Roman Catholic apologist Tim Staples wrote the following in response to James R. White’s Mary: Another Redeemer? on the issue of patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception:
White quotes Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma out of context, omitting crucial information that sheds light on Ott’s true meaning.
Ott does say, as White quotes, that some Greek Fathers taught that Mary “suffered from venial personal faults.” But personal faults are not sins, and the word sins is nowhere to be found. White then fails to mention Ott’s next words:
The Latin Patristic authors unanimously teach the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary. St. Augustine teaches that every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God (propter honorem Domini) [De natura et gratia, 36, 42], St. Ephrem the Syrian puts Mary, in her immaculateness, on the same plane as Christ. According to the teaching of St. Thomas the fullness of grace which Mary received in the active conception (according to modern theology, in the passive conception) implied confirmation in grace and therefore sinlessness [Summa III, q. 27, art. 5 res. 2] (Tim Staples, Behold your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines [El Cajon: Catholic Answers, 2014], 343)
The above is representative of the abuse of sources by Staples, not just on the issue of Mariology (see this review of the book by Reformed apologist Jason Engwer), but on a host of other topics too, including “Mormonism.”
Firstly, it should be noted that the Immaculate Conception (hereafter “IC”) does not just teach that Mary was free from personal sin, but all sin, including original sin. Note the following from Pope Pius IX in the Bull, "Ineffabilis Deus" (December 8, 1854) that dogmatised the teaching in Roman Catholic theology:
[DS 2803] … To the honor of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, to the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, to the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by Our own, We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine, which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary at the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and on this account must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. [DS 2804] Wherefore, if any should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church; and what is more, that by their own act they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if, what they think in their heart, they should dare to signify by word or writing or any other external means. (Denzinger, H., & Rahner, K. (Eds.). (1954). The sources of Catholic dogma. (R. J. Deferrari, Trans.) (pp. 413–414). St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co.)
The issue of original sin and Mary will be discussed later in this post.
The relevant section of Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that James White quotes from and Staples is disputing is:
While individual Greek Fathers (Origen, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria) taught that Mary suffered from venial personal faults, such as ambition and vanity, doubt about the message of the Angel, and lack of faith under the Cross. (Ott, L. (1957). Fundamentals of Catholic dogma (p. 203). St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company)
Staples is being disingenuous when he claims that Origen et al. did not accuse Mary of sin—even in Catholic theology, ambition, vanity, doubting a divinely-sanctioned message from a messenger of God and lack of faith about Christ (“under the cross”) are all venial sins in Catholic moral theology and Ott himself held to this view (“venial personal faults”). Those familiar with Catholic hamartiology (theology of sin) will know that Staples greatly erred on this very basic fact of his Church’s own theology.
My friend and expert on the patristic literature, Errol Vincent Amey shared with me on the issue of the early Christians and the sinlessness of Mary:
Not only is there not a single witness to the supposedly immaculate conception among the pre-Nicene Christians, but many of their statements regarding sinfulness necessarily encompass Mary and attribute the sinless nature exclusively to Jesus. Here is an example from Origen:
"'For all have sinned,' [Romans 3:23] as it is written; and again, as Scripture says: 'There is no just man upon earth that hath done good and hath not sinned;' [Ecclesiastes 7:20] and again: 'No one is free of uncleanness, not even if his life be of but one day.' [Cf. Job 14:4] Therefore Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ alone is He 'who did no sin' [cf. 1 Peter 2:22, citing Isaiah 53:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21]"
(Origen, ca. 240, 'Commentary on The Song of Songs' 3:13, in 'Ancient Christian Writers' 26:237)
Additionally, as I wrote previously on the IC and early Christianity:
[T]he patristic evidence for Mary being sinless is also wanting in the earliest texts. Irenaeus of Lyons is often cited as evidence for early Church fathers holding to Mary being sinless due to his identification of her as the new/second Eve (Against Heresies (3.22.4). However, if one reads this text, Irenaeus only parallels Eve and Mary due to the former’s disobedience (eating the fruit) resulting in sin coming into the earth and the latter’s act of obedience leading to the birth of the Messiah and the destruction of sin. Further, Irenaeus, based on John 2:4, explicitly stated that Mary was guilty of sin in the very same work he draws this parallel between Mary and Eve (Against Heresies 3.16.7):
With Him is nothing incomplete or out of due season, just as with the Father there is nothing incongruous. For all these things were foreknown by the Father; but the Son works them out at the proper time in perfect order and sequence. This was the reason why, when Mary was urging [Him] on to [perform] the wonderful miracle of the wine, and was desirous before the time to partake of the cup of emblematic significance, the Lord, checking her untimely haste, said, "Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come"-- waiting for that hour which was foreknown by the Father.
