Immaculate Conception

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. - By these terms 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 to her by almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, was preserved immune from every stain of original sin" (bull Ineffabilis Deus).

I. THE DOGMA

Descending from Adam by way of natural generation, Mary too, like all men, at the moment when the soul was united to the body, would have had to contract original guilt. But for her, so that she might be a "worthy dwelling of God," an exception was made: therefore, if others were freed by Christ the Redeemer from original sin after having contracted it, the Virgin was preserved from it beforehand. This unique exception to the common law has been 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 the Bible and of Tradition in which this doctrine is contained, if not explicitly, at least implicitly, that is, in equivalent terms.

1. From the 1st to the 4th century

In the Fathers and writers of the first centuries the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is implicit in the frequent Eve-Mary parallelism (the texts of St. Justin, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian are classic), which entails a double relation: of likeness: as Eve came forth pure from the hands of God, so Mary had to come forth immaculate from the same hands; of opposition: she who was to be the restorer of Eve's ruins could not be overwhelmed by them. In the same period, Hippolytus says that the Savior was "an ark made of woods (the Blessed Virgin) not subject to the putrefaction of guilt" (In Ps. 22: PG 10, 610). 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) expresses in several ways Mary's immunity from original guilt. He equates Mary's immaculateness with that of Christ Himself, and asserts that such purity is the exclusive privilege of the two of them: "Thou alone (O Lord) and Thy Mother are beautiful in every respect; for there is no stain in Thee, O Lord, nor is there any stain in Thy Mother" (Carmina Nisibena, ed. Bickell, Leipzig 1866, p. 40). St. Ambrose asserts that Mary was "ab omni integra labe peccati" (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," similar to 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 female sex, she was nevertheless excluded from the wickedness of that sex; she was an innocent Virgin, without stain, without guilt, unstained, holy in soul and body, like a lily that blossoms among thorns" (Homilia in s. Mariam Dei genitricem et in s. Christi nativitatem: PG 77, 1427); 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 drove it away, so that the whole creation might not be corrupted" (ed. Bickell, in Zeitschr. d. Deutschen morgenl. Ges., 27 [1873], pp. 591-92).

St. Augustine, in the struggle against Pelagianism (v.), was the first to find the question of the Immaculate Conception posed in its proper terms. There are two texts on the matter: one from the De natura et gratia (ch. 36, n. 42: PL 44, 267), and the other from the work Contra Iulianum, which remained unfinished (bk. IV, ch. 22: PL 45, 1417 ff.), composed toward the end of his life. In the first text, replying to Pelagius, he asserts that all the just of the Old Testament, during their lives, had sinned, "with the exception of the Virgin Mary, regarding whom, for the honor of the Lord, when it is a question of sins, I wish to have no question at all, since we know that, for having merited to conceive and give birth to Him who clearly is established to have had no sin, more Grace was conferred upon her than was needed to overcome sin on any side." The Immaculate sense of this text appeared so obvious as to be inserted into the bull Ineffabilis. In the second passage, replying to Julian, who had objected that with the theory of the universality of original sin he was subjecting Mary to the dominion of Satan, he said: "We do not subject Mary to the devil by the condition of birth, but for this reason (some would read: but to God), because that condition (of birth) is dissolved by the grace of rebirth." Evidently here the "grace of rebirth" is opposed to the "condition of birth." Now if the grace of rebirth, of which the holy Doctor speaks, had not been a preserving grace but only a liberating one from original guilt, the Madonna would have been subject to Satan: a thing objected by Julian and resolutely denied by St. Augustine. That the Saint moreover had the notion of a preserving grace appears clear from the clause that immediately precedes our text, where there is talk of a grace of liberation, which consists not in remitting sin but in preserving from it (for the 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 natio. Dom.: PL 52, 235).

