What’s first to discuss with the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
So last time we covered looking at the RCC. Again, I am not interested in differences between Protestants and Catholics here. I am interested in the history of textual transmission and anything related to that. As always, the source material can be found here.
In the previous chapter Satan used both Rome and the Roman Catholic ‘Church’.
In the previous chapter, we saw a bunch of assertions without primary resources cited. Unfortunately, more of the same here.
In this chapter he will use the ‘Jesuits’.
“The founder of the Jesuits was a Spaniard, Ignatius Loyola… [S2P232], As to his character, Ignatius “… was known as a youth to be treacherous, brutal, and vindictive” [S1P88]. Later in life, it is said he was “… unruly and conceited …” [S1P88].
Said to be that way by who later in life? As for in his youth, so what? There’s a number of great Christian people today who I am sure did not live holy and godly lives as youth.
Also, it is this same Ignatius Loyola that: “… the Catholic Church has canonized and made Saint Ignatius” [S2P232].
Well, that settles it doesn’t it? He must have been a complete heathen. This might work if you’re someone who is extremely anti-Catholic, but not for the majority of us. Also, it doesn’t demonstrate problems with the text even if granted.
“Wounded at the siege of Pampeluna (1521 A.D.) so that his military career was over, Ignatius turned his thoughts to spiritual conquests and spiritual glory. Soon afterwards, he wrote a book called: “Spiritual Exercises”, which did more than any other document to erect a new papal theocracy and to bring about the establishment of the infallibility of the Pope. In other words, Catholicism since the reformation is a new Catholicism. It is more fanatical and intolerant” [S2P232].
Actually, it’s more called the counter-reformation. Also, kind of amusing to see Johnson citing a source condemning fanaticism and intolerance.
It is said that Ignatius Loyola “… produced an elite force of men, extremely loyal to the Pope, who would set about to undermine Protestantism and ‘heresy’ throughout the world. Their training would require fourteen years of testing and trials designed to leave them with no will at all. They were to learn to be obedient. Loyola taught that their only desire was to serve the Pope” [S1P88].
It is said by who? How reliable is the source? We don’t know. Johnson in this work has done everything he can to avoid primary sources. Also, of course they wanted to undermine Protestantism. Johnson wants to undermine Catholicism. Should I decree everything he says wrong then about the Catholic Church?
“The head of the Jesuits is called the ‘Black Pope’ and holds the title of General, just as in the military. That they were to be unquestionably loyal to this man and their church is reflected in Loyola’s own words, “Let us be convinced that all is well and right when the superior commands it”. Also: “… even if God gave you an animal without sense for master, you will not hesitate to obey him, as master and guide, because God ordained it to be so.” He further elaborates: “We must see black as white, if the Church says so” [S1P88].
The last line is from Ignatius but that is also because the Church was seen as an infallible authority. Also, the fact of words being left out concerns me. It looks like it doesn’t concern Johnson.
“The Jesuits were to be the Vatican’s ‘plainclothesmen’. They were founded to be a secret society, a society that was to slide in behind the scenes and capture the positions of leadership” [S1P89].
Sounds like medieval conspiracy theory honestly. It would be nice to know what this is based on.
“Politics are their main field of action, as all the efforts of these ‘directors’ concentrate on one aim: the SUBMISSION of the world to the papacy, and to attain this the heads must be conquered first” [S1P89].
“The Jesuit priests were not required to dress in the traditional garb of the Roman Catholic priests. In fact their dress was a major part of their disguise” [S1P89].
And “Murder is not above the ‘means’ which might be necessary to reach the desired ‘end’. The General of the Jesuits will forgive any sins which are committed by the members of this Satanic order” [S1P91].
Certainly no bias here!
“He [the Jesuit General] also absolves the irregularity issuing, from bigamy, injuries done to others, murder, assassination … as long as these wicked deeds were not publicly known and this cause a scandal” [S1P91].
“That the Jesuit priests have such liberties as murder is reflected in the following … quote from Paris’ book ‘The Secret History Of The Jesuits'” [S1P91].
“Amongst the most criminal jesuitic maxims, there is one which roused public indignation to the highest point and deserves to be examined; it is: … A monk or priest is allowed to kill those who are ready to slander him or his community …” [S1P91].
I’m not here to say if this is true or not, but if you are condemning people, even those who are deceased, of great wicked acts, you need more evidence than just assertions from people years later without citing primary sources.
Color me skeptical of again anything that Johnson says.
(And I affirm the virgin birth)