"This is sufficient to establish the point that there is an element of unfairness about allowing some to have differences and protests while anathemetizing others......when all are believers in Christ."
What you are proposing, Padre, is nearly universalism. On another thread, some days back, a discussion started on who is in The Church, or perhaps better put, what constitutes The Church. You may have seen it. By a review of the writings of the earliest of the Fathers, a picture of what The Church is appears. In some respects, various Protestant assemblies do carry the hallmarks of The Church but in others, they fall down seriously, even into heresy. For example, there is no Protestant Church of which I am aware that believes and teaches that there are 7 sacraments, not 2. I am unaware of any Protestant assembly, save perhaps the , and I do say perhaps, the Anglicans and the Lutherans, who share The Church's belief in the nature of the Eucharist. No Protestant assembly, save perhaps the Anglicans and some Scandinavian Lutherans can validly claim that their hierarchies are within the Apostolic Succession. Other than some Lutherans, I am unaware of any Protestant group which accepts as dogma the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. The list goes on. The pre-schism Church held all these beliefs in common. In fact, the Post-schism Church does. If an ecclesial assembly does not hold at least these things in common with the particular Churches which make up The Church, then they are not part of The Church. They may well be good Christian assemblies, but they are not part of The Church. The salvation of the members of those assemblies is a matter for the Holy Spirit. If one does not believe, for example, in the Real Presence, or is in communion with a bishop who doesn't, then The Church says "Let him be anathema." The same anathemas apply to belief in the 7 sacraments etc. There's nothing unfair about that, Padre unless one is being anathemized for reasons other than basic Church doctrine.
This issue brings to mind something I read on Pontifications a couple of days ago. One of the Pontificator's laws is that where Rome and Orthodoxy agree and Protestantism doesn't, Protestantism looses.
But you are not putting this in the context of THIS thread about the Pope. In it, we are told that total unbelievers are acceptable and saved.
Can someone seriously propose, after that, that protestants, who are surely serious believers in our Lord, are lost?
Is it truly better for protestants to be unbelievers?
This clearly falls under the advice of Jesus in Mark 9. If they aren't against us, then they're with us.
Since protestants are believers in Jesus the Christ, there is no hint of universalism in the position that these believers, too, within the church. Universalism would suggest that every man, without regard to his faith in Jesus, is saved.
Don't forget the high church Anglicans. Also, most Lutheran synods suppose that Mary remained a virgin (including in the delivery), but would hesitate to say that salvation depends on that belief (hence Dogma).
I have an old (100 year old plus) Baltimore Catechism at home. Not sure how it ended up there, but the interesting thing is that the Eastern Orthodox are not considered to be a valid Church because they "Don't have the Pope as their head". If I paraphrased that right. So the view that the Eastern Orthodox is a valid Church is not as settled in the Roman Catholic Church as some suppose. In the Catholic Answers website there was a lone thread on this issue that ended badly and had to be locked down, with the many posts going against the Orthodox being a valid Church.
The Church, then they are not part of The Church. They may well be good Christian assemblies, but they are not part of The Church.
Would a Protestant need to be rebaptized then if they wanted to join the local Orthodox church?
But, Kolo, one of the issues of the reformation was the inability of these teachings to be convincingly demonstrated in scripture....the guidance given us by the Apostles.
They might be deductions, wishes, etc., but there is no scriptural certainty to them.....as there is no scriptural certainty about the doctrine of a papacy.