A8.
I believe that I DO understand the Catholic position and hold both an MDiv from a fully accredited Seminary and a M.A. in History (with an emphasis on Medieval studies) from a secular University.
I also am aware that the Catholic point of view is completely different than that of the Protestants. What seems to you, concerning what I understand, may simply be your misunderstanding of my trying to draw out the implications of Catholicism's belief system.
I am Protestant. I will always be Protestant - so "further progress" as you MAY define it may not be possible.
I too am frustrated with these conversations because I have been accused of believing that which I don't believe (everything from denying the divinity of Jesus Christ to denying the Trinity). While I am being lectured about "understanding the Catholic point of view" it seems very little effort is being made to understand what I am saying. Instead, I'm finding out that "firstborn doesn't mean firstborn" "brother doesn't mean brother" "Mother doesn't imply that one gave a person a beginning" "until CAN't mean that anything happend afterwards" and is doesn't mean is.
No allowance is given for even the POSSIBILITY that these Greek words could mean what they normally mean - why? Because a council declared something contrary to the normal meaning. In other words, Tradition supercedes any normal meaning within the words of Scripture. This is a dangerous thing.
You are right though. We likely will not come to any agreement. I take Scripture and apply it to my life within its Scriptural context. Catholics take Scripture as interpreted through the eyes of the Church hierarchy and make anyone who disagrees with them anathema (at least they did until Vatican II).
Sorry, I know that the Holy Spirit resides in me. I have the necessary understanding of principles of biblical interpretation to look at Scripture in a learned fashion. I do not see anything resembling the Roman Catholic hierarchy in scripture.
-A8
Just catching up and am not surprised nothing has changed. I think it's interesting that when Origen mentions the "Protoevangelium of James" and it's DUBIOUS RECENT APPEARANCE he also states that while the notion might seem pious, it was not unlikely that the obvious interpretation of Scripture (that Mary bore children for Joseph) was true and acceptable.
It seems pretty clear that this understanding of Scripture goes back to before the Canon was formed.