179. Obiiciunt:	179. They object:
1° Solus Christus potuit nos redimere. Ergo Maria non potest redimere nec esse coredemptrix.	1° Only Christ could redeem us. Therefore Mary cannot redeem nor be co-redemptrix.
Resp. : Solus Christus, non vere Maria, potuit nos redimere, dist. : per se, de condigno et perfective, conc. ; imperfecte, de congruo et per alium, nego.	Reply: Only Christ, not truly Mary, could redeem us, dist.: in himself, meritoriously and perfectly, conc.; imperfectly, appropriately, and through another, I deny.
Maria non potuit de condigno satisfacere pro peccatis, sufficienter, ac redemptionem perficiendo ; sed id potuit insufficienter, de congruo, ac per Christum et vi meritorum Christi. Ergo non est redemptrix principaliter et perfective, sed quodam modo secundario et subordinato, atque dependenter a Christo.	Mary could not satisfactorily atone for sins, sufficiently, and accomplish redemption; but it could do so insufficiently, in a fitting manner, and through Christ and by the power of Christ’s merits. Therefore, she is not a redeemer in a primary and perfective sense, but in a certain secondary and subordinate way, and dependent on Christ.
2° Maria ipsa est redempta ; ergo non potest esse mediatrix in redemptione nec coredemptrix.	2° Mary herself is redeemed; therefore, she cannot be a mediator in redemption, nor a co-redeemer.
Resp. : Dist. : non potest esse mediatrix in sui redemptione, nec coredemptrix sui, conc. ; non poteat esse mediatrix nec coredemptrix aliorum, nego.	Reply: Dist.: cannot be a mediator in her own redemption, nor a co-redeemer of herself, conc.; she cannot be a mediator or co-redeemer of others, I deny.
Maria non potest esse sui mediatrix, quia non est media in coniungendo se Deo sed una extremorum, nec redempta potest esse sui coredemptrix, quia tunc respectu sui redemptionis se haberet simul ut effectus et ut causa ; sed nihil impedit quominus, a Christo redempta, sit simul mediatrix et coredemptrix aliorum. Sic etiam non potuit de congruo mereri quæ Christus sibi meruit, ut exaltationem in cœlis et sessionem ad dexteram Patris; nec quæ Christus solus meruit Mariæ, ut immaculatam conceptionem et gratiam initialem ; sed de congruo promeruit nobis quæ Christus nobis meruit de condigno.	Mary cannot be the mediator for herself, because she is not the one who unites herself to God but one of the extremes, nor, having been redeemed, can she be the co-redeemer for herself, because then, with respect to her own redemption, she would be at the same time both the effect and the cause; but nothing prevents her, redeemed by Christ, from being at the same time a mediator and co-redeemer of others. Thus she could not congruently merit what Christ merited for her, namely exaltation in the heavens and a seat at the right hand of the Father; nor what Christ alone merited for Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception and the initial grace; but congruently she merited for us what Christ merited for us condingly.
Ceterum ipsa non est redempta eodem modo ac nos, sed modo eminentiore, utpote præservata ab omni peccato ; nos vero sensu strictiore, quia peccati maculati sed ab eo liberati. Ergo præservata a peccato, potest partem habere in liberandis ac redimendis aliis a peccato1.	However, she herself was not redeemed in the same way as we were, but in a more eminent way, having been preserved from all sin; we, however, in a stricter sense, because stained with sin but freed from it. Therefore, having been preserved from sin, she can have a part in freeing and redeeming others from sin.2
3° Redemptio est opus unum et indivisibile. Ergo si ipsa Maria est redempta, ac proin non sui coredemptrix, nec est coredemptrix aliorum.	3° Redemption is a single and indivisible work. Therefore, if Mary herself is redeemed, she is neither her own co-redeemer nor the co-redeemer of others.
