This site mainly produces articles in French. However, since, to my knowledge, there is no article as comprehensive as the one below in English, I have exceptionally decided to translate it. The article examines approximately 200–300 authors from Antiquity and the Middle Ages regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It was originally published in December 2023. You can find our other articles translated into English here. Feel free to let me know if the translation is defective.
It is early December, and in a few days the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Mary will be celebrated in the Roman world. This Roman dogma, which asserts that the Virgin was not only holy, not only lived without sin, not only was regenerated or sanctified very early, not only was purified from original sin, but was conceived without any stain of original sin, entirely preserved from it, and never touched by sin to the point of needing purification, was definitively promulgated in 1854. Therefore, belief in the Immaculate Conception is necessary to be recognized by Rome as a Catholic Christian, that is, as non-heretical.
If, then, any should, God forbid, presume to think in their heart otherwise than has been defined by Us, let them learn and know that, condemned by their own judgment, they have shipwrecked their faith and departed from the unity of the Church; moreover, if by word, writing, or any other outward means they dared to express these sentiments of their heart, they would incur thereby the penalties prescribed by law1.
The Church of Rome further teaches that the Immaculate Conception is a dogma as fundamental as the Trinity or the Incarnation, rejecting any distinction of importance between them:
Furthermore, regarding the truths to be believed, it is absolutely illicit to make use of the distinction which some might introduce among the dogmas of faith, between those that would be fundamental and those that would be non-fundamental, as if the former must be received by all while the latter could be left as matters freely assented to by the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has as its formal object the authority of God revealing, an authority that admits of no such distinction. Therefore all true disciples of Christ give to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God the same faith as, for example, to the mystery of the august Trinity, and likewise they do not believe in the Incarnation of Our Lord otherwise than according to the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, in the sense, of course, defined by the ecumenical Council of Vatican. For the diversity, and even the recent character of the times, in which, by a solemn decree, the Church has sanctioned and defined these truths, does not imply that they do not possess the same certainty, or that they are not imposed upon our faith with the same force: is it not God who revealed them all2?
But the apostolic constitution Ineffabilis Deus does not merely assert that Mary was conceived without sin; it adds that this dogma has always been professed, as a dogma, in the Church. Thus, the paragraph “this doctrine has always been professed in the Church” states the following:
And nothing is truer: famous monuments of venerable antiquity, both of the Eastern Church and of the Western Church, indeed clearly demonstrate that this doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which has been so brilliantly explained, declared, and confirmed more and more each day, which has spread so wonderfully among all peoples and nations of the Catholic world, with the firm assent of the Church, through her teaching, zeal, learning, and wisdom, has always been professed in the Church as received hand to hand from our fathers and vested with the character of revealed doctrine3.
This assertion is reiterated on the centenary of the dogma’s proclamation in the encyclical Fulgens Corona, which declares:
This doctrine, from the earliest Church and without any dispute, was clearly taught by the Fathers4.
What this article seeks to do is examine the historical claim made in this bull: has the Immaculate Conception always been professed in the Church as received from the apostles and as revealed doctrine? To carry out this examination, I will look at what the Church Fathers had to say on the subject, and then what later doctors expressed.
Introduction: Mary in the Fathers
Before examining the individual texts of the Fathers, it is first necessary to set the framework that allows us to understand why many of these authors deemed it necessary that Mary be purified in a special way. Ancient cultures, and perhaps particularly Jewish culture deriving from the prescriptions of the Old Testament, had a strong conception of the notion of a “holy place.” Sacred places were ritually purified to be suitable for worship. Since Mary is the chosen vessel through which our God entered our world, it is natural that she be conceived as a holy place, that is, purified for this purpose. Of course, it is above all the human nature of Christ that is this “tabernacle,” but Mary also became filled with the Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament, the places that are the receptacles of the divine presence are often consecrated and purified for that purpose.
The Fathers therefore generally agree in seeing Mary as an example of holiness, virtue, faith, and humility. All of these qualities are abundantly found among Protestants, particularly in their sermons5. In fact, since the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption had not yet been proclaimed as dogmas by Rome at the time of the Reformation, historians note that Mary was very rarely a subject of controversy during this period6. The Reformers were primarily concerned with maintaining the uniqueness of Christ’s mediation and His primacy and opposed superstitious practices. They did not object to the idea of considering Mary as a particularly blessed, holy, humble, and pious woman, but rather praised her as such. They even wrote about her purification at the Annunciation.
With these preliminary considerations made, let us turn to the writings of the Fathers on this subject. We will first consider the Greeks and then the Latins regarding what they specifically said about the Virgin. Then we will examine related remarks in their writings that confirm our understanding. For this overview, I rely mainly on the excellent reference work by the Roman Catholic scholar Brian K. Reynolds, Gateway to Heaven7, which traces Marian doctrine and devotion in Antiquity and the Middle Ages over more than 400 pages. I occasionally supplement this with the opinions of other specialists and my own readings.
The Greek and Eastern Fathers
Justin Martyr (100–165)
Eve, still virgin and without blemish, listens to the devil: she gives birth to sin and death; Mary, likewise virgin, listens to the angel who speaks to her; she believes his word and rejoices when he announces the joyful news8.
The parallel between Eve and Mary is frequently invoked by Roman apologists as support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Eve and Mary function as type and antitype, they argue; since one was conceived without sin, the other must be as well. This argument overlooks the fact that biblical parallels serve both to highlight similarities and contrasts (consider Isaac and Ishmael), that Mary is not the only antitype of Eve (Mary Magdalene, meeting the new Adam in a garden, is another New Testament type of Eve, for example), and above all, that Mary is not the supreme antitype of Eve: the Church, bride of the new Adam, placed with him in the garden-temple and formed from his pierced side after a deep sleep, is the ultimate fulfillment of the seeds sown in Eden. Mary, as Eve’s antitype, actually serves as a type of the Church, and it is in the Church that the biblical trajectory reaches its culmination.
In any case, for our historical examination, it should be noted that Justin Martyr recognized this parallel while confining it within certain limits: if Eve is “virgin and without blemish,” Mary is presented as merely “virgin.” Yet this would have been the opportunity, had Justin believed in the Immaculate Conception, to mention it.
Origen (185–253)
The Greeks, like the Protestant sermons mentioned earlier, attributed highly laudatory titles to Mary. However, these Marian titles coexisted with the attribution of certain faults to her, and sometimes with particularly severe statements. Origen must be mentioned first, because he had a considerable influence on exegesis in subsequent centuries: even at the end of the 9th century, Photius, bishop of Constantinople, mentions his opinion on various texts concerning Mary as common9. Commenting on Luke, he states:
Then Simeon said: A sword will pierce your own soul too. What is this sword that pierced the hearts of others and also that of Mary? Scripture clearly says that at the time of the Passion, all the Apostles were scandalized concerning Christ. The Lord Himself said: “You will all be scandalized tonight.” […] Why suppose that if the Apostles were scandalized, the mother of the Lord was preserved from scandal? If, during the Lord’s Passion, she was not subject to scandal, Jesus did not die for their sins, but if all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God, if all are justified and redeemed by His grace, Mary too at that moment was subject to scandal10.
Origen considers that Mary makes no exception to Paul’s statement that all have sinned. In another homily on Luke, he is surprised that purification is mentioned (Luke 2:22): if it concerned only Mary, he says, there would be no cause for surprise, but the plural seems to imply that Jesus is involved, and Origen sees a difficulty to be resolved11. Thus, the Reformed historian Philip Schaff notes:
Similarly, Tertullian, Origen, Basil the Great, and even Chrysostom, with all the esteem they held for the mother of our Lord, in one or two instances (John ii. 3; Matt. XIII. 47) attributed to her maternal vanity, doubt, and anxiety, and make her the sword (Luke ii. 35) that under the cross pierced her soul12.
Catholic scholar Brian Reynolds states:
Origen interpreted Simeon’s words […] as a prophecy of her incredulity regarding the crucifixion13.
It should be noted that Origen’s influence is hard to overstate. He was the first to comment fully on Paul’s epistles and, through the school he founded in Alexandria, produced numerous disciples, including Gregory Thaumaturgus. So much so that at the Council of Antioch in 264 against Paul of Samosata, the majority of those seated in the synod were Origen’s disciples. He was therefore not an obscure author. His reputation was only tarnished later, as explained in the introduction to the Sources chrétiennes edition of Origen’s De Principiis, due to heretics claiming Origen’s authority, not because of opinions Origen actually held, as defended by Rufinus of Aquileia14.
Basil of Caesarea (329–379)
Basil, the great Cappadocian Father, is listed by Reynolds among those who followed Origen in the interpretation of the “sword” mentioned above:
By sword, one must understand the word which tests and judges our thoughts, which penetrates to the division of soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and discerns our thoughts. Now, at the hour of the Passion, each soul was subjected, so to speak, to a kind of examination. According to the Lord’s word, it is said: “You will all be scandalized because of me” (Matthew 26:3). Simeon therefore prophesies concerning Mary herself that, standing near the cross, seeing what is done, and hearing the voices, after the testimony of Gabriel, after her secret knowledge of the divine conception, after this great display of miracles, she will feel in her soul a violent storm. The Lord was to taste death for all men, make propitiation for the world, and justify all men by His own blood. You, who have been instructed from above concerning the Lord, will be touched by some doubt. Such is the sword. So that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. He indicates that after the offense at Christ’s Cross, a swift healing will come from the Lord to the disciples and to Mary herself, confirming their hearts in faith in Him. Similarly, we have seen Peter, after being humbled, cling more firmly to his faith in Christ. What was human in him proved fragile, so that the power of the Lord could be demonstrated15.
This doubt of Mary is evoked alongside the “fall and recovery” of the apostles. Catholic mariologist Luigi Gambero comments on Basil’s view:
[Basil] considers it justified to affirm that the holiness of the Virgin was not entirely without shadow. He refers to the doubt she suffered at the moment of her Son’s Passion, foretold by Simeon, using the metaphor of the sword16.
Amphilochius of Iconium (339–403)
The bishop of Iconium comments in the same sense regarding this sword:
See how Simeon called these innumerable thoughts a sword, touching even the veins and marrow. It is into these that the Virgin Mary fell, because she did not yet know the power of the resurrection, and did not know that the resurrection was near. After this resurrection, it was no longer a two-edged sword, but joy and felicity. Simeon called the sign of the cross a sign of contradiction, since at that moment these thoughts pierced the Virgin17.
Cyril of Alexandria (375–444)
Cyril of Alexandria, at the same time, still follows Origen, according to Reynolds. However, his remark is not in commentary on Luke, but when he comments on events surrounding the Passion according to John (19:25 in particular):
What, then, prompted the blessed evangelist to go into such detail as to mention the women who remained near the cross? His purpose was to teach us that, as could be expected, the unexpected fate of our Lord was a cause of scandal for His mother, and that His exceedingly bitter death on the cross almost expelled all reflection from her heart; furthermore, the insults of the Jews and soldiers, who probably remained near the cross and mocked Him, and who dared, before her eyes, to divide His garments among themselves, had their effect. For doubtless a thought like this crossed her mind: “I have conceived Him who is mocked on the Cross. He said He was the true Son of Almighty God, but perhaps He was deceived, or deceived in saying, ‘I am Life.’ How did His crucifixion occur? And how was He caught in the nets of His murderers? Why did He not triumph over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not descend from the cross, when He restored Lazarus to life, and amazed all Judea with His miracles?” It is likely that this woman, not fully understanding the mystery, became lost in thoughts of this sort; for we should remember that the nature of these events was such as to frighten and subjugate the most sober mind. It is not surprising that a woman fell into such error, whereas Peter himself, the chosen of the holy disciples, was once offended when Christ clearly announced that he would be delivered into the hands of sinners, suffer crucifixion and death, so that he exclaimed impulsively: “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall never happen to You.” How then can we be surprised if the fragile mind of a woman was likewise plunged into thoughts that betray weakness? And when we speak thus, we do not speculate, as some suppose, but are led to suspect this by what is written concerning the mother of our Lord. For we recall that the righteous Simeon, when he received the Lord as a child in his arms, after blessing Him and saying, “Now let Your servant depart in peace, Lord, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation,” also said to the holy Virgin herself: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that will be contradicted; and a sword will pierce your soul, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” By the sword, he meant the sharp pain of suffering, which was to divide the mind of this woman into strange thoughts; for temptations test the hearts of those tempted, and expose the thoughts that filled them18.
Here it is worth noting that Cyril and Origen use an a fortiori argument: if the apostle Peter himself could fall, all the more so the mother of the Lord. Catholic dogmatician Ludwig Ott comments on the views of various Greek Fathers, including Cyril of Alexandria:
Some Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity, doubt regarding the angel’s message, and lack of faith before the Cross19.
Astérius the Sophist20 and Hesychius of Jerusalem21 express similar views according to Reynolds. In the Life of Mary, attributed to Maximus the Confessor, her doubt is also mentioned22. Romanos the Melodist (493–555) likewise links the sword to Mary’s doubt:
Yes, when you see your own son nailed to the cross […], at that moment you will doubt. The hesitation into which sorrow plunges you will be like a sword within you; but afterward He will send a prompt healing to your heart23.
He also asserts that Jesus “sanctified by [His] birth the womb of a virgin”24. Brian Reynolds notes regarding the previously cited hymn:
The same negative consideration of Mary is found in a hymn by Romanos the Melodist25.
However, this passage on the sword is not the only one to receive a pejorative interpretation from the Fathers. The Annunciation text is also interpreted this way, particularly because Mary does not immediately accept the angel’s word (she questions him first), and also in the episode of the Wedding at Cana, where Jesus seems to rebuke His mother.
Irenaeus of Lyon (140–200)
Saint Irenaeus, for example, says the following about this episode:
This is why, when Mary was eager to see the wonderful sign of the wine and wished to partake prematurely of the cup of glory, the Lord, repelling her untimely eagerness, said to her: “Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come”: he was awaiting the hour foreknown by the Father26.
The Reformed historian Philip Schaff comments on this passage:
[Irenaeus] was still far from the notion of Mary’s freedom from sin, and explicitly states that Christ’s response in John ii.4 is a reproach for her premature eagerness27.
Brian Reynolds and Mary Clayton also note that Saint Irenaeus believed in a purification of Mary at the Incarnation, an idea that recurs among many Fathers:
Irenaeus affirmed that Mary experienced a purification at the moment of the Incarnation28.
Gregory the Illuminator (257–331)
Gregory the Illuminator is considered the founder of the Armenian Church; his descendants led it for a century after him. In a sermon on the Annunciation, he declares:
And when this word, “Hail to you, who have received great favor,” reached her, at the very moment she heard it, the Holy Spirit entered into the inviolate temple of the Virgin, and her spirit together with her members was sanctified29.
As we shall see later, the idea of Mary’s purification at the Annunciation was very common among the Greek Fathers, who call it the Virgin’s pre-purification in preparation for the Incarnation.
Athanasius of Alexandria (296–373)
He rebuked his mother, saying: “My hour has not yet come30.”
The Greek term (ἐπέπληττε) is quite strong, literally meaning “he repelled.” In context, Saint Athanasius gives examples where Christ’s divinity manifests in the Gospels through actions not “according to the affections of the flesh,” i.e., not according to human affections. The way Jesus reproves his mother at Cana, according to Athanasius, manifests his divinity in relation to her—a reasoning similar to that of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, which we will see later.
Ephrem of Nisibis (306–373)
Commenting on the same passage, he declares:
Mary’s eagerness had been excessive; that is why he gave her a lesson. […] Mary had thought that a miracle by her Son would earn her glory and honor among the crowds; that is why he said, “My time has not yet come.” Jesus did not act for the reasons Mary had imagined; rather, he wished to oppose her thoughts. […] Mary knew Jesus would perform a miracle; yet Jesus reproved her doubt. […] What had she done wrong? […] She had doubted his word, saying, “They have no more wine.” […] Mary hurried to replace the apostles in carrying out the Lord’s commands. However, it was not her role to give advice, to command, or to anticipate Jesus’ word; thus, he reproved her because she acted with haste31.
Reynolds notes regarding this passage:
Both Irenaeus and Ephrem believed that Mary acted with excessive eagerness at Cana, the latter adding that Jesus reproved her for being too insistent32.
This text is a commentary on the Diatessaron and existed only in translation until the 1950s, when the first manuscripts were discovered. In the 1980s, new discoveries included 5 folios in 1984 and 36 in 1986 (first translated into English in 1993), covering 80% of the Syriac text previously known only in Armenian; interestingly, these manuscripts precisely cover chapters II.4 to IX.10, including the portion in question33. Thus, this passage is attributed to Ephrem of Nisibis by Robert Murray (2006)34, and it appears in the most recent English edition of the commentary (1993)35; as we have seen, Brian Reynolds retains it in his 2012 study.
Regarding the Nativity, he states that just as Mary physically gave birth to Christ, Christ gave her a new birth:
The Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became his Mother; and just as I begot him by a second birth, he begot me by a second birth—because he clothed himself with the garments of his Mother, and she clothed her body with his glory36.
Ephrem also asserts that Christ was born of “a nature subject to impurity and requiring purification by divine visitation” and that Christ “purified the Virgin, having first prepared her through the Holy Spirit”; he compares Christ to a pearl and the maternal breast before purification to ritually impure animals37. In his Diatessaron commentary, he further states that “the Spirit sanctified the building which was impure”38.
Luigi Gambero comments on Saint Ephrem, citing the sixteenth hymn on the Nativity:
Ephrem’s emphasis on Mary’s spiritual beauty and holiness, and her freedom from any stain of sin, has led some scholars to consider him aware of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, even calling him a witness to the dogma. Yet he does not seem to have been familiar with the issue as later clarified by tradition and the dogmatic definition of 1854. In one passage, he even uses the term “baptized” to indicate the salvific intervention of her Son on her behalf:
Servant and daughter of blood and water, I am she whom you have redeemed and baptized39.
Catholic scholar Hilda Graef shares this interpretation:
His thought on this subject differs from that of modern Western theologians; the alleged passage must be interpreted in light of others referring to the same subject40.
After citing the same hymn as Gambero, she adds:
Ephrem did not teach the Immaculate Conception in its technical sense, as he uses the metaphor of baptism and the term itself: “you have baptized me.” Does this mean Christ literally baptized his mother, as he was baptized by John? And what does he mean when he says Christ clothed himself with his mother’s garment and she clothed herself with his glory? The mother’s garment is obviously the human nature Mary gave to her Son, but not the nature tainted by Adam’s sin—it is a garment of glory. Yet Mary could not give this garment to him unless it had first been given to her. When did Mary receive it? In what Ephrem calls a “second birth.” But for Ephrem, the moment of this birth was not Mary’s conception, as appears in an excerpt from his hymns on the Church. In it he writes: “The eye is purified by the sun through union with it. It conquers by its weapon, becomes clear through its light, brilliant in its splendor, magnificent in its decorations. Mary is like the eye: the Light came to her, purifying her spirit, her thoughts, her mind, and her virginity.” Thus, according to Ephrem, Mary was purified when “the Light came to her,” i.e., when the Word entered her41.
Orientalists Muna Tatari and Klaus von Stosch also state:
Ephrem the Syrian clearly shows that Mary’s purity first requires the intervention of Jesus Christ. Ephrem has been mistakenly cited as the first Syriac Father to teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Like Jacob of Sarug, he emphasizes Mary’s beauty and purity from the beginning. At the same time, Ephrem presents the idea that Jesus Christ is the only person entirely without sin, and that Mary is first baptized in Christ, with this baptism essential for preserving her purity. In his writings, Mary appears as the first person absolved from sin through baptism, which Ephrem sees as residing in her conception of Jesus. In other words, Mary is reborn by her son and purified from sin by him. Similarly, Jacob of Sarug assumes that Mary is freed from sin, including original sin, from the moment she conceives Jesus, although for Jacob this is a prerequisite necessary for the conception of Jesus that the Holy Spirit performs prior to the event. Despite their mariological enthusiasm, the Mariology of Ephrem and Jacob remains resolutely Christocentric. And despite all its advantages, Mary still needs to be purified42.
The Protestant theologian James Attebury likewise states:
Ephrem says that Mary is without stain. But if Mary is pure and holy, how did she become so? Ephrem tells us that he believes Mary became holy—she is holy because she is reborn through a second birth, i.e., by giving birth to Jesus. Ephrem tells us that Mary experienced this second birth. And this would have been impossible if Mary had already been immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb. Ephrem did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, but rather that Mary was without stain through a second birth43.
Regarding the typology between Mary and Eve employed by Saint Ephrem, the aforementioned orientalists note:
In Christian tradition, there are two different ways of understanding the Eve–Mary typology. The first, more dynamic, assumes that Mary, though initially affected by the consequences of the fall and therefore by original sin, is later freed from its influence by giving birth to Jesus. In this line of thought, which represents the dominant current in the Syriac tradition, the Christ-centered perspective typical of the biblical vision is maintained. This construction is clearly preferred by Ephrem the Syrian and Jacob of Sarug. The second, more static reading conceives Mary as the new Eve, spared from the consequences of the fall from the beginning. This understanding is not found among the early Fathers of the Church, and we have found no evidence that it appears anywhere in the Syriac tradition44.
Alluding to a remark on the oil and Mary in Homily 49 mentioned earlier, the editors of his English works note:
Mary indicated a symbol of the death of the One who put to death her carnal desire through his teaching45.
Eustathius of Antioch (270-337)
Eustathius of Antioch also sees a reproach in this passage about the wedding, since, he says, Christ, knowing all things, did not need anyone to tell him what to do46. Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637), Jesuit priest, still lists in his commentary on this passage Euthymius (the Great? or Zigabenus?) and Theophylact (of Antioch? or of Ohrid?) as having argued that Mary had sinned.
Didymus the Blind (313-398)
Theologian of the Alexandrian school and author of numerous books, his blindness appearing in childhood earned him his nickname. In a work against the Manicheans, he lays out the following reasoning:
For [a flesh] similar to that of sin is a flesh which differs from all others only in that it comes about without man. For if it had taken body through carnal union, thus not being different [from the others], it would also have been under the sentence of that sin, under which all of us, who are of Adam, have successively been47.
If, for Didymus, Christ would have been subject to original sin if he had been born of a carnal union, it is clear that according to Didymus the Virgin was, since she was born of such a union. This Father, like many others, establishes a link between the virginal conception and the immaculate conception of Christ.
John Chrysostom (344-407)
In his numerous homilies, Chrysostom repeatedly returns to the Virgin and refers to the various passages we have mentioned. Here, for example, is how he extensively presents the episode at Cana:
And for what reasons, you may still object, did she say nothing beforehand? Because he began, as I said, only then to appear in public, and before that time he lived in obscurity, like a common man; therefore his mother would not have dared to make such a request of him then; but when she learned that it was for him that John the Baptist had come and that he had given him such a great testimony, that at last his son had disciples, then she approached him with confidence, and seeing that the wine was lacking, she said: They have no wine. By this, she wanted, on the one hand, to oblige her guests; on the other, to be glorified through her Son; perhaps she also had some human sentiments, like her brothers who told her: Make yourself known to the world (John 8:4), hoping to profit from the glory he would acquire through his miracles. That is why Jesus gave her this rather sharp response: Woman, what does this have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come; yet he had very great consideration for his mother. Saint Luke notes that he was obedient to his parents (Luke 2:5-1), and the evangelist Saint John tells us of the great care he had for Mary when he was on the cross (John 19:26).
Indeed, we must be obedient to our parents, when they do not prevent us from fulfilling our duties toward God and do not place obstacles therein; it is very dangerous not to follow this rule; but when they request something inappropriate, and hinder us in spiritual matters, it is then neither good nor wise to obey them. This is why Jesus, here and elsewhere, responds: Who is my mother and who are my relatives? (Mark 3:33) For they did not yet have from him the feelings they ought to have; but his mother, for having borne him, believed, according to the custom of other mothers, that she could command him in all she wished, she who should have honored and adored him as her Lord. That is why he answered her in this way.
Consider, I beg you, my brothers, this scene: on the one hand, Jesus is surrounded by a large crowd, all attentive only to hear him and to listen to his teaching; on the other, a woman runs, pierces the crowd, comes to call him out of the assembly and speak to him privately. She comes, not to enter the house, but to take him aside. That is why he says: Who is my mother and who are my brothers? Not to insult his mother, God forbid such a thought, but to render her the greatest service by teaching her to conceive a more just idea of his dignity. If he cared for others, and omitted nothing to inspire the right opinion they should have of him, all the more did he do so for his mother. And since it appears that, having heard what his Son had said, she nevertheless did not wish to obey him, but to prevail as being his mother, it is also for this reason that he gave her this response. Indeed, Jesus would not have drawn her from the low opinion she had of him, nor elevated her to the great and sublime sentiments she ought to have of him, if she had always expected to be honored by her Son as her mother, instead of seeing him as her Lord and Master. Therefore, he answered her: Woman, what does this have to do with you and me? […]
And this was a warning for her not to repeat it. For if he wished to honor his mother, he cared even more for her salvation, and the good he must do for the world, having clothed himself in our flesh for this purpose: this was not speaking haughtily to a mother, but wisely guarding his words, and ensuring that the miracles were performed with the appropriate dignity. Moreover, that he greatly honored his mother requires no further proof, apart from the reprimand he addressed to her; this severity even shows great respect. How? The following will make it clear.
Consider therefore these things: remember them, when you hear a woman say: Blessed are the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you, and Jesus answers: But rather blessed are those who do the will of my Father (Luke 11:27-28); and be convinced that it is with the same intention and spirit that he responds in this way to his mother. Jesus does not give his mother this answer to repel her, but to declare to her that it would not have benefited her at all to have borne him if she had not been very virtuous and very faithful. Now, if it would have been of no use to Mary to have borne Jesus Christ, assuming her soul had not been inwardly adorned with virtue, all the more so will it be of no use to us, who have nothing good, to have had a father, a brother, a child, good and virtuous, if we ourselves are distant from virtue48.
In another sermon on Matthew, he returns to the episode at Cana as follows:
On that day, Jesus went out of the house, and sat by the sea. Observe how, after reprimanding his relatives, he nevertheless immediately does what they ask. He acted the same toward his mother at the wedding in Cana. For after telling her that his time had not yet come, he nevertheless obeyed her to show, on the one hand, that all his moments were regulated, and to testify, on the other hand, to the great affection he had for her. He does the same in this encounter. He first corrects her vanity, and yet immediately goes out of the house to render to his mother all the honor that decorum demanded of him, even though the request was untimely49.
In a sermon on Matthew referring to the Annunciation, he even says that the angel announced to Mary the destiny of her Son so that she would not be led to suicide out of fear of being thought an adulteress:
Why does God, you say, not act the same way toward the Virgin, by announcing this mystery only after conception? To spare her grave anxiety and great disturbance. If the mystery of the divine conception had occurred in her without her being forewarned, consider to what extreme she might have gone to escape disgrace50.
The translator Jean-Baptiste Jeannin, Roman Catholic and professor in a college dedicated to the Immaculate Conception, considerably diminishes the Greek text which says, as this English translation shows, that the angel announced in advance to Mary the glorious destiny of her son, for fear that she might “stab or hang herself” rather than endure disgrace. This text allows me to note in passing how unreliable 19th-century Catholic translations of the Fathers are whenever a contested point with Protestants or Orthodox is involved. For example, Abbé Genoude adds a mention of the double procession of the Spirit in his translation of Athenagoras of Athens’ Apology of the Christians by translating “the Holy Spirit is only an outflow of both” while the Greek says nothing of the kind51. Similarly, Abbé Raulx, translator of Saint Augustine, in his translation of the Refutation of the Manichean Letter called Fundamental, presents in chapter IV Saint Augustine speaking of “this imposing succession of the priesthood, crowned by the episcopate which derives directly from the pontificate itself,” a translation cited on websites and in books defending Roman Catholicism. The Latin text simply does not speak of the pontificate and stops at mentioning the episcopate, which it presents not as the crowning of the priesthood but simply as a succession in the priesthood 52. These are just examples I personally observed in my readings, although my Latin and Greek skills are limited; I imagine the number of similar cases is large. From this, I take the principle that one should not trust Roman Catholic translators before a relatively recent period on disputed subjects; at a lay level, it is appropriate to compare translations.
In any case, this opinion of Chrysostom is well known in academia. Richard McBrien, priest and theology professor at the University of Notre Dame, comments on the preacher’s doctrine as follows:
[Chrysostom] admitted the negative tone of Mary’s perception by Mark, and in his Homilies on the Gospel of Saint John, he stated that “she continually had a poor opinion of [Jesus] […], while considering herself worthy of first place, because she was his mother.” At Cana, Mary told Jesus there was no more wine only because she wanted “to grant a favor to others and make herself more illustrious through her Son.” Even at the Annunciation, she was at fault. The angel had to reassure her so that she would not kill herself in despair upon learning she would have a son53.
The Catholic mariologist Luigi Gambero similarly notes:
[Chrysostom] does not hesitate to attribute faults and imperfections to Mary. He interprets certain passages of the Gospel in such a way that he ascribes to the Virgin Mary faults such as disbelief or vanity54.
Chrysostom is not the only one to have harsh words on occasion regarding the reprimand at Cana. Reynolds also lists Severian of Gabala55, Theodore of Mopsuestia56 and Severus of Antioch57.
Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-428)
Theodore of Mopsuestia, among the three mentioned above, says, for example:
When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him: They have no wine. His mother, as is the custom of mothers, pressed him to perform a miracle, wanting to immediately show the greatness of her son and thinking that the lack of wine was a good opportunity to perform a miracle. But the Lord said to her: Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come […] In other words: […] I possess the power to act always, when and as I wish; even without being pressed by the need of recipients, I am able to deploy my power. That is why the excuse you allege of a lack of wine is an insult to me58.
Theodotus of Ancyra (?-446)
An excerpt from a homily by this bishop of Ancyra has occasionally been cited in support of the Immaculate Conception59, here it is:
In place of Eve, an instrument of death, a virgin is chosen, entirely pleasing to God and full of grace, as an instrument of life. A virgin encompassed within the sex of woman, but without feminine malice. An innocent virgin, without stain, free from all fault, intact, untainted, holy in soul and body, like a lily growing among thorns60.