In the 7th century, St. Sophronius is the first who seems to allude to a preservation from guilt. He says in fact: "Thou hast found favor with God that no one has received... No one, except thee, was prepurified" (Hor. II in Deip.: PG 87, 3248). Toward the end of the 7th century or at the beginning of the 8th the feast of the Immaculate Conception began to be celebrated in the East, as is evident from the Canon of St. Andrew of Crete: "In conceptione sanctae ac Dei aviae 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 Damascene. In the time of Photius this feast had already become universal in the Greek Church. To its primitive object, which was the announcement of the miraculous Conception of Mary made by the angel to her parents, there was not slow to be added the present one, namely the passive Conception of the Mother of God, declared, not infrequently, holy, immaculate. Thus John of Euboea (d. ca. 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, on the other hand, the feast of the Conception began to be celebrated around 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 singular Marian privilege: St. Tarasius, St. Theodore 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, II, 2nd ed., Rome 1948, pp. 39-45).

3. From the 11th to the 15th century

In the Greek Church one notes a profession of faith in the singular privilege in very precise terms. No one, during this period, as far as is known, denied the great privilege. Among the most explicit assertors were distinguished 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 Palaiologos (1391-1425) and George Scholarios (d. ca. 1472).

While in the Greek Church the doctrine of the I. C. had reached its full triumph, in the Latin Church a controversy flared up that dragged on, with very lively exchanges, for several centuries. The occasion for the controversy was the feast of the Conception (v. below, History of the feast in the West). In the defense of the feast, the monk Eadmer of Canterbury (v.) and Osbert of Clare distinguished themselves. A great champion of the I. C. was also the Spaniard Peter Micha, called the Compostellan, in the work De consolatione rationis composed ca. 1140. Far more violent than the one that arose in England was the opposition stirred up in France by the Parisian theologian John Beleth and, in a quite particular way, by St. Bernard, in the celebrated letter to the canons of Lyons (PL 182, 323 ff.). The holy Doctor protested energetically against the introduction of this feast into the Church of Lyons. There has been much discussion not only about the authenticity (which is beyond all doubt) but also, and above all, about the genuine meaning of this letter. It is a fact, however, that the Saint places no substantial difference between the sanctification of the Baptist and that of Mary. At least implicitly, therefore, he denied the I. C. It should be noted, however, that he ultimately deferred to the judgment of the Church, ready to submit to a possible teaching of the Church contrary to his own. The letter of St. Bernard, given his authority, exercised a very notable influence on the theologians of the following centuries, and in a particular way 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, who proved to be clearly opposed to the singular privilege. The principal causes of this disorientation, on the part of such lofty minds, were: a) the theory of Peter Lombard about the flesh infected by original sin which would in turn have infected the soul at the moment of uniting with it; b) the universality of Christ's redemption, from which the Immaculist theory seemed to want to subtract Mary; c) the universality of original sin explicitly taught by St. Paul. These objections gave a valid contribution to the process of clarification of the Marian privilege.

Nevertheless, there was no lack, at that same time, of strong supporters of the Immaculist position: Odo, Cistercian cardinal (d. 1273), St. Peter Pascasius (d. 1300), William Ware O. F. M. (d. 1300), Scotus's master at Oxford and later professor at Paris, Raymond Lull (d. 1315), Parisian master.

Regarding Scotus's position with respect to the I. C., a clarification is necessary. In the Theoremata Scotus denied the I. C. (cf. C. Baliè, Ioannis Duns Scoti doctoris Mariani theologiae Marianae elementa, Sebenico 1933, p. cxxii). Since the time of composition of this work is unknown, it is not possible 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 only the possibility of the Marian privilege, teaching however the equal possibility of the opposite, and resolving all the reasons both favorable and contrary to the maculist position. For Scotus, therefore, the two positions are equally possible. Which of the two was actually realized, God alone knows: « Deus novit ». « It seems probable to attribute to the Virgin what is more excellent, provided that this does not conflict with the authority of the Church or of Scripture ». At that time the 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 the Redemption. For this reason Scotus proceeded with great caution and, for the moment, did not dare to go further. Only later, undoubtedly moved by his « videtur probabile quod excellentius est attribuere Mariae », does he assert that in heaven « there is the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, who was never His enemy in act by reason of actual sin, nor by reason of original sin: she would have been, however, had she not been preserved » (In III Sent., d. 18, q. unica). Nevertheless, in the Reportatio Parisiensis, toward the end of his life, Scotus cast doubt on the I. C., asserting that the Blessed Virgin « was never God's enemy in act by reason of actual sin and perhaps not even by reason of original sin ». Was the disciple who wrote the Reportatio faithful in putting that « perhaps »? Even the celebrated « potuit, decuit, fecit », so frequently attributed to Scotus, does not belong to him. As for the Parisian disputation, on which legend has embroidered a great deal, it must be said that it either never took place, or, if it truly was held, it cannot have gone beyond 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). Toward the middle of the century, both in France and in Aragon, through the work of certain Dominican masters, a violent controversy was kindled. 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 progress of the Immaculist doctrine. It was precisely then that the biblical argument began to appear, especially that drawn from the Protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) and from the angelic greeting (Lk. 1:28). The feast of the Conception, too, at that time spread everywhere, especially among the religious.

