The Immaculate Conception
The Immaculate Conception
Excerpt from The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary
What is the Immaculate Conception and why is it so important that it was made a dogma of the Catholic faith? These are questions that we will examine over the next four Saturdays with a series looking at this dogma of the faith which is expounded in the book The Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God: A Dogma of the Catholic Church (1893, Pages 32-45).
While the belief of the Immaculate Conception had long been held true and believed by many faithful and theologians throughout the history of the Church it wasn’t until 1854 that it was definitively declared a dogma of the Catholic faith when Blessed Pope Pius IX issued his bull Ineffibilis Deus.
The basis for the belief of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary, as the tabernacle of our Lord and Savior, was granted the single privelage of being conceived without the stain of Original Sin. As the Mother of God she was given special graces to protect her purity.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of God and our Mother, pray for us that we may serve and honor your Son our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Yours in Mary and Jesus.
The Immaculate Conception
“ The Blessed Virgin is ever ready to listen to those who invoke her in justice and truth; she especially assists those whom she perceives have made sincere efforts to become, like her, chaste and humble ; if, at the same time, they add to these virtues, charity .” St. Bernard
Chapter 1 - PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS THE STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE AND THE NATURE OF THE PROOF WHICH SUSTAINS IT.
Had the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin stood prominently forward in the history of Redemption, as does the doctrine of the Incarnation, or that of the Holy Trinity, without belief in which, no man might hope for salvation, doubtless long ere this it would have been like those, not merely taught in the Church, but also solemnly defined, as now, an article of Faith. But, in the words of St. Bridget, “ as the Church was not principally founded upon Our Lady, but upon her Son, our Lord, it seemed good to God, who makes His light to shine in an admirable manner, and causes it to appear, as sings the Psalmist David, from the tops of the mountains, He elucidates first the fundamental truths necessary to our salvation, and after that, in the abundance of His mercy, he causes us to see clearly other things, which, though of less importance, serve to direct our minds, and inflame them with more ardent love.” {Rev. lib. vi., cap. 61.) There wanted nothing to the perfect and complete triumph of our blessed and ever-venerable Mother, the Immaculate Virgin Mary, but this act of the Catholic Church, declaring her exempt from every, even the least stain, of sin. Each successive age of Christianity has been adorned with multitudes of pious souls, who have sighed and longed to be eye-witnesses of this inevitable decree, which pronounces Mary never for one instant to have been the enemy of God, the ally of the devil, and the heiress of eternal damnation. That, which their pious hearts sighed for in vain, and which their longing eyes strained to behold, without the fruition of their desire, we now have the unspeakable happiness of hearing, seeing, and assisting to proclaim to the world. Happy they, who fail not to understand their privilege, and who suffer it to influence their devotion!
Viewed apart from every prejudice, and in the full light of God’s plan for the redemption of fallen man, nothing would seem to be so absolutely clear, so essentially true, so necessary a part of that plan, as the exemption of His Virgin Mother from every taint of sin. What was that plan by which mankind were to be redeemed? It was, that the Son of God, descending from heaven, should assume our flesh, sinless, and die for us. But how should He assume sinless, untainted flesh, if she, through whom he condescended to derive it, had already been tainted with and subjected to His mortal enemy — Sin? The Blessed Virgin was pre-ordained from all eternity to co-operate with God the Holy Ghost to provide the human nature of our Lord. Was He, who out of nothing had created worlds, and out of the dust of the earth the sinless, unspotted flesh of our first parents, impotent to provide a holy tabernacle of flesh, in which to veil the glory of the only begotten One? It is not reasonable to suppose it. If, therefore, he had the power, which none denies, then must the inevitable conclusion subsist, that Mary, from the first instant of her creation, was, by prevenient grace, preserved from even the least stain of original sin. “Who,” asks St. Cyril, “hath ever heard of an architect building for himself a house, and yielding the occupancy and possession of it to his prime enemy?” Who, we in the same spirit ask, could suppose it consistent in the Omnipotent God, the Supreme Architect, to build for himself the house, Mary, and let His chief, His mortal foe, Sin and the Devil, first take possession of and pollute it? If this be unreasonable in a human point of view, how much more would it be inconsistent in Him, who is infinite Purity itself, and who hath all power in heaven and in earth, and can do with His own as he willeth, even as the potter hath power over the clay of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor. So hath God done, that he might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory. {Romans 9) John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb. {Luke 1) And of Jeremias it is said: “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee ; and before thou earnest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee .” {Jeremiah 1:5) Shall not a greater prodigy be wrought for her, who was actually to bring forth the Son of God, — who was to give Him flesh of her flesh, and bone of her bone, than to the mere forerunner and the prophet? Christ himself hath said, “ The servant is not greater than his lord, nor he that is sent greater than him that sent him.”
