The Founders understood that if Catholicism ever gained power in America, it would reproduce the conditions that had led to the burning of heretics, the suppression of conscience, and the political tyranny that drove so many of their ancestors across the Atlantic in the first place.
…..I’d like to point out. That they were largely fleeing their fellow Protestants. Because they weren’t the right kind of Protestants. Any casual reading of a history book would make that clear. That and Protestant America wasn’t exactly immune to Political Tyranny, One of the first official acts of the Protestant Dominated U.S Government was ironically calling on a Private Militia to violently put down a rebellion of their fellow Protestants. Ironically over Taxes. That and Burning Heretics at the stake wasn’t a uniquely Catholic thing. Salem Witch Trials anyone?
Ireland, under Catholic rule, Protestant literature was banned, and state support was given to Catholic schools that enforced clerical loyalty.
Certainly not like the Irish would have any shortage of reasons to dislike Protestantism like a certain next door neighbor of theirs. And Ireland wasn’t reliably ruled by the Catholic Irish until the 1920s. Their whole identity was built off centuries of resisting English Occupation and Protestant attempts at killing them.
I didn’t even have to crack open a History Book to refute those.
To pretend this was accidental is to rewrite history.
There’s palpable irony here. Considering other stuff he writes in this article
ROME HAS SUPPRESSED REPUBLICS
The first major Republic in Europe made a point of murdering and Arresting Clergy and Nuns. Seizing Church property. And Tyrannical suppression of anyone who still held to Rome. Not unsurprising they’d be suspicious of later attempts at Republics. Though the South American Republics must be an outlier and exception of course.
That’s not even considering that the only other Republic at the time of the French Revolution was by his own admission, actively suppressing and abusing a Catholic Minority. Why in Gods name would that convince the Catholic Church to embrace Republics?
All in all. It’s safe to say he probably dislikes Catholics and wants nothing to do with them. And given his consistent positive references to Anti-Catholic laws and the in his opinion fundamental incompatibility of Catholicism with the Republic the founders envisioned according to him.
I can’t help but suspect he likely would willingly endorse attempts to suppress Catholics and violate their liberties if given half a chance.
About the best I can say of him. Is he resisted the urge to label Catholics Pagans, Idol Worshippers, Satanists or some other typical insult.
I feel like this comment is trying to put a walnut on the same level as the walnut tree it fell from. The Roman church is the primordial behemoth.
That they were largely fleeing their fellow Protestants.
The founders of America were fleeing two things: the tyranny of kings, and the tyranny of popes. Their spiritual predecessors (and perhaps some literal ancestors as well) were the original Protestant Reformers themselves. The very concept of "freedom of conscience" was a budding flower. It took many years to throw off the Papacy, and a few more to throw off their own zealous Protestant over-corrections. We even had a few states in America which were imprisoning people for not going to church on Sunday! Religious zeal minus genuine faith in Christ is a truly ugly thing, and no serious Papist can EVER be admitted into a position of power in America. They will NO DOUBT inch us back into the hands of Rome, covertly or openly, because at the very core of their belief system lies the idea that the Pope is the vicarious king of Heaven, Earth and Hell, and so all must obey his commands. What we have here is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be rectified. A man must choose one or the other--- their country, or the Pope.
*I'm also against Protestant theocracy. I oppose any attempt of the State to enforce a religion.
A few pointed segments of the article, how can you blunt these? :
Canon Law 212, section 1, states that the Christian faithful “are obliged to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith.” The Vatican is recognized by 183 nations as a sovereign state. It sends and receives ambassadors. It signs binding treaties. It maintains permanent observer status at the United Nations. There is no separation of church and state in Catholic theory. The Church is the state, or at least superior to it. This has not changed. It has only adjusted its tactics.
History bears out the dangers of this system. In 1801, Napoleon signed a Concordat with Pope Pius VII, allowing the Church to resume control over French education, clergy appointments, and public worship. In Spain, the Inquisition continued until 1834 under papal approval. In Austria, under Maria Theresa and her son Joseph II, the Church was used as an instrument of state control while still enforcing censorship, heresy laws, and forced conversions. Even in modern times, the Vatican retains the legal power to create binding concordats with civil governments—agreements which often exempt it from local jurisdiction and tax law.
This is not a passive ecclesiastical structure. It is an empire with centuries of precedent. Its very existence challenges the sovereignty of nations and the liberty of conscience. When the Founders viewed the Church of Rome, they did not see a denomination. They saw a foreign government that demanded the obedience of their citizens.
