The Sufferings of Mary as Co-redemptrix (Catholic Caucus)

The purpose of satisfaction is to repair the offence offered to God and to make Him once more favorable to the sinner. The offence offered by mortal sin has about it a certain infinity, since offence is measured by the dignity of the person offended. Mortal sin, by turning the sinner away from God, his final end, denies in practice to God His infinite rights as the Supreme Good and destroys His reign in souls.

It follows from this that only the Incarnate Word could offer to the Father perfect and adequate satisfaction for the offence of mortal sin (1). For satisfaction to be perfect, it must proceed from a love and oblation which are as pleasing to God as, or more pleasing than, all sins united are displeasing to Him (2). But every act of charity elicited by Jesus had these qualities for His Divine Person gave them infinite satisfactory and meritorious value. A meritorious work becomes satisfactory (or one of reparation and expiation) when there is something painful about it. Hence, in offering His life in the midst of the greatest physical and moral sufferings, Jesus offered satisfaction of an infinite and superabundant value to His Father. He alone could make satisfaction in strict justice since the value of satisfaction like that of merit comes from the person, and the Person of Jesus, being divine, was of infinite dignity.

It was, however, possible to associate a satisfaction of becomingness (de congruo) to Jesus’ satisfaction, just as a merit of becomingness was associated to His merit. In explaining this point, we shall show all the more clearly the depth and extent of Mary’s sufferings.

Mary offered for us a satisfaction of becomingness (de convenientia) which was the greatest in value after that of her Son

When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus satisfied for us in strict justice.

As Mother of the Redeemer, Mary was closely united to Jesus by perfect conformity of will, by humility, by poverty, by suffering—and most particularly by her compassion on Calvary. That is what is meant when it is said that she offered satisfaction along with Him. Her satisfaction derives its value from her dignity as Mother of God, from her great charity, from the fact that there was no fault in herself which needed to be expiated, and from the intensity of her sufferings.

The Fathers treat of this when they speak of Mary "standing" at the foot of the Cross, as St. John says (John 19:25). They recall the words of Simeon, "Thy own soul a sword shall pierce," and they show that Mary suffered in proportion to her love for her crucified Son; in proportion also to the cruelty of His executioners, and the atrocity of the torments inflicted on Him Who was Innocence itself (3). The liturgy also has taught many generations of the faithful that Mary merited the title of Queen of Martyrs by her most painful martyrdom of heart. That is the lesson of the Feasts of the Compassion of the Blessed Virgin and of the Seven Dolors, as well as of the Stabat Mater.

Leo XIII summed up this doctrine in the statement that Mary was associated with Jesus in the painful work of the redemption of mankind (4). Pius X calls her "the repairer of the fallen world" (5) and continues to show how she was united to the priesthood of her Son: "Not only because she consented to become the mother of the only Son of God so as to make sacrifice for the salvation of men possible, but also in the fact that she accepted the mission of protecting and nourishing the Lamb of sacrifice, and when the time came led Him to the altar of immolation—in this also must we find Mary’s glory. Mary’s community of life and sufferings with her Son was never broken off. To her as to Him may be applied the words of the prophet: ‘My life is passed in dolors and my days in groanings.’ To conclude this list of Papal pronouncements we may refer to the words of Benedict XV: In uniting herself to the Passion and death of her Son she suffered almost unto death; as far as it depended on her, she immolated her Son, so that it can be said that with Him she redeemed the human race’ (6).

Mary’s sufferings have the character of satisfaction from the fact that like Jesus and in union with Him, she suffered because of sin or of the offence it offers to God. This suffering of hers was measured by her love of God whom sin offended, by her love of Jesus crucified for our sins, and by her love of us whom sin had brought to spiritual ruin. In other words, it was measured by her fullness of grace, which had never ceased to increase from the time of the Immaculate Conception. Already Mary had merited more by the easiest acts than the martyrs in their torments because of her greater love. What must have been the value of her sufferings at the foot of the Cross, granted the understanding she then had of the mystery of the Redemption!

In the spiritual light which then flooded her soul, Mary saw that all souls are called to sing the glory of God. Every soul is called to be as it were a ray of the divinity, a spiritual ray of knowledge and love, for our minds are made to know God and our wills to love Him. But though the heavens tell God’s glory unfailingly, thousands of souls turn from their Creator. Instead of that divine radiation, instead of God’s exterior glory and His Kingdom, there are found in countless souls the three wounds called by St. John the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life: living as if there were no desirable love except carnal love, no glory except that of fame and honor, and no Lord and Master, no end, except man himself.

Mary saw all that evil, all those wounds in souls, just as we see the evils and wounds of bodies. Her fullness of grace had given her an immense capacity to suffer from the greatest of evils, sin. She suffered as much as she loved God and souls: God offended by sin and souls whom it rendered worthy of eternal damnation. Most of all did Mary see the crime of deicide prepared in hearts and brought to execution: she saw the terrible paroxysm of hatred of Him who is the Light and the Author of salvation.

To understand her sufferings, we must think too of her love, both natural and supernatural, of her only Son whom she not only loved but, in the literal sense of the term, adored since He was her God. She had conceived Him miraculously. She loved Him with the love of a virgin—the purest, richest and most tender charity that has ever been a mother’s. Nor was her grief diminished by ignorance of anything that might make it more acute. She knew the reason for the crucifixion. She knew the hatred of the Jews, His chosen people—her people. She knew that it was all for sinners.