Resp. : Dist. : Redemptio est opus unum et indivisibile secundum causam principalem et perfectivam, conc. ; secundum causam secundariam et subordinatam ac secundum effectus, nego. Unum agens principale potest uti una vel pluribus causis ministrantibus, et sic opus in se unum esse divisibile secundum diversas actiones causarum subordinatarum et diversos effectos per eas diversimode derivatos.	Reply: Dist.: Redemption is a single and indivisible work according to the principal and perfective cause, conc.; according to the secondary and subordinate cause and according to the effects, I deny. A single principal agent can employ one or more ministering causes, and thus the work itself, though one, can be divisible according to the various actions of the subordinate causes and the diverse effects thereby variously derived.
Christus itaque singulari modo redemit B. Virginem, et simul, ipsa cooperante, alios homines omnes ; ita ut præintelligatur redemptio præservativa Virginis ad actionem eius mediativam et coredemptivam pro aliis : ratione prius et eminentius redempta, potest simul tempore adiuvare ad communem redemptionem omnium aliorum a peccato liberandorum. Simul ac satisfactio meritoria Christi redemptionem et salutem eius est operata, valore eiusdem satisfactionis satisfactionem propriam cuм ipso pro aliis contulit.	Christ therefore redeemed the Blessed Virgin in a unique way, and at the same time, with her cooperation, all other people; so that the Virgin’s preservative redemption is presupposed to her mediatory and co-redemptive action for others: having been redeemed first and in an eminent way, she can simultaneously, in time, assist in the common redemption of all others to be liberated from sin. As soon as Christ’s meritorious satisfaction effected her redemption and salvation, by the value of that same satisfaction she also contributed her own satisfaction with him for others.
4° Ubi duæ causæ subordinatæ ad eundem effectum concurrunt, totum effectum necesse est utramque producere. Ergo B. Virginem cooperatam esse redemptioni aut meruisse cuм Christo omnia bona salutis nullatenus est affirmandum, cuм nec suam propriam gratiam, nec pro Christo gloriam et corporis exaltationem mereri potuit. Quodsi ad aliquos effectus eius influxus dicatur limitandus, arbitrarie ita fieret, ita ut ulterioribus limitibus posset subiici ; et sic iam nullum est fundamentum dicendi B. Virginem esse mediatricem in ipso opere redemptionis.	4° Where two subordinate causes concur to the same effect, it is necessary for each to produce the entire effect. Therefore, it must in no way be asserted that the Blessed Virgin cooperated in the redemption or merited with Christ all the good things of salvation, since she could neither merit her own grace, nor for Christ glory and the exaltation of his body. And if it is said that the extent of its influence should be limited with respect to certain effects, this would be done arbitrarily, so that it could be subjected to further limits; and so there is now no basis for saying that the Blessed Virgin is the mediator in the very work of redemption.
Resp. : a) Nego suppositum, scil., principium esse applicandum ; et b) etsi applicaretur, nego consequentiam.	Reply: a) I deny the assumption, i.e., that the principle is to be applied; and b) even if it were applied, I deny the consequence.
a) Principium invocatum præcipue valet de causa efficiente principali et instrumentali, dum Maria, pluribus saltem actibus, solum prævie operetur ac dispositive ad actum Redemptoris ; unde responderi potest : B. Virgo ad omnes omnino fructus redemptionis acquirendos sine ulla exceptione esse cooperatam, cuм eius consensus in adventum Redemptoris et sacrificium redemptorium Crucis conditio fuerit et causa operis redemptorii : si enim ipsa non consensisset, Christus non venisset nec salvasset. Id autem non est opinio quædam theologica, sed revelata veritas de qua, propter apparentes quasdam difficultates, dubitare non est theologi, sed reverenter eam accipere, eique alias nostri cognitiones naturales conformare ac reformare. « Maria, ait Irenæus, adv. hær. III, 22, obediendo et sibi et universo generi humano facta est causa salutis ».	a) The principle invoked applies primarily to the principal and instrumental efficient cause, whereas Mary, in at least several acts, operates only previously and dispositively with respect to the act of the Redeemer; Hence it can be answered: The Blessed Virgin cooperated in acquiring all the fruits of redemption for everyone without any exception, since her consent to the coming of the Redeemer and the redemptive sacrifice of the Cross was both the condition and the cause of the work of redemption: for if she had not consented, Christ would not have come nor saved. However, this is not merely a theological opinion, but a revealed truth about which, because of certain apparent difficulties, theologians cannot doubt, but must receive it reverently and conform and reform our other natural knowledge to it. “Mary,” says Irenaeus, adv. hær. III, 22, “by obeying both herself and the entire human race, became the cause of salvation.”
