy). The doctrine had its origins in defining the nature of Jesus (one person with two distinct natures - human and divine), in order to combat this heresy. By saying that Mary is the "Mother of God," one acknowledges that Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, was born from Mary's womb.

If Calvin didn't want to "harden the ignorant in their superstitions," then he should have explained what the term meant. The fact that he allowed the "ignorant" to remain "ignorant" shows that he was either ignorant himself or he purposefully didn't explain the correct meaning of the term. I wonder why?

[Running On Empty]

God willing, and the creek don't rise ;-)

[adiaireton8]

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

John the Baptist preceded God, since He came to prepare the way of the Lord. See, it all depends on how you take the word "precede". If by 'precede' you mean that Mary unqualifiedly pre-existed the Second Person of the Trinity, then obviously that would be false. But if by 'precede' you mean that Mary existed before Christ's incarnation, then that would be correct, not "absurd".

Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ

Right. And Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, Mary is the mother of God.

-A8

[unspun]

Coleus, as I think we both know, there are "Christians," then there are Christians, whatever their trappings (or sweatshirts).

When in doubt, my rule is to find the Logos of God on the matter. :-)

[Salvation]

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

Huh?

I am sure that non-Catholics believe the Holy Scripture from Luke:

Emphasis added by me.

Gospel
Lk 1:26-38

The angel Gabriel was sent from God
to a town of Galilee called Nazareth,
to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph,
of the house of David,
and the virgin’s name was Mary.
And coming to her, he said,
“Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.”
But she was greatly troubled at what was said
and pondered what sort of greeting this might be.
Then the angel said to her,
“Do not be afraid, Mary,
for you have found favor with God.
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son,
and you shall name him Jesus.
He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,
and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,
and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever,
and of his Kingdom there will be no end.”
But Mary said to the angel,
“How can this be,
since I have no relations with a man?”
And the angel said to her in reply,
“The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
Therefore the child to be born
will be called holy, the Son of God.
And behold, Elizabeth, your relative,
has also conceived a son in her old age,
and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren;
for nothing will be impossible for God.”
Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord.
May it be done to me according to your word.”
Then the angel departed from her.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

After all this discussion, it's apparent many Catholics overstate the early Reformers' opinions on Mary's life and attributes.

As I posted in #86...

"Neither the later Luther nor Calvin believed in Mary's bodily assumption into heaven nor in any immaculate conception concering Mary's own birth. Both held cursory opinions on the continued chastity of Mary which were discarded, for all intents and purpose, as they matured in the faith. Regardless, a belief in Mary's continued chastity after marriage does not require a mystical, supernatural act of God to support it, which is inherent in the fabricated, non-Scriptural beliefs that Mary rose into heaven bodily and that she herself was born without sin.

Keep your eye on Jesus Christ."

A "ROMAN CATHOLIC" MARTIN LUTHER QUIZ

"While retaining a belief in perpetual virginity, Luther did so in undogmatic terms, making sure that Mary was not to be deified for such an attribute. He implied in the Table Talk that it was Mary’s choice to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ, rather than her continued virginity being a miraculous gift from God.

However, Luther did not hold a lifelong belief in Mary’s immaculate conception. The Quote above from Luther’s "Sermon On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God” was brought to cyber-space via Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. A Catholic apologist quoted Luther from Grisar’s book and disregarded both the historical context of Luther’s writings, as well as Grisar’s explanation of the quote. If one looks up the reference, Grisar states, “The sermon was taken down in notes and published with Luther’s approval. The same statements concerning the Immaculate Conception still remain in a printed edition published in 1529, but in later editions which appeared during Luther’s lifetime they disappear.” The reason for their disappearance is that as Luther’s Christo-centric theology developed, aspects of Luther’s Mariology were abandoned. Grisar recognizes this. In regards to this Luther quote, Grisar says, “As Luther’s intellectual and ethical development progressed we cannot naturally expect the sublime picture of the pure Mother of God, the type of virginity, of the spirit of sacrifice and of sanctity to furnish any great attraction for him, and as a matter of fact such statements as the above are no longer met with in his later works.”

In regard to Therese’s Calvin quote, it really isn’t certain that Calvin held to the perpetual virginity of Mary. A few quotes from Calvin have been used by Catholics to prove his adherence to it, yet a close reading of the quotes doesn’t really prove anything definitively. Calvin’s main point in his comment on Matthew 1:25 is that the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards to Mary. Calvin calls it “folly” at one point, when describing those who wish to make a text say more than it does. Those who would make a necessary inference where the Gospel writer has only made a possible inference engage in folly (according to Calvin). So it can’t really be concluded that Calvin is teaching here Mary’s perpetual virginity, it sounds to me as if Calvin is simply being careful. While I myself would make a possible inference from these passages that Mary had other children, It cannot be concluded that Calvin believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity, or her “sinlessness”, only that Calvin held the gospel writer does not explicitly say, one way or the other. Interestingly, this conclusion was reached similarly by William Bouwsma in his book, John Calvin: A 16th Century Portrait. He says in a footnote on p.275, "Among matters on which (Calvin) discouraged speculation were the order of angels and the perpetual virginity of Mary."

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank you for the verses from Luke. The Scripture says Jesus Christ is the Son of God. It makes no mention of Mary being the Mother of God.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

See, it all depends on how you take the word "precede".

No, it all depends on how you take the word "God."

[nanetteclaret]

This passage is not about Paul appointing bishops, per se, but that they were there in the early Church.

Matthew 28:18-20
"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

The Apostles went to all nations: James the Greater to Spain, Thomas to India, etc. They appointed bishops to succeed them, especially since they (the Apostles) were all martyred within a relatively short time. (There are articles on-line which explain which Apostles went where and how they were martyred.) The only one who was not was St. John, who had been exiled to the island of Patmos and lived to be quite elderly.

The bottom line is that there are historical documents out there which describe the Early Church in detail. You just have to be willing to research.

[nanetteclaret]

Did you not read my above post that the term "Mother of God" was put into place to define the nature of Jesus and combat the Nestorian heresy?

[wagglebee]

St. John is actually a martyr. He was boiled in oil, but was left totally unharmed. Because he was willing to die for the Church and endured something that should have killed him, the Church has always considered him a martyr.

[nanetteclaret]

I didn't realize that! Thanks. I always learn something new on FR!

[G Larry]

The concept of 'sola scriptura' wasn't in ANY Bible until Luther added the term "alone".

Something in Revalations reminds me about the penalty for adding 'jots and tittles'.

[xzins]

Oh, believe me. He's tried.

Now don't take advantage of my good will. :>)

[xzins]

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is not the Son or the Father.

The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying that Mary is the mother of the Father or of the Holy Spirit?

[xzins]

And if you knew it, I'd be appreciating how you'd spelled it out.

As it is, they are synonyms in the thesaurus.