The antithesis “Eve—Mary”,
stemming from the proto-evangelium and developed by Justin and still more by
Irenaeus, proved very fruitful. It was for a long time the keynote of
Mariological thinking on the faith. The unbelief and disobedience of Eve
brought ruin, the faith and obedience of Mary brought salvation. Another theme,
also developed by Irenaeus and then by Hippolytus and Tertullian but above all
by Augustine, was the comparison of Mary’s role in the history of salvation
with that of the Church. The Church here appears as the mother of the faithful
by reason of its preaching of the word and also by reason of baptism. Mary
brought forth the head of the Church. This identification suggested that many
traits of the personified Church should be transferred to Mary. After some uncertainty
about the holiness of Mary, inspired by Lk 2:48, and indeed some negative
pronouncements (Cyril of Alexandria), the absolute sinlessness of Mary was
taught for the first time by Pelagius and Augustine. This thesis was soon
expanded into the freedom from original sin which was then attributed to Mary.
In the East, something similar was taught by Andrew of Crete and John of
Damascus. No express testimony to Mary’s freedom from original sin is found in
the West before about A.D. 1000. Bernard of Clairvaux, a fervent admirer of
Mary, and Thomas Aquinas remained doubtful. Theologians could not harmonize the
universal necessity of redemption with the thesis being developed of Mary’s
freedom from original sin. In the course of the controversy William of Ware (c. 1300) and Duns Scotus developed the
notion that Mary remained free from original sin by virtue of Jesus’
redemption, while the rest of mankind was freed from it. This view makes Mary a
subject of the law of original sin, but it did not actually take effect in her,
simply by reason of a special divine decree. Mary too was redeemed, but in a
more excellent way. Pope Sixtus V recognized the general conviction of
Catholics in this matter and forbade the opponents and the upholders of this
mystery to brand each other as heretics. The doctrinal declaration of the fifth
session of the Council of Trent on original sin stated that it was not the
intention of the Council to include Mary in its teaching on the universality of
original sin. In the 19th century, faith in the freedom of Mary from original
sin had matured so widely that Pius IX could teach it as a dogma in 1854. The
freedom from original sin had wide bearings on the whole spiritual life of
Mary. According to the doctrine of tradition, Mary was also granted the gift of
preternatural integrity which was man’s before the fall. This meant that she
could integrate into the wholeness of her dedication to God even the
spontaneous emotions which precede every human decision. This was also true of
the sufferings which she had to undergo, and of her death. Her death was very
often regarded as the pure absorption of her life into the love of God. But
this does not mean that her death was not as a consequence of illness or old
age. (Michael Schmaus, “Mariology,” in Sacramentum Mundi: An Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. Adolf Darlap [New
York; London: Burns & Oates; Herder and Herder, 1968–1970], 3:378–379)