WHEN WHITE BECOMES BLACK        For the first time in history, a Jesuit Pope has been elected to head the Papacy.

        It is not surprising that Whore of Babylon: Rome, would select a member of the Jesuit Order to be the last Pope in history, given that the Jesuits are infamously known to be the most brutal, heinous, and deceptive of all the Papal Orders.

Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio, S.J.
Jesuit Jorge Bergoglio, S.J. Posing with 33° Master of the Second Veil (Jesuit Created “Masonic”) Hand Sign—Francis I, the Last Pope

        On March 13th, 2013 Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J. became the 266th man to dawn the scarlet robes of the Vatican as leader of the Catholic Church.

        He chose for himself a name never before used by the Holy See: Francis. All onlookers naturally assumed the name was taken to commemorate Francis of Assisi, when dealing with powerful institutions, you often miss something important when you deduce the obvious. There is another Francis that is less well remembered by secular society.

        Francis de Sale was the 16th century Bishop of Geneva for the Catholic Church and he is venerated as the man who re-converted 72,000 Protestants fresh off the Reformation. Countering the Reformation of 1517 is the very reason the Jesuit Order was founded, 17 years later. De Sale was educated at the prestigious Lycee Louis-le-Grand, then known as the College de Clermont . . . a Jesuit institution.

        “Louis-le-Grand, founded in 1563, is located in the heart of the Quartier Latin, the traditional student’s area of Paris. Rich in history, architecture, culture, this area is home to some of the oldest and most prestigious educational establishments in France including the Sorbonne and the College de France. Louis-le-Grand plays an important role in the education of French elites. Many of its former pupils have become Statesmen, Diplomats, Prelates, Marshals of France, members of the Academie francaise, and men and women of letters. ‘The Jesuit College of Paris,’ wrote Elie de Beaumont in 1862, ‘has for a long time been a State Nursery, the most fertile in great men.’ Indeed Moliere, Voltaire, and Victor Hugo are former students who became famous writers, and Georges Pompidou, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, and Jacques Chirac, all presidents of the French Fifth Republic, spent time on the benches of Louis-le-Grand. Renowned foreign students of the Lycee include King Nicholas I of Montenegro and Leopold Sedar Senghor, the first president of Senegal. During World War II, student Jacques Lusseyran founded the resistance group Volontaires de la Liberte.” Lycee Louis-le-Grand, Wikipedia

Annual Award Dinner, 1964
Devout Roman Catholic, Public Homosexual, Former F.B.I. Director, & 33° Illuminized Freemason J. Edgar Hoover, Was Jesuit Trained & Educated at Jesuit Georgetown University (Military Fortress), & Was the First Person to Be Given the Jesuit Award of the Sword of Ignatius Loyola in 1964 at Jesuit Loyola Chicago University, Devout Roman Catholic & FB.I. Founder Charles Joseph Bonaparte Was a Knight of Malta, Jesuit Edmund Walsh, S.J. Spoke Regularly at the F.B.I.’s National Police Academy, & Beginning in 1937 F.B.I. Employees Began Making Annual Retreats at the Jesuit Manresa-on-Severn Mansion in Annapolis Maryland, Virginia Where Jesuit Robert S. Lloyd, S.J. Was the Director Whom Hoover Would End Up Liking Very Much

      Jorge Bergoglio, S.J. made history as the first Jesuit to become Pope when his predecessor made the unprecedented decision to step down. Nazi Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was the first Pope to resign in 600 years.

         Speculation ran rampant after Benedict gave the quick reason of failing health. Although the overwhelming weight of heinous pedophilia scandals was the guess of many, the Catholic Church seemed to have little trouble on that front, frequently burying or ignoring the issue and quietly moving problem priests to new parishes. Ratzinger later contradicted his original statement and claimed to have had a mystical experience God that required his resignation. Certainly, being told by his boss, Jesuit Superior General Adolfo Nicolas, S.J. resign or we will resign you, permanently would qualify as a mystical experience.

        “The time is fast approaching in which . . . a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied . . . and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the Clergy . . . Some . . . will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.” —Francis of Assisi; ‘Works of the Serpantine Fr. St. Francis of Assisi,’ p. 248-250, (1226), [London; R. Washbourne, 1882]

         An 800 year older Roman Catholic prophecy’ force-fulfilled by the Jesuit Order. The last Pope, ‘Petrus Romanus,’ a Jesuit—Francis, the destroyer. But what is this infamous Society of Jesus?


The Jesuit Seal
IHS, Often Mislead for the Egyptian Mithras Dualism (Trinity: 1+1=2: 3 Parts Total) of Isis-Horus-Set, but the Actual Esoteric Meaning Is the Gnostic Greco-Egyptian IHΣ, of Isis-Harpocrates (Corona)-Serapis—the Most Ancient Monogram of the Hidden Name for ‘Crucified Bacchus’ from Babylon; the Androgynous Goat Fallen Seraph Azaz’el, a Stylized Alchemy Symbol for Saturn (Azaz’el) Appears Hidden as an H, & Underneath Are the 3 Points of a Reverse Awen (Druidic Androgony) Sigil, & All Encircled by a 32 (# of Fallen Angels in the Antediluvian Enochian Pantheon) Ray’d Black Sun (Saturn: Azaz’el) Sigil Around It (Straight Rays = Male & Curvy Rays = Female)

      As the Reformation of the sixteenth century began to triumph against the Papacy, Rome summoned new forces, hoping to utterly destroy it. It was at this time that the Order of the Jesuits was created. This military Order proved to be the most cruel and powerful of all the champions of Popery. Cut off from every earthly tie and human interest, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason, and conscience wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their Order, and no duty but to extend its power. The Besorah of YAHUSHA had enabled its adherents to meet danger and endure suffering, undismayed by cold, hunger, toil, and poverty, to uphold the banner of truth in face of the rack, the dungeon, and the stake. To combat these forces, Jesuitism inspired its followers with a fanaticism that enabled them to endure like dangers, and to fight the power of truth with all the weapons of deception. There was no crime too great for them to commit, no deception too base for them to practice, no disguise too difficult for them to assume. Vowed to perpetual poverty and humility, it was their studied aim to secure wealth and power, to be devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism, and the re-establishment of the Papal supremacy.

Church of the Gesu Facade
The Church of the [G]esu in Rome, the Jesuit Mother Church, Founded by Jesuit Ghost-Founder Francis Borgia, S.J., with Alessandro Farnese’s Name in Debased Latin Across the Middle, the Legominisitic Masonry by Architect Giacomo della Porta Used the 12th Grand Master of the Priory of Sion & Incognito Rex Deus Medici Dynasty Member Leonardo da Vinci’s Codex Leicester to Design the Church, Placed Between Two Statues of Ignatius de Loyola, S.J. & Francis Xavier, S.J. Crushing Underfoot Two Believers in YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH, & Inside is Even Worse . . .

        When appearing as members of their Order, they wore a garb of sanctity, visiting prisons and hospitals, ministering to the sick and the poor, professing to have renounced the world, and bearing the name of Jesus, who went about doing good. But under this blameless exterior, the most criminal and deadly purposes were concealed. It was a fundamental principle of the Order that the end justifies the means. By this code, lying, theft, perjury, assassination, were not only pardonable but commendable, when they served the interests of the church. Under various disguises the Jesuits worked their way into offices of State, climbing up to be the counselors of Kings, and shaping the policy of nations. They became servants, to act as spies upon their masters. They established Colleges for the sons of Princes and Nobles, and schools for the common people; and the children of Protestant parents were drawn into an observance of Roman Catholic rites. All the outward pomp and display of the Roman Catholic worship was brought to bear to confuse the mind, and dazzle and captivate the imagination; and thus the liberty for which the fathers had toiled and bled was betrayed by the sons. The Jesuits rapidly spread themselves over Europe, and wherever they went, there followed a revival of Catholicism.

The Justinian Deception
The Temporal Power of the Jesuit Order: Roman Catholic Cannon (Justinian, Maritime, Admiralty) Law

        To give them greater power, a Bull was issued re-establishing the Inquisition. Notwithstanding the general abhorrence with which it was regarded, even in Catholic countries, this terrible tribunal was again set up by Catholic rulers, and atrocities too terrible to bear the light of day were repeated in its secret dungeons. In many countries, thousands upon thousands of the very flower of the nation, the purest and noblest, the most intellectual and highly educated, pious and devoted Pastors, industrious and patriotic citizens, brilliant scholars, talented artists, skillful artisans, were slain, or forced to flee to other lands.

