Answer to Anti-Catholic James G.

McCarthy on Co-
Redemptrix
This is a response to the article "Hail, Mary, Co-Redeemer?" from James McCarthy's
anti-Catholic web site and excerpted from his anti-Catholic !ndamentalist boo" The
Gospel According to Rome #Har$est Ho!se, %&&'() * will +!ote first an extended
excerpt from his chapter "The ,!een of Hea$en and -arth" to show yo! what McCarthy
really belie$es abo!t the .lessed Mother of /od --
"It is here [supposedly referring to Exodus 20:3] that Roman Catholic deotion to !ary
first crosses the line into idolatry" #hen misguided Catholics $neel %efore a statue of
!ary& $iss her feet& and offer to her heartfelt praise and petition& they gie to a creature
the deotion 'hich %elongs to (od alone" It is irreleant that the Church defines this
honor as secondary to that 'hich is to %e gien to (od" (od 'ill hae no other gods
%efore )im regardless of ho' inferior" *nd though the Roman Catholic !ary is not an
infinite and eternal %eing such as the (od of the +i%le& she is eery %it as much a
goddess as 'ere the false gods and goddesses of the ancient 'orld""" ,his is the !ary of
Roman Catholicism& a 'oman 'hom the Church has exalted a%oe eery other created
%eing and has assigned attri%utes& titles& po'ers& and prerogaties that in -cripture
%elong to (od alone" ,o her the Church has erected statues& shrines& churches&
cathedrals& and %asilicas" ,o her the Church calls all the faithful to lift their prayers&
petitions& and praise" ,his is nothing more than pagan goddess 'orship dressed up in
Roman Catholic go'ns""" In its doctrine& the Church enthrones !ary in heaen at the
right hand of Christ" Can the Roman Catholic Church hope to escape the .udgment of
(od/" 01ames (" !cCarthy& ,he (ospel *ccording to Rome& page 223& 22232245
To show how far modern anti-Catholic !ndamentalism0-$an1elicalism has come since
the ori1inal 2rotestants of the %3th cent!ry, Martin 4!ther preached on the east of the
5isitation #J!ly 6, %'76( after his brea" with Rome --
"8he, the 4ady abo$e hea$en and earth, m!st ha$e a heart so h!mble that she mi1ht
ha$e no shame in washin1 the swaddlin1 clothes or preparin1 a bath for 8t) John the
.aptist, li"e a ser$ant 1irl) 9hat h!mility: It would surely have been more just to have
arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as
the carriage proceeded !"ere passes the woman who is raised #AR A$%&' all
women, indeed above the ("%)' human race)'"
rench Reformed pastor Charles ;relinco!rt #who well represents the 2rotestant
Reformed0Cal$inist tradition of the %<th cent!ry( wrote --
"9e do not simply belie$e that /od has fa$o!red the holy and blessed 5ir1in more than
all the 2atriarchs and the 2rophets, b!t also that He has exalted her abo$e all 8eraphim)
The an1els can only +!alify as ser$ants of the 8on of /od, the creat!res and
wor"manship of his hands= b!t the holy 5ir1in is not only the ser$ant and the creat!re
b!t also the Mother of this 1reat and li$in1 /od)" #see these +!otations in Cal$inist
theolo1ian Max Th!rian's st!dy *ary, *other of All +hristians(
* now +!ote McCarthy from his online article as >> ??
>> Hail, Mary, Co-Redeemer? by James /) McCarthy))) 2ope John 2a!l ** may be
abo!t to ma"e an infallible proclamation, reco1ni@in1 Mary as the co-redeemer of the
h!man race ??
