“Then why did you use a Pope Leo XXXIII as benchmark for declaring Anglicans to no longer be heretics?”
Why not? After all you said, “Since when did the Catholic Church teach that Anglicans are not heretics?”
“You seem to be inferring that “things have changed” since 1896 A.D.”
No, I am simply showing that you repeatedly get things wrong and you are helping me - as always - by completely failing to supply “even a SINGLE Church document that refers to them as heretics rather than as Anglicans since after the pontificate of Leo XIII”.
“You could have used Pope Leo X.”
Why would I? He died before there were any Anglicans. He died in 1521. Again, we see that you repeatedly make errors. It’s as if you have no idea of what you’re talking about any time the topic is about the Catholic faith.
“Why did you choose Leo XIII?”
Why do you think?
“Were both Leo’s wrong and Vlad be right?”
So far - between you and me - I am the only one right and you’re the only one wrong. Wrong in post after post after post after post.
“I doubt it; I highly doubt it. As of matter of fact, I know it.”
Ha! Yeah, you “know it” like Leo X having anything to do with Anglicans who didn’t even exist when Leo lived.
Pathetic.
Anglicans are just as protestant and heretical as Lutherans.
You just don’t get it. As usual.
Are the existing Anglicans now better than the first ones?