Correct, that's why I started the thought with "I think", instead of "the RCC told me to think". ;-0
If I bring this up to you needlessly, I apologize. Very often as a Catholic apologist, I am asked to supply scriptural basis for one Catholic doctrine or another. Now, for some of our doctrines it is straightforward, for others it is open to different interpretations. For example, one can reasonably see in the mutual adoption of St. John and Mary described in John 19:26-27 Mary as mother of the entire discipleship of Christ or merely of John. The latter tends to be the Protestant belief and the former the Catholic belief. I can argue why ours is more authentic or more reasonable but I would not call your view scripturally unreasonable. It is a possible private interpretation.
Then there are cases where I would argue that not only does our view accord with the scripture, but that yours does not. For example, I do not see how the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide is scriptural — it is after all flatly denied by the scripture.
Invariably, when I point out the Catholic interpretation, I am then told “and this is the Protestant interpretation of this passage”. At which point I lose the interest in the discussion: I am quite familiar with the protestant system of theological thought and I reject it. I do not need to be informed of it one more time and it is not I who had come to you with questions in the beginning. As soon as the Catholic explanation of the scripture is given and clarified, my job, as I see it, is basically done. This is why I try to point out when the conversation crosses over into a debate between interpretations. I am not trying to be rude or sarcastic.