irst, it sho!ld be noted the words "Hail, Mary" is the 1reetin1 the an1el /abriel 1a$e to
the .lessed Mother #1oin1 f!rther by replacin1 her name with "!ll of /race" or
Aecharitomene( anno!ncin1 the wonderf!l 1ood news #1ospel( that she is to be the
Mother of the Messiah from 4!"e chapter %B
"*n the sixth month, the an1el /abriel was sent from /od to a city of /alilee named
Ca@areth, to a $ir1in betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the ho!se of ;a$id=
and the virgin!s name was *ary) Dnd he came to her and said, !"AI), #,)) %#
GRA+', T"' )%R- I. (IT" /%,0! .!t she was 1reatly tro!bled at the sayin1, and
considered in her mind what sort of 1reetin1 this mi1ht be) Dnd the an1el said to her,
';o not be afraid, Mary, for yo! ha$e fo!nd fa$or with /od) Dnd behold, yo! will
concei$e in yo!r womb and bear a son, and yo! shall call his name Jes!s) He will be
1reat, and will be called the 8on of the Most Hi1h))))" #4!"e %B63-76 R85, the
2rotestant -$an1elical C*5 translates "!ll of /race" Aecharitomene with "yo! who are
hi1hly fa$ored"(
James McCarthy be1ins by implyin1 #with the word "Co-Redeemer" in the title of the
article( the Catholic teachin1 means the .lessed Mother is e1ual to her 8on #E!st as
another prominent anti-Catholic, James 9hite and his anti-Marian boo" was titled
Fapparently not by him, b!t by his p!blisherG, "Mary, Dnother Redeemer?"() The
technically correct term is "Co-Redemptrix" meanin1 a woman "with the Redeemer" --
not "another" Redeemer) * as"B why does McCarthy not !se the theolo1ically correct
Catholic term if he desires to present an acc!rate criti+!e of Catholic teachin1? 9ho is
his intended a!dience? aithf!l, loyal Catholics who really "now their aith or the
typical i1norant ex-Catholic or anti-Catholic f!ndamentalist? * say the latter) /ranted
there is eno!1h i1norance to 1o aro!nd)
What Does Co-Redemptrix Really Mean?
Here is a short explanation what Co-Redemptrix means) J!st as Christians are called
explicitly in 8cript!re "co-wor"ers" with /od #% Cor 7B&-%' also 6 Cor 'B%H-3B6 -- "for
we are God!s fellow wor2ers" C*5, the context of both passa1es is sal$ation,
reconciliation, redemption, etc(, so Mary bein1 the first belie$in1 Christian and Mother
of /od the 8on, is preeminantly the "co-wor"er" with /od in sal$ation, since she
cooperated with /od in brin1in1 the di$ine 8on of /od into the world) Ds McCarthy
himself notices in the +atechism of the +atholic +hurchB ".y prono!ncin1 her 'fiat" at
the Dnn!nciation and 1i$in1 her consent to the *ncarnation, Mary was already
collaboratin1 with the whole wor" her 8on was to accomplish" #Catechism &<7()
That is a simple fact of the /ospel messa1e) Mary bro!1ht Jes!s into the world, and
Jes!s bro!1ht sal$ation and redemption to the world, both at the *ncarnation #4!"e
%B63ff= John %B%,%I,6&= % John IB&ff= 7B'= etc( and by his death on the cross #Rom 'B Hff=
Col 6B%7ff= % 2eter 6B6I= % John 6B6= etc() Ds the writer to the Hebrews tells !s, the
$%-/ of Jes!s Christ was the instr!ment of the Redemption #Hebrews %JB%J() *n this
most important sense of 1i$in1 flesh to the 8a$ior in the *ncarnation, Mary cooperated
with /od in the redemption of the world and is therefore "Co-Redemptrix" of the
h!man race) Co Mary, Co Jes!s E!st as Anow Mary, Anow Jes!s) 9itho!t Mary there is
no *ncarnation and therefore no sal$ation, and "nowin1 and lo$in1 the .lessed Mother
brin1s !s e$er closer to her 8on) Kne of the primary lay spo"esman for the "5ox
2op!li" Co-Redemptrix mo$ement in the Catholic Ch!rch f!rther explainsB
"9hen the Ch!rch calls Mary the 'Co-Redemptrix,' she means that Mary !ni+!ely
participated in the Redemption of h!manity with her 8on Jes!s Christ, altho!1h in a
completely s!bordinate and dependent manner to that of her 8on) Mary participated in
Jes!s' reconciliation of the h!man family with /od li"e no other created person)))How
did the Mother of Jes!s do this? irst of all, Mary participated in Redemption by
