1260 Days/Years

Papal Primacy
by Ulrike
Why chose 538 as starting date of 1260 years, why not 754 when
Papacy received "Temporal Rule"?
Did the Papacy Really have Power?--Just Look at the Lombard
Threat?
Why chose 1798 as ending date? Why not the years 1052 or 1517
or 1809?
Does the Papacy really Have an Agenda to have Universal
Primacy?

Question:
Why choice 538 A.D., why not 754 when
Pepin donated imperial PROPERTY to the
papacy, which actually began the
“temporal” rule of the Vatican over Papal
States?
Answer:
Again the issue is “PRIMACY”. Having temporal rule over
“Papal States” was definitely a key step in gaining ever
increasing power, however, ruling over a small piece of land
is NOT the Mark that sets the papacy up as the oppressive
power during the 1260 years. That was set up when Justinian
put into imperial law in 534, and then established that
imperial law in Rome, in 538, that the pope was “Head of all
churches”.

You will notice in modern times, that the Papacy again has
“temporal” power over Papal States and is functioning as a
political power, however, as of yet, it does not have her
“primacy” back. In 1929 Pius X1 concluded the Lateran Pacts
with Italian dictator Mussolini and the 108 acres of the
Vatican States were restored. This has given the Papacy the
“right” to act as a political identity, but it did not restore it’s
PRIMACY. This is what the Catholic church is now going
after-- PRIMACY -- over all churches. When the churches of
the world declare the papacy as “primacy over all churches”
with legal sanctions and powers, then the wound will be fully
healed and the whole world will be forced to worship the
beast and his image.

Besides, we know, according to Bruce Shelley page 167

“Church History”, that prior to 754 A.D., the Church of Rome
controlled extensive lands around Rome, in the toe and heel
of Italy and Sicily. These were called “the patrimony of St
Peter.” This property covered about 1800 acres. They
collected land taxes and administered the territory. It was
lose of this territory to Lombards that caused the Papacy to
call on Pepin to “guarantee as the pope’s rightful
possessions the t duchy of Rome, Ravenna and other cities
held by the Lombards and perhaps also extensive territories
in northern and central Italy.

Question:
When reading the history books it doesn’t sound like
the papacy had much “Primacy”, if it weren’t for Pepin
the papacy would have been wiped out by the
Lombards.
Answer:
Maybe one should ask why the Lombards were so opposed
to the Papacy? Remember what happened to the Ostrogoth
kingdom in Italy. They were an Arian Christian tribe, and
actually quite civilized, but Justinian sent in his armies,
routed them out of Rome in 538, set up the papacy as the
defender of the faith, then proceeded to route out the
Ostrogoths from the rest of Italy. When Justinian’s armies
withdrew, another tribe, named the Lombards invaded Italy.
They wanted to establish their kingdom in Italy, BUT the
papacy stood in their way. The Papacy was JUST A CHURCH,
it shouldn’t have been that much of a problem. But the
Papacy was NOT JUST A CHURCH, it was a political identity
operating under a Christian cloak.
Interestingly the historian Carlton Hayes says, “The activity
of Popes and monks in Italy resulted in the conversion of the
Lombards, the last of the Arians, to the Catholic Christianity.
A Catholic Prince succeeded to the crown of the Lombards in
626 and at the close of the century the Arian bishops in the
kingdom renounced their heresy and accepted the Catholic
faith.” (Ancient and Medieval History, p. 470)

So if the Lombards were, through the papal system

“converted” why the antagonism? Why not welcome them as
the temporal rulers of Italy? Why? Because there could be no
other temporal rulers in Italy except the Papacy!

The truth has another dimension-- the Lombards WERE

converted, but NOT by the papal system. Here lies the great
evil of the Papal supremacy system. The Lombards
embraced a Christianity of a purer faith, then that of the
papacy. Therefore they could NOT be allowed to control Italy.

At this time missionaries from Ireland were coming into

Europe. They still held to a purer gospel and shared it with
the people. One of the prominent leaders was a man named
Columbanus. Persecuted by the papal orders, he and the
other missionaries moved among the European peoples,
keeping alive the apostolic gospel. Columbanus crossed the
Alps and was received by the king of the Lombards, Agilulf.
Here the Celts and the Waldensian gospel was joining hands
to bring the good news to the people. The Lombards at this
time, because they were not affiliated with the papacy, were
branded by Rome as Arians. And since the Papacy,
supported by the forces of the Eastern Emperor, was NOT
friendly to those communions it chose to call Arians, there
was naturally strife .

Interestingly, the Irish leaders, both Patrick and Columbanus

were later “claimed” by the Catholic church, but in real life
that was not the case. One of the big differences between the
two groups (Celtic vs. Roman) was the observance of
Saturday as the sacred day of rest. Pope Gregory I, was so
angry that Saturday observance was coming back in Rome
that in 602 he issued a bull declaring that when antichrist
should come, he would keep Saturday for the Sabbath.
Denouncing the Celtic Church on the Continent as heretical
in many aspects, particularly because of the seventh-day
Sabbath observance, Rome charged it with Judizing. Thus,
Epistle 45 of Pope Gregory III to the bishops of German
Bavaria exhorts them to cling to Rome’s doctrines and
beware of Britons coming among them with false and
heretical priests.
(Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and
Church, vol, 3 p. 49)

The fact that northern Italy was a strong hold for independent
Christianity, a Christianity that refused to acknowledge the
primacy of the papacy, and held that their own ordination
was as valid as any “pretended” apostolic succession of the
bishop of Rome, was something the Papacy could not abide.
They COULD NOT allow the Lombards to have power in Italy.

Thus the Lombards HAD to be subjected to the papacy.

Through this suppression, any group labelled as Arian was
forced to either change or flee. Had they been allowed to
exist, their strong independent religious factor, with their
national churches and lack of any generally acknowledged
centre of orthodoxy and administration such as the Catholics
possessed would have threatened the Primacy of Rome and
that “all pervasive cohesion which the Catholic Church gave
to an otherwise divided Europe.”
(See The History of Christianity, by Ralph Winter, p. 331) And
REMEMBER PRIMACY IS THE ISSUE, when it comes to the
papal church.

So rather than discounting Papal Primacy, the history of the

Lombards only confirms what Papal Primacy is all about. The
Papacy uses another political power to get rid of their
opposition. And promise their “military servants” political
prestige, forgiveness of sin and eternal rewards.

Pope Stephan III ( r.752-757) with his clergy, made a

pilgrimage to Pepin’s courts, crowned and anointed him as
king, confirming his earlier, coronation and then asked him
“IN THE NAME OF ST. PETER” to save Rome from the
Lombards and guarantee the pope’s rightful place. Pepin
moved in two campaigns to crush the Lombards “solely out
of love for St. Peter and for the forgiveness of his sins.”
(See “The History of Christianity“, by Winter, p. 354, and
“Lives of the Popes” by McBrain, p, 122)

Question:
And 1798? Walker does say that "Rome
was made a republic by French arms, and
Pope Pius VI was carried a prisoner to
France, where he died." But a new pope
was elected on his death the following
year, as always. He, too, was captured by
Napoleon, and held prisoner from 1809-
1814. That's a little more significant. Why
not use 1809? Why not use 1054, when
the East split? Why not use 1517, when
Luther started his reformation?
Answer:

Why not use 1054 when the east split?

Why not? Because papal power increased, not decreased !

The less “balance of power" type control was exercised on
the papacy by outside forces, the worse it became in
persecution and tyranny. These were the years when the
ruthless inquisition was formed. These were the years kings
walked barefoot in snow to humor the pope. These were the
years the papacy promised absolution from all sin if people
would fight “the infidels”. These were years of terrible
massacres of people who believed differently. The
Albigenisians of southern France, the Waldensians, and
others. These were the years when the full scope of PAPAL
PRIMACY showed it’s true, frightful, tyrannical face.

Why not use the date 1517 when Luther and other reformers
started to speak out:

Why not? Because, even though they spoke out strongly

against PAPAL PRIMACY, that primacy was not broken in
1517. In 1572, Pope Gregory XIII, helped influence the terrible
massacre of the Huguenots in France, and when he heard it
was successful the Pope celebrated the event with a solemn
“Te Deum” of praise and thanksgiving.

Gregory XIII encouraged Philip II of Spain to launch an attack

on Elizabeth I of England, and tried to get Ireland to invade
England as well. Then he tried to plot the queen's
assassination.
(Lives of Popes p. 292 by McBrain)

This was an age when men who disagreed with Rome did so
at the peril of their lives. Many were sent to the stake to be
burned alive. Yet, they stood in the fear of God, exposing the
tyranny and calling for a pure faith and doctrine, not
controlled by the oppressive powers of men sitting in the
temple of God, declaring themselves to be gods.

Yes, Papal Primacy was being exposed and attacked, but it

was not ENDED.

***

The thing that makes 1798 important is that it marks the

reverse of Justinian's empirical law on the status of the Pope.
A new law was established by Napoleon that took away the
PRIMACY of the papacy.

This law, AND the fact that Rome and the surrounding areas,
were made a republic, coupled with the capture of the pope
that makes 1798 significant.

Again, remember the ISSUE IS PRIMACY, not the fortune or

misfortune of a particular pope. The law of Napoleon placed
Protestants on equity with the Catholics. That means no
more PRIMACY for the Pope. “Liberty, Equality, and
Fraternity” had no place for Papal Primacy. The primacy was
officially ended, by civil law, in 1798.

The French army had stolen the papal regalia, so when Pius
VII in 1800 was crowned, it was with a papir mache tiara. The
PRIMACY was already gone in 1800.
Yes, Napoleon allowed a pope to continued to be head of the
catholic church, after his law took away papal primacy. But
somehow Pope Pius VII figured Napoleon didn’t mean what
his 1798 law said about the papacy and decided Napoleon
needed a pope to take part in his coronation. Which
Napoleon did not approve. Nor did he want any pope telling
him how to run his armies. Then Pius decided to
excommunicate all the “robbers of Peter’s patrimony”. So he
landed in prison. What happened in 1809 was simply the
result of a pope who didn’t want to believe his primacy was
gone.

When Napoleon's empire itself collapsed in 1815,

absolutionists tried to re-establish and regain their lost
ground. But it was all met with stiff resistance from the
peoples all over Europe.

Politics was moved out of the realm of religious control.

Church and State were separated. Schools were moved
under state control, rather than church control.

Popes were allowed to continue to be the head of the

Catholic church, but all their degrees of “papal infallibility”
etc. no longer meant anything as far as the Protestant and
other religions were concerned. They were FREE from Papal
PRIMACY. This was of great concern to the papacy because
they don’t want to be JUST THE SHEPHERD of their own
flock. THEY WANT PRIMACY.

No sooner was the pope back in office then the Jesuit order
was elevated. Pius VII restored the order in 1814. The
purpose of the Jesuit order is to bring the Protestant
churches back under the PRIMACY OF the papacy.

“The revivified Jesuits started off again, with renewed zeal

for the papal will …they were “Ultra-Montanes” people who
backed that Bishop who lived “beyond the mountains” down
in Rome. The contempt in that name is a clear pointer to what
the Jesuits championed as vigorously as they always had,
the old Roman Catholic belief that by divine decree the man
who in himself carried all the authority of Christ in the
Church was …the personal Vicar of Christ……In early
nineteenth-century America, Protestant opposition to Jesuits
was pithily expressed: “They (the Jesuits) will bring Rome to
rule the Union.”
(The Jesuits by Malachi Martin, p.32-33)

Question:
But the Pope doesn't want to rule the
world, he's too busy taking care of his
own flock.
History shows that the Papacy was NEVER satisfied with
simply being the pastor of his "church".
Papal Rome rose on the ashes of crumbled civilization back
there in 538--

When the Roman Empire went to pieces, the church saw

universal anarchy. The world was in its death agony, and out
of that agony she exalted herself to rule over kings and
princes.

Now the world is once again heading for total chaos-- if this
anti-terrorist mentality keeps growing. Bills are being passed
which totally go against the constitutional rights of citizens.
And the Papacy WANTS her PRIMACY BACK. She WILL exalt
herself as the "savior" of society. She will blame all the
world's ills on "departing" from her authority and leadership.

“Pope Paul now saw himself as all that and then as

something more….That more in John Paul’s outlook
would be another era, long or short, in mankind’s
history when a grand design of God’s would be
inaugurated for the society of nations. It would be a
geopolitical unity of all nations. It would come after all
the efforts of Transnationalists and Internationalists, of
all the globalists, had come to utter
shipwreck….Following that shipwreck, the Grand
Design of God would be executed. He, John Paul,
would be the Servant of that Grand Design.”
(Keys of this Blood, M.Martin, p. 637)
Now the world is facing a night mare and the church sees her
chance. She will "sit as queen and declare she is no widow"
(Rev. 18:7)

She will again rise out of the confusion as the "savior" and
exalt herself once more to the supremacy for the Bible tells
us "The whole world wondered after the beast. (Rev. 13:8)

Of course, to do this, big propaganda must now be made

world wide, to tell the people that the 1260 days are bogus--
and do not show who the "beast" is--. They must tell the
world that the Church in Rome was the persecuted one. They
must "heal the wound" in order to get people to once again
give her PRIMACY.

That was Jesuit Belarmine's (1542-1621) main mission in life.

Determined to nullify the year-day principle, used by
Protestants as the basis of the 1260 year period -- he spend
years formulating arguments against it.

Yet the day/year principle is established right in the book of

Daniel itself. The 490 years from the restoration of Jerusalem
after the Babylonian captivity till the Messiah are day/years.
Not 490 literal days.

