Replies

We’re evil and lost and we twist Scripture. Okay.

Here’s how it looks to me:

I think your side (and to some extent ours) “misunderestimates” the differences between us in ‘culture’, for want of a better word.

Example: I think the episode of the Ethiopian Eunuch is all the evidence one needs that “Sola Scriptura” don’t cut the mustard. Obviously you know the story, and obviously you see something else there. And each of us thinks our interpretation, in gross or fine points, is obvious.

So when we encounter disagreement we are astonished. And then, it appears, angry and ready to condemn. We start with, “You’re ignoring the context,” and end with, “You’re (or your masters are) perverting Scripture for some nefarious end.)

But all that’s neither true, nor helpful, nor charitable.

But that seems to be the outcome. Not a very good witness for either side.

Actually I think it’s closer to Paul’s words to the Galatians.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9 The intentional injection of a meaning to a verse to try to bolster a false teaching is “preaching another gospel”.

>> Example: I think the episode of the Ethiopian Eunuch is all the evidence one needs that “Sola Scriptura” don’t cut the mustard. Obviously you know the story, and obviously you see something else there. And each of us thinks our interpretation, in gross or fine points, is obvious.<<

An obvious total misunderstanding of what Sola Scriptura means. It does NOT mean that no one can help others understand what scripture is saying. It DOES mean that whatever that “teacher” says MUST conform to what scripture is saying and anything that is not in scripture is NOT to be taken as doctrine. Sola Scriptura is different then Solo Scriptura. One would be wise to understand the difference.

"We start with, “You’re ignoring the context,” and end with, “You’re (or your masters are) perverting Scripture for some nefarious end.)"

Churchill said; “Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language.” This same condition is amplified a 1000X with Protestants and Catholics.

Catholicism has a rich but very precise vocabulary that is not readily translatable to the English vernacular or even fully comprehensible in the context of modern American culture.

Far too often these "discussions" devolve into a fight over the ownership of the language and the definition of terms in which non-Catholics insist that Catholics abandon Catholic definitions and join them in condemning Catholicism based only on secular language. Even those with dubious claims of being ex-Catholics fail to recognize or acknowledge Catholic language.

For example, when we Catholics explain what we mean by veneration and the response is "No you don't" is there really any point of further discussion?