I guess my “argument” at the initial stage of discussion would be that, while your interpretation is interesting and worthy of consideration, certainly there is room for reasonable people of good will to find another intepretation in these words.
I didn’t say I was “proving” anything. The question to which I responded was about what texts we might be thinking of.
It’s a different, and far more vexatious, question to see if we have understood the texts correctly.
Can we agree that there is no shortge of people who will tell us with insistent confidence that their interpretation of this or that text is “obvious”? So firmness and confidence cannot be considerations which a reasonable and pious person can allow to sway him.
“...It’s a different, and far more vexatious, question to see if we have understood the texts correctly...”
Well Said!! This is the essential issue on most of these threads that end up in fruitless “debate”. Scripture proof texts are requested from Catholics to back up our position; we provide them and they are simply ignored - re- provided, ignored; asked for, provided, ignored, and asked for again as if they hadn’t been provided!
The issue at hand IS interpretation as you rightly point out, not lack of Catholic proof texts, which is the implication when scripture is requested. Scripture is always provided by one or another of the Catholic apologists here and then always ignored if another (perfectly reasonable) interpretation is presented that is not agreed with. The disgreement is automatic and based upon opinion of interpretation alone.
Thank you for being a voice of reason here.
One last thing - the entire article that was posted is full of scripture to back up its position and yet scripture is requested by the responders to the article as if the article contained none. (not directed towards you - just pointing out the obvious in a general sense)