Mary, Conceived Without Sin


Roman Catholics who utilize the devotion of the Medal of Our Lady of Grace, otherwise known as the Miraculous Medal devotion, will often pray “O Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee“. This is based on private revelations from the Virgin Mary to St. Catherine Labouré in the early to mid 19th century.

Those Christians who have been trained or indoctrinated in the schools coming out from the Protestant Reformation almost instinctively look at this as idolatry, superstition, and heretical. Besides this being a dubious revelation to reinforce the errors of Rome, this prayer “O Mary, conceived without sin” is surely an aberrant idea in direct contradiction with the Gospel and Holy Scripture.

I’d like to point something I observed today as I was reading one of the best works on Mariology one could find, Rev. M.J. Schebeen’s 2 Volumes Mariology. Schebeen does not make this observation, but I was drawn to it by reading his section on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Here, Schebeen was pointing out the fact that the principles by which the early Church fathers justified their beliefs that the Virgin Mary was “all-holy”, “spotless”, “immaculate”, and “without any stain of sin” likened unto Jesus Christ, would have easily justified the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Those familiar with the debates which took place in the Latin Church on the subject of the Virgin’s conception in the womb of St. Anne will be familiar with the difficulty of trying to say whether she must have been sanctified at the precise moment of her conception, effectively preserving her from any and all contact with sin, or perhaps a moment after that. It should be kept in mind that no party in this debate ever questioned the Virgin’s absolute sinlessness, nor her preservation from all actual sins. The theologians were already of one mind on this question – Mary was sinless.

But how did Christian arrive at such an “aberrant” perspective on this, asks the Protestant. The biblical authors, as well as the consensus of the Church fathers, all testify to the fact that “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:24). Christ’s mission to save sinners is universal, and therefore every human being who is to receive this salvation (and this includes the Virgin Mary) is certainly a sinner in need of it. St. Augustine, above all others, was adamant on the universal depravity of the human race marred by its first parent, Adam. For Protestants, saving an exception to the mighty current of this universal rule of human sinfulness to anyone, whether it be the Virgin Mother of God or anyone else, would take quite an exceptional force. So clear and unmistakable, they say, are the words of Holy Writ: “If we say we have no sin, we deceived ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Even the slightest entertainment that someone might not be subject to this divine decree would appear the fall guilty of wanting people deceived.

It is only a sign of good health in the mind of a theologian to hold it as a given that Mary would be included in the universal contagion of original sin and its effects in the life of each individual (i.e. enslaved to sin), unless some extraordinary grounds would provide for an exception. It was just the mind of St. Augustine who, even amidst his arguments which demonstrated all humanity as subjugated under the power of sin, had ample reason in his own mind to save room for the Virgin Mary.

In his De Natura et GratiaSt. Augustine responded to Pelagius who stated that so many Old Testament saints had lived without any sin including, most especially, the “‘mother of our Lord and Saviour, for of her’, he says, ‘we must needs allow that her piety had no sin in it'”. 
For Pelagius, St. Augustine’s doctrine of massa damnata would engulf those who were sinless under the power of sin. And so he thought he could contradict this by pointing to the lives of certain Saints, but above all, the Virgin Mary who he thought required the belief that she had no sin.

To this St. Augustine responds: “We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.“. So here is the early Church theologian of original sin himself, the chief scholar of universal damnation and the need for God’s grace, and the best expositor of unconditional predestination, and yet he is not found having the trouble which the Protestant finds himself when he instinctively is repulsed by the thought that the Virgin Mary could be counted as excepted from the law of sin. And why? No particular compelling rationale is given other than the Virgin’s close proximity to our Lord Jesus Christ, in particular, her being His mother. The divine maternity of the blessed Virgin Mary was sufficient enough for this Patristic doctor to make exception for the Virgin Mary, on account of God’s mercy and grace.

It is therefore to no wonder that other Church Fathers were consistent with St. Augustine in here in referring to the Virgin as absolutely sinless and without any stain whatsoever. What could cause such conservative men who were well aware of the universality of original and actual sin, to make an exception for the Virgin? It could only be because the early Christian tradition provided ample testimony to do so. And if this was already acceptable at so early a time and by so conservative a theologian, then this should be just enough reason for the Protestant to reconsider. And if the Virgin Mary is to be thought preserved from all actual sins, quite appropriately, then the same principle, only applied stronger, would equally justify the idea that the Virgin was preserved from all sin such that even at her first moment of existence, the sanctifying grace of God snuffed out any chance of sin being contracted in her life.

Interestingly enough, St. Augustine’s doctrine on original sin was so scandalous to certain theologians, not least Pelagius, and one such as the famous anti-Augustinian Julianus had objected to original sin with these words:

“Jovinianus destroyed the virginity of Maryby the manner of her giving birth; but you surrender Mary herself to the devil by the manner of her birth”

In other words, the heretic Jovinianus insulted the Virgin by his insistence that she had more children than our Lord (c.f. St. Jerom’s refutation), and now St. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin adds a second insult by the insistence of all men being born subject to original sin, thereby rendering our Lady’s birth as that of being subjugated under sin. Well, let’s be clear here: the worries of 5th-century theologians regarding the Virgin aren’t anything close to modern Protestant worries. Who is worried in the Protestant realm of having their theology entail that the Virgin is touched by sin, or that she had other children besides the Lord? This goes to show the difference between the Protestant world and the Patristic church. In any case, St. Augustine responds to this charge by saying the following: “We do not surrender Mary to the devil by the manner of her birth, but because the condition of her birth is explained by the grace of her rebirth” (Opu imperf. contra Julianum, IV, 122; PL, XLV.1418; text from Julian above quoted by Augustine, ibid.1417; English taken from Schebeen, Mariology p. 73). Schebeen comments on this saying, “If St. Augustine had wished to say simply, that because of her later rebirth (later in life), he did not consign Mary to the devil forever, his answer would miss the mark and would have to be understood quite differently. In other words, he sees in this an insinuation that the Virgin was cleansed, in St. Augustine’s mind, somewhere near her birth in order to stave off the refutation of Julianus.

Whether this has any merit, it is clear that the principles underlying the theology of both Julianus and St. Augustine, namely, that the purity and sinlessness of the Virgin must be protected as the ideal necessity and the most appropriate assumption, would only lead one to conclude that something like Blessed Dun Scotus’s reconciliation of how the Virgin could have been sanctified at the very precise moment of her conception follows by the force of reason, if nothing else.


3 thoughts on “Mary, Conceived Without Sin

  1. Pingback: Maria, Concebida sem Pecado - Veritatis Splendor

  2. After reading a bit and thinking, I have a few more questions to ask that I hope you could answer:

    1) Regarding the letter of 1 Clement, would this early Church document be excellent 1st century evidence of the Papacy and unijury? In the letter, the writer describes the Roman Church engaging with the Corinthian church in order to bring back wrongly deposed elders. From what I have read, it does so with it’s own authority, kind of like how Athanasius was brought back by Rome, so it would seem this demonstrates the earliest instance of the Roman Chuch having jurisdiction beyond it’s regional borders. What do you think?

    2) What would you say of arguments in favor of the papacy that point out that even in Deuteronomy and in early Judaism, there was the position of High Priest who was uniquely close to God in that only he could enter the room where the Ark was and make the animal sacrifice, and was also president of the Sanhedrin, and the High Priest who presided over the rest was in charge of making finalised jurisdictional decisions and judgements when there were significant disagreements that needed to be solved. Would prototypes and examples from the Old Covenant be additional arguments in favor of Papal supremacy?

    3) In your articles on Maximus the Confessor, you point out how more recent Orthodox scholars accept the authenticity of the Latin-only manuscripts of Maximus where the notorious Papal supremacy statements are made, and try to get around interpreting those statements in a Catholic manner in various ways. But what are the reasons for why modern Orthodox scholarship has refrained from the more obvious and historically previous option of denying that the pro-Papal writings of Maximus are authentic at all, precisely because they are all suspiciously found only in Latin and no Greek manuscripts of them exist? Would those reasons be based on accurate historical developments that argue in favor of those Latin-only manuscripts?

    4) Out of all well-known eastern saints who speak about the papacy in a Catholic fashion, Theodore the Studite seems to be the most clear and undeniable example of someone who had a view of the papacy that cannot be reconciled with any ecclesiology other than a Catholic one. Eastern Orthodox seem to have only the options of either denying the authenticity of Theodore’s more Catholic letters and writings, or by reinterpreting what he wrote in a non-Catholic way. Would it be accurate to say, in your experience at least, that the vast majority (if not all) Eastern Othodox admit the authenticity of those statements of Theodore, but they all just try to interpret it as flattery (which seems to be the only reinterpretation possible for them)?

  3. Can I ask you a question like what St,Thomas Aquinas who had difficulty on when was the exact moment Mary was sanctified.
    1. The Dogma stated “at the first instant” of conception Mary was “preserved”, please take note of this definition, the Church used the word “preserved” and not “sanctified”,, does it means the “sanctification happened” at an earlier stages?
    2. St.Thomas believed Mary was sanctified at post conception right?
    3. In regards to the word “preserved”, in your opinion or if you can expound why would the Church used the word “preserved”, the way I look at it, before the moment of conception, satan can still influence his malice thru the “marital act” of St.Joachim and St.Anne and also can influence the seed coming from St.Joachim and corrupted it.
    So, if the Dogma stated Mary was sanctified at the first instant of conception, it means that Mary’s existence was cleanse of original sin and stain, it only means that the marital act and the seed of St..joachim was tainted with Satan malice. If we believe this view, then Mary is not worthy to be the Ark of the Covenant and the perennial enmity was not absolute because Mary’s existence was touch by Satan, and because the Ark of the Covenant was made of purified gold and incorruptible acacia.
    It would mean, Mary was made from corruptible seed of St.Joachim and was a product of marital act tainted with concupiscence. The serpent had touch the Woman, and the enmity is not absolute and it is opposed to St.JP2 teachings saying Mary and Satan enmity was absolute, there is no moment wherein Satan had touch the existence of Mary even from the seed.
    Can you enlighten me on this difficulty?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s