IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
With these words is indicated the Catholic doctrine according to which “the Most Blessed Virgin, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted her by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin” (bull *Ineffabilis Deus*).
**SUMMARY:**
I. The Dogma
II. History of the Feast in the East
III. History of the Feast in the West
IV. Art.---
### I. THE DOGMA
Descending from Adam through natural generation, Mary, like all men, at the moment when her soul was united to her body, would have contracted original sin. But for her, so that she might be a “worthy habitation of God,” an exception was made: therefore, whereas others were freed by Christ the Redeemer from original sin after having contracted it, the Virgin was preserved from it entirely. This unique exception to the common law was solemnly defined by the Church as revealed by God and therefore contained in the sources of Revelation. Theologians have sought to identify the various texts of Scripture and Tradition in which this doctrine is contained, if not explicitly, at least implicitly, in equivalent terms.
1. **From the 1st to the 4th century.** — Among the Fathers and writers of the early centuries, the doctrine of the I. C. is implicit in the frequent parallel between Eve and Mary (classic texts are those of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian), which implies a twofold relationship: of similarity—just as Eve came pure from the hands of God, so Mary was to come from the same hands immaculate; of opposition—she who was to be the restorer of Eve’s ruins could not herself be overwhelmed by ruin. In the same period, St. Hippolytus says that the Saviour was “an ark made of timbers (the Blessed Virgin) not subject to the putrefaction of sin” (*In Ps. 22*: PG 10, 60). In equivalent terms, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, St. Ephrem, and others express themselves. These praises exclude in the Virgin any stain of guilt.
2. **From the 4th to the 9th century.** — The doctrine becomes more explicit. St. Ephrem (d. 373) in various ways expresses Mary’s immunity from original sin. He equates the immaculateness of Mary with that of Christ Himself, and asserts that such purity is an exclusive privilege of the two of them: “You alone, O Lord, and your Mother are beautiful in every way; for there is no stain in you, O Lord, nor is there any stain in your Mother” (*Carmina Nisibena*, ed. Bickell, Leipzig 1866, p. 40). St. Ambrose asserts that Mary was “ab omni integra la beccati” (PL 15, 1599). The universal assertion excludes any sin.
In the 5th century, St. Proclus admitted a special intervention of God in the formation of the future Mother of God, so that she might be a new creature, formed “from clean clay,” like Adam before sin (*De laud. s. Mariae*: PG 65, 733, 752, 756, 757). Theodotus of Ancyra opposes Mary to Eve, declaring that although “the Virgin is included in the feminine sex, she was nevertheless excluded from the wickedness of that sex; she was a Virgin innocent, without stain, without guilt, unblemished, holy in soul and body, like a lily blooming among thorns” (*Homilia in s. Mariam Dei genitricem et in s. Christi nativitatem*: PG 77, 1427). St. Cyril of Syria, also expounding the Eve-Mary antithesis, affirms that the Virgin “restored the original splendor” of Eve: “Eve had hidden in our mass the leaven of death and sorrow: but behold, Mary appeared and cast it out, so that the whole creation might not be corrupted” (ed. Bickell, in *Zeitschr. d. Deutschen morgenl. Ges.*, 27 [1873], pp. 391-92).
St. Augustine, in his struggle against Pelagianism (v.), was the first to face the question of the I. C. in its proper terms. There are two texts on this matter: one from *De natura et gratia* (ch. 36, n. 42: PL 44, 267), and the other from the unfinished work *Contra Julianum* (bk. IV, ch. 22: PL 45, 1417 sg.), composed toward the end of his life. In the first text, replying to Pelagius, he answers that all the just of the Old Testament had sinned during their lives, “except the Virgin Mary, regarding whom, for the honour of the Lord, when it comes to sins, I do not wish to have any question at all, since we know that, for having merited to conceive and give birth to Him who is clearly known to have had no sin, she was granted more grace than was necessary to overcome sin from any side.” The immaculist sense of this text appeared so obvious that it was inscribed in the bull *Ineffabilis*. In the second passage, replying to Julian, who had objected that by the theory of the universality of original sin Mary was subjected to the dominion of Satan, he said: “We do not subject Mary to the demon by reason of the condition of birth, but for this (some would read: but to God), because such condition (of birth) is dissolved by the grace of rebirth.” Evidently here the “grace of rebirth,” of which the holy Doctor speaks, is opposed to the “condition of birth.” Now if the grace of rebirth, of which the saint speaks, were not a preserving grace but merely a liberating one from original sin, the Madonna would have been subject to Satan: an objection raised by Julian and firmly denied by St. Augustine. That the Saint had the notion of a preserving grace appears clear from the clause immediately preceding our text, where he speaks of a grace of liberation, which consists not in remitting sin but in preserving from it (for objections cf. G. Roschini, *Mariologia*, I, 2nd ed., Rome 1948, pp. 146-151). St. Maximus of Turin says that “Mary was certainly a dwelling worthy of Jesus Christ, not for the beauty of the body, but for original grace” (*Homilia V de nativ. Dom.*: PL 52, 235).
