Sunday, April 15, 2018

Most Holy Mary is not "co-Redeemer"

Jesus Christ is the One Redeemer and Mediator
or,
A warning against modern Marian heresy

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence: "never was anyone, conceived by a man and a woman, liberated from the devil's dominion except by faith in our lord Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and humanity, who was conceived without sin, was born and died. He alone by his death overthrew the enemy of the human race, canceling our sins, and unlocked the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, which the first man by his sin had locked against himself and all his posterity."

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent: "Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour"

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin, Can. 3: “If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam — which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own — is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption… let him be anathema.”

This article is intended as an update to the discussion of Mary's role in the salvation of humanity.


The central tenet of the discussion is that Jesus Christ alone is our redeemer.  By redemption is meant "the paying of the price for the sins of humanity" and "opening heaven", which Catholic teaching holds can only have been accomplished by a person who is both God and man, because justice requires that man himself would need to make reparation, but nobody except God can afford the infinite price incurred by so many offenses against an infinite God.  It is this paying of the price that Jesus Christ alone was able to accomplish, and in which he cannot be said to have any partners.  He had witnesses to his work of redemption, and those who assisted Him as much as they could, but this assistance does not merit to be called partnership in the work itself, as nothing done by any non-divine person could have sufficient value to cancel even one sin against the infinite God, and the Church has more than once infallibly declared, that Jesus Christ accomplished this work alone, which precludes the notion of any partners.

The reason for this update is that I have received correspondence in which this truth has been assaulted and obscured by those who profess to mean well, but seem to have allowed themselves to make glaring errors in their reasoning and argumentation on the matter.  I will not direct anyone to the articles or their authors, but instead will simply deal with the principle allegations made therein, which will suffice to show why I strongly disagree with their premises, namely that the blessed Virgin Mary can be called "Co-Redeemer", or that her cooperation with Christ's redemptive work made her a "partner" therein.

Let us see the allegations, and how I believe they are answered by right obedience to the Catholic Faith.  Here are the allegations of those who say that Mary can be called "Co-Redeemer", or "partner in the redemption", as though she were the "exception" to the dogma that Christ alone is our Redeemer.

Allegation:

"Popes and Holy Scripture teaches infallibly that all men have sinned without mentioning any exceptions... We see the same thing in the Council of Trent... 
Council of Trent, On Original Sin, sess. V: “2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. [Rom. 5:12]” (D. 789)



The exception was not mentioned at all in this paragraph. In a different paragraph within the same decree later on there is mention that Mary is not included in this decree. But the exception of Jesus Christ is not mentioned at all. This same above decree is found word for word in the Council of Orange II, 529, Original Sin, Grace, Predestination, and it never mentions any exceptions.

Council of Orange, Canon 2 (A.D. 529): “If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12).”

...this is a Regional Council that was made infallible by a pope."


To paraphrase all this succinctly: "The Council of Orange is infallible, and taught that all men have sinned, but we know that there are exceptions in Jesus and Mary, who never sinned, even though the Council never mentioned the exception."

Answer: 

It is interesting to note here that the Second Council of Orange was a favorite of John Calvin, and which he used extensively in his disputations against the Catholic doctrine on grace and free will.  Calvin, like these modern Marian heretics, viewed the Council as completely infallible.

The Second Council of Orange was not infallible in all its parts, nor was it promulgated by Pope Boniface as being wholly binding on all the faithful, nor as being free from error.  In fact, it even contains proposition which was condemned later by the Church.

Second Council of Orange, Canon 20: "That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it."

But Pope St. Pius V condemned an equivalent proposition from Michael Du Bay:

Pope St. Pius V, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus, #27: "Free will, without the help of God's grace, has only power for sin." - Condemned

The error of the author's alleging that Orange was infallible is in believing Boniface II approved the entirety of its canons, when in fact, he restricted his approval to his own paraphrasing of the Council's confession.  He did this in the letter "Per Filium Nostrum", in which he makes no mention at all of the portion which discusses "all men have sinned", and he also specifically amended the wording of the canon "That a man can do no good without God" by stating "they explained that the faith, by which we believe in Christ, is conferred by the preceding grace of God; adding also that there is no good at all according to God, that anyone can will, or begin, or accomplish without the grace of God, since our Savior Himself says: Without Me you can do nothing"".

That is to say that man, without the help of grace, is indeed capable of performing good and avoiding sin, but only natural good, not supernatural good which merits eternal rewards.  For only those good acts that conduce to salvation are good according to God, that is supernaturally.  But there are acts, which come from the will of man and not by grace, which are good according to nature, and as such do not gain eternal rewards, but given that they are not sins, they are at least naturally good.

