In part 2 of this series, we saw that the Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF) document declares that Mary was “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ….” This is our point of departure in this part 3.
We also showed in part 2 that the word “redemption” presupposes a state of being fallen into sin, or a person’s “fallen human nature.” For, in general, when there is no such thing as “fallen human nature,” there is no need for the work of redemption. In this case, the word redemption would not make sense at all.
Now, in the case of Mary, the MPF document declares Mary as “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ….” Clearly, then, Mary herself was not exempted from being fallen into the state of sin. The MPF document, therefore, has wittingly or unwittingly presumed that no human being was, is and will be exempted from original sin, or fallen nature of man. This presumption sweepingly includes Mary herself.
The question, then, to be tackled here is whether it is possible for God to exempt a human being from “original sin” or from “fallen nature of man.” And whether it is possible for the “being” of man to be exempted from such a state. We answer in the affirmative: that it is possible for God to exempt a human being from man’s fallen nature and that it is possible for man’s “being” to be exempted from such fallen nature.
The first point to consider is the case of the “fall” of Adam and Eve. Here, it is crucial for us to consider the time element: i.e., before, during and after the fall. Before the fall, they were in the state of holiness. During the fall, they were to be said as in transition from the state of holiness to the state of sin. After the fall, they were then wholly in the state of being fallen. It is just plain logic. This shows that a human being could “possibly” be in the state of holiness from the very start of his existence. In Adam and Eve, God himself started their “being” in the state of holiness. It is just within the omnipotence of God. Being the designer of the human nature, God could just do it if he wishes to do so, even after the fall just as much as before the fall.
The second point to consider is the philosophical dimension. Now, for a human being to be in the state of holiness is an ontological possibility; this does not belong to what is called “metaphysical impossibles.” Being can be ontologically in the state of holiness. The proof is the case of the human nature (meaning, the “being”) of Adam and Eve “before” the fall.
But, then, the state of “being” of man is in potency. That is, a potency to be in another state. It is unlike that of God which is in actus purus from eternity to eternity. “During” the fall, this potency could be seen as the transition from the state of holiness to the state of sin. And, “after” the fall, man’s state of “being” was then wholly in the “fallen” state.
The point that we wish to drive home is that it is an “ontological possibility” for the “human nature” or the “being” of man to be in the state of holiness, as in the case of Adam and Eve “before” the fall. And, on the one hand, we hold on to the truth that the omnipotent God, the creator of the human nature, has all the power to exempt — if He wants to — a human being from state of being fallen. On the other hand, we also hold on to the truth that man’s “being” can be ontologically in the state of holiness from the start of its existence.
Back to the MPF document. It declares Mary as “the first to be redeemed— was herself redeemed by Christ….” This declaration is saying that God himself did not exempt Mary from man’s fallen nature. But we say that it is not the case. That is to say, the MPF document has twisted the truth of the Immaculate Conception.
On the contrary, the truth is that God himself exempted Mary from the fallen nature of man. The proof of this is Archangel Gabriel’s announcement to Mary: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Lk.1:28, NIB). This very announcement declares that Mary’s being “full of grace” is an exemption from man’s fallen nature. And it is ontologically possible.
And, since Archangel Gabriel is God’s harbinger, he is merely relaying to Mary God’s own will that she be so exempted from man’s fallen nature for the purposes of sending his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the world in human form. Mary’s exemption is not without reason; she is the very instrument that God used in order for his Son to be incarnated.
Therefore, to say that Mary was “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ…” (MPF par. 14) is to say that Mary was not exempted from the fallen nature of man. The MPF document is thus making a bold declaration in contradiction to what God willed for the person of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Immaculate Conception, declared as Dogma by Pius IX on Dec. 8, 1854. Paragraph 14 of the MPF document is but undermining the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in a subtle casuistry, which seems to have been done in such a way as to avoid detection.