A very small minority
of theologians, in spite of numerous and clear papal texts (they say that the
papal texts are not clear), still try to say that Mary did not really share immediately
in the objective redemption, that is, she did not share on Calvary itself in
paying the price of our redemption by which mankind was reconquered from
the captivity of Satan. The minority can avoid the obvious sense of the papal
texts only by asking that we suppose that the Popes constantly have in mind
some distinction, which they never express, never hint at, and which is so far
from being obviously needed that most theologians never believe they should add
it! The distinction they most frequently ask us to read in would say that
Christ alone paid the price by which mankind was reconquered, but Mary merely
merited that the fruits of the conquest be applied. Such a distinction is
obviously out of place in the Bendito seja (as elsewhere). For it is one
thing to conquer, quite another thing to merit merely that the fruits of
the conquest be applied! Nor is there any reason to add any distinction at all
in the Bendito seja: the Holy Father has been so careful as to make
explicit even the ever obvious qualification that Mary is subordinate to
Christ; hence we should not presume to read in something that is not obvious. (William
G. Most, “The Queenship of Mary,” in Stanley G. Mathews, ed., Queen of the
Universe: An Anthology on the Assumption and Queenship of Mary [Saint Meinrad,
Ind.: Grail Publications, 1957], 176-86, here, 185 n. 23)
