Right, something like that seems to be fairly normal for those that express the belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon on FR. I don’t think I recall ever seeing such an opinion expresses on FR by a member of a nonCatholic Christian group that has some sort of creed or deposit of faith that coincides with their own belief that can be referred to by an outsider. I think it must be considered too wacky. You don’t see that opinion too often on FR, and then usually only from self proclaimed ‘non-denominational’ Christians, or those that decline to state the Christian group that they most associate with. For some reason.
Even on an anonymous conservative forum.
Freegards
Then you have missed out on most of Baptist (all Baptist churches, even though affiliated with some Convention, are by definition autonomous), Plymouth Brethren (dispensational also), Independent Bible churches, etc. What you have missed out on is that no church of the New Testament record has the word Methodist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Baptist, Unitarian (ha), Brethren, Roman, Catholic, etc associated with it. A complete description of the tenets of The Faith are in the Bible. No further description is needed to exercise authority in debates or discussion. You are merely trying to marginalize anyone who does not identify with Romanism, and it doesn't work. This Jesus, founder and author of The Faith, is nondenominational, as were all the churches of the New Testament.
Who are you, and what are you trying to achieve? Were I to name Cyrus Ingerson Schofield, or Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, Baron Bannside, PC, or John Nelson Darby, I am sure you would not like their estimate of the symbolism of the Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. The founder of the mammoth Methodist denomination, John Wesley, thought the same as I am positing. (FYI, I was raised in a Methodist parsonage.) Would they, if alive, be banned from posting on FR? I am sure "Yes" if you were the referee.
What do you intend to do about this?
Ratzinger himself has offered the strategies of two types of methods in dealing with disagreements between theologians and the Magisterium: "In actuality, the point is precisely to use arguments instead of pressure as a means of persuasion.” (paragraph 3)
You wish to use the logical fallacy of the type "Eat garbage, 50 million flies can't be wrong" to refute and repudiate the assignment of the symbolism of Babylon, by trying to dominate by applying pressure rather than by close-drawn argument. No go. If you have a better interpretation, give it rationally. Stop playing this game "My argument is better because I am a Catholic" ploy.
If you seek a flame war, I withdraw. Now. In any case, I don't have a lot of time to unprofitably bicker with you over something you are clearly--not invincible--but unconvincible.