Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three Reasons the Church’s Enemies Hate The Immaculate Conception
TFP ^ | 12.08.06 | Plinio Corręa de Oliveira

Posted on 12/12/2006 10:51:32 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholiccaucus; immaculateconception; ourlady; tfp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 761-775 next last

1 posted on 12/12/2006 10:51:37 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus
...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?

2 posted on 12/12/2006 11:48:59 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus; NYer; Victoria Delsoul; kstewskis; Raquel; Tax-chick

Thanks!


3 posted on 12/13/2006 3:27:30 AM PST by Northern Yankee ( Stay The Course!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Northern Yankee

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


4 posted on 12/13/2006 5:14:09 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
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:
5 posted on 12/13/2006 6:25:36 AM PST by bremenboy (Just Because I Am Born Again Doesn't Mean I was Born Again Yesterday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
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.

6 posted on 12/13/2006 6:43:03 AM PST by Andrew Byler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Andrew Byler

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


7 posted on 12/13/2006 6:55:01 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

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...


8 posted on 12/13/2006 7:37:35 AM PST by Iscool (Anybody tired??? I have a friend who says "Come unto me, and I'll give you rest"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

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?

:)


9 posted on 12/13/2006 7:55:26 AM PST by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

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


10 posted on 12/13/2006 7:56:17 AM PST by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy
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.
11 posted on 12/13/2006 8:07:10 AM PST by DogwoodSouth ("Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church..." (Mt 16:18))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy
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?

12 posted on 12/13/2006 8:12:27 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bremenboy
I hate the doctrine of immaculate conception because it is false

How do you know it is false?

-A8

13 posted on 12/13/2006 8:14:20 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
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.

14 posted on 12/13/2006 8:15:17 AM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

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.


15 posted on 12/13/2006 8:17:08 AM PST by DogwoodSouth ("Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church..." (Mt 16:18))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DogwoodSouth
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...
16 posted on 12/13/2006 8:17:45 AM PST by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

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


17 posted on 12/13/2006 8:22:16 AM PST by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DogwoodSouth

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


18 posted on 12/13/2006 8:24:28 AM PST by jkl1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Campion

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.


19 posted on 12/13/2006 8:27:09 AM PST by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DogwoodSouth; bremenboy; Iscool; stfassisi
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

20 posted on 12/13/2006 8:31:50 AM PST by jo kus (Humility is present when one debases oneself without being obliged to do so- St.Chrysostom; Phil 2:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 761-775 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson