Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully interact with my article.
I wanna provide some relatively brief comments on your response...
***ON YOUR USE OF CARDINAL NEWMAN'S QUOTES***
Surely, Cardinal Newman (as well as yourself) would have a deeper familiarity with the full extent of Mariology in Church History than I do since, at least at the time of writing this comment, I haven't yet embarked on a deep-dive into all facets of historical Mariology. That being said, I see quite a few problems with Cardinal Newman's approach to this issue (at least in the quotes you've provided).
Newman seems to equate patristic assertions of the Blessed Virgin (B.V. from henceforth) "being without sin" as to her "being conceived an born without sin." Surely, we can see that there's a gap between those two ideas which hasn't been bridged yet. For example, say that one of your friends has just watched Forrest Gump for the first time and approaches you to talk about the movie. He talks about the different characters and eventually makes his way to Lieutenant Dan, starting off saying something like, "Man, it makes sense that he was so bitter and despondent. I mean, just imagine being without legs." If you then responded to your friend by saying, "Man, yeah, I would be pretty despondent too if I had been born without legs." Your friend would likely look at you with a puzzled look on his face. Why? Lt. Dan wasn't born without legs; in fact, he has both of them in an earlier point in the movie.
To say that someone "was without [INSERT THING HERE]" does not necessitate that said person was without said thing from the moment of their birth or conception -- that would require additional supporting context or arguments to help bridge the gap. In the case of the B.V., even if someone makes a statement about her being sinless *in some sense*, there's a range of options to choose from as to what that means: 1. She may have been conceived literally without sin, 2. She may have been hyperbolically "without sin" in a particular instance (denoting how righteous and pleasing to God a particular decision/action was), 3. She may have been generally "without sin" in a hyperbolic sense (denoting how particularly righteous her heart and actions were as a whole in comparison to other people), 4. She may have been literally without sin *after* a particular event or point in time (such as the annunciation or her being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, for example) despite having been sinful prior, or 5. She may have had sinful flesh but never chosen to act upon the flesh's sinful desires (i.e. - having original sin, but no actual sin). The context is really important for determining which of these is meant by the person making the statement.
The way Newman attempts to bridge the gap is through a typological argument with the B.V. being the New Eve. For the sake for the argument, let's grant that typological connection. Why should we assume that this means Mary was sinless from conception? Does everything about Eve transfer on to Mary? We know that, even prior to the Fall, God commanded Eve to be joined to her husband, and to be fruitful and multiply to replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28)... but, you wouldn't agree that this aspect of Eve transfers to the B.V. (since you affirm her perpetual virginity). Pre-Fall, Eve felt no shame and wore no clothes everywhere she went... but you don't believe that transfers over to the B.V.. Pre-Fall, Eve wouldn't have experienced natural death... but you don't believe that transfers over to the B.V. (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/04/marys-death-before-her-assumption-required-belief.html). It would seem as arbitrary to me to try to pass along Eve's sinlessness from conception to the B.V. as it would be to pass on any of the aforementioned attributes to her. This is especially the case when even some of the Church Fathers that Newman relies on *do not* speak of the B.V. in terms of having always been sinless, or anything of the sort, when discussing her as the New Eve. Irenaeus, in particular, applies the typology simply to say that Eve chose to disobey God when approached by Satan (which brought about humanity's Fall), whereas the B.V. chose to obey God when approached by Gabriel (which would bring about humanity's Redemption). Here is the full quote from Irenaeus that Newman made reference to:
"That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death." - Irenaeus, ANF01, Against Heresies: Book V, Chapter XIX, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_v/anf01.ix.vii.xx.html
For Newman to stretch out this account of one pivotal moment of obedience to somehow mean that Mary *always* chose to obey God in every single other instance of her life is an unjustified leap, if I've ever seen one.
At this point, one may be tempted to counter by saying something along the lines of: "But wait, wouldn't these same sorts of arguments cast doubt upon Christ's sinlessness and status as the New Adam also?" The short answer to that is, simply: no. We have warrant from the Biblical text itself explicitly calling Jesus sinless (See: 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5, Hebrews 4:15, etc...). When it comes to how to best understand these verses, the fact that Jesus is the God-Man (that there is a hypostatic union between Christ's divine nature and human nature) easily bridges the gap and provides sufficient context and warrant for us to assert that the incarnate Christ was without sin from His very conception.
Here, one may be tempted to respond to this rejoinder by saying something like, "Well, Mary had a very personal and intimate connection to God when she bore Him in her womb. Surely that's enough to establish her sinlessness also!" But... was she bearing Christ in her womb at the moment of her own conception? No, she wasn't.
Additionally, I would also contest Newman's contention that, "Now, as to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was implied in early times, and never denied." For that, I would present a myriad quotes from this very article.
***ON YOUR OWN POINTS***
You echoed several of Cdl. Newman's points which I addressed above, so I wont rehash my response to those points here. However, I do want to address an additional statement you made: "Assume for the sake of argument that Mary actually inherited original sin for a nanosecond before God performed His special act of grace. Whether that happened or not, still we know that she definitely would have inherited it had God not acted. The very act on His part shows that it was necessary to prevent such an inheritance. In this specific sense one can incorporate all of the statements from the fathers saying that inheritance of original sin was universal, without any harm to the Catholic doctrine."