At the beginning of the 15th century the Immaculist position was already common among the Franciscans and other religious Orders, with the exception of the Dominicans. This favor grew so much that Cardinal John Gonzales, at the Council of Basel (1438), invoked in favor of the singular privilege the testimony of « almost the whole world ». At that same Council, after three years of discussions, carried on especially between the Dominicans John of Monenero with Cardinal Torquemada on one side, and John Gonzales with Father Perqueri O. F. M. on the other, in session XXXVI (Sept. 17, 1439) a decree was issued, in which it was declared that belief in the I. C. was pious, in conformity with the worship of the Church, with the Catholic faith, with Holy Scripture and with right reason, and therefore had to be held by all Catholics, with prohibition to anyone to teach the contrary. But the Council, at the time it issued this definition, was no longer legitimate, having withdrawn from dependence on the Roman Pontiff. It nevertheless influenced in an exceptional way the triumph of the pious position, and made the feast of the Conception universal in fact. It did not, however, diminish the opposition on the part of not a few Dominicans, among whom Raphael of Fornassio and Vincent Bandelli, master general of the Order (from 1501 to 1506), became famous. The latter went so far as to establish the thesis: « It is an impious thing to hold that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in original sin ». At this point the Roman Pontiffs began to intervene, in an ever more decisive way. Sixtus IV, a Franciscan, on Feb. 27, 1477 promulgated the constitution Cum praecelca, with which he solemnly approved the feast of the I. C. celebrated in many places, with proper Mass and Office, composed by the Veronese Leonardo de Nogarolis (cf. C. Sericoli, Immaculata B. M. Virginis Conceptio iuxta Sixti IV constitutiones, Rome 1945, p. 73 ff.). This Constitution, however, did not suffice to put an end to the excesses of the opponents, who began to distort the meaning of the feast of the I. C., asserting that it was a ques-

was a matter of the sanctification of the Virgin, which took place when she was conceived Deo (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, contributed not a little to advancing the pious opinion, to which the Universities of Paris (imposing it by oath, in 1469, upon its doctors), Oxford, Cambridge, Toulouse, Bologna and Vienna adhered.

4. From the 16th century to the 19th century

In the Greek-Russian Church, after about 15 centuries of admirable concord in asserting the singular privilege, an era of inexplicable discord began, originating from the growing favour that it was receiving from the Church of Rome. Various rose up against it, especially after the solemn definition. Yet there was no lack in the Greek Church, even in this period of bewilderment, of convinced assertors of the Immaculate Conception using terms identical to those used by Pius IX in the definition. It suffices to cite Cyril Lucaris, Gerasimus I, Patriarch of Alexandria, Nicholas Cursulas, Elias Miniatis.

In the Latin Church, on the contrary, the Immaculist opinion was advancing toward its triumph. Adherence among theologians grew so much that Cardinal Cajetan (d. 1534), although opposed, 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 looked to the moderns. Nevertheless the contrary opinion, especially through the work of certain Dominicans, continued to persist. Theological elaboration made new progress. Theologians began to ask themselves whether the Immaculate Conception was a truth of faith or whether it could at least become one. There also developed the connected question of 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 investigation was enriched with new data, so that in the sixth session of the Council of Trent (1546) there was no lack of a strong current favourable to the dogmatic definition of the distinguished privilege. Since, however, the Council had been convened against the heretics and not to settle the controversies then existing among Catholics, the idea of a definition was set aside and it was decided to add to the decree on the universality of original sin the following significant declaration: "This holy Synod nevertheless declares that it is not its intention to include in the decree relating to original sin the Blessed and Immaculate Virgin Mary, mother of God, but that the Constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV are to be observed under the penalties contained in them and which are renewed" (Denz-U, 792).

