No Pope Here! Why? #2 The Act of Settlement

Any proposed visit by the Pope is to be opposed on constitutional grounds. The Act of Settlement underpins the British Constitution and safeguards the British throne from ever being influenced by Roman Catholicism again.

The Act of Settlement was passed in 1701. It came into being at the end of the reign of King William III, when his successor to the throne, Anne, had lost her only surviving child. It was felt expedient by Parliament, at that time, to bring into law a requirement that only Protestants, in communion with the Church of England, should be allowed on the throne.

No Pope Here! Why? #1 His Blasphemous Claims

The reasons for opposing a visit by the Roman antichrist are numerous. One reason is the many blasphemous statements made by the Pope of Rome. History is replete with the statements made by different Popes or else made by other Romanists about the Papacy. They have never been shy in stating their claims. Rome might be a little embarrassed in modern times about the antics of her priests, bishops and Popes but these claims have never been denied or disowned.

For example:
Cardinal Manning in a sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, and reported in the Tablet [weekly Catholic newspaper] 9th October 1864 said: [speaking in the name of the Pope]
I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.

The Blasphemy of the Pope

Here is a reminder, with the election of a new Pope, of the blasphemous beliefs of Romanism about the Pope

History is replete with the statements made by different Popes or else made by other Romanists about the Papacy. They have never been shy in stating their claims. Rome might be a little embarrassed in modern times about the antics of her priests, bishops and Popes but these claims have never been denied or disowned.

For example:
Cardinal Manning in a sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, and reported in the Tablet [weekly Catholic newspaper] 9th October 1864 said: [speaking in the name of the Pope]
I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong.

Peter's message to the new Pope

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, 1 Peter 1:18,19. 

The Church of Rome falsely claims that Peter was the first Pope. She has built the whole system of the Papacy supposedly upon certain words that the Saviour spoke to Peter making him the head of the Apostles and giving him special authority on earth over the Church of Christ.

Peter is not the rock upon which the Church is built. Neither was he given any special place above the other apostles in the Church. Furthermore there is no evidence in the Bible that Peter was ever bishop of Rome as Popery claims. The only time that Peter was ever in Rome is the claim from Church history that he was taken there and martyred for the faith.