The following is taken from “Sinlessness of Mary is Infallible Catholic Teaching,” November 12, 2024. It is authored by Robert Fastiggi, an informed Roman Catholic theologian (as opposed to a former Baptist now Catholic who has never read a book in his life). Do note how he (correctly) ties the necessity of the personal sinlessness of Mary to the definition of her being free from original sin (so even if it is not de fide, it is a secondary object of infallibility):
I think a strong case can be made that Mary’s freedom
from actual sin is infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal Magisterium.
[With regard to how] the Catholic Church understands Rom
3:23: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”: the “all” must have
exceptions since Jesus was sinless. Therefore, Mary can also be an exception. I
also like to bring up the example of the good angels. They never sinned.
[Dave: see my related article, “All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? (1996;
revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17)]
There are several points to make. First, a teaching does
not need to be defined to be infallible. Some teachings are infallible by
virtue of the ordinary universal Magisterium as Lumen Gentium, 25 teaches. The infallibility
of the ordinary universal Magisterium is also taught at Vatican I (Denz.-H
3011).
*
There are also definitive teachings of the Church that
have not been set forth as revealed by God, but they are nevertheless taught in
an infallible and definitive manner. John Paul II’s teaching in his 1994
document, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (on the
reservation of the priesthood only to men) was described by the CDF as having
been “set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” (Denz.-H
5041). It was not described as a truth revealed by God. In the 1998 Commentary on the Profession of Faith issued
by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone, the teaching of Ordinatio
Sacerdotalis is described as belonging to the second level of assent
given to definitive infallible teachings that have not been set forth as
revealed by God. They are infallible, though, by virtue of the divine
assistance given to the Magisterium when it makes a definitive judgment.
*
Some of these teachings can be described as within the
category of sententia fidei proxima. In other
words, they are not declared to be revealed by God, but they have a close
or logical connection to what has been revealed by God. Therefore, when Fr.
Ludwig Ott describes Mary’s freedom from actual sin as a sententia
fidei proxima, he does not, I believe, mean that this teaching is
“non-infallible.” Rather he means that it is a truth close to what has been
revealed by God. It could, therefore, be understood as belonging to what is
known as a “secondary object of infallibility.”
*
There are other theological manuals, though, that
maintain Mary’s immunity from venial sin during her lifetime is de fide
and, therefore, infallible. Fr. Joseph de Aldema, S.J. holds this position
in Sacrae Theologiae Summa Vol. III, Tractatus II
(Madrid, 1950), p. 318. Fr. de Aldema points to the Council of Trent “where the
faith of the Church regarding this privilege is defined” (ubi definitur
fides Ecclesiae circa hoc privilegium). Fr. de Aldema has in mind
Trent’s Decree on Justification, canon 23, which
recognizes that the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, by a special
privilege of God, was able to avoid all sins, even venial sins, throughout her
entire life (cf. Denz.-H 1573).
*
[Some might] claim that this was not a definition but
merely an affirmation of the Church’s long standing belief in Mary’s special
protection from personal sins. Trent, though, includes this affirmation within
a canon followed by an anathema. This certainly shows that the Church’s belief
in Mary’s special protection from actual sin is affirmed within a
dogmatic canon of an ecumenical council.
*
But even if one were to claim Trent was not defining
Mary’s freedom from actual sin, there are other magisterial statements that
show this is the teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. Here are
some examples:
*
Pius V, in his 1567, Ex omnibus afflictionibus against the
errors of Michael Baius, condemned the view that Mary’s afflictions in life
were the result of actual or original sins (Denz.-H 1973).
*
Pius IX, in his 1854 Bull, Ineffabilis
Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception, taught that Mary was
“always and absolutely free from every stain of sin” (ab omni prorsus
peccati labe semper libera) [Denz.-H 2800)]. Mary’s freedom from every
stain of sin is “always” (semper). This teaching comes from a papal Bull
making a dogmatic definition. To say Pius IX was only expressing a
“non-infallible” teaching does not seem to take seriously the weight of a papal
dogmatic bull.
*
Pius XII, in his 1943 encyclical, Mystici Corporis, no. 110, says: “It was she,
the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more
intimately united with her Son … ” Here we have the Roman Pontiff, in
a major encyclical, affirming the truth that Mary was ‘free from all sin,
original or personal.”
*
John Paul II, in his General Audience of June 12, 1996, not only taught
that Mary was free from all sin (personal as well as original) but she also
never had concupiscence (the inclination to sin) because
concupiscence comes from sin according to Trent (Denz.-H 1515):
The immunity ‘from every stain of original sin’ entails
as a positive consequence the total freedom from all sin as well as
the proclamation of Mary’s perfect holiness, a doctrine to which the dogmatic
definition makes a fundamental contribution. In fact, the negative formulation
of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about
original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the
positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern
tradition.
*
Pius IX’s definition refers only to the freedom from original sin and does not
explicitly include the freedom from concupiscence. Nevertheless, Mary’s
complete preservation from every stain of sin also has as a
consequence her freedom from concupiscence, a disordered tendency which,
according to the Council of Trent, comes from sin and inclines to sin (DS
1515). (emphasis added).
I believe Mary’s immunity from personal, actual sin is a
logical consequence of her Immaculate Conception, which has been defined de
fide. If Mary, as Pius IX, teaches, was “always and absolutely free
from every stain of sin,” personal sins would mean she was not “always
and absolutely free from every stain of sin.” The position that Mary could have
committed personal sins stands in direct contradiction to the teaching of a
papal dogmatic Bull.
*
I think a good case can be made that Mary’s freedom from
personal sin was solemnly taught by Trent and Pius IX. But even if you
believe Mary’s freedom [from] personal sin has not been defined, it still has
been taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
*
To say, however, that this a non-infallible teaching does
not do justice to the Church’s consistent affirmation of Mary as all-holy and
free from personal sin as well as actual sin.
I should also note that Pius IX, in Ineffabilis
Deus, teaches that Mary has “such a plentitude of innocence and sanctity
that, under God, none greater can be known and, apart from God, no mind could
ever succeed in comprehending.” (Denz.-H 2800). If Mary was able to commit
personal sins, we could easily think of a creature of higher holiness: namely
one who could never commit personal sins. What Pius IX says in Ineffabilis
Deus completely rules out the possibility of personal sin. Although
the object of the definition of Ineffabilis Deus is the dogma
of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Mary’s immunity from personal sin has a
logical connection to her Immaculate Conception.
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
