10 FACTS You Must Know About The Jesuits

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady



It would be a mistake to assume I know nothing of the Exercises. Without question, Loyola was a complex character, but even if he were as pure as the driven snow, it would not change the fact that the Jesuits have left their infamous and pernicious mark on history. No amount of whitewashing will remove the scarlet stain of bloody mayhem they have left in their wake.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

You may remain in stubborn ignorance or continue to ply feigned ignorance, but at this point honest ignorance is no longer an option. So be it.

For those who are as of yet unaware of the moral depravity and casuistry at the heart of Jesuitism, regardless of the high and sainted veneer, here is some of the table of contents of Wiley's chapters on the Jesuits from his massive classic, The History of Protestantism, from 1878. (And to be sure, far from a hatchet job, his description of Loyola is oddly praiseworthy and respectful.) Just scanning the contents is enough to see the overarching theme of what they are about, never mind dipping into the text itself.

Chapter 4 . . . MORAL CODE OF THE JESUITS–PROBABILISM, ETC.
The Jesuit cut off from Country–from Family–from Property–from the Pope even–The End Sanctifies the Means–The First Great Commandment and Jesuit Morality–When may a Man Love God?– Second Great Commandment–Doctrine of Probabilism–The Jesuit Casuists–Pascal–The Direction of the Intention–Illustrative Cases furnished by Jesuit Doctors–Marvellous Virtue of the Doctrine–A Pious Assassination!

Chapter 5 . . . THE JESUIT TEACHING ON REGICIDE, MURDER, LYING, THEFT, ETC. The Maxims of the Jesuits on Reglcide–M. de la Chalotais’ Report to the Parliament of Bretagne–Effects of Jesuit Doctrine as shown in History– Doctrine of Mental Equivocation–The Art of Swearing Falsely without Sin–The Seventh Commandment–Jesuit Doctrine on Blasphemy– Murder–Lying–Theft–An Illustrative Case from Pascal–Every Precept of the Decalogue made Void–Jesuit Morality the Consummation of the Wickedness of the Fall.

Chapter 6 . . . THE “SECRET INSTRUCTIONS” OF THE JESUITS. The Jesuit Soldier in Armor complete–Secret Instructions–How to Plant their First Establishments–Taught to Court the Parochial Clergy–to Visit the Hospitals–to Find out the Wealth of their several Districts– to make Purchases in another Name–to Draw the Youth round them–to Supplant the Older Orders–How to get the Friendship of Great Men–How to Manage Princes–How to Direct their Policy– Conduct their Embassies–Appoint their Servants, etc.–Taught to Affect a Great Show of Lowliness.

Chapter 11 . . . THE TORTURES OF THE INQUISITION. A Stunning Blow–Three Classes in Italy–Flight of Peter Martyr Vermigli –of Ochino–Caraffa made Pope–The Martyrs, Mollio and Tisserano– Italian Protestantism Crushed–A Notable Epoch–Three Movements– The Inquisition at Nuremberg–The Torture-Chamber– Its Furnishings– Max Tower–The Chamber of Question–The various Instruments of Torture–The Subterranean Dungeons–The Iron Virgin–Her Office– The Burial of the Dead.

doctrine.org...

And when caught out, remember these instructions from the Secret Instructions:

“Finally, when we are in danger of having our projects disturbed, by the busy fanatics who watch us with the perseverance of bloodhounds … act with caution. Betray no passion, nor conscious guilt. Though caught in the act, even in the act flagrant, give the lie to the very evidence of your enemies’ senses! Deny everything, admit nothing! And when the worst comes to the worst, assume the touching attitude of injured innocence, and raise the hue and cry of persecution for our holy religion! ... Mental reservation can prevent any damning guilt in these lies: or absolution can be readily obtained at the holy and refreshing confessional! The end always justifies the means. And a few lies for the benefit of our suffering Holy Mother will never damn any man; or even incur the fires, and steam of purgatory! The Pope hath said it!”[7]

www.endtimeissues.com...

And, lest it be forgotten, Loyola was part of the Alumbrados, the original Illuminati that was re-established by the Jesuit trained Jewish Mason, Adam Weishaupt in 1776 during the years of the Jesuit Suppression. (But of course they were officially disbanded in 1784 and went . . . where, exactly?)

And what a tangled web they weaved, leaving all of us deceived, stumbling along the yellow brick road paying no attention to the men behind the curtain.

Jesuits, Masons, and Jews, oh, my.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


You are very verbose in such a righteous manner one might assume you must be correct.

This dog won't hunt.

Like I said Catholics don't spend and time or energy on attacking the Protestant faith. Yet, your postings site a tremendous amount of research done by Protestants who from their onset have been critical of the Catholic faith.. I don't doubt there were legitimate reasons for deciding to separate. I am not claiming that my church has a history that is untarnished, but what is going on here smells of vicious hatred and much, if not all of it bull manure.

You pontificate on the horrendous evil done and expect me to believe that your sources are not biased?

There is so much baloney on the net that I am not going to waste my time dwelling on the ass ripping that serves no purpose other than to incite hatred. When will there ever be peace when people hold such anger and malice in there hearts? You would like all to believe your golden words are anointed, from my chair, your criticism is any but.

As for my poor uncle-in-law who you say was so duped by this evil empire he unwittingly served. I say who better than one intimately involved in a society to know its worth? Good men walk/run away from evil masters. Where are all the claims from ex-Jesuits about the wickedness of their hierarchy? Let me guess, they are afraid to speak out because they know they will be assassinated. Gee, couldn't they use a pen name to share the truth with the world?

The more they get crucified in the media, the more sure I am that they are living in imitation of Christ and the Prince of the World is working feverishly (good word for the devil) hoping to take them down with a little help from his friends.

The question is are you being righteous or self-righteous? If you are righteous what is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish? Total destruction of an evil faith?

BTW, Jesuits are a religious order of the Catholic Church. That you claimed they were not makes me think you are no expert in any way, shape or form on this subject. You lost all credibility on your claim of expertise when you said this:

It is wrong to conflate the Jesuits with Catholics in general. The Jesuits are their own special case

There is a youtube video "The CIA (E. Howard Hunt) Admits The Jesuits are The Worlds Greatest Intelligence Netwok !" Maybe someone should tell Edward Snowden he missed the boat.

Hmmm....why would the U.S. government want to make the Jesuits look bad?

Why do you?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

doctrine.org…

You think that a hardcore Fundamentalist web site is a credible source of information about the Jesuits? Seriously?

reply to post by adjensen


But of course not. How could it be when any sane person knows there are no credible sites regarding the Jesuits unless of course they have been vetted by the Jesuits themselves. Silly Wabbit.

Seriously, what are you suggesting? Do you think they doctored the original 19th century text? A forgery, perhaps? Other than that, I'm having a hard time figuring out why the site itself could possibly be an issue.

This is another version of the silliness you put forth with the SDA site. Is the desperation so keen that original sources are somehow mutated if the site that links them does not meet your imprimatur? That's an alchemy that is beyond me, I'm afraid.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Seriously, what are you suggesting?

I'm suggesting that, if you want to be taken seriously, you find sources that are credible.

There are these people called historians and scholars, you see, who have studied groups like the Jesuits without an agenda, and are able to present information about them that is credible.

This, for example, is a credible source: History of the Catholic Church

This, for example, is not: doctrine.org on evolution

Do you think they doctored the original 19th century text?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


Why not? Read #2 on this list and know it's been done before.

Top 10 Misconceptions About The Catholic Church

sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

You are very verbose in such a righteous manner one might assume you must be correct. This dog won't hunt.

Heh. Ad hominem and stir, eh? So be it. When one cannot answer the charge, charge the one who made it and do one’s best to smear. Transparent, yes, but one works with the tools one has at hand.

Like I said Catholics don't spend and time or energy on attacking the Protestant faith. Yet, your postings site a tremendous amount of research done by Protestants who from their onset have been critical of the Catholic faith.. I don't doubt there were legitimate reasons for deciding to separate. I am not claiming that my church has a history that is untarnished, but what is going on here smells of vicious hatred and much, if not all of it bull manure.

And yet you somehow fail to rebut any of that so-called manure. Instead it’s a desperate attempt to play the ‟attacking the faith” trump card. But I haven’t been doing that at all. What I have been doing is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Jesuits and the unsubstantiated smearing that has been done of the op by you and Charles (who despite his repeated pretense of wanting to learn and discuss, seems to have fled the scene). As to the attacking of the faith charge, it is ironic that my the last post included the following Jesuitical advice when all else fails:

DENY EVERYTHING, ADMIT NOTHING! And when the worst comes to the worst, assume the touching attitude of injured innocence, and raise the hue and cry of PERSECUTION FOR OUR HOLY RELIGION!’ ”

Straight out of the playbook, so well-played, indeed.

You pontificate on the horrendous evil done and expect me to believe that your sources are not biased?

Speaking of the pontiff, one of my biased sources and perhaps the most damning, was a copy of the papal bull that Clement issued when he abolished the Jesuits in 1773, shortly before they allegedly poisoned him. Do you think the pope himself is a biased source and that a papal bull is suspect? I mean, I know it is strictly tl dr, but it is a first class, er, ass-ripping, as you so delicately put it. Does his word count for anything or is he just another hater to be dismissed?

www.reformation.org...

Truth to tell, I don’t expect you to do anything other than what you have been doing, which is smear and obfuscate in precisely that grand Jesuitical manner you deny exists. I am pointing it out as you go so as to alert others who might have a sincere interest in learning how these tactics of yours are used. Call it a tutorial and call me anything you wish into the bargain.

There is so much baloney on the net that I am not going to waste my time dwelling on the ass ripping that serves no purpose other than to incite hatred. When will there ever be peace when people hold such anger and malice in there hearts? You would like all to believe your golden words are anointed, from my chair, your criticism is any but.

I would like all to investigate whatever I put forth and challenge it where it is wrong based upon their own investigation, not my say-so. That is why I provide all that substantiation you keep dismissing while offering nothing in rebuttal beyond your say so that it isn’t so and the rest of your hollow misdirection.

I didn’t start this thread. I came into it after seeing you and Charles seek to obscure honest investigation by smearing the op. Yours and his high-fiving based on a few vanilla wiki quotes and snarky denial was a bit much to take, especially given the gravity of the subject matter.

As for my poor uncle-in-law who you say was so duped by this evil empire he unwittingly served. I say who better than one intimately involved in a society to know its worth?

It would depend on the society and the level of intimacy. When lying and deception are accepted and encouraged by said society, even against their own, perhaps those deceived may not know its worth as well as they might wish.

Good men walk/run away from evil masters.

When they can, yes. But not all can escape the chains that bind them, can they? Or are you implying that those held in thrall in the peculiar institutions of whatever gulag or plantation or labor camp one might point to were somehow less than good men and women? Are you implying that deception has not been used throughout history to blind and bind?

Where are all the claims from ex-Jesuits about the wickedness of their hierarchy? Let me guess, they are afraid to speak out because they know they will be assassinated. Gee, couldn't they use a pen name to share the truth with the world?

Good questions. Perhaps we could ask Malachi Martin or Alberto Rivera. Oops, too late. (Natural causes, though, never mind those ugly rumors to the contrary.)

The more they get crucified in the media, the more sure I am that they are living in imitation of Christ and the Prince of the World is working feverishly (good word for the devil) hoping to take them down with a little help from his friends.

A rousing charge, certainly, though it might hold a bit more weight if the poor innocent Jesuits were getting crucified in the media. Instead, it is endless praise for the first Jesuit pope and before that, nada. Even with all the fuss and froth about the NWO from the newly fashionable Alex Jones and like-minded kooks, the Jesuits are never among the usual suspects. One wonders how they have managed to stay so safely in the shadows as far as the msm is concerned, yet then again, one does not wonder.

The question is are you being righteous or self-righteous? If you are righteous what is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish? Total destruction of an evil faith?

Hyperventilate much? I'm debunking a smear job and pointing out the hypocrisy of the Jesuits and their defenders just as Charles asked someone to do after he "destroyed" the op and you congratulated him on such a thorough use of wiki snippets and snark.

BTW, Jesuits are a religious order of the Catholic Church. That you claimed they were not makes me think you are no expert in any way, shape or form on this subject. You lost all credibility on your claim of expertise when you said this: It is wrong to conflate the Jesuits with Catholics in general. The Jesuits are their own special case

I have made no claims to expertise. However, I will be so bold as to claim to be able to spot a failure in comprehension on your part. I did not say the Jesuits are not Catholics. I said not all Catholics are Jesuits and that it is a mistake to judge the general on the sins of the specific. That is what a special case means.

Ok, it's clear you are flailing. You know, I could be wrong in all I say, just as the many people saying the same stuff could be wrong. However, it doesn't seem that we are for one reason: If you actually had evidential support instead of blanket denials and ad hominem attacks and deflections, you would bring it. Instead, it's just the same tawdry tactics used by the Jesuits from the jump. That alone says that their pernicious influence and ways are not the fiction you would have folks believe, as your behavior here is made in their image.

reply to post by adjensen


By what rubric do you feel yourself qualified to judge a source credible or not? Why is your source more credible than Wylie?

You have mistaken a four volume 2000 plus page scholarly work written in the late nineteenth century to be the product of the website that was presenting it.

You have mistaken Jesuit primary sources quoted by an SDA site to be the product of SDAs.

You do not back your claims with anything and make careless mistakes. Why should you be taken seriously?

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Well, the pdf of the original is readily available so you may check against it if you so wish.

As to your continual dismissing of sources regardless of their merit because they do not favor your own bias, please explain why you believe your link is credible:

Jamie Frater

Jamie is the founder of Listverse. He spends his time working on the site, doing research for new lists, and cooking. He is fascinated with all things morbid and bizarre.

Doing research and cooking? This is fine by you but primary sources and scholarly works are not good enough? Makes sense if you need it to, I guess.

Btw, there was nothing in #2 that had anything about forging original texts.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Why is your source more credible than Wylie?

Maybe because he isn't credited with writing a book titled The Papacy is the Antichrist.

He also cites church and non-church sources for his information, while, looking through his notes, Wylie seems to cite mostly polemics and includes nonsense like this:

“There are,” adds M. de la Chalotais, in a footnote, “nearly 20,000 Jesuits in the world [1761], all imbued with Ultramontane doctrines, and the doctrine of murder.” That is more than a century ago. Their numbers have prodigiously increased since.

Btw, there was nothing in #2 that had anything about forging original texts.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


Forged and doctored have 2 different meanings.

doc·tored 2 a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment

www.merriam-webster.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

adjensen
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

Why is your source more credible than Wylie?

Maybe because he isn't credited with writing a book titled The Papacy is the Antichrist.

This is a direct theme running back to Luther himself. What is your objection?

He also cites church and non-church sources for his information, while, looking through his notes, Wylie seems to cite mostly polemics and includes nonsense like this:

“There are,” adds M. de la Chalotais, in a footnote, “nearly 20,000 Jesuits in the world [1761], all imbued with Ultramontane doctrines, and the doctrine of murder.” That is more than a century ago. Their numbers have prodigiously increased since.

Further citing a source which supports the point one is seeking to establish is nonsense? How is this so?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

This is a direct theme running back to Luther himself. What is your objection?

That it is indicative of him being a Presbyterian Minister with an axe to grind, writing inflammatory books in a period of anti-Catholicism in the US and UK. I'm sure even you would say that he is not an unbiased source.

Further citing a source which supports the point one is seeking to establish is nonsense? How is this so?

Oh, come on.

“There are,” adds M. de la Chalotais, in a footnote, “nearly 20,000 Jesuits in the world [1761], all imbued with Ultramontane doctrines, and the doctrine of murder.” That is more than a century ago. Their numbers have prodigiously increased since.

"All imbued with the doctrine of murder"? What is the source of that?

"Their numbers have prodigiously increased since"? What does prodigiously mean, what's his source for that claim, and what does it matter, anyway, since there is no citation behind "All imbued with the doctrine of murder".

You're citing a 150 year old piece of hate text that doesn't have credible sources behind it and was written by a biased source, but because someone bothered to publish it, you think that makes it credible? What's next, The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk? Something by Alberto Rivera? Maybe a quote from The Da Vinci Code?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Heh. Ad hominem and stir, eh? So be it. When one cannot answer the charge, charge the one who made it and do one’s best to smear. Transparent, yes, but one works with the tools one has at hand.

I have seen a worldtruth.tv video on my FB page and knew it was not factual. The whole opening post is a smear of the Jesuits. as is every single word you have posted about them. So I am smearing you? Okay, "Hi" Pot you can call me "Kettle."


What charge do you want me to answer in this inquistion? The only thing that mattered to me was this new allegation (#10 in the op) That all papal confessors must be Jesuits. I got my answer, the source linked to the claim said nothing of sort. It was nowhere to be found on the internet except in the op, I consider that a debunk.

My guess is that there are over a million different crimes reported by the Jesuits. Charles spent time debunking all the claims made in the op. Call me lazy, I wouldn't have had the patience, time or energy to put for the energy he did. Yet, his efforts weren't sufficient for you.

