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.

[PleaseNoMore]

She alone is the Morning Star.

Aren't we told (in Scripture) that Christ is the Bright and Morning Star?

[Iscool]

Please cite just one verse that teaches 'sola scriptura'.

I'm not concerned with a single verse teaching sola scripture...No bible believer is...That's an argument to be used on people that don't study or read the bible...

When the bible says don't build a statue of anyone or anything on earth or in heaven, Sola Scripture applies...When the bible says 'John baptized with water but I baptize with the Holy spirit' (teaching you that baptize does not mean water and water does not mean baptize), Sola Scripture applies...When the bible says 'I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life', (not the church), Sola Scripture applies...

Sola Scripture is not a verse, it's the bible...

[Iscool]

(1) Does Jesus have a mother?

(2) Is Jesus God?

Thanks.

Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Thanks...

[Titanites]

Don't interpret it...Just believe it..

Do you "interpret" or "just believe" the following verse? "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53)

You missed this one Iscool. We'd really be interested in seeing your response.

[xzins]

Good. Neither would I.

Would you agree that the word "God" in common usage is typically a synonym for the word "Godhead?"

[Iscool]

Do you "interpret" or "just believe" the following verse? "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53)

It's not a matter of interpretation...It's a matter of reading the context and believing it...

Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Do you suppose that the 'bread' Jesus is referring to is believing on Him and being filled with the Holy Spirit???

Jesus did not give his flesh for you to eat...He gave his flesh at Calvary...All of his blood fell on the ground...

Joh 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

And the Catholics said, "Who cares, dig in"...

Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

Filled physically, or filled Spiritually???

Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Did you eat supper after Mass tonight, or do you suppose Jesus is talking Spiritually???

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Not a thing about eating God here...You get salvation without eating God...

Psa 119:103 How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

Does the Catholic church teach that you eat the bible as well???

Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Your church took a single verse and built a religion around it...Ignoring the context...And the congregation, somehow being convinced that they could not understand the simplicity of the bible, took the bait, hook, line and sinker...How many Catholics study the BIBLE outside of your catechism???

There are untold reams of material written by your church to twist the bible's message to fit it's own interpretation...

If you're going to eat God's body to get eternal life, you also must eat the Bible to understand it...

[G Larry]

Where did you get your Bible?

It is the Catholic Bible that is the source of truth.
Not the version that Luther corrupted for his own purposes.

Christ made it very clear who had the gift to interpret that Bible, and it wasn't Luther or a million other "inspired" individuals reaching different and inconsistent conclusions.

I will address your citations one by one later.

[adiaireton8]

Wow. That's a lot of interpretation "just believing". All our alleged interpretation is "just believing" too.

-A8

[trisham]

Praying for all those who has misunderstood Catholic dogma. May they strive to be accepting of Catholic beliefs and look at Catholics as fellow Christians. In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

************

Amen. An "Act of Contrition" may be more appropriate for me. :)

[kosta50]

Would you agree that the word "God" in common usage is typically a synonym for the word "Godhead?"

Yes, but not exclusively. Each Person of the Holy Tinity is spearate and distinct but equally divine in essence, i.e. God. The Hypstases are not interchangeable.

[xzins]

Maybe this is an issue in English that isn't an issue elsewhere. I'm not sure.

In any case, we do have this problem of "God" referring to the Godhead.

Therefore, to be exactly precise, when it is necessary to speak specifically of one person of the Godhead, it seems important to me that folks say which person they mean. It would improve communication.

Therefore, it is more precise to say that Mary is the "mother of Jesus, the Incarnate 2d Person of the Godhead."

Is there anything theologically wrong with what is between those quotation markes?

If it is more clear in English, wouldn't it be a better way of saying what is meant?

[Iscool]

The idea here is that Jesus IS fully God and fully man; but He is one Person (one Being, one Essence) and not two; and the kind of Person He is, is a divine Person; thus a divine Being.

I disagree here...Of course we disagree on many things theological so it will come as no surprise...

What the so-called experts have to say is meaningless to me...What the bible says is the key...

The argument your church uses is that there are two natures, one of God and one of man...

The unregenerated man has but one nature...That of his father, Satan...We, like God, have a body, a soul and a spirit...We are made in the likeness of God...A trinity...These entities are inter-connected...

At salvation, we are regenerated and undergo an operation;

(Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;)

We have a circumcision...A Spiritual circumcision, made without hands...Our soul and spirit is separated from our flesh;

(Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:)...

Our flesh is separated from our soul and spirit;

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

So when Jesus showed up, his flesh had the 'sinful nature' of man because that is man's only nature...

