Three Reasons the Church’s Enemies Hate The Immaculate Conception

TFP ^ | 12.08.06 | Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

[snarks_when_bored]

...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.

Defending the rights of God? What does this mean?

[Northern Yankee]

Thanks!

[snarks_when_bored]

Can you answer the question I asked in post #2?

[bremenboy]

I hate the doctrine of immaculate conception because it is false and that is all the reason I need.

Rev 2:15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

[Andrew Byler]

Defending the rights of God? What does this mean?

Defending the right of God to receive due worship from all mankind, and honor and glory from all human institutions.

[snarks_when_bored]

Thanks for the reply, Andrew. I guess I don't recall having heard the word 'rights' used in relation to God. It sounds odd.

[Iscool]

What is puzzeling is that there are seemingly intelliegent people that believe this fairy tale...

There's not a human being ever been born ('cept Jesus Christ) who ever had an infallable 'second' during his/her lifetime...

[kawaii]

Shouldn't there be a reason 4; Because the basis for it wasn't articulated until St Augustine in 300-something, even he advised against using it to state something like the doctrine of Immaculate conception, was debated as recently as the 1200s be renowned Catholic Saints like Thomas Aquinas, and was not even officially made a Roman Catholic teaching until 1854?

:)

[kawaii]

Noting that it's hardly right to call all who reject the notion of the Immaculate Conception as 'enemies of the Roman Catholic Church'...

[DogwoodSouth]

I've always wondered why non-Catholics feel the need to "hate" whatever Christian doctrines that they, for whatever reason, choose to reject. The proclamation that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, for example, is "false" seems trite in light of the fact that there is no explicit Scriptural basis for many doctrines adhered to by those who chose to separate themselves from the historic and apostolic Church.

I'm operating under the assumption here that a doctrine becomes "false" for these followers of Christ whenever it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. But many of the most basic shared tenets of the apostolic faith are not explicit but only implicit in Sacred Scripture. Our current, detailed theology of the relationship between the Persons of Trinity and the nature of Christ come to mind, to name only two examples. These doctrines are not explicitly Scriptural but are only implicit in Scripture. Our detailed doctrines regarding these issues hail from the Holy Spirit's guidance of numerous ecumenical Councils.

Similarly, doctrines such as Mary's perpetual virginity and her immaculate conception are implicit in Scripture. At the very least, one would think that those who don't adhere to these doctrines, would have a "live and let live attitude" knowing that while such doctrines may not come to light in their particular (and rather new) understanding of "sola Scriptura," these beliefs are not in conflict with their own.

Just my two cents for the benefit of open discussion.

[Campion]

So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

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

[adiaireton8]

I hate the doctrine of immaculate conception because it is false

How do you know it is false?

-A8

[Campion]

There's not a human being ever been born ('cept Jesus Christ) who ever had an infallable 'second' during his/her lifetime...

This is a good example of the truism that those who refuse to venerate Mary as the pinnacle of God's creation end up venerating Jesus as the pinnacle of creation, instead.

... thus demoting him severely.

Jesus Christ is not, and never was, a "human being". He's a Divine Person with a human nature. To call him a "human being" makes him less than God.

[DogwoodSouth]

Just to clarify: With all due respect, Mary is not believed to have been "infallible" (unable to sin or make mistakes). She is, after all, human, and throughout her earthly life was surely tempted and quite able to sin.

Instead, we believe that Mary, "in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the foreseen merits of Jesus Christ, the savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin." We also believe that, with God's grace, Mary preserved this purity throughout her life and did not commit any actual sin. This doesn't mean that she could not sin (infalliblity), but that she did not sin.

[kawaii]

I'm operating under the assumption here that a doctrine becomes "false" for these followers of Christ whenever it is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture.

The Eastern Church rejected this doctrine (at east in the way the Roman church states it) for quite a while and it had nothing to do with scriptural support but rather to do with the understanding of the Sin of Adam...

[G Larry]

I see....so Jesus was born of a stained vessle?

[jkl1122]

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

[kawaii]

Watch it with descriptions of the Holy Trinity, and Christ nature... it's easy to come to close to phraseology that appears to concur with the ancient heresies (i run into this myself when trying to describe it).

"You tell me what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God"
-St Gregory the Theologian.

[jo kus]

Similarly, doctrines such as Mary's perpetual virginity and her immaculate conception are implicit in Scripture. At the very least, one would think that those who don't adhere to these doctrines, would have a "live and let live attitude" knowing that while such doctrines may not come to light in their particular (and rather new) understanding of "sola Scriptura," these beliefs are not in conflict with their own.

The difference between the Catholic Church and Protestants here is that Protestants look at the literal sense of Scripture ALONE, completely missing that interpretation of these Scriptures goes beyond the literal - otherwise, how could the first Christians see Christ in the OT? By taking a spiritual view of the Bible, it is plain to see that the Church sees in Mary a type of ITSELF. Rather than the "either/or" of Protestantism that refuses to see the spiritual and literal co-exist in a verse, they discount the spiritual.

But is that what the Bible itself does? No. Paul uses analogy. And Peter says that the Israeli crossing of the Red Sea is a TYPE of Baptism. Thus, the bible itself uses analogy and typology to further God's revelation to mankind in a gradual manner. As such, Catholics see in Mary a type of Church. They see in Gen 3:15 not only the Church, but Mary. Same in Rev 12. Same in Song of Songs. We call Mary our Mother and we call the Church our Mother. Through our Mother comes the Savior of the World - whether literally, or spiritually. They both are our Mother - Mary giving birth literally to the Body of Christ, the Church mystically giving birth to the Body through Baptism. Furthermore, the relationship between mother and child does NOT end with birth! The mother continues to nurture the child - in the Church's case, through the Word and Sacrament.

Until Protestants can learn to contemplate Scriptures in a more fuller sense, trying to understand what God has said to us (the Bible is not only a historical book), they won't understand the doctrines of Mary, which are merely recognition of Mary's special place in salvation history that reflects on Christology and Ecclesiology.

Regards