Several considerations invite caution in using this text in favor of the Immaculate Conception. First, this text does not tell us whether Mary reached this degree of holiness by immaculate conception or by subsequent purification. The bishop of Ancyra elsewhere allows one to affirm that it was by purification that she attained such holiness:
The adversaries of divine motherhood did not want to understand the teaching of our Fathers regarding the transformation of holiness experienced by the Virgin. But comparisons drawn from tangible things can give us an idea of the mystery. If a piece of iron, all black and covered with dross, is stripped, as soon as it is thrown into the fire, of foreign bodies, and immediately takes on the purity of its nature; if it acquires the resemblance of the flame that purifies it, becomes inaccessible to touch and consumes all matter that approaches it, what is astonishing if the all-immaculate Virgin was brought to perfect purity by the contact of the divine and immaterial fire; if she was purified from all that was material and foreign to nature, and constituted in the full splendor of nature’s beauty, so as to be henceforth inaccessible, closed, and removed from all carnal corruption61.
Luigi Gambero, Marianist priest, introduces the preceding citation as follows:
The mission to which God called the Virgin was so important that some Fathers thought it required adequate preparation. We now know that this preparation occurred in the mystery of the Immaculate Conception, in which Mary was not only preserved from original sin and its moral consequences, but also filled with extraordinary graces. The Fathers do not seem to have known of this unique privilege; they thought a special divine intervention had taken place in Mary immediately before the Incarnation, to make her worthy to become the Mother of the incarnate Word. Theodotus also expresses himself in this sense, using the example, so common in patristic literature, of iron heated in the fire62.
A final point to note is that the attribution of this homily to Theodotus of Ancyra and its authenticity are now considered doubtful63.
Proclus of Constantinople (390-446)
The Patriarch of Constantinople, in a speech whose attribution is disputed but whose dating is prior to the mid-fifth century64, places these words in the mouth of Christ:
Unless I take my place in your maternal arms, you will not take your place at the right hand of my Father. Unless I am placed in a sinful body, resting, so to speak, like a body in a new tomb, the testament cannot be confirmed, and you cannot be proclaimed heirs of the kingdom of heaven65.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-458)
Theodoret of Cyrrhus refers to these Gospel episodes saying:
Likewise, Christ, our Lord, teaches us himself that he sometimes calls himself Son of God, sometimes Son of Man, sometimes honors his mother as the one who bore him and sometimes reprimands her as his Lord66.
Pseudo-Justin (?)
The following quote comes from a work long considered to be by Justin Martyr and thus enjoyed a certain authority. We now know this attribution is incorrect. Recent research suggests an attribution to Theodoret of Cyrrhus67.
For, at the wedding, by saying to his mother: “What is there between you and me, woman?” he reprimanded her. And when his mother wished to see him, he called those who do the will of God his mother and his brothers. Moreover, when the womb that bore him and the breasts that nourished him were called blessed, he called blessed those who do the will of God68.
Antipater of Bostra (410-?)
Commenting on the Annunciation and paraphrasing the angel, this bishop says:
I greet you, you who, first and alone, bear a child free from the curse69.
Chrysippus of Jerusalem (410-479)
Chrysippus was a priest in Jerusalem and a disciple of Saint Euthymius. In one of his sermons, he compares Mary to the Ark of the Covenant. But rather than drawing an argument for the Immaculate Conception as Roman apologists do, he continues asserting:
“You and the ark of your strength.” For when you lift up and seal the ark of your sanctification, then this ark too will rise from its fall, in which Eve’s kin also placed it70.
Severus of Antioch (465-538)
Brian Reynolds mentions a homily where the Patriarch of Antioch refers to the episode of the wedding at Cana in these terms:
His mother, who harbored entirely human feelings, and who had urged him to act out of love for show, received correction through the words with which he answered her, teaching that he must perform such miracles not for love of display but at the proper time and place71.
Ammonius of Alexandria (circa 500)
Ammonius continues this exegetical tradition around Cana as follows:
He [Jesus] reproaches his mother for untimely reminding God, who needs no reminder. It is as if he said: “Do not consider me only as a man, but also as God. The time of my manifestation has not yet come. My identity is not yet known72.”
A motif, finally, recurs among several Greek Fathers: the purification of the Virgin at the coming of the Spirit at the Annunciation. Thus, Methodius of Olympus (250-312) says that the Spirit “sanctified her” upon his coming73 and compares the purification that Jesus brings to Mary to that which salt brings to dead water in 2 Kings 2:2174; Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) exclaims, commenting on Mary’s astonished response to the angel: “where the Holy Spirit blows, all pollution is removed75”; Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390), regarding the Incarnation, says that “the Virgin was purified in body and soul by the Holy Spirit76”; the Catholic mariologist Luigi Gambero estimates that for Gregory of Nazianzus this purification occurs “before the conception of Christ77”; Brian Reynolds affirms the same78; Chrysostom also asserts that Mary was purified at the Incarnation79; Ephrem of Nisibis, as studied above, also mentions a purification at the Annunciation80; Jacob (or James) of Sarug (451-521), a Syriac Father noted for his laudatory epithets toward Mary, affirms that Mary was “purified” and “sanctified” like Elisha and John the Baptist at the coming of the Spirit and that the latter “removed the former sentence of Adam and Eve” at that time81; Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, again mentions the Virgin’s purification for the Incarnation, saying that Christ made it “his dwelling” only “after she had been pre-purified in body and soul” and “sanctified in body and soul” and situates this purification at the moments preceding the Incarnation82, in a letter read at the Council of Constantinople III, the sixth ecumenical council83. This ecumenical council declared this Orthodox letter to be in accordance with the Fathers’ doctrine and worthy of inclusion in ecclesiastical libraries:
We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius, of blessed memory, formerly patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and we have found it to conform to true faith and apostolic teachings, as well as to those of the holy and approved Fathers. Therefore, we have received it as Orthodox and salutary for the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it was proper for its name to be inserted in the diptychs of the holy Churches84.
An ecumenical council therefore found nothing to object to and approved the orthodoxy of a text dealing with Mary’s purification. As we will see later, another ecumenical council had already done so, even more clearly. It should be noted that Sophronius teaches elsewhere that Mary received a purification and, elsewhere again, that Mary doubted at the cross85. The Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique of 1922 summarizes the orthodox reading of these data on the Virgin’s purification as follows:
For their part, the Greek Fathers, interpreting the angel’s words: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, Luke 1:35, teach that at that moment Mary was purified in her soul and body; thus, previously she was subject to the law of sin, at least by birth. In this hypothesis, Mary would have been delivered from hereditary vice only on the day of the Annunciation86.
Luigi Gambero, a Catholic specialist on the Patristic mariology, concurs:
The mission to which God called the Virgin was so important that some Fathers thought it required proper preparation. We know today that this preparation occurred in the mystery of the Immaculate Conception, in which Mary was not only preserved from original sin and its moral consequences, but also filled with extraordinary graces. The Fathers do not seem to have known of this unique privilege; they thought that a special divine intervention occurred in Mary immediately before the Incarnation, to make her worthy to become the Mother of the Incarnate Word. [and in footnote:] This is the idea of pre-purification, or procatharsis, articulated by Gregory of Nazianzus (cf. Oratio 38, 13; PG 36, 325; Oratio 45, 9; PG 36, 633; Poemi dogtmatici 9, 68; PG 37, 461)87.
As a transition to the Latins, it should be noted that Zeno of Verona88 (300-371), John Cassian89 (350-432), Ambrosiaster90, Saint Ambrose91, Saint Augustine92 and Gregory the Great93 also mention such a purification. As I said earlier, this purification at the Annuciation is also discussed in the Reformed tradition.
The Latin Fathers
Tertullian (160–220)
The first remarks from the Latin Fathers regarding the Gospel texts we considered earlier come from Tertullian:
Similarly, his mother does not seem to have adhered to his person, although Martha and other Marys are mentioned in his company. At this point, their unbelief is manifest […]. While strangers were with him, his relatives were absent […], but they preferred to interrupt him in his solemn task […]. By thus rejecting his relatives out of indignation, he was not denying their existence but reproving their faults […]. The mother who is denied is an image of the synagogue, and the unbelieving brothers are an image of the Jews […] while the disciples who remain close to Christ, listening with faith, represent the Church, far more worthy to be called mother and brothers94.
He returns in another work to the same episode:
It was just that he was indignant, for people so close to him were neglecting him while strangers listened to his words, but above all because they wanted to take him away from his solemn task. Thus he disowned them. And to the question, Who is my mother, and who are my brothers, he added no answer except that this title was for those who hear his word and put it into practice. In this way, he transferred the relations of blood to those he considered closer to him by reason of their faith95.
As shown by the reference index compiled by Roger Pearse, Tertullian was a very influential author in the Latin world and frequently cited by the Fathers96. When Saint Augustine undertakes a recension of Tertullian’s writings to express his disagreements with them, he does not mention these words about the Virgin among his disagreements97. The Anglican specialist in patristics J.N.D. Kelly comments on the view of the apostolic Fathers, including Tertullian:
None of these theologians had the slightest scruple in attributing faults to her. Irenaeus and Tertullian recalled the occasions when, reading the Gospel accounts, she had deserved the reproaches of her Son, and Origen insisted that, like all human beings, she needed to be redeemed from her sins; in particular, he interpreted Simeon’s prophecy (Luke 2:35) that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded by doubt when she saw her Son crucified98.
Brian Reynolds summarizes the view of the apostolic Fathers by stating:
The early Fathers did not even consider the possibility of an Immaculate Conception99.
Ambrose (339–397)
The Latin tradition had little to say on this subject before Ambrose. Reynolds states that Saint Ambrose of Milan caused a shift in the trajectory of Latin patristics, as he adopted a more positive exegesis of the various passages we have considered among the Greeks. Some have argued that Saint Ambrose adhered to the Immaculate Conception since he speaks of Mary as an “innocent virgin, free by grace from all trace of sin100”. However, this citation is explained by his belief that Mary had been purified from sin to receive Christ, and some argue that he thought she had committed no actual sins.
Ambrose therefore cannot be proposed as a patristic example of belief in the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, several of his writings affirm that only Jesus was conceived without corruption:
The only one, indeed, of the children of the woman who is perfectly holy is the Lord Jesus, to whom every taint of earthly corruption was spared by the novelty of his spotless birth, removed by his heavenly majesty101.
Even more clearly, he asserts that those born of fallen parents are conceived in sin:
No conception occurs without iniquity, for there are no parents who are free from lapse102.
In him alone are both a virginal conception and birth, without any contamination of mortal origin103.
Some of Ambrose’s writings are lost, but Saint Augustine, during the Pelagian controversy, cited several of them, which naturally relate to our subject, since they concern original sin.
In his commentary on Isaiah, Saint Ambrose, speaking of Jesus Christ, expresses his thought: “As man, he was tried in every way and suffered all the pains in his resemblance to men; but sin never defiled his nature, because he was born of the Spirit. Indeed, every man is a liar, and no one is without sin except God. Therefore, it is not without reason that it is said that whoever is born of the commerce of man and woman has known sin from birth. He alone was born without sin, who was born outside this kind of conception.” In his commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, Saint Ambrose also says: “When it comes to the birth of the Savior, remove all purely human ideas, all profanation of holy virginity; it is the Holy Spirit Himself who, in an inviolate womb, deposited an immaculate seed. Alone among all who are born of woman, Jesus Christ did not taste the corruption of a tainted origin; alone he repelled its shame by the novelty of his immaculate birth and by the majesty of his divine nature.”104
Ambrose’s statement, which Augustine reports with approval against Pelagius, is clear: anyone born from the union of man and woman experiences sin from birth. The only one who escapes sin also escapes the ordinary mode of generation and does so by divine majesty. This reason does not apply to Mary.
I find a first example in Saint Ambrose’s book on Noah’s Ark. Here are his words: “It is announced to us that salvation will come to the nations only through Jesus Christ Our Lord, for he alone, facing all sinful generations, could not have needed justification, since his birth in the womb of a virgin conferred upon him the privilege of a generation without blemish or taint. ‘I was conceived in iniquity, and my mother bore me in sin,’ said the one who was then regarded as the most righteous of men. To whom, then, shall I apply the name of just, if not to Him who never knew the chains under which human nature always groans? All are slaves of sin; since Adam, death reigned over all men. Let him come, then, who alone is truly just in the eyes of God, of whom it must be said not only that he did not sin with his lips, but that he never knew sin.” — Now, if you dare, tell Saint Ambrose that the devil is the creator of all men born of the union of the two sexes, for if Jesus Christ alone, among all guilty children of Adam, did not know original sin, it is because he was born of a virgin, and then the devil could not sow sin for him as he does for others. Accuse the holy doctor of condemning marriage, since he teaches that only the Son of the Virgin was born without sin. Reproach him for making virtue impossible, since he affirms that vices are born with man at the very moment of conception105.
This reason given by Ambrose, and repeated by Augustine with approval, remained a frequently cited argument throughout the Middle Ages by those who opposed the Immaculate Conception. The Dominican priest Boniface Ramsey, professor at the Seminary of the Immaculate Conception at Seton Hall University and biographer of Saint Ambrose, concludes his examination of Ambrose’s mariology:
We do not yet find the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and of her Assumption in Ambrose106.
Augustine (354–430)
Despite the clear passages cited above, which repeatedly affirm that all those conceived by man and woman are born with original sin, a text has been invoked by several Catholic apologists and is supposed to prove that Augustine adhered to the Immaculate Conception. In fact, Ineffabilis Deus references this text in support of its doctrine. As we saw in our article on the death penalty, this is not, however, the only instance in which a pope has invoked Augustine incorrectly.
Our author then lists those who are presented to us not only “as having not sinned, but as having lived in righteousness: Abel, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joshua, Phinehas, Samuel, Nathan, Elijah, Joseph, Elisha, Micah, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael, Ezekiel, Mordecai, Simeon, Joseph, husband of the virgin Mary, John.” He also adds certain women: “Deborah, Anne, mother of Samuel, Judith, Esther, another Anne, daughter of Phanuel, Elizabeth, and the Mother of our Savior, of whom, he says, it is necessary to acknowledge that she was without sin.” Thus, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, about whom there can be no question when I treat of sin and whose perfect innocence I cannot doubt, without compromising the honor of God; for she who merited to conceive and give birth to innocence itself, the incarnate Word, could she not receive all the graces by which she would be victorious over every sin whatsoever? I say, therefore, that excluding the Virgin Mary, if we could gather all the saints while they lived on earth and ask them whether they were without sin here below, what, do we think, would be their answer? Would it be that of our author, or that of the apostle Saint John107?
In this excerpt, Augustine is responding to Pelagius, who claimed that several people in the holy Scriptures lived without sin, and he undertakes to list them, which includes Mary. For the latter, Pelagius adds, one cannot doubt that she did not sin.
The first element that invites us not to see here a doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, aside from the clear affirmations we considered earlier, is that this is about living without actual sin. The context, therefore, does not concern original sin. Augustine could simply be affirming that Mary lived without sin—an opinion already attributed by many to Ambrose, as we have noted. This is precisely how Bonaventure, for example, understood this text, asserting: “It must be said that [Saint] Augustine understood this regarding actual sin and not original sin, as is clearly shown by the context108.”
In reality, this text is more complex than it appears. It should be noted at this point that the French translation given above is tendentious. Indeed, the French translator extends the meaning far beyond the words by rendering: “Thus, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, about whom there can be no question when I treat of sin and whose perfect innocence I cannot doubt, without compromising the honor of God” where the Latin reads only: “Let us leave aside the Blessed Virgin Mary. Out of respect for the honor due to the Lord, I do not wish to raise any questions here about her when we speak of sins109.”
Furthermore, the phrase translated as if Augustine were affirming that Mary must have received all graces to overcome sin rests on a Latin reading no longer considered authentic and therefore not found in the Augustinian Library or in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum110. It still appeared in Migne’s excellent Patrologia Latina. This reading likely stems from how the Summa Sententiarum cites this work, a citation taken up by Peter Lombard in his Sentences, and then by later scholastics111. Even if it is not authentic, this version circulated widely after the 11th century, giving this text a weight that the author himself did not intend to convey.
Thus, Daniel E. Doyle, in an encyclopedia of nearly 1,000 pages devoted to the theology of Saint Augustine, comments on this passage by stating: “Augustine never conceded that Mary had no sin, but preferred to pass over the question112.” According to this interpretation, when Augustine excludes Mary from the list, he does not concede that she had no sin, but rather avoids the subject. The reason he gives is “out of honor for the Lord”: out of consideration for Christ, he prefers not to speak of the Virgin when discussing sins. This interpretation is supported by major Augustinians, including Robert Eno113, the medievalist Jesuit Roland Teske, recent translator of all Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works114, Gerald Bonner, one of Augustine’s most famous biographers115, William J. Collinge, Catholic theology professor and editor of a translation of Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings116, and Romel Quintero for the site Agustinismo Protestante, a partner of our site117. However, in our view, it is a much less known author, the young Polish Reformed theologian Damian Dziedzic, who best defended this reading118. Nevertheless, as our article only seeks to discuss the Immaculate Conception, and in this debate both sides agree that Saint Augustine did not adhere to it, we refer this question to another article.
It thus appears that Augustine did not conceive that anyone other than Christ was conceived without sin. Francisco Moriones, a Catholic Augustinian, notes that Augustine’s theology implies that actual sins and original sin go together119. This is why the interpretation of Augustinian Daniel E. Doyle is consistent with Augustine’s overall theology, and it is safer to read this troubling text in light of other clear, uncontested texts. Even if Doyle were wrong, it would only imply that Saint Augustine believed Mary could have lived without actual sin, although she was conceived, like the rest of us, in sin. This would therefore not make the Doctor of Hippo a supporter of the Immaculate Conception, which is clear when the following citations are added to the previous ones:
Do not think that there is a single soul, except that of the Mediator, which does not inherit from Adam original sin, acquired by generation, which must be undone by regeneration120.
Thus, the Catholic mariologist Peter Stravinskas recognizes:
Augustine believed she was under the dominion of original sin121.
With these points established, we must admit that since the time when sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, which passed to all men, from then until the end of this carnal generation and this corruptible age, of which children beget and are begotten, there exists no man of whom it can be truthfully said, while in this present life, that he is absolutely free from all sin. The only exception is the one who is our unique Mediator, who reconciles us with our Creator through the remission of sins122.
Let us therefore hold immutable and inflexible the confession of the faith. Only he is free from sin, who was born without sin, though in the likeness of a sinful flesh, who lived without sin among the sins of others, who died without sin for our sins. “Let us stray neither to the right nor to the left.” One strays to the right when, deceiving oneself, one dares to call oneself free from sin; one strays to the left when, obeying some culpable and miserable security, one abandons oneself to sin as if certain of impunity. “The ways of the right are known to the Lord,” who alone is without sin and alone can erase our sins123.
That is why no living man will be justified before God, and yet the righteous live by faith; and the saints are clothed with righteousness, one more, another less; and no one here below lives without sin, some more, others less: the best is the one who sins the least124.
The most obvious conclusion to draw is that, with the exception of the flesh of Jesus Christ, all human flesh is sinful flesh. It follows that the means of transmitting evil in the human race is indeed this concupiscence in which Christ did not want to be conceived. Yes, undoubtedly, Mary’s body was formed in the ordinary way; however, it could not transmit to the body of Jesus Christ an evil in which it had not conceived the Savior’s own body125.
He reiterates the same teaching as in the preceding quotation in another work:
One thing alone is absent from the marriage of Joseph and Mary: the conjugal duty, for in sinful flesh this duty could not be fulfilled without that shameful concupiscence of the flesh which is the fruit of sin, and apart from which He who was to be without sin must have wished to be born, who did not even wish to assume sinful flesh, while accepting the likeness of sinful flesh. Did he not thereby wish to teach us that all that is born from the reciprocal action of man and woman is only sinful flesh, since the only flesh not born of marriage could be free from sinful flesh126?
And what is more virginal than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, even if it came from the propagation of sin, did not thereby conceive from the propagation of sin? […] Thus the body of Christ was indeed assumed from the flesh of a woman who had been conceived from that propagation of the flesh of sin; but because he himself was not conceived in it in the same way that flesh had been conceived, his flesh, far from being corrupted by sin, took only the likeness of sinful flesh127
Edmund Hill, recent English translator of this work of Augustine, comments on the preceding quotation: “The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary had not even begun to be formulated in Augustine’s time128.”
If we do not hand Mary over to the devil, it is not because of the condition of her birth, but we do so precisely because this condition is removed by the grace of rebirth129
In the preceding text, Augustine argues for the existence of original sin against Julian, and he takes the Virgin Mary as an example, saying that when she is not considered to belong to the devil, it is not because of her birth (and thus not because she would escape original sin) but because of her rebirth, her regeneration. Reynolds, a Roman Catholic author, states that after offering in this work a sophisticated argument against the idea that Mary could have been without original sin, Augustine concludes that “Mary, like all humans, was under the dominion of the devil before the action of God’s grace130.” Father Athanase Sage, Catholic priest, translator, and biographer of Saint Augustine, concedes regarding this quotation: “In the Opus imperfectum, Saint Augustine specifies that the Virgin, like all other faithful, owes to her rebirth in Christ being delivered from her Adamic condition131.” The Catholic scholar Peter Fehlner asserts regarding the same passage: “Augustine’s response to this specific point does not say that Mary is immaculate from conception […] He writes: ‘We do not hand Mary over to the devil by the condition of her birth; for this reason, her very condition finds a solution in the grace of rebirth.’132”
Mary, descendant of Adam, died because of sin. Adam died because of sin, and the flesh of the Lord, born of Mary, died to abolish sins133
What a contrast with the attitude of Pope Pius V, who condemned the proposition: “Only Christ was exempt from original sin, and therefore the Blessed Virgin died because of the sin contracted in Adam134”!
And, to save one of the clearest for last, Augustine asserts that Jesus was born of sinful maternal flesh, which he had to purify:
Therefore, he alone, having become man while remaining God, never committed sin and did not assume sinful flesh, though born of maternal sinful flesh. For what he took from our flesh in this womb of Mary, he certainly purified in order to take it, or purified it in taking it135
What did he mean by “sinful flesh”? His other writings make it clear: “In sinful flesh there is death and sin; in the likeness of sinful flesh there was death, not sin136”; “What are the properties of sinful flesh? Death and sin. What was the property of the likeness of sinful flesh? Death without sin137.”
This purification from sin in the Incarnation is found again in the enigmatic Summa Sententiarum (1138) and in its probable author, Hugh of St. Victor (1096–1141)138, under the influence of St. Augustine139. For Augustine, such purification can only take place after birth: in order to be reborn, he says, one must first be born, and only Christ has no need of rebirth because of the way in which He was born140.
Augustine and Ambrose appear to be of one mind: no soul, except Christ’s, is free from original sin. The reason given for Christ’s impeccability (His immaculate conception!), namely the virginal conception, cannot apply to Mary, who was not born of a virgin. She, unlike Christ, came through the propagation of sin; she died because of sin. Thus, whether or not one concludes that they believed Mary lived without personal sin—a matter debated among Augustinians—it is impossible to think that they held that any other soul than that of the One born of a virgin was without original sin. This is why, as Reynolds reports, a majority of scholars consider that St. Augustine does not exempt Mary from original sin141. Among Catholics, this view is held, besides the scholars we have already mentioned, by Philipp Friedrich142, Louis Saltet143, Joseph Tixeront144, Fulbert Cayré145, Adhémar d’Alès146, and Bernard Capelle147. Thus, Father Athanase Sage, whom we quoted earlier, writes: “Saint Augustine did not consider the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin”148. So much so that Edmund Hill believes the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was formulated in opposition to Augustine’s teaching on the transmission of original sin149—a view that is not implausible, considering that Duns Scotus, the first theologian to defend the Immaculate Conception as we shall see, devotes a section of his work to refuting Augustine’s theory of the propagation of original sin150. Three other Fathers associated with Augustine will allow us to confirm this understanding.
Ambrosiaster (around 360)
Ambrosiaster is an unknown author who was long confused with Ambrose and, for that reason, enjoyed considerable authority. As the first Latin commentator on all the Pauline epistles, he had a major influence on Augustine, particularly on the question of original sin, as noted by Dongsun Cho in an article on justification by faith alone in Ambrosiaster151. Commenting on Romans 8:3, he affirms, like Augustine, that the Holy Spirit had to purify the flesh that the Lord assumed in order to become incarnate:
The flesh of the Lord, in fact, was purified by the Holy Spirit.
Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul152.
We will return to this notion of purification when we discuss Peter Lombard, whose editors cite Ambrosiaster as an example of patristic rejection of the Immaculate Conception.
In another work, this time attributed to Augustine and cited as such by Thomas Aquinas, Ambrosiaster takes up the Greek exegesis of the sword in Simeon’s prophecy:
As for what Simeon adds: And a sword will pierce your own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed (Luke 2:35), this indicates that Mary, in whose womb the mystery of the Incarnation was accomplished, experienced some doubts at the death of Our Lord—but doubts that the brightness of the resurrection and the power of the Savior soon transformed into a firm and unshakable faith. At the death of the Savior, all, seized with fear, allowed doubt to enter their souls. But they did not persist in doubt. The sword pierces the soul only if doubt does not remain in the mind; but it passes through by the strength of the soul, which regains its composure. Who could fail to doubt when seeing humiliated unto death the One who called Himself the Son of God? But, as I have said, the resurrection of the Savior was to dispel all doubt; therefore, it is said that the sword will pierce, and not that it will strike, the heart.
Ambrosiaster, Questions on the Old and New Testaments, Question 73153.
Hilary of Poitiers (315–367)
As a Latin commentator on the Pauline epistles preceding Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers holds a special place as an influence on the Doctor of Hippo. In an article published by Cambridge entitled Justification by Faith: a Patristic Doctrine154, D. H. Williams, translator of Hilary’s commentary on Matthew, notes in particular that Hilary preceded Augustine in formulating the doctrine of original sin, speaking of “the fault of our origins”155. Commenting on the Psalms concerning the severity of divine judgment and referring to Simeon’s canticle, he exclaims:
If this Virgin, made capable of conceiving God, will know the severity of this judgment, who will dare to escape it?156
Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Psalm 118157.
For Hilary, as for Ambrose and Augustine, Jesus Christ escaped original sin because He was born of a Virgin:
Indeed, Christ had a body, but a unique one, as His origin required. He was not born of the passions proper to human conception: He took the form of our body by an act of His own power. He bore our collective humanity under the form of a servant, but He was free from the sins and imperfections of the human body: that we might be in Him, because He was born of the Virgin, and that our faults might not be in Him, because He is the source of His own humanity, born as man, but not born under the defects of human conception.
Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Book X, 25158.
This body was truly and actually a body, since it was born of the Virgin; but it was above the weakness of our body, because it had its origin in a spiritual conception.
Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Book X, 35159.
Thus, a recent academic article on Hilary of Poitiers concludes:
The idea that we inherit [sin] through conception or birth corresponds to his doctrine that the sinlessness of Christ is due to the virginal birth.
Isabella Image, “Original Sin”160.
Fulgentius of Ruspe (462–527)
Fulgentius is another important Father to consider—not because he influenced St. Augustine, but because he was influenced by him and was chronologically close to him. Here is how he expresses himself on the subject that concerns us:
It is by this grace that God (who came to take away sins because there is no sin in Him) was conceived from sinful flesh and was born as a man in the likeness of sinful flesh. Certainly, the flesh of Mary had been conceived in iniquity, according to human custom, and therefore her flesh (which gave birth to the Son of God in the likeness of sinful flesh) was indeed sinful. […] When it is said that in truth the likeness of sinful flesh is in the Son of God, or rather that the Son of God is in the likeness of sinful flesh, it must be believed that the only-begotten God did not take on the defilement of sin from the mortal flesh of the Virgin, but that He received the full reality of her nature, so that from the earth might arise the source of truth, which blessed David announces in a prophetic word, saying: Truth shall spring up from the earth. Therefore, in all truth, Mary conceived God the Word; she bore Him in a flesh of sin that God assumed.
Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epistle XVII, 13161.
Pseudo-Augustine
The Hypomnesticon, an anti-Pelagian treatise that was, until the Reformation, attributed to Saint Augustine but which most likely comes from a later African author, reiterates the claim that the flesh of Christ is like ours yet without sin “because it was not born from passion like ours, but by the mystical breath from the womb of a virgin162”. This provides another patristic witness, if one were needed, for the link between sinless conception and virginal conception.
Jerome of Stridon (347–420)
After this chronological detour focusing on Augustine and associated authors, let us resume our thread. Translator of the Vulgate, Jerome does not address our topic as directly in his writings as some of the other authors considered above. Nevertheless, he makes several remarks that conflict with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In a letter of 415 concerning the Pelagian heresy, Jerome responds to the Pelagian idea that a human being other than Christ can be without sin. In doing so, the argument he uses would make little sense if he considered the Virgin Mary likewise sinless, since he says that absence of sin belongs to Christ as his own characteristic (proprium):
“The absence of sin is the characteristic of Christ, who committed no sin and whose mouth was not tainted by impurity. But if I am without sin just as he is, how can the absence of sin still be his distinguishing mark?”
Jerome, Letter 133163
The rhetorical question thus turns against the Immaculate Conception: if she is without sin as much as he is, how can the absence of sin remain his distinctive mark? In another letter, he asserts that Jesus is the only man without sin164 and in his treatise against the Pelagians that men cannot be without sin because only God is, a reason that does not apply to Mary165. Commenting on this passage, historian Philip Schaff notes:
“Jerome taught the universality of sin without any exception, Adv. Pelag. ii, 4.”
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church166
John Cassian (360–435)
Reynolds also mentions John Cassian (360–435) as a Father following Augustine on this point. Indeed, he affirms that “being without sin is something proper to him”; that he is “separated by a great distance from all those conceived by the union of the two sexes in that they bear not only the likeness of sin but the reality of sin in the flesh167”; and that “it is one thing to be holy, another to be without sin, which belongs only to the majesty of our one Lord Jesus Christ of whom the apostle affirms, as something proper to him: he who did not sin168”.
Eusebius of Gaul, French bishop (c. 450)
Eusebius, a French bishop of whom little is known and whose attribution is doubtful, makes the following remark in a homily:
“For the very mother of our Redeemer is not of herself exempt from the obligation of ancient sin169”
Eusebius, Second Homily on the Nativity
Arnobius the Younger (c. 450)
In a commentary dedicated to Rusticus of Narbonne and Leontius of Arles, Arnobius the Younger compares Jesus to all other men. In doing so, he notes that Jesus purified the tabernacle that is Mary by entering it:
“Every impure person enters the Lord’s tabernacle and is thus made immaculate. But Jesus, who alone is immaculate, having entered the virginal court, freed this tabernacle itself from its carnal impurities and gave rather than received sanctification170”
Arnobius the Younger, Commentary on Psalm 14; PL 53
Peter Chrysologus (380–450)
Peter of Ravenna, a celebrated preacher, also explains the immaculate conception of Christ by his virginal conception:
“Christ came to inhabit the flesh but in the womb of a virgin so that he would contract nothing of the defilement of the human body.”
