You cannot persuade using that kind of argument.
You couldn’t really think anyone to be swayed by such a straw man argument, so I suspect this is what you say to yourself to escape the nagging suspicion that your church is contradicting God. It is, but I am not so naïve to think that I will be the one to convince you.
You might study what “idias epilusews” actually means. It conveys the opposite of what you have imagined and I find it delightfully ironic that it is Peter who actually says this to you.
I mean no disrespect to you, but you will understand that further comment from you about this is a waste of time. I would love to hear however, your thoughts on the vaccine issue or the election steal issue or other threads that you might be following. FReegards!
I certainly am not, and already corrected the private interpretation statement, and noted that the very text that Catholics invoke as proscribing private interpretation does not teach that, and thus this use of it by Catholics examples the very thing that they argue against. For that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20) is not referring to interpretation of Scripture, but that of the writing of prophecy not being the product of man's own understanding, but to the contrary, that the prophets did not know "what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." - 1 Peter 1:11) Interpret scripture by scripture.
But which you ignored as is typical. As well as the fact that under your alternative, that of submission to your magisterium, for about 60 years your official Bible for America (NAB/NABRE) has not used render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual and instead renders the words for fornication/fornicator as "immorality" or "immoral persons" among the many occurrences of the words for sexual immorality. (Matthew 5:32 Matthew 15:19 Matthew 19:9 Mark 7:21 John 8:41 Acts 15:20 Acts 15:29 Acts 21:25 Romans 1:29 1 Corinthians 5:1 1 Corinthians 5:9 1 Corinthians 5:10 1 Corinthians 5:11 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Corinthians 6:13 1 Corinthians 6:18 1 Corinthians 5:9 ,10,11; 7:2; 6:9; 1 Corinthians 10:8 2 Corinthians 12:21 Galatians 5:19 Ephesians 5:3 Colossians 3:5 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Hebrews 12:16 Jude 7 Revelation 2:14,20,21; 9:21; 14:8;17:2,4; 18:3,9; 19:2) - even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
In addition it uses inclusive language more extensively than ever before. And its (required) footnotes show adherence to the discredited JEDP theory and other liberal revisionism.
Which refutation of the Catholic premise of faith in your magisterium rather than subjecting what is taught to examination by Scripture (Acts 17:11) has already been shown you by the grace of God, along - with - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - many - other - refutations of your profuse polemics for Rome in the short time you have been here on FR, but which are typically followed by more posting of the same prevaricating propaganda and polemics.
Which thus are an argument against being a Catholic as yourself, as such seem to be compelled to keep comforting themselves with lies and defending Rome as if it was God, perhaps under the delusion that doing so will obtain them some "indulgence."