But Jesus the man, being God, was able to overcome ALL temptations...And He was tempted in everything...Sexy women, booze, money, power; just as we being filled with God (the Holy Spirit) can overcome ALL temptations if we listen to God...

When Jesus hung on the cross, his human body died...His blood fell on the ground...His old nature died...And it was not his old nature that was ressurected...

Just the same as your body when it rises up and heads for heaven;

1Co 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

At Jesus' ressurection, he put on a new body, as we will do at our physical ressurection...

In heaven, God has one nature...Just as we will have one and the same nature...

I know that's not Catholic church, but that's Bible...

[Iscool]

Wow. That's a lot of interpretation "just believing". All our alleged interpretation is "just believing" too.,p>Oh really??? Do you believe there will be a millenial reign of God on earth??? Nope...The bible says there will be...

Do you believe that your first pope, Peter set the example when he chastized a fella for bowing before him??? Of course you don't...So why would you say that???

[Mrs. Don-o]

Iscool, we would have to agree on definitiopns before we discused this, and I rather think that's unlikely. In fact, I know its not going to happen.

Let's just leave it at this: Jesus is one Person, not two. Can we start there?

[Jim Noble]

a belief that is rather new in Christian history

As are universal literacy and vernacular scripture.

It seems implicit that, now that people can read God's holy Word, that he would speak to them through it.

[Kolokotronis]

"In any case, we do have this problem of "God" referring to the Godhead."

For the life of me, Padre, I don't understand your question. When you say the "Godhead", do you mean the Trinity? If so, then clearly the Theotokos is not the "Mother of the Trinity". But she is the mother of Incarnate Word, "born of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, one in essence with the Father through whom all things were made" and who became flesh through her. She is called Theotokos because her Son is truly God, not merely a man.

The begetting of The Word, the Son, before all ages should answer your question. Maybe these will help:

"The final end of Orthodoxy is pure knowledge of the two dogmas of faith - the Trinity and the Duality; to contemplate and know the Trinity as indivisible and yet not merged together; to know the Duality as the two natures of Christ joined in one person - that is, to know and to profess one's faith in the Son of God both before incarnation, and after incarnation, to praise Him in His two natures and wills unmerged, the one Divine and the other human." +Gregory of Sinai

and this:

"Who then is that Father Who had no beginning? One Whose very Existence had no beginning; for one whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a Father. He did not then become a Father after He began to be, for His being had no beginning. And He is Father in the absolute sense, for He is not also Son; just as the Son is Son in the absolute sense, because He is not also Father. +Gregory Nazianzen

and perhaps this:

"It is the Father to Whom all existence owes its origin. In Christ and through Christ He is the source of all. In contrast to all else He is self-existent. He does not draw His being from without, but possesses it from Himself and in Himself. He is infinite, for nothing contains Him and He contains all things; He is eternally unconditioned by space, for He is illimitable; eternally anterior to time, for time is His creation. Let imagination range to what you may suppose is God's utmost limit, and you will find Him present there; strain as you will there is always a further horizon towards which to strain. Infinity is His property, just as the power of making such effort is yours. Words will l fail you, but His being will not be circumscribed." +Hilary of Poiters

It may well be that this is only a problem in English, I don't know as I don't use the term. I will say that its always dangerous to go too deeply into the nature of the Trinity.

"You ask what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God." +Gregory the Theologian

[adiaireton8]

Do you believe there will be a millenial reign of God on earth??? Nope...The bible says there will be...

As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never condemned millenarianism. So, to the best of my knowledge, one may be a Catholic and hold this belief, since the Church has not made any dogmatic statement concerning it. Therefore, even if we [you and I] were disagreed on this issue, this need not prevent us from being in full communion with one another.

Do you believe that your first pope, Peter set the example when he chastized a fella for bowing before him???

Yes, Peter set a very good example, because the Bible makes it clear that Cornelius was actually worshipping Peter. "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him". (Acts 10:25) And the Catholic Church teaches that we must worship only God. But not every kind of bowing is worship. Some bowing is simply a form of respect, as you might know if, for example, you have visited Japan. That kind of bowing is perfectly acceptable to give to the Pope.

-A8

[Iscool]

Let's just leave it at this: Jesus is one Person, not two. Can we start there?

Sure...

[Andrew Byler]

With respect to rights when it comes to God, God has rights and we have duties.

[Frank Sheed]

Dear Sweet Jesus, I NOW see the Light! The verse in Neener 23: 2-3 is what did it for me! I am going to go out and start a NEW Bible Church!

Hallelujah!

;-o)

Rev. Frank