In the 7th century, St. Sophronius seems to be the first to hint at a preservation from guilt. He says in fact: “You have found a grace with God that no one has received... No one, except you, was pre-purified” (*Hor. II in Deip.*: PG 87, 3248). Toward the end of the 7th or the beginning of the 8th century, the feast of the I. C. began to be celebrated in the East, as is evident from the Canon of St. Andrew of Crete: “In conceptione sancta ac Dei avia Annae” (PG 97, 1305-16). The first homily known on the Conception is that of John of Euboea (PG 96, 1459-1500), a contemporary of St. John Damascene. By the time of Photius this feast had already become universal in the Greek Church. To its original object, which was the announcement of the miraculous Conception of Mary made by the angel to her parents, there soon was added the present one, namely the passive Conception of the Mother of God, declared, not infrequently, holy and immaculate. Thus John of Euboea (d. c. 750) asserts the intervention of the Most Holy Trinity in the formation of Mary in such a way as to create her in the state of original justice (PG 96, 1485, 1488, 1500). In the Latin Church, however, the feast of the Conception began to be celebrated toward the 8th century in Ireland.
In the 9th and 10th centuries, both in the East and in the West, various authors assert in more or less explicit terms the outstanding Marian privilege: St. Tarasius, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Joseph the Hymnographer, Photius, George of Nicomedia, Nicetas David, Euthymius, John Geometres, Haimo of Halberstadt, St. Paschasius Radbertus, and St. Fulbert of Chartres (cf. G. Roschini, op. cit., II, 11, 2nd ed., Rome 1948, pp. 39-45).
3. From the 11th to the 15th Century
In the Greek Church, a profession of faith in the singular privilege is noted with very precise terms. During this period, as far as is known, no one denied the great privilege. Among the most explicit supporters were Michael Psellos (b. ca. 1119), Neophytus the Recluse (d. ca. 1220), Germanus II, Patriarch of Constantinople (1222-40), Gregory Palamas (d. 1360), Nicholas Cabasilas (d. 1371), Theophanes of Nicaea (d. 1381), Manuel II Palaeologus (1391-1425), and George Scholarius (d. ca. 1472).While in the Greek Church the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception had reached its full triumph, in the Latin Church a controversy arose which lasted for several centuries with very lively exchanges. The feast of the Conception (v. below, History of the Feast in the West) gave rise to the controversy. Among the defenders of the feast Canterbury (v.) and Osbert of Clare. A great supporter of the Immaculate Conception was also the Spaniard Peter Micha, known as the Compostellanus, in his work *De consolatione rationis*, composed ca. 1140. Far more violent than the opposition in England was that stirred up in France by the Parisian theologian John Beleth, and in particular by St. Bernard, in his famous letter to the canons of Lyon (PL 182, 323 ff.). The holy Doctor energetically protested against the introduction of this feast in the Church of Lyon. It has been much debated not only about the authenticity (which is beyond doubt) but also, and above all, about the genuine meaning of this letter. It is a fact, however, that the Saint does not posit any substantial difference between the sanctification of the Baptist and that of Mary. At least implicitly, therefore, he denied the Immaculate Conception. It should be noted, however, that he ultimately submitted to the judgment of the Church, ready to defer to any eventual teaching of the Church contrary to his own. Due to his authority, St. Bernard’s letter exerted a very considerable influence on theologians of the following centuries, particularly on the great scholastics Alexander of Hales, St. Bonaventure, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, Peter of Tarentaise (later Innocent V), Henry of Ghent, Giles of Rome, all of whom were clearly opposed to the singular privilege. The main causes of this disorientation among such eminent minds were: a) Peter Lombard’s theory of the flesh infected by original sin, which would in turn infect the soul at the moment of its union with the body; b) the universality of Christ’s redemption, to which the Immaculate Conception theory seemed to wish to exempt Mary; c) the universality of original sin explicitly taught by St. Paul. These objections contributed significantly to the process of clarifying the Marian privilege.
Nevertheless, at the same time, strong supporters of the Immaculate Conception theory were not lacking: Odo, a Cistercian cardinal (d. 1273), St. Peter Paschasius (d. 1300), William Ware O.F.M. (d. 1300), Scotus’s master at Oxford and later professor in Paris, Raymond Lull (d. 1315), a Parisian master.
