The incongruence begins. To me it is telling of the faultiness of the original proposition.
Reminds me of the quagmire of abortion. On one hand a doctor can terminate the life in a mothers womb and its just a legal abortion. On the other hand a man assaults the pregnant mother causing the unborn baby to die and it’s murder. Schizoid.Incongruent legal thought.
Like we are torn between the truth and justifying what we want .
So on one definition of church we are excluded. By another definition/ decree we are brethren, how be it imperfectly united or not in fullness. Therefore we must be a community, but can not be a church. Therefore we have saving graces but are in peril having no valid eucharist or reconcilliation/ confession. We are to be true to our God given conscience and convictions, yet if we knowingly refuse the CC per same convictions we are in peril.
Something is wrong when tongue speaks out of both sides of the mouth.
Reminds me a bit of the unclarity of Peter towards gentiles that Paul had to correct.
On one hand you have your hardliners, that literally there is no salvation outside the CC. On the other you have realists who have eyes and ears to see the spiritual life in Christ in non Roman Catholics, and a somewhat faulty or problematic biblical and historical basis to reject them.