Americanist Catholics tried to adapt to liberal democracy in the late 1800s. Pope Leo XIII responded with the encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae (1899), condemning what he called “Americanism”—the belief in individual conscience, civic freedom, and the decentralization of church authority. He warned American bishops not to accommodate Protestant culture, not to prioritize freedom over obedience, and not to affirm any doctrine that diminished the supremacy of the Pope.
Even in the twentieth century, Catholic theology maintained its absolutist claims. The Second Vatican Council’s document Dignitatis Humanae (1965) appeared to affirm religious freedom, but carefully qualified it within “due limits.” It did not renounce prior doctrines. It did not retract the condemnations of the Syllabus of Errors. It merely rephrased them. The document also affirmed that all men are obligated to seek the truth and adhere to it once found, implying that true religious liberty is only possible through submission to the Roman Church.
This theological system has no room for Protestant liberty of conscience. It does not affirm the priesthood of all believers. It does not accept congregational self-rule. It does not believe Scripture interprets itself. Instead, it affirms that the Magisterium, led by the Pope, is the sole interpreter of divine revelation. That is not a spiritual conviction. It is a total claim of authority
…..I’d like to point out. That they were largely fleeing their fellow Protestants. Because they weren’t the right kind of Protestants. Any casual reading of a history book would make that clear. That and Protestant America wasn’t exactly immune to Political Tyranny, One of the first official acts of the Protestant Dominated U.S Government was ironically calling on a Private Militia to violently put down a rebellion of their fellow Protestants. Ironically over Taxes. That and Burning Heretics at the stake wasn’t a uniquely Catholic thing. Salem Witch Trials anyone?
Certainly not like the Irish would have any shortage of reasons to dislike Protestantism like a certain next door neighbor of theirs. And Ireland wasn’t reliably ruled by the Catholic Irish until the 1920s. Their whole identity was built off centuries of resisting English Occupation and Protestant attempts at killing them.
I didn’t even have to crack open a History Book to refute those.
There’s palpable irony here. Considering other stuff he writes in this article
The first major Republic in Europe made a point of murdering and Arresting Clergy and Nuns. Seizing Church property. And Tyrannical suppression of anyone who still held to Rome. Not unsurprising they’d be suspicious of later attempts at Republics. Though the South American Republics must be an outlier and exception of course.
That’s not even considering that the only other Republic at the time of the French Revolution was by his own admission, actively suppressing and abusing a Catholic Minority. Why in Gods name would that convince the Catholic Church to embrace Republics?
All in all. It’s safe to say he probably dislikes Catholics and wants nothing to do with them. And given his consistent positive references to Anti-Catholic laws and the in his opinion fundamental incompatibility of Catholicism with the Republic the founders envisioned according to him.
I can’t help but suspect he likely would willingly endorse attempts to suppress Catholics and violate their liberties if given half a chance.
About the best I can say of him. Is he resisted the urge to label Catholics Pagans, Idol Worshippers, Satanists or some other typical insult.
I feel like this comment is trying to put a walnut on the same level as the walnut tree it fell from. The Roman church is the primordial behemoth.
The founders of America were fleeing two things: the tyranny of kings, and the tyranny of popes. Their spiritual predecessors (and perhaps some literal ancestors as well) were the original Protestant Reformers themselves. The very concept of "freedom of conscience" was a budding flower. It took many years to throw off the Papacy, and a few more to throw off their own zealous Protestant over-corrections. We even had a few states in America which were imprisoning people for not going to church on Sunday! Religious zeal minus genuine faith in Christ is a truly ugly thing, and no serious Papist can EVER be admitted into a position of power in America. They will NO DOUBT inch us back into the hands of Rome, covertly or openly, because at the very core of their belief system lies the idea that the Pope is the vicarious king of Heaven, Earth and Hell, and so all must obey his commands. What we have here is a fundamental disagreement that cannot be rectified. A man must choose one or the other--- their country, or the Pope.
If you want to get into Scriptural reasons why friendship with Rome is a spiritually lethal endeavor, see this comment https://greatawakening.win/p/19Bst3zBdl/x/c/4eVKTmbkjgq
*I'm also against Protestant theocracy. I oppose any attempt of the State to enforce a religion.
A few pointed segments of the article, how can you blunt these? :
" The Roman church is the primordial behemoth."
...excellent addendum, wonderfully stated and framed...
...carry on Patriot...