Author Topic: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary (Read 3321 times)

OABrownson1876 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 18, 2026, 07:12:18 AM »

Setting the Co-Redeemer argument aside for a moment, one of the greatest miracles in the life of Our Lady is that she was married to a man, the greatest of men, for thirty years, and never was there even a venial sin in the marriage. Most couples, even if they are extremely pious, will commit at least venial sins the first month in. The holiness of Mary and St. Joseph is almost unthinkable so great it is.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #41 on:** February 18, 2026, 08:27:47 AM »

Quote from: Lazarus on February 17, 2026, 02:28:18 PM

It seems to me that desiring more knowledge at any cost is greed, rather than pride. Of course, all cardinal sins are ultimately rooted in pride.

Greed has to do with money. There was no money in Eden.
Covetousness has to do with desiring what you don't have. Adam/Eve had everything in Eden.
Envy/Jealously has to do with wanting what others have. Adam/Eve were content with what they had, possession-wise.
Their sin was pride - to be like gods.

DecemRationis · « **Reply #42 on:** February 18, 2026, 08:46:43 AM »

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

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.

Lad,

Agree with you on this one. Ironically, it really is that simple - ironically, because there is a complexity under that simplicity, as you note.

The term is not necessary and fraught with problems.

DR

Lazarus · « **Reply #43 on:** February 18, 2026, 04:33:08 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 18, 2026, 08:27:47 AM

Greed has to do with money. There was no money in Eden.
Covetousness has to do with desiring what you don't have. Adam/Eve had everything in Eden.
Envy/Jealously has to do with wanting what others have. Adam/Eve were content with what they had, possession-wise.
Their sin was pride - to be like gods.

Greed isn't only about money, it is about wanting to accuмulate more and more without reason. It is also possible to be greedy about knowledge, and wanting to accuмulate knowledge even things you shouldn't be privy to is the sin of curiositas, which is one of the sins Adam and Eve committed when they desired the fruit of knowledge.

For envy, well, I think Adam and Eve envied God's knowledge. And if they were content with what they had, (which is a virtue), they would not have sinned.

Pride is the root of all sins, but not all sins are pride. Because Adam and Eve had perfect control over their body's impulses, they couldn't be tempted the same way we are, but they had to deliberately pursue temptation which requires pride (putting one's desires above what God's will).

Maria Dolorosa · « **Reply #44 on:** February 22, 2026, 08:43:17 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 17, 2026, 02:00:30 PM

The devil tempted Adam/Eve to "be like gods" if they ate of the forbidden tree. Wanting knowledge = pride. All of the Church Fathers say the sin was pride.

"Pride is the beginning of all sin." - Ecclesiasticus 10:15

Fr. Haydock commenting on the desire of Adam and Eve to "be like gods", "knowing good and evil" states:

It appears, that our first parents had flattered themselves with the hopes of attaining a divine knowledge of all things.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary (Read 3321 times)

OABrownson1876

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

Pax Vobis

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

DecemRationis

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

Maria Dolorosa

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