Internet Archive<\/em>\u00a0(which allows access to older papers once on the Internet).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nRather than duplicate work which has already been accomplished more than ably and comprehensively by Mr. Possidento, I\u2019ve decided to simply abridge his review, in order to make it more accessible to the average reader (not many will wade through an 81-page book review), and to concentrate mostly on the Immaculate Conception (and secondarily, on the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix. I have also concentrated on White\u2019s historical arguments (rather than the biblical disputes). The many glaring errors, misrepresentations, and inadequately supported false assertions of Mr. White will be abundantly apparent, in reading this review.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nI won\u2019t be using ellipses throughout (. . .) \u2014 excepting citations within the review (they are presented in their entirety: any ellipses therein were in the original quotation). Again, this is an\u00a0abridgment<\/i>, and I have made format changes, such as indentation, moving of some material around, etc. Readers can consult the original at the above URL, linked above.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nWilliam Possidento\u2019s review (especially in my abridgment) deals largely with factual errors and White\u2019s misrepresentations of doctrinal history and development of doctrine. My portion will build a complementary argument from analogy, based upon White\u2019s incessant use of double standards and his internal inconsistency: how he continually applies one standard to the Catholic Church and another to Protestantism (usually by ignoring the latter, so that no one will notice his clever \u201csleight-of-hand\u201d).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nHe is very good at this sort of sophistry and selective (one might say, \u201ccynical\u201d) presentation of facts, but it horribly backfires on him, when he is confronted by someone who knows a bit more about comparative theology and Church history than the average reader of his papers and books. This is a classic example of his pseudo-scholarly methodology being relentlessly \u201cexposed\u201d for what it is. The results are (if I do say so) rather devastating with regard to Mr. White\u2019s objectivity as a scholar and his seeming inability to grasp logical contradiction in his own positions. It is also a quintessential (sadly common) example of a profound anti-Catholic bias getting the better of a person who is otherwise is a fairly sharp and knowledgeable thinker.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>
* * * * * * * * * *<\/span><\/center>On 1 February 2000, James R. White e-mailed me his rejoinder, his (electronic) digital signature included, to a version of my review of his\u00a0Mary-Another Redeemer?<\/i>\u00a0Still more, on his Alpha and Omega Ministries Web site, he described my customer comment as an \u201c<\/span>incredibly poor review\u201d<\/span>, edited portions of which were \u201c<\/span>amazingly\u201d<\/span>\u00a0published on p. 40 of the February 2000 issue of\u00a0This Rock<\/i>, a magazine which Catholic Answers publishes.<\/span>\nMr. White wrote on pp. 75-76 as follows:<\/span><\/p>\nIn fact, not only is the idea of Mary as Coredemptrix or Mediatrix completely absent from the Bible and from the early Church, it does not have its origin in history but in this kind of piety or religious devotion that is focused upon Mary.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nMr. White eventually (p. 137) did report, the falsity of which I believe I will demonstrate, that:<\/span><\/p>\n[T]he push to define Mary as Coredemptrix flows out of the piety seen so plainly in Alphonsus Ligouri\u00a0<\/span>[sic]\u00a0and Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort. It does not come to us from Scripture, nor does it come from history.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nMr. White, in denying the existence of such belief, even waxing emphatic with the words \u201c<\/span>completely absent\u201d<\/span>, will be shown to have steered his pilgrim readers into a slough of despond.<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Irenaeus wrote, for example, of Christ as\u00a0the pure one opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God\u00a0<\/i>(Against Heresies<\/i>\u00a0IV,33,11) \u2013 words with which Irenaeus credited the Virgin\u2019s womb and assigns to her a universal motherhood. Writing of the economy, that is, the plan of salvation, St. Irenaeus remarked \u2026without Joseph\u2019s action, Mary was the only one to cooperate in the economy<\/i>\u2026 (Against Heresies<\/i>\u00a0III, 21,5,7 [quote from 7] in Miravalle, p. 178). Contemplate that. St. Irenaeus gave, with those words, a second century statement of belief that Mary had a unique role in the plan of salvation.