Antichrist in the UK 2010

"Take Heed" Ministries

Cecil Andrews, 29 Edengrove Park, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AZ, Northern Ireland

Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com

WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net

Quick Links - Home - Assorted Articles - Audio/Video - Ministry Newsletters - Words of Wisdom

_Drawing Aside the Purple Curtain

The Papal System Today: an Analysis of the News

Antichrist in the UK 2010

by Shaun Willcock

The Roman Antichrist, Benedict XVI, visited the United Kingdom in September 2010. This was the first official state visit by a pope of Rome to the country since the Reformation, when King Henry VIII broke with Rome in 1534 and the so-called “Church of England” (the Anglican institution) was established with the king as its head. Although Benedict’s predecessor, John Paul II, visited Britain in 1982, it was not an official state visit, but was billed as a “pastoral visit” by the spiritual leader of Britain’s Roman Catholics, coming to visit his flock. Even so, however, John Paul II was received by Queen Elizabeth II, and so it was, still, a political visit, even if not officially a “state visit.” The pope of Rome, as the head of a political state – Vatican City – travels, always, as both a political and a religious leader. But in 1982 there was a pretence of the visit being merely pastoral. This time round it was all out in the open: Benedict XVI was coming on an official state visit to the United Kingdom.

Very evidently the time was deemed ripe, and there was confidence that, 28 years after the last visit, the Roman pontiff could be welcomed officially, without much protest. “This time it is openly (because the climate is deemed safe) what papal visits are: a claim to being the supreme head of all Christians, and of all countries. From the earliest times popes have had political pretensions. Boniface VIII (1294-1303), in one of his papal proclamations said, ‘Listen to the Vicar of Christ, who is placed over kings and kingdoms.’ In 1570, Pope Pius V, in a bull (formal written statement) against Queen Elizabeth I, with gross impudence claimed to be ‘prince over all nations and kingdoms.’” [1] The “Church” of Rome believes itself to be the only true Church on earth,[2] and that all human beings should be subject to the Roman pontiff. Truly, Antichrist can never say, with the Lord Jesus Christ, “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36). Antichrist’s kingdom is most definitely a worldly kingdom.

The Purpose of the Papal Visit

Former prime minister, Gordon Brown, personally issued the invitation to Benedict to visit the UK on a state visit. The question is: why? Politicians always do everything for their own political advancement, and this invitation was no exception: Brown “was desperate to curry favour with Scottish Catholics, and to damage the rival Scottish National Party, inconveniently gaining ground among that Catholic constituency (traditionally faithful to [Brown’s] Labour [Party]). And so the state invitation was sent in the queen’s name (as head of state, it is Queen Elizabeth who formally issues such invitations).”[3]

But why was the Vatican so eager to have its pope visit the UK? The press could harp on and on about his visit being to “improve strained relationships between Anglicans and Roman Catholics”, but that does not in any sense capture what this visit was all about. The coming of the Antichrist to the shores of Britain at this time was nothing less than a victory journey by this man, who is now so confident of Britain soon falling like a ripe fruit into the lap of Rome. And everything that took place during the visit was geared towards that objective. Everything. From the symbolism, to the speeches, to the “beatification” of John Henry Newman, a sinister, devious Romish cardinal. More about him a little later.

That Benedict could travel to Britain as a head of state is shocking, and shows just how far Britain has fallen. The queen, even though unbiblically declared by law to be the head of the “Church of England”, nevertheless should never have welcomed Benedict to British shores, for the Papacy has been fanatically committed to destroying the British monarchy, British government, Britain’s “State Church”, and British Protestantism, ever since the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century when the land ceased to be officially Roman Catholic, and it has sought to do this by any and every means possible, fair or foul – especially foul. The history of the last four and a half centuries is replete with the Papacy’s attempts to regain control of Britain, and especially England. As I wrote in my book, Satan’s Seat: England “became the Jesuits’ main target.... They established seminaries on the continent, for the purpose of training Roman Catholic missionaries to work in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Working secretly, they spread throughout England, hearing confessions, preaching, etc. They clandestinely printed and distributed tracts against the queen and the ‘Church of England.’ While some were at times caught, others succeeded in infiltrating the government itself.”[4]

In the words of a nineteenth-century Papist cardinal, Manning: “If ever there was a country in which there is much to do, and perhaps much to suffer, it is here [England]. I shall not say too much if I say that it is for us to subjugate and subdue, to conquer and to rule, an imperial race. We have to do with a will which reigns throughout the world, as the will of old Rome reigned once; and it is for us to bend or break that will, which nations and kingdoms have found invincible and inflexible. Were heresy [i.e. Protestantism] conquered in England, it would be conquered throughout the world. All its lines meet here; therefore, in England the Church of God [i.e. Roman Catholicism] must be gathered in all its strength. You have a great commission to fulfil, and great is the prize for which you strive.”

Again from Satan’s Seat: “One of Rome’s primary objectives has been the conquest of England. To achieve this it was necessary to destroy the Anglican denomination, the so-called ‘Church of England’. The Jesuits did their work well: the ‘Romeward Movement’ within Anglicanism gained momentum through the 19th century, and into the 20th”.[5] This “Romeward Movement” within the Anglican institution was known by different names: the Oxford Movement; the Tractarian Movement; Puseyism. And the man Benedict came to the UK to beatify, a cardinal named John Henry Newman, was one of its leading lights.

