Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Sinlessness of Mary is Infallible Catholic Teaching

Sinlessness of Mary is Infallible Catholic Teaching

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:04 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Sinlessness of Mary is Infallible Catholic Teaching 2026-06-06T00:04:35-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Guest Post by Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Professor of Dogmatic Theology

Photo credit: The Virgin and Child with an Angel (c. 1500), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Bishop Kevin M. Britt Chair of Dogmatic Theology and Christology, has been at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 1999. Dr. Fastiggi received an A.B. in Religion (summa cum laude) from Dartmouth College in 1974; a M.A. in Theology from Fordham University in 1976; and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fordham in 1987. During his time at Sacred Heart, Dr. Fastiggi has taught courses in Ecclesiology, Christology, Mariology, church history, sacramental theology, and moral theology. He is a member of the Society for Catholic Liturgy, the Mariological Society of America, the International Marian Association, and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Marian Academy International (P.A.M.I).

He served as the executive editor of the 2009-2013 supplements to the New Catholic Encyclopedia and the co-editor of the English translation of the 43rd edition of the Denzinger-Hünermann compendium published by Ignatius Press in 2012. He also revised and updated the translation of Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma for Baronius Press in 2018. I have compiled several of his articles (a number of them, exclusively) on my blog.

[from private correspondence, with his permission]

*****

All of the following material is from Dr. Fastiggi, save for a few instances of bracketed comments and my initial question that I asked him (modified a bit presently):

Is the belief that the Blessed Virgin Mary is free from actual sin an infallible one in Catholicism? I looked up Ludwig Ott’s classification and it was sententia fidei proxima. How does that relate to infallibility? Could one hold that Mary did commit or may have committed actual sin and still be a Catholic in good standing, and not be regarded as “anti-Mary” or heterodox? It’s a question that should, I think, be directed towards someone like yourself, who is qualified to address it.

Personally, I certainly believe that she didn’t actually sin — whatever the technical classification is — , because I think that would be fitting, just as her Immaculate Conception and Assumption were. I also think that Holy Scripture teaches her sinlessness in Luke 1:28 and I’ve defended these views for over thirty years.

***

I think a strong case can be made that Mary’s freedom from actual sin is infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal Magisterium.

[With regard to how] the Catholic Church understands Rom 3:23: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”: the “all” must have exceptions since Jesus was sinless. Therefore, Mary can also be an exception. I also like to bring up the example of the good angels. They never sinned.

[Dave: see my related article, “All Have Sinned” vs. a Sinless, Immaculate Mary? (1996; revised and posted at National Catholic Register on 12-11-17)]

There are several points to make. First, a teaching does not need to be defined to be infallible. Some teachings are infallible by virtue of the ordinary universal Magisterium as Lumen Gentium, 25 teaches. The infallibility of the ordinary universal Magisterium is also taught at Vatican I (Denz.-H 3011).

There are also definitive teachings of the Church that have not been set forth as revealed by God, but they are nevertheless taught in an infallible and definitive manner. John Paul II’s teaching in his 1994 document, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (on the reservation of the priesthood only to men) was described by the CDF as having been “set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” (Denz.-H 5041). It was not described as a truth revealed by God. In the 1998 Commentary on the Profession of Faith issued by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Bertone, the teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is described as belonging to the second level of assent given to definitive infallible teachings that have not been set forth as revealed by God. They are infallible, though, by virtue of the divine assistance given to the Magisterium when it makes a definitive judgment.

Some of these teachings can be described as within the category of sententia fidei proxima. In other words, they are not declared to be revealed by God, but they have a close or logical connection to what has been revealed by God. Therefore, when Fr. Ludwig Ott describes Mary’s freedom from actual sin as a sententia fidei proxima, he does not, I believe, mean that this teaching is “non-infallible.” Rather he means that it is a truth close to what has been revealed by God. It could, therefore, be understood as belonging to what is known as a “secondary object of infallibility.”

There are other theological manuals, though, that maintain Mary’s immunity from venial sin during her lifetime is de fide and, therefore, infallible. Fr. Joseph de Aldema, S.J. holds this position in Sacrae Theologiae Summa Vol. III, Tractatus II (Madrid, 1950), p. 318. Fr. de Aldema points to the Council of Trent “where the faith of the Church regarding this privilege is defined” (ubi definitur fides Ecclesiae circa hoc privilegium). Fr. de Aldema has in mind Trent’s Decree on Justification, canon 23, which recognizes that the Church holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, by a special privilege of God, was able to avoid all sins, even venial sins, throughout her entire life (cf. Denz.-H 1573).

[Some might] claim that this was not a definition but merely an affirmation of the Church’s long standing belief in Mary’s special protection from personal sins. Trent, though, includes this affirmation within a canon followed by an anathema. This certainly shows that the Church’s belief in Mary’s special protection from actual sin is affirmed within a dogmatic canon of an ecumenical council.

But even if one were to claim Trent was not defining Mary’s freedom from actual sin, there are other magisterial statements that show this is the teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. Here are some examples:

Pius V, in his 1567, Ex omnibus afflictionibus against the errors of Michael Baius, condemned the view that Mary’s afflictions in life were the result of actual or original sins (Denz.-H 1973).