John Chrysostom in his Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, XXI also accused Mary of personal sin. Speaking of John 2:4, he writes the following:
To prove that He greatly respected His mother, hear Luke relate how He was "subject to" His parents (Luke ii. 51 ), and our own Evangelist declare how He had forethought for her at the very season of the Crucifixion. For where parents cause no impediment or hindrance in things belonging to God, it is our bounden duty to give way to them, and there is great danger in not doing so; but when they require anything unseasonably, and cause hindrance in any spiritual matter, it is unsafe to obey. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, "Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?" ( Matt. xii. 48 ), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had borne Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshiped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion. For consider what a thing it was, that when all the people high and low were standing round Him, when the multitude was intent on hearing Him, and His doctrine had begun to be set forth, she should come into the midst and take Him away from the work of exhortation, and converse with Him apart, and not even endure to come within, but draw Him outside merely to herself. This is why He said, "Who is My mother and My brethren?" Not to insult her who had borne Him, (away with the thought!) but to procure her the greatest benefit, and not to let her think meanly of Him. For if He cared for others, and used every means to implant in them a becoming opinion of Himself, much more would He do so in the case of His mother. And since it was probable that if these words had been addressed to her by her Son, she would not readily have chosen even then to be convinced, but would in all cases have claimed the superiority as being His mother, therefore He replied as He did to them who spake to Him; otherwise He could not have led up her thoughts from His present lowliness to His future exaltation, had she expected that she should always be honored by Him as by a son, and not that He should come as her Master.
[3.] It was then from this motive that He said in this place, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" and also for another reason not less pressing. What was that? It was, that His miracles might not be suspected. The request ought to have come from those who needed, not from His mother. And why so? Because what is done at the request of one's friends, great though it be, often causes offense to the spectators; but when they make the request who have the need, the miracle is free from suspicion, the praise unmixed, the benefit great. So if some excellent physician should enter a house where there were many sick, and be spoken to by none of the patients or their relations, but be directed only by his own mother, he would be suspected 1 and disliked by the sufferers, nor would any of the patients or their attendants deem him able to exhibit anything great or remarkable. And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.
Many Catholic theologians will readily admit that some early Christian authors did accuse Mary of committing venial sins. For instance:
It is true that certain situations and actions involving Mary in the gospels (e.g., her need to fulfil the law of purification for women giving birth; her lack of understanding on finding the child Jesus in the Temple; her apparent boldness and reproof at Cana; her need for support at the foot of the Cross) were incorrectly explained by some eastern Fathers as imperfections, as lack of perfect faith, as a kind of doubt, in a word, as venial sins. (Fr. Peter M. Fehlner, F.I. “The Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her Immaculate Conception,” in Mariology: A Guide for Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, and Consecrated Persons, ed. Mark I. Miravalle [Goleta, Calif.: Queenship Publishing, 2007], pp. 213-76, here, p. 237)
This same source also stated that, for Origen, “[he] imputed to [Mary] a venial sin of doubt at the foot of the Cross!” (Ibid., p. 237 n. 44)
Commenting on Origen's Mariology, particularly his view that she was not sinless, let alone immaculately conceived, the Roman Catholic Mariologist, Fr. Luigi Gambero wrote the following:
According to Origen's dynamic concept of Christian perfection, understood as a journey or continual progress toward higher forms of the spiritual life, Mary could not have been totally holy from the beginning of his journey. For this reason, he readily admits the presence of some imperfections or defects in her. For example, he asserts that the sword foretold by Simeon was none other than the doubt and scandal that arose in her during her Son's Passion:
What ought we to think? That while the apostles were scandalized, the Mother of the Lord was immune from scandal? If she had not experienced scandal during the Lord's Passion, Jesus did not die for her sins. But if "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and if all "are justified and saved by his grace" (Rom 3:23), then Mary, too, was scandalized in that moment. That is what Simeon is prophesying about: . . . Your soul will be pierced by the sword of unbelief and will be wounded by the sword point of doubt. (Homily on Luke 17, 6-7; PG 13, 13, 1843; SC 87, 256-58)
From this text also emerges the intention to support such a conclusion by restoring to a dogmatic reason: the universal value of the redemption accomplished by Christ.
