I would agree, although this returns us to our very first conversation, wherein I suggested that recognition of Protestant authority would be of a necessity.
It is impossible to see eye to eye when one participant is looking down his nose at the other.
1. Refrain from describing the other confession in caricature terms. For example, the Protestants should listen to how the Catholics themselves explain the veneration of Mary, the saints, and the relics, rather than assuming that all these are idolatry or even detract from the worship of God. This doesn’t mean the Protestants have to venerate Mary, but it means that the Protestants express their disagreement in terms acceptable to the Catholics.
What you are describing is simply a matter of good manners, something both sides could stand some work on, and consideration goes both ways. I doubt we will ever have agreement, and I doubt our principles would allow us to avoid the nasty bits, as many might do in polite conversation, but we could all work on a more friendly interchange, that is true.
2. Concentrate on its own confession rather than on defects in other confessions, just like Protestants do between themselves, and the Catholics do with the Orthodox.
Um, I hate to spring it on you like this, but Protestants fight like a sack of cats. Our interdenominational wars, or more often, orthodox vs liberal wars are just as bad as anything you see here.
The difference here is that, for the main, the religious body is made up of Fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals, Catholics, and a fair sprinkling of Mormons. As the Evangelicals tend to think along the same lines, there is a greater solidarity, and especially so when against Catholics and Mormons, as the differences are so profound, all three groups are well educated and stand their ground.
3. Acknowledge that each side is profoundly concerned in correctly understanding the entirety of the Holy Scripture, and that we have honest differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of some passages. [...]
WRT correct understanding, one thing that would be nice is if the Catholics would work together with Protestants to agree on some translations as being scripturally true. If the Catholics and Evangelicals together can agree and develop an inter-faith seal of approval which is *not* given to the publisher unless the translation meets the standard, that would go a long way toward getting lesser translations off the street. I do not mean to suggest that you give up the Apocryphal books, nor that we must adopt them, but that the books as presented meet the scrutiny of both sides.
It is unhealthy to call another side’s interpretation as unscriptural, deride it as “tradition of men”, etc. when your own side also has but an interpretation by other group of men.
I don't think you really 'get it' wrt Protestant interpretation. Because our doctrines are diverse, and because we as denominations are not in agreement, The Scriptures are always paramount. We hack on each other about our own interpretations too.
One thing that would help is for Catholics to realize what a broad brush they use to paint us with. "Protestant" is a very wide ranging term. It is hardly productive to accuse Fundamental Evangelicals for the asinine doctrines of the liberal churches.
To put differently, to offer a variety of interpretatins of scripture is one thing, and it is healthy. To say that one interpretation is inspired by the Holy Ghost and the other is not is not healthy.
I don't know how that is to be resolved by either direction.
4. Acknowledge that the works of the early fathers of the Church is an important historical witness to the practices of the historical early Church. It is fine to disagree with them here and there, unhealthy to create myths of the historicity of one side’s interpretation of scripture in absence of patristic evidence of such.
I don't know Protestants of any knowledge that do not honor the works of the early fathers. That does not include elevating them to the authority of Scripture though, and there is a mistrust even of these works because of paganizing and judeaizing influences that were working mightily to influence the church, even in the days of the Apostles. If the accusation remains unspoken, it is this line of thought that is the root of our distrust of prayer to Mary and to saints. It is this line of thought that insists upon sola scriptura.
And I responded then that there is no basis for that. Naturally, diverse pastors in the Protestant universe have authority in their parishes, but no apostolic historical authority exists for them. I only listed what is possible; to recognize a supernatural authority of late interpretations of the Scripture is not possible. This is not "down the nose"; if, for example, the "trail of blood" myth were proven to have a historical value, that might create the authority your seek. Remember, that the authority comes from the deposit of faith Christ Himself gave the Holy Apostles. No authorioty comes from simply reading the scripture and deciding how to properly interpret it, and that is all the Protestant pastors themselves are claiming with their Sola Scriptura philosophy.
Protestants fight like a sack of cats
Yes, and this is sort of, my point: it looks like the Protestant opponents of Catholicism would deploy their energy better reaching unity among those with whom they share the purported basis for that unity, the scripture. You have the same truncated Canon of scripture and you all think it is sufficient for all one needs for salvation, -- so where is your unity?
Catholics would work together with Protestants to agree on some translations as being scripturally true.
I think they do that in some cases. The problem is again that it would require a Protestant version of papal Nihil Obstat Imprimatur, difficult to come by between diverse Protestant groups.
I don't think you really 'get it' wrt Protestant interpretation
Maybe. What I meant to say is that these internal Protestant struggles, e.g. liberals vs. conservatives or pre-millenialism vs. post-millenialism are of no interest to us; what is of interest is that the Protestant foundational beliefs in sola fide and sola scriptura are themselves tendentious interpretations of the scripture, just as much as our belief in Mary as co-Redemptrix is.
that is to be resolved by either direction
Why, historically and scripturally, of course. Christ did not promise the Holy Spirit to inspire everyone, but His Apostles alone.
paganizing and judeaizing influences that were working mightily to influence the church, even in the days of the Apostles
I am yet to see a Protestant who would read St. Irenaeus on free will, St. Justin Martyr on Mary and the Eucharist, or St. Ignatius on obedience to bishops or Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and say: "This is a pagan influence and this is a judaizing influence and this is why". The only Church Father that is read (very selectively) is St. Augustine, -- the least recent and the least universally accepted of them all.