We Are Church argued that the dogma of the transubstantiation-- the teaching that the bread and wine at Mass are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ-- is unacceptable to Protestants, and thus impedes ecumenical unity. The group decried traditional forms of Catholic piety, such as Eucharistic adoration and processions, as tending to make an "idol" of the Blessed Sacrament.
This, in itself, is enough to show that these folks are not the sharpest tools in the shed. OK, so transubstantiation is "unacceptable to Protestants". This is given as the reason why we ought to abandon the dogma. Well, the abandonment of the dogma is "unacceptable to all orthodox Roman Catholics", so, if unacceptability is to be our criterion of choice, then by their own definition we ought not to abandon it.
I suppose they would say that unacceptability simpliciter is not the actual criterion, but "unaccpetability to Protestants." If that is their true criterion, they have abandoned the Principle of Sufficient Reason, since there's no compelling reason to accept the judgment of Protestants over that of (centuries of) Roman Catholics, other than the fact that this will get the job done.
Since people are no longer burned at the stake for being Protestant, my view is that we should let folks who reject the dogma go ahead and be Protestants. That's what We Are Church should do--well, in fact, have already done. If there is no difference, as they think, between believing the dogma and rejecting the dogma, then there is no harm in being in a Protestant community where it is rejected, and ecumenism is pointless. If there is an important difference between believing it and rejecting it, as we claim, then it would be folly to reject it, and true ecumenism would recognize that fact.