Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: LeDeg on November 14, 2025, 08:40:18 PM
-
At all chapels this Sunday. Vaudeville.
https://sspx.org/en/publications/communique-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-55472
-
At all chapels this Sunday. Vaudeville.
https://sspx.org/en/publications/communique-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-55472
What is all of the fuss of this about? Quote Leo IV, concerning the title "mediatrix", only says that one should be careful in applying it.
The SSPX, in the article, states "May the Virgin Co-Redemptrix, through her powerful intercession, dispel the present darkness and rekindle the faith of her children" -- in arrogant defiance of their Pope.
-
What is all of the fuss of this about? Quote Leo IV, concerning the title "mediatrix", only says that one should be careful in applying it.
The SSPX, in the article, states "May the Virgin Co-Redemptrix, through her powerful intercession, dispel the present darkness and rekindle the faith of her children" -- in arrogant defiance of their Pope.
So ... I don't believe Leo's the pope, etc., but I too think this is highly overblown. You can find theologians long before Vatican II, the same ones used by Traditionalist seminaries, who say the exact same thing, that the title can easily be misunderstood.
Sure, many of us think they're doing this on purpose to attack Our Lady, but that's pure speculation and we have no way to prove it, so let's stick to stuff we can prove, the heresies they spout.
I think there's a bit too much "virtue signalling" among Trads, trying to outdo one another in expressions of filial devotion to Our Lady. Hey, I'll out do them and claim that Our Lady is the 4th Person of the Holy Trinity, and then if they don't give her this honor declare them Mary-haters.
There's certainly a true sense for the title, but there's also a false sense for the title, the problem arising in large part from the nuance you often have in modern languages that "co-" implies an equality or a participation as a primary efficient cause side by side with another ... whereas on Latin, the "concausa" of St. Thomas, the co-cause, can and most often is applied to a secondary efficient, aka instrumental cause, a cause that is itself caused, used by the primary cause, and yet it does not derogate from the fact that the primary efficient cause did cause all the effects, along ... but merely used an instrumental cause to bring it about.
If I throw a baseball through a window, the baseball is a co-cause of the window's destruction, but I did it alone, since I'm the one who casued the baseball to cause the window to break, so I'm responsible alone for all the effects. Yet despite that, in Latin / Thomistic / scholastic / Aristotelian terms, the baseball can be considered a co-cause.
Always with the lack of distinctions, even among Trads. I can reject the false meaning of the title while accepting a correct meaning of the title, but in simply rejecting that false meaning, and then saying that most Novus Ordo Catholics, and in fact most Trads, are going to have very confused and muddled understandings of it, and therefore the definition would be inopportune at this time, or imprudent.
-
This part here is just plainly untrue and constitutes calumny ...
on the one hand, it asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not intervene in the acquisition of grace; on the other, her universal and necessary role in the dispensation of graces is weakened almost to the point of denial. She is acknowledged only an undefined function of maternal intercession.
There is absolutely nothing in that docuмent that says anything close to this.
I am starting to wonder what has happened to the curriculum at STAS seminaries, where every time one of their priests, even superiors, open their mouths ... well, let's just say they would fail any scholastic philosphy and theology course that I would give. They're incapable of logic, of making proper distinctions, etc.
-
22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation. This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith…
is quite a "weaken[ing] almost to the point of denial".
J. A. de Aldama, S.J., “De Corredemptione,” in Sacræ Theologiæ Summa, vol. 3, Madrid, BAC, 1961 (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=7451), pp. 413-443. (English translation by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., vol. IIIA (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=7427), pp. 441-466.):That the title of Corredemptrix is used rightly is certain; and it is not licit to doubt about its suitability.
-
So ... I don't believe Leo's the pope, etc., but I too think this is highly overblown. You can find theologians long before Vatican II, the same ones used by Traditionalist seminaries, who say the exact same thing, that the title can easily be misunderstood.
Sure, many of us think they're doing this on purpose to attack Our Lady, but that's pure speculation and we have no way to prove it, so let's stick to stuff we can prove, the heresies they spout.
I think there's a bit too much "virtue signalling" among Trads, trying to outdo one another in expressions of filial devotion to Our Lady. Hey, I'll out do them and claim that Our Lady is the 4th Person of the Holy Trinity, and then if they don't give her this honor declare them Mary-haters.
There's certainly a true sense for the title, but there's also a false sense for the title, the problem arising in large part from the nuance you often have in modern languages that "co-" implies an equality or a participation as a primary efficient cause side by side with another ... whereas on Latin, the "concausa" of St. Thomas, the co-cause, can and most often is applied to a secondary efficient, aka instrumental cause, a cause that is itself caused, used by the primary cause, and yet it does not derogate from the fact that the primary efficient cause did cause all the effects, along ... but merely used an instrumental cause to bring it about.
If I throw a baseball through a window, the baseball is a co-cause of the window's destruction, but I did it alone, since I'm the one who casued the baseball to cause the window to break, so I'm responsible alone for all the effects. Yet despite that, in Latin / Thomistic / scholastic / Aristotelian terms, the baseball can be considered a co-cause.
Always with the lack of distinctions, even among Trads. I can reject the false meaning of the title while accepting a correct meaning of the title, but in simply rejecting that false meaning, and then saying that most Novus Ordo Catholics, and in fact most Trads, are going to have very confused and muddled understandings of it, and therefore the definition would be inopportune at this time, or imprudent.
I stopped reading after you said you did not think Pope Leo was the Pope, and that this issue is overblown.
-
Regardless of some other popes and theologians supposedly saying the same thing out of concern for the faithful, the purpose this time is out of concern for non-Catholics who have nothing but utter disdain for Our blessed Mother. Our Blessed Lady is a huge obstacle to the NO's ecuмaniacs. Surely this move very much pleases all the Church's enemies, especially the despicable jews.
"....In order to present this totally new image to it's people and to the world, the conciliarists have been willing to discard everything - and that is not a careless statement. There is absolutely nothing they will not concede to fulfill this image, to carry it out. There is absolutely nothing, not a single doctrine will they not compromise, they will discard not only the Mass, they will discard any appearance, any external, and any morality in order not to be inconsistent with this self imposed obligation of being a true ecuмenical. Of being all things to all men, there is nothing that they will not discard, there is no damage they will not do, there is no fixture they will not destroy, there is nothing holy they will not trample, even the Body of Christ, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that they will not do in order to fulfill this self imposed image." - Fr. Wathen