From the moment when Simeon foretold the Passion—already so clearly prophesied by Isaiah—and her compassion, she offered and did not cease to offer Him who would be Priest and Victim, and herself in union with Him. This painful oblation was renewed over years. Of old, an angel had descended to prevent Abraham’s immolation of his son Isaac. But no angel came to prevent the immolation of Jesus.

In his sermon on the Compassion of Our Lady, we read the following magnificent words of Bossuet: It is the will of the Eternal Father that Mary should not only be immolated with the Innocent Victim and nailed to the Cross by the nails that pierce Him, but should as well be associated with the mystery which is accomplished by His death. … Three things occur in the sacrifice of our Savior and constitute its perfection. There are the sufferings by which His humanity was crushed. There is His resignation to the will of His Father by which He humbly offered Himself. There is the fruitfulness by which He brings us to the life of grace by dying Himself. He suffers as a victim who must be bruised and destroyed. He submits as a priest who sacrifices freely; voluntarie sacrificabo tibi (Vulgate, Ps. 53:8). Finally He brings us to life by His sufferings as the Father of a new people. …

"Mary stands near the Cross. With what eyes she contemplates her Son all covered with blood, all covered with wounds, in form now hardly a man! The sight is enough to cause her death. If she draws near to that altar, it is to be immolated there: and there, in fact, does she feel Simeon’s sword pierce her heart. …

"But did her dolors overcome her, did her grief cast her to the ground? Stabatjuxta crucem: she stood by the Cross. The sword pierced her heart but did not take away her strength of soul: her constancy equals her affliction, and her face is the face of one no less resigned than afflicted.

"What remains then but that Jesus who sees her feel His sufferings and imitate His resignation should have given her a share in His fruitfulness. It is with that thought that He gave her John to be her son: Woman, behold thy son. Woman, who suffer with me, be fruitful with me, be the mother of my children whom I give you unreservedly in the person of this disciple; I give them life by my sufferings, and sharing in the bitterness that is mine your affliction will make you fruitful."

In the sermon, of which the paragraphs I have quoted are the opening, Bossuet develops the three main points outlined and shows that Mary’s love for Jesus was enough to make her a martyr: "One Cross was enough for the well-beloved Son and the mother." She is nailed to the Cross by her love for Him. Without a special grace she would have died of her agony.

Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain: but she brings the faithful forth in the most cruel suffering. "At what price she has bought them! They have cost her her only Son. She can be mother of Christians only by giving her Son to death. O agonizing fruitfulness! It was the will of the Eternal Father that the adoptive sons should be born by the death of the True Son. … What man would adopt at this price and give his son for the sake of strangers? But that is what the Eternal Father did. We have Jesus’ word for it: God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son (John 3:16).

"(Mary) is the Eve of the New Testament and the mother of all the faithful; but that is to be at the price of her Firstborn. United to the Eternal Father she must offer His Son and hers to death. It is for that purpose that providence has brought her to the foot of the Cross. She is there to immolate her Son that men may have life. … She becomes mother of Christians at the cost of an immeasurable grief. …" We should never forget what we have cost Mary. The thought will lead to true contrition for our sins. The regeneration of our souls has cost Jesus and Mary more than we can ever think.

We may conclude this section by noting that Mary the Co-Redemptrix has given us birth at the foot of the Cross by the greatest act of faith, hope and love that was possible to her on such an occasion. One may even say that her act of faith was the greatest ever elicited, since Jesus had not the virtue of faith but the beatific vision. In that dark hour when the faith of the Apostles themselves seemed to waver, when Jesus seemed vanquished and His work annihilated, Mary did not cease for an instant to believe that her Son was the Savior of mankind, and that in three days He would rise again as He had foretold. When He uttered His last words "It is consummated" Mary understood in the fullness of her faith that the work of salvation had been accomplished by His most painful immolation. The evening before, Jesus has instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice and the Christian priesthood; she sees now something of the influence the sacrifice of the Cross will exercise. She knows that Jesus is the true Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, that He is the conqueror of sin and the demon, and that in three days He will conquer death, sin’s consequence. She sees the hand of God where even the most believing see only darkness and desolation. Hers was the greatest act of faith ever elicited by a creature, a faith higher than that of the angels when they were as yet in their period of trial.

Calvary saw too her supreme act of hope at a moment when everything seemed lost. She grasped the force of the words spoken to the good thief: "This day thou shalt be with me in paradise"; heaven, she realized, was about to be open for the elect.

It was finally her supreme act of charity: so to love God as to offer His only Son in the most painful agony: to love God above everything at the moment when He tried her in the highest and deepest of her loves, even in the object of her adoration—and that because of our sins.

It is true that the theological virtues grew in Mary up to the time of her death, for these acts of faith, hope, and charity were not broken off but continued in her as a kind of state. They even expanded in the succeeding calm, like a river which becomes more powerful and majestic as it nears the ocean. The point which theology wishes to stress is not that of Mary’s subsequent growth in the virtues but the equality between her sacrifice and her merits at the foot of the Cross itself: both her sacrifice and her merits were of inestimable value and their fruitfulness, while not approaching that of Christ’s sacrifice and merits, surpasses anything the human tongue can utter. Theologians express this by saying that Mary made satisfaction for us de congruo in proportion to her immense charity, while Jesus made satisfaction de condigno.

Even the saints who have been most closely associated with the sufferings of the Savior did not enter as Mary did into the most secret depths of the Passion. St. Catherine de Ricci had every Friday during 12 years an ecstasy of pain which lasted 28 hours and during which she lived over again all the sufferings of the way of the Cross. But even such sufferings fell far short of those of Mary. Mary’s heart suffered in sympathy with all the agony of the Sacred Heart to such a point that she would have died of the experience had she not been especially strengthened.

