Ok. Thanks! In the Rebuttal syllogism there is a major premise, a minor premise and the conclusion. I simply changed the minor premise to include the distinction. You’re right however: syllogisms have three terms only. I will review again.

@canonist
Logical Soundness of My Rebuttal Syllogism:
I reviewed the formal logic rules with regards to syllogisms applied to my specific deductive argument.
My analysis and review confirms that my inclusion in the minor premise of the phrase:
'in a secondary, supporting and associative role' is essential.
This descriptive qualifier, though lengthy, precisely defines and distinguishes the co-related terms Redeemer and Mediator from the co-related terms: 'Co-Redemptrix/Co-Mediatrix'
In logic, this entire qualified description functions as a single, complex term, thereby successfully preventing the formal fallacy of four terms, or “Quaternio Terminorum”, which is often caused by an ambiguous, or equivocal middle term.
Conclusion: My logical structure is sound as it establishes a logical non-contradiction through definitional distinction.

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.

Bishop Schneider: Saints, doctors affirmed Mary …

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.

No worries. Rusty if so!

Apologia pro Jesu per Mariam. To defend the honour of Mary is to defend the honour of Jesus as in every natural family on earth. To denigrate Mary, as Luther, Calvin, Knox, Cranmer, Zwingli and Hus did, is to denigrate Jesus. What is so clear to the Holy Trinity, to the angels and saints in heaven, to natural godly families on earth, and to Satan in hell is obscure and opaque to the Protestant heretical founders, yesterday as today, and, now, finally, at the highest levels of the institutional Church ie. Roman Protestants, less Catholic than some High church anglicans. We should shudder in holy outrage as St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort did: "It is through the most Blessed Virgin Mary, that Jesus Christ came into the world, and it is also through her, that He will reign in the world." Such is the Economy of Salvation. Genesis 3:15: “ 15 And I will establish a feud between thee and the woman, between thy offspring and hers; she is to crush thy head, while thou dost lie in ambush at her heels.” This is what Lucifer saw in eternity, rejected, and the reason why, according to the Church Fathers, he fell from Heaven to the eternal of Hell…along with all of his anti-Marian followers.

@K R Ross...I had no idea that you were so highly trained which shows in your excellent style and vocabulary. I still must demure on the following basis...
1. There is no reason to change. Mary and Jesus are fine just like they are. Mary cannot originate and dispense grace.
2. Mary as Redemptrix would give Protestants rock solid evidence that Catholics worship 3 Gods in 1 person, PLUS God the Blessed Virgin.
3.Co-redemptrix is wrong. "Co" in American English has come to mean "equal" as in Co-pilot, Co-defendant, Co-owner, Co-worker, Co-Chair, Co-signer etc. which of course Jesus and Mary are not equal.
4..Your phrase "through Mary to Jesus" admits that she is inferior to Jesus which she is. Jesus is God, Mary is creature and never the twain shall meet. Therefore the only proper term to use would be Sub-Redemptrix.
5. Many Bibles say Genesis 3:15 referrers to a male...Jesus.
Thank you very much. Yes, Cana was marvelous.

@chris griffin Thanks Chris! Six years of theology and six years of philosophy will do that to you. I studied the Summa, the Old and the New Canon Law, Moral Theology in spoken and written Latin. Oral exams were in Latin. Written exams were in French and Latin.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. To pontificate (teach) we must be pontiffs (bishops). We are the hearing Church. We assent to orthodox traditional Catholic doctrine. We flee novel doctrines. Everything that we believe without exception is to be found, at least in embryonic form in the Deposit of Faith. Divine Revelation was closed at the death of the last Apostle. Catholics enjoy the Sensus Fidelium: the gift of discernment to recognize true Catholic doctrine and inversely heresy. One can lose this gift either because we never had it through ignorance, or by “itchy ears” listening to and giving credence to false doctrines around us. True Catholics do not waver in the Faith or their faith. They know that the Faith is transmitted without addition, subtraction, or omission by the Faithful Church, century to century without substantial change. An orange tree does not hybrid or graft into a giraffe/orange tree. From the seed it will become and remain an orange tree that grows and develops into a mature orange tree. It cannot change into something substantially different and remain an orange tree. It becomes, in that case, something else but definitely not an orange tree. Such is the Catholic Church. Such is Catholic doctrine which include the titles and privileges of Mary given to her by her Divine Son.
Chris G.: “Your phrase "through Mary to Jesus" admits that she is inferior to Jesus which she is.” Reply: Yes, Mary is inferior to Jesus as He is the Creator and she is a creature. Nobody has ever said any different. Jesus honoured His Mother by elevating her to Queenship beside His Throne in heaven. You would honour your mother I hope, Chris. There she distributes all the graces that Jesus won on the Cross. Mary is Jesus’s physical mother. Jesus came to us 100% through Mary. He only has her DNA so they looked alike. St. Joseph was Jesus’ putative father only and His guardian. Ergo, through Mary to Jesus.

I am totally impressed. I have never even talked to a guy as smart as you. If you don't mind sharing a little about you station in life now. That would be very interesting. Thanks and God Bless!

I’m an FSSPX priest for over 30 years trained at Econe. I lived with Abp. Lefebvre and knew him well. He was very gentle, humble, yet firm. I was ordained by Msgr. Licinio Rangel. I travel a lot to various Mass Centres, pilgrimages and Retreat Centres. For privacy reasons, that’s about all I can share with you. Pray for me. I’ll pray for you. Ad Jesu Per Mariam.