acceptin1 the in$itation of the an1el to become the Mother of /od and by 1i$in1 flesh
to the 8a$ior) -arly Ch!rch athers saw the *ncarnation and Redemption as one,
!nified, sa$in1 act))))and Mary bro!1ht the world its Redeemer at the *ncarnation)))8ince
the $ery instr!ment for the Redemption, the body of Jes!s, was 1i$en to Him by Mary,
the Mother of Jes!s clearly played an intimate part in the redeemin1 of the h!man race
with her 8on, far beyond that of any other creat!re)" #;r) Mar" Mira$alle, An
Introduction to *ary The "eart of *arian -octrine and -evotion, pa1e 3H-3&(
That is the primary meanin1 of Co-Redemptrix and if McCarthy were to attempt to
"ref!te" that teachin1, he wo!ld be denyin1 the *ncarnation of Christ, the most essential
doctrine of the historic Christian aith and th!s denyin1 his own "1ospel" is in any
sense Christian) *n fact, it can be shown many anti-Catholics do E!st that when denyin1
the title Theoto"os #Mother of /od( to Mary, or at least many of them ha$e a $ery
conf!sed Christolo1y)
One Redeemer and Saior
*n his online article "Hail, Mary, Co-Redeemer?" which is a trimmed down $ersion of
chapter & #"The ,!een of Hea$en and -arth"( in The Gospel According to Rome, he
!ses s!ch s!b-titles asB "There is Kne Redeemer, Cot Two" and "Mary 9as Cot
,!alified to Redeem Man"ind" and finally ends his article with the statementB "Christ
alone, therefore, deser$es the title of Redeemer)" Dll * can say to s!ch thin1s is "%f
course there is one redeemer, not two" and the Catholic Ch!rch does not teach
otherwise) 9e "now who the one .avior isB
"The name 'Jes!s' si1nifies that the $ery name of /od is present in the person of his
8on, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins3 It is the divine
name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can in$o"e his name, for Jes!s
!nited himself to all men thro!1h his *ncarnation FCf) Jn 7B%H= Dcts 6B6%= 'BI%= 7 Jn <=
Rom %JB3-%7G, so that 4there is no other name under heaven given among men by
which we must be saved4 FDcts IB%6= cf) &B%I= Jas 6B<G)" #Catechism I76(
"The 2aschal mystery of Christ's cross and Res!rrection stands at the center of the /ood
Cews that the apostles, and the Ch!rch followin1 them, are to proclaim to the world)
God!s saving plan was accomplished !once for all! 5"eb 6789 by the redemptive death
of his .on :esus +hrist)" #Catechism '<%(
"The 8cript!res had foretold this di$ine plan of sal$ation thro!1h the p!ttin1 to death of
'the ri1hteo!s one, my 8er$ant,' as a mystery of !ni$ersal redemption, that is, as the
ransom that wo!ld free men from the sla$ery of sin F*sa '7B%%= cf) '7B%6= Jn HB7I-73=
Dcts 7B%IG) Citin1 a confession of faith that he himself had 'recei$ed,' 8t) 2a!l professes
that 'Christ died for o!r sins in accordance with the script!res' F% Cor %'B7= cf) also Dcts
7B%H= <B'6= %7B6&= 63B66=67G) *n partic!lar Jes!s' redempti$e death f!lfills *saiah's
prophecy of the s!fferin1 ser$ant FCf) *sa '7B<-H and Dcts HB76-7'G) *ndeed Jes!s
himself explained the meanin1 of his life and death in li1ht of /od's s!fferin1 8er$ant
FCf) Mt 6JB6HG) Dfter his Res!rrection he 1a$e this interpretation of the 8cript!res to the
disciples at -mma!s, and then to the apostles FCf) 4" 6IB6'-6<, II-I'G)" #Catechism
3J%(
"Mary's f!nction as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this uni1ue
mediation of +hrist, b!t rather shows its power) .!t the .lessed 5ir1in's sal!tary
infl!ence on men)))flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of +hrist, rests
on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it F4/ 3JG) Co
creat!re co!ld e$er be co!nted alon1 with the *ncarnate 9ord and Redeemer= but just
as the priesthood of +hrist is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the
faithful F% 2eter 6B&= Re$ %B3G, and as the one 1oodness of /od is radiated in different
