Heresy requires many words, explanations, and debates. The truth seldom does. Just sayin’
The saints and Church Fathers did not need many words, explanations, and debates to feel confident using the term “Co-Redemptrix” for Our Lady. They, like us, knew in their hearts (inspired by the Holy Spirit) that this title expresses the truth about Mary. And they were not at all conflicted about it.
Cardinal Fernandez and the Modernists are diligently working to destroy everything about the pre-Vatican II Church, and this is just one more step in their march to do just that. Jorge Bergoglio would be proud.
The double speak starts in earnest in the heart of the Vatican throwing more confusion, blowing smoke, rather than light and clarity. I'm confident our Blessed Mother's desire will be fulfilled. I'm praying, like her apparition in Lourdes where she declared she was the Immaculate Conception, she will reveal and explain concisely as she always does when she intervenes why she is theCo-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. We must be patient with the near sighted owls in the Vatican. Mother Mary is a Jewish mama! She'll come tell it like it especially if the squabbling keeps going on. Then she'll throw in an indisputable miracle! LOL
Well, that is not the mind of Christ. Do you imagine that God loves you more than all the rest of the world because somebody baptised you and happened to raise you a Catholic.
All the people in the world who have been baptised are in Christ
Many of them are asking for instruction so they can be received into full communion because they have been loved and treated with respect and prayed for by Christian Catholics. Are you sure you are a real Christian and not just a cultural Roman Catholic bigot?
I recall Fr. John Harden being told that in a certain church people are told to stand during the consecration Father looked around and then said "You Kneel"
It sounds like the good cardinal overstepped and is realizing he needs to retreat a bit. Oh, I wish we could have a quality theologian at the head of the CDF/DDF again.
Phrase it however you like, but it is clear, as the Doctrinal Note says, that Cardinal Ratzinger was opposed to any "official" use of the term, especially in formulating a "definition" of the term:
"The document cites an internal discussion within the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in February 1996 had discussed the request to proclaim a new dogma on Mary as “Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces.” Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was opposed to such a definition, arguing, “the precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. […] It is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.”
Later, in 2002, the future Benedict XVI expressed himself publicly in the same way: “The formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.”
The note clarifies that Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny the good intentions behind the proposal, nor the valuable aspects reflected in it, but nonetheless maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way” (19)."
I have a question about this. I have read that Ratzinger as a Cardinal did not use the term but did in a few (one or two?) as Pope. Stimulated by this controversy I read “There is no Rose” by Aidan Nichols OP. It has a very nice discussion of all the BVM’s privileges.
Whether Cardinal Ratzinger used the term at all, I do not know, but regardless, I would think that whatever he said in his official capacity carries more weight. And, again, as head of the CDF, once he weighed in, JPII stopped using the subject terms.
Thank you for recommending Fr. Aidan Nichols (I'm a fan) and his "There is a Rose". If you have the book handy, may I draw your attention to Chapter 4, "The Co-redemptrix"? Bear with me as a cite some passages for those who may not be familiar with this work, but Fr. Nichols seems to be on the same wavelength with the Doctrinal Note, even if the latter lacks a certain imprudence.
"Chapter 4, The Co-redemptrix
I mentioned in my opening chapter, à propos of Mary’s standing by the cross in the Gospel according to St. John, that theologies of Marian co-redemption come in two varieties: which we can term “minimalist’ and “maximalist.” The first kind, the minimalist one, which, leaving aside the disputed question of the word “co-redemptrix,” is non-controversial, locates Mary’s contribution to the redemption in her response to Gabriel at the Annunciation—drawing, then, for its scriptural basis on the Lucan infancy gospel (Luke 1:26–38). The second kind of theology of co-redemption, the maximalist version, is the trickier one. While not denying—rather, affirming—the co-redemptive significance of the Annunciation event, it ties the co-redemption climactically if not indeed essentially to Mary’s role in the drama of the cross—as portrayed in the Johannine passion narrative (John 19:25–27)."
Note that when Bp. Schneider refers to Co-redemptrix being part of "the ordinary magisterium", he never defines in what sense he means it. But I would say he can only mean it in the sense of the "minimalist" and subjective varieties, to which everyone can agree.