b) Exinde tamen quod ipsa quodammodo fuerit totius operis causa effectiva, non legitime posset concludi quoad omnia quoque fuisse causam meritoriam, sed tantum illorum quæ mereri non repugnat, quibusque merendis ipsa erat ordinata. Axioma solemne est in theologia : Principium meriti non cadit sub merito3. Et ideo mereri nequivit propriam redemptionem et gratiam, quam supponitur iam habere ad consensum meritorie præstandum, et quæ consensum eius præcedit ; — et a fortiori mereri non potuit ipsum Redemptoris opus quod est principium totius meriti omnisque gratiæ. Ipsam autem gloriosam resurrectionem et exaltationem Christi, B. Virgo mereri non potuit nec debuit, quia, adiutrix redemptionis, non fuit ad illas merendas ordinata, quippe quæ non sunt effectus redemptionis qua talis.	b) However, from the fact that she was in a manner the effective cause of the entire work, it could not legitimately be concluded that she was also the meritorious cause of everything, but only of those things for which it is not repugnant to merit, and for which she herself was ordained to merit. The axiom is solemn in theology: “The principle of merit does not fall under merit.”4 And therefore she could not merit her own redemption and grace, which is supposed to exist already for the meritorious giving of her consent, and which precedes her consent; —and a fortiori she could not merit the very work of the Redeemer, which is the source of all merit and all grace. However, the Blessed Virgin could neither have merited nor ought to have merited the glorious resurrection and exaltation of Christ, because, as an assistant in the redemption, she was not ordained to merit those things, since they are not effects of the redemption as such.
In mediando itaque totaliter a mediatione Christi manet dependens, quia nonnisi ex virtute passionis et gratiæ eius, cuм ipso pro nobis quodammodo meruit et satisfecit, et quia Christus potuit mereri circuмstantias incarnationis non necessarias, qualis est quod B. Virgo, non quidem mater Dei-hominis physice facta sit, sed quod libere et præsertim supernaturaliter ex charitate ad omnium salutem adventui Salvatoris et operi salutis consenserit.	Therefore, in mediating entirely, she remains dependent on the mediation of Christ, because she merited and satisfied for us with him, not except by the virtue of his passion and grace, and because Christ could merit circuмstances of the incarnation that were not necessary, such as that the Blessed Virgin was not physically made the mother of the God-man, but that she freely and especially supernaturally consented out of charity to the salvation of all to the Savior’s coming and work of salvation.
5° Maria non est mediatrix, quia consensum dedit ut mediator adveniret et reconciliatio per illum fieret, sicut nec Deus est mediator, quia id voluit et volendo in hoc consensit.	5° Mary is not the mediator, because she gave her consent for the mediator to come and for reconciliation to be effected through him, just as God is not the mediator, because he willed it and by willing it consented to it.
Resp. : Nego paritatem.	Reply: I deny the comparison.
