Fr. G-L: The Sufferings of Mary as Co-Redemptrix

[GeorgeB]

George, care to specify? Thanks

CAF used to have threads about how dangerous titles like "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" were because of (a) "OH NOES MUH VATICAN 2" and (b) "it will scandalize our separated brethren!!!!1". Not saying this is anything as bad, just reminiscent.

On the chicanery that got the Mother of God banished to an addendum in a borderline heretical document ("subsists in" anyone?) Wiltgen has a good account of what went down.

Personally, I tend to agree with Garrigou-Lagrange, but only a definition from an orthodox Pope (hint: not Francis) would resolve this issue. One can oppose "Co-Redemptrix" for valid reasons, but Vatican 2 isn't one of them.

[Xavier]

George, I refer you to the first 2 points of Gardener's first post, did you see the proofs the Popes from St. Pius X have explicitly taught and favored the title?

"The word "Coredemptrix" makes its preliminary appearance on the magisterial level by means of official pronouncements of Roman Congregations during the reign of Pope Saint Pius X (1903-1914) and then enters into the papal vocabulary.

1. The term first occurs in the Acta Apostolicæ Sedis in a response to a request made by Father Giuseppe M. Lucchesi, Prior General of the Servites (1907-1913), requesting the elevation of the rank of the feast of the Seven Sorrows of Our Lady to a double of the second class for the entire Church. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, in acceding to the request, expressed the desire that thus "the cultus of the Sorrowful Mother may increase and the piety of the faithful and their gratitude toward the merciful Coredemptrix of the human race may intensify". [18]

2. Five years later the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in a decree signed by Cardinal Mariano Rampolla expressed its satisfaction with the practice of adding to the name of Jesus that of Mary in the greeting "Praised be Jesus and Mary" to which one responds "Now and forever":

There are Christians who have such a tender devotion toward her who is the most blessed among virgins as to be unable to recall the name of Jesus without accompanying it with the glorious name of the Mother, our Coredemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary. [19]"

Please read up till point 5 at least. Also, do you know the SSPX seminary in La Reja, Argentina is called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix? It is certainly safe Catholic doctrine and most traditional theologians, including Archbishop Lefebvre, wanted it dogmatically defined. The definition of the same would have greatly increased the piety and devotion of the faithful to the Sorrowful Mother, and kept the remembrance of the Dolors of Mary before our life always. It would remind us we also need to make reparation by suffering and sacrifice with Jesus and Mary.

Max, are you willing to say, "I am docile to the Church and if a future Pope or Council were to dogmatically define Mary our Mother is Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of all graces, I will retract my opinion and submit to the Church's judgment"? St. Bernard did that. St. Bernard also taught perhaps more explicitly than anyone else that all grace comes from Christ through Mary. When St. Alphonsus, who many times in the Glories of Mary, tells us She is Mediatrix of all graces, does a detailed review, he says the Fathers have taught it to us plainly and explicitly, and in his own day there were hardly any adversaries worthy of notice; except one who said the Fathers were just being "poetic", and St. Alphonsus proceeds to refute this.

In more recent times, saintly Priests like St. Maximillian Kolbe and St. Padre Pio have explicitly taught us Mary is Mediatrix of all graces and our Co-Redemptrix with Christ. And holy Priests like Fr. Garrigou Lagrange and Fr. Juniper Carol have written theological dissertations amply proving the doctrine by the testimony of Tradition.

