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 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...