Deus non est mediator, quia non medius inter ipsum et homines, sed unus extremorum ; nec potest satisfacere, nec mereri, nec acquirere gratias, nec intercedere, sed tantum condonare, absque mediatore aut per mediatorem, et gratias causare et elargiri. Maria autem, a peccato liberata vel potius præservata, electa Mater Dei ac plenitudine gratiæ dotata, iam est media inter homines et Deum, et potuit consentire loco totius naturæ humanæ in adventum redemptoris et redemptionem, ac ita redemptorem ad eam dispositive movere, atque per ipsum et cuм ipso quodammodo satisfacere et mereri, ac intercedere pro ceteris hominibus : sic deferendo satisfactiones generis humani, deprecationes et opera ad Deum, Deique dona, scil., condonationem et gratias ad nos.	God is not a mediator, because he is not between himself and men, but one of the extremes; nor can he satisfy, merit, acquire grace, intercede, but only forgive, without a mediator or through a mediator, and cause and bestow grace. Mary, however, freed from sin or rather preserved from it, chosen as the Mother of God and endowed with the fullness of grace, is already the mediator between men and God, and could consent in the place of the entire human nature to the coming of the Redeemer and the redemption, and thus to dispose the Redeemer toward her, and through him and with him in a manner to satisfy and merit, and to intercede for the rest of mankind: thus offering to God the satisfactions, supplications, and works of the human race, and God’s gifts, i.e., forgiveness and graces, for us.
6° B. Virgo non potuit immediate cooperari actui redemptorio, sed ad summum valde remote cooperata est, scil., physice ut ipsa incarnatio fieret. Ergo nullatenus est coredemptrix.	6° The Blessed The Virgin could not cooperate immediately in the redemptive act, but at most she cooperated very remotely, i.e., physically so that the incarnation itself might take place. Therefore, she is by no means a co-redemptrix.
Hisce ultimis temporibus quidam multum loquuntur de cooperatione immediata, proxima et remota, sed non semper bene definiunt quid hisce terminis præcise intelligunt. In theologia morali solet de cooperatione sermo institui, præsertim occasione cooperationis ad peccatum ; at non omnes moralistæ eadem utuntur terminologia. lamvero, ut diximus5, secundum rectum sensum verborum, cooperatio alia est moralis per influxum in voluntatem causæ principalis ; alia realis et physica per realem influxum, partialiter causando cuм principaliter agente actum vel effectum. Realis autem est immediata, qua cooperans cuм principali agente exequitur actum, v. g. furti aut homicidii, ut si duo unam rem alienam portando auferunt, aut unum duo simul ex alto proficiunt vel sub aqua tenent ; — vel mediata, qua cooperans aliquid subministrat quod alteri inservit ad opus aliquod agendum aut facilius agendum, v. g. scalam aut elavem tradendo furi, aut ipsi aperiendo fenestram : quæ cooperatio potest esse plus minusve proxima vel remota, prout medium subministratum plus minusve influat et maiorem minoremve habeat cuм opere principalis agentis connexionem. Præterea, alia ratione distinguitur cooperatio formalis, qua cooperans ut finem intendit ipsum opus agentis, et mere materialis, qua id, licet prævideat, tamen non intendit sed aliud, v. g. lucrum obtinendum aut incommodum vitandum.	In recent times some have spoken a great deal about immediate, proximate, and remote cooperation, but they do not always clearly define precisely what they mean by these terms. In moral theology, discussion is usually held concerning cooperation, especially regarding cooperation in sin; but not all moralists use the same terminology. Indeed, as we have said6, according to the correct sense of the words, cooperation is, on the one hand, moral through an influence on the will of the principal cause; on the other hand, it is real and physical through a real influx, partially causing an act or effect together with the principal agent. Real, however, is immediate by which, in cooperation with the principal agent, an act is executed, e. g. of theft or homicide, as if two carry off one thing belonging to another, or if one and two together jump from a height or hold it underwater; — or mediated, by which a cooperator supplies something that serves another to carry out a certain work or to carry it out more easily, e. g. by handing a ladder or a crowbar to a thief, or by opening the window oneself: which cooperation can be more or less proximate or remote, depending on how much the provided means influences and how great or small its connection to the principal agent’s work is. Furthermore, cooperation is distinguished in another way: formal, in which the cooperator intends the very action of the agent as an end, and the purely material, in which, although he foresees it, he nevertheless does not intend it but something else, e. g. to gain an advantage or avoid an inconvenience.
