Spiritual Deception in the Highest 17.2

What else happened with the Bible of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Normally, I would place each section on its own, but these are all so short that I’m going to take them in one fell swoop.I try to reach a specific word count in each blog post after all. Anyway, the source material can be found here.

Johnson puts this in a number of sections and I will do the same.

The Spiritual Attack

“About 1582 … the Jesuit Bible was launched to destroy Tyndale’s English Version” [S2P233].

“The appearance of the Jesuit New Testament of 1582 produced consternation in England. It was understood at once to be a menace against the new English unity” [S2P239].

“Immediately the scholarship of England was astir. Queen Elizabeth sent forth the call … to … undertake the task of answering the objectionable matter contained in the Jesuit Version” [S2P239-240].

Thomas Cartwright undertook the task. “With inescapable logic, he marshalled the facts of his vast learning and leveled blow after blow against this latest and most dangerous product of Catholic theology” [S2P240].

Thus, Cartwright defended the English people against the spiritual attack. But, that was only 1/2 the battle …

The problem with all of this is we have no statements from Catholic and/or Jesuit sources. It reminds me of what we say happens in politics on the conservative side. You get a leftist to present their case and then another leftist to say what they think about the conservative case.

The Physical Attack

“Meanwhile, 136 great Spanish galleons, some armed with 50 canons, were slowly sailing up the English channel to make England Catholic. England had NO SHIPS. Elizabeth asked Parliament for 15 men-of-war – they voted 30. With these, assisted by harbor tugs under Drake, England sailed forth to meet the GREATEST FLEET the world has ever seen. All England teemed with excitement” [S2P240].

Cartwright sent forth the Word of God against Satan’s lies. With Drake, a type of ‘David’ was sent forth against an attacking Goliath.

Now, which side do you think God was on?

I use it to the experts on war history to comment on this. For the last question though, first off, I think the response from a Civil War discussion is better and I think it was Lincoln who said it. We should hope we are on God’s side. Second, I am not convinced God has a “side” in this. It could be a case of “A pox on both your houses.” This is not to say neither side is Christian, but both were acting outside of the Christian tradition.

The Outcome: God Protects His Own

Although England was outgunned by every measurable indication (in the physical), history has forever recorded the results:

“… the Armada was crushed, and England became a great sea power” [S2P240].

Hallelujah! Praise God!

I would think a more fitting response would be mourning like was done in Judges when Benjamin had been defeated. Yes, they were in the wrong, but they were still the brothers of Israel.

The Perfect Masterpiece

“Flushed with their glorious victory over the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and over the Spanish Armada of 1588, every energy pulsating with certainty and hope, English Protestantism brought forth a perfect masterpiece” [S2P242].

This perfect masterpiece: “… was not taken from the Latin in either the Old or the New Testament, but from the languages in which God originally wrote His Word, namely, from the Hebrew in the Old Testament and from the Greek in the New Testament” [S2P242].

English Protestantism: “… gave to the world what has been considered by hosts of scholars, the greatest version produced in any language, – The King James Bible, called ‘The Miracle of English Prose'” [S2P242].

And if this is not idolatry, it comes awfully close. I wonder if Johnson thinks the Apocrypha is part of this perfect masterpiece. Oh, wait. Just did a check. He’s never mentioning it again after chapter 15. I’m not surprised.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.2

What about the practices of the Jesuits? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

My apologies for this being so late in the day. My computer was not being kind this morning and was failing to connect to the internet. Fortunately, the information technology team at NOBTS got it working again. My thanks to them. For now, the source material can again be found here.

These are some of the Jesuits’ beliefs. But what about their practice? What have they actually done?

“In 1572, the Jesuits, with the help of Prince Henry III were responsible for the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. At this infamous event, which took place on August 15, 1572, the Jesuits murdered the Huguenot (Protestant) leaders gathered in Paris for the wedding of Princess Margaret, a Roman Catholic, and Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot. The murders inspired Roman Catholics to slaughter thousands of Huguenot men, women, and children. Henry of Navarre was not killed but was forced to renounce Protestantism, although his renounciation was insincere, and he remained a Protestant until 1593. The number of victims in this Jesuit conspiracy is estimated to be at least 10,000. In 1589, when Henry III was no longer useful to the Roman Catholic Church, he was assassinated by a monk by the name of Jacques Clement. Clement was called an ‘angel’ by the Jesuit priest, Camelot. Another Jesuit priest by the name of Guigard, who was eventually hanged, taught his students that Clement did nothing wrong. In fact he voiced rerets that Henry III had not been murdered earlier at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. He instructed them with lessons such as this: … Jacques Clement has done a meritorious act inspired by the Holy Spirit. If we can make war against the King then let’s do it; if we cannot make war against him, then let’s put him to death … we made a big mistake at the St. Bartholomew; we should have bled the royal vein …” [S1P91-92].

As bad as that was, “The Jesuit’s murderous ways were not yet completed in the history of the French Protestants! When Henry III was murdered, Henry of Navarre a Huguenot [Protestant], came to power. A hope for a Catholic rebellion never materialized, and Henry IV was allowed to reign. In 1592, an attempt was made to assassinate the Protestant king by a man named Barriere. Barriere admitted that he had been INSTRUCTED TO DO SO by a Father Varade, A JESUIT PRIEST. In 1594, another attempt was made by Jean Chatel who had been TAUGHT by Jesuit teachers and had confessed to the Jesuits what he was about to do. It was at that time that Father Guigard, the Jesuit teacher previously mentioned was hanged for his connection with this plot” [S1P92-93].

Six years later, “In 1598, King Henry IV issued the Edict of Nantes, granting religious freedom to the Huguenots [Protestants]. They were allowed full civil rights and the right to hold public worship services in towns where they had congregations” [S1P93].

Well “This was the last straw! Henry the IV had to be eliminated! This time the Jesuits would allow for more careful planning. Edmund Paris details the assassination of King Henry IV:

… On the 16th of May, 1610, on the eve of his campaign against Austria, he was murdered by Ravaillac who confessed having been inspired by the writings of Fathers Mariana and Suarez. These two sanctioned the murders of heretic ‘tyrants’ or those INSUFFICIENTLY DEVOTED to the Papacy’s interests. The duke of Epernon, who made the king read a letter while the assassin was lying in wait, was a notorious friend of the Jesuits, and Michelet proved that they knew of this attempt. In fact, Ravaillac had confessed to the Jesuit Father d’Aubigny just before and, when the judges interrogated the priest, he merely replied that God had given him the gift to forget immediately what he heard in the confessional” [S1P93].

All of these sound bad and there are no primary sources cited. I do know there is a lot of misinformation on the medieval church and that period altogether, but for the sake of argument. Let’s accept all of this as true.

So what?

I mean, of course, it matters that it happened, but that doesn’t show that the text has been altered. I suspect most Roman Catholics who would read this would be quite ashamed to hear these kinds of accounts (Assuming they are true) and I dare say there are likely many times in Protestant history we have been the villains as well.

Reverend Gipp says: “This is the spirit of our enemy! THIS is the ruthlessness of the Roman Catholic Church against those who will not bow their knee to Rome! Would God use this church to preserve his word? [S1P93-94]

This is a horrible argument with just a simple question to show how bad it is.

Who preserved the Old Testament before Jesus came?

Why, yes. The nation of Israel. Now what was that nation like? Just read your Old Testament and you will see. They were hardly honoring to YHWH for the majority and yet, they were the ones that God used to preserve His word.

God uses flawed human beings regularly. Aside from Jesus, they’re the only kind of human beings He has.

Do these two doctrines (Protestantism and Catholicism) have anything in common? Obviously, not!

Now I would say we have a lot more in common that not, but that’s not relevant.

Should Protestants form ‘pacts’ or ‘agreements’ with Catholics? I think not.

The Protestant and Catholic beliefs are 180 degrees apart. These two belief systems are diametrically opposed to one another and will always be that way.

What happened in the past if true was horrible, but one should not stay there. If Johnson wants the RCC to answer for all the sins of its past, and to an extent they should, then we as Protestants should own up to ours.

Either way, bad argument.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Spiritual Deception in the Highest 16.1

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.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

%d bloggers like this: