Nothing is official yet. No dogmas have been proclaimed
But the claims are not heresy either. They are perfectly defendable. Mary could participate in the objective redemption, in a subordinate way, because there was ultimately only one act. One common predestination. And Mary was tied up in it, in perfect unity with Jesus.
Mary’s role in redemption can be compared to Eve’s role in original sin. Eve participated in the objective original sin, in a way no other person can. She was there participating in the original act which damaged human nature, we cannot damage human nature anymore than it already is, we can only pass original sin on subjectively to others through procreation. And yet, ultimately, we are taught that original sin is officially passed to us through Adam…we inherit it from Eve too…but primarily from Adam. Because Eve could have sinned, and Adam didn’t have to, and allegedly (because he is the head of the race) it wouldnt have passed on to us…some say because God would have made him a new mate, other (more ancient theologians) say that it is because human nature is usually passed specifically through the Active Pricipal in procreation, the male. But if Eve hadnt sinned, but Adam still did…then God would not have found a new husband for Eve. If Eve alone had sinned we would have inherited nothing, but when Adam sinned we are said to inherit it from BOTH, though primarily from Adam.
Same way with the coredemption. If Mary had done it alone, nothing would have happened. And if Jesus did it alone, it still would have worked. But Mary could still participate in a unique and objective way (like Eve at the original commiting of sin) that no one else can. We can only pass graces along, preform sacraments, pray for people, unite our sufferings to Christ, and make our acts meritous through his already won treasury of merits. But Mary was there participating in the actual acquisition.
But it is surely a subordinate participation; because her own Immaculate Conception, which allowed her to participate in such a way, could only happen based on the foreseen merits of Christ, and most certainly Christ alone. Because she (not being God) could not merit her own ability to merit based on a foreseen act of her own that was conditional on the ability to merit being given in the first place.
I have heard it stated as thus: Christ gave Mary spiritual life, in order that Mary could assist in giving him physical life, and together, through the laying down of this physical life, they could give birth spiritually to the rest of us, even though it might mean giving up our own physical life in martyrdom.
It mirrors the Adam and Eve story: Adam gave Eve physical life, so that she could assist in taking away his spiritual life, and after the giving up of their spiritual life, they together gave life physically to the rest of us, even though it might mean giving up our own spiritual life in original sin.
Now, that is not say it was Adam’s plan all along. Its only an analogy.
But notice the intricate mirrored parallel correspondences:
Christ and Mary: Adam and Eve:
“Male gives spiritual life” “Male gives physical life”
“Female gives physical life” “Female takes spiritual life”
“Physical Life taken away” “Spiritual life given away”
“spiritual life given to us all” “physical life passed on to all”
“even at expense of physical” “even at expense of spiritual”
Also, consider Mary’s role like a deacon at Mass. A priest can preform Mass without a deacon. But a deacon cannot do it alone. And yet when they do it together it is, in a way, *both *of their Mass, because the deacon, as an ordained minister, participates in a unique objective way, which is different from the subjective manner in which the laity participate in the Mass through the uniting of our intentions with the altar.
