In part 3 of this series, we showed the possibility of the “being” of man to be exempted from man’s fallen nature, if God himself wants to do so. We showed that Mary was exempted by God for her role in the economy of salvation.
In this part 4, we tackle the incoherence in Mater Populi Fidelis’ (MPF) statement that says: Mary was “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ….” We focus on this somewhat ambiguous statement for analysis.
Let us start by granting that Mary was “redeemed by Christ.” However, paragraph 14 of the MPF document itself is not clear as to “when” was Mary redeemed by Christ. Mary’s being supposedly redeemed by Christ is a crucial question because it could elucidate whether she was really subjected to Christ’s work of redemption or whether she was really the Immaculate Conception. For this purpose, we have the following propositions.
Proposition 1: Mary was redeemed “before” she was conceived in St. Anne’s womb. This proposition is tantamount to saying that Mary was not in the state of being fallen, or original sin, when she was conceived. For Mary was redeemed even before she was conceived. And so, consequently, she was immaculate when she was conceived.
Here, the word redemption is problematic. In proposition 1, the act of “redemption” would not make sense. For, commonsensically, Mary did not yet exist before she was conceived and so there was yet none to be redeemed. If suppose proposition 1 is correct, then it shows that the word “redemption” is inapplicable. Yet the MPF document states that Mary was “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ….”
Proposition 2: Mary was redeemed “after” being conceived in St. Anne’s womb, until just “before” Archangel Gabriel’s announcement to Mary: that she would conceived a child in her womb. Proposition 2 presupposes that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, redeemed Mary prior to his (Jesus’) being conceived in Mary’s womb.
Let us suppose that proposition 2 is true. We see that, when Mary was conceived in St. Anne’s womb, she was not exempted from original sin, or the fallen nature of man. It is because Mary had to be redeemed, in accordance with the MPF’s statement — that Mary was “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ….” And, because of Mary’s being in the state of sin, she could be logically said as “the first to be redeemed … by Christ.”
Let us further suppose that Mary was redeemed before the announcement of Archangel Gabriel or before conceiving the child in her womb. It could be that Mary was redeemed after she was conceived, when she was a toddler, when she was a child, or when she was a young lady at 15 years old. But, there was yet no Jesus to redeem Mary at this moment of her life since Jesus was not yet born into the world.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mary was “not” conceived immaculate in St. Anne’s womb. And hence Mary still needed to be redeemed by Christ, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the MPF document. If suppose proposition 2 is correct, then, it shows that the word redemption has contradicted the truth of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Proposition 3: Mary was redeemed “after” the birth of Jesus as human being. It shows that Jesus Christ redeemed Mary after his (Jesus’) being born into the world. Let us also suppose that proposition 3 is the case. We see that, when Mary conceived the child in her womb, she was not Immaculate; for she was yet to be redeemed by Christ. In other words, Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, had to be first conceived in Mary’s womb that was still in the state of sin, or state of being fallen, then he had to be born, so that then he had to redeem Mary. It is just in accordance with the MPF document which says: Mary was “the first to be redeemed … by Christ.”
In proposition 3, Jesus Christ, who in the beginning was the word, who was with God and who was God (cf.Jn.1:1), without any stain of sin, took flesh through Mary’s womb that was not immaculate. If there was no Immaculate Conception, then there was no immaculate womb (of Mary). And if there was no immaculate womb, then there would be no immaculate incarnation of Jesus Christ. It is contradiction in terms. For in Christian theology, sin and grace cannot mix together. Thus, if suppose proposition 3 is correct, then it shows that paragraph 14 of the MPF document has twisted not only the truth of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception but also affected even the Dogma of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Both the Immaculate Conception and the Incarnation are being undermined.
We see that the situation in propositions 1, 2 and 3 is either or. On the one hand, it is either the MPF’s statement that Mary was “the first to be redeemed — was herself redeemed by Christ….” is true or the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is false. That is to say, Mary must not have been exempted from the fallen nature of man. On the other hand, it is either the Dogma that Mary was the Immaculate Conception is true or the MPF’s statement is false. That is to say, the MPF statement is incoherent. But they cannot be both true. One of them must be true, the other must be false. And, at the end of the day, God prevails over the modernists high-ranking leaders of his Church. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception remains to be an immutable truth in spite of being casuistically undermined by the MPF document.