The Merovingians ~ Bloodline of Christ or temple of Lucifer?
During the Dark Ages, the Roman Catholic Church was a political force allied with the monarchies of Europe. In 1099 A.D., 
Pope Urben II called Western Christianity to go to war to free the Holy Land from the Moslems. Later, in 1215, the Inquisition officially began during the reign of Pope Innocent III, who put out the following statement: “That they shall be seized for trial and penalties, who engage in the translation of the sacred books, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their masters; versus whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal“.
Thomas M’Crie records, “In the 11th century, capital punishment, even in its most awful form, that of burning alive, was extended to all who obstinately adhered to opinions disagreeing from the received religion”. Henry Charles Lea wrote: “The papal Inquisition . . . constituted a chain of tribunals throughout Continental Europe perpetually manned by those who had no other work to attend…by constant interchange of documents and common co-operation they covered Christianity with a network rendering escape almost hopeless”. Today, the Vatican maintains its own Department of State and an influential albeit non-voting presence in the UN. Reports such as the following affirm current Vatican dialogues to regain control of the Holy Land. Although it must now go through diplomatic channels, the second Vatican conquest of the Holy Land will be acclaimed as another spiritual mandate to reestablish the Holy Roman Empire. “The Vatican’s Jerusalem Agenda” by Israeli journalist, Barry Chamish, inquired: “Did Shimon Peres make a deal with the Vatican?”
Consider the evidence:
* On Sept. 10, ‘93, just three days before the ratifying of the Declaration of Principles in Washington, the Italian news mag La Stampa reported that part of the peace deal was an unwritten agreement that the Vatican would receive political authority over the Old City of Jerusalem by the end of the millenium. The paper described that Shimon Peres had assured the pope to deliver the holy sites of Jerusalem the previous May and that Yasser Arafat had accepted the arrangement.
* In March ‘94, the Israeli newsmagazine Shishi printed an interview with Mark Halter, a French intellectual and close friend of Shimon Peres. He said he delivered a letter from Peres to the Pope the previous May, within which Peres offered the Vatican Palace hegemony over the Old City of Jerusalem. The article detailed Peres’s offer which essentially turned Jerusalem into an international city overseen by the Holy See.
* In March ‘95, the radio station Arutz Sheva announced that it had seen a telegraph sent by the Israeli Embassy in Rome to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem outlining the deliver of the Old City of Jerusalem to the Vatican. Two days later Haaretz issued the telegraph on its front page. The Foreign Ministry explained that the cable was real but someone had whitened out the word “not.” ie We will not transfer authority to the Vatican. Incredibly, numerous Bnei Brak rabbis who had cancelled Passover meetings with Peres over the issue of the telegraph accepted the explanation and reinvited him to their homes. The Foreign Ministry’s Legal Affairs representative, Esther Samilag, publicly complained about “several capitulations” to the Vatican. She was immediately transferred to a post at the Israeli Embassy in Kathmandu, Kingdom of Nepal. MK Avraham Shapira announced in the Knesseth that he had information that all Vatican property in Jerusalem was to become tax-free and that large tracts of real property on Mount Zion tended to the pope in perpetuity.
Jerusalem’s late Deputy Mayor Shmuel Meir announced that he had received “information that properties promised to the Vatican would be granted extra-territorial status.”
Beilin was forced to answer the charges. He admitted, ‘Included in the Vatican Agreement is the issue of papal properties in Israel that will be resolved by a commission of experts that has already been formed.’ If so, this commission has not since issued any proof of its existence. With all this in mind, how do we read the Vatican’s current position on Jerusalem?
The following report, distributed by MSANews may throw some light on that:
Vatican City, Jun 14, 1997 (VIS) - Archbishop Renato Martino, apostolical nuncio and Holy See permanent observer to the UN, spoke June 9 on the status of Jerusalem at the New York City headquarters of the Path to Peace Foundation. The archbishop addressed members of this foundation as well as United States. members of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem. He began by briefly summarising the “well-known and long-standing attitude of the Holy See with regard to Jerusalem. He stated that Jerusalem “for us, of course, along with the rest of the Holy Land, is that special link between heaven and earth, that place where God walked and finally died among men. And of course we recognize that others revere Jerusalem as the city of David and the prophets and the city known to Mohammed …. It is a spiritual treasure for all of humanity, and it is a city of two peoples, Arabs and Jews and of the three monotheistic religions, Christendom, Judaism and Islam.
He called attention that, in addressing the gridlock which has resulted from the 1967 Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, “the Holy See has therefore recommended the granting to Jerusalem of an ‘internationally assured special statute. That is the word used by Pope John Paul II in his 1984 Apostolic Letter ‘Redemptionis Anno’.”
This statute “asks that careless of how the problem of sovereignty is resolved and who is called to exercise it, there should be a international and supranational entity endowed with means adequate to insure the preservation of the special characteristics of the City, its Holy Places, the freedom to visit them, its religious and ethnic communities, a guarantee of their essential autonomies, and its city plan.”
The apostolic nuncio recalled the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Israel in 1993, when both signed the “Fundamental Agreement.” He noted Article 4 of this agreement where “both the Holy See and Israel affirm their continuing commitment to the ‘Status quo’ in the Christian Holy Places.”
He also spoke of the problems sparked by Israel’s recent authorisation of “a project for the construction of settlements in occupied territory in East Jerusalem” for which “there was wide-spread international condemnation.” This issue, he reminded those present, was brought before the UN Security Council on March 7 and March 21 of this year, but without resolution “because the sole country on the Security Council which opposed the Resolution was the United States.”
An Emergency Session of the legislative assembly, “organized only nine other times in the history of the United Nations” was held on April 24-25. The Holy See delegation was contacted and asked for suggestions for a Resolution, Archbishop Martino said. And he recounted the meetings, rough drafts of proposals and negotiations which followed.
The approved texts of the eventual Resolution, he emphasised, contained “those points championed by the Holy See. . . . The General Assembly has here called for ‘internationally guaranteed provisions’ — the equivalent of the ‘internationally guaranteed special status’ called for by Pope John Paul II. This is particularly noteworthy because in this case, the Arab delegations all voted for this Resolution and therefore for this provision.”
“The Holy Places within Jerusalem,” concluded Archbishop Martino, “are not merely museum relics to be opened and closed by the dominating political authority, no matter who that might be at any given moment. They are living shrines cherished to the hearts and faith of believers.”
We ask, “Could that international entity which will manage the International city of Jerusalem be the Vatican as Peres promised?”
Bookmark this on 
Leave a Reply