Quote Originally Posted by Troy
Since what I said does not indicate I claimed the RCC said that Mary is a substitute for Christ, why speak such words as though I had? How odd that Mary would be the substitute for Christ and Christ the substitute for mankind. I know this is not what the RCC believes.
via: "How can a sinner be a substitute?"

I find this inappropriate still since others should be called co-redeemers as much as Mary, but you don't find this. There is what you say and then there is practice. The practice does not agree with what you say. Only when the RCC can refer to everyone as co-redeemers as much as Mary will your answer be acceptable. Even so, it places too much on man and not on Christ when saying man is a co-redeemer. This word is particular to the cross work of Christ as the Redeemer without any co-redeemers.
Co-redeemer has been used to describe Mary and all mankind. I certainly didn't think up "Oh, everyone is a co-redeemer too". If you read about the Church, this is the position. It does not take away from Christ, but draws us to the death and resurrection. It emphasizes, rightly, our dire need to bring others to the faith. In realizing we are 'co-redeemers' we understand the importance not only of our salvation, but of mankind.


I'll have to refuse your claim since this statement I do find unacceptable, "shall have equal authority with that testament itself." Man will never have equal testimony with the testament itself. The Word is unparalleled.
Man is not equal with the word of God, because he is fallible. However, anything that comes from God is infallible. The apostles were men, but wrote the bible. Thus the Church, the successors of the apostles, when led by the Holy Spirit, teach infallibly, as all that comes from God is infallible.

The Bible which is the Word was foreknown by God and compiled in the 66 books
66 books according to whom? I don't see anything in the bible that states there are 66 books of revelation and that is all there will ever be.

that sums of Jesus the Word. God foreknew because The Godhead held a council between the Father, Son and Spirit the Son would be obedient unto the Father as expressed in the Word to erect authority on man. The RCC adds to those books which can be shown why they do not belong.
The Catholic Church teaches what comes from the Holy Spirit. They did this in 33AD when there was no NT, only Holy Tradition. Much of Holy Tradition was written down as scripture, the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles. However, much of apostolic teach still remains and that is what the Church continues to teach.

The church does not come before the NT if the NT was in God's heart before it was recorded for the church. Ergo, this statement is false: "The Church is not based on the bible, but rather the bible is based on the Church". The Church is based on the Bible for the Bible was foreknown by God, thus, producing the Church. The RCC believes in non-OSAS having no confidence God has the foreknowledge to give eternal life at new birth. These two false teachings agree with each other as being not of God.
OSAS is unbiblical. The NT refers to the actually writing of the apostles. While the truth of the NT is as eternal as God, the documents themselves come to us from the Holy Spirt and via the Church. Since the Church is the pillar and protector of truth, the bible comes from the Church. The Catholic Church predates the bible and the texts found in the bible.

Also, the church does not have what you call a heirarchy othe levels in the Church. Apostles operate regionally while elders take care of a Biblical locality. The corporations of the world come from the RCC system, but no such system is found the NT.
That is not how the early Church worked. The early Church taught inter-regionally. The seven catholic letters of the NT, for example, confirm this. These letters were instruction for the whole Church, not merely from one source to a location, but to all locations.


You would be agreeing then that the problem with the RCC is that they believe "No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
This is what is said in the bible. That's not a problem, but the truth. Prophesy comes from God, not private (man) interpretation.

This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit..." when you said "I am not aware that the Catholic Church holds as an official belief that you must have private revelation regarding any verse." What you say and what the RCC says is indeed the problem! You both agree that the Holy Spirit does not give personal revelation. And the list of this thought goes on, "Catechism for Adults on page 10 says, 'How can you get the true meaning of the Bible? You can get it only from God's official interpreter, the Catholic Church.'"
Private interpretation is not the same as Holy Spirit revelation. When private interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit, it is no longer private interpretation, but a revelation.

"Catechism for adults" is not a official source from the Catholic Church. However, it is correct in that the Catholic Church, when acted upon by the Holy Spirit, offers interpretation of scripture for us, from God.