The Papacy WANTS IT'S PRIMACY BACK-- read the Papal

"Dominus Jesus (On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of
Jesus Christ and the Church) Sept. 5,2000

Quote:
#16 "The fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs to
the Church,
inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed Jesus Christ
continues his presence
and his work of salvation in the Church and by means
of the church....

..an historical continuity- rooted in apostolic

succession between the Church founded by Christ
and the Catholic Church: "This is the single church of
Christ...
 which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to
Peter's pastoral care....

#17 Therefore there exists a single Church of Christ,

which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops
in communion with him...

Ecclesial communities which have not preserved the

valid Episcopate and genuine
and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are
not Churches in the proper sense

Only one indoctrinated in the "re-written history" of modern

textbooks, would ever deny that the Catholic Church was the
leading influence over kings and people during the middle
ages. No they didn't RULE upon the thrones of the kings,
they only controlled kings and kingdoms by the authority
they claimed over church and STATE, They used civil powers
and their armies to further their ends.

Yes, the papacy has an agenda to control the world. It's not a
hidden secret at all-- She wants her PRIMACY OVER ALL
THINGS BACK.

Yes, the papacy is biding her time until the situation is right
for her to "strike."

Catholic Writer Malachi Martin, "eminent theologian, expert

on the Catholic Church and former Jesuit and professor at
the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Institute" writes in "The Keys
of the Blood":

Quote:
From the beginning of his pontificate, John Paul has
been talking incessantly about the convergence of the
nations....He would endow his papacy with an
international profile and, as Pope, move around among
world leaders and nations, vindicating a position for
himself as a special leader among leaders, because in
that competition he plans to emerge as the victor. (480)
 ...he claims to have a unique and absolute mandate
from Heaven. In all phases of education, in all aspects
of moral behavior, and in all questions about the
ultimate truths under girding the life and death of every
human being, this man claims for his papal persona the
right, the privilege, the duty and the due authority to
stand as judge. None of the present factors or future
implications of the Internationalist-Transnationalist
ideal are outside that claim or exempt from that
judgment. (345)

He is waiting, for an event that will fission human

history, splitting the immediate past from the oncoming
future. It will be an event on public view in the skies, in
the oceans, and on the continental landmasses. it will
particularly involve our human sun....immediately
nullify all the grand designs the nations are now
forming and will introduce the Grand Design.... John
Paul's waiting and watching time will then be
over....John Paul is and will be the sole possessor of
the Keys of the Blood on that day." (639)

And we mustn't forget what role the Papacy has for the
Seventh-day Adventist Church which is mentioned by name
in this Catholic book.
Quote:
.....deeply rooted opposition amounting to a nourished
enmity for all that John Paul represents as Churchman
and as geopoliticion...their interest for John Paul lies in
the element of opposition to him that they
present....Despite the mutual differences, for instance,
between the Advent Christian Church, the Church of
God, the Seventh-Day Adventists, they are at one in the
opposition to Rome as the "Red Whore......."(286)

"It sets them apart from the Holy Father, because

democratic principles cannot take precedence over
divine revelation...it is axiomatic for John Paul that no
one has the right--democratic or otherwise-- to a moral
wrong; no religion based on divine revelation has a
 moral right right to teach moral wrong or abide by it."
(287)

"The Provincial Globalists are destined to undergo a

series of severe shocks and mutations as, willy -nilly,
they adapt themselves to the new globalism emanating
from more powerful groups. There is no way that any
one of them will be able to maintain itself in any
vibrancy unless it allows --or suffers-- its provincialism
to be enlarged....(291)

But inevitably, as groups they will have to face dire

alternatives. Either they will become thoroughly and
realistically globalized and therefore capable of
collaborating in the building of a geopolitical structure.
Or, as groups, they will remain diminish...and finally
lose their identity..... "John Paul...knows what is best in
these Provincial Globalists---in the building of a
genuinely God-blessed structure for all nations."(292)

Pope John Paul II's far-reaching assessment....the

Pope's own universal Roman Church--a winner-take-all
race against time...to establish, maintain, and control
the first one-world government that has ever existed on
the face of the earth.
(Flyleaf, Keys of this Blood, by Malachi Martin)

How much plainer do you want it?

The Pope wants to be the boss of the whole world--he wants

PRIMACY, and willy-nilly we all have to give up our
"individuality" and merge into his geopolitical kingdom.

The truth of the matter is more simple--

The ills of the world are caused because people have lost
contact with the God of heaven. An earthly "subsititue" is
NOT the answer.
Click on the following Links for more pages on Papal
Primacy and the 1260 years.

Page One Describes the 1260 day/years

Page Two deals with some more questions on the 1260
day/years and Papal Primacy
Return to Home page

But what about Totila and 538?