@K R Ross...GTV is blessed to have you. Thank you.

@K R Ross.....you said concerning the miracle at Cana " He hastened His Time for her which shows her role as Co-Mediatrix."
I would reassess it as "He hastened His Time for her which shows her role as his earthly mother inspired by the Holy Spirit".
Jesus: "What is that to me, my time has not come"
Mary: like a strong Jewish mother Mary will not accept his answer. Without another word she simply looks at the waiter and says "Do whatever he tells you"
She in effect confronted Jesus and won. How did she know that the waiters would execute the miracle and not Jesus personally? She knew because the Holy Spirit told her.

…
Communiqué from the General House of the Society of Saint X
Communiqué on the Doctrinal Note or the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mater Populi fidelis, 4th November 2025.
On 4 November, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a “Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation”.
This text, whose apparent concern is not to “obscure Christ’s unique salvific mediation”,teaches that “it is always inappropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s cooperation”, and that “special prudence is required when applying the term ‘Mediatrix’to Mary”.
Caricaturing—in order to distance itself from—the traditional terminology of the Church, and moreover prolix in beautiful considerations on the maternal role of the Virgin, this “Note” seeks to minimise the role entrusted by God to His Associate in the work of Redemption and the salvation of souls: on the one hand, it asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not intervene in the acquisition of grace; on the other, her universal and necessary role in the dispensation of graces is weakened almost to the point of denial. She is acknowledged only an undefined function of maternal intercession.
With its misleading admonitions, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith “obscures” Our Lady’s unique collaboration in the work of salvation. It dethrones the Virgin Mary and offends Divine Wisdom. Lastly, it scandalises all Christians, who are deeply wounded by this grave attack on the greatness of their Mother and dismayed to see her mission within their souls so deliberately restricted.
Profoundly outraged and eager to make public reparation for such an offence, the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X invite all affiliated priests and the faithful to join them in prayer on Sunday, 16 November. At every public Mass celebrated that day, an intention of reparation will be added for the offence and scandal committed. After each Mass, the Litany of the Blessed Virgin and the Stabat Mater will be sung or recited.
May the Virgin Co-Redemptrix, through her powerful intercession, dispel the present darkness and rekindle the faith of her children.
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
Menzingen, November 11, 2025

@K R Ross... Hey, I got one right. I have always thought the miracle at Cana was an act of motherhood rather than mediation or grace(see my post above highlighted in gold it was so good!). Well the Vatican document agrees with me...37a Her intercession does not have the characteristic of priestly mediation (such as Christ’s), but is instead situated in the order and analogy of motherhood.

Ask Mom to ask Dad for the car keys. You’ll get them when otherwise he would say no.
In family life, we know to go to Dad through Mom who intercedes for us.
Dad is more likely to grant a request if it’s mom doing the asking.
Mom brings us the car keys from Dad. Mom is the intermediary between Dad and us. Very natural.
At Cana, same thing. Our Lord could not refuse His Mother’s request for more wine. He states that Mary’s request sped up the providential time of Christ’s first public miracle. This is the power of her request on Christ who can refuse His Mother’s nothing.
Every Scripture passage has a literal and a metaphorical meaning. The Church, that wrote the Bible, teaches us what that meaning is. In this case, Christ had planned to perform His first public miracle at a later date. Mary’s request for more wine at the wedding feast changes Our Lord’s future plans. He hastens the commencement.of His Public Ministry and His first miracle on the spot. Christ could refuse His Mother nothing. St. John ,1 Two days afterwards, there was a wedding-feast at Cana, in Galilee; and Jesus’ mother was there. 2 Jesus himself, and his disciples, had also been invited to the wedding. 3 Here the supply of wine failed; whereupon Jesus’ mother said to him, They have no wine left. 4 Jesus answered her, Nay, woman, why dost thou trouble me with that? My time has not come yet.[1] 5 And his mother said to the servants, Do whatever he tells you 1 Two days afterwards, there

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 22 on the Gospel of John …

Chris, I agree with you, the BVM is Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix, but the syllogism you articulate above is fallacious (Fallacy of the Four Terms).

@canonistChris’ position was the Objection (mine and the Church’s position the rebuttal): Christ is the sole Redeemer and sole Mediator. Which logically excludes Mary from being Redeemer (Originator) and Mediator (Source). Therefore, to say Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix in that sense is false. True, but only in the false context of the above incorrect and incomplete syllogism.
A distinction needs to be made: Mary is Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix not in the sense of sole Originator nor sole Mediator, but in the sense (hence, the distinction) an associative, secondary, non-causal sense: distributes the effects of the Redemption, all graces, as the sole Channel not as the sole Source.
This distinction to the minor premise is perfectly logical. They went to Mary when the wine ran out. Mary went to Jesus with their request. Jesus did His first miracle turning water into the very best wine. Why? His Mother asked Him too. He hastened His Time for her which shows her role as Co-Mediatrix.
What’s the fix? Can you rewrite the syllogism correctly please?

@K R Ross Are you referring to me? I just quoted your excellent article and shared it because this onslaught against Our lady is over the top diabolical! So my share comment is an exact quote from your article, which I love by the way! God bless you!

@Jeffrey AdeNo, not you: Canonist. Cheers! In Xto. God bless you for the share. Ad meioram Dei gloriam!

@K R Ross AMDG!