Rome’s Political Intentions.

The Church of Rome's claim to superiority over all secular powers is based upon a fraudulent document known as The Donation of Constantine. The document relates the story of how the Emperor Constantine contracted leprosy and how he was miraculously healed by being baptised on being told to do so by Pope Sylvester. Sylvester instructed him concerning the Trinity and informed him of the primacy of Peter, repeating the words with which Christ addressed Peter on his confession that Jesus was the Christ. Believing himself to be healed by Peter, Constantine then, in the name of the Senate and Roman people, handed the western part of the empire to the Bishop of Rome.

The Donation reads as follows:

Inasmuch as our imperial power is earthly, we have decreed it shall venerate and honour his most holy Roman Church and that the sacred See of Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted above our empire and earthly throne.... He shall rule over the four principle Sees, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem, as over all the churches of God in all the world....

Finally, lo, we convey to Sylvester, Universal Pope, both our palace and likewise all our palaces and districts of the city of Rome and Italy and of the regions of the west.

In 1471, a papal aid, Lorenzo Valla, proved the document to be a fraud. The pope at the time of the alleged events was not Sylvester but Militiades. Constantinople at that time was still known by its old name of Byzantium. The Latin in which the document was written was in a style that was not in use then. Rome did not concede that the document was a forgery until many centuries later. By then her spurious claims were well established.

After Pope Stephen III went to Pepin, king of the Franks for help, Rome continued to use the secular powers to accomplish its aims. In AD 800, Leo III, crowned Charlemagne Emperor and Augustus. The area over which they ruled became known as the Holy Roman Empire. As later writers sarcastically observed, it was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. The fact that Leo had crowned Charlemagne emperor was later used to demonstrate that the ecclesiastical was above the secular. But for the time being, the emperor was the supreme authority. Pope Adrian I, as a reward for enlarging the Papal States, gave Charlemagne the authority to choose the new pope.

But the popes did not want to play second fiddle to secular rulers. For centuries successive popes struggled to assert their authority over all. It has been well remarked that the Papacy thinks in terms of centuries and it was centuries later when the Papacy finally succeeded in asserting its supremacy in the reign of Pope Boniface VIII.

Prior to the issuing of Unam Sanctam, the Papacy scored a number of important victories. Henry IV, the Holy Roman Emperor defied the Pope but had to cross the Alps in the depth of winter in 1077 and was made to stand barefoot for three days in the snow outside the papal residence at Canossa before he was finally restored. Machiavelli, in his History of Florence, stated that 'Henry was the first prince to have the honour or feeling the sharp thrust of spiritual weapons'. Henry got his revenge later when he called a council to depose the Pope and chose Guibert of Ravenna in his place. Guibert took the title of Clement III. Henry marched on Rome and enthroned Clement, while Gregory fled to Salerno where he died on 25th May 1085.

In England, it was King John who was to experience the full force of papal pretensions when he brought upon himself and the nation the displeasure of Pope Innocent III. The Pope had nominated Stephen Langton to be the Archbishop of Canterbury. John refused to recognise him so the Pope gave him three months to reconsider or face the consequences. John responded by expelling the monks of Canterbury. The Pope then placed the realm under interdict, published on Palm Sunday 1208. This meant that all the churches were closed and the priests ceased to fulfill their priestly duties. For a people, who looked to the priest for all spiritual succour from cradle to the grave, this was disastrous. The Pope followed this up with the excommunication of John in October 1209. Three years later, the pope deposed John and called upon Philip of France to prepare to expel him and take over the throne of England. All who took part in this pious work would be granted the same indulgences as those enjoyed by the Crusaders.

Just when Philip had his forces ready to invade, John capitulated on 13th of May 1213. Cardinal Pandulf received his submission. John laid the crown of England at his feet. The Cardinal contemptuously kicked it across the floor and ordered his servant to pick it up and place it on the king's head. John, for his part, promised to restore all church funds and lands.

Two days later he signed a second document wherein he gave England 'to God and our Lord, Pope Innocent and his Catholic successors'. The interdict was not lifted until June 1214, by which time all the money had been paid back as John had promised. Philip of France, the meantime, was very put out for he had spent a huge amount of money preparing for the invasion of England. He dare not set foot in what was now papal territory.