ways amon1 his creat!res, so also the uni1ue mediation of the Redeemer does not
e;clude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this
one source F4/ 36G)" #Catechism &<J(
;oes McCarthy +!ote s!ch para1raphs from the +atechism of the +atholic +hurch<
Co) 9hy * as"? * than" /od for those he does +!ote, b!t for all his s!pposed
"scholarship" #o$er ''J endnotes in the ori1inal boo"( and citation of Catholic so!rces
it appears he really wants his mainly anti-Catholic f!ndamentalist a!dience to be "ept in
the dar" abo!t what the Catholic Ch!rch really teaches on the "Co-Redemptrix)" The
Ch!rch does not claim to place "another redeemer" or "second redeemer" or a "second
mediator" #% Tim 6B'( to be e+!al with the 4ord Jes!s Christ) Ds e$en McCarthy
reco1ni@es in his online article, Mary as the Catholic Ch!rch defines her indeed has a
"subordinate role to +hrist" in the sal$ation and redemption of h!manity, E!st as we all
ha$e our subordinate roles to play in sal$ation as co-wor"ers with /od, thro!1h prayer
and lo$in1 one's nei1hbor as part of the comm!nion of saints: 9e brin1 people to
sal$ation with /od's help, by o!r cooperation with /od's 1race, thro!1h prayer and
preachin1 and li$in1 the Christian 1ospel in o!r daily li$es) This is hardly "!nbiblical)"
*n fact the idea of co-wor"ers in sal$ation, reconciliation, redemption in the one body of
Christ, e$en s!bordinate "co-mediators" #% Tim 6B%-<( is $ery biblical #% Cor 7B&= 6 Cor
3B%= % Cor %6B%6ff= -ph IBIff= John %'B%-H= etc() The .ible shows !s +!ite clearly we are
to share in Christ's own redemption and s!fferin1s #Rom HB%<-%H= Col %B6I= % 2eter %B3-
&= IB%= etc()
!s "his "eachin# $%n&i&lical$ ?
9hile admittin1 the Co-Redemptrix teachin1 is a "lon1-time Catholic doctrine" -- he
e$en +!otes the famo!s statement from 8t) *renae!s on Mary's cooperationB "bein1
obedient FsheG became the ca!se of sal$ation for herself and for the whole h!man race"
apparently ma"in1 this early saint and ather #c) %IJ-6J6 D;( a member of the "Roman
Catholic Ch!rch" -- McCarthy claimsB
>> The followin1 excerpt from The Gospel According to Rome explains what the
Ch!rch of Rome means by Mary's wor" of redemption and why this teachin1 is
!nbiblical) ??
4et's see how well McCarthy does here) D1ain, he wo!ld ha$e to first show how the
*ncarnation of Christ is "!nbiblical" to show "Mary's wor" of redemption" is !nbiblical
since Mary as "Co-Redemptrix" is tied inexorably to the *ncarnation) 9hat McCarthy
attempts to do, rather is to demonstrate the seemin1 "excesses" of Catholic teachin1 by
citin1 statements from certain papal encyclicals #mainly 2i!s L** *ystici +orporis,
.enedict L5 Inter .adolicia, John 2a!l ** .alvifici -oloris, and others() These are now
readily a$ailable on the *nternet so one can easily chec" the context of McCarthy's
citations)
McCarthy proceeds to first present the Catholic Ch!rch's teachin1 on Co-Redemptrix by
citin1 his so!rces $ery sparin1ly) These are 5atican Co!ncil **, the Catechism, and brief
excerpts from papal encyclicals which stress Mary's offerin1 of her maternal ri1hts of
her 8on on the cross to the ather in perfect obedience to /od's will) He brin1s o!t
especially those statements from the encyclicals where Mary is said to ha$e "offered
Him on /ol1otha to the -ternal ather, to1ether with the holoca!st of her maternal
ri1hts and her motherly lo$e, li"e a Cew -$e for all children of Ddam" #from 2i!s L**
*ystici +orporis, %&I7() D similar statement reads li"e thisB
"Mary s!ffered and, as it were, nearly died with her s!fferin1 8on= for the sal$ation of
man"ind she reno!nced her mother's ri1hts and, as far as it depended on her, offered her
8on to placate di$ine E!stice= so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed
man"ind)" #from .enedict L5 Inter .adolicia, %&%H(
* ass!me these two statements are especially "!nbiblical" to McCarthy #he refers to
them twice() 9hat m!st first be stated is that these are not formal definitions of the Co-
