This post is an excerpt from the forthcoming book Rome Examined: Examination of the Decrees of the Council of Trent. In this concise distillation of Chemnitz’s magisterial critique, we present his scriptural case against Rome’s decrees on tradition, justification, the sacraments, and papal authority—one section at a time. (Find all the excerpts here: https://wolfmueller.co/category/rome-examined/)
Examination [1]
[1] Where Scripture speaks of original sin, it excludes only one person, Jesus Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and knows nothing of sin. But over all other humans, without exception, Scripture gives the comprehensive judgment of Romans 5:12, “that through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death has pervaded all people, because they have all sinned.”
[2] This was certainly the teaching of the ancient church. Augustine says in On Nature and Grace, ch. 36: “Out of honor for the Lord, I wish to raise absolutely no questions concerning the Virgin Mary when it comes to sin. We know that she, who was worthy to become the mother of the sinless Lord, was granted greater grace to overcome sin in every respect.” Our opponents interpret this to mean that Mary is not included in those passages of Scripture which speak of original sin. Yet Augustine clearly states that Mary received grace in order to overcome sin. Thus, he is not of the opinion that Mary was conceived without sin, for then she would not have needed this grace.
[3] Peter Lombard states in Sentences, bk. 3: “It is good to assume, because the ‘Word’ became flesh, that His flesh was initially subject to sin, as was the flesh of the Virgin, until it was purified through the work of the Holy Spirit and, free of taint, could be united with the Word.” Thus, at the time of Lombard the view that Mary was conceived without original sin was still unknown.[2]
[4] It must be recognized, however, that Lombard departs from the Word of God and spreads mere speculations. What kind of consequences this must have! Lombard’s successors go even further. They establish the position that Mary was initially conceived in original sin, then sanctified in her mother’s womb and born without sin. This was, in the absence of Scriptural testimony, attested in the apocryphal story of Mary’s birth according to the so-called Proto-Evangelium of James. Subsequently, some in the schools began to discuss that the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin. Duns Scotus later became a patron of this view. No one even attempted to demonstrate this from the Word of God. Rather, they assume without any basis that Christ was able to protect His mother from any contagion of sin when she was conceived.
To be sure, many came out in opposition to this teaching, such as Thomas[3] and Bonaventure.[4] Gradually, the Feast of the Conception of Mary began to be established in some places. In the year 1483, Pope Sixtus IV came out in support of it with his authority. Already in 1466, with rich indulgences he had invited the faithful to such a feast that states Mary was conceived without original sin. He justified the feast by the ascriptions of praise to Mary as the merciful, gracious, comforting, interceding, influential-in-heaven, mother of grace.
[7] This appendix to the Council of Trent includes all this and more such elements. Therein it is commanded to follow the decisions of Pope Sixtus IV. Presumably, some of those at Trent were too ashamed to state this more explicitly. Thus, I did not want to withhold from the reader a more precise consideration.
[8] If the council does not intend to include Mary in the propagation of original sin, there is no scriptural reason or example from tradition given in support. Rather, the satire of Persius is at work: “Because it’s desired, it must be holy.” Or the saying of the canonists: “The will of the pope is a law to him in that which he wants.”
[9] Through this discussion, nothing should be taken away from the honor which is due to Mary. For she is properly praised when one confers that praise which accords with Scripture: “From now on, all generations shall praise me as blessed. For He has done great things to me, for He is mighty.” This is how she herself sings, and we honor and love her canticle. But any other sort of reverence she herself would consider unwelcomed.
NOTES:
[1] For an EXTENSIVE compilation of 150+ Patristic & Medieval quotes undermining the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, see this blog entry: https://open.substack.com/pub/javierperdomo/p/church-fathers-and-medievals-on-the?r=37vdmg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
[2] Peter Lombard, the “Master of the Sentences,” bishop of Paris, died in 1164. He offered in his textbook an overview of the church’s doctrine according to the determinations of the orthodox church fathers. His work was foundational for the church’s teaching during the Middle Ages. Therefore, it was widely used and distributed for centuries. (Benedixen)
[3] “The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as having taken place before animation, for two reasons. First, because the sanctification of which we are speaking, is nothing but the cleansing from original sin: for sanctification is a “perfect cleansing,” as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace, the subject of which is the rational creature alone. Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified. Secondly, because, since the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin; before the infusion of the rational soul, the offspring conceived is not liable to sin. And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Matthew 1:21): “He shall save His people from their sins.” But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the “Saviour of all men,” as He is called (1 Timothy 4:10). It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation.” – Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Question 27. The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, Article 3, Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa/summa.TP_Q27_A2.html
[4] “In a context of heated debates on the matter, Saint Bonaventure presents a long and complex set of arguments that we can summarize as follows: Mary was conceived with original sin contaminating her body at first, but she was cleansed of it and sanctified immediately after her conception, at the very moment of the animation of her body, that is, when her soul gave life to her body. Therefore, the author concludes that even though the body of Mary, like that of all human beings except Christ, was conceived with original sin, it was thoroughly cleansed, and her body was sanctified from the very first moment at which it was animated by her holy soul and cleansed of all sin. […] After exposing the arguments for and against the mentioned thesis, the Seraphic Doctor argues his personal position on the matter, namely, affirming, in accordance with the common opinion at this time, that the Virgin’s sanctification occurred after contracting original sin. […] The Seraphic Doctor later ensures that the opinion denying Mary’s Immaculate Conception is more common, more reasonable, and more secure than its contrary. It is more common, because almost everyone maintains that the Virgin had original sin, as shown by the multitude of her penalties; in this regard, the author points out that there is no reason to say that Mary suffered these penalties to redeem others but rather because she contracted original sin.45 He then states that the anti-immaculate opinion is more reasonable than the opposite because the being of nature temporarily and naturally precedes the being of grace, as Saint Augustine suggests when he affirms that “to be born is first before being reborn”. In the same sense, it is said that first is to be before being good; therefore, it is first necessary that the soul be united with the flesh before the grace of God is infused into it. If, therefore, Mary’s flesh was infected by original sin, her soul would also be infected by that infection by original sin. For this reason, our author considers it necessary to affirm that the infection of original sin in Mary occurred before her sanctification. Third, Bonaventure emphasizes the idea that the anti-immaculate opinion is also safer than its opposite because it agrees with the piety of the faith and with the authority of the saints. In his opinion, it agrees with the authority of the saints because they commonly maintain that only Christ is exempt from original sin since ‘All sinned in Adam’, and no saint has been heard to affirm that the Virgin was immune to original sin. The author takes his reasoning to the point of ensuring that the anti-immaculate position is even more consistent with the piety of the faith. This is confirmed, according to him, because although the Mother of Christ should be the object of our reverence and devotion, this reverent devotion should be given with greater reason to Christ: all honor and all glory should be given to Him alone since He is the Redeemer and Savior of all who opened the door of heaven to all of us and died for all of us, including the Virgin Mary herself. In the end, the Seraphic Doctor opts in this problem to adhere to ‘the common opinion’, which maintains that the Virgin was sanctified after contracting original sin, considering that this contraction does not diminish her honor, which in any case, is incomparably less than that of his divine Son Jesus. […] In the end, many centuries later, the Church would reject the opinion of St. Bonaventure, together with the opinions of the other deniers of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, which would be defined as a dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX through the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.” – Jose Maria Salvador-Gonzalez, Saint Bonaventure’s Doctrine on the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Religions 2023, 14(7), 930, link: https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14070930
