Immaculate Conception

THE DOCTRINE

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and

defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a

singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ,

the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original

sin."

"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is

the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into

her body.

". . .in the first instance of her conception . . ." The term conception does not

mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in

the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The

question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her

parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply

(conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature,

precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the

soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all

stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace

was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

". . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . ." The formal

active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed

from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the

exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as

opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and

fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her

soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the

temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

". . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the

merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race." The immunity from

original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law

through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by

baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be

delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to

original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should

have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the

new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ,

withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very

masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays

the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the

debtor.

Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."

PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE

Genesis 3:15

No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward

from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the

redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against

the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium),

which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity

between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and

thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15). The translation "she" of

the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be

defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush

the serpent's head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God

puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there

is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in

that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in

sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains

sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore,

in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer. and in conjunction

therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect

preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.

Luke 1:28

The salutation of the angel Gabriel -- chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of grace

(Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, godlike state

of soul, which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as a

proof of the dogma.

Other texts

From the texts Proverbs 8 and Ecclesiasticus 24 (which exalt the Wisdom of

God and which in the liturgy are applied to Mary, the most beautiful work of

God's Wisdom), or from the Canticle of Canticles (4:7, "Thou art all fair, O my

love, and there is not a spot in thee"), no theological conclusion can be drawn.

These passages, applied to the Mother of God, may be readily understood by

those who know the privilege of Mary, but do not avail to prove the doctrine

dogmatically, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus".

For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to take an extreme position by

applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of God.

PROOF FROM TRADITION

In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of

them even seem to have been in error on this matter.

Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought

that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's

soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins

also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").

In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the

sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul

(Epistle 259).

St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward

unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew

11:46; Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also "In Matt.", hom. iv).

But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a

progressive science. If we were to attempt to set forth the full doctrine of the

Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which includes particularly the

implicit belief in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to

transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers two points

are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. I

Cor. 15:22).

Mary as the second Eve

This celebrated comparison between Eve, while yet immaculate and incorrupt --

that is to say, not subject to original sin -- and the Blessed Virgin is developed

by:

Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone, 100),

Irenaeus (Contra Haereses, III, xxii, 4),

Tertullian (De carne Christi, xvii),

Julius Firm cus Maternus (De errore profan. relig xxvi),

Cyril of Jerusalem (Catecheses, xii, 29),

Epiphanius (Hæres., lxxviii, 18),

Theodotus of Ancyra (Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and

Sedulius (Carmen paschale, II, 28).

The absolute purity of Mary

Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.

The Fathers call Mary the tabernacle exempt from defilement and

corruption (Hippolytus, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");

Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most

complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of

the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in

diversa");

Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every

stain of sin ("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);

Maximum of Turin calls her a dwelling fit for Christ, not because of her

habit of body, but because of original grace ("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");

Theodotus of Ancyra terms her a virgin innocent, without spot, void of

culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns,

untaught the ills of Eve nor was there any communion in her of light with

darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God ("Orat. in

S. Dei Genitr.").

In refuting Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have truly

known of sin "except the Holy Virgin Mary, of whom, for the honour of the

Lord, I will have no question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturâ

et gratiâ 36).

Mary was pledged to Christ (Peter Chrysologus, "Sermo cxl de Annunt.

B.M.V.");

it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity,

exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);

she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen.

ort.", I, 3);

she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other

natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);

when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare

to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John

Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).

The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St.

Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the

excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God,

alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity

...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy

Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues

in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure,

all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate

spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment .

... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate"

("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).

To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most

estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the

sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and

in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").

Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves

that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if

any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her

and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any

clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from

original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.

St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence

of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also

to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and

purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently

according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material

of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate

active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by

some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise

against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born

of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and

Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V,

ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich

which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.

From this summary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity from sin in her

conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the Greek

Church. The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar

passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting

them in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly

discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

The Conception of St. John the Baptist

A comparison with the conception of Christ and that of St. John may serve to

light both on the dogma and on the reasons which led the Greeks to celebrate at

an early date the Feast of the Conception of Mary.

The conception of the Mother of God was beyond all comparison more

noble than that of St. John the Baptist, whilst it was immeasurably

beneath that of her Divine Son.

