Watch your language!

[wakim]

Explicitly, the idea centers on the core embedded assumptions of a legitimate power exercised, as moral authority and more, by the Papacy over the lands founded by the Papist mother country. 
[right][snapback]86782[/snapback][/right]

Thank you for explaining further. If I may continue to beg upon your indulgence then please allow me to ask a question that I hope will serve to clearly differentiate: It is my understanding that one of the principle tenets of Catholicism is the recognition of the legitimate power exercised by the papacy to act as the ultimate authority in matters of both faith and morals. If this is an inseparable element of Catholicism how does one differentiate between a "papist hacienda system," explicitly described in the quote above, and Catholicism? or is the devil in the detail of the "and more" that serves to distinguish the two?

I am trying to convey more a broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models carrying forth to impact modern day political and societal behaviors and norms. [right][snapback]86782[/snapback][/right]

Without further explanation or example can not this statement be taken to apply equally to about anything? For example: In 1776 our Founding Fathers established a broken fusion of autocratic and religious social models that impact modern day political and societal behaviors and norms - the autocratic element evinced by the establishment of an executive branch whose power resides in one man, and the religious social model in its first principle that governments exists solely to secure the unalienable rights of man that are endowed self-evidently by his Creator.

Edit: Grammar!