This, I believe, is the precise direction ecumenical talks must proceed. There is a thread, "The Neverending Story", that I was a part of for the first 50 threads (I occassion it now and again), that started by examining the reasons why ecumenical talks ceased between the Southern Baptists and the RCC. Some said that the thread would end as abruptly as did the talks between the SB and RCC. After months and months of posts it is still going strong (just as I predicted). There needs to be honest and civil discussion about why we are where we are in Christianity.
One of the problems I have seen on FR is that RC's are pegged as having wrong doctrine, period! The RCC has interpreted Scripture just as others do. When I try to present my case, I always return to the earliest non-scriptural documents available to see how those Christians interpreted what was handed down in the faith. i.e. St. Ignatius of Antioch died at a very old age in 110 AD. He was the Bishop of Antioch and wrote some beautiful letters to many of the Churchs that Paul started. He may have heard the Apostles preach, who knows! I find it hard to believe that he would have corrupted the faith so badly and then gone to his death for that faith!? I would love to discuss how this sheds light on how WE ought to interpret Sacred Scripture. If the church was practicing certain things at this time, would these practices have been such a corruption? Many of the early writings deal with the heresies of the day. Yet I've found no writings stating that the faith that Ignatius practiced was illegitimate.
Yes, we need to talk because Christ prayed that we would be united in faith. God help us!