Regarding Scotus’s position on the Immaculate Conception, a clarification is necessary. In the *Theoremata*, Scotus denies the Immaculate Conception (cf. C. Balic, *Ioannis Duns Scoti doctoris Mariani theologiae Marianae elementa*, Sebenico 1933, p. cxxii). Since the time of composition of this work is unknown, it is impossible to say whether such a denial represents Scotus’s first or last judgment on the subject. In the *Opus Oxoniense*, Scotus limits himself to demonstrating merely the possibility of the Marian privilege, teaching, however, that the opposite is also possible, and resolving all the arguments both for and against the Macolista position. For Scotus, therefore, both positions are equally possible. Which of the two was realized, only God knows: “Deus novit.” “It seems probable to attribute to the Virgin what is most excellent, provided that it does not conflict with the authority of the Church or of Scripture.” At that time, ecclesiastical authority had not yet pronounced (the Roman Church, in fact, as St. Thomas noted, did not celebrate the feast of the Conception), and Scripture seemed openly contrary, asserting the universality of original guilt and of Redemption. For this reason, Scotus proceeded with great caution and, for the moment, did not dare to go further. Only later, doubtless moved by his “videtur probabile” that it is most fitting to attribute to Mary what is most excellent, he asserts that in heaven “there is the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, who was never her enemy in act by reason of actual sin, nor by reason of original sin: she would have been, however, if she had not been preserved” (In III Sent., d. 18, qu. unica). However, in the *Reportatio Parisiensis*, towards the end of his life, Scotus cast doubt on the Immaculate Conception, asserting that the Blessed Virgin “was never an enemy of God in act by reason of actual sin and perhaps not even by reason of original sin.” Can we trust the disciple who wrote the *Reportatio* in inserting that “perhaps”? Nor does the famous “potuit, decuit, fecit,” so frequently attributed to Scotus, belong to him. Regarding the Parisian dispute, on which legend has embroidered much, it is necessary to say that it either never took place or, if it did, it did not exceed the limits of an ordinary academic act.
Throughout the 14th century, the theological field remained divided between opponents (the common school) and supporters (especially Franciscans, Carmelites, Servites). Around the middle of the century, both in France and in Aragon, a violent controversy was stirred up by some Dominican masters. The ecclesiastical authority in France and the civil authority (John I) in Aragon imposed silence and retraction on the aforementioned masters. The fruit of this debate was a real advancement of the Immaculate Conception doctrine. It was precisely at this time that the biblical argument began to appear, especially that drawn from the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) and the angelic salutation (Lk. 1:28). Also at that time, the feast of the Conception spread everywhere, especially among religious.
At the beginning of the 15th century, the Immaculate Conception doctrine was already common among the Franciscans and other religious orders, with the exception of the Dominicans. This favor grew to such an extent that Cardinal Giovanni Gonzales, at the Council of Basel (1438), invoked in favor of the singular privilege the testimony of "almost the entire orb." In that same Council, after three years of discussions, particularly between the Dominicans Giovanni di Montenero with Cardinal Torquemada on one side, and Giovanni Gonzales with Father Perqueri OFM on the other, in the 36th session (17 September 1439), a decree was issued declaring that belief in the Immaculate Conception was pious, in conformity with the worship of the Church, Catholic faith, Holy Scripture, and right reason, and therefore was to be held by all Catholics, with a prohibition on anyone teaching the contrary. However, at the time this definition was issued, the Council was no longer legitimate, having withdrawn from the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Nevertheless, in an exceptional manner, the triumph of the pious doctrine was achieved, and the feast of the Conception became universal in practice. The opposition from not a few Dominicans did not diminish, among whom Raffaele da Pomassio and Vincenzo Bandelli, Master General of the Order (from 1501 to 1506), became renowned. The latter went so far as to establish the thesis: "It is impious to hold that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in original sin." At this point, the Roman Pontiffs began to intervene in an increasingly decisive manner. Sixtus IV, a Franciscan, on 27 February 1477, promulgated the constitution *Cum praecelsa*, by which he solemnly approved the feast of the Immaculate Conception celebrated in many places, with a proper Mass and Office composed by the Veronese Leonardo de Nogarolis (cf. C. Serricoli, *Immaculata B. M. Virginis Conceptio iuxta Sixti IV constitutiones*, Rome 1945, pp. 73 ff.). This Constitution, however, did not succeed in putting an end to the intemperance of the opponents, who began to distort the meaning of the feast of the Immaculate Conception, asserting that it referred to the sanctification of the Virgin at the moment she was conceived by God (conceived in relation to God) through purification from original sin. Sixtus IV, with the bull *Grave nimis*, threatening excommunication, declared the aforementioned assertions false, erroneous, and contrary to the truth. The severe measure, reconfirmed the following year, greatly contributed to advancing the pious doctrine, to which the Universities of Paris (imposing it by oath on its doctors in 1469), Oxford, Cambridge, Toulouse, Bologna, and Vienna adhered.
