The Immaculate Conception

A complete study of dogma from biblical and historical points of view

Doctrine

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved from every 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 the body.

«… in the first moment of its conception…» The term conception does not mean  active or generative conception by her parents. His body was formed in the womb of her mother, and her  father had the usual share in its formation. The issue does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of their parents. Nor does it concern absolutely and simply the passive conception (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 from every stain of original sin in the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could take effect on her soul.

“…was preserved from every stain of original sin…” The active formal essence of original sin was not removed from his soul as is removida from others by baptism; was excluida, was never simultaneous with the exclusion of sin. The state of original holiness, innocence and justice, as opposed to original sin, was bestowed upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions and weaknesses, essentially belonging to her soul by original sin, were excluded. But she was not exempt from the temporal punishments of Adam – pain, bodily illnesses and death.

“… by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race.” Immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the very merits of Christ, while other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the Savior’s redemption to obtain this exemption and be freed from need and debt (debitum) universal of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, due to her origin from Adam, would have been subject to sin, but, since the new Eve was the one who would be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal plan of God and by the merits of Christ, separated from the general law of original sin. His redemption was the true masterpiece of Christ’s redemptive wisdom. He who pays the debt he did not incur is a greater redeemer than he who pays after he has fallen into the debt.

This is the meaning of the term “Immaculate Conception.”

PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE

Genesis 3:15

It is not possible to extract direct or categorical or strict proof from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage that contains the promise of redemption also mentions the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Primitive Gospel (Proto-evangelium), who puts enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between you and the woman and her offspring; she (he) will crush your head when you lie in wait to bite his heel” (Genesis 3:15). The Vulgate translation “she” is interpretive; It has its origin after the 4th century, and cannot be defended critically. The consequence of the offspring of the woman, who will crush the head of the serpent, is Christ; the woman is Maria. God put enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure as there is enmity between Christ and the race of the serpent. That Mary was exalted in the state of her soul, that is, in sanctifying grace, means the destruction of the serpent by man. Only Mary’s continued union with grace sufficiently explains the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, contains in the original text a direct promise from the Redeemer. And in union with the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.

Luke 1:28

The greeting of the angel Gabriel –chaire kecharitomeneHail, full of grace (Luke 1:28) indicates a unique abundance of grace, a supernatural, God-pleasing state of soul, which finds explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. But the term kecharitomene (full of grace) serves only as an illustration, not as proof of dogma.

Other texts

From the texts Proverbs 8 and Sirach 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 Song of Songs (4:7, “You are all beautiful, my beloved, and have no defect”), a theological conclusion should not be induced. These passages, applied to the Mother of God, can be understood by those who know the privilege of Mary, but they do not serve to dogmatically prove the doctrine and are therefore omitted by the Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus.” For the theologian it is a matter of conscience not to adopt an extreme position to apply to a creature texts that may denote prerogatives of God.

PROOF FROM TRADITION

Regarding the sinlessness of Mary, the ancient Fathers are very cautious: some of them seem to have made some error in this matter.

But these scattered private opinions serve merely to show that theology is a progressive science. If we had to take into account four opinions of the entire doctrine of the Fathers on the sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, which particularly include the implicit experience of her Immaculate Conception, we would be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the Fathers we must insist on two points above all: her absolute purity and her position as the second Eve (cf. 1 Cor 15:22).

Mary as second Eve

This celebrated comparison between Eve, for some time immaculate and incorrupt – that is, not subject to original sin – and the Blessed Virgin is developed by:

The absolute purity of Mary

Patristic writings on Mary’s purity abound.

Saint John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) considers that the supernatural influence of God in Mary’s generation must also be extended to her parents. It says of them that during generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Spirit and freed from sexual lust. Consequently, according to Damascene, the human element of its origin, the material from which it was formed, has always been pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and of sanctity of the “conceptio carnis” was censored by some Western authors; It was argued by Pedro Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and others. Some writers taught that Mary was born of a virgin and was conceived in a miraculous way when Joachim and Anna met at the golden door of the temple (Trombelli, “Mari SS. Vita”, Sect. V, ii; Summa Aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the “Revelations” of Catherine Emmerich which contains the apocryphal legend of Mary’s miraculous conception).