The Symbolism, the Sovereign and Her Speech

The symbolism of the place where the queen officially welcomed the pope of Rome was very pointed and very deliberate. Queen Elizabeth II welcomed Benedict at the palace of Holyroodhouse, her official residence in Scotland and the former home of Britain’s last Roman Catholic queen! Now why choose such a place to welcome the pope of Rome? It was definitely not coincidence. The last Papist queen lived there, and now she who will almost certainly be the last nominally “Protestant” queen officially welcomed a triumphant Benedict, coming to reclaim the UK for himself!

Very significantly, and in another of those highly symbolic gestures which Rome loves, it was reported that “An actor has been hired by the Catholic Church to play the part of John Knox [the famous Scottish Reformer of the sixteenth century] in front of the pope-mobile as it proceeds along Princes Street [Edinburgh, Scotland]. Here Knox must be presented falsely, for the real John Knox did not kowtow to any Roman Catholic prelate nor even greet such persons.... By presenting Knox in pageantry, the Papacy is attempting to portray him as a visible herald of Scotland’s impending return to the papal fold. Thus, like a conqueror, the Pontiff is to parade along Princes Street. Knox is being used as a sop to the ecumenists.”[6] What arrogant triumphalism! The Papacy was so confident of itself, and of its growing influence over the UK, that it could plan to depict the leader of the Scottish Reformation as a herald of the Antichrist’s victorious arrival!

In her welcoming speech, Elizabeth addressed Benedict as “Your Holiness” and said she was “delighted” to welcome him to the UK. “I recall with great pleasure the memorable pastoral visit of the late Pope John Paul II to this country in 1982,” she said. “I also have vivid memories of my four visits to the Vatican, and of meeting some of your predecessors on other occasions.”[7] How disgraceful, that the woman sworn to uphold the Protestant constitution of Britain should so warmly welcome the representative of Britain’s greatest enemy to the country. Not that Elizabeth is a true Christian, of course, and nor is the “Protestantism” of the “Established Church of England” biblical; but nevertheless, as queen she has betrayed her coronation oath and is helping take the country back to Rome.

Revealing either her gross ignorance of factual history or possibly revealing a deliberate and sinister purpose behind her words, she then said, “In this country, we deeply appreciate the involvement of the Holy See in the dramatic improvement in the situation in Northern Ireland.” What a betrayal of the Irish Protestants, long known as her most loyal subjects! The Vatican’s involvement in Northern Ireland through the decades was to enthusiastically, financially, and morally support the terrorist Roman Catholic organisation, the IRA, against the Protestants of Northern Ireland.[8] Rome has done nothing but stir up the Papists of Northern Ireland, inflame them with hatred, and put the weapons in their hands that have caused such suffering in that province – and yet the queen praised the pope of Rome for his involvement! Her words were despicable and shocking.

She also said that Benedict’s presence “reminds us of our common Christian heritage”.[9] There is no common Christian heritage between Roman Catholicism and biblical Christianity, but tragically the queen’s Anglican institution is not a Christian church, and there is much in common between it and Romanism.

Turning to the beatification of Romish cardinal, John Henry Newman, the queen said: “I know that reconciliation [between different faiths] was a central theme in the life of Cardinal John Henry Newman, for whom you will be holding a Mass of Beatification... his contribution to the understanding of Christianity continues to influence many.” This was all nonsense. Newman was not interested in “reconciliation” between faiths, he was committed to moving the Anglican institution – the very “church” of which Elizabeth is called, unbiblically, the Supreme Governor – towards absorption back into the Roman fold. Newman had no understanding of true Christianity at all, but a very shrewd understanding of Anglicanism and Romanism, and how to bring the former into subjection to the latter, as will be seen later in this article.

She also said, “I am pleased that your visit will also provide an opportunity to deepen the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Established Church of England and the Church of Scotland.” There should be no relationship between them! And if the queen was true to what she must know of her own country’s history, of its long and bloody struggle with the Papacy, she would never have said such a thing.

Antichrist’s Speech: Urging the UK Back to Its Romish Roots

In his first speech, his greeting to the queen, Benedict made the point, very strongly, that Britain should remember its “Christian” past, its “Christian” faith. But always keep in mind – never would this man be referring to Britain’s Protestant past and faith, only to its pre-Reformation, Papist past and faith! For what Benedict, and indeed the entire Popish hierarchy, desires, is for Britain to once again be a full Roman Catholic state, devoted to the Papacy as it once had been before the Reformation.

Note what Benedict said in his speech to the queen regarding the palace of Holyroodhouse: “The name of Holyroodhouse, Your Majesty’s official residence in Scotland, recalls the ‘Holy Cross’ and points to the deep Christian roots that are still present in every layer of British life.”[10] The word “rood” means “cross” in old English. Note that Benedict made the point that Britain should return to that ancient faith – the Roman Catholic faith – that once had dominated every sphere of life in that land. If in any doubt, consider his next words:

“The monarchs of England and Scotland have been Christians from very early times and include outstanding saints like Edward the Confessor and Margaret of Scotland. As you know, many of them consciously exercised their sovereign duty in the light of the Gospel, and in this way shaped the nation for good at the deepest level. As a result, the Christian message has been an integral part of the language, thought and culture of the peoples of these islands for more than a thousand years. Your forefathers’ respect for truth and justice, for mercy and charity come to you from a faith that remains a mighty force for good in your kingdom, to the great benefit of Christians and non-Christians alike.” It was so obvious! – a thousand years ago the “faith” of Britain was the Roman Catholic faith and no other! This was the “faith” Benedict was referring to – not the Protestant faith.

