The relationship between the United States and the Vatican has always carried symbolic and political weight, but recent developments have given it new momentum. With the appointment of Brian Francis Burch II as the new U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, a unique connection has been forged between Washington and Rome.
Burch, nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the US Senate in August 2025, is not only a committed Catholic but also a fellow Chicagoan of Pope Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost. The fact that both men share roots in Chicago, Illinois, has added a deeply personal and intimate dimension to their diplomatic partnership, making this the first time in history that an American Pope and a U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican come from the same city.
This shared experience carries more than symbolic gestures. The Vatican is a global moral authority with influence that extends far beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church. The United States, on the other hand, remains the dominant political and military player on the world stage. Together, they represent a union of unparalleled moral influence and geopolitical power. Their shared Catholic heritage and Chicago roots provide an opportunity to facilitate stronger ties.
Yet the closeness between these two actors is not without risks. Revelation 13 describes the rise of two great powers in the last days: the first beast, representing the Roman Papacy, and the second beast, which Bible prophecy has identified with the United States. This second beast is described as having “two horns like a lamb” but speaking “as a dragon” (Revelation 13:11). In other words, while it appears to uphold principles of civil liberty and religious freedom, it ultimately exercises coercive measures in matters of conscience.
Nevertheless, the common ground between the United States and Rome creates fertile ground for cooperation. In this context, the phrase “coming closer than ever before” correctly describes the trajectory of U.S.–Vatican relations. It is another indication that the end-time events are shaping the course of history.
“In the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state, Protestants are following in the steps of papists. Nay, more, they are opening the door for the papacy to regain in Protestant America the supremacy which she has lost in the Old World. And that which gives greater significance to this movement is the fact that the principal object contemplated is the enforcement of Sunday observance—a custom which originated with Rome, and which she claims as the sign of her authority. It is the spirit of the papacy—the spirit of conformity to worldly customs, the veneration for human traditions above the commandments of God—that is permeating the Protestant churches and leading them on to do the same work of Sunday exaltation which the papacy has done before them” (Great Controversy, p. 573).
0
0
0
This post is amusing for several reasons. It seems that every development is labeled a “new momentum.” Brother Roman, let me remind you: every U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See has been a committed Catholic. Even the last president, Joe Biden—a Catholic himself—appointed another Catholic, Joseph Donnelly, to that post. So what exactly is new here?
What is striking now is that the Pope and the U.S. Government appear to be at sharper odds than in the previous administration, where significant overlap in policies existed. So again, what is truly novel? Are you searching for a boogeyman, perhaps leaning into sensationalism to hold your readers’ attention? That may be part of the business, but let us be honest about it. Relations between the U.S. and the Vatican have always varied in degree, but both are, after all, sovereign states that must deal with one another.
Another point: is that really the best way to interpret Revelation 13? And regarding the Ellen G. White passage you cited—did you notice her words? She wrote, “in the movements now in progress in the United States to secure for the institutions and usages of the church the support of the state.” Suppose we grant, for argument’s sake, that this wording comes from the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy (though it also appears in the 1885 edition). Is it not striking that she referred to developments “now in progress” more than a century ago, as if fulfillment were imminent in her own time?
This is not unique to her; Adventists, shaped by our prophetic orientation, have consistently viewed their own era as a moment of urgency. In every generation, we’ve seen “new momentum” in U.S.–Vatican relations. Yet here we stand, still waiting. What will happen, brother, when another pope comes to power and yet another U.S. administration takes office?
Prophecy has a way of adapting to historical context, reshaping its vocabulary with each generation. Perhaps fulfillment will come in ways we do not expect. God remains free to surprise us. But you continue searching for the same old boogeyman.
No offense, but you sound like an apostate the way you insinuate doubts.
United States of America maintained the CONSULAR relations with the Vatican under President George Washington and Pope Pius VI from 1797. The relations between the two world powers continued until 1867 ,under President Andrew Johnson and Pope Pius VI.The diplomatic relations existed with the Pope in his capacity as the Head of State of the papal states,from 1848 under President James K .Polk and Pope Pius IX to 1867 under President Andrew Johnson, though not at ambassadorial level. These relations lapsed on February 28, 1867, when congress passed the legistlation prohibting any future funding of United States diplomatic missions to the Holy See. The decision was based on mounting anti catholi sentiment in the United States fuelled by the conviction of hanging of Mary Surratt and three other catholics for taking part in the conspiracy to kill President Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was assasinated because of opposing the civil war in the U.S between the Northern and Southern states and also for opposing the Slave trade. It’s noteworthy to note that Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer and he had won a court case for Priest Charles Chiniquy, and he was warned he would be killed.Chiniquy finally left the Catholic Church , with 3,000 converts and became a presbyterian.
However, Presidents Nixon,Ford Carter ,Reagan apppointed personal envoys to the pope. All those Presidents in addition to Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson and all later Presidents, along withtheir first ladies in diplomatic dress code black and mantillas have visited Vatican during the course of their administrations. Vatican has for a very long time being accused of being an anti -american. The bulk of accusationis found in Paul Blanshard’s book called America’s Freedom and Catholic power which attacked the Vatican on the grounds of being dangerous ,powerful, foreign, undemocratic institution. The book accurately Vinicates the Spirit of prophecy in the book of ”The Great Controversy” in the topic called character and the aims of the Papacy , in the 1884 original 1884 edition, which says that Papacy clearly disregards the constitution and the religious liberty of the United States.
Finally the U.S government , announced the establishment of the diplomatic relations in 1984. In sharp contrast to the opposition. But this time there was little opposition from the congress ,courts, protestant groups. The senate confirmed William A. Wilson as the first U.S ambassador to the Holy see. He was Reagan’s personal envoy to the Pope since 1981. The Vatican also named the Apostolic Nuncio Pio laghi as the Ambassador to the U.S. Pope John Paul and U.S president Ronald Reagan enjoyed the cordial relationship and worked together to dismantle communism in Eastern Europe and especially in Poland the native country of Pope John Paul II.
Gave me chills when I saw how low the new U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Brian Burch bowed to the pope when presenting his credentials. America on the road to complete national ruin.