爱词霸质量反馈
非常抱歉，来自您ip的请求异常频繁，为了保护其他用户的正常访问，只能暂时禁止您目前的访问。
如果您频繁碰到这样的问题，请您删除浏览器中的cookie再尝试访问，也可以联系我们。
对于给您带来的不便我们深表歉意，希望您继续支持爱词霸。
需要继续访问，请输入四位字母验证码
& 2012 金山软件爱词霸质量反馈
非常抱歉，来自您ip的请求异常频繁，为了保护其他用户的正常访问，只能暂时禁止您目前的访问。
如果您频繁碰到这样的问题，请您删除浏览器中的cookie再尝试访问，也可以联系我们。
对于给您带来的不便我们深表歉意，希望您继续支持爱词霸。
需要继续访问，请输入四位字母验证码
& 2012 金山软件> Immaculate Conception
Immaculate Conception
Help support New Advent and
Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...
The doctrine
Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854,
pronounced and
"in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and
granted by , in view of the
of , the Saviour of the , was preserved exempt from all stain of ."
"The Blessed Virgin Mary..."
The subject of this immunity from
at the moment of the
and its infusion into her body.
"...in the first instance of her conception..."
The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her . Her body was formed in the womb of the , and the
had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her . Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of , precedes the infusion of the rational . The
is truly conceived when the
and infused into the body.
was preserved exempt from all stain of
at the first moment of her animation, and
was given to her before
could have taken effect in her .
"...was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin..."
The formal active
was not removed from her , as it is removed it was excluded, it never was in her . Simultaneously with the exclusion of . The state of original , innocence, and justice, as opposed to , was conferred upon her, by which
every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, , and debilities, essentially pertaining to , were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of
— from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.
"...by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race."
The immunity from
was given to
by a singular exemption from a universal
through the same
of , by which other
are cleansed from
needed the
to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal
and debt (debitum) of being subject to . The
of , in consequence of her origin from , should have been subject to , but, being the new
who was to be the mother of the new , she was, by the
counsel of
and by the
of , withdrawn from the general law of . Her
was the very masterpiece of
redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the
that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.
Such is the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception."
Proof from Scripture
Genesis 3:15
No direct or categorical and stringent
can be brought forward from . But the first
passage which contains the
of the , mentions also the . The
against the first
was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the
and the : "and I will put enmity between thee a she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (). The translation "she" of th it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the , who should crush the serpent's head, the
at enmity with the
puts enmity between her and
in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between
and the seed of the serpent.
was ever to be in that exalted state of
which the serpent had destroyed in , i.e. in . Only the continual union of
explains sufficiently the enmity between her and . The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the , and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His , the perfect preservation of His
The salutation of the
— chaire kecharitomene, Hail, full of
() indicates a unique abundance of , a , godlike state of , which finds its explanation only in the Immaculate Conception of . But the term kecharitomene (full of ) serves only as an illustration, not as a
Other texts
From the texts
(which exalt the Wisdom of
and which in the
are applied to , the most beautiful work of
Wisdom), or from the
(, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee"), no
conclusion can be drawn. These passages, applied to the , may be readily understood by those who
of , but do not avail to
, and are therefore omitted from the Constitution "Ineffabilis Deus". For the theologian it is a matter of
not to take an extreme position by applying to a creature texts which might imply the prerogatives of .
Proof from Tradition
In regard to the sinlessness of
are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in
on this matter.
, although he ascribed to
high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the
of , the sword of disbelief pierced Mary' that she was struck by the
and that for her
died (, "In Luc. hom. xvii"). In the same manner
writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which
speaks, the
which pierced
accuses her of , and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that
is a progressive . If we were to attempt to set forth the full
of the , which includes particularly the implicit
in the immaculateness of her conception, we should be forced to transcribe a multitude of passages. In the testimony of the
two points are insisted upon: her absolute purity and her position as the second
Mary as the second Eve
This celebrated comparison between , while yet immaculate and incorrupt — that is to say, not subject to
— and the
is developed by:
(De errore profan. relig xxvi),
(H&res., lxxviii, 18),
(Or. in S. Deip n. 11), and
(Carmen paschale, II, 28).
The absolute purity of Mary
Patristic writings on Mary's purity abound.
The Fathers call
the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption (, "Ontt. in illud, Dominus pascit me");
calls her worthy of , immaculate of the immaculate, most complete , perfect , neither deceived by the persuasion of the , nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa"); Ambrose says she is incorrupt, a
immune through
from every stain of
("Sermo xxii in Ps. cxviii);
calls her a dwelling fit for , not because of her habit of body, but because of original
("Nom. viii de Natali Domini");
terms her a
innocent, without spot, void of culpability,
in body and in , a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of , nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was
("Orat. in S. Dei Genitr."). In refuting
declares that all the just have truly
"except the , of whom, for the
of the , I will have no question whatever where
is concerned" ().
was pledged to
(, "Sermo cxl de Annunt. B.M.V."); it is evident and
that she was pure from , exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae); she was formed without any stain (, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3); she was
more sublime and
than all other
(Theodorus of Jerusalem in , XII, 1140); when the
was to be born of , nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of , but remained devoid of fruit (, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii). The
Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of .
considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of
and : "Most
Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in
and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the
of the , and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the
in purity and
and body . . . . my Lady most , all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by , alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37). To
she was as innocent as
before her fall, a
most estranged from every stain of , more
than the , the sealed fountain of the , the pure seed of , ever in body and in
intact and immaculate ().
says that "the very fact that
has elected her
that none was ever holier if any stain had disfigured her , if any other
had been purer and holier,
would have selected her and rejected ". It seems, however, that , if he had any clear
of , held that
was perfectly pure from
("the sentence against
and ") at the .
(Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the
influence of
at the generation of
to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her . He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the , and freed from sexual . Consequently according to the , even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and . This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the
of the "conceptio carnis" was taken it was put forward by
in his treatise against
and by others. Some writers even taught that
was born of a
and that she was conceived in a
manner when Joachim and
met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", . V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of
which contain the entire
legend of the
conception of .
From this summary it appears that the
immunity from
in her conception was prevalent amongst the Fathers, especially those of the . The rhetorical character, however, of many of these and similar passages prevents us from laying too much stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly literal sense. The
never formally or explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate Conception.
The conception of St. John the Baptist
A comparison with the conception of
and that of St. John may serve to light both on the
and on the reasons which led the Greeks to celebrate at an early
of the Conception of Mary.
The conception of the
was beyond all comparison more noble than that of , whilst it was immeasurably beneath that of her . The
was not preserved immaculate at its union with the body, but was sanctified either shortly after conception from a previous state of , or through the presence of
at the Visitation. , being conceived by the , was, by virtue of his , ipso facto free from the taint of .
Of these three conceptions the
celebrates . The
have a Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist (23 September), which
it is thus older than the Feast of the Conception of Mary, and, during the , was kept also by many
on 24 September. The Conception of Mary is celebrated by the
on 8 D by the
on 9 D the Conception of Christ has its
in the universal
on 25 March. In celebrating the
of Mary's Conception the Greeks of old did not consider the
distinction of the active and the passive conceptions, which was indeed unknown to them. They did not think it absurd to celebrate a conception which was not immaculate, as we see from the Feast of the Conception of St. John. They solemnized the Conception of Mary, perhaps because, according to the , it was preceded by
events (the
to Joachim, etc.), similar to those which preceded the conception of , and that of
Himself. Their object was less the purity of the conception than the
mission of the
conceived. In the Office of 9 December, however, , from the
of her conception, is called beautiful, pure, , just, etc., terms never used in the Office of 23 September (sc. of ). The
sanctification may have given rise to the Feast of the Conception of Mary. If it was
should be so pure and "filled with the " even from his
womb, such a purity was assuredly not less befitting . The moment of
sanctification is by later writers thought to be the Visitation ("the infant leaped in her womb"), but the
words () seem to indicate a sanctification at the conception. This would render the origin of
more similar to that of . And if the Conception of
had its , why not that of ?