Then this man, with the subtlety of the serpent, said: “We find many examples of this force for good throughout Britain’s long history. Even in comparatively recent times, due to figures like William Wilberforce and David Livingstone, Britain intervened directly to stop the international slave trade. Inspired by faith, women like Florence Nightingale served the poor and the sick and set new standards in healthcare that were subsequently copied everywhere. John Henry Newman, whose beatification I will celebrate shortly, was one of many British Christians of his age whose goodness, eloquence and action were a credit to their countrymen and women. These, and many people like them, were inspired by a deep faith born and nurtured in these islands.”

Note how he slid smoothly and slickly from praising Protestants, Wilberforce, Livingstone and Nightingale – even referring to their “deep faith”, which must have been hard for him to even utter – to the wicked, lying, deceitful, sneaky double agent for Rome, John Henry Newman. Wilberforce and Livingstone would doubtless be disgusted to know that their names were mentioned in this way by the Antichrist of Rome, and in almost the same breath as Newman. As we shall see, there was nothing Christian about this man, nothing good, and he certainly was not a credit to his countrymen. He was a spiritual traitor.

Again evincing the serpent’s subtlety, Antichrist spoke, in his speech to the queen, of the evil of “Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live.... As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and society”.

That Nazi tyranny was in fact a tyranny supported and promoted by the Vatican itself at the time! – as history makes so abundantly clear. The Vatican supported Hitler, Franco and Mussolini and was fully behind the Nazi atrocities against the Jews.[11] And as for Communism, the “atheist extremism” condemned by Benedict, that monstrous ideology too has been massively supported and promoted by the Vatican! – again, as history makes abundantly clear for those willing to look for the evidence.[12] But the Roman pontiff was so sure that almost no one today knows the true history of the Vatican’s support for Nazism and Communism, that he was able to piously condemn these very ideologies which his evil predecessors on the papal throne supported to the hilt.

The Papal Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Benedict was determined to use this visit to constantly push the theme of Britain’s Roman Catholic past, and of the need to revive that ancient faith so as to combat secularism and atheism in society. The pope of Rome well knows that the battle is on between Roman Catholicism and secular humanism in Europe and indeed the world, and he is determined to squash the latter. At the open-air mass held on the evening of the first day of his visit, on the outskirts of Glasgow, Benedict said in his speech that the evangelisation of culture “is all the more important” because of “a dictatorship of relativism”. And: “There are some who now seek to exclude religious belief from public discourse, to privatize it or even to paint it as a threat to equality and liberty. Yet religion is in fact a guarantee of authentic liberty and respect”. He urged Scottish Roman Catholic professionals, politicians and teachers to work hard in their spheres to advance the Roman Catholic religion.

He was right about what secular humanism is seeking to do against religion, but no true Christian should ever think that common cause can be found with Rome to fight against such secularism. Rome has its own agenda in all this, and Christians are never, ever to unite with the Lord’s enemies to fight a common enemy. “Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord?” (2 Chron. 19:2); “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord” (2 Cor. 6:14-18). And it sure was rich to hear the leader of the world’s greatest religio-political dictatorship condemning the “dictatorship of relativism”, the leader of a religion utterly opposed to religious liberty saying religion (meaning Roman Catholicism) is a guarantee of liberty and respect!

Unity, Unity...Like the Good Ol’ Days of Papal Power

He deliberately referred to Scotland’s mediaeval Roman Catholic universities founded by the popes of Rome, and to Popish “saints” such as the so-called “St.” Ninian, who came to Scotland as “one of the very first Catholic missionaries”, and “St.” Mungo, patron saint of Glasgow, “St.” Columba and “St.” Margaret.

At this open-air mass, Benedict spoke of the “greater trust and friendship” now existing between Roman Catholics and “the members of the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Episcopal Church and others.” Yes, Rome’s ecumenical movement has done its work well. He spoke of them all working for “a brighter future for Scotland based upon our common Christian heritage.” Once again the same theme, the theme of “unity”; and yet Rome does not in truth desire unity, which would be evil enough, but the absorption of all other religious bodies into itself. The fact is that Scotland had a far brighter future when it was Protestant, and recognised the pope of Rome as the Antichrist. Today, having by and large set aside that conviction, its future looks bleak indeed: a future in which Scotland will be dominated by the increasingly authoritarian power of Rome.

Continuing the theme of ecumenism, note how Benedict smoothly changed the focus: “This year marks the 450th anniversary of the Reformation Parliament, but also the 100th anniversary of the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, which is widely acknowledged to mark the birth of the modern ecumenical movement. Let us give thanks to God for the promise which ecumenical understanding and co-operation represents for a united witness...” See? A nod to the historical fact of the 450th anniversary of the Reformation Parliament, “but also” (and far more importantly to Rome) the 100th anniversary of the birth of the ecumenical movement.

Rome and Canterbury: Mother and Wayward but Penitent Daughter

On the second day of his visit Benedict met, of course, with Rowan Williams, the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury and the spiritual head of the Anglican institution. Williams, a hypocrite of the first order who was, when he became archbishop, an honorary pagan Druid priest,[13] must know that Anglicanism has lost, it is beaten, and that the Papacy has triumphed at last. Then again, maybe he himself has been secretly working for this very thing, as so many Anglicans leaders have done before him and are still doing. He just cannot be trusted.