<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Irenaeus wrote of Mary c.190-200, in\u00a0Proof of the Apostolic Preaching<\/i>:<\/span><\/p>\nAdam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve [had to be recapitulated] in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin\u2019s\u00a0advocate<\/b>, might destroy and abolish one virgin\u2019s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.\u00a0<\/span>(Proof of the Apostolic Preaching<\/i>\u00a033,\u00a0Sources Chr\u00e9tiennes<\/i>\u00a062 [Paris, 1941-], pp. 83-86, in Gambero, p. 54, brackets in Gambero, boldface mine)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nJaroslav Pelikan, (then) a Lutheran (he converted to the Orthodox Church in 1999), after quoting a slightly longer version of the passage immediately above from\u00a0Proof of the Apostolic Preaching<\/i>\u00a033, wrote:<\/span><\/p>\nWhen it is suggested that for the development of the doctrine of Mary, such Christian writers as Irenaeus in a passage like this \u201care important witnesses for the state of the tradition in the late second century,\u00a0if not earlier<\/i>,\u201d that raises the interesting question of whether Irenaeus had invented the concept of Mary as the Second Eve here or was drawing on a deposit of tradition that had come to him from \u201cearlier.\u201d It is difficult, in reading his\u00a0Against Heresies\u00a0<\/i>and especially his\u00a0Proof of the Apostolic Preaching<\/i>, to avoid the impression that he cited the parallelism of Eve and Mary so matter-of-factly without arguing or having to defend the point because he could assume that his readers would willingly go along with it, or even that they were already familiar with it. One reason that this could be so might have been that, on this issue as on so many others, Irenaeus regarded himself as the guardian and the transmitter of a body of belief that had come to him from earlier generations, from the very apostles. A modern reader does need to consider the possibility, perhaps even to concede the possibility, that in so regarding himself Irenaeus may just have been right and that therefore it may already have become natural in the second half of the second century to look at Eve, the \u201cmother of all living,\u201d and Mary, the mother of Christ, together, understanding and interpreting each of the two most important women in human history on the basis of each other. With such moderns in mind, the parallelism was dramatically set forth by the German sculptor Toni Zanz in the metal door created in 1958 for the rebuilding of the Church of Sankt Alban in Cologne, which had been destroyed during World War II: in the lower left are Adam and Eve at the moment of the fall, in the upper right the Second Adam and the Second Eve at the moment of the crucifixion and redemption.\u00a0<\/span>(Pelikan, pp. 43-44, his italics)<\/span><\/p>\n[the citation from Pelikan by William Possidento had a typo: an added \u201cnot\u201d which was pointed out and has now been removed. As the extraneous \u201cnot\u201d weakened the case Pelikan was making \u2014 from a Catholic perspective \u2014 , clearly it was an inadvertent mistake, not a deliberate, dishonest addition]<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhere is, and perhaps I mint a phrase here, at least with respect to capitalization, Mr. White\u2019s anti-Irenicon? That is, where is his polemic against St. Irenaeus? More important, where is Mr. White\u2019s anti-irenicon against the very early Church that did not rebuke St. Irenaeus but instead received and even recommended him as orthodox?<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Irenaeus was not the earliest author to explicitly join a counterpart to St. Paul\u2019s Adam-Christ parallel and antithesis: St. Justin Martyr was earlier and may have been the first writer to explicate the Eve-Mary parallel and antithesis, though it is strongly implicit in the Bible. His\u00a0Dialogue with Trypho the Jew<\/i>, c.155, preceded St. Irenaeus\u2019s\u00a0Against Heresies<\/i>\u00a0(180-199) and\u00a0The Preaching of the Apostles<\/i>\u00a0(c.190-200) by several decades.