This is definitely one of core issues with Roman Catholicism in that their theology is built around their apologetics defending it, which can only be done by taking words in not their first or even second meaning, but tertiary meanings with ad how prooftexting

This has been done for centuries despite there persisting profound malpractice and misunderstanding by the laity of the Roman church, who will of course take the words they are taught at surface value, and follow through in applying from the words use for them

You can say Mary saves does not quite mean saves, or that venerating and praying to saints is not quite venerating and praying to saints, or that salvation by works is not quite salvation by works. It doesn’t matter, the laity will and have listened to your words and thus sinned

If the Roman Catholic Church cared about clarifying this to their people, then they would see that it is not necessary, especially by no means a matter of dogmatic salvation, to use clearer words at the very least. But as you know my beliefs, that’s exactly it. They do not care

By default, a speaker does have authority in stating what is the meaning of the words he has spoken and the intent behind them. However this can be dismissed when the speaker is deliberately choosing to not use clearer words after repeated confusion, and persists with excuses

This is exactly why Nestorianism was condemned. It doesn’t matter if your explanation has good intentions and can be seen as correct “from a point of view”, it is misleading and leading into false doctrine, it is God’s Word

Example: God says not to have other gods, so I say it’s okay to offer food to Zeus because I don’t hold him as a god but merely a distant being who needs my charity to not starve, and thus I am doing my duty by feeding the poor

Translation: I wish to mislead and murder souls