This would be like if someone said, "Every single one of my pets has been fed today"... despite knowing that when they tried to feed their smaller cat, their bigger cat stepped in and bullied the smaller one out of its food. Would the person's claim that "every single one of my pets have been fed today" be rendered true by fact that the food *would have* made it to the smaller cat were it not for the bigger cat preventing it from happening? I can think of at least one very hungry kitty who'd object to that being the case.
To keep things brief in regards to the doctrinal development arguments, I will simply point the following out: the frustrating bit here is that Roman Catholic apologetics makes much use of the "consensus of the Fathers" when RCs believe said consensus to be in their favor. However, when the tide turns the other way, and the consensus is against a given RC position... well, an untold number of Fathers can just be wrong, and we can just appeal to doctrinal development. It really feels like: "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose."
I would keep going on, but I promised to keep things brief so that I could offer a response within a reasonable amount of time from your own response to me.
Again, thanks for your thoughts & for a respectful back and forth.
Newman, Sinless Mary, & Development (vs. Javier Perdomo) . . . Concentrating on the New Eve Analogy in the Church Fathers and its Full Implication Regarding Mary’s Freedom from Actual and Original Sin [2-12-25]
Thank you for your thoughtful interaction! I will try to return the favor and interact with what you've written also. Although I'm not sure I'll be able to write as quickly lol
I don’t think Jesus correcting or in Gregory’s words “reject[ing] his mother’s advice” necessarily entails sin on her part. Not knowing something, and giving a wrong instruction doesn’t mean a person has sinned.
I received this article in my email today. I sincerely commend you for the tremendous amount of research that went into this. As a Catholic apologist myself, I seriously considered making a long, in-depth reply, which I would consider enjoyable and challenging in roughly equal measure, but ultimately decided not to, for several reasons:
1) virtually no one, Protestant or Catholic, cares about such an exhaustive treatment of the Fathers;
2) even less folks in either group, either care about, or even *understand* in the most rudimentary way, development of doctrine (my favorite topic in theology, by the way, and the biggest factor in my becoming Catholic), that this subject necessarily involves;
3) I know that it's exceedingly unlikely, based on almost universal past experience of thirty years, that you or any other Protestant apologist, would reply and interact with anything I might produce by way of counter-reply. So, e.g., Jordan Cooper tells me he has no time to counter-reply to my 18 or so critiques of his videos. Gavin Ortlund has only replied once to over 30 critiques. He, too, says he has no time for it and cites priorities, etc.
It's fine to be good stewards. I do the same thing. But what I'm saying is that for me to undertake a project this huge, which virtually no one would care about or read, and which would almost certainly receive no reply back, is, in the end, not worth the huge amount of time and effort this would require, seeing that there are hundreds of other things in apologetics and theology to write about or discuss (on my new YouTube channel).
In the meantime, my analogical mind immediately thought of a similar situation that is the Protestants' "problem" just as this is ours to work through. Protestants, too, claim that the Church fathers are more on their side than ours. Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz certainly thought that, and non-Lutherans like Calvin did as well, and I hear this repeated times without number by Protestant apologists, such as Cooper and Ortlund, Jason Engwer, and many others.
in other words, judging by the grandiose patristic claims that also regularly come from from your side (largely in reaction to us), you, too, have the intellectual burden of having to demonstrate that the fathers espoused *your* distinctive (and I say, novel and late-arriving) views. Thus, I could paraphrase your own words as follows:
"Our Protestant friends are as fond as we are of making grand appeals to history and the consensus of the Church’s theologians down through the ages. But could they truly argue that the consensus of the theologians is on their side when it comes to their two "pillars": sola Scriptura and sola fide?"
When it comes to these two "pillars" of the Reformation, it's exceedingly difficult to demonstrate virtually any patristic espousal *at all*, let alone a supposed "consensus." I contend it's much *more* difficult than our task with regard to Mary's sinlessness, as developed over a long period into the Immaculate Conception . I myself have -- through many hundreds of hours of work -- collected scores and scores of evidences that the Church fathers en masse rejected both. But I can also draw from Protestant experts on the topic. Hence, Alister McGrath, widely considered the foremost authority on the history of justification, made the following observation:
"Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .
"The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .
"The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . .
Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . ." (Alister McGrath, *Reformation Thought: An Introduction*, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115)
Protestant apologist Norman Geisler makes an even more striking observation:
"One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . ." (Norman Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 222)
In other words, goose and gander, pot calling the kettle black, etc. You guys make your arguments against Marian doctrines and other distinctively Catholic positions, and we offer similar ones back, about distinctively Protestant positions. Yet Protestants only very rarely are willing to produce any counter-replies when we make our arguments along these lines, which in turn is one of the reasons why I'm disinclined to reply to this article of yours. "No one" would read it or care about it, and almost certainly no one -- who is able to -- would reply to whatever I came up with.
