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.

[Religion Moderator]

As I recall, KKK became Aryan Nations which became Christian Identity as those who held the notion of white supremacy were driven further away from polite discourse.

For a list of hate mongering websites click here

[sitetest]

Dear Campion,

"You can't just 'avoid' it."

Sure I can. I just did. ;-)

The difficulty is that we use words that have different meanings in different circumstances.

"Person" is one of those words. What it means theologically is different from what it means in modern English in a sociological or psychological sense. Because I don't want to tangle things up, in an abundance of caution, I prefer to avoid it. Nonetheless, those other meanings are important, as well.

"I suppose that's possible, since the term 'human being' doesn't have much of a theological pedigree."

That's kind of the point for using the phrase - it's less tangled up in theological meanings, and much more a non-theological description of something.

In fact, when I'm talking to folks who defend the "right" to abortion, I use the phrase just for that reason. It's much more separated from questions of theology or philosophy. It's a plain, everyday descriptor, a bit more rooted in observable phenomena. However, it still gets around to saying what a thing IS, rather than merely how it APPEARS.

"In metaphysical terms, what you've just said (I think) is that any *person* having a *human nature* is a 'human being'."

I'll make it easier. Anyone who is accurately called a man is a human being, as all men possessed of a human soul and a human body are human beings.

Conversely, to say that Jesus is NOT a human being suggests to me that Jesus merely took up a human body for the duration, and that He is not to be really identified as being REALLY human.


sitetest

[DogwoodSouth]

Context, context, context. Once again, I believe the efficacy of the passage you sited is lost on one (like me) who does not view the Bible as a catechism. In other words, I don't think that Luke, in writing about the missionary efforts of the Apostles and their disciples to the Jews in the synagogue at Beroea and in noting those Jews' commendable habit of scrutinizing the Christian message against the Jewish Scriptures, ever intended for this story to be used to "prove" that confirmed Christians should cull the Scriptures in efforts to establish or reinforce doubts about the kerygma, the "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). The Church has been gifted with the Truth of Christ, which she expounds and protects. After all, Scripture itself proclaims that it is the Church, not Scripture, that is "the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

[DogwoodSouth]

Hey, that's exactly what happened to me (and to many of my friends). We all thought it was something in the water down here in Mississippi - all of us good Baptists and Presbyterians finding ourselves enrolled in (and now, years later, teaching) RCIA classes... ;-) Good to know that the plot is taking root nation-wide.

[bremenboy]

Why would the Angel Gabriel have addressed Mary in the following way if she were impure? "Hail, Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with you.

where is that veres found this is as close as I can find

Luk 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. The same can be said of David and Sara

Act 7:46 Who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob.
Gen 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

Question was Mary sinless? if yes then no need of Grace

[Campion]

I think that the argument would go essentially like this. "Person" is a "who"; "nature" is a "what". Christ (as you correctly note) is not a divine person "stuck to" a human person. There is only one "who," one person, in Christ.

Having said that, the question then becomes "who is that 'who' in Christ". "And you ... who do you say that I am?"

To that question, the primary answer we must give is "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the incarnate Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Son". That identifies a divine person, not a human person.

Christ was the same person before the Incarnation as after. Before the Incarnation, there is no question that he did not have a human nature. After the Incarnation, there is no question that he remains Divine. Since he was a Divine person before the Incarnation, he remains a Divine person today.

The correct formulation, in the opinion of most theologians AFAIK, that Christ is a Divine person possessed of both a divine nature (obviously) and a human nature.

[Campion]

Question was Mary sinless? if yes then no need of Grace

Mary was sinless BY and THROUGH grace.

[adiaireton8]

Thanks! That's helpful.

-A8

[xzins]

See #49

[xzins]

Perhaps it's just me.

I really fail to see the difference between Jack Chick and an article that says Calvinists, Lutherans, and other protestants love evil and are in harmony with those who are bad.

Maybe you can point out the subtle difference that the RM is seeing that I'm missing.

[bremenboy]

At the very least, one would think that those who don't adhere to these doctrines, would have a "live and let live attitude"

While I am aware of the long history of the Catholic Church and there Live and Let Live attitude. I can assure you that you will not find that attitude in the Holy Book. How many would support a doctrine that permitted Drunk Driving? Wo would say that if you wanted to drive Drunk thats OK- thats your choice -hey lets live and let live.

The truth is there is no life in false doctrine it is the truth that set you free not the lie.

what you fail to understand is that before you can prove Immaculate Conception. You Must first prove original sin. which is another false doctrine.

[Religion Moderator]

It is a judgment call. As I said, this article pushes the envelope. But the source website's focus does not seem to be mongering hatred. Nevertheless, it is on my radar now.

[LonePalm]

I'm not a Roman Catholic and I don't see what the big deal is.

The proclamation by Pius IX makes theological sense to me.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Today I will be a Calvinist in the tradition of Calvin; a Lutheran in the tradition of Luther.

Amen, xzins!!!

By the grace of God, hold that thought.

[wagglebee]

"for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:48, Douay-Rheims)

"behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed." (Luke 1:48, NAB)

"for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed." (Luke 1:48, KJV)

"From now on all generations will call me blessed," (Luke 1:48, NIV)

(Note: Multiple Catholic and Protestant translations of the same verse were quoted to eliminate the need for any clarification of different versions.)

Can Protestants honestly say that they do this? Sure, many will pay lip service to her being a "great woman," etc. But in normal conversation how many of them have EVER referred to the Blessed Mother as "Blessed"?

[bremenboy]

the Doctrine of Original sin is false therefore the doctrine of immaculate conception must be also.

What is the difference in "nature" between Adam before his sin, Mary who was "immaculate" and Christians who have their depravity removed, and Jesus?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

All mothers are blessed by God's grace in giving them a child.

[adiaireton8]

the Doctrine of Original sin is false

How do you know that?

-A8

[wagglebee]

Today I will be a Calvinist in the tradition of Calvin; a Lutheran in the tradition of Luther.

Amen, xzins!!!

By the grace of God, hold that thought.

I assume then from these statements that you BOTH are in agreement with Luther's and Calvin's Marian beliefs, which were unwavering as to her perpetual virginity and Assumption and at least substantially asserted the Immaculate Conception.

[bremenboy]

The "doctrine of the Nicolaitans" involved sexual promiscuity, so I have no idea why you think it's relevant here. Do you?

Yes God hates false doctrine. The Church is the Bride of Christ and he is the Head of the Church
If we follow False doctrine the we are following someone or something other than Christ and commit spiritual fornication.

you may not agree but now you have an Idea why I think it is relevant.