10 FACTS You Must Know About The Jesuits

reply to post by DrunkYogi

I don't understand. Is this entire thread a kind of Candid Camera, setting up a ridiculous situation to trap the innocent?

Before we even finish page 4 of the Saussy book, we find this:

Vatican II affirms Catholic doctrine dating back to 1302, when Pope Boniface VIII asserted that “it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” This was the inspiration for the papacy to create the United States of America that materialized in 1776 , by a process just as secret as the Reagan-Vatican production of Eastern Europe in 1989. What? American government Roman Catholic from the beginning?

The idea that one must be subject to the Pope for salvation is an old and long discarded one. Consider Lumen Gentium from Vatican II in 1964, 50 years ago.

In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

www.ewtn.com...

You see? Fifty years ago Rome was saying you didn't even have to know Christ existed to be able to be saved.

And Rome created the United States? They founded a country which gave the Church no special benefits or protections, a country which tolerated bigotry and hatred towards Catholics which still exists, a country with schools which ban the wearing of Rosaries, and rejects the display of religious symbols on public lands. The mighty and all powerful Catholic Church created a country pretty much by itself, and this is what it gets out of it?

I'm sorry, Saussy's book starts out wrong, and I don't have the stomach to follow it through to the end.

adjensen
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

The title of the book has nothing to do with his profession, which was being a Presbyterian minister.

Right. That was my point. Yet you set it up as if the titling was indicative of that by the way you phrased it, which was deceptive because the title didn't indicate that and the wiki quote you set below was where you got the data.

The title of the book demonstrates that he was not merely a Protestant historian, but that he was an anti-Catholic.

So? Unless you are saying that only pro-Catholic material is credible, then you are going to have to deal with opposing povs in a way that goes beyond knee-jerk dismissal of all sources that aren't from your own camp.

Here's how it works. Go read Hitchcock's book that I noted, and then we can talk about it. We can talk about the manner in which he portrays evils done by the Catholic Church, we can talk about how he treats the church's opponents, including Luther. But in the vacuum of you dismissing a highly acclaimed, comprehensive history of the church, simply because it was written by someone employed at St. Louis University, there is nothing to talk about.

In no way I have I dismissed your source. I only asked why a pro-Catholic pov was somehow valid while an anti-Catholic pov was deemed non-credible by its very nature. I haven't made any judgement on it at all beyond noting that it was biased towards the Catholic doctrine. I have no problem with that per se (and am quite certain that were I to read it I would learn much). I have a big problem with you apologists dismissing out of hand any source that does not share your pov. And the reason I have that problem is that it is a dodge away from the main argument and hence a deflection.

Beyond that history, your author who teaches at a Jesuit school also writes a column from a Catholic pov. I have no problem with this at all. But it makes him biased just as Wylie being a Protestant makes him biased. The point isn't that one bias is better than another, but that both exist and this idea of "neutral" sources is a smokescreen to derail discussion.

Hell, I have learned enormous amounts of material from sources I didn't agree with at all. If a source quotes a factual happening and then spins that wholly away from how I see it, so what? I take the factual data and leave the spin behind. I do not deny the factual material because I don't like the spin.

Yet that is what has been happening here with much of what has been presented. X can't be true because the source is A or the source is B and that makes it non-credible. As silly as that looks laid out in the abstract, it's exactly what has been happening throughout this thread.

Because direct quotes by Jesuits advocating the principle of the end justifies the means were sourced by SDA, you dismissed the direct quote because of the source. Because direct quotes from Jesuit authors advocating the doctrine of murder are sourced by a Protestant, you dismiss them because of the source.

I dismiss Wylie's work because I've read it and it's garbage, points of utter nonsense sourced from polemics and repeated to further an anti-Catholic agenda. Is the whole work worthless? Of course not, but when someone has a clear agenda, the text that serves that agenda needs to be dismissed in favour of less biased sources.

This might hold some weight if you would actually demonstrate via example any of your points re it being garbage and utter nonsense. But no. As usual, you can't be bothered and hence the credibility of your claim is suspect to say the least.