Thereby she became the consoler of the afflicted, for she had suffered more than all, and patroness of a happy death. We have no idea how fruitful these sufferings of hers have been during 20 centuries.

Though Mary may be termed Co-Redemptrix in the sense we have explained, there can be no question of calling her a priest in the strict sense of the word since she has not received the priestly character and cannot offer Holy Mass nor give sacramental absolution. But, as we have seen already, her divine maternity is a greater dignity than the priesthood of the ordained priest in the sense that it is more to give our Savior His human nature than to make His body present in the Blessed Eucharist. Mary has given us the Priest of the sacrifice of the Cross, the Principal Priest of the sacrifice of the Mass and the Victim offered on the altar.

It is more also, and more perfect, to offer her only Son and her God on the Cross as Mary did, by offering herself with Him in community of suffering, than to make the body of Our Lord present and to offer It on the altar as the priest does at Holy Mass.

We must affirm, too, as has recently a careful theologian who has devoted years to the study of these questions (7) that "it is a certain theological conclusion that Mary cooperated in some way in the principal act of Jesus’ priesthood, by giving, as the divine plan required, her consent to the sacrifice of the Cross as it was accomplished by the Savior." In another context he writes: "If we consider only certain immediate effects of the priest’s action such as the Eucharistic consecration or the remission of sins in the sacrament of penance, it is true that the priest can do certain things which Mary, not having the priestly power, cannot. But to look at the matter so as not to compare dignities but merely particular effects which are produced by a power which Mary lacks and which do not necessarily indicate a higher dignity" (8).

But even if Mary cannot, for the reasons given, be spoken of as priest in the strict sense of the term, it remains true, as M. Olier has said, that she has received the fullness of the spirit of the priesthood, which is the spirit of Christ the Redeemer. That is the reason why she is called Co-redemptrix, a title which, like that of Mother of God, implies a higher dignity than that of the Christian priesthood (9).

Mary’s participation in the immolation and oblation of Jesus, Priest and Victim, cannot be better summed up than in the words of the Stabat Mater of the Franciscan Jacopone de Todi (1228-1286).

The Stabat Mater manifests in a singularly striking manner that supernatural contemplation of the mystery of Christ crucified is part of the normal way of holiness. In precise and ardent words it speaks of the wounding of the Savior’s Heart and shows the intimate and persuasive manner in which Mary leads us to Him. Not only does Mary lead us to the divine intimacy, in a sense she produces it in us: that is what the repetition of the imperative "Fac" in the following strophes brings out:

This is the prayer of a soul which, under a special inspiration, wishes to know in a spiritual way the wound of love and to be associated in these painful mysteries of adoring reparation as were John and the holy women on Calvary—and Peter, too, when he shed his bitter tears. Those tears of adoration and sorrow are what the Stabat asks for in the following strophes:

Mary exercised therefore a universal mediation on earth by meriting de congruo all that Jesus merited de condigno and also by making similar satisfaction in union with Him. For both Jesus and Mary, the mediation exercised on earth is the foundation of that now exercised in heaven …

Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (1877-1964), consultor to the Holy Office and other Congregations, taught at the Angelicum in Rome from 1909 to 1960 and authored over 500 books and articles. This article was excerpted from The Mother of the Savior and Our Interior Life, Tan, 1993.

Mary’s role as Coredemptrix is Scriptural and rooted in Tradition,many Saints, Popes, theologians and faithful alike have always seen Our Lady’s role in our salvation.

Without Mary's “yes” (fiat) there is no incarnation

See the following..

A Response to 7 Common Objections
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php

Dedication
To Lysbeth, my beloved wife; and to our precious children, John-Mark, Michael, Christiana, Mariana, Joseph, Annaleah, Mary-Bernadette, and Philumena.

Imprimatur:

Ernesto Cardinal Corripio Ahumada
Mexico City
May 1, 2001

PART 1

On December 23, 2000, The New York Times ran a major story on the international Catholic movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici, which is seeking to encourage the papal definition of the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate.” Existing Catholic teaching of Mary as a Coredemptrix refers to the unique participation of Mary, Mother of Jesus, in the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ, the divine Redeemer.

The New York Times article was in turn reprinted in a great number of U.S. major newspapers and therefore sparked great and high-spirited debate across the country and internationally over the idea of the Blessed Virgin as a “Co-redemptrix” with Jesus Christ.

Although slightly different in their expression, most objections to the teaching of the Catholic Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-redemptrix fall into the same basic categories. The following is a summary of seven common objections to Mary as Co-redemptrix, taken principally from recent newspaper publications, both secular and Christian. A basic response will be offered to each objection.

Objection 1:
Calling Mary a “Co-redemptrix” places her on an equal level with Jesus Christ, the Divine Son of God, making her something like a fourth person of the Trinity, a goddess or quasi-divine goddess, which is blasphemy for any true Christian.

The term “co-redemptrix” is properly translated “the woman with the redeemer” or more literally “she who buys back with [the redeemer].” The prefix “co” comes from the Latin term “cum” which means “with” and not “equal to.” Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ, in the redemption of the human family, as manifested in Christian Scripture.