Hisce itaque distinctionibus in sensu prædicto positis, dicimus :	These distinctions, then, being thus posited in the aforementioned sense, we say:
Resp. : a) Virgo non potuit immediate cooperari ipsi actui redemptorio, nam non potuit immediate disponere de carne, sanguine, vita Filii, quod est pretium redemptionis, sed tantum mediante Filio qui ipse immediate de se disponebat ; nec potuit immediate offerre ipsum sacrificium, seu exercere actionem sacrificalem, quia non erat sacerdos, sed solum mediante ipso Pontifice N. L. ; nec potuit elicere in Filio ipsum actum voluntatis quo ipse poterat de condigno pro nobis satisfacere atque mereri, sed solum proprio actu, mediante merito Christi, quodammodo ad redemptionem concurrere.	Reply: a) The Virgin could not cooperate immediately in the act of redemption itself, for she could not immediately arrange the Son’s flesh, blood, and life, which is the price of redemption, but only through the Son, who arranged Himself immediately; nor could she offer the sacrifice herself immediately, or perform the sacrificial action, because she was not a priest, but only through Our High Priest Jesus; nor could she elicit in the Son the very act of will by which he himself could satisfy for us condingly and merit, but only by his own act, through the merit of Christ, in a manner cooperate in the redemption.
Quare qui illud intendunt confutare, tempus perdunt, cuм nullus, quantum sciamus, id umquam serio asseruerit7.	Therefore, those who attempt to refute it are wasting their time, since no one, as far as we know, has ever seriously asserted it.8
b) Attamen, non tam dicenda est cooperata ut fieret incarnatio, sed ut fieret redemptio, nec mere physice, sed omnino libere, consentiendo Angelo per actus humanos fidei, obedientiæ et charitatis in hominum salutem, ut ipsi formaliter proponebatur. Sic nobis dedit Redemptorem qua talem, et redemptionem ; contulit pretium redemptionis : carnem, sanguinem, vitam Christi ; dedit victimam pro nobis sacrificandam. Hoc initiali consensu facta est vere adiutrix redemptionis, nec ita remote cooperata, sed potius proxime: non secundum distantiam temporis remota vel proxima distinguitur cooperatio, sed pro quantitate influxus in opus et cuм eo connexionis. Consensus autem Mariæ fuit omnino necessarius redemptioni, quæ ab ipso tota dependet, cuм sine ipso non esset, et ipso dato, certissime impleretur.	b) However, it should not be said that she cooperated so that the incarnation might take place, but so that the redemption might take place; nor merely physically, but entirely freely, by consenting to the Angel through human acts of faith, obedience, and charity for the salvation of mankind, as it was formally proposed to her. Thus she gave us a Redeemer as such, and redemption. she contributed the price of redemption: the flesh, blood, and life of Christ. she gave a victim to be sacrificed for us. By this initial consent she truly became a helper in redemption, not cooperating remotely, but rather proximately: cooperation is not distinguished as remote or proximate by a distance in time, but by the degree of influence on the work and its connection with it. However, Mary’s consent was absolutely necessary for the redemption, which depends entirely on it, since without it, he would not exist, and with it given, it would most certainly be fulfilled.
