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