Redemptrix doctrine, altho!1h they do express the Marian sentiments of prominent
popes and saints thro!1h the a1es) *n explanation, ;r) Mar" Mira$alle writesB
"Mary, in an act of obedience to the will of /od, offered Jes!s, and with Jes!s, her own
s!fferin1 by sharin1 in the experience of the passion and death of K!r 4ord in
atonement for o!r sins) *t is in this sense that we say Mary offered her maternal ri1hts
on Cal$ary and ri1htly refer to Mary as the Co-redemptrix with the Redeemer)"
#Mira$alle, pa1e 3&-<J(
D more detailed explanation is fo!nd in the =ew +atholic 'ncyclopedia, in its articles
on the .lessed 5ir1in MaryB
"The acti$ity exercised by the .lessed 5ir1in at the time of the conception and birth of
Christ was carried on all d!rin1 her life and reached its c!lmination on Cal$ary) *n His
s!preme ho!r of sacrifice, the Redeemer drew His mother into His s!fferin1 to associate
her with His redeemin1 act) He recei$ed her dedication, lo$e, merits, and inte1rated her
a1ony into His own 2assion in order to offer them to the ather for the sal$ation of
man"ind) Mary's s!fferin1 endowed her maternity o$er men with a new dimension) Her
first childbearin1, by which she became the mother of /od, was witho!t pain= her
second childbearin1, by which she became f!lly the mother of sinners, was painf!l in
the extreme) 9hile Jes!s was offerin1 Himself in sacrifice for men's Redemption, His
mother offered her 8on for the same p!rpose and, th!s cooperatin1 in men's birth to
s!pernat!ral life, became in a hei1htened sense the mother of the Ch!rch) The Mother's
contrib!tion to the wor" of Redemption far s!rpasses that of the Ch!rch) Cot only did
she precede the Ch!rch d!rin1 Christ's mortal life, b!t she was inte1rated into the $ery
2assion that proc!red men's reconciliation with /od) 8he who was one with her 8on at
the *ncarnation was one with him at the moment of Redemption) The acti$ity of the
Ch!rch is exercised on the lower plane of application of the merits and atonement of
Cal$ary)" #=ew +atholic 'ncyclopedia F%&3<G, $ol!me &, "Mary, .lessed 5ir1in **",
pa1e 7'3(
Cow 1ranted yo! won't find all of this spelled o!t in any detail in the /ospel acco!nts)
This is a res!lt of cent!ries of pio!s theolo1ical reflection on what it means that Mary is
the 5ir1in Mother of /od and .lessed Mother of the Ch!rch) To dismiss it all as
"!nbiblical" as McCarthy does is to dismiss the wor"in1 of the Holy 8pirit, the 8pirit of
Tr!th, in Christians thro!1h the cent!ries #John %IB%3-%<= %3B%7() *n what sense did
Mary cooperate at the *ncarnation and Cr!cifixion of her 8on? 9as she a "passi$e
bystander" as many f!ndamentalists wo!ld belie$e? Kr did she ha$e a more acti$e role?
These are the "inds of theolo1ical +!estions the 1reat popes and saints who wrote in
their de$otions and reflections on Mary tried to answer) 8ince /od re+!ired the 5ir1in
Mary's assent at the birth of the 8a$ior #4!"e %B7H,I<( and th!s she became the Mother
of the 4ord #4!"e %BI7( and therefore Mother of /od and .lessed Mother of the Ch!rch
#John %&B6'-6<(, so her motherly assent was also necessary at his death on the cross)
Here Mary !nited her s!fferin1s to that of her 8on #4!"e 6B7', the prophecy of 8imeon
that a sword shall pierce her heart(, and since she is the preeminent member of the
Ch!rch, she f!lfills to the hi1hest de1ree what 8t) 2a!l spo"e abo!t in fillin1 !p in the
flesh "what is still lac"in1 in re1ard to Christ's afflictions, for the sa"e of his body,
which is the ch!rch" #Col %B6I() Ds e$en McCarthy admits later, "she !ndo!btedly
s!ffered 1reatly" and to s!11est this has no theolo1ical or redempti$e si1nificance 1i$en
who she was #the Mother of /od, which sadly McCarthy also attempts to deny( is the
"!nbiblical" teachin1)
This f!rther confirms that she is the most blessed of all women #4!"e %BI6( and that all
1enerations will call her blessed #4!"e %BIH( since she is a perfect model, as a h!man