I didn’t start this thread. I came into it after seeing you and Charles seek to obscure honest investigation by smearing the op. Yours and his high-fiving based on a few vanilla wiki quotes and snarky denial was a bit much to take, especially given the gravity of the subject matter.

You sources are better than wikipedia, says you.

Even with all the fuss and froth about the NWO from the newly fashionable Alex Jones and like-minded kooks, the Jesuits are never among the usual suspects. One wonders how they have managed to stay so safely in the shadows as far as the msm is concerned, yet then again, one does not wonder.

Oh really? Do an internet search on jesuits nwo. Yes, you will find the sites bashing Jesuits are pretty much NWO conspiracy. and MSM won't touch their facts with a 10 foot pole. "Fuss and Froth about the NWO?" Oh yeah, that is just one big conspiracy with no basis in truth. I guess Agenda 21 is a farie tale and since this post is in the NWO forum ATS is guilty of being a pseudo-conspiracy promoter as well.

I have made no claims to expertise. However, I will be so bold as to claim to be able to spot a failure in comprehension on your part. I did not say the Jesuits are not Catholics. I said not all Catholics are Jesuits and that it is a mistake to judge the general on the sins of the specific. That is what a special case means.

Could you find that for me? This is all I read about your thoughts on this matter:

It is wrong to conflate the Jesuits with Catholics in general. The Jesuits are their own special case and the disdain they have earned throughout history is anything but disinfo or limited to the SDA, as seen from the following quotes.

Before I originally posted that quote. I took the time to look up that $10 word "conflate" to be sure I was not misconstruing the meaning of what you said.

Definition of CONFLATE
1 a : to bring together : fuse

www.merriam-webster.com...

Not all Catholics are Jesuits? I hope not, they are priests and men. You don't have to give any Catholics a free pass here. When you condemn Jesuits don't expect us to go: "Whew, glad he wasn't judging us. We are all one body, the body of Christ.

reply to post by adjensen

Maybe because he isn't credited with writing a book titled The Papacy is the Antichrist.

Thank you for answering the question of why all this attack on the Jesuits. Since this Pope is a Jesuit it must be a call to arms time for all who believe Rev. Wylie Coyote.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


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. This thread is just pure anti-Catholic bigotry, as old as the hills, as evil, as prejudiced, and as short-sighted and ignorant an example as I have seen. I do see much more of this online these days, and I think it's because the power structures are genuinely threatened by Pope Francis and his crusades on poverty, endless wars, and even the financial system, which is ruining so many southern European nations. He is a real threat to the power structure, not a pawn of it.

Bigotry is always wrong, always evil. Yet, I hope we can find forgiveness for those Protestants who make a sport out of hating other Christian denominations. They are simply ignorant. It is like being angry at a child for smashing his food at table -- he just doesn't know better.

Charles 1952, thanks to you too for defending reason and fairness and asking to see the (nonexistent) sources. I'm glad that ATS has people like you on board.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady


Yeah, the 19th Century was a pretty bad time, religion wise. People were reacting to the decline of the Age of Enlightenment, and a lot of that was raging against the establishment (like the Catholic Church -- you would not believe some of the polemics against Catholics from that time,) or the establishment of new faiths… the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Apostolic Oneness Pentecostals and many other heretical groups popped up in the 19th and early 20th Century.

reply to post by Fravashi


Hey, what am I? Chopped liver?

BlueMoonJoe

adjensen
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

Why is your source more credible than Wylie?

Maybe because he isn't credited with writing a book titled The Papacy is the Antichrist.

This is a direct theme running back to Luther himself. What is your objection?

He also cites church and non-church sources for his information, while, looking through his notes, Wylie seems to cite mostly polemics and includes nonsense like this:

“There are,” adds M. de la Chalotais, in a footnote, “nearly 20,000 Jesuits in the world [1761], all imbued with Ultramontane doctrines, and the doctrine of murder.” That is more than a century ago. Their numbers have prodigiously increased since.

Further citing a source which supports the point one is seeking to establish is nonsense? How is this so?

Reading through this entire thread, and having been a participant in it, I can't help but notice you registered 5 days ago, and have specifically responded to this thread. Regardless of the outcome, I am calling disinfo on this particular poster. Things are too convenient. JMHO

reply to post by adjensen


Hardly, chopped liver. You took time to review whatshisname's sources which was more than I could stomach.