In the 17th century there was the intervention of three other Popes: Paul V, following the urgent entreaties of Philip III, king of Spain, impressed by the lively disputes between Maculists and Immaculists, forbade anyone to attack in public, in any manner whatsoever, the doctrine favourable to the Immaculate Conception; Gregory XV forbade that such a doctrine be attacked even in private, thus imposing silence on the contrary opinion; Alexander VII then, with the constitution Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum (8 Dec. 1661), determined, against the false interpretations of the few remaining adversaries, the precise object of the feast, declaring that it concerned the preservation of the soul of the Virgin from original guilt, in the first instant of its creation and infusion into the body, by special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Christ her son, Redeemer of the human race. He further renewed the measures of his predecessors against the supporters of the contrary opinion. The effect of this Constitution was incalculable. Dioceses, kings, peoples and cities placed themselves under the protection of the Immaculate One. Various Congregations were founded in her honour. Theologians redoubled their labours to defend the singular privilege and to smooth the way for the definition. Many went so far as to bind themselves by vow to shed their own blood, should it be necessary, for its defence, e.g., St. Alphonsus. This act of filial love, called the "bloody vow", was strongly attacked by L. Muratori, the last great adversary, 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 the opponents of the privilege became ever rarer.

At the beginning of the 18th century, Clement XI, with the bull Commissi nobis (6 Dec. 1708), extended de iure (since it already was so de facto) the feast of the Immaculate Conception to the whole Church. Throughout the century the enthusiasm of the faithful and of the learned for the singular privilege kept growing, and with it grew also the petitions addressed to the Roman Pontiffs by bishops, kings and religious Orders for the solemn definition of the dogma.

Pius IX, as soon as he ascended the pontifical throne (in 1846), decided to satisfy the lively desire of the faithful. In 1848 he appointed a special commission of cardinals and theologians to examine thoroughly the question of the definability of the Marian privilege. Shortly afterwards (2 Feb. 1849), from Gaeta he sent a letter to all the bishops to ask their opinion. The response was plebiscitary: out of 665 replies, 570 were enthusiastically favourable, a few others were uncertain about the opportuneness of such a definition, and only 8 were contrary. The commission meanwhile, after having established by common agreement the requisites necessary for the definability of a doctrine (at least implicit containment, even if only in one of the two sources of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition), asked itself "whether in Holy Scripture there are testimonies which solidly prove the immaculate conception of Mary". And it reached a favourable conclusion (cf. V. Sardi, La solenne definizione del dogma dell'Immacolato Concepimento di Maria S.ma. Atti e documenti, I, Rome 1905, pp. 796-804).

Following the favourable response both of the bishops and of the theologians, Pius IX, on 8 Dec. 1854, proceeded in the Vatican Basilica to the solemn definition of the dogma, in the presence of more than 200 cardinals, archbishops and bishops, and of an incalculable multitude of exulting faithful.

Gabriele Roschini

II. HISTORY OF THE FEAST IN THE EAST

Today this feast is celebrated in all the Eastern Churches, both dissident and Catholic; the exceptions are the monophysite Syrian Church and the Nestorian Chaldean Church. The date of the feast is traditionally December 9, and the title generally emphasizes the "active Conception" of Anna: "the Conception of Anna when she conceived the Mother of God." However, some Churches united with Rome celebrate the feast on December 8 and give it the very title that the Latins give it.