Showing Williams’ utter blindness to the true Gospel, he and Benedict “affirmed the need to proclaim the Gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ, both in a reasoned and convincing way in the contemporary context of profound cultural and social transformation, and in lives of holiness and transparency to God,” said the communiqué released after the event.[14] What “gospel” does the Papacy proclaim? And what holiness is lived by a man such as Benedict or any of his minions? Roman Catholicism preaches an entirely false “gospel” of salvation by man’s own works, a devilish lie that has damned multiplied millions to hell. As for “holiness”, what is holy about a religion which has abused children on a massive scale; which finances and supports revolutions around the world; which has massacred millions and millions of people through the centuries; which is filled with every vice and every filthy and abominable deed? (Rev. 9:20,21; 18:2). But Williams could affirm this joint communiqué with Benedict because birds of a feather flock together! Anglicanism is a spiritual harlot daughter of the Mother Whore of Rome. It, too, proclaims a false “gospel” of the lie of baptismal regeneration, of Anglo-Catholic works-salvation via ritual, and it too is an unholy, ungodly mixture that is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. This is not a time for mincing words. The truth must be told. Like mother, like daughter.

During the meeting, the two men spoke of the importance of improved ecumenical relations. What a joke. Rome is not interested in “unity” with Anglicanism, only in absorbing Anglicanism – and it is well on the way to doing precisely that. Rome makes all the right noises, but the truth is that Anglicanism is pretty much finished. It is on its way out. A triumphant Papacy is marching across Anglicanism’s home turf, and there is nothing, nothing whatsoever, that Canterbury can do about it. It’s too late. It’s the end game.

Williams, in his speech to the Anglican and Papist bishops gathered for the event, said, “We do not as churches seek political power or control, or the dominance of Christian faith in the public sphere”. What a lie! This, coming from a man who is the spiritual head of a so-called “church” which proudly boasts of its “State Church” position in England, a “church” where the English monarch is its head and is officially known as “Defender of the Faith”! Anglicanism has exerted varying degrees of political influence over England for centuries!

And then there is Rome – a religio-political harlot which has most definitely, and aggressively, and ruthlessly, sought for political power and control across the whole earth for many centuries! A “church” which, if it had its way, would allow no religion to exist in a country except itself. A “church” whose pontiff is not only a spiritual leader, but a head of state and was received in England on this visit AS a head of state! Yet Williams says, “We do not as churches seek political power or control, or the dominance of Christian faith in the public sphere”! But it didn’t stop there.

Canterbury’s Archbishop Prepares the Way for Further Papal Advancement

Williams, during his evening prayer address, said: “Christians in Britain, especially in England, look back with the most fervent gratitude to the events of 597, when Augustine landed on these shores to preach the gospel to the Anglo-Saxons at the behest of Pope St Gregory the Great.” But Augustine was not a true Christian, he was a violent and wicked man, an ambassador not of Christ but of the pope of Rome! Yet Williams praised him and Gregory who sent him. Going on, Williams sunk even lower: “For Christians of all traditions and confessions, St Gregory is a figure of compelling attractiveness and spiritual authority – pastor and leader, scholar and exegete and spiritual guide.” Yet what does history actually reveal of this Roman pontiff of “compelling attractiveness”, and of his servant Augustine? The following extracts are from The Story of the Light that Never Went Out:

“Gregory the Great was a most ambitious pope; nothing but the conquest of the world to Rome would satisfy him.” “Gregory the Great had chosen the right man to accomplish this work; Augustine was as ambitious as he was to see the world brought under the sway of the fast developing kingdom of papal Rome.... Gregory despatched more missionaries [to England], and loaded them with vestments and church ornaments, and a quantity of rags and bones – supposed to be the relics of saints and martyrs, to which the increasing superstition of the times attributed many absurd and fabulous miracles. With these relics Augustine might hope to overawe and vanquish the English!” And when the professing church in Britain refused to submit to the authority of the Roman pontiff, Augustine said to them: “if you will not receive brethren who bring you peace, you shall receive enemies who will bring you war. If you will not unite with us in showing the Saxon the way of life, you shall receive from them the stroke of death.”[15] And the military power of Rome was used to subdue England by bloodshed.

These were the men – Gregory and Augustine – whom Williams praised so highly in his address to the Roman Antichrist! But he wasn’t done; he had to sink lower still. He said: “The fact that the first preaching of the Gospel to the English peoples in the sixth and seventh centuries has its origins in his [Gregory’s] vision creates a special connection for us with the See of the Apostles Peter and Paul; and Gregory’s witness and legacy remain an immensely fruitful source of inspiration for our own mission in these dramatically different times.”

Williams needs to brush up on his history (or was it a deliberate smokescreen again?): the Gospel reached Britain long before Gregory ever sent Augustine to that land. But by saying this Williams gave the impression that Britain has Popery to thank for the arrival of the “Gospel”! Plus, he referred to Rome as “the See of the Apostles Peter and Paul” – another historical inaccuracy as Peter was never actually in Rome, and Paul never had a “See” there. Once again Williams was pointing out the special, unique role of the Roman pontiff over all Christendom, by virtue of being, supposedly, the “successor of Peter” – a great falsehood.

