Don't listen to the Dimonds, they will screw you up.

The Church has always attributed the below (and many other) Scripture to Our Blessed Mother:

"In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue."
And
"They that explain me shall have life everlasting."

Read The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus, and you will NEVER say what you said above ever again - no matter what.

I actually already read the Glories of Mary and am reading them again in another language currently. It's ironic you mention this beautiful book because it tends to disprove the very argument you want it to make.

I don't care to explain because it will fall on deaf ears, enough has been said in the great video by the Brothers.

I watched the video and the Diamond brothers made a solid argument against the title. I have personally never used the title and have always been off put by it intuitively for the same reasons the brothers listed. I have listened to some of the reasons as to why the title could he considered orthodox and while I do believe the defense made may be "okay" I won't use the title myself. There seems to be no reasonable need to use the title at all.

Before Mary's Fiat Jesus did not exist; after Mary's Fiat Jesus did exist.  If this does not give her a right to the title Co-Redemptrix, then we are mightily confused about the situation.  Mary is the actual Mother of Jesus; she is the Mystical Mother of the Church, because she was the first baptized.  The Mother always precedes the children, so Mary must have sacramentally/ontologically preceded all other entrants into the Church.  It would not be theologically incorrect to say that "All salvation is through Mary," because, as we must know, "all salvation is through the Church" because the Church is Jesus living mystically on earth.  And Mary is the Mother of the Church just as much as she is Mother of Jesus.  All of the apostles knew that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and they all knew that she was the first to be baptized. 

I think that Bro. Dimond is reaching here.  We use the terms co-ordinate, co-operate, co-habit, etc.  These words can have have varying meanings depending on the distinctions made. 

This alone is sufficient for those of good will and is enough to demonstrate that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix. 

Denying the title of Co-Redemptrix to Our Lady is akin to denying the co-equality and co-eternity of the Holy Trinity. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but united in their divine essence, so too is Mary's role in the economy of salvation distinct yet inseparable from Christ's redemptive work.

The Trinity’s nature teaches us that the three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are distinct yet co-equal and co-eternal, fully participating in the divine nature. Similarly, Mary’s unique cooperation in Christ's redemption does not place her on an equal footing with Christ as Redeemer but acknowledges her indispensable role, as affirmed by her title as Co-Redemptrix.

To deny Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix is to misunderstand the complementary and cooperative nature of God’s work in salvation, much like denying the co-equality and co-eternity of the Trinity would undermine the foundational truth of God’s nature. Both errors fail to recognize the fullness of the divine plan as revealed through Scripture and Tradition.

If I were a worthier man I would suggest denying Our Lady this title is heresy.

Indeed.  It’s at least gross stupidity/negligence on the Diamond Bros.  How do you attack something which you don’t even understand?  It’s shameful and embarrassing. 

Scales form on the eyes when intellectuals become overly absorbed in combating error; this was evident with the Donatists. When reasoning takes precedence over virtue, spiritual pride begins to form, blinding the intellect. This pride leads to the neglect of other essential virtues such as charity, obedience, and humility.

"Knowledge puffeth up; but charity edifieth.  2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he hath not yet known as he ought to know.  3 But if any man love God, the same is known by him.  4 But as for the meats that are sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one." -
(1 Cor. 8:1-4 Douay-Rheims)

Though I cannot see their interior, I believe we should pray for them. To their credit, they, like us, are also lost without a traditional visible leader.

Brother Diamond's definition of "co-redemptrix" in the first 2 minutes is an autisticly stupid and anti-Catholic strawman.  No saint or Pope has ever defined "co-redemptrix" in the way he did.  His entire video is flawed from the get-go.  What a complete disaster. 

Nailed it, Pax! 

Whatever the intention Bro. Peter Dimond had, objectively this is an attack on the Church's understanding of the unique role of Mary. And done near to a major Marian feast-day no less. A public retraction of the error is definitely called for. Prayers of reparation also.

