Perhaps it is a condemning attitude that was referred to, and while it is true that modern Catholics can generally affirm baptized Protestants as Christians, most of what is seen in posts is denigration of them, as a result of the regular succession of articles on FR in promotion of a Church® as supreme, to whom all are to submit, and the resultant censure from the other side.
And while you see Catholics who hold that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus leaves non-Catholics damned as being bitter, failed Catholics who know little about what the Church actually believes or teaches, Lumen Gentium is open to some interpretation, and there are many Catholics who hold to what i believe is the more historical position of Rome, which does condemn “schismatics” to Hell, as seen here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2891087/posts?page=316#316
Someone gets it. I'm not surprised that it's a non-Catholic.
Catholics just can't seem to see their own attitudes reflected in what they say towards others. No empathy.
As a matter of fact, the very condemning comments here on these threads *bitter*, *failed Catholics*, etc, are EXACTLY the kinds of attitudes that I've encountered out of Catholics I've known personally. Catholics on these threads are no different than them. There is much condemnation of non-Catholics by Catholics on all levels.
James 2:1-13 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?
8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
What condemning attitude?
And while you see Catholics who hold that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus leaves non-Catholics damned as being bitter, failed Catholics who know little about what the Church actually believes or teaches
No, that's not what I see. What I see is that ex-Catholics who are persistent in talking about the Church, without bothering to be truthful about its doctrine or teachings, whether intentionally or not, are bitter, failed Catholics who know little about what the Church actually believes or teaches.
more historical position of Rome, which does condemn “schismatics” to Hell,
No, it doesn't.
as seen here
It appears you put a lot of effort into cutting and pasting out of context snippets from various documents. I didn't have time to thoroughly investigate the lengthy cut and paste, but I did skim it. I didn't see the Church condemning anyone to hell.