In England, meanwhile, the barons, who hated John anyway, were furious with him for what he had done. They drew up the Magna Carta which guaranteed the rights of the Church and the people, forcing John to attach his seal to it. When Innocent heard of this he thundered 'By St Peter, we cannot pass over this insult without punishing it'. The Magna Carta, called the foundation of English liberties, was condemned by Innocent as 'contrary to moral law'. The King said he was not subject to the barons or the people, as he was the subject of the pope. Therefore, John requested, that the barons should be punished. Innocent then issued a Bull stating that 'From the plenitude of his unlimited power and authority which God had committed to him to bind and destroy kingdoms, to plant and to uproot', he annulled the charter, absolving the king from having to observe it. He excommunicated 'anyone who should continue to maintain such treasonable and iniquitous pretensions'.

Pope Boniface VII issued his Bull, Unam Sanctam, in 1302. This Bull left all rulers in no doubt as to what the Papacy intended.

He who denies the temporal power of Peter wrongly interprets the Lord's words, 'Put up thy sword into its scabbard.' Both swords, the spiritual and the material, are in the power of the Church. The spiritual is wielded by the Church; the material for the Church. The one by the hand of the priest; the other by the hand of kings and knights at the will and sufferance of the priest. One sword has to be under the other; the material under the spiritual, as the temporal authority in general is under the spiritual.

This Bull signalled the Papacy's attempt to assert its supreme authority over all other powers. King Philip of France was not amused. He eventually succeeded in making Boniface prisoner, the latter barely escaped being killed. Such was the trauma he suffered he lost his mind and died just over a month later. Benedict XI, died a year after being elected. King Philip used his influence to have Bertrand de Grot, Archbishop of Bordeaux, elected, taking the title of Clement V. Philip took him back to France and he settled in Avignon where he could keep an eye on him. Thus began what the RC Church termed The Babylonian Captivity, which was to last for seventy years. At one time there were three Popes reigning, some at Avignon and some in Rome. This situation was finally resolved by the Council of Constance in 1415 when all three popes were dismissed or resigned and Martin V was elected.

This did not stop the Papacy in trying to assert its authority, which it did do successfully on a number of occasions.

The Papacy interfered in England a second time with the accession of Elizabeth I. Pope Pius V issued his Bull 'Regnans in Excelsis', on April 25th, 1575.

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in Heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter's successor, the pope of Rome, to be by him governed in the fulness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that He may preserve His faithful people in the unity of the Spirit and present them spotless to their Saviour.

The Bull then goes on to list the crimes that Elizabeth had committed against the RC Church.

Therefore, resting upon the authority of Him whose pleasure it was to place us (though unequal to such a burden) upon this supreme justice seat, we do out of the fulness of our apostolic power declare the aforesaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and the favourer of heretics, and her adherents in the matters aforesaid to have incurred the sentence of excommunication and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ.

And, moreover, we declare her to be deprived of her pretended title to the aforesaid crown and all lordship, dignity and privilege whatsoever. And we also declare the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm and all others who in any way have sworn oaths to her, to be forever absolved from such an oath and from any duty arising from lordship, fealty and obedience; and we do, by the authority of these presents, so absolve them and so deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended title to the crown and all other aforesaid matters. We command all and singular nobles, subjects and peoples and others aforesaid that they do not obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who will act contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication.

This Bull clearly reveals the two pretended powers that Rome claims to exercise, namely, supreme power in church and state.

Some time after the Bull was published, a number of the Roman Catholic nobility required from the pope advise as to whether they would be committing a mortal sin if they assassinated her. They were informed that not only would they not be guilty of committing a mortal sin but would be doing a pious deed by sending her out of the world. There followed several Roman Catholic attempts to slay her, culminating with the launching of the Spanish Armada against England. But God blew with His wind and they were scattered.