I've never paid much attention to the Brothers Dimond, are they typically this lacking?

Before Mary's Fiat Jesus did not exist; after Mary's Fiat Jesus did exist.  If this does not give her a right to the title Co-Redemptrix, then we are mightily confused about the situation.  Mary is the actual Mother of Jesus; she is the Mystical Mother of the Church, because she was the first baptized.  The Mother always precedes the children, so Mary must have sacramentally/ontologically preceded all other entrants into the Church.  It would not be theologically incorrect to say that "All salvation is through Mary," because, as we must know, "all salvation is through the Church" because the Church is Jesus living mystically on earth.  And Mary is the Mother of the Church just as much as she is Mother of Jesus.  All of the apostles knew that Mary was Immaculately Conceived, and they all knew that she was the first to be baptized. 

I think that Bro. Dimond is reaching here.  We use the terms co-ordinate, co-operate, co-habit, etc.  These words can have varying meanings depending on the distinctions made. 

One of the most beautifully stated concise explanations of the subject that I have ever read. Thank you, OAB.

I'm on the fence about this issue.  While the Dimond Brothers make a compelling case ... and seem to debunk the instances of alleged papal approbation typically cited ... I think this can reduce to a semantics issue, i.e. based on how one defines "co-".

If understood in a subordinate role and in terms related to her being the Dispensor and Mediator of the graces obtained by Our Lord's Redemption, it could be acceptable.

Nevertheless, I agree with those pre-V2 theologians cited by the Dimonds that it can be misleading and provide yet more ammunition against the faith from Prots who would most certainly warp the term.

Let's say that Our Lord is likened to a wealthy man who sees a bunch of captive slaves held on a plantation.  He gets the money together to purchase their freedom, but then sends a servant out there to perform each individual transaction with the slave owner.  Who "bought back" (aka redeemed) those slaves?  While it was primarily the wealthy man (Our Lord), he also used agents to do the material transaction.  So the agent served as an instrumental cause of the redemption, i.e. the application of the fruits of the redemption.

Or, to simplify, if I take $20 out of my wallet and send my son to the store to buy some food, who bought the food?  Well, in different senses, i.e. semantics, we both bought the food.  I bought it because I provided the primary causes for it (the intention to buy it, the means to buy it, i.e. the formal, final, and some material causes), whereas my son also in a sense "bought" the food, because he went out there and transacted the actual purchase, serving as an instrumental and partial material cause.  So I was the buyer, whereas my son was a (subordinate) co-buyer?

I think it boils down to three distinctions:

1) distinction between obtaining the objective Redemption and the application of the Redemption to souls.  We know that all men have been Redeemed by Our Lord, but the fruits of the Redemption are not applied to all.  Consequently, the term Redemption could be used in either sense.

2) the distinction between different types of "causes", whereas while Our Lord was the formal cause of the Redemption, Our Lady could serve as a material and instrumental cause.

3) sufficient vs. necessary cause.  As we know, even a drop of Our Lord's blood sufficed to Redeem all of mankind, but He engaged in a superabundance of Redemption, which are nevertheless properly part of the Redemption, and Our Lady could in fact be part of this extension of the Redemption.

Our Lady was in fact a necessary cause of the Redemption, since without her "Fiat", Our Lord would never have entered into the world and therefore could not have Redeemed mankind ... so that's another aspect in which she could be understood as a participant in the Redemption (albeit in a subordinate role and not as the formal cause thereof).

So all these distinctions would need to be explored, even though in the end, I'd be against defining the term due to it easily being misleading and being misunderstood.

Also, let's not confuse believing this term inappropriate with somehow diminishing the honor owed to Our Lady, any more that it would diminish her honor to reject the thesis of those who claim she's a 4th Person of the Holy Trinity.  I know there can be a knee-jerk reaction because the Modernists like to withhold titles from Our Lady for Ecuмenical purposes (not to "offend" Prots who often hate Our Lady), but it's important to separate this from that kind of motivation.