by David Robinson
I remember at school being taught about King John being required, by his barons, to sign the Magna-Carta document at Runnymede; but were any of us taught the following in the national curriculum?…
As Norman brothers, Kings John and his older brother Richard (”the lion-heart”) really didn’t care for England or its people particularly. Richard, the so called “lion heart” merely siphoned England’s coffers, to fund the pope’s crusades in the Middle East; whilst John fleeced the poor and not so poor, for his own greed and lust for power.
King John’s manoeuvres toward absolute power put him on collision course with Pope Innocent III. The, now classic, battle over whether the papacy has authority over the crown of England, as well as the spiritual hearts and minds of its people, came to a head at this point in history. One of the main contentions sparking this, was ‘who chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury’.
In 1207 Pope Innocent III, invoked the ultimate Papal threat; he put England “under interdict”. (oooh naughty England, smack on the wrist you naughty little nation of heretics… get to your room!) Wait a minute Rome, you can’t talk to us like that; you’re not our mother! (Ah ha, therein lays the conflict of our age!)
Anyway, in 1211 Pope (not so) Innocent III sent an Italian churchman named Pandulf to England in an attempt to “settle” the “dispute”, but was unsuccessful. However, two years later in 1213, after being excommunicated, King John finally agreed to submit to the pope. (It didn’t look good on his C.V. you see). Pandulf came again to England, and met King John at a small Knights Templar Chapel, on the heights above Dover cliffs.
Hosted and witnessed by the templar knights, Pandulf officially received John’s signed submission on the Pope’s behalf, as follows (you might want to sit down before reading this):
“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church… binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.”1
This is quite a shocking thing to have been signed by the King of England. In a nutshell, this action meant that King John essentially gave “the kingdom” of England to the Pope as a “fiefdom”, and agreed to become a papal vassal. This unrestrained acquiescence by King John, plus the consequent annual (over)taxing to pay the pope, may have been a large factor in the drive to force King John to sign the Magna Carta document a few years later.
The Magna Carta gave some parameters and limits to John’s powers as King, as well as more freedom, influence and governance for the Baron (landowners). It gave nothing to the common man of course, just these select “players”.
So did the Magna Carta legally invalidate the previous Dover agreement?
Well what happened was that the Dover ‘deal’ with the Pope, re-established John within the Church of Rome; he had basically given the Pope, England, legally! Because of John’s original excommunication and his deal with the Pope, England technically belonged to Pope Innocent III as well as his successors; therefore, as John was his vassal, the Magna Carta was a “rebellion” in the eyes of the papacy. The Barons were excommunicated and the Magna Carta was declared invalid on 24 September, 1215. As the initial deal with the pope was legal and the said party did not agree with the Magna Carta, it could not supersede the document, signed at Dover. Soooooooo, unless anyone can find if there’s a rescinding in history somewhere, the implication is that (hold on to your hats) England is STILL a fiefdom of the Roman Catholic Church!
An interesting side-note is that, at the site of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede, there is a monument; not to the signing of the Magna Carta, but in honour of the assassinated US president John F Kennedy, the first (?) Roman Catholic President of the U.S.A. …Why?
Take a moment to re-read King John’s signed agreement again and then stop and ask a few questions
· has the papacy ever nullified this LEGAL document’?
· If it has never legally been done so in history, can the UK, legally, have it recanted without the agreement of the Pope?
Perhaps when Napoleon abolished the temporal power of the papacy in 1801, all such agreements were broken? A bit like when a company, as a legal entity, goes bust. Or when the English civil war ended the so called “divine right of kings” to rule; there was then no “kingdom” of England as such. This would end this whole article right now. However, I dare say Rome has an answer for all this… just a thought to bear in mind however. Any legal experts our there could win the booker prize with a proper research into this issue.
I can’t help being reminded of Esau giving away his birthright for a bowl of stew… scripture says that ‘no amount of tears could win it back’ again! Somewhere in the deep vaults of Vatican nation, lays this ace in the hole, waiting to be thrown down as a gauntlet one day soon.
When will the bishop of Rome openly call in, this “foot in the door” of England?