• I V R A M E N T V M • I V • D E • S O C I E T A T I S • G E S V •

The Whore of Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots & Abominations
Inside the Jesuit Mother Church of the [G]esu . . . “With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication (Yirmeyahu 51:7). So he carried me away in the RUACH into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABEL THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the qodeshiym (Saints. Those who are set apart.), and with the blood of the martyrs of YAHUSHA: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration . . . And the woman which you saw is that great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth.” —Chizayon (Revelation) 17:2-6, 18
        The oath of the 3of Jesuit created Freemasonry (a ‘Knight Templar’), the oath the Jesuit created Knights of Columbus, the oath the Jesuit created Opus Dei, the oath of the Jesuit controlled Cardinals, and oath of the Jesuit controlled Sovereign Military Order of Malta, are all intentionally phrased identically based on this legendary Jesuit Fourth-Vow, the vow of absolute annihilation of Mankind’s heart, mind, breath, and blood that was created through perfect love in the Image of the eternal Echad of YAHUAH ELOHIYM’s RUACH HA’QODESH redeemed by his only Yachid YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH, all to be raised above upside-down for the bottomless pit of the Seraphiym.
  •         The following is the text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction as recorded in theJournals of the 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, of the United States Congressional Record, (House Calendar No. 397, Report No. 1523, 15 February, 1913, pp. 3215-3216), from which it was subsequently torn out.
  •         The oath appears in its entirety, in the book, The Suppressed Truth About the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, by Burke McCarty, pp. 21-23, 1922
  •         The oath is also quoted by Charles Didier in his book, Subterranean Rome, New York, 1843, translated from the French original.
  •         The oath is also recorded in the books, Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, the Thrilling Mysteries of Convent Revealed, and Six Months in a Convent, Montreal, 1835, by Maria Monk, who was a Canadian ex-Catholic Black Nun at the Hotel-Dieu de Montreal Convent in Montreal, Canada, she exposed her first hand witnessed accounts of the systematic mass rape, torture, and sacrifice of the Nuns, and especially the female children there, by the Jesuit priests overseeing the Convent. Maria suffered from Disassociated Identity Disorder from trauma based Mind Control (Ignatian Spiritual Exercises) being under and involved in the Satanic ritual abuse and sacrifice, as well as being raped by the Jesuit priests there.
  •         Ex-Jesuit priest Dr. Alberto Rivera, S.J., who escaped from the Jesuit Order in 1967, confirms that the induction ceremony and the text of the Jesuit Oath which he took were identical to what we have cited below, Alberto was later assassinated by the Jesuits for exposing their secrets.

        Nothing conveys more clearly the inhuman brutality of this Roman Catholic Military Intelligence Order than the oath which is taken by those who are elevated to secretly commanding posts within the Society. It is a lengthy oath, but it is essential that we share it in its entirety, so that none would be deceived by this Satanic Order, which now boasts of having one of its own as the Roman Emperor over the world, i.e. the Pope.

SS-Reichsfuhrer (Grand Inquisitor) & Jesuit Priest Heinrich Himmler, S.J. at the Headquarters of the Leibstandarte SS (Hitler’s Personal Body Guard), its Logo of Which was the Jesuit Order’s IHΣ (2)
SS-Reichsfuhrer (Grand Inquisitor) & Jesuit Priest Heinrich Himmler, S.J. at the Headquarters of the Leibstandarte SS (Hitler’s Personal Body Guard), its Logo of Which was the Jesuit Order’s IHΣ

         “[When a Jesuit of the minor rank is to be elevated to command, he is conducted into the Chapel of the Convent of the Order, where there are only three others present, the principal or Superior standing in front of the altar. On either side stands a Monk, one of whom holds a banner of yellow and white, which are the Papal colors, and the other a black banner with a dagger and red cross above a skull and crossbones, with the word INRI, and below them the words IUSTUM, NECAR, REGES, IMPIOUS. The meaning of which is: It is just to exterminate or annihilate impious or heretical Kings, Governments, or Rulers. Upon the floor is a red cross at which the postulant or candidate kneels. The Superior hands him a small black crucifix, which he takes in his left hand and presses to his heart, and the Superior at the same time presents to him a dagger, which he grasps by the blade and holds the point against his heart, the Superior still holding it by the hilt, and thus addresses the postulant:]

         (Superior:) My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to be a spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among other Protestants, generally to be a Protestant, and obtaining their confidence, to seek even to preach from their pulpits, and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and even to descend so low as to become a Jew among Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for the benefit of your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.

         You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, Provinces, states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.

IHS Bones
The Jesuit Seal Made Up of Human Bones Outside of a Jesuit Church

         You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the Merchant, the Banker, the Lawyer, among the schools and Universities, in Parliaments, and Legislatures, and the Judiciaries and Councils of State, and to be all things to all men, for the Pope’s sake, whose servants we are unto death.

         You have received all your instructions heretofore as a Novice, a Neophyte, and have served as Coadjuter, Confessor and Priest, but you have not yet been invested with all that is necessary to command in the Army of Loyola in the service of the Pope. You must serve the proper time as the instrument and executioner as directed by your Superiors; for none can command here who has not consecrated his labors with the blood of the heretic; for ‘without the shedding of blood no man can be saved.’ Therefore, to fit yourself for your work and make your own salvation sure, you will, in addition to your former oath of obedience to your Order and allegiance to the Pope, repeat after me:

Extreme Oath of Induction
Ex-Jesuit Priest Alberto Rivera, S.J. Under the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction

         ‘I, ________, now, in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the holy Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul and all the saints and sacred hosts of heaven, and to you, my ghostly Fr. the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in the Pontificate of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear, that his holiness the Pope is Christ’s Vice-regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical Kings, Princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation and that they may safely be destroyed.

         Therefore, to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine of his Holiness right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the now pretended authority and churches of England and Scotland, and branches of the same now established in Ireland and on the Continent of America and elsewhere; and all adherents in regard that they be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical King, Prince or state named Protestants or Liberals, or obedience to any of the laws, magistrates or officers.

The Edomite-Amalekite Blood Oath Crimes Against Mankind

         I do further declare that the doctrine of the churches of England and Scotland, of the Calvinists, Huguenots and others of the name Protestants or Liberals to be damnable and they themselves damned who will not forsake the same.

         I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of his Holiness’ agents in any place wherever I shall be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, England, Ireland or America, or in any other Kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my uttermost to extirpate the heretical Protestants or Liberals’ doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise.

         I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical, for the propaganda of the Mother Church’s interest, to keep secret and private all her agents’ counsels from time to time, as they may entrust me and not to divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstance whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed, given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly Fr., or any of this sacred covenant.

         I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my Superiors in the Militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ.

Loyola Statue
Statue in the Vatican of Ignatius de Loyola, S.J., Holding the Jesuit Constitution While Trampling Underfoot a Follower of YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH Holding Their Bible

         That I may go to any part of the world withersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions of the North, the burning sands of the desert of Africa, or the jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America, without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me.

         I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any Agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.

         In confirmation of which, I hereby dedicate my life, my soul and all my corporal powers, and with this dagger which I now receive, I will subscribe my name written in my own blood, in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the Militia of the Pope cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulfur burned therein, with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell forever!

Papal Birthday
Jesuit Pope Jorge Bergoglio, S.J. Celebrating His 81st Birthday with Cheese Pizza & Children, ‘Cheese-Pizza’ Is Pedophilia Code for Child-Orgy . . .

         All of which, I, ________________, do swear by the Blessed Trinity and blessed Sacraments, which I am now to receive, to perform and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with my name written and with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and sealed in the face of this holy covenant.

         [The Postulant receives the wafer from the Superior and writes his name with the point of his dagger dipped in his own blood taken from over his heart.]

         (Superior:) You will now rise to your feet and I will instruct you in the Catechism necessary to make yourself known to any member of the Society of Jesus belonging to this rank.

Morpheus Matrix Jesuit (What If I Told You Meme) 3         In the first place, you, as a Brother Jesuit, will with another mutually make the ordinary sign of the cross as any ordinary Roman Catholic would; then one cross his wrists, the palms of his hands open, and the other in answer crosses his feet, one above the other; the first points with forefinger of the right hand to the center of the palm of the left, the other with the forefinger of the left hand points to the center of the palm of the right; the first then with his right hand makes a circle around his head, touching it; the other then with the forefinger of his left hand touches the left side of his body just below his heart; the first then with his right hand draws it across the throat of the other, and the latter then with a dagger down the stomach and abdomen of the first. The first then says Iustum; and the other answers Necar; the first Reges. The other answers Impious. [The meaning of which has already been explained.] The first will then present a small piece of paper folded in a peculiar manner, four times, which the other will cut longitudinally and on opening the name Jesu will be found written upon the head and arms of a cross three times. You will then give and receive with him the following questions and answers:

(Question:) From whither do you come? (Answer:) The Holy faith.

        (Q:) Whom do you serve?(A:) The Holy Fr. at Rome, the Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church Universal throughout the world.