St. Thomas, SummaI-II, Q. 109. The necessity of grace - Article 5. Whether man can merit everlasting life without grace?: "I answer that, Acts conducing to an end must be proportioned to the end. But no act exceeds the proportion of its active principle; and hence we see in natural things, that nothing can by its operation bring about an effect which exceeds its active force, but only such as is proportionate to its power. Now everlasting life is an end exceeding the proportion of human nature, as is clear from what we have said above (I-II:5:5). Hence man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as "to toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends," and the like, as Augustine says in his third Reply to the Pelagians [Hypognosticon iii, among the spurious works of St. Augustine]."

But to argue that the Council of Orange proves that no exception needed to be mentioned regarding its canon in which it is stated that all have sinned is a false argument because that canon was not among the points confessed by the Council which Pope Boniface confirmed in his letter, whereas the Council of Trent's section on Original Sin specifically included the statement that "This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God" before it was ratified - in its entirety without further qualifications or additions - and promulgated to the universal Church as infallible and binding.


Allegation:

"Pope Clement VIII also taught that “all sinned” without mentioning any exceptions.  Pope Clement XIII, A Quo Die, 1758: “8. …Let us not think that our true, solid, and serious glory comes from the lips of men. We have all sinned, and we all need the glory of God.”"

Answer:

This allegation states that Pope Clement taught "all sinned", the implication here being that he was referring to all of humanity, despite that those were not the words used.  This allegation was proposed in order to support of the idea that there are exceptions to papal teachings, given that Jesus and Mary never sinned.  But the actual context of Pope Clement's words shows that this allegation is false and he was not referring to all men.

Pope Clement XIII, A Quo Die, 1758:Bishops should always keep this in mind: "When a ruler listens to false reports, all his ministers will be scoundrels." We must stop being envious of glory. Thus, glory will be the downfall of those who think earthly things are important. Let us look higher-let us look upon that heavenly home of eternal glory. Let us not think that our true, solid, and serious glory comes from the lips of men. We have all sinned, and we all need the glory of God. Having died to our sins, we should not glory in ourselves. The Father should be glorified in the Son, so that we might be filled with the fruit of justice through Jesus Christ for the glory of God, to whom alone belong all glory, majesty, authority, and power."

This shows that the pope was not making a theological statement about all men, but was exhorting the Bishops of the Catholic Church to remember that they all had personally sinned, and were thus in need of the assistance of God, hence they should not be envious of earthly glory, or glory in themselves.  Thus the one making the allegation has twisted the words of the pope out of context to support his heretical opinion.


Allegation:

"...[T]his is how Pope Pius IX addressed the Blessed Virgin Mary in context of salvation history. Notice that what he says perfectly corresponds to the meaning of the title “Co-Redeemer”."

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 1854: “All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin—in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church.”

Answer: 

Pope Pius IX did not refer the mediation and conciliation of the Blessed Virgin to the particular work of Christ's redemption of humanity from the infinite debt we had incurred though offending an infinite God.  He specifically mentions that she is the mediator and conciliator between us and "her only-begotten Son", who Himself is the sole mediator between God and man.  No other person had the power to perform His mediation, but a divine person who is both God and man, and hence no other person can be said to have participated at all in this particular mediation.  Mary brought Jesus, who is salvation, to the world.  But Jesus is the salvation, is the one who paid the price.

Put simply, Christ alone brought man and God back together by the free sacrifice on the cross, and Mary brings individual men to Christ by asking Him to apply these merits to them, which He alone earned for all humanity - including Mary.  These are totally different actions.


Allegation:

"The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus, in which he quotes other saints, justifies calling Mary an exception to the dogma that Jesus Christ alone is our redeemer" - paraphrashed

Answer:

I will set forth the entirety of the proposed quote from the Glories of Mary, and will insert explanations drawn from St. Thomas, Venerable Mary of Agreda and Pope Pius IX of why I believe that it does not justify a departure from the strict statement that Jesus Christ alone is our redeemer and that He had no partners who shared in the particular work of redemption.

St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Chapter IV, Section II — Mary, our Mediatress — The Necessity of the Intercession of Mary for our Salvation: “Saint Bernard says, ‘that as a man and a woman cooperated in our ruin, so it was proper that another man and another woman should cooperate in our redemption; and these two were Jesus and his Mother Mary.’ ‘There is no doubt,’ says the Saint, ‘that Jesus Christ alone was more than sufficient to redeem us; but it was more becoming that both sexes should cooperate in the reparation of an evil in causing which both had shared.’

