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.

[Pyro7480]

Oh? What is water in that context?

[kawaii]

Then why did the apostles go baptising whol houses?

[blue-duncan]

"That's the difference, you alone are not a church. Further you weren't present at the church under the Apostles."

No, but I am in integral part of the church as are all tthe members of the GRPL/Neener magisterium. We were not bodily present at the churches started by the apostles but we were present in spirit since we were chosen as part of the elect before the foundation of the world and have carried on the traditions instituted by the apostles since then.

[kawaii]

i have no idea what a neener is but you're professions make it clear that you have no traditions in common with the apostles.

[Frank Sheed]

Brother, here is where you will hear the "crickets chirping" or a deflection to another subject.

We both know the canon is not present in Scripture anywhere. The assumption seems to be that it fell from the sky fully formed (absent Maccabees and a few other books, of course). And then, we are told we are "anti-Scriptural." Neat argument, huh??

[Frank Sheed]

And you also my Christian FRiend!

[kawaii]

indeed it seems the protestants on this thread have devolved into slandering the early church which gave them their Holy Scripture (born out of the Holy Tradition of the church)

[Frank Sheed]

It is fascinating to me in listening to "The Journey Home" programs how many Protestants "find" Patristics, the Church Fathers, and attribute that much to their journey home. Many also admit that the biggest problem they have is with Marian Doctrines and those are often the last to be accepted. That is why these threads seem to cause such an outpouring of interest as opposed to those on salvation, for example.

[Conservative til I die]

Thanks for posting the definition. It sure sounds like someone has decided faith is heresy.

Why thank him when you choose to ignore what was said? To restate, faith is not heresy. The idea that faith exists apart from reason is heretical. Further, the idea that faith alone is what saves is heretical.

What strikes me the most is the idea that it is heresy to believe that salvation is by faith alone. Salvation is by faith alone.

That's a rather circular statement.

[Conservative til I die]

>>>So the question stands, where in the Bible does it say which books are inspired?

It doesn't stand with me.

Copping out of a response is not a response.

[wmfights]

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

The only leg left for the theory of Apostolic Succession is the ordination process, with the laying on of hands. However, it seems that if the Apostles did not directly appoint the next generation of Bishops than the laying on of hands being valid is not dependent upon them, but rather the individuals laying on hands being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

If this is correct, than any Christian body of believers has a valid ordination process as long as those laying on hands are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

[Conservative til I die]

John falls to worship one who apparently an angel in Revelation and he is told not to do so. He is to worship only God.

Correct, but this is irrelevant since I've already established that a prayer to a saint is not worship.

God alone is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Correct. But again, what does prayer to a saint for intercession have to do with the three O's above?

[blue-duncan]

All that the laying on of hands did was recognize that the candidate was called by God to the office or mission. It conferred nothing. The Clement letter (ca. 85-90 A.D.) and Didache set out the "tradition", however Acts 13:3 gives us the scripture.

[wmfights]

We did the research to determine which was legitimate, apostolic scriptures, so therefore, we get to supercede them.

You've done a great job covering this ground, with the historical development of the Canon. I think the one element that gets forgotten is that Rome did not officially recognize the Canon until after the fact. Thus, the "editor's argument" would not even apply if it were applicable.

[wmfights]

In fact at the last annual GRPL/Neener picnic the Tradition was affirmed, isn't that right you GRPL/Neener bishops?

I remember it was right after that secret meeting we held where we decided we were the only ones with the power to interpret Scripture.

[blue-duncan]

"i have no idea what a neener is but you're professions make it clear that you have no traditions in common with the apostles."

Neeners are a synthesis drawn from the antagonisism between the Reformed and the Arminian camps. We like to think we have taken the worst of both camps, the negatives, and since two negatives make a positive, we are very positive that all of our traditions are handed down directly from the apostles. Now some of them have come down directly to us and some have come down through springing covenants, bypassing some of the more cantankerous ecclesiastics and some have come down to us by inspiration, but we are convinced, nay, we are sure they are really, authentic, traditions. Some even have the GRPL/Neener seal of approval which is the highest standard available. The two chancellors of the GRPL/Neener magisteriam, Dr. E and P-M are the current keepers of the seal and can only affix it if there is a unanimous agreement that the tradition is apostolically authentic.

[kawaii]

the qualm the apostolic churches have with the protestant attitude toward script is the same one conservatives have with regard to liberals reinterpreting of the constitution.

protestants reinvent scripture from poor biased translations deliberatly twisiting the meaning to liberalize the truth and tolerate their deviations from Christ commandments.

Not one protestant confession has come out of the ranks of Aramaic or Koine Greek speaking peoples. All have come from folks who speak none of the classical languages, and have tried to learn them themselves in secret, and then go about translating the bible with preconseived notions of what they want it to say.

In short protestants not only divine themselves the sole true interpretors of scripture they do it on a personal level (emphasising self over God), thus adding to any perceived arrogance they feel Rome may have had, they go so far as to aledge that 1600 years of Christians were mistaken and only they are correct.

That said your secret meetings and self obsessed lofty declararations seem par for the protestantism course.

[trisham]

bookmark

[xzins]

Let's say that 1000's of people throughout the world are praying to Saint Y.

How does Saint Y know of all those petitions?

[kawaii]

Firstly you should state this properly, since you've already stated you're prone to becoming confused with ambiguous verbiology.

"Let's say that 100s of people throughout the world are asking Saint Y to intercede on their behalf. How does Saint Y know of all these petition".

We know from the Bible that the Saints are in heaven and Praying, and that their Prayers can intercede on our behalf. It's plain in the Book of Revelation as well (though you mentioned you don't find the Book of Revelation to be authentic).