Some Saints, St. Kolbe said, "As the Mother of Jesus our Savior, Mary was the Co?redemptrix of the human race; as the spouse of the Holy Spirit, she shares in the distribution of all graces", St. Bonaventure, "Mary opens the abyss of God's mercy to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as she wills; so that there is no sinner however great who is lost if Mary protects him"; St. Ephraim, "I call upon you, Mediatrix of the world; I invoke your prompt protection in my necessities ... dispensatrix of all gifts... Mediatrix of the whole world", St. Bernard, ""God Has willed that we should have nothing which would not pass through the hands of Mary.", St. Albert the Great, "The Blessed Virgin is very properly called 'gate of heaven,' for every created or uncreated grace that ever came or will ever come into this world came through her." St. Montfort, "He has chosen her to be the dispensatrix of all He possesses, in such sort that she distributes to whom she wills, as much as she wills, as she wills and when she wills, all His gifts and graces. The Holy Ghost gives no heavenly gift to men which does not pass through her virginal hands."; St. Alphonsus Liguori: "God, who gave us Jesus Christ, wills that all graces that have been, that are, and will be dispensed to men to the end of the world through the merits of Jesus Christ, should be dispensed by the hands and through the intercession of Mary." St. Padre Pio, the stigmatist priest, testifies that Mary Co-Redemptrix's martyrdom was something even he the great stigmatist had difficulty sharing fully, "Now I seem to be penetrating what was the martyrdom of our most beloved Mother ... Oh, if all people would but penetrate this martyrdom! Who could succeed in suffering with this, yes, our dear Coredemptrix? Who would refuse her the good title of Queen of Martyrs?"

[Xavier]

About a year ago, Geremia posted the classic books on Mariology, called Mariology (volumes I and II) by Juniper Carol O.F.M.  http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=18574.msg413040#msg413040. In the first volume coremptrix is referenced 10 times.

The title "Coredemptrix" first received Papal sanction under Pope Pius X, by his approval of its use in a decree of the Congregation
of Rites concerning the feast of the Seven Dolors.

A.A.S., Vol. 41, 1908, p. 409.

Thanks for mentioning Fr. Carol's works, Lynne. They are truly exemplary and they show just how wonderful and clear is the teaching of Tradition.

the rich imagery and the variety of ways in which Mary's universal intercession is constantly emphasized unequivocally points to their consciousness that she is the channel of all heavenly graces. The gathering together of the numerous texts reflecting this conviction would constitute sufficient material for a separate dissertation. For reasons of necessary brevity we shall select but a few pertinent passages.

For the Byzantines, for example, Our Lady is "the bridge that brings mortals from earth to heaven." (45) In their Divine Office she is addressed as the one "through whom the human race has found salvation" and through whom "we shall find Paradise." (46) During the Mass, before Mary's icon, the celebrant invokes her protection as "the fountain of mercy." (47)

The Coptic liturgy is even more explicit. In one of its tropars we read that our salvation is insured "because every help comes to the faithful through Mary, the Mother of God." (48) And in a certain theotokia: "We have no hope before the Lord Jesus Christ, except through thy prayers and intercession, O Queen of us all." (49) Even in the administration of the various sacraments the priest's prayer implies that the effects of the sacred rites are obtained somehow through the intercession of Mary. (50)

The Syrians are hardly less clear in conveying the same doctrine through their liturgy. Thus, in one of their many beautiful prayers they address Our Lady as follows: "How can I praise thee duly, O most chaste Virgin? For thou alone among men art all-holy; and thou givest to all the help and grace they need." (51)

From the Armenian liturgy, so rich in references to Mary's place in the economy of salvation, these two passages will suffice. "Rejoice, O Mother of God, throne of salvation and hope of the human race, Mediatrix of law and grace." (52) "We take refuge in thee, O most holy one... dispenser of graces; thou art a fountain for the thirsty, rest for the afflicted, thou who hast borne the Word Divine." (53)

Written on a somewhat similar vein, the following excerpts from the Chaldean liturgy on the feast of the Immaculate Conception are likewise significant. "O Queen of queens, all rich, enrich thy servants with benefits, O Mother of the Most High. For He has made thee the dispensatrix of His treasures and the universal Queen.... It is in thy bosom that He has placed His treasures, and in thee He has gathered together graces as in a sea, and He has made thee the source of life for mortals...." (54)