Peter Chrysologus, Sermon XV
Maximus of Turin (380–465)
Saint Maximus, the first bishop of Turin and a prolific author, expresses himself in his sermons:
“It is the first time since the world began that I have seen a man born who has none of the vice of man.”
Maximus of Turin, Homily XXXVII
“The Son of God alone delivers sinners because he alone is free from sin.”
Maximus of Turin, Homily XL
The Jesuit Denis Petau, although favorable to the Immaculate Conception, asserts that Maximus of Turin attributes actual faults to Mary171.
A homily of Maximus of Turin is sometimes invoked in favor of the Immaculate Conception, in which Maximus speaks of an “original grace”172. Ineffabilis Deus refers to this. First, the context concerns the virginity of Mary, not her relation to sin, much less her conception. More importantly, this variant in the 1862 Patrologia Latina is absent from the most recent critical editions, such as the 1962 Corpus Christianorum Series Latina173. The original text in fact spoke of “virginal grace” and not “original grace,” the Latin words being easily confused (originali/ virginali). Therefore, recent publications translate it as “virginal grace”174. This text being inauthentic should no longer be invoked by defenders of the Immaculate Conception. Moreover, it is classified as dubius, extravagantes, meaning its attribution to Maximus of Turin is doubtful175.
Ferrandus of Carthage (?-547)
Ferrandus of Carthage was a recognized deacon and theologian, who played a certain role in the Three Chapters controversy, a debate surrounding the Council of Chalcedon. Questioned about this by two Roman deacons, he wrote them an epistle in which the following excerpt appears:
“Thus the flesh of Christ is both similar and dissimilar to the flesh of Mary. Similar, because it took its origin from her; dissimilar, because it did not contract from her the infection of a corrupt origin. Similar, because it suffered real infirmities, although voluntarily; dissimilar, because it committed no iniquity, neither voluntarily nor through ignorance. Similar, because it was passible and mortal; dissimilar, because it was immaculate and life-giving, even restoring life to the dead. Similar in nature, dissimilar in merit. Similar in appearance, dissimilar in perfection. Similar because to the likeness of sinful flesh176”
Ferrandus of Carthage, Epistle III to Anatolius, 4.
Isidore of Seville (560–636)
The great Hispanic doctor also holds that it is due to the virginal conception that Christ is exempt from original sin, a reason that does not apply to Mary:
“[Original sin] was not created with man, but came to him as the wage of his first transgression; but now it is part of nature, for, just as death, it is transmitted due to origin, from the first man and all others. Christ, in the form of a servant, because of the excellence of his conception, is Lord of all; because, although he took flesh, he did not take it from the passionate contagion of flesh.”
Isidore of Seville, De ecclesiasticis officiis, I, 26177
Bede the Venerable (672–735)
Bede the Venerable, for his part, states that the Spirit performed two miraculous actions at the Annunciation: he purified Mary from all “folly of vice178” and formed Jesus in her womb. Bede also affirms that Jesus took flesh “from sinful flesh” (de carne peccatrice), that being born holy is proper to him (singulariter) because he is conceived of a virgin179.
Paul the Deacon (720–799)
Our survey of patristic literature brings us into the medieval period with Paul the Deacon, a Benedictine monk who, in a sermon specifically on the purification of the Virgin, declares:
“For the rest of humanity, then, is born in original sin. But the Lord Jesus Christ, because he was conceived without the seed of a man, and without carnal pleasure, in the womb of a virgin, by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, is born without sin.”
Paul the Deacon, Homily 57, On the Purification of the Virgin Mary180
As is often the case with the Fathers, the sinless conception of Christ is explained by the virginal conception.
Other Latin Fathers
Reynolds asserts that Ildephonsus of Toledo speaks of her as immaculate, but this does not allow one to conclude that he adhered to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, since he also mentions a purification of the Virgin at the Annunciation. “Immaculate,” indeed, may refer simply to Mary’s virginity, her holiness relative to others, or her holiness in an absolute sense; we will return to this point. Even in the latter sense, however, the Fathers who speak of Mary as immaculate do so with regard to the fact that she was purified to be so, as Reynolds notes. Fathers could also both call Mary Immaculate and attribute actual faults to her, the reference then probably being to her immaculate virginity. Catholic mariologist Paul Haffner comments on the view of the Latin Fathers:
“In the West, many Fathers and doctors believed in the perfect holiness of Mary and the absence of all personal sin in her, because of her dignity as Mother of the Lord. Nevertheless, they could not understand how the assertion of an immaculate conception could be reconciled with the doctrine of the universality of original sin and the necessity of redemption for all descendants of Adam.”
Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary181
The Popes
Among the bishops of Rome during Antiquity, whom Roman Catholics mistakenly regard as popes, several addressed this subject.
Leo the Great (390-461)
Our Lord and destroyer of sin found none who was without debt, and therefore He came to free us all. […] What we read concerning all other births is truly foreign to this one: No one is free from stain, not even the infant who has lived only a single day on earth [Job 14:4–5, according to the Septuagint]. Thus, nothing of the lust of the flesh passed into this unparalleled birth, nothing of the law of sin entered it.
Leo the Great, First Sermon on the Nativity (or Sermon XXI), I182
And for this to happen, without male seed, Christ was conceived of a Virgin, who was fertilized not by human intercourse, but by the Holy Spirit. And whereas in all mothers conception does not occur without the stain of sin, she received purification from the source of her conception183.
Leo the Great, Second Sermon on the Nativity (or Sermon XXII), III
Indeed, the earth of human flesh, cursed by the first transgressor, produced only in this offspring of the holy Virgin a blessed seed, free from original fault.
Leo the Great, Sermon XXIV, 3182
While, by the condition in which we are born, there is a single cause of perdition for all. Thus, among the sons of men, the Lord Jesus alone was born innocent, for He alone was conceived without the pollution of carnal concupiscence184.
Leo the Great, Fifth Sermon on the Nativity (or Sermon XXV), V
Therefore, in the general ruin of the whole human race, there was but one remedy, in the secret plan of God, to aid those who had fallen, and that was that one of the sons of Adam should be born free and innocent from original transgression, to prevail for the others both by his example and by his merits. Moreover, natural generation did not permit it, and there could be no offspring without seed from our defective stock, concerning which Scripture says: “Who can make a pure thing come from impure seed? Is it not You alone?”
Leo the Great, Sermon XXVIII, 3182
Leo, following many other Fathers, establishes a link between the virginal birth and the sinless birth of Christ and excludes all others from either, for natural generation does not allow sinless begetting. He also affirms that she was purified at the Incarnation185.
In his Tome to Flavian, which is not private teaching but a doctrinal treatise written to refute Eutyches’ doctrine, he expresses himself as follows:
He who could not be enclosed in space willed to be; continuing to exist before time, he began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed Himself to be covered with His infinite majesty, and took upon Himself the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be the passible Man, and the immortal to be subject to the laws of death. He was born in a new manner, for the inviolate virginity, ignorant of concupiscence, provided the matter of His flesh: from the Mother of the Lord nature is assumed, but not fault (assumpta est igitur de matre Domini natura, non culpa); and the marvelous character of the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin’s womb, does not imply that His nature is different from ours.
Leo the Great, Tome to Flavian, 4
This letter is particularly important beyond its clear text because it was read at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and formally approved as conforming to the truth:
After the reading of the preceding epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: Such is the faith of the fathers, such is the faith of the apostles. This is what we all believe; this is what the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not believe thus.
Canons of the Council of Chalcedon, Session II
In addition to the Council of Constantinople III, which “canonized” the synodal epistle of the bishop of Jerusalem affirming a purification of the Virgin, the Council of Chalcedon did the same with a letter of Leo speaking of a fault in Mary that had not been transmitted thanks to the virginal conception. Note that this is the teaching of a bishop of Rome in a doctrinal document, approved by an ecumenical council.
Gelasius (?-496)
It belongs only to the Immaculate Lamb not to have sin at all186.
Gelasius, Liber contra Pelagium187
Gregory the Great (540-604)
Indeed, although we are holy, we are not born holy, because we are bound by the simple constitution of a corruptible nature, to the point of saying with the prophet: Behold, I was formed in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me [Psalm 51:5]. But only he is truly born holy who, in order better to overcome this same constitution of a corruptible nature, was not conceived by the conjunction of carnal union188.
Gregory the Great, Exposition of the Book of Job, XVIII189
It can be said of this text that the blessed Job, contemplating the incarnation of the Redeemer, saw that this man alone in the whole world was not conceived from impure seed, having come into the world through a virgin so that he had nothing to do with an impure conception. For he proceeds not from man and woman, but from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. He alone, therefore, was truly pure in his flesh.
Gregory the Great, Exposition of the Book of Job, XI190
Like Leo, Gregory sees a link between Christ’s immaculate conception and the virginal conception. He also mentions a purification at the Annunciation191
John IV, the Dalmatian (580-642)
John the Dalmatian was also bishop of Rome. Bede the Venerable, in his Ecclesiastical History, reports the following words:
First of all, it is blasphemous folly to say that man is without sin, which no one can be except the unique mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, who was conceived and born without sin; for all other men, born in original sin, are known to bear the mark of Adam’s transgression (even while without actual sin), according to the prophet who says: Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother bore me192.
John IV the Dalmatian, cited by Bede the Venerable in his Ecclesiastical History, II, 19193.
Christ Alone Is Without Sin
Several other texts from the Fathers have not been cited because they do not directly deal with Mary, but they remain interesting even if not conclusive on their own. A truth proclaimed throughout the patristic era is that Jesus Christ alone was without sin. Here are some Fathers affirming this, in addition to the citations already discussed:
You have crucified the only righteous one, the only innocent one, the one whose wounds heal the man who wishes, through him, to go to God his Father.
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon, XVII194
And who else is perfectly just besides the Son of God, who makes perfectly just those who believe in his death?
Irenaeus of Lyons, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 72
Thus the evil of the soul, besides that which is sown afterward by the arrival of the malevolent spirit, has its earlier source in an original corruption, somehow inherent to nature. […] because God alone is without sin, and Christ is the only man without sin, since Christ is God.
Tertullian, On the Soul, 41194
For this Word of whom we speak is the only one without sin. For sin is natural and common to all.
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, III, 12195
He alone is without sin, this Jesus who cleanses us from our sins.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Baptismal Catecheses, II, 10
To be without sin is fitting in a unique way for the majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ alone, of whom the Apostle speaks as a quality proper and specific to him: “He who did not sin 196”.
Theonas of Alexandria, Ap. Cassian. Collat. I, 22, IX
This is the likeness of the flesh; for although the flesh of Christ is the same as ours, it was nevertheless not produced in the maternal womb and born as ours is. For it was sanctified in the womb and born without sin, nor did He sin in it. And for this reason, a virgin womb was chosen to give birth to our Lord, so that the flesh of our Lord would differ from ours in holiness 197.
Saint Hilary the Deacon, Commentary on Romans 8:3
Truly he is called “eminent,” for he alone is whom the bonds of sin have not touched. For all were in these bonds, we are still in them, for no one is without sin, except Jesus alone 198.
Ambrose, Sermon VI on Psalm 118:21
For the Lord alone is pure.
Epiphanius of Constanța, Haer 59, VI199
He alone did not sin, He who took away the sins of the world.
Rufinus of Aquileia, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, XXV200
He who was the only one without sin died for sinners.
Nilus, Monk of Constantinople, Epistle 329201
This affirmation is so common that Edward Bouverie Pusey lists over one hundred doctors who assert similar things202. One could also compile the Fathers who assert that those born of sexual union are all corrupted or those who establish a link between sinless conception and virginal conception, but the article would have no end.
Conclusion on the Fathers
To briefly return to the Greek Fathers, Reynolds notes that at the end of the patristic era, three Greek authors exalt Mary in very laudatory terms. Germanus of Constantinople (?-730), relying on the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James, states that Joachim, the supposed father of Mary, emitted a pure seed without the meaning being precise203. This formulation is found again with John of Damascus, who nonetheless believes in a purification at the Annunciation. Andrew of Crete (660-740) speaks of the Virgin’s conception as miraculous, though, since he refers to the same apocryphon, it could mean that his mother Anne conceived while sterile. He also states that Mary was the first to be freed from original sin, which is not the same as being preserved from it204. He says that at the coming of the Spirit upon Mary, the curse of the first Eve ended205 and compares Mary’s purification to that of the prophet Isaiah by the coals of the seraphim206. The great Catholic mariologist Luigi Gambero, in what is the most complete study of patristic mariology by a Catholic, notes that Andrew of Crete believed in a purification of the Virgin at the Annunciation 207. John of Damascus (676-749) says that Anne was sterile so that it would be clear that the Virgin’s birth was the result of grace and not of nature. However, he also affirms that she was purified shortly before the Incarnation and « after her assent »208. He is also cited by Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas as opposing the Immaculate Conception, as we shall see209.
A Catholic historian thus affirms: « Saint John of Damascus speaks only of a sanctification after conception »210. These three Fathers, who are at the junction with the medievals, still do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. Therefore, Reynolds urges caution regarding their laudatory epithets for Mary: there is reason to think that they had in mind a purification taking place after conception, as with the majority of medievals. Moreover, Eastern Orthodox who do not believe in the Immaculate Conception may use similar language, and these Fathers were Eastern. It is also interesting to compare their language with Greek liturgics that explicitly mention a purification of the Virgin at the Annunciation211.
The reaction of a Greek Orthodox journal to the promulgation of the new dogma reads as follows:
Rome, ever young and vigorous, gives birth to and nurtures new dogmas that were not only hidden from previous generations but entirely unknown to the Apostles and the Fathers. It was therefore in the 19th century that one witnessed the birth of this new dogma, long nurtured in the bosom of the Vatican, a true offspring of an infallible head. The Orthodox, remaining barren, and possessing only ancient dogmas to assert, are nevertheless not envious of this glory. […] For this dogma is clearly contrary to the apostolic writings and the concordant teaching of all the Fathers. How far will this strange revision of our ancestral tradition go?
Anonymous, History of the New Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Saint Anne by the Latins 212.
In short, the Fathers present the following positions on Mary:
- A saint who committed sins;
- A woman who did not commit actual sins;
- A woman who was further purified in order to receive Christ (whether this purification occurred at the Annunciation or before — whether it involved purification from original sin or not)213.
These three understandings share the characteristic of being « maculist, » meaning that the Virgin was touched by sin and potentially required purification. These positions are not strictly incompatible: as noted, Chrysostom believes both in a purification at the Annunciation and the presence of actual faults in Mary. The position that is entirely absent in the early centuries is the Immaculate Conception. The Catholic historian of dogma Henri Klée concludes his examination: « The Fathers unanimously teach the universality of original sin. Only Jesus Christ was born without sin, because only He was born of a Virgin. As for the Blessed Virgin, they do not teach that she was conceived without sin, but only that she was sanctified after her Conception »210. Guillaume Herzog, another Catholic historian, concludes his examination of the Greek Fathers by stating that none of them supported the Immaculate Conception214. A recent CNRS historical research colloquium dedicated to the Immaculate Conception concluded: « It is in the medieval period that the belief that the Virgin escaped original sin appears. […] No Father of the Church expressed himself in this sense before »215.
These three patristic understandings have more in common than it might seem: they do not exempt Mary from the reality that all humans born of a father and mother inherited Adam’s sin. It is also worth noting that these three positions did not coexist from the very beginnings of the Church, and some are later formulations. Finally, these three positions are also found in the writings of the Reformers.
Other Fathers opposed to this doctrine are not included here; it suffices to list them with the reference to the relevant text: Vincent of Gaul (c. 480) 216, Olympiodorus of Alexandria (c. 501) 216, Julianus Pomerius (c. 498) 217, Peter the Deacon (c. 521) 218, a letter from Fulgentius and 14 other bishops (c. 521) 219, Boethius (c. 510), who explains how Jesus could take flesh from Mary without taking a sinful nature from her 220, Cassiodorus (c. 514) 221, Primasius (550) 222.
The medieval Doctors
If our understanding of the Fathers is correct, the maculist position should indeed be present in the Middle Ages. Let us therefore examine what the medieval doctors have to teach us on this subject.
Paschase Radbert, monk of Corbie (790-865)
An influential theologian, notably in the Eucharistic controversies of his century, he addressed the subject that interests us in his De Partu Virginis. A text from this treatise is sometimes cited in favor of the Immaculate Conception:
She did not contract original sin.
Paschase Radbert, De Partu Virginis, I, 1.
This statement seems very clear: Mary did not contract original sin. However, if we consider what precedes and follows, here is the full citation:
« But because [the nativity of Mary] is venerated with such solemnity, it is clear from the authority of the Church that she was subject to no sin at her birth, and that, sanctified in the maternal womb, she did not contract original sin. »
Paschase Radbert, De Partu Virginis, I, 1.
Firstly, it should be noted that Paschase is concerned in context with whether Mary’s birth can be celebrated, not her conception (the feast of the Conception came later in the West). Secondly, as Mary Clayton suggests in her study of this text, the verb contraxit (contracted) must be interpreted by the preceding clause and therefore means that Mary is exempt from original sin because she was sanctified223. The sanctification Paschase has in mind is what the Scholastics would call the “first sanctification,” the one that took place in Saint Anne’s womb. Thus, Mary’s birth can be solemnly venerated because she was holy.
Later in the text, he explains that Christ could take sinless flesh from Mary’s flesh of sin because “he who took flesh from flesh of sin, the Word who became flesh, first overshadowed her, and upon her the Holy Spirit would come”224 It is useful to quote this section more extensively225:
And although she herself was flesh of sin, she was no longer so when the grace of the Holy Spirit came upon her; thus she was called by the angel blessed above all women. The Holy Spirit, he says, will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you (Luke 1:35). Otherwise, if she had not been sanctified and purified by the same Holy Spirit, how was her flesh not the flesh of sin? Thus, even if the days of Jeremiah and Job are declared cursed, the days, I say, of their birth, nevertheless the birth of Mary is happy, she is declared blessed and venerated religiously. But if she were in sin, she would rightly be called cursed and lamenting rather than blessed when it was announced to her father that she was born into the world.
Paschase Radbert, De Partu Virginis, I, 1.
Thus, he adds:
Blessed Mary herself was born and conceived in flesh of sin 226.
Paschase Radbert, De Partu Virginis, I, 1.
It is useful here to briefly explain the notion of “flesh of sin.” This phrase, in the Latin tradition, comes from reflections on a biblical verse in which the Apostle Paul declares:
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, to condemn sin in the flesh.
Romans 3:8.
Latin theologians naturally asked what “flesh of sin” was, what the “likeness of the flesh of sin” (or “flesh similar to sinful flesh”) was, and how they differed. Augustine’s answer shaped the Latin tradition: the likeness of the flesh of sin, which Christ took, is the weakness of our fallen nature, up to the supreme weakness that is death, but without sin; the flesh of sin, on the other hand, is this weakness with sin.
In the flesh of sin there is death and sin; in the likeness of the flesh of sin there was death, not sin.
Augustine, Sermon 155, 7.
What are the properties of the flesh of sin? Death and sin. What was the property of the likeness of the flesh of sin? Death without sin.
Augustine, Sermon 233, 4.
Thus, since Paschase repeatedly attributes the flesh of sin to Mary, which consists of “death and sin” according to the tradition to which he belongs, since he asserts that she was freed from it when the Spirit came and even at her birth due to a purification, and because of this Mary’s nativity can be celebrated, it follows that the phrase often cited is not decisive. On the contrary, Paschase should be placed among those who conceived Mary as having been conceived in sin. This reflection on an in utero purification of Mary originates with Bede the Venerable223 and has a long pedigree in the Latin tradition, as we shall see.
John Scotus Eriugena (800-877)
Famous for his philosophical synthesis, John Scotus Eriugena did not consider philosophy as independent of theology. Commenting on the Gospel of John, he states:
Thus, this general sin is called original, and not improperly, for it is the sin of our common origin, from which death and corruption of all proceeds and from which all, except the Redeemer, are debtors; for our Redeemer alone, from the entire mass of the human race, is free from sin, to be a remedy for the wound227.
John Scotus Eriugena, Commentary on the Gospel of John, I, i.
Ælfric the Homilist (950-1010)
In a sermon specifically on the Annunciation, Ælfric the Homilist (long confused with Ælfric, Archbishop of York) states:
All men are, as the prophet said, conceived and born in sin, but only our Savior is conceived and born without sin.
Ælfric the Homilist, Serm. in Annunc. S. Mariae228.
Gerard of Csanád (980-1046)
Hungarian bishop and martyr, monk then Benedictine abbot, he evangelized the pagans and shamans of Hungary. In a sermon, he expresses himself as follows:
O blessed maiden who, conceived in sin, was purified from all sin and bore a sinless Son.
Gerard of Csanád, Sermon on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, cited by Cardinal Cajetan, Opusc T. II, Treatise 1, on the Conception of the Blessed Mary229.
Peter Damian (1007-1072)
Saint Peter Damian, Doctor of the Roman Church, Archbishop of Ostia and cardinal, figures according to the Catholic Encyclopedia among the opponents of the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, he speaks very clearly on this subject:
Consider that the mediator himself between God and man takes his origin from sinners, and received the unleavened bread from the sincerity of a raised mass, without any infection of the old man. Indeed, to speak more clearly, the sinless flesh, which destroyed the sins of the flesh, came from the very flesh of the Virgin who was conceived in sin230.
Peter Damian, Opuscule VI, 19.
In the same work, he affirms that a cleric who obtained his “office” by simony can administer valid sacraments and proves it by saying that the Virgin, although touched by sin, could bear the immaculate Son231. In such a demonstration, what is admitted is used to prove what must be proven. Thus, the maculist position was admitted by Peter Damian.
Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)
The bishop of Canterbury, Anselm, wrote the following regarding our subject:
For, although in himself the conception of this man (Christ) is pure and free from the sin attached to the pleasure of the flesh, the Virgin from whom he was assumed was herself conceived “in injustice,” her “mother conceived her in sin,” and she was born with original sin, since she too sinned in Adam “in whom all have sinned.”
Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, Book II, ch. XVI 232
Anselm here is perfectly clear. He further states that Mary belongs to the saints who had to be cleansed of their sin by Christ before Christ’s coming. He specifies in chapter XVII that it was through faith that she was purified.
One might object that this doctor was subject to the pope of Rome and that, consequently, his testimony against a Roman doctrine is null. But this misunderstands the nature of the examination proposed here. It is not a question of saying: “Anselm denied the Immaculate Conception, therefore he was Protestant.” The aim is simply to verify the claim that this doctrine was always professed in the Church as a revealed dogma.
Euthymius Zigabenus (1050-1120)
Euthymius Zigabenus, a monk who commented on the Gospels, is noted by Roger Pearse for making abundant use of patristic sources233.
Taking courage, she sought to make him perform a miracle because of the wine that was lacking. She wished both to repay those who had invited them and to display her own glory through the power of her Son. He therefore reprimanded her, without dishonoring her, but correcting her inappropriate request. He said: “Woman? What is it that you urge us thus? Why do you press us thus?” We can also understand it as: What is there between you and me? For, indeed, being God, he knew the appropriate time to perform his miracles; but you, being human, do not know them.
Euthymius Zigabenus, Commentary on John chapter 2234.
Euthymius wrote in Greek and had access to the Greek tradition rather than the Latin one. It is interesting to note that while the ameliorative Latin exegesis identified with Ambrose continued among medieval Latin authors, the Greek exegetical tradition beginning with Origen also continued among Greek-speaking medieval authors. None of these exegeses, however, support the Immaculate Conception.
Bruno of Segni (1045-1123)
Bishop and advisor to four consecutive popes, Saint Bruno states in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke:
It is the original sin, from which, before the incarnation of Christ, no one was capable of being purified235.
Bruno of Segni, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, XXI.
Theophylact of Ohrid (?-1126)
Bulgarian theologian, Archbishop of Ohrid, known for his biblical commentaries, especially on the Gospels, writes:
The mother wished to show something entirely human, namely that she had authority over her son: for she did not yet have elevated thoughts concerning him. Therefore, while he was still speaking, she called him, filled with vain glory at the idea that her Son was subject to her. What did Christ do then? When he understood her intention, listen to what he said: who is my mother and who are my brothers? He did not say this to insult his mother, but to correct her love of glory and her entirely human thinking.
Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on Matthew 12236
And the sword will pierce your own soul, that is, the Virgin’s. Perhaps this refers to the affliction she experienced during the Passion; and perhaps the sword designates the offense by which she was scandalized when she saw the Lord crucified. For perhaps she pondered thus: How could he who was born without seed, who performed miracles, who raised the dead, be crucified, spat upon, and die?
Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on Luke 2237
This is another medieval example, from a Greek-writing author during the Great Schism, continuing the Greek exegetical tradition.
Eadmer of Canterbury (1060-1129)
Benedictine monk and biographer of Anselm of Canterbury, Eadmer is the first ecclesiastical author to consider an Immaculate Conception of Mary. He was named bishop of Saint Andrews, Scotland, but the Scots not recognizing the authority of Canterbury, he was never consecrated there and eventually abandoned the episcopal claim. A fervent advocate for a new liturgical feast, the Feast of the Conception of the Virgin, he gives the reason for celebrating it as the holiness of this conception. His reasoning is as follows: God is capable of doing this, he must have wanted to give Mary the greatest grace, therefore he did (Potuit plane et voluit, si igitur voluit, fecit). He expresses it further:
If there was any original sin and common vice in the generation of Mary, it was the fault of the parents and not of the one generated […] If God allows the chestnut to be conceived and formed among thorns without suffering their pricks or participating in them, how would he not have granted the same privilege to the human temple he was preparing to inhabit?
Eadmer, Tractatus de Conceptione 238
Eadmer is joined by Nicholas of Saint-Albans, who nevertheless defends a position not entirely equivalent to the Immaculate Conception, distinguishing the carnal conception, formed by the union of bodies, and the conception of the soul by infusion, according to a pseudo-scientific theory common in the medieval era239. We do not yet have enough evidence to know if Eadmer made such a distinction, and other statements by this author show that he did not consider it “a revealed truth,” since he speaks of the Virgin’s purification at the Annunciation as a possibility:
We assert that, by faith, her heart was so purified from all sin, if indeed original or actual sin remained, that the Holy Spirit rested entirely upon her.
Eadmer, De Excellentia Virginis Mariae240.
This “if indeed” is, in reality, the hypothesis either of an Immaculate Conception or of a prior purification. In any case, Eadmer is the best candidate for the earliest traces of this idea, and mariology specialist Luigi Gambero mentions him as having had “the intuition of the Immaculate Conception” 241.
Osbert of Clare (?-1158) also joins the party of the “conceptionists” (defenders of the Feast of the Conception of Mary), who are not all immaculists (defenders of the Immaculate Conception). Osbert, indeed, still speaks of a purification of the Virgin “consumed by the fire [of the Spirit], whitened by the brightness of virtues and even purified bodily from every stain242”.
In any case, it is evident that in Great Britain during this century several authors developed the first reflections showing a strong affinity with the Immaculate Conception243. It should be noted that this feast is not based on a belief in the Immaculate Conception: the Immaculate Conception is one of the justifications a posteriori for this celebration. Thus, Jean-Louis Benoit of the University of Southern Brittany states: “It should be noted that theological justifications come after the liturgical initiative to establish the feast and defend it244.”
Hugh of Saint-Victor (1096-1141)
Hugh, abbot of Saint-Victor, mentions on several occasions a purification of the Virgin after her conception 245, notably in the Summa Sententiarum, now attributed to him:
Concerning the flesh to which the Word is united, one may ask whether in Mary this flesh was previously under the power of sin. That it was so, Augustine affirms […] For he completely purified Mary from sin, but not from the tendency to sin; yet he weakened it so much that she is reputed never to have sinned thereafter246.
Hugh of Saint-Victor, Summa Sententiarum, XVI.
This citation is noteworthy because Hugh of Saint-Victor confirms the reading of Saint Augustine we proposed earlier.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
The famous French theologian makes the following remark while commenting on the Epistle to the Romans:
If therefore her Lord wished to remit her sin, as was done for the Virgin Mary, and as Christ did for many even before his passion, etc.247.
Peter Abelard, On Romans L, 2.
In another writing, he invokes Augustine in support (though it is a text now attributed to Ambrosiaster):
Perhaps also “in the heart of the earth” does not refer so much to the sepulcher of our Lord as to the hearts of men who despaired greatly of Christ at that time, such that even the disciples, and even his mother, greatly wavered in faith. Therefore, Augustine, in his Questions on the Old and New Law, states: “Even Mary, through whom the mystery of the Savior’s incarnation was accomplished, doubted the death of the Lord.”
Peter Abelard, solut. Prob. iv248
Rupert of Deutz (1070-1129)
Known for his writings on the Trinity, the abbot of Deutz also produced a commentary on the Song of Songs, in which, rhetorically addressing Mary, he states:
And indeed you were able to say truthfully: “I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” For insofar as you came from the corrupt mass in Adam, you were not free from the hereditary stain of original sin; but before this face of love, neither this nor any other sin could hold: before this face of flame all chaff was destroyed, so that the entire dwelling might be made holy, in which God was to dwell for nine full months; all the material from which the holy Wisdom of God would build a house was entirely purified.
Rupert of Deutz, Commentary on the Song of Songs, L, 1249.
Rupert reiterates the idea that Mary was purified at the moment of the Incarnation to receive God.