creat!re, of Christian holiness and obedience to the 4ord) The f!rther Mariolo1ical
concl!sions drawn are not pro$ed as biblical or "!nbiblical" by anyone's pri$ate
interpretation of 8cript!re -- especially that of McCarthy who has an axe to 1rind
a1ainst the Ch!rch)
4et me state a1ainB McCarthy often lea$es o!t those important clarifications and
distinctions * ha$e cited already from the Catechism and 5atican **B namely that Mary's
role and f!nction as Co-Redemptrix0Mediatrix #%( in no way obsc!res or diminishes the
!ni+!e mediation and redemption of Christ= #6( flows forth from the s!perab!ndance of
the merits of Christ, rests and depends entirely on Christ's !ni+!e mediation and
redemption= #7( and E!st as the priesthood of Christ is shared in $ario!s ways by Christ's
people, so the !ni+!e mediation of the Redeemer is a sharin1 in this one so!rce) Ds
Mar" Mira$alle explains,
"D1ain it m!st be stated that Mary's participation in the redemption of the h!man family
was completely and in e$ery way secondary and dependent to the sacrifice of Jes!s the
8a$ior) Hence, the title Co-redemptrix sho!ld ne$er be interpreted as Mary ha$in1 an
e+!al role in the sal$ation of the world with Jes!s) Dt the same time, her tr!ly
meritorio!s act of 1i$in1 flesh to the Redeemer and of participatin1 !ni+!ely in Jes!s'
painf!l sacrifice ri1htly won for her the title of Co-redemptrix)" #Mira$alle, pa1e <J(
These distinctions are lost in McCarthy's attempt to demonstrate, "well despite what the
Catechism act!ally says, Catholics really belie$e in two redeemers, not one)" That is
typical anti-Catholic f!ndamentalist b!n") To 1et the f!ll pict!re on the Catholic
doctrine on Mary and the Comm!nion of 8aints, read the Catechism caref!lly,
especially para1raphs IHI to '%% and &37 to &<') Dnother 1ood so!rce is the older three
$ol!mes titled *ariology edited by J!niper Carol) These 1o into the "ind of depth that
is re+!ired to !nderstand the f!ll role of the .lessed Mother in sal$ation history and
Catholic theolo1y)
'xamination o( the $)i&lical Response$ "o Co-Redemptrix
4et's now examine McCarthy's so-called ".iblical Response" to the Catholic doctrine)
8e$eral times he states, first !nder a s!b-title "There is one redeemer, not two" --
>> 8cript!re is clear that the 4ord alone is o!r redeemer))) .!t the fact of the matter is
that Mary did not die on Cal$ary) Christ alone 1a$e His life for o!r redemption)))) That
is why /od sent His 8on, the 4ord Jes!s Christ, to redeem !s) He alone was +!alified))))
Christ alone, therefore, deser$es the title of Redeemer) ??
To pro$e this he enlists s!ch $erses as *saiah I&B63 #"*, the 4ord, am yo!r 8a$ior and
yo!r Redeemer)))"() Kf co!rse the Catholic Ch!rch a1rees with this: The Catholic
teachin1 on Co-Redemptrix #properly !nderstood( does not deny this in any way) 9hy
McCarthy has to point o!t the ob$io!s -- "Mary did not die on Cal$ary" -- is a1ain an
appeal to his anti-Catholic f!ndamentalist a!dience who mi1ht thin" Catholics belie$e
she did) *n fact, McCarthy attempted to demonstrate indeed some Catholics really
belie$e Mary died on a cross for the sins of the world since he fo!nd a depiction of a
woman martyr who was cr!cified, who McCarthy mista"enly belie$ed was Mary: This
error was exposed by .ob 8!n1enis and others in the first edition of McCarthy's anti-
Catholic $ideo +atholicism +risis of #aith #released in %&&% * belie$e() He
s!bse+!ently remo$ed this embarrassin1 error in f!t!re editions) 8ee the article from
Catholic Dnswers on McCarthy's $ideo for more information)
>> The Ch!rch's claim that Mary offered Christ "on /ol1otha to the -ternal ather"
Fcitin1 2i!s L**G contradicts 8cript!re) The .ible says that Christ "offered Himself
witho!t blemish to /od" #Hebrews &B%I() )))8imilarly, there is no biblical s!pport for the
Roman Catholic claim that Mary "with Christ redeemed man"ind" Fcitin1 .enedict L5G
??
