Sinlessness Of Mary Is Infallible Catholic Teaching

Guest Post by Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Professor of Dogmatic Theology

Photo credit: *The Virgin and Child with an Angel* (c. 1500), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Bishop Kevin M. Britt Chair of Dogmatic Theology and Christology, has been at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 1999. Dr. Fastiggi received an A.B. in Religion (summa cum laude) from Dartmouth College in 1974; a M.A. in Theology from Fordham University in 1976; and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fordham in 1987. During his time at Sacred Heart, Dr. Fastiggi has taught courses in Ecclesiology, Christology, Mariology, church history, sacramental theology, and moral theology. He is a member of the Society for Catholic Liturgy, the Mariological Society of America, the International Marian Association, and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Marian Academy International (P.A.M.I).

He served as the executive editor of the 2009-2013 supplements to the New Catholic Encyclopedia and the co-editor of the English translation of the 43rd edition of the Denzinger-Hünermann compendium published by Ignatius Press in 2012. He also revised and updated the translation of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for Baronius Press in 2018. I have compiled several of his articles (a number of them, exclusively) on my blog.

[from private correspondence, with his permission]

*****

All of the following material is from Dr. Fastiggi, save for a few instances of bracketed comments and my initial question that I asked him (modified a bit presently):

Is the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary is free from actual sin an infallible one in Catholicism? I looked up Ludwig Ott’s classification and it was sententia fidei proxima. How does that relate to infallibility? Could one hold that Mary did commit or may have committed actual sin and still be a Catholic in good standing, and not be regarded as “anti-Mary” or heterodox? It’s a question that should, I think, be directed towards someone like yourself, who is qualified to address it.

Personally, I certainly believe that she didn’t actually sin — whatever the technical classification is — , because I think that would be fitting, just as her Immaculate Conception and Assumption were. I also think that Holy Scripture teaches her sinlessness in Luke 1:28 and I’ve defended these views for over thirty years.

***

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.

The infallibility of definitive judgments that have a logical connection with revealed truth is recognized by the CDF in its 1998 Commentary on the Concluding Paragraphs of the Profession of Faith. Here are the relevant passages with certain points highlighted:

7. The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.

8. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).

I believe Mary’s immunity from personal sin has a logical connection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It is a definitive infallible teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. It requires definitive assent. To describe this teaching as “non-infallible” shows a lack of appreciation of its logical connection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Moreover, such a position contradicts the expressed teaching of Pius IX in a dogmatic papal bull as well as other papal teachings.

***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: The Virgin and Child with an Angel (c. 1500), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Dr. Robert Fastiggi, professor of dogmatic theology, explains how and why a belief in Mary’s sinlessness is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium and other factors.