I thought Catholics were not allowed their own PERSONAL interpretation of scripture ??
Whyever do you think that? As anyone who has read (and understood) the Catechism knows, Catholics are free to interpret Scripture for themselves, so long as they take care not to allow their interpretations to contradict what the Church has defined. The Church, for example, has never pronounced whether the Blessed Virgin actually died or not; so I'm free to adopt either view. I'm simply not free to assume anything which contradicts the Dogma of the Assumption (i.e. that her body did not corrupt, and that she is now in Heaven, body and soul). Does that clarify? Just as a piece of advice to "former Catholics" who haven't had any instruction in the Faith since the 1970's (and such "instruction" was bound to be a mess of corrupt personal opinions, detached from all true Catholic teaching--those who think otherwise really do need to take the blinders off, and re-examine what the 1970's actually did): please re-examine what the Church actually DID teach. Sister Tye-Dye, Fr. Burlap, Brother Birkenstock, Bishop Nuance, and the assorted volunteer lay people who taught in Catholic schools and CCD programs--and I hope this doesn't shock, too much--really might not have had a very good grasp on Catholic teaching. (Feel free to gasp, at this point.)
Because the idea that the woman in Rev was Mary is precisely that . John never called the woman Mary or Mamma ..He called her a SIGN
...and are you assuming that "sign" = "cannot also be real"? I've no idea why anyone would think that. Protestantism is rife with "either/or" thinking which simply has no basis in fact.
Rome has never given an INFALLIBLE interpretation of that scripture
Oh, mercy! THAT old canard, again? May I humbly suggest that you read the Catechism, and learn how infallibility really works? What you state here has about as much to do with the real charism of infallibility as Popeye's experiences on-screen have to do with the actual effects of spinach on the human body.
The one given by the US conference of Bishops does not agree with you ...How about that ??
You're quoting from the New American Bible, whose footnotes are abysmal and modernist (and are not at all protected by the charism of infallibility--honestly, could you just go and read up on this?); the same "notes" claim that the account of Pentecost from Acts 2
must have been "telescoped" from a span of many years, since "it wasn't safe for the Apostles to do such things". (*pfft!*) Believe me... if you'd like to point at the NAB notes and laugh (or retch), I'll be side-by-side with you!
Suffice it to say that this example proves nothing germane to your point.