There is no necessary contradiction here #Hebrews chapters &-%J( as *'$e explained)
Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix #a1ain this is not defined as ;e ide do1ma( is
completely s!bordinate and entirely dependent on Christ's redemption and sacrifice) *t is
a cooperati$e role E!st as we are called to be "co-wor"ers" with /od in sal$ation #% Cor
7B&= 6 Cor 'B6J= 3B% cf) 2hil 6B%6-%7() *n the sense * ha$e defined the primary meanin1
of Co-Redemptrix, that Mary cooperated in the Redemption thro!1h the *ncarnation of
Christ, there certainly is plenty of "biblical s!pport" for the claim that Mary "with Christ
redeemed man"ind" #John %B%,%I= 7B%3-%<= % John IB&-%I() The Ddam-Christ #Rom
'B%6ff= % Cor %'B6Jff( and -$e-Mary parallel is fo!nd thro!1ho!t the early athers of
the Ch!rch, from 8t) J!stin Martyr #c) %'J D;( forward showin1 !s the entire history of
Christianity belie$ed that "Mary with Christ redeemed" the h!man race) This important
early belief is stated explicitly by 8t) *renae!s #cited by McCarthy, howe$er with few
exceptions the Ch!rch athers are alto1ether i1nored in his boo"( B
".y disobeyin1, -$e became the ca!se of death for herself and for the whole h!man
race) *n the same way Mary, tho!1h she also had a h!sband, was still a $ir1in, and by
obeyin1, she became the ca!se of sal$ation for herself and for the whole h!man race)))"
#8t) *renae!s, D1ainst Heresies 7B66 c) %HJ D;(
McCarthy also obEects to para1raph 3% in the doc!ments of 5atican **, ;o1matic
Constit!tion on the Ch!rch #4!men /enti!m(, b!t what he fails to +!ote is the openin1
sentence of that para1raphB "The predestination of the .lessed 5ir1in as Mother of /od
was associated with the incarnation of the divine word)))8he conceived, brought forth,
and no!rished Christ)))shared her 8on's s!fferin1s as he died on the cross) Th!s, in a
wholly sin1!lar way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and b!rnin1 charity
in the wor" of the 8a$ior in restorin1 s!pernat!ral life to so!ls)))" D1ain, the meanin1 of
Co-Redemptrix0Mediatrix is tied primarily to the fact of the Incarnation of +hrist, that
Mary cooperated in bringing the .avior into the world) To deny that is to deny the
.ible)
McCarthy also 1oes after the s!pposed mistranslation of /enesis 7B%' which in some
editions of the 4atin 5!l1ate was translated "8he shall cr!sh thy head" ma"in1 an
explicit reference to the .lessed Mother as the cr!sher of the serpent #8atan() McCarthy
saysB "The $erse is prophetically spea"in1 of Christ's $ictory o$er 8atan, not Mary's)
Tho!1h recent Roman Catholic translations ha$e corrected the error, Roman Catholic
theolo1y remains the same)" The theolo1y has remained since we don't 1et the Co-
Redemptrix doctrine from any mistranslation of Hebrew) 9e 1et the doctrine from the
fact of the *ncarnation and the theolo1ical implications that follow) Kne point to notice
is there are indeed (%*'= in the Kld Testament who cr!sh the head of the enemyB
two examples of KT Marian types incl!de Jael #J!d1es I-'( and J!dith #.oo" of J!dith()
Ds C!rtis Mitch notes in +atholic #or A Reason II .cripture and the *ystery of the
*other of God B
".eyond 1eneral points of correspondence, the common denominator lin"in1 to1ether
the experiences of Jael and J!dith is the $iolent downfall of /od's ad$ersaries) .oth
women were chosen to stri"e down the commandin1 officer of enemy forces with a
lethal blow to the head) The +!estion that immediately presents itself to !s is ob$io!sB
9hat possible connections co!ld s!ch br!tal details ha$e with the +!iet life of Mary? *n
what specific way was she really li"e these biblical heroines? )))Fcitin1 /enesis 7B%'G
9ith this promise, /od anno!nces far in ad$ance of its f!lfillment that the de$il's
tri!mph in the /arden of -den wo!ld e$ent!ally end in defeat, with his head bein1
cr!shed or br!ised !nder the tramplin1 blows of the Messiah and His mother)" #C!rtis
Mitch, pa1e '3(
The translation of /enesis 7B%' either way #he $s) she( ma"es no difference) Catholic
Dnswers senior apolo1ist James D"in explains the reason for the $ario!s translationsB