We all must be wise stewards of our time and efforts. In an ideal world, where everyone loved debate and dialogue and the exchange of ideas, and loved to back up their own opinions under intense scrutiny, I would like few things more than to discuss this and many other theological topics for months on end, with able and willing dialogue opponents, but I don't expect that that will ever happen, because it takes two . . .
Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry you haven't been able to have the robust back-and-forths that you've been wanting to have with Protestant apologists.
I can certainly understand how much of a bummer it is to put a lot of effort into a robust response while receiving no interaction in return. I, myself, am also very busy spinning a lot of plates (with my YT channel, my job, other projects, family, etc...), but at the very least, I would like to interact with your comment here.
I haven't done a deep-dive into all the relevant sources regarding Justification yet, so I can't provide a lengthy, in-depth analysis of the historical data at the moment. That being said, I wouldn't agree with the idea that the Lutheran understanding of Justification is a clear break with the past. Alister McGrath isn't the only Protestant scholar who has done work on this issue. Additionally, McGrath also didn't survey every single Patristic writing (realistically, who could though!) and his analysis of the sources isn't uncontested. See here for a brief interaction with McGrath by a fellow Lutheran: https://www.theconservativereformer.com/articles/justification-mcgrath-critique
Do you have an article detailing your case for doctrinal development? If so, I'd like to read it.
When it comes to understanding the Roman Catholic understanding of doctrinal development, what are some of your favorite resources (books, videos, articles) that you would recommend?
There are always, of course, other scholars who disagree with any given scholar. That's where it gets fun! I think it's striking that a statements such as the ones I cited from McGrath and Geisler exist at all. I think Jordan Cooper said in one of his videos that I've critiqued, if I recall correctly (and I think I do), that the Lutheran conception of justification was essentially a new thing in the 16th century (and that this was okay). I'm sure you could find bits and pieces of imputed justification here and there in the fathers and medieval theologians, but nowhere within a million miles of a consensus, even if McGrath's views aren't entirely accurate.
Also, our view of what we call initial justification is essentially the same. In this respect, even Trent allows some degree of imputation. Our concern is with the post-regenerate person's life, and what he or she is responsible then (and good works are a necessary part of that).
And so, if I'm correct about that, you're basically in the same boat that you claim we're in: you firmly believe a doctrine that is hard to find before Melanchthon (not even fully in Luther, who talked about theosis), just as you would say our Marian doctrines are late-arriving, and corruptions rather than developments. And the same goes for sola Scriptura. So that is one turn-the-tables reply. I'm not saying it nullifies your argument against us; just that Protestants also have similar "problems" in locating their distinctive views in historical theology.
As for resources on development, I have a web page devoted to it, including several introductory treatments and more in-depth stuff (I'm assuming you allow links in this combox):
I will at least do a partial reply-article consisting of Newman's thoughts on the patristic and later development of the belief in Mary's sinlessness and Immaculate Conception, drawn from one or more of my three quotations books devoted to St. Cardinal Newman.
I'll be making a blog post of this exchange if that's not objectionable, since I think this is a helpful and constructive exchange. If the links don't come through here, I'll post the title of my blog article in another reply. You'd be able to find it at the top of my blog, "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" anyway.
Part of my interest in this article was in asking the question: Does every Roman Catholic dogma pass the "consensus of the fathers" check? (With the Immaculate Conception as a case study); especially since that check is very often levied by RC laymen against all sorts of Protestants on all sorts of issues (whether accurate or not). As such, it was intended to be a bit of an internal critique of sorts. I need to do a lot more reading before I make up my own mind on the subject of doctrinal development and put forth my own positive construction on the issue (and the ways it may relate to doctrines such as Sola Fide).
In line with that, I will certainly check out the resources you've linked (probably a little later once I'm done working on a few projects I have going at the moment). If you do write an article on this, I'll also try to make time to read it as promptly as my schedule allows.
Well, the short answer to your question is that we think doctrines develop at different rates. The Immaculate Conception obviously developed very slowly. The first motif was "New Eve" or "Second Eve". Newman notes that pre-fallen Eve -- like Adam -- was a sinless person; therefore the patristic analogy, which he describes as "explicit" presupposes a sinless Mary. If that's true, then it's present in that sense every time we see this common theme in the fathers.
As an even broader question, Catholics agree that Jesus was front and center, both in the NT and in the fathers. That's our answer if asked why there is so little about Mary in the NT. Trinitarianism was still being importantly developed in the 5th and even 6th centuries. The Christological heresy of Monophysitism was present in the 6th century, and Monothelitism extended all the way to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, where it was condemned. So we're talking about 650 years after Christ just to get trinitarianism right once and for all. A lot of folks (including in vast areas in the East, stull didn't fully get it) Once that was established, folks thought relatively more about Mary and many other topics of theology, and development quickened as a result. First things first, in other words.
By the time of III Constantinople, Germanus, from the same city was alive (c. 634-c. 733), and he even taught the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1983, ed. Cross), stated that "Mary's incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception" was a "frequently recurring" theme in his writing (see p. 561).
Likewise, Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) wrote about how "human nature . . . regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God" (Homily 1 on Mary's Nativity" and described Mary as "alone wholly without stain" (Canon for the Conception of Anne).
Hilda Graef, a source that appeared once in your article, noted that "according to John of Damascus [c. 645-c. 749], even the 'active' conception of Mary as completely without stain . . .": a position that even goes beyond what the Catholic dogma holds (which is that her immaculate conception had nothing to do with her parents at all). Thus, these last two writers express pretty much the fully developed doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, around the same time as trinitarian debates were wrapping up, or only shortly thereafter.
So Catholics ask Protestants, in Newmanian analogical style: "if even trinitarianism was only arguably fully developed as late as 681, why is it an issue that Mary's Immaculate Conception was only explicitly expressed (as far as we know) around the same time?" If one thing is okay, so is the other. One can't accept late development only of Protestant distinctives or doctrines where we agree. The same analysis and standard has to be used across the board.
What I've always argued is that the sinlessness of Mary (which is the essence of her immaculate conception) is biblical, based on Luke 1:28 ("full of grace" / kecharitomene") and the analogies of others also sanctified in the womb (John the Baptist / Jeremiah). Sinlessness is the original essential kernel. The thought then developed over many centuries, just as almost every other doctrine did. But a few doctrines seem almost fully developed early on; e.g., baptism and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, where Lutherans and Catholics agree. Others, like original sin or the Two Natures of Christ, took many centuries.
But some fathers are simply wrong about things. St. Augustine was wrong about double predestination (again, we agree there). Even "unanimous consent" doesn't literally mean that, in the Latin. It means "overall consensus."
There are many relevant factors concerning Mary's sinlessness in the fathers that I will at least briefly allude to in my reply paper, that will primarily concentrate on Newman's thoughts.
This whole thing interested me because my two favorite topics in theology are development of doctrine and Mary.
Hi Javier. I am not Roman Catholic, but in "On the Incarnation of the Word", Athanasius seems to suggest that Mary was a "spotless" and "stainless" and in her body the Lord prepared a Temple [his body] for himself. He then goes on to suggest that her body was "pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men," and that she was not known by man (although this could be just referring to Mary's state before she conceived by the Holy Spirit). What would this mean in relation to the other quotes of Athanasius that you citied. Even in this quote here, he still affirms the notion that "all were liable to the corruption of death." But in contrast with his statements on Mary's seemingly pure state before her conception, I don't see how this fits together. I can see how "spotless" and "stainless" and "pure" could just be talking about her body before the conception but how would you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
"For He did not will simply to become embodied, or merely to appear; for He might, if He willed simply to appear, as well have made His Divine Manifestation through some other and more excellent method: but He took our body, and not simply so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man—a body pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of the universe, He prepares in the Virgin the body as a temple for Himself, and personally appropriates this as an instrument, being made known in it and dwelling in it.
And thus, taking from our bodies one similar, because all were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered it to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father; and this He did of His loving-kindness, in order that, by all dying in Him, the law with respect to the corruption of mankind might be abolished (inasmuch as its power was exhausted in the Lord’s body, and no longer had place against like men), and that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and quicken them from death by the personal appropriation of His body, and, by the grace of the resurrection, making death to completely vanish from them, as straw from fire." - Chap 7 of On the Incarnation of the Word.
I would have to do more reading in Athanasius so as to give a more comprehensive answer regarding his overall thought; However, regarding the particular quote you provide from "On the Incarnation of the Word," I see no reason to apply the adjectives "spotless," "stainless," and "pure" to anything to other than Mary's condition as an untouched virgin. That's just the immediate context in the very passage you're referring to: "He took our body, and not simply so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man—a body pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men."
"Spotless and stainless virgin" is immediately contextualized by the words that follow it: "...knowing not a man—a body pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men."
I see no contradiction introduced by this passage.
Here's my promised "semi"-reply:
Patristic Development of a Sinless Mary (Cdl. Newman)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2025/02/patristic-development-of-a-sinless-mary-cdl-newman.html
Thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully interact with my article.
I wanna provide some relatively brief comments on your response...
***ON YOUR USE OF CARDINAL NEWMAN'S QUOTES***
Surely, Cardinal Newman (as well as yourself) would have a deeper familiarity with the full extent of Mariology in Church History than I do since, at least at the time of writing this comment, I haven't yet embarked on a deep-dive into all facets of historical Mariology. That being said, I see quite a few problems with Cardinal Newman's approach to this issue (at least in the quotes you've provided).
Newman seems to equate patristic assertions of the Blessed Virgin (B.V. from henceforth) "being without sin" as to her "being conceived an born without sin." Surely, we can see that there's a gap between those two ideas which hasn't been bridged yet. For example, say that one of your friends has just watched Forrest Gump for the first time and approaches you to talk about the movie. He talks about the different characters and eventually makes his way to Lieutenant Dan, starting off saying something like, "Man, it makes sense that he was so bitter and despondent. I mean, just imagine being without legs." If you then responded to your friend by saying, "Man, yeah, I would be pretty despondent too if I had been born without legs." Your friend would likely look at you with a puzzled look on his face. Why? Lt. Dan wasn't born without legs; in fact, he has both of them in an earlier point in the movie.