I agree with this statement. Eve cooperated in our ruin, and Mary did indeed cooperate in our redemption. But let us consult St. Thomas to see whether this cooperation can be considered to equate to partnership, or as our opponent's have it "co-redemption".

St. Thomas, SummaPt. I-II, Q. 81, A. 5: “…On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 5:12): By one man sin entered into this world. Now if the woman would have transmitted original sin to her children, he should have said that it entered by two, since both of them sinned, or rather that it entered by a woman, since she sinned first… I answer that, therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it.”

St. Thomas, SummaIII, Q. 48, The efficiency of Christ's Passion, Article 5. Whether it is proper to Christ to be the Redeemer?: "I answer that, For someone to redeem, two things are required—namely, the act of paying and the price paid. For if in redeeming something a man pays a price which is not his own, but another's, he is not said to be the chief redeemer, but rather the other is, whose price it is. Now Christ's blood or His bodily life, which "is in the blood," is the price of our redemption (Leviticus 17:11-14), and that life He paid. Hence both of these belong immediately to Christ as man; but to the Trinity as to the first and remote cause, to whom Christ's life belonged as to its first author, and from whom Christ received the inspiration of suffering for us. Consequently it is proper to Christ as man to be the Redeemer immediately; although the redemption may be ascribed to the whole Trinity as its first cause."

Nowhere does St. Thomas attribute to anyone but God the causes of redemption.  The blood of Christ is not of infinite value considered in its humanity, which He received from the Virgin Mary, but only considered in its belonging to the Person of the Divine Word, which Divine Person came to the world through the Virgin Mary, but whose divinity was not caused by her, nor was the value of the price He paid in the redemption caused by her.

St. Thomas, Summa, I-II, Q. 112. The cause of grace, Article 1. Whether God alone is the cause of grace?: "I answer that, Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace."

Reply to Objection 1. "Christ's humanity is an "organ of His Godhead," as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 19). Now an instrument does not bring forth the action of the principal agent by its own power, but in virtue of the principal agent. Hence Christ's humanity does not cause grace by its own power, but by virtue of the Divine Nature joined to it, whereby the actions of Christ's humanity are saving actions."

Louis De Montfort, True Devotion to Mary #14: “I avow, with all the Church, that Mary, being a mere creature that has come from the hands of the Most High, is in comparison with His Infinite Majesty less than an atom; or rather, she is nothing at all, because He only is ‘He who is’ (Exod. 3:14)…”

St. Alphonsus, cont'd: Hence blessed Albert the Great calls Mary ‘the helper of redemption:’ and this Blessed Virgin herself revealed to Saint Bridget, that ‘as Adam and Eve sold the world for an apple, so did she with her Son redeem it as it were with one heart.’ This is confirmed by Saint Anselm, who says, ‘that although God could create the world out of nothing, yet, when it was lost by sin, He would not repair the evil without the cooperation of Mary.’

There are a few things to note in this case, even if we bypass the fact that something may have been lost in translation from St. Alphonsus and Saint Bridget's initial words.  Firstly, it is important to remember that a dogma was always true, but not necessarily always a dogma.  The revelations of St. Bridget took place centuries before the two dogmatic definitions which declared with infallible authority that Christ alone redeemed the human race.

Secondly, the statement "as Adam and Eve sold the world for an apple, so did she with her Son redeem it as it were with one heart" can also be taken in a poetical and non-literal sense which merely asserts the complete subjection of Mary to the will of Her son in his work of redeeming the human race.  The words "as it were" are often included in statements for the very purpose of impressing upon the hearer that a completely literal sense is not intended.

Mary after all was, "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin" (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, ex cathedra), which means any cooperation she had with Christ was in no way part  of the particular work of redemption.

Venerable Mary of Agreda, Mystical City of God, Book 1, Chapter 6: "The human flesh, from which He is to assume form, must be free from sin. Since He is to redeem in it the sinners, He must not be under the necessity of redeeming his own flesh, like that of sinners."

But the Virgin Mary, was in need of redemption, though preserved by a singular favour by God from the stain of original sin, as stated by Pope Pius IX.  Hence she is not her own redeemer, nor did she "co-redeem" herself or anyone else, as the Church has explicitly taught that Christ alone is her redeemer and ours.  Redemption, which is the work of Christ alone, and the dispensation of grace, in which he was pleased to establish His mother as the chief, are two entirely different things.