Pius IX, in his 1854 Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, defining the Immaculate Conception, taught that Mary was “always and absolutely free from every stain of sin” (ab omni prorsus peccati labe semper libera) [Denz.-H 2800)]. Mary’s freedom from every stain of sin is “always” (semper). This teaching comes from a papal Bull making a dogmatic definition. To say Pius IX was only expressing a “non-infallible” teaching does not seem to take seriously the weight of a papal dogmatic bull.

Pius XII, in his 1943 encyclical, Mystici Corporis, no. 110, says: “It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son … ” Here we have the Roman Pontiff, in a major encyclical, affirming the truth that Mary was ‘free from all sin, original or personal.”

John Paul II, in his General Audience of June 12, 1996, not only taught that Mary was free from all sin (personal as well as original) but she also never had concupiscence (the inclination to sin) because concupiscence comes from sin according to Trent (Denz.-H 1515):

The immunity ‘from every stain of original sin’ entails as a positive consequence the total freedom from all sin as well as the proclamation of Mary’s perfect holiness, a doctrine to which the dogmatic definition makes a fundamental contribution. In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition.
*
Pius IX’s definition refers only to the freedom from original sin and does not explicitly include the freedom from concupiscence. Nevertheless, Mary’s complete preservation from every stain of sin also has as a consequence her freedom from concupiscence, a disordered tendency which, according to the Council of Trent, comes from sin and inclines to sin (DS 1515). (emphasis added).

I believe Mary’s immunity from personal, actual sin is a logical consequence of her Immaculate Conception, which has been defined de fide. If Mary, as Pius IX, teaches, was “always and absolutely free from every stain of sin,” personal sins would mean she was not “always and absolutely free from every stain of sin.” The position that Mary could have committed personal sins stands in direct contradiction to the teaching of a papal dogmatic Bull.

I think a good case can be made that Mary’s freedom from personal sin was solemnly taught by Trent and Pius IX. But even if you believe Mary’s freedom [from] personal sin has not been defined, it still has been taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

To say, however, that this a non-infallible teaching does not do justice to the Church’s consistent affirmation of Mary as all-holy and free from personal sin as well as actual sin.

I should also note that Pius IX, in Ineffabilis Deus, teaches that Mary has “such a plentitude of innocence and sanctity that, under God, none greater can be known and, apart from God, no mind could ever succeed in comprehending.” (Denz.-H 2800). If Mary was able to commit personal sins, we could easily think of a creature of higher holiness: namely one who could never commit personal sins. What Pius IX says in Ineffabilis Deus completely rules out the possibility of personal sin. Although the object of the definition of Ineffabilis Deus is the dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, Mary’s immunity from personal sin has a logical connection to her Immaculate Conception.

The infallibility of definitive judgments that have a logical connection with revealed truth is recognized by the CDF in its 1998 Commentary on the Concluding Paragraphs of the Profession of Faith. Here are the relevant passages with certain points highlighted:

The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection with revealed truth. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities and the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.

With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda).

I believe Mary’s immunity from personal sin has a logical connection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It is a definitive infallible teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. It requires definitive assent. To describe this teaching as “non-infallible” shows a lack of appreciation of its logical connection to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Moreover, such a position contradicts the expressed teaching of Pius IX in a dogmatic papal bull as well as other papal teachings.

***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,900+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: The Virgin and Child with an Angel (c. 1500), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: Dr. Robert Fastiggi, professor of dogmatic theology, explains how and why a belief in Mary’s sinlessness is infallible by virtue of the ordinary magisterium and other factors.

Blessed Virgin Mary

Catholic infallibility

classification of doctrines and dogmas

Immaculate Conception

Robert Fastiggi

sententia fidei proxima

sinlessness of Mary

Previous Post

November 11, 2024

Response to a Lutheran Apologetic (Pr. Will Weedon)

Next Post

November 13, 2024 St. Augustine & Extrabiblical Infallibility

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Special pleading, and not a serious response to my arguments . . ."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""no man needs to teach us."Didn't you just teach us?"

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

""Catholics say they are the only church that can lead people into heaven."In fact, we ..."

Dave Armstrong

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

"And lastly, I belong to no denomination and am free to serve God as He ..."

Mariah

Is Venerating Men & Angels Worship? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category & Last Things About Me Anti-Catholicism Atheism & Agnosticism Baptism and Sacramentalism Bible and Tradition Blessed Virgin Mary Books by Dave Armstrong C. S. Lewis Calvinism & General Protestantism Catholic Apologetics Catholic Apologists Catholic conversion Catholic converts Christmas Church (Ecclesiology) Church History Conversion and Converts Development of Doctrine Eastern Orthodoxy Ecumenism & Christian Unity Eucharist & Liturgy Fathers of the Church French Translations G. K. Chesterton Hell Hell & Satan Hell & Satan & Last Things Heresies & Comparative Religion Holistic Health Inquisition & Crusades & Scandals James White Jews & Judaism & Old Testament John Calvin John Henry Newman Liberal / Modernist Theology Life Issues Literary Resume Lutheranism Mariology Martin Luther Music Orthodoxy Papacy & Infallibility Personal Page Philosophy & Science Political & Ethical & Moral Issues Protestant Persecution & Intolerance Protestantism Purgatory Purgatory & Penance Romantic & Imaginative Theology Saints & Purgatory & Penance Salvation Salvation & Justification Satan & Last Things Sexuality and Gender Issues Spanish Translations Traditionalism vs. Radical Catholic Reactionaries Traducciones al español / tradução para português Trinitarianism & Christology Uncategorized Videos

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 October 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 September 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 May 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 October 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz