In this part 5 of the series, we tackle the question: What is the role of paragraph 14 in Mater Populi Fideles (MPF) document with respect to the revocation of Mary’s title, Co-redemptrix?
This question arises from the fact that the verses from Ephesians, Colossians, and Acts cited by the MPF document would have been enough to revoke the title. Whether or not Mary needed to be redeemed by Christ is true—this issue may not be necessary for the revocation of such title of Mary. But the fact that par. 14 is, so to say, “inserted” in the MPF document would cause us to think that there could be a clandestine reason behind it.
We begin by recalling par. 14, which 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….” Viewed closely, this statement reveals the role of par. 14 in the revocation of Mary’s title.
In par. 14, we see the following. First, it says that the “primacy and unicity of Christ in the work of Redemption” is being highlighted by the “dogma of the Immaculate Conception.” Second, the connective word “for” gives the “reason” for the primacy and unicity of Christ’s redemptive work. And third, the “reason” is that the dogma teaches that “Mary—the first to be redeemed—was herself redeemed by Christ….” (We have already pointed out in part 4 the inconsistency of this statement concerning Mary’s being “the first to be redeemed … by Christ….”)
Now, if we suppose par. 14 is not in the document, then it would appear that the biblical argument on the revocation of Mary’s title, Co-redemptrix (pars. 17-22), would remain undiminished. The cited verses (in par. 20) from the letters to the Ephesians (1:3; 1:5-8; 1:11), Colossians (1:19-20), and the verse (in par. 22) from the Acts of the Apostles (4:12) would have been enough to revoke Mary’s title, even without the inclusion of the idea of Mary’s being “the first to be redeemed … by Christ….” Par. 14 may not be in the document.
However, par. 14 is implicitly tagged with some kind of clandestine purpose, an important role, in the revocation of Mary’s title. We could see that it appears to serve as an augmentative ground, i.e., in augmenting the cited biblical verses for revoking Mary’s title, Co-redemptrix. How could this be?
Par. 14 is clear in declaring that “Mary … was the first to be redeemed … by Christ.” Now, if and only if Mary was redeemed by Christ, then, presupposedly, she had been in the state of being fallen into sin. She was not exempted from the fallen nature of man. Consequently, she must not be the Immaculate Conception, for she still needed to be redeemed by Christ. It is just, by implication, in accordance with the MPF document par. 14. However, if Mary were exempted from original sin (as she really is), then she need not be redeemed by Christ. For if there was none being fallen into sin, then, logically, there was none to be redeemed. Thus, here, the word redemption does not make sense.
Therefore, logically, as Mary not being the Immaculate Conception, as MPF par. 14 impliedly says, she did not, and must not, qualify as Co-redemptrix. For she was once upon a time in her existence subjected to the fallen nature of man, and it is this participation in the fallen nature of man that disqualified her for such a role. However, it is not explicitly stated in the MPF document, but it could be impliedly read between the lines. It could be said then that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has been debunked implicitly.
It is now clear that the MPF document has argued not only on a biblical basis (e.g. the cited verses) but also on a theological basis (e.g. the undermined dogma of the Immaculate Conception) for the revocation of such a title of Mary. They are teleologically the same. What seems to be the only difference between the two is that the former is explicitly laid down while the latter is implicitly crafted. I say “implicitly crafted” for it is hard to think that it is just done “unintentionally” since it is the highest leader of the Church who proclaimed par. 14.
It could then be said that the purpose par. 14 serves its role as an augmentation to the biblical basis, i.e., the cited verses from Ephesians, Colossians, and Acts. In this case, theology is used to augment the scriptural basis so that revoking Mary’s title, Co-Redemptrix, would be even more forceful and convincing.