We claim for the Blessed Virgin a higher prerogative, a loftier pre-eminence of grace, than is thought of for these. She was created especially to be the second Eve, and, like her, exempt in her creation from every stain of sin. By this is not meant that in her nativity only she was sanctified; or that before her nativity and subsequent to her creation, sanctifying grace was communicated to her; in this, as has just been shown, she would have been nothing greater than John the Baptist and Jeremias the prophet, and would still have had what the Fathers call carnem peccati — flesh of sin, — from which the pure and stainless flesh of Christ could not have been derived. No one has ever doubted her to have possessed what had been granted to these. Neither is it meant that at the very instant of her creation the grace of pardon was communicated to her soul, by which the Adamitic stain was purged away from her. Since even then, the foul, polluting taint, — the pestiferous and death-bearing stain, — would still, for the time being, however short, have rendered her a thing of loathing horror to Almighty God, the servant of the Devil, and a subject of eternal damnation. But it is meant that, at the very moment of her conception, when the soul of the Blessed Virgin was infused into her body, special, preventing grace, participating, as it were, in the act of her creation, was present, and exempted her from the slightest stain of original sin; so that it could not be said that sin had dominion over her for the least interval of time.
It would be saying but little in regard to the evidences which sustain this doctrine, to affirm that, so far as the Sacred Scriptures are concerned, there is nothing in them repugnant to it. For, though there be no text which may explicitly, in so many words, declare it, — yet, if the texts upon which infant baptism, the doctrine of the Trinity, and some other articles of faith, are supported, were as clear and strong as those on which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception may be based, it might be considered as irrefragably established. When the Almighty God promised the advent of that woman, who should do that, which Eve, by sinning, had failed to do — crush the serpent's head — the inference is clear, that this could not be by one, who had been as frail as the woman who had already sinned. If the second Eve had had the taint of sin, wherein was she a better instrument for bringing forth Him who was to repair our loss, than she who was the cause of all our woe? And the words of the angel that saluted Mary as none had ever been before or since, “full of grace ” (or, as the original Greek may be rendered, “ formed in grace ”), have a degree of intensity, as will be shown in its proper place, incompatible with any other idea than that of the Immaculate Conception. If to these be added the use of the word “immaculate ,” which, though it appears not within the sacred text, yet is used by the Apostle St. Andrew in a most remarkably pointed manner, and which, in the Liturgies originated by St. Peter and St. James, is also applied to the Blessed Virgin, it is clear to a demonstration, that the Blessed Mother of God is to be regarded as has here been stated — wholly exempt from the least stain of original, as well as of actual sin. And when to these, again, is added the -concurrent testimony of all antiquity, and of all succeeding time, — when the harmonious voice of the Saints of all ages, nations, and climes, unites in proclaiming her thus free from every stain, — he must be rash, indeed, who would venture to raise his feeble voice to contravene the overwhelming force of the evidence which meets him on every hand.
But were the evidence which so triumphantly vindicates the Immaculate Conception not so clear and so widespread as it is, — and were there not a text throughout the whole extent of the Divine Scriptures which pointed to the Blessed Mother of our Lord, — there would nevertheless be abundant reason for affirming and maintaining her prerogative — namely, the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church. The former points or grounds of faith in regard to the Immaculate Conception will be exhibited and expatiated upon each in its proper place. But as to the latter, as it does not otherwise legitimately come within the scope of this volume, a few observations will be at once preferred.
Of all the characteristics of the Church of Christ, that of Teacher is the most strongly marked. When our divine Lord commissioned his infant Church, He prefaced that commission with language which cannot fail to impress every believer as to its extent and power. As all the expressions He used in issuing His divine commission are not given by any one of the Evangelists, in order to exhibit them in their full force, we shall group them, leaving it to the reader to weigh them separately, if he please. Christ says : “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. (And) going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matthew 28, and John 20) Behold, then, the omnipotence of the Church! All power is given unto it. The same power that Jesus himself had from the Father. He sent it as the Father sent him. And for what purpose? To teach. Such is the office, power, and authority of the Church. It is the authority of Christ its Redeemer and head; who, prescient of this commission, had said: “And he that will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” ( Matthew 28) “And he that heareth you, heareth me ; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth Him that sent me.” (Luke 10) The promise of his own presence to the Church to the consummation of all things was a sufficient guarantee of its inerrancy; but He adds that of the Paraclete, the Spirit of Grace and Truth, to abide with it also forever, that all things which He had taught them might be brought to their minds, and that thus they might be always kept in the truth, and never fail in their office of teacher even to the end of the world. The keys of the kingdom of heaven, therefore, which were given especially to Peter, and the spirit of truthful teaching which were given to him, and to all the Apostles collectively, are equally given to Pius IX; for, if there was a moment when either could fail, then would the word of God be of no effect; and all certainty of possessing the true gospel must of necessity be lost, — a conclusion which no sincere Christian could for an instant admit. Did the successors of the Twelve understand their commission as here described? St. Paul must so have understood it, when he called “the Church of the living God , the pillar and ground of truth.” (1 Timothy 3) St. Clement so understood it when, at about the same date of the first century, he besought the seditious Corinthians, by every tender and loving appeal, to submit themselves to the priests. St. Ignatius thought so when he wrote to the Magnesians, “ I exhort that ye study to do all things in the unanimity of God ; the Bishop holding the presidency in the place of God” And again, when he besought them, “to be subject to the Bishop, as to Jesus Christ ,” and “Follow the Bishop, all of you, even as Jesus Christ the Father.” So must St. Irenaeus have thought when he said : “They, therefore, who abandon the teaching of the Church, condemn the holy priests of ignorance; not considering,” &c. And so have thought all the Fathers, without interruption, to the present day. I will add only the remarkable words of St. Cyprian. He says : “Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, settling the honor of a Bishop and the nature of his Church, speaks in the gospel, and says to Peter, I say to thee, thou art Peter,’ &c. (Matthew 16:18-19) Hence, through the changes of times and of successions, the ordination of Bishops and the nature of the Church flow on, so that the Church is settled upon the Bishops, and every act of the Church is regulated by these same prelates.” (. Epis ., chap, xxvii, Lapsis , p. 89.)