You say you have read the text, but I don't believe you because I have read it and it doesn't fit the description you give it. It is filled with primary Jesuit sources directly quoting their teachings in their own words, so you are clearly misrepresenting it.

What he is quoting is yet another anti-Jesuit polemic.

Believe it or not, there are people who don't agree with advocating for the doctrine of murder. If that dismisses them as being anti-Jesuit, so be it. That doesn't change the fact that the Jesuit authors have vigorously defended the practice and pointing out that defense by all those Jesuit authors cited does not constitute a polemic.

A non-credible source does not gain credibility by citing other non-credible sources.

By this twisted logic of yours, a person who is against pedophilia is not credible as a source in a discussion about abusive priests or a person against torture is a credible source in a discussion about rendition. It just doesn't hold.

Does Wylie's book have an anti-Jesuit agenda?

Clearly it does not agree with the Jesuit practice of defending murder, lying, theft, etc.

Clearly it is against the Jesuit moral arguments that excuse any and all crimes and deceptions under the precept of the end justifying the means.

Clearly it is against the Jesuit notions of probabilism and intention which lay the groundwork for excusing any behavior no matter how depraved by the use of casuistry, which is specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead.

If being against this type of moral cancer makes it anti-Jesuit, then so be it. I, myself, am against such abhorrent behavior, so if that makes me anti-Jesuit, so be it.

But I am quite certain that many Catholics are against such behavior as well, which is why I say the Jesuits are a special case.

One can argue whether it is right or wrong of the Jesuits to engage in such behavior and to defend it with such vigor. But one cannot argue that they have not done so, as the evidence is in their own writings as well as in an enormous amount of historical documentation and cannot be dismissed by trashing the sources that point out these indisputable facts by calling them anti-Jesuit or anti-Catholic.

sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

Hi Pot, So lovely of you to call one kind and gentle soul a piece of work for trying to take this thread to a higher level.

Had that been what I did, you would have had cause to call me on it. I don't mind being wrong for the things I do, but I really dislike being branded for things I did not do.

Your "kind and gentle soul" did not merely try to take this thread to a higher level. Had he just veered off into the direction he has, I'd have let him go without saying anything. But instead he did that disingenuous dance he has been doing throughout this thread and sought to smear me into the bargain. Not so kind and gentle from where I sit, but perhaps it's different from your perch from on high. Here is what I objected to and why.

I appreciate my fellow poster's passion and can understand to some degree his hatred for the Church and the Jesuits. Apparently, that same passion has blinded him to what others are saying and what has been written here. It's unfortunate from my point of view, but as I said, understandable. Since the OP's charges have been sufficiently dealt with, unless another poster comes in who is willing to talk about this, may I suggest a slight change in topic to one of these:

As I have have said from the jump, my reason for getting into this thread was that the charges of the op have in no way been "sufficiently dealt with" as he states here, or "destroyed" as he put it previously. To the contrary, the rebuttals put forth were uniformly weak and/or inaccurate, yet he was crowing like a barnyard cock and belittling those who agreed with anything thee op had put forth. That's neither kind, nor gentle and had more than a whiff of the playground bully to it.

I don't like bullies, so I had taken Charles to task for his errors in points #1 and #3 and noted that he completely skiped over #2. I got sidetracked with your posts, which caused a delay in getting to the rest of the points and showing specifically how they too were riddled with difficulties.

For him to return after his timely disappearance and condescendingly assert that bit about me being blinded by passion to what had been said to me throughout was weak, (especially since unlike others with their vague unsubstantiated blanket assertions, I at least take the time to go through specific points made and provide supportive evidence as to why I disagree).

To assert that the op had been "sufficiently dealt with" while skipping over my rebuttals wherein I had demonstrated that this was far from the case was weaker still and disingenuous to boot.

I don't think you enjoyed the idea of losing your podium.

Heh. I've no worries about maintaining a "podium."

I offer you 2 thoughts I had a while back.

1) A heart that carries malice is not a suitable dwelling place for the God who loves all, but the demons will abide happily within it.

2) You don't know really know the meaning of love or the worth of it until you love your enemies.

What say you about these two ideas?

I don't hate people and never have, so I don't carry malice in my heart. I distinctly dislike certain behavior, however, and will speak out about it whenever I feel the need.

Signed, Kettle whose not afraid of spiritual warfare and knows the difference between that and intelligent discussion.

I have seen little evidence re intelligent discussion, though that is what I was hoping to engage in when I found this place and still hold out hope for. Not sure if you mean that you regard this engagement as spiritual warfare, but if so, might I suggest that it would be wise to better gauge those whom you choose to "do battle" with and why.

Pesky little critter, aren't I?

Not especially, no. Is that what you aspire to?

Hope this doesn't make it any worse for you, but I am praying that you are lifted into the midst of the Trinity where you will be filled with the awareness of the God who loves you.

Your prayers and your lofty thoughts would no doubt come across better were they not saddled down with the condescending sanctimony and misguided assumptions. Just sayin'.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


In 1888 Wylie wrote a book called "The Papacy is the Antichrist" and the Catholics have been duped by our devil leaders all this time, Now, you come to enlighten us good Catholics and the rest of the world out of the kindness of your heart with the horrific stories of the evil Jesuits, one of whom is now the Pope.

Is this an accurate summary of why you are posting?

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


I never said he was the antichrist. I said the papacy as antichrist was a long-standing theme going back to Luther, and then only because somebody else brought it up. My view of Francis was stated thus:

Without knowing what the Jesuits are about, you get one picture, the one that is being deliberately crafted. I freely admit that had I not known the back story, I would be singing his praises. But, like those who are aware of the workings and history of the Church, especially since Vatican II, I find him quite troubling, the veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing.

People are hearing what they want to hear, which is the point, but a close examination brings out a different picture. Believe me, if you poke around, you will find many Catholics who find him deeply troubling, too, especially given the Petrus Romano and Fatima III narratives.

I am not prepared to lay the weight of the antichrist on him as of yet, though I can see how people are worried about it. Still, I would need to examine the issue more closely before laying that lumber on him.

It should be noted, however, in case there are those out there who think the antichrist is just a synonym for really, really evil, that this isn't the case. It is a specific role with specific characteristics. It's not something that you can just throw out indiscriminately, though people often do.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


No, it isn't. Your continual mischaracterizations of me and what I have written do not paint you in a good light.

I actually didn't know of the Antichrist book until yesterday when it was brought to my attention by another poster. I have taken a glance at it and it does look worth investigating and is indeed not at all like it was characterized. It's not a screed or a rant or anything of the kind. It's strictly based upon the scriptural requirements and how they apply to Mystery Babylon, which has traditionally been seen as Rome by many given the description in the Bible.

I found this place via a mention from another site, scrolled down the menu of forums, found it overwhelming as far as choices went, picked nwo to see what was in there, saw jesuits and having in interest in them, popped in. Would have popped out and kept poking around, but saw Charles's post and was put off by its haughty tone and inaccurate renderings and here I am.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


You walked into ATS and saw a haunty Charles who missed the mark in your opinion on debunking some of the claims made.

Sometime we are quick to judge others based on a few words shared in an internet forum.

Haunty is not a word I would use to describe Charles. Just sayin'.

Thanks for all the unkind words about me. I can't say they offend me in all honesty and if they help me to see my shortcomings then they are a blessing. I know you don't believe this, but I really do love you. Not because you are an enemy. you aren't my enemy. I love you because we are all brothers and sisters of the same Father.

You don't win spiritual battles with words on an internet forum, but with prayer.

My discussion is not intelligent enough for you then enjoy my silence.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

My discussion is not intelligent enough for you then enjoy my silence.

Leave the trolls to their threads, I say.

Someone who refuses to see propaganda for what it is isn't worth wasting your time on, sad_eyed_lady. I'm done in this thread.

reply to post by adjensen


Heh. Perhaps you are right, but someone who does see propaganda for what it is and can specifically point out its weaknesses is even worse, huh?

You came in seeking to derail the discussion by playing your smear the sources card but it has proven ineffective.

Now, with no way to credibly respond to the last installment, you play the ‟troll” card against someone who has done nothing but respond specifically with supporting evidence to points made by others (precisely the opposite of a troll).

Transparent, sure, but go with what you got. Good that you finally have the sense to disengage, as your efforts, such as they were, have not gone well, have they?

Cheers.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Pretty much, except not ‟haunty,” but ‟haughty,” an air of condescending superiority. Again, it’s not even that he was off the mark as much as the arrogant way he preened about it despite his errors, along with declaring the matter closed unless someone else could defend the op. Well, that was an invitation so I answered the call.

You are quit correct that we can be quick to judge others based upon little data and I was aware of the possibility that I might be doing just that. Had I misjudged him, I would have apologized. But my initial impression was reinforced with the way he responded to my earlier rebuttals and skipping over the last ones while once again playing that same ‟unless someone else can respond, the op has been sufficiently dealt with and the matter is closed” card.

It certainly appears that you are offended and are pouting about it into the bargain. One wonders if you are aware of your own unkindness. Regardless, I am not aware of having spoken unkind words about you personally, whatever comments I may have made re your behavior. As a rule, I avoid the ad hominem and stir game. I do my best not to make assumptions or attack the person; instead I limit my responses to what is specifically on the page.

But I am not perfect, and if you can show where I have in any way attacked you on a personal level as opposed to pointing to your behavior, then I will certainly apologize, as I bear you no ill will.

I also bear Charles no ill-will. However, I did take a personal shot at him when I said he was a piece of work and a sterling example of the Jesuit breed. I should have limited myself to saying his behavior was a perfect example of such, not that he himself was such. That was wrong of me, as it was presumptive given the small data set I was working from. Perhaps he is a prince usually and was off his normal game.

I’m still not sure what constitutes a spiritual battle, but I’m fairly certain that our engagement here isn’t it, so I agree with you as far as that. I don’t see you as an enemy so it is good that you don’t see me as one.

What I mean about the intelligent discussion is exploring an issue directly instead of deflecting and evading. Like I said, I could be wrong about everything I say, but there’s no way to learn that when the issues never get dealt with because all the focus goes into endlessly dismissing sources as a means of evading the issues and denying history.

reply to post by sled735

The Catholic Church--that includes the Jesuits--is in a decline. So pervasive is the decline that the Church doesn't look to be free of it any time soon. With the decline in church attendance, also comes the decline in contributions to the church. So it goes; lower church attendance, lower income for the church.

The Jesuits will be affected too. It goes to reason that they will lose their support. Difficult times for the church.

My second warning, this time without the 'please'...

The personal attacks stop here and now.

Post bans are about to follow for those persistent in repeating the mistake.

reply to post by nuguy


You are correct that the Church is in decline as far as attendance in the pews goes, but it still one of the, if not the single richest institution of the planet. It also wields tremendous clout in the circles of power, thanks in no small part to those fabled Jesuit academic institutions and their role as developers of "multiplying agents," as Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe so famously put it.

In that regard, their influence cannot be overstated. Whether one feels that is a good thing or not is open to debate, but that this enormous influence is a reality is not. It isn't who or how many are in the pews that determines the might of the Church; it is who and how many are in the corridors of power that determine the might of the Church.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


Sounds like the new world order richest jesuit pope has just announced himself as the new world order administrator - in his latest proclamations - he's embraced abortion, homosexuality, islam, athiest, satanist - and everyone else in the world ---

Told you people - watch this - he will set himself up in Jerusalem as the world capital.....

he is a major player in the new world order.

research it yourself, so you will believe it.

reply to post by Happy1

Sounds like the new world order richest jesuit pope has just announced himself as the new world order administrator - in his latest proclamations - he's embraced abortion, homosexuality, islam, athiest, satanist - and everyone else in the world

Oh, good grief.

