The word “redemption” in regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary is found in two papal documents, the Apostolic Constitution, Ineffabilis Deus (ID), of Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1854, and the Doctrinal Note, Mater Populi Fidelis (MPF), of Leo XIV, Oct. 7, 2025.
First, this has prompted me to make a hukngay of the word, Redemption, in par. 14 of both documents. I can’t tell if it is mere coincidence. Anyway, it is the focus in this article (as brevity of space allows).
In Pius IX’s document, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception is defined with finality in par. 34. But here I would dwell on par. 14, where it says: “Mary, the most holy Mother of God, by virtue of the foreseen merits of Christ, our Lord and Redeemer, was never subject to original sin, but was completely preserved from the original taint, and hence she was redeemed in a manner more sublime.”
In Leo XIV’s document, Mary’s titles Co-Redemtrix and Mediatrix are clarified, that it is not proper to use these titles anymore. In short, they are abolished. But here I dwell on par. 14, where it says: “It [Dogma of Immaculate Conception] 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.”
Now, the word redemption in regard to Mary in these documents has caused me to wonder and to question. If Mary was “never subject to original sin … preserved from the original taint,” then, to say that “she was redeemed,” no matter how “sublime” it was, or, no matter it was Christ who redeemed her, is to harbor a contradiction in terms. It has prompted me to go deeper. It is worth examining.
Second, the word redemption now needs analysis. What does it mean? In the book of Komonchak et. al., The Dictionary of Theology, the entry, Redemption, presents a historical survey of the different nuances of the meaning of redemption. But, in all of these, the most general element is the existential state of man’s being “fallen” (into sin). Redemption, therefore, is the act of liberating man from the state of being fallen into sin to the state of holiness. It is restoration from state of sinfulness to state of holiness.
One thing is irrefutably clear is the fact that the act of redemption always presupposes a fall (into sin). In this context, redemption presupposes that the one to be redeemed must have been fallen into sin. Or, if man is to be redeemed, then s/he must have been in the state of “fallenness.” However, on the contrary, if suppose there is none being fallen into sin, then there is none to be redeemed. Redemption, therefore, is applicable only to a person who was fallen into sin. Otherwise, the meaning of redemption does not make sense at all.
Third, let us now bring the formal semantics of the word, redemption, to the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the two documents, ID and MPF. If and if Mary is “the first being redeemed,” then, presupposedly, she must have been fallen into sin. There must be a moment in her existence that she was in the state of sin, in which moment she was not full of grace. Only and only in this condition that the word, redemption, is applicable to her. Otherwise, it is not applicable at all. And, moreover, it is in contradiction to what Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus propounds in par. 34:
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”
If, then, Mary were not being fallen into sin at any moment of her existence, then there is no one, called Mary, to be redeemed. The word, redemption, is completely inapplicable in her case.
In Pius IX’s document, what it says in par. 14, that “Mary is redeemed …,” is inconsonant with what it says in par. 34, that Mary “was preserved free from all stain of original sin….” In Leo XIV’s document, what it says in par. 14, that Mary is “the first to be redeemed …,” semantically contradicts what it refers to in endnote no. 24, that is, the definition of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception in par. 34 of ID.
In both cases, there appears to be an inherent contradiction. But it is in Leo XIV’s document, par. 14, that there seems to be a maneuver, a subtle way of undermining the truth of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (This paragraph needs to be further analyzed. It will be given in part 2.)