But usually, Origen, faithful to the more ancient Alexandrian tradition, tends to emphasize the Virgin's holiness and virtues, always in the context of her condition as one still making progress. (Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought [trans. Thomas Buffer; San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 77-78)
On Tertullian, Luigi Gambero admitted, under a section of his book entitled, “Tertullian’s Severity toward Mary”:
It does not seem that our author is directly concerned about, or sympathetic toward, the Virgin as a person. To the contrary, one must acknowledge that it was characteristic of him to render one of the most severe and rash judgements of the holy Virgin known to patristic literature. He poorly interpreted the Gospel passages that mention the brothers of Jesus (cf. Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21). According to him, the Lord was reproving his Mother together with his brothers. It is known that the word “brother” is used in the Gospels to indicate relatives in general, but Tertullian, as we shall see, understands it to mean sons of the same parents. The text that interests us is the following:
[Jesus] was justly indignant that persons so close to him should stand outside while strangers were in the house with him, hanging on his every word. He was indignant above all because they were seeking to take him away from his solemn task. He did not ignore them, but disavowed them. Therefore, in response to the question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” he responded, “No one except those who hear my words and put them into practice.” He transferred the terms indicating blood relationship to others whom he considered closer to him because of their faith. (Adversus Marcionem 4, 19, 11; PL 2, 435)
In this text also, Tertullian not only shows himself to be confident and peremptory in his judgements but reveals his lack of a sense of proportion. In order to emphasize and exalt the person of Jesus, he does not hesitate to criticize his close relatives when necessary. (Gambero, Mary and the Fathers, 62-63)
As with other early Christian denials of Mary’s sinlessness, there was no outcry from the masses against Tertullian. The reason? Simply put—there was no “apostolic tradition” or biblical warrant for the IC. It was a much later development.
On the topic of Mary being conceived without original sin (an integral part of the IC), and putting on the shelf the doctrine of original sin itself (we will just accept it as being true for the sake of the discussion), once the doctrine was developed, did early Christian authors believe Mary was conceived with it? The answer is a resounding no, even from those who exempted Mary from personal sin. For instance, Gambero writes the following about Augustine:
There seems no doubt that Augustine considered Mary’s exemption from sin to be a great grace. But what sins did he mean? Undoubtedly he excludes any personal sin from Mary. It is possible to hypothesize that Augustine also intended to exclude original sin? Some scholars think so and make him a forerunner to the Immaculate Conception. A full treatment of the question would call for al lengthy discussion. To us it seems safer to adopt the contrary position, which is held by many experts and appears more in accord with numerous Augustinian texts. (Gambero, ibid., 226; emphasis added)
Following Augustine, later Medieval theologians (some of whom are canonised saints in Catholicism) denied Mary’s exemption from original sin:
With the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century, conditions favorable to the consistent development of speculative theology so deteriorated that the question of the Immaculate Conception of Mary was not often mentioned in the West until the end of the eleventh century with St. Anselm. One or another writer such as Paschasius Radbert asserted it; but others, such as St. Anselm clearly denied it on the basis of the transmission of original sin via intercourse infected by concupiscence. On the other hand, Anselm clearly asserted a purity of Mary greater than which none can be conceived under God. (Fehlner, "The Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her Immaculate Conception," p. 249)
Interestingly enough, on the previous page, Fehlner further refutes the thesis Augustine held to the IC:
"[Augustine’s] reply to the specific point does not say that Mary is stainless at conception; rather he leaves the door open to a ‘liberative sanctification’ in the womb. He wrote: ‘We do not deliver Mary to the Devil by the condition of her birth; for this reason, that her very condition finds a solution in the grace of rebirth” (Ibid., p. 248; square brackets added for clarification)
I was a shocked to see Staples appeal to Thomas Aquinas as it is well established that, in the Summa Theologica, Aquinas held that Mary was conceived with original sin, although she was later purified from such in her mother’s womb, as did many other theologians contemporary with Aquinas. Catholic systematic theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, O.P. wrote the following that further refutes Staples’ abuse of sources:
It must be admitted that in the 12th and 13th centuries certain greater doctors, as, for example, St Bernard (Epist. Ad canonicos Lugdunenses), St Anselm (De conceptione virginali), Peter Lombard (In III Sent., dist. 3), Hugh of St Victor (Super Missus est.) St Albert the Great (Item Super Missus est.), St. Bonaventure (In III Sent., dist. 3, q. 27) and St Thomas Aquinas appear to have been disinclined to admit the [IC]. But this was because they did not consider the precise instant of Mary’s animation, or of the creation of her soul, and also because they did not distinguish, with the help of the idea of preservative redemption, between the debt to contract the hereditary stain and its actual contraction. In other words, they did not always distinguish sufficiently between ‘debebat contrahere’ and ‘contraxit peccatum’. (Reginald Garrigou-LaGrange, The Mother of the Saviour and our interior life [Rockford, Illin.: Tan Books, 1993], 55; comment in square bracket added for clarification)
