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
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.
Conclusion:
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.