The soul of the precursor was not preserved immaculate at its union with

the body, but was sanctified either shortly after conception from a previous

state of sin, or through the presence of Jesus at the Visitation.

Our Lord, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, was, by virtue of his

miraculous conception, ipso facto free from the taint of original sin.

Of these three conceptions the Church celebrates feasts. The Orientals have a

Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist (23 September), which dates

back to the fifth century, is thus older than the Feast of the Conception of Mary,

and, during the Middle Ages, was kept also by many Western dioceses on 24

September. The Conception of Mary is celebrated by the Latins on 8 December;

by the Orientals on 9 December; the Conception of Christ has its feast in the

universal calendar on 25 March. In celebrating the feast of Mary's Conception the

Greeks of old did not consider the theological distinction of the active and the

passive conceptions, which was indeed unknown to them. They did not think it

absurd to celebrate a conception which was not immaculate, as we see from the

Feast of the Conception of St. John. They solemnized the Conception of Mary,

perhaps because, according to the "Proto-evangelium" of St. James, it was

preceded by miraculous events (the apparition of an angel to Joachim, etc.),

similar to those which preceded the conception of St. John, and that of our Lord

Himself. Their object was less the purity of the conception than the holiness and

heavenly mission of the person conceived. In the Office of 9 December, however,

Mary, from the time of her conception, is called beautiful, pure, holy, just, etc.,

terms never used in the Office of 23 September (sc. of St. John the Baptist). The

analogy of St. John s sanctification may have given rise to the Feast of the

Conception of Mary. If it was necessary that the precursor of the Lord should be

so pure and "filled with the Holy Ghost" even from his mother's womb, such a

purity was assuredly not less befitting His Mother. The moment of St. John's

sanctification is by later writers thought to be the Visitation ("the infant leaped in

her womb"), but the angel's words (Luke, i, 15) seem to indicate a sanctification

at the conception. This would render the origin of Mary more similar to that of

John. And if the Conception of John had its feast, why not that of Mary?

PROOF FROM REASON

There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of

the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the

slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the

axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit,

ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been

free from the power of sin and from the first moment of her existence; God could

give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a

peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and to St. John the

Baptist. They were sanctified in their mother's womb, because by their preaching

they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for Christ.

Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to Mary. (A treatise of P.

Marchant, claiming for St. Joseph also the privilege of St. John, was placed on

the Index in 1833.) Scotus says that "the perfect Mediator must, in some one

case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless

there was some one person at least, in whose regard the wrath of God was

anticipated and not merely appeased."

THE FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

The older feast of the Conception of Mary (Conc. of St. Anne), which originated in

the monasteries of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the

modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object.

Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as

she kept the Feast of St. John's conception, not discussing the sinlessness.

This feast in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate

Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct

ideas, and as the thesis of the theological schools regarding the preservation of

Mary from all stain of original sin gained strength. Even after the dogma had been

universally accepted in the Latin Church, and had gained authoritative support

through diocesan decrees and papal decisions, the old term remained, and

before 1854 the term "Immaculata Conceptio" is nowhere found in the liturgical

books, except in the invitatorium of the Votive Office of the Conception. The

Greeks, Syrians, etc. call it the Conception of St. Anne (Eullepsis tes hagias kai

theoprometoros Annas, "the Conception of St. Anne, the ancestress of God").

Passaglia in his "De Immaculato Deiparae Conceptu," basing his opinion upon

the "Typicon" of St. Sabas: which was substantially composed in the fifth

century, believes that the reference to the feast forms part of the authentic

original, and that consequently it was celebrated in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem

in the fifth century (III, n. 1604). But the Typicon was interpolated by the

Damascene, Sophronius, and others, and, from the ninth to the twelfth centuries,

many new feasts and offices were added. To determine the origin of this feast we

must take into account the genuine documents we possess, the oldest of which

is the canon of the feast, composed by St. Andrew of Crete, who wrote his

liturgical hymns in the second half of the seventh century, when a monk at the

monastery of St. Sabas near Jerusalem (d. Archbishop of Crete about 720). But

the Solemnity cannot then have been generally accepted throughout the Orient,

for John, first monk and later bishop in the Isle of Euboea, about 750 in a

sermon, speaking in favour of the propagation of this feast, says that it was not

yet known to all the faithful (ei kai me para tois pasi gnorizetai; P. G., XCVI,

1499). But a century later George of Nicomedia, made metropolitan by Photius in

860, could say that the solemnity was not of recent origin (P. G., C, 1335). It is

therefore, safe to affirm that the feast of the Conception of St. Anne appears in

the Orient not earlier than the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth

century.

As in other cases of the same kind the feast originated in the monastic

communities. The monks, who arranged the psalmody and composed the various

poetical pieces for the office, also selected the date, 9 December, which was

always retained in the Oriental calendars. Gradually the solemnity emerged from

the cloister, entered into the cathedrals, was glorified by preachers and poets,

and eventually became a fixed feast of the calendar, approved by Church and

State. It is registered in the calendar of Basil II (976-1025) and by the

Constitution of Emperor Manuel I Comnenus on the days of the year which are

half or entire holidays, promulgated in 1166, it is numbered among the days

which have full sabbath rest. Up to the time of Basil II, Lower Italy, Sicily, and

Sardinia still belonged to the Byzantine Empire; the city of Naples was not lost

to the Greeks until 1127, when Roger II conquered the city. The influence of

Constantinople was consequently strong in the Neapolitan Church, and, as early

as the ninth century, the Feast of the Conception was doubtlessly kept there, as

elsewhere in Lower Italy on 9 December, as indeed appears from the marble

calendar found in 1742 in the Church of S. Giorgio Maggiore at Naples. Today the

Conception of St. Anne is in the Greek Church one of the minor feasts of the

year. The lesson in Matins contains allusions to the apocryphal

"Proto-evangelium" of St. James, which dates from the second half of the second

century (see SAINT ANNE). To the Greek Orthodox of our days, however, the feast

means very little; they continue to call it "Conception of St. Anne", indicating

unintentionally, perhaps, the active conception which was certainly not

immaculate. In the Menaea of 9 December this feast holds only the second

place, the first canon being sung in commemoration of the dedication of the

Church of the Resurrection at Constantinople. The Russian hagiographer

Muraview and several other Orthodox authors even loudly declaimed against the

dogma after its promulgation, although their own preachers formerly taught the

Immaculate Conception in their writings long before the definition of 1854.

In the Western Church the feast appeared (8 December), when in the Orient its

development had come to a standstill. The timid beginnings of the new feast in

some Anglo-Saxon monasteries in the eleventh century, partly smothered by the

Norman conquest, were followed by its reception in some chapters and dioceses

by the Anglo-Norman clergy. But the attempts to introduce it officially provoked

contradiction and theoretical discussion, bearing upon its legitimacy and its

meaning, which were continued for centuries and were not definitively settled

before 1854. The "Martyrology of Tallaght" compiled about 790 and the "Feilire" of

St. Aengus (800) register the Conception of Mary on 3 May. It is doubtful,

however, if an actual feast corresponded to this rubric of the learned monk St.

Aengus. This Irish feast certainly stands alone and outside the line of liturgicaI

development. It is a mere isolated appearance, not a living germ. The Scholiast

adds, in the lower margin of the "Feilire", that the conception (Inceptio) took

place in February, since Mary was born after seven months -- a singular notion

found also in some Greek authors. The first definite and reliable knowledge of the

feast in the West comes from England; it is found in a calendar of Old Minster,

Winchester (Conceptio S'ce Dei Genetricis Mari), dating from about 1030, and in

another calendar of New Minster, Winchester, written between 1035 and 1056; a

pontifical of Exeter of the eleventh century (assigned to 1046-1072) contains a

"benedictio in Conceptione S. Mariae "; a similar benediction is found in a

Canterbury pontifical written probably in the first half of the eleventh century,

certainly before the Conquest. These episcopal benedictions show that the feast

not only commended itself to the devotion of individuals, but that it was

recognized by authority and was observed hy the Saxon monks with

considerable solemnity. The existing evidence goes to show that thc

establishment of the feast in England was due to the monks of Winchester

before the Conquest (1066).

The Normans on their arrival in England were disposed to treat in a

contemptuous fashion English liturgical observances; to them this feast must

have appeared specifically English, a product of insular simplicity and ignorance.

