[HarleyD]

"...the antecedant is the schism, not the Reformation."

The "schism" that you're referring to is implied to be the Catholic/Reformation schism. It isn't the Catholic/Orthodox schism or the Catholic/SSPX schism. Assuming you mean Catholic/Reformation schism then your statement would still read:

I agree with Reformed theology, and believe it to be the most accurate, but there are a lot of warts there - and the resulting [Catholic/Reform] schism is something to be lamented. It [Catholic/Reform schism] may have been necessary, but if so, it [Catholic/Reform schism] is like chemotherapy - a radical treatment that is in fact poisonous itself.

It changes nothing. You’re only agreeing there are a “lot of warts” within Reformed theology and you state the schism is poisonous to both sides (Reform included). You’re implications are 1) that there is something wrong with “Reformed theology” and 2) that it was poisonous from the beginning-not a reformation of doctrine. Of course you have not provided an answer to my question as to what were the “warts” but it is apparent you’re ecumenicalism only extends so far.

BTW-For the most part I read just fine. I certainly make a comfortable living at it. Perhaps I just overpaid.

[jude24]

Of course you have not provided an answer to my question as to what were the “warts”

I didn't need to. That language was borrowed from OP's previous post. The warts were in our history, not theology. That was not clear; that I do admit.