Fr. Nichols continues:
“Subjective” and “Objective” Theologies of Co-redemption
As we shall see, accounts of Mary’s contribution to the Atonement, and not simply to the incarnation, themselves fall into two main sorts, which can broadly be described as, respectively, objective and subjective in character. The subjective co-redemption-at-the-cross theme is closely linked to the topic of Mary’s role as dispenser of grace—itself more thoroughly attested in tradition, in both the Western and Eastern streams... Subjective co-redemption can also be synthesized with the topic, more popular in our own day, of Mary and the church. On the subjective understanding of Mary’s contribution to the atonement, that contribution is restricted to a role in the transmission of the fruits of Christ’s sacrifice—whether that transmission be thought of as an exercise carried out within the heavenly communion of saints or by means of the earthly (yet certainly not for that reason purely natural) organism of the church, whose archetype the Virgin Mother is.
By contrast, for the objective theology of Marian co-redemption, our Lady’s role is not restricted to such transmission of the gains of the atonement to other human subjects (which is the sense of the word “subjective” in this context). Instead, her contribution enters into the overall constitution of Christ’s sacrifice as that sacrifice transpired in itself before God. This is a claim which, even in the Mariologically highly charged atmosphere of the 1940s and 50s, elicited no general consensus among Catholic theologians. Coming to a conclusion about it—broadly speaking, in its favor—will be the purpose of the present chapter.
[...] The Relation of the Incarnation to the Passion
Much of the patristic material that has been adduced in favor of a maximalizing theology of co-redemption is, it must be confessed, ambiguous insofar as it is difficult to decide whether the writers concerned have the intention of pressing their case beyond the circumstances of Christ’s conception and birth to those of his passion and death as well. This is not a problem merely for those with Mariological questions to bring to the Fathers. It is a problem for patristic soteriology more widely. What do the Fathers mean when they describe the incarnation as a redemptive incarnation? Do they mean, firstly, redemptive in and of itself, irrespective of the Lord’s sacrificial death which was de facto its outcome? Or do they mean, secondly, redemptive insofar as, logically speaking, the incarnation was a necessary condition of that death, for clearly there could be no one to die on the cross unless that someone had first been born? Or do they mean thirdly and finally, that the incarnation was redemptive inasmuch as it was ordered, always and intrinsically, to the paschal mystery, so that all statements assigning redemptive value to the events of the incarnation—including, then, statements assigning co-redemptive value to acts contributing to the incarnation—require interpreting “staurologically,” that is, by reference to the cross?"
As previously stated, Fr. Nichols would go on to make a case for "the objective theology of Marian co-redemption", which is fine, but this does not change the import of his words above, and the legitimacy of the Vatican's concerns.
Michael, I have been trying to post a reply to you, but I lost it. In the passage Father Nichols quotes just before he gets to the section on JPII’s Marion masses, it appears the council fathers did not explicitly discourage the maximalist version of Mary’s role in our redemption.
I am inclined to think this document was a mistake unless its purpose was to stir up a hornet’s nest among those attached to the notion of co-redemption. I did find a letter Benedict XVI wrote on the day he resigned in which he referred to Mary as co-redemptrix. This seems consistent with the view he opposed official use, but was comfortable with private use.
Personally I was always concerned with this notion until this document was released because I did not understand it. I even may not understand it now. Be that as it may, as an uninterested Episcopalian during the decade without Mary, I was surprised when I read an article (in either Time or Newsweek) about priests and religious who thought it was silly to pray to Saints.
We're all "modernists" in form or another, even you, and even sede's who accept the "revolutionary" modernizing liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII (according to some trads).
Ah, very good to know. But a further clarification is in order, as follows: "Heal Me with Your Mouth" and books on the transcendent dimension of orgasm are permitted in gay lending libraries, but not in the Church founded by Christ.
It's good Tucho is issuing things from the "DDF" rather than the CDF. The new FrancisChurch title makes it all easier to ignore. What you allow or don't allow is NOT MEANINGFUL.