In this summary it appears that the belief in Mary’s immunity from sin at her conception prevailed among the Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The rhetorical character, therefore, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from too forced tendencies and from interpretations in a strictly literal sense. The Greek Fathers never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.

The Conception of Saint John the Baptist

A comparison between the conception of Christ and that of Saint John can serve to illuminate the dogma and the reasons why the Greeks have celebrated the Feast of the Conception of Mary since ancient times.

The Church celebrates festivals of these three conceptions. The Orientals have a Feast of the Conception of Saint John the Baptist (September 23), which dates back to the 4th century, older than the Feast of the Conception of Mary, and, during the Middle Ages, it was also celebrated in several Western dioceses on September 24. The Conception of Mary is celebrated by Latinos on December 8; for the Orientals on December 9; The Conception of Christ has its feast in the universal calendar on March 25. Celebrating the feast of the Conception of Mary since ancient times, the Greeks do not consider the theological distinction of the active and passive conceptions, which was unknown to them. They do not consider it absurd to celebrate a conception that was not immaculate, as we see in the Feast of the Conception of Saint John. They solemnize the Conception of Mary perhaps because, according to the “Proto-evangelium” of James, it was preceded by a miraculous event (the appearance of an angel to Joachim, etc.), similar to that which preceded the conception of Saint John and that of the Lord himself. Its objective was less the purity of the conception than the holiness and heavenly mission of the conceived person. In the Office of December 9, however, Mary, from the moment of her conception, is called blessed, pure, holy, faithful, etc., terms never used in the Office of September 23 (sc. of Saint John the Baptist). The analogy of the sanctification of Saint John the Baptist has given prominence to the feast of the Conception of Mary. If it was necessary for the Lord’s precursor to be pure and “filled with the Holy Spirit” from his mother’s womb, such purity was no less convenient for His Mother. The moment of Saint John’s sanctification is, according to the latest writers, through the Visitation (“the child leaped in her womb”), but the words of the angel (Luke 1:15) seem to indicate a sanctification at conception. This would make Mary’s origin similar to that of John. And if John’s Conception was a celebration, why not Mary’s?

PROOF FROM REASON

There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the Son of God was formed, belonged to that of him who was a slave to the ancient enemy, whose power He came to destroy on the earth. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselm (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was appropriate that the Mother of the Redeemer be free from the power of sin from the first moment of her existence; God could give him this privilege, then he gave it to him. Again it is noted that a peculiar privilege was granted to the prophet Jeremiah and Saint John the Baptist. They were sanctified in the wombs of their mothers, because through their preaching they had a special participation in the work of preparing the way of Christ. Consequently, the highest prerogative is due to Mary. (A treatise by Father Marchant, also claiming for Saint Joseph the privilege of Saint John, was placed in the Index in 1833). Scotus said that “the perfect Mediator must, in any case, do the most perfect work of mediation, except in the case of a lesser person, in whose gaze the wrath of God was prevented and not merely appeased.”

THE FEAST OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

The ancient feast of the Conception of Mary (Conc. of St. Anne), which had its origin in the monasteries of Palestine at the earliest in the 7th century, and the modern feast of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their objectives. Originally the Church celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, maintaining the Feast of the conception of Saint John, without discussion of sinlessness. This festival became over the centuries the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, providing dogmatic argumentation on precise and correct ideas, just as the theses of theological schools on the preservation of Mary from all stains of original sin gained strength. Since then the dogma has been universally accepted in the Latin Church and has gained authority supported by diocesan decrees and papal decisions. The old term continued, and before 1854 the term “Immaculate Conceptio” is found nowhere except in the Invitatory of the Votive Office of the Conception. Greeks, Syrians, etc. They talk about the Conception of Saint Anne (Eullepsis tes hagias kai theoprometoros Annas, “the Conception of Saint Anne, the ancestor of God”). Passaglia in his “De Inmaculato Deiparae Conceptu” bases this opinion on the “Typicon” of Saint Sabas: which was substantially composed in the 5th century, a belief that indicates that the festival is part of the authentic original, and that consequently it was celebrated in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in the 5th century (III, n. 1604). But the Typicon was interpolated in the Damascene, Sophronius and others, and from the 9th century to the 12th century many new festivals and offices were added. To determine the origin of this festival we must take into account the genuine documents that we possess, the oldest of which is the canon of the festival, composed by Saint Andrew of Crete, who wrote his liturgical hymn in the second half of the 7th century, when he was a monk of the monastery of Saint Sabas near Jerusalem (…Archbishop of Crete around 720). But the Solemnity was not generally accepted throughout the East. John, first monk and last bishop of the Island of Euboea, around the year 750, speaking in a sermon in favor of the propagation of this festival, said that it was not yet known by all the faithful (ei kai me for all of you pasi glorizetai; P.G., XCVI, 1499). But a century later George of Nicomedia, made metropolitan by Photius in the year 860, said that the solemnity was not of recent origin (P.G., C, 1335). Therefore, it can be safely stated that the festival of the Conception of Saint Anne appears in the East no earlier than the end of the 7th century or the beginning of the 8th century.