<\/span><\/p>\nChrist became man by the virgin in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent\u2019s might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her, that the spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the highest would overshadow her; wherefore the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, \u2018Be it done unto me according to thy word\u2019. And by her has he been born, to whom we have proved so many scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him.\u00a0<\/span>(Dialogue with Trypho the Jew<\/i>, in Quasten,\u00a0Patrology<\/i>, Vol. I, pp. 211-212, brackets mine)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThus this very early martyr compared and contrasted Eve and Mary. According to St. Justin\u2019s first sentence above, the redemption did not merely correct the fall but reversed, that is, recapitulated, it. I re-emphasize that St. Justin wrote the passage above about 155.<\/span><\/p>\nTertullian was born in Carthage between 155-160. The following passage is from\u00a0The Flesh of Christ<\/i>, written between 208-212:<\/span><\/p>\nIf, then, the first Adam was introduced in this way, all the more reason that the second Adam, as the apostle said, had to come forth from a virgin earth, that is, from a body not yet violated by generation, by God\u2019s action, so that he might become the spirit who gives life. However, lest my introduction of Adam\u2019s name appear meaningless, why did the apostle call Christ \u201cAdam\u201d (cf. 1 Cor 15:45), if his humanity did not have an earthly origin? But here, too, reason comes to our aid: through a contrary operation, God recovered his image and likeness, which had been stolen by the devil.<\/span><\/p>\nFor just as the death-creating word of the devil had penetrated Eve, who was still a virgin, analogously the life-building Word of God had to enter into a Virgin, so that he who had fallen into perdition because of a woman might be led back to salvation by means of the same sex. Eve believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. The fault that Eve introduced by believing, Mary, by believing, erased.\u00a0<\/span>(The Flesh of Christ<\/i>, 17, 4-5, in\u00a0Patrologiae cursus completus<\/i>\u00a02, 827-828, Series Latina [Paris: Migne, 1841-1864], in Gambero, p. 67)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nStrong word\u00a0erased<\/i>. Some translations have\u00a0blotted out<\/i>\u00a0in its place, another forcible expression. Observe that Tertullian also identified the idea of recapitulation. Cardinal Newman, in the nineteenth century, remarked that St. Justin, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian remind\u00a0the reader of St. Paul\u2019s antithetical sentences in tracing the analogy between Adam\u2019s work and our Lord\u2019s work\u00a0<\/i>(Newman, in Sr. E. Breen, ed.,\u00a0Mary-The Second Eve<\/i>, p. 5). Not only do St. Justin, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian testify to the presence in the Church of the second and third centuries of belief of the Virgin Mary\u2019s active role in the redemption, but in representing many localities in Asia, Europe and Africa, they also indicate the universality of that belief.<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Ephrem (also spelled\u00a0Ephraem<\/i>) (c.306-373), wrote in Syrian of the Virgin Mary according to a prayer ascribed to him:\u00a0After the Mediator thou art the mediatrix of the whole world<\/i>\u00a0(Oratio IV ad Deiparam, 4th Lesson of the Office of the Feast<\/i>, in Ott, p. 211). In another prayer attributed to him, we read of Mary as\u00a0the dispensatrix of all goods\u00a0<\/i>(in Most, p. 34). On the similarities and contrasts of Eve and Mary, he wrote:\u00a0Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life<\/i>\u00a0(Op. syr. II<\/i>, 327, in Ott, p. 201).<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Ambrose (c.337-397) viewed Mary\u2019s role in redemption in the context of the Incarnation:<\/span><\/p>\nShe was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowed her. She was alone and she wrought the salvation of the world and conceived the redemption of all.\u00a0<\/span>(Ep. 49, 2,\u00a0Patrologia Latina\u00a0<\/i>[Migne] 16, 1154, in O\u2019Carroll, p. 20)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nSt. Augustine composed, from 391 until his death in 430, perhaps thousands of sermons. This one bore the idea of recapitulation:<\/span><\/p>\nBoth the sexes should recognize their own dignity, and both should confess their sins and hope to be saved. Through woman, poison was poured upon man, in order to deceive him, but salvation was poured out upon man from a woman, that he might be reborn in grace. The woman, having become the Mother of Christ, will repair the sin she committed in deceiving the man.