OK, so always no longer means always.... got it. Umm wait a minute is English still a language? Am I speaking English.... does it have any meaning or do I just make it up as I go along . I'm confused. Can we go back to simplicity all this explaining the explanation is hurting my head
So Cardinal Fernández consulted " many many mariologists , many time" and none of them obviously replied!! How strange. I find it baffling that all this time and effort has gone into the the use of the work "Co-redemptrix" on the basis that it might give the impression that Mary is more important than Christ because of the use of the prefix 'Co" . For heaven's sake - who is in charge of flying a plane the Pilot or the Co-Pilot!!
Always so much needless drama, ill thought-out statements, more clamour, more confusion, more chaos and more consternation. I can't think of a good reason behind any of it (and I have tried). Those coming out with these half baked statements certainly don't seem holier and they don't seem to be greater intellects than all those who have gone before. They look small and befuddled and they make the Church look like it's tottering on the edge...
Well, I can't prove this, but this was probably a way to retract the mess he did. His explanation about why it said "siempre/always" it's not very convincing, not at all.
And apparently the only reason why Pope John Paul II didn't use the word anymore it's because ecumenism. Mariologist said "yes but it would destroy ecumenism", the same reason use in MPF.
It doesn't make sense that it's allowed to be used privately bu the Church will not recognize it. No, the hierarchy doesn't want to recognize it, probably for personal reasons...
When it comes to homosexuality, support for abortion, religious indiferentism, irreverence, synodal madness... Yes, that must be public. But adherence to Tradition and defence of the Faith, no, that must be in private for the sake of ecumenism... Insane.
It’s way past time for Catholics to stop being worried about what protestants think.
More from Venerable Maria of Agreda, “253. It is verily time, that the honor due to our great Queen should be unveiled and made clear to human insight, and that whoever was misled by opposite opinions, should hesitate and cease to belittle and deny Her the adornments of her immaculate purity at the instant of her heavenly Conception. Compelled by the force of truth and by the light, in which I see these ineffable mysteries, I proclaim over and over again, that (as far as revealed to me), the privileges, graces, prerogatives, favors and gifts of most holy Mary, not excluding even that of her being the Mother of God, all depend upon, have their origin, and are founded upon the fact, that She was immaculate and full of grace in the moment of her most pure Conception, hence all of them would appear ill-proportioned and deficient without this favor, like a sumptuous edifice without a solid and well-built foundation. All depend and are founded in a certain way upon the purity and innocence of her Conception and on this account it was necessary to refer so often in the course of this history to this mystery, especially when treating of the divine decree, the formation of most holy Mary, and the incarnation of her most holy Son. I will not enlarge on this; but I will give notice to all, that the Queen of heaven so esteems the beauty and adornment given to Her by her Son and Spouse in her purest Conception, that She will be correspondingly incensed against those, who, with evil intention and obstinacy, try to despoil Her and debase Her in this point, while her most holy Son had deigned to show Her to the world thus adorned and beautified for his glory and for the encouragement of the mortals.”
The only people confused are Protestants or heretics, of whomever reject the One True Faith, whose opinions do not and should not matter.
Heresy requires many words, explanations, and debates. The truth seldom does. Just sayin’
The saints and Church Fathers did not need many words, explanations, and debates to feel confident using the term “Co-Redemptrix” for Our Lady. They, like us, knew in their hearts (inspired by the Holy Spirit) that this title expresses the truth about Mary. And they were not at all conflicted about it.
Cardinal Fernandez and the Modernists are diligently working to destroy everything about the pre-Vatican II Church, and this is just one more step in their march to do just that. Jorge Bergoglio would be proud.
Amen Amen
The double speak starts in earnest in the heart of the Vatican throwing more confusion, blowing smoke, rather than light and clarity. I'm confident our Blessed Mother's desire will be fulfilled. I'm praying, like her apparition in Lourdes where she declared she was the Immaculate Conception, she will reveal and explain concisely as she always does when she intervenes why she is theCo-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. We must be patient with the near sighted owls in the Vatican. Mother Mary is a Jewish mama! She'll come tell it like it especially if the squabbling keeps going on. Then she'll throw in an indisputable miracle! LOL
Indeed. The double speak...who else does that...hmmm.....SATAN!
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.
Well, that is not the mind of Christ. Do you imagine that God loves you more than all the rest of the world because somebody baptised you and happened to raise you a Catholic.