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)
The great Bernard of Clairvaux firmly opposed the Immaculate Conception. Previous authors expressed views contrary to the Immaculate Conception but did not seem to oppose a position existing in their time or region; the doctrine was simply unknown to them. Bernard, however, opposed something that existed in his own time: the celebration of Mary’s conception, which, as noted above, was spreading in England. He judged that this conception was not worthy of celebration precisely because Mary was conceived in sin. In a particular letter, he explains that he opposes it because it is an innovation:
Of all the Churches of France, one cannot deny that that of Lyon is preeminent for the importance of its see, for its zeal for good, and for its regulations, which cannot be praised enough. Where has one ever seen more flourishing discipline, more serious morals, more consummate wisdom, greater authority, more imposing antiquity? It is primarily for the offices of the Church that it has shown itself closed to all attempts at innovation. Never has this prudent Church indulged in youthful zeal that might have stamped it with the mark of levity. I cannot cease to be astonished that in our days among you there are canons who wish to tarnish the ancient glory of your Church by introducing a new feast of which the Church has not yet heard, which reason disapproves, and which rests on no tradition in antiquity. Do we presume to be holier and wiser than the Fathers of the Church? It is a dangerous presumption to establish, in such matters, what they prudently refrained from speaking of. […] It is claimed that Mary’s conception should receive the same honors as her birth, since one does not go without the other. […] Is it sufficient that one precedes the other to be holy? With such reasoning, why stop at Mary and not institute a feast in honor of her father and mother, then her ancestors, and so on for all her forebears to infinity? We would thus have feasts without number. […] (This feast is a) presumptuous novelty, mother of recklessness, sister of superstition, and daughter of levity.
Bernard of Clairvaux, Letter CLXXIV, to the canons of the Primatial Church of Saint-Jean.
Saint Bernard did not find in the Church Fathers the idea of an Immaculate Conception and therefore did not justify celebrating a feast concerning Mary’s conception. In his time, Mary’s birth was celebrated. But he argued that the fact that conception precedes birth does not prove sanctity250. Bernard was the most influential ecclesiastical figure of his century, corresponding with bishops across Christendom, advising popes, and wielding unparalleled influence over the faithful. He was the last author to be called a “Church Father.”
Zachary of Besançon (?-1155)
Zachary of Besançon (or Chrysopolis, from the medieval epithet of this city) remarks on the Annunciation in one of his writings, reflecting the persistent idea that virgin conception and immaculate conception go hand in hand:
For, although we are made holy, we are nonetheless not born holy, since the prophet said: “I was conceived in iniquity.” But Jesus was born holy, in a manner proper to him, for he was not conceived by carnal union.
Zachary of Besançon, Concordance of the Gospels, on Luke 1,35251
Amadeus of Lausanne (1110-1159)
In the 12th century, the Cistercian abbot Amadeus of Clermont, bishop of Lausanne, wrote eight sermons on the Virgin Mary. In these, he touches briefly on our subject, expressing the idea that the Virgin was purified. His second homily focuses on the “justification” of the Virgin. According to him, Mary struggled against concupiscence:
Remaining in the flesh, she rose above the flesh and, by the power of the Spirit, immolated the passions of the flesh.
Amedee of Lausanne, Eight Marian Homilies252.
The editor notes: “For Amadeus, Mary struggled against concupiscence. We have already observed that he does not teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception253.”
Commenting on the Song of Songs, Saint Amadeus says of Mary:
Like the dawn that rises from darkness to light, from error to faith, from the world to God; which, at its first hours of rising, is colored with the red of modesty mingled with the gentle paleness of humility.
Amedee of Lausanne, Eight Marian Homilies254
Thus, Canon G. Bavaud concludes: “Had he been asked the question [of the Immaculate Conception] in a precise manner, he would have answered negatively255.”
Pierre Lombard (1100-1160)
The author of the Sentences is perhaps the most influential medieval theologian on later medieval thinkers. In any case, his importance in history can hardly be overstated. Indeed, from the 1220s until the end of the Middle Ages, it served as a basic manual for the training of theologians. The Fourth Lateran Council indeed mandated that this manual be used in education, as Isabel Iribarren notes:
Since the famous sanction of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, Lombard’s collection of Sentences has acquired unparalleled importance; for the first time, a non-patristic author is vested with genuine doctrinal authority.
Isabel Iribarren256.
Thus, a large number of later medieval scholars had to comment on Lombard’s Sentences. In these, he opposes the Immaculate Conception as follows:
Concerning the flesh of the Word, one still asks: before being conceived, was it subject to sin? And was it assumed as such by the Word? — It can sensibly be said, and it must be believed, according to the concordant testimony of the Saints, “that it was first itself subjected to sin,” as flesh inherited from the Virgin, but it was purified by the action of the Holy Spirit, so as to be united to the Word free from the contagion of any sin; only the penalty remained, not by necessity, but by the will of the one who assumed it.
Pierre Lombard, Sentences, Book III, distinction III, chapter I, 1257
At this point, it is useful to pause for some explanation. Earlier in the article, I explained that the Fathers were led to postulate a purification of the Virgin due to reasoning about the nature of holy places. Another reason, already present in the Fathers and clearly present in this text, guided their reflection. Indeed, original sin is understood as total depravity in the broad sense: the body too is tainted by sin. Since Christ is absolutely sinless but receives His flesh from a daughter of Adam, how could He receive pure flesh? Augustine, as we have seen, mentions that Christ could purify the flesh to take it or rather purify it in taking it. Bede mentions a twofold action of the Spirit in the Incarnation, one of which is this purification. For most medieval thinkers, it is accepted that the purification of the flesh occurred not only in Christ at the Incarnation but also in the Virgin so that He could be incarnated. The idea of a purification of the Virgin is therefore not mere pious speculation but primarily a theological response to the problem of Christ’s immaculate conception in a daughter tainted by Adam. Note that this problem for the medievals, and this solution of a purification of the Virgin, only arises if one holds both that Christ is free from all sin and that His mother is not. Roman Catholic doctors no longer speak of the Virgin’s purification but only of her preservation, postponing the problem by a generational leap and disconnecting the immaculate conception from the virginal conception (while the Fathers always explain one by the other). This problem of a sinless Christ born from flesh tainted by sin as a daughter of Adam is already what concerned Boethius (480-524) in a treatise on Christology258.
Beyond the testimony of a hugely influential text against the Immaculate Conception, it should also be noted that the master of the Sentences, as he is called, asserts that the idea that the Virgin’s flesh was first subjected to sin is in accordance with the “concordant testimony of the Saints” and that it must be believed. We are pleased to note that the editors of the recent French translation refer in a footnote to the texts of St. Augustine and Ambrosiaster that we mentioned259.
Pothon of Prüm (1105-1170)
It is noteworthy that this century saw the first spread of this feast in the Latin Church, as it appears in the writings of several clerics. Thus, not only does Bernard mention it, but another author of the same century, Pothon of Prüm or Potho Prumiensis, a Benedictine abbot of the Diocese of Trier, also refers to it. After discussing the new feasts of his time, including that of the Trinity, he mentions the feast of the Conception as follows:
We are therefore surprised to learn that it seemed good to certain monasteries, in our time, to abandon a reputation of the highest excellence by introducing certain new celebrations. Some even add to these, which seems very absurd, the feast of the Conception of Saint Mary260.
Potho de Prome, De statu domus Dei, Book 3.
John Beleth (1135-1182)
A Parisian theologian living in the same century as Bernard of Clairvaux, he also heard of a feast of the Conception beginning to be celebrated. He objects, on the same grounds, to this liturgical innovation:
Some occasionally celebrated the feast of the Conception, and perhaps still celebrate it, but it is neither authentic nor approved: on the contrary, it seems prohibited. For it was conceived in sin261.
John Beleth, Rationale divinorum officiorum, 146.
Peter of Celle (?-1183)
Listed by the Catholic Encyclopedia as an opponent of the Immaculate Conception, this bishop of Chartres particularly opposed the celebration of the feast of the Conception of the Virgin as a novelty:
A proverb says: “The ancient paths must not be abandoned for new ones.” But which of the saints, which of the ancients, has not walked our paths? I believe and confess that, if they had erred on this subject, God would also have made it known to them.
Peter of Celle, Epistolae VI, 23262.
Peter of Poitiers (1130-1215)
While discussing various theories regarding the propagation of original sin, Peter of Poitiers, theologian and man of letters, the first translator of the Qur’an into Latin under the title Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete (Law of Muhammad the false prophet), notes that if original sin is propagated because the body is corrupted, then Mary’s body had to be purified, otherwise she would have transmitted original sin to Christ, since she was affected by it:
Some say that original sin comes partly from the vice of concupiscence, and partly from corrupt flesh. And thus, so that Christ would be free from original sin, it was necessary that the flesh He assumed be purified. For if it had not been, even if He were conceived without concupiscence, Christ would have inherited original sin. […] And thus Christ would have inherited original sin; since His flesh came from the flesh of the Virgin, which was corrupted due to original sin263
Peter of Poitiers, Livre des Sentences, I, 2, XIX.
Innocent III (1160-1216)
Another bishop of Rome expressed himself against the Immaculate Conception of Mary as follows:
Eve, conceived without sin, bore in sin; Mary, conceived in sin, bore without sin264
Innocent III, De festo Assumptionis Mariae, sermon II265
It should be noted that the parallel between Eve and Mary, as with Justin Martyr, does not necessarily involve belief in the Immaculate Conception, and the mere mention of this parallel does not constitute an argument for this Roman dogma. Here is how Constance Rousseau, historian specializing in this pope, comments:
The pope drew this conclusion by differentiating the generation of Eve and Mary. Innocent maintained that Eve was produced by man alone, that is, created by God from Adam’s rib. Eve was conceived without sin but bore in sin. Here, the pope implied that God created Eve from Adam without any form of desire or sexual act in the prelapsarian context. However, Mary herself was produced by both man and woman, by her parents (Joachim and Anne). She was conceived in sin but bore without sin. Thus, while affirming in a certain sense an “immaculate conception” of Eve as well as the virginity of Mary, Innocent rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary by her mother Anne266
From this analysis, the distinction between active conception (the act of conceiving) and passive conception (being conceived) is not clear. The following quotes, especially the second, show that Innocent III affirmed not only that Mary was generated due to her parents’ concupiscence (active conception) but also that she was conceived in original sin (passive conception):
Indeed, John was conceived in fault, but Christ alone was conceived without fault. Yet both were born in grace, and that is why the Nativity of each is celebrated, but the Conception of Christ only.
Innocent III, Sermon XVI on feast days267.
And the Holy Spirit immediately came upon her; indeed, He had already come upon her, when He purified her soul from original sin in her mother’s womb; but then He came upon her again, so that her flesh also might be purified from the source of sin and so that she would be without imperfection or blemish268
Innocent III, Sermon XII on the feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary.
Innocent, like many authors of his time and later periods, believed that the Virgin’s purification took place while she was in her mother’s womb. Yet he does not completely abandon the patristic exegetical tradition that sees a purification at the Incarnation, since he conceives a two-step purification, the second occurring at the Incarnation. A Latin poem cited by Constance Rousseau is also worth quoting269:
O virginal sweetness,
there has never been, and there is not among those born of women, one like you.
The Creator of all things
chose you as mother.
He who purified the sinful Mary from her guilt.
May He purify me, through the virtue of your prayer,
from all my sins
lest hell engulf me270.
Honorius III (1150-1227)
Shortly thereafter, another bishop of Rome expressed himself as follows in one of his sermons271:
This “tabernacle” that is the blessed Virgin, the Most High sanctified it, for in her mother’s womb He purified her from original sin. For the blessed Virgin had the privilege not only of being purified from sin but also thereafter, at the conception of her Son, of being freed from the source of sin so that she could no longer sin.
Honorius III, On the Purification of the Virgin, “Sanctificavit tabernaculum suum” (Ps 45:5, Vulgate)272.
Anthony of Padua (1195-1231)
Saint Anthony of Padua was one of the first Franciscans. Canonized less than a year after his death and proclaimed Doctor of the Roman Church in 1946, he enjoyed great popularity in the Middle Ages. He produced sermons on various liturgical feasts. He mentions the purification of the Virgin, following the Fathers, in a sermon on the Annunciation:
When the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, He purified her mind from the stains of sin, so that she might be worthy of the heavenly birth, and He created in her womb, by His operation, a body for the Redeemer from the flesh of the Virgin.
Anthony of Padua, Sermons on the Annunciation, VIII273.
Alexander of Hales (1175-1245)
The first author to comment on the Sentences, this Franciscan doctor also produced a Summa universæ theologiæ at the request of Pope Innocent IV, who gave his approval. Jean Gerson (1363-1429) reports the following: “Someone once asked Saint Thomas what was the best way to study theology; he replied that it was to attach oneself to a master. And which doctor? they asked again. To Alexander of Hales, replied the Angelic Doctor274.”
In this Summa, approved by the pope, Alexander of Hales or Alexander Halensis deals in Book III with the sanctification of the Virgin in four articles. In the first article, he asks whether the Virgin could have been purified before existing, that is, by a purification of her parents. He objects that when a parent is purified, it is according to the person and not according to nature, and thus they still transmit a sinful nature275. In the second article, he asks whether Mary could have been purified at her very conception, opposing six reasons and concluding “thus the Blessed Virgin could not be sanctified in her conception276” — he rejects an immaculate conception. In a third article, he asks whether the Virgin could have been sanctified after conception but before animation (according to the common chronology of human development at that time), and rejects this as well. Finally, he asks whether the Virgin could have been sanctified before birth, and he concludes that this was indeed the case.
Among the various texts and authorities he invokes are mainly Bernard of Clairvaux, but also Pope Leo and Augustine, and he also cites “we are by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3), applying it to Mary.
Interestingly for Protestant readers, the seventh objection he considers against an in utero purification is as follows: “Saint Jerome says: ‘Do not believe me unless I bring you what I say from the New or Old Testament.’ But concerning the sanctification of the Virgin in the maternal womb, one finds nothing in either the New or the Old Testament; therefore, one should not believe that she was sanctified in the maternal womb.” When he later responds to this objection, he does not contest that all theological truth must come from Scripture, but seeks to demonstrate that the Bible teaches an in utero purification of the Virgin by the following reasoning:
- Scripture reports that John the Baptist and Jeremiah were sanctified in the womb (Augustine disputes the possibility of rebirth before birth, and Alexander mentions this fact), John at the sixth month;
- Scripture also presents Mary as superior in importance and holiness to these persons;
- Therefore, Mary was sanctified in utero before the sixth month.
The argument has several weaknesses, notably in the first premise and through a non sequitur, but it should be noted that Alexander of Hales intended to rely on a deductive scriptural argument.
In the following chapter, he asks whether the Virgin was purified in the maternal womb from original sin (guilt) or also from the source of sin (concupiscence). Since several authors we will encounter address in detail the notion of the source of sin, it is useful to provide a brief explanation here. The “source of sin” (fomes peccati), in this context, is an appetite of the senses for actions contrary to right reason. When a scholastic says that this source is bound (ligatus), he means that God, by an effect of Providence, removed the occasions to sin from Mary. When a scholastic says that this source is abolished (extinctus), he affirms that the appetite itself is made perfect so that it is entirely subject to reason. This distinction does not directly relate to the chronology of the Virgin’s sanctification but is an attempt to explain how it is possible for the Virgin not to have sinned: either God acted to remove occasions to sin, or He sanctified her so that her senses did not tempt her to desire sinful things. In any case, 13th-century authors all agree that this sanctification or “binding” of the source of sin occurred only after conception, and the majority hold that the abolition of this source took place at the Annunciation.
Halensis thus makes several distinctions:
- Between a partial in utero sanctification and a more complete one at the Incarnation;
- Between a purification according to the person and according to nature;
- Between two effects of concupiscence according to the person: the propensity to evil on one hand and the difficulty to do good on the other.
Halensis considers the first distinction accepted and conceives of two purifications which he barely explains. For the second distinction, he says the first purification consisted of purification according to the person, but not according to nature, and that the second purification consisted of purification according to nature, so that Christ could assume the Virgin’s flesh without being contaminated; she was therefore not pure until the second sanctification. Finally, regarding the third distinction, he says that some think the propensity to evil was removed in the Virgin, but not the difficulty to do good. He concludes that she was purified from both in utero.
The following chapter is devoted to the second purification of the Virgin, which he explains more fully. He states its necessity in a first article: she had to be purified according to nature so that the Son could assume pure flesh. In a second article, he explains that after this second purification, it was no longer possible for her to sin. Finally, his third and last article explains that before Christ’s Passion, she could not enjoy the beatific vision and thus this was missing from her beatitude. A final chapter on this question simply affirms by what power God accomplished this purification.
Thus, the Catholic Encyclopedia lists him among the opponents of the Immaculate Conception. A recent study on the Summa Halensis comments as follows, extending the discussion to the early Franciscans as a whole:
Thus, although they make original use of traditional sources, the early Franciscans do not resolve the question of Mary’s immaculate conception. On the contrary, they deny it.
Beth Ingham Mary, “The Sanctification of Mary”277.
Hugh of Saint-Cher (1190-1263)
Hugh of Saint-Cher, created cardinal by Innocent IV, was the first to establish a verbal biblical concordance. His theology is considered conservative, particularly in the face of philosophical innovations in theological schools. Commenting on Ecclesiastes 7:28, a verse stating that one man among a thousand was found, but no woman among them all, he affirms:
Mystically, this concerns Christ who alone from this universality, of which it is said in Romans 3: all have sinned and are in need of God’s grace and in James 3: we all stumble in many ways. Of this, Psalms 13 [14] and 52 [53] say: there is none who does good, except one, namely Christ who never sinned and had no sin. The blessed Virgin herself had original sin; this is why her conception is not celebrated. However, those who celebrate it should take into consideration her sanctification, by which she was sanctified in her mother’s womb278
Hugh of Saint-Cher, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 7:27-28
Without denying the universal presence of original sin in Mary, Hugh of Saint-Cher nuances his rejection of the feast of the Conception by suggesting that the feast is celebrated by some with the aim of commemorating the Virgin’s purification in her mother’s womb.
This interpretation of the verse from Qohelet would later be taken up by Thomas Aquinas; or at least, even if he did not derive it from Hugh of Saint-Cher, he offers the same reading.
William of Metz (?-1269)
William of Traînel, bishop of Metz, comments on the celebration of the feast of the Conception as follows:
The feast of the Conception should not be celebrated because the holy Virgin was conceived in original sin. Some, however, argue that this feast rather pertains to sanctification than to carnal conception.
William of Metz, Appar. sup. Summ. Raim279.
Albert the Great (1200-1280)
Albert the Great was the teacher of the equally great Thomas Aquinas. In commenting on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, he treats in his third article on the flesh of Christ the purification of the Virgin. He affirms in this article that she could not have been purified in her parents’ “reins” for reasons similar to those of Alexander of Hales. In the fourth article, he explains that the Virgin was purified after animation and concludes:
We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, and the contrary assertion is heresy condemned by Saint Bernard in his epistle to the canons of Lyon and by all the doctors of Paris280.
Albert the Great, Commentary on the Sentences III, Distinction 3, Article 3281.
Saint Albert therefore understood Saint Bernard in the same way we do, and he uses the particularly strong language of heresy regarding the opinion condemned by Bernard. He adds that all the Parisian doctors condemned this heresy.
In the following article, he explains that she was purified in the maternal womb, after her conception and animation, but that no one can know when. In article six, he continues by asking to what extent this in utero purification went. He affirms that in John the Baptist and Jeremiah, this purification left a tendency to venial sin but not mortal sin, while in the Virgin the purification was such that she was no longer inclined to sin. He then asks what the second purification at the Annunciation added. He answers by recalling a distinction made in the previous article, where he distinguished between disposition to sin and habitus to sin. She was already purified from the latter and was purified from the former at the Annunciation. Finally, in a continuing article, Albert the Great cites Saint Augustine and comments:
It must be said that to live in the flesh without contracting original sin is the prerogative of the only Son of God, for the Virgin first contracted sin and was purified afterwards282.
Albert the Great, Commentary on the Sentences III, Distinction 3, Article 8281.
It can be seen that, in addition to rejecting the Immaculate Conception, many medieval authors admitted a second purification, a remnant of patristic tradition, even if the way it was accounted for differed. Thus, the Catholic Encyclopedia also lists him among the opponents of the Immaculate Conception.
Bonaventure (1221-1274)
Cardinal and great Franciscan theologian—an order that later produced champions of the Immaculate Conception—Saint Bonaventure concludes the section of his commentary on the Sentences devoted to the Virgin’s purification:
Therefore, for the honor of Jesus Christ, which in no way harms the honor of the Mother of God, we believe, as is generally thought, that the Virgin was sanctified only after contracting original sin283.
Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences, III, Distinction 3, QI, a1.
In his exposition, he also addresses the question of the feast of the Conception:
The Church celebrates the feast of no conception except that of the Son of God alone, in the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary. […] The blessed Bernard himself, particular admirer of the Virgin and zealous for her honor, reproves those who celebrate the conception of the Virgin. […] It is also possible that this feast rather refers to the day of her sanctification, rather than that of her conception284.
Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences, III, Distinction 3, QI, a1.
Like Hugh of Saint-Cher, Bonaventure does not absolutely condemn the celebration of the Virgin’s Conception, though he does not approve it either, provided it is understood as referring to her sanctification rather than her conception.
Unlike Thomas Aquinas, who, as we will see, maintained not only that the Virgin was not immaculately conceived but that it was impossible for her to be so, Bonaventure does not see it as a contradiction in terms, but rather as inappropriate for various reasons. A recent study on the notion of debt in the doctrine of original sin in Thomas, Bonaventure, and Scotus notes:
While Thomas Aquinas opposes the possibility of such a thing, Bonaventure admits the possibility while objecting to its appropriateness.
Coelho-Kostolny Peter, Sine Labe Originali Concepta: The Debitum Peccati in Scotus, Aquinas, and Bonaventure post Ineffabilis Deus285.
In his approach, the Seraphic Doctor can be counted among those who accept the possibility but deny the fact.
Cecchin Stefano, L’Immacolata Concezione. Breve storia del dogma286.
After presenting various arguments for the Immaculate Conception (notably the typology of Mary as an ark, which he rejects as proving this opinion), he concludes that the idea that the Virgin contracted original sin is more common (communior). He further asserts that it is more reasonable (rationabilior) and gives several reasons, including that Mary suffered and died, and death is the reward of sin. Therefore, either Mary died for others—which would insult the sufficiency of Christ as Redeemer—or she died innocent—which would insult divine justice:
Either an injustice was done to her when she died, or she died dispensationally for the salvation of humankind. But the first option insults God because, if true, God is not a just retributor; the second insults Christ, because, if true, Christ is not a sufficient redeemer. Both are therefore false and impossible. It remains, therefore, that she had original sin287.
Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences, Liber 3, Distinctio 3, Pars 1, Articulus 1, III, D. 3, P. 1, A. 1, Q. 2
Finally, Bonaventure adds that the opinion he defends is safer (securior) because it conforms to the view of all the Fathers:
The saints unanimously, when speaking on this subject, except for Christ alone regarding the mass of which it is said: All have sinned in Adam. But none of those we have heard with our own ears affirmed that the Virgin Mary was exempt from original sin. And this is because the honor of being free from all sin, both original and actual, belongs only to the Son of God, for He alone was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a Virgin; therefore, it should not be attributed to the Virgin288.
Bonaventure, Commentary on the Sentences, III, Distinction 3, QI, a1.
This is noteworthy not only because it comes from a Franciscan, but also because it shows that in the 13th century the Immaculate Conception was still largely unknown. Bonaventure also confirms the reading we have made of the Fathers.
In the most comprehensive study to date on Bonaventure’s doctrine regarding the Virgin’s purification, José María Salvador-Gonzalez concludes:
After presenting arguments for and against the mentioned thesis, the Seraphic Doctor argues his personal position on the matter, namely affirming, in accordance with the common opinion of his time, that the Virgin’s sanctification occurred after contracting original sin.
Salvador-Gonzalez José María, Saint Bonaventure’s Doctrine on the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception289.
This view is widely accepted among Bonaventure specialists:
Saint Bonaventure, expressing the common opinion of his time regarding the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, undoubtedly denies it.
Hugolinus Storff, The Immaculate Conception: The Teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and Bl. J. Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary290
The Seraphic Doctor thus also supports the doctrine common to the great theologians of his time—Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, and Thomas—who held that the idea of the Immaculate Conception contradicts the universal redemption by Christ, which would no longer be universal if the condition of sin were not common to all children of Adam. If Mary had been conceived without original sin, she would have escaped Christ’s universal redemption.
It is therefore no surprise that the latest editors of Saint Bonaventure’s works acknowledged, loc. cit., his opposition to the pious belief, and that in the preface of the Quæstiones disputatæ de immaculata conceptione beatæ Mariæ Virginis, printed also at Quaracchi, one reads, p. xi: “The disciples of Saint Bonaventure repeated his doctrine, and so far we have not found a single one of our theologians in Paris in the 13th century who accepted or defended the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.”
Vacant A., Dictionnaire de théologie catholique291
These editors, after testifying to his opposition to the Immaculate Conception, add:
Such was the teaching of St. Bernard, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, the Blessed Albert the Great, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, Giles of Rome, Henry of Ghent, Durand, and many others.
Commentary on the Third Book of the Sentences, Quaracchi edition292
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1275)
It is well known that Saint Thomas Aquinas, following his teacher and against Duns Scotus, rejected the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This issue was the subject of intense debates between Franciscans and Dominicans in the Middle Ages. Here are the reasons Thomas advanced in his Summa to reject the Immaculate Conception:
The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin could not take place before her animation for two reasons:
1° The sanctification we speak of designates the purification from original sin; indeed, according to Dionysius, holiness is “perfect purity.” Now sin can only be purified by grace, and grace can only exist in a rational creature. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before the rational soul was given to her.
2° Only a rational creature is capable of sin. Therefore, the fruit of conception is subject to sin only once it has received the rational soul. If the Blessed Virgin had been sanctified in any way before her animation, she would never have incurred the stain of original sin. Thus, she would not have needed redemption and salvation brought by Christ, of whom it is said in Saint Matthew (1:21): He will save His people from their sins. Now it is inadmissible that Christ would not be the Savior of all men (1 Tm 4:10). It therefore follows that the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin Mary occurred after her animation.
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 27, a. 2.
The two reasons can be summarized as follows:
- One can only be purified by grace, and only a rational being (i.e., one possessing a soul) can be thus purified. Therefore, Mary could not have been purified before having a soul.
- If Mary had been purified from the moment of her conception, before her animation, she would never have been touched by original sin (which is precisely what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception aims to proclaim as revealed truth). If this were the case, she would not have needed a redeemer. Scripture declares that Christ is the Savior of all men, Mary being no exception.
The first objection relies on a particular understanding of human development in utero, while the second is based on the claim that Christ is the Savior of all men, which Thomas considers irreconcilable with the idea that Mary would not have been touched by original sin. Therefore, she could only have been purified later. The Cerf editions note regarding this question in the Summa:
In this article, Saint Thomas indisputably asserts that Mary contracted original sin.
— Summa Theologica, vol. 4293
It is appropriate here to point out some remarkable facts I discovered while preparing this article. For example, one can read at Garrigou-Lagrange, at the apologist Taylor Marshall, on the US Dominican Order site, or on the Roman apologetics site Philosophy of Christianity, the following quotation attributed to Thomas Aquinas:
Mary has always been very pure from every kind of fault, because neither original sin, nor mortal nor venial, has ever had any part in her.
— Thomas Aquinas, On the Angelic Salutation
The problem is that Thomas, in the original Latin according to the majority of editions since the 1488 Milan edition, says only “nor mortal nor venial” (and does not say “nor original sin,” nor “every kind of fault”). This is not a translation error but a variant in Thomas’s Latin text. Richard Gibbings referenced this as a falsification two centuries ago294. This variant is absent from the majority of contemporary editions295.
Similarly, the apologetics site produces an older Catholic edition of Thomas which reads:
All the children of Adam are conceived in sin, except the most pure and most worthy Virgin Mary, who was entirely preserved from all original and venial sin.
— Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians 3, sixth lesson
However, this is again a false version, and modern editions restore it as follows:
Of a thousand men I found only one, namely Jesus Christ, who was without sin, but of all women I found not one, who was entirely free from sin, at least original or venial296.
— Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Galatians 3, sixth lesson297
Thomas thus asserts the exact opposite in the original text compared to the false version. This is particularly clear as he comments specifically on a text from Ecclesiastes (7:28), which says that one man in a thousand was found (sinless, according to Thomas), whereas not a single woman was found (sinless, according to Thomas).
In short, in its article on Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception, this Catholic apologetics site almost exclusively produces false quotations of Thomas. Indeed, two quotations are falsified or doubtful (including the one on Galatians cited three times in different forms in the same article); two other quotations are falsely attributed to Thomas (they are from Saint Augustine and were already explained above); and the last two are genuinely from Thomas. Among these, one simply affirms that Mary was purified before her birth. The header quotation of the article is correct but misleadingly presented as supporting the Immaculate Conception. In fact, Thomas says Mary is exempt from original sin in his commentary on the Sentences, a youthful work, but this quotation is taken out of context in which Thomas clearly states:
Therefore the Blessed Virgin was conceived with original sin, which is why the blessed Bernard writes to the people of Lyon that her conception should not be celebrated, although it was celebrated in certain churches out of devotion, not considering the conception, but rather the sanctification, whose precise timing is uncertain298.
— Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, III, distinction 3, question 1, article 1, reply to sub-question 1[Digital edition, trans. Jacques Ménard, 2010.]
And further:
Indeed, Christ alone in the human race is such that he does not need redemption, for he is our head, but it is fitting that all be redeemed through him. Now, this could not be the case if another soul were found to have never been infected by the stain of original sin. Therefore, this was granted neither to the Blessed Virgin nor to anyone else, except Christ299.
— Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, III, distinction 3, question 1, article 1, reply to sub-question 2[Digital edition, trans. Jacques Ménard, 2010.]
He uses this formulation again, cited by the virtual apologist, in Latin300 in his Compendium, his last unfinished work:
She was not only exempt from all actual sin but also from original sin.
— Thomas Aquinas, Compendium, chapter 224301
If we include the full context, it is clear that Thomas does not intend this phrase to support the Immaculate Conception:
She was not only exempt from all actual sin but also from original sin, purified by a special privilege. Indeed, she had to be conceived with original sin, since her conception was through the union of the two sexes. This privilege that as a virgin she would conceive the Son of God was reserved to her alone. But the union of the sexes, which cannot be without concupiscence since the sin of the first father, transmits original sin to offspring. Likewise, if she had been exempt from original sin at her conception, she would not have needed redemption by Christ, and thus Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which would detract from Christ’s dignity. Therefore, she must have been conceived with original sin but purified in a special way. Some are purified from original sin after birth, as those sanctified through baptism. Others, by a privilege of grace, were sanctified in the maternal womb, as it is said of Jeremiah: Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you came out of the womb I sanctified you (Jer 1:5) and of John the Baptist the angel says: He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb (Lk 1:15). What was granted to Christ’s precursor and the prophet should not be believed to have been denied to his mother. Therefore, it is believed she was sanctified in the womb, that is, before her birth302.