Proof from reason
There is an incongruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the flesh of the
was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that , whose power He came on earth to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-Anselmus () developed by , Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the
should have been free from the power of
and from the
could give her this , therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar
was granted to the
and to . They were sanctified in their mother's womb, because by their preaching they had a special share in the work of preparing the way for . Consequently some much higher prerogative is due to . (A treatise of , claiming for St. Joseph also the
of , was placed on the
says that "the perfect
must, in some one case, have done the work of mediation most perfectly, which would not be unless there was some one
at least, in whose regard the wrath of
was anticipated and not merely appeased."
The feast of the Immaculate Conception
of the Conception of Mary (Conception of St. Anne), which originated in the
of Palestine at least as early as the seventh century, and the modern
of the Immaculate Conception are not identical in their object.
Originally the
celebrated only the Feast of the Conception of Mary, as she kept the Feast of
conception, not discussing the sinlessness. This
in the course of centuries became the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, as dogmatical argumentation brought about precise and correct , and as the thesis of the
schools regarding the preservation of
from all stain of
gained strength. Even after the
had been universally accepted in the , and had gained authoritative support through
decisions, the old term remained, and before 1854 the term "Immaculata Conceptio" is nowhere found in the , except in the
of the Conception. The Greeks, , etc. call it the Conception of St. Anne (Eullepsis tes hagias kai theoprometoros Annas, "the Conception of St. Anne, the ancestress of God").
in his "De Immaculato Deiparae Conceptu," basing his opinion upon the "Typicon" of St. Sabas: which was substantially composed in the fifth century,
that the reference to the
forms part of the
original, and that consequently it was celebrated in the
in the fifth century (III, n. 1604). But the Typicon was interpolated by the , , and others, and, from the ninth to the twelfth centuries, many new
were added.
To determine the origin of this
we must take into account the
documents we possess, the oldest of which is the canon of the , composed by , who wrote his
in the second half of the seventh century, when a
of St. Sabas near
of Crete about 720). But the
cannot then have been generally accepted throughout the , for John, first
in the Isle of Euboea, about 750 in a , speaking in favour of the propagation of this , says that it was not yet
to all the
(ei kai me para tois pasi gnorizetai; P.G., XCVI, 1499). But a century later George of Nicomedia, made
in 860, could say that the
was not of recent origin (P.G., C, 1335). It is therefore, safe to
of the Conception of St. Anne appears in the Orient not earlier than the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century.
As in other cases of the same kind the
originated in the
communities. The , who arranged the psalmody and composed the various poetical pieces for the office, also selected the , 9 December, which was always retained in the Oriental . Gradually the
emerged from the , entered into the , was glorified by preachers and poets, and eventually became a fixed
of the , approved by .
It is registered in the
of Basil II (976-1025) and by the Constitution of Emperor Manuel I Comnenus on the days of the year which are half or entire ,
in 1166, it is numbered among the days which have full
rest. Up to the
of Basil II, Lower , , and
st the city of
was not lost to the Greeks until 1127, when Roger II conquered the city. The influence of
was consequently strong in the , and, as early as the ninth century, the Feast of the Conception was doubtlessly kept there, as elsewhere in Lower
on 9 December, as indeed appears from the marble calendar found in 1742 in the Church of S. Giorgio Maggiore at .