From these testimonies, which could easily be multiplied, it is sufficiently clear that the sacred liturgy, both in the East and in the West, faithfully mirrors the mind of the Church relative to the doctrine of Mary's universal mediation in the dispensation of every grace

...With regard to the thesis that Mary is the Dispensatrix of every single grace, some theologians consider it doctrina catholica, that is, a doctrine which is taught in the whole Church, e.g., in papal encyclicals, but which is not always infallibly proposed. (120) The greater number of theologians, however, classify it as fidei proxima, that is to say, a truth which, in the almost unanimous consent of theologians, is contained in the written or orally transmitted word of God. ...

Footnotes:

...

(45) Ofpcio del Inno Akatistos in onore della SS. Madre di Dio (Grottaferrata, 1949) p. 15. Ibid; p. 32: "Hail, dispenser of divine goodness!"

(46) Gumbinger, art. cit., p. 203.

(47) S. Salaville, Marie dans la liturgie byzantine ou grec-slav, in Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, S.J., Vol. I (Paris, 1949), p. 303.

(48) Kitab al ebsallyati wa al Turwhat (Cairo, 1913), p. 131. Cf. G. Giamberardini, O.F.M., La mediazione di Maria nella chiesa egiziana (Cairo, 1952), p. 75.

(49) Al Khwlagy... pp. 206-207; Giamberardini, p. 56.

(50) E. Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, Vol. 1 (Wirceburgi, 1863), pp. 205, 238, 259, 437. Giamberardini, pp. 73-74.

(51) D. Attwater, Prayers from the Eastern Liturgies (London, 1931), p. 20.

(52) Tekeyan, La Mere de Dieu dans la liturgie armenienne, in Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, S.J., Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), p. 359.

(53) Tekeyan, art. cit., p. 360.

(54) A. M. Massonat, O.P., Marie dans la liturgie chaldeenne, in Maria. Etudes sur la Sainte Vierge, ed. H. du Manoir, S.J., Vol. 1 (Paris, 1949), pp. 348-350.

[Gerard]

Exaggerations of devotions are just as dangerous as minimizations and outright heresy.  You blow one thing out of proportion, the whole theological and ecclesiological structure of the Church begins to collapse. 

The Devil will use this just as effectively as any other weapon in his arsenal.


Remember:  Mary needed redemption from Christ on the Cross.  He had "prepaid" for her redemption during her Immaculate Conception, but the "bill was paid" on Calvary. 


From Fr. Hardon's Catholic Dictionary:

CO-REDEMPTRIX. A title of the Blessed Virgin as co-operator with Christ in the work of human redemption. It may be considered an aspect of Mary's mediation in not only consenting to become the Mother of God but in freely consenting in his labors, sufferings, and death for the salvation of the human race. As Co-Redemptrix, she is in no sense equal to Christ in his redemptive activity, since she herself required redemption and in fact was redeemed by her Son. He alone merited man's salvation. Mary effectively interceded to obtain subjective application of Christ's merits to those whom the Savior had objectively redeemed.

Based on the euphoric and effusive hyperbole given to the BVM, it's not a good thing when the laity will not or are not able make the proper distinctions to maintain a clear understanding and accurate faith.

To take some of the comments by overly enthusiastic theologians, how long till the Eucharist stops being exclusively Jesus' body, blood soul and divinity and starts to "share" in the substance of the BVM? 

I mean, she did give him her flesh, so His flesh is her flesh, right?  Taken to its logical conclusion, she shares in His priesthood.  Therefore: Women can be priests.  Maybe more fittingly since Christ gained His flesh from a woman and not a man. 

Simply put, Co-Redemptrix means this:  The fourth commandment is "Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother." 

Had she demanded as His Mother that Jesus put a stop to His passion.  He would have done just that, out of deference to her and in obedience to the Commandments He Himself gave and put Himself under. 

By not demanding He do that, she acquiesced to His Will and accepted His decision to undergo His sacrifice. 