Williams then went on to praise the life and work of the evil Roman Catholic “saint”, Benedict, founder of the Benedictine order of monks, and the man whose name Joseph Ratzinger chose for himself when he became the Roman pope, Benedict XVI. Williams said British culture had tragically lost sight of that original Benedict’s “vision”, but that the present Benedict had made a huge “contribution to a Benedictine vision for our days”.

When Williams then spoke of the meaning of the role and mission of the pope of Rome, it was very evident that he conceded a unique place to the pope of Rome within the “universal Church” (which of course is not the true universal Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, but the many false “churches” worldwide). This is what he said:

“Christians have very diverse views about the nature of the vocation that belongs to the See of Rome. Yet, as Your Holiness’s great predecessor [John Paul II] reminded us all in his encyclical Ut Unum Sint, we must learn to reflect together on how the historic ministry of the Roman Church and its chief pastor may speak to the Church catholic – East and West, global north and global south – of the authority of Christ and his apostles to build up the Body in love; how it may be realised as a ministry of patience and reverence towards all, a ministry of creative love and self-giving that leads us all into the same path of seeking not our own comfort or profit but the good of the entire human community and the glory of God the creator and redeemer.”[16]

Cutting through all the sweet-talk, what Williams was saying was that the role of the Roman Catholic institution and its pope is a very special one, and unique. And his words were well understood by Roman Catholic journalist, Robert Moynihan, who said: “Of course, Williams is not saying here that he and his fellow Anglicans will recognize without qualification the Bishop of Rome’s ministry as the head of the Christian Church. But... he is clearly linking the two concepts of ‘the Roman church and its pastor’ (that is, the Pope) and ‘a ministry... towards all’ (that is, a universal ministry). The implicit suggestion is that, for Williams, there is, in fact, a mission ‘towards all’ which must be carried out by ‘the Roman church and its chief pastor.’”[17] Williams was opening the door towards some as-yet undefined submission to the See of Rome as time goes by.

And even though Benedict was in the UK to beatify John Henry Newman, an Anglican who converted to Rome and who did such damage to Anglicanism and such good work for Rome, Williams managed to speak well of the man, saying Newman “decided that he must follow his conscience and seek his future in serving God in communion with the See of Rome”.[18] Even though Benedict was there to triumphantly rub the nose of Anglicanism in the dirt, Williams spoke meekly of Newman’s “conscience” and of “serving God in communion with” Rome! One doesn’t hear Romish bishops or archbishops speaking of ex-Papists as “following their conscience and seeking their future” in Protestant churches. They are never that generous, that magnanimous. The generosity and magnanimity are always from the non-Papist side.

John Henry Newman: the Man Beatified by Benedict

And so we come to the actual beatification of John Henry Newman in Birmingham on the final day of Benedict XVI’s trip to the United Kingdom. This was done at an open-air mass attended by some 60 000 people.

When the Papacy “beatifies” some dead person, it means Papists may from then on refer to that person as “Blessed”. This brings that person one step closer to being declared a “saint” by Rome. The Bible says that all true living Christians are the Lord’s saints (e.g. Acts 9:32,41; Rom. 1:7; 15:25; 1 Cor. 1:2; 14:33; etc.). But according to Rome, the only ones who are “saints” are dead Papists whom Rome officially pronounces to be “saints” after certain tests. And Papists are permitted to pray to them, seeking their aid and their intercession with God, which is heretical as the Lord Jesus Christ alone is the Mediator between God and men (Jn. 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5). It is praying to the dead, forbidden in Scripture for only God can hear and answer prayer! – Deut. 18:10-12. It is nothing but the ancient heathen belief in demigods, but under a “Christian” name. It is rank heathenism with no basis in the Bible. By beatifying Newman, Benedict brought him that much closer to being declared “Saint” Newman in due course.

We need to know about Newman himself, and why he was, and still is, so important to the Papacy. As I said earlier, quoting from my book, Satan’s Seat: “One of Rome’s primary objectives has been the conquest of England. To achieve this it was necessary to destroy the Anglican denomination, the so-called ‘Church of England’. The Jesuits did their work well: the ‘Romeward Movement’ within Anglicanism gained momentum through the 19th century, and into the 20th”.

The “Romeward Movement” within Anglicanism was known as the “Oxford Movement”, and also the “Tractarian Movement” (so called because of a series of tracts which were written in support of Anglicanism becoming increasingly pro-Roman Catholic). And John Henry Newman was at the centre of it, although by no means was he the only one. Rome, of course, sees the Oxford Movement very differently. It airily declares that it “aimed to help the Church of England return to its Catholic roots.”[19] This hides the real, sinister purpose behind it.