St. Alphonsus cont'd: “Suarez says, ‘that Mary cooperated in our salvation in three ways; first, by having merited by a merit of congruity the Incarnation of the Word; secondly, by having continually prayed for us whilst she was living in this world; thirdly, by having willingly sacrificed the life of her Son to God.’ For this reason our Lord has justly decreed, that as Mary cooperated in the salvation of man with so much love, and at the same time gave such glory to God, so all men through her intercession are to obtain their salvation.

Again, I fully agree, as this explanation does not conflate the notion of Christ's redemption and mediation between God and man, with the notion of Mary's mediation between man and Christ, nor does it suggest Mary was responsible for any part of the actual redemption in itself.

St. Alphonsus cont'd: “Mary is called ‘the cooperator in our justification; for to her God has intrusted all graces intended for us;’ and therefore Saint Bernard affirms, ‘that all men, past, present, and to come, should look upon Mary as the means and negotiator of the salvation of all ages.’ … And shall we scruple to ask her to save us, when ‘the way of salvation is open to none otherwise than through Mary?’ as a certain author remarks. And before him Saint Germanus had said the same thing, speaking of Mary: ‘No one is saved but through thee.’ … And as we have access to the Eternal Father, says Saint Bernard, only through Jesus Christ, so have we access to Jesus Christ only through Mary: ‘By thee we have access to the Son, O blessed finder of grace, bearer of life, and mother of salvation, that we may receive Him by thee, Who through thee was given to us.’”

This last portion of the quote from St. Alphonsus' "Glories" perfectly reiterates the point that redemption from sin and the opening of the way to God is possible only through and by Jesus, whereas the way to Jesus - who already opened the gates of heaven for all, including Mary - has wished to further aid our weakness by giving Mary as a way to more confidently come to Jesus, our Redeemer and the sole Mediator between God and Man.

St. Thomas, Summa, III, Q. 48, Article 5, Reply to Objection 3: "The sufferings of the saints are beneficial to the Church, as by way, not of redemption, but of example and exhortation, according to 2 Corinthians 1:6: "Whether we be in tribulation, it is for your exhortation and salvation."


Modern Marian Heresy
Part of the
Early Counterfeit Church Doctrine

In this section of the article, we will talk about the modern era usurpation of the hierarchy of the Church, starting with Leo XIII, and how this usurpation has corrupted the doctrine of the Redemption of man, and has conflated Mary's role as Mediatrix and Conciliatrix between us and the God-man, Jesus Christ, with Jesus Christ's own role as the sole mediator between God and man.

The following are quotes from whom I believe to be false papal claimants, and whose words I believe can be shown to express a different theology than the one of St. Alphonsus and the Catholic Council of Trent and Florence.



Antipope Leo XIII

Antipope Leo XIII, Iucunda Semper Expectatione, On the Rosary, 8 September 1894: "For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips."

Note: there is a dispute which alleges Leo XIII did not in fact call Mary the "Co-Redemptress", and that this is a false translation of his original words, however, the tone of the encyclical, as well as the following passage (which I have hired a translator for), show that his meaning is clear:  The Virgin Mary not only cooperated with, but took part in the redemption.

"Quum enim se Deo vel ancillam ad matris officium exhibuit vel totam cum Filio in templo devovit, utroque ex facto iam tum consors cum eo extitit laboriosae pro humano genere expiationis: ex quo etiam, in acerbissimis Filii angoribus et cruciamentis, maxime animo condoluisse dubitandum non est."

Translation: For, when whether she presented herself to God as handmaid for the role of mother, or consecrated her entire being with her Son in the temple, from each one of these events, she later on stood with Him as a partaker of the laborious expiation for the human race: from this, therefore, there is no doubt that she suffered most exceedingly in her soul in the most bitter torments and pains of her Son.




I asked the translator: From the text I sent you, which of the following positions is more likely, or are they all supportable:

1) Leo XIII taught that Mary was a partaker in that she received the benefit of the redemption, or
2) He taught that she participated in the act of redemption

I am trying to understand the context intended by "consors cum eo", and whether the English translations of the encyclical are justified to render his words as "co-redeemer". What is your opinion?

Translator's response: "consors cum eo" is literally "a sharer/partaker with him". I think the key to reading this phrase is with the verb "extitit" = she stood out, or she stood prominently. If she merely just stood by, the expected form of the verb would be "stetit", so yes to both 1) and 2), and I would certainly read this as "co-redeemer".


