"When nations accepted Sola Scriptura and Justification By Faith Alone, they soon developed national sovereignty,"
If by that you mean sovereignty of Nation as opposed to King, it is not true. Sweden had a shortlived attempt at national sovereignty back in between 1718 and 1772. It was not a success. It included torturing people for supposedly fomenting a monarchist reaction. It provoked the monarchist reaction.
Under Middle Ages after beating the Asatru, exactly ONE Swede was killed in the country for religion, and that was for denying real presence. After reformation blood flowed in rivers to foist Protestantism onto our own and then onto Germany and Silesia.
"a free press, a defense of free speech,"
Sure, sure! The Reformers got their press by royal confiscation, therefore gagging, of the Carthusian's printing press. First print: a Carthusian work on Holy Rosary, second print a pamphlet against the Pope or the Mass or something. And no, the Carthusians were not selling their press.
"and separation of church and state!"
Sweden, like England, had the King for local (or, to be precise: national) Pope.
"No Catholic nation has ever come close to producing and maintaining a government with the design of recognizing and protecting the civil liberties of its citizens from the tyranny of priest-craft."
Austria does not perceive of "priestcraft" as tyranny. And it is less tyrannised than Sweden by psychiatrists, psychologists, child welfare, and similar idiocies.
Post a Comment