To say that someone "was without [INSERT THING HERE]" does not necessitate that said person was without said thing from the moment of their birth or conception -- that would require additional supporting context or arguments to help bridge the gap. In the case of the B.V., even if someone makes a statement about her being sinless *in some sense*, there's a range of options to choose from as to what that means: 1. She may have been conceived literally without sin, 2. She may have been hyperbolically "without sin" in a particular instance (denoting how righteous and pleasing to God a particular decision/action was), 3. She may have been generally "without sin" in a hyperbolic sense (denoting how particularly righteous her heart and actions were as a whole in comparison to other people), 4. She may have been literally without sin *after* a particular event or point in time (such as the annunciation or her being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, for example) despite having been sinful prior, or 5. She may have had sinful flesh but never chosen to act upon the flesh's sinful desires (i.e. - having original sin, but no actual sin). The context is really important for determining which of these is meant by the person making the statement.
The way Newman attempts to bridge the gap is through a typological argument with the B.V. being the New Eve. For the sake for the argument, let's grant that typological connection. Why should we assume that this means Mary was sinless from conception? Does everything about Eve transfer on to Mary? We know that, even prior to the Fall, God commanded Eve to be joined to her husband, and to be fruitful and multiply to replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28)... but, you wouldn't agree that this aspect of Eve transfers to the B.V. (since you affirm her perpetual virginity). Pre-Fall, Eve felt no shame and wore no clothes everywhere she went... but you don't believe that transfers over to the B.V.. Pre-Fall, Eve wouldn't have experienced natural death... but you don't believe that transfers over to the B.V. (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/04/marys-death-before-her-assumption-required-belief.html). It would seem as arbitrary to me to try to pass along Eve's sinlessness from conception to the B.V. as it would be to pass on any of the aforementioned attributes to her. This is especially the case when even some of the Church Fathers that Newman relies on *do not* speak of the B.V. in terms of having always been sinless, or anything of the sort, when discussing her as the New Eve. Irenaeus, in particular, applies the typology simply to say that Eve chose to disobey God when approached by Satan (which brought about humanity's Fall), whereas the B.V. chose to obey God when approached by Gabriel (which would bring about humanity's Redemption). Here is the full quote from Irenaeus that Newman made reference to:
"That the Lord then was manifestly coming to His own things, and was sustaining them by means of that creation which is supported by Himself, and was making a recapitulation of that disobedience which had occurred in connection with a tree, through the obedience which was [exhibited by Himself when He hung] upon a tree, [the effects] also of that deception being done away with, by which that virgin Eve, who was already espoused to a man, was unhappily misled,—was happily announced, through means of the truth [spoken] by the angel to the Virgin Mary, who was [also espoused] to a man. For just as the former was led astray by the word of an angel, so that she fled from God when she had transgressed His word; so did the latter, by an angelic communication, receive the glad tidings that she should sustain (portaret) God, being obedient to His word. And if the former did disobey God, yet the latter was persuaded to be obedient to God, in order that the Virgin Mary might become the patroness (advocata) of the virgin Eve. And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man (protoplasti) receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death." - Irenaeus, ANF01, Against Heresies: Book V, Chapter XIX, link: https://ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/against_heresies_v/anf01.ix.vii.xx.html
For Newman to stretch out this account of one pivotal moment of obedience to somehow mean that Mary *always* chose to obey God in every single other instance of her life is an unjustified leap, if I've ever seen one.
At this point, one may be tempted to counter by saying something along the lines of: "But wait, wouldn't these same sorts of arguments cast doubt upon Christ's sinlessness and status as the New Adam also?" The short answer to that is, simply: no. We have warrant from the Biblical text itself explicitly calling Jesus sinless (See: 2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5, Hebrews 4:15, etc...). When it comes to how to best understand these verses, the fact that Jesus is the God-Man (that there is a hypostatic union between Christ's divine nature and human nature) easily bridges the gap and provides sufficient context and warrant for us to assert that the incarnate Christ was without sin from His very conception.
Here, one may be tempted to respond to this rejoinder by saying something like, "Well, Mary had a very personal and intimate connection to God when she bore Him in her womb. Surely that's enough to establish her sinlessness also!" But... was she bearing Christ in her womb at the moment of her own conception? No, she wasn't.
Additionally, I would also contest Newman's contention that, "Now, as to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it was implied in early times, and never denied." For that, I would present a myriad quotes from this very article.
***ON YOUR OWN POINTS***
You echoed several of Cdl. Newman's points which I addressed above, so I wont rehash my response to those points here. However, I do want to address an additional statement you made: "Assume for the sake of argument that Mary actually inherited original sin for a nanosecond before God performed His special act of grace. Whether that happened or not, still we know that she definitely would have inherited it had God not acted. The very act on His part shows that it was necessary to prevent such an inheritance. In this specific sense one can incorporate all of the statements from the fathers saying that inheritance of original sin was universal, without any harm to the Catholic doctrine."
This would be like if someone said, "Every single one of my pets has been fed today"... despite knowing that when they tried to feed their smaller cat, their bigger cat stepped in and bullied the smaller one out of its food. Would the person's claim that "every single one of my pets have been fed today" be rendered true by fact that the food *would have* made it to the smaller cat were it not for the bigger cat preventing it from happening? I can think of at least one very hungry kitty who'd object to that being the case.
