Someone at Beggars All suggests that Catholic doctrine rules out a certain class of argument that a Protestant might use in arguing with JWs. Fair enough. I suppose one sort of response would be that to abandon truth for the sake of an argument is not an honorable strategy (on the other hand, it seems that the LDS disagrees with me; clearly what they're interested in isn't truth at all, with those tactics). I'm not saying that the author at Beggars is dishonorable, but that there would be no honor in a Catholic forsaking the Faith on specific points just because his beliefs rule out certain methods of persuasion. In short - who cares if we can't use Protestant arguments?
But - tit for tat. There are arguments that Protestants can't credibly use with JWs either. One that comes readily to mind in view of recent posts here: the Protestant can't reasonably claim that his distinctive views are those of the whole Church throughout the ages. The JW can with perfect justice reply to the Protestant that his views are barely less novel than the Protestant's own, historically speaking (and to the extent that they are Arian, he can make a much more credible defense of his distinctives: all the way back to the fourth century). On the other hand the Catholic can with justice assert that the Church is the one that Christ founded, and not a scintilla of the Gospel had to be "rediscovered" at all.
I submit that this is a much more powerful argument than a quibble over the usage of a particular Greek word.