Well, Mr. Gordon Brown has invited Mr. Benedict to officially visit the UK in 2010. I understand that the invitation has been accepted. Watch this space, I suppose. Expect a lot of closet catholic politicians and clergy will declare their true feelings and allegiance etc… who knows maybe even the Prince Charles will to surprise us? (All supposition at this stage, by the way!)
Even if this issue, of the legality of England being a fiefdom of Rome, is truly the case, it doesn’t mean a church owns this nations people! The gospel is about an individual decision. A decision to receive salvation by grace, on the Lord’s terms and conditions sealed at the cross. For anyone to bow the knee to a religious System or a leader who thinks they act VICARiously for Christ, requires the consent of a person’s will.
The main global issue facing Christians, and this is imminent, will be about AUTHORITY. Where do Christians consider final authority to be found? The same issue that caused the ‘reformation’ by the way. (Do your homework Christians!)
Regrettably, a separation was inevitable, necessary and biblical, (when you look at the issues properly) “What?” you may say, “Surely Unity is God’s will? Jesus prayed that at the last supper”… yes but is the doctrine and attitude also in line with Scripture? If there is error, are they willing to change? Well, if they think they are the one true church and their leader is infallible, I’d ask, can it change? Yet many rush to be yoked with it? Why? Stop and think for a minute will you? Please.
The strategy today is called ‘ecumenism’, aka Unity, with “Mother” Rome? (Mother? Are we not brothers and sisters?) The current catechism, as per always, is NO we are not. Right there is the immovable and actually arrogant attitude of this Church. Yet many rush to be yoked with it? Who does all the changing then? Who, however should? Ever wonder why Rome only sends observers to the World Council of Churches and other Ecumenical projects instead of being members of them? It’s because if they did, they would be seen as a sister church instead of the mother of all the “misguided” groups.
Behind the touchy feely rhetoric of Vatican II, the attitude is really “yes, have your little diversity, we love diversity, we really do, (cue warm cuddly feeling) but come “home to “mother Rome” - yes, have your group, your denomination; we have various orders and sodalities as well; but just recognise the pope as supreme head over Christianity then we shall have unity”.
Some say “But they’re having a charismatic revival” (whatever that is) “They fall over and everything”. Observing familiar spiritual manifestations in themselves, is not the criteria to pass the scriptural test to see if something is from God. Also Jesus informed us that we will know who’s who by the Fruit, not Gifts… or Charismatic manifestations!!!
Some say “But Peter passed his “keys” to Rome”. Well the Byzantines, if they hadn’t been flattened by Islam, would have disputed that. However, even if this was true; the mass-killing down the centuries by the inquisition, the adding and taking away from scripture (altering the ten commandments/changing the Sabbath day, for example) and the proud refusal to consider the head of the organisation wrong/fallible in anyway, would disqualify the whole “keys of peter given” argument. A pedigree does not make a church immune from God’s judgement! See Romans11:20-22 “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
Tradition, (in this case the “church fathers”, the catechisms, etc) is no substitute for an ongoing relationship with the Lord and (obeying) His word - scripture. Jesus’ generation discovered that!
Mark 7:9 says: “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
Colossians 2:8 also says: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Also John the Baptist said of the Religious people of his day, proud of their heritage:
Matthew 3:8-10 “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire”.
To be fair, we are all in the same boat in this. I’m not infallible, just like none of us are!
There’s an irony that if you disagree with this current ecumenical movement, there is an instant militant shunning, from those championing it. There is also an environment being cultivated in many “churches together” groups (heaven forbid if anyone mentions the historical conclusion of all the Reformers, plus Wesley, Spurgeon, Guinness etc that Rome was Anti-Christ (Another Christ) –This of course has been rescinded by lesser leaders of the main denominations; but the fact, unpalatable to some as it may be, is that this was historical position of all the reformers, much forgotten (or dumbed down) today. How many bible colleges cover this FACT?
