At all chapels this Sunday. Vaudeville.

https://sspx.org/en/publications/communique-general-house-society-saint-pius-x-55472

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.

So ... I don't believe Leo's the pope, etc., but I too think this is highly overblown.  You can find theologians long before Vatican II, the same ones used by Traditionalist seminaries, who say the exact same thing, that the title can easily be misunderstood.

Sure, many of us think they're doing this on purpose to attack Our Lady, but that's pure speculation and we have no way to prove it, so let's stick to stuff we can prove, the heresies they spout.

I think there's a bit too much "virtue signalling" among Trads, trying to outdo one another in expressions of filial devotion to Our Lady.  Hey, I'll out do them and claim that Our Lady is the 4th Person of the Holy Trinity, and then if they don't give her this honor declare them Mary-haters.

There's certainly a true sense for the title, but there's also a false sense for the title, the problem arising in large part from the nuance you often have in modern languages that "co-" implies an equality or a participation as a primary efficient cause side by side with another ... whereas on Latin, the "concausa" of St. Thomas, the co-cause, can and most often is applied to a secondary efficient, aka instrumental cause, a cause that is itself caused, used by the primary cause, and yet it does not derogate from the fact that the primary efficient cause did cause all the effects, along ... but merely used an instrumental cause to bring it about.

If I throw a baseball through a window, the baseball is a co-cause of the window's destruction, but I did it alone, since I'm the one who casued the baseball to cause the window to break, so I'm responsible alone for all the effects.  Yet despite that, in Latin / Thomistic / scholastic / Aristotelian terms, the baseball can be considered a co-cause.

Always with the lack of distinctions, even among Trads.  I can reject the false meaning of the title while accepting a correct meaning of the title, but in simply rejecting that false meaning, and then saying that most Novus Ordo Catholics, and in fact most Trads, are going to have very confused and muddled understandings of it, and therefore the definition would be inopportune at this time, or imprudent.