That one of the points I was making to you.
...however my more general point is clear
No, it's still as muddled as it ever was. Unless you'd like to include the Great Schism of 1054, the split following the Council of Chalcedon, etc etc etc in your argument :)
My main point is clear, despite your protestations (excuse the pun) to the contrary. Think of the movie “Highlander”: There can be only one. Catholics and Orthodox would agree on that point, we would just disagree on which one that “one” is.
You and other Protestants however, clearly don’t agree that there can be (or even should be) only one, true Church, that is visible. Despite what Scripture says (that Christ estabilished a Church that the gates of hell would not prevail against, and also said it would be visible, in Matthew), and despite the fact that there IS more than one Protestant denomination, and these denominations are clearly different doctrinally, you and apparently others here seem to want to have your cake, and eat it too.
On one hand, you want there to be a unified “invisible church”, yet the other, don’t want to say it’s DOCTRINALLY unified, so you don’t have to prove it is. I would submit that something that isn’t unified around doctrine can’t really be unified at all. This “invisible church” of yours and other Protestants, if it isn’t unified doctrinally, is nothing more than universalism.
Trust me that point is quite clear to anyone reading along, that doesn’t have a dog in this fight.