Papal Primacy: More Answers On 1260 day/years of Daniel and Revelation
1260 Days/Years
Papal Primacy
by Ulrike

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


Why choice 538 A.D., why not 754 when Pepin donated imperial PROPERTY to the papacy, which actually began the “temporal” rule of the Vatican over Papal States?

Again the issue is “PRIMACY”. Having temporal rule over “Papal States” was definitely a key step in gaining ever increasing power, however, ruling over a small piece of land is NOT the Mark that sets the papacy up as the oppressive power during the 1260 years. That was set up when Justinian put into imperial law in 534, and then established that imperial law in Rome, in 538, that the pope was “Head of all churches”.

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

Besides, we know, according to Bruce Shelley page 167 “Church History”, that prior to 754 A.D., the Church of Rome controlled extensive lands around Rome, in the toe and heel of Italy and Sicily. These were called “the patrimony of St Peter.” This property covered about 1800 acres. They collected land taxes and administered the territory. It was lose of this territory to Lombards that caused the Papacy to call on Pepin to “guarantee as the pope’s rightful possessions the t duchy of Rome, Ravenna and other cities held by the Lombards and perhaps also extensive territories in northern and central Italy.

When reading the history books it doesn’t sound like the papacy had much “Primacy”, if it weren’t for Pepin the papacy would have been wiped out by the Lombards.

Maybe one should ask why the Lombards were so opposed to the Papacy? Remember what happened to the Ostrogoth kingdom in Italy. They were an Arian Christian tribe, and actually quite civilized, but Justinian sent in his armies, routed them out of Rome in 538, set up the papacy as the defender of the faith, then proceeded to route out the Ostrogoths from the rest of Italy. When Justinian’s armies withdrew, another tribe, named the Lombards invaded Italy. They wanted to establish their kingdom in Italy, BUT the papacy stood in their way. The Papacy was JUST A CHURCH, it shouldn’t have been that much of a problem. But the Papacy was NOT JUST A CHURCH, it was a political identity operating under a Christian cloak.

Interestingly the historian Carlton Hayes says, “The activity of Popes and monks in Italy resulted in the conversion of the Lombards, the last of the Arians, to the Catholic Christianity. A Catholic Prince succeeded to the crown of the Lombards in 626 and at the close of the century the Arian bishops in the kingdom renounced their heresy and accepted the Catholic faith.” (Ancient and Medieval History, p. 470)

So if the Lombards were, through the papal system “converted” why the antagonism? Why not welcome them as the temporal rulers of Italy? Why? Because there could be no other temporal rulers in Italy except the Papacy!

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

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

Interestingly, the Irish leaders, both Patrick and Columbanus were later “claimed” by the Catholic church, but in real life that was not the case. One of the big differences between the two groups (Celtic vs. Roman) was the observance of Saturday as the sacred day of rest. Pope Gregory I, was so angry that Saturday observance was coming back in Rome that in 602 he issued a bull declaring that when antichrist should come, he would keep Saturday for the Sabbath.

Denouncing the Celtic Church on the Continent as heretical in many aspects, particularly because of the seventh-day Sabbath observance, Rome charged it with Judizing. Thus, Epistle 45 of Pope Gregory III to the bishops of German Bavaria exhorts them to cling to Rome’s doctrines and beware of Britons coming among them with false and heretical priests.
(Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, vol, 3 p. 49)

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

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

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

Pope Stephan III ( r.752-757) with his clergy, made a pilgrimage to Pepin’s courts, crowned and anointed him as king, confirming his earlier, coronation and then asked him “IN THE NAME OF ST. PETER” to save Rome from the Lombards and guarantee the pope’s rightful place. Pepin moved in two campaigns to crush the Lombards “solely out of love for St. Peter and for the forgiveness of his sins.”
(See “The History of Christianity“, by Winter, p. 354, and “Lives of the Popes” by McBrain, p, 122)

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


Why not use 1054 when the east split?

Why not? Because papal power increased, not decreased ! The less “balance of power" type control was exercised on the papacy by outside forces, the worse it became in persecution and tyranny. These were the years when the ruthless inquisition was formed. These were the years kings walked barefoot in snow to humor the pope. These were the years the papacy promised absolution from all sin if people would fight “the infidels”. These were years of terrible massacres of people who believed differently. The Albigenisians of southern France, the Waldensians, and others. These were the years when the full scope of PAPAL PRIMACY showed it’s true, frightful, tyrannical face.

