The principle applied here was that a caucus thread cannot [explicitly] attack a group of Christians not included in the Caucus 'set'.
So the question to argue is "Whether Chapter 10 is an [explicit] attack on the [so-called] Catholic Church."
And a related question, or an approach to the discussion might be "Whether the "if the shoe fits, wear it" standard means something is an attack or not."
In things like the Creed or the Chalcedonian Definition, I do not recall (not that that's a reliable standard) any "And they that say X are to be held accursed," or "As the so-and-so do falsely boast." But of course such language appears in later Conciliar canons.
It would be interesting to analyze the 39 articles to see if they could qualify for Caucus status. N any event the burden placed, whether fairly or not, on at least some non-Catholic groups APPEARS to be that they may have to argue that some of their statements or confessional chapters or whatever are not intended as being 'against' those Churches in communion with the See of Rome.
Chapter 10 says nothing that Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession doesn't say. Clearly a doctrinal creed. I guess we can't have the Westminster Confession quoted on a Protestant caucus thread either. I've seen Catholic caucus threads which go on and on about the authority of tradition. This could just as easily be characterized as an attack on Protestants as chapter 10 in the creed originally posted on this thread is asserted to be. The hypocrisy and venom is breathtaking.
It's bad enough a heretical sect like the Mormons are allowed to have caucus threads on FR.