Newman was at first an Anglican priest. He is known for the hymn, “Lead kindly light amid the encircling gloom”, a hymn which no Protestant should sing and yet which, shockingly, is found in many Protestant hymnbooks. Another of his hymns found in various Protestant hymnbooks is “Praise to the Holiest in the height”, which is from his “Dream of Gerontius”, a poem about Purgatory![20]

He was greatly influenced by a man named Hurrell Froude, who was fanatically opposed to Anglicanism and favourable to Roman Catholicism. Newman, possessing great powers of persuasion, convinced Anglican priests of the “High Church” persuasion (i.e. committed to a ritualistic, sacramental, Popish version of Anglicanism) that Roman Catholicism was far superior to even their “high” Anglicanism. They began to despise their Anglican heritage, the Reformation, etc., and to look with longing eyes towards Rome, from which the “Church of England” had separated itself at the Reformation. This was the start of what history knows as the Oxford or Tractarian Movement, but what can equally be termed the Anglo-Catholic Movement: an Anglican Romeward direction which would continue to gain momentum in the years that followed. Anglo-Catholicism, essentially, is as much of Roman Catholicism within the Anglican institution as Anglo-Catholics feel they can get away with at any given time. It was a thinly disguised “web of deceit and intrigue”[21] and has the stamp of the Jesuit Order all over it.

In 1833 Froude and Newman sought to join the Roman Catholic institution while on a visit to Rome. “Newman’s subsequent activities while still in the Church of England were bent towards making this submission national rather than merely personal.”[22] In other words, he devoted his energies to bringing all of England back within the fold of Rome.

Newman and those who worked with him were very subtle, with the subtlety of the serpent himself. They worked to insinuate Romish doctrines and practices into the “Church of England”. But they were very careful about it, and while introducing Romish doctrines via their tracts, they also denounced Rome and the Papacy in other tracts – a tactic which Newman himself later admitted was adopted so as to hide their real intentions![23] They were thus secret Papists pretending to be Anglicans. They were liars and deceivers, and were working for the Vatican itself, but doing so from within the Anglican “Church”, as secret agents for the pope of Rome.

In time, when he felt that it was opportune to do so, Newman nailed his colours to the mast, coming out openly and officially joining the Roman Catholic “Church”; and as a reward for his secretive services while still operating as a Popish agent within the Anglican “Church”, he was elevated to the position of a cardinal of Rome.

Newman has been praised by Papists and Anglo-Catholics, as well as many who should know better. Instead of being exposed for the wolf in sheep’s clothing which he was, the subtle secret agent for Rome, he is generally “seen as a gentle man of integrity, a martyr to conscience, who made the great sacrifice of leaving his beloved Anglican Church in order to venture out through the encircling gloom to reach the haven of the Roman Catholic Church. But Newman had no love for the Church of England and he says as much in his writings.”[24]

For the Papacy to “beatify” someone, they must usually be able to attribute at least two miracles to that person after his or her death. Jack Sullivan, an elderly Roman Catholic deacon from Massachusetts, USA, prayed to Newman for the healing of his crippling spinal condition, and claims to have been healed as a result.

However, even many Roman Catholics regard the beatification of Newman as “unsatisfactory”, for a number of reasons. Firstly, Newman himself expressly did not wish to be declared a “saint”. Secondly, Newman supposedly “has only performed one miracle since his death in 1890, and that seems to some people to be less than decisive. Jack Sullivan... has been cured of back and leg pain after praying to Newman, and doctors have testified that there is no medical explanation for his cure. But is one such miracle enough? And doesn’t back pain sometimes heal itself spontaneously?”[25] Quite so.

Thirdly, the homosexual lobby claims that Newman was a homosexual. He was buried with the man he openly said he loved more than anyone else in the world, a priest named Ambrose St John. And as far back as 1933, author Geoffrey Faber wrote of Newman’s “characteristically feminine nature”, and stated that Newman’s Oxford Movement was “homo-erotic.”[26] It would not surprise us at all if Newman was a sodomite, as so many (perhaps as many as 40% or more) within the Roman Catholic priesthood are sodomites. But in the light of the worldwide priestly sex scandals of recent times, which have greatly embarrassed and angered countless Roman Catholics, beatifying a possibly homosexual cardinal seems, to many of them, to be a very foolish move at this time.

The Jesuits’ Hands on the Oxford Movement and on Newman

Was the Oxford Movement, and Newman himself, under secret Jesuit control? There can be no doubt about it, given the fanatical hatred of the Jesuit Order at all times for England and for English Protestants, and their ceaseless plots to bring England back under Rome[27] and destroy English Protestantism, and given what is known of Newman himself. Look at the evidence:

The greatest book ever written against the Oxford Movement was The Secret History of the Oxford Movement, by Walter Walsh, in the 19th century. And this meticulous author was convinced that the Jesuits had their fingers deep in the Oxford Movement. The following quotation from the book, though lengthy, should be very carefully read in the light of the Papal Antichrist’s 2010 visit to the UK and his beatification of Newman. Walsh wrote (italics added):

“But I certainly am inclined to attach a good deal of importance to the revelations made by the late Rev. Dr. Desanctis, formerly parish priest of the Madallena, Rome, Professor of Theology, Official Theological Censor of the Inquisition, and subsequently Minister of the Reformed Italian Church at Geneva. Desanctis was a man of high personal character, and from the offices he held while at Rome was enabled to obtain an intimate acquaintance with the inner workings of Romanism and Jesuitism. In his work on Popery and Jesuitism in Rome in the Nineteenth Century, a translation of which was published in London, in 1852, he gives a great deal of valuable information concerning the secret and inner working of Tractarianism, which, at that period, was popularly known in England and abroad as Puseyism. ‘My Jesuit Confessor,’ says Dr. Desanctis, ‘was Secretary to the French Father Assistant [of the Jesuit Order], and as he esteemed me much, and accounted me an affiliated member of the Society, he made many disclosures to me.’ Amongst these disclosures were the following:–

‘Despite all the persecution they [the Jesuits] have met with, they have not abandoned England, where there are a greater number of Jesuits than in Italy; that there are Jesuits in all classes of society; in Parliament; among the English clergy; among the Protestant laity, even in the higher stations. I could not comprehend how a Jesuit could be a Protestant priest, or how a Protestant priest could be a Jesuit; but my Confessor silenced my scruples by telling me, omnia munda mundis, and that St. Paul became as a Jew that he might save the Jews; it was no wonder, therefore, if a Jesuit should feign himself a Protestant, for the conversion of Protestants. But pay attention, I intreat you, to my discoveries concerning the nature of the religious movement in England termed Puseyism [Newman’s movement!].

