Distinction: Christ the Redeemer and Mary the Co-Redemptrix
Objection Syllogism:
@chrisgriffin
The objection argues that Christ is the Sole Mediator in a way that excludes secondary or cooperative roles, rendering the titles "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" false.
Major Premise (Universal Principle of Mediation): The saving office of Redemption and the ultimate Mediation between God and humanity must be held by one, unique, and infinite Source of grace. (This premise asserts the exclusivity and uniqueness of the principal saving office).
Minor Premise (Application to Mary's Titles): The titles Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces attribute to Mary roles that appear to share or divide this singular saving office of Redemption and Mediation. (This premise assumes that "Co-" and "Mediatrix" imply an equality or a conflict with the unique Source).
Conclusion (The Objection): Therefore, the titles Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix of All Graces are not only unacceptable, but false, as they compromise the dogma of Christ's unique Redemption …More
KR, your argument was meant to be referenced: it can however only have 3 terms (Major, Minor, and Middle Terms). The predicate of your Minor premise introduced a fourth term…
KR, thank you for considering my animadversion and working on eliminating the fallacy. Reviewing your Minor attempting to prove your distinction of the Minor, I'll try to be "socratic" in an effort to be "aristotelian". First question: How many copulae or verbs are in your proof? I count 1) "is" in the Major premise's predicate; 2) "are" in the Minor premise's predicate; 3) "do not compromise" in the conclusion. Correct? There should only be one identical verb, otherwise an illicit process occurs. Second question: How many terms are there? I count: 1) "Christ" (subject of Major premise); 2) "Redeemer" (predicate of Major premise); 3) "Mary's roles" (subject of Minor premise); 4) "entirely by association" etc. (predicate of Minor premise); 5) technically "title" is not the same univocal term as "roles" but that can be debated; and finally 6) "do not compromise" etc.. I count six terms. when a proper syllogism should only have three.
@Canonist: Accidental flaws that do not vitiate the fundamental integrity of my rebuttal syllogism rather than a substantial error of logic that would make the syllogism false. An imperfect syllogism is not an erroneous, nor illogical false syllogism. We’ve both studied logic at the university level so let’s leave it at that and move on. We agree to disagree.
K R, an imperfect syllogism may not be erroneous or false (those are questions of material validity), but strictly speaking, the syllogism you propose with six terms is formally invalid. I'm just trying to help, for assuredly one would not want one's enemy raising such objections in a formal setting. I'm your friend, not your enemy.
Nope, I disagree. I checked with my old logic prof and a St. Thomas Aquinas College Trivium and Quadrivium prof. My response was vetted by both of them. Same consensus . We agree to disagree. The End. P.S. I am not infallible so a mistake is possible. I am going with “probabilior.” Enough gnat straining, the big picture is “sententia certa.”
“Gnat straining”? Citing anonymous authorities is palpably not demonstrative. Explain how your argument does not have six terms, please! Term by term. Or provide the names of the experts you reference so I can confer with them directly.
Father (pardon me, I didn't know until just now that you were a priest), we're on the same page! I believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix. I just don't think that you've articulated it in the form of a formally valid syllogism stricto sensu, only lato sensu. I'm grateful for your dispensing of the sacred mysteries as an SSPX priest.