You wrote:
“You haven’t made a “point.” You’ve made a claim, which you have not supported.”
Then thanks for proving my unsupported claim!
“For example, what, in your view, defines “Protestant,” or “Catholic?” You haven’t said. How can we evaluate your claims without knowing their basis?”
I don’t care if you can evaluate my claims or not. Anyone who thinks Anglicanism somehow is and is not Catholic at the same time is not able to evaluate much of anything. The burden to prove that Anglicanism is Catholic is yours. To prove the opposite is not my burden. Can you for instance prove that women priests are a Catholic idea? Can you prove that women bishops is a Catholic idea? If not then you’re doomed to failure anyway.
Have a nice day!
Since you offer no basis on which to evaluate your claims, you really don't bring anything other than shouting to this thread. Is that really what you want?
The burden to prove that Anglicanism is Catholic is yours.
Well, no. To review the bidding, you made the following (unsupported) statement: "Anglicans are Protestants. Period. There is no debate here. There are only dreamers who want to pretend that Anglicans aren’t what they are."
The burden of proof is on you, sir -- at least to define your terms, if not to defend your statement.
Since you've now confirmed your unwillingness and/or inability to back up what you say, I guess we can safely ignore your claims from here on out.
Thanks for playing.