Traditionalist Catholics must uphold and defend Mary's prerogatives as the Second Eve because it is quite common to hear them denied because of the modernist "experts" in biblical exegesis. The most compelling reasons for Mary's prerogatives, both from reason and from faith, are given us in Genesis 3:15-16. We must also add Genesis 3:17-24. The reasons are these: Tradition teaches us that Adam's sin was of such malice - that only a perfect Man - a divinely perfect Man could sufficiently atone for it. Therefore, as Chalcedon and other councils teach infallibly, Our Lord Jesus Christ had a perfect human nature - hypostatically that is - immutably united to the Divine Nature of the Word, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. Therefore, in Jesus Christ there are two natures, a divine and human nature, hypostatically united to the One Divine Person of the Word or in St.John's Greek, the Logos, which also signifies wisdom, as in the biblical book of that name. Because of His Divine Nature and its relation to His human nature, Our Lord could not possibly suffer the consequences of the Original Sin that God specified to Adam in Genesis 3. These had, of necessity, to be inflicted upon Him from without.
When we humans suffer in any way, even from common hunger, thirst and especially any disease, even the most common - such as a cold, it is always because of some internal disorder or deficiency in our cells; a weakness or otherwise. It could not have been so with Our Lord. When He asked the Samaritan woman to give Him to drink from the well, if He really felt thirst, it was only because He willed it. There was no disorder or deficiency in His bodily cells. They were always in perfect balance and full strength. Is this going too far? If so, please correct me. But I think of the logical consequences, also. Our Lord's human nature was indeed, truly human, but it was like that of Adam before the fall; only divinely so.
And since Our Blessed Lady is the Second Eve, then she too must have been preserved from conception and in conception, from every taint of the consequences of the Original Sin laid specifically upon Eve, namely, the pains of childbirth and a somewhat "inordinate" subjection to her husband. The most splendid exposition of Our Blessed Lady's Immaculate human nature is, of course, that given by the Venerable Mary of Agreda, glory of the Franciscan's, after St. Francis himself. And so, as true Traditionalists, we must defend as strongly as we possibly can, these wonderful prerogatives of Mary Immaculate, so shockingly denied by many, if not most Novus Ordo-ites.
Perhaps the word "inordinate" is improper. It is certain, though, that before the Fall, the relation of Eve to Adam was much more that of a helper or companion, as God indicates in Genesis 2:18 and 20. Among the animals, Adam could find no "helper like himself." However, in the last analysis, Eve is still hierarchically lower in the finely-tuned scale of beings, since she was made from Adam's own body, flesh and bone. Physically and mentally, then, she is subordinate to man.
What, exactly then, was that consequence of the Original Sin, that seems to demote woman yet more than she originally was? Whatever it was, Immaculate Mary did not suffer it in her relationship with St. Joseph. In her, St. Joseph found the perfect helper. And, of course, Our Immaculate Mother Mary did not suffer any of the discomforts or pains of childbearing and giving birth.
I am told that the same holy Jesuit, Henry James Coleridge, who wrote The Return of the King, on the signs of the Last Days, also wrote a series of very beautiful meditations on the contemplations of our Blessed Lady during the nine months of her pregnancy. Like our Lord, physical sufferings could come to Our Lady, only from outside her own body. Therefore, her title of Co-Redemptrix must designate unimaginable, spiritual sufferings - just as the holy Simeon prophesied - "and thine own soul a sword shall pierce..." (Luke 2:35) Not a blemish on Her Immaculate body - but a sword piercing her soul...
I am not as conversant as I should be with the City of God, by the Venerable Mary of Agreda, and so I respectfully refer to those who are: Our Divine Lord, even as yet in His un-glorified Body, must have passed from Our Lady's womb much as He passed through the walls of the tomb on Easter morning. St. Thomas would see such a similarity as eminently fitting, even in the contrast of immaculate flesh with the pristine stone of the rich man's tomb. This may be in Ven. Mary of Agreda. Let us keep these precious truths alive at all costs!