Today the Conception of St. Anne is in the
one of the minor
of the year. The
contains allusions to the
"Proto-evangelium" of St. James, which
from the second half of the second century (see ). To the Greek Orthodox of our days, however, th they continue to call it "Conception of St. Anne", indicating unintentionally, perhaps, the active conception which was certainly not immaculate. In the
of 9 December this
holds only the second place, the first canon being sung in commemoration of the
of the Church of the Resurrection at . The Russian
Muraview and several other Orthodox authors even loudly declaimed against the
after its , although their own preachers formerly taught the Immaculate Conception in their writings long before the
appeared (8 December), when in the
its development had come to a standstill. The timid beginnings of the new
in the eleventh century, partly smothered by the Norman conquest, were followed by its reception in some chapters and
by the Anglo-Norman . But the attempts to introduce it officially provoked contradiction and theoretical discussion, bearing upon its legitimacy and its meaning, which were continued for centuries and were not definitively settled before 1854. The "Martyrology of Tallaght" compiled about 790 and the "Feilire" of St. Aengus (800) register the Conception of Mary on 3 May. It is , however, if an actual
corresponded to this
of the learned
St. Aengus. This
certainly stands alone and outside the line of
development. It is a mere isolated appearance, not a living germ. The Scholiast adds, in the lower margin of the "Feilire", that the conception (Inceptio) took place in February, since
was born after seven months — a singular notion found also in some Greek authors. The first definite and reliable
it is found in a
of Old Minster,
(Conceptio S'ce Dei Genetricis Mari), dating from about 1030, and in another
of New Minster, , written between 1035 and 1056; a
of the eleventh century (assigned to ) contains a "benedictio in Conceptione S. Mariae"; a similar
is found in a
written probably in the first half of the eleventh century, certainly before the Conquest. These episcopal benedictions show that the
not only commended itself to the devotion of individuals, but that it was recognized by authority and was observed by the
with considerable . The existing evidence goes to show that the establishment of the
was due to the
before the Conquest (1066).
The Normans on their arrival in
were disposed to treat in a contemptuous fashion English to them this
must have appeared specifically English, a product of insular simplicity and . Doubtless its public celebration was abolished at
and , but it did not die out of the hearts of individuals, and on the first favourable opportunity the
was restored in the . At
however, it was not re-established before 1328. Several documents state that in Norman times it began at , pursuant to a vision vouchsafed to Helsin or &AEthelsige,
on his journey back from , whither he had been sent by William I about 1070. An
appeared to him during a severe gale and saved the ship after the
had promised to establish the Feast of the Conception in his . However we may consider the
feature of the legend, it must be admitted that the sending of Helsin to
is an historical fact. The account of the vision has found its way into many , even into the
of 1473. The Council of
(1325) attributes the re-establishment of the
(d. 1109). But although this great
wrote a special treatise "De Conceptu virginali et originali peccato", by which he laid down the principles of the Immaculate Conception, it is
that he did not introduce the
anywhere. The letter ascribed to him, which contains the Helsin narrative, is spurious. The principal propagator of the
after the Conquest was Anselm, the nephew of . He was
where he may have
after 1109 he was for a time
of St. Sabas at , where the
were celebrated according to the Greek . When in 1121 he was appointed
he es partly at least through his efforts other
also adopted it, like , , , Gloucester, and Winchcombe.
But a number of others decried its observance as hitherto unheard of and absurd, the old Oriental
being unknown to them. Two , Roger of Salisbury and Bernard of St. Davids, declared that the
was forbidden by a council, and that the observance must be stopped. And when, during the
of the , Osbert de Clare,
of , undertook to introduce the
(8 December, 1127), a number of
arose against him in the choir and said that the
must not be kept, for its establishment had not the authority of
(cf. Osbert's letter to Anselm in , p. 24). Whereupon the matter was brought before the Council of
in 1129. The
decided in favour of the , and
adopted it for his . Thereafter the
spread in , but for a time retained its private , the
of Oxford (1222) having refused to raise it to the rank of a
at the time of Bishop Rotric (1165-83) the Conception of Mary, in the
and its six suffragan , was a
equal in dignity to the . At the same time the Norman students at the
chose it as their patronal . Owing to the close connection of
with , it may have been imported from the latter country into , or the Norman barons and
may have brought it home from their
in Lower , it was universally solemnised by the Greek inhabitants. During the
the Feast of the Conception of Mary was commonly called the "Feast of the Norman nation", which shows that it was celebrated in
with great splendour and that it spread from there over .
