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.”
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.
"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)
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).”
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."
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."
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"".
St. Thomas, Summa, I-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]."
"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.”"
"...[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”."
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".
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.
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."
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.
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."
Part of the
Early Counterfeit Church Doctrine
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?
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, Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum, 1904: "from this community of will and suffering between Christ and Mary she merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix [Co-Redeemer] of the lost world and Dispensatrix of all the gifts that Our Savior purchased for us by Death and by His Blood…
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,’”
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].”