To keep things brief in regards to the doctrinal development arguments, I will simply point the following out: the frustrating bit here is that Roman Catholic apologetics makes much use of the "consensus of the Fathers" when RCs believe said consensus to be in their favor. However, when the tide turns the other way, and the consensus is against a given RC position... well, an untold number of Fathers can just be wrong, and we can just appeal to doctrinal development. It really feels like: "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose."
I would keep going on, but I promised to keep things brief so that I could offer a response within a reasonable amount of time from your own response to me.
Again, thanks for your thoughts & for a respectful back and forth.
My reply:
Newman, Sinless Mary, & Development (vs. Javier Perdomo) . . . Concentrating on the New Eve Analogy in the Church Fathers and its Full Implication Regarding Mary’s Freedom from Actual and Original Sin [2-12-25]
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2025/02/newman-sinless-mary-development-vs-javier-perdomo.html
Thank you for your thoughtful interaction! I will try to return the favor and interact with what you've written also. Although I'm not sure I'll be able to write as quickly lol
No problem! I do this full-time and I write very fast (and a lot of this was cut-and-paste too). Most folks have "day job." This IS my day job!
I don’t think Jesus correcting or in Gregory’s words “reject[ing] his mother’s advice” necessarily entails sin on her part. Not knowing something, and giving a wrong instruction doesn’t mean a person has sinned.
I received this article in my email today. I sincerely commend you for the tremendous amount of research that went into this. As a Catholic apologist myself, I seriously considered making a long, in-depth reply, which I would consider enjoyable and challenging in roughly equal measure, but ultimately decided not to, for several reasons:
1) virtually no one, Protestant or Catholic, cares about such an exhaustive treatment of the Fathers;
2) even less folks in either group, either care about, or even *understand* in the most rudimentary way, development of doctrine (my favorite topic in theology, by the way, and the biggest factor in my becoming Catholic), that this subject necessarily involves;
3) I know that it's exceedingly unlikely, based on almost universal past experience of thirty years, that you or any other Protestant apologist, would reply and interact with anything I might produce by way of counter-reply. So, e.g., Jordan Cooper tells me he has no time to counter-reply to my 18 or so critiques of his videos. Gavin Ortlund has only replied once to over 30 critiques. He, too, says he has no time for it and cites priorities, etc.
It's fine to be good stewards. I do the same thing. But what I'm saying is that for me to undertake a project this huge, which virtually no one would care about or read, and which would almost certainly receive no reply back, is, in the end, not worth the huge amount of time and effort this would require, seeing that there are hundreds of other things in apologetics and theology to write about or discuss (on my new YouTube channel).
In the meantime, my analogical mind immediately thought of a similar situation that is the Protestants' "problem" just as this is ours to work through. Protestants, too, claim that the Church fathers are more on their side than ours. Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz certainly thought that, and non-Lutherans like Calvin did as well, and I hear this repeated times without number by Protestant apologists, such as Cooper and Ortlund, Jason Engwer, and many others.
in other words, judging by the grandiose patristic claims that also regularly come from from your side (largely in reaction to us), you, too, have the intellectual burden of having to demonstrate that the fathers espoused *your* distinctive (and I say, novel and late-arriving) views. Thus, I could paraphrase your own words as follows:
"Our Protestant friends are as fond as we are of making grand appeals to history and the consensus of the Church’s theologians down through the ages. But could they truly argue that the consensus of the theologians is on their side when it comes to their two "pillars": sola Scriptura and sola fide?"
When it comes to these two "pillars" of the Reformation, it's exceedingly difficult to demonstrate virtually any patristic espousal *at all*, let alone a supposed "consensus." I contend it's much *more* difficult than our task with regard to Mary's sinlessness, as developed over a long period into the Immaculate Conception . I myself have -- through many hundreds of hours of work -- collected scores and scores of evidences that the Church fathers en masse rejected both. But I can also draw from Protestant experts on the topic. Hence, Alister McGrath, widely considered the foremost authority on the history of justification, made the following observation:
"Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .
"The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .
"The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . .
Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . ." (Alister McGrath, *Reformation Thought: An Introduction*, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115)
Protestant apologist Norman Geisler makes an even more striking observation:
"One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . ." (Norman Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 222)
In other words, goose and gander, pot calling the kettle black, etc. You guys make your arguments against Marian doctrines and other distinctively Catholic positions, and we offer similar ones back, about distinctively Protestant positions. Yet Protestants only very rarely are willing to produce any counter-replies when we make our arguments along these lines, which in turn is one of the reasons why I'm disinclined to reply to this article of yours. "No one" would read it or care about it, and almost certainly no one -- who is able to -- would reply to whatever I came up with.
We all must be wise stewards of our time and efforts. In an ideal world, where everyone loved debate and dialogue and the exchange of ideas, and loved to back up their own opinions under intense scrutiny, I would like few things more than to discuss this and many other theological topics for months on end, with able and willing dialogue opponents, but I don't expect that that will ever happen, because it takes two . . .
Thank you for your reply. I'm sorry you haven't been able to have the robust back-and-forths that you've been wanting to have with Protestant apologists.
I can certainly understand how much of a bummer it is to put a lot of effort into a robust response while receiving no interaction in return. I, myself, am also very busy spinning a lot of plates (with my YT channel, my job, other projects, family, etc...), but at the very least, I would like to interact with your comment here.
I haven't done a deep-dive into all the relevant sources regarding Justification yet, so I can't provide a lengthy, in-depth analysis of the historical data at the moment. That being said, I wouldn't agree with the idea that the Lutheran understanding of Justification is a clear break with the past. Alister McGrath isn't the only Protestant scholar who has done work on this issue. Additionally, McGrath also didn't survey every single Patristic writing (realistically, who could though!) and his analysis of the sources isn't uncontested. See here for a brief interaction with McGrath by a fellow Lutheran: https://www.theconservativereformer.com/articles/justification-mcgrath-critique
Do you have an article detailing your case for doctrinal development? If so, I'd like to read it.
When it comes to understanding the Roman Catholic understanding of doctrinal development, what are some of your favorite resources (books, videos, articles) that you would recommend?
Delighted to see your reply!
There are always, of course, other scholars who disagree with any given scholar. That's where it gets fun! I think it's striking that a statements such as the ones I cited from McGrath and Geisler exist at all. I think Jordan Cooper said in one of his videos that I've critiqued, if I recall correctly (and I think I do), that the Lutheran conception of justification was essentially a new thing in the 16th century (and that this was okay). I'm sure you could find bits and pieces of imputed justification here and there in the fathers and medieval theologians, but nowhere within a million miles of a consensus, even if McGrath's views aren't entirely accurate.
Also, our view of what we call initial justification is essentially the same. In this respect, even Trent allows some degree of imputation. Our concern is with the post-regenerate person's life, and what he or she is responsible then (and good works are a necessary part of that).
And so, if I'm correct about that, you're basically in the same boat that you claim we're in: you firmly believe a doctrine that is hard to find before Melanchthon (not even fully in Luther, who talked about theosis), just as you would say our Marian doctrines are late-arriving, and corruptions rather than developments. And the same goes for sola Scriptura. So that is one turn-the-tables reply. I'm not saying it nullifies your argument against us; just that Protestants also have similar "problems" in locating their distinctive views in historical theology.
As for resources on development, I have a web page devoted to it, including several introductory treatments and more in-depth stuff (I'm assuming you allow links in this combox):
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/11/development-of-doctrine-index-page-for-dave-armstrong.html
I also wrote a book on the topic, way back in 2002:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/07/books-by-dave-armstrong-development-of.html
I'll send you a free e-book version of that if you like (pdf, mobi, or ePub).
Newman's essay on development is the classic treatment, and it's free online:
https://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html
Nothing else comes to mind, but looking on Amazon, these three look interesting:
A Brief Introduction to the Development of Doctrine: According to the Mind of St. Thomas Aquinas
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-Introduction-Development-Doctrine-According/dp/B0BW2X92JZ/ref=sr_1_9
Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine
https://www.amazon.com/Development-Christian-Foundations-Theological-Spirituality/dp/0801049091/ref=sr_1_7
St. Vincent was basically Newman's jumping-off point, as he developed his theory.
The Development of Dogma: A Systematic Account
https://www.amazon.com/Development-Dogma-Systematic-Account-Doctrina/dp/0813237459/ref=sr_1_6
Here are five meaty and good Catholic articles:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-does-it-mean-for-doctrine-to-develop
https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp/development-of-doctrine-and-st-vincent-of-lerins
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-difference-between-development-and-change
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/01/18/on-the-relevance-and-reality-of-the-development-of-doctrine-today/
https://www.hprweb.com/2021/06/newman-aquinas-and-the-development-of-doctrine/
I will at least do a partial reply-article consisting of Newman's thoughts on the patristic and later development of the belief in Mary's sinlessness and Immaculate Conception, drawn from one or more of my three quotations books devoted to St. Cardinal Newman.
I'll be making a blog post of this exchange if that's not objectionable, since I think this is a helpful and constructive exchange. If the links don't come through here, I'll post the title of my blog article in another reply. You'd be able to find it at the top of my blog, "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" anyway.
God bless!
Thank you for the lengthy reply!
Part of my interest in this article was in asking the question: Does every Roman Catholic dogma pass the "consensus of the fathers" check? (With the Immaculate Conception as a case study); especially since that check is very often levied by RC laymen against all sorts of Protestants on all sorts of issues (whether accurate or not). As such, it was intended to be a bit of an internal critique of sorts. I need to do a lot more reading before I make up my own mind on the subject of doctrinal development and put forth my own positive construction on the issue (and the ways it may relate to doctrines such as Sola Fide).
In line with that, I will certainly check out the resources you've linked (probably a little later once I'm done working on a few projects I have going at the moment). If you do write an article on this, I'll also try to make time to read it as promptly as my schedule allows.
Thanks again for the charitable interaction.