contends (III, 1755) that the
was celebrated in
in the seventh century.
also (p. 161) finds this opinion acceptable. If this be , it is difficult to understand why it should have entirely disappeared from
later on, for neither does the genuine
contain it, nor the tenth century calendar of Toledo edited by . The two
are futile: the life of , falsely attributed to , which mentions the , is interpolated, while, in the
lawbook, the expression "Conceptio S. Mariae" is to be understood of the .
The controversy
No controversy arose over the Immaculate Conception on the
continent before the twelfth century. The Norman
abolished the
where it had been established by the
. But towards the end of the eleventh century, through the efforts of , it was taken up again in several Anglo-Norman establishments. That
re-established the
is highly improbable, although it was not new to him. He had been made familiar with it as well by the
of , as by the Greeks with whom he came in contact during exile in Campania and Apulin (1098-9). The treatise "De Conceptu virginali" usually ascribed to him, was composed by his friend and , the
. When the canons of the
of , who no
Anselm the Younger
of , personally introduced the
into their choir after the death of their
deemed it his
to publish a protest against this new way of honouring . He addressed to the canons a vehement letter (Epist. 174), in which he reproved them for taking the step upon their own authority and before they had consulted the . Not knowing that the
had been celebrated with the rich tradition of the Greek and
regarding the sinlessness of , he asserted that the
was foreign to the old
of the . Yet it is evident from the tenor of his language that he had in
only the active conception or the formation of the flesh, and that the distinction between the active conception, the formation of the body, and its animation by the
had not yet been drawn. No doubt, when the
was introduced in
and , the axiom "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit", the childlike piety and enthusiasm of the simplices building upon
legends, had the upper hand. The object of the
was not clearly determined, no positive
reasons had been placed in evidence.
was perfectly justified when he demanded a careful inquiry into the reasons for observing the . Not adverting to the possibility of sanctification at the time of the infusion of the , he writes that there can be question only of sanctification after conception, which would render
the nativity, not the conception itself (, "Dogmatik", III, p. 550). Hence
observes: "We say that the
was not sanctified before animation, and the affirmative contrary to this is the
condemned by
to the canons of " (III Sent., dist. iii, p. I, ad 1, Q. i).
was at once answered in a treatise written by either
or . In this treatise appeal is made to a
which had been established to commemorate an insupportable . It maintained that the flesh of
ne that it was sanctified before the conception. Some writers of those times entertained the fantastic
that before
fell, a portion of his flesh had been reserved by
and transmitted from generation to generation, and that out of this flesh the body of
was formed (, op. cit., III, 551), and this formation they commemorated by a . The letter of
did not prevent the extension of the , for in 1154 it was observed all over , until in 1275, through the efforts of the , it was abolished in
and other .
death the controversy arose anew between Nicholas of St. Albans, an
who defended the
as established in , and , the celebrated
of . Nicholas remarks that the
was pierced twice by the sword, i.e. at the foot of the cross and when
wrote his letter against her
(, III, 551). The point continued to be debated throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and illustrious names appeared on each side. , , , , and
are quoted as opposing it.
at first pronounced in favour of the
in his treatise on the "Sentences" (in I. Sent. c. 44, q. I ad 3), yet in his
he concluded against it. Much discussion has arisen as to whether
did or did not deny that the
was immaculate at the instant of her animation, and learned books have been written to vindicate him from having actually drawn the negative conclusion. Yet it is hard to say that
did not require an instant at least, after the animation of , before her sanctification. His great difficulty appears to have arisen from the
as to how she could have been
if she had not . This difficulty he raised in no fewer than ten passages in his writings (see, e.g., ). But while
thus held back from the essential point of the , he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together and worked out, enabled other
to furnish the
solution of this difficulty from his own premises.
