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.
Pohle, Van Noort, and Merkelbach for starters, with Merkelbach (page 333 of
Mariologia) saying that MANY theologians were opposed to the title ... three individuals whose manuals are in wide use in Traditional seminaries.
Nice try gaslighting, buddy ... but maybe next time you should look into it before running your mouth.
As for some nonsense about "ordinary Magisterium", there's only one legitimate Catholic papal source that used the title and it was in a non-authoritative docuмent, some letter to a sodality. There are a couple others floating around that are actually gross mistranslations.
So shut up with the gaslighting, "proximate to heresy" and "borders on blasphemy". You can rend your garments all you want and virtue signal about how devoted you are to Our Lady, but devotion to Our Lady requires truth, and it would not be a dishonor to her to not use a theologically incorrect title. I would not be dishonoring Our Lady by refusing her the title of, say, "Fourth Person of the Holy Trinity".
On top of that, it would help if you didn't lie about what Prevost and Tucho actually said. They did not say that cannot be a correct meaning (identical to what the above-cited theologians stated), but in fact implied there could be one when they said that a correct understanding of the term would require significant amounts of explanation. Tucho confirmed this later by saying that there's no prohibition against using the term privately.
We have the Council of Trent CLEARLY teaching that Our Lord alone is the Redeemer "solus Redemptor", and so in order to avoid the perception of contradicting Trent, you'd have to adequately explain the term, as many / most pre-Vatican II Catholic theollogians agreed.
Now, we can rightly be cynical of the stated motives from Prevost and Tucho, namely, to avoid confusion ... since WHEN EVER have the Conciliar Modernist Anti-Popes cared about causing confusion. Bergoglio reveled in causing messes and chaos openly, and had no problems causing confusion with
Fiducia Supplicans and
Amorist Laetitia ... believing that a simple sentence indicating that sodomites are not actually married suffices to dispel the confusion. That we can rightly suspect that they were lying, and in fact were trying to become more Prot-cuмenical. But that's a separate issue from the actual matter at hand.
Now, one might actually suspect given that we saw greater outrage from SSPX over this matter than about, oh, actual heresies, promoting sodomite, and everything else Rome has done that's actually openly heretic ... but one might suspect that this was setup or leadin to the "consecration" matter, giving the SSPX a bone to chew on where they could exhibit to their followers what staunch anti-Modernists they are.
Unfortunately, because they were just emoting, the Popesplainers had a field day with the SSPX outrage, discrediting their opposition and accusing them of bad will, for opposing Prevost and Tucho on a matter that many approved and respected pre-Vatican II theologians also agreed with them about.
Topic: Pope(?) Leo Doubles Down on Rejecting Co-Redemptrix Title for Mary (Read 981 times)