Another similar case is the festival that had its origin in monastic communities. The monks, who arranged the psalmody and composed several poetic pieces for the service, also chose the date of December 9, which was always maintained in the Eastern calendar. Gradually the solemnity emerged from the cloister, entered the cathedrals, was glorified by preachers and poets, and eventually was fixed as a holiday on the calendar, approved by Church and State. It is recorded in the calendar of Basil II (976-1025) and in the Constitution of Emperor Manuel I Comnenus on the partially or totally festive days of the year, promulgated in 1166, counted between the days of rest. Until the time of Basil II, Lower Italy, Sicily and Sardinia were under the Byzantine Empire; The city of Naples was held by the Greeks until Roger II conquered it in 1127. Consequently, the influence of Constantinople was strong on the Neapolitan Church, and, at the beginning of the 9th century, the Feast of the Conception was undoubtedly celebrated there, as elsewhere in Lower Italy, on December 9, as it appears on the marble calendar founded in 1742 in the Church of St. George the Greater. Naples. Today the Conception of Saint Anne is a minor festival of the year in the Greek Church. The Matins prayer contains allusions to the apocryphal “Proto-evangelium” of Santiago, which dates from the second half of the 2nd century (see SANTA ANA). For today’s Greek Orthodoxy, however, the feast really means little: they continue to call it “St. Anne’s Conception,” unintentionally indicating, perhaps, the active conception that, admittedly, was not immaculate. In the Menaea of ​​December 9 this festival occupies only a secondary level, the first canon is sung in commemoration of the dedication of the Church of the Resurrection in Constantinople. The Russian hagiographer Muraview and several Orthodox authors raised their voices against the dogma after its promulgation, although their own preachers primarily taught the Immaculate Conception in their writings before the 1854 definition.

In the Western Church the festival appears (December 8) when in the East its development had stopped. The timid beginning of the new festival in some Anglo-Saxon monasteries in the 11th century, partly drowned out by the Norman conquest, was followed by its reception in some chapters and dioceses of the Anglo-Norman clergy. But the attempt to introduce it officially provoked contradiction and theoretical discussion regarding its legitimacy and meaning, which continued for centuries and was not definitively established before 1854. The “Martyrology of Tallaght” compiled around the year 790 and the “Feilire” of Saint Aengus (800) record the Conception of Mary on May 3. It is doubtful, however, that a current festival corresponded to this rubric in the teaching of the monk Saint Aengus. Certainly, this Irish festival stands alone and outside the line of liturgical development. It appears isolated, not as a living germ. The scholastics add, in the restricted margins of the “Feilire”, that conception (Inceptio) falls in February, and that Mary was born after the seventh month – a singular notion also found in some Greek authors. The definitive and reliable knowledge of the festival in the West came from England; It is found in the calendar of Old Minster, Winchester (Conceptio Sancta Dei Genitricis Maria), dated around 1030, and in another calendar of New Minster, Winchester, written between 1035 and 1056; an 11th-century Exeter pontifical (dated between 1046 and 1072) contains a “benedictio in Conceptione S. Mariae”; a similar blessing is found in a Canterbury pontifical written probably in the first half of the 11th century, certainly before the Conquest. These episcopal blessings show that the festival was not committed solely to the devotion of individuals, but was recognized by authority and observed by the Saxon monks with considerable solemnity. Evidence shows that the establishment of the festival in England was due to the monks of Winchester before the Conquest (1066).

