(2) Self-described fundamentalist congregations are not in the habit of inviting Catholic or Orthodox prelates to their churches and frankly, do not like to even address the prelates by their titles.
(3) Interaction between fundamentalist Protestant pastors and Catholic and Orthodox clergy usually take place in venues like meetings in support of marriage or life rather than churches.
(4) American Protestants are highly focused on condemning religious law largely because their tradition comes from the "Dissenters" of England, Holland and Germany who opposed not just Catholicism and Orthodoxy but also the official Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran state churches of Europe.
You're missing the point, widey.
1)Fundamentalist Protestants don't engage in pulpit exchanges because they take their religion seriously. Religions, including Catholicism (and now apparently islam) who do engage in such exchanges obviously do not take their religions seriously. No such pulpit exchanges ever occurred prior to the current era of universal apostasy.
2)Despite their well-known antinomianism (at least so far as ritual and ceremony is concerned), those radical Fundamentalist Protestants certainly are adopting Jewish rituals and ceremonies these days, aren't they?
3)My point wasn't dogmatic, but rather social. Catholics want to talk with everyone under the sun except for Fundamentalist Protestants--not because they are Protestant, but because they are Fundamentalist! Modern Catholicism is nothing but "new age" liberalism, which is why Fundamentalist Protestantism is the only religion routinely attacked, maligned, libeled, and avoided by today's Catholic officials. And they are treated this way not because of what they actually believe but because of the fact that they actually believe it. Apparently the Catholic Church can't stand anyone who actually believes anything. This fact in and of itself show's that Catholicism is no longer "orthodox" but liberal.
Did you notice the point I made about the Catholic Archbishop (name not now recollected) who actually went to a mosque and said he "felt comfortable among [his] fellow fundamentalists?" Why then the disdain for his "fellow fundamentalists" in the Protestant low churches? Why is their fundamentalism attacked while the fundamentalism of islam is accepted as in fellowship with the "fundamentalism" of liberal Catholics?
Did you read my observation about the Armenian Church's acceptance of Armenian neo-paganism because it helps that church defend the "Armenian national identity" from the "sects?"
You didn't say a thing about those two points.
I know for a fact that you don't agree with everything the current "mind of the church" is thinking. How you can pretend that all is well, that doctrine changed radically after VII, and that a revolution has occurred is beyond me.
I read a while back about the "error of magisterialism"--a state of mind that accepts all, and only, what is being taught by the contemporary magisterium, with absolutely no concern whatsoever with what the magisterium taught in ages past.
Not a Muslim. Not even a Catholic layperson.
If you have seen some sort of "pulpit exchange" with the Catholics listening to a non-Catholic homilist, this is strictly against Canon law.
Once again, the problem would be with the Catholics not being Catholic enough. This is always to be deplored.