c) Initiali suo consensu numquam revocato sed irrevocabiliter permanente, Maria in cooperando perseveravit omnibus saltem actibus ad Redemptorem ordinatis : illum non tantum mortali carne vestivit qua hominum compararetur hostia, sed et lacte aluit, in templo obtulit, multis curis enutrivit et custodivit, et, in vita et laborum consuetudine numquam dissociata, stato tempore stitit ad aram, ut ait Pius X, enc. Ad diem illum, 2 Febr. 19049. Ita semper magis, et stans iuxta altare crucis, in doloribus compassionis scil., consentiens morti Filii sui nos redimentis, omnino propinque dici potest cooperata, sicut pretium tribuens qua alter est soluturus et redempturus, et victimam adducens et quantum est de se offerens quam sacerdos est in sacrificium oblaturus ; non tamen cooperata est immediate, sed mediante Filio, quia ipsum actum redemptorium ac sacrificatorium non potuit eumdem cuм Filio peragere.	c) With her initial consent, never revoked but irrevocably permanent, Mary persevered in cooperating in all the acts at least ordered to the Redeemer: she not only clothed him with mortal flesh by which he might be made a sacrifice for mankind, but also nourished him with milk, offered him in the temple, nurtured and guarded him with many cares, and, in life and work never separated by custom, at the appointed time she stood at the altar, as Pius X says, enc. Ad diem illum, 2 Febr. 190410. Thus, ever more, standing beside the altar of the cross, in the pains of compassion, consenting to the death of her Son, our Redeemer, she may be said to have cooperated most intimately, just as one who pays the price that another is to pay and redeem, and who brings the victim and offers as much of herself as the priest is to offer in sacrifice; however, she did not cooperate immediately, but through the Son, because she could not carry out the same redemptive and sacrificial act as the Son.
d) Omnibus his non mere materialiter cooperatam esse, sed formaliter intuitu nostræ salutis, nemo est qui dubitet.	d) No one doubts that she cooperated not merely materially in all these things, but formally, in view of our salvation.
e) Cooperatione morali quoque concurrit, nam sicut Filius movebatur præcepto Patris ad obediendum, ita non potuit non moveri consensu matris in plena conformitate ad voluntatem Dei. Maria vehementer desideravit nostram salutem et ita Christum in terram adduxit, ideo consensum in redemptionem dedit, atque cruci Filii adstitit. Quibus Christus non potuit non attendere, sed connaturaliter movebatur : Maria itaque, consensu, desiderio ac affectu moraliter movebat et dispositive inducebat Filium ad redemptionem generis humani perficiendam.	e) She also cooperated morally, for just as the Son was moved by the Father’s command to obey, so he could not but be moved by his mother’s consent in full conformity to the will of God. Mary earnestly desired our salvation and thus brought Christ to earth; she consented to the redemption and stood at her Son’s cross. Christ could not fail to notice this, but was moved in a manner that was natural to him; therefore, Mary, by her consent, desire, and affection, morally moved and dispositively induced the Son to accomplish the redemption of the human race.
Itaque B. Virgo cooperata est ut consentiens in illud sine quo opus non fieret ; ut mandans11 aut consulens, cui Christus non attendere non potuit ; et ut participans sed mediate, quatenus medium præbens. Prædicta forsan non fuerunt omnia ab initio explicite prædicata, sed ex adæquata et perfectiore penetratione parallelismi Eva-Maria, et ex profundiore analysi tum ipsius assistendæ Mariæ sub cruce Filii, tum ipsius intimi affectus tam Christi quam Mariæ, decursu sæculorum, ita mysterium intellexerunt Christiana pietas, speculatio theologica ac intuitiva contemplatio. Quare illa declaratio indicare videtur sensum fidelium atque Ecclesiæ.	Thus, the Blessed Virgin cooperated by consenting to that without which the work would not have been done; as a commanding12 or advising one, to whom Christ could not fail to attend; and as a participant, but indirectly, insofar as providing the medium. Perhaps not everything was explicitly proclaimed from the beginning, but through adequate and more perfect insight into the parallelism of Eve and Mary, and through a deeper analysis both of Mary’s own assistance under her Son’s cross and of the inner affections of both Christ and Mary, Christian piety, theological speculation, and intuitive contemplation have, over the course of the centuries, thus understood the mystery. Therefore, that declaration seems to indicate the sense of the faithful and of the Church.

