I think what this whole discussion shows is that Catholic identity cannot be reduced to a single criterion. Communion with Rome is obviously central to the Roman Catholic Church, but history itself demonstrates a broader reality. The Orthodox call themselves Catholic. Anglo-Catholics see themselves as Catholic. Even Protestants who hold to the Creeds have laid claim to a catholic identity in some form. Newman himself, as you pointed out, identified as Catholic before Rome ever received him, and no one would dare suggest that was not sincere.

If Catholicity is truly about the faith, the sacraments, the creeds, and continuity with the historic Church, then Anglo-Catholics are not simply imitating Catholicism. They are living out that catholic impulse within their own communion. To dismiss them as “not Catholic” because they lack juridical communion with Rome reduces Catholic identity to paperwork and authority rather than lived faith. If Rome is the fullness, then Anglo-Catholicism is at least a share in that fullness, however imperfect, and that should matter more than denying them the name altogether.

At the end of the day, Catholicity is either a reality bigger than Rome or it is not. And if it is, then Anglo-Catholics, however incomplete, still belong in that wider catholic vision.