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

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

Gregory XIII encouraged Philip II of Spain to launch an attack on Elizabeth I of England, and tried to get Ireland to invade England as well. Then he tried to plot the queen's assassination.
(Lives of Popes p. 292 by McBrain)

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

Yes, Papal Primacy was being exposed and attacked, but it was not ENDED.


The thing that makes 1798 important is that it marks the reverse of Justinian's empirical law on the status of the Pope. A new law was established by Napoleon that took away the PRIMACY of the papacy.

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

Again, remember the ISSUE IS PRIMACY, not the fortune or misfortune of a particular pope. The law of Napoleon placed Protestants on equity with the Catholics. That means no more PRIMACY for the Pope. “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” had no place for Papal Primacy. The primacy was officially ended, by civil law, in 1798.

The French army had stolen the papal regalia, so when Pius VII in 1800 was crowned, it was with a papir mache tiara. The PRIMACY was already gone in 1800.

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

When Napoleon's empire itself collapsed in 1815, absolutionists tried to re-establish and regain their lost ground. But it was all met with stiff resistance from the peoples all over Europe.

Politics was moved out of the realm of religious control. Church and State were separated. Schools were moved under state control, rather than church control.

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

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

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


But the Pope doesn't want to rule the world, he's too busy taking care of his own flock.

History shows that the Papacy was NEVER satisfied with simply being the pastor of his "church".
Papal Rome rose on the ashes of crumbled civilization back there in 538--

When the Roman Empire went to pieces, the church saw universal anarchy. The world was in its death agony, and out of that agony she exalted herself to rule over kings and princes.

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

“Pope Paul now saw himself as all that and then as something more….That more in John Paul’s outlook would be another era, long or short, in mankind’s history when a grand design of God’s would be inaugurated for the society of nations. It would be a geopolitical unity of all nations. It would come after all the efforts of Transnationalists and Internationalists, of all the globalists, had come to utter shipwreck….Following that shipwreck, the Grand Design of God would be executed. He, John Paul, would be the Servant of that Grand Design.”
(Keys of this Blood, M.Martin, p. 637)

Now the world is facing a night mare and the church sees her chance. She will "sit as queen and declare she is no widow" (Rev. 18:7)

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

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

That was Jesuit Belarmine's (1542-1621) main mission in life. Determined to nullify the year-day principle, used by Protestants as the basis of the 1260 year period -- he spend years formulating arguments against it.

Yet the day/year principle is established right in the book of Daniel itself. The 490 years from the restoration of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity till the Messiah are day/years. Not 490 literal days.

The Papacy WANTS IT'S PRIMACY BACK-- read the Papal "Dominus Jesus (On the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church) Sept. 5,2000

#16 "The fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs to the Church,
inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed Jesus Christ continues his presence
and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the church.... historical continuity- rooted in apostolic succession between the Church founded by Christ
and the Catholic Church: "This is the single church of Christ...
which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care....

#17 Therefore there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church,
governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him...

Ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and genuine
and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery are not Churches in the proper sense

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

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

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

Catholic Writer Malachi Martin, "eminent theologian, expert on the Catholic Church and former Jesuit and professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Institute" writes in "The Keys of the Blood":

From the beginning of his pontificate, John Paul has been talking incessantly about the convergence of the nations....He would endow his papacy with an international profile and, as Pope, move around among world leaders and nations, vindicating a position for himself as a special leader among leaders, because in that competition he plans to emerge as the victor. (480)

...he claims to have a unique and absolute mandate from Heaven. In all phases of education, in all aspects of moral behavior, and in all questions about the ultimate truths under girding the life and death of every human being, this man claims for his papal persona the right, the privilege, the duty and the due authority to stand as judge. None of the present factors or future implications of the Internationalist-Transnationalist ideal are outside that claim or exempt from that judgment. (345)

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

And we mustn't forget what role the Papacy has for the Seventh-day Adventist Church which is mentioned by name in this Catholic book.

.....deeply rooted opposition amounting to a nourished enmity for all that John Paul represents as Churchman and as geopoliticion...their interest for John Paul lies in the element of opposition to him that they present....Despite the mutual differences, for instance, between the Advent Christian Church, the Church of God, the Seventh-Day Adventists, they are at one in the opposition to Rome as the "Red Whore......."(286)

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

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

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

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

How much plainer do you want it?

The Pope wants to be the boss of the whole world--he wants PRIMACY, and willy-nilly we all have to give up our "individuality" and merge into his geopolitical kingdom.

The truth of the matter is more simple--
The ills of the world are caused because people have lost contact with the God of heaven. An earthly "subsititue" is NOT the answer.

Click on the following Links for more pages on Papal Primacy and the 1260 years.

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

But what about Totila and 538?