4. From the 16th to the 19th century
In the Greek-Russian Church, after about 15 centuries of remarkable agreement in asserting the singular privilege, an era of inexplicable discord began, originating from the growing favor accorded to it by the Church of Rome. Various objections arose against it, especially after the solemn definition. Nevertheless, even in this period of confusion, there were convinced supporters of the Immaculate Conception in the Greek Church, using terms identical to those employed by Pius IX in the definition. It suffices to mention Cyril Lucaris, Gerasimos I, Patriarch of Alexandria, Nicholas Cursulas, and Elias Miniatis.In the Latin Church, on the contrary, the Immaculate Conception doctrine was heading toward its triumph. Adherence among theologians grew to such an extent that Cardinal Cajetan (in 1534), although opposed to it, did not hesitate to acknowledge that the doctors who held that the Blessed Virgin had been preserved from original sin were infinite in number if one considered the moderns. Nevertheless, the opposing doctrine persisted, particularly through the efforts of some Dominicans. Theological elaboration made further progress. Theologians began to ask whether the Immaculate Conception was a truth of faith or at least could become one. The related question also developed as to whether the Virgin, preserved from original sin, was also immune from the more or less strict obligation of contracting it (utrum immunis evaserit a debito proximo vel remoto originalis culpae contrahendae). Biblical and patristic research enriched itself with new data, so much so that in the 6th session of the Council of Trent (1546) there was no lack of a strong current favoring the dogmatic definition of the notable privilege. Since, however, the Council was convened against heretics and not to settle controversies among Catholics, the idea of a definition was dismissed, and it was decided to add to the decree on the universality of original sin the following significant declaration: "This Holy Synod declares, however, that it is not its intention to include in the decree on original sin the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, but that the Constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, under the penalties contained therein, are to be observed and are hereby renewed" (Denz.-U., 792).
In the 17th century, the intervention of three other Popes occurred: Paul V, following the urgent petitions of Philip III, King of Spain, impressed by the lively disputes between maculists and immaculists, prohibited anyone from attacking in public, in any manner, the doctrine favoring the Immaculate Conception; Gregory XV forbade such attacks even in private, thus imposing silence on the contrary opinion; and Alexander VII, with the constitution *Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum* (8 December 1661), determined, against the false interpretations of the few remaining opponents, the precise object of the feast, declaring that it referred to the preservation of the Virgin’s soul from original guilt at the first instant of her creation and infusion into the body, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Christ her Son, Redeemer of the human race. He also renewed the measures of his predecessors against the supporters of the contrary doctrine. The effect of this Constitution was incalculable. Dioceses, kings, peoples, and cities placed themselves under the protection of the Immaculate Virgin. Various Congregations were founded in her honor. Theologians redoubled their efforts to defend the singular privilege and to pave the way for its definition. Many went so far as to bind themselves by vow to shed their blood, if necessary, in its defense, e.g., St. Alphonsus. This act of filial love, known as the "blood vow," was strongly contested by L. Muratori, the last great opponent, in his work *De ingeniorum moderatione in religionis negotio* (Paris 1714, bk. II, ch. 6) and *De superstitione vitanda sive censura voti sanguinarii* (Venice [but Milan] 1740). Even among the Dominicans, opponents of the privilege became increasingly rare.
At the beginning of the 18th century, Clement XI, with the bull *Commissi nobis* (6 December 1708), extended the feast of the Immaculate Conception to the entire Church *de iure* (since it already was *de facto*). Throughout the century, the enthusiasm of the faithful and scholars for the singular privilege continued to grow, and with it grew the petitions addressed to the Roman Pontiffs by bishops, kings, and religious orders for the solemn definition of the dogma.
Pius IX, upon ascending the papal throne (in 1846), decided to fulfill the ardent desire of the faithful. In 1848, he appointed a special commission of cardinals and theologians to thoroughly examine the question of the definability of the Marian privilege. Shortly afterward (2 Feb. 1849), from Gaeta, he sent a letter to all the bishops requesting their opinion. The response was overwhelmingly positive: out of 665 replies, 570 were enthusiastically favorable, a few were uncertain about the advisability of such a definition, and only 8 were opposed. Meanwhile, the commission, having agreed on the necessary requirements for the definability of a doctrine (implicit content, even if only in one of the two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition), asked itself “whether there are testimonies in Holy Scripture that solidly prove the Immaculate Conception of Mary.” It reached a favorable conclusion (cf. V. CAMISARDI, *La solenne definizione del dogma dell’Immacolato Concepimento di Maria S.ma. Atti e documenti*, I, Rome 1905, pp. 796-804).
Following the favorable responses from both the bishops and the theologians, Pius IX, on 8 Dec. 1854, solemnly defined the dogma in the Vatican Basilica, in the presence of over 200 cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, and an incalculable multitude of jubilant faithful.
II. HISTORY OF THE FEAST IN THE EAST
Today this feast is celebrated in all the Eastern Churches, both dissident and Catholic, with the exception of the Monophysite Syrian Church and the Nestorian Chaldean Church. The traditional date of the feast is 9 Dec., and its title generally emphasizes the “active conception” of Anna: “the conception of Anna when she conceived the Mother of God.” However, some Churches in union with Rome celebrated the feast on 8 Dec. and used the same title as the Latins.
**Byzantine Rite.** — It is generally admitted that the feast originated in the East, and the oldest document concerning it dates from the 7th-8th centuries and is a liturgical canon by St. Andrew of Crete (*PG* 97, 1305-16). Sermons by John of Eubea (ibid. 96, 1459-1580), four by George of Nicomedia (ibid. 100, 1335-1402), one by St. Euthymius of Constantinople, one by Peter of Argos, and the *Menologion* of Basil II attest to its spread, and in particular the Constitution of Manuel Comnenus of 1166 (ibid. 133, 750) forbidding court sessions on that day. When examining the *menologia* and homiliaries (collected by A. Ehrhard, *Überlieferung und Bestand…* [Texte und Untersuchungen, 50, 51, 52]), it is seen that in the 11th century the feast appears very rarely, more often in the 12th century, although in some places the feast was celebrated with a higher liturgical rank than today (cf. A. Schultz, *Der liturgische Grad des Festes der Empfängnis Mariens im byzantinischen Ritus vom 8. bis 13. Jahrh.*, Rome 1941). It was never raised to the rank of the twelve great feasts of the Byzantine rite.
The Italo-Greeks, Melkites, and Ruthenians have sometimes adopted the Latin title and elevated the solemnity of the feast.
The Ruthenian Basilians, at their General Congregation of Zyrovice (1661), decreed the addition of an octave to the feast (cf. *Capitulorum volumen*, Vilna 1900, p. 71), a fact noted only in the *Liturgicon* of Vilna (1692) and that of Unev (1740). At the Provincial Synod of Lviv (1891), a new Office was composed and the ancient one relegated to the vigil. The *Liturgicon* of Rome (1942) restores the ancient title and Office, preserving the feast’s liturgical rank.
No one has studied the meaning of the feast among the Byzantines in their literary and liturgical texts better than Fr. M. Jugie; here is his main conclusion: the object of the feast is complex and three aspects can be distinguished: the announcement of the Conception by the Angel, the miracle of the active Conception in the barren womb, and the passive Conception of the future Mother of God. This last element occupied the thought of orators and poets in particular (cf. *DThC*, VII, 1, cols. 959).
**Armenian Rite.** — Among the dissident Armenians, the feast on 9 Dec. would have been introduced only two centuries ago (cf. C. Tondini de Quarenghi, *Etude sur le calendrier liturgique de la nation arménienne*, Rome 1906, p. 2); in the Calendar published by the Mekhitarists in Vienna in 1877, the title is the Latin one; the date is always 9 Dec. (cf. N. Nilles, *Kalendarium manuale utriusque Ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis*, II, Innsbruck 1897, p. 625).
**Syrian Rite.** — In a *Menologion* written in 1166 (cod. Bodl. Dawk. 32) and then in a Calendar compiled by James of Edessa but written in 1635 (cod. Vat. Syr. 37), the feast is found on 9 Dec. with the title in use among the Byzantines. However, in many other *Menologia* of the Monophysite Syrian Church (cf., e.g., *PO* 10), it is not mentioned.
Instead, the Syrians united with Rome solemnly celebrated it on 8 Dec. with the Latin title (cf. *Synodus Sciarfensis Syrorum* a. 1888, Rome 1897, p. 65); indeed, in their *Feniglio* (II, Mossul 1886, pp. 376-412), there is an Office with a full octave: a recent creation.
The Maronites also celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception; in a Calendar published in Rome in 1830, the feast is mentioned on 9 Dec. (cf. N. Nilles, *op. cit.*, II, p. 681), but today it is celebrated on 8 Dec.
In the Calendar of Gibrà II ibn al-Golai written in 1673 (cf. *PO* 10, 349-53), the feast is not mentioned, and in the Synod of Mount Lebanon (cf. *Acta et decreta… collectio Lacensis*, II, Freiburg 1876, cols. 109) it does not appear among the holy days of obligation as it does today.
**Chaldean Rite.** — The only Eastern Church that does not know and apparently never has known the feast of the Immaculate Conception is the Nestorian Church. The Chaldeans united with Rome celebrate it on 8 Dec. with the Latin title, and a certain monk Damian composed an Office for it (cf. *Maria. Etudes sur la Ste Vierge sous la direction d’Hubert du Manoir*, I, Paris 1949, p. 349). It does not yet appear among the new feasts introduced by Patriarch Joseph II Ma’ruf (1695-1713; cf. Vat. Borg. Syr. 89) nor among those noted in a report of 1765 (cf. J. Vosté, *Les actes du synode chaldéen de… 1853*, Rome 1942, p. 137), but it certainly existed at the time of Patriarch Joseph Audo (1847-78).
