This is for PJM.
Iām going to say something, then re-post your comment, then say something else. First, the vitriolic Protestants. The most vitriolic ones believe Catholicism became apostasy at some point and can no longer legitimately call itself Christianity. The slightly less vitriolic are willing to grudgingly say that Catholicism is a kind of Christianity, but it has a lot of problems with teaching and praxis that make it hard for anyone to become a Christian or become a better Christian. So theyāre not to the point where they say Catholics are beyond the pale, but they do believe Catholics come to know Jesus in spite of Catholicism rather than because of it.
Therefore. The overall conclusion for either kind of vitriol involves a commitment to bringing Catholics out of the Catholic Church. A decline in the presence and influence of Catholicism in any given country is equated with a win for Jesus, who weakens the CC so that people can be in a better position to know Him. And some of these people even dream of a day when the CC is destroyed, gone, no more. They certainly donāt dream of a day when their coalition of churches is on good terms with Catholics, working side by side for a common goal. They donāt want to build bridges. Why would you build a bridge and link up with something when the only thing you want is to see it burn?
Friend,
Do WE not believe in ''One God?"
How then can āOne Godā hold more than one position on the same; and long defined issues? Is this not IMPOSSIBLE:shrug:
It is not impossible, Thomists and Molinists hold divergent and contradictory positions on the same sorts of issues that divide Calvinists and Arminians. But Thomists and Molinists are still both Catholic.
But letās say it is impossible. You asked a question which is generally geared toward opposition to ecumenism. (You know what I mean by ecumenism). But what are your particular conclusions, as far as where that leaves you and the scope of your interactions with Protestants? Does it look anything like a Catholic version of my initial comments prior to the re-post of what you said? Do you feel that Protestantism is fundamentally broken, deficient, and guilty of putting people in a position where itās much less likely that they will know Jesus, become better Christians, and attain salvation on the last day? Are you reluctant to build bridges with our churches (even as you voice some reluctance at calling them churches) because you really think that the key to meaningful unity is their termination, end, and lack of existence? Do you dream of a day when Protestantism is no more? Do you sort of want to see it burn to the ground?
Iām not really concerned with how reasonable you are in getting there- if this is where you have gotten. What Iām hoping for is a hard denial saying that you most certainly have not reached these sorts of conclusions, and this is not where your thought process takes you. Iām sure you are very reasonable, and I am well aware of the fact that you, as a Catholic, have a right to feel far more justified in reaching the same sorts of conclusions that vitriolic Protestants so often reach concerning you and yours.
But thatās not really the point, is it. The point is- maybe you have reached some of those same conclusions. And even if they are better reasoned and better supported, theyāre still the same sorts of conclusions that vitriolic Protestants reach concerning you, and I think you know thereās something hurtful in them that doesnāt quite have anything to do with logic, support, or the quality of argument.
One more question, if I may. You talk to some vitriolic Protestants who hate Catholicism and want to burn it down, and then you talk to some ecumenically-minded Protestants who believe in the same basic doctrines as their vitriolic brethren (Five Solas and so forth), but they have more of an interest in the history of Christianity and knowing something about their place in it. They also have less of an interest in converting Catholics to some form of Protestantism, but they have absolutely no plans to convert to Catholicism themselves. Additionally, they inevitably have a burning desire to join hands and sing Kumbaya, because thatās definitely a major goal for all persons involved. It just goes with the territory.
When you look at the vitriolic Protestants and the ecumenical Protestants, they believe basically the same things and largely disagree with you and the CC in pretty much the same ways- they just handle their disagreement differently. And I think I may be approaching the question at long last. Based on your line of questioning which I have re-posted, am I to conclude that you have some sort of preference for the vitriolic Protestants? Is that the thing you have more of an understanding for? Do you admire the passion in spite of your disagreements while having a relative lack of respect and admiration for Protestants who shun vitriol in favor of something more ecumenical?
Are you implicitly suggesting that there are legitimate reasons for you to prefer a more vitriolic Protestant to a more ecumenical one? Understand that I ask you this as a Protestant myself, and Iām almost not kidding when I say I can go either way.
) And she refused to answer; she said she was afraid it would affect our friendship. I would just like to add that she is a very knowledgeable person when it comes to Scripture; got a degree in it ā loves God, loves Scripture. She is now Lutheran; that was a big leap for her. 
I keep praying someday sheāll make it all the way to Catholicism. Oh, what conversations weāll have then.