The Hope Of Our Salvation

During these trying times we are in desperate need of hope. To whom can we turn with the assurance of receiving hope in all our trials? The one whom the Church calls "our Life, our Sweetness, and our Hope;" the Most Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. I have a special devotion to Our Lady under her title Our Lady of Hope, based on the Church-approved apparition of Our Blessed Mother in 1871. While it is good, totally Catholic, pious, and laudatory to have devotion to one or more saints (such as my Patron Saint, King St. Louis IX of France, who always comes through for me), devotion to the Blessed Mother is indispensable. The Church even assigns a special theological term for the veneration due to her.

According to theologian Parente: "Worship, in the sense of religion is due to God alone (hence, the grave mortal sin of idolatry). However, an inferior form of religious worship may be licit with respect to creatures insomuch as these have reference to God and manifest His Perfections (Emphasis mine)...the singular worship due to God alone is called latria or adoration; that given the saints is called dulia or veneration...the Blessed Mother is called hyperdulia."  (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology [1951], pg. 68). Hyperdulia, then, is the most special veneration given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is elevated to receive greater veneration than that given to all the angels and saints combined. This is because Mary is intimately united to Christ Our Savior.

Mary plays a unique role in our salvation. Just as Adam and Eve brought us death, so Christ the Second Adam, brings us salvation and eternal life. Just as Eve cooperated intimately with Adam in our downfall, so too does Mary cooperate intimately with Christ as the Second Eve in securing our restoration to God's friendship and salvation. In Latin, Eve is Eva, the reverse of which Ave, is the first Latin word of the Hail Mary--that Angelic Salutation by which the Immaculate Virgin was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to become the Mother of God--He Who would save humanity.

Christ was sinless by nature, Mary was sinless by grace. Christ was rose by His own power, body and soul, from the dead. Mary was assumed, both body and soul, into Heaven. Their lives were uniquely interwoven for the purpose of saving humanity. So many unique and awesome privileges were bestowed upon Mary.
My spiritual father, Fr. DePauw, had informed me that just prior to the death of Pope Pius XII, the pontiff called together a small group of anti-Modernist theologians and they were told to begin the groundwork for a dogmatic definition of Mary as "Mediatrix of All Grace." Unfortunately, it went nowhere when His Holiness died and false pope Roncalli [John XXIII] ordered the work scrapped because it would "offend our Protestant brothers and sisters."

One of the privileges and titles that has never been officially settled in reference to Mary, is that of Co-Redemptrix. Rightfully understood, a Traditionalist Catholic may accept or reject this title to the Mother of God. Among the approved theologians, there was no unanimity prior to the destruction of Vatican II.  Some approve and advocate for the title, and others feel it should be a title denied to her as it is unbecoming Our Lady. Neither side declares the title to be a matter of heresy or worthy of some censure short of heresy. I believe that the case for Mary being our Co-Redemptrix is much stronger than the case against it. Nevertheless, I will not condemn anyone for disagreeing--indeed, I cannot do so as I have no Magisterial authority, nor do I claim to be some ersatz "theologian" or "canonist;" as I am not.

Of course, that doesn't prevent the fiendish Feeneyites in New York, Fred and Bobby Dimond, from declaring anyone a "heretic" who dares to accept Mary's title and role as Co-Redemptrix. "Brother Peter" Dimond wrote an article that is as error-laden as their writings denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), and denouncing Church teaching on Periodic Abstinence. The Dimond bothers are never happy unless they are denouncing someone to Hell. The suffer from the "sickness of soul" endemic in all Feeneyites.

(See my post
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html, about the infamous heretic Fr. Leonard Feeney).

In this post I will put forth the theological arguments in favor of Mary's title as Co-Redemptrix, and show how Dimond's article (claiming the title as "heretical") is false and deceptive. The article may be read in full here: https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix/#.XqTGK9QrKt-.

Mary's Role as Co-Redemptrix

Redemption designates the sum total of meritorious and satisfactory acts performed by Christ while on Earth, offered to the Eternal Father in and through the Sacrifice of the Cross, in virtue of which the Eternal Father was moved (humanly speaking) to reinstate the human race into His former friendship. When we say Mary is Co-Redemptrix of humanity, we mean that together with Christ (although subordinately to Him and and in virtue of His power) She atoned or satisfied for our sins, merited every grace necessary for salvation, and offered Her Divine Son on Calvary to appease the wrath of God, and that as a result of this, God was pleased to cancel our debt and receive us into His former friendship. This co-redemptive role of Mary actually began when She accepted to become the Mother of God by her own free will. (See theologian Carol, Mariology, [1956] pgs. 56-65).  It is to be noted that this unique role does not make Mary a "priest" in any way. The idea of Mary as "priest" was condemned by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1916, and again in 1927. 

1. Proof from Holy Scripture

There is no direct mention  of Mary as Co-Redemptrix in the Bible, but neither is there anything about her Assumption which is a dogma. However, in Genesis 3:15, we read that after the Fall, Almighty God addressed Satan with these words, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed. He [the woman's seed] shall crush thy head and thou shall lie in wait for his heel." The crushing of the serpent's head is a figure of speech used to describe the work of Redemption which will totally destroy the devil's dominion over humanity. According to theologian Rabanos, the seed of the woman is Christ, as an individual, and the woman mentioned in the text designates Mary. Since, according to the Magisterium, Mary is here portrayed as intimately sharing Christ's identical victory over the devil, it logically follows that she is foreshadowed as Co-Redemptrix. (See The Co-Redemption of Mary in Sacred Scripture, [1943], pgs. 9-59)

In St. Luke 1:26-38, when the angel Gabriel was sent by God to obtain Mary's consent to become Mother of the Redeemer, she answered, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word." In a very real sense, God conditioned the Redemption of the world dependent on Mary's consent, which she knowingly, willingly, and freely gave. This consent was ratified when she stood at the foot of the cross suffering with her Son as Simeon had predicted 33 years earlier: "And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother: Behold this Child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted; And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed." (St. Luke 2:34-35). She suffered for the same purpose as her Divine Son; the reconciliation of God and humanity. (See theologian Carol, op. cit., pg. 62)

2. Proof from Sacred Tradition

The idea of Mary as Co-Redemptrix began with the analogies between Adam and Eve/Christ and Mary.

In particular, St Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus draw the parallels. These were developed in the 12th century by Arnold of Chartres and it continued to develop until it was expressly taught by approved theologians in the 17th century. (Ibid, pgs. 62-63). 

3. Magisterial Proof

Many popes have taught Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix (as I will demonstrate later on). In his dogmatic definition of Our Lady's Assumption, Pope Pius XII taught:

"Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination, immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages." (See the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Para. #40; Emphasis mine). 

On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined. The petition was well-received by the Supreme Pontiff, and the bishops were not in any way censured or condemned.  

Faulty Feeneyite Findings

Presented here is the inane idea of Dimond that the title Co-Redemptrix is "heretical." Each argument (if you can really call it that) will be presented with the refutation by me below. Although only "Peter" wrote the article, Fred and Bobby operate as one unit, so I will refer to them both (as they both profess the same errors). 

1. It’s an infallibly defined dogma that Jesus Christ alone is the Redeemer.

Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “… the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for men; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior… And they must also teach that images of Christ, the virgin mother of God and the other saints should be set up and kept… But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984)
This dogmatic definition, that Christ alone is our Redeemer, even mentions Mary.  So, in the very context of mentioning the Blessed Virgin and the saints, the Council of Trent declares that Christ alone is the Redeemer.  That proves that Mary is not the Co-Redemptrix. (Emphasis in original)

Response: What the Dimonds, in their duplicity, choose to omit are the following words between the ellipsis, "and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ...(Emphasis mine). It's clear that Trent was condemning the Protestants who think that because there is ONE MEDIATOR (not two or more--See 1 Timothy 2: 5-6), that saints are not to be invoked and cannot pray and intercede for us without derogating from the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The Dimonds have no problem calling Our Lady Mediatrix, with no fear of minimizing Our Lord's unique role as the one Mediator. Likewise, Trent was not defining Christ to be the only Savior so as to exclude the possibility of Our Lady having a secondary and subordinate role in redemption. Just as Mary has a role in dispensing all grace (subordinate to and united with Her Divine Son) so as to merit the title Mediatrix without dishonoring or denying Her Son as the one and only Mediator, the title Co-Redemptrix would be given in the same manner.  So much for their contorting the meaning of Trent, just as they do in regards to its decrees on Baptism and the sacraments.