The Malabarese have long adopted the Latin Calendar.
**Coptic Rite.** — Coptic documents preserve the memory of the Conception of Anna on two different dates. The *Synaxarion* attributed to Michael, Bishop of Malig (13th century) (cf. J. Forget, *Synaxarium Alexandrinum*, in *Corp. Script. Christ. Or.*, 3rd series, XIX, p. 252), as well as a modern Coptic calendar of the dissident Copts (cf. S. C. Malan, *The Calendar of the Coptic Church*, London 1873, p. 37), assign the feast to the 7th of Mesori (which, according to the Julian Calendar, would be July 31). However, other documents from the 13th and 14th centuries (cf. *PO* 10, 175, 195, 226, 260), as well as a modern calendar (cf. N. Nilles, *op. cit.*, II, p. 700) and the Synod of the Coptic Catholics (cf. *Synodus Alexandrinus Coptorum habita Caira a. 1898*, Rome 1899, p. 67), place the feast on the 13th of Koiak (which, according to the Julian Calendar, would be December 9).
The Ethiopians translated Michael of Malig’s *Synaxarion* in the 14th century (cf. *PO* 9, 393) and thus celebrated the feast on the 7th of Nahasi, i.e., July 31 (cf. G. Nollet, *Le culte de Marie en Ethiopie*, in *Maria*, cit., I, Paris 1949, p. 393). However, the Ethiopians united with Rome celebrated it on December 8. The difference in dates—December 8 and 9—raises a question. Since the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin is universally celebrated on September 8 and this feast existed before ours, one wonders how the Byzantines and those who followed them came to place the Conception on December 9. Fr. Pl. de Meester (*La festa della Concezione di Maria Santissima nella Chiesa greca*, in *Bessarione*, 9 [1904], pp. 95-97) advanced several hypotheses, none of which were satisfactory, while Fr. G. Hanssens (*Cinque feste mariane dei riti orientali*, in *Incontro ai fratelli separati di Oriente*, Rome 1945, p. 371) writes: “It seems simpler to think that by placing the Conception on December 9, it was intended that this feast day would be the first of a nine-month period ending on the day of the Nativity, just as, for example, Easter is the first day of the fiftieth period that ends with the entire day of Pentecost, or Christmas is the first day of the forty days that end with the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple.”
**
---
### III. HISTORY OF THE FEAST IN THE WEST
In the Middle Ages, the feast of the Conception of Mary was sometimes called the “feast of the Normans,” since it was widely believed that they had first encountered it in Sicily and southern Italy, from where it was later brought to Normandy and England. However, advances in liturgical studies have shown that the origin of the feast in the West is to be found in the Celtic Church of Ireland.
Indeed, the *Martyrology of Tallaght* (early 9th century) and the *Calendar of Eugenius* (c. 825) include a feast of the Conception of Mary on May 3, a date whose provenance is still debated. In England, before the Norman Conquest (1066), the feast of the Conception of Mary appears on December 8 in various calendars (Old Minster, Winchester, c. 1030; New Minster, c. 1035) and especially in the well-known Missal and Pontifical of Bishop Leofric of Exeter (c. 1050). Bernold of Constance, author of the *Micrologus* (d. 1110), makes no mention of the feast. Nevertheless, it continued to spread in England and neighboring regions: in 1128, it appeared in some Benedictine monasteries (Ramsay, Edmundsbury, Reading, etc.); at about the same time, it also appeared in the ecclesiastical province of Rouen (under Bishop Hugh, c. 1129). In 1140, a famous dispute arose in Lyon between the Chapter, which wished to introduce the feast, and St. Bernard, who opposed II. In 1154, the prior of St. Peter in Regula (diocese of Bazas) introduced the feast in his abbey, declaring that nearly all of France celebrated II. Beleth, in his *Divinorum officiorum ac eorumdem rationum explicatio* (c. 1161-65), while acknowledging its spread, rejected it as “not authentic.” At Rouen, the feast was celebrated with the same rank as the Assumption under Archbishop Rotrou (1165-83). In Paris, the Conception was regularly celebrated in 1196.