— Thomas Aquinas, Compendium, chapter 224301
Thomas therefore reprises the common and patristic argument that an immaculate conception can only occur through a virginal conception on the one hand, and on the other hand he reprises the second argument from his Summa Theologica, namely that the Immaculate Conception would amount to removing Mary from the need for a redeemer. This teaching was therefore his from his youth to his last theological work.
In reality, even without the context of this quotation, paying attention to Thomas’s vocabulary is enough to dismiss this text as proof of the Immaculate Conception. Indeed, in his Commentary on the Sentences, Thomas asks whether a Christian, exempt from original sin, still transmits this sin to their child and explains that, although the Christian is purified as a person (i.e., personally), they are not purified as to nature and therefore transmit original sin:
« It is therefore necessary that, by the very act of nature, the poison of original sin be transmitted to the child, although the father is, in his person, exempt (immunis) from original sin »303.
Thus, to say that in this example the father is exempt (immunis), or in the other text that the Virgin is exempt (immunis), does not imply in either case an immaculate conception.
I hope that after reading our article, a consequential correction will be made to the Catholic article in question. In fact, I had already noticed many other false quotations of the Fathers on this site (notably a prayer to Mary falsely attributed to Saint Augustine304), not that this site deliberately produces such falsifications, but it reproduces Catholic editions and translations from previous centuries which, as we see, did not hesitate to modify even the Latin text to align the ancient and medieval doctors with Roman doctrine. These modifications reveal the unease of Roman authors regarding the Christian tradition.
To further clarify Thomas’s thought on this subject, it should be added that, according to him, the Virgin was not totally purified in her mother’s womb. Indeed, in article 3 of the question in the Summa mentioned previously, he asks whether the Virgin’s sanctification was such that the “fountain of sin” was completely removed in her. He defines this fountain as “a disordered desire of the sensitive appetite.” He mentions various options proposed by his contemporaries:
On this question there is a great diversity of opinions.
- Some said that the fountain of sin was completely removed in the Blessed Virgin by the sanctification she received in her mother’s womb.
- Others argued that the fountain of sin remained, but only in so far as it makes doing good difficult; it was removed as regards the inclination to evil.
- According to others, the Blessed Virgin no longer had the fountain of sin as a corruption of the person, which drives to evil and hinders good; it remained as a corruption of nature from which original sin is transmitted to offspring.
- Finally, according to some, the fountain itself subsisted in the Blessed Virgin at her first sanctification, but in a bound state; and at the very moment of the conception of the Son of God, it was completely removed.
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 27, a. 3.
The reader will note that the Immaculate Conception is not among the options Thomas considers, which is significant given his customary thoroughness. He excludes the two middle options as contradictory in terms and states that it is possible either that she was totally purified in her mother’s womb from the power of sin, or that the fountain remained and she was purified later. He rejects the first option as follows:
« And although this position seems to contribute to the dignity of the Virgin Mother, it detracts in one respect from the dignity of Christ, in that no one is delivered from the first condemnation outside of his virtue. […] For if someone were to be freed, according to the flesh, from this condemnation, it seems that this immunity would appear in him first. That is why no one could benefit from bodily immortality before Christ rose in his bodily immortality. Likewise, it seems inadmissible to say that before the flesh of Christ, who was without sin, the flesh of the Virgin his mother or of anyone else would be exempt from this fountain called the ‘law of the flesh,’ or ‘of the members’. »
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 27, a. 3.
Thomas Aquinas does not simply reject the Immaculate Conception out of respect for Christ’s dignity, but also a complete sanctification of the Virgin. The reasoning is chronological: certainly, one day the saints will rise victorious over death, but it was not fitting that anyone rise in an immortal body before Christ. Similarly, no one should experience perfect sanctification before Christ. He therefore concludes:
« It is therefore better to say, it seems, that the sanctification in her mother’s womb did not deliver the Blessed Virgin from the fountain, in what is essential; it remained, but bound. It was not through an act of her reason, as in the saints, for in her mother’s womb she did not yet have the use of free will. This is the special privilege of Christ. […] But afterward, when she conceived the flesh of Christ, in which the exemption from all sin was to shine first, it must be believed that this also reflects from the child onto the mother, and that the fountain was totally removed. »
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 27, a. 3.
Thomas thus envisages sanctification in two stages. First, a sanctification in Saint Anne’s womb where the fountain of sin was bound yet remained (a privilege Thomas also attributes to John the Baptist and Jeremiah in article 6 of the same question), then a second sanctification at the Incarnation when this fountain was abolished. This understanding was also present in Popes Honorius III and Innocent III. A recent study on the Thomistic conception of original sin transmission notes:
« Thomas Aquinas holds that Mary was purified from original sin in her mother’s womb, but that she was not completely purified from the fountain of sin (the fountain being the spark of disordered attraction to any good) which was present in her body. He admits that the fountain must have been mitigated in some way so that she never committed a single sin, and he affirms that the final and complete purification of Mary was accomplished at the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit by the power of the Most High, at the moment of the conception of Christ. Thomas Aquinas considers that the alternative according to which Mary was completely purified in her mother’s womb is ‘somewhat derogatory to the dignity of Christ,’ as it seems to devalue his redemptive action. »
— Coelho-Kostolny Peter, « Sine Labe Originali Concepta: The Debitum Peccati in Scotus, Aquinas, and Bonaventure post Ineffabilis Deus« , Ecce Mater Tua, vol. 7, 2023, p. 149.
We see that Thomas did not reject the Immaculate Conception simply for a question of animation chronology305; he added to this reason:
- an exegesis of Ecclesiastes 7:28,
- the fact that it would remove Mary from the number of the redeemed,
- the Augustinian consideration that every conception by the union of the sexes necessarily induces corruption,
- the fact that it is not fitting for anyone to be perfectly holy before Christ,
- the authority of previous doctors such as Bernard, Damascene, Dionysius the Areopagite, or Augustine,
- the opinion of the Roman Church of his time.
Like Bonaventure, Thomas notes that the Roman Church does not celebrate the feast of Mary’s conception but tolerates it, provided it is not understood as affirming the Immaculate Conception:
« Although the Roman Church does not celebrate the feast of the Conception of the Virgin, it tolerates the custom of certain Churches that celebrate it. But from the fact that the feast of the Conception is celebrated, one should not think that the Blessed Virgin was holy in her conception. »
— Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, q. 27, a. 2.
If further proof were needed, here is an excerpt from another work where Thomas treats both Mary’s conception and the corresponding feast:
« It must therefore be considered that everyone contracts original sin by being in Adam according to a seminal reason. Now, all those in Adam according to a seminal reason not only received their flesh from him, but were also produced according to the natural mode of origin. The Blessed Virgin also came from Adam, as she was born from sexual union like the others. And thus she was conceived with original sin and is part of the whole of whom Paul says in Romans 5:12: In whom all have sinned, a group of which only Christ is excepted, who was not in Adam according to a seminal reason. Otherwise, if this were fitting for anyone other than Christ, she would not need Christ’s redemption. And thus we must not grant to the mother what detracts from the honor of the Son, who is the savior of all men, as the Apostle says, 1 Tm 4:10. […] Regarding the celebration of her conception, various customs have developed in the Churches. For the Roman Church and many others, considering that the Virgin’s conception took place in original sin, do not celebrate the feast of her conception. But some, considering her sanctification in the womb, whose time is unknown, celebrate her conception. […] Therefore, this celebration is not to be referred to conception because of conception, but rather because of sanctification »306.
Thus, the Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique concludes:
« Nothing is clearer than the position of the Angelic Doctor and the other great theologians of the 13th century. To transform them into supporters, or at least not to see in them opponents of the pious belief, one is forced to resort to fictitious retractions, apocryphal or vague texts, to interpretations showing what these theologians could have said, and not what they said. »
— Adhémar D’Alès, Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique, vol. III, 1922, p. 262.
The Dictionnaire de philosophie et de théologie thomistes of the Bibliothèque de la Revue thomiste further affirms:
« The virginal divine maternity of Mary presupposes a unique sanctification which does not mean that she was immaculate in her personal conception. Saint Thomas does not treat the Assumption ex professo either. On these two closely related points, he is behind the current doctrine defined by the Church. […] Thomas, who recognizes in Mary a true fullness of grace (cf. ST IIIa, q. 27, a. 1), explicitly denies her any grace of immaculate conception. »
— Yves Floucat & Philippe-Marie Margelidon, Dictionnaire de philosophie et de théologie thomistes, Parole et Silence, 2011, pp. 653-654.
Finally, regarding the article on the Immaculate Conception, the same dictionary specifies that Thomas’s opposition does not rest simply on the distinction between conception and animation:
« Saint Thomas never speaks of immaculate conception regarding the Blessed Virgin, but of sanctification (sanctificatio). […] The fundamental reason, regardless of the anthropological distinction between conception and animation, is that if Mary had been sanctified before her conception, she would have been removed from Christ’s redemption, who is the efficient cause of grace and cannot preexist its effect. »
— Yves Floucat & Philippe-Marie Margelidon, Dictionnaire de philosophie et de théologie thomistes, Parole et Silence, 2011, p. 261.
Innocent V (1225–1276)
We meet yet another pope in our examination of this question, namely Innocent V.
The second degree was not suitable for the Virgin, since either she would not have contracted original sin and therefore would not have needed the universal sanctification and redemption of Christ, or, if she had contracted it, grace and fault could not have coexisted in her. The fourth degree was also not suitable for the Virgin, because it suited John and Jeremiah, and because it was not fitting for such great holiness that she should have lingered so long in sin like others; now John was sanctified in the sixth month (Luke 1). But the third solution seems fitting and piously credible, although it is not drawn from Scripture, namely that she was sanctified shortly after her animation, either on the same day or at the same hour, but not at the very moment.
Innocent V, Commentary on the Book of Sentences III, distinction 3, q. I, a. 1307.
This quotation is interesting in several respects, beyond the fact that it comes from a pope. Indeed, in the section that extends beyond the passage we quote, Innocent V comments on Peter Lombard’s Sentences. He distinguishes several degrees of sanctification corresponding to the various parts of the temple. It could mean being purified before conception, but Innocent V says that this is simply impossible. It could also mean being purified after conception and after birth, which is the case for most saints. It could also mean being pure in conception as in birth, but that, he says, belongs only to Jesus Christ. Then there remains a fourth possibility: being purified after conception but before birth. This, he says, is the degree of holiness that suits the Virgin, since in this way she stands midway between the other saints and Christ. However, John and Jeremiah, according to Innocent V, were also purified in their mothers’ wombs (Innocent is probably referring to the fact that John is said to have been filled with the Spirit in his mother’s womb and that Jeremiah is declared consecrated to be a prophet from his mother’s womb; note that Augustine rejected these options and thought instead that these two saints benefited from a temporary grace in the maternal womb). Then he distinguishes several possibilities, including the following two: being purified long after animation (as John, in the sixth month) or shortly thereafter (as, he says, the Virgin was).
He admits that the argument is not founded on Scripture and is highly speculative—it is a reasoning of fittingness. Let us note, however, that the solution of the Immaculate Conception is mentioned and excluded for the same reason as in Thomas Aquinas, namely that it would remove the Virgin from the universal need to be redeemed by Christ.
Guillaume Durand (1230–1296)
Bishop of Mende, later made apostolic chaplain in Rome, then auditor general of the causes of the palace by Pope Clement IV and participant in the Council of Lyon—considered ecumenical by Rome—he expressed himself as follows regarding holy feasts:
Some add yet a fifth feast, namely that of the Conception of the Blessed Mary, saying that just as we celebrate the death of the saints, not because of their death but because they were then received into the eternal wedding feast, in the same way the feast of the Conception can be celebrated, not because she was conceived (for she was conceived in sin), but because she was conceived as the Mother of our Lord; claiming that this was revealed to a certain abbot during a shipwreck. However, this is not authentic; therefore, it should not be approved, since she was conceived in sin, by the union of man and woman308.
Guillaume Durand, Rationale divinorum officiorum, L, 7.
It should be noted for the reader that Durand was among the most learned of the medievals on liturgical questions, and that this quotation comes from a book devoted to the explanation of the liturgy.
Richard of Menneville (1249–1302)
Richard of Menneville, or Mediavilla, was a Franciscan who followed Thomas Aquinas, contemporary with Henry of Ghent, and forerunner of Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. He may have come from Moyenneville in Picardy. This scholastic theologian also commented on the Sentences. In the section corresponding to the question of the Virgin’s sanctification, he first asks whether the Virgin was sanctified before animation and answers in the negative: “The soul of the Virgin contracted original sin by its union with that flesh.”309 He invokes the authority of Anselm and the fact that the Virgin was conceived naturally. Then he asks whether she was sanctified before birth and answers positively: Jeremiah and John the Baptist were, he says, all the more so the Mother of the Lord310.
Finally, he turns to the question of her capacity to sin311. Interestingly, he cites a liturgical prayer that, according to him, implies that John the Baptist did not sin in act, from which he draws an a fortiori argument in favor of the Virgin. He first affirms that the first sanctification in utero prevented her from sinning by removing the root of sin (fomes peccati) or by “binding” it so that it could no longer incline her to evil, but her will was not such that it could not in any way turn toward evil. Through this first grace, he says, she had not yet obtained confirmation in goodness that would totally exclude any flexibility of the will toward evil312. In the second sanctification, at the Annunciation, the root of sin and concupiscence were totally removed from her, so that she thereafter lived in perfect charity, excluding all sin313.
As we reach the end of the thirteenth century and step into the fourteenth, it is fitting to recall the analysis that historian Alister McGrath makes of this question in that century:
The maculist position was regarded as firmly established within the High Scholasticism of the thirteenth century.
Alister McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation314.
The Orthodox scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, in a book devoted to the study of the years 600 to 1300, declares that “it was commonly held that Christ was the only one conceived without original sin315.”
John Duns Scotus (1265–1308)
The Briton Duns Scotus, as is well known, defended the Immaculate Conception. He was, in fact, the first great doctor in the history of the Church to do so. His argument is precise and clear, extending over about ten pages in modern translations, and his method is scholastic. Yet several elements, even in Duns Scotus, confirm our analysis. It is noteworthy that this distinctive view again appears in Britain.
First, the Scottish doctor lists several theologians who oppose the opinion he is about to defend; among them are John Damascene (because he speaks of the Virgin’s purification), Augustine (because he says that all those conceived of man and woman are conceived in original sin), Leo of Rome, Jerome (though the quotation he produces is now considered falsely attributed to Jerome), the Decrees of Gratian, Hugoccio of Pisa (1140–1210), Bernard, and Anselm.
Second, Scotus calls the position he intends to challenge “the common opinion,” and the Vatican edition lists in a footnote Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Richard of Menneville, John of La Rochelle (1200–1245), who was Franciscan, Henry of Ghent (1217–1293), who, like Thomas Aquinas, was a disciple of Albert the Great, Giles of Rome (1243–1316), a scholastic of the Augustinian order, Innocent V, and “many others” as representatives of this common opinion316. A recent study on the doctrine of original sin in Duns Scotus explains that he presents “the common opinion of the time, namely that she was in sin for a certain period but was completely purified thereafter317.”
Third, in his sed contra—that is, in the section where Duns Scotus is supposed to invoke scriptural or earlier theological authorities supporting his thesis—he cannot produce a single author affirming that Mary was conceived without sin.
The first great theologian to defend the Immaculate Conception was therefore aware that he was advancing a position opposed to the earlier Christian tradition and to the consensus of the theologians of his time. Of course, he sought to reconcile his position with the objections raised by those doctors. But the fact remains that Duns Scotus, champion of the Immaculate Conception, is himself a witness to the innovative character of this doctrine. From his time onward, this doctrine began to be defended, notably by William of Ware (1260–after 1305), another Franciscan, an Englishman, who introduced the notion of preventive redemption and took up the adage “God could do it, therefore he did it” (Et quod potuit, congrum fuit quod feceri)318. As we shall see, this doctrine was far from immediately winning everyone’s assent.
Moreover, we must clearly understand the nature of the demonstration Duns Scotus undertakes. Indeed, he does not intend to prove that the Immaculate Conception is true, but only that it is a possible option to account for the Virgin’s purity. In fact, he concludes his demonstration by affirming:
But as to which of these three [options], which we have shown to be possible, was actually realized—God alone knows.
Ordinatio III, distinction 3, question I, § 34.
Duns Scotus himself, therefore, did not profess the Immaculate Conception as a revealed doctrine. After Scotus, there were indeed disciples who defended his opinion (which no one presented as a dogma). But many theologians continued to be unconvinced by Scotus’s reasoning, and it is on those authors that our examination now focuses, having been exhaustive up to this point.
Giles of Rome (1247–1316)
Nicknamed the Prince of Theologians (theologorum Princeps), a member of the Augustinian Order and tutor to Philip the Fair, his doctrine was designated by the Augustinians as the official doctrine of the order, just as that of Thomas Aquinas was for the Dominicans. Another common point with St. Thomas is his affinity for Aristotle’s thought. He later became general of his order and archbishop of Bourges.
In his commentary on the Sentences, he deals with the question of the sanctification of the Virgin in four parts. He first asks whether the Virgin was purified before animation and concludes negatively, then whether she was purified before birth and concludes positively. Finally, he treats the relation of Mary to sin after this sanctification and of what was accomplished by the second sanctification “when she received the announcement of the angel”319.
In the first part, relying on 1 Corinthians 15, he affirms:
Thus the Blessed Virgin died in Adam and was conceived in original sin because of him, and it is through Christ that she was quickened and justified from original sin320.
Giles of Rome, Commentary on the Sentences, Distinctio III, Pars I, Quaestio I, Articulo I, Dub. II321.
And again:
He alone was without any sin, and therefore without original sin322.
Giles of Rome, Commentary on the Sentences, Distinctio III, Pars I, Quaestio I, Articulo I, Dub. II.
And further on:
Thus, only Christ, who was conceived supernaturally from a Virgin by the intervention of the Holy Spirit, was conceived without sin. The Blessed Virgin Mary, who descends naturally from her parents, was conceived in original sin323.
Giles of Rome, Commentary on the Sentences, Distinctio III, Pars I, Quaestio I, Articulo I, Dub. III.
He therefore concludes that Mary was conceived in sin and, in the Resolutio of the first article, invokes Romans 5—which affirms that all have sinned in Adam—as well as Ephesians 2, which says that we are by nature children of wrath, and applies these to Mary. Thus, he says, we can prove in three ways that Mary was conceived in sin: in relation to Adam, in relation to her immediate parents, and finally in relation to the fact that she has Christ as Mediator. He invokes the authority of Anselm and Augustine on this matter.
In the following article, he affirms, as we said, that Mary was purified in the maternal womb, but that the root of sin (a notion explained earlier) was only “bound” in her and not abolished, and that it was in the second sanctification that the root of sin was abolished in her.
Guillaume Durand of Saint-Pourçain (1270–1334)
A Dominican, Doctor of Theology in Paris, later appointed Master of the Sacred Palace by Clement V, bishop of Limoux, then of Le Puy, and finally of Meaux, Durand of Saint-Pourçain was a precursor of nominalism. He published at a time when Thomism was not yet the official doctrine of the Dominicans: his numerous disagreements with Thomas Aquinas led to “the affair of Durand of Saint-Pourçain,” during which several Dominicans were led to write refutations of a brother of their order because he was a nominalist324.
In his commentary on the Sentences, he adopts an original approach, though close to that of Bonaventure. Thomas Aquinas, indeed, affirms that the Immaculate Conception is impossible, that it does not befit Mary, and that it therefore did not occur. The Scotists, on the contrary, affirm that it is possible, that it befits her, and that it therefore most probably did occur. Durand, for his part, agrees with the Scotists that the Immaculate Conception is possible, since he does not account for original sin through the transmission that Thomas envisages. But he agrees with Thomas that it does not befit Mary, because it would take away from Jesus his singularity. Thus, although he has no objections in principle to the Immaculate Conception, he maintains objections of fittingness. He thus concludes his development:
And although the Blessed Virgin could have been preserved from sin, it was not fitting that she should be preserved. The reason is that to a singular conception corresponds a singular privilege. Now, the Son of God according to his humanity had a singular conception, in that he was conceived not of a man but of the Holy Spirit. Thus, he possesses a singular privilege, which befits no other human being, not even his mother325.
Guillaume Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Commentarius in libros Sententiarum, Liber 3, Distinctio 3, Quaestio 1326.
He therefore naturally affirms that the Virgin had to be sanctified:
The Blessed Virgin needed sanctification because of the original sin she had contracted327.
Guillaume Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Commentarius in libros Sententiarum, Liber 3, Distinctio 3, Quaestio 1326.
Like many other medieval authors we have studied, he first examines the chronology of this sanctification and concludes that she was sanctified after her animation but before her birth, without knowing the precise moment of this purification328. Then he affirms a second sanctification at the Annunciation, based on the Gospel of Luke, and questions what was purified in the first sanctification and what was purified in the second329. He again makes several original distinctions between a restriction of actual sin by divine Providence and a restriction by the implantation of a habitus of holiness. He affirms that, compared to other saints, the Virgin also benefited from a special providential assistance not to sin.
John XXII (1249–1334)
To continue with the popes, here is a quotation from a sermon of John XXII330:
The Virgin thus emerged, first, from the state of original sin, second, from the state of childhood to maternal honor, third, from misery to glory.
John XXII, First Sermon on the Assumption331.
Paul of Perugia (around 1340)
A Carmelite, he produced a commentary on the Sentences in which he expresses himself thus with regard to the feast of the Conception:
The conception of the Virgin can be considered in two ways: either from the point of view of the contraction of original sin, and in this respect it should not be celebrated solemnly; or from the point of view of future sanctification and the Incarnation of Christ, and thus the feast may be celebrated.
Paul of Perugia, Commentary on the Sentences III, distinction 3, article I, question 1332.
William of Ockham (1285–1347)
A Franciscan and famous philosopher, the most eminent representative of the nominalists, he also annotated the Sentences. In his commentary, he conceives, unsurprisingly, of a double sanctification of the Virgin. More original among the scholastics, he maintains that the Virgin could have committed actual venial sins before the second purification, but not after. However, she could never have committed a mortal sin:
In the second sanctification, that is, in the conception of the Savior, she was totally freed from the root of sin […] in such a way that it could not incline her will to any act of mortal or venial sin. It follows that before the conception of the Savior, she could sin venially but not mortally; whereas after, she could [neither sin venially nor mortally]333.
William of Ockham, Scriptum in libros sententiarum, Liber 3, Quaestio 5334.
Alvarus Pelagius (1280–1352)
A famous Gallican specialist in canon law, bishop of Silves, and papal nuncio, he was noted for his fierce fight against ecclesiastical abuses of his time. In his main work, he expresses himself as follows on our subject:
Concerning his holy Mother also, the saints affirm, especially Augustine, that she did not commit even a venial sin in this life but that she was conceived in original sin, as were other men; according to this saying of her father David: Behold, I was conceived in iniquity. None is excepted except Christ, who was conceived not from human seed but from the Holy Spirit in the already sanctified womb of a virgin. But Our Lady was conceived from the seed of her parents, Joachim and Anne, like other women; and not from the Holy Spirit as her Son was, and thus she was conceived in original sin, as Bernard demonstrates at length in his letter addressed to the canons of Lyon, in which he reproves them because they celebrated the feast of her conception, which should not be done. But when it is done, it should refer to her sanctification in the maternal womb. The Roman Church does not celebrate the feast of her conception, although it tolerates it, because it is observed elsewhere, especially in England, yet it does not approve it. Thus this feast must refer to the sanctification of the Virgin and not to her conception, as we have said. Here is the prayer said in Rome during a feast in the Church of St. Mary Major: O God, who made the sanctification of the Virgin, etc., as I myself saw and heard when I preached there about this sanctification, on that very Feast of the Sanctification, which is celebrated in December, fifteen days before the Feast of the Nativity.
Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu ecclesiae libri duo, 51335.
This remark confirms that even when the feast of the Conception of the Virgin began to be tolerated, care was taken that it should not be understood as implying an Immaculate Conception. As we noted earlier concerning Eadmer, one notices here an English particularism in the celebration of this feast, distinguishing it from other Churches, including Rome. It should be noted that Alvarus Pelagius (as his name is francized) was, like Duns Scotus, a Franciscan, and that having heard the latter’s opinion, he commented on it as follows:
All the ancient theologians, such as Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, and Richard of Menneville, hold that the Virgin was guilty of original sin. There are, indeed, some new doctors who, departing from the common faith of the Church, strive to introduce a contrary doctrine. But their opinion is new and fanciful.
Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu ecclesiae libri duo, 52336.
Thus, for Duns Scotus’s contemporaries, he was indeed advancing a novelty.
Clement VI (1291–1352)
Another quotation from a pope is particularly interesting:
But before dividing the theme into several questions, it seems that this Conception should not be celebrated, first by the authority of Bernard, who, in his letter to the canons of Lyon, severely reproved them because they had received the feast and celebrated it solemnly. Indeed, no feast should be celebrated except out of reverence for the holiness of the person for whom it is celebrated, for such honor is rendered to the saints because of their relationship with God above others, and this is due to their holiness; now, it is not only actual sin that separates from God, but also original sin. Yet the holy Virgin was conceived in original sin, as many saints seem to say, and this can be proved by many reasons. It therefore seems that the Church should not celebrate the feast of her Conception. Here, not wishing to dispute, I say briefly that one thing is clear: the holy Virgin contracted original sin in its cause. The cause and reason are as follows: having been conceived by the union of man and woman, she was conceived by passion, and therefore she had original sin in its cause, which her Son did not have, because he was not conceived from the seed of man but by the mystical breath (Luke 1): “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee.” Therefore, to be without original sin is a singular privilege of Christ alone.
Clement VI, First Sermon on Advent337.
This quotation is relevant in several respects. First, it clearly expresses opposition to the Immaculate Conception by taking up a reason we have repeatedly identified among the Fathers: an immaculate conception is possible only by a virginal birth. Secondly, Clement VI reads the Fathers and St. Bernard as we do, since he mentions “many saints,” including Bernard by name, who say that Mary was conceived in original sin.
Gregory of Rimini (1300–1358)
An Italian philosopher and hermit following the Rule of St. Augustine, Gregory of Rimini was one of the last great scholastics. Commenting on how Paul exempts no one from being a child of wrath, he declares concerning the Immaculate Conception:
Since human reason can have no certainty on this matter, it seems to me that one should rather hold to what is most in accord with Holy Scripture and the writings of the Saints […] wherever [Scripture] speaks of it, it pronounces a universal sentence regarding all, without any exception.
Gregory of Rimini, Commentary on the Sentences II, Distinction 30, Question 2338.
He goes on to cite Augustine, Ambrose, Fulgentius, and Anselm in support.
Catherine of Siena (1347–1380)
The great Catholic mystic, proclaimed Doctor of the Roman Church, in a prayer affirms that Mary was conceived in sin and purified later. The Dominicans, fervent opponents of the Immaculate Conception against the Franciscans, often claimed that St. Catherine had received a vision of the Virgin denying the Immaculate Conception. The Franciscans, for their part, invoked a vision of St. Bridget saying the exact opposite. I have been able to find only the text of the prayer in question:
The Eternal Word was therefore given to us by the hand of Mary, and it is from the substance of Mary that he took on the nature without the stain of original sin, and this because that conception was not human but was made by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was not so with Mary, for she did not proceed from the mass of Adam by the operation of the Holy Spirit, but from man. And since all that mass was corrupted, her soul could only be infused into a corrupted nature, and she could be purified only by the grace of the Holy Spirit, a grace of which the sensible body is not the subject, but a rational or intellectual spirit; therefore Mary could not be purified from that stain until after her soul had been infused into her body, which indeed was done out of reverence for the divine treasure destined to be placed in that vessel. For just as a furnace consumes a drop of water in an instant, so the Holy Spirit destroys the stain of original sin: after her conception, she was immediately purified from that sin by the grace of the Holy Spirit and endowed with great grace. Thou knowest, Lord, that this is the truth339.
Catherine of Siena, Prayer 16340.
John a Montesono (around 1350)
A Parisian theologian, he stated in a work several theses that were contra fidem, contrary to the faith. Among these were the following two:
That not all men except Christ contracted Adam’s original sin is expressly contrary to the faith.
That the Blessed Mary, Virgin and Mother of God, did not contract original sin, is expressly contrary to the faith341.
John a Montesono, Theses, Propositions X and XI.
Vincent Ferrer (1350–1419)
St. Antoninus cites a sermon of St. Vincent Ferrer as an example of a good preaching on the theme of Mary’s conception. In this sermon, this doctor comments on the verse from Genesis affirming that light was separated from darkness and declares, concerning Mary:
Purifying this soul from original sin […] the soul of the Virgin, having been created and infused by God, was suddenly sanctified on the same day, as it is written: the Most High sanctified his tabernacle.
St. Vincent Ferrer, cited by St. Antoninus of Florence, Summa Theologica, VIII, 3342.
He also mentions the feast of the conception of Mary as celebrated by “certain people” and adds: “The Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin […]. Therefore the feast of the Conception must be referred to sanctification, and not to the conception itself343.”
The Council of Florence (1438–1445) and Eugene IV (1383–1447)
Considered ecumenical by Rome, this council has a complex history that would be too long to detail here. For the purposes of this article, it suffices to say that during this council a letter was written for the Eastern Christians and signed by Pope Eugene IV, setting forth for them the faith of the Roman Church. This letter, for our Protestant readers, strongly resembles a “confession of faith,” except that it does not focus on essential points but on specific elements distinguishing Rome from various heretical groups that are explicitly mentioned. It sets forth these elements in a few points (God, Holy Scripture, sin, Jewish ceremonies, baptism, etc.) and affirms its adherence to the six ancient ecumenical councils (Nicea II was not yet counted as such!). In this epistle, which can be read at the eleventh session of February 4, 1422, it is affirmed:
Among all those who are born of man and woman, no one has been freed from the dominion of the devil except through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, mediator between God and men, who was conceived without sin and died without sin.
Eugene IV, Session XI of the Council of Florence344.
For this council, echoing the patristic affirmations about those conceived naturally, every person so conceived was under the power of the devil. Every exception is excluded.
