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]

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

Therefore when an RC says "sola scriptura is not in the bible" and someone shows them that it is there they can then say "That's your interpretation but I don't see it therefore it is not in the bible". That's quite a wall you've built.

[Pyro7480]

I would guess you are familiar with the circumstances surrounding the Council of Ephesus, and the "Christotokos" vs. "Theotokos" argument. I stand by the finding of the Council of Ephesus, and its condemnation of Nestorianism. On that note, do you agree with the following? "The Council decreed that Jesus was one person, not two separate 'people': complete God and complete man, with a rational soul and body. The Virgin Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth not to a man but to God as a man. The union of the two natures of Christ took place in such a fashion that one did not disturb the other."

From your statement, "Mary is the mother of Jesus, the incarnate 2d person of the Godhead," I would guess you would agree. Then your problem is with giving Mary the title "Mother of God" because of "possible confusion." If you understand it correctly, there is NO confusion.

[kawaii]

Could you protestants do that though, I mean explain how the books got into the Bible, and why they are true and the one's not in the Bible are either false or partially true?

[kawaii]

Revelation certainly wasn't.

Further even if all were written you've done squat to assert St Paul was intimately familiar with each and that the churches he was writing to had a collection of all of them. (History asserts they most likely had one or two at best).

[kawaii]

Even in the Roman church I beleive all Bishops are recognized to have that authority not simply the pope.

Am I wrong on that?

[kawaii]

Writing of acts aside, what about when the events of Acts were occuring?

[kawaii]

You cannot have sola scriptura when scripture wasn't finished being written, and was not in wide distribution.

[DungeonMaster]

Could you protestants do that though, I mean explain how the books got into the Bible, and why they are true and the one's not in the Bible are either false or partially true?

How is that different from explaining to a non-believer how I know the bible is the Word of God? It's pure faith.

[wagglebee]

Even if MOST of the New Testament was COULD HAVE written in Paul's lifetime, it wasn't ALL OF IT. Your premise has been about Paul writing in the past tense and then this is used to try to say that nothing valid can be written afterwards. This is simply not true. NOBODY has ever suggested that John's gospel, epistles or Revelation were written before the end of the first century, are you suggesting that these are invalid?

[kawaii]

The Title Theotokos
[edit]
Third Ecumenical Council
Theotokos (in Greek, ????????) is a Greek word that means "God-bearer" or "Birth-giver to God."
As a title for the Virgin Mary, Theotokos was recognized by the Orthodox Church at Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus in 431. It had already been in use for some time in the devotional and liturgical life of the Church. The theological significance of the title is to emphasize that Mary's son, Jesus, is fully God, as well as fully human, and that Jesus' two natures (divine and human) were united in a single Person of the Trinity. The competing view at that council was that Mary should be called Christotokos instead, meaning "Birth-giver to Christ." This was the view advocated by Nestorius, then Patriarch of Constantinople. The intent behind calling her Christotokos was to restrict her role to be only the mother of "Christ's humanity" and not his Divine nature.
Nestorius' view was anathematized by the Council as heresy, (see Nestorianism), since it was considered to be dividing Jesus into two distinct persons, one who was Son of Mary, and another, the divine nature, who was not. It was defined that although Jesus has two natures, human and divine, these are eternally united in one personhood. Because Mary is the mother of God the Son, she is therefore duly entitled Theotokos.
Calling Mary the Theotokos or the Mother of God (????? ????) was never meant to suggest that Mary was coeternal with God, or that she existed before Jesus Christ or God existed. The Church acknowledges the mystery in the words of this ancient hymn: "He whom the entire universe could not contain was contained within your womb, O Theotokos."
The title "Theotokos" continues to be used frequently in the hymns of the Orthodox Church.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos

[adiaireton8]

How is that different from explaining to a non-believer how I know the bible is the Word of God? It's pure faith.

That is the heresy called 'fideism'.

-A8

[xzins]

I agree that Revelation was not. I'm not sure about Jude and Peter's 2 letters, but I'm pretty sure that John's gospel was not. Perhaps Hebrews was not.

Nevertheless, the synoptics, Acts, and Paul's letters comprise the bulk of the NT.

I think Paul asks for his manuscripts to be brought at the end of Colossians and he asks for churches to read one another his letters because there was more already written at that time than we're admitting.

[xzins]

That has not been my premise.

My premise has been to get you to tell me what those traditions are that are already in place.

So far as scripture is concerned, Jesus established the bounds of scripture.

"All those who believe THROUGH THEIR (the Apostles') WORD."

[wagglebee]

Two theories that I know for certain WAS NOT in place was "sola scriptura" and "sola fide" because they weren't around until Luther made them up and added the word "alone" to Romans in the sixteenth century.

[kawaii]

Why deny Christ is God?

[kawaii]

Christ also gave the apostles (which includes the 70 apostles) the power to bind and loosen, and he sent the Holy Spirit which he promised would help the apostled remember his sayings even those they had forgotten or hadn't heard.

[DungeonMaster]

You cannot have sola scriptura when scripture wasn't finished being written, and was not in wide distribution.

Why not? Revelation is progressive but just because the NT isn't complete doesn't mean that people were to believe just anything anyone told them.

[DungeonMaster]

That is the heresy called 'fideism'.

Faith is heresy?

[kawaii]

It's a historical fact that the church fathers determined which books were genuine and which were not. During this same decision making they also distinguished valid Holy Tradition from heresey as well.

It is strange that you would accept their interpretation of what should be scripture and reject their authority over Holy Tradition.

[kawaii]

Why not? Revelation is progressive but just because the NT isn't complete doesn't mean that people were to believe just anything anyone told them.

They didn't need to worry about beleiving everything told to them they had the church fathers anathemizing heretical doctrines. Protecting the sheep from the wolves (the gnostics and misinterpreting heretics). Again historical fact; the same folks who assembled the book protestants think is some complete guide to Christianity was assembled by the church fathers so as to protect the church from false and heretical 'scriptures'. These same church fathers protected Holy Tradition no less strongly.