That is theologically as far as her cooperation goes as far as redemption is concerned. 

It's great and it is wonderful. 

But we are not saved by Mary's wounds mystical, physical, perceived or speculated upon.  Anything she suffered was non-redemptive. The only thing she could do and did was offer her own suffering up to Christ on the Cross as all of us are supposed to do. 

The Council of Florence infallibly states: 

It (The Catholic Church)  firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the merit of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, through His death alone laid low the enemy of the human race by destroying our sins, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost with all succession; and that He would come sometime, all the sacred rites of the Old Testament, sacrifices, sacraments, and ceremonies disclosed.

She was not his "partner" in redemption itself. She was His partner in everything leading up to and flowing from that act.  She could not go where He went.  She could not do what He did. 

She knew that and it's good and fitting and appropriate for her role. 

If anything, His suffering resulted in her suffering but her suffering then added to His suffering and He redeemed her and all of us.   

[Xavier]

Not in the mood to argue at all. Here's a beautiful Stabat Mater Dolorosa video to cherish for this Month of Our Lady of Sorrows.

[Michael Wilson]

Let's be clear, if some people want to use this term because they think it reflects their own Marian piety, then that is an entirely different matter from the false claim that it is a title approved by the Church.

Used and approved by the Popes from Benedict XV until Pius XII. Stated in a pre-Vatican II manual of Dogmatic theology that the:
a)That Mary cooperated with the work of the Redemption, at least mediately, is a matter of faith.
b) That she also cooperated immediately is a doctrine more in conformity with the quoted texts of the Holy Pontiffs. Indeed these texts, taken together as a whole, signify the constant teaching for a century of the Roman Pontiffs proposed to the whole Church more clearly with the passage of time. for they are not unaware of the disputes of theologians over this matter.
c). That the title of Corredemptrix is used rightly is certain; and it is not licit to doubt about its suitability.
What part do you not understand about: "Matter of Faith"; "Constant teaching for a century of the Roman Pontiffs"; "The title of Corredemptrix is used rightly... and it is not licit to doubt"
In response you posted an article from the "venerable" non-Catholic source of Wikipedia??
Comparing the use of the title "Co-redemptrix" to the false and ludicrous apparitions of Bayside is shameful, false and a deliberate insult to Our Blessed Mother as well as orthodox Catholics.

To make exaggerated and emotional attacks on other Catholics who reject this un-approved innovation is a presumptuous affront. This is exactly the kind of thing which brings a certain credulous traditional Catholicism into disrepute.

To attack a traditional doctrine of the Church on a traditionalist forum in a purposely disrespectful manner, and act surprised when the members of the forum react negatively to such a post, and then protest; is to say the least, a farce.

[Michael Wilson]

Gerard stated:

That is theologically as far as her cooperation goes as far as redemption is concerned. 

Source?

[Gerard]

Gerard stated:

That is theologically as far as her cooperation goes as far as redemption is concerned. 

Source?

Council of Florence as I posted above.  If the BVMs sufferings were redemptive, then HE ALONE would not be the redeemer.  You can't do something alone and have a partner in what you alone do. 

I alone cooked the eggs at breakfast. If my Mother stood next to me and drank coffee and said, "Thanks for cooking." and cleaned up the dishes.  That doesn't mean she was my partner in cooking the eggs. 


Is your position that Mary did not need redemption and is an actual redeemer?  Or did Mary need redemption and redeem herself and everyone else with Christ on the Cross as her partner in suffering?

[awkwardcustomer]

We hear from many people today that the prefix "co" signifies on the equal level, as in co-manager. However, it is not in the same case with Our Blessed Mother and Our Saviour, because although they worked together for our redemption, the dignity and person of the one is different from the other. Mary was a mere creature and so lower in dignity than her Son Jesus who is God. She is a human person while our Redeemer is a divine person. 