In the thirteenth century the opposition was largely due to a want of clear insight into the subject in dispute. The word "conception" was used in different senses, which had not been separated by careful . If , , and other
in the sense of the
of 1854, they would have been its strongest defenders instead of being its opponents.
We may formulate the question discussed by them in two propositions, both of which are against the sense of the
of 1854: the sanctification of
took place before the infusion of the
into the flesh, so that the immunity of the
was a consequence of the sanctification of the flesh and there was no liability on the part of the
to contract . This would approach the opinion of the
concerning the
of the active conception. The sanctification took place after the infusion of the
from the servitude of , into which the
had been drawn by its union with the unsanctified flesh. This form of the thesis excluded an immaculate conception.
forgot that between sanctification before infusion, and sanctification after infusion, there was a medium: sanctification of the
at the moment of its infusion. To them the
seemed strange that what was subsequent in the order of nature could be simultaneous in point of . Speculatively taken, the
before it can be infused and sanctified but in reality, the
and sanctified at the very moment of its infusion into the body. Their principal difficulty was the declaration of
() that all men have
in . The purpose of this
declaration, however, is to insist on the need which all
was no exception to this rule. A second difficulty was the silence of the earlier Fathers. But the divines of those times were distinguished not so much for their
of the Fathers or of history, as for their exercise of the power of reasoning. They read the
Fathers more than those of the , who exhibit in far greater completeness the
of the Immaculate Conception. And many works of the Fathers which had then been lost sight of have since been brought to light.
The famous
(d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the
so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that
onward the
prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — sanctificatio post animationem — demanded that it should follow in the order of
(naturae) not of
(temporis); he removed the great difficulty of
showing that, so far from being excluded from , the
obtained of her
the greatest of redemptions through the
of her preservation from all . He also brought forward, by way of illustration, the somewhat dangerous and
argument of
(S. Anselm) "decuit, potuit, ergo fecit."
not only did the
become the common opinion at the , but the
spread widely to those countries where it had not been previously adopted. With the exception of the , all or nearly all, of the religious orders took it up: The
in 1263 adopted the Feast of the Conception of Mary
this, however, does not mean that they professed at that
of the Immaculate Conception. Following in the footsteps of their own , the learned
became the most fervent champions of the , although their older teachers ( included) had been opposed to it. The controversy continued, but the defenders of the opposing opinion were almost entirely confined to the members of the . In 1439 the dispute was brought before the
where the , formerly opposed to the ,
to be its most ardent advocate, asking for a dogmatical definition. The two referees at the council were
and John Turrecremata (Torquemada). After it had been discussed for the space of two years before that assemblage, the
declared the Immaculate Conception to be a
which was pious, consonant with ,
, right , nor, said they, was it henceforth allowable to preach or declare to the contrary (, XXXIX, 182). The Fathers of the Council say that the
was celebrating the . This is
only in a certain sense. It was kept in a number of churches of , especially in those of the religious orders, but it was not received in the official . As the council at the
was not ecumenical, it could not pronounce with authority. The memorandum of the
formed the armoury for all attacks upon the
(d. 1459), and by the
Bandelli and .
of 28 February, 1476,
at last adopted the
for the entire
and granted an
to all who would assist at the
(, 734). The Office adopted by
was composed by Leonard de Nogarolis, whilst the , since 1480, used a very beautiful Office from the pen of Bernardine dei Busti (Sicut Lilium), which was granted also to others (e.g. to , 1761), and was
up to the second half of the nineteenth century. As the public acknowledgment of the
sufficient to appease the conflict, he published in 1483 a constitution in which he punished with
all those of either opinion who charged the opposite opinion with
(Grave nimis, 4 Sept., 1483; , 735). In 1546 the , when the question was touched upon, declared that "it was not the
to include in the
which concerns
the " (Sess. V, De peccato originali, v, in , 792). Since, however, this
opponents of the , though more and more reduced in numbers, did not yield.
