“You guys do a lot of good around the world, but I hold that the Bible says there is but one redeemer, and that is Jesus.”
Your comment implies we don’t hold that there is “but one redeemer, and that is Jesus.” We do. And no definition of a co-redeemer actually changes that. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.
“If you want to elevate Mary to that position, that’s your call, but I’m entitled to think otherwise.”
Are you thinking? When you conclude that a definition of Mary as co-redeemer means Jesus is not the one and only redeemer, then I can’t see why you believe you’re thinking. That is NOT what any of the proposed definitions mean.
“I don’t believe that merits being called ignorant and bigoted.”
Well, again, when you conclude that a definition of Mary as co-redeemer means Jesus is not the one and only redeemer, then I can’t see why you believe you’re thinking. That sounds much more like ignorance and bigotry.
“Co-” means “in the same degree,” as in co-owner or co-signer. Designating Mary as co-redeemer implies, no matter how you parse words and quibble over definitions, that Mary has the same responsibility for redemption (i.e., the act of saving people from sin and evil) as Jesus, which, admittedly, does not YET has the force of a papal declaration, perhaps because not one word of scripture gives Mary that role. Catholics must fall back on church tradition (and human tradition, you may recall, is one of the things that Jesus specifically spoke against) to justify that designation. Sorry, but this protestant isn’t drinking that bilgewater, and if relying on scripture makes me a bigot, I’ll wear that crown of thorns gladly.