[George W. Bush]

It's not the suffering itself that makes her a "co-redeemer". It is the fact that she participated and gave of herself to God during the event that untied the knot of disobedience tied by Adam and Eve (if I may paraphrase St. Irenaeus, c. 180 AD). Her participation, like Eve's, was not needed - but God willed for both females to take part in their respective events.

It would appear that Mary's refusal would have caused the entire damnation of the human race then. So Mary must have been some sort of Calvinist who succumbed to Irresistable Grace. You suggest that Mary was not entirely a creature fully possessed of free will. In so doing, you rob Christ of His full humanity. Anything that detracts in the slightest from the full humanity of Jesus and His full deity as Christ diminishes our saviour. Historically, this has often been a path to heresy and something the ancient fathers warned of, having fought it so often in the early centuries.

[jo kus]

It would appear that Mary's refusal would have caused the entire damnation of the human race then.

God saw to it that Mary wouldn't refuse by preparing her, even in the womb, for her role in salvation history. God certainly foresaw Mary's "yes".

So Mary must have been some sort of Calvinist who succumbed to Irresistable Grace

Grace can be resisted. But God foresaw that it would not be due to His sight and preparation of the vessel that would hold the Christ.

You suggest that Mary was not entirely a creature fully possessed of free will.

Not at all. That is why Mary is so highly honored - due to her "yes" and God's graces that He singularly had given to Mary.

In so doing, you rob Christ of His full humanity

So Mary must possess complete free will for Christ to be fully human? How so? Not that I am saying Mary did not have free will! But I am intrigued on how you came up with that conclusion.

Regards