With Mary's free and active “fiat” to the invitation of the angel Gabriel to become the mother of Jesus, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Lk. 1:38), she uniquely cooperated with the work of redemption by giving the divine Redeemer his body, which was the very instrument of human redemption. “We have been sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10), and the body of Jesus Christ is given to him through the free, active, and unique cooperation of the Virgin Mary. By virtue of giving flesh to the “Word made flesh” (Jn. 1:14), who in turn redeems humanity, the Virgin of Nazareth uniquely merits the title Co-redemptrix. In the words of the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta, “Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix - she gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us.” [1]

The New Testament prophecy of Simeon in the temple also reveals the suffering, co-redemptive mission of Mary in direct union with her Redeemer son in their one unified work of redemption:
“Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary, his mother, ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and will be a sign of contradiction, and a sword shall pierce through your own soul, too” (Lk. 2:34-35).

But the climax of Mary's role as Co-redemptrix under her divine son takes place at the foot of the Cross, where the total suffering of the mother's heart is obediently united to the suffering of the Son's heart in fulfillment of the Father's plan of redemption (cf. Gal. 4:4). As the fruit of this redemptive suffering, Mary is given by the crucified Savior as the spiritual mother of all peoples,: “Woman, behold your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘behold, your mother!” (Jn. 19:27). As described by Pope John Paul II, Mary was “spiritually crucified with her crucified son” at Calvary, and “her role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” [2] Even after the accomplishment of the acquisition of the graces of redemption at Calvary, Mary's co-redemptive role continues in the distribution of those saving graces to the hearts of humanity.

The earliest Christian writers and Fathers of the Church explained Marian co-redemption with great profundity in simplicity in the first theological model of Mary as the “New Eve.” Essentially, they articulated that as Eve, the first “mother of the living” (Gen. 3:20), was directly instrumental with Adam, the father of the human race, in the loss of grace for all humanity, so too Mary, the “New Eve,” was directly instrumental with Jesus Christ, whom St. Paul calls the “New Adam” (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-48), in the restoration of grace to all humanity. In the words of 2nd century Church Father, St. Irenaeus: “Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” [3]

In light of her unique and direct cooperation with the Redeemer in the restoration of grace for the human family (cf. Gen. 3:15), Mary became universally known in the early Church as the “New Mother of the Living,” and her instrumental co-redemption with Christ was well summed up in the succinct expression of 4th century Church Father, St. Jerome: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.” [4]

Explicit references to Marian co-redemption as Mary's unique participation with and under Jesus Christ in redeeming or “buying back” humanity from the slavery of Satan and sin is present throughout Christian Tradition. For example, the 7th century Church writer, Modestus of Jerusalem, states that through Mary, we “are redeemed from the tyranny of the devil.” [5] St. John Damascene (8th century) greets her: “Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse.” [6] St. Bernard of Clairvaux (12th century) preaches that “through her, man was redeemed.” [7] The great Franciscan Doctor, St. Bonaventure (13th century), aptly summarizes Christian Tradition in this teaching: “That woman (namely Eve), drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one (Mary) brought us back again and bought us.” [8]

Although there was never any question of the total and radical dependency of the Virgin Mary's participation in redemption upon the divine work and merits of Jesus Christ in the minds of the Church fathers and doctors, nonetheless early Christian Tradition did not hesitate to teach and preach the unparalleled intimate participation of the woman, Mary, in the “buying back” or redeeming of the human race from the slavery of Satan. As humanity was sold by a man and a woman, so it was God's will that humanity would be bought back by a Man and a woman.

It is upon this rich Christian foundation that 20th century popes and saints have used the title Co-redemptrix for Mary's unique role in human redemption, as exemplified in the contemporary use of Co-redemptrix for Mary by Pope John Paul II on five occasions during his present pontificate. [9] “Co-redemptrix” as used by the popes means no more that Mary is a goddess equal with Jesus Christ than St. Paul's identification of all Christians as “God's co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9) means that Christians are gods equal to the one God.

All Christians are rightly called to be co-workers or “co-redeemers” with Jesus Christ (cf. Col. 1:24) in the reception and cooperation with grace necessary for our own redemption and the redemption of others - personal subjective redemption made possible by the historic objective redemption or “buying back” accomplished by Jesus Christ, the “New Adam,” the Redemptor, and Mary, the “New Eve,” the Co-redemptrix.

Objection 2:
Calling the Blessed Virgin Mary “Coredemptrix” is against proper Christian ecumenism, as it leads to division between Catholics and other Christians.

Arguably the most commonly posed objection to the use of Co-redemptrix (let alone any potential definition of the doctrine) is its perceived opposition to Christian ecumenism. Therefore we must begin with an accurate definition of authentic Christian ecumenism and its appropriate corresponding activity as understood by the Catholic Church.

In his papal document on ecumenism Ut Unum Sint (”that they all may be one” (Jn. 17:21), Pope John Paul II defines authentic Christian ecumenism in terms of prayer “as the soul” and dialogue “as the body” working towards the ultimate goal of true and lasting Christian unity. [10] At the same time, the Catholic imperative to work and strive for Christian unity does not permit in any degree the reduction or dilution of Catholic doctrinal teaching, as such would both lack Catholic integrity and concurrently be misleading in dialogue with other non-Catholic Christians as to what the Catholic Church truly believes.