He didn't "embrace abortion", he said that people shouldn't obsess about it at the cost of everything else that Christians should be doing, like serving the poor and caring for those that society neglects. He didn't "embrace homosexuality", he said that it wasn't for him to judge someone else, which is what the Bible teaches. And what's wrong with embracing people who don't believe in Christianity, like atheists? Do you think judging and condemning them is any way to show love, and perhaps sway some to the understanding that Christianity is not some hateful, judgmental and exclusive point of view?

Pope Francis is espousing the teachings of Christ, which you appear to ignore.

adjensen
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

I denote them to be crackpots, because they don't have any valid evidence for their position, they just seem to be universally against the Jesuits.

If you have valid arguments for that position, you are welcome to present them. I am not a Jesuit, so I have no horse in the race.

As far as I am aware the origin of SDA and their position towards the Jesuits is tied to the inquisition days. Where thousands of those who would eventually become the modern day SDA were killed for keeping the 7th day Holy as commanded by scripture "forever and throughout your generations", while the military wing of the RCC was enforcing Sunday worship (1st day).

The evidence for there hatred was being killed for obeying scripture, at least in my research anyway.

I am not a Jesuit and I am not SDA so I too do not have a horse in this race.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD


The Seventh Day Adventists were formed out of the teachings of two failed 19th Century "prophets", William Miller and Ellen White. They have nothing to do with the Inquisition.

Fravashi
Sad Eyed Lady,
Thanks for standing up for reason, logic, and the Christian tradition of fairness and respect for our Christian brothers, no matter what their faith.

Phil 2:2
"Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded (one faith), having the same love, being of one accord (one doctrine), of one mind."

Phil 2:5
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus (one mind)"

1 John 2:3-4
"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that says, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

John 14:15
"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

John 14:23-24
"If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word (doctrine/law) which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s (doctrine/law) who sent Me."

Matt 5:17-19
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Eph 4:4-6
"There is one body (Church) and one Spirit (truth from God), just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord (Jesus Christ), one faith (true doctrine), one baptism (repentance); one God and Father of all (not trinity), who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Mark 7:6-9
"This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, you hold the tradition of men
He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandments of God, that you may keep your tradition (what feels right to you)."

SUMMARY

The question one must ask themselves before God is: is it more righteous to adhere to the "Christian tradition" of "all faiths lead to salvation" as the above poster indicated, or to obey the Word of God and Jesus Christ and adhere to there only being One true way of life (law which leads to everlasting peace among men) to be lived according to the perfect Word of God?

This is a personal question and can only be answered by the individual before God.

It is good to respect the beliefs of all mankind, for God's Word reveals this age to be the age of mankind's self rule ("my kingdom is not of this age" - Jesus). It is never right to condemn others for believing what they believe; for it is God's will for most of mankind to live and die in this age according to what one thinks is right and wrong (determine for yourself what is good and what is evil). This is not the age of salvation for the vast majority of mankind according to God's Word. So even though my faith disagrees with the "Christian tradition" it in no way gives me authority to judge, or condemn another human being for thinking differently in spirit and in truth. God has a perfect plan, and in His perfect timing all will be made known.

In my opinion God's Word indicates there cannot be more then one faith (more then one truth). But that fact does not justify disrespect towards any member of mankind.

God Bless,

adjensen
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

The Seventh Day Adventists were formed out of the teachings of two failed 19th Century "prophets", William Miller and Ellen White. They have nothing to do with the Inquisition.

Correct. The SDA organized church formed as you accurately researched.

They are an offshoot of the Church of God (Sabbath keepers) that wanted to separate from that group due to the perceived emergence of the failed prophets. They changed doctrine away from what is commanded and as such became a "new faith", called the SDA.

The Church of God was the group SDA used to belong to before they "protested" against what is true, and followed their false teachers in the 19th century. However, the history of what happened to the Church of God during the inquisition is still a big part of their history; it was just under a different name when they were in unity of doctrine with God's Church.

God bless,