"The reason for the difference in the renderin1s is a man!script difference) Modern
translations follow what the ori1inal Hebrew of the passa1e says) The ;o!ay-Rheims,
howe$er, is followin1 a man!script $ariant fo!nd in many early athers and some
editions of the 5!l1ate #b!t not the ori1inal= Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his
edition of the 5!l1ate() The $ariant probably ori1inated as a copyist error when a scribe
failed to ta"e note that the s!bEect of the $erse had shifted from the woman to the seed
of the woman))))This does not mean that the idea cannot be $alidly applied to Mary as
well) Thro!1h her cooperation in the incarnation of Christ, so that the 8on of /od #who,
from the cross, directly cr!shed the head of the serpent( became her seed, Mary did
cr!sh the head of the serpent) *n the same way, the serpent str!c" at Christ on the cross,
and indirectly str!c" at Mary's heart as well, who had to witness the death of her own
8on #cf) John %&B6'-6<())))This has lon1 been reco1ni@ed by Catholics) The footnotes
pro$ided a co!ple of h!ndred years a1o by .ishop Challoner in his re$ision of the
;o!ay state, 'The sense Fof these two readin1sG is the sameB for it is by her seed, Jes!s
Christ, that the woman cr!shes the serpent's head)'" #James D"in, from the Ca@areth
Reso!rce 4ibrary web site, , and D(
inally, McCarthy dismisses the Catholic interpretation of 4!"e 6B7I-7' that the
prophecy of 8imeon refers to Mary's s!fferin1 at the cross) He saysB "The Roman
Catholic claim that Mary s!ffered for the redemption of the world is !nE!stified for
three reasons)))" His three reasons are Mary #%( did not s!ffer for sin, #6( did not s!ffer
death for sin, #7( was not +!alified to redeem man"ind) Ds *'$e explained, indeed Mary
s!ffered at the cross #she "!ndo!btedly s!ffered 1reatly" accordin1 to McCarthy(, and if
that s!fferin1 was redempti$e for sal$ation #what Catholics call "redempti$e
s!fferin1"(, she did so in a completely s!bordinant and secondary way to her 8on, since
the Catechism and Catholic doctrine ma"e absol!tely clear that Jes!s Christ alone is the
s!fferin1 Messiah and 8a$ior of the world) 9hile Christ merited o!r sal$ation and
redemption by his s!fferin1 and death on the cross, there is still the +!estion how that
sal$ation is A>>)I'- to indi$id!al so!ls) K!r s!fferin1s as Christians can be Eoined to
Christ's own s!fferin1s which brin1 !s closer to Him and th!s sanctify and p!rify !s,
ma"in1 !s more li"e Him #Matt %3B6Iff= % Cor 7B%6-%'= % Cor %6B63= 6 Cor %B'-<= %
2eter %B3-&= IB%= Rom HB%<-%H= Heb %6B%-%I= % John 7B6-7= etc()
Most of the abo$e listed texts are in the context of sal$ation and0or sanctification)
McCarthy tries to ma"e a distinction between "s!fferin1 of compassion" and "s!fferin1
for the sa"e of ri1hteo!sness" $s) "s!fferin1 for sin" b!t this does not ha$e to be an
either0or cate1ory) or example, % 2eter IB% says "since Christ s!ffered in his body, arm
yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body I.
-%=' (IT" .I=)" Dlso 6 Corinthians %B'-< says "just as the sufferings of +hrist
flow over into our lives, so also thro!1h Christ o!r comfort o$erflows) If we are
distressed, it is for your comfort A=- .A)&ATI%=)))" Colossians %B6I is +!ite clear
that we can "fill !p in o!r flesh what is still lac"in1 in re1ard to Christ's afflictions, for
the sa"e of his body, which is the ch!rch)" *f that is not a participation in the redempti$e
s!fferin1 of Christ, *'m not s!re what is)
H!man s!fferin1 is not redempti$e by o!rsel$es alone, b!t %=)/ beca!se we as
Christians are united to +hrist as part of his sa$in1 body, the branches in the $ine #John
%'B%-H() The .lessed 5ir1in Mother of /od, as the preeminant saint and member of the
Ch!rch, by her lo$in1 obedience and cooperation in the *ncarnation, by her s!fferin1s at
the cross, and by her present prayer and intercession in hea$en, has indeed bro!1ht
sal$ation to the body of Christ, and redemption to the whole world) This way she really
is the Co-Redemptrix of h!manity and Mediatrix of all 1races)
see also