It makes me think that the “counter-reformation” is not only still in motion, but is entering into its most intense and ruthless endgame. (“Ruthless? How dare you?” the undercover ‘sons of Loyola’, snarl). Well then Church, when the ultimatum to recognise the bishop of Rome or be shunned, called divisive… or worse, is put to you or your church, try looking beyond the camouflage of ‘Unity at any price’ and the “need” for “Vintage Spiritually” (aka Sacraments) and state you will only bow to Jesus and His word, and not to tradition or a “god/father”… then see the love in their eyes! It is sad to say, but wait and see… “Rome changes not”
Am I being divisive? Is that unscriptural? What would you make of Jesus saying he “came not to bring peace, but a sword”, to divide? Sometimes, for the sake of truth, division has to come. Still disagree? OK, let me ask you, would you or your church be comfortable being yoked to the Mormons, JW’s, Children of God or etc? No? Ask yourself, why not? You may say “Well, they have errors in doctrine compared to Scripture?” If so, would you then agree that church’s doctrine must be in line with the Holy Scripture, The Bible? If yes, have you bothered to compare the catechisms of Rome, with Scripture lately? (I say scripture, not Westcott and Hort’s butchered translation, mind).
The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons come with the Bible in one hand and their book of interpretation in the other. I.e. Watchtower, Book of Mormon/Pearl of great price etc. (Considered equal in authority to the Bible by them).
Jesus said on the Cross, “It is finished”. These groups say “yes, but you need ‘this or that too’ - provided exclusively, of course, by them.
All ‘Christian’ Cults are typified by their charismatic leader being considered infallible; they usually have their writings/opinions and interpretations held in equal esteem with, or above, God’s word – The Bible; they believe that only the adept ones within the group are enlightened enough to interpret scripture or hear the voice of God; they consider themselves as a ‘church’, to be the ONLY ONES, with the true interpretation of God’s truth and therefore the ONLY one true church out there! Are we to be yoked with such groups… surely not!!!
Just because a religion, is large in numbers, or has a long tradition, doesn’t make them the only correct or true representation of Jesus, or His church.
I really could go there much more than this, but you’re probably offended enough already. You are free to disagree with all this by the way, you can thank the ‘reformation’ for that!
Please pray for us in England, the walls are moving in around us. Well saints, (who are awake)… here we go again.
Help us Lord Jesus. Amen.
I remember at school being taught about King John being required, by his barons, to sign the Magna-Carta document at Runnymede; but were any of us taught the following in the national curriculum?…
As Norman brothers, Kings John and his older brother Richard (”the lion-heart”) really didn’t care for England or its people particularly. Richard, the so called “lion heart” merely siphoned England’s coffers, to fund the pope’s crusades in the Middle East; whilst John fleeced the poor and not so poor, for his own greed and lust for power.
King John’s manoeuvres toward absolute power put him on collision course with Pope Innocent III. The, now classic, battle over whether the papacy has authority over the crown of England, as well as the spiritual hearts and minds of its people, came to a head at this point in history. One of the main contentions sparking this, was ‘who chooses the Archbishop of Canterbury’.
In 1207 Pope Innocent III, invoked the ultimate Papal threat; he put England “under interdict”. (oooh naughty England, smack on the wrist you naughty little nation of heretics… get to your room!) Wait a minute Rome, you can’t talk to us like that; you’re not our mother! (Ah ha, therein lays the conflict of our age!)
Anyway, in 1211 Pope (not so) Innocent III sent an Italian churchman named Pandulf to England in an attempt to “settle” the “dispute”, but was unsuccessful. However, two years later in 1213, after being excommunicated, King John finally agreed to submit to the pope. (It didn’t look good on his C.V. you see). Pandulf came again to England, and met King John at a small Knights Templar Chapel, on the heights above Dover cliffs.
Hosted and witnessed by the templar knights, Pandulf officially received John’s signed submission on the Pope’s behalf, as follows (you might want to sit down before reading this):
“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church… binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.”1
This is quite a shocking thing to have been signed by the King of England. In a nutshell, this action meant that King John essentially gave “the kingdom” of England to the Pope as a “fiefdom”, and agreed to become a papal vassal. This unrestrained acquiescence by King John, plus the consequent annual (over)taxing to pay the pope, may have been a large factor in the drive to force King John to sign the Magna Carta document a few years later.
The Magna Carta gave some parameters and limits to John’s powers as King, as well as more freedom, influence and governance for the Baron (landowners). It gave nothing to the common man of course, just these select “players”.
So did the Magna Carta legally invalidate the previous Dover agreement?
Well what happened was that the Dover ‘deal’ with the Pope, re-established John within the Church of Rome; he had basically given the Pope, England, legally! Because of John’s original excommunication and his deal with the Pope, England technically belonged to Pope Innocent III as well as his successors; therefore, as John was his vassal, the Magna Carta was a “rebellion” in the eyes of the papacy. The Barons were excommunicated and the Magna Carta was declared invalid on 24 September, 1215. As the initial deal with the pope was legal and the said party did not agree with the Magna Carta, it could not supersede the document, signed at Dover. Soooooooo, unless anyone can find if there’s a rescinding in history somewhere, the implication is that (hold on to your hats) England is STILL a fiefdom of the Roman Catholic Church!
An interesting side-note is that, at the site of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede, there is a monument; not to the signing of the Magna Carta, but in honour of the assassinated US president John F Kennedy, the first (?) Roman Catholic President of the U.S.A. …Why?
Take a moment to re-read King John’s signed agreement again and then stop and ask a few questions
· has the papacy ever nullified this LEGAL document’?
· If it has never legally been done so in history, can the UK, legally, have it recanted without the agreement of the Pope?
Perhaps when Napoleon abolished the temporal power of the papacy in 1801, all such agreements were broken? A bit like when a company, as a legal entity, goes bust. Or when the English civil war ended the so called “divine right of kings” to rule; there was then no “kingdom” of England as such. This would end this whole article right now. However, I dare say Rome has an answer for all this… just a thought to bear in mind however. Any legal experts our there could win the booker prize with a proper research into this issue.
I can’t help being reminded of Esau giving away his birthright for a bowl of stew… scripture says that ‘no amount of tears could win it back’ again! Somewhere in the deep vaults of Vatican nation, lays this ace in the hole, waiting to be thrown down as a gauntlet one day soon.
When will the bishop of Rome openly call in, this “foot in the door” of England?
Well, Mr. Gordon Brown has invited Mr. Benedict to officially visit the UK in 2010. I understand that the invitation has been accepted. Watch this space, I suppose. Expect a lot of closet catholic politicians and clergy will declare their true feelings and allegiance etc… who knows maybe even the Prince Charles will to surprise us? (All supposition at this stage, by the way!)
Even if this issue, of the legality of England being a fiefdom of Rome, is truly the case, it doesn’t mean a church owns this nations people! The gospel is about an individual decision. A decision to receive salvation by grace, on the Lord’s terms and conditions sealed at the cross. For anyone to bow the knee to a religious System or a leader who thinks they act VICARiously for Christ, requires the consent of a person’s will.
The main global issue facing Christians, and this is imminent, will be about AUTHORITY. Where do Christians consider final authority to be found? The same issue that caused the ‘reformation’ by the way. (Do your homework Christians!)
Regrettably, a separation was inevitable, necessary and biblical, (when you look at the issues properly) “What?” you may say, “Surely Unity is God’s will? Jesus prayed that at the last supper”… yes but is the doctrine and attitude also in line with Scripture? If there is error, are they willing to change? Well, if they think they are the one true church and their leader is infallible, I’d ask, can it change? Yet many rush to be yoked with it? Why? Stop and think for a minute will you? Please.
The strategy today is called ‘ecumenism’, aka Unity, with “Mother” Rome? (Mother? Are we not brothers and sisters?) The current catechism, as per always, is NO we are not. Right there is the immovable and actually arrogant attitude of this Church. Yet many rush to be yoked with it? Who does all the changing then? Who, however should? Ever wonder why Rome only sends observers to the World Council of Churches and other Ecumenical projects instead of being members of them? It’s because if they did, they would be seen as a sister church instead of the mother of all the “misguided” groups.
Behind the touchy feely rhetoric of Vatican II, the attitude is really “yes, have your little diversity, we love diversity, we really do, (cue warm cuddly feeling) but come “home to “mother Rome” - yes, have your group, your denomination; we have various orders and sodalities as well; but just recognise the pope as supreme head over Christianity then we shall have unity”.
