Jesuits - A Disgrace to Humanity

a reply to: [post=20077267]gggilll[/post You don't have to be a priest to be Jesuit trained...duh?

a reply to: dale8333

Do you have to be a Freemason to be involved in politics?

a reply to: gggilll You have to be a priest in order to be a Jesuit? Says whom? I beg to differ. The job of the Jesuits to counter the Reformation was to blend in with whatever group he was infiltrating. You know nothing of the Knights Of Malta, Knights of Columbus that the Jesuits took control of. Freemasonry had the most influential people of that time period so it was imperative that they gain control of it.

a reply to: dale8333
Who says they did?

originally posted by: dale8333
a reply to: gggilll You have to be a priest in order to be a Jesuit?

Of course you do. Shows how much all of you know about what you discuss; jacks*t

en.wikipedia.org...


OP specifically said Guy Fawkes was a "Jesuit". Not a person trained by Jesuits, nor a Jesuit brother. Jesuits are ordained priests during their formation.

Actually Guy Fawkes wasn't even trained by Jesuits. That's BS too. He was just a catholic but he conspiracy people don't stop at that kind of gross lies.

a reply to: 0hlord
The Jesuits were the Vatican's original strong arm Marine forces. They rebelled is all at a later date because were thought of (by their Vatican overlords) too powerful and needed to be destroyed. Read "The Jesuits" or "Whispering House" by Jesuit Malachi Martin.

originally posted by: dale8333
a reply to: [post=20077267]gggilll[/post You don't have to be a priest to be Jesuit trained...duh?

Seminary trained, not of the priesthood. These were the equivalent of a Templar Knight (Anglican).

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Seems ATS members are not fans of the Reformation.

originally posted by: 0hlord
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Seems ATS members are not fans of the Reformation.

We could ask. There may be some confusion regarding the role of the Templars and what the Jesuits were (Catholic affiliation).

a reply to: 0hlord

That's a nice strawman you got there

a reply to: 0hlord
I love the Reformation. It's one of my favorite periods in history.

originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: 0hlord
I love the Reformation. It's one of my favorite periods in history.

Me too, I just started thinking about it in the past few days and it dawned on me how profoundly significant those years were for my own country (England) and the world.

Loosing Britain was a significant blow to the Catholic Empire... In my research I learned Catholics were held in great suspicion by the British authorities well into the 18th century and it gives me a deeper insight into the attitudes and sentiments of my own society that had pretty much bewildered me my whole life.... There is good reason to love and appreciate the royal family after all, for without them we would still be under the dominion of Rome!

a reply to: 0hlord
The Templars were thought to be too powerful by King Philippe IV of France and used his token Pope Clement V to eradicate them/steal their bank holdings and land; so they fled to the British Isles. The RCC has done no less to its Jesuits that finally decided enough is enough (internal battle rages on).

a reply to: vethumanbeing
Too powerful and he was in debt to them. LOL They also pretty much owned the southern 1/3 of France.

No one knows for sure what happened to the Templars in the post-suppression. Most likely, as some were already in the British isles, they just stayed there or went up to Scotland as a haven. The Spanish Templars just renamed themselves the Order of Christ. Most Templars in the Germanic states were found innocent (at one trial the knights showed in battle array) and there's also theories that the knights in white showed up to help the mountain folk to fight against Leopold V of Austria; these people would go onto form the nation of Switzerland (which was previously a confederacy of tribes and families). France was really the only place where the Templars were heavily suppressed

originally posted by: 0hlord

Loosing Britain was a significant blow to the Catholic Empire... In my research I learned Catholics were held in great suspicion by the British authorities well into the 18th century and it gives me a deeper insight into the attitudes and sentiments of my own society that had pretty much bewildered me my whole life.... There is good reason to love and appreciate the royal family after all, for without them we would still be under the dominion of Rome!

By the time Henry VIII left the Catholic church other countries had already done so: Switzerland adopted Calvinism and Sweden with its protestant reform, all before England and the Pope was loosing power in some places in Europe.

But the only reason Henry VIII left the Catholic church was because he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and the Pope wouldn't allow him. This is why he created the Church of England and called himself the head of the church (which is why the queen is the head of the church today). No other reason. If the Pope had allowed him to divorce and marry Anne Boleyn he wouldn't have had reason to leave the Catholic church.

The suspicious were created to demonize Catholics because it was illegal to be a Catholic in England. All religions are corrupted, including the Church of England. The Catholics were brutal 'converting' people to their church, but the church of England were also brutal 'converting' people in Scotland and Ireland.

a reply to: Agartha

Yes, I know but I don't think the change would have been so easy if it didn't have the popular support of the people.

And, if Henry VIII throne had been one where the dictates Rome was taken very seriously in the first place, I don't think he would have A) ever considered leaving them B) Gotten away with his life having done so.

To me, it seems wanting to leave Rome was more likely the premeditated aim of asking for an annulment than actually wanting to leave his wife.

originally posted by: 0hlord
a reply to: Agartha

Yes, I know but I don't think the change would have been so easy if it didn't have the popular support of the people.

And, if Henry VIII throne had been one where the dictates Rome was taken very seriously in the first place, I don't think he would have A) ever considered leaving them B) Gotten away with his life having done so.

To me, it seems wanting to leave Rome was more likely the premeditated aim of asking for an annulment than actually wanting to leave his wife.

There was some popular support as people were fed up of paying the Catholic church for everything (to get married, to get baptized, to bury someone and so on... hence the church was so rich!!) BUT don't forget that in 1533 people were scared to go against the wishes of their king as they knew their heads could end up rolling in the mud! lol

The question is: did poor people's lives get better with COE? I mean better than with the Catholic church....I don't think so, hence I believe they are all the same.

a reply to: Agartha

Better? Who knows?

Freer? Most definitely. Without independence, democracy might not have evolved for example.

originally posted by: 0hlord

Better? Who knows?

Freer? Most definitely. Without independence, democracy might not have evolved for example.

No, peasants/poor people had to pay taxes to Henry, they never gained much, if anything at all.

Democracy happened throughout Europe and most were/are Catholic countries, being protestant didn't help with that (and I am not religious, I am not defending the Catholic church, I actually think they are hypocrites and have done much evil).

a reply to: Agartha

Yes as you can tell at this stage I'm still just relying on guesswork.