\u00a0<\/span>(Sermo, 51, 3;\u00a0Patrologia Latina<\/i>\u00a038, 334-335, in Gambero, p. 230)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nEach century of the first five testifies against Mr. White\u2019s expansive claim and powerfully in favor of the Blessed Virgin Mary\u2019s role as Co-Redeemer or Mediatrix. Mr. White also wrote (p. 142):<\/span><\/p>\n[A]nd any Mary who is said to be Coredemptrix\u00a0on any level\u00a0<\/i>speaks with a voice that the sheep of Christ simply will not hear.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nSt. Augustine wrote:<\/span><\/p>\nHaving excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins, \u2013 for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no sin?\u00a0<\/span>(Nature and Grace<\/i>, 36,42, in Jurgens, III, p. 111).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nScholars agree that St. Augustine certainly believed in Mary\u2019s exemption from personal sin. Some also see in this famous passage his belief in Mary\u2019s exemption from original sin. Theirs may be a minority opinion among Augustinian scholars, but it would make St. Augustine a forerunner of God\u2019s Immaculate Conception of Mary. Anyway, he did not teach\u00a0very clearly<\/i>\u00a0against the Immaculate Conception. And did St. Augustine overlook the immaculate conceptions of Adam and Eve, as does Mr. White?<\/span><\/p>\n[T]he total overcoming of sin<\/i>\u00a0suggests that St. Augustine comprehended both original sin and personal sin in this passage. An extensive bibliography exists, however, on the controversy surrounding St. Augustine\u2019s belief regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Fr. Gambero in a footnote on this dispute cited only recent (since 1931) works, yet among them are documents in Latin, German, French, Spanish and Italian (Gambero,\u00a0 p. 226). These included, for just two examples, the following titles:\u00a0La Controverse sur l\u2019opinion de Saint Augustin touchant la conception de la Vierge<\/i>\u00a0(which I translate as\u00a0The Controversy on the opinion of Saint Augustine concerning the conception of the Virgin<\/i>) and\u00a0Augustinus amicus an adversarius Immaculatae Conceptionis?<\/i>\u00a0(which I very roughly render as\u00a0Augustine \u2013 friend or foe of the Immaculate Conception?<\/i>). Despite this dispute, Mr. White wrote (p. 40) \u201cAugustine had taught very clearly that only Christ was [immaculately] conceived\u2026.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nNote something else fascinating. Mr. White failed to explain both in his book and, despite the prompting I made in the review, in his rejoinder, what he implicitly claimed as a teaching of St. Augustine. Why did Mr. White decline to respond to my question about Adam and Eve? In asserting that St. Augustine taught that only Christ was immaculately conceived, Mr. White seems to have implied or assented to the implication that Adam and Eve were not immaculately conceived. Yet if Adam and Eve were not immaculately conceived, and here I refer to their passive conceptions, that is, the infusion of their souls into their bodies, then how did they fall from grace?<\/span><\/p>\nGod did not create Adam and Eve with original sin. If He did, they would not be described, among other things, as having fallen. And if not fallen, then they and their descendants would have need for neither redemption nor a redeemer. Mr. White, in his zeal to sully the Catholic dogma of God\u2019s Immaculate Conception of Mary, implicitly denied God\u2019s immaculate conceptions of Adam and Eve, and thus carelessly painted Jesus as the Redeemer of no one, an enormous irony. Mr. White\u2019s assertion that only Christ was immaculately conceived is thus reduced to an absurdity.<\/span><\/p>\nMr. White identifies (pp. 40-42) [St.] Thomas Aquinas among many theologians who disbelieved in the Immaculate Conception. He neglects that Aquinas believed that original sin touched Mary only an instant, placing him extremely close to the belief, and that Aquinas believed in her personal sinlessness.<\/span><\/p>\nSt. Thomas at first pronounced in favour of the doctrine in his treatise on the\u00a0Sentences<\/i>\u00a0(in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his\u00a0Summa Theologica<\/i>\u00a0he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether St. Thomas did or did not deny that the Blessed Virgin was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from actually having drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that St. Thomas did not require an instant at least, after the animation of Mary, before her sanctification.