The Normans, from their arrival in England, treated English liturgical observances in a contemptuous manner; To them this holiday appeared specifically English, a product of insular simplicity and ignorance. The public celebration was undoubtedly abolished in Winchester and Canterbury, but it did not die in the hearts of individuals, and at the first favorable opportunity they restored the festival in the monasteries. In Canterbury, however, it was not reestablished before 1328. Numerous documents state that in the time of the Normans it began in Ramsey, being granted to Helsin or Aethelsige, Abbot of Ramsey, upon returning from his voyage to Denmark, where he was sent by William I around the year 1070. An angel appeared to him during a strong gale and saved the ship after the abbot promised to establish the Feast of the Conception in her monastery. Despite considering the supernatural nature of the legend, we must admit that the sending of Helsin to Denmark is a historical fact. The explanation of the vision is found in several breviaries, including the Roman Breviary of 1473. The Council of Canterbury (1325) attributes the reestablishment of the festival to Saint Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (… 1109). But although this great doctor wrote a special treatise “De Conceptu virginali et originali peccato”, in which he leaves aside the principles of the Immaculate Conception, it is true that he could not introduce the festival in any way. The letter attributed to him, and which contains Helsin’s letter, is spurious. The main propagator of the festival after the Conquest was Anselmo, the nephew of Saint Anselm. Educated in Canterbury, he must have learned of all this from some Saxon monk who remembered the solemnity in previous times; After 1109 he was for a time abbot of St. Sabas in Rome, where the Divine Office was celebrated according to the Greek calendar. When he was appointed Abbot of St. Edmund of Bury in 1121, he established the festival there; in a way, at least through his efforts, other monasteries also adopted it, such as Roading, St. Albans, Worcester, Cloucester and Winchcombe.

But as the observance of some decreased to unheard-of and absurd limits, the ancient oriental festival was unknown to them. Two bishops, Roger of Salisbury and Bernard St. David, stated that the festival was prohibited by a council and that observance should be stopped. And when, with the see of London vacant, Osbert de Clare, Prior of Westminster, attempted to introduce the feast into Westminster (December 8, 1127), a group of monks attacked him in the choir and said that the feast should not be kept because there was no authority from Rome for its establishment (cf. Letter from Osbert to Anselm in Bishop, p. 24). The question was then brought before the Council of London in 1129. The synod decided in favor of the feast, and Bishop Gilbert of London adopted it in his diocese. It later spread in England, but for a time it had a private character, which is why the synod of Oxford (1222) refused to elevate it to the rank of a holy day of obligation. In Normandy, in the time of Bishop Rotric (1165-83), the Conception of Mary was a holy day of obligation with equal dignity to the Annunciation in the Archdiocese of Rouen and in six suffragan dioceses. At the same time, the Norman students of the University of Paris chose it as their patron saint’s day. Due to Normandy’s proximity to England, it could have been imported from the latter country to Normandy, or Norman men and clergy could bring it back from their wars in Lower Italy, where it was universally celebrated with solemnity 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 splendor and that it spread throughout Western Europe. Passaglia maintains (III, 1755) that the festival was celebrated in Spain in the 7th century. Bishop Ullathorne similarly found this view reasonable (p. 161). If this is true, it is difficult to understand why it completely disappeared in Spain later, since neither the genuine Mozarabic liturgy nor the 10th century Toledo calendar edited by Morin contain it. The two proofs that Passaglia gives are futile: the life of Saint Isidore, falsely attributed to Saint Ildefonso, which mentions the festival, is interpolated, while the expression “Conceptio S. Mariae” of the Visigothic Code refers to the Annunciation.