Hence, we are speaking of the same work but with different value due to the difference of dignity and person. Actually the prefix "co" does not mean equal, but comes from the Latin word, "cum", which means "with".

The title of Coredemptrix applied to Mary never places her on a level of equality of with Jesus Christ, the divine Lord of all, in the saving process of humanity's redemption. Rather, it denotes Mary's regular and unique sharing (although subordinate and dependent) with her Son in the saving work of redemption for the human family.

The Mother of Jesus participates in the redemptive work of her Son, who alone could reconcile humanity with the Father in His glorious divinity and humanity. Because of her intimate and unparalleled sharing in the mysterious work with the divine Redeemer, both at the Incarnation (cf Lk 1:28) and at the work of redemption at Calvary (cf Jn19:26), Mary has merited the Church title, "Co-redemptrix" which literally means, "with the Redeemer."

-St. Maximilian Kolbe
http://www.all-about-the-virgin-mary.com/saint-maximilian-kolbe-Mary-Co-redemptrix.html

Isn't this where the confusion lies, or at least where mine lies, since I really don't understand this teaching?

Co-redemptrix can be taken to mean having an equal role in Redemption, when it doesn't mean that at all and means with the Redeemer instead?

[Michael Wilson]

Gerard stated:

By not demanding He do that, she acquiesced to His Will and accepted His decision to undergo His sacrifice. 

This isn't the limit of the B.V.M.'s role in the redemption; if this were the case, then there would not be a reason for the Popes and theologians to name her "Co-Redemptrix";
Here is Fr. G.L.G. Cited by Xavier on the previous page:

When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus satisfied for us in strict justice.

As Mother of the Redeemer, Mary was closely united to Jesus by perfect conformity of will, by humility, by poverty, by suffering— and most particularly by Her compassion on Calvary. That is what is meant when it is said that She offered satisfaction along with Him. Her satisfaction derives its value from Her dignity as Mother of God, from Her great charity, from the fact that there was no fault in Herself which needed to be expiated, and from the intensity of Her sufferings.

And Benedict XV (ibid)

Benedict XV: "In uniting Herself to the Passion and Death of Her Son She suffered almost unto death; as far as it depended on Her, She immolated Her Son, so that it can be said that with Him She redeemed the human race"(50).

From Fr. GLG also citing Bossouet:

From the moment when Simeon foretold the Passion — already so clearly prophesied by Isaias — and Her compassion, She offered and did not cease to offer Him Who would be Priest and Victim, and Herself in union with Him. This painful oblation was renewed over years. Of old, an angel had descended to prevent Abraham's immolation of his son Isaac. But no angel came to prevent the immolation of Jesus.

In his sermon on the Compassion of Our Lady, we read the following magnificent words of Bossuet: " It is the will of the Eternal Father that Mary should not only be immolated with the Innocent Victim and nailed to the Cross by the nails that pierce Him, but should as well be associated with the mystery which is accomplished by His death.....In the sermon, of which the paragraphs I have quoted are the opening, Bossuet develops the three main points outlined and shows that Mary's love for Jesus was enough to make Her a martyr: "One Cross was enough for the well-beloved Son and the Mother." She is nailed to the Cross by Her love for Him. Without a special grace she would have died of Her agony.

Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain: but She brings the faithful forth in the most cruel suffering. "At what price She has bought them! They have cost Her Her only Son. She can be mother of christians only by giving her Son to death. O agonising fruitfulness! It was the will of the Eternal Father that the adoptive sons should be born by the death of the True Son. What man would adopt at this price and give his son for the sake of strangers? But that is what the Eternal Father did. We have Jesus' word for it: God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son (John hi, 16).