not only condemned proposition 73 of
that "no one but
was without , and that therefore the
had died because of the
contracted in , and had endured afilictions in this life, like the rest of the just, as punishment of actual and " (, 1073) but he also issued a constitution in which he forbade all public discussion of the subject. Finally he inserted a new and simplified Office of the Conception in the
("Super speculam", Dec., 1570; "Superni omnipotentis", March, 1571; "Bullarium Marianum", pp. 72, 75).
Whilst these disputes went on, the great
and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the . In 1497 the
that henceforward no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of .
in , Bologna in the , , , in , ; in
before the . Oxford in
Salamanca, Toledo, , and Valencia; in , in America, Mexico and . The
confirmed in 1621 the election of the
of the order, and bound themselves by
to teach the
in public and in private. The , however, were under special
to follow the
of , and the common conclusion was that
was opposed to the Immaculate Conception. Therefore the
asserted that the
(, 1373); although they adopted the , they termed it persistently "Sanctificatio B.M.V." not "Conceptio", until in 1622
abolished the term "sanctificatio".
that no one should dare to teach publicly that
was conceived in , and
(1622) imposed absolute
(in scriptis et sermonibus etiam privatis) upon the adversaries of the
the question. To put an end to all further cavilling,
on 8 December 1661, the famous constitution "Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum", defining the
sense of the word conceptio, and forbidding all further discussion against the common and pious sentiment of the . He declared that the immunity of
in the first moment of the
and its infusion into the body was the object of the
(Denzinger, 1100).
Explicit universal acceptance
Since the time of , long before the final , there was no
on the part of
that the privilege was amongst the
revealed by . Wherefore , surrounded by a splendid throng of
and , 8 December 1854,
the . A new Office was prescribed for the entire
(25 December, 1863), by which
all the other
in use were abolished, including the old Office Sicut lilium of the , and the Office composed by
(approved 2 Feb., 1849).
In 1904 the golden
of the definition of the
was celebrated with great splendour (, Enc., 2 Feb., 1904).
added to the
within the temporal possessions of the
(1693) raised it to a double of the second class with an
for the universal , which rank had been already given to it in 1664 for , in 1665 for
and , in 1667 for the , the , etc.,
on 6 Dec., 1708, that the
should be a
throughout the entire . At last , 30 Nov 1879, raised the
to a double of the first class with a , a dignity which had long before been granted to
(1739), to
(1760) and to the
of the Conception of Mary, which is now recited in almost the entire
on free Saturdays, was granted first to the
of St. Anne at
in 1603, to the
in 1609, to the
in 1612, etc. The
celebrate this
with the Greeks on 9 D in
it is one of the few immovable
of the year (9 December); the
keep it on 7 August whilst they celebrate the
on 1 M the
, however, have transferred the
to 10 December (, 10 September). The
have since 1854 changed the name of the
in accordance with the
to the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary."
solemnizes a Commemoration of the Immaculate Conception on 1 September to give thanks for the preservation of the city on occasion of the earthquake, 1 September, 1726. A similar
is held on 14 January at
(earthquake, 11 Jan., 1693); and by the Oblate Fathers on 17 Feb., because their rule was approved 17 Feb., 1826. Between 20 September 1839, and 7 May 1847, the
of adding to the
the invocation, "Queen conceived without ", had been granted to 300
and religious communities. The Immaculate Conception was declared on 8 November, 1760, principal
of all the possessions of the crown of , including those in America. The
(1846) electing
in her Immaculate Conception principal
of the , was confirmed on 7 February, 1847.
About this page
APA citation. Holweck, F. (1910). Immaculate Conception. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
MLA citation. Holweck, Frederick. "Immaculate Conception." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910.
&http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm&.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback & especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.
Copyright © 2012 by . Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.}