Doubtless its public celebration was abolished at Winchester and Canterbury,

but it did not die out of the hearts of individuals, and on the first favourable

opportunity the feast was restored in the monasteries. At Canterbury however, it

was not re-established before 1328. Several documents state that in Norman

times it began at Ramsey, pursuant to a vision vouchsafed to Helsin or

AEthelsige, Abbot of Ramsey on his journey back from Denmark, whither he had

been sent by William I about 1070. An angel appeared to him during a severe

gale and saved the ship after the abbot had promised to establish the Feast of

the Conception in his monastery. However we may consider the supernatural

feature of the legend, it must be admitted that the sending of Helsin to Denmark

is an historical fact. The account of the vision has found its way into many

breviaries, even into the Roman Breviary of 1473. The Council of Canterbury

(1325) attributes the re-establishment of the feast in England to St. Anselm,

Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 1109). But although this great doctor wrote a

special treatise "De Conceptu virginali et originali peccato", by which he laid

down the principles of the Immaculate Conception, it is certain that he did not

introduce the feast anywhere. The letter ascribed to him, which contains the

Helsin narrative, is spurious. The principal propagator of the feast after the

Conquest was Anselm, the nephew of St. Anselm. He was educated at

Canterbury where he may have known some Saxon monks who remembered the

solemnity in former days; after 1109 he was for a time Abbot of St. Sabas at

Rome, where the Divine Offices were celebrated according to the Greek calendar.

When in 1121 he was appointed Abbot of Bury St. Edmund's he established the

feast there; partly at least through his efforts other monasteries also adopted it,

like Reading, St. Albans, Worcester, Cloucester, and Winchcombe.

But a number of others decried its observance as hitherto unheard of and absurd,

the old Oriental feast being unknown to them. Two bishops, Roger of Salisbury

and Bernard of St. Davids, declared that the festival was forbidden by a council,

and that the observance must be stopped. And when, during the vacancy of the

See of London, Osbert de Clare, Prior of Westminster, undertook to introduce the

feast at Westminster (8 December, 1127), a number of monks arose against him

in the choir and said that the feast must not be kept, for its establishment had

not the authority of Rome (cf. Osbert's letter to Anselm in Bishop, p. 24).

Whereupon the matter was brought before the Council of London in 1129. The

synod decided in favour of the feast, and Bishop Gilbert of London adopted it for

his diocese. Thereafter the feast spread in England, but for a time retained its

private character, the Synod of Oxford (1222) having refused to raise it to the rank

of a holiday of obligation. In Normandy at the time of Bishop Rotric (1165-83) the

Conception of Mary, in the Archdiocese of Rouen and its six suffragan dioceses,

was a feast of precept equal in dignity to the Annunciation. At the same time the

Norman students at the University of Paris chose it as their patronal feast. Owing

to the close connection of Normandy with England, it may have been imported

from the latter country into Normandy, or the Norman barons and clergy may

have brought it home from their wars in Lower Italy, it was universally solemnised

by the Greek inhabitants. During the Middle Ages the Feast of the Conception of

Mary was commonly called the "Feast of the Norman nation", which shows that

it was celebrated in Normandy with great splendour and that it spread from there

over Western Europe. Passaglia contends (III, 1755) that the feast was

celebrated in Spain in the seventh century. Bishop Ullathorne also (p. 161) finds

this opinion acceptable. If this be true, it is difficult to understand why it should

have entirely disappeared from Spain later on, for neither does the genuine

Mozarabic Liturgy contain it, nor the tenth century calendar of Toledo edited by

Morin. The two proofs given by Passaglia are futile: the life of St. Isidore, falsely

attributed to St. Ildephonsus, which mentions the feast, is interpolated, while, in

the Visigoth lawbook, the expression "Conceptio S. Mariae" is to be understood

of the Annunciation.

THE CONTROVERSY

No controversy arose over the Immaculate Conception on the European continent

before the twelfth century. The Norman clergy abolished the feast in some

monasteries of England where it had been established by the Anglo-Saxon

monks. But towards the end of the eleventh century, through the efforts of

Anselm the Younger, it was taken up again in several Anglo-Norman

establishments. That St. Anselm the Elder re-established the feast in England is

highly improbable, although it was not new to him. He had been made familiar

with it as well by the Saxon monks of Canterbury, as by the Greeks with whom

he came in contact during exile in Campania and Apulin (1098-9). The treatise

"De Conceptu virginali" usually ascribed to him, was composed by his friend and

disciple, the Saxon monk Eadmer of Canterbury. When the canons of the

cathedral of Lyons, who no doubt knew Anselm the Younger Abbot of Burg St.