Antoninus of Florence (1389–1459)
A Dominican, archbishop of Florence, and noted for his works of charity during times of plague, Antoninus of Florence also produced theological works, one of which contains the following:
If one considers attentively the Scriptures and the words of the ancient and modern doctors who were very devoted to the glorious Virgin, it is clearly manifest in their words that she was conceived in original sin. And those who hold a contrary opinion twist their writings toward an intention contrary to their authors. First, the Apostle demonstrates this in Romans 3:23, when he says that All have sinned in Adam and need the glory of God; and he excepts no one except Christ, as the continuation clearly shows and as the Gloss says on this text. It is also said in Job 3:9: Let it wait for light and see none, neither the dawning of the day; the Prophet speaks of the night which designates original sin, a night that never sees the light, that is, Christ; for he alone was conceived without original sin. But the dawn is the Virgin Mary, whose rising was not seen by the night of original sin, for she was sanctified and cleansed from original sin before being born into the world. The blessed Thomas expounded these things in this sense in the Third Part, question 23 [of his Summa]. Ecclesiastes 7:29 also says: I found one man among a thousand, but I found no woman among them. That man was Christ. And the number one thousand is used according to the custom of Scripture, which employs a definite number to signify an indefinite quantity, that is, the whole assembly of saints, among whom Christ alone was found without any sin; but among whom no woman was found such. Likewise, Gregory, in his Moralia, book XI, last chapter, expresses himself thus: “The Redeemer alone was truly pure in his flesh; for he did not come from carnal concupiscence.” Many of the most illustrious men of the Franciscan order say the same, and Bonaventure in particular, the most devout of all, who was later a cardinal, says thus in the third book of the Sentences, distinction 3, question 2: “The sanctification of the Virgin followed the contraction of original sin, for no one was free from the defect of original sin except the Son of the Virgin alone, as the Apostle says in Romans 3: All have sinned and need the grace of God. And this way of speaking is more common, more reasonable, and safer. It is more common, for almost all hold that the Virgin Mary had original sin; it is more reasonable also, for what one is by nature precedes what one is by grace, whether temporally or naturally; it is safer, because it better accords with faith and piety, and is more conformable to the authority of the saints, since all the saints, when they treat this subject, exempt only Christ alone from that mass of which it is said: all have sinned in Adam. And none of those whom we have heard with our ears has said that the Virgin Mary was exempt from original sin.” According to Richard of the Franciscan order, this refers to both Mother and Son; to the Virgin Mother, since it is her privilege alone to conceive without sin; to the Son, who alone is exempt from all sin, even original. And if one objects that certain saints had revelations about this subject, like St. Bridget, we must say that other saints, illustrious for their miracles, like the blessed Catherine of Siena, had contrary revelations. And since even true prophets sometimes think they speak by revelation of the Holy Spirit and sometimes by themselves, it is not unfitting to say that such revelations are not from God but are human dreams.
Antoninus of Florence, Summa Theologica, I, 8, II345.
One point of interest, besides the fact that he confirms our reading of several doctors, is that Antoninus of Florence also relies on the Ordinary Gloss. If Peter Lombard’s Sentences was the standard manual of dogmatics and patristics in the Middle Ages, the Ordinary Gloss was the standard biblical commentary used by medieval scholars. These two syntheses of Latin medieval thought were therefore opposed to the Immaculate Conception.
Vincent de Castronovo (1435–1506)
Vincent de Castronovo, also called Bandellus, was General of the Dominican Order. The Jesuit Giovanni Perrone (1794–1876), papal adviser, wrote about him:
Bandellus de Castronovo, the thirty-seventh General of the Order of Preachers, in the year 1470, in a Treatise concerning the singular purity and prerogative of the conception of Christ, and in other works, opposed in the strongest possible terms the opinion of the Immaculate Conception as absurd, impious, heretical, diabolical, since it was entirely contrary to Holy Scripture, to the Councils, to the Fathers, to the Scholastics, and finally to reason itself. Moreover, in his Treatise concerning purity, etc., Bandellus enumerates the testimonies of 216 Fathers and Scholastics against the Immaculate Conception.
Giovanni Perrone, De immac. B. V. concep.346.
Thus, another major figure opposed the Immaculate Conception — and, above all, another scholar confirmed our reading of the Fathers and the Scholastics.
Cajetan (1469–1534)
Cajetan, the famous opponent of Martin Luther, said about this topic:
If one considers the Scriptures and the words of the ancient and modern doctors who have been most devoted to the glorious Virgin, it is clear, from their words, that she was conceived in sin.
Cardinal Cajetan, De Loc Theol, II347.
What is remarkable in this citation is not merely that a great Roman theologian opposed the Immaculate Conception (as you have seen, nothing was more common) but that he, too, confirms our reading of the Fathers of the Church.
Saint Gerard, bishop and martyr, in a sermon on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, said: “O blessed maiden who, conceived in sin, wast purified from every sin and didst bear a Son without sin.” Thus, the authorities of the saints and doctors, who are cited to support the proposition that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, are solid, and therefore it is clear that this opinion is reasonable and probable.
Cajetan, Opuscules, vol. II, Treatise 1, De conceptione beatae Mariae346.
Beatus Rhenanus (1485–1547)
A Catholic humanist close to Erasmus, Beatus Rhenanus was among those interested in rediscovering the Fathers and ancient authors, studying them in their original languages. Commenting on the works of Tertullian, he declared:
In this book of Tertullian are found certain things that differ from the opinion of modern theologians—for example, what he says about his brothers, namely that his mother did not adhere to Christ. […] Yet, in addition to Origen, Saint Augustine and John Chrysostom do not depart from Tertullian’s sentiment.
Beatus Rhenanus, Commentary on Tertullian’s treatise On the Flesh of Christ.
Thus, another author confirms our reading of the Fathers.
Melchor Cano (1509–1560)
Our survey now extends beyond the Middle Ages to consider this Dominican theologian, who participated in the Council of Trent. In a writing concerning this question, he states:
All the Fathers who have mentioned this matter have unanimously affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin348. This is affirmed by Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom. Bede also asserts this in his homily on the Missus est.
Melchor Cano, Loci Theologici349.
Our examination can only lead us to agree with his assessment.
Alfonso Salmeron (1515–1595)
One of the first companions of Ignatius of Loyola, co-founder of the Society of Jesus, expresses himself thus:
We oppose to it a multitude of doctors […]. For some count two hundred, others, like Bandellus, almost three hundred, and Cajetan fifteen, who, he says, are irrefutable against [the Immaculate Conception].
Alfonso Salmeron, Commentary on Romans 5, Treatise 51346.
Francisco Suárez (1548–1617)
Francisco Suárez is considered by many to be the greatest Scholastic after Thomas Aquinas. A Spanish Jesuit theologian, he offers this remark about the medieval Scholastics:
There exists, therefore, a second opinion which holds that the Virgin was conceived in original sin and shortly afterward sanctified. This opinion is held by almost all the ancient Scholastics before Duns Scotus.
Francisco Suárez, Commentary on the Summa Theologica III, q. 27, a. 1–2350.
The Jesuit doctor therefore shares a view similar to ours regarding the medieval Scholastics.
The Glossa Ordinaria
The Glossa ordinaria is a standard commentary on the Bible, written in the margins of the Vulgate and circulated throughout the Middle Ages from the twelfth century onward. If the Sentences were the manual of dogmatics par excellence, the Glossa ordinaria was the standard biblical commentary, compiling above all patristic exegesis. As we saw when studying Antoninus of Florence, the Glossa affirms that only Christ is without sin. Alexander of Hales cites another interesting passage from it concerning the Annunciation:
The Holy Spirit, coming upon the Virgin, purified her very mind from all impurity of vice351.
The Glossa ordinaria, cited by Alexander of Hales, Summa universæ theologiæ352.
Thus, the standard medieval commentary, synthesizing patristic exegesis, conceives of a purification of the Virgin at the Incarnation.
Other Medieval Authors
The examination we have proposed seems sufficient for the thesis of this article. However, other medieval authors very explicitly state that the Virgin was conceived in sin. There remain dozens of authors and citations not yet included here that confirm the same analysis and whose precise references I must still identify. I list a few names, with dates of birth and death (or death only), to give an idea of the abundance of ancient and medieval ecclesiastical writers who all unanimously proclaim that only Jesus is without original sin, that all those born of a man and a woman are conceived in sin, or, explicitly, that the Virgin inherited original sin and/or was purified: Alcuin (780), Haymo of Halberstadt (853), Remigius of Lyon or of Auxerre (855 or 880), Bruno the Carthusian (1086), Hervé of Déols (1130), Gilbert de la Porrée of Poitiers (1141), Odo, Cistercian abbot of Murismundi (12th c.), Richard of St. Victor (1150), Zacharias of Besançon (1157), of the Premonstratensian order, William of Newburgh (1136–1198), Augustinian, Hugh of Pisa (1212), already cited by Duns Scotus as an opponent, Sicard of Cremona (1155–1215), Castellanus (13th c.), Dominican, John the Teutonic (1180–1245), fourth Dominican General, Richard of St. Lawrence (1230), Cistercian, Henry of Susa (1200–1271), Raymond of Peñafort (1175–1275), third Dominican General, Guy of Baysio (1250–1313), Bartolomeo of San Concordio (1260–1347), Giovanni Andrea (1348), William of Paris (?), Alain of Lille (12th c.), professor in Paris, Peter Praepositivus (1214), chancellor in Paris, Moneta of Cremona (1220–1250), one of the first Dominicans, William III of Auvergne (1249), bishop of Paris, William of Auxerre (1230), Parisian theologian, Lucas of Padua (1245), disciple and companion of St. Anthony, Guillaume Perault (1250), Dominican, John of Paris (1269), Dominican, Hugh of Strasbourg (1200–1268), Dominican, Hannibaldus de Hannibaldis (1220–1272), Dominican and cardinal, twenty-third master of theology in Paris, highly esteemed by Thomas, John Gil of Zamora (1274), Franciscan, Martin Polonus (1277), Dominican and archbishop of Gniezno, Conrad of Saxony (1282), Franciscan, John of Genoa (1286), Dominican, Jacobus de Voragine (1230–1298), archbishop of Genoa and author of the famous Golden Legend, Richard of Menneville (1249–1302), Franciscan, John of La Rochelle (1200–1245), also Franciscan, William of Alton (1265), John of Varsy (1270), Thomas of Hales (13th c.), Franciscan, Eudes of Châteauroux (1190–1273), French scholastic, Henry of Ghent (1217–1293), who, like Thomas Aquinas, was a disciple of Albert the Great, Giles of Rome (1243–1316), an Augustinian scholastic, archbishop, and nicknamed “Prince of Theologians,” Ulrich of Strasbourg (1225–1277), Dominican, Reginald of Rouen (1276), Franciscan and archbishop of Rouen, Hugo of Gaul (1297), archbishop of Ostia and cardinal, Jacques de Benedictis (1306), Franciscan, Jacques of Lausanne (1321), Dominican, John of Saxony (1325), Augustinian monk, Bertrand de la Tour (1262–1332), Franciscan and cardinal, John of Naples (1350), Dominican and professor in Paris, Guy Terreni (1260–1342), Carmelite General, bishop of Majorca and then of Elne, Inquisitor General, Hervé Nédellec (1250–1323), fourteenth Dominican General, John of Poliaco (1320), Parisian doctor, John Baconthorpe (1290–1348), English Carmelite Provincial who called this idea heretical, John Ricardi (1340), Franciscan and bishop of Tragonara, Paulus Salucius of Perugia (1350), Carmelite, Nicholas Treveth (1328), professor at Oxford, Durand of Saint-Pourçain (1334), French Dominican, Master of the Apostolic Palace under John XXII and bishop of Meaux, Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349), Minorite friar, theologian and exegete who influenced all authors of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Gregory of Rimini (1357), General of the Augustinian Hermits, Ludolph of Saxony (1378), Dominican then Carthusian, Peter of Baume (14th c.), professor in Paris, St. Denis the Carthusian (1402–1471), mystic of the Carthusian order.
In general, the Dominicans as well as the medieval University of Paris were champions of the maculist position until a certain period. As the Catholic Encyclopedia reports, the University of Paris even obtained in 1275 that the feast of the Conception of Mary be abolished in the French dioceses353.
A thesis submitted in 2020 at the University of Normandy, devoted to the Immaculate Conception in late medieval Sweden, states that “until the middle of the fourteenth century, the maculist position was dominant354”. One of the principal recent studies on this subject also concludes that the maculist position was the majority view at that time355.
The priest Jean de Launoy (1603–1678), still opposed to the Immaculate Conception in the seventeenth century, in a Latin work available online, cites the different popes mentioned earlier as well as various Fathers of the Church. He also shows that the early Franciscans themselves, as well as Ignatius of Loyola and the first Jesuits, opposed the Immaculate Conception. Giovanni Perrone (1794–1876), who sought to respond to him, dismissed the quotations of Gregory, Gelasius, and Leo, saying that they proved not only that Mary was conceived in sin but also that she was purified only at the Incarnation — something Launoy did not intend to affirm! Finding the various quotations in reliable editions would be a colossal task, which I postpone for now.
The Following Centuries
Our examination stops at the medieval period, even though we have slightly gone beyond it. In the centuries that follow, it is easy to find authors on both sides of this debate. However, it should be noted that those who defended the Immaculate Conception defended it as a possible opinion and not as a revealed doctrine. Thus, finding authors favorable to this idea would still not prove that this doctrine was received as revealed and transmitted from the apostles.
If, however, a deeper examination of the later centuries interests you, I provide facsimiles of two articles published in the nineteenth century in the Observateur catholique:
- The Immaculate Conception from the 14th to the 16th century;
- The Immaculate Conception from the 17th to the 19th century.
Additionally, one may consult Wladimir Guettée, Le Nouveau dogme en présence de l’Écriture Sainte et de la tradition catholique.
To give us an idea of Catholic discourse some time after the Reformation, two excerpts from an exchange between Johannes Molanus — a Catholic priest and abbot and representative of the Counter-Reformation — and Bossuet, probably the greatest Catholic bishop of the modern era, are striking. The historian Ferdinand Brunetière reports these remarks in his biography of Bossuet. Molanus, in view of a possible union with the Protestants, pointed out the differences between the two confessions:
“A part of the Roman Church approves the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, and a part disapproves it. The whole Protestant Church has decided that the Blessed Mary, though most holy and full of grace, was nevertheless conceived with original sin. For peace and concord, Catholics in the projected assembly will be asked to adopt the belief that the entire Protestant Church has embraced356.”
And Bossuet replied:
“It is not a part of the Church, but the whole Roman Church that regards the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as an indifferent matter and one that does not belong to the faith357.”
Thus, even in the seventeenth century, one of the greatest Catholic orators — a bishop, tutor to the son of Louis XIV, and member of the French Academy — categorically affirmed that no Catholic regarded the Immaculate Conception as a dogma.
Why then proclaim such a dogma?
Since it is evident that the Immaculate Conception had not been regarded as a dogma, what reasons could have motivated its proclamation? A priest contemporary with the bull ventures an explanation that we shall now examine:
What then was the motive or real object of the publication of the bull Ineffabilis on December 8, 1854? It was to extinguish the Gallican theory and to elevate the Ultramontane theory into the true doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. It was an ecclesiastical coup d’état, by which the powers of a General Council were seized and usurped for the future by the Sovereign Pontiff alone. For if a Gallican or American Catholic accepts the Bull, he admits the Pope’s authority to define an article of faith without a General Council, and by doing so, he becomes an Ultramontane.
Jean-Joseph Laborde, La croyance à l’Immaculée Conception de la Sainte Vierge ne peut devenir dogme de foi.
Laborde, a Catholic and Gallican priest, evokes a conflict that raged two centuries earlier within the Roman Church. It opposed the Ultramontanes to the Gallicans and their allies. The Gallicans maintained that a pope could not, by his own and sole authority, promulgate a dogma. He could do so only as presiding over a council. Thus they were heirs of the medieval and ancient conciliarism which we have already discussed on this site. The Ultramontanes upheld the contrary thesis: the pope could, by himself, proclaim a dogma.
It is easy to see how the Immaculate Conception could have been a tour de force for the Ultramontanes. If the Gallicans acquiesced to the dogma, they accepted at once the Ultramontane principle, since the dogma was promulgated by the pope alone. If they refused, they risked sanctions. But is this merely the Gallicans’ suspicion, or do we have reason to think that such a motive was indeed at work in the preparation of the bull? Among the deliberations preceding its publication, the speech of one of the bishops taking part — replying to a prelate who had suggested mentioning the opinion of the bishops — shows quite clearly that this motive was indeed present:
It is infinitely better that the Sovereign Pontiff alone pronounce the definition of the Immaculate Conception, so that this solemn judgment may be Catholic in its form as it is Catholic in its substance. Let me explain. […] If the Sovereign Pontiff alone pronounces the definition of the Immaculate Conception, to which all the faithful will spontaneously adhere, his judgment will provide a practical demonstration of the supreme authority of the Church in matters of doctrine and of the infallibility with which Jesus Christ has invested his vicar on earth. On the contrary, if the judgment of the bishops intervenes in the definition, far from obtaining these advantages, the Holy See will seem to flatter outworn opinions long discredited. Let us therefore applaud without reservation the wisdom of the Sovereign Pontiff, who has resolved, for the good of the whole Church, to pronounce alone the definition that we desire.
Quoted by Malou Jean-Baptiste, L’Immaculée Conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi358.
These “outworn opinions,” obsolete and discredited, are obviously those of the Gallicans who, for that reason, were labeled “Old Catholics” by the innovators after this papal bull, and even more so after Vatican I.
The bishop Jean-Baptiste Malou, a defender of the Immaculate Conception who reports this speech, then comments:
That was the common thought: these words were applauded as the faithful expression of the sentiments animating all the bishops.
Malou Jean-Baptiste, L’Immaculée Conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi359.
Conclusion of the historical examination
As we have seen, the Immaculate Conception is foreign to the ancient Church and to the early medieval period. The authors we have considered do not oppose the Immaculate Conception as if it were a known position with which they disagreed: they simply ignore such an opinion altogether. When they make remarks touching upon the subject (that Christ alone was born without sin because He was born of a virgin; that Mary was purified; that Mary sinned on such an occasion), one observes that they regarded Mary also as having been touched by original sin, whatever their view may have been regarding her personal sins. It is to the point that Bonaventure could still say that he had never met anyone who held that Mary was conceived without sin.
The first controversies explicitly touching on this subject arose in the Latin Church in a liturgical context: the appearance of a feast of the conception of Mary. This feast may have been celebrated earlier in the East without causing controversy because it was not associated with the idea of an immaculate conception: the authors who mention this feast also refer to the supposed barrenness of Mary’s mother, and it was this miracle that was celebrated360. Thus the Canon of Saint Andrew of Crete, a liturgical office from which the first mention of this feast is drawn, says: “On this day we celebrate, O Saint Anne, your conception, because, delivered from the bonds of sterility, you conceived her who could contain the Infinite361.” And as Guillaume Durand, Bellarmine, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Paul of Perugia, and others said, it was also a celebration anticipating her status as Mother of God (rather in the East) and her sanctification (rather in the West)362. The reactions of the great Latin doctors were vivid and unanimous in their opposition to this feast, which they considered an innovation unknown to the Fathers. It was at that moment that ecclesiastical authors began to speak explicitly of the Immaculate Conception — but for the most part as a position they rejected, one that would be implicated if such a feast were accepted. Some went so far as to call the idea heretical and impious. In opposing the Immaculate Conception, these doctors claimed to follow the opinion of the Church Fathers, especially Augustine. This feast, first unknown and then opposed, became tolerated — provided that it was not taken as an affirmation of the Immaculate Conception itself. As we have seen, Saint Vincent Ferrier, in the early 15th century, mentioned the feast of the conception of Mary as celebrated by “some,” and specified: “The Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin […]. Therefore the feast of the Conception must be referred to the sanctification, and not to the conception itself363.”
It was among the Franciscans — who were at first opposed to the Immaculate Conception — that we find the first great theologian to defend this idea. Duns Scotus was aware that he was opposing the common opinion of his time and of the preceding centuries and explained how one could harmonize his proposal with certain statements of the Fathers. He advanced his argument cautiously, considering the Immaculate Conception as possible and, by fittingness, as probable — but not as a doctrine revealed or transmitted from the apostles.
The opinion of the Subtle Doctor, as he is called, was far from prevailing immediately and met with firm opposition from the Dominicans, who followed the view of Thomas Aquinas. This quarrel became the shibboleth of the rivalry between Dominicans and Franciscans, each invoking its own doctor and its own mystics. At that time and in the following centuries, it is not difficult to find renowned theologians — Dominicans, Jesuits, Augustinians, Franciscans, Carthusians, Carmelites, or those close to the Jansenists — who opposed this doctrine. Even after Duns Scotus, as we have shown, when this feast was tolerated, it was regularly specified that it was not in view of celebrating an immaculate conception of the Virgin. Even in the 17th century, Cardinal Bellarmine stated that “the principal foundation of the feast of the Conception is not the Immaculate Conception itself, but simply the Conception of the future Mother of God364.” This opposition diminished through the centuries in the Roman Church until it became a minority position by the 19th century, when the dogma was proclaimed. As Gallican journals of that time testify, there was nonetheless vigorous opposition on the part of some.
At the dawn of the Reformation, the quarrel between Franciscans and Dominicans on this subject raged fiercely, each appealing to new revelations and Marian apparitions in its favor, sometimes leading to charges of heresy and even to the stake, as at Bern in 1507 — ah, the sweet Roman unity that Luther came to shatter365! It is interesting to note, since unity is in question, that it was the Council of Basel (1431–1439) — dissolved by Eugene IV and, in response, having appointed another pope (Felix V, considered an antipope) — which for the first time defined the Immaculate Conception dogmatically366. The pope then sent a legate, Cardinal Jean de la Tour-Brûlée, to refute the doctors influencing the Council of Basel, particularly on the question of the Immaculate Conception. Upon returning to Rome, he had his book Treatise on the True State of the Conception of the Most Holy Virgin published there with papal approval. It appeared in 1447 by Antoine Blade367.
After the overview we have offered, it seems to us that the assertion that “this doctrine has always been professed as revealed and handed down by our fathers” is the most inaccurate possible summary of the Christian tradition. And this is not merely the conclusion of our study; it is what stands out clearly to any reader of the Fathers — a conclusion supported by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant historians alike, and by saints, doctors, cardinals, and Catholic popes. It would be more accurate to say that “this doctrine was never professed during Antiquity” and that it was not held as revealed and transmitted by the apostles throughout the Middle Ages and even far beyond. The Grand Dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle, in the article “Conception,” concluded rightly:
Until the twelfth century, we see the Church in peaceful possession of the faith in the universality of original sin; no Father, no ecclesiastical writer thought of exempting the Virgin Mary from this law by attributing to her the prerogative of a holy conception; which should not surprise us, if we consider that such a prerogative, while tending to erase the specific difference between the Savior and the rest of mankind, was essentially incompatible with the idea then held of the hereditary transmission of Adam’s sin.
Larousse Pierre, Grand Dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle, vol. IV368.
To summarize the data presented in another way, we must say that no fewer than eleven popes taught otherwise, some in a very explicit way (Leo, Gelasius, Gregory, John IV, Innocent III, Honorius III, Innocent IV, Innocent V, John XXII, Clement VI, and Eugene IV); that two ecumenical councils approved texts speaking of Mary’s purification and fault (Chalcedon and Constantinople III); that another council, regarded by Rome as ecumenical, affirmed that no person conceived naturally had escaped the dominion of the devil; and that at least twenty-six of the thirty-seven doctors whom the Roman Church recognizes also taught otherwise (in order of proclamation: Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Anselm, Isidore of Seville, Peter Chrysologus, Leo, Peter Damian, Bernard of Clairvaux, Hilary of Poitiers, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Damascus, Bede the Venerable, Ephrem the Syrian, Albert the Great, Anthony of Padua, Catherine of Siena, Irenaeus of Lyon) — to mention only those we have reviewed. Interestingly, when the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated in 1854, none of those then counted as Doctors of the Church was in favor of it. It is true that the title of Doctor of the Church has somewhat faded since Francis promoted Gregory of Narek — an Armenian monk who rejected the Council of Chalcedon369 and was not even in communion with Rome370 — but how many popes and doctors opposed to a doctrine does it take before it can no longer claim to have been “always professed in the Church”?
When a Father believes that a doctrine belongs to the apostolic deposit — doctrines revealed and handed down by our fathers — he never disputes it; he combats those who deny it and speaks of it with full certainty. Moreover, such apostolic doctrines, like those of the great ancient creeds, are the object of an unbroken consensus among the Fathers, linguistic nuances aside. No medieval author ever says he has never met anyone supporting a truly apostolic dogma. Such a dogma is never presented as a “probable opinion” by its defenders. The Immaculate Conception fulfills none of these conditions: when it is not denied, it is at best absent. And the first time it is defended by a theologian, it is presented merely as a possible option. Even a novice reader of the Fathers can see how different their language is when they treat of a doctrine received as revealed. The words of Eugène Sécrétant, replying in an article published in the Observateur catholique — a Gallican Catholic newspaper of the 19th century — to Cardinal Gousset, who had cited several theologians from the 14th century onward in favor of the new dogma, are accurate:
When one has exhausted the list of doctors of the two schools, recorded names and contradictory phrases, will one be any further along? One can legitimately draw only this conclusion: that the opinion of the Immaculate Conception was nothing but a pure opinion, and that it did not belong to the faith. This incontestable conclusion is of great importance, for it is known that bishops can define only what forms part of revelation, what has always been regarded as of faith. This principle is one of the foundations of Catholic theology. The definition of bishops, speaking as judges of the faith and witnesses of the constant faith of their respective churches, cannot turn an opinion into a dogma, because such a definition is merely a statement of faith. Thus, when Arius, for example, attacked the divinity of Jesus Christ, the bishops assembled at Nicaea, in an ecumenical council, declared that Arius’s doctrine was in contradiction with the constant faith of their churches; thus was the faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ attested. It has been the same in all centuries, whenever an article of faith was attacked and the Church was called to pronounce upon it. Was it so with the Immaculate Conception? No. This doctrine, first of all, is opposed to the teaching of all the Fathers of the Church, as we have demonstrated. It was only in the Middle Ages that the question of the Immaculate Conception began to be agitated, and the most learned doctors of that time opposed it, as we have shown in our previous articles.
Eugène Sécrétant, “Réfutation,” L’Observateur Catholique, May 1856.
Weak Objections
When Roman Catholic apologists look for traces of this doctrine among the Fathers, they use several arguments. We have deliberately not discussed them until now, because the answer is now quicker and simpler since we have a clearer picture of the history of this “dogma” and the reader already has the primary sources in mind. These apologists, for instance, quote Fathers who draw a parallel between Eve and Mary — a parallel recognized by Orthodox or Protestant exegetes who nonetheless do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, which should suffice to suggest that one does not imply the other. Yet, as we have seen, this very same parallel can be used by a pope against the Immaculate Conception.
They also quote Fathers who describe Mary as holy, innocent, pure, or even immaculate. But nothing indicates that they believed she became such by being conceived without sin. In fact, several of the Fathers we have examined — those who clearly speak of actual sins in Mary — use these very epithets371, which are also found among Orthodox or Protestant theologians who do not believe in the Immaculate Conception372. Several of them affirm that she was purified at the Annunciation373. The Bishop of Bruges, in a work written to defend the new dogma a few years after its proclamation, acknowledges this fact:
The ancient doctors, who denied the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, applied all these epithets to Mary; [they] sometimes even went beyond them. They therefore saw in them no convincing proof of the privilege of the Mother of God.
— Malou Jean-Baptiste, L’Immaculée Conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi374.
It would be a mistake to believe that the Eastern Fathers had, even implicitly, declared that the Virgin was pure from original sin simply because they spoke of her purity in such categorical terms […]. It was enough to believe that she was purified in her mother’s womb like John the Baptist (or, as some believed, at the time of the Incarnation), rather than at the moment of her conception, to speak of Mary in such terms. Moreover, in the Greek Church, a long-standing dichotomy persisted between the complete and hyperbolic praise attributed to the Virgin and the belief that she was not free from defects, particularly in her difficulty accepting the crucifixion of her Son.
— Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven. Marian Doctrine and Devotion Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods375.
They also invoke Marian typologies such as the ark, the tabernacle, or the temple: the idea being that just as the temple contained the Holy of Holies, so too Mary contained Christ. However, this image still does not prove that they believed in the Immaculate Conception. Moreover, when Innocent V affirms that Mary was not conceived without sin, he does so precisely based on the typology of the temple: the courtyard, the holy place, and the Holy of Holies represent increasing degrees of holiness. Thus, he says, only Jesus, the Holy of Holies, was conceived and born without sin. Other saints were purified after birth. Mary, as the holy place, stands in the middle: purified after her conception but before her birth. If even in the 13th century, when Marian devotion had reached proportions unimaginable in the Patristic era, one could use the analogy of the temple to speak of Mary without implying an Immaculate Conception, then all the more so for the Fathers. Chrysippus of Jerusalem and Pope Honorius III (as well as Arnobius the Younger) respectively used the analogies of the ark and the tabernacle to speak of Mary’s purification. Moreover, a bit of common sense should suffice here: since the trajectory from Antiquity to the Middle Ages shows an increase in Marian devotion, how could it be that at the same time one moves from an ancient idea of the Immaculate Conception to a unanimous rejection of it by the early Middle Ages? The reverse would be more plausible. Thus, it seems necessary, as the Roman Catholic apologist Eric Ybarra does, to concede that the Immaculate Conception in no way necessarily follows from the affirmations of the Fathers376.