Byzantine rite. - It is admitted that the feast originated in the East, and the oldest document in this regard belongs to the 7th-8th centuries and is a liturgical canon of St. Andrew of Crete (PG 97, 1305-16). A homily of John of Euboea (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 prove its diffusion, and in particular the Constitution of Manuel Comnenus of 1166 (ibid. 133, 750) forbidding the sitting of tribunals on that day. If one examines the menologia and homilaria (collected by A. Ehrhard, Überlieferung und Bestand... [Texte und Untersuchung, 50, 51, 52]), one sees that in the 11th century the feast appears quite rarely, more often in the 12th century, despite the fact that in some places the feast was celebrated with a liturgical rank higher than that of 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 assumed into the rank of the twelve great feasts of the Byzantine rite.

The Italo-Greeks, the Melkites and the Ruthenians have sometimes adopted the Latin title and raised the solemnity of the feast. The Ruthenian Basilians in their general Congregation of Zyrovice (1661) decreed to add an octave to the feast (cf. Capitulorum volumei, Vilna 1900, p. 71), which is noted only by the Liturgicon of Vilna (1692) and that of Unev (1740). In 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 the ancient Office, preserving for the feast its liturgical rank.

No one studied better than Father M. Jugie the meaning of the feast among the Byzantines in their literary documents and liturgical texts; here is his principal conclusion: the object of the feast is complex and three points of view can be distinguished in it: the announcement of the Conception by means of the Angel, the miracle of the active Conception in the sterile womb, the passive Conception of the future Mother of God. And this last element principally occupied the thought of the orators and poets (cf. DThC, VII, 1, col. 959).

Armenian rite. - Among the dissident Armenians the feast on December 9 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 Mechitarists in Vienna in 1877 the title is the Latin one; the date is always December 9 (cf. N. Nilles, Kalendarium manuale utriusque Ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis, II, Innsbruck 1897, p. 625).

Syrian rite. - In a Menologion written in the year 1166 (cod. Bodl. Dawk. 32) and then in a Calendar drawn up by James of Edessa but written in 1635 (cod. Vat. Syr. 37) one finds on December 9 our feast with the title in use among the Byzantines. In many other Menologia, however, of the monophysite Syrian Church (cf., e.g.: PO 10) no mention of it is found.

On the other hand, the Syrians united with Rome celebrate it solemnly on December 8 with the Latin title (cf. Synodus Sotorfensis Syrorum a. 1888, Rome 1897, p. 65); indeed in their Fenqitho (II, Mossul 1886, pp. 376-412) there is found the Office with an entire octave: a recent creation.

The Maronites also celebrate the feast of the Immaculate Conception; in a Calendar published in Rome in 1830 the feast is found mentioned on December 9 (cf. N. Nilles, op. cit., II, p. 681), but today they celebrate it on December 8.

In the Calendar of Gibrâ'il 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, col. 109) it does not appear among the feasts of precept as it does today.

Chaldean rite. - Alone among the Easterners, the Nestorians do not know nor have they apparently ever known the feast of the I.C. The Chaldeans united with Rome have it with the Latin title on December 8, 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 the patriarch Joseph II Ma'rûf (1695-1713; cf. Vat. Borg. Syr. 89) nor among those noted by a report of 1765 (cf. J. Vosté, Les actes du synode chaldéen de... 1853, Rome 1942, p. 137) but it certainly exists at the time of the patriarch Joseph Audo (1847-78).

The Malabarese have long since adopted the Calendar of the Latins.

Coptic rite. - The Coptic documents give the commemoration of the conception of Anna on two different dates. The Synaxarium attributed to Michael, bishop of Malig of the 13th century (cf. J. Forget, Synaxarium Alexandrinum, in Corp. Script. Christ. Or., 3rd series, XIX, p. 252), like a modern calendar of the dissident Copts (cf. S. C. Malan, The Calendar of the Coptic Church, London 1873, p. 37) indicate the feast on 7 Mesri (today, it would be July 31, according to the Julian Calendar). But other documents belonging to 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 Catholic Copts (cf. Synodus Alexandrina Coptorum habita Cairi a. 1898, Rome 1899, p. 67) have the feast on 13 Koiak (today, it would be December 9, according to the Julian Calendar).

The Ethiopians translated the Synaxarium of Michael of Malig in the 14th century (cf. PO 9, 393), and thus they still celebrate the feast today on 7 Nahasi, that is, on July 31 (cf. G. Nollet, Le culte de Marie en Ethiopie, in Maria, cit., I, Paris 1949, p. 393).

But the Ethiopians united with Rome celebrate it on December 8. The difference of date, December 8 and 9, raises a question. As the nativity of Our Lady is celebrated by all on September 8, and as that feast existed before ours, one asks how the Byzantines and those who followed them came to place the Conception on December 9. Father Pl. de Meester, La festa della Concezione di Maria Santissima nella Chiesa greca (in Bessurione, 9 [1904], pp. 95-97) advances various hypotheses, none of which is satisfactory, while Father G. Hanssens, Cinque feste mariane dei riti orientali (in Incontro ai fratelli separati di Oriente, Rome 1945, p. 371) writes: "It seems simpler to us to think that, by placing the Conception on December 9, the intention was to make the very day of that feast the first of the space of nine months of which the day of the Nativity is the last, just as, for example, the day of Easter is the first of the fiftieth which ends with the whole day of Pentecost, the day of Christmas the first of the forty days which ends with the whole day of the Presentation of the Lord in the Temple."

Alfonso Raes

III. HISTORY OF THE FEAST IN THE WEST

In the Middle Ages the feast of the Conception of Mary used to be called the "feast of the Normans," because it was a common conviction that they had come to know it in Sicily and southern Italy, from where they would then have carried it to Normandy and England. The progress of liturgical studies has instead shown that the origin of the feast in the West is to be sought in the Celtic Church of Ireland.

In fact, the Martyrology of Tallaght (early 9th century) and the Calendar of Oengus (ca. 825) have a feast of the Conception of Mary on May 3, a date whose origin is still disputed. In England, moreover, before the Norman invasion (1066), on December 8 the feast of the Conception of Mary is found in various Calendars (Old Minster, Winchester, ca. 1030; New Minster, ca. 1035) and above all in the well-known Missal and Pontifical of Bishop Leofric of Exeter (ca. 1050). Bernold of Constance, author of the Micrologus (d. 1110), gives no notice of the feast. In England and the neighboring territories, however, it continued to spread; in 1128 it appears in certain Benedictine monasteries (Ramsay, Edmundsbury, Reading, etc.); at the same time also in the ecclesiastical province of Rouen (under Bishop Hugh, ca. 1129). In 1140 there occurred at Lyon the famous controversy between the Chapter, which wished to introduce it, and St. Bernard, who rejected it. In 1154 the prior of St. Peter of Regula (diocese of Bazan), introducing it into his abbey, declared that almost all of France celebrated it. Beleth, in his Divinorum officiorum ac eorundem rationum explicatio (ca. 1161-65), while acknowledging its diffusion, rejected it as "not authentic." At Rouen the feast had a rank equal to that of the Assumption under Archbishop Rotrou (1165-83). At Paris the Conceptio is regularly celebrated in 1196.

It makes its appearance in Italy as well, but Bishop Sicard of Cremona (d. 1225), in his famous Mitrale, using almost the same words as Beleth, bitterly rejects it. For Italy, the notices collected by A. Ebner (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte des Missale Romanum im Mittelalter. Iter Italicum, Freiburg im Breisgau 1896) are instructive. The feast is already found in a Sacramentary (12th century) that belonged to the Augustinian friars of Jerusalem (Rome, Biblioteca Angelica, D. 7, 3), in another of the Vatican Library (lat. 7231) of the 12th-13th century, in a Sacramentary of the Vatican Basilica of the second half of the 13th century (Capitolo S. Pietro, F 13), in a "full" Missal of the church of St. Nicholas at Trani of the end of the 13th century (Vatican Library, Reg. 2049), in another "full" Missal of the same period of the Carthusians of S. Croce in Rome (Biblioteca Casanatense, 1394) with the indication: Sanctificatio Virginis gloriosae Mariae. From the 14th century are a Missal of Rome (or of Alatri) now in the Vatican Library (Ott. 356), another of Orvieto (Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense 704), one of the church of St. Nicholas in Carcere at Rome, where the dedication of an altare Conceptionis is also recorded; from the 15th century there exists a Dominican Missal of the Neapolitan region: Sanctificatio B. Mariae Virginis (Naples, Biblioteca nazionale, VI E 3), one of the Carthusians, with the same designation (Vatican Library, lat. 7209). Of the books with the feast added to the original text it suffices to mention a few: at Montecassino, in a "full" Missal of the 11th century, the feast was added almost contemporaneously (Montecassino, NN. 540); likewise in a Sacramentary of the Benedictines of Moggio (Udine) of the 13th century (Udine, Biblioteca arcivescovile, f. 16); often the corresponding additions are found in the Missals of the Friars Minor and of other religious.