Well, the short answer to your question is that we think doctrines develop at different rates. The Immaculate Conception obviously developed very slowly. The first motif was "New Eve" or "Second Eve". Newman notes that pre-fallen Eve -- like Adam -- was a sinless person; therefore the patristic analogy, which he describes as "explicit" presupposes a sinless Mary. If that's true, then it's present in that sense every time we see this common theme in the fathers.
As an even broader question, Catholics agree that Jesus was front and center, both in the NT and in the fathers. That's our answer if asked why there is so little about Mary in the NT. Trinitarianism was still being importantly developed in the 5th and even 6th centuries. The Christological heresy of Monophysitism was present in the 6th century, and Monothelitism extended all the way to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, where it was condemned. So we're talking about 650 years after Christ just to get trinitarianism right once and for all. A lot of folks (including in vast areas in the East, stull didn't fully get it) Once that was established, folks thought relatively more about Mary and many other topics of theology, and development quickened as a result. First things first, in other words.
By the time of III Constantinople, Germanus, from the same city was alive (c. 634-c. 733), and he even taught the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1983, ed. Cross), stated that "Mary's incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception" was a "frequently recurring" theme in his writing (see p. 561).
Likewise, Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) wrote about how "human nature . . . regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God" (Homily 1 on Mary's Nativity" and described Mary as "alone wholly without stain" (Canon for the Conception of Anne).
Hilda Graef, a source that appeared once in your article, noted that "according to John of Damascus [c. 645-c. 749], even the 'active' conception of Mary as completely without stain . . .": a position that even goes beyond what the Catholic dogma holds (which is that her immaculate conception had nothing to do with her parents at all). Thus, these last two writers express pretty much the fully developed doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception, around the same time as trinitarian debates were wrapping up, or only shortly thereafter.
So Catholics ask Protestants, in Newmanian analogical style: "if even trinitarianism was only arguably fully developed as late as 681, why is it an issue that Mary's Immaculate Conception was only explicitly expressed (as far as we know) around the same time?" If one thing is okay, so is the other. One can't accept late development only of Protestant distinctives or doctrines where we agree. The same analysis and standard has to be used across the board.
What I've always argued is that the sinlessness of Mary (which is the essence of her immaculate conception) is biblical, based on Luke 1:28 ("full of grace" / kecharitomene") and the analogies of others also sanctified in the womb (John the Baptist / Jeremiah). Sinlessness is the original essential kernel. The thought then developed over many centuries, just as almost every other doctrine did. But a few doctrines seem almost fully developed early on; e.g., baptism and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, where Lutherans and Catholics agree. Others, like original sin or the Two Natures of Christ, took many centuries.
But some fathers are simply wrong about things. St. Augustine was wrong about double predestination (again, we agree there). Even "unanimous consent" doesn't literally mean that, in the Latin. It means "overall consensus."
There are many relevant factors concerning Mary's sinlessness in the fathers that I will at least briefly allude to in my reply paper, that will primarily concentrate on Newman's thoughts.
This whole thing interested me because my two favorite topics in theology are development of doctrine and Mary.
Thanks for your charitable demeanor as well.
That's a lot of quotes.
Hi Javier. I am not Roman Catholic, but in "On the Incarnation of the Word", Athanasius seems to suggest that Mary was a "spotless" and "stainless" and in her body the Lord prepared a Temple [his body] for himself. He then goes on to suggest that her body was "pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men," and that she was not known by man (although this could be just referring to Mary's state before she conceived by the Holy Spirit). What would this mean in relation to the other quotes of Athanasius that you citied. Even in this quote here, he still affirms the notion that "all were liable to the corruption of death." But in contrast with his statements on Mary's seemingly pure state before her conception, I don't see how this fits together. I can see how "spotless" and "stainless" and "pure" could just be talking about her body before the conception but how would you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
"For He did not will simply to become embodied, or merely to appear; for He might, if He willed simply to appear, as well have made His Divine Manifestation through some other and more excellent method: but He took our body, and not simply so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man—a body pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of the universe, He prepares in the Virgin the body as a temple for Himself, and personally appropriates this as an instrument, being made known in it and dwelling in it.
And thus, taking from our bodies one similar, because all were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered it to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father; and this He did of His loving-kindness, in order that, by all dying in Him, the law with respect to the corruption of mankind might be abolished (inasmuch as its power was exhausted in the Lord’s body, and no longer had place against like men), and that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and quicken them from death by the personal appropriation of His body, and, by the grace of the resurrection, making death to completely vanish from them, as straw from fire." - Chap 7 of On the Incarnation of the Word.
Hello! Thank you for your question.
I would have to do more reading in Athanasius so as to give a more comprehensive answer regarding his overall thought; However, regarding the particular quote you provide from "On the Incarnation of the Word," I see no reason to apply the adjectives "spotless," "stainless," and "pure" to anything to other than Mary's condition as an untouched virgin. That's just the immediate context in the very passage you're referring to: "He took our body, and not simply so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man—a body pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men."
"Spotless and stainless virgin" is immediately contextualized by the words that follow it: "...knowing not a man—a body pure and truly untarnished by intercourse with men."
I see no contradiction introduced by this passage.
Yes, it does seem like the immediate context was about Mary's virginity pre annunciation, thanks for the reply!