As for the authors dealing with the pre-purification of the Virgin, some have tried to see in it an affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. As we have seen, the Fathers place this purification at the Annunciation, which therefore prevents such an interpretation. Others have tried at least not to see it as a contradiction of the Immaculate Conception: they argue it refers to an increase of grace in Mary rather than a purification from sin. Note, however, that these two explanations contradict each other. Speaking of an increase of grace makes sense, but it does not exclude that it was also a purification from sin. Indeed, the Fathers, as we have seen, are explicit on this point. Without repeating earlier sources, recall that Gregory the Illuminator says that Mary’s spirit and members were sanctified at the Annunciation. Ephrem says that Mary there experienced a second birth (a language closely tied to baptismal purification), that Christ was born from a “nature subject to impurity and requiring purification by divine visitation,” and that Christ “purified the Virgin, first having prepared her by the Holy Spirit.” He compares Christ to a pearl and the maternal womb before purification to ritually impure animals; he says that “the Spirit sanctified the edifice that was impure.” Methodius of Olympus compares the purification Jesus brought to Mary to that which salt brought to the deadly water in 2 Kings 2:21. Cyril of Jerusalem exclaims, commenting on Mary’s astonished response to the angel’s announcement: “Where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is removed.” Chrysostom, who mentions such a purification, also believed in actual faults in Mary. Among the Latins, Augustine says that, being born of a maternal flesh of sin, Christ had to purify it by assuming it. Anthony of Padua says that He “purified her spirit from the stains of sin.” Alexander of Hales says it was a purification from sin according to nature. Thomas Aquinas, Richard of Menneville, Giles of Rome, Guillaume Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Honorius III, and Innocent III say it was a removal of the source of sin. William of Ockham says that through it she gained the capacity not to commit sins, even venial ones. Let us also recall that these medievals, including Duns Scotus, cite the Fathers mentioning the purification as authorities opposing the Immaculate Conception — meaning they understood that this affirmation implied purification from sin. Finally, this is also what Orthodox theologians conclude, according to the Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique of 1922. In short, a simple survey of the data shows that this explanation is very weak.
Another argument that appeared in the writings of Carlo Passaglia two centuries ago is the celebration of the feast of the conception of Mary (known in the East as the Feast of the Conception of Saint Anne) during the Middle Ages, traces of which exist as early as the end of the eighth century in the East377. But, as we have seen, this feast was opposed in the West and only later accepted on the condition that it not be taken as an affirmation of the Immaculate Conception. As for the East, this feast was likewise never associated with the idea of an immaculate conception, as several Catholic orientalists have shown378. For this feast to be used as proof of belief in the Immaculate Conception, it would need to explicitly refer to it. But not only are the medieval writers silent about such a reference, they actually warn against interpreting it that way. Again, a bit of common sense would suffice: Eastern Christians still celebrate this feast today without seeing in it any reference to exemption from original sin. The ancient Church also celebrated, even before Mary’s conception, that of John the Baptist—should this too be taken as an affirmation of his Immaculate Conception? Here is how the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople expressed himself some time after the dogma was proclaimed:
The Papal Church has again innovated, barely forty years ago, by establishing, concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, a new dogma that was unknown in the ancient Church and had once been vigorously opposed even by the most distinguished theologians of the papacy.
— Anthimus of Constantinople, Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical Letter379.
Jean-Baptiste Malou, bishop of Bruges, following Cardinal Thomas Gousset, produced one last original argument for the Immaculate Conception among the Fathers. Finding himself quite unable to prove that the Egyptian, Abyssinian, and Coptic Fathers believed in it, he ended up citing… the Qur’an! The Qur’an, indeed, says that Anne placed Mary and her offspring “under [Allah’s] protection against Satan the accursed” (أُعِيذُهَا بِكَ وَذُرِّيَّتَهَا مِنَ ٱلشَّيۡطَٰنِ ٱلرَّجِيمِ) at her birth380. A hadith dating possibly from the ninth century, according to Abu Hurayrah, preserved in the collections of Al-Bukhari and Muslim and commenting on this passage, tells us that children cry at birth because the demon touches them at that moment, except for Jesus and Mary, who were exempted from it381. That he resorts to citing the Qur’an is itself an admission of failure—especially considering that this book in that section deals neither with original sin nor conception, and that its Gnostic sources are evident in certain accounts of Jesus’ life382. The proof he seeks to draw from it can only be painful to the reader:
Providence was truly admirable in preserving, within the books of the enemies of the faith, traces of the divine revelation that teaches us the mystery of the Immaculate Conception, and in providing us with Muslim witnesses to the ancient belief of the Christian Churches, when Christian witnesses of that time are lacking.
— Malou Jean-Baptiste, The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary Considered as a Dogma of Faith383.
We still have to mention the Roman apologists’ final trump card. It would suffice, they say, to label this whole history of Mariology as “doctrinal development” to make everything suddenly harmonize384. First, we must note that the Pope’s claim uses language implying more than a vague idea of development: this doctrine is said to have been professed at all times as divinely revealed. Second, what strange kind of “development” is it by which something once denied ends up being regarded as an apostolic dogma? The mere fact that a contradiction takes time and several stages to become established hardly grants it the right to be called development. I would like our Roman apologist friends to reflect on what such an idea implies: after all, could not female priesthood be the outcome of a long “development” which, through several steps—beginning with male priesthood, passing through female diaconate, and so on—leads us there? If, when Roman Catholics claim to be in continuity with the ancient Church, they mean this kind of continuity, in which something once categorically denied later becomes dogmatically affirmed, then they must bear with us in thinking that such an argument is hardly compelling. In fact, the doctrines of the Reformation have far more right to the title of “doctrinal development” than does the Immaculate Conception.
So, faced with this avalanche of historical evidence against the Pope’s assertion, several Catholics concede that the Pope’s historical claim is erroneous (and that is precisely all our article aimed to demonstrate). Thus, for example, Ludwig Ott, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (1952), admits: “Neither the Greek Fathers nor the Latin Fathers explicitly taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary.” The Catholic theology professor Peter Coelho-Kostolny, in a study on original sin among the scholastics, writes about Ineffabilis Deus: “Given that the common opinion among the great theologians of the scholastic period was that Mary was not sanctified from the first instant but only after the infusion of the soul into the body, this represents a significant break with the previously accepted understanding385.” But, the apologists add, the Pope’s historical assertion is not endowed with infallibility; only the definition of the Immaculate Conception itself is. This clever minimalism, tossed like a lifebuoy over the fallacious argumentation of the apostolic constitution, is hardly a new tactic. Indeed, when Catholics do not outright deny the infallibility of a definition such as, “Hence we declare, say, and define that it is absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff in order to attain salvation” (Unam Sanctam, 1302), they usually attempt to reinterpret it in light of Roman texts written more than seven centuries later. The problem is that the discursive paragraphs preceding such a declaration usually stand in stark contradiction to the proposed reinterpretations. And the weakness of this minimalism becomes obvious: how can a dogmatic definition have authority if one accepts to strip it of the meaning its author intended? Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctam, clearly had concrete cases in mind—notably the Greek Orthodox, whom he explicitly mentions as not being among Christ’s sheep. To take his dogmatic definition while refusing to apply it to the very cases he intended is senseless and empties the dogmatic claim of its substance. That is why Catholic scholars have regularly argued against the validity of such a solution:
Nowhere does the Church’s theology reach such a high degree as in an apostolic constitution, wherein it prepares our intellect to grasp more fully the scope of the truth which her Magisterium defines as divinely revealed and essential to salvation. Hence, one cannot treat as more or less incidental the discursive portion of such a document.
— Charles de Koninck, The Certainty of the Magisterium of the Church, 1952.
This strategic retreat, to which any honest reader of the Fathers is driven, is not legitimate from the standpoint of the Roman magisterium.
Since it is clear that the Immaculate Conception is not a doctrine professed from the earliest antiquity but one that was ignored and even opposed by some of the greatest doctors the Christian faith has ever known, Rome makes an openly sectarian choice in demanding that Christians confess, as a condition for being recognized as Christians, a proposition rejected by their forefathers. In doing so, it confirms the accusation C.S. Lewis once made against Roman Catholicism when asked why he was a Protestant:
And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but the fact that to accept your Church means not accepting a given body of doctrine, but accepting in advance whatever doctrine your Church will produce in the future. It is as if one were asked to accept not only what a man has said, but also what he will say.
— C.S. Lewis, Christian Reunion: An Anglican Speaks to Roman Catholics, 1944.
Roman Catholicism poses a major problem: to the question, “What dogmas must a Christian believe in order to be considered a Christian?” the answer will not be the same from one age to another. Rome adds to the ancient dogmas new ones that would have excluded many Fathers and saints of the past from orthodoxy. Six years after C.S. Lewis wrote these lines, the dogma of the Assumption extended the list still further. For the Heidelberg Catechism, the answer to the question “What must a Christian believe?” is as follows:
All that is promised in the Gospel, which the articles of the universal and undoubted Christian faith express in summary form in the Apostles’ Creed.
— Heidelberg Catechism, Answer 22.
This faith is truly universal, because it has been professed at all times. And the Reformed doctors were careful to formulate doctrines such as justification by faith not as new dogmas, but as expositions of what is meant by “I believe in the forgiveness of sins386.” Thus, in a discourse on justification, Richard Hooker distinguished on this basis three types of heresy387:
- The first consists in a direct denial of a dogma—that is, of the Apostles’ Creed;
- The second is a denial of an article that follows in a clear and immediate way from that Creed, such as the errors of Arius or Marcion;
- The third type, under which he classifies papism, is a subtler denial of the articles of the Creed—by affirming, alongside them, things that logically overturn that foundation of faith. Thus, this kind of heretic affirms the Creed while, by consequence, more or less consciously denying it.
As Rémy Bethmont summarizes it:
Hooker constantly affirms throughout his sermon that Roman doctrine leads to damnation. But his purpose is to show that Rome’s error is so configured that it does not appear as easily heretical as others—especially to ordinary people, whose limited capacity for reflection prevents them from reasoning through to the conclusion that the articles of the Credo are being denied. Thus, the lay papist, unversed in theological subtleties, may very well believe he is affirming the foundation of faith while actually adhering to a doctrine that overturns it.
— Rémy Bethmont, “Richard Hooker, the Papist Heresy and an English Protestantism of Continuity,” Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, XVIII-1, 2013388.
Thus, even in the controversies of the Reformation era, orthodoxy for Protestants was formulated in terms of adherence to the ancient creeds, not through the addition of new dogmas or of those rejected by earlier generations of Christians. It was on the basis of the Creed that the Reformed objected to Roman Catholicism. Of course, Rome claims that the Immaculate Conception was professed from all time, but this holds no credibility after serious examination. In rejecting Roman sectarianism, the Reformed proved themselves to be the true Catholics.
- Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.[↩]
- Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos.[↩]
- Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, “This doctrine has always been professed in the Church.”[↩]
- Pope Pius XII, Fulgens Corona.[↩]
- See Kreitzer Beth, Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century, Oxford University Press, 2004. A book surveying sixteenth-century Lutheran sermons. On the French side, consider, for example, Drelincourt’s treatise on the same subject.[↩]
- Wright David F., “Mary in the Reformers,” in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, London, 1989.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven: Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I: Doctrine and Devotion.[↩]
- Justin Martyr of Neapolis, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 100, V.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven. Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I: Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8.[↩]
- Origen, Homilies on St. Luke, XVII, 6–7, tr. Henri Crouzel, François Fournier, and Pierre Périchon, Sources chrétiennes, ed. du Cerf, Paris, 1962, pp. 257–259.[↩]
- Origen, Homily XIV on Luke, 1.[↩]
- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, Hendrickson, 2011, pp. 415–416.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven, vol. I, Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 334.[↩]
- Origen, Treatise on Principles, vol. I, Books I and II, Introduction, critical text of Rufinus’ version, Sources chrétiennes, 1978, Paris.[↩]
- Basil of Caesarea, Epistle 260, IX.[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, Ignatius Press, 1999, p. 148.[↩]
- Patrologia Graeca, Homilia in Natalitatem Jesu Christi, PG 39 40B–41D.[↩]
- Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John 19:25. Only the beginning of this book is available in French. An English translation is available online.[↩]
- Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers, 1960, p. 203.[↩]
- PG 55, 555, TMPM I, 259[↩]
- Hesychius of Jerusalem, Homily on the Presentation, 8, TMPM, I, 536[↩]
- Maximus the Confessor, Life of Mary, 53, TMPM, II, 224[↩]
- Romanos the Melodist, Hymns XIV.13, tr. José Grosdidier de Matons, Hymns II, Sources Chrétiennes, 1965, p. 191. The editors note that this idea originates with Origen and is found in Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and a text mistakenly attributed to Chrysostom.[↩]
- Romanos the Melodist, Hymns XIV, Prooimion III; op. cit., p. 175[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven, vol. I, Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 335.[↩]
- Irenaeus of Lyon, Against All Heresies, Book III, 16, 7. Translation revised from Adelin Rousseau, Cerf, 1984.[↩]
- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, Hendrickson, 2011, p. 415.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven. Marian Doctrine and Devotion Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, vol. I, Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 333.[↩]
- Gregory the Illuminator, Homily on the Annunciation, II, 3. An English translation is available online. Gregory makes similar remarks in Homily III.[↩]
- Athanasius of Alexandria, Treatise Against the Arians, III, 41, Sources Chrétiennes, tr. Charles Kannengiesser, Paris, 2019, p. 403.[↩]
- Ephrem of Nisibis, Commentary on the Diatessaron, V, 1–5. Sources Chrétiennes, tr. Louis Leloir, Paris, 1966.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven, vol. I, Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 336.[↩]
- See this summary of the discoveries in English[↩]
- Murray, Robert, Symbols of the Church and Kingdom: A Study in Early Syriac Tradition, rev. ed., London: T&T Clark, 2006, pp. 329–330.[↩]
- McCarthy, Carmel (trans.), Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron: An English Translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 with Introduction and Notes V §4a, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, 2000, p. 96.[↩]
- Ephrem of Nisibis, Hymns on the Nativity, XI. English translation available online; see also Hymns on the Nativity 16:9–11, Kathleen E. McVey, trans., Paulist Press, 1989, p. 150.[↩]
- Ephrem of Nisibis, Hymns Against Heresies, XL, 19[↩]
- Ephrem of Nisibis, Commentary on the Diatessaron, I, 25; see also McCarthy, 1993, p. 59, book 1, paragraph 25[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, 1999, p. 110.[↩]
- Graef Hilda C., Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Ave Maria Press 2009, page 69.[↩]
- Graef Hilda C., Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Ave Maria Press 2009, page 70.[↩]
- Tatari, Muna, et Klaus von Stosch, Mary in the Qur’an: Friend of God, Virgin, Mother, trad. Peter Lewis, London: Gingko, 2021, pages 48-49.[↩]
- Citation from this article.[↩]
- Tatari, Muna, et Klaus von Stosch, Mary in the Qur’an: Friend of God, Virgin, Mother, trad. Peter Lewis, London: Gingko, 2021, pp. 42–43[↩]
- Mathews, Edward G., Jr., and Joseph P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, The Fathers of the Church 91, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994, page 324 ; this is another case where the Syriac confuses the Lord’s mother with another Mary.[↩]
- Eustathius of Antioch, Fragment 69, TMPM, IV, 85.[↩]
- Didymus the Blind, Against the Manicheans, VIII. The original is available in Patrologia Graeca XXXIX.[↩]
- John Chrysostom, Homily XXI on John, 2-3, trans. Jean-Baptiste Jeannin.[↩]
- John Chrysostom, Homily XLIV on Matthew, 2, trans. Jean-Baptiste Jeannin.[↩]
- John Chrysostom, Homily 4 on Matthew. Translated by Jean-Baptiste Jeannin.[↩]
- The Greek reads: ὡς γὰρ θεόν φαμεν καὶ υἱὸν τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἑνούμενα μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν〈διαιρούμενα δὲ κατὰ τάξιν εἰς〉 τὸν πατέρα, τὸν υἱόν, τὸ πνεῦμα, ὅτι νοῦς, λόγος, σοφία ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἀπόρροια ὡς φῶς ἀπὸ πυρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα.[↩]
- The Latin reads: tenet ab ipsa sede Petri apostoli, cui pascendas oves suas post resurrectionem Dominus commendavit, usque ad praesentem episcopatum successio sacerdotum.[↩]
- Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism : Completely Revised and Updated, HarperCollins, 1994, p. 1084.[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church : The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, Ignatius Press, 1999, p. 172.[↩]
- Severian of Gabala, Homily on the Holy Martyr Acacius, TMPM, I, 430.[↩]
- Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John, TMPM, I, 442-43.[↩]
- Severus of Antioch, Homily 34 on the Nativity, TMPM, I, 654.[↩]
- Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on John, TMPM, I, 442-43.[↩]
- See, for example, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Letouzey et Ané, Paris, 1902-1950, under the article on the Immaculate Conception.[↩]
- Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily VI, Patrologia Graeca 77, 1427.[↩]
- Theodotus of Ancyra, Homily IV, cited by Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Letouzey et Ané, Paris, 1902-1950, under the article on the Immaculate Conception.[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church : The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, Ignatius Press, 1999, p. 263-264.[↩]
- Roberto Caro, La Homiletica Mariana Griega en el siglo V, page 192.[↩]
- Leroy François-Joseph, L’homilétique de Proclus de Constantinople : tradition manuscrite, inédits, études connexes, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City, 1967, pages 273 and following.[↩]
- Proclus of Constantinople, Orat. VI, in Laud. S. Dei Genetric. The original Greek can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 18.[↩]
- Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Dialogues, II. The Greek reads: καί ποτε μὲν ὡς γεγεννηκυΐαν τὴν μητέρα τιμᾷ, ποτὲ δὲ ὡς Δεσπότης ἐπιτιμᾷ.[↩]
- Peter Toth, “New Questions on Old Answers: Towards a Critical Edition of the Answers to the Orthodox of Pseudo-Justin,” in The Journal of Theological Studies, volume 65, Oxford University Press, 2014; Lebon J., in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, volume 26, 1930, pages 526 and following; Richard M., in Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, volume 24, 1935, pages 83 and following.[↩]
- Pseudo-Justin, Answers to an Orthodox. The original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 75.[↩]
- Antipater of Bostra, Sermon on the Annunciation. Cited in Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 126.[↩]
- Chrysippus of Jerusalem, Sermo de laud. V. Mariae. Cited in Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 126.[↩]
- Severus of Antioch, Cathedral Homily 56, TMPM, 654.[↩]
- Ammonius of Alexandria, Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis 57, Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, 211. The Greek reads: Τῇ δὲ μητρὶ ἐπιμέμφεται ὡς ἀκαίρως ὑπομνησάσῃ θεὸν ὑπομνήσεως μὴ δεόμενον, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν μὴ νόμιζέ με μόνον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ θεόν. οὔπω δὲ ἦλθεν ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς φανερώσεως, οὐδέπω ἐγνωρίσθη τίς εἰμι.[↩]
- Methodius of Olympus, Homilies on Anne and Simeon, III and IV. An English translation is available at this link; see this article for a discussion on the attribution debate. In any case, it is a Greek patristic text cited by authors such as Damascene.[↩]
- Methodius of Olympus, Homilies on Anne and Simeon, IX-X. An English translation is available at this link.[↩]
- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XII, 32.[↩]
- Gregory of Nazianzus, Theological Orations, XXXVIII, 13.[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, Ignatius Press, 1999, p. 163.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven: Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I: Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 333.[↩]
- John Chrysostom, Homily on the Nativity, VI.[↩]
- Ephrem of Nisibis, Hymns, XXXVI, 1-2.[↩]
- Jacob of Sarug, TMPM, IV, 153, cited by Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven: Marian Doctrine and Devotion, Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I: Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 337.[↩]
- See Patrologia Graeca, LXXXVII, 3161. For a study of pre-purification in the Fathers, and how it contrasts with the Immaculate Conception, see this article and this article by an Orthodox author.[↩]
- Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 145-146.[↩]
- Canons of the Council of Constantinople III, Session XIII. An English translation is available at this link.[↩]
- Sophronius of Jerusalem, Homily on the Annunciation, 24-25, TMPM II, 144-145; Homily for the Hypapante, 4 and 16, TMPM II, 165.[↩]
- D’Alès Adhémar, Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique, Tome III, fourth edition, Gabriel Beauchesne, Paris, 1922, p. 215.[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, Ignatius Press, 1999, pp. 263-264.[↩]
- Zeno of Verona, Tractatus XIII, 10, PL 11: 352[↩]
- John Cassian, De incarnatione, book II, 2.[↩]
- Ambrosiaster, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul, in Patrologia Latina, 17[1845], col. 118a; in CSEL 81-I, p. 254.[↩]
- Ambrose, De sacramentis, XIII.[↩]
- Augustine, De meritis, de remissione peccatorum et de baptismo parvulorum, Book II, Chapter XXIV, 38.[↩]
- Gregory the Great, Expositio libri Job, XVIII, 32-33.[↩]
- Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, VII, tr. Eugène-Antoine de Genoude.[↩]
- Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV, XIX; tr. Eugène-Antoine de Genoude.[↩]
- This index can be consulted here.[↩]
- Saint Augustine, De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeus, chapter 86; available in Latin-English on this link.[↩]
- Kelly J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, HarperOne, 1978, p. 493.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven. Marian Doctrine and Devotion Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I: Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 332.[↩]
- Cited by Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven. Marian Doctrine and Devotion Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York – New City Press, 2012, vol. I—Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 344.[↩]
- Ambrose, Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke, II, 56.[↩]
- Ambrose, Prophetae David ad Theodosium Augustum, Caput XI, PL 14:873; English translation: I. D. E. Thomas, The Golden Treasury of Patristic Quotations, Oklahoma City, Hearthstone Publishing, 1996, p. 258. Latin: Nec conceptus iniquitatis exsors est, quoniam et parentes non carent lapsu.[↩]
- Ambrose, Apol. David. II, 57. Latin: In quo solo et conceptus virginalis et partus sine ullo fuit mortalis orginis inquinamento.[↩]
- Augustine, On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin, II, 47, tr. Abbé Burleraux.[↩]
- Augustine, Against Julian I, Book II, 4, tr. Abbé Burleraux.[↩]
- Boniface Ramsey, Ambrose, Routledge, 1997, p. 51.[↩]
- Augustine, On Nature and Grace, XXXVI, 42. Trans. Raulx, vol. XVII, Bar-le-Duc, 1871, pp. 185–221.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Ad. illud quod obicitur, quod nulla habenda est quaestio, cum agitur de peccatis secundum verbum Augustini, dicendum quod Augustinus intelligit de peccato actuali, non de originali, sicut patet ex serie litterae. cf. Commentary on the Sentences, Liber 3, Distinctio 3, Pars 1, Articulus 1.[↩]
- Latin: Excepta itaque sancta virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quaestionem[↩]
- Saint Augustine, Four Anti-Pelagian Writings, Fathers of the Church Patristic Series, The Catholic University of America Press, 1992, p. 53.[↩]
- Edward D. O’Connor, The Fundamental Principle of Mariology in Scholastic Theology, Marian Studies vol. 10, article 9, 1959, p. 81.[↩]
- Diccionario de San Agustín: San Agustin a través del tiempo, ed. Allan Fitzgerald, Monte Carmelo, 2006, p. 853.[↩]
- Robert B. Eno, Saint Augustine and the Saints, Villanova Univ. Augustinian, 1989, p. 91.[↩]
- Roland Teske, Answer to the Pelagians, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, New City Press, 1997, p. 214.[↩]
- Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies, Canterbury Press Norwich, 2002, p. 328[↩]
- Saint Augustine, Four Anti-Pelagian Writings, Fathers of the Church Patristic Series, The Catholic University of America Press, 1992, p. 53[↩]
- Romel Quintero, « ¿Creía Agustín en la inmaculada concepción de María? », Agustinismo Protestante, accessed October 19, 2023.[↩]
- Damian Dziedzic, «Czy Augustyn z Hippony wierzył w bezgrzeszność Maryi?», Należeć do Jezusa, accessed October 19, 2023.[↩]
- Francisco Moriones, Teología de san Agustín, BAC, 2011.[↩]
- Augustine, Letter to Optatus, 202a. Latin: ne tibi subripiat esse credendum, ullam prorsus animam nisi unius Mediatoris, non ex Adam trahere originale peccatum, generatione devinctum, regeneratione solvendum.[↩]
- Peter M. Stravinskas, The Catholic Answer Book of Mary, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 2000, p. 50.[↩]
- Augustine, On Merit, the Remission of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book II, ch. XXIX, 47. Trans. abbé Collery[↩]
- Augustine, On Merit, the Remission of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book II, ch. XXXV, 57. Trans. abbé Collery[↩]
- Augustine, Letter 167 to Jerome, 3.[↩]
- Augustine, Against Julian I, V, 52.[↩]
- Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, XII, 13.[↩]
- Augustine, On Genesis, Literal Meaning, X, XVIII, 32. Latin: Et quid incoinquinatius illo utero Virginis, cuius caro etiamsi de peccati propagatione venit, non tamen de peccati propagatione concepit; […] Proinde corpus Christi quamvis ex carne feminae assumptum est, quae de illa carnis peccati propagatione concepta fuerat, tamen quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo fuerat illa concepta, nec ipsa erat caro peccati, sed similitudo carnis peccati.[↩]
- Edmund Hill, On Genesis, Vol. I/13, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, New City Press, 2002, p. 417[↩]
- Augustine, Contra Julianum opus imperfectum, 4.1.22, Migne, PL 45, p. 1418. Latin: Non trascribimus diabolo Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur gratia renascendi.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven — Marian Doctrine and Devotion Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I — Doctrine and Devotion, ch. 8, p. 345[↩]
- Sage Athanase, ‘Original Sin in the Thought of Saint Augustine, from 412 to 430,’ Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 15, 1969, p. 98. Father Athanase Sage, however, does not believe this quotation can be invoked against the Roman dogma[↩]
- Peter M. Fehlner, ‘The Virgin Mother’s Predestination and Immaculate Conception’ in Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, Mark I. Miravalle, S.T.D., 2007, p. 248[↩]
- Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 34 (2), 3, Migne, PL 36, p. 335. Latin: Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata.[↩]
- Denzinger 1973.[↩]
- Augustine, On Merit, the Remission of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book II, ch. XXIV, 38. Latin: Solus ergo ille etiam homo factus manens Deus peccatum nullum umquam habuit nec sumpsit carnem peccati quamvis de materna carne peccati. Quod enim carnis inde suscepit, id profecto aut suscipiendum mundavit aut suscipiendo mundavit.[↩]
- Augustine, Sermon 155, 7[↩]
- Augustine, Sermon 233, 4[↩]
- Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis II.1.V, Migne, PL 176, p. 382.[↩]
- Edward D. O’Connor, The Fundamental Principle of Mariology in Scholastic Theology, Marian Studies, vol. 10, article 9, 1959, p. 81.[↩]
- Augustine, Letters, CLXXXVII, 31.[↩]
- Brian K. Reynolds, Gateway to Heaven — Marian Doctrine and Devotion Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I — Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, p. 345, note 68.[↩]
- Philipp Friedrich, Die Mariologie des hl. Augustinus, Bachem, Cologne, 1907, pp. 183–233.[↩]
- Louis Saltet, Saint Augustin et l’Immaculée Conception, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, 1910, pp. 161–166.[↩]
- Joseph Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes, II, Lecoffre, Paris, 1909, pp. 471–472.[↩]
- Fulbert Cayré, Patrologie et histoire de la théologie, I, Desclée, Tournai, 1931, p. 661.[↩]
- Adhémar D’Alès, De Verbo incarnato, Beauchesne, Paris, 1930, pp. 430–431.[↩]
- Bernard Capelle, La pensée de saint Augustin sur l’Immaculée Conception, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, vol. 4, 1932, pp. 361–370.[↩]
- Athanase Sage, “Le péché originel dans la pensée de saint Augustin, de 412 à 430”, Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 15, 1969, p. 98.[↩]
- Edmund Hill, in Sermones III.7 (230–272B) On the Liturgical Seasons, New City Press, 1993, p. 259.[↩]
- Duns Scotus, Ordinatio III, distinction 3, q. I, a. 1.[↩]
- Dongsun Cho, “Ambrosiaster on Justification by Faith Alone in His Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles,” Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 74, 2012, p. 279.[↩]
- In the Patrologia Latina 17 (1845), col. 118a; in CSEL 81-I, p. 254.[↩]
- Ambrosiaster, Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test., LXXIII. An English translation is available at this link.[↩]
- D. H. Williams, Justification by Faith: a Patristic Doctrine, Cambridge University Press, 2006.[↩]