For further exposure of how Leo XIII was the first in the line of modern manifestly heretical deceivers posing as popes, please read also the following articles:
Crisis in the Catholic Church: The Leo XIII Connection
Is God the Father of all men?
Heretical Prayers of Antipope Leo XIII


Antipope Pius X

Antipope Pius X, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 1904: "from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix[1] [Co-Redeemer] of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by Death and by His Blood…

“14. We are…very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace—a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us ‘de congruo,’ in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us ‘de condigno,’ and she is the supreme Minister of the distribution of graces.”

[1] The Latin word “reparo” means to restore, renew, or purchase. Hence Pius X refers to Mary as a partner with Jesus in renewing men to eternal life and restoring a fallen world by purchasing or redeeming men’s sin debt, which means according to him Jesus is Redeemer and Mary is Co-Redeemer.

This teaching from antipope Pius X takes the notion of congruous merit to a level past that which St. Alphonsus proposed when he cited Suarez in the "Glories of Mary".

Congruity is a quality of agreement and appropriateness. When there's congruity, things fit together in a way that makes sense. If a team has congruity, the players work together well, even if they don't win. The word congruity is from the Old French congruité for "relevance and appropriateness." - vocabulary.com

“Suarez says, ‘that Mary cooperated in our salvation in three ways; first, by having merited by a merit of congruity the Incarnation of the Word;"
St. Alphonsus, via Suarez, relates here that the congruous merit of the Virgin Mary gained for her the gift of being the mother of God. He does not say that she gained by it an opening of the gate of heaven or the cancelling of the sins of men. But Antipope Pius X uses double speak and says that "We are…very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace—a power which belongs to God alone. Yet, since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us ‘de congruo,’ in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us ‘de condigno,’”

He says that Mary merits, albeit in a different manner than Christ, exactly what Christ merits for us!  But Christ alone is our Redeemer, and alone merited the cancellation of the debt of eternal punishment due to our sins, and applied that merit to all humanity, including his mother at the moment of her conception, as the Councils of Florence, Trent and the Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus all agree.  Hence what Pius X teaches, though a "softer" and more subtle version of the heresy alleging Mary as "co-redeemer", is not only false, but heretical, since it denies that Christ alone performed this work.


Antipope Benedict XV

The Sources of Catholic Dogma, Denzinger: “In the decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (section on indulgences), Sunt quos amor, June 26, 1913 (AAS 5 (1913) 363), he [Benedict XV] praises the custom of adding to the name of Jesus the name of ‘His Mother, our coredemptor, the blessed Mary’; cf. also the prayer enriched by the Holy Office with an indulgence, in which the Blessed Virgin Mary is called ‘coredemptress of the human race.’ (Jan. 22, 1914; AAS 6 [1914] 108).”

Antipope Benedict XV, Inter solalicia, 1918: “The Blessed Virgin suffered with her suffering Son and nearly died with Him when He died; she abdicated her maternal rights over her Son for the salvation of men, and so far as it appertained to her she immolated her Son to placate the divine justice; so that she may rightly be said to have redeemed the human race with Christ.”

In a brash disregard for the explicit dogmatic definitions which assert that Christ alone redeemed the human race, the heretical antipope Benedict XV blushed not to contradict them word for word in his statement that Mary "redeemed the human race with Christ".  There is no "as it were" here, but he says may be "rightly" said, which is totally contrary to the dogmas.

Antipope Pius XI

Antipope Pius XI, Explorata res, 1923: “The Virgin participated with Jesus Christ in the very painful act of the redemption.”

Antipope Pius XI, Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928: “And now lastly may the most benign Virgin Mother of God smile on this purpose and on these desires of ours; for since she brought forth for us Jesus our Redeemer, and nourished Him, and offered Him as a victim by the Cross, by her mystic union with Christ and His very special grace she likewise became and is piously called a reparatress [Co-Redemptrix].”

Antipope Pius XI, Auspicatus profecto, 1933: “[Mary became the Mother of Jesus] in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race.”



As has been discussed and proved from the teachings of the Church and the Angelic doctor above, Mary cooperated with Christ's work of redemption but did not participate or take part in it; she was not a partner in it, as she herself was also in need of redemption in His Blood, as defined by the Church.  She witnessed it, felt it and practically died in the process.  But her doing so added nothing to the price Christ paid; she is not a co-Redeemer with Him.  Thus the heretical antipope Pius XI was yet another in the line of corrupters of faith, steadily marching along the downward path of inexcusable fraud and heresy against the true doctrine of the Catholic religion.