Why Protestants are more popular than Catholics in China

They protested it. Like how humans do sometimes.

Yes. Naturally enough.

The only explanation was Romanist theological error’ of building a grandiose meeting place which caused them to protest like how someone does when they are riddled with Romanist theological error.

Why double up on the Romanist theological error part? Trying to make sure that get's well enough covered? I mean, if you want to get started with that we could be here for days? ;^')

But you are getting warmer, for the error was attributed to being "owned" by Rome, even as it was also acknowledged was present elsewhere too.

Perhaps too entirely blaming the shortcomings of human nature on the Latin church is a bit much? If one thought so, then I can understand that...and readily enough agree. Yet the Romanists did develop a taste for imposing architecture -- to better project a sense of "power" much as governments to this day like to build for themselves domed palaces. ANd then there was that guy in SoCal who had the "Crystal Cathedral" built (with donations from church goers or those otherwise endorsing the idea). Last I heard, the church which built it could not keep up with the maintenance cost so sold the building. The window washing bill must be sky-high?

"Rome" is not alone in this sort of thinking, obviously. Yet the man didn't say it was, even as he did lay that tendency towards the "grandiose" or more precisely perhaps -- the perception that persons were mistaking church buildings or meeting places for that which is gathered therein concerning, as being chiefly "Rome's" theological error.

Is it? Or is it yet another of those mixtures of that which is intended to be "holy", with stuff which isn't so much? Is that part of the "story" of Christianity, or what?

“Why double up on the Romanist theological error part? Trying to make sure that get’s well enough covered? I mean, if you want to get started with that we could be here for days? ;^’)”

I thought it was a real funny turn of phrase in the context. I think ‘Romanist’ is pretty funny on it’s own.

As far as grandiose or not, man it wouldn’t occur to me to judge Christians who choose to protest their meeting place being demolished as far as them liking how big it is or whatever (not saying you would do that). Just like it wouldn’t occur to me to think any less of Christians who chose not to protest when their meeting place was scrapped, even if it was someone’s home. I mean holy cow I reckon they know their situation, and God bless them either way.

But when it is attributed to romanist errors when non-Catholic Christians do decide to protest such a thing, I reckon it’s a ridiculous idea enough that it should be made fun of, in my opinion. I mean since Catholics do have to meet in clandestine areas at times or choose not to protest the demolition of their meeting place, is it a romanist theological error when other sorts of Christians do the opposite thing or even perhaps the same thing?

I mean come on, romanist theological errors aren’t exactly the first thing that probably comes to mind when you hear about non-Catholic Christians protesting the demolition of their meeting place. I bet it would be pretty darn far from most folks’ thoughts, anyhow. I know it was a million miles from mine.

Freegards

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.