CathInfo.com

Idiotic.  What does "generally speaking" mean?  He's probably grasping at the distinction I articulated between natural (colloquial / material) vs. theological.

Closest thing to "generally speaking" and "strictly speaking" (the latter being wrong) would be ...

Well, they're not Christians simpliciter (i.e. without distinction or "generally speaking"), but only secundum quid .. meaning, only in a certain sense (which you then have to articulate and not just leave it clear as mud).  What quid?  You have the onus of articulating this to demonstrate that your distinction is valid in the first place.

Also conflating nonsense "reject the teachings of Christ".  Reject in what sense?  Most Christians will claim to accept Christ's teachings, and they generally do accept them, materially speaking, at least most of them, the ones they think are Christ's teachings.

What is actually the reality is that it has to do with WHY someone accepts or rejects the teachings of Christ, the formal motive of supernatural faith, which can only be the teaching authority of the Church.  Purely hypothetically ... it could happen that someone believes every single teaching of Christ, but they came to these beliefs by careful Bible study, on their own, and they happened to get it right.  Of course, in reality that means they become Catholic and such a thing could never happen.  But in theory they could believe every teaching of Christ, but if they don't believe it for the right reasons, they lack the supernatural motive of faith and are not "strictly speaking" Christian either, whatever that means.

I was thinking that by rejecting the Church teachings, the Prots reject Christ himself, whether they know it or not (He who hears you hears me.  He who rejects you rejects me".  No one who rejects Christ is a Christian.

I would recommend Fr. Michael Müeller's Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine and The Catholic Dogma to anyone who does not understand why Protestants are not Christian. (I might be getting those titles a little wrong)

Essentially, he says that a Christian is someone who is baptised and professes Christs doctrine. (Although Lad makes an interesting point regarding Catechumens.)
As the 'Christ' Protestants claim to follow does not have a blessed virgin free from all sin as his mother, and as he did not institute seven sacraments, the papacy, the Catholic Church, etc..the 'Christ' they claim to follow cannot be Our Lord Jesus Christ. They do not know Our Lord and they do not profess His Doctrine, so they are not Christian

I always considered a Christian to be one who is baptized and believes Catholic doctrine.  Apparently, Ladislaus mentions distinctions that need to be made, something I didn't consider.

A few months ago, I read this article below that was written by a Prot-convert to Catholicism. 
Protestants Are Not Christians | The Fatima Center

I certainly do NOT regard them as Christians with the obvious exception of the baptized children.