All the people in the world who have been baptised are in Christ
Many of them are asking for instruction so they can be received into full communion because they have been loved and treated with respect and prayed for by Christian Catholics. Are you sure you are a real Christian and not just a cultural Roman Catholic bigot?
That is the job of the mother to teach him. He is your responsibility.
I recall Fr. John Harden being told that in a certain church people are told to stand during the consecration Father looked around and then said "You Kneel"
It sounds like the good cardinal overstepped and is realizing he needs to retreat a bit. Oh, I wish we could have a quality theologian at the head of the CDF/DDF again.
Oh, you mean like Cardinal Ratzinger, who opposed the "official" use of Co-redemptrix for the same reasons.
No. That cardinal demurred from using a term. This cardinal says it is 'always inappropriate' to use a term. But now walks back the 'always' part.
Phrase it however you like, but it is clear, as the Doctrinal Note says, that Cardinal Ratzinger was opposed to any "official" use of the term, especially in formulating a "definition" of the term:
"The document cites an internal discussion within the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which in February 1996 had discussed the request to proclaim a new dogma on Mary as “Co-redemptrix or Mediatrix of all graces.” Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was opposed to such a definition, arguing, “the precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. […] It is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.”
Later, in 2002, the future Benedict XVI expressed himself publicly in the same way: “The formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings… Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.”
The note clarifies that Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny the good intentions behind the proposal, nor the valuable aspects reflected in it, but nonetheless maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way” (19)."
I have a question about this. I have read that Ratzinger as a Cardinal did not use the term but did in a few (one or two?) as Pope. Stimulated by this controversy I read “There is no Rose” by Aidan Nichols OP. It has a very nice discussion of all the BVM’s privileges.
Whether Cardinal Ratzinger used the term at all, I do not know, but regardless, I would think that whatever he said in his official capacity carries more weight. And, again, as head of the CDF, once he weighed in, JPII stopped using the subject terms.
Thank you for recommending Fr. Aidan Nichols (I'm a fan) and his "There is a Rose". If you have the book handy, may I draw your attention to Chapter 4, "The Co-redemptrix"? Bear with me as a cite some passages for those who may not be familiar with this work, but Fr. Nichols seems to be on the same wavelength with the Doctrinal Note, even if the latter lacks a certain imprudence.
"Chapter 4, The Co-redemptrix
I mentioned in my opening chapter, à propos of Mary’s standing by the cross in the Gospel according to St. John, that theologies of Marian co-redemption come in two varieties: which we can term “minimalist’ and “maximalist.” The first kind, the minimalist one, which, leaving aside the disputed question of the word “co-redemptrix,” is non-controversial, locates Mary’s contribution to the redemption in her response to Gabriel at the Annunciation—drawing, then, for its scriptural basis on the Lucan infancy gospel (Luke 1:26–38). The second kind of theology of co-redemption, the maximalist version, is the trickier one. While not denying—rather, affirming—the co-redemptive significance of the Annunciation event, it ties the co-redemption climactically if not indeed essentially to Mary’s role in the drama of the cross—as portrayed in the Johannine passion narrative (John 19:25–27)."
Note that when Bp. Schneider refers to Co-redemptrix being part of "the ordinary magisterium", he never defines in what sense he means it. But I would say he can only mean it in the sense of the "minimalist" and subjective varieties, to which everyone can agree.
Fr. Nichols continues:
“Subjective” and “Objective” Theologies of Co-redemption
As we shall see, accounts of Mary’s contribution to the Atonement, and not simply to the incarnation, themselves fall into two main sorts, which can broadly be described as, respectively, objective and subjective in character. The subjective co-redemption-at-the-cross theme is closely linked to the topic of Mary’s role as dispenser of grace—itself more thoroughly attested in tradition, in both the Western and Eastern streams... Subjective co-redemption can also be synthesized with the topic, more popular in our own day, of Mary and the church. On the subjective understanding of Mary’s contribution to the atonement, that contribution is restricted to a role in the transmission of the fruits of Christ’s sacrifice—whether that transmission be thought of as an exercise carried out within the heavenly communion of saints or by means of the earthly (yet certainly not for that reason purely natural) organism of the church, whose archetype the Virgin Mother is.
