This question is a bit more difficult, because responding to it depends upon how one defines the term “evangelical”.
I guess it means the gospel producing, calling for, a born again experience, with fruits to follow.
Can you clarify why not? Do they not recognize that we believe we are saved by grace, ,through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast? Have they never read the JDDJ?
I will try to speak for them. If Catholic belief were as simple as you stated here there would be no discussion (of differences). In practice and doctrine the emphasis seems to be for one to become “Catholic”. That is, one can become a Christian thru the institution of the Church and thru sacraments. And one must remain obedient to all she says to remain a persevering, heaven entering Christian. Bottom line is I think they would say in the end it is a salvation by works (sacraments being a righteous work but still a work)…Like it is no longer as simple as you state by grace. Not that works should not follow and even sacraments and or rites, but not for salvation but because of it. That is, where does one place their faith , in the works of Christ or our works in response to His grace ?
Is it false hope to tell a Catholic that they are not really Christian, since they don’t believe whatever theological distinctives Lutherans have adopted that the CC has not received from the Apostles?
Again, you relate being a Christian in terms of a particular church or “theology” or “parochial” view. Not that there isn’t a church or theology, but it must be more universal, making it possible for a Catholic and a Lutheran to be a follower of Christ ( and not because they are a Catholic or Lutheran).
No. We are not at liberty, as Luther was, to depart from the once for all sacred deposit of faith we have received from the Aposltes. We cannot add to it, or subtract from it, as occurred during the Reformation. Neither can we embrace a “different gospel” as we would find our selves accursed.
Looks like we already covered if the gospel has been added to somewhat with works per an evangelical view, as we have also discussed just whom the gospel can embrace, universally (catholicly). Your response is a bit like Luther’s if I recall correctly, individual liberty of conscience and not to go against it.
These are not the same thing, from a Catholic perpective, since we do not separate out justification from sanctification. A person is made new in baptism, but Jesus was very specific in how He wanted us to follow him, and there have been sigificant departures from His teaching over the year. This is why the term “imperfectly joined”.
Correct .We touched on it earlier of faith in calvary and faith in works and how some feel one is for salvation and one is because of salvation. …Did not Paul speak of justification and sanctification as such ?
You ask a just question. I think of most non-Catholics standing in the tradition of Apollos, fervent about what they know, but only having received part of the revelation of God in Christ. Or perhaps those Jews who had only received the baptism of John but were still trying to live according to his teachings.
But evangelically speaking one must see that "theology’’ is not always effective and one can be Christian despite not knowing full truth on other matters. You either know Christ or you do not. Beyond that of course there are different levels of maturity in Him but you are not “separated”.
There are Catholics that do not seem to have a personal relationship with Christ. Nowadays they are being called “sacramentalized but not evangelized”. It is an outcome of poor catechesis both at home and at the parish. These are the ones most likely to wander away.
Thank you for your honesty and info. Jesus had the same problem, as with Nicodemus. He was definitely sacramentalized ( circumcised, barhmitvahed etc, even ordained) but not evangelical (born of the Spirit). I think it goes beyond poor catechesis. I have not heard that the CC teaches that despite sacraments you need to make sure you are born again, born of the Spirit. The assumption is you are (born of Spirit) but you need to walk in it. Big assumption, which again ties in with what I said earlier about what is and is not Christian gospel. Even if prodded by a loving priest how can you walk in it if you have not been born again with your infant baptism ?
Yes, there is significant Catholicity in this statement. Jesus does not justify us so that we can go back to living like we did before. Yet many people have unwittingly embraced ideas and doctrines that the Apsotles would consider heretical, or significantly separating one from the faith.
Understand as JonC has pointed out that “separated” is not from Christ but from your community of faith.
Just a note on the terminology, for Catholics, the term “personal relationship” is a modern innovation that is not found anywhere in the Tradition of the Church or the Scripture, which is why Catholics don’t use it, or conceptualize Christianity that way. That being said, a person cannot be a disciple, either, without a close personal relationship with the Master.
Again, thank you . I appreciate your patience. The term may not be in the bible but close enough with "my sheep *know my *voice " and the negative side ,“depart from me I never
knew you” and of course Rev. with, “I stand at the door and knock,… and will sup with you and you with me”. In that culture supping was quite a personal and even intimate event.
whistle: 
) but obviously you should definitely, unquestionably apply the phrase “our separated brethren” to not only Catholics but also Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc since you aren’t in communion with them either. 
(Unless you prefer “separated brethren and sistren”.)
