In part 1, I wrote that, in par. 14 of Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF), Leo XIV’s document, there seems to be a maneuver, a subtle way of undermining the truth of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In this part 2, I dwell on, and make a further hukngay on par. 14 of MPF. Paragraph 14 says:
“The dogma of the Immaculate Conception highlights the primacy and unicity of Christ in the work of Redemption, for it teaches that Mary — the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ and transformed by the Spirit, prior to any possible action of her own” (MPF, par.14).
As to the question whether Jesus Christ is the redeemer in the absolute sense, we believe that it is rightly so. Jesus himself proclaims it in saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (Jn.14:6). This point has no problem.
But, when the MPF document says that “the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception highlights the primacy and unicity of Christ in the work of Redemption,” it makes it appear that the Dogma in itself is a living testimony of Christ’s being the primary and the unique worker of redemption. At this point, the question that we could raise is this: Why is it that the dogma itself appears to be emphasized as one that “highlights the primacy and unicity of Christ in the work of Redemption”?
The answer to the question is just in par. 14. It goes on to say: “…for it teaches that Mary — the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ….” It is this very point that is highly questionable. For, first, it is clear that the document tells or “teaches” us that Mary’s being Immaculate is the result of her being redeemed by Christ. The act of redemption is prior to, and is the cause of, Mary’s being immaculate.
As to the concept of redemption, we have already argued in part 1 of this article, that redemption semantically presupposes a “fall into sin.” Now let us apply this to Mary. If Mary, then, “was herself being redeemed by Christ,” then it presupposes that she had been fallen into sin. For, if she had not been fallen into sin, then there was none, named Mary, to be redeemed. For who is to be redeemed if nobody has been fallen into sin? Thus, in this case, the word, redemption, does not make sense at all.
The very idea that Mary “was herself redeemed by Christ” contradicts what Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Lk.1:28, NIB). Let us highlight the phrase, “full of grace.” In saying this, Archangel Gabriel tells us that Mary had not been fallen into sin, all because, logically, she was “full of grace.” Being fallen into sin means deficient or lack of grace, a condition contrary to being “full of grace.” But since the MPF document drives home the point that Mary — “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ,” it undeniably implies that Mary had been fallen into sin, that there must be a moment in her existence that she was in the state of sin. Thus, Archangel Gabriel’s announcement to Mary: “Hail, full of grace…” and the MPF document’s assertion contradict each other. It is this point that is suspicious. Something in Leo XIV’s MPF document appears to undermine the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. A modernist’s subtle casuistry!
The second thing to see is that the MPF document subtly drives another point. The point is that God himself must have absolutely decreed that no human being was, is, and will be exempted from the “fallen nature of man.” This must be a divine decree, which the MPF document implies. Thus, within the perimeter of this divine decree, Mary herself was not even spared. God did not exempt Mary from being fallen, so much so that Mary needed “to be redeemed,” as the MPF document declares. Again, God’s divine decree — that no human being was, is, and will be exempted from the fallen human nature — contradicts what Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary: “Hail, full of grace.” Thus, it could be seen that, within heaven itself, Archangel Gabriel’s announcement (from heaven) to Mary contradicts the Almighty God’s divine decree. But, could this be the case?
(To be continued in part 3)