The feast also appeared in Italy, but Bishop Sicard of Cremona (d. 1225), in his celebrated *Mitrale*, using almost the same words as Beleth, vehemently rejected II. For Italy, the information collected by A. Ebner (*Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte des Missale Romanum im Mittelalter. Iter Italicum*, Freiburg in Br. 1896) is instructive. The feast is found in a Sacramentary (12th century) belonging to the Augustinian friars of Jerusalem (Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, D. 7, 3), in another from the Vatican Library (lat. 7231) of the 12th-13th century, in a Sacramentary of St. Peter’s Basilica from the second half of the 13th century (Capitolo S. Pietro, F. 13), in a “full” Missal of the church of St. Nicholas in Trani from the end of the 13th century (Vatican Library, Reg. 2049), and in another “full” Missal of the same period from the Carthusians of Santa Croce in Rome (Biblioteca Casanatense, 1394), with the rubric: *Sanctificatio Virginis gloriosae Mariae*. From the 14th century, there are a Missal of Rome (or elsewhere) now in the Vatican Library (Ott. 356), another from Orvieto (Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 704), and one from the church of St. Nicholas in Carcere in Rome, where the dedication of an altar *Conceptionis* is also recorded. From the 15th century, there is a Dominican Missal from the Neapolitan region: *Sanctificatio B. Mariae Virginis* (Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, VI E 3), and one from the Carthusians, with the same dedication (Vatican Library, lat. 7209). Among the books with the feast added to the original text, mention may be made of a few: at Montecassino, in a “full” Missal of the 11th century, the feast was added almost contemporaneously (Montecassino, NN. 540); similarly in a Sacramentary of the Benedictines of Moggio (Udine) from the 13th century (Udine, Biblioteca arcivescovile, f. 16). Additions of this kind are often found in the Missals of the Friars Minor and other religious orders.
In France, the Council of Le Mans (1247) declared the feast of the Conception *de praecepto*. At Reims, it was certainly celebrated between 1261 and 1271. Of great importance for its spread was the year 1263, when the General Chapter of the Franciscans decreed its celebration throughout the Order. In England, while a provincial synod of Oxford (1222) refused to declare it a *de praecepto* feast, already in use, the diocesan synod of Exeter (1287) imposed it even on the secular clergy. Durandus, Bishop of Mende, a profound connoisseur of Roman and papal liturgy (d. in Rome in 1296), makes no mention of the feast in his great work *Rationale divinorum officiorum*, a comprehensive summary of liturgical science of that era. In 1300, a synod of Bayeux listed the feast of the Conception among the Marian feasts *de praecepto*. In 1306, the General Chapter of the Carmelites introduced it into their Order as a *totum duplex* (i.e., a solemn feast). The feast is attested at Mainz in 1318. Around 1330, it was celebrated with great solemnity in the church of the Carmelites at Avignon, and shortly afterward was adopted by John XXII in his own chapel. Around the same time (1334), it was celebrated at the Charterhouse of Val-St-Aldegonde, and the following year throughout the Carthusian Order; in 1343, it received the rank of *festum solemne*. Between 1338 and 1348, it was adopted in the large diocese of Treves; in 1350, at Utrecht and Münster in Westphalia. In 1394, it was also adopted by the General Chapter of the Dominicans as a *totum duplex*. It is impossible to trace in detail the further spread of the feast, which became practically universal during the 15th century.
By decree of the Council of Basel, session XXVI (17 Sept. 1439) concerning the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the feast gained much ground. A Breviary printed in Mainz in 1507 uses the texts of this Council for the second nocturn.
Of great importance for the definitive and universal acceptance of the feast is the pontificate of Sixtus IV. In the inscription (now in the courtyard of the former Ospedale della Consolazione) that records the granting of many indulgences for the construction of the church of S. Maria delle Grazie (1472), he calls the Virgin “Immaculata virgo” (v. Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese e d’altri edifici di Roma, VIII, Rome 1876, p. 324, no. 780); in 1476 he issued a bull by which he granted for the feast of the Conception the same indulgences as his predecessors had granted for the feast of Corpus Domini, adopting the liturgical formularies drawn up, at his order, by the notary Leonardo de Nogaroli (Bullarium Romanum, V, Turin 1860, pp. 269–70). These texts were introduced into the books of the Franciscans and spread widely. He also had built near St Peter’s a most sumptuous chapel for the use of the choir, dedicated on 8 Dec. 1479 in honour of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and of Sts Francis and Anthony (E. Steinmann, Die sixtinische Kapelle, I, Munich 1901, pp. 11–26), where he wished to be buried (the celebrated monument by Pollaiuolo).
Pius V, in his reform of the Breviary (1562), replaced the Office of Nogaroli with that of the Nativity of Mary, with appropriate adaptations, and added new lessons. In the edition of the Breviary of Clement VIII, the feast of the Conception was raised to duplex maius. In many places it was celebrated with an octave; thus, for example, Alexander VII (1665) granted the octave to the Republic of Venice, Clement IX (1667) to the Papal States, at the same time elevating the feast to the rank of second class. Innocent XII (15 May 1693) prescribed the octave for the whole Church, at the same time raising the feast to second class. Clement XI then (6 Dec. 1708) imposed the feast on the whole Church as a precept. Benedict XIV instituted the solemn Papal Chapel on the day of the Conception of Mary in the basilica of S. Maria Maggiore. Up to this time, in the ordinary Papal Chapels of Advent, when the feast of the Conception fell on the second Sunday of Advent, it always took precedence over the Sunday; Benedict XIV, however, gave precedence to the feast. During the discussions for the liturgical reform under the same Benedict XIV, much was said about the advisability of suppressing the octave because it encumbered Advent, but the final meeting of 2 Feb. 1742 led to no decision; then the whole reform came to a standstill.