Commenting on the time when Aquinas wrote the Summa Theologica, Garrigou-LaGrange writes:
St. Thomas, seeing better the difficulties in the question—for the theologians of his time held that Mary was immaculate independently of Christ’s merits—hesitated, and refused to commit himself. He, of course, held that all men without exception are redeemed by one Saviour (Rom. iii, 23; v, 12, 19; Gal. iii, 22; II Cor. V, 14; 1 Tim. ii, 6). Hence we find him proposing the question thus in IIIa, q. 27, a.2: Was the Blessed Virgin sanctified in the conception of her body before its animation? For according to him and many other theologians, the conception of the boy was to be distinguished from the animation, or creation of the soul. This latter (called today the consummated passive conception) was thought to be about a month later in time than the initial conception. The holy doctor mentions certain arguments at the beginning of the article which favour the Immaculate Conception—even taking conception to be that which precedes animation. He then answers them as follows: ‘There are two reasons why the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot have taken place before her animation: 1st—the sanctification in question is cleaning from original sin . . .but the guilt of sin can be removed only by grace (which has as object the soul itself) . . . 2nd—if the Blessed Virgin had been sanctified before animation she would have incurred the stain of original sin and would therefore never have stood in need of redemption by Christ . . . But this may not be admitted since Christ is Head of all men (1 Tim. ii, 6).’ (Ibid., pp. 59-60)
It is common for some Catholics to cite Ephrem the Syrian as an early witness to the Immaculate Conception. As Ludwig Ott wrote:
While much more could be said on this topic, it is clear that Staples is dead-wrong in his understanding of early Christian Mariology as well as the development of the IC as a whole. Such sloppiness is par for the course for most of Staples’ works, especially this book on the Mariology of Roman Catholicism. Latter-day Saints and others are on firm biblical and historical ground in rejecting the IC for what it is--a man-made tradition that the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ never taught. Rome has added this false doctrine to her gospel--not only is the IC to be rejected, but Rome is to be rejected, too (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
St. Ephrem says: “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 no stain” (Carm. Nisib. 27). (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 201)
However, again, when one examines the facts, we find that the Catholic Church's claims are to be found wanting at the bar of history. Catholic scholar and priest, Michael O’Carroll, CSSp, wrote the following on the Immaculate Conception:
The first apparently explicit testimony is in the Nisibene hymns of St Ephraem, a fourth century Syrian writer: “Certainly you are alone and your other are from every aspect completely beautiful, for there is no blemish in you, my Lord, and no stain in your mother.” But there are other texts in the same author’s writings which, to put it mildly, call for subtle interpretation to maintain the doctrine—he spoke for example of Mary’s baptism.
The opinion of St Ambrose is also controverted; he did first establish the complete personal sinlessness of Mary. St Augustine held this latter doctrine; his opinion, on the Immaculate Conception is endlessly debated. His much quoted text “except the holy Virgin Mary, about whom, for the hour of the Lord, I want there to be no question” is offset by some enigmatic words which he used to counter the taunt of Julian of Eclanum, a Pelagian who said to him “you deliver Mary herself to the devil through the condition of her birth.” Unfortunately, in another way, Augustine’s negative influence on the development of the doctrine was for centuries decisive. He thought that original sin was transmitted by conjugal intercourse through inherent concupiscence. Christ was immune because he was conceived virginally—the conclusion was drawn that Mary was not. (Michael O’Carroll, CSSp, “The Immaculate Conception and Assumption of our Lady in Today’s Thinking” in Mary in the Church [ed. John Hyland; Dublin: Veritas, 1989], 44-56, here, p. 45)
Catholic Mariologist, Luigi Gambero, wrote the following on Ephrem the Syrian:
Ephrem’s insistence on Mary’s spiritual beauty and holiness, and her freedom from any stain of sin, has led some scholars to hold that he was aware of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception and to point to him as a witness to the dogma. Yet it does not appear that our author was familiar with the problem, at least not in the terms in which it was made clear by later tradition and the dogmatic declaration of 1854. In one passage he even used the term “baptized” to indicate her Son’s saving intervention in her regard:
Handmaid and daughter
of blood and water [am I] whom You redeemed and baptized. (Hymns on the Nativity 16, 10) (Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 110)
While much more could be said on this topic, it is clear that Staples is dead-wrong in his understanding of early Christian Mariology as well as the development of the IC as a whole. Such sloppiness is par for the course for most of Staples’ works, especially this book on the Mariology of Roman Catholicism. Latter-day Saints and others are on firm biblical and historical ground in rejecting the IC for what it is--a man-made tradition that the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ never taught. Rome has added this false doctrine to her gospel--not only is the IC to be rejected, but Rome is to be rejected, too (cf. Gal 1:6-9).