Infallibility and the Immaculate Conception

It is absolutely true that both St. Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas opposed the idea of the Immaculate Conception as it existed in their day. Theology is, after all, a science that understands things over time and after much hard work.

During the early years of the Church you have the likes of Origen (born in 185) saying that Mary was the “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). Earlier still, St. Justin Martyr (born around 100) was saying much the same thing. St. Ephræm (died in 373) writes: “Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother there is no stain” (Carm. Nisib. 27). St. Augustine (born 354) says that we must leave Mary “entirely out of the question, when the talk is of sin” (De natura et gratia 36,42). St. Ambrose (born 340) says “she is incorrupt, a virgin immune through grace from every stain of sin” (Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii). This should establish that the idea of Mary being without sin was something accepted early in the history of the Church. (An interesting question arises: how do Protestant theologians feel about the writings of these authors? I know that some Protestant denominations accept at least St. Augustine.)

By the seventh century, the Immaculate Conception had become a feast day in the Greek Eastern Church, and toward the end of the century it is documented in England, Ireland and Italy (Conceptio Beatæ Mariæ Virginis).

At the beginning of the 12th century a full treatise was written on the subject by an English monk named Eadmer (pronounced Eyed-mer, with a short e in the second syllable). This is also about the time that the Feast of the Immaculate Conception moves from Ireland to France (and on to the rest of Western Europe). St. Bernard of Clairvaux raised the first objections shortly after the Feast arrived in France.

Now, the key to this is in the timing and in Eadmer’s writings. Eadmer’s work specifically stated that Mary was exempted from Original Sin, and that it never touched her. This was the innovation – the total exemption from Original Sin. St. Bernard objected to this on the biblical grounds that Mary herself said that she was a sinner and in need of salvation. St. Bernard, and more thoroughly St. Thomas Aquinas, said that the only legitimate means of sanctification for Mary would have been after conception. They still agreed with sanctification in utero, but they disagreed strongly with Eadmer’s exemption from Original Sin. Eadmer’s work could not be reconciled with the universality of Original Sin and the need of all mortals for redemption.

Enter William of Ware and John Duns Scotus. They eventually discovered the correct interpretation of the Tradition. William of Ware first suggested that sanctification could take place at the same instant as conception. Thus, Mary was indeed free from original sin and in need of a redeemer like all other mortals. Scotus went on to say that the redemption of Mary was the most perfect kind of redemption. If a son had the ability to redeem his mother in such a manner, why would he not do so? Through a singular act of divine intervention, God filled Mary’s soul with Sanctifying Grace at the moment she was conceived. This is, in essence, what the doctrine teaches today: “The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.”

Now, having William of Ware and John Duns Scotus discover the eventual solution did not stop the debate. In fact, the Franciscans and the Dominicans took opposite sides of the discussion for several hundred years. By the 17th century, many popes had spoken out in favor of the doctrine in terms we would recognize today, but they did not speak in a formal way.

In 1854, after consulting and discussing the issue with the bishops, Pius IX spoke ex cathedra on the subject and declared it a dogma of the faith.

Now, take note of one important aspect of this discussion. The ideas behind the Immaculate Conception existed, at least in general terms, for hundreds of years before Eadmer’s paper. It is only after Eadmer that confusion enters into the discussion, and an element of the Church takes note and begins trying to search out the truth. Aquinas did disagree with the doctrine as it existed in his time (Aquinas died at about the same time William of Ware started writing, and John Duns Scotus was later still). But as John Henry Cardinal Newman has said, Aquinas would likely leap with joy at the pronouncement made in 1854 as it satisfied all his objections.

In fact, let’s let Cardinal Newman speak for himself:

“The point in question is, whether the doctrine is a burden. I believe it to be none. So far from it being so, I sincerely think that St. Bernard and St. Thomas, who scrupled at it in their day, had they lived into this, would have rejoiced to accept it for its own sake. Their difficulty, as I view it, consisted in matters of words, ideas, and arguments. They thought the doctrine inconsistent with other doctrines; and those who defended it in that age had not that precision in their view of it, which had been attained by means of the long disputes of the centuries which followed. And in this want of precision lay the difference of opinion, and the controversy.” Apologia Pro Vita Sua

It is perfectly understandable to see this as “post-hoc rationalization” when looked at from the early 21st century - the era of instant and constant news that is digested in a matter of seconds. But in reality, this is a long search for the truth that took something like 650 years and involved some of the finest philosophical minds in the history of humanity.

An infallible pronouncement does not bring fourth a new doctrine. It simply clears up confusion.