Why Did St. Peter Go To Rome?

By Richard Salbato



Saint Peter was the head of the Church and no one questioned that. So why did he leave the city of Jerusalem establishing Apostolic Sees all the way to Rome and then remaining there? The head of the Church is Peter not Rome. Nowhere, at least in Scripture, does God tell him to go to Rome. Of course at the Apian Way, God tells him to return to Rome to be martyred for the faith, but this was to end his mission not to begin it. What did Peter expect to accomplish by going into the city of the power against him?


Saint Peter's War with Governments

Peter, a fisherman, was not well educated like Paul, but he did know Jewish law and history. He may have learned more after being called by Christ through the teachings of Christ, from the two educated Apostles, Paul and John, or by Infused Knowledge at the Decent of the Holy Spirit. But somehow he knew that four times the Jews were overrun by strong governments and their only salvation was to convert the King or Emperor of these nations, which they did. He knew that it was the wealth of the Kings and not the wealth of the Jews that re-built the Temple before and was still being re-built by the Romans as he marched towards Rome. He was converting Jews as he went but there were not many Jews in Rome to convert. He went to Rome to convert the Emperor because by converting the Emperor he would gain the freedom to convert the world and would not have the power of the Government against him. So Peter went to Rome to convert the Emperor Claudius Caesar and thereby opening the way to preach and convert freely.


It is apparent that Satan saw his plans and sent Simon, the Samaritan of Gitto, ahead of him with demonic power to get to the Emperor first. Simon performed great acts of magic and with him was another with demonic power of seduction, Helena, a prostitute of Tyre of Phoenicia. Working together they seduced many including Emperor Claudius Caesar and he had a statue erected of Simon on the river Tiber declaring him a god. Eusebius in his history of the early Church calls Simon the father of all heresies. Not withstanding the power of magic, the teaching practices of Simon and Helena are so lewd that "it is impossible to commit them to writing, or for the modest men even to utter them with the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness. --- who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices."


The War

Saint Peter, immediately upon arriving in Rome took Saint Paul with him and went directly before the Emperor to state his case and explain the teaching of Christ. There on the side of Claudius Caesar was Simon, Rome's new god. The war began. Caesar loved Simon because he had power and preached all forms of lewd pleasure, whereas Saint Peter preached love, truth and justice. Finally Simon told Caesar that to prove his power, he would climb the highest building in Rome and from there fly through the air like a bird. And this he did. But by the prayer of Saint Peter, the invisible demons were forced to let go of him and Simon fell to his death.


Saint Peter's victory was his death

You would think that the Emperor would then see that Saint Peter had more power than Simon, and therefore honor him as the greatest, but the Emperor was angry at Peter's power. Simon offered wine, women and song in the most lewd forms and passed this off as pleasing to the gods. Disrupting Caesar's clear conscience was not pleasing to the Emperor. Then came the Jewish Rabbis before Caesar to complain that the Christians were destroying the Empire and it is from this we have the description of the great harlot (Jerusalem) riding the back of the beast (Rome) to persecute the Christians - Apocalypse 17. But Rome turned on the Jews also and destroyed them in 70 AD (Apocalypse 17:16) In the meantime Rome listened to the Jews and ordered all Christians to death. Peter and Paul died in Rome and never fled from her. After the death of Peter, you would think the Church would give up this idea of converting the government.


Pope after Pope until victory

But every Pope after Peter stayed in Rome where there was certain martyrdom and 31 more Popes were martyred in Rome under 48 more emperors that the church was not able to convert. In the end Rome was converted not by any Pope but by the power of God, the prayers of a mother, Helena, and by war. And so came Constantine The Great, to free all Christians, to convert pagan buildings and temples into Catholic churches, to build many new churches with government funds in Rome, Constantinople and in Jerusalem.


The Church has always been at war with Governments

For over 300 years the governments of the world persecuted Christians, but even during and after Constantine the Great, the Church maintained a constant fight with the governments of the world in either word or war. Heretics, unable to maintain a dialogue of logic and truth, resorted to teaming up with Kings or Emperors to get their way. Islam would have died a quick death without the power of governments and their armies. But with the power of governments and large armies Islam almost wiped Christianity out. Then backed by government power many more saints were martyred or exiled by governments. The great spit of the Church in 1054 would never have happened without the help of governments supporting the heresy. Even the great Protestant Reformation would not have happened without the support of Princes, Kings and their armies. Even in the so-called Catholic governments (with few exceptions) war never stopped as the Church often had to cave in to strange demands to keep the peace. Only in the United States of America did the Church enjoy true freedom from government, at least until the 20th Century.


The Twentieth Century War with Governments

The 20th Century saw a new kind of war with governments and this happened so world wide and was so well planed that we would have to be stupid not to see that it was a master plan to wipe out the Church, not just to get it out of governments but to completely outlaw the Church entirely and make being religious at all, illegal. Before 1914 Catholic counties like Mexico and Portugal were taken over by atheistic Masons and they attempted to outlaw the Church entirely. A question must be asked - How could atheists take over counties that were 95% Catholic? What were the Catholics doing? Nothing? Throughout Europe and South America these anti-religious politicians were very successful in wiping out every Catholic kingdom by 1922. How did they do this without a majority support of the people? It is simple. The people did nothing to stop them. The results! Two world wars and 66% of the world under atheistic communism by 1984. What did we (the majority) do about it? Nothing! Yes! There were great saints and martyrs during this time but no rising up of the people in what I call "People Power" to just say no.


People Power

After 1984 people started to say "No more!" to dictators in places like the Philippines, Hungary, Nicaragua and even Russia. Corrupt republics like Italy saw a change in the people as they formed their own parties instead of just accepting what was shoved down their throats. In some countries like the Philippines the Church became very active in the politics of the nation. Cardinal Sin is the father of the revolution that overthrew dictator Marcos in the Philippines. Pope John Paul II would be called the father of the revolutions that overthrew the dictatorships of Poland and Russia. The Church was active in the revolutions of Nicaragua and Mexico in ridding the countries of communists and Masons.


Most recently in the Ukraine, an election was stolen from the people by corruption, intimidation and even the attempted murder of the opponent. Here again the people just said "No!" and the Church came to their aid. Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, Greek-Catholic Archbishop of Lviv marched with the people objecting to the fraudulent election. Standing up against police and facing the threat of death the people did not back down and in time a new election was held with an honest and free reflection of the majority and Viktor Yushchemko won and his opponent who had claimed the election in the rigged election received only 44% of the vote. The people said "No!" and won the day.


In the most recent election in the United States of America, the Church stood up in a surprising mass objecting to the election of a pro-abortion candidate. Without the courage of the bishops and priests who spoke out publicly and forcefully America would have a pro-abortion President. But the Church in America and even in Rome made it clear that it would be a major sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, and won the day.


Do We Choose Our Leaders?

Even in democratic counties, does the majority have a say in who they vote for? Does the majority even have a choice in what they read in the news? Does the majority have a choice in what they learn in school? The answer is "No!" we do not. In no country that I know of is there any way for the people to pick the person they would like to vote for. Minority groups ban together forming parties with minority agendas backed by money from wealthy people with minority agendas, and these powerful people backed by powerful money present themselves as our only choices for a so-called free election. We are handed two or three cards - all Jacks - and told to pick one.


Same is true of the daily news. Things happen all over the world, but we read about what the News Media thinks is news and from their ideas of what is news we choose what we read. But thanks to the internet there are more options now and the newsmedia is being taken to task for omissions and lies. Good signs here also as major news outlets are falling apart.


Schools throughout the world offer Political Science, Psychology, Sociology, Evolution, and graduate students that cannot read or write or add numbers. What happened to Geography, Philosophy, history, languages, the arts, etc.?


The truth is that those who control governments, even democratic governments, want to control what we know so that they can control how we think. They even have a self-serving reason for wanting to rid society of morals. Pope Leo XIII saw this in his century. Note 1 below.


We Can Pick Our Own Candidates

The Majority of most Western countries are by far Catholic or at least Christian. What Catholics, Protestants, Jews and most Moslems have in common is the "Natural and Moral Law". But few of these countries have people in power that have the same love of truth and justice, part of the Natural and Moral Law. There are some countries in Europe who have parties with the Christian name, like Christian Democratic Party and such, but I think this is too exclusive although all parties are exclusive in one way or another and must be because they ban together to be for things that other parties are not for and against things that other parties are not against. But this name leaves out Jews and Moslems who do hold to some of the same truths regarding the natural and moral laws. Therefore maybe there needs to be a new party called the "Truth and Justice Party" or "The Moral Majority Party" or "The Eternal Law Party" or such. Nonetheless, the moral majority better at least take over one of the existing parties or they will never have true freedom of religion. See Note two for meaning of Freedom of Religion


Do Americans have freedom of religion? No, not complete religious freedom, not the freedom to stand up and say in Church who they want for public office. The West can easily rid themselves of terrorists, but not financing them. Just take religious freedom for example. Let us say that we will not buy from or sell to any country that does not have religious freedom and will not allow into our countries people who do not believe in religious freedom of the individual person. This would mean that we could not sell or buy goods from China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and many others because they do not have religious freedom. In the case of radial Islam, we would not allow them in the country unless they agreed to let their own members change religions if they wanted to. Westernized Moslems would agree but Radical Moslems do not allow people to leave the religion and therefore would not enter into the country. We need candidates who will not trade with countries who do not have religious freedom and make sure that its country does in every way including the right to be involved in political action. Why should Planned Parenthood be allowed to promote a candidate and churches not be allowed?


Take over the party and then pick a moral person, not because he can talk well, or has money, or has connections, but simply because he is moral. Why are candidates picked now, because they prove they can generate the money to win. How do they get this money? By making promises to those giving it. But the churches can generate more money than these people and get promises also. Think about it.


We must know the Enemy

It is said that one could never become president of the United States or any other country without the backing of big money and at least part of the News Media. But who are these people with big money and why do they donate to candidates? What do they want in return? Are they getting paid back in one way or another? Is this just for all the people? Study and know who these people are that have taken over our governments and take them back.

Pope Saint Leo XIII said,

When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality --- that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed---these the principles of all justice and morality. If these be taken away, as the Naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality logic founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call "civil," and "independent," and "free," namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse - passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which move already begun to appear. For wherever, by removing Christian education, the sect has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.

"Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and skeptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism" (encyclical, "Centesimus Annus," No. 41).

For more education see -----

It Is Time For War - The Catholic Church vs. All Governments  

Voting And Major Sin  

War of Two Kingdoms

The Bilderburg  Secret Meeting of 2004

The Real Enemy - Political Humanism 

Nietzsche - The Root the Culture War 


Arm Yourself truth

First of all Christians, Jews, and Moslems must know that there is no such thing as separation of Church and State and there should never be such a thing. If countries try to do this they will self destruct because a government cannot stand without a moral base. Wherever this has been tried it has turned out to be anti-religion. This new and unknown idea spreading throughout the world started in the United States by s Supreme Court decision based on lies about the Constitution. See Separation of Church and State - The Truth This case should be overturned and if we have an active Church in America we can do it. You must also know that legalized abortion in America was based on a reading into the Constitution of the United States something that is not there and is not in the meaning of the Constitution and should be overturned and could be if we have active Church leaders not afraid to get involved in the political world. See Roe v. Wade - The Truth


Go to war

Rocco Buttiglione, Italian Minister of Community Policies, who was rejected by the European Parlimentary commission for expressing his Catholic views on marriage and homosexuals, said that we are in a war.

"We need political action. Politics is never the solution, but whatever one does has a political side to it. We must work and struggle to make Europe better because we would be at fault to abandon this Europe into the hands of our opponents. We need to go back to the natural law because multiculturalism is alright if grounded on the natural law, where we all have rights and duties."

We need to go to war with all nations that want us to keep the natural law and morals out of governments by re-writing history for even James Madison, father of the Constitution, seemed to have something to say about this case:


"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."


Our founding fathers knew the need for strictly constitutional government with clearly defined and limited powers and this is still necessary, because, despite our advances, absolute power still corrupts absolutely. But letting courts change the constitution without even a whimper from the people is not a government by the people. These court rulings if left to stand, will destroy the constitution. The illogic in all this is that if the constitution meant to be the standard by which we measure all other laws, rulings and so on can be changed on the whim of the current court, then we really have no Constitution. If you have no constitution then those in power are free to do whatsoever they want. Freedom is lost. We, the people, must go to war.



What I have tried to show here is that the Church has always been involved in governments even back to Peter and should be. The Masons realized that governments could take away their wealth and so they went to work to take over the secret control of governments. The Church also must see that governments have and can take away their freedom of religion and we also should work to take over or take back governments. If we don't, the Masons will take over America and Europe and then the world will follow. But if we take back America and Europe and make them conform to the natural and moral laws of society, then the world will follow in a good way.


Note 1

Saint Leo XIII

" For wherever, by removing Christian education, the sect (of Masons) has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.

Note 2

Freedom of Religion by John Paul II


On the multilateral level, the Holy See has emphasized on more than one occasion that religious freedom implies, in the civil sphere, the subjective right of changing one's religion as well. This specific right is the object of special attention in bilateral relations with countries in which a state religion is constitutionally recognized.

As I have already mentioned, the Universal Declaration [of Human Rights] states that religious freedom "includes the freedom to change his religion or belief"; various international documents also contain similar affirmations. In this regard, I would like to mention General Comment 22 of the Human Rights Committee, relative to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states: "The freedom to have or to adopt a religion or a belief necessarily includes the freedom to choose a religion or a belief and to substitute that which one already believes, or even to assume an atheistic conception." I chose this document because it interprets authentically Article 18 and has binding force for the party-states to that pact.