Anselm’s Marian
thought-experiments were occasioned by the systematic development of his
distinctive soteriology. But there were other triggers in liturgical practice.
Celebrating the feasts of the Annunciation and—thanks to Augustine among
others—the Assumption was uncontroversial. In some places (notably England and
parts of Gaul) the Conception was also being observed. Theory interprets,
rationalizes and/or critiques praxis. Theologians and religious leaders began
to comment on the propriety of this feast. One commonplace principle was that
saints are to be celebrated for their sanctity, and hence only for those
occasions in their lives at which they were sanctified. In a letter attributed
to Anselm as late as the fourteenth century but probably actually due to
Eadmer, the author reasons that the feast of the Conception ought to be
celebrated because Mary was immaculately conceived. Eadmer bolstered this
liturgical argument with an exegetical argument from the lesser to the greater:
If Jeremiah (Jer 1:5) and John the Baptist (Luke 1:41–44) were sanctified in
the womb before their birth, how much more should the queen of angels and the
tabernacle of the Son of God be entirely free from sin from her very beginning.
(Eadmeri monachi Cantueriensis tractatus de conceptione S. Mariae (ed.
H. Thurston and T. Slater; Freiburg im Breisgau 1904) 1; among the Anselm spuria
as Tractatus de Conceptione B. Mariae Virginis in PL 159, cols.
301–303. Cf. Allan B. Wolter and Blane O’Neill, John Duns Scotus: Mary’s
Architect (Quincy, Ill.: Franciscan Press, Quincy College, 1993) III.56)
In his Letter to the Canons of
Lyons, (Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistola 174: Ad canonicos Lugdunenses de
Conceptione S. Mariae, PL 182, cols. 332–336.) Bernard of Clairvaux
reasoned from these principles in the opposite direction, warning against
celebrating the feast of the conception, because Mary was—like all other
bisexually propagated humans— conceived in original sin. Bernard was noted for
his Marian devotion, and recognized Mary’s privilege as preeminent among the
saints. (Ibid., secs.2–5; PL 182, cols. 333–334) Nevertheless, Bernard
contended that immaculate conception for the Blessed Virgin Mary was a “false
honor” (Ibid., PL 182, cols. 333) that would actually undermine Marian
privilege: Mary would no longer be the only member of Adam’s race to conceive a
child without original sin; her mother, St. Anne, would have as well. (Ibid.,
sec.7, PL 182, col. 335) Still more serious, immaculate conception for the
Blessed Virgin Mary would undermine the preeminence of Christ. For a human
being conceived without original sin would not need a savior. Christ will not
be the universal savior unless the privilege of being conceived without
original sin belongs to Him alone. (Ibid., sec.8, PL 182, col. 336.)
For Bernard, Marian immaculate
conception was a thought-experiment contrary to firmly established doctrinal
tenets, one that ought to be denied liturgical expression. (Marilyn McCord
Adams, “The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary: A
Thought-Experiment in Medieval Philosophical Theology,” Harvard Theological
Review 103, no. 2 [April 2010]: 138)