At the time of the definition (1854), three different formularies for Mass and Office were in use throughout the Latin Church, among which Nogaroli’s still held pride of place.
Pius IX, at the request of many bishops and by his own desire, ordered in 1863 the composition of a new “dogmatic” liturgical text, one that would precisely express the defined truth. For this purpose he set up a special Congregation, which held its first meeting on 23 May of that same year. A formulario (Mass and Office) by Fr Luigi Marchesi C.M. was proposed for discussion and published by him; but the discussions ended with the rejection of the project. Following direct contacts between the Secretary of the Congregation of Rites, Msgr Bartolini, and Pius IX, the Pope himself, by the Pope’s wish, prepared a new text, which, after various changes and substitutions, was approved by Pius IX on 27 Aug.; the feast was then called that of the Immaculate Conception. On 25 Sept., by a special apostolic brief, Pius IX abolished the existing formularies, prescribing for the whole Church—even for those with a proper rite—the new text of the Mass and Office for the feast and its octave, and, where it was customary, a vigil Mass. Of Nogaroli’s Office only the principal Oremus remained, with a small but significant innovation: instead of filio suo it now read filio tuo. Finally, Leo XIII (30 Nov. 1879) prescribed a vigil for the whole Church. Unfortunately, apocryphal lessons were introduced into the Office of the feast and its octave. In the feast, the sermo s. Hieronymi of the ASSUERO (v.), and on the day of the octave the homily of the third nocturn is not by St Epiphanius of Salamis but by another Epiphanius, called “the Cypriot,” who lived in the mid-9th century (S. Congregazione dei Riti, Decreta 1863, App. C.).
IV. Art
In Eastern liturgical texts, from the 10th century onward, the illustrations relating to 8 Dec., the festal day of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, depict the meeting of Joachim and Anna at the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem; for from that moment the beginning of Mary’s life is placed in Anna. And with the representation of this concept the life of the Virgin is begun in the books of the monks of Mount Athos.This representation is repeated many times in both Eastern and Western art, and it suffices to cite in this regard the marvellous rendering given by Giotto in the frescoes of the Arena Chapel in Padua, that of a 14th-century painter in the crocetta of the cathedral of Brixen, and that of Dürer in one of his famous engravings. Sometimes this representation is made more complex by the presence of an angel joining the heads of Anna and Joachim; thus in the fresco of a Giottesque painter in S. Maria Novella in Florence and in a panel by Bartolomeo Viviani in S. Maria Formosa in Venice. At other times, as in a Belgian breviary with the Office of the Virgin in the Library of Vienna (no. 1984), two shrubs grow from the breasts of Joachim and Anna and join to support a flower bearing in its calyx the image of the Virgin. But already by the late 15th century painters and illustrators of sacred texts tended toward the direct representation of the Immaculate Conception, depicting the Virgin descending to earth by God’s will at the fullness of time. Thus in a painting by Luca Signorelli in the cathedral of Cortona and in another by Antonio Sogliani in the Uffizi in Florence.
Meanwhile other Renaissance painters, such as Francesco Zaganelli of Cotignola in a painting of 1513 in the Pinacoteca of Forlì—where the Eternal is shown dropping onto the earth, where the Virgin stands among some saints, a girdle inscribed “Tota pulchra es et macula originalis non est in te”—sought to represent figuratively the litany-like attributes.
But it is in Spanish art, through the work of the painter Jan de Juanes (1507–76), in a painting done for the church of
The Jesuits of Valencia depict the white-clad Virgin, with hands outstretched, rising for the first time above the moon to render figuratively the concept of “pulchra ut luna,” while in the upper part of the painting the Most Holy Trinity crowns her. This representation, however, gradually simplifies, and soon the Virgin appears alone in a triumphant vision against a sky background, crushing the serpent of sin, standing on the globe or on a crescent moon. In this last figurative element one may also recognize, beyond the depiction of the aforementioned concept of “pulchra ut luna,” an allusion to the victory of Christian peoples over the Muslims.
Among the most famous representations of the Immaculate Conception in this definitive form, as it was officially accepted when the dogma was proclaimed (1854), are those by Ludovico Carracci in a painting now in the Pinacoteca of Bologna, by Guido Reni in a canvas now in the Houghton Gallery in London, by the superb Tiepolo in a canvas in the Pinacoteca of Vicenza, and finally the one that stands on the column erected in Rome in Piazza di Spagna by Luigi Poletti on the occasion of the dogma’s proclamation by Pius IX. — See plates CI–CII.