In France, the Council of Le Mans (1247) declared the feast of the Conception de praecepto; at Reims it was certainly celebrated in 1261-71. Of great importance for its diffusion is the year 1263, in which the General Chapter of the Franciscans established its celebration throughout the whole Order. In England, while a provincial Synod of Oxford (1222) refused to declare it, already in use, as a feast de praecepto, the diocesan Synod of Exeter (1287) imposed it also on the secular clergy. Durand, bishop of Mende, a profound connoisseur of the Roman and papal liturgy (d. in Rome in 1296), makes no mention of it in the great work Rationale divinorum officiorum, a general compendium of the liturgical science of that era. In 1300 a Synod of Bayeux numbered the feast of the Conception among the Marian feasts de praecepto. In 1306 the General Chapter of the Carmelites introduced it into the Order as totum duplex (that is, a solemn feast). At Mainz the feast is attested in 1318. Around 1330 at Avignon it is celebrated with great solemnity in the church of the Carmelites, and shortly afterward it is received by John XXII in his own chapel. Around the same time (1334) it is celebrated in the charterhouse of Val-St-Aldegonde, and the following year throughout the whole Carthusian Order; in 1343 it receives the rank of festum solemne. Between the years 1338 and 1348 it is received in the great diocese of Trier: in 1350 at Utrecht and Münster in Westphalia. In 1394 it is also received by the General Chapter of the Dominicans as totum duplex. It is impossible to follow more minutely the diffusion of the feast, which during the 15th century became practically universal.

By decree of the Council of Basel, sess. XXVI (Sept. 17, 1439) concerning the doctrine of the I. C., the feast gained much ground. A Breviary printed at 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 hospital of the Consolazione) that contains the concession of many indulgences for the church of S. Maria delle Grazie then under construction (1472), he calls the Virgin "Immaculata virgo" (V. Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edifici di Roma, VIII, Rome 1876, p. 324, n. 780); in 1476 he published a bull with which he granted for the feast of the Conception the same indulgences conceded by his predecessors for the feast of Corpus Domini, adopting the liturgical formularies abridged, by 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 had a wide diffusion. He furthermore had built near St. Peter's a most sumptuous chapel for the use of the choir, dedicated on December 8, 1479, in honor of the I. C. 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 famous monument by Pollaiuolo).

Pius V, in the reform of the Breviary (1562), replaced the Office of Nogaroli with that of the Nativity of Mary, with the appropriate adaptations, also adding new lessons. In the edition of the Breviary of Clement VIII, the feast of the Conception was elevated 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 State, at the same time elevating the feast to the rank of second class. Innocent XII (May 15, 1693) prescribed the octave for the whole Church, at the same time raising the feast to second class. Clement XI then (Dec. 6, 1708) imposed the feast on the whole Church de praecepto. Benedict XIV instituted the solemn Papal Chapel on the day of the Conception of Mary in the basilica of St. Mary Major. Until that time, in the usual papal chapels of Advent, when the feast of the Conception fell on the second Sunday of Advent, the Sunday always took precedence; Benedict XIV, on the other hand, gave precedence to the feast. During the discussions for the liturgical reform under the same Benedict XIV, there was much talk of the advisability of suppressing the octave because it was cumbersome in Advent, but the concluding meeting of Feb. 2, 1742 led to no decision; then the whole reform ran aground.

At the time of the definition (1854), three different formularies of Mass and Office were in use throughout the Latin Church, among which that of Nogaroli still held first 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, that is, one that would accurately express the defined truth. To this end he established a special Congregation, which held its first meeting on May 23 of that same year. A formulary (Mass and Office) was proposed for discussion, prepared by Fr. Luigi Marchesi, C.M., and by him circulated in print; but the discussions ended with the elimination of the project. Following direct contacts between the secretary of the Congregation of Rites, Msgr. Bartolini, and Pius IX, he himself, at the Pope's wish, prepared a new text, which, after various changes and substitutions, was approved by Pius IX on Aug. 27; the feast was then called that of the I. C. On Sept. 25, by a special apostolic brief, Pius IX abolished the existing formularies, prescribing for the whole Church, even for those who had a rite of their own, the new text of the Mass and Office for the feast and for the octave, and, where it was in use, a vigil Mass. Of Nogaroli's Office the principal Oration remained, with a small but significant innovation: instead of filio suo it now reads filio tuo. Finally Leo XIII (Nov. 30, 1879) prescribed the vigil as well for the whole Church. Unfortunately, apocryphal lessons have been introduced into the Office of the feast and the octave. In the feast, the sermo s. Hieronymi of the second nocturn is by Ambrose Autpertus (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 middle of the 9th century (S. Congregazione dei Riti, Decreta 1863, App. C.).

Giuseppe Löw

IV. ART

In the Eastern liturgical texts, from as early as the 10th century the illustrations relating to December 8, the feast day of the Conception of the Virgin Mary, depict the meeting of Joachim and Anne beneath the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem; indeed, from that moment the beginning of Mary's life is placed in Anne. 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 in this regard to cite the admirable representation that Giotto gave of it in the frescoes of the Arena Chapel in Padua, that of a 14th-century painter in the crossing of the cathedral of Bressanone, that of Dürer in one of his famous prints. Sometimes this representation is made more complex by the presence of an angel who joins the heads of Anne and Joachim; thus in the fresco by a Giotto follower in S. Maria Novella in Florence and in a panel by Bartolomeo Vivarini 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 spring from the breast of Joachim and Anne and unite to support a flower that bears impressed in its Chalice the image of the Virgin. But already by the end of the 15th century painters and illustrators of sacred texts tend toward the direct representation of the I. C., depicting the Virgin who, by the will of God, descends upon this earth at the fullness of time. Thus in a painting by Luca Signorelli in the cathedral of Cortona, thus in another by Antonio Sogliani at the Uffizi in Florence.

Meanwhile other painters of the Renaissance, such as Francesco Zaganelli da Cotignola in a painting of the Pinacoteca of Forlì from 1513, in which is depicted the Eternal Father who lets fall upon the earth where the Virgin is among some saints a girdle with the words written on it "Tota pulchra es et macula originalis non est in te", seek to represent figuratively the litany attributes.

But it is in Spanish art, through the work of the painter Jan de Juanes (1507-76), in a painting executed for the church of the Jesuits of Valencia, that the Virgin clothed in white, with hands open, for the first time stands upon the moon to render figuratively the concept of "pulchra ut luna", while in the upper part of the painting the Most Holy Trinity appears crowning her. This representation, however, gradually becomes simplified, and soon the Virgin will appear alone, in a triumphal vision against a background of sky, crushing the serpent of sin, standing on the globe or on a crescent moon. In this last figurative element one can also recognize, beyond the figuration of the aforementioned concept of "pulchra ut luna", that alluding to the victory of the Christian peoples over the Muslims.

For the most famous representations of the I. C. in this its definitive aspect, as was also officially established at the time when the dogma was proclaimed (1854), one recalls that of Ludovico Carracci in a painting of the Pinacoteca of Bologna, that of Guido Reni in a canvas today in the Houghton Gallery near London, that most beautiful one of Tiepolo, also in a canvas in the Pinacoteca of Vicenza, and finally that which stands upon the column erected in Rome in the Piazza di Spagna by Luigi Poletti on the occasion of the proclamation of the dogma by Pius IX. - See plates CI-CII.

Emilio Lavagnino