Some say “But they’re having a charismatic revival” (whatever that is) “They fall over and everything”. Observing familiar spiritual manifestations in themselves, is not the criteria to pass the scriptural test to see if something is from God. Also Jesus informed us that we will know who’s who by the Fruit, not Gifts… or Charismatic manifestations!!!
Some say “But Peter passed his “keys” to Rome”. Well the Byzantines, if they hadn’t been flattened by Islam, would have disputed that. However, even if this was true; the mass-killing down the centuries by the inquisition, the adding and taking away from scripture (altering the ten commandments/changing the Sabbath day, for example) and the proud refusal to consider the head of the organisation wrong/fallible in anyway, would disqualify the whole “keys of peter given” argument. A pedigree does not make a church immune from God’s judgement! See Romans11:20-22 “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
Tradition, (in this case the “church fathers”, the catechisms, etc) is no substitute for an ongoing relationship with the Lord and (obeying) His word - scripture. Jesus’ generation discovered that!
Mark 7:9 says: “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”
Colossians 2:8 also says: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Also John the Baptist said of the Religious people of his day, proud of their heritage:
Matthew 3:8-10 “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire”.
To be fair, we are all in the same boat in this. I’m not infallible, just like none of us are!
There’s an irony that if you disagree with this current ecumenical movement, there is an instant militant shunning, from those championing it. There is also an environment being cultivated in many “churches together” groups (heaven forbid if anyone mentions the historical conclusion of all the Reformers, plus Wesley, Spurgeon, Guinness etc that Rome was Anti-Christ (Another Christ) –This of course has been rescinded by lesser leaders of the main denominations; but the fact, unpalatable to some as it may be, is that this was historical position of all the reformers, much forgotten (or dumbed down) today. How many bible colleges cover this FACT?
It makes me think that the “counter-reformation” is not only still in motion, but is entering into its most intense and ruthless endgame. (“Ruthless? How dare you?” the undercover ‘sons of Loyola’, snarl). Well then Church, when the ultimatum to recognise the bishop of Rome or be shunned, called divisive… or worse, is put to you or your church, try looking beyond the camouflage of ‘Unity at any price’ and the “need” for “Vintage Spiritually” (aka Sacraments) and state you will only bow to Jesus and His word, and not to tradition or a “god/father”… then see the love in their eyes! It is sad to say, but wait and see… “Rome changes not”
Am I being divisive? Is that unscriptural? What would you make of Jesus saying he “came not to bring peace, but a sword”, to divide? Sometimes, for the sake of truth, division has to come. Still disagree? OK, let me ask you, would you or your church be comfortable being yoked to the Mormons, JW’s, Children of God or etc? No? Ask yourself, why not? You may say “Well, they have errors in doctrine compared to Scripture?” If so, would you then agree that church’s doctrine must be in line with the Holy Scripture, The Bible? If yes, have you bothered to compare the catechisms of Rome, with Scripture lately? (I say scripture, not Westcott and Hort’s butchered translation, mind).
The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons come with the Bible in one hand and their book of interpretation in the other. I.e. Watchtower, Book of Mormon/Pearl of great price etc. (Considered equal in authority to the Bible by them).
Jesus said on the Cross, “It is finished”. These groups say “yes, but you need ‘this or that too’ - provided exclusively, of course, by them.
All ‘Christian’ Cults are typified by their charismatic leader being considered infallible; they usually have their writings/opinions and interpretations held in equal esteem with, or above, God’s word – The Bible; they believe that only the adept ones within the group are enlightened enough to interpret scripture or hear the voice of God; they consider themselves as a ‘church’, to be the ONLY ONES, with the true interpretation of God’s truth and therefore the ONLY one true church out there! Are we to be yoked with such groups… surely not!!!
Just because a religion, is large in numbers, or has a long tradition, doesn’t make them the only correct or true representation of Jesus, or His church.
I really could go there much more than this, but you’re probably offended enough already. You are free to disagree with all this by the way, you can thank the ‘reformation’ for that!
Please pray for us in England, the walls are moving in around us. Well saints, (who are awake)… here we go again.
Help us Lord Jesus. Amen.