THE CONTROVERSY

We find no controversy about the Immaculate Conception on the European continent before the 12th century. The Norman clergy abolished the festival in some monasteries in England where it had been established by Anglo-Saxon monks. But towards the end of the 11th century, through the efforts of Anselm the Younger, it was taken up in numerous Anglo-Norman establishments. That Saint Anselm the Elder reestablishing the festival in England is highly unlikely, although it was not new to him. He was familiar with this either from the Saxon monks of Canterbury or from the Greeks with whom he came into contact during the exile in Campania and Apulin (1098-9). The treatise “De Conceptu virginali” that is usually attributed to him, was composed by his friend and disciple the Saxon monk Eadmer of Canterbury. When the canons of Lyon Cathedral, which I have no doubt learned about Anselm the Younger, Abbot of St. Edmund of Bury, personally introduced the feast into his choir after the death of his bishop in 1240, St. Bernard considered it his obligation to publicly protest against this new way of honoring Mary. He addressed a vehement letter against the canons (Epist. 174), in which he reproached them for having assumed such authority without having first consulted the Holy See. Unaware that the feast had been celebrated in the rich tradition of the Greek and Syrian Churches regarding the sinlessness of Mary, he claimed that the feast was foreign to the ancient tradition of the Church. It is evident, however, from the tenor of his language that he thought only of the active conception or the formation of the flesh, and that the distinction between the active conception, the formation of the body, and the animation of the soul had already been induced. Undoubtedly, when the festival was introduced in England and Normandy, the axiom “decuit, potuit, ergo fecit”, the childish piety and enthusiasm of the semplices, built on revelations and apocryphal legends, prevailed. The object of the festival was not clearly determined, and its positive theological reasons were not made evident.

Saint Bernard was completely sincere when he earnestly asked for the reasons for observing the feast. Not realizing the possibility of sanctification at the moment of the infusion of the soul, he wrote that one can only speak of sanctification after conception, which would make the birth holy, not the conception itself (Scheeben, “Dogmatik”, III, p. 550). Hence Albert the Great observes: “We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before the animation, and the statement contrary to this is condemned as heresy by Saint Bernard in his letter on the canons of Lyon” (III Sent., dist. iii, p. i, ad. 1, Q. i). Saint Bernard was immediately answered in a treatise written either by Richard of Saint Victor or by Pedro Comestor. This treatise appeals to the fact that there is a holiday that has been established to commemorate an unsustainable tradition. He maintains that Mary’s flesh did not need purification; that was sanctified before conception. Some writers of that time held the fantastic idea that before the fall of Adam, a portion of his flesh was reserved by God and transmitted from generation to generation, and that from this flesh the body of Mary was formed (Scheeben, op. cit., III, 551), and that this formation was commemorated with a festival. The letter of Saint Bernard did not foresee the extension of this festival. In 1154 it was observed throughout France, until 1275, when it was abolished in Paris and other dioceses through the efforts of the University of Paris. After the death of the saints the controversy returned between Nicholas of St. Alban, an English monk who advocated the establishment of the holiday in England, and Peter Cellense, the celebrated bishop of Chartres. Nicholas pointed out that Mary’s soul was pierced twice by the sword, i. e., at the foot of the cross and when Saint Bernard wrote the letter against his feast (Scheeben, III, 551). The debate continued during the 13th and 14th centuries, and illustrious names aligned themselves on both sides. Saint Peter Damian, Peter Lombard, Alexander of Hales, Saint Bonaventure and Albert the Great are cited in opposition. St. Thomas first spoke out in favor of the doctrine in his treatise on the “Sentences” (in I Sent. c. 44, q. 1 ad 3); however, in his Summa Theologica came to the opposite conclusion. Many discussions have arisen either in favor of St. Thomas or not denying that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate from the moment of her animation, and books have been written to deny that he reached that conclusion. However, it is difficult to say that St. Thomas did not at least briefly consider Mary’s later animation and her earlier sanctification. This great difficulty arises from the doubt of how she could have been redeemed if she did not sin. This difficulty is manifested in at least ten passages of his writings (see Summa III:27:2, ad 2). But although St. Thomas retained this as essential to his doctrine, he himself supplied the principles which, after being considered together and in relation to these works, gave rise to other thoughts that contributed to the solution of this difficulty from his own premises.