To Pius IX., then, belonged the regulation of the present question, equally as any other question did to either of his predecessors, — even St. Peter himself. No prevarication, no sophistry, can overthrow the legitimate authority of the Church to teach. It is the very germ, the essence of the commission given to it, not only for the primitive times, but for all time — even to the end of the world.
But does this include authority to originate, to invent articles of faith? By no means. It involves no such power. The Church is to teach those things which it has been taught, — the depositum, — that which Christ himself had, either personally or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, committed to faithful men. It may, however, be further observed, that it is not said they should teach all things which had been written. Not one line of the gospel had at that time been written. Had the things which they were commanded to teach been all written, and had they been forbidden to teach anything else, it would scarcely have required the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to recall them to their minds. Hence it is that St. Augustine, not to oppress the page with many quotations, has said, in his sermon on the Assumption, “ Where the Scriptures relate nothing concerning the Virgin, the reason must be sought whether what is alleged is conformable to truth; thus truth itself becomes authority, — without which there neither is authority, nor can it prevail .” Hence, all things whatsoever which have been, from the first, always held in the Church, are the doctrine of the Church, and may, whenever the occasion arises, be solemnly and authoritatively defined by the Church teaching. And it matters not how remote from the origin of Christianity may be the occasion for such a definition. The commission is given for all days, even to the consummation of all things. It matters not, either, whether the question has been directly named in the written word of God; for the world itself would not contain the books, if all the things which Jesus did were written. (John 21) Hence, also, have the Apostles repeatedly enjoined it upon the Church, as a sacred duty, to keep the ordinances and traditions which had been delivered to it. “Let no man deceive you by any means,” says St. Paul. “Brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2) A prominent instance of the Church’s faithful obedience to these injunctions has been already noticed, in regard to infant baptism. Nothing is found in Sacred Scriptures to enforce this practice, — yet it is religiously observed, and, as Origen says of it, “This, too, had the Church received as a tradition from the Apostles, to give baptism to children.” (In Epist, ad Roman,) Hence, also, the more general observation of St. Augustine: “But those things which we observe, not because written, but transmitted, — things which are indeed observed throughout the world, — it is to be understood that they are retained as commanded and decreed , either by the Apostles themselves, or by general councils, the authority of which is most wholesome in the Church.” (Tom, IV, Epist, liv.)
But is the definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Mother of God, as a dogma of the Catholic Church, included in this commission to teach? Most certainly it is, unless the Apostle St. Andrew could have erred (see chapter V) ; — unless St. Peter and St. James, in originating their Liturgies, could have ascribed to the Blessed Virgin more than was due to her; — and unless the entire Church of all ages could have departed from the faith, and thus ceased to be the pillar and ground of truth. For, besides the inference drawn from Holy Writ, such is the scope of the evidence which has long rendered it imperative upon the Church to define the Immaculate Conception as a doctrine of faith. It was the opinion of the ancient Fathers; — it is so alleged in every ancient Liturgy and Menology*; — it was the belief of the Saints and mediaeval writers, and of the whole line of Roman Pontiffs, so far as they have given expression to their belief; — Councils have so decided it; — and the common consent of all faithful Christians affirms it as the belief of the Catholic Church. It is, therefore, no novelty recently originated, — no fallacy of a sophist, seeking to palm off the spurious creation of his fevered brain for divine truth. But it is the decision of the unfailing, unwavering, unchanging Church; whose guide and preserver in truth is the Holy Ghost, and whose ever present head is the Lord Jesus Christ, its Founder and Redeemer.
*an ecclesiastical calendar of the months, especially a calendar of the Greek Orthodox Church containing biographies of the saints in the order of the dates on which they are commemorated.