‘The English clergy [i.e. those in the Anglican ministry] were formerly too much attached to their Articles of Faith to be shaken from them. You might have employed in vain all the machines set in motion by Bossuet and the Jansenists of France to reunite them to the Romish Church; and so the Jesuits of England tried another plan. This was to demonstrate from history and ecclesiastical antiquity the legitimacy of the usages of the English Church, whence, through the exertions of the Jesuits concealed among its [Anglican] clergy, might arise a studious attention to Christian antiquity. This was designed to occupy the clergy in long, laborious, and abstruse investigation, and to alienate them from their Bibles.’

“On another occasion [writes Walsh] a Roman priest was asked by Desanctis:– ‘But do you not think it would be for the greater glory of God, that all the Puseyites should become Catholics?’ The reply to this question was:– ‘No, my son, the Puseyite movement must be let alone that it may bring forth fruit. If all the Puseyites were to declare themselves Catholics, the Movement would be at an end. Protestants would be alarmed, and the whole gain of the Catholic Church would be reduced to some million of individuals and no more. From time to time it is as well that one of the Puseyite leaders should become a Catholic [i.e. openly admit to what he was secretly before, which is precisely what Newman did!], in order that, under our instructions, the Movement may be better conducted; but it would not be desirable for many of them to come over to Catholicism. Puseyism is a living testimony to the necessity of Catholicism in the midst of our enemies; it is a worm at the root which, skilfully nourished by our exertions, will waste Protestantism till it is destroyed.’”[28]

As yet further evidence of the Jesuit control of the Oxford Movement: the man who succeeded Newman as leader of the Tractarians, William George Ward, another Anglican priest, diligently studied Roman Catholic works of theology; and his son wrote of him, “Both in ascetics and in dogmatics, the Jesuits were his favourite reading”! As author Walsh correctly states: “We need not wonder at this now, though at the time it was kept strictly secret. What an excitement it would have caused in 1840, had it been publicly known that the favourite study of one of the leaders of the Tractarians was the writings of the Jesuits! That kind of study is far more common now [when Walsh wrote his book in 1896] amongst modern Ritualists than it was fifty-six years since, and the Romeward Movement is now far more under Jesuitical influence than ever it has been hitherto. Mr. James R. Hope-Scott [Newman’s friend in the movement]... frequently visited the Jesuits at Rome, and in his now published letters shows how any feeling which he may have entertained against them gradually wore itself away. On March 27th, 1841, he wrote to his brother:– ‘The General of the Jesuits I continue to visit, and am grown very fond of him.’”[29] Pusey himself, another Tractarian leader, praised the Jesuit founder, Ignatius Loyola, in his own publications.[30]

And Newman believed that there were times when to lie was perfectly acceptable! “For myself,” he wrote, “I can fancy myself thinking it was allowable in extreme cases for me to lie, but never to equivocate”; and that under certain circumstances when driven into a corner, “I should have a right to say an untruth.”[31] This reveals Newman’s Jesuitical subtlety, and indicates the hand of the diabolical Jesuits upon Newman and the Oxford Movement. Indeed, another Tractarian, Isaac Williams, wrote: “I have lately heard it stated from one of Newman’s oldest friends, Dr. Jelf, that his mind was always essentially Jesuitical.”[32]

The Success of Newman and the Oxford Movement Evident in the UK Today

How successful was John Henry Newman in his insidious intrigues? Very successful indeed. We can see the evidence for the tremendous success of the Oxford Movement everywhere: in the doctrinal confusion prevalent within Anglicanism, with its ordination of homosexuals and women, the denial of fundamental Christian doctrines by so many of its leaders, etc.; in the many Popish teachings and practices so totally accepted within Anglicanism, such as the use of altars, the calling of ministers “Father”, the masses and the confessions held within this institution, etc.; in the massive shedding of membership occurring within Anglicanism, with splits looming; in the acceptance, by so many Anglicans, of the pope of Rome’s offer for a “home” for Anglicans who move over to Rome; and in many other ways. I have written at length about these things.[33]

The following summary of Newman’s evil legacy, written by Maurice G. Bowler, is absolutely correct: “Newman’s legacy in our day is a nightmare reversal of values in the understanding of religious history. Roman Catholicism, the most bigoted and cruel regime of corruption and terror that the world has ever seen, is presented as the champion of tolerance and righteousness. The Protestant cause, which, under God, brought Europe and especially this country [England] out of a thousand years of darkness into light, which set it free to worship and serve God in the light of a newly-opened Bible, is vilified as narrow and outdated, a hindrance to progress and freedom.”[34]