---

• Ne tamen immaculata conceptio et præservatio a peccato existimetur omnino necessaria, ut B. Virgo possit esse mediatrix. Nam, ut habet Capreolus, III, Defensiones theologicæ S. Thomæ, d. 3, q. 1, a. 2: « Arguunt alii (apud loannem de Neapoli, Quodl. I, q. 11) : « 3° Quia, sicut Christus fuit perfectissimus mediator, et B. Virgo fuit convenientissima mediatrix. Sed hoc non fuisset, si ipsa aliquam culpam incurrisset, quia convenientius potest aliquis placari per illum qui numquam offendit, quam per eum qui post offensam reconciliationem obtinuit. Ergo ». — Ad 3^m respondet idem (loannes de Neapoli) quod «mater Dei fuit convenientissima mediatrix sub Christo et non de pari. Vel dicendum, quod conveniens mediator est ille qui est gratus offenso, sive ipsum quandoque offendit, sive non. Unde B. Virgo, quia plus habuit de gratia quam aliqua alia fuerit creatura, fuit convenientissima mediatrix, dato quod quandoque fuerit filia iræ, præcipue cuм fuerit mediatrix pro hominibus ». Hæc ille, et bene ».↩
• However, the Immaculate Conception and preservation from sin may not be considered absolutely necessary, such that the Blessed Virgin can be a mediator. For, as Capreolus, III, Theological Defenses of St. Thomas, d. 3, q. 1, a. 2 says: “Others argue (in John of Naples, Quodlib. I, q. 11): “3° Because, just as Christ was the most perfect mediator, the Blessed Virgin was the most fitting mediatrix.” But this would not have been the case if she herself had been at fault, for it is more fitting to be appeased by one who has never offended than by one who, after offending, has obtained reconciliation. Therefore.” — To the 3^rd he (John of Naples) responds the same, that “the Mother of God was the most fitting mediator under Christ and not on an equal footing.” Or it should be said that a suitable mediator is one who is acceptable to the offended one, whether or not the mediator herself has ever offended him. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin, because she possessed more grace than any other creature, was the most fitting mediator, given that she was at one time a daughter of wrath, especially since she was a mediator for humankind.” He said this, and that was that.”↩
• S. Thomas, I-II, q. 114, a. 9 ; III, q. 2, a. 11.↩
• St. Thomas, I-II, q. 114, a. 9; III, q. 2, a. 11.↩
• Cfr. nostra Summa Theologia Moralis, I. n. 488 ; II, n. 309 sq.↩
• Cf. our Summa Theologia Moralis, I. n. 488; II, n. 309 ff.↩
• Ab aliquibus dicitur immediata cooperatrix, et quidem dici potest quatenus ipsa non solum remote, sed valde proxime, nec mediante alia persona, concurrit ad opus Redemptoris ; non autem quatenus ipsum opus Redemptoris immediate cuм ipso peregisset et in ipso partes activas habuisset, sed solum mediate, consensu, voluntate, ac mediis præstitis in ipsum influit.↩
• She is called by some the immediate cooperatrix, and indeed she can be so called insofar as she herself contributes to the work of the Redeemer not only remotely, but very closely, and not through another person; not, however, insofar as she immediately accomplished the work of the Redeemer with him and played an active part in it, but only mediately, influencing it through her consent, will, and the means he provided.↩
• Id intelligendum iuxta præsens decretum : non loquimur iuxta decretum mere hypotheticuм de eo quod fieri potuisset.↩
• This is to be understood according to the present decree: we are not speaking according to a purely hypothetical decree about what might have happened.↩
• Mandans non tantum est iubens, sed omnis qui mandato suo expresso vel tacito alterum movet ad opus suo nomine faciendum, scil., in sui i. e. mandantis gratiam, sive iubeat, sive solum roget.↩
• A mandator is not only one who commands, but anyone who, by his express or tacit mandate, moves another to perform an act in his name, i. e. for the benefit of the mandator himself, whether he commands or merely requests.↩

🎩-tip: DeepL 🇻🇦→🇬🇧 β version

So, here's a point that, while it's created a lot of emotional backlash, due to people being devoted to Our Lady ... I feel that the Modernists have done much worse than.  Both in the original "note" and here with Tucho's explanation, it was clear they said that the title COULD be legitimate if properly explained, and we have Traditional Catholics, such as the Dimond Brothers, and some approved pre-Vatican II theologians who have said the same thing.