2. The Council of Florence and the Catechism of the Council of Trent
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and teaches that no one conceived of man and woman was ever freed of the domination of the Devil, except through the faith of the mediator between God and men, our Lord Jesus Christ; He who was conceived without sin, was born and died, ALONE BY HIS OWN DEATH LAID LOW THE ENEMY OF THE HUMAN RACE BY DESTROYING OUR SINS, and opened the entrance to the kingdom of heaven, which the first man by his own sin had lost…” (Denz. 711)---Emphasis in original.

Response: When the Church teaches Christ alone is our Redeemer, they are referring to the primary, universal, and self-sufficient causality of Christ in the redemptive process which does not exclude Mary's secondary and totally subordinate cooperation which drew all its efficacy from the superabundant merits of her Divine Son. This is what they simply do not understand (or willfully ignore).

Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: "True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us."

Response: It also states "there is but one Mediator," yet don't we call upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mediatrix? Do we not pray for the intersession of the saints? Don't Protestants use the "one Mediator" argument to exclude secondary mediators? Yet the Dimonds insist, " However, we’ve been disappointed by the fact that some people just aren’t satisfied with the dogmatic definitions.  They insist on calling Mary Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer, even after seeing these dogmatic definitions.  This is problematic.  They are deviating from dogmatic truth." They claim that holding Mary as Co-Redemptrix is going against dogma and hence a heresy. This will come back to haunt them.

 3. St. Robert Bellarmine and Theologian Pohle
Also consider that pre-Vatican II theologian Fr. Joseph Pohle, in a work published and given an imprimatur before Vatican II, rightly noted that the title ‘coredemptrix’ is not appropriate for Mary.

Fr. Joseph Pohle, A Dogmatic Treatise On The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Of God, Imprimatur, 1919: “… it would be wrong to call her [Mary] redemptrix, because this title obscures the important truth that she herself was redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ by what theologians technically term preredemption.  Even the title coredemptrix had better be avoided as misleading.  The titles redemptrix and coredemptrix were never applied to the Blessed Virgin before the sixteenth century; they are the invention of comparatively recent writers…”

Response: Incredibly, they cite.. approved theologians!! Theologian Pohle's objections are more about the fear of misunderstandings that could derogate from Christ's unique salvific role, not a condemnation of the correct understanding of Mary's role in redemption. He simply thinks it wrong; he does not call it an error or a heresy. The same theologian in the same set of approved theology manuals (Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats) also teaches: "In adults the place of Baptism by water can be supplied in case of urgent necessity by the so-called Baptism of desire...Martyrdom (baptismus sanguinis) can also supply the place of Baptism." (See Dogmatic Theology, 8:243,248).

Notice what was written by Dimond; a pre-Vatican II theologian who wrote under a true pope, and had his work approved by those with authentic Magisterial authority to be free of error, should be believed when he wants to deny Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix. However, that same theologian in the same series of manuals, with the same Magisterial approval, when he teaches the reality of  BOD and BOB is to be rejected as wrong. The Magisterium can be trusted in the matter of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, but should not be trusted and definitively rejected on the teaching regarding Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. How convenient! What kind of Magisterium can't teach? How do we know when and if they "get it right"? The answer: Fred and Bobby will tell you. There's a word for those who pick and choose what to believe---heretic. Moreover, the title Co-Redemptrix has approved pre-Vatican II theologians that write in favor of it (the majority) as it is a disputed point of theology. All pre-Vatican II approved theologians teach BOD and BOB. Yet, they treat the issue of Co-Redemptrix as one that contradicts defined dogma.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Christo, Book V, Chap. 1: 
"But Christ Himself alone [solus] paid for us, and reconciled us to God by His own blood." (our translation from the Latin)

Response: Bellarmine was not denying Mary's unique cooperation by stating the truth of Christ's  primary,universal, and self-sufficient causality in the Redemption. St. Robert Bellarmine also teaches BOD and BOB. Do they quote the great Doctor of the Church and saint when he writes:

De Sacramento Baptismi, cap. 6: “...among the ancients this proposition was not so certain at first as later on: that perfect conversion and repentance is rightly called the Baptism of Desire and supplies for Baptism of water, at least in case of necessity”....."it is certainly to be believed that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water when it is not from contempt but through necessity that persons die without Baptism of water.”

The Church Militant (De Ecclesia Militante), c. 3: "I answer therefore that, when it is said outside the Church no one is saved, it must be understood of those who belong to her neither in actual fact nor in desire [desiderio], as theologians commonly speak on baptism. Because the catechumens are in the Church, though not in actual fact, yet at least in resolution [voto], therefore they can be saved."

4. The idea that Mary is formally “Co-Redemptrix” would be consistent with the idea that the original sin was the sin of Adam and Eve.  But that’s not Catholic teaching.

Response: What's not Catholic teaching is anything that comes out of "Most Holy Family Monastery." I don't know if it's more charitable to believe that Fred and Bobby lack the basic intelligence to understand the title Co-Redemptrix as correctly formulated, or they purposely deceive others. The essence of the antithesis between Adam/Eve and Christ/Mary lies in the fact that just as Eve cooperated with Adam in the sin that doomed the human race, so Mary has cooperated with Christ, the Second Adam, in bringing about the rehabilitation of humanity lost by that sin. We are talking about cooperation in sin and cooperation in redemption.

Eve fell for the lure of Satan and urged Adam to sin, thus cooperating in Original Sin. Mary was sinless and by her obedience to God allowed the savior to receive His human nature through her and became the God-Man Who redeemed us. It was Adam's sin, but Eve played and important and cooperative role. It was Christ's saving death, but Mary's cooperation with God in the role of redemption. Just as Adam alone brought sin in the world, yet had the cooperation of Eve, Mary is the Second Eve. Christ alone brought redemption to the world with the cooperation of Mary.

5. Mary wrongly becomes one of two Redeemers.
They say Mary is the “Co-Redemptrix,” just as others (e.g. St. Paul) help carry out the work of Redemption...They hold that Mary (in terms of the Redemption) is in a category with Jesus that does not belong to the other saints.  It is different not just in degree, but in kind from St. Paul, etc.  Thus, all the arguments they bring forward that St. Paul, the other saints, etc. can be loosely called “redeemers” do not support their position.  When they argue in that fashion, they are contradicting their position and asserting that Mary is just one of many co-redeemers.

Response: Mary cooperated uniquely in a way St. Paul and the others could not. She was the one through whom He came into the world, and with secondary and totally subordinate cooperation participated in His suffering and death as only a Mother could love her Son.  No other human being can make those two claims.

6. The popes were wrong. Pope Benedict XV was wrong about Mary's role in redemption and Pope Leo XIII was mistranslated.

Leaving the alleged mistranslation of Pope Leo aside for the moment, here's what Dimond writes about Pope Benedict XV:

  OBJECTION– In his March 22, 1918, document Inter Sodalicia, Pope Benedict XV teaches that Mary has redeemed the world with Christ.

Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia, March 22, 1918: “For with her suffering and dying Son, Mary endured suffering and almost death. She gave up her Mother’s rights over her Son to procure the salvation of mankind, and to appease the divine justice, she, as much as she could, immolated her Son, so that one can truly affirm that together with Christ she has redeemed the human race.”

ANSWER– Simply put, Benedict XV’s statement in this document is flat out wrong.  Many people cite the Latin title of this letter (Inter Sodalicia) as if it’s some major or authoritative document of a pope.  Well, it’s not.  The truth is that Inter Sodalicia was a letter of Pope Benedict XV to the Sodality of Our Lady of a Happy Death.  In other words, it’s basically a letter of the pope to a prayer group.  It’s not addressed to the universal Church.  It’s not an encyclical. It’s not in any way infallible.

Response: Here's where the Dimonds really get into a conundrum from which there is no escape. (a) They claim that Mary's title and role as Co-Redemptrix goes directly against Catholic dogma. (b) Pope Benedict XV taught something directly against the (alleged) dogma that precludes Mary from being Co-Redemptrix (c) Therefore, Pope Benedict made a mistake. However, it is their conclusion that is wrong because...

If what the Dimond's teach is true, Pope Benedict XV wasn't merely "wrong;" he is guilty of teaching heresy as a private theologian and could not have been the pope.

Fred and Bobby will only accept their private interpretations of infallible statements as "Catholic truth." If you cite to them the teaching of the theologians (St. Alphonsus Liguori, etc) in favor of BOD and BOB they will say "theologians and Doctors of the Church who are saints are not infallible." Bring up an official catechism and "it's not infallible." Bring up the teaching of a pope and "it's not infallible, it's just a letter, it's just an encyclical" etc. However, a pope cannot profess heresy and lose office while speaking ex cathedra. He has the protection of the Holy Ghost Who would not permit him to teach falsehood. The profession of heresy which leads to loss of office can only come about when speaking as a private theologian in a non-infallible statement.

Proof:  St. Alphonsus Liguori: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."( See Oeuvres Completes. 9:232; Emphasis mine).

Vatican Council of 1870: "What would be said if the Roman Pontiff were to become a heretic? In the [First] Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy?The response was thus: 'Firmly trusting in supernatural providence, we think that such things quite probably will never occur. But God does not fail in times of need. Wherefore, if He Himself would permit such an evil, the means to deal with it would not be lacking.' [See Mansi 52:1109]

Moreover, letters, allocutions, and Encyclicals have papal authority in teaching, even if not infallible.

Proof: Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, para. #20:
"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Emphasis mine)

Finally, the Dimonds, when confronted with the teaching of St. Alphonsus Liguori on BOB and BOD, will say "he made an innocent mistake." It could neither be innocent nor a mistake. A mistake is when Pope John XXII (1316-1334) preached sermons in Avignon, France  in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. It is a mistake, not heresy because: (a) the fact that the souls of the blessed departed do attain immediately unto the Beatific Vision upon entering Heaven was not yet defined dogma, (b) it was still open to discussion among the theologians, (c) he stated publicly that if he were wrong he would allow himself to be corrected by the Church.

Teaching something that contradicts defined dogma is not "an innocent mistake," it is teaching heresy. If baptism by water is the exclusive way to achieve entrance to the Church and salvation, then when St. Alphonsus taught BOD and BOB he was teaching heresy. Ditto for Pope Benedict XV teaching Mary is Co-Redemptrix. If the title and doctrine behind it contradicts a dogma that positively excludes it, that would constitute heresy.

But what if they just didn't know any better? What if clerics of the highest level of learning and ecclesiastical training didn't know they were contradicting dogma (i.e., not as educated and learned as Fred and Bobby)? Wouldn't that save them from being heretics if they didn't know better or didn't realize the title and doctrine of Co-Redemptrix is heretical? In a word: No.

Proof: According to theologian MacKenzie, a cleric's claim that "I was ignorant" does not excuse from the sin ("delict") of heresy: "...if the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine. His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church's attitude toward heresy was imparted to him...Hence his present ignorance is unreal; or, if it be real, it can only be explained as deliberately fostered..."(See The Delict of Heresy, [1932], pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

Inescapable conclusion: Pope Benedict XV wasn't a true pope according to the Dimonds.

Fred and Bobby can now join the ranks of their former Feeneyite associate and "Vacancy Pusher" Richard Ibranyi who pushes the time of the vacancy back to 1130 AD with the papacy of Pope Honorius II. (Or at least Michael Bizzaro--his real name--who pushes back the vacancy to 1914 when Pope St. Pius X died).

7. Pope Leo XIII was mis-translated in Iucunda Semper.
As this is their last "argument," I don't even need to bother with translations. Here's what the popes had to say on Mary's position as Co-Redemptrix:

Pope Leo XIII, Supremi Apostolatus Officio (1883), para. #2
"And truly the Immaculate Virgin, chosen to be the Mother of God and thereby associated with Him in the work of man's salvation, has a favor and power with her Son greater than any human or angelic creature has ever obtained, or ever can gain." (Emphasis mine)

Pope Leo XIII, Parta humano generi, Apostolic Letter dated September 8, 1901
"For us nothing can be more effective in winning the Virgin's favor and in meriting the most salutary graces than to surround with the greatest possible honor the mysteries of our redemption in which she not only shared but also took part."(Emphasis mine).

Pope St. Pius X, Ubera cum Fructu, Apostolic Letter dated April 30, 1911:
"It was in the presence and under the very gaze of Mary that the Divine Sacrifice of our redemption was consummated; she took part in it by giving to the world and nourishing the Divine Victim, she the Queen of Martyrs." (Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII, Ad Caeli Reginam, (1954), para. #38
"From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God's design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of "recapitulation,"in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; (Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, (1943), para. #110
"It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members." (Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

In these perilous and unprecedented times of evil and pandemic, let us turn to Our Lady of Hope; she who is the Mother of Him Who can do all things. Without fear of being heretics, we may rightly call Mary our Co-Redemptrix. By her intimate connection to her Divine Son, she gives us our hope of salvation---Mary who cooperated in the very act of our redemption. How could her Son fail to hear the Queen of Martyrs' pleas for help on our behalf? 

If you do not join me in calling Mary our Co-Redemptrix, you're not a heretic either, because the Church must settle the matter, not Fred and Bobby Dimond. When making up your mind on the issue, remember the axiom of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, "De Maria Numquam Satis,"--"Of Mary, Never Enough."