Clearly, there was not a unanimous opinion among the CFs on Mary’s sinlessness. But as a matter of logic and common sense, one side must be right and the other wrong, despite the lack of unanimity. Either she was sinless (as maintained by some CFs) or she wasn’t (as suggested by others). Neither side can point to a “consensus view” to decide the issue (and, unsurprisingly, many CFs didn’t address the question one way or the other at all). Do you see my point here? Deniers of Mary’s sinlessness, relying on Tradition, have no unanimity to support their position. Mary’s “sinfulness” is not a unanimous opinion of the CFs (far from it), nor does the Bible contain a verse explicitly stating that “Mary sinned.” In other words, the notion that Mary sinned also
fails a wooden application of St. Vincent’s famous maxim (“quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus”), if that maxim is taken too literally and is not balanced with his explicit acknowledgement that doctrine does in fact develop through the Church’s ever-deepening understanding of divine revelation (Notebooks 54 "But perhaps someone is saying: ‘Will there, then, be no progress of religion in the Church of Christ?’ Certainly there is, and the greatest. For who is there so envious toward men and so exceedingly hateful toward God, that he would try to prohibit progress? But it is truly progress and not a change of faith.
What is meant by progress is that something is brought to an advancement within itself; by change, something is transformed from one thing into another. It is necessary, therefore, that understanding, knowledge, and wisdom grow and advance strongly and mightily as much in individuals as in the group, as much in one man as in the whole Church, and this gradually according to age and the times; and this must take place precisely within its own kind, that is, in the same teaching, in the same meaning, and in the same opinion”]). People who rely on conflicts between CFs on a given point employ a double standard in their reasoning (Protestant apologists, in particular, seem to do this, even using this “conflict methodology” to dismiss such a core belief of the CFs as the Real Presence in the Eucharist – a conclusion both RCs and EOs would agree is absolutely ludicrous).
Yet, over the centuries, culminating in Duns Scotus’ “anticipatory redemption” breakthrough realization in the Middle Ages (meaning that someone can be redeemed if, by a special act of God, that person is preserved from sinning altogether), the Church came to understand that Mary was sinless and that she was immaculately conceived (i.e., preserved from the stain of Original Sin in the first instance of her conception, meaning that God “saved” her through the Christ’s redemption in an anticipatory manner). Ultimately, the Church infallibly declared the Immaculate Conception to be
de fide in 1854. In doing so, the Church decided, once and for all, which CFs were right (e.g., Ephraim, Augustine) and which were wrong (e.g., Origen, Chrysostom). Indeed, there is much in both Scripture and Tradition to support the Church’s realization; I can only briefly touch on three such items here:
- The idea that Mary was the “New Eve” is undoubtedly an Apostolic Tradition, the analogy having been made by such early CFs as St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus (In fact, the Gospel of John itself hints that Mary was the New Eve by identifying Mary with “the woman” in Gen. 3:15 – see Jn. 2:5-11; Jn. 19:26-27; see also Rev. 12, suggesting that the Apostle John himself was most likely the source of this Apostolic Tradition). The title “New Eve” calls attention to Mary’s cooperation in our redemption. Now, this role as Second Eve in the history of our redemption would seem to fit awkwardly with the hypothesis that Mary was a sinner. How could she fulfill her lofty office of leading the opposition to the devil if she had been herself at one time a slave of the devil, a sinner? Furthermore, we know that the Second Adam, Jesus, was free from sin. By analogical extension, therefore, it is not unreasonable to think of Mary as enjoying this privilege as well. The Genesis text speaks of a mutual enmity between the devil and the Second Eve, an enmity which is shared by Christ, the “seed.” Obviously in the case of Christ the enmity is perfect, which it would not be if he had ever sinned. Couldn’t this same reasoning be applied to Mary? Finally, it would be unfitting if Second Eve, who as the antitype of the First Eve surpasses her in excellence, should herself have an origin that was less perfect than the First Eve. But Eve, from the first moment of her existence, was free from Original Sin, and so it seems reasonable to infer that Mary also would enjoy this privilege. Indeed, the Old Testament “types” are always surpassed by their New Testament fulfillments, meaning that while Eve later fell into sin, Mary didn’t.
continued…
