Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary  (Read 824 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Todd The Trad

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 607
  • Reputation: +196/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To the surprise of no-one, Pope(?) Leo has doubled down on the Vatican docuмent rejecting Marian titles such as Co-Redemptrix; 



    https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/pope-leo-doubles-down-on-vatican-rejection-of-co-redemptrix/ 
    St. Joseph Terror of Demons, pray for us! 

    Offline Lazarus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 11
    • Reputation: +6/-6
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • "Leo" is part of a pedocriminal ring and was involved with McCarrick, like Francis was. The strange part would be expecting a golem like him to be a devout christian. 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48465
    • Reputation: +28595/-5352
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, of all the things Trads are focused on, this really is one of the least horrible things the Modernist have done.  I know there's a lot of emotional attachment to Our Lady, but it would not somehow be to dishonor Our Lady if we were to, say, not grant her the title of Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity.  In fact, erroneous titles only dishononr her.

    There were PRE-VATICAN II THEOLOGIANS, approved and respected, cited by the Dimond Brothers, who also said that the title of Co-Redemptrix is problematic, confusing, and potentially mis leading, and "best avoided".

    Now, one might RIGHTLY be cynical that this is the motivation of the Modernist heretics, to avoid confusion, since Bergoglio practially reveled in it, bragging about how he liked to cause messes, and the confusion of Fiducia Supplicans they felt was easily addressed by putting in a sentence of explanation about how it's not to resemble a marrige in any way and that the relationship wasn't being blessed, just the individuals.

    Now, the title is defensible, but I have not yet seen a Trad actually defend it theologically against the objections that have been brought against the Title, but merely rend their garments and virtue signal about how much they're devoted to Our Lady and all that.

    I believe the title is not only defensible, but very apt, and should be bestowed upon Our Lady, and the necessary distinctions easily explained in a sentence or two alongside the proclamation ... so I disagree with the Dimond Brothers, but as of this time no one has properly defend the title from a theological perspective.  I will do that myself when I have time.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48465
    • Reputation: +28595/-5352
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is just one you can't "get" them on in terms of heresy.

    Meanwhile, they routinely and regularly and pertinacioulsy deny EENS dogma, contradicting verbatim various EENS definitions, but since very few Trads don't share the Conciliar Modernist interpretation of EENS dogma and the Conciliar Modernist ecclesiology ... they're looking for stuff to pin on them, straining the gnat on relatively minor things ... when the obvious one is staring them in the face.

    THE Seismic shift that occurred at Vatican II had everything to do with EENS and the resulting new ecclesiology.  EVERYTHIGN.  There's no error there, apart from possibly an exaggeration of episcopal collegiality, that doesn't derive directly from the need to redefine Church into something more expansive than the visible Catholic Church in order to get various non-Catholics "saved".  But most Trads live in a cognitive dissonance, denouncing the Conciliar "religious indifferentism" and the "heretical ecclesiology" ... while holding the same ecclesiology themselves and denouncing the eeeeevil Father Feeney while foaming at the mouth.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9644
    • Reputation: +9364/-1016
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Attempting to undermine the Blessed Virgin is a true sign that the judaic usurpation of the Seat has begun it's death spiral.

    pope Bob, a jew conman, has failed in his papal acting role.
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi


    Offline Lazarus

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 11
    • Reputation: +6/-6
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, of all the things Trads are focused on, this really is one of the least horrible things the Modernist have done.  I know there's a lot of emotional attachment to Our Lady, but it would not somehow be to dishonor Our Lady if we were to, say, not grant her the title of Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity.  In fact, erroneous titles only dishononr her.

    There were PRE-VATICAN II THEOLOGIANS, approved and respected, cited by the Dimond Brothers, who also said that the title of Co-Redemptrix is problematic, confusing, and potentially mis leading, and "best avoided".

    Now, one might RIGHTLY be cynical that this is the motivation of the Modernist heretics, to avoid confusion, since Bergoglio practially reveled in it, bragging about how he liked to cause messes, and the confusion of Fiducia Supplicans they felt was easily addressed by putting in a sentence of explanation about how it's not to resemble a marrige in any way and that the relationship wasn't being blessed, just the individuals.

    Now, the title is defensible, but I have not yet seen a Trad actually defend it theologically against the objections that have been brought against the Title, but merely rend their garments and virtue signal about how much they're devoted to Our Lady and all that.

    I believe the title is not only defensible, but very apt, and should be bestowed upon Our Lady, and the necessary distinctions easily explained in a sentence or two alongside the proclamation ... so I disagree with the Dimond Brothers, but as of this time no one has properly defend the title from a theological perspective.  I will do that myself when I have time.
    The Dimond brothers are heretics who pretend that St Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent and several Popes who taught the baptism of desire all are wrong, but they, for some reason, are infallible. 

    For proof that the Virgin Mary is mother of God, first it's consensus among all "apostolical" churches (EO, OO, Catholic), secondly EVEN LUTHER  the inventor of protestantism called Mary the mother of God. This title was NEVER IN QUESTION even among protestants.

    It's only become this way because of the jewification of christians and modernism. 

    Offline WorldsAway

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1435
    • Reputation: +932/-131
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Dimond brothers are heretics who pretend that St Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent and several Popes who taught the baptism of desire all are wrong, but they, for some reason, are infallible.

    For proof that the Virgin Mary is mother of God, first it's consensus among all "apostolical" churches (EO, OO, Catholic), secondly EVEN LUTHER  the inventor of protestantism called Mary the mother of God. This title was NEVER IN QUESTION even among protestants.

    It's only become this way because of the jewification of christians and modernism.
    Hey Freind

    Your reading comprehension could use some work

    ..or maybe you should just run the post that you're replying to through your AI to get a summary intended for someone with an intellect such as yours


    :laugh2: :popcorn: :laugh2:
    John 15:19  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

    Offline Gray2023

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 3615
    • Reputation: +1955/-1002
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So, of all the things Trads are focused on, this really is one of the least horrible things the Modernist have done.  I know there's a lot of emotional attachment to Our Lady, but it would not somehow be to dishonor Our Lady if we were to, say, not grant her the title of Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity.  In fact, erroneous titles only dishononr her.

    There were PRE-VATICAN II THEOLOGIANS, approved and respected, cited by the Dimond Brothers, who also said that the title of Co-Redemptrix is problematic, confusing, and potentially mis leading, and "best avoided".

    Now, one might RIGHTLY be cynical that this is the motivation of the Modernist heretics, to avoid confusion, since Bergoglio practially reveled in it, bragging about how he liked to cause messes, and the confusion of Fiducia Supplicans they felt was easily addressed by putting in a sentence of explanation about how it's not to resemble a marrige in any way and that the relationship wasn't being blessed, just the individuals.

    Now, the title is defensible, but I have not yet seen a Trad actually defend it theologically against the objections that have been brought against the Title, but merely rend their garments and virtue signal about how much they're devoted to Our Lady and all that.

    I believe the title is not only defensible, but very apt, and should be bestowed upon Our Lady, and the necessary distinctions easily explained in a sentence or two alongside the proclamation ... so I disagree with the Dimond Brothers, but as of this time no one has properly defend the title from a theological perspective.  I will do that myself when I have time.
    This is how I think about things most of the time.  My questions are always intended to find clarity.  If something is not yet decided and somebody has questions, they should at least get the benefit of the doubt that they are not of ill will or ill intent, but I guess we all form biases and then react accordingly.  I guess it is just our fallen nature. Why don't people want to conquer their selves to become saints? ::)  I know it's hard, but God gives graces if we honestly try.
    Fatti Maschii, Parole Femine


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48465
    • Reputation: +28595/-5352
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is how I think about things most of the time.  My questions are always intended to find clarity.  If something is not yet decided and somebody has questions, they should at least get the benefit of the doubt that they are not of ill will or ill intent, but I guess we all form biases and then react accordingly.  I guess it is just our fallen nature. Why don't people want to conquer their selves to become saints? ::)  I know it's hard, but God gives graces if we honestly try.

    ... and it also discredits some of the REAL charges against the Conciliars and brings into question one's intellectual honesty, where you "cry wolf", as it were, so often, that when the real wolf, aka, the real heresy manifests itself, nobody takes you seriously anymore since they have concluded that you have an agenda and are merely looking for information afterwards to back it up.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3048
    • Reputation: +9/-2
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote one authoritative theologian who claimed the title should be avoided. Or that it was never appropriate. The way in which the title has been used and defined for 500 years suggests it is part of the ordinary universal magisterium.  Although to deny its use is not heretical, claiming that it is never an appropriate title is proximate to heresy and borders on blasphemy.