Edmund's, personally introduced the feast into their choir after the death of their

bishop in 1240, St. Bernard deemed it his duty to publish a protest against this

new way of honouring Mary. He addressed to the canons a vehement letter

(Epist. 174), in which he reproved them for taking the step upon their own

authority and before they had consulted the Holy See. Not knowing that the feast

had been celebrated with the rich tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches

regarding the sinlessness of Mary, he asserted that the feast was foreign to the

old tradition of the Church. Yet it is evident from the tenor of his language that he

had in mind only the active conception or the formation of the flesh, and that the

distinction between the active conception, the formation of the body, and its

animation by the soul had not yet been drawn. No doubt, when the feast was

introduced in England and Normandy, the axiom "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit", the

childlike piety and enthusiasm of the simplices building upon revelations and

apocryphal legends, had the upper hand. The object of the feast was not clearly

determined, no positive theological reasons had been placed in evidence.

St. Bernard was perfectly justified when he demanded a careful inquiry into the

reasons for observing the feast. Not adverting to the possibility of sanctification at

the time of the infusion of the soul, he writes that there can be question only of

sanctification after conception, which would render holy the nativity not the

conception itself (Scheeben, "Dogmatik", III, p. 550). Hence Albert the Great

observes: "We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation,

and the affirmative contrary to this is the heresy condemned by St. Bernard in his

epistle to the canons of Lyons" (III Sent., dist. iii, p. I, ad 1, Q. i). St. Bernard

was at once answered in a treatise written by either Richard of St. Victor or Peter

Comestor. In this treatise appeal is made to a feast which had been established

to commemorate an insupportable tradition. It maintained that the flesh of Mary

needed no purification; that it was sanctified before the conception. Some writers

of those times entertained the fantastic idea that before Adam fell, a portion of

his flesh had been reserved by God and transmitted from generation to

generation, and that out of this flesh the body of Mary was formed (Scheeben,

op. cit., III, 551), and this formation they commemorated by a feast. The letter of

St. Bernard did not prevent the extension of the feast, for in 1154 it was observed

all over France, until in 1275, through the efforts of the Paris University, it was

abolished in Paris and other dioceses. After the saint's death the controversy

arose anew between Nicholas of St. Albans, an English monk who defended the

festival as established in England, and Peter Cellensis, the celebrated Bishop of

Chartres. Nicholas remarks that the soul of Mary was pierced twice by the

sword, i. e. at the foot of the cross and when St. Bernard wrote his letter against

her feast (Scheeben, III, 551). The point continued to be debated throughout the

thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and illustrious names appeared on each side.

St. Peter Damian, Peter the Lombard, Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, and

Albert the Great are quoted as opposing it. St. Thomas at first pronounced in

favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the "Sentences" (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad

3), yet in his "Summa Theologica" he concluded against it. Much discussion has

arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was

immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written

to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard

to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of

Mary, before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from

the doubt as to how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This

difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e. g.,

Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But while St. Thomas thus held back from the essential

point of the doctrine, he himself laid down the principles which, after they had

been drawn together and worked out, enabled other minds to furnish the true

solution of this difficulty from his own premises.

In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight

into the subject in dispute. The word "conception" was used in different senses,

which had not been separated by careful definition. If St. Thomas, St.

Bonaventure, and other theologians had known the doctrine in the sense of the

definition of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being

its opponents. We may formulate the question discussed by them in two

propositions, both of which are against the sense of the dogma of 1854:

1.the sanctification of Mary took place before the infusion of the soul into

the fiesh, so that the immunity of the soul was a consequence of the

sanctification of the flesh and there was no liability on the part of the soul

to contract original sin. This would approach the opinion of the

Damascene concerning the hoiiness of the active conception.

2.The sanctification took place after the infusion of the soul by redemption

from the servitude of sin, into which the soul had been drawn by its union

with the unsanctified flesh. This form of the thesis excluded an

immaculate conception.

The theologians forgot that between sanctification before infusion, and

sanctification after infusion, there was a medium: sanctification of the soul at the

moment of its infusion. To them the idea seemed strange that what was

subsequent in the order of nature could be simultaneous in point of time.

Speculatively taken, the soul must be created before it can be infused and

sanctified but in reality, the soul is created snd sanctified at the very moment of

its infusion into the body. Their principal difficulty was the declaration of St. Paul

(Romans 5:12) that all men have sinned in Adam. The purpose of this Pauline

declaration, however, is to insist on the need which all men have of redemption

by Christ. Our Lady was no exception to this rule. A second difficulty was the

silence of the earlier Fathers. But the divines of those times were distinguished

not so much for their knowledge of the Fathers or of history, as for their exercise

of the power of reasoning. They read the Western Fathers more than those of the

Eastern Church, who exhibit in far greater completeness the tradition of the

Immaculate Conception. And many works of the Fathers which had then been

lost sight of have since been brought to light. The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308)

at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true

doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that

from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification

after animation -- sanctificatio post animationem -- demanded that it should

follow in the order of nature (naturae) not of time (temporis); he removed the great

difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from

redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of

redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also brought

forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and doubtful argument of

Eadmer (S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit."

From the time of Scotus not only did the doctrine become the common opinion

at the universities, but the feast spread widely to those countries where it had not

been previously adopted. With the exception of the Dominicans, all or nearly all,

of the religious orders took it up: The Franciscans at the general chapter at Pisa

in 1263 adopted the Feast of the Conception of Mary for the entire order; this,

however, does not mean that they professed at that time the doctrine of the

Immaculate Conception. Following in the footsteps of their own Duns Scotus, the

learned Petrus Aureolus and Franciscus de Mayronis became the most fervent

champions of the doctrine, although their older teachers (St. Bonaventure

included) had been opposed to it. The controversy continued, but the defenders

of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the

Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basle

where the University of Paris, formerly opposed to the doctrine, proved to be its

most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition. The two referees at the

council were John of Segovia and John Turrecremata (Torquemada). After it had

been discussed for the space of two years before that assemblage, the bishops

declared the Immaculate Conception to be a doctrine which was pious,

consonant with Catholic worship, Catholic faith, right reason, and Holy Scripture;

nor, said they, was it henceforth allowable to preach or declare to the contrary

(Mansi, XXXIX, 182). The Fathers of the Council say that the Church of Rome was

celebrating the feast. This is true only in a certain sense. It was kept in a number

of churches of Rome, especially in those of the religious orders, but it was not

received in the official calendar. As the council at the time was not ecumenical, it

could not pronounce with authority. The memorandum of the Dominican

Torquemada formed the armoury for all attacks upon the doctrine made by St.

Antoninus of Florence (d. 1459), and by the Dominicans Bandelli and Spina.

By a Decree of 28 February, 1476, Sixtus IV at last adopted the feast for the

entire Latin Church and granted an indulgence to all who would assist at the

Divine Offices of the solemnity (Denzinger, 734). The Office adopted by Sixtus IV

was composed by Leonard de Nogarolis, whilst the Franciscans, since 1480,

used a very beautiful Office from the pen of Bernardine dei Busti (Sicut Lilium),

which was granted also to others (e. g. to Spain, 1761), and was chanted by the

Franciscans up to the second half of the nineteenth century. As the public

acknowledgment of the feast of Sixtus IV did not prove sufficient to appease the

conflict, he published in 1483 a constitution in which he punished with

excommunication all those of either opinion who charged the opposite opinion

with heresy (Grave nimis, 4 Sept., 1483; Denzinger, 735). In 1546 the Council of

Trent, when the question was touched upon, declared that "it was not the

intention of this Holy Synod to include in the decree which concerns original sin

the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God" (Sess. V, De peccato

originali, v, in Denzinger, 792). Since, however, this decree did not define the

doctrine, the theological opponents of the mystery, though more and more

reduced in numbers, did not yield. St. Pius V not only condemned proposition 73

of Baius that "no one but Christ was without original sin, and that therefore the

Blessed Virgin had died because of the sin contracted in Adam, and had endured

afilictions in this life, like the rest of the just, as punishment of actual and original

sin" (Denzinger, 1073) but he also issued a constitution in which he forbade all

public discussion of the subject. Finally he inserted a new and simplified Office of

the Conception in the liturgical books ("Super speculam", Dec., 1570; Superni

omnipotentis", March, 1571; "Bullarium Marianum", pp. 72, 75).

Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great

orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the

University of Paris decreed that henceforward no one should be admitted a

member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to

defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Toulouse followed the

example; in Italy, Bologna and Naples; in the German Empire, Cologne, Maine,

and Vienna; in Belgium, Louvain; in England before the Reformation. Oxford and

Cambridge; in Spain Salamanca, Tolerio, Seville, and Valencia; in Portugd,

Coimbra and Evora; in America, Mexico and Lima. The Friars Minor confirmed in

1621 the election of the Immaculate Mother as patron of the order, and bound

themselves by oath to teach the mystery in public and in private. The

Dominicans, however, were under special obligation to follow the doctrines of St.

Thomas, and the common conclusion was that St. Thomas was opposed to the

Immaculate Conception. Therefore the Dominicans asserted that the doctrine

was an error against faith (John of Montesono, 1373); although they adopted the

feast, they termed it persistently "Sanctificatio B.M.V." not "Conceptio", until in

1622 Gregory V abolished the term "sanctificatio". Paul V (1617) decreed that no

one should dare to teach publicly that Mary was conceived in original sin, and

Gregory V (1622) imposed absolute silence (in scriptis et sermonibus etiam

privatis) upon the adversaries of the doctrine until the Holy See should define the

question. To put an end to all further cavilling, Alexander VII promulgated on 8

December 1661, the famous constitution "Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum",

defining the true sense of the word conceptio, and forbidding all further

discussion against the common and pious sentiment of the Church. He declared

that the immunity of Mary from original sin in the first moment of the creation of

her soul and its infusion into the body was the object of the feast (Densinger,

1100).

EXPLICIT UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE

Since the time of Alexander VII, long before the final definition, there was no

doubt on the part of theologians that the privilege was amongst the truths

revealed by God. Wherefore Pius IX, surrounded by a splendid throng of cardinals

and bishops, 8 December 1854, promulgated the dogma. A new Office was

prescribed for the entire Latin Church by Pius IX (25 December, 1863), by which

decree all the other Offices in use were abolished, including the old Office Sicut

lilium of the Franciscans, and the Office composed by Passaglia (approved 2

Feb., 1849). In 1904 the golden jubilee of the definition of the dogma was

celebrated with great splendour (Pius X, Enc., 2 Feb., 1904). Clement IX added

to the feast an octave for the dioceses within the temporal possessions of the

pope (1667). Innocent XII (1693) raised it to a double of the second class with an

octave for the universal Church, which rank had been already given to it in 1664

for Spain, in 1665 for Tuscany and Savoy, in 1667 for the Society of Jesus, the

Hermits of St. Augustine, etc., Clement XI decreed on 6 Dec., 1708, that the

feast should be a holiday of obligation throughout the entire Church. At last Leo

XIII, 30 Nov 1879, raised the feast to a double of the first class with a vigil, a

dignity which had long before been granted to Sicily (1739), to Spain (1760) and

to the United States (1847). A Votive Office of the Conception of Mary, which is

now recited in almost the entire Latin Church on free Saturdays, was granted first

to the Benedictine nuns of St. Anne at Rome in 1603, to the Franciscans in

1609, to the Conventuals in 1612, etc. The Syrian and Chaldean Churches

celebrate this feast with the Greeks on 9 December; in Armenia it is one of the

few immovable feasts of the year (9 December); the schismatic Abyssinians and

Copts keep it on 7 August whilst they celebrate the Nativity of Mary on 1 May;

the Catholic Copts, however, have transferred the feast to 10 December (Nativity,

10 September). The Eastern Catholics have since 1854 changed the name of the

feast in accordance with the dogma to the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin

Mary."

The Archdiocese of Palermo solemnizes a Commemoration of the Immaculate

Conception on 1 September to give thanks for the preservation of the city on

occasion of the earthquake, 1 September, 1726. A similar commemoration is

held on 14 January at Catania (earthquake, 11 Jan., 1693); and by the Oblate

Fathers on 17 Feb., because their rule was approved 17 Feb., 1826. Between 20

September 1839, and 7 May 1847, the privilege of adding to the Litany of Loretto

the invocation, "Queen conceived without original sin", had been granted to 300

dioceses and religious communities. The Immaculate Conception was declared

on 8 November, 1760, principal patron of all the possessions of the crown of

Spain, including those in America. The decree of the first Council of Baltimore

(1846) electing Mary in her Immaculate Conception principal Patron of the United

States, was confirmed on 7 February, 1847.

Frederick G. Holweck

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII

Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org