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.

[DungeonMaster]

What does that have to do with the discussion as to whether or not the concept of sola scriptura is in the bible?

[G Larry]

Read post 538.

[xzins]

Would you say the following regarding Mary:

"Mary the Mother of the Godhead"

[jo kus]

what would be the purposes of Immaculate conception if no inherited sin?

What would be the purpose of God directing Moses to build a purified Ark of the Covenant?

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

And thus you condemn yourself...

Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

So now you are a wolf...

Obviously, these verses do not give anyone the right to leave the Church. They tell us that some people are teaching falsely. That would be Protesters, hence the name.

The catholic church small c has known and followed the truth since Pentecost. The truth has never be alluded it has be twisted, it has been usurped by the wiil of ma. But no one who has a love for the truth will be denied it.

Yes, people such as yourself do just that. They make the Bible fit their own fantasical interpretations. That is why Catholics are taught to interpret the Scriptures with the mind of the Church - so that we don't fall into that trap of self-interpreting the Bible to make it say what we would like it to say.

As you no doubt know, people can twist the Scriptures to say what they want. Gays are now saying that Scripture does NOT condemn them! Others say that there is NOT a Trinity... Jesus was this or that. Without the Church to guide us, how are we to know what God has revealed, rather than what WE want it to reveal?

Honestly, I would like you to tell me - how do you know YOUR opinion is correct???

Regards

[G Larry]

If you're going to hang your hat on solo scriptura, it is only meaningful if there is but one interpretation.

[BibChr]

SO glad not to be chained to a sect.

[xzins]

No one seems to want to answer my "Mary the Mother of the Godhead" question.

Crickets.........

Hey, do you still have that Trinity diagram? If so, could you post it? It's the best I've ever seen. I've saved it to my hard-drive, but I don't have it on the internet for an "img src"

[trisham]

Catholic bump.

[BibChr]

As displayed in my Pyromaniacs post:

[Pyro7480]

No. If you read the Athanasian Creed, it is clear that there's one Godhead, and three Persons in that Godhead. It doesn't make sense to say "Mother of Godhead," and neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox have used such a term. She is the Mother of the Second Person, "our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God: perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead: inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. And although He be God and Man; yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance; but by unity of person."

[Pyro7480]

You spoke too soon. ;-)

[xzins]

If you go back to yesterday, you'll see that I asked the question (unanswered) at least 2 times. (Maybe 3) All I got was.....crickets.....(chirp, chirp,....)

In any case, you've answered the question.

Now, do you agree with the following question statement?

...Many people use the word "God" interchangeably for the word "Godhead?"

[ArrogantBustard]

From the writings of one John of Wallingford, and Englishman of the mid 1200s.

[ArrogantBustard]

Another 13th Century illustration:

[Pyro7480]

I think I know where you're going with this. I could be wrong with this, but it's quite possible that you've been told that Mary is not a "Mother" in the sense that she is the origin of the Godhead. The apostolic churches have never taught that. She is the Mother of the Second Person, who, as the Athanasian Creed states (and as I repeated in my last post), "although He be God and Man; yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance; but by unity of person."

[Pyro7480]

So Bibchr's diagram is nothing new? That figures. ;-)

[ArrogantBustard]

I don't believe he actually claimed to have originated it, but I recalled seeing it in Catechism class, aeons ago. I thought it was ancient. I was right.

[BibChr]

Of course not. Everything I believe goes back 2000 years, minimum.

[Pyro7480]

I was just teasing. :)

[xzins]

I think you do agree with the statement: "Many people use the word God interchangeably for the word Godhead."

Did I understand you correctly?

If so, then you can see that it is more CLEAR to be precise when talking about whom Mary is the mother of. Mary is the mother of Jesus, the incarnate 2d person of the Godhead.

Do you consider this position to be heretical?