By contrast, for the objective theology of Marian co-redemption, our Lady’s role is not restricted to such transmission of the gains of the atonement to other human subjects (which is the sense of the word “subjective” in this context). Instead, her contribution enters into the overall constitution of Christ’s sacrifice as that sacrifice transpired in itself before God. This is a claim which, even in the Mariologically highly charged atmosphere of the 1940s and 50s, elicited no general consensus among Catholic theologians. Coming to a conclusion about it—broadly speaking, in its favor—will be the purpose of the present chapter.
[...] The Relation of the Incarnation to the Passion
Much of the patristic material that has been adduced in favor of a maximalizing theology of co-redemption is, it must be confessed, ambiguous insofar as it is difficult to decide whether the writers concerned have the intention of pressing their case beyond the circumstances of Christ’s conception and birth to those of his passion and death as well. This is not a problem merely for those with Mariological questions to bring to the Fathers. It is a problem for patristic soteriology more widely. What do the Fathers mean when they describe the incarnation as a redemptive incarnation? Do they mean, firstly, redemptive in and of itself, irrespective of the Lord’s sacrificial death which was de facto its outcome? Or do they mean, secondly, redemptive insofar as, logically speaking, the incarnation was a necessary condition of that death, for clearly there could be no one to die on the cross unless that someone had first been born? Or do they mean thirdly and finally, that the incarnation was redemptive inasmuch as it was ordered, always and intrinsically, to the paschal mystery, so that all statements assigning redemptive value to the events of the incarnation—including, then, statements assigning co-redemptive value to acts contributing to the incarnation—require interpreting “staurologically,” that is, by reference to the cross?"
As previously stated, Fr. Nichols would go on to make a case for "the objective theology of Marian co-redemption", which is fine, but this does not change the import of his words above, and the legitimacy of the Vatican's concerns.
Michael, I have been trying to post a reply to you, but I lost it. In the passage Father Nichols quotes just before he gets to the section on JPII’s Marion masses, it appears the council fathers did not explicitly discourage the maximalist version of Mary’s role in our redemption.
I am inclined to think this document was a mistake unless its purpose was to stir up a hornet’s nest among those attached to the notion of co-redemption. I did find a letter Benedict XVI wrote on the day he resigned in which he referred to Mary as co-redemptrix. This seems consistent with the view he opposed official use, but was comfortable with private use.
Personally I was always concerned with this notion until this document was released because I did not understand it. I even may not understand it now. Be that as it may, as an uninterested Episcopalian during the decade without Mary, I was surprised when I read an article (in either Time or Newsweek) about priests and religious who thought it was silly to pray to Saints.
Thank you for responding to my question.
Thanks, James, for those comments. I agree, though the Note, in my opinion, and as Philip Lawler opines, is "inopportune". Blessings.
We're all "modernists" in form or another, even you, and even sede's who accept the "revolutionary" modernizing liturgical reforms of Pope Pius XII (according to some trads).
Stifle that feeling.
Ah, very good to know. But a further clarification is in order, as follows: "Heal Me with Your Mouth" and books on the transcendent dimension of orgasm are permitted in gay lending libraries, but not in the Church founded by Christ.
It's good Tucho is issuing things from the "DDF" rather than the CDF. The new FrancisChurch title makes it all easier to ignore. What you allow or don't allow is NOT MEANINGFUL.
"Many were consulted"
Okay, name one. We don't need many, just one.
Name all those who were "consulted"
I am trying to figure out why the Church would need this document at all. Especially in these troubled times in the Church. Strange priority.
Something that makes the Catholic church look like a superstitious sect is an impediment to people who are searching for the truth.
There is a blossoming of Mother Goddess worship all over the world - do a Google search.
If that is so, it is NOT due to the Catholic Church or Marian doctrine. Or haven’t you noticed the onslaught of paganism in our world?
Awareness of the spread of paganism was prompted by awareness of the new witches and goddess worship abounding.
Rome is wisely aware of the danger of syncretism
Obviously, the pushback was overwhelming. If it had only been about what words the official documents contained it would have said that originally.
So anyway you in the pews can still use the titles but us up here in the Vatican won't in spite of the fact popes and saints used those titles.