In the 13th century the opposition was largely due to the desire to clarify the subject in dispute. The word “conception” was used in different senses, which had not been separated from the definition. If St. Thomas, Saint Bonaventure and other theologians had known the meaning of the 1854 definition, they would have defended it firmly against their opponents. We can formulate the question discussed by them in two propositions, both contrary to the meaning of the dogma of 1854:

Theologians forgot that between sanctification antes of infusion and sanctification after of the infusion there was a middle ground: sanctification of the soul at the moment de the infusion. They seemed alien to the idea that what was subsequent in the order of nature could be simultaneous at a point in time. Speculatively considered, the soul would be created before it could be infused and sanctified, but in reality the soul is created and sanctified at the same moment of infusion into the body. His main difficulty was St. Paul’s statement (Romans 5:12) that all men have sinned in Adam. The proposal of this Pauline declaration, however, insists on the need that all men have for the redemption of Christ. Our Lady was no exception to this rule. A second difficulty was the silence of the first Fathers. But the theologians of that time were not distinguished so much by their knowledge of the Fathers or history, but by their exercise of the power of reasoning. They read the Western Fathers more than those of the Eastern Church, who expounded the tradition of the Immaculate Conception more completely. And some works of the Fathers that would have been lost from sight were brought to light. The famous Duns Scotus (… 1308) left (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both comments) the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly established and doubts dispelled in such a satisfactory manner that from then on the doctrine prevailed. He showed that sanctification after animation –sanctificatio post animationem- required that it be carried out in the order of nature (naturae) not time (tempis); He resolved the great difficulty of St. Thomas by showing that far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained from her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin. He also introduced, by way of illustration, the dangerous and dubious argument of Eadmer (Saint Anselm) “decuit, potuit, ergo fecit.”

From the time of Scotus the doctrine not only became common opinion in the universities, but the festival expanded throughout those countries where it had not previously been adopted. With the exception of the Dominicans, all or almost all religious orders assumed it: the Franciscans at the General Chapter of Pisa in 1263 adopted the Feast of the Conception of Mary throughout the Order; This, however, does not mean that they professed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception at this time. Following in the footsteps of Duns Scotus, his disciples Pedro Aureolo and Francisco de Mayrone were the most fervent defenders of the doctrine, although their former teachers (Saint Bonaventure included) had opposed it. The controversy continued, but the proponents of the opposite opinion were most of them members of the Dominican Order. In 1439 the dispute was brought before the Council of Basel, where the University of Paris, previously opposed to the doctrine, proving to be its most ardent defender, asked for a dogmatic definition. The two speakers at the council were Juan de Segovia and Juan Torquemada. After having been discussed for two years before the assembly, the bishops declared the Immaculate Conception as a pious doctrine, in accordance with Catholic worship, with the Catholic faith, with rational law and with Holy Scripture; From now on, they said, it was not permitted to preach or declare anything against it (Mansi, XXXIX, 182). The Fathers of the Council said that the Church of Rome was celebrating the feast. This is true only in a certain sense. It was kept in some churches in Rome, especially those of religious orders, but was not adopted into the official calendar. Since the council at that time was not ecumenical, it could not pronounce itself with authority. The memorandum of the Dominican Torquemada served as armor for any attack on the doctrine made by Saint Anthony of Florence (… 1459) and by the Dominicans Bandelli and Spina.

By a Decree of February 28, 1476, Sixtus IV finally adopted the feast for the entire Latin Church and granted an indulgence to all those who attended the Divine Offices of the solemnity (Denzinger, 734). The Office adopted by Sixtus IV was composed by Bernardo de Nogarolis, while the Franciscans used from 1480 a beautiful Office from the pen of Bernardino de Busti (Sicut Lilium), which was also granted to others (e.g. in Spain, 1761), and was sung by the Franciscans until the second half of the 19th century. As the public recognition of the party by Sixtus IV did not sufficiently calm the conflict, in 1483 he published a constitution in which he punished with excommunication anyone whose opinion was accused of heresy (grave nimis, September 4, 1483; Denzinger, 735). In 1546 the Council of Trent, when the question was addressed, declared that “it was not the intention of this Holy Synod to include in a decree what concerns the original sin of the Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God” (Sess. V, De peccato originali, v, in Denzinger, 792). Since this decree did not define the doctrine, the theologians who opposed the mystery, although reduced in number, did not give up. Saint Pius V not only condemned Bayo’s proposition 73 according to which “no other but Christ was without original sin and that, furthermore, the Blessed Virgin died because of the sin contracted in Adam, and suffered afflictions in this life, like the rest of the just, as punishment for actual and original sin” (Denzinger, 1073), but he also published a constitution in which he denied any public discussion of the subject. Finally he inserted a new and simplified Office of the Conception in the liturgical books (“Super speculum”, Dec. 1570; “Superni omnipotentis”, March 1571; “Bullarium Marianum”, pp. 72, 75).

