[editor-surveyor]

>> I think you missed my point. Don’t you see the irony in what you’re saying? Your original post was about Catholic criticism of “sola Scriptura”... but now, you try to dismiss Catholic teachings *because* they’re apparently “not in the Bible” (i.e. they violate “sola Scriptura”). That’s what’s called a “circular argument”—assuming your own conclusion in order to prove it—and it simply won’t do. How do you justify defending sola Scriptura with sola Scriptura?<<

.
Now there is some circular reasoning!

What is wrong with most of catholic teaching isn’t just that they’re not in the Bible, but that they are in violation of what is in the Bible.

Capiche?
.

[paladinan]

editor-surveyor wrote, in reply to my comment:

[paladinan, to RnMomof7]
Don’t you see the irony in what you’re saying? Your original post was about Catholic criticism of “sola Scriptura”... but now, you try to dismiss Catholic teachings *because* they’re apparently “not in the Bible” (i.e. they violate “sola Scriptura”). That’s what’s called a “circular argument”—assuming your own conclusion in order to prove it—and it simply won’t do. How do you justify defending sola Scriptura with sola Scriptura?

[editor-surveyor]
Now there is some circular reasoning!

(??) Er... friend... "circular reasoning" actually means something; it refers to a specific fallacy in which one assumes one's conclusion in order to try to prove it. Your comment here makes no sense at all, unless you can show me where I assume my own conclusion in order to try to prove it. Forgive me, but it really looks as if you saw the phrase ("circular argument"), thought to yourself: "Hey, that's a nice-sounding rebuke!", and proceeded to throw it back at me, without a clear idea of what it meant. Can you clarify?

What is wrong with most of catholic teaching isn’t just that they’re not in the Bible, but that they are in violation of what is in the Bible.

Such as...?

Capiche?

Potrei capire, se puoi spiegare cosa si intende. :)