I have a feeling a lot less money came in the collection basket over the past two week as well.
I really do hope the money drops .
We can give our tithes to the poor and to the clergy who stick to the teachings of Jesus and not Modernism.
Keyboard warriors with tunnel vision will not overwhelm anybody or anything
everything that needed to be revealed is already known and taught and shared.
DDF documents are meant to CLARIFY, not to subsequently NEED CLARIFICATION. This is, unfortunately, becoming habitual.
OK, so always no longer means always.... got it. Umm wait a minute is English still a language? Am I speaking English.... does it have any meaning or do I just make it up as I go along . I'm confused. Can we go back to simplicity all this explaining the explanation is hurting my head
Does the Filioque always have to be included in the Creed of the Liturgy?
I would have thought that the Filioque was essential but by what has been said recently From the Vatican this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Maybe it’s to appease the Orthodox .
Byzantine Catholics do not have to profess the Filioque in the Creed; it's not part of their tradition.
So Cardinal Fernández consulted " many many mariologists , many time" and none of them obviously replied!! How strange. I find it baffling that all this time and effort has gone into the the use of the work "Co-redemptrix" on the basis that it might give the impression that Mary is more important than Christ because of the use of the prefix 'Co" . For heaven's sake - who is in charge of flying a plane the Pilot or the Co-Pilot!!
Always so much needless drama, ill thought-out statements, more clamour, more confusion, more chaos and more consternation. I can't think of a good reason behind any of it (and I have tried). Those coming out with these half baked statements certainly don't seem holier and they don't seem to be greater intellects than all those who have gone before. They look small and befuddled and they make the Church look like it's tottering on the edge...
The Vatican 🇻🇦 is OVER the edge
Well, I can't prove this, but this was probably a way to retract the mess he did. His explanation about why it said "siempre/always" it's not very convincing, not at all.
And apparently the only reason why Pope John Paul II didn't use the word anymore it's because ecumenism. Mariologist said "yes but it would destroy ecumenism", the same reason use in MPF.
It doesn't make sense that it's allowed to be used privately bu the Church will not recognize it. No, the hierarchy doesn't want to recognize it, probably for personal reasons...
When it comes to homosexuality, support for abortion, religious indiferentism, irreverence, synodal madness... Yes, that must be public. But adherence to Tradition and defence of the Faith, no, that must be in private for the sake of ecumenism... Insane.
He speak with forked tongue.
“From now on, certainly. It isn’t meant to judge the past at all. It means “from now on.”
In one neat cut:
1. Sever continuity.
2. Break with Holy Tradition.
3. The age of “Francis”.
Another reason to ignore everything that comes from this heretic cardinal!
It’s way past time for Catholics to stop being worried about what protestants think.
More from Venerable Maria of Agreda, “253. It is verily time, that the honor due to our great Queen should be unveiled and made clear to human insight, and that whoever was misled by opposite opinions, should hesitate and cease to belittle and deny Her the adornments of her immaculate purity at the instant of her heavenly Conception. Compelled by the force of truth and by the light, in which I see these ineffable mysteries, I proclaim over and over again, that (as far as revealed to me), the privileges, graces, prerogatives, favors and gifts of most holy Mary, not excluding even that of her being the Mother of God, all depend upon, have their origin, and are founded upon the fact, that She was immaculate and full of grace in the moment of her most pure Conception, hence all of them would appear ill-proportioned and deficient without this favor, like a sumptuous edifice without a solid and well-built foundation. All depend and are founded in a certain way upon the purity and innocence of her Conception and on this account it was necessary to refer so often in the course of this history to this mystery, especially when treating of the divine decree, the formation of most holy Mary, and the incarnation of her most holy Son. I will not enlarge on this; but I will give notice to all, that the Queen of heaven so esteems the beauty and adornment given to Her by her Son and Spouse in her purest Conception, that She will be correspondingly incensed against those, who, with evil intention and obstinacy, try to despoil Her and debase Her in this point, while her most holy Son had deigned to show Her to the world thus adorned and beautified for his glory and for the encouragement of the mortals.”
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/agreda/vol1/vol1.shtml
Viva Nuestra Señora Corredentora y Mediadora de todas la Gracias!!!