While these disputes lasted, the great universities and most of the great orders became bastions of the defense of dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that from then on no one would be admitted as a member of the university who did not swear that he would do everything he could to defend and maintain the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Toulouse followed suit; in Italy, Bologna and Naples; in the German Empire, Cologne, Maine and Vienna; in Belgium, Leuven; in England, before the Reformation, Oxford and Cambridge; in Spain, Salamanca, Toledo, Seville and Valencia; in Portugal, 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 under oath they undertook to teach the mystery in public and private. The Dominicans, however, found themselves under a special obligation to follow the doctrines of St. Thomas, and the common conclusions of St. Thomas were opposed to the Immaculate Conception. The Dominicans, therefore, affirmed that the doctrine was an error against the faith (Juan de Montesano, 1373); Although they adopted the feast, they persistently spoke of “Sanctificatio B. M. V.”, not of “Conceptio”, until in 1622 Gregory V abolished the term “sanctificatio”. Paul V (1617) decreed that it should not be publicly taught that Mary was conceived in original sin, and Gregory V (1622) imposed absolute silence (in scriptis et sermonibus etiam privatis) on the opponents of the doctrine until the Holy See defined the issue. To put an end to all further musings, Alexander VI promulgated on December 8, 1661 the famous constitution “Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum”, defining the true meaning of the word conceptio, and prohibiting any further discussion against the common and pious sentiment of the Church. He declared that Mary’s immunity from original sin in the first moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into the body were objects of faith (Denzinger, 1100).

EXPLICIT UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE

From the time of Alexander VII until before the final definition, there was no doubt on the part of theologians that privilege was among the truths revealed by God. Finally Pius IX, surrounded by a splendid crowd of cardinals and bishops, promulgated the dogma on December 8, 1854. A new Office was prescribed for the entire Latin Church by Pius IX (December 25, 1863), by which he decreed that all other Offices in use be abolished, including the old Office Sicut lilium of the Franciscans and the office composed by Passaglia (approved on February 2, 1849). In 1904 the golden jubilee of the definition of dogma was celebrated with great splendor (Pius X, Enc., February 2, 1904). Clement IX had added an octave to the feast for the dioceses that were within the temporal possessions of the Pope (1667). Innocent Clement IX decreed on December 6, 1708 that the festival should be an obligation for the entire Church. Finally, Leo A votive office of the Conception of Mary, which is recited today in most of the Latin Church on Saturdays, was first granted to the Benedictine nuns of St. Anne in Rome in 1603, to the Franciscans in 1609, to the Conventuals in 1612, etc. The Syrian and Chaldean Churches celebrate this festival with the Greeks on December 9; In Armenia it is one of the few immovable holidays of the year (December 9); Ethiopian and Copt schismatics keep it on August 7, while they celebrate the Nativity of Mary on May 1; Coptic Catholics, however, have transferred the holiday to December 10 (Nativity, September 10). The Eastern Churches changed the name of the festival in 1854 in accordance with the dogma of the “Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.”

The Archdiocese of Palermo solemnly celebrates the Commemoration of the Immaculate Conception on September 1 to give thanks for the preservation of the city on the occasion of the earthquake of September 1, 1726. A similar commemoration is celebrated on January 14 in Catania (earthquake, January 11, 1693); and the Oblate Fathers on February 17, because their rule was approved on February 17, 1826. Between September 20, 1839 and May 7, 1847 the privilege of adding to the Litany of Loreto the invocation “Queen conceived without original sin” was granted to 300 dioceses and religious communities. The Immaculate Conception was declared on September 8, 1760 as the main patron saint of all the possessions of the crown of Spain, including those of America. The decree of the first Council of Baltimore (1846), electing Mary at her Immaculate Conception as Principal Patroness of the United States, was confirmed on February 7, 1847.

Author: Frederick G. Holweck
Translator: Father José Demetrio Jiménez, OSA

Source: Encyclopedia Catholic