I appreciate your concern, Red. This is not a matter of a legitimate communion having a few bumps and bruises. The underpinnings of the Roman Catholic Church are as far from the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Judaizers were during the 1st century. Paul had harsher words for them than I have used and he wanted it clearly understood that a little bit of heresy was no small matter.
"That’s almost always a big discussion stopper."
I find no admonition to grant honor to "another gospel, which is really not another gospel." You may find a "discussion" useful, but discussions about venerating humans is not something I am interested in.
You might consider whether the inference gathered by a "discussion" is that you find the other view within the pale, but just needs tweaking. This is especially true when you may really believe the other view is entirely off the rails. I wish to leave no possible misunderstanding about where I believe the Scriptures stand.
If we had the privilege of being one of those original apostles we could tear a lot of communions a big one. We don’t have that privilege.
I totally agree, there are some fundamental problems with doctrines here, for example it looks like people are potentially letting saints get between themselves and the Lord, but there’s undeniably also actual Christian practice going on in that communion. Christian practice is not at root a heap of doctrines, it is a personal salvific relationship between the human and the Savior. The bath water may be terrible, but don’t throw the baby out.