Jesus' pain was salvific. Likewise when we experience pain we apply it to our salvation in imitation of Christ. Mary, already saved, had nothing to apply in that sense.
So Mary got to skip the perseverance part? Mary could have chosen to commit mortal sin, then not ask forgiveness for it, and would still be saved? Maybe I should imitate her and not worry about any consequences of sin either.
[From SALVIFICI DOLORIS:] 19. [...] And the Apostle Paul in the Letter to the Galatians will say: "He gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age"(56), and in the First Letter to the Corinthians: "You were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body "(57). With these and similar words the witnesses of the New Covenant speak of the greatness of the Redemption, accomplished through the suffering of Christ. The Redeemer suffered in place of man and for man.
It sure "sounds" like Pope John Paul II believes that we were bought and paid for by Christ, but of course he doesn't mean that. He really means that Christ's redemptive work on the cross only has any value until the next (mortal) sin. At that moment, Christ's work becomes worthless to the sinner.
[Pope JPII:] In her [Mary], the many and intense sufferings were amassed in such an interconnected way that they were not only a proof of her unshakeable faith but also a contribution to the redemption of all.
He says that Mary's sufferings contributed to our redemption, but he doesn't say how. Mary's suffering helped to pay for my sins? I would worship anyone who paid for my sins. But you all say that you don't worship Mary. Why not?
[Pope JPII:] 26. [...] the Divine Redeemer wishes to penetrate the soul of every sufferer through the heart of his holy Mother, the first and the most exalted of all the redeemed.
If Mary was the first to be redeemed, then heaven was empty before Christ? All the faithful of the OT were rotting in purgatory until Christ?
Mary could have chosen to commit mortal sin, then not ask forgiveness for it, and would still be saved?
No, of course not. Only the Baptists get to do that, and she was no Baptist.
[John Paul] really means that Christ's redemptive work on the cross only has any value until the next (mortal) sin
No, he doesn't. Christ's redemptive work is sufficient to save every sinner who wishes to be saved.
Mary's suffering helped to pay for my sins?
Yes, and generally the suffering of the saints contributes to the treasure of merits that is stored up for us in heaven. It doesn't mean, of course, that Christ's work was in any way deficient; however, one can, through a heroic act of virtue, contribute to the salvation that Christ has worked for all. Christ remains the sole power that saves, and is alone, with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, object of our worship.
Indulgences: Spreading the wealth
Merit
If Mary was the first to be redeemed, then heaven was empty before Christ? All the faithful of the OT were rotting in purgatory until Christ?
If you have been following the recent Agrarian's posts, see for example, 6756 addressed among others to you, you would not be asking. Please see Limbo and in particular the first part, LIMBUS PATRUM.
So Mary got to skip the perseverance part? Mary could have chosen to commit mortal sin, then not ask forgiveness for it, and would still be saved? Maybe I should imitate her and not worry about any consequences of sin either.
I personally do not agree that Mary suffered no pain throughout her life. That is not dogmatic teaching. In actuality, that goes against Catholic theological teachings that Mary DID suffer alongside the Savior at the foot of the cross. The prophet Simeon said to Mary "a sword shall pierce your own soul". The Catholic concept of Mary as a co-redeemer depends partially on the fact that Mary suffered ENORMOUSLY as a result of giving her will to the Will of the Father at the foot of the cross.
It sure "sounds" like Pope John Paul II believes that we were bought and paid for by Christ, but of course he doesn't mean that. He really means that Christ's redemptive work on the cross only has any value until the next (mortal) sin. At that moment, Christ's work becomes worthless to the sinner.
This complies with the Bible through and through. One must BELIEVE in Christ, taking Him into our souls, allowing Him to transform us. Forget about the "once saved - always saved". It's just wishful thinking. Why all of that talk about perseverance and the "narrow way" if all we had to do was believe in Christ for a day???
The Scriptures tell us over and over that we know we abide in Christ when we obey Him, His commandments. What sort of "saving faith" is it when we do not respond to our King and refuse to obey Him? Wishful thinking.
He says that Mary's sufferings contributed to our redemption, but he doesn't say how. Mary's suffering helped to pay for my sins? I would worship anyone who paid for my sins. But you all say that you don't worship Mary. Why not?
Mary contributed to our salvation in the same manner as Eve participated in our destruction. Both woman were "bystanders" who were not needed - BUT - participate in the action just the same. This is straight from the writers of the second century AD...
If Mary was the first to be redeemed, then heaven was empty before Christ? All the faithful of the OT were rotting in purgatory until Christ?
That's what Hades was for, a place of shades. The righteous of the OT were not allowed into heaven until AFTER Christ's saving death. Otherwise, Christ's death would not be necessary, now, would it? If people were in heaven BEFORE Christ's death, then there is another way into heaven, another name under whom the world is saved. Is that your proposal?
Regards