" (Mary) is the Eve of the New Testament and the mother of all the faithful; but that is to be at the price of Her First-born. United to the Eternal Father She must offer His Son and Hers to death. It is for that purpose that Providence has brought Her to the foot of the Cross. She is there to immolate Her Son that men may have life . . . She becomes mother of christians at the cost of an immeasurable grief ..."
Even the saints who have been most closely associated with the sufferings of the Saviour did not enter as Mary did into the most secret depths of the Passion. St. Catherine de Ricci had every Friday during twelve years an ecstasy of pain which lasted twenty-eight hours and during which she lived over again all the sufferings of the way of the Cross. But even such sufferings fell far short of those of Mary. Mary's Heart suffered in sympathy with all the agony of the Sacred Heart to such a point that She would have died of the experience had She not been especially strengthened.

Thereby She became the consoler of the afflicted, for She had suffered more than all, and patroness of a happy death. We have no idea how fruitful these sufferings of Hers have been during twenty centuries ...

 

[Michael Wilson]

Gerard:

Is your position that Mary did not need redemption and is an actual redeemer?  Or did Mary need redemption and redeem herself and everyone else with Christ on the Cross as her partner in suffering?

No, that would be a heresy; but nothing prevented Our Lord the principal Redeemer from associating others with His work; in the same way as He associates the Priest who dispenses the Sacraments in His work of redemption. But Our Lady's role is unique.
From Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIIA pg.443:

Thesis 9. The Bl. Virgin Mary participated with Christ in the work of redemption and therefore she is rightly called the corredemptrix.
155. Definition of terms. "The work of the redemption", that is the summary of the actions by which the human race was freed from the slavery of the devil."
Participated with Christ: she was associated and united with Christ the Redeemer in order to accomplish that work. But we understand this causality as immediate and moral (therefore distinct from the causality by which she became mother of Christ the Redeemer). However, as is clear, it is secondary (not necessary except on the supposition of the divine will) and subordinate (having its total efficacy from the primary and absolutely necessary causality of Christ the Reedemer).
Is rightly called corredemptrix. That is, because she is truly redemptrix in the defined sense, this title can justly be applied to her.
Doctrine of the Church 1) Pius IX:"Just as Christ, the Mediator of God and men, having assumed a human nature, destroying the handwritten decree against us, in triumph nailed it to the cross, so also the Holy Virgin, joined to him by a close and unbreakable bond, together with Him and through Him exercising eternal emnity against the poisonous serpent, crushed his head with her Immaculate foot." (Bull "Innefabilis")
Leo XIII: "She took her part in the laborious expiation made by her Son for the sins of the world. (Enc. Iucunda Semper).
Leo XIII "To thee we lift our prayers, for thou art the Mediatrix, powerful at once and pitiful, or our salvation. (ibid).
Leo XIII: "And truly the Immaculate Virgin, chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby associated with Him in the work of salvation,...(Enc. Supremi Apostolatus).
St. Pius X: "And from this communion of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and dispensatrix of all the gifts that our Saviour purchased by His blood... Yet since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Christ in the work of the redemption, she merits for us "de congruo" (in a congrous manner), what Christ merits for "de condigno" (D-3770)

[St.Justin]

This is no less a teaching of the Church than the teaching on Limbo or the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption before they were solemnly defined as Dogmas.

[awkwardcustomer]

But Our Lady's Redemptive role is secondary and subordinate Christ's, although the prefix 'co-' might suggest otherwise.

However, as is clear, it is secondary (not necessary except on the supposition of the divine will) and subordinate (having its total efficacy from the primary and absolutely necessary causality of Christ the Reedemer).

See Michael Wilson's post, and below.

St. Pius X: "And from this communion of will and suffering between Christ and Mary, she merited to become most worthily the reparatrix of the lost world, and dispensatrix of all the gifts that our Saviour purchased by His blood... Yet since Mary carries it over all in holiness and union with Christ in the work of the redemption, she merits for us "de congruo" (in a congrous manner), what Christ merits for "de condigno" (D-3770)

Whatever that means.

[Gerard]

Gerard stated:

By not demanding He do that, she acquiesced to His Will and accepted His decision to undergo His sacrifice. 

This isn't the limit of the B.V.M.'s role in the redemption; if this were the case, then there would not be a reason for the Popes and theologians to name her "Co-Redemptrix";

I disagree. Naming her Co-Redemptrix solely on the basis of her acquiescing to the Father's plan is sufficient enough for the title.  What there is no reason for is to expand her role beyond just that and deifying her actions while denying that is what is being done.  ( Not saying that is what you are doing Michael, I'm seeing it in the theologians writings. )

She was Immaculately conceived  for Him.  He came to redeem her and the rest of us.  He ALONE accomplished the sacrifice of Calvary.  Her personal merits are not a part of the Redemption of Humanity.  They pertain to her personal glory, not to the atonement with the Father in Heaven for all of us.

Here is Fr. G.L.G. Cited by Xavier on the previous page:


When a meritorious work is in some way painful it has value as satisfaction as well. Thus theologians commonly teach, following upon what has been explained in the previous section, that Mary satisfied for all sins de congruo in everything in which Jesus satisfied de condigno. Mary offered God a satisfaction which it was becoming that He should accept: Jesus satisfied for us in strict justice.

No. The Blessed Virgin Mary didn't "satisfy" i.e. expiate any sins for anyone at Calvary. Jesus' sacrifice has infinite merit.  Any merit she gained is a personal and gratuitous gift from God and her intercessory power is something freely given, not merited, even by her.

As Mother of the Redeemer, Mary was closely united to Jesus by perfect conformity of will, by humility, by poverty, by suffering— and most particularly by Her compassion on Calvary. That is what is meant when it is said that She offered satisfaction along with Him. Her satisfaction derives its value from Her dignity as Mother of God, from Her great charity, from the fact that there was no fault in Herself which needed to be expiated, and from the intensity of Her sufferings.

I would argue against that in favor of her merits are the fruits of His sacrifice, including her Immaculate Conception.  She was sinless, but not redeemed.  He redeemed her at Calvary. 


And Benedict XV (ibid)

Benedict XV: "In uniting Herself to the Passion and Death of Her Son She suffered almost unto death; as far as it depended on Her, She immolated Her Son, so that it can be said that with Him She redeemed the human race"(50).

Again, not a binding statement on the faithful. I disagree that she suffered almost unto death.  She was built to withstand that suffering.  She didn't immolate Him, she agreed to His Will.  She conformed Herself.  This was not simple, sinful and doubting Abraham being commanded to actively kill his son in sacrifice.  She was a passive and willing participant in His passion as was St. John the Apostle. 

From Fr. GLG also citing Bossouet:

From the moment when Simeon foretold the Passion — already so clearly prophesied by Isaias — and Her compassion, She offered and did not cease to offer Him Who would be Priest and Victim, and Herself in union with Him. This painful oblation was renewed over years. Of old, an angel had descended to prevent Abraham's immolation of his son Isaac. But no angel came to prevent the immolation of Jesus.

Abraham was willing because according to many theologians contend he had faith that God would raise Isaac back up from the dead.  The BVM absolutely knew He would rise.  This is why she is not among the women going to the empty tomb on Easter. She would not have been torn asunder emotionally by His passion.

In his sermon on the Compassion of Our Lady, we read the following magnificent words of Bossuet: " It is the will of the Eternal Father that Mary should not only be immolated with the Innocent Victim and nailed to the Cross by the nails that pierce Him, but should as well be associated with the mystery which is accomplished by His death.....In the sermon, of which the paragraphs I have quoted are the opening, Bossuet develops the three main points outlined and shows that Mary's love for Jesus was enough to make Her a martyr: "One Cross was enough for the well-beloved Son and the Mother." She is nailed to the Cross by Her love for Him. Without a special grace she would have died of Her agony.

Let's be clear. 

She was not nailed to a cross.  She was not immolated.  That is nothing more than poetic imagery and flowery rhetoric. 

She was far stronger in faith than people seem to want to admit.  There is no flagging due to agony.  God never gives a cross we cannot bear.  She knew everything that was going to happen and she drew strength from that knowledge.  She knew it was fitting and appropriate and chosen by God to be such.  She was not hampered with doubt and frustration and selfishness like we are. 

She knew she was witnessing Victory.  She was not about to "lose it" in despair and agony, she would have been sober and resolved better than anyone could be. 

Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain: but She brings the faithful forth in the most cruel suffering. "At what price She has bought them! They have cost Her Her only Son. She can be mother of christians only by giving her Son to death. O agonising fruitfulness! It was the will of the Eternal Father that the adoptive sons should be born by the death of the True Son. What man would adopt at this price and give his son for the sake of strangers? But that is what the Eternal Father did. We have Jesus' word for it: God so loved the world as to give His only begotten Son (John hi, 16).

She knew the price and set the course in motion herself at the Wedding of Cana.  Had He wished her to, she would have hammered the nails in herself.  She knew He would rise more surely than Abraham believed God would raise Isaac. 

" (Mary) is the Eve of the New Testament and the mother of all the faithful; but that is to be at the price of Her First-born. United to the Eternal Father She must offer His Son and Hers to death. It is for that purpose that Providence has brought Her to the foot of the Cross. She is there to immolate Her Son that men may have life . . . She becomes mother of christians at the cost of an immeasurable grief ..."
Even the saints who have been most closely associated with the sufferings of the Saviour did not enter as Mary did into the most secret depths of the Passion. St. Catherine de Ricci had every Friday during twelve years an ecstasy of pain which lasted twenty-eight hours and during which she lived over again all the sufferings of the way of the Cross. But even such sufferings fell far short of those of Mary. Mary's Heart suffered in sympathy with all the agony of the Sacred Heart to such a point that She would have died of the experience had She not been especially strengthened.

Thereby She became the consoler of the afflicted, for She had suffered more than all, and patroness of a happy death. We have no idea how fruitful these sufferings of Hers have been during twenty centuries ...

That's all wrong.  She did nothing to actively participate in His death.  She simply acquiesced with His Will and allowed the events to unfold as He deemed necessary.  She had faith in HIM. 

He was the one who endured all the suffering, not her.  He AlONE as the Council of Florence defines it. She wasn't built to endure any more than He was willing for her to suffer.  But she was built to endure what She did, unclouded by sin.  Her intercessory role and power is the fruit of His victory, not her suffering.  Her sorrows are being morphed into expiatory sacrifices comparable and identical to Our Lord's sacrifice on Calvary.  He was the only one built to endure that and He was stronger than all of it.  He "overcomes the world."  Had He wished, He could still be hanging on the Cross today 2000 years later and He still wouldn't run out of steam if He willed it. 

I would bet, a lot of this overblown Mariology, like the Neo-Ultramontanism is responsible pre-Vatican II for the mess that was Vatican II.   I bet a case could be made that these hyperbolic deifications of our Lady are precursors to the "female" corpuses on modern crucifixes, the female Jesus' in the live stations of the Cross that inflamed Mother Angelica, the "teen crisis pregnancy" image of the BVM being bandied about each Christmas season by Catholic and Protestants alike. 
 
It seems there is a counterintuitive outline of the BVM being promoted that on one hand, humanizes her to the point of her implicitly having all the weak traits that mark fallen Man and at the same time, exaggerating her place and role in the Redemption to the point of deifying her. 

I'm holding to a significantly different Mary.  One that is at the moment of Calvary, Immaculate and sinless and fully human in all of her potential with a superabundance of graces.  Full control over her passions.  Fully obedient to the Father and Her Son and not Divine in the slightest. The model human being for which the Redemption was accomplished.   

[St.Justin]

COLOSSIANS - Chapter 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

So what is one to make of that statement?