Author Topic: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary (Read 3294 times)

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #25 on:** February 15, 2026, 05:06:09 PM »

Quote from: Lazarus on February 15, 2026, 11:34:56 AM

Ok, I hope you confess what you did today to the priest. People like you should't be on social media to be a source of scandal and to damn themselves.

You should reread both posts.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #26 on:** February 15, 2026, 08:14:19 PM »

Quote from: Lazarus on February 15, 2026, 11:33:08 AM

You seem to believe Vatican II happened instantly and that all pre-Vatican II docuмents can be trusted. That is not the case, Vatican II happened when modernists became the majority, by no means did modernists not exist before Vatican II.

Quite the contrary. Still not a single rational argument, though ... just more gaslighting, emoting, garment rending, etc.

What part of it is difficult that the prefix "Co-" can contradict the teaching of Trent that CHRIST ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER? As the pre-V2 theologians admit, Co- doesn't inherently denote subordinate causality, and it can depend on the modern language, since in English, if you have a Co-Author, it means that both have contributed to the authorship, and neither Co-Author would be said to have authoried the book alone, but there are other terms, like Co-Operation, which generally implies subordination, in some expressions, such as co-operating in an investigation or co-operating with the grace of God.

It's complicated at best, AND that's ALL that Tucho was saying, and his text actually implies that is A correct meaning of the term, just that it would be a constant battle to keep reinforcing the correct definition.

So, as I said, I'm still waiting for a rational argument regarding this matter. People just go after the Modernist for "attacking" Our Lady, rend their garments, virtue signal about how devoted they are to Our Lady, and simply emote.

Here the Dimond Brothers (no Modernists) make their case for why the term is not acceptable period.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix/

I disagree with them, and I intend to make the case for why they're wrong, but the very fact that they CAN make this argument, and convince many people about it ... that's prima facie evidence that the term absolutely can be confusuing, just like many (per Merkelbach) of the pre-V2 theologians held.

That's just a fact, that it CAN easily be MISUNDERSTOOD. Please refute that central point before continuing to post one gaslight after another.

Now, the case I make is that the Brothers are excessively focused on English connotations of the world, rather than on the Latin ... and if one were to look at JUST the English, i would agree with them, but in technical scholastic-theological terms, they are incorrect, as there most certainly can be a legitimate sense for the term, and I believe that Our Lady SHOULD be honored with that title. But just because I disagree, I wouldn't gaslight them as somehow dishonoring Our Lady because they take a different view of the matter. Nor is it fair to gaslight the Modernists, since they're saying the exact same thing in their docuмent. Sure, we can rightly be suspicious and cynical regarding their stated motives, but suspicion is as far as we can go here.

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 15, 2026, 08:48:15 PM »

My problem with the co-redemptrix title is the blurring of issues between the Immaculate Conception and Co-Redemptrix. If I tell a Protestant Mary was without sin, he says, well then, if she was without sin, then she did not need the sacraments, did not need the Church. I tell him, "She was indeed without sin, but she needed the sacrament of baptism to be saved, because the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and this law applies to all Catholics." The logic goes:

Major: All Catholics need the sacraments
minor: Mary was a Catholic
ergo: Mary needed baptism

It is hard enough as it is for Protestants to accept this Catholic doctrine, why confuse things with the Co-Redemptrix title?

Lazarus · « **Reply #28 on:** February 16, 2026, 03:58:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 15, 2026, 08:14:19 PM

Quite the contrary. Still not a single rational argument, though ... just more gaslighting, emoting, garment rending, etc.

What part of it is difficult that the prefix "Co-" can contradict the teaching of Trent that CHRIST ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER? As the pre-V2 theologians admit, Co- doesn't inherently denote subordinate causality, and it can depend on the modern language, since in English, if you have a Co-Author, it means that both have contributed to the authorship, and neither Co-Author would be said to have authoried the book alone, but there are other terms, like Co-Operation, which generally implies subordination, in some expressions, such as co-operating in an investigation or co-operating with the grace of God.

It's complicated at best, AND that's ALL that Tucho was saying, and his text actually implies that is A correct meaning of the term, just that it would be a constant battle to keep reinforcing the correct definition.

So, as I said, I'm still waiting for a rational argument regarding this matter. People just go after the Modernist for "attacking" Our Lady, rend their garments, virtue signal about how devoted they are to Our Lady, and simply emote.

Here the Dimond Brothers (no Modernists) make their case for why the term is not acceptable period.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix/

I disagree with them, and I intend to make the case for why they're wrong, but the very fact that they CAN make this argument, and convince many people about it ... that's prima facie evidence that the term absolutely can be confusuing, just like many (per Merkelbach) of the pre-V2 theologians held.

That's just a fact, that it CAN easily be MISUNDERSTOOD. Please refute that central point before continuing to post one gaslight after another.

Now, the case I make is that the Brothers are excessively focused on English connotations of the world, rather than on the Latin ... and if one were to look at JUST the English, i would agree with them, but in technical scholastic-theological terms, they are incorrect, as there most certainly can be a legitimate sense for the term, and I believe that Our Lady SHOULD be honored with that title. But just because I disagree, I wouldn't gaslight them as somehow dishonoring Our Lady because they take a different view of the matter. Nor is it fair to gaslight the Modernists, since they're saying the exact same thing in their docuмent. Sure, we can rightly be suspicious and cynical regarding their stated motives, but suspicion is as far as we can go here.

Firstly, accusing people of "gaslighting" and using other derogatory terms in a debate is intellectually dishonest. It is at the very least rash accusations. You do not have the ability to read the hearts of people, you should be more careful before accusing someone, you are at risk of committing rash judgment.

Secondly, it seems you have quite a problem with Catholic theology. In Catholicism, authority matters, and it is not irrational to use arguments based on it, as long as the authority can be considered to be legitimate. We are not protestants who think everyone is equally competent on the matters regarding salvation. In fact, this is one of the most fundamental tenets of modernism, the idea that everyone is equal.

Thirdly, here are the docuмents that prove that the baptism of desire are true. The Council of Trent. St Thomas's Summa Theologica. Moreover, in Suprema haec sacra Pius XII approves of the baptism of desire. Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore teaches the baptism of desire. Two Popes, one extremely authoritative council, and St Thomas Aquinas Doctor of the Church all teach the baptism of desire.

Fourthly, what authority do the Dimond brothers have, compared to two Popes, one Doctor of the Church, and a Council?

From all of my arguments, we can conclude that the Dimond brothers are wrong when they teach that the baptism of desire is heresy. You should NOT use them as a source of authority.

Finally, Modernists didn't merely refuse to use the title of Theotokos and that is but one example of how they disrespect St Mary. As an example, modernists tried to showcase a disgusting blasphemous statue of our Mother, at the cathedral if Linz. There are countless examples such as this one. Another example is how John Paul II added the "Luminous mysteries" to the Rosary, CONTRARY to apparitions of St Mary regarding how to pray the Rosary. Modernists show systematic disrespect towards the Lord's mother. Your ignorance does NOT mean that the Modernists are anything else than what they are.

Lazarus · « **Reply #29 on:** February 16, 2026, 04:18:45 PM »

Quote from: OABrownson1876 on February 15, 2026, 08:48:15 PM

My problem with the co-redemptrix title is the blurring of issues between the Immaculate Conception and Co-Redemptrix. If I tell a Protestant Mary was without sin, he says, well then, if she was without sin, then she did not need the sacraments, did not need the Church. I tell him, "She was indeed without sin, but she needed the sacrament of baptism to be saved, because the sacraments are necessary for salvation, and this law applies to all Catholics." The logic goes:

Major: All Catholics need the sacraments
minor: Mary was a Catholic
ergo: Mary needed baptism

It is hard enough as it is for Protestants to accept this Catholic doctrine, why confuse things with the Co-Redemptrix title?

I don't think the protestant counterargument makes sense.

Mary was born without sin according to the Immaculate Conception. That means she was justified in the eyes of God. However, Adam and Eve both were born without sin and both were justified in the eyes of God, before they lost their justification through the original sin.

Being born without the original sin has no relationship with being able to stay justified during one's whole life until death. As long as someone is alive and is not in heaven, sinning is still possible. The sacraments would still be useful, praying would still be useful, being humble would still be useful even for someone who is justified.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary (Read 3294 times)

AnthonyPadua

Re: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary

Ladislaus

Re: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary

OABrownson1876

Re: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary

Lazarus

Re: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary

Lazarus

Re: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary