Which dogmas are specifically rejected by the protestants?

Which dogmas are accepted by the protestants?

Does protestantism trace its heritage back to Our Lord or only until 1517 or thereabouts?

Does protestantism give due veneration to Our Lady?

Do protestants use a heavily altered (mutilated) version of the Bible?

It seems like the N.O. church treats Protestants and Evangelicals as equals, as just a different path to Salvation;  perhaps even a model for what the Catholic Church should be.  But in reality how does the True Faith describe these people?  Heretics? Schismatics?  

Ratzinger said in one of his books that protestants are not heretics, but this is wrong. They are heretics. I don't know if Ratzinger was stating his false belief or if he knew better but was lying. They are definitely heretics because they deny many dogmas. For example: Papal infallibility, the indissolubility or marriage, Mary's perpetual virginity and her immaculate conception, and many others. The Novus Ordo doesn't call anyone heretics anymore, though that doesn't mean the heretics cease to be heretics.

Protestants are heretics.

They are not in schism since the term "schismatic" applies only to people that have been previuously baptized in the Catholic Church.

The great majority of NO Church goers probably don't view Protestantism as a heresy or even acknowledge that it contains error.

JPII in his Apostolic Exhortation Catechesi Tradendae  (Catechesis in our Time)  from  October 16, 1979 perpetuates the Modernist VII theory that false religions are a means of salvation.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_exh_16101979_catechesi-tradendae_en.html

Ecuмenical Dimension of Catechesis

32. The great movement, one certainly inspired by the Spirit of Jesus, that has for some years been causing the Catholic Church to seek with other Christian Churches or confessions the restoration of the perfect unity willed by the Lord, brings me to the question of the ecuмenical character of catechesis. This movement reached its full prominence in the Second Vatican Council(82) and since then has taken on a new extension within the Church, as is shown concretely by the impressive series of events and initiatives with which everyone is now familiar.

Catechesis cannot remain aloof from this ecuмenical dimension, since all the faithful are called to share, according to their capacity and place in the Church, in the movement towards unity.
....
 
In this context, it is extremely important to give a correct and fair presentation of the other Churches and ecclesial communities that the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using as means of salvation;
 :barf:
....

Finally, catechesis will have an ecuмenical dimension if it tries to prepare Catholic children and young people, as well as adults, for living in contact with non-Catholics, affirming their Catholic identity while respecting the faith of others.

 :barf:  :barf:

This has been the environment in which NO children & parishioners have been getting "Catechesis" for 33 years. Unfortunately including myself.

Imagine my surprise in finding out the fact that most Protestants absolutely HATE the Catholic Church after all of the ecuмenical "Brotherhood of Man / Fatherhood of God" (BOM-FOG) happy clappy garbage I heard over the years.
 

Quote from: Mithrandylan

All protestants are at least material heretics, and if they are aware of what the Church teaches on a given subject and still choose to believe otherwise, they are formal heretics.

All Protestants are formal heretics.

Formal vs. Material heresy is one of the most misunderstood and misapplied distinctions out there.  I'll explain what I mean later this evening.

I'm pretty sure I know what the distinction is.

A material heretic is someone who believes something contrary to what the Church teaches on a given matter, and at the same time is unaware that what they are believing is contrary to what the Church teaches on that same manner.  An eight year old boy might think that Our Lady gave birth the same way that his own mother gave birth to him.  The idea itself is heretical, and is no less dangerous simply because it is held as a result of ignorance, but the person believing it does not incur any guilt or sin, supposing that upon being taught the true doctrine (converse to what they believed) they reject their error and believe as the Church does.

A formal heretic believes a doctrine contrary to the faith, and simultaneously knows that what he believes is not what the Church teaches.  So, if a priest is having his weekly dinner at the bishop's place and gets up and announces that Our Lady had a natural birth, he is a formal heretic because he knows the Church teaches she had a miraculous birth, yet he chooses to believe she had a natural one.  And of course, heresy doesn't have to be as contradictory as believing that Our Lady had a natural birth, this is just the example I chose.

Do I not understand?

Thanks for explaining in a manner I could understand.

Protestants are heretics.

They are not in schism since the term "schismatic" applies only to people that have been previuously baptized in the Catholic Church.

...but isn't everyone properly baptised a formal member of the Catholic church?  That is even if they were baptized in any other denomination?