So you admit she is a co-redemtrix.  Isn't that all Benedict XV said.

No.  He didn't say anything of the sort.  POPE Leo XIII is the one who used the term co-Redemptrix, and it has an orthodox understanding - that the Most Holy Virgin was a subordinate in Christ's work of redemption, but not by redeeming, but by providing the human flesh He would assume, and then interceding on behalf of those, for whom she would merit (de congruo) grace, which had already been paid for by Christ.

And she is not a co-redemptrix, she is THE co-Redemptrix.  No other person was a subordinate participator with Him in His role in the unique way in which she was.

She didn't perform the same task as if she did it instead of Him.  She did it with him in a secondary and subordinate way and would not have been able to help Him in this task if He did not Will or allow her to do so.  He certainly did not need her help but willed to need her help.  I am not sure we really disagree here but I am also highly doubtful that Benedict XV disagreed either.

Regardless of what his subjective beliefs were, his words took the title given to the Most Holy Virgin by Pope Leo into an objectively heretical direction, saying that she, together with Christ, redeemed mankind.  This wording means we have TWO REDEEMERS, plain and simple, even if Christ is the principal Redeemer without Whom, there could be no Redemption.  But this is still wrong, and contrary to Trent, which says Jesus Christ alone is our Redeemer.

He was objectively heretical on this and other points, and he was an active part in the dismantling of the Sodalitium Pianum, which was THE anti-Modernist league in the Catholic Church, dedicated to uphold the rigorous anti-heresy standards of the late Pope Pius X.  He promulgated bad 'laws' in his heretical Code.  Antipope.

Unless, of course, you're like the Dimonds, and you believe that a pope can PUBLICLY teach material heresy, and remain pope, despite never retracting.  The question then becomes, how many material heresies until he ceases to be pope?  One?  Five?  One hundred and five?

Quote from: Catholic Martyr

I hope you convert.

Convert to what? Your non-Catholic rule of Faith?

This is all about the Catholic rule of Faith. You have chosen a different rule...because of the crisis, no doubt. But you are still wrong.

That's a laugh.  Here's my rule:

ex cathedra[/i],]Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding...

...For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles...

...Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Do you not follow this rule?  Do you not tremble at the consequences for rejecting this rule?

That's a laugh.  Here's my rule:

Except that's not a rule of Faith. You seem to have trouble grasping some very simple concepts.

Quote

The Church, historically, taught the damnation of all non-Catholics.

Those outside the Church, when they die, are damned. This is NOT equal to what you said above. You think it is...but it is not.

If they are inside the Church when they die, then they are Catholic.  QED.  Other than that, I agree with your statement 100%!

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: SJB

Quote

The Church, historically, taught the damnation of all non-Catholics.

Those outside the Church, when they die, are damned. This is NOT equal to what you said above. You think it is...but it is not.

If they are inside the Church when they die, then they are Catholic.

They die WITHIN the Church, with true supernatural Faith...nowhere does it say they became MEMBERS before their death. If someone dies without supernatural Faith, they are damned. If they die within the Church, they can be saved.

It they have explicit faith in Jesus Christ, the vow for sacramental Baptism, and submission to the Roman Pontiff, sure, then they are Catholic, every bit as you or me (and yes, I do profess all those things), and they will go straight from being part of the Church Militant to the Church Suffering, as most of us (myself included) will end-up, but like us (I hope!), they will be part of the Church Triumphant, eventually.  So, they are every bit as members of the One True Church as anybody who has the name 'Catholic.'

On the other hand, if they are lacking one or more of the above attributes, then, no, I would say, based upon the Tradition of the Church, they are lost for Eternity.  As always, salutary repentance is an option.  There is, however, only one Heaven, not Buddhist, not Hindu, not Islamic, and not Jєωιѕн, but only one, where Jesus Christ, the One and Only Son of God, Lord of Lords, King of Kings, will rule and reigneth forever and forever.

We've been through this enough, so the last word is (if you want it) yours.  This will be my last post on this topic for quite some time.  Sometimes, people just have to "agree to disagree."