There are those who think that all this is in the past and that Rome poses no such threat today. She undoubtedly is not in a position to do so directly but is working in other ways to influence governments. That she has ceased to make the claims she once did is untrue. Even now, when the pope is enthroned and the triple tiara is placed upon his head, the officiating cardinal intones the following,

Receive the tiara, adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art father of Princes and Kings, ruler of the world, and vicar of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, in earth, to whom is honour and glory in the ages of the ages.

The Foundation of Lies.

The Lord Jesus Christ, while contending with the Pharisees over their refusal to obey His teaching, adhering stubbornly to their traditions, addressed them in a very forthright manner, leaving them in no doubt as to the source of their doctrine and their spiritual lineage. "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of the devil ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."

The Lord, who was normally meek and mild, spoke in the strongest terms when dealing with the false religionists of His day. There are many similarities between the Church of Rome and the Pharisees. The Pharisees were very much upholders of tradition, which they referred to as 'The Tradition of The Elders'. According to their rabbis, all that Moses received from God on mount Sinai was not written down but some was orally transmitted. According to the RC Church, all that Christ said was not written down but that much was orally transmitted, exactly the same claim as that made by the Pharisees. Rome variously calls this tradition, 'Holy, Sacred or Apostolic'.

The second similarity, to which I wish to draw the readers' attention, is salvation by works and ritual. The Apostle Paul, writing to the Roman Christians, brings this fact out very clearly in Romans 10 : 3. "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

The Church of Rome in Canon XII of the Council of Trent, pronounces an anathema upon any who believe in justification by faith alone. "If any man saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema." There are many other similarities, but these two are sufficient to show that what Christ declared the Pharisees to be can equally be applied to the RC Church.

The Church of Rome makes many pretentious claims about itself. The first is that it is the only true church headed up by Peter, who, according to Rome, was the first pope, each successive pope being in apostolic succession to him. The second is in the secular realm, in which realm, the Church of Rome, headed up by the pope, is above all secular authority.

The first assertion is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture and a deliberate falsifying of history. The second is based upon a forged document called 'The Donation of Constantine', which even the Roman Catholic Church admits is a forgery, but that does not prevent it from asserting its superiority over all secular authority.

According to the RC Church it receives nothing as dogma except with the unanimous consent of the church fathers. The majority of the church fathers believed that it was Peter's confession, that Jesus was the Christ, was the rock which Christ was referring to when he said "Upon this rock....." A sizeable number thought that the rock was Christ himself. Only a very small number believed the rock to mean Peter.

When we turn to the passage of Scripture concerned it becomes clear what the Lord meant. Peter had been named Cephas, which means a moveable rock or boulder, by Christ Himself. When Peter confessed "Thou art the Christ...." Jesus turned to him and said "Thou art Peter," petros in Greek, which is in the masculine gender. Petros means a moveable rock or boulder. Then He said upon this petra, which is in the feminine gender and means an immoveable mass of rock, I will build my church. Peter was aptly named by Christ. He was indeed an important part of Christ's plan for establishing the Church by being the first to preach the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles. But he was inconsistent. He was indeed moveable.

It wasn't long before the Lord had to rebuke him with a "Get thee behind me, Satan." Later on he denied the Lord with curses and later still Paul had to rebuke him because of his Judaising.

Evidently, Peter himself, and the other disciples did not understand that Christ's statement established the primacy of Peter. In Luke 22 v 24 we read, "And there was strife among them, which of them should be the greatest." Surely this was the time for Christ to tell them that he had already appointed Peter to be the 'Prince of the Apostles.' He did nothing of the sort.

It is not only held by the RC Church that Peter was the rock upon which the Church is built but that Peter was the first bishop of Rome i.e. the first pope. There is no absolute proof that Peter was ever in Rome and there is absolutely no evidence at all that he was the first bishop of Rome.

The Apostle Paul mentioned several households and twenty nine people who resided in Rome but no mention did he make of Peter. This is inconceivable if he was bishop of Rome.

Eusebius of Caesarea, acknowledged to be the father of church history, wrote around AD 300. He speaks of Peter ministering in Asia Minor and of spending his last days in Rome where he was crucified. Remember this was more than two hundred and fifty years after the event. In any case, whether he was crucified in Rome or not, Eusebius does not record him as being bishop of Rome.

Iraneus, Bishop of Lyon from AD 170-200 lists twelve bishops of Rome. Peter's name does not appear on the list. The first name on the list is Linus. The Apostolic Constitution in the year 270 also names Linus as the first Bishop of Rome. This blows the whole edifice of Peter being the first pope and apostolic succession clean out of the water. It wasn't until the fourth century, when the capital was moved from Rome to Constantinople that the Bishops of Rome began to make claims about apostolic succession, especially petrine succession.

To sum up then :- (1) Peter was never regarded as the prince of the apostles by himself or others. (2) He was never the Bishop of Rome. (3) The Roman bishops did not begin to make claims of petrine succession until the fourth century. Therefore the whole edifice of the Church of Rome is built upon a gigantic lie. By its own admission, their rock is not as our rock, they themselves being witnesses. They say Peter is the rock upon which the Church of Rome is built. Protestants say that Christ is the Rock upon which the true Church is built and that it is by confessing Christ a sinner enters the true Church. Whose is the correct interpretation? Paul in 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 wrote "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Witness At London Pride.

About thirty Soldiers of Christ turned out to witness to thousands of sodomites, lesbians and all sorts of mixed up people on Saturday, July 3rd. This was the fortieth anniversary of this event and the numbers parading their shame was even greater than in recent years.

This year the police were very helpful and kept the area clear in front of those witnessing so as not to allow groups to congregate and threaten as happened last year. This meant that those in the procession had clear views of the Scripture texts and heard the preaching clearly.

The police staggered the floats, which meant that there were large gaps between the ear splitting music systems, which meant that the preaching could be clearly heard. The preaching continued more or less non-stop for three hours. Also, many tracts were distributed to passers by before the procession arrived.

Needless to say, our presence was not appreciated, one participant hurling a large bottle full of water which hit a placard. The person holding the placard had lowered to face level a few minutes previously to ease her arms. If she had not done so the bottle would have caught her full in the face causing serious injury for it was thrown with vehemence. The individual concerned was arrested.

Boris Johnson, Conservative Lord Mayor of London, led the procession under a Gay Liberation Front banner. Conservatives are certainly keeping company with some very dubious people these days.

An individual wearing a T shirt bearing the slogan Gay Christian at the front and Stonewall on the back stationed himself close to those witnessing. He tried to shout down the preachers. When anyone tried to engage him in conversation he tried to shout them down. He had no intention of listening to anybody.

Sodomite sources commenting on the events were ecstatic at the number of "Christian" groups taking part. There were the usual suspects, such as the Quakers and Metropolitan Church, which is run by sodomites. For the first time the Conservative Party was represented. Sadly, the whole political establishment has capitulated to New Sodom.

David Cameron had hosted an event in Downing Street to which the leaders of various sodomite groups were invited. This man has completely betrayed old fashioned Conservative values.

According to sodomite sources, Boris Johnson has said that he supports Gay marriages. According to the same sources, Theresa May, Home secretary, is going to introduce legislation to allow civil partnership ceremonies in religious establishments. Also, all past convictions for sodomy are going to be quashed.

Prior to the procession, two young boys on bicycles expressed their concerns about their safety on the streets of London. They said, "It is awful." The lawlessness continues apace.

The sodomite news media, while noting the number of "Christians" participating compared with the small number protesting. They are well aware of the apathy and cowardice of most professing Christians. In fact, successive governments, under the influence of evildoers, have realised that they can ride roughshod over Christians, who, for the most part, lie meekly down and let them do it. When oh when will God's professed people rise up and act like the soldiers they are supposed to be? These wicked events are a direct result of Christian indifference. Worse still, those taking a stand have been attacked for doing so in Reformed publications. One made the incredible assertion that Christians have no Biblical mandate to speak out against any particular sin. Is it any wonder we are in the mess we are in? Nevertheless, thank God for the faithful few, remembering the Scripture that states that it is nothing to God to save by many or by few. If He does deliver the nation He shall indeed have all the glory for "Daniels Band" makes Gideon's few seem like a positive host.