I believe that both sides do have a point, as the not of what "co-" means can have certain connotations or nuances in modern languages, even if in scholastic terms, it's quite legitimate to use even of a secondary efficient cause, a caused cause that only achieves its effect by virtue of (in the power of) the primary cause, and, as St. Thomas explains, these are often referred to as "concausae" (co-causes).  So, if a Redeemer is the cause of Redemption, then a co-Redeemer is a co-cause of Redemption, or a concause, which is a subordinate/secondary term that does not have the connotation of putting the "co-" on the same order of causality as the primary cause.

So it's legitimate from a scholastic term, but in vernacular languages, it can easily lead to misunderstandings.

So, for instance, if I hurl a rock through a window, in scholastic terms, the rock itself can be a "concausa" of the window's destruction, but we know that any potency that the rock had to break the window was imparted to it by the primary efficient cause, namely myself, and it had no power on its own to break a window, nor would anyone consider it somehow responsible for the destruction.  But in scholastic terms, it can be considered a co-cause.

Similarly, if I use a pen to write a book, in scholastic terms, it could be called a "concausa", a co-cause of the book being written, but of course in English nobody would therefore ever call the pen a "co-author" of the book, since the term "co-author" implies a contribution on the same order of causality as the principle efficient cause.

That's where we're at in terms of Co-Redemptrix.  In English, the term strongly implies (similar to co-author in the example above) that Our Lady was a Redeemer on the same order of causality, and that would be false, even if it's perfectly acceptable to say that in scholastic/theological terms, and the term would have to be accompanied by explanation.

Now, while normally the reason the Conciliar Modernists have used to eschew the term might be legitimate on its own, there's every reason for skepticism regarding their true motives.  Then, even if they are sincerely stating their motives, they are largely culpable anyway due to the fact that it's certainly the case that the abysmal catechesis (or, rather, lack thereof) by the Conciliar would make it nearly impossible to explain the term to the average Novus Ordite who could not pass a quiz based on Baltimore No 1.  80%+ of them undoubtedly still believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Our Lord rather than that of Our Lady.

But even then one might rightly be cynical of their motives of wanting to spare the faithful of "confusion".  Bergoglio positively reveled in and bragged about causing chaos and "messes", and were they concerned about causing confusion with "Amoris Laetitia" and "Fiducia Supplicans".  With the latter, Bergs provided explanations for the popesplainers to deploy in justifying it, so why couldn't they have done the same with this?  Reminds me of when Ratzinger wanted to fix the bad vernacular translations of the NOM, where the US bishops pushed it back for a couple years due to the "confusion" it would cause ... to say "for you and for many" instead of "for you and for all" (great upheaval) ... but then didn't give two hoots to the mass confusion caused by the NOM in the first place, where millions left the Church as a result of that confusion.

Now, it is true that affirming the title would make the Conciliar laity even more prone to being picked off by Prots, who would jump all over it and say, "See, we TOLD you the Catholics worship Mary."  At that point, most Novus Ordites would just say, "yeah, I guess you're right" ... and not "well, by the term co-Redemptrix, we're referring to a secondary co-causation, where the co-Redemptrix is a caused co-cause of the effect created by the primary cause, the Redeemer, having herself been redeemed."  Yeah ... good luck with that.