\u00a0<\/span>(The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/i>, Volume VII, Online Edition, 1999, under\u00a0\u201cImmaculate Conception\u201d<\/a>)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nAquinas accepted Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant, based on the close parallelism between the Visitation (Luke 1:39-56) and the transportation of the Ark (2 Samuel 6:1-14), and on the convergence of the Ark (Revelation 11:19) with the woman of Revelation 12. Mr. White omits that Aquinas believed in her Assumption, a belief that is particularly striking because it is usually a consequence of belief in the Immaculate Conception.<\/span><\/p>\nThe Blessed John Duns Scotus (c.1266-1308) reconciled Mary\u2019s purity with her need for redemption. Scotus enabled reclassification of the Virgin Mary apart from St. John the Baptist but with Adam, Eve and Jesus, all of whom were conceived immaculately.\u00a0 Scotus showed in 1300 how Mary could have a Savior yet always have been immune from the stain of original sin. Rather than purifying Mary of original sin, God preserved her from it with the most perfect, the most blessed redemption, a preventive redemption \u2013 the Immaculate Conception. Mr. White acknowledged the theoretical possibility of such an immunization (pp. 36-37). Although a few expressed otherwise, most of the Fathers believed in Mary\u2019s personal sinlessness, that is, her freedom from actual sin.<\/span><\/p>\nI find the absence of actual sin in Mary at least as fascinating as her Immaculate Conception, that is, the absence in her of original sin. To me, Mary\u2019s personal sinlessness seems impossible without her immunity from original sin. I realize, however, that Aquinas, for one, seems to have felt differently than I. Whatever Aquinas felt about Mary\u2019s status regarding original sin, he believed that Mary was personally sinless.<\/span><\/p>\nMr. White (p. 40) cited p. 203 of Dr. Ott\u2019s\u00a0Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma<\/i>\u00a0to remark that some of the individual Greek Fathers, including Origen, taught that Mary had venial personal faults. Mr. White neglected that in the very same paragraph he cited, Dr. Ott noted that\u00a0Latin Patristic authors unanimously teach the doctrine of the sinlessness of Mary<\/i>\u00a0(Ott, p. 203).<\/span><\/p>\nThomistic and Neo-Thomistic philosophers and Dominicans affirm that St. Thomas Aquinas would have assented to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary had he encountered Scotus\u2019s preventive redemption solution. Their lives overlapped, but Scotus was about eight when Aquinas died. Dr. Pelikan noted that by the sixteenth century even the heirs of Aquinas resorted to Scotus\u2019s explanation to substantiate the Immaculate Conception (Pelikan, p. 198). Aquinas\u2019s view on the Immaculate Conception which emerged from the\u00a0Summa Theologica<\/i>, and not the view which he expressed in Sentences, differed from the Catholic Church\u2019s dogmatic view by as little as an instant. But he lived before the definition of the dogma and no Catholic of his time was required to believe it.<\/span><\/p>\nMr. White named St. Bernard of Clairvaux (pp. 41-42) as an opponent of the institution of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception [\u201cBernard of Clairvaux contended that she was conceived with original sin, but purified before birth\u201d<\/span>]. St. Bernard believed that the Blessed Virgin Mary was sanctified before her birth. But St. Bernard opposed the idea of a special conception of Mary according to which, he thought, Mary herself would have been conceived virginally. The Venerable [John Henry Cardinal] Newman noted that St. Bernard understood the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with reference to Mary\u2019s mother, whereas we understand it to refer to Mary. By ignoring the distinction between the active and passive conceptions in the thought of the great Cistercian abbot, Mr. White again misrepresented the teaching of a most influential Catholic.<\/span><\/p>\nMr. White questioned on p. 41 when the idea of the Immaculate Conception first came into play. He then answered with a passage from p. 201 in Ott to indicate the beginning of the twelfth century. But Dr. Ott on that very page indicated that the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, implicitly taught the Immaculate Conception in two fundamental notions: 1)\u00a0Mary\u2019s most perfect purity and holiness<\/i>; and 2)\u00a0The similarity and contrast between Mary and Eve\u00a0<\/i>(Ott, p. 201).<\/span><\/p>\nThough Mr. White pointed to Dr. Ott\u2019s\u00a0Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma<\/i>\u00a0to report a twelfth century emergence of the idea, Dr. Ott quoted a fourth century passage of St. Ephrem to indicate belief in the Immaculate Conception in the patristic age (a passage I reported earlier). Around 370 in the\u00a0Nisibene Hymns<\/i>, Ephrem wrote:\u00a0Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain\u00a0<\/i>(Hymn 27, v. 8, in Ott).\u00a0 St. Ambrose was Bishop of Milan when between 387 and 388 he strikingly described Mary as\u00a0a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin<\/i>\u00a0(Jurgens, II, p. 166).<\/span><\/p>\nSeparately I mention St. Sophronius (died 638), Patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the last of the Fathers and one of the greatest exponents of Mary\u2019s primacy of excellence. He almost stated the Immaculate Conception in western terms:<\/span><\/p>\nOthers before you have flourished with outstanding holiness. But to none as to you has the fullness of grace been given. None has been endowed with happiness as you, none adorned with holiness like yours, none brought to such great magnificence as yours; no one was ever possessed\u00a0beforehand\u00a0<\/i>by purifying grace as were you . . . And this deservedly, for no one came as close to God as you did; no one was enriched with God\u2019s gifts as you were; no one shared God\u2019s grace as you did.\u00a0<\/span>(St. Sophronius, In\u00a0SS Deip. Annunt.<\/i>\u00a022\u00a0Patrologia Latina<\/i>\u00a087c, 3248, in O\u2019Carroll, p. 329, his italics and ellipsis)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nMr. White posed two questions on p. 38, the first of which was: \u201c<\/span>But why did it take more than 1,800 years to define this teaching as dogma, if, in fact, it is true?\u201d<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/i>Part of the answer consists in this: the Catholic Church did not rush to define it. Although the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not proclaimed a\u00a0revealed doctrine<\/i>\u00a0until 8 December 1854, the Immaculate Conception had been declared a\u00a0pious doctrine\u00a0<\/i>in the fifteenth century, only 139 years after Scotus\u2019s breakthrough. Mr. White did not inform his readers of the Council of Basel (Basle<\/i>\u00a0is an older name). Dr. Pelikan again:<\/span><\/p>\nThe thirty-sixth session of the Council of Basel, on 18 December 1439, decreed that the immaculate conception was \u201ca pious doctrine, in conformity with the worship of the church, the Catholic faith, right reason, and Holy Scripture.\u201d It prescribed that the doctrine \u201cbe approved, held, and professed by all Catholics,\u201d and it forbade any preaching or teaching contrary to it. That might have seemed to settle the matter, and was probably intended to do just that \u2013 except that by the time of this session Basel was itself under a cloud because of its statements and actions on the relation of the authority of the pope to that of a general council, which were subsequently condemned and which therefore made these later sessions of the Council of Basel invalid and not entitled to the designation of \u201cecumenical council.\u201d Therefore the decree on the immaculate conception was not canonically binding.\u00a0<\/span>(Pelikan, p. 198)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nAccording to Mr. White (p. 41), however, \u201c<\/span>S. Lewis Johnson summarized it well\u201d<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/i>(recall the discussions of Aquinas, Scotus and Bernard and read the next few paragraphs through the discussion of Trent and ask yourself just what Mr. White thought Dr. Johnson summarized well):<\/span><\/p>\nAnselm held that Mary was\u00a0born\u00a0<\/i>with original sin. Bernard of Clairvaux contended that she was\u00a0conceived<\/b>\u00a0with original sin, but purified before birth. Thomas Aquinas and the Dominicans held this view, but Duns Scotus popularized the view that Mary was conceived without original sin, and his view eventually prevailed, although Pope Sixtus VI in 1485 and the Council of Trent in 1546 left the issue of the Immaculate Conception unresolved.\u00a0<\/span>(S. Lewis Johnson, \u201cMary, the Saints, and Sacerdotalism\u201d in John Armstrong, ed.,\u00a0
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/06\/MaryAnotherRedeemer.jpg\")
<\/p>\n