Friday, May 1, 2020

Augustine vs. Mary being Exempted from Original Sin


While he affirmed the personal sinlessness of Mary, Augustine of Hippo (354-430), according to most scholars (including Roman Catholic) did not affirm Mary’s exemption from original sin, contra the 1854 dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception. As one commentator on his Mariology noted:

Augustine understands Mary’s holiness in terms of her faith and radical obedience to the Word of God. She first conceived Christ in her mind and heart before conceiving him in her womb: “Fides in mente, Christus in ventre” (s. 196.1; also see s. 215; 245.4). She is a model of faith for all Christian believers. The bishop never questions Mary’s holiness and immunity from sin, even though he is unable to explain how it is so. His position must be understood in the context of the Pelagian controversy. Pelagius himself had already admitted that Mary, like the other just women of the Old Testament, was spared from any sin. Augustine never concedes that Mary was sinless but prefers to dismiss the question: “Let us then leave aside the holy Virgin Mary; on account of the honor due to the Lord, I do not want to raise any questions here about her when we are dealing with sins” (nat. et gr. 36.42). Since medieval times this passage has sometimes been invoked to ground Augustine’s presumed acceptance of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. It is clear nonetheless that, given the various theories regarding the transmission of original sin current in his time, Augustine in that passage would not have meant to imply Mary’s immunity from it. Julian of Eclanum had accused him of being worse than Jovinian in consigning Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth (conditio nascendi). Augustine, in Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 4.1.22, replies that Mary was spared this by the grace of her rebirth (“ipsa condition solvitur gratia renascendi”), implying her baptism. His understanding of concupiscence as an integral part of all marital relations made it difficult, if not impossible, to accept that she herself was conceived immaculately. He further specifies in the following chapter (5.15.52) that the body of Mary, “although it came from this [concupiscence], nevertheless did not transmit it for she did not conceive in this way.” Lastly, De Genesi ad litteram 10.18.32 asserts: “And what more undefiled than the womb of the Virgin, whose flesh, although it came from procreation tainted by sin, nevertheless did not conceive from that source.” (Daniel E. Doyle, "Mary, Mother of God," in Allan D. Fitzgerald, ed. Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999], 544)

Note the following, on the topic of the Assumption, from the same source:

Augustine is silent on the question of Mary’s death and, specifically, on the assumption. (Ibid., 545)


And yet, this doctrine would be elevated to the position of a de fide dogma in 1950. So much for Rome's defenders claiming it is the two thousand-year-old church when it proclaims, as dogma, beliefs that were unknown and/or explicitly contradicted by the patristics they tend to put on an artificial pedestal!

 For more patristic evidence against the Immaculate Conception, see:


Blog Archive