Like I said, anyone can go read exactly what was said.
Romanist theological error caused non-Catholic Christians to protest their meeting place being demolished. They should let them have the building, and they would have if they truly knew the Gospel of grace. It’s all right there, sorry if we disagree.
I actually thought I was sticking up for the non-Catholic Christians protesting getting their meeting place demolished, by demonstrating that it’s pretty ridiculous and demeaning to chalk up their reasons as due ‘Romanist theological error.’ I mean come on. Protesting a church getting demolished by the Chinese state is pretty heavy stuff. I was thinking it was pretty cool and brave, and I wondered if that is going to happen here eventually, and then I saw a post that said that they only protested because they are riddled with Romanist theological error.
Freegards
Romanist theological error caused non-Catholic Christians to protest their meeting place being demolished.
Not quite. More to the point, the theological error was part of what had lead them to build a fairly grandiose building in that setting, in the first place.
Then, when officials (rightly or wrongly, perhaps a mixture of both?) moved against the building's existence, that resulted in the protests to the building being torn down.
My objection to you was for your choice of words in restating what the man had said.
You skipped a step. That was my objection.