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.

[xzins]

Would you call her:

"Mary the Mother of the Godhead?"

[kawaii]

how sad for the churches st paul founded since they could not kniw 'everything' as you out it since scripture wasn't even written yet.

[blue-duncan]

this is the full text of the portion of the letter you cite. there is nothing in the letter concerning apostolic succession. the close the letter comes to it is in the apostles appointing "firstfruits" to be leaders of the church. After their death it is the church that appoints just as the Didsche states. There is nothing in the letter stating only ordained men can appoint, in fact, it does not mention ordaination.


Chapter XLII.—The order of ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from178178 Or, “by the command of.” the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from Or, “by the command of.” God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments,Literally, “both things were done.” then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established Or, “confirmed by.” in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit,Or, “having tested them in spirit.” to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops Or, “overseers.” in righteousness, and their deacons Or, “servants.” in faith.

Chapter XLIV.—The ordinances of the apostles, that there might be no contention respecting the priestly office.
Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour

[blue-duncan]

"Acts covers Pauls death so it had to have been written later."

You have posted this twice, now where in the book of Acts do you find this. The Acts in my bible only goes up to chapter 28 and ends with Paul's first prison stay in Rome. That would be around 61 A.D. Maybe I didn't get all of Acts. I know I got a good price on the bible, maybe too good.

[xzins]

Honest wagglebee, the Book of Acts does NOT cover Paul's death.

There is no self-respecting CATHOLIC scholar who would claim that.

It simply doesn't. It ends with Paul arrested, in Rome, awaiting his hearing before the emperor.

[adiaireton8]

Murder is intrinsically sinful. But not all killing of human beings is murder. Unintentional killing, for example, is not murder, even though it is evil. A man backs out of his driveway, and he accidentally runs over his little girl who was riding her tricycle right behind his car. That is an evil event, but the man is not a murderer, even if perhaps he was negligent.

Can an act be objectively and intrinsically evil, and the doing of it be not sinful? Yes. How? If the person does not know that the act is evil. Say that a child takes the Lord's name in vain, having learned the practice from his parents, and never having been told that doing so is a violation of the Second Commandment. What the child is doing is intrinsically and objectively wrong, but the child is not morally culpable nor is the child sinning, for the child does not know that taking the Lord's name is wrong, nor could the child have known this by any means available to it. The child's ignorance is 'invincible ignorance'. So, not all evil acts are sinful acts.

What about the Muslim suicide bombers? God has given us each a conscience. The reason we can be held responsible by God for what do is precisely because we have all been given a conscience. It is possible to sear one's conscience, but one is morally culpable for doing so, because we know deep inside that we should not sear our conscience. So, if the Muslim suicide bombers have seared their consciences, that doesn't get them off the divine hook, anymore than it gets a drunk driver off the hook; the drunk driver is responsible for what he does in his state of drunkeness, precisely because he knowingly and culpably put himself in his drunken state without ensuring that he would not get behind the wheel of a car in that state. Likewise, the Muslim suicide bombers with seared consciences are for the same reason still morally responsible for all that they do in that seared state, even if at that time they no longer know that it is wrong. But if the Muslim suicide bombers have not seered their consciences, then they are sinning when they pull the detonating cord in a crowded restaurant or marketplace, or fly a hijacked plane into a building, for in that case they still know that the murder of innocents is wrong.

-A8

[PleaseNoMore]

Jesus was never a human being?

human

Having the nature or attributes of a man.

Are you saying that Jesus was NOT fully man yet also fully God? He surely "shared in our humanity" and He was "found in appearance as a man".

[blue-duncan]

"Beware of the fallacy of the argument from silence."

Not an argument just an observation from the Didache's statement of how bishops and deacon were appointed.

[wagglebee]

You are both absolutely correct (I think I mentioned this earlier to xzins). I was at my office yesterday when I was posting and I have no idea what I was thinking. However, my premise that much of the New Testament was written AFTER St. Paul's martyrdom is still accurate.

[DungeonMaster]

"Sola scriptura becomes "canon" fodder as soon as the Catholic asks the Protestant to explain how the books of the Bible got into the Bible.

I see you have your marching orders.

[DungeonMaster]

The fact that it is there in Acts 17:11 is pretty trustworthy now though.

[xzins]

written after Paul's death

If Paul died in about 67 or so, then we are saying that the 3 synoptic gospels, all of Paul's letters, James, Hebrews, and Acts could all have already been written.

That would mean that most of the NT was already written before Paul's death.

Did you read the post on qumran's 7Q5 that I sent you?

[Iscool]

Not that I'm ever in a position to judge, but I'll bet money that there's a special place in Purgatory for all those who deny the intercession due to the Blessed Mother.

Ha! There's not only no intercession due to Mary, there's no purgatory...

[G Larry]

I don't see anything in Acts 17:11 that cites solo scriptura?
What "fact" do you allude to?

[DungeonMaster]

Post 208 and on.

[G Larry]

"Therefore...if it is not in the scriptures...it is not so."

Darn....! There goes gravity!

With over a thousand Protestant interpretations of the Bible, how do you discern "Truth"?

You assign individual revalation as valid, while denying that authorty to the Pope.
There can only be ONE Truth!

[trisham]

It's a Trinity. Mary is the Mother of God.

[G Larry]

"Therefore...if it is not in the scriptures...it is not so."

By the way, this is a bogus conclusion from Acts 17:11.

It is the Jews examining the Old Testament and learning how it was fullfilled in the New Testament, to learn that it was true.

Do you suppose that the Books of the Bible were complete at the writing of Acts?

[trisham]

Thank you. I guess my explanation was a bit on the brief side. :)

[Pyro7480]

Mary gave birth to a Person: Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity. He is God. Therefore, she is the Mother of God. We cannot comprehend the mystery of the Trinity. That's part of the problem.