“First you falsely accuse me of being anti Catholic and you were called on it—to prove it.”
I am under no obligation whatsoever to satisfy your demands.
“You can’t, so you attribute a quote to me that I did not post.”
And in the end it doesn’t even matter because anti-Catholics are all the same:
“To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation. There are indeed able men who can make a striking case out of anything or nothing, as great painters give a meaning and a unity to the commonest bush, and pond, and paling and stile: genius can do without facts, as well as create them; but few possess the gift. Taking things as they are, and judging of them by the long run, one may securely say, that the anti-Catholic Tradition could not be kept alive, would die of exhaustion, without a continual supply of fable.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
“And you expect to have credibility?”
With anti-Catholics - people who act as John Henry Newman says above - is any needed? Is any enough?
“None, zero, nada at all. Period.”
And it doesn’t even matter because there’s no reason to believe you would have listened to the truth anyway. You’ve already demonstrated that often enough.
You have no idea what anti Catholic means yet you use it over and over again.
There are no anti Catholics posting on the Religion Forum.
If there were, they would be asked to leave.
And didn't Vlad just chide YOU a hundred or so posts back for making that same mistake? He scolded you with:
I suggest that, in the future, you actually get right to whom you’re posting.
That's the trouble with failed Protestants who turn Catholic, they become anti-Protestant bigots who get up every day with the thought of how they can criticize what they once believed in order to settle the doubts that still plague their hearts.