And the Romanizing change within the UK can also be seen, not just within the Anglican institution but on the population of the UK at large. Even an English secular historian like David Starkey has seen it, and he wrote about it in the London Sunday Times.”[35] How true his statements are:

“During the 20th century the ritual and ceremonial aspect of the faith flourished: the church [i.e. Anglicanism] evolved into a national fest of English respectability, church on Sundays, prayers during assembly. The courtly display at the coronation of Elizabeth II was the defining moment of this English kind of Shinto. “[A]nd then, disaster.... Instead of [the “Church of England”] being a national institution, it degenerated into a disunited collection of quarrelling Christian sects.... And Britain had changed, too. Out had gone the Protestant stiff upper lip. In had come ‘Dianafication’: the advent of mass emotion, outpourings of hysteria. The Strictly Come Dancing generation is all smells and bells in a soft, fluffy, Blairite world, a world that is superficially, as the Blairs themselves demonstrate, sympathetic towards Catholicism... “Today the [Anglican] Church is a shadow of what it used to be, rotten from within.”

Astoundingly, Starkey discerned what so many gullible, naive Anglicans and Protestants just cannot or will not see: the true face of Roman Catholicism. He concluded by stating: “But perhaps they [those sympathetic towards Romanism] have not tasted the hard edge of the faith. They have not encountered its magisterium, the power to impose doctrine at will, papal infallibility. Up till now, Rome has been handling Anglicanism with the velvet glove. Traditionally, however, it has a very iron hand. Pope Benedict XVI was the ‘panzer cardinal’, the gritty enforcer behind the friendly public face of John Paul II. As Pope, he’s turned into a teddy bear – but it would serve the Anglican high order well to remember that this particular teddy bear is not fuzzy around the edges. Eventually, the noose will tighten.”

Vatican Victory

The reason the Papacy so badly wanted to beatify Newman was because he did so much to turn Britain Romeward, and the Papacy wants to celebrate that and encourage the further re-Romanisation of Britain. Creating a “saint” out of such a man, who worked to return Britain to Romanism, will greatly promote this Vatican goal. “By choosing to elevate John Henry Newman towards ‘Sainthood’ with a thoroughly Roman Catholic ecclesiastical event ... Benedict is seeking to demonstrate to the world that the Church in England is being brought back to its pre-Reformation status of submission to the Church of Rome.”[36]

By beatifying Newman, the Roman pope has done two major things. He has beatified a man who started out as an Anglican and then became a Papist, thereby encouraging many other Anglicans today to take the same step, to convert to Rome. And he has beatified a man who worked with subtlety and dishonesty to undermine the Anglican institution and turn it Romeward in its doctrine and practice, thereby preparing it for eventual return to the Roman fold. By beatifying such a man at this time, the Antichrist has sent a clear message to England’s Anglicans and even to England’s political leaders: it is time for you to return to Rome.

Truly, Benedict XVI was in a triumphant mood. In his homily at the vigil of the beatification of Newman on September 18, He said: “This is an evening of joy, of immense spiritual joy, for all of us. We are gathered here in prayerful vigil to prepare for tomorrow’s Mass, during which a great son of this nation, Cardinal John Henry Newman, will be declared Blessed. How many people, in England and throughout the world, have longed for this moment! It is also a great joy for me, personally, to share this experience with you. As you know, Newman has long been an important influence in my own life and thought, as he has been for so many people beyond these isles.”[37]

Well might he have gloated. It was a time of great victory for Rome, a major step towards re-conquering Britain for the Papacy. In the words of a Roman Catholic journalist, Edward Pentin: “For me personally as a British Catholic, to see the Vicar of Christ passing such familiar landmarks [in his pope-mobile in the London procession] as Horse Guards Parade, Buckingham Palace and the Mall and then leading the Benediction in Hyde Park was an almost surreal experience and something I personally never imagined I’d see. Perhaps more than the speech in Westminster Hall yesterday, it was during these moments that it seemed to me the Catholic Church had once again truly become acceptable in Britain, that a new chapter for British Catholics had begun, and the country’s troubled past with the Church – an institution to which this country owes its deepest roots – had finally come to an end.”[38]

As far as the Vatican is concerned, its victory over the United Kingdom, and over the “Church of England”, is almost complete. Four and a half centuries of Papist intrigue, it feels certain, are soon to pay off. These are momentous times, and it becomes the Lord’s true people to be much in prayer as they watch these things unfold, to understand the times, to witness for Christ and preach His glorious Gospel of grace, and to cleave to His Word, the Bible, so as not to be deceived by all that is taking place.

September 2010

For further reading by Shaun Willcock (see the Bible Based Ministries website):

Book:

Satan’s Seat

Articles:

America’s Alien Invasion: the United States is Becoming Roman Catholic

Rome Still Claims to be the One True Church

The Pope of Rome in America 2008: Why Now?

The Anglican Institution Continues to Unravel – and Rome Benefits

The Pope of Rome Calls for a World Government

The Vatican/Obama Alliance

From the Thames to the Tiber: Rome Builds a Bridge for Anglicans to Cross Over

Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel. He runs Bible Based Ministries. For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below. If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.

Bible Based Ministries

info@biblebasedministries.co.uk

www.biblebasedministries.co.uk

This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

WORLDWIDE CONTACT:

Contending for the Faith Ministries

42055 Crestland Drive

Lancaster, CA 93536

United States of America

BBMOrders@aol.com

ENDNOTES: