I can assure you that I am not joking.
That's because they don't "just open the bible and read it, as if the truth were simply written there in black and white"!
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is self-defeating.
No they don't. This is an extreme over reaction. There are teachers and there are students. There are leaders and there are followers. Most people are nearly mindless sheep that believe whatever it is they are taught to believe.
Further, the magisterium is nothing at all other than it's own collection of theologians, most of whom don't happen to give a damn what the bible says at all! And to the extent that they consult the scripture, they have carte blanche to "interpret" it any which way they please. How is that better?
So what?
Yeah, so what? On some issues Luther was right and on other he was wrong. Why is that so frightening? That's precisely where the scripture finds its value. It stands as an independent and consistent standard against which theologically claims can be rationally tested.
Luther's famous standard is the key. It is not solely the scripture but the plain reading of scripture mixed with the use of sound reason that produces doctrinal truth. Most, including Luther, do not have the humility to adhere to that policy. Indeed, none of us do perfectly, but Luther in particular, was far more faithful to Augustinian teaching than he was the plain reading of the text of scripture.
It is also self-contradictory. There is no scripture that produces the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It therefore contradicts its own standard the moment it's uttered.
There is no question that there are several "lenses" through which one can view the scripture. You seem here to be treating them as if they are all co-equal options that anyone might choose with equal validity as if they are just one choice among several in a theological buffet line. And I'd agree that a great many people treat them as exactly that. They are, of course, not that. They aren't equal at all, by almost any measure you care to name, but the real problem for your position, the problem that you either ignore or are simply blind to, is that Catholicism (i.e. the magesterium) is nothing more than yet another of the lenses you are talking about.
You treat these lenses as if there is no objective means by which to evaluate one against another and as if they are all mutually exclusive of each other. Neither is true. Proper doctrine proceeds from proper hermaneutics. "Hermaneutics" being just a fancy word for the logic used to interpret scripture and to formulate doctrine. Like any other form of logic, the conclusions produced by it are valid if and only if the premises are true and the logic sound.
In the case of Catholicism and the magesterium, neither is the case. Catholics seem to have no incling at all of the need for reasoning from first principles. They don't even seem to have any clearly defined first principles, and to the extent they do, they have even less allegience to them when and if the need to alter them (or reject them outright) comes up. The only real first principle they seem to have is the absolute authority of the magesterium itself. They give lip service to both scripture and tradition but neither can be considered a true first principle because the magesterium has total carte blanche to interpret both in whatever way it sees fit.
So, rejecting one false principle (the magesterium) and replacing it with another false principle (sola scriptura) leads to a failure that you conclude means we should readopt the former false principle.
As if a reliance on confessions is their biggest departure from their own stated policy.
Can you really not see how you just crushed YOUR OWN position here?
What answer could they give to such questions that would be inferior to the answer you give and by what standard?
The only answer you could possibly offer would trap you in question begging circularity.
As if there isn't widespread doctrinal disagreements within the Catholic church.
At most the Catholic church has one "official" teaching and then there's a million different variations depending on which particular Catholic church you happen to walk into. How many sermons on the evils of abortion do you suppose Nancy Pelosi has ever been forced to sit through?
If the Catholic church is so unified, how is it that Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone can restrict Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion in May and then in June, she recieves communion at the Vatican?
You seem to be addicted to the appeal to popularity fallacy.
Sounds nice, but why should I accept your word over God's?
Why am I to take you to mean what you say and not God?
What is it about you that makes it so easy for you to communicate yourself clearly and so impossible for God to do the same?
Well, you are the first person I have ever seen draw a moral parallel between Noah's flood and Aztec human sacrifice.
Astounding!