As the Second Vatican Council clearly teaches in terms of ecumenical dialogue, “It is, of course, essential that doctrine be clearly presented in its entirety. Nothing is so foreign to the spirit of ecumenism as a false conciliatory approach which harms the purity of Catholic doctrine and obscures its assured genuine meaning.” [11]

John Paul II further explains: “With regard to the study of areas of disagreement, the Council requires that the whole body of doctrine be clearly presented. At the same time, it asks that the manner and method of expounding the Catholic faith should not be a hindrance to dialogue with our brothers and sisters.... Full communion of course will have to come about through the acceptance of the whole truth into which the Holy Spirit guides Christ's disciples. Hence all forms of reductionism or facile ‘agreement’ must be absolutely avoided.” [12]

An accurate understanding then of ecumenism from the Catholic perspective is the critical Church mandate to pray, to dialogue, and to work together in charity and in truth in the seeking of true Christian unity among all brothers and sisters in Christ, but without any compromise in presenting the full doctrinal teachings of the Church. The present pope, so personally dedicated to authentic Christian unity, again affirms: “The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (Jn. l4:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?” [13]

Let us now apply this understanding of ecumenism to the question of Mary Co-redemptrix. The Co-redemptrix title for Mary has been used in repeated papal teaching, and the doctrine of Marian co-redemption as Mary's unique participation with and under Jesus Christ in the redemption of humanity constitutes the repeated doctrinal teaching of the Second Vatican Council:

....She devoted herself totally, as handmaid of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption, by the grace of Almighty God. Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. [14]

And further:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her. [15]

And further:

She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented Him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son's suffering as He died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the work of the Savior in restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace. [16]

Thereby, there is no question that Marian Co-redemption constitutes the doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church and as such must be presented in any true articulation of Catholic teaching, which critically includes the domain of true ecumenical dialogue.

To therefore claim that Mary Co-redemptrix in title and doctrine is in any way contrary to the ecumenical mission of the Church is fundamentally to misunderstand the ecumenical mission of the Church itself. Full Catholic doctrine, including the doctrine of Marian co-redemption, must be included for any true dialogue seeking Christian unity. Moreover, the purposeful absence of Mary Coredemptrix in full ecumenical dialogue and in the overall ecumenical mission of the Church would lack integrity and justice for the Catholic ecumenist towards non-Catholic Christians who have presumably, on their part, brought the full teachings of their particular ecclesial body to the tables of dialogue. To return to the Christian admonition of John Paul II: “In the Body of Christ, ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (Jn. 14:6), who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?” [17]

Therefore calling the Blessed Virgin Mary a “Co-redemptrix” in light of Christian Scripture and Christian Tradition is in no sense contrary to ecumenism, but rather constitutes an essential element of the Christian integrity demanded by true ecumenism, since Marian co-redemption constitutes a doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church.

In fact, if the doctrine of Co-redemptrix presently constitutes a source of confusion for some Christians, connoting for some an image of goddess or other concepts of Marian excesses, then it appears all the more appropriate that a clear articulation of this Marian doctrine be given to brother and sister Christians in ecumenical dialogue. There is also the potential benefit of a formal papal definition providing the greatest possible clarity from the highest possible Catholic authority. In the words of the late John Cardinal O'Connor of New York: “Clearly, a formal papal definition would be articulated in such precise terminology that other Christians would lose their anxiety that we do not distinguish adequately between Mary's unique association with Christ and the redemptive power exercised by Christ alone.” [18]

Another legitimate ecumenical perspective on Marian co-redemption and her subsequent spiritual motherhood is that as spiritual mother of all peoples, Mary can be a principal means of Christian unity among divided Christian brothers and sisters, rather than being its prime obstacle. Lutheran pastor Rev. Dr. Charles Dickson calls on Protestant Christianity to re-examine the documented positive Marian defense and devotion of many of its own founders, as manifested, for example, in the words of Martin Luther in his Commentary on the Magnificat: “May the tender Mother of God herself procure for me the spirit of wisdom profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers.... May Christ grant us a right under standing ... through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary....” [19] Luther goes on to call Mary the “workshop of God,” the “Queen of heaven,” and states: “The Virgin Mary means to say simply that her praise will be sung from one generation to another so that there will never be a time when she will not be praised.” [20]

On the role of Mary's universal spiritual motherhood as an instrument of Christian unity, Dr. Dickson comments further:

In our time, we are still faced with the tragic divisions among the world's Christians. Yet, standing on the brink of a bright new ecumenical age, Mary as model of catholicity, or universality, becomes even more important. In the course of many centuries from the beginning of the Church, from the time of Mary and the Apostles, the motherhood of the Church was one. This fundamental motherhood cannot vanish, even though divisions occur. Mary, through her motherhood, maintains the universality of Christ's flock. As the entire Christian community turns to her, the possibility of a new birth, a reconciliation, increases. So Mary, the mother of the Church, is also a source of reconciliation among her scattered and divided children. [21]

Objection 3:
Calling the Mother of Jesus “Co-redemptrix” or her subsequent role as “Mediatrix” implies a role of mediation by someone other than Jesus Christ, but scripture plainly states in 1 Timothy 2:5 that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”, and therefore no creature can rightly be a mediator.

The definition of “mediator” (in Greek, mesitis - “go-between”) is a person who intervenes between two other persons or parties for the goal of uniting or reconciling the parties. Applying this term to Jesus Christ, St. Paul indeed states that there is one mediator between the parties of God and humanity, namely the “man Christ Jesus.” No one therefore reaches God the Father except through the one, perfect mediation of Jesus Christ.

But the question still remains, does the one perfect mediation of Jesus Christ prevent or rather provide for others to subordinately participate in the one mediation of Jesus Christ? In other words, does the one exclusive mediation of Christ prevent any creature from participating in that one essential mediation? Or does its divine and human perfection allow others to share in his one mediation in a subordinate and secondary way?

Christian Scripture offers examples similar to this question of mediation where Christians are obliged to participate in something that is also “one,” exclusive, and dependent entirely on the person of Jesus Christ.

