Mickey << The often quoted Latin Catholic theologian, saint, and doctor of the Church–Thomas Aquinas–did not subscribe to this strange dogma. >>
Here is what St. Thomas Aquinas did teach:
“
Since Mary would not have been a worthy mother of God if she had ever sinned, we assert without qualification that Mary never committed a sinful act, fatal or non-fatal: You are wholly beautiful, my love, and without blemish. Christ is the source of grace, author of it as God and instrument of it as man, and, since Mary was closest to Christ in giving him his human nature, she rightly received from him fullness of grace (cf. Luke 1:28) : grace in such abundance as to bring her closest in grace to its author, receiving into herself the one who was full of every grace [for others], and, by giving birth to him, bringing grace to all.” (St. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica IIIa:27.4-5)
The whole “debate” during the medieval period was whether Mary was sinless
from conception, or sinless
after conception but cleansed
before birth. The personal sinlessness of Mary from her birth was already well-settled at this point. The question is whether this extended to her conception and made her free of original sin. You can read my
entire article to see how this “debate” was resolved by Blessed John Duns Scotus.
Contrast this with the “debate” in this thread that anti-Catholic evangelicals want to bring up: Mary was a sinner just like every other Christian (and they quote Romans 3:23 to that effect). That is clearly the “innovation” in the history of the Church, and this shows that anti-Catholic evangelicals are completely out of touch with even what the original Protestant Reformers believed about Mary:
“In regard to the Marian doctrine of the Reformers, we have already seen how unanimous they are in all that concerns Mary’s holiness and perpetual virginity. Whatever the theological position which we may hold today, in regard to the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary it is right to know, perhaps to our great surprise, that these two Catholic dogmas were accepted by certain Reformers, not of course in their present form but certainly in the form that was current in their day.” (Max Thurian,
Mary: Mother of All Christians, page 197)
Martin Luther, the German founder of the Lutherans, certainly believed in the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, and some argue he accepted the Immaculate Conception as well (see his quote in my article, from Sermon on the Day of the Conception of Mary, Mother of God, 1527; cited in Thurian, page 197)
Ulrich Zwingli, the Swiss Protestant Reformer, does not see (unlike some Calvinist arguments) in the assertion of Mary’s perfect sanctity any violation of Christ’s humanity (see his quote in my article, from Annotationes in Evangelium Lucae, and sermon on “Mary, ever virgin, Mother of God” in 1524, cited in Thurian, page 23, 76)
Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), “who represents the second generation of the Reformation and a kind of stabilization of Reformed doctrine,” and who was Cranmer’s brother-in-law, and Zwingli’s successor said:
“What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them…”; “…And if she who was wholly pure from her birth did not disdain to be purified, that is to say to receive the blessing of purification, is this not all the more reason why those who fall under the yoke of the law by reason of their real impurity should observe the same?”; “…we believe, that the pure and immaculate embodiment of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, the Temple of the Holy Spirit, that is to say her saintly body, was carried up into heaven by the angels…” (cited in Thurian, page 89, 197, 198)
French Reformed pastor Charles Drelincourt (1595-1669), “who well represents the Reformed tradition of the 17th century”:
“We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God.” (cited in Thurian, page 89)
The “debate” in this thread is ridiculous considering the above. If you want to argue some nuance between east and west on original sin, that’s fine. I have a quote from Orthodox theologian Meyendorff to that effect:
“Quotations can easily be multiplied, and they give clear indications that the Mariological piety of the Byzantines would probably have led them to accept the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary as it was defined in 1854 [by Pope Pius IX], if only they had shared the Western doctrine of original sin.” (John Meyendorff,
Byzantine Theology, page 148)
The difference between east and west at this point is not over the sinlessness of Mary, but over our differences on original sin. We all (Catholics and Orthodox) teach she is the All-Holy (
Panagia) Mother of God. It is clearly the much later Protestant (non-Catholic) Christians who are the innovators on this doctrine.
ALL the evidence is layed out in my article.
Phil P
