The primacy of the pope is an ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the respect and authority due to the Bishop of Rome from other bishops and their sees. This primacy is exactly the same as papal infallibility – a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error.
With the accruement of papal infallibility, the pope’s authority became unlimited and incalculable; it can punish every one; allows no appeal and can act upon impulse. According to pope Boniface VIII the pope carries all rights in the shrine of his breast.
As the pope has now become infallible he can, by the use of the little word “orbi,” which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church, make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; he has become the personification of the tribunal of God.
With right we can ask then, if an infallible pope can abdicate for age or ill health, aka Benedict XVl, why can an infallible pope not resign for scandal or mismanagement, aka Francis l? It was aptly said by a cardinal “One doesn’t come down from the cross“. 
Universal Supremacy of the Pope
In the same serious light as we are regarding the flagrant misuse of the spiritual responsibilities mentioned above, we will now see how that the papacy is further using its self-accrued universal supremacy and temporal powers to not rule the universe as she envisions but to be thrown from the saddle of the beast she is riding.
This means that pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate and universal power in the care of souls, which are not only Christian souls but all souls, living and dead!
By the end of the 4thcentury the bishop of Rome, whose leadership in the church had been largely a primacy of honor, claimed supreme and universal authority in Christian lands and began to make good this claim in the West, at first only over the church.
It is said that a new relationship between the Roman Emperor Constantine l and the Christian church stemmed from the fact that this pagan became a Christian. However that is not true and if there had been any empathy from Constantine for the bishop of Rome it was because of the former’s mother who had been a follower of the teachings of the Rabbi Jesus.
It was to please her that he granted immunities to the clergy and lavished upon the church gifts of buildings and churches within the city of Rome, where the bishop of Rome was ensconced.
The Roman Emperor, as head of the state religion, had always been responsible for maintaining good relations between the people and their gods. When he had founded Constantinople in 330 and shifted the focus of the Empire eastward he contributed not only to the decline of the West but also to the independence of the Western church.
This state of affairs continued for the Church of Rome until 361CE when Julian became emperor and restored pagan worship all over the Empire while the special privileges enjoyed by Christian clergy were taken away. When this emperor prohibited Christians from teaching literature in the schools, the church protested and one bishop, daring to challenge the authority of the emperor said,
“When did a judgment of the church receive its validity from the Emperor?”
When Ambrose became bishop of Rome, he influenced the son of emperor Valentinian l, Gratian who became emperor after his father, to refuse the title of Pontifex Maximus(High Priest) – advice that Gratian followed – with the result that this title now fell to the bishop of Rome.
An usurper of the imperial throne of Gratian, Magnus Maximus (383-384), was the first Christian emperor to inflict the death penalty on a heretic – an event that foreshadowed the later medieval practice of handing over heretics condemned by the church, for execution by the state at the hand of Church-appointed inquisitors.
Two encounters between Ambrose and the co-Emperor Theodosius (375-383) show a dramatic increase in the power of the church since the time of Constantine the Great: when some Christians in 388 under their bishop robbed and burned a Jewish synagogue in the eastern part of the empire, the emperor ordered compensation to the Jews by the perpetrators.
However, bishop Ambrose of Milan wrote in a letter to Theodosius, co-regent with Gratian in the eastern half of the empire, to the effect that the maintenance of civil law is secondary to religious interests because the Jews are seen as the killers of Christ. After some small hesitation, Theodosius finally withdrew his order.
In a second encounter in 390 the emperor had slaughtered 7,000+ inhabitants of a city because of the murder of one of his military commanders. Ambrose forced the emperor to do public penance by threatening him with excommunication.
To the question, “What has the Emperor to do with the church?” Ambrose’s answer was that the Emperor was within the church, not above it. By the late 5thcentury the bishop of Rome, Gelasius I, had developed the view that the Emperor was directly subject to the head of the church, the bishop of Rome (or pope), and should rule the Empire for the good of God’s people only. This exalted idea could not be applied in the late Empire because of its political weakness, but was picked up in the Middle Ages.
For some reason or other does Rome have a thing about universal supremacy or primacy. The statement on the question of authority in the Church agreed upon by Catholic and Anglican theologians at Venice in 1976, acknowledges a primatial authority (a justification for the divine right of the roman pontiff as a king) side by side with concilliar authority (authority as defined by a council).
The statement then goes on to affirm that ‘the only See which makes any claim to universal primacy and which has exercised and still exercises such episcope is the See of Rome, the city where Peter and Paul died. It seems appropriate that in any future union a universal primacy such as has been described, should be held by that See.”
Contrary to what the Rabbi Jesus has taught, the notion is nowadays that there must be a world authority in the Church as the source of unity. In the history of Christianity such authority has only been claimed by the Roman Pontiff and thus, the conclusion has been reached that the Papacy has an absolutely necessary role to play at the center of Christianity. According to Catholic dogmatic teaching, the primacy of the Pope belongs, by the will of Christ, to the fundamental structure of the Church.
The Church’s teaching about the authority and ministry of the Pope within the Church, places by the express will of Christ, that authority and ministry at the very center of her hierarchical structure. The universal authority of the Roman Pontiff witnessed to throughout the history of enforced Christianity and proposed as a dogma of faith by the Council of Florence in 1439, was given a detailed dogmatic explanation by the First Vatican Council of 1870 in its dogmatic constitution on the Church of Christ (“Pastor aeternus”). This document was confirmed by Vatican Council II in 1964.
According to Vatican l the word jurisdiction underlines the binding power of the authority which Christ has conferred on the Pope in the Church that demands obedience of all the faithful. The word jurisdiction has its roots in judicial language but what is defined by the Council transcends judicial categories. It can be understood more fully in the light of the properties orlegal title, which the Council assigns to the primatial power of the Pope.
Flowing out of this then has the Pope’s power been defined as: – universal in that it extends to the whole Church (all pastors and faithful); supreme in that it is not subordinated to any other authority in all the various matters which can arise; full in that it takes on all questions that might arise in the life of the Church and from every point of view; and immediate in that it need not be exercised through intermediaries and where necessary can have the most practical applications.
All that have been said here about the power of the pope simply means that if Christ is the Shepherd then Christ is the Bishop and vice versa down from the bishop of Rome to the bishop of the smallest Catholic community upon earth.
“The nerve center of all teaching about the primacy lies in the fact that we are faced with a mystery of faith and not with an organizational factor in the Church”.
[*Such statements of a mysteryare typical Catholic when they can’t really explain what and why they are sayings things]. The statement continues,
“The basis of the primacy is then on the one hand its historical institution by Christ [who is an enigma] and on the other the actual presence of Christ in the primatial acts of the Pope [another enigma]; in the activity of the Pope [activity of popes who eat babies??], Christ himself becomes audible and visible…”
[the Jesus I’ve come to know will very quickly throw that papal crown on the rubbish heap and exchange the red slippers with sturdy leather sandals – how deplorable all this twaddle about papal powers is!].
All of this supremacy, immutability, infallibility and primacy of the pope is working up to the powers of a world dictator, the soon-upon-us Antichrist of the Christian bible. Listen what they say here:
“The ways of exercising the primacy have varied with time, but its substance does not change for it is immutable. Accordingly the primacy cannot be watered down in the wake of ‘Episcopalian’ or ‘democratic’ ideals.”
And just hear what says God’s Rottweiler:
“The Pope is not just someone who speaks in the name of the bishops, a kind of mouthpiece they give themselves and which is there to do their bidding. The Pope is where he is, with a direct responsibility before God, to take the place of the Lord, and to ensure the unity of the word and work of Christ, in the same way as Christ gave Peter that same function within the community of the Twelve”.
[The following is sheer disrespect for the Person and Power of the Supreme Creator, Source of all that is]:
“Christians must work, not as subject to an authority, but with the piety of children, with the love of those who feel themselves to be and are members of the body of Christ – behind this spirituality of love for the Pope lies the deep conviction that his authority cannot be done away with; do not tire of preaching love and full obedience to the Holy Father. A strong central authority, the Holy See, is needed to induce those who are in disagreement with the Church and who blunder about, to act reasonably. But over and beyond these logical reasons there is the will of God who wanted to have a Vicar on earth and to assist him infallibly with his Holy Spirit”. 
Does either the Divine Creator or the Great Spirit need the assistance of anyone on earth living out his/her incarnation within this created Holographic reality? No! Sounds to me more and more again what was said about Lucifer in Isaiah 14:13, But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north…’
When Constantine recognized Christianity in 313 CE, the state became the protector of the church, which gave the church not only power, but also wealth. Accumulation of the latter was no longer regarded solely for the purpose of helping the poor but became a visible testimony to her newly found status – a necessity which went with her prestige, mounting strength and power.
This was reflected in the ever-increasing erection of prestigious cathedrals, the opulence of the vestments of the prelates, the magnificence of her liturgy. The properties and wealth of sundry religions were mercilessly expropriated while pagan temples were either closed, transformed into Christian shrines or demolished and their clergy dismissed, persecuted or killed – this especially after Constantine gave Christian bishops the authority to act as judges, against whom there were no appeal. With the power of the state behind them, the bishops extended their authority at will within and without the Church.
One may well ask, what real estate properties did Constantine give to the bishop of Rome? Well, apart from the Lateran Palace as a residence, plots and buildings in Rome and throughout the empire, confiscated when the Christians were persecuted as well as real estate where once stood pagan churches, none.
The papacy, however, did not hesitate to resort to drastic coercion in order to suppress any criticism against their accumulation of riches, which were likely to divest her of her wealth. Such suppressivemeasures went from the purely spiritual to physical ones in that both ecclesiastical and lay machineries were used according to the degree and seriousness of the threat.
Although the true early Church acted upon the tenets and teachings of the Rabbi Jesus by putting the accumulation of the treasures of heaven before the accumulation of those of the earth, the development of the Roman Catholic system made to cultivate the first seeds of the temporal amassment of wealth were planted.
These were eventually to grow into the monstrous giant mustard tree which was to obscure the light of Europe for over a thousand years. During the early and late Middle Ages, this transfer of political might from the emperor to the bishop of Rome or the pope, made for an easy transition into acquisitional power.
The Roman Catholic Church set out in earnest to promote a policy of swift appropriation of real estate, of highly remunerative governmental posts and even of speculative monetary and commercial enterprises.
Simultaneously with the accelerated growth of prestige, might and wealth, a new factor appeared on the scene amidst the ruins of the classic Roman and Greek cultures in the form of monastic communities. Pious men went into the deserts and made their worldly wealth and possessions over to the church.
These legacies of the pious embodied in gifts consisting of parcels of expensive lands, estates and goods from newly converted, highly placed pagan individuals as well as gifts or sacrifices of thanksgiving of repentant sinners – some on their death beds – all contributed within a few centuries to make the monastic orders in Europe the custodians of earthly riches and thus the administrators of earthly goods.
This is what this Church wants: to find herself on a par with the political and military potentates of this world. She desires to be an equal competitor with the amassing of wealth that ranges between the high prelates of the church consorting with the high officials of not only the imperial and monarchial courts of yesteryear but of the present as well. This is why she needs to have temporal powers. 
Since the early pre-middle ages there has existed a conflict between the Roman emperor and the Bishop of Rome. In order for us to understand the basis for papal claims to universal authority vested in its temporal power, this conflict concentrates necessarily on the papacy – a mighty conflict between church and state that continues even today and is known as the Investiture Struggle.
The Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, in AD 321 declared Christianity a valid religion, which in the eyes of the church qualified them to hold and transmit property. Constantine gave the bishop of Rome the Lateran Palace in Rome as a residence and out of this acknowledgement developed landed possessions awarded the church by wealthy families of the Roman nobility and revenues of various kinds that belonged to the pope at Rome – from there the expression ‘Patrimony of Peter’. Since many remote properties (patrimonies) in the 8th century, during the wars with the Lombards and the fact that Rome was no longer the capital city of the empire, were lost to the church, those within and around Rome began to be managed with especial care by deacons directly subordinate to the pope himself. The other Italian properties that were left included the Neapolitan with the Island of Capri, that of Gaeta, the Tuscan, the Patrimonium Tiburtinum in the vicinity of Tivoli, estates about Otranto, Osimo, Ancona, Umana, estates near Ravenna and Genoa and lastly properties in Istria, Sardinia and Corsica.
With these landed possessions, scattered and varied as they were, the pope was the largest landowner in Italy and for this reason every ruler of Italy was compelled of necessity to reckon with him first of all, which of course gave him power over them.
From here on the papacy set out to make itself “loved” by the populace through the use of revenues from the patrimonies for administration, maintenance of church buildings and convents, running the papal household and supporting the clergy.
To a great extent the papacy also relieved public and private want by maintaining numerous poorhouses, hospitals, orphanages and hospices for pilgrims while many individuals were supported directly or indirectly.
The pope thus became the champion of all the oppressed and the political champion of all those who were unwilling to submit to foreign domination by either the nobility of Ravenna or Byzantium, where the emperor resided and had his court.
For two centuries the popes were the most loyal supporters of the Byzantine government against the encroachments of the Lombards and were all the more indispensable, because after 603 the Senate disappeared, which made the papacy the only court of judicature at which the Roman city population could find defense and protection.
Diplomatic Outreaches strengthens the Papacy’s Position
In AD 715 the papal chair was filled by a westerner, Pope Gregory II, and the time was ripening for Rome to abandon the East, turn toward the West, and enter into alliance with the Germanic–Romano nations. On this was based the Western European civilization, of which one consequence was the formation of the States of the Church. 
In the middle of the 8th Century when it became 100% clear that the Byzantines could no longer protect the Roman pope and citizens against the Lombards, the papacy found in the Frankish kingdom the power that could do that. When Rome was most grievously pressed by the Lombards, pope Stephen II secretly sent a letter to king Pepin soliciting his aid against the Lombard king, Aistulf.
This letter was followed up in January 754 by a visit from the pope to the Frankish kingdom, where he bestowed upon Pepin and his sons the title “Patrician of the Romans”, which meant that the King of the Franks was to be the protector of the Romans and their Bishop.
Apparently, in return for this appointment, Pepin promised in writing to give the Church certain territories – the first documentary record for the States of the Church that has, unfortunately, not been preserved.
The promised restoration of lands was those parts of central Italy conquered by Aistulf, especially in the exarchate and the Roman Duchy, the Duchies of Spoleto and Benevento and a number of patrimonies in the Lombard Kingdom. When King Aistulf was finally forced by Pepin and the pope to sue for peace, he promised to give up the cities of the exarchate and of the Pentapolis, to evacuate the Duchy of Rome and the northwest Italian districts of Venetia and Istria, and also to acknowledge the sovereignty of the Franks. For these properties Pepin executed a deed of gift for the pope, called the “First Donation of 754”.
Needless to say Aistulf did not hold to his promise and in 756 Pepin conquered him at Pavia after which he executed a new deed of gift for the pope called the “Second Donation of 756”, for all the cities thus conquered and laid it together with the keys of the cities on the grave of St. Peter in Rome.
Admirable piece of international diplomacy: first the pope makes himself popular with his food and employment provision of the populace of Rome; then he acquired an international ally, the Frankish king Pepin; and solicited Pepin’s aid for his war against the holder of the states the pope wanted, by making this ally the first Carolingian king.
The pope then bound the Frankish people under the threat of excommunicationto never again choose their kings from any other family than the Carolingians. In exchange for this papal honor, Pepin promised help with the war against the Lombards and in the end because Pepin, as a Catholic, felt obliged to provide the pope with temporal territories so that he might be certain of the prayers of the pope. Thus did Pepin found the States of the Church and thus was it the way the cookie crumbled in those years.
Temporal Powers of the Papacy
The temporal power of the pope is that power which he exercises as a government rather than a religious leader. For example, the pope is the head of the Vatican City state and when he acts in this capacity, he is exercising temporal power as the head of a government.
Why did the papacy want temporal powers? Papal authority during the times of the Roman Empire was founded on the prestige of the bishop of Rome – a prestige acquired through his accumulation of wealth and power.
According to one Catholic writer, were some claims for the basis of the bishop of Rome’s authority (over all other bishops and all Christians) derived from political and cultural realities of the time. Since being a bishop of an important city naturally gives increased stature and since Rome was (until the 4th century) the most important city in the western world, it therefore certainly gave the Roman bishop automatic prestige in the western Mediterranean, where there were no other cities to rival it. 
Another laughable claim to the stature of the bishop of Rome in those times is that Rome was a city of martyrs – Peter was himself killed there; and no heresy had ever flourished there. I would say yes, but only because the people that proclaimed “heresies” were killed beforehand.
In the year 590, when Gregory l became pope he, although only the bishop of Rome, became in fact the ruler of the city because he actively intervened in the affairs of the city and further elevated the status of the Church of Rome above that of other cities.
He furthered the prestige of the papacy by initiating missions to the pagans – an action that began an unbroken tradition of the popes as the sponsors of missions to pagan lands which, of course, buttressed the power of the papacy who had direct authority over the missionary territories, as well. Gregory l had set the Church of Rome firmly on the path to temporal power.
Temporal sovereignty/power in the time of Charlemagne guaranteed the pope’s independence and made development of the ‘new’ Western civilization under Pepin’s son possible. During the reign of Charlemagne, the Lombards again invaded the territories of the States of the Church. Pope Adrian 1 complained to Charlemagne about the Lombards, upon which the Frankish king entered Italy in 773 and laid siege to their headquarters at Pavia.
During Easter of that year Charlemagne went to Rome to renew the promise made to the pope by his father, Pepin. But here, for the Church’s claim to fame, another cookie began to crumble because Charlemagne with the title King of the Lombards, had also assumed the title of Patrician of the Romans – an honorary title instituted by Constantine l as a personal distinction for his principal juridical and military officers.
Finally after much wrangling between the pope and the king an agreement was reached in 781 by which Charlemagne acknowledged the sovereignty of the pope in the Duchy of Rome and the States of the Church founded by Pepin’s donations;
Charlemagne, under his title “Patricius”, was to be considered the highest court of appeal in criminal cases in the States of the Church This agreement between the two parties remained undisturbed and in 787 Charlemagne further enlarged the states of the Church with new donations, for which he was rewarded by being crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 CE. 
During the 9th century a document was forged by the church, called the Donation of Constantine by which Constantine l allegedly gave the lands of central Italy to the papacy. It was this document that formed the keystone to the papal claims of temporal power in Italy and was followed by the donation of Pippen upon which the latter was based. The action of the pope crowning an emperor in 800 served as a precedent for later popes claiming the right and power to make and unmake kings and emperors.
During the 10th Century when the papacy was incompetent, scandalously immoral and constituted of bishops in other cities of poor and impious quality, a movement for reform of the Church began at the Benedictine monastery of Cluny, in France. Once the reform ideals of Cluny arrived and was set in motion in Rome, the stage was set for dramatic conflict between popes and the kings of Europe.
The larger issue was at once simple and complex: to ascertain who had the supreme authority within Christendom – the king/emperor or the pope? According to the traditional answer, was the pope supreme in spiritual matters and the emperor in secular matters, but, according to church historians, was the reality far more complicated.
Until the mid 11th century, both sides had gone their way, but in the 1070s there emerged a pope who was determined to eliminate the influence of lay rulers in the business of the Church and an emperor who was equally determined to prevent that very thing.
It is worth remembering, as this writer states, that “the Church” is to be understood as the body of all believers and not merely the formal administration and government by bishops and priests, but the entire society of Christians. It is because of this and the church’s enforced-by-the-papacy belief in the tradition of apostolic succession, that the papacy even to this day is claiming such vast powers. 
Papacy subject to the German Kaisers
In 955 one Octavian was elected to the papacy as John XII, who united the spiritual and temporal power of the pope that was vested in the old Duchy of Rome or the Patrimonium Petri.
Otto of Germany came to Rome to help the pope against an enemy and on 2 February, 962, received the imperial crown as Otto l.
On 13 February he drew up the charter (still extant in a contemporary calligraphic copy, preserved in the archives of the Vatican), in which he renewed the well-known covenants of his predecessors, increased the donations by the addition of several new ones and undertook to secure the canonical election of the popes: the pope was not to be consecrated until imperial envoys had assured themselves of the legality of the election and obtained from the pope a sworn promise of allegiance.
The pope went behind Otto’s back into secret negotiations with king Berengar the Lombard king of Italy, but when Otto heard of this he came to Rome, sans pope, and demanded of the Romans an oath that henceforth they would never again elect a pope without the express consent and sanction of the emperor. Therewith the papacy was declared subject to the emperor.
In the time following the Easter Synod of 1059 the first conflicts between empire and papacy began, which broadened out into the investiture controversy, (which was finally resolved by the Concordat of Worms in 1122) and the papacy had a pressing need of temporal power to support it against the German Empire.
The trend then, as now, was that whenever the church had its eyes upon territory it wanted, the popes would look for trouble and when oppressed by the ruler of particular territories, would suddenly hold before such ruler(s) the papacy’s honor as successor of Peter, after which agreements would ensue.
It was nothing for them to cause conflict among rulers of states and kings, to exact oaths of allegiance from statesmen and nobles with threats of the displeasure of the saints in heaven, and in the end to sit with what they wanted in the first place: territory and temporal power.
Temporal Powers under Kingdom of Italy
From the Peace of Vienna to 1870, came the battle for a united Italy during the 1830 and 1848 revolutions under people such as Mazzini, Garibaldi and others for an independent government. During this time, although the popes were most often than not away from Rome, they excommunicated left, right and center all who participated in occupations of the states of the church or those who planned to do so – as if excommunication was (or still is) their only real weapon!
A united Italy, which had removed its capital to Florence in 1865, sent troops against Rome on 20 September, 1870. All Catholics (under pain of excommunication, I bet) condemned the action of Italy and to protect itself against formal reproof, Italy issued the so-called law of the Papal Guarantees on 13 May 1871, which was to secure to the pope his sovereignty, the inviolability of his person, as well as the freedom of the conclave and ecumenical councils. In addition to this a yearly pension of 3,225,000 francs was voted to him.
The Vatican, the Lateran and Castel Gandolfo were declared extra-territorial. Asserting that the Holy See needed to maintain clearly manifested independence from any political power in its exercise of spiritual jurisdiction, Pius IX rejected the Law of Papal Guarantees with its offer of an annual financial payment to the pope.
In spite of this pope protesting against the seizure of the States of the Church, refusing to accept the papal guarantees and throwing a tantrum by shutting himself up in the Vatican, Rome was declared the capital of Italy on 30 June 1871.
In July 1870 the Catholic Church held the First Vatican Council in Rome, by which the doctrine of papal infallibilitywas affirmed. Doubtless the main object of this gathering had been to elicit from the assembled fathers a strong declaration in favor of the necessity of the Temporal Power for the Papacy. 
Infallibility of the pope is a spiritual power meaning that when the pope speaks ‘ex cathedra’ he speaks with the authority derived from his office or position. Since the papacy lost the papal states in 1870 and therewith its temporal powers, it would in future use the dogma of infallibility to pervert spiritual issues to secular and vice versa, as we can see with the following warning from Francis l prior to answering the UN on the anti-torture agreement in the beginning of May 2014:
“…Ahead of a report to the U.N. on an anti-torture agreement next week, the Holy See has emphasized its commitment against torture, and warned against the hearing being reduced to a “tool of ideological pressure.” 
While other states continued to maintain international recognition of the Holy See as a sovereign entity, the dispute between the papacy and independent Italy was only resolved in 1929. On 11 February 1929 the Lateran Treaty was signed between the Holy See and the Kingdom of Italy, represented by Benito Mussolini on behalf of the Italian king and by the Cardinal Gasparri for Pope Pius XI. The treaty and the Concordat, which became effective on 7 June 1929, established the independent State of the Vatican City and granted Roman Catholicism special status in Italy. In 1984, a new concordat between the Holy See and Italy modified certain provisions of the earlier treaty, including the position of Roman Catholicism as the Italian state religion.
The Holy See and Vatican state
According to the Catholic tradition the Holy See is a term used to describe the episcopal see, throne, or seat of the bishop of Rome. Its original Latin name, Sancta Sedes means ‘the holy seat’, as a reference to the seat/chair of St. Peter, considered the first bishop of Rome. Additionally, it is also used to refer to the district or diocese under the administration of the bishop of Rome, which makes it special because the bishop of Rome is also the pope.
The Holy See, distinct from Vatican City, which is its sovereign territory, possesses a full legal personality in international law, with rights and duties similar to rulers of sovereign states.
Technically speaking, an absolute monarch has unrestricted political power over sovereign states and their people, but since the pope is elected by the cardinals, this makes the Vatican City the only non-hereditary absolute monarchy in the world. 
The Lateran Treaty of 1929 culminated in three agreements of the Lateran Pact, signed in the Lateran Palace. The pact recognized full sovereignty of the Holy See over the State of Vatican City and it also listed which of its properties on Italian soil were to hold extraterritorial status and to be exempted from expropriation and taxes. The Italian government also gave the Holy See a financial compensation that is equivalent to about $1 billion in today’s money. As a political treaty the Lateran Pact created the state of Vatican City and guaranteed full and independent sovereignty to the Holy See. The pope was pledged to perpetual neutrality in international relations and was to abstain from mediation in a controversy, unless specifically requested by all parties.
A financial agreement was accepted as compensation settlement of all the claims of the Holy See against Italy arising from the loss of temporal power in 1870.  The Holy See did not, apart from property within Rome and the Vatican City, get back the papal states and properties, which it had before the unification of Italy in 1870. With the loss of the papal states, it also lost its temporal powers – powers it would reclaim underhand in a later stage of its future history by making use of the dogma of papal infallibility.
The Papacy and Hitler
Adolf Hitler, appointed Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933, sought through representatives of the Catholic Church and the Catholic Centre Party to remove internal opposition of himself as the ruler of Germany as well as international respectability for the same. He sent his vice chancellor Franz von Papen, a Catholic nobleman, to Rome to offer negotiations for a Reichskonkordat – finally signed by Pacelli for the Vatican and von Papen for Germany, on 20 July and ratified on 10 September 1933.
This Concordat between the Papacy and Hitler had a Supplementary Protocol that provided for Catholic chaplains if Germany was to re-arm for war and a Secret Supplement that exempted Catholic clergy from military service.
Both these supplements prove that by 1933 the Vatican knew that Hitler was going to re-arm in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles and wanted to help him keep it secret. In fact, the Secret Supplement of the Austrian concordat indicates that two years earlier the Vatican was already planning for this eventuality. The Vatican and papacy, never to be trusted, supported the Nazis and viewed their planned conquest of Catholic Poland as collateral damage. This is because the 1941 German military campaign against Russia, if successful, would have opened up the prospect of the conversion of Russia to Catholicism – or so it has been argued. Thus, the Secret Supplement, quietly providing for an illegal German re-armament, looked like a very shrewd piece of Vatican strategy. 
Unholy Alliances of the Papacy
Shortly before the papacy lost its temporal powers and papal states to a unified Italy, Guiseppi Mazzini speaking of pope Pius lX, said in 1863, “ You have stooped to unite in political fornication with the civil government of any and all despotic countries; you have prostituted the cross as symbol of sacrifice and salvation in to the symbol of tyranny and ruin. Those who call themselves the Vicars of God on earth have become the vicars of the genius of evil”.
History is replete with records of the unholy alliances between the Papacy and secular governments, of which much of the evidence remains in Rome’s churches and monuments. The Vatican museums are filled with priceless artifacts of gold, silver and jewels once treasured by despotic rulers, of which most were gifted to the popes throughout the centuries by kings, queens, emperors and governments as tokens of papal partnerships with these worldly figures.
The popes were not satisfied with only their possessions in Italy but had a dream of worldwide dominion – a dream that would be achieved in the reign of the one they call the Christ, whose “second coming” they are feverishly working towards achieving.
How? As Charlemagne, the papacy’s secular military arm would Christianize pagans with the sword, so would the Church later do on every continent and in every country they wished to bring under their domination.
In 1870 Italy paid a handsome 750 lire in cash plus 1 million lire in state bonds. Some of these funds would be used to start the Vatican Bank, now infamous for its corruption while some other of these funds would end up in rather strange investments for “Holy Mother Church”, such as an Italian firearms factory and a Canadian pharmaceutical company that manufactures contraceptives, among other things.
One of the benefits of the lucrative 1933-Concordat with Hitler was the millions that would flow to the Catholic Church’s coffers through “Kirchensteuer” (church tax) throughout the entire World War ll. In return Pius Xll would never excommunicate Hitler from the Catholic Church nor would he protest against the slaughter of 6 million Jews whose wealth, I am sure, was shared between the two signees of the Concordat.
We could go on with page after page of documentation of the ovation the Catholic Church under Pius Xll’s papacy gave to Hitler and the kinship they felt with his ruthless expansionist ambitions and crimes against humanity. 
Unholy alliance? There can be no doubt.
In the signing of a concordat with Hitler, the papacy saw its chance to get a restoration of its temporal power and especially to secure fresh sources of income. Shrewd as he was, Hitler, knowing he had the Church in his pocket, promulgated his notorious sterilization decree – his project for involuntary sterilization of minorities and the mentally ill, which was a direct affront to Catholic teaching – before the Concordat’s final signing. Signed on July 20, 1933 the Concordat was a classic political kickback scheme.
The church supported the new dictatorship by endorsing the end of democracy and free speech and in addition bound its bishops to Hitler’s Reich by means of a loyalty oath and in exchange the church received enormous tax income and protection for church privileges.
The following words of one cardinal said in 1940, depict the behavior of the Papacy as a government anxious to avoid being attacked and to emerge on the winning side:
“I am afraid that history may have cause to reprove the Holy See for a policy accommodated to its own advantage and little else. And this is very sad, above all when one has lived under Pius XI.”
Why, it has been asked repeatedly, did the Pope not utter a solemn denunciation of Hitler’s crimes against the Jews and against humanity? In June 1941, when the Vichy French government introduced ‘Jewish laws’ closely modeled upon the Nuremberg Laws, the pope responded to appeals from French bishops by stating that such laws were not in conflict with Catholic teaching.
Later efforts by the British, Americans and Poles to persuade the Vatican to publish a specific condemnation of Nazi extermination of the Jews, fell on deaf ears. The pope, came the reply, could only issue a general denunciation of wartime atrocities. 
The Papacy and the Jews
During this council the existing animosity between Catholics and Christians as well as Jews was addressed. Concerning the latter, a stipulation was passed called Nostra Aetate, meaning “in our age”, which was to regulate the relation of the Church with the Jewish faith and members of other religions. Paul VI also reorganized the curia and spoke strongly for peace and social justice.
He saw himself following in the footsteps of the Apostle Paul who apparently said, “I am attracted to two sides at once, because the Cross always divides”.
Isn’t it strange then that arepresentative of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultation (IJCIC) who was chairman of the Jewish delegation during the 1971 negotiations with the Vatican decided to inquire about the Vatican’s agenda and, in exchange, to let its representative know what practical results Jews desired?
Without preamble this member of the IJCIC told the Archbishop representative of the Vatican in a private meeting,
“The Jewish community needs and wants an end to Christian anti-Semitism and we are waiting impatiently for the Vatican to recognize the State of Israel.” The Archbishop answered, “The eradication of anti-Semitism from Catholic teaching is a prime objective of the Churc and it will happen soon.” Concerning the Church’s objectives regarding the recognition of the State of Israel he said, “The Vatican wants the Jews to stop accusing it of not having helped during the Nazi period. We want you to realize that Pius XII was a far better friend of the Jews than is commonly acknowledged. In any event, we want the hostility to end.”
It had become clear to the Jewish representative that there was some linkage in the archbishop’s mind between the Church ridding itself of anti-Semitism and the Jews’ muting their criticism of the Church’s conduct during the Nazi era’ and told the Archbishop,
“If shutting off the criticism is a precondition for cleaning anti-Semitism from Church teaching, then such a deal cannot be made.”
Unfortunately the deal already had been made long before this conversation in 1971: on the day of Pius XII’s death in 1958, Golda Meir sent a message of condolence to the Vatican claiming that:
“…When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims”. 
What did the negotiations of Israel with the Vatican in 1971 actually bring? Israel did its part quickly and well, by unreservedly lending its credibility to help skew the historical record. Then it waited for both recognition of the new state and the renunciation of the anti-Semitism that had fuelled the Holocaust.
It waited and waited until finally, 45 years after the founding of the state of Israel, the Vatican offered recognition – with a new condition – Israel must accept a concordat.
This it did in 1993 when on 30 December an agreement was signed between the Holy See and the State of Israel that deals with the property rights and tax exemptions of theRoman Catholic Church within Israeli territory; another one was signed on 10 November 1997 referred to as the “Agreement on the Legal Personality of the Church. Neither agreement has been ratified by the Knessetand now Israel is put under pressure to accept a third concordat. 
Union of Body and Soul
The cover of Time magazine of 24 February 1992, carried the pictures of President Reagan and Pope John Paul ll with the following caption:
“HOLY ALLIANCE: How Reagan and the pope conspired to assist Poland’s Solidarity Movement and hasten the demise of Communism.” In 1982 in the USA a 5-part strategy emerged that was aimed at bringing about the collapse of the Soviet economy. In working out the plan, former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig acknowledged that “the Vatican’s information was absolutely better and quicker than ours in every respect”. Just so did the liaison for the Vatican in the White House, Archbishop Laghi, keep on reminding American officials, “Listen to the Holy Father. We have 2000 years experience of this.”
It was said by President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union that the pope played a major political role in the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. He predicted that the pope will continue to play a key political role in Europe.
Thinking back on how ‘key roles’ were played by the papacy in the past, its clandestine activities and self-serving partnerships with many nations and how such roles are played at present by the use of surveillance tactics to spy out any disobedience or adherence to any form of presumed anti-Catholicism, one can only shiver by the thought of how things were done under John Paul ll.
Whatever history is taught in schools about World war ll, you can bet your bottom dollar nothing will be taught about the Roman Church endorsing Mussolini and Hitler, especially Hitler’s Holocaust. Only recently did the Vatican apologize to the Jews concerning these events but has yet to apologize to the Protestant world for the many, many lives taken during the wars of the Counter-reformation and the Inquisition.
Pope Leo Xlll compared the proper relation between Church and State as the union of soul and body in man. According to this statement and what we have learned in this article of how these relations were forged by a church that represents the kingdom of Christ, it seems that this Christ whose kingdom from the beginning “was not of this world”, had changed his mind.
He, who commissioned his disciples to call converts out of the world to a union with him in heavenly places, has apparently decided to work with the nations of this world to create a new paradise on earth. Is it in the name of this same Christ that the Roman Church wants to establish her reign over the kings of the earth; is it for the good of mankind or the glory of God that she is ceaselessly seeking to bring all humanity and its goods under her control? 
Riding the Beast
The Holy See with the entire Catholic Church in tow is riding the beast of the Western world for the last time and, as in the past, is she still trying to conquer the Eastern worlds of Russia, China, the Islamic nations and Israel. Trying but definitely thwarted: only recently did Israel say that he has no intention of giving the Vatican sovereignty or ownership over a sensitive site in Jerusalem that is holy to both the Jewish people and the Muslims.
The particular site in question is part of long-running negotiations over property in the “Holy Land”, between Israel and the Vatican. It was further stated that for generations have leading Rabbis tried unsuccessfully to bring about the return of the priceless treasures stolen from the Jewish 2nd Temple.
This theft, although committed by the Romans, the spoils of which are kept illegally in the Vatican treasure stores ever since. When the Church returns these items to Israel where they belong, maybe then Israel will start negotiating about the Church’s management of national monuments like King David’s tomb. 
When the secular governments of the world have had enough of the papacy’s horrendous acts against humanity and her violation of the rights of the child – only that – then they will turn around and destroy her.
As is already happening when we read into a statement of an Italian politician made recently that what has been testified about child sacrifice, child abuse and genocide perpetrated by the highest members of the Holy See, make him see no reason why Italy cannot nullify the Lateran Treaty made with the papacy in 1929.
In this spirit of the beast throwing the famous prostitute from its back, is the following but one example of how this is already happening: former pope Benedict XVl met with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano on 23 February 2013 to discuss the securing of protection and immunity from prosecution by the Italian government for Benedict himself.
This meeting follows upon a diplomatic note that was apparently received by the Vatican from an undisclosed European government on February 4, stating its intention to issue an arrest warrant for the pope.
In response to the February 23 meeting, the ITCCS’s field Secretary, Rev. Kevin Annett, wrote to Italian President Napolitano, asking him to refrain from assisting Ratzinger in evading justice: He wrote that under international law any government, the Italian government included, are forbidden from granting protection to those who have aided and abetted criminal actions such as popes John Paul ll, Benedict XVl, and Francis l ordering bishops and cardinals to protect known clerical child rapists.
Annett continued, “Your obligation to the Vatican through the Lateran Treaty does not negate or nullify the requirements of these higher moral and international laws; nor does it require that you give any protection or immunity to a single individual like Joseph Ratzinger, especially and even after he has left his papal office.”
Pope John Paul ll’s statements made in Prague on 21 April 1990 after the fall of the Soviet Union, “the claim to build a world without God has been shown to be an illusion” is proving to be true – not for Communism but for the Holy See and its Vatican state. What is happening now and will continue to happen will prove to be the Roman Church’s Armageddon.