You said that Protestantism is a heresy. He said that it isn’t.
given all the nice ecumenical language used by Card Ratzinger in that quote you gave, and the conclusion you arrived at in your understanding of that quote, why then is the answer to Q: 1, NO? Why is it not yes?
The answer is in your Catechism, and it is not about “heresy”:
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.
To appreciate this better, one must also read what the Catechism says about these “separated communities”:
817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable [Your quotation from Titus is relevant there]. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”
Note the explicit avoidance of blame: the references to how the communities “became separated”, rather than actively “separated”, and to how it was not simply a matter of one party splitting from the other.
Further, be aware that
“818 However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as **brothers **in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”
So, according at least to the Catholic Catechism, Protestants have a right to be called Christians, to be accepted with respect and affection, and not to be accused of heresy. Your own expressed views are quite different.
providing one’s ignorance is completely innocent, then ignorance is a mitigating factor.
Thank you, so we agree that they are **not **putting their salvation in jeopardy merely by going.
If one agrees to change after 1 or 2 admonishments, does it mean they did so because they felt “bound” to change or does it mean one felt “forced” to agree because of the consequences Paul mentioned?
The question is unanswerable, as it asks what others feel. It is also irrelevant to the canon law statement that they have the *right *to seek the truth, and which does not limit *where *they can seek it.
I said nothing in my response that contradicted canon law
Except for the part where you claimed that they were “putting their salvation in jeopardy” by doing something which canon law affirms is their right.
I quoted copiously. I did not express my opinion, therefore it was not my finger that was doing the pointing.
Actually, you quoted selectively and interpreted personally, regardless of what your Canon Law, your Catechism, and your Pope Emeritus have to say, and so the whole thing was your opinion, not your church’s.
Now, being an Anglican, I’m fine with people expressing opinions at variance with their church hierarchy’s, but it is always good for such people to at least be aware that they are doing so.