Matter of fact, there was a good convergence of the Catholic and Lutheran perspectives on justification acheived about 10 years ago, but I don’t think the rest of the Protestant world accepted it or cared about it.
My problem with Protestant arguments is that I don’t think they reflect the scripture. It is hard to argue against a negative. This is why I keep pounding the scriptural aspect of this issue. I fully understand, mind you, that there are aspects of Catholicism that developed overtime and are not spelled out in the scripture at all. But the theory of justification I think is spelled out and it is not what Protestantism (agains, excepting traditionalist Lutherans and a few others) teaches. How can you argue, for example, that the judgement is not by works?
From what I've read from Lutherans it was ok till you got to the appendix at which time most conservative Lutherans rejected the document.
My problem with Protestant arguments is that I don’t think they reflect the scripture. It is hard to argue against a negative. This is why I keep pounding the scriptural aspect of this issue.
Then you have not really studied the Protestant arguments. As I said earlier, it's an exegetical argument based on a type of hermeneutic.
How can you argue, for example, that the judgement is not by works?
Through harmonizing Scripture. Protestants do not disagree that we will be judged by our works but those judgements do not effect our justification rather our reward.