- In Latin: ab originis nostrae peccatis atque auctoribus. See p. 660 of the article.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Si in judicii severitatem capax illa Dei Virgo ventura est, desiderare quis audebit a Deo judicari?[↩]
- Hilary of Poitiers, Tractatus in Ps. 118.[↩]
- Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Book X, 25; English translation available here.[↩]
- Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate, Book X, 35; English translation available here.[↩]
- Isabella Image, “Original Sin,” The Human Condition in Hilary of Poitiers: The Will and Original Sin between Origen and Augustine, Oxford Theology and Religion Monographs, Oxford, 2017.[↩]
- Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epistula 17.13, Migne, PL 65, p. 458.[↩]
- Chapter I, section 2; cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 118.[↩]
- Jerome, Letter 133; an English translation can be consulted at this link.[↩]
- Jerome, Letter 121.[↩]
- Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Book II, 4.[↩]
- Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3, Hendrickson, 2011, p. 418 n. 2.[↩]
- John Cassian, Collationes, XXII; cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 120–121.[↩]
- John Cassian, Collationes, IX; cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 121.[↩]
- Latin: A peccati enim veteris nexu per se non est immunis, nec ipsa genetrix redemptoris.[↩]
- Latin: Omnis maculatus ingreditur tabernaculum Domini, et ibi immaculatus efficitur. Jesus autem immacutalus solus virgineam aulam ingressus, ipsum tabernaculum a maculis carnalibus liberavit, et dedi sanctificationem potius quam accepit.[↩]
- Denis Petau, Treatise on the Incarnation, XIV, I, 6.[↩]
- Maximus of Turin, Homily V on the Nativity of the Lord in the Patrologia Latina, 61b in the CCSL.[↩]
- Latin: sed pro gratia virginali; cf. Maximus Taurinensis, Sermonum collectio antiqua, nonnullis sermonibus extravagantibus adiectis, A. Mutzenbecher, 1962, p. 253.[↩]
- Maximus of Turin, The Sermons of St. Maximus of Turin, Newman Press, New York, 1989, p. 251.[↩]
- According to the CCSL, 1962.[↩]
- Latin: Sic caro Christi carni Mariae et similis est, et dissimilis: similis, quia inde traxit originem; dissimilis, quia non inde contraxit vitiatae originis contagionem: similis, quoniam, licet voluntarias, tamen veras sensit infirmitates; dissimilis, quoniam nullas penitus neque per voluntatem, neque per ignorantiam commisit inquitates: similis, quia passibilis et mortalis: dissimilis, quia incoinquinabilis, et vivificatrix etiam mortuorum: similis genere, dissimilis merito: similis specie, dissimilis virtute: similis quia similitudo est carnis peccati.[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 144–145.[↩]
- Brian K. Reynolds, Gateway to Heaven – Marian Doctrine and Devotion: Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York – New City Press, 2012, vol. I – Doctrine and Devotion, ch. 8, p. 348.[↩]
- Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 147–148.[↩]
- Original text available in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 23.[↩]
- Paul Haffner, The Mystery of Mary, Gracewing Publishing, 2004, p. 81.[↩]
- Original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 19.[↩][↩][↩]
- Latin text: Quod ut fieret, sine virile semine conceptus est Christus ex virgine, quam non humanus coitus, sed Spiritus sanctus fecondavit. Et cum in omnibus matribus non fiat sine peccati sorde conceptio, haec inde purgationem traxit.[↩]
- Latin text: Solus itaque inter filios hominum Dominus Jesus innocens natus est, quia solus sine carnalis concupiscentiae pollutione conceptus.[↩]
- Philip Schaff (Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, ch. 4, §29) reports that Leo affirms the Virgin was purified by the Incarnation; the original source will be added once verified.[↩]
- Latin text: Immaculati agni proprium est nullum prorsus habuisse peccatum.[↩]
- Gellasii papae dicta, vol. 4, col 1241, Paris, 1671.[↩]
- Latin text: Ille autem solus veraciter sanctus natus est, qui ut ipsam conditionem naturae corruptibilis vinceret ex commixtione carnalis copulae conceptus non est.[↩]
- Cited by Thomas Aquinas, ST III, q. 34, a1.[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 142.[↩]
- Gregory the Great, Exposition of the Book of Job, XVIII, 32-33.[↩]
- Latin text: Et primum quidem blasphemia et stultiloquium est, dicere esse hominem sine peccato, quod omnino non potest, nisi unus mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus, qui sine peccato est conceptus et partus. Nam caeteri homines cum peccato originali nascentes, testimonium praevaricationis Adae (etiam sine peccato actuali existentes) portare noscuntur, secundum prophetam dicentem: Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea (Psal. L).[↩]
- Original: PL 80, p. 602b-c.[↩]
- Translation by Abbé de Genoude.[↩][↩]
- Original consultable in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 9.[↩]
- Latin: esse absque peccato, quod unius Domini nostri Jesu Christi singulariter convenit majestati, de quo etiam Apostolus velut praecipium ac speciale pronunciat dicens: Qui peccatum non fecit.[↩]
- Latin: Haec est similitudo carnis; quia quamvis eadem caro Christi sit, quae et nostra; non tamen ita facta in utero est et nata, sicut et caro nostra. Est enim sanctificata in utero, et nata sine peccato, et neque ipse in illa peccavit. Ideo enim virginalis uterus electus est ad partum Dominicum, ut in sanctitate differret caro Domini a carne nostra.[↩]
- Latin: Bene “eminens”, quia solus est quem retia non involverint peccatorum. Omnes intra retia erant, immo adhuc intra retia sumus, quia nemo sine peccato, nisi solus Jesus.[↩]
- Original consultable in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 12.[↩]
- Original consultable in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 18.[↩]
- Original consultable in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 19.[↩]
- Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869.[↩]
- The Immaculate Conception does not, however, teach that the miracle took place in the seed that conceived Mary, but rather at the moment of her conception.[↩]
- An English translation of the source is available on this link[↩]
- Andrew of Crete, Homilies on the Dormition, III, 6; an English translation is available on this link[↩]
- Andrew of Crete, Homilies on the Dormition, I, 4; an English translation is available on this link[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, Ignatius Press, 1999[↩]
- « Once the Blessed Virgin had given her consent, the Holy Spirit came upon her according to the Lord’s word pronounced by the angel, purified her, and gave her the power to receive the divinity of the Word, as well as the power to give birth. » (The Orthodox Faith, III, 2)[↩]
- See Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 148, which adds to this citation a homily in which Damascus says the same thing; see also On the Dormition, I, 2, where Damascus declares: « The Father predestined her; then the prophets by the Holy Spirit announced her; then the sanctifying virtue of the Spirit visited her, purified her, and made her holy, and as it were watered this earth. »[↩]
- Henri Klée, Manual of the History of Christian Dogmas, vol. 1, Louvain edition, 1851, p. 347[↩][↩]
- As shown in this excellent article[↩]
- Evangelikos Keryx 1-6, Athens, 1857, pp. 262-275[↩]
- Philip Schaff, previously cited, finds only these three positions among the Fathers[↩]
- Guillaume Herzog, « The Blessed Virgin in History, » Review of Religious History and Literature, No. 12, 1907, pp. 483-607[↩]
- Éléonore Fournié and Séverine Lepape-Berlier, « The Immaculate Conception: a belief before being a dogma, a social issue for Christendom, » L’Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques, 10, 2012, §§ 1, 3[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 127[↩][↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 130[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 132[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 133-135[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 135-137[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 137-139[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 141[↩]
- Clayton Mary, The Cult of the Virgin Mary, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 22[↩][↩]
- The Latin reads: qui de carne peccati carnem assumpsit, nisi quia Verbum quod caro factum est, eam primum obumbravit, in quam Spiritus Sanctus superveniet.[↩]
- The Latin can be consulted here[↩]
- The Latin reads: Beata Maria licet ipsa de carne peccati sit nata et procreata.[↩]
- The Latin reads: excepto Redemptore, debitores sumus ; solus siquidem ad medicamentum vulneris Redemptor noster in illa massa totius humani generis absque peccato relictus est.[↩]
- The English translation can be found in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 25[↩]
- The original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 39[↩]
- The Latin reads: ex ipsa carne Virginis quae de peccato concepta est.[↩]
- Peter Damian, Opuscule VI, 19; cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 156[↩]
- Anselme de Cantorbéry, Pourquoi Dieu s’est fait homme, Sources Chrétiennes, 1963.[↩]
- See the discussion in this article[↩]
- The Greek can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 88.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Hoc est enim originale peccatum, quo ante Christ incarnationem nemo unquam mundari potuit.[↩]
- The Greek can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 87.[↩]
- The Greek can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, pp. 87-88.[↩]
- Patrologia Latina 159, col 305.[↩]
- Nicolas de Saint-Albans, Liber de celebranda conceptione.[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 179.[↩]
- Luigi Gambero, Maria nel pensiero dei teologi latini medievali, ed. San Paolo, 2000, pp. 135-136.[↩]
- Osbert of Clare, Epistola ad Anselmum, in Eadmer monachi Cantuariensis Tractatus de Conceptione sanctae Mariae, ed. Thurston-Slater, Fribourg, 1904, pp. 55-56.[↩]
- For a deeper study of this controversy in England, see Jean-Louis Benoit, “L’Immaculée Conception. Une affaire anglaise et un grand signe dans le ciel”, Revue théologique des bernardins, 2014, pp. 51-74; and West-Harling, Veronica Ortenberg, L’origine anglaise de la fête de la Conception de la Vierge, in Marie et la « Fête aux Normands » : Dévotion, images, poésie, Mont-Saint-Aignan: Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre, 2011.[↩]
- Jean-Louis Benoit, “L’Immaculée Conception. Une affaire anglaise et un grand signe dans le ciel”, Revue théologique des bernardins, 2014, p. 7.[↩]
- Hugues de Saint-Victor, De sacramentis II.1.V, Migne PL 176: 382.[↩]
- The Latin reads: De carne illa cui unitum est Verbum quaeritur utrum prius in Mariae fuit caro illa obligata peccato. Quod ita fuisse Augustinus dicit […] Mariam vero totam prorsus a peccato, sed non a fomite peccati mundavit ; quem tamen sic dibilitavit, ut postea non peccasse credatur.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Si ergo Dominus suum ei dimittere peccatum vellet, sicut et Mariae Virgini factum est, et multis etiam ante passionem suam Christus fecit…[↩]
- Original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 88.[↩]
- Original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, pp. 26-27.[↩]
- See Dary Marie-Bénédicte, “Saint Bernard et l’Immaculée Conception: la question liturgique,” Revue Mabillon, Brepols, 2002.[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 189.[↩]
- Amédée de Lausanne, Huit homélies mariales, trans. Dom Antoine Dumas, o.s.b., Série des textes monastique d’Occident V, Sources Chrétiennes, 1960, p. 99.[↩]
- Amédée de Lausanne, Huit homélies mariales, trans. Dom Antoine Dumas, Sources Chrétiennes, 1960, p. 99.[↩]
- Amédée de Lausanne, Huit homélies mariales, trans. Dom Antoine Dumas, o.s.b., Série des textes monastique d’Occident V, Sources Chrétiennes, 1960, p. 75.[↩]
- Amédée de Lausanne, Huit homélies mariales, trans. Dom Antoine Dumas, Sources Chrétiennes, 1960, p. 30.[↩]
- Isabel Iribarren, “Pierre Lombard, Les Quatre Livres des Sentences. Premier Livre” (review), Revue des sciences religieuses, 86/3, 2012.[↩]
- Pierre Lombard, Les Quatre Livres des Sentences, Third Book, Paris: éd. du Cerf, 2014, p. 187.[↩]
- Boethius, De duabus naturis et una persona Christi, IV; cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 136-137.[↩]
- Augustine, On the Merits, Remission of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants, Book II, chapter XXIV, 38; Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans 8:3.[↩]
- Latin: Miramur ergo satis quid visum fuerit hoc tempore quibusdam monasteriis mutare colorem optimum, novas quasdam inducendo celebritates. Additur his a quibusdam quod magis absurdum videtur, festum quoque conceptionis sanctae Mariae.[↩]
- Latin: Festum enim Conceptionis aliqui interdum celebrant, et adhuc fortassis celebrant, sed authenticum atque approbatum non est; immo enim vero prohibitum esse videtur. In peccato namque concepta fuit.[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 190.[↩]
- Latin: Dicunt quidam quod originale peccatum partim est ex vitio concupiscendi, parti ex carne corrupta. Unde ad hos ut Christ immunis esset ab originali peccato, oportuit carnem quam assumpsit mundari. Nam forte si non esset mundata, licet sine concupiscentia conciperetur, originale peccatum haberet Christus. […] Sic enim Christus habuisset originale peccatum; quoniam caro ejus ex carne Virginis quae per originale peccatum corrupta erat.[↩]
- Latin: Illa [Eva] fuit sine culpa producta, sed produxit in culpam; haec [Maria] fuit in culpa producta, sed sine culpa produxit.[↩]
- Migne, PL 217, column 581.[↩]
- Rousseau Constance, Pope, Church and City. Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton, Brill, Leiden-Boston 2004, pp. 53-54.[↩]
- Original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 30.[↩]
- Latin: Statim autem Spiritus sanctus supervenit in eam; prius quidem in eam venerat, cum in utero matris animam ejus ob originali peccato mundavit, sed et nunc supervenit in eam, ut carnem ejus a fomite peccati mundaret quatenus esset sine ruga prorsus et macula.[↩]
- A Catholic reader suggested that the sinful Mary might be Mary Magdalene here. The context, however, supports that it is Mary “chosen as mother” mentioned just before, though this reading is not entirely impossible and is noted here due to lack of further research on this pope.[↩]
- Rousseau Constance, Pope, Church and City. Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton, Brill, Leiden-Boston 2004, p. 54. Latin: Omnium Creator rerum, te elegit genitricem. Qui Mariam peccatricem, emundavit a reatu. Ipse tuo me precatu, a peccatis cunctis tergat.[↩]
- To be precise, it is not possible to say whether he spoke thus while already bishop of Rome or before becoming so[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 197-198.[↩]
- Anthony of Padua, Sermons on the Annunciation, eighth sermon; an English translation can be consulted in this document, p. 1095. Saint Anthony of Padua is cited as an opponent of the Immaculate Conception by Charles Hastings Colette, Dr Newman and His Religious Opinions, p. 186, and also by Melchor Cano, Loci Theologici.[↩]
- Jean Gerson, Opera omnia. Epistola Lugdunum missa cuidam fratri Minori, vol. 1, p. 554.[↩]
- Alexander of Hales, Summa universæ theologiæ, Liber tertius, Prima pars tertii libri, III, P. 1, Inq. 1, T. 2, Q. 2, M. 2, C. 1; the Latin text is available at this link[↩]
- Latin: Et ideo B. Virgo in sua conceptione sanctificari non potuit.[↩]
- Beth Ingham Mary, “The Sanctification of Mary” in The Summa Halensis, De Gruyter, 2020, p. 343.[↩]
- Latin: Mystice exponitur hoc de Christo, qui solus extra illam universitatem est: qua dicitus Rom. 3: Omnes peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei. Et Jacob 3: In multis offendimus omnes. Unde Psalm 13 et 52: Non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum, silicet, Christum, qui omnino peccatum non fecit, nec etiam habuit. Etiam Beata Virgo originale habuit; propter quod ejus conceptio non celebratur: tamen qui celebrant debent habere respectum ad sanctificationem ejus, qua sanctificata fuit in utero matris suae.[↩]
- Cited by Wladimir Guettée, Le Nouveau dogme en présence de l’Écriture sainte et de la tradition catholique, Paris: Librairie ecclésiastique gallicane, 1859, p. 79.[↩]
- Latin: Solutio Dicimus, quod Beata Virgo non fuit sanctificata ante animationem: et qui dicunt oppositum, est heresis condemnata a Beato Bernardo in epistola ad Lugdunenses, et a Magistris omnibus Parisiensibus.[↩]
- The full Latin text is available here.[↩][↩]
- Latin: dicendum quod in carne vivere sinc peccato contracto et facto solius Filii Dei est: sed Beata Virgo contraxit peccatum prius, et postea sanctificata fuit.[↩]
- Latin text available here.[↩]
- Latin: Nullius conceptionis solemnitatem celebrat Ecclesia nisi solius Filii Dei in Annunciatione beatae Virginis Mariae. […] Beatus etiam Bernardus praecipuus Virginis amator, et honoris ejus zelator illos reprehendit, qui conceptionem Virginis celebrant. […] Potest etiam esse, quod illa solemnitas potius refertur ad diam sanctificationis, quam conceptionis.[↩]
- Coelho-Kostolny Peter, Ecce Mater Tua, vol. 7, 2023, p. 150.[↩]
- Cecchin Stefano, Pontificia Academia Mariana Internationalis (PAMI), Vatican City, 2003, p. 49.[↩]
- Latin: Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione, quia, si beata Virgo caruit originali peccato, caruit merito mortis: ergo vel iniustitia facta est ei cum mortua est, vel dispensative pro salute generis humani mortua est. Sed primum facit ad contumeliam Dei, quia, si illud verum est, Deus non est iustus retributor; secundum ad contumeliam Christi, quia, si illud verum est, Christus non est sufficiens redemptor; ergo utrumque falsum est et impossibile. Restat igitur quod habuit peccatum originale.[↩]
- Latin: Communiter sancti cum de materia illa loquuntur, solum Christum excipiunt ab illa generalitate, qua dicitur: Omnes peccaverunt in Adam. Nullus autem invenitur dixisse de his quos audivimus auribus nostris, Virginem Mariam a peccato originale fuisse immunem. Et quia hic honor, scilet immunem esse ab omni peccato tam originali, quam actuali solius filii Dei est, quia solus conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto et natus de Virgine; ideo Virgini attribuendum non est.[↩]
- Salvador-Gonzalez José María, Saint Bonaventure’s Doctrine on the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Religions, 2023, 14, 930.[↩]
- Hugolinus Storff, The Immaculate Conception: The Teaching of St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure and Bl. J. Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Francis Press, 1925, p. 100.[↩]
- Vacant A., Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Tome 7, éditions librairie Letouzey & Ané, Paris, 1922, p. 1050.[↩]
- Cited by P. Synave, Vie de Jésus, vol. I, Desclée, Tournai, 1927, p. 285.[↩]
- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, vol. 4, éditions du Cerf, 2021, p. 213.[↩]
- Richard Gibbings, Roman Forgeries, part 1, Grant and Bolton, 1842.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Ipsa enim purissima fuit et quantum ad culpam, quia ipsa virgo nec mortale nec veniale peccatum incurrit. The Textum Taurini edition of 1954 restores this text; likewise the Nouvelles éditions latines edition of 1978; Abbé Bralé in the 1857 Louis Vivès edition had already corrected this addition. Rossi, 1931 was the last to defend this variant.[↩]
- Latin: virum de mille unum reperi, scilicet Christum, qui esset sine omni peccato, mulierem autem ex omnibus non inveni, quae omnino a peccato immunis esset, ad minus originali, vel veniali.[↩]
- Trans. Abbé Bralé, fully revised by Charles Duyck, December 2009; digital edition.[↩]
- Latin: et ideo beata virgo in peccato originali fuit concepta, propter quod b. Bernardus ad Lugdunenses scribit conceptionem illius celebrandam non esse, quamvis in quibusdam Ecclesiis ex devotione celebretur, non considerando conceptionem, sed potius sanctificationem: quae quando determinate fuerit, incertum est.[↩]
- Latin: Christus enim hoc singulariter in humano genere habet ut redemptione non egeat, quia caput nostrum est, sed omnibus convenit redimi per ipsum. Hoc autem esse non posset, si alia anima inveniretur quae nunquam originali macula fuisset infecta; et ideo nec beatae virgini, nec alicui praeter Christum hoc concessum est.[↩]
- Latin for the Sentences: A peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit; and for the Compendium: Nec solum a peccato actuali immunis fuit, sed etiam ab originali.[↩]
- Trans. Jean Kreit, 1985; digital edition.[↩][↩]
- Latin: Nec solum a peccato actuali immunis fuit, sed etiam ab originali, speciali privilegio mundata…[↩]
- Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences, Distinction 31, Question I, article 2.[↩]
- In the more than 70 volumes of Saint Augustine’s works available at the Augustinian Library, there is not a single prayer addressed to anyone other than God.[↩]
- Some Catholics, admitting that Thomas rejected the Immaculate Conception, try to minimize this by arguing that he was only ‘wrong’ on a chronological point.[↩]
- Thomas Aquinas, Questions Quodlibeticae, VI, q. 5, a. I(7), trad. Jacques Ménard, 2006, édition numérique.[↩]
- The English translation can be consulted at this link.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Quidam etiam faciant quintum festum, scilicet, de conceptione beatae Mariae, dicentes, quod, sicut celebratur de morte Sanctorum non propter mortem, sed qui tunc recepti sunt in nuptiis aeternis, similiter potest celebrari festum de conceptione, non qui sit concepta, quia in peccato est concepta, sed quia mater Domini est concepta; asserentes, hoc fuisse revelatum cuidam Abbati in naufragio constituto. Quod tamen non est authenticum, unde non est approbandum, cum concepta fuerit in peccato, seu per concubitum maris et foeminae.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Anima enim virginis ex sui vnione ad illam carnem peccatum originale contraxit; see Richard of Menneville, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, Book 3, Distinction 3, Article 1, Question 1. The Latin text can be consulted at this link.[↩]
- Richard of Menneville, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, Book 3, Distinction 3, Article 1, Question 2.[↩]
- Richard of Menneville, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, Book 3, Distinction 3, Article 1, Question 3.[↩]
- The Latin reads: quamuis per illam gratiam nondum esset consecuta confirmationem in bono que totaliter excluderet flexibilitatem liberi arbitrii ad malum.[↩]
- Richard of Menneville, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, Book 3, Distinction 3, Article 1, Question 4.[↩]
- McGrath Alister, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, Wiley–Blackwell, 2003, p. 24.[↩]
- Pelikan Jaroslav, The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300), vol. 3, University of Chicago Press, 2008, p. 71.[↩]
- See note 38 of this translation, p. 88.[↩]
- Coelho-Kostolny Peter, ‘Sine Labe Originali Concepta: The Debitum Peccati in Scotus, Aquinas, and Bonaventure post Ineffabilis Deus,’ in Ecce Mater Tua, vol. 7, 2023, p. 151.[↩]
- William of Ware, Quaestio de conceptione Mariae.[↩]
- The Latin reads: quando fuit ab Angelo annunciata.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Ipsa ergo Beata Virgo fuit in Adam mortua, et fuit per Adam in originali concepta, et per Christum fuit vivificata, idest fuit ab originali iustificata.[↩]
- The Latin text can be consulted on this link.[↩]
- The Latin reads: solus ipse fuit sine omni peccato, etiam sine originali.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Solus ergo Christus, qui fuit conceptus de Virgine supernaturaliter, ex superuentione Spiritus Sancti, fuit sine originali conceptus. Beata ergo Virgo Maria, quae a suis parentibus descendit naturaliter, fuit in originali concepta.[↩]
- Serge-Thomas Bonino, “The Thomist Tradition”, Nova et Vetera, volume 8/4, 2010, p. 876.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Quamuis autem beata virgo potuerit a peccato praeseruari, non decuit tamen quod praeseruaretur. Cuius ratio est, qui singularis conceptio debuit dotari singulari priuilegio, sed filius Dei secundum humanitatem habuit singularem conceptionem, eo quod est conceptus non de viro, sed de spiritu sancto, ergo debuit habere singulare priuilegium, non autem habuisset, nisi solius conceptio fuisset absque originali peccato, ergo non decuit quod conceptio cuiuscunque alterius, etiam matris dotaretur hoc priuilegio.[↩]
- The Latin can be consulted on this link.[↩][↩]
- The Latin reads: dicendum quod beata virgo indiguit sanctificatione propter peccatum originale quod contraxit.[↩]
- Guillaume Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Commentarius in libros Sententiarum, Liber 3, Distinctio 3, Quaestio 2.[↩]
- Guillaume Durand of Saint-Pourçain, Commentarius in libros Sententiarum, Liber 3, Distinctio 3, Quaestio 3.[↩]
- His words on papal infallibility are also worth consulting.[↩]
- The English text can be consulted on this link.[↩]
- On his commentary, see Schabel Chris, “The ‘Sentences Commentary of Paul of Perugia, o.carm., with an Edition of his Question on Divine Foreknowledge”, Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 72/1, 2005, pp. 54–112.[↩]
- The Latin reads: In secunda sanctificatione: scilicet in conceptione saluatoris fuit totaliter liberata a fomite non quin remansit illa qualitas: sed sic quod non potuit inclinare voluntatem ad aliquem actum peccati mortalis vel venialis. Ex isto sequitur quod ante conceptionem saluatoris potuit peccare venialiter: sed non mortaliter: sed post non.[↩]
- The Latin text can be consulted on this link.[↩]
- The original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, pp.34–35.[↩]
- Cited by Eugène Sécrétant, Réfutation, L’Observateur Catholique, May 1856, p. 59.[↩]
- The English translation can be consulted here.[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, pp. 260–261.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Datum est ergo nobis verbum aeternum per manum Mariae… Tu scis, Domine, qui ista est data.[↩]
- Catherine of Siena, Oratio XVI, facta Romae anno 1300, fol. 320, col. 2.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Non omnem hominem praeter Christum contraxisse ab Adam peccatum originale est expresse contra fidem. Beatam Mariam V. et Dei Genetricem non contraxisse peccatum originale est expresse contra fidem.[↩]
- Cited by Edward Bouverie Pusey, First Letter to the Very Rev. J. H. Newman, Rivingtons, 1869, p. 276.[↩]
- Vincent Ferrer, Serm. de Concept. Virg., cited by Guettée, op. cit.[↩]
- The sessions of this council can be consulted in English on this link.[↩]
- The original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, pp. 36–38.[↩]
- The original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 39.[↩][↩][↩]
- Cited by James Attebury, The Sinfulness of Mary in the Early Church.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Sancti omnes, qui in ejus rei mentionem incidere, uno ore asseverarunt, beatam Virginem in peccato originali conceptam.[↩]
- Cited by Charles Hastings Collette, Dr. Newman and His Religious Opinions, p. 186.[↩]
- The original can be consulted in John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, pp. 40–41.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Glossa dicit: Superveniens Spiritus Sanctus in Virginem, mentem ipsius ab omni sorde vitiorum castificavit.[↩]
- Alexander of Hales, Summa universæ theologiæ, Liber tertius, Prima pars tertii libri, Inq. 1, T. 2, Q. 2, M. 3, C. 2, article 1.[↩]
- It notes this: “it was observed all over France, until in 1275, through the efforts of the Paris University, it was abolished in Paris and other dioceses.”[↩]
- Camille Bataille, ‘The Immaculate Conception in Late Medieval Sweden’, Kyrkohistorisk årsskrift, 2016, 116, pp. 15–40. hal-02541331.[↩]
- Marielle Lamy, L’Immaculée Conception. Étapes et enjeux d’une controverse, Paris, 2000.[↩]
- Johannes Molanus, Mémoire des points controversés entre les deux Églises, article XXV.[↩]
- The Latin reads: Non pars Ecclesiae, sed tota Ecclesia Romana immaculatam Beatae Virginis conceptionem pro re indifferenti habet, neque ad fidem pertinente, quod sufficit; see Bossuet, Cogitationes Privatae, ‘Projet de réunion entre les catholiques et les protestants d’Allemagne,’ I, secunda classis.[↩]
- Malou Jean-Baptiste, L’Immaculée Conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi, Librairie de Goemaere, Bruxelles, 1857, pp. 368–370.[↩]
- Malou Jean-Baptiste, L’Immaculée Conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi, Librairie de Goemaere, Bruxelles, 1857, p. 370.[↩]
- On the Eastern feast of the conception and its difference from the Roman dogma, see Guillaume Herzog, “La Sainte Vierge dans l’histoire,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuse, no. 12, 1907, p. 606.[↩]
- ‘Canon of Saint Andrew’ in Patrologia Graeca, XCVII, 1306, 1312.[↩]
- On the feast of the conception in the East, see the excellent synthesis by Kontouma-Conticello Vassa, “La question de l’Immaculée Conception dans la tradition orientale et les célébrations byzantines de l’enfance de Marie aux VIIe–VIIIe siècles,” in Marie et la “Fête aux Normands”: Dévotion, images, poésie, Mont-Saint-Aignan: Presses universitaires de Rouen et du Havre, 2011.[↩]
- Vincent Ferrier, Serm. de Concept. Virg., cited by Guettée, op. cit.[↩]
- Bellarmine, De cultu sanctorum, Book III, Chapter 16; cited by Guettée Wladimir, op. cit., p. 96.[↩]
- Kathrin Utz Tremp, “L’affaire Jetzer, un scandale bernois,” consulted 24/10/2023.[↩]
- Éléonore Fournié and Séverine Lepape-Berlier, “L’Immaculée Conception: une croyance avant d’être un dogme, un enjeu social pour la Chrétienté,” L’Atelier du Centre de recherches historiques, 10, 2012, pp. 23–25.[↩]
- The details of this episode are reported by Eugène Sécrétant, “Réfutation,” L’Observateur Catholique, May 1856, p. 61. See also John Harvey Treat, The Catholic Faith, Bishop Welles Brotherhood, 1888, p. 38.[↩]
- Larousse Pierre, Grand Dictionnaire universel du XIXe siècle, vol. IV, Larousse et Boyer, Paris, 1869, p. 830.[↩]
- As shown by Jared Staudt in this article.[↩]
- As noted by Mark Del Cogliano, Gregory of Narek was born and died in the Armenian Church.[↩]
- Noting that Jean-Baptiste Malou quotes Chrysostom speaking in praise of the Virgin, Wladimir Guettée replies: “Among your testimonies from the Greek Church, we notice that of St. Chrysostom. Now Your Excellency knows well that this illustrious orator taught in several places in his works that the Holy Virgin had committed actual faults.” See Wladimir Guettée, Le Nouveau dogme en présence de l’Écriture Sainte et de la tradition catholique, Paris: Librairie ecclésiastique gallicane, 1859, p. 124.[↩]
- Thus, Charles Drelincourt, a Reformed pastor, refers to Mary as that innocent soul.[↩]
- As noted by this Reformed apologist.[↩]
- Malou Jean-Baptiste, L’Immaculée Conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi, Librairie de Goemaere, Brussels, 1857, pp. 342–343.[↩]
- Reynolds Brian K., Gateway to Heaven. Marian Doctrine and Devotion Image and Typology in the Patristic and Medieval Periods, Hyde Park, New York: New City Press, 2012, vol. I: Doctrine and Devotion, chapter 8, pp. 333–334.[↩]
- “The primitive data do not indicate a strict necessity to conclude to the Immaculate Conception,” he writes in this article.[↩]
- Carlo Passaglia, De Immaculate Deiparae Semper Virginis Conceptu, Rome: Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 1854–1855, 5 vols.[↩]
- Herzog Guillaume, “La Sainte Vierge dans l’histoire,” Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuse, no. 12, 1907, pp. 483–607; Wladimir Guettée also mentions François Combefis, Joseph-Simonius Assemani, Francesco Antonio Zaccaria, and Denys Petau, De Incarnatione Verbi XIV, ch. 11: Opus de theologicis dogmatibus, Antwerp: G. Gallet, 1700, vol. V, p. 214; see also p. 216. Guettée refers to his authority in letter 13 to Jean-Baptiste Malou.[↩]
- Anthimus of Constantinople, Patriarchal and Synodal Encyclical Letter, no. 13, 1895.[↩]
- The Qur’an, Sura Al Imran, 36.[↩]
- This hadith can be consulted in English at this link.[↩]
- Thus, the Qur’an (III, 49; V, 110) mentions that Jesus formed a living bird out of clay as a child—a miracle absent from the Bible but found, for example, in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus, an apocryphon dating a century before the Qur’an, and also in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a Gnostic writing four centuries earlier.[↩]
- Malou Jean-Baptiste, L’Immaculée Conception de la bienheureuse Vierge Marie, considérée comme dogme de foi, vol. II, Brussels: Librairie de Goemaere, 1857, p. 29.[↩]
- As Éric Ybarra attempts to do in the previously mentioned article.[↩]
- Coelho-Kostolny Peter, ‘Sine Labe Originali Concepta: The Debitum Peccati in Scotus, Aquinas, and Bonaventure post Ineffabilis Deus,’ in Ecce Mater Tua, vol. 7, 2023, p. 152.[↩]
- See how William Perkins defines orthodoxy in relation to the Creed.[↩]
- Richard Hooker, A Learned Discourse of Justification, §32, Works, vol. 5, pp. 155–156.[↩]
- Rémy Bethmont, “Richard Hooker, l’hérésie papiste et un protestantisme anglais de la continuité,” Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique, XVIII-1, 2013.[↩]
0 commentaires