The one Sonship of Jesus Christ. There is only one true son of God, Jesus Christ, who was begotten from God the Father (1 Jn. 1-4). But all Christians are called to participate in the one true sonship of Jesus Christ by becoming “adopted sons” in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; 1 Jn. 3:1; Gal. 2:20), as a true sharing in the one sonship of Christ through baptism, which allows adopted sons and daughters to also share in the inheritance of the one Son, that of everlasting life.

Living in the One Christ. All Christians are called to share in the “one life” of Jesus Christ, for grace is to participate in the life and the love of Jesus Christ, and through him in the life and love of the Trinity. Thus, St. Paul teaches, “. . .it is not I, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20) and 2 Peter 1:4 calls Christians to become “partakers of the divine nature,” to live in the one Christ, and thus in the life of the Trinity.

The one Priesthood of Jesus Christ. All Christians also are called to share in different degrees in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ. The book of Hebrews identifies Jesus Christ as the one “high priest” (cf. Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 5:10) who offers the great spiritual sacrifice of himself on Calvary. And yet Scripture calls all Christians, albeit on different levels of participation, ministerial (cf. Acts 14:22) or royal (cf. 1 Pet. 2:9), to participate in the one priesthood of Jesus Christ in offering “spiritual sacrifice.” All Christians are instructed to “offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God” (1 Pet. 2:5, 2:9).

In all these cases, the New Testament calls Christians to share in that which is one and unique to Jesus Christ, the Alpha and Omega, in true though completely subordinate levels of participation. In reference, then, to Christ the one Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), we see the same Christian imperative for others to share or participate in the one mediation of Jesus Christ, but in a secondary mediation entirely dependent upon the one perfect mediation of Jesus Christ.

The pivotal christological question must then be asked: Does such subordinate sharing in the one mediation of Christ obscure the one mediation of Christ, or rather does it manifest the glory of his one mediation? This is easily answered by imagining a contemporary world without “adopted sons and daughters in Christ,” without Christians today sharing in the one life of Jesus Christ in grace, or without any Christians offering spiritual sacrifices in the Christian priesthood. Such an absence of human participation would only result in obscuring the one Sonship, the one High Priesthood, and the very Life of grace in Jesus Christ.

The same principle is true regarding participation in the one mediation of Jesus Christ in a dependent and subordinate way: the more human participation in the one mediation of Christ, the more the perfection, power, and glory of the unique and necessary mediation of Jesus Christ is manifested to the world.

Christian Scripture moreover offers several examples of God-instituted human mediators who cooperated by divine initiative in uniting humanity with God. The great prophets of the Old Testament were God-ordained mediators between Yahweh and the people of Israel, oftentimes seeking to return the people of Israel to their fidelity to Yahweh (cf. Is. 1; Jer. 1; Ez. 2). The Old Testament patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, etc., were at God's initiative the human mediators of the saving covenant between Yahweh and the people of Israel (cf. Gen. 12:2; 15:18; Ex. 17:11). St. Paul identifies Moses’ mediation of the law to the Israelites: “Why then the law? It was ordained by God through an intermediary” (Gal. 3:19-20). And the angels, with hundreds of mediating acts spanning Old and New Testaments, are God's messengers, who mediate for reconciliation between God and the human family, both before and after the coming of Christ, the one Mediator (cf. Gen. 3:24; Lk. 1:26; Lk. 1:19).

Regarding Mary, Christian Scripture also clearly reveals the secondary and subordinate participation of the Mother of Jesus in the one mediation of Jesus Christ. At the Annunciation, Mary's free and active “yes” to the invitation of the angel mediates to the world Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and the Author of all graces (cf. Lk. 1:38). For this unique participation in giving to the Redeemer his body and mediating the Source of all graces to the world, Mary can rightly be called both “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces” as one who uniquely shares in the one mediation of Jesus Christ.

This unique Marian participation in Christ's mediation, specific to the Redemption of Jesus Christ, is climaxed at Calvary. At the cross, her spiritual suffering united to the redemptive sacrifice of her Son, as the New Eve with the New Adam, leads to the universal spiritual fruits of the acquisition of the graces of redemption, which, in turn, leads to the gift of spiritual motherhood from the heart of the Crucified Christ to every human heart: “Behold your mother!” (Jn. 19:27). The Redeemer's gift of his own mother as spiritual mother to all humanity leads to the spiritual nourishment by the Mother to her children in the order of grace. This constitutes the distribution of the graces of Calvary by Mary to her spiritual children as Mediatrix of all graces, which perpetually continues her unique sharing in the one saving mediation of Jesus Christ.

John Paul II explains the Catholic understanding of this unique Marian participation in the one mediation of Jesus Christ:

Mary entered, in a way all her own, into the one mediation “between God and men” which is the mediation of the man Christ Jesus.... We must say that through this fullness of grace and supernatural life, she was especially predisposed to cooperation with Christ, the one Mediator of human salvation. And such cooperation is precisely this mediation subordinated to the mediation of Christ. In Mary's case we have a special and exceptional mediation. [22]

And in his commentary on 1 Timothy 2:5 and Mary's maternal mediation, John Paul II further states:

We recall that Mary's mediation is essentially defined by her divine motherhood. Recognition of her role as mediatrix is moreover implicit in the expression “our Mother,” which presents the doctrine of Marian mediation by putting the accent on her motherhood.... In proclaiming Christ the one mediator (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5-6), the text of St. Paul's Letter to Timothy excludes any other parallel mediation, but not subordinate mediation. In fact, before emphasizing the one exclusive mediation of Christ, the author urges “that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men” (2:1). Are not prayers a form of mediation? Indeed, according to St. Paul, the unique mediation of Christ is meant to encourage other dependent, ministerial forms of mediation.... In truth, what is Mary's maternal mediation if not the Father's gift to humanity? [23]

Therefore we can see Mary's participation in the one mediation of Jesus Christ as unique and unparalleled by any other human or angelic participation, and yet entirely subordinate and dependent upon the one mediation of Jesus Christ. As such, Mary's motherly mediation manifests the true glory and power of Christ's mediation as no other. The Marian titles and roles of Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces (and Advocate as well) do not in any way violate the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:5 against any parallel, autonomous, or rival mediation, but bespeak a unique and exceptional motherly participation in that one, perfect, and saving mediation of Jesus Christ.

In the words of Anglican Oxford scholar, Dr. John Macquarrie:

The matter [of Marian mediation] cannot be settled by pointing to the danger of exaggeration and abuse, or by appealing to isolated texts of scripture as the verse quoted above from 1 Timothy 2:5 or by the desire not to say anything that might offend one’s partners in ecumenical dialogue. Unthinking enthusiasts may have elevated Mary's position to a virtual equality with Christ, but this aberration is not a necessary consequence of recognizing that there may be a truth striving for expression in words like Mediatrix and Co-redemptrix.

All responsible theologians would agree that Mary's co-redemptive role is subordinate and auxiliary to the central role of Christ. But if she does have such a role, the more clearly we understand it, the better. And like other doctrines concerning Mary, it is not only saying something about her, but something more general about the Church as a whole, and even humanity as a whole. [24]

FOOTNOTES

1. Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Personal Interview, Calcutta, August 14th 1993

2. John Paul II, Papal Address, Jan. 31, 1985, Guayaquil, Ecuador, (O.R., March
13, 1985).

3. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus haeresus, III, 22, emphasis author's.

4. St. Jerome. Epist. 22, 21.

5. Modestus of Jerusalem, Migne PG 86; 3287.

6 St. John Damascene, PG 86; 658.

7. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Ser. III, super Salve.

8. St. Bonaventure, de don. Sp. 6; 14., emphasis author's.

9. Cf. Calkins, “Pope John Paul II’s Teaching on Marian Coredemption” as found in Miravalle, ed., Mary Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, Theological Foundations II, p.113.

10. Cf. John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 21, 28.

11. Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 11.

12. John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, n. 36.

13. John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 18.

14. Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, n. 56.

15. Lumen Gentium, n. 58.

16. Lumen Gentium, n. 61.

17. John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 18.

18.. John Cardinal O'Connor, Endorsement Letter For Papal Definition of Mary, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, February 14, 1994.

19. Martin Luther, Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521, as quoted in Dr. Charles Dickson, A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary, 1996, Our Sunday Visitor Press, p.41,42.

20. Ibid.

21. Dickson, A Protestant Pastor Looks at Mary, p. 48-49.

22 John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, 21, 39.

23 John Paul II, Papal Address, Rome, October 1, 1997, L’Osservatore Romano,
1997, 41.

Creatures participate in God’s Being in various ways (”in Him all things continue in being” Col. 1), yet they are not God or a pantheistic part of God. Creatures also participate in God’s Goodness in various ways, yet they are not Goodness Himself. Priests participate in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (and faithful by way of the common, royal priesthood of all the baptized), yet they themselves are not Jesus the great and only High Priest of the new covenant. So too with the mediation of the God-Man—we all can participate in various ways (mediators of grace through prayer, sacrifice, etc.) yet none of us is the One Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). But Mary alone can participate in the one mediation of Christ as Mother

The following is Biblical Typology of Mary as Ark of the New Covenant-Daughter of Zion and the New Eve etc.. backed up with the writings of the early Church Fathers

Old Testament Ark “verses” New Testament Mary who is the “Immaculate” Ark of the NEW COVENANT

A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark (Exodus 40:34-35; Numbers 9:15) = Type is
“And the angel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you’” (Luke 1:35)

Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite (2 Samuel 6:11) = Type is
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth (Luke 1:26, 40)

King David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Samuel 6:9) = Type is
Elizabeth asked Mary, “Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

David Leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:14 - 16) = Type is
John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived (Luke 1:44)

Even the Early Christians saw this.
Some examples....

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

Mary is the Daughter of Zion .

The important thing point out is that in the OT (esp. Isiah, Zephaniah, Zechariah, etc..) there are Messianic prophecies known as the Daughter Zion prophecies which tend to have a similar form. They begin with something like, “rejoice, O Daughter of Zion, for the Lord your God is in your midst..” and continue on with Messianic prophecy. The form of Gabriel’s Annuniciation to Mary matches the form of the Daughter Zion prophecies. This indicates on the one hand that these prophesies are fulfilled with the words of Gabriel which announce the Messianic expectation as being fulfilled at that time.

The prophets words were a foreshadowing of the Annuniciation. Gabriel called Mary Kecharitomene, which I believe captures the essence of Daughter of Zion and points beyond it. Basically Mary is being presented in Luke I & II as representing not just the perfect embodiment of the virtues of what it means to be Israel, she is presented as a certain personification of Israel. She stands in as Israel proper, and the language used throughout the narrative suggests the concept of “corporate personality” which is part of Hebrew thought. There are allusions and types in Luke I & II which further support this (themes and structure in the Magnificat, allusions to Abraham to which this concept of corporate personality applies, Simeon, Judith, etc..). Also, this understanding of what Luke I & II presents about Our Lady is an interpretive key to understanding certain passages in a deeper way (for example Simeon’s prophecy).

It also ties in with themes in John’s writings and sheds light upon them. The thematic parallels between John-Rev & Luke-Acts are many so it’s no surprise that this aspect of Luke I & II would mesh well with John.

The Importance of Kecharitomene

Kecharitomene (Luke 1:28), is Mary,s purpose ,it is Her essence and being in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Father. As the spouse of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the “woman” of the Holy Spirit. As the mother of the Son (Luke 1:31), in the divine supernatural order, the virgin from Nazareth is the ‘woman’ of the Son. The virgin from Nazareth, clearly then, is “woman” to all the three divine Persons who is GOD. She is aptly the ‘blessed among women’ (Luke 1:42). The Blessed Virgin Mary is the “woman” of GOD. The Son of Man never called her “mother”, not even once while He interacted with humans, because it will not be in keeping with His divinity or with the Oneness and Indivisibility of the Holy Trinity. The virgin from Nazareth is not the mother of the Holy Spirit and she, obviously, is not the mother of the Father

Luke 1:28 Uses the word “Kecharitomene: to describe Mary,s function,essence and being

The original Greek was kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle of charis, grace. St. Jerome translated it into Latin as gratia plena, “full of grace.” In Greek the perfect stem denotes a completed action with a permanent result. Kecharitomene means completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The Protestant Revised Standard Version translates Lk 1:28 as “highly favored daughter.” This is no mere difference of opinion but a conscious effort to distort St. Luke’s original Greek text. Had Mary been no more than “highly favored,” she would have been indistinguishable from Sarah the wife of Abraham, Anna the mother of Samuel, or Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, all of whom were long childless and “highly favored” because God acceded to their pleas to bear children. But neither Sarah nor Anna is described as kecharitomene in the Septuagint, a translation by Jewish scholars of the Hebrew Scriptures for Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt. Nor does Luke use it to describe Elizabeth. Kecharitomene in this usage is reserved for Mary of Nazareth.

The word “kecharitomene” is a perfect passive participle of the verb “charitoo.”

Some have argued that this says nothing unique about Mary since Saint Stephen, just before he is martyred for the faith, is said to be full of grace in Acts 6:8. However a different word form is used to describe Saint Stephen. In the Greek the conjugated form of “charitoo” that is used to describe him is “charitos” not “kecharitomene” that is used in reference to Mary.

Saint Luke does not use Mary as her name in Luke 1:28 He Changes it to “Kecharitomene” this is a new name , and we all know that name changes in Scripture are significant - Abram (Hebrew “father”) to Abraham (”father of multitudes), Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul, Simon to Peter, etc.

This describes her very essence and being.
Mary, is named “kecharitomene” - because she is full of grace-full of perfection

Mary was chosen to be the Mother of God, because she was perfect in obeying the will of God. She would not betray her divine husband for the sake of a man. The marriage between Joseph and Mary took place in the divine plan in order to protect the publicity of the holy virgin announced in the Holy Scriptures who would give birth to Emanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14)

Joseph was a chaste man, who respected Mary highly since he was given revelations about Mary and Jesus by the angel of God (Matthew 1:20), he accepted the special holy mission to help the promised Messiah and his mother.

Mary is the New Eve

Old Testament Eve- Verses New Testament Mary typology

Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25 = Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42

There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25 = There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34

There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17 = There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35

There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13 = There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38

A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6 = A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17

There was pride, Gen 3:4-7 = There was humility, Luke 1:38

There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7 = There was obedience, Luke 1:38

There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20 = There was redemption, John 19:34

Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19 = Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28

She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22 = She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15

Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24 = Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25

An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24 = An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9

Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15 = The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7

Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1 = Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5

Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8 = Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34

The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20 = The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27

The Early Christians saw this very clear...

“He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him.” Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155)

“In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’ But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise ‘they were both naked, and were not ashamed,’ inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

“For as Eve was seduced by the word of an angel to flee from God, having rebelled against His Word, so Mary by the word of an angel received the glad tidings that she would bear God by obeying his Word. The former was seduced to disobey God, but the latter was persuaded to obey God, so that the Virgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. As the human race was subjected to death through [the act of] a virgin, so it was saved by a virgin.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:19,1 (A.D. 180).

Mary was PRESERVED from all stain of original sin at her creation so that she would be a “New Creation”, the “New Eve”

Lastly,It is NOT fitting that the Mother of God should bring shame to Her divine son.Therefor.God preserved Mary from any personal sin,whether mortal or venial.
Through the Grace of God,which was infused into her soul at the moment of her conception,at the very instant He created her soul and united it to her body. He did it in virtue of the merits of Christ.

No descendant of Adam receives the Grace of God except through the merits of Christ.

The Mother of Christ was no exception to this law of Grace.
Like every other human being who is descended of carnal generation from Adam,the blessed virgin Mary need to be redeemed by the blood of Christ,But wheras every other human being needs to be cleansed from the stain of original sin-which has contracted by way of carnal generation from Adam-the Virgin Mary did NOT need to be cleansed from original sin.Through the Grace of Christ she was preserved from the stain of sin.

Mary is closer to Christ than any other human being,because He took flesh from her and dwelt in her womb.
The closer one is to Christ,the source of all Grace,the greater degree of Grace one receives from Christ. Mary,therefor,received from Christ a fullness of Grace not granted to any other creature.

Her Immaculate Conception made her worthy to be Mother of God.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.