        (Q:) Who commands you?(A:) The Successor of St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus or the Soldiers of Jesus Christ.

        (Q:) Who received you?(A:) A venerable man in white hair.

        (Q:) How?(A:) With a naked dagger, I kneeling upon the cross beneath the banners of the Pope and of our sacred Order.

        (Q:) Did you take an oath?(A:) I did, to destroy heretics and their Governments and rulers, and to spare neither age, sex nor condition. To be as a corpse without any opinion or will of my own, but to implicitly obey my Superiors in all things without hesitation of murmuring.

Jesuits 2
The Edomite-Amalekite Blood Oath Crimes Against Mankind

         (Q:) Will you do that? (A:) I will.

        (Q:) How do you travel? (A:) In the bark of Peter the fisherman.

        (Q:) Whither do you travel? (A:) To the four quarters of the world.

        (Q:) For what purpose? (A:) To obey the orders of my General and Superiors and execute the will of the Pope and faithfully fulfill the conditions of my oaths.

         (Superior:) Go ye, then, into all the world and take possession of all lands in the name of the Pope. He who will not accept him as the Vicar of Jesus and his Vice-regent on earth, let him be accursed and exterminated.


         The recent election of Jesuit Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J. to the position of Pope Francis I, was an unprecedented event the world has never before witnessed. It is the first time in history that a member of the Jesuit Order has been elected to the highest position of the Roman Catholic Church. Reactions world-wide varied from jubilation, to matter of-fact acceptance, to disinterest. These very reactions reveal appalling ignorance of the true nature of the Jesuit Order.

         Widely regarded as a benevolent Missionary Order, known for its educational institutions, the Jesuit Order, as the Society of Jesus is commonly known, has long played an incredibly influential, albeit secretive, role in the destinies of nations, Organizations, and individuals. Rulers, Presidents, scholars and even Catholics themselves who are aware of the evil perpetrated by this powerful, far-reaching Order, have left on record grave warnings that all should heed.

        Following is a compilation of quotes from a variety of sources. Some admit that their own diabolical Organizations were modeled on Jesuit principles. Others give warning. A number of those who sought to warn did so at the cost of their lives. I would encourage all to carefully study the following material.

Jesuit Ludwig Kaas, S.J., Knight of Malta Franz von Papen, S.M.O.M., Jesuit Giuseppe Pizardo, S.J., Eugenio Pacelli (Pope Pius XII), Alfredo Ottaviani, Rudolf Buttmann, Giovanni Montini (Pope Paul VI), & Dr. Eugene von Klee, Signing of the ‘Reichskonkordat’ Between the Vatican & Nazi Germany in Rome, on July 20th, 1933, the Same Year Devout Roman Catholic Adolf Hitler Came to Power

          “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels.” Mishlei (Proverbs) 1:5

         Keep this in mind, in 1540 the founding 10 members of the Jesuit Order from Montserrat, went to Rome before the last Pontiff, Pope Paul III, as the ‘Knights of the Virgin Mary,’ to appeal to him to grant them the establishment of the Order. During these meetings, they all decided to change the name of the Order to the ‘Society of Jesus,’ for a more covert ‘Learning-Against-Learning’ Counter-Reformation, of the newly Protestant world.

         As the IHStory goes, the Jesuit Order formed in 1534, and was officiated in 1540. However, here is what no one will ever tell you. The ‘Society of Jesus,’ was actually formed by Giovanni Colombini 200 years earlier in 1360, under the name of the ‘Congregation of Jesuati,’ commonly known as ‘Jesuates’ (Jesuits). The Roman Catholic Order’s patronage came from the ancient Roman Catholic Piccolomini dynasty (remember this later), who had/has ties to the Roman Catholic Venetians (under the Papal Venetian Contarini family). Irrefutably proving neither Ignatius de Loyola, S.J., nor Francis Borgia, S.J., nor Alessandro Farnese created the Society of Jesus. So who did?

Gasparo Contarini, S.J..
Venetian Jesuit Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, S.J., the Actual Ghost-Founder of the ‘Company of [G]esu’ Based Upon the 14th Century Venetian ‘Congregation of [G]esuati’

         It was actually one of the most crucial ghost-founder’s secretly present at the Order’s inception taken under the Jesuit Extreme Fourth Vow Oath, in the crypt of the Church of Montserrat, France in 1534, along with the 10 founding Jesuits—not 7, and not 3; Andrea Gritti, S.J., Francis Borgia, S.J., Peter Faber, S.J., Simao Rodrigues, S.J., Nicolas Bobadilla, S.J., Francis Xavier, S.J., Diego Lainez, S.J., Alfonso Salmeron, S.J., and Ignatius de Loyola, S.J. This secret 10th founder was none-other than Jesuit Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, S.J. (1483–1542), one of the first proponents of the dialogue with Protestants, after the Reformation. Ignatius de Loyola, S.J. personally affirmed, Gasparo Contarini, S.J. was truly responsible for the Papal approbation of the Society of Jesus, on September 27, 1540 in Rome, under Pope Paul III (Alessandro Farnese), whom you will soon read gave the entire Spiritual and Temporal Roman Catholic Church, all of her Orders, and all of her bloodlines, over to the Superior General of Jesuits. Gasparo Contarini, S.J. is the individual whom even Jesuit Priest Historians affirm was the actually author behind Ignatius de Loyola’s infamous (astral projection-trauma based mind control) ‘Spiritual Exercises.’

Jesuits 3
The Edomite-Amalekite Blood Oath Crimes Against Mankind

         Ignatius de Loyola, S.J. visited Venice for the first time in 1523, and met with Gasparo Contarini, S.J. who was the Nuncio of Venice to Rome. But why? It is interesting to note that, out of all 10 founding members of the Society of Jesus—Gasparo Contarini, S.J. was the only one who saw Martin Luther face to face, for he was present at the Edict of Worms in 1521, which addressed Martin Luther and the effects of YAHUAH’s Protestant Reformation (and not the ‘Rosicrucian’s’ or ‘Templar’s Protestant Reformation,’ which Jesuit created Freemasonry asserts. . .), two years before meeting with Ignatius de Loyola in Venice.

         This is exactly why the Congregation of Jesuati (the progenitors of the Jesuit Order) established their mother church in Venice in 1390 called ‘I Gesuati,’ and the exact same reason why the 8th Superior General of Jesuits Francesco Piccolomini, S.J. (1649-51) had his slave White Pope Innocent X put the Congregation of Jesuati under suppression, whom the 11th Superior General of the Jesuits Giovanni Paolo Oliva, S.J. (1664-81) ordered his slave White Pope Clement IX to abolish the Congregation of Jesuati in 1668.

A 14th Century Drawing of the Official Monogram of the Order of Jesuati, from Insegne di varii prencipi et case illustri d’Italia e altreprovincie, with the Gnostic Isis-Horus-Serapis & Sun-Burst

          ‘The Jesuates’; (1.) Proves the Gnostic ideology behind the Jesuits is centuries older than first admitted, right on down to the monogram of Isis-Horus-Serapis* (not Set); (2.) It was founded after Jerome, the ‘Saint who helped Rome obscure the Bible in the language of the Whore; (3.) Their suppression is most-likely an empowerment of their successors as well as an erasing of their past, done after the Society of Jesus had proven herself for 100 years. And this is exactly why the Jesuits sold their creator’s (Congregation of Jesuati) mother church of I Gesuati’ in Venice, over to the Dominican Order in 1670, and built their own Jesuit Church in Venice in 1715 with the founding from Venetian families under their command, and what was the name that the Company of Gesu used for their newly built church? ‘I Gesuiti,’ . . . Need I say more?

         If you wish to look to a bloodline that created the Jesuit Order, it was the legendary ancient Roman Venetian Contarini Rex Deus Black Nobility dynasty. They are one of the founding families of Venice, they had eight Doges of the Republic of Venice (destroyed by the Jesuits during the Napolenic Wars, under Jesuit Priests Maximilien Robespierre, S.J. and Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, S.J., screaming at you that their Contarini bloodline creators did/do not control the Jesuits). The Contarini claim to be of Roman origin through their patrilineal descendance of the Aurelii Cottae, a branch of the Roman family Aurelia, and trace their lineage back to Gaius Aurelius Cotta, consul of the Roman Republic in 252-248 B.C.


         “And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings (Daniy’el 7:20, 24), which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. THESE HAVE ONE MIND, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them (Daniy’el 8:25): for he is ADONAI ha’adoniym, and Melek ha’melekiym (King of kings): and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.” —Chizayon (Revelation) 17:12-4

Athanasius Kircher, S.J. - Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae [Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae The Grand Craft of Lucifer and Darkness]; Horoscopium Catholicum Societatis Iesu (1646), p. 552 [Jesuit Nephiliym Legominism]
Illustration from Jesuit Athanasius Kircher, S.J.’s ‘Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae,’ (1646), Transliterated from Actual Roman Canon Latin to English: ‘The Grand Magic of Lucifer and Darkness.’ Bottom to Top, the Allegorical Founder Ignatius de Loyola, S.J. (the Jesuit Order) Directly Stems from the Ancient Atlantian Rex Deus Sangreal Dragon Court (the Double-Headed Phoenix)—the Babylonian Peshur Code for Antediluvian Nephiliym (‘Annu-naki’): the Lineage of ‘Annu,’ (Sumerian for Enoch, the Evil of Cain). Proof the Jesuit Order’s Own Works Proclaim They Have Been Established by Satan to Be Its Actual Inheritors on Earth in the Flesh—Whom YAHUSHA Prophesied 1500 Yrs Before of & Shall Destroy with the RUACH HAQODESH

          The Superior General of the Jesuit Order is, what he is indeed designated, the soul of the Society: but still, in a larger sense of that descriptive term, the Professed members, acting under his superintendence, may be considered as included in it. They were the Casuists of the Order. Their hours of retirement were occupied in entrancing over its principles; in extending the sphere of their operation, by further subtleties and refinements; and in composing digests and manuals to facilitate their application.

          It is to the literary labours, therefore, of these Casuists, that reference must be made for a complete development of the Jesuitical system; and as this most important service has been already performed, under the highest authority, and by a judicial assembly above all suspicion of incomprehensible evidence, whose researches are so elaborate that the allegations are redundant to a great degree, the road to knowledge is of easy access. The volumes in question exhibit Jesuitism to the life; and all that is necessary to enable the general reader to become acquainted with it, and with the influence which it must have on the best interests of every community in which it obtains even conspiracy, is to select from the aforesaid volumes some of the accumulated citations, and to present them in an English translation. These will form as an introduction to which, and with the view of establishing the public character of the documents produced, of thousands but few of the Society’s identifications of itself in opinion and doctrine with all its individual members, are prefixed.

Now, let us begin.

pope paul iiiPope Paul III (1468–1549; White Pope, Member of the Rex Deus Farnese Dynasty, Significant Role in the Counter-Reformation, Approved the Sovereign Military Order of the Society of Jesus, Essentially Charted the Magna Charta of the Jesuits, Convened the Infamous Counter-Reformation Council of Trent in 1545 Under Ignatius de Loyola, S.J., & the Famous Dominican Priest & Vatican Mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus, O.P. Dedicated to Him the Jesuit Sponsored & Pushed Famous Jesuit Legomin, Gnostic, Allegorical, & Unbiblical Heliocentric Cosmology of On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres Forced by the Jesuits to Publish Posthumously for He Knew It Was Unproven)

         Behold some of the citations from the great Charter of Society of Jesus of 1540:

         “The General of the Order, as soon as he is nominated, shall have complete power as to the Government of the Society, and especially also over the whole members of the same, wheresoever these latter may reside, and with whatsoever office or dignity they may be endowed. His power shall indeed be so unlimited, that should he deem it necessary for the honour of God, he shall even be able to send back, or in other directions, those who have come direct from the Popes.”

         Thus, understand from the first paragraph from the Pope himself, the Jesuit Superior General’s own power is placed over that of the Pope.

         “In order that discipline may be quite strictly maintained, there shall be no appeal against the rules of the Order to any Judge or other Official whatever; much less can any member be released from his vows by any person.”

         Thus, from the second paragraph, even the spiritual and temporal power of the keys of ‘Peter,’ therefore, can have no power over a Jesuit, and it was the Pope himself who pronounced this!

         “Neither the General nor the high officials of the Society shall be bound to hand over any member of the Order for the service of the Church to any Prelate of the Church, be he Patriarch, Archbishop, or merely Bishop, even when the said Prelate shall have given strict orders regarding the matter; should, however, such cession be voluntarily desired, then those whose services are lent are still to be considered under the power of their Superiors, and can be recalled by the General at any moment.”

         Thus, from the third paragraph, the power of even the highest dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church, Papacy, and Holy See is inferior to that of the General of the Jesuits!

         “The General, or those who may be ordered by him, shall have the power to grant absolution for all and every kind of sin, whether committed before or after entrance into the Order, and from all Ecclesiastical and secular censures and penalties, to all members of the Order, as well as to all such as may express a wish to enter the Order as Novices, or to serve as Lay-Brethren; should, however, anyone not hitherto a member, who in this manner obtains absolution and dispensation, not immediately thereafter join the Order, the Indulgence and dispensation shall become of no effect.”

         Thus, from the fourth paragraph, this is an unheard-of privilege, as even the worst criminals may, in this way, escape with impunity as soon as they enter the Jesuit Order; that great advantage should have been taken of this privilege can well be imagined!

         “No member of the Order shall confess his sins to any other than the General, or to those whom the General may have nominated, especially to any Priest or Monk of any other Order. Much less can anyone who has once joined the Order, be he called novice, coadjutor, or profess, quit the Order again except with the express consent of the General; nor can he go over into any other Order, that of the Carthusians alone excepted. Should anyone infringe this command, the General has the power to prosecute such fugitives, either in person or through authorized Agents, to Excommunicate them, to seize them, and to put them in prison, and with this object the assistance of the secular authorities may be invoked.”

         Thus, from the fifth paragraph, by this command the secrets of the Society of Jesus are prevented from ever being betrayed, and the means adopted have proved themselves indeed to be very efficacious. I may here remark, with respect to the permission to enter the Carthusian Order, that, as far as is known, no Jesuit ever took advantage thereof, owing to the extreme strictness of that Sect. Who can be ignorant of the command of perpetual silence? This has been generally reported to be one of the rules, and no doubt Loyola allowed the exception, as regards the Carthusians, on this ground alone, this is also affirmed in the introduction of the Monita Secreta Societatis Gesu: the Secret Instructions of the Jesuits.

         “The whole members of the Society, as well as the goods, incomes, and possessions of the Order, are exempt from the jurisdiction, supervision, and control of the Bishops and Archbishops, and shall be taken under the special protection of the Papal Chair.”

         Thus, from the sixth paragraph, the Jesuits might, so to speak, do anything they choose, and no Catholic Church Prelate could dare, on any account, to say even an unpleasant word to them.

         “Those members of the Order consecrated to the priesthood, consequently all the Professed . . . in all places bound by interdict or Excommunication, the young men and servants in the employment of the Jesuits, as, also, all the laity belonging to them, as Procurators, Laborers, and Officers, are exempt from Excommunication and interdict . . . No Bishop or Prelate shall have the power of imposing upon any member of the Order, or any Layman friendly to the Society, an Excommunication or other Church penalty, and if any presume to do so it shall be null and void.”

         Thus, from the seventh paragraph, a Jesuit can never be Excommunicated by anyone in the Catholic Church, Papacy, and Holy See, no matter how severe the circumstance may be.

        “The members of the Society of Jesus, with the permission of their General, have the right to settle in the countries and cities of the Excommunicated and schismastics, as well as of heretics and unbelievers, and to hold intercourse with the same.”

         From the eighth paragraph, an unprecedented right is given to the Jesuit Order, from then and to this day there has been no other Roman Catholic Monastic and/or Military Order belonging to the Papacy that has ever had this right.

         “They shall not be required to pay tithes on their estates or possessions, by whatever names they may be called, not even. excepting Papal holdings; in short, they are not to pay any taxes or dues whatever.”

         “The General is empowered to send to any favorite University such as he deems fit, in order to deliver lectures on Theology and other sciences, without having previously obtained the permission of anyone whomsoever.”

         Thus, from the tenth paragraph, this was a more than unheard-of infringement of the rights of the Universities, as well as of the secular Governments, and consequently entangled the Jesuits in the most bitter of strife. Such is the great charter of the Jesuits, their ‘Magna Charta,’ as many of have termed it; and, so armed, was it to be wondered that the Society soon attained to enormous power? The whole world lay open before them and all their proceedings; and even upon the most violent and unjust of them, by order of the Supreme Ruler of the Roman (Babylonian) Catholic (Universal) Church (the world), could no restraint whatever be put. Essentially, Alessandro Farnese was truly, a Jesuit himselfIHStorically however, he was truly, the last Pope.

01 Ignatius of LoyolaIgnatius de Loyola, S.J. (1491–1556; Spanish Jesuit, Member of Rex Deus Basque Dynasty, Polymath, Polyglot, Co-PseudoFounder but 1st Superior General of the Society of Jesus 1541-1556, Co-Author of the Jesuit Constitutions, & the Jesuit 4th Vow Extreme Oath of Induction, & Co-Creator & Author of the Infamous Legomin, Black Magic, Trauma Based Mind Control, Astral Projection, Remote Viewing, & Disassociated Identity Ritual Protocols of the Ignatian Spiritual Exercises Co-Authored by Rex Deus Contarini Dynasty Member Gasparo Contarini, S.J. Ghost Co-Founder of the Society of Jesus)

        “Swear—forswear—and the truth deny.”

        “No one belonging to the Society shall, impelled by ambition, carry out, of his own accord, this or that Mission or function, and still less shall any member have the right to enter independently into communication, directly or indirectly, with the Roman Chair, or other Ecclesiastical authorities; it is only God alone, or rather, that is to say . . . the Pope, as also the General of the Order, who can do this.”

        “We members of the Society of Jesus, are warriors . . . and must therefore possess all the characteristics of good soldiers. We must be always ready to advance against the enemy, and be always prepared to harass him or to fall upon him, and on that account we must not venture to tie ourselves to any particular place. How could we else . . . fly from one town or city to another, or from one end of the world to another? Besides, we must be most careful not to awaken again the jealousy of the other Orders . . .”

        “Everyone who enters the Society must follow the injunction of Christ and must forsake father, mother, brothers, sisters, and all that he has in the world, and he must believe that this saying is intended for him: ‘If any man come to me and hate not his father and his mother . . . yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.’ He must therefore endeavor to put aside all natural inclination toward those who are connected by ties of blood, and substitute for it a spiritual affection . . .”

        “In order that the mode of expression may assist the feelings, it is a holy counsel that they should accustom themselves not to say that they have parents or brothers, but that they have had them . . .”

        “When anyone shall be adopted into the body of the Society in any degree, he ought not to be anxious to proceed to another; but to be perfect in his own, employing himself in the service of God, and leaving the care of all other things to his Superior, who doubtless holds the place of Christ our Lord.”

         “Let proper methods be used to get knowledge of the animosities that arise among great men, that we may have a finger in reconciling their differences; for by this means we shall gradually become acquainted with their friends and secret affairs, and of necessity engage one of the parties in our interests.”

        “The power of the General shall be so unlimited that should he deem it necessary for the honor of God, he shall even be able to send back, or in other directions, those who have come direct from the Popes.”

        “. . . the chief aim of all our efforts ought to be to procure the confidence and favor of Princes and men in places of distinction, to the end that no one might dare to offer opposition to us, but, on the contrary, that all should be subject to us.”

        “Concerning the choice of young men to be admitted into the Society and, the manner of retaining them. Let them be led, as opportunity offers, through the College and garden, and also sometimes even to our country seats, and let them associate with us in time of recreation, that by degrees they may be made familiar, taking care, however, that familiarity does not produce contempt. On other occasions, but especially in exhortations, let them be terrified with threats of eternal damnation unless they submit to a divine calling.”

        “In what manner widows are to be secured and their property disposed of. If they have made a vow of chastity, let them according to our custom, renew it twice a year, and let the day on which this is done be set apart for innocent recreation with our people or members of our Society. In order that the widow may dispose of her income in favor of the Society, let the perfect state of holy men be set forth, who having left the world and forsaken parents and possessions, served God with great resignation and joyousness of mind. In order to this let those things be explained, which are in the constitution and statutes of the Society concerning this renunciation and abnegation of all things. Let the examples of widows be related, who thus in a short time became saints with hope of being canonized, if they persevere thus to the end, and let it be shewn to them that our influence with the Pope for this purpose will not be wanting. Let the Confessors propose to them and persuade them to pay ordinary pensions and contributions, by which they may assist annually the debts of Colleges and Professed Houses, especially the Professed House at Rome; nor let them be unmindful of the ornaments of the Church, wax tapers, wine, and, things necessary in the celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass. But if the widow have not in her lifetime made over the whole of her property to the Society, whenever opportunity offers, but especially when she is suffering from severe illness or her life is in danger, let someone represent to her the poverty, the newness of many Colleges as well as the multitude of those which are not yet endowed, and persuasively and urgently induce her to provide for these expenses, by doing which the foundations of eternal glory are laid. The same must be done with Princes and other benefactors, who must be persuaded that these are the things which will obtain for them perpetual remembrance in this world, and in the next world eternal glory from God; but if anyone out of ill will should allege the example of Christ, who had not where He could lay His head, and wish that the Society of Jesus should be similarly poor, let it be shown and everywhere seriously impressed upon all that the Church of God being now changed and made into a Monarchy it is necessary that it be maintained with authority and great power against most powerful enemies, and that it is that little stone cut out, as which has increased to a great mountain. It should be frequently shown to those who are inclined to alms giving and to ornamenting churches, that the highest perfection consists in this, that in withdrawing themselves from the love of earthly things they may make Christ Himself and His companions the possessors of them.”

        “It will be necessary to act more resolutely and sternly with widows and other persons who have given most of their property to the Society—other things being equal—than with others, lest we seem on account of temporal benefits, to favor them more than others, indeed the same should be observed with respect to such as are in the Society, but after they have made a complete surrender of their property in favor of the Society; and if it be necessary they may be dismissed from the Society, but with the utmost discretion, that they may leave at least a part of those things which they have given to the Society or may bequeath it by will.”

        “As it is necessary in this matter for mothers to act firmly, so we must proceed gently; let the mothers be instructed to annoy their children, even from infancy, with reproofs, castigation, and especially when their daughters are grown up let them be refused ornaments and apparel suitable for them . . .”

        “Wherefore it must be frequently announced and everywhere promulgated, that the Society consists partly of Professors so very poor, that beyond the daily alms of the faithful they are utterly destitute of all things . . .”

        “Concerning the private strictness of discipline in the Society. It will be necessary to dismiss as an enemy of the Society, but under some other pretext, whoever he may be, or of whatever condition or age, who has alienated our devotees or other friends from our churches, or from frequent intercourse with us, or has diverted alms to other Churches or religious Orders, or has persuaded any rich person or any person well disposed to the Society to do so; next also those who at the time of disposing of their property have shown greater affection for their relatives than towards the Society, for this is a great sign of an unmortified spirit, and it is becoming that Professors should be fully mortified; also those who have directed the alms drawn from Penitents or other friends of the Society to their own poor relatives. But that they may not afterwards complain of the cause of their dismissal, let them not be dismissed immediately, let them first be prohibited from hearing confessions, let them be mortified and vexed by the discharge of the vilest duties, let them be compelled to perform daily those things to which they are known to have the greatest aversion; let them be removed from the higher studies and honorable employments, let them be harassed with chapters and public censures, let them be restrained from recreation and conversation with strangers, let them be deprived—in dress and in things to which they are accustomed-—of everything which is not absolutely necessary, until they are driven to murmuring and impatience, and then let them be dismissed as persons not sufficiently mortified and pernicious to others by bad example; and if it be necessary to give a reason for their dismissal to their parents or to Prelates of the Church, let it be said that they have not the spirit of the Society.”

         “. . . to take an irrevocable vow of obedience—the obedience of the dead body, which has no will and no motion of its own . . . The obedience goes . . . to the Pope; and when the Pope says that black is white, and white is black, it is the great moral glory, of the Order that it is able to repeat the lie . . . Submission to human authority separates the Jesuit from the true Protestant. While the Bible believer recognizes the truth in God’s Word, the Jesuit is tied to Ecclesiastical traditions. If we wish to be sure we are right in all things we should always be ready to accept this principle: I will believe that the white I see is black, if the hierarchical Church so defines it.”

        “But greater efforts must be made against those who attempt to set up schools for the education of youth in those places in which we teach with honor and advantage. Let it be shown to Princes and magistrates that these people will cause disturbance and sedition in the state, unless they are prevented, which will begin with the boys themselves in consequence of the different modes of instructing, and lastly that the Society is sufficient for the education of youth. In the meantime let our people study to give the public some signal instances of virtue and learning, by exercising their pupils in the presence of the gentry, magistrates and populace, in their studies or in other scholastic performances calculated to gain applause.”

        “In what manner our people are unanimously to behave towards those who have been dismissed from the Society. Since those who are dismissed are at least conscious of some secrets, and are frequently injurious to the Society, their attempts must therefore be obviated in the following manner: Before they are dismissed from the Society, let them be persuaded to promise in writing that they will never either write or speak anything injurious to the Society; at the same time let the Superiors preserve in writing their evil inclinations failings and vices, which they themselves have at some time given according to the custom of the Society, for the clearing of the conscience, by which, if it should be necessary, the Society will be able, with the great and with Prelates, to prevent their promotion. Let care be taken promptly that they may be removed as much as possible from the exercise of honorable functions in the church, such as preaching, Confessing, publishing of books, etc., lest they obtain for themselves the affection and applause of the people; in order to which it will be necessary to inquire most diligently into their life and manners, not only into their Companionship, Occupations, etc., but into the intentions of the dismissed, wherefore it must be contrived that we may keep up an intimate correspondence with someone in the family in which the dismissed reside, and as soon as anything is discovered blamable or deserving of censure, let it be spread abroad among the common people by means of persons of inferior degree who are attached to us, so that the Nobles or Prelates who may favor the dismissed may be restrained by fear of future disgrace, but if they commit nothing worthy of censure and conduct themselves in a praiseworthy manner, let their virtues and actions which are deserving of commendation be depreciated by subtle insinuations and doubtful expressions, until the esteem and confidence which is attached to them is diminished, for it is of the utmost importance to the Society that the dismissed, and especially those who have left it of their own accord, should be utterly suppressed.”

        “To chastise the flesh, that is, giving it sensible pain, which is given by wearing haircloth or cords or iron chains next to the flesh, by scourging or wounding oneself, and by other kinds of austerity. Note. What appears most suitable and most secure with regard to penance is that the pain should be sensible in the flesh and not enter within the bones, so that it give pain and not illness. For this it appears to be more suitable to scourge oneself with thin cords, which give pain exteriorly, rather than in another way which would cause notable illness within.”

         “Laynez, you are to insinuate to the Duke Cosimo de Medici’s wife, who is to be confined shortly, that she should act in the same manner as the Queen of Portugal had acted before her confinement, namely, to make a settlement of 500 gold florins on the Jesuit College.”

Ignatius de Loyola, S.J. Murdering the Followers of Jesus with a Trident - Jesuit St. Nicholas Church (Malá Strana), Prague #2
The Literal Allegorical Essence of the Jesuit Order’s Counter-Reformation Council of the Trident: A Statue of the Jesuit Order’s Pseudo-Founder; Ignatius de Loyola, S.J., Stabbing & Murdering the Upright Called Out Assembly of Yashar’el (Those Who Guard the Torah of YAHUAH & Have the Testimony of YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH) with a Trident (the Council of the Trident) and Stepping Underfoot the Word of YAH, Inside Jesuit St. Nicholas Church (Mala Strana), Prague, Poland

        “We imbue into him spiritual forces which he would find very difficult to eliminate later, forces more lasting than all the best principles and doctrines; these forces can come up again to the surface, sometimes after years of not even mentioning them, and become so imperative that the will finds itself unable to oppose any obstacle, and has to follow their irresistible impulse.

        “We are called to win . . . all nations, all the kingdoms of the world . . . I leave you the world.”

         “Go and set the world on fire.”

        “Again, the devil took him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And said unto him, All these things will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”Mattithyahu (Matthew) 4:8-9

        “And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give you, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If you therefore will worship me, all shall be yours.” Luqas (Luke) 4:6-

         The dying words of Martin Luther, co-founder of YAHUAH’s Reformation:

        “O my Father, God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of all consolation, I thank Thee for having revealed to me Thy well beloved Son, in whom I believe, whom I have preached and acknowledged, loved and celebrated, and whom the Pope and the impious persecute. I commend to Thee my soul. Jesus Christ my Lord, I am quitting this earthly body, I am leaving this life, but I know that I shall abide eternally with Thee.”

        The dying words of Ignatius Loyola, co-founder of Satan’s Counter-Reformation:

        “I have done much good to the Church of Rome—I have seen many Provinces of our men, many Colleges, Houses, Residences, and wealth belonging to our Society; but all these things desert me now, and I know not whither to turn!”

        “At length he expired in a fit of trembling, and his face turned black . . .” —Jesuit Francisco Torres, S.J.

George-Browne-O.S.A.George Browne, O.S.A. (1500–1556; English Ex-Catholic Priest, Ex-Augustinian Monk, Archbishop of Dublin, Bishop of Christ Church in Dublin, Established Ireland’s Protestant State Church Under Henry VIII of England)

        “But there is a new fraternity of late sprung up who call themselves Jesuits, which will deceive many, who are much after the Scribes and Pharisees’ manner. Among the Jews they shall strive to abolish the truth, and shall come very near to do it. For these sorts will turn themselves into several forms; with the Heathen a Heathenist, with the Atheists an Atheist, with the Jews a Jew, with the Reformers a Reformade, purposely to know your intentions, your minds, your hearts, and your inclinations, and thereby bring you at last to be like the fool that ‘said in his heart there was no God.’ These shall spread over the whole world, ‘shall be admitted into the counsels of Princes, and they never the wiser,’ charming of them, yea, making your Princes reveal their hearts, and the secrets therein, and yet they not perceive it; which will happen from falling from the law of God, by neglect of fulfilling the law of God, and by winking at their sins; yet in the end . . . they shall become odious to all nations: so that at the end they shall be worse than Jews, having no resting place upon earth; and then shall a Jew have more favor than a Jesuit.”

Francis Xavier, S.J.Francis Xavier, S.J. (1506–1552; Spanish Jesuit, Member of Roman Rex Deus Sangreal Black Nobility Basque Dynasty, Co-founder of the Society of Jesus, Created & Controlled the First Jesuit Trading Post & Land Holding Named ‘Ter’gan’ Granted 154km of Land from Shah Safavid Tahmasp I 1548—the Land Given to the Jesuits We Know Today as the City of ‘Tehran’ the Roman Capital of Jesuit Created & Controlled ‘Muslim’ Iran, Mastermind for the Jeusuit Created & Controlled Goa Inquisition & Crusade, the Emperor of China Jiajings Confessor, Co-Author of the Jesuit 4th Vow Extreme Oath of Induction, & Author of Practical Questions Regarding the Functions of Fr. Confessor)


        “Who leads astray a young maiden with her own consent, is not guilty of sin, because she is mistress of her own person, and can dispense her favors according as she wishes.”


        “It is, indeed, allowable to steal, by compensation, from one’s master, but under the condition that one does not allow one’s self to be caught in the act.”


        “I would not even believe in the Gospels were the Holy Church to forbid it.”


        “Give me the child for the first seven years, and I will give you the man.”

Melchor CanoMelchor Cano, O.P. (1509–1560; Spanish Dominican Priest, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, & Exiled by the Jesuits)

        “The Jesuits are the pioneers of the Antichrist. If members of their Society continue as they have began, God grant that the time may not come when kings will wish to resist them, and will find no means of doing so.”

0006Francis Borgia, S.J. (1510–1572; Italian Jesuit, Member of Roman Rex Deus Sangreal Borgia Dynasty, 4th Duke of Aragon, Polymath, Polyglot, Ghost Co-Founder & 3rd Superior General of the Society of Jesus 1564-1572, & Co-Author of the Jesuit Constitutions, & the Jesuit 4th Vow Extreme Oath of Induction)

        “We came in like lambs and will rule like wolves. We shall be expelled like dogs and return like eagles.”

        “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that says unto me, ADONAI, ADONAI, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, ADONAI, ADONAI, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye transgressors of the Torah.” Mattithyahu (Matthew) 7:15-23

Alfonso Salmeron, S.J.Alfonso Salmeron, S.J. (1515–1585; Spanish Jesuit, Biblical Text Critic, Co-Founder of the Society of Jesus, Significant Role in the Counter-Reformation Council of Trent, First Jesuit Provincial & Vicar-General of Naples, Co-Author of the Jesuit Constitutions, & the Jesuit 4th Vow Extreme Oath of Induction, & Author of Commentary on the History of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles)


        “Princes are bound to obey the command of the Pope as the word of Christ; and if they resist, he can punish them as rebellious persons; and if they undertake any thing against the church and the glory of Christ, he may deprive them of their empire and kingdom, or he may transfer their dominions to another Prince, and absolve their subjects from their allegiance which they owe to them, and from the oath which they have sworn. That the word of the Lord which he spake to Jeremiah the prophet may be true when applied to the Roman Pontiff, ‘Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth: See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant.’”


        “Peter condemned Ananias and Sapphira to death by the word of his mouth. In like manner the Roman Bishop, the successor of Peter, for the good of his flock, may now take away the life of the body by his word when other remedies are not sufficient, provided that he only makes use of the word of his mouth, without the outward service of his hands; and he may carry on war with heretics and schismatics by means of Catholic Princes, and may put them to death. For in commanding him to feed his sheep, Christ has given him the power to drive away the wolves and to kill them, if they should be obnoxious to the sheep. And it will also be lawful for the shepherd to depose the ram, the chief of the flock, from his sovereignty over the flock, if he infects the other sheep with his contagion, and attacks them with his horns.”


        “A King, on receiving Baptism, and in renouncing Satan and all his works, promises tacitly never to abuse his royal power by acting against the Church; he is understood to consent to be deprived of his kingdom, if he acts otherwise; and in fact does not a King render himself unworthy of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist, if he refuses to use his power for the good of the Church and the destruction of heretics? . . . At the present time the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Saint Peter, may, for the good of his flock, when he cannot use any other remedy, by a word take away corporeal life, provided, that he does it by word of mouth, and not by the outward action of his hand. He may even make war on heretics and on schismatics, and cause their death by the means of Catholic Princes: for Jesus Christ in commanding him to feed his sheep, gave him power to drive away the wolves and to kill them, if they hurt his flock . . . In Temporal things God has only given to St. Peter and his successors an indirect dominion over Temporal kingdoms and over all the empires in the world. In virtue of that dominion he might if the glory of Jesus Christ and the advantage of the Church demanded it change them, transfer them, and make them pass into other hands.”

800px-John_Foxe_from_NPG_cleanedJohn Foxe (1516–1587; English Puritan, Historian, Martyrologist, & the Author of the Infamous Actes and Monuments aka Foxes Book of Martyrs)

        “About two o’clock in the morning, he heard the noise of a coach in the street, and sometime after heard the opening of the prison doors, not having had any sleep for two nights; hunger, pain, and melancholy reflections having prevented him from taking any repose. Soon after the prison doors were opened, the nine sergeants, who had first seized him, entered the place where he lay, and without uttering a word, conducted him in his irons through the house into the street, where a coach waited, and into which they laid him at the bottom on his back, not being able to sit. Two of the sergeants rode with him, and the rest walked by the coach side, but all observed the most profound silence . . . Mr. Lithgow still persisting in his innocence, the Governor ordered the notary to draw up a warrant for delivering him to the alcade to be tortured. In consequence of this he was conducted by the sergeants to the end of a stone gallery, where the rack was placed. The encarouador, or executioner, immediately struck off his irons, which put him to very great pains, the bolts being so closely riveted that the sledge hammer tore away half an inch of his heel, in forcing off the bolt; the anguish of which, together with his weak condition, (not having the least sustenance for three days) occasioned him to groan bitterly; upon which the merciless alcade said, ‘Villain, traitor, this is but the earnest of what you shall endure.’ When his irons were off, he fell on his knees, uttering a short prayer, that God would be pleased to enable him to be steadfast, and undergo courageously the grievous trial he had to encounter. The alcade and notary having placed themselves in chairs, he was stripped naked, and fixed upon the rack, the office of these gentlemen being to be witness of, and set down the confessions and tortures endured by the delinquent. It is impossible to describe all the various tortures inflicted upon him. Suffice it to say that he lay on the rack for above five hours, during which time he received above sixty different tortures of the most hellish nature; and had they continued them a few minutes longer, he must have inevitably perished. These cruel persecutors being satisfied for the present, the prisoner was taken from the rack, and his irons being again put on, he was conducted to his former dungeon, having received no other nourishment than a little warm wine, which was given him rather to prevent his dying, and reserve him for future punishments, than from any principle of charity or compassion. As a confirmation of this, orders were given for a coach to pass every morning before day by the prison, that the noise made by it might give fresh terrors and alarms to the unhappy prisoner, and deprive him of all possibility of obtaining the least repose. He continued in this horrid situation, almost starved for want of the common necessaries to preserve his wretched existence . . . he received some relief from Mariane, waiting woman to the Governor’s lady. This woman having obtained leave to visit him, carried with her some refreshments, consisting of honey, sugar, raisins, and other articles; and so affected was she at beholding his situation that she wept bitterly, and at her departure expressed the greatest concern at not being able to give him further assistance. In this loathsome prison was poor Mr. Lithgow kept until he was almost devoured by vermin. They crawled about his beard, lips, eyebrows, etc., so that he could scarce open his eyes; and his mortification was increased by not having the use of his hands or legs to defend himself, from his being so miserably maimed by the tortures. So cruel was the Governor, that he even ordered the vermin to be swept on him twice in every eight days. He, however, obtained some little mitigation of this part of his punishment, from the humanity of a Turkish slave that attended him, who, when he could do it with safety, destroyed the vermin, and contributed every refreshment to him that laid in his power. From this slave Mr. Lithgow at length received information which gave him little hopes of ever being released, but, on the contrary, that he should finish his life under new tortures. The substance of this information was that an English Seminary Priest, and a Scotch cooper, had been for some time employed by the Governor to translate from the English into the Spanish language, all his books and observations; and that it was commonly said in the Governor’s house, that he was an arch-heretic. This information greatly alarmed him, and he began, not without reason, to fear that they would soon finish him, more especially as they could neither by torture or any other means, bring him to vary from what he had all along said at his different examinations. Two days after he had received the above information, the Governor, an Inquisitor, and a Canonical Priest, accompanied by two Jesuits, entered his dungeon, and being seated, after several idle questions, the Inquisitor asked Mr. Lithgow if he was a Roman Catholic, and acknowledged the Pope’s Supremacy? He answered that he neither was the one nor did the other, adding that he was surprised at being asked such questions, since it was expressly stipulated by the articles of peace between England and Spain that none of the English subjects should be liable to the Inquisition, or any way molested by them on account of diversity in religion, etc. In the bitterness of his soul he made use of some warm expressions not suited to his circumstances: ‘As you have almost murdered me (said he) for pretended treason, so now you intend to make a martyr of me for my religion.’ . . . One of the Jesuits said there was no faith to be kept with heretics. The Inquisitor then rising, addressed himself to Mr. Lithgow in the following words: ‘You have been taken up as a spy, accused of treachery, and tortured, as we acknowledge, innocently: (which appears by the account lately received from Madrid of the intentions of the English) yet it was the divine power that brought those judgments upon you, for presumptuously treating the blessed miracle of Loretto with ridicule, and expressing yourself in your writings irreverently of his holiness, the great Agent and Christ’s Vicar upon earth; therefore you are justly fallen into our hands by their special appointment: thy books and papers are miraculously translated by the assistance of Providence influencing thy own countrymen.’ This trumpery being ended, they gave the prisoner eight days to consider and resolve whether he would become a convert to their religion; during which time the Inquisitor told him he, with other religious Orders, would attend, to give him such assistance thereto as he might want. One of the Jesuits said, (first making the sign of the cross upon his breast), ‘My son, behold, you deserve to be burnt alive; but by the grace of our lady of Loretto, whom you have blasphemed we will both save your soul and body.’ In the morning the Inquisitor, with three other Ecclesiastics, returned, when the former asked the prisoner what difficulties he had on his conscience that retarded his conversion; to which he answered, ‘he had not any doubts in his mind, being confident in the promises of Christ, and assuredly believing his revealed will signified in the Gospels, as professed in the reformed Catholic Church, being confirmed by grace, and having infallible assurance thereby of the Christian faith.’ To these words the Inquisitor replied, ‘Thou art no Christian [Catholic], but an absurd heretic, and without conversion a member of perdition.’ The prisoner then told him that it was not consistent with the nature and essence of religion and charity to convince by opprobrious speeches, racks, and torments, but by arguments deduced from the Scriptures; and that all other methods would with him be totally ineffectual. The Inquisitor was so enraged at the replies made by the prisoner, that he struck him on the face, used many abusive speeches, and attempted to stab him, which he had certainly done had he not been prevented by the Jesuits; and from this time he never again visited the prisoner. The next day the two Jesuits returned, and putting on a very grave, supercilious air, the Superior asked him what resolution he had taken. To which Mr. Lithgow replied that he was already resolved, unless he could show substantial reasons to make him alter his opinion. The Superior, after a pedantic display of their seven sacraments, the intercession of Saints, Transubstantiation, etc., boasted greatly of their Church, her Antiquity, Universality, and Uniformity; all of which Mr. Lithgow denied: ‘For (said he) the profession of the faith I hold hath been ever since the first days of the apostles, and Christ had ever his own Church (however obscure) in the greatest time of your darkness.’ The Jesuits, finding their arguments had not the desired effect, that torments could not shake his constancy, nor even the fear of the cruel sentence he had reason to expect would be pronounced and executed on him, after severe menaces, left him. On the eighth day after, being the last of their Inquisition, when sentence is pronounced, they returned again, but quite altered both in their words and behavior after repeating much of the same kind of arguments as before, they with seeming tears in their eyes, pretended they were sorry from their heart he must be obliged to undergo a terrible death, but above all, for the loss of his most precious soul; and falling on their knees, cried out, ‘Convert, convert, O dear brother, for our blessed Lady’s sake convert!’ To which he answered, ‘I fear neither death nor fire, being prepared for both.’ The first effects Mr. Lithgow felt of the determination of this bloody tribunal was, a sentence to receive that night eleven different tortures, and if he did not die in the execution of them, (which might be reasonably expected from the maimed and disjointed condition he was in) . . . and there burnt to ashes. The first part of this sentence was executed with great barbarity that night; and it pleased God to give him strength both of body and mind, to stand fast to the truth, and to survive the horrid punishments inflicted on him.”

        “The Emperor Ferdinand, whose hatred to the Bohemian Protestants was without bounds, not thinking he had sufficiently oppressed them, instituted a high Court of reformers, upon the plan of the Inquisition, with this difference, that the reformers were to remove from place to place, and always to be attended by a body of troops. These reformers consisted chiefly of Jesuits, and from their decision, there was no appeal, by which it may be easily conjectured, that it was a dreadful tribunal indeed . . . Twenty being ordered for execution, were informed they might send for Jesuits, Monks, or Friars, to prepare for the awful change they were to undergo; but that no Protestants should be permitted to come near them. On the morning of the day appointed for the execution, a cannon was fired as a signal to bring the prisoners from the castle to the principal market place, in which scaffolds were erected, and a body of troops were drawn up to attend the tragic scene. The prisoners left the castle with as much cheerfulness as if they had been going to an agreeable entertainment, instead of a violent death. Exclusive of soldiers, Jesuits, priests, executioners, attendants, etc., a prodigious concourse of people attended, to see the exit of these devoted martyrs . . . Dionysius Servius was brought up a Roman Catholic, but had embraced the reformed religion for some years. When upon the scaffold the Jesuits used their utmost endeavors to make him recant, and return to his former faith, but he paid not the least attention to their exhortations. Kneeling down he said, ‘They may destroy my body, but cannot injure my soul, that I commend to my Redeemer’; and then patiently submitted to martyrdom, being at that time fifty-six years of age . . . When John Kutnaur came to the place of execution, a Jesuit said to him, ‘Embrace the Roman Catholic faith, which alone can save and arm you against the terrors of death.’ To which he replied, ‘Your superstitious faith I abhor, it leads to perdition, and I wish for no other arms against the terrors of death than a good conscience.’ The Jesuit turned away, saying, sarcastically, ‘The Protestants are impenetrable rocks.’ ‘You are mistaken,’ said Kutnaur, ‘it is Christ that is the Rock, and we are firmly fixed upon Him.’ . . . Nathaniel Wodnianskey was hanged for having supported the Protestant cause, and the election of Frederic to the crown of Bohemia. At the gallows, the Jesuits did all in their power to induce him to renounce his faith. Finding their endeavors ineffectual, one of them said, ‘If you will not adjure your heresy, at least repent of your rebellion?’ To which Wodnianskey replied, ’You take away our lives under a pretended charge of rebellion; and, not content with that, seek to destroy our souls; glut yourselves with blood, and be satisfied; but tamper not with our consciences.’ This further irritated the Papists to put in execution the diabolical plot concerted for the destruction of the Protestants; and it failed not of the success wished for by its malicious and rancorous projectors. The design of this horrid conspiracy was that a general insurrection should take place at the same time throughout the kingdom, and that all the Protestants, without exception, should be murdered. The day fixed for this horrid massacre, was the twenty-third of October, 1641, the feast of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits; and the chief conspirators in the principal parts of the kingdom made the necessary preparations for the intended conflict. In order that this detested scheme might the more infallibly succeed, the most distinguished artifices were practiced by the Papists; and their behavior in their visits to the Protestants, at this time, was with more seeming kindness than they had hitherto shown, which was done the more completely to effect the inhuman and treacherous designs then meditating against them.”

pope sixtus vPope Sixtus V (1521–1590; White Pope, Franciscan Monk, Polymath, Polyglot, Excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I of England & King Henry IV of France, Significant Jesuit Puppet of the Counter-Reformation, Worked Endlessly Until His Death to Reform the Corruption, Lawlessness, & Constitutions of the Jesuits, Died Unable to Publish a Written Papal Bull on His Deathbed for Reforming the Society of Jesus, Assassinated by the Jesuits, & the Last Pope to Date to Use the Name Sixtus)

         “Company of Jesus! Who are these men whom we must not name without bowing our heads?”

Paul Hoffaeus, S.J.Paul Hoffaeus, S.J. (1525–1608; German Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Writer, Translated the Roman Catholic Catechism Into German, Rector of the Jesuit Colleges of Prague, Vienna, Ingolstadt, & Munich, Jesuit Vice Provincial & Provincial of the Jesuit Province of Upper Germany, Assistant & Admonitor of Jesuit Superior General Claudius Acquaviva, S.J., Accused Him of Perverting ‘the Original Idea’ of the Jesuit Order, Consequently Stripped of His Position to the Jesuit Superior General)

        “. . . measures for the preservation of Chastity are very rarely observed, or are observed very carelessly. Feasting and frequent visits to single females at their residences take place without necessity. Rendezvous are given in the Church for long conversations with women, and there are scandalously long Confessions of women, even of those who frequently confess. Confessions of sick women in their houses are heard without the presence of a Companion who can see the Confessor and Penitent. Frequently, yes, very frequently, intimacy prevails between two persons, Confessor and his female Penitent, without any trace of strict repression on the Confessor’s part . . . sweet and agreeable words are exchanged, which are tinged with carnal lust and carnal feelings. Unpleasant occurrences, which lead to apostasy . . . great evils are caused by such transgressions in the case of Confessors . . . It is known and has also reached the ears of the Princes, that Confessors from amongst our Order have become entangled through Satanic methods of vice . . .”

        “We have swerved aside, we have fallen away violently, indeed, from the first form of poverty. We are not content with necessary things, but desire that all shall be comfortable, plentiful, diverse, profuse, rare, select, elegant, splendid, gilded, precious and luxurious. I can only think with shame and pain of how many thousand florins have been expended here in Munich in latter years for the maintenance and the embellishment of the College, as if we were not poor members of an Order, but courtiers and spendthrifts. Woe to those who have brought about and devised this damnable and accursed expenditure to the corruption of our religious poverty. This is the more to be regretted because the corruption has already become a habit which can no longer be exterminated unless the axe is placed at the root. There is not a trace left of the poverty of our Fr.s. Everything is done in grand style.”

philip iiKing Philip II (1527–1598; King of Spain, Portugal, Naples, Sicily, England & Ireland, Duke of Milan, Lord of the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands, Devout Roman Catholic, Jesuit Puppet, Defender of the Jesuits’ Counter-Reformation, Grand Master of the Roman Catholic Military Order of the Golden Fleece, Order of Calatrava, Alcantara, Santiago, & Montesa, Behind the Genocide of Millions of Protestants, & Jesuit Mind Controlled Slave of the Black Pope)

        So you’ve heard that:—‘It was the Templars who were the one’s secretly behind the creation of the Society of Jesus.’? Well, I hate to break ito you, but King Philip II, of Spain; Grand-Master of the underground Spanish Templars’ created Roman Catholic Military Orders of Calatrava, Alcantara, Santiago, and Montesa, proclaimed the following:—

         “Of all the religious Orders, that of the Jesuits is the only one which I cannot in the least comprehend.”

         Definition of ‘comprehend’: (1.) to grasp the nature, significance, or meaning of, unable to comprehend what has happened; (2.) to contain or hold within a total scope, significance, or amount. Synonyms for ‘comprehend’: apprehend, assimilate, behold, catch, catch on to, cognize, compass, conceive, decipher, decode, dig, discern, get, grasp, intuit, know, make, make out, perceive, recognize, register, see, seize, sense, understand.

         Does that sound like someone who is the supposed to be the controller of the Jesuit Order? You must simply understand, no one on earth has proven and/or can prove, that underground Templars were behind the creation of the Jesuit Order, an idea not new and so fabricated beyond imagination. And look no further, it was the Jesuits themselves, who invented this idea—but it was for Freemasons in Freemasonry, to have them be a hamster on a wheel. So what are you a product of? And who is it you are learning from?

        Moreover, the Jesuit Order would eat the Templars for dinner, the Templars were the usual same-old Polytheists, just as the other thousandth Secret-Society before and during their time, nothing new. However, the Jesuit Order, is truly the first of it kind they serve no one, no Pope, no bloodline, no god, or angel, they only ever serve their Order. They are Gnostic Theosophical Polytheists of themselves and their own Order, they are Satan in the flesh on earth. Satan has no need to worship bloodlines and gods. The Jesuit Order therefore before us, is the true orginal and first Athiests. Anyone who proclaims, the Templars created the Jesuits, is unkowling and/or  knowingly lying. Also, you will soon learn the people responsible for the creation of the Templars, were absorbed and destroyed by the Jesuits in 1617-19 . . . Now are you going to keep believing in the Jesuit created IHStory of Freemasonry you are under? Or are you going to do your own re-search and find the Truth?

Manuel de Sá, S.J.Manuel de Sa, S.J. (1530–1596; Portuguese Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Truth of Confessors and the Opinions of Learned Men Gathered Together)


        “It is not simony to pay what another has advanced or promised to procure ordination for you, without your knowledge or against your will, or if the money have been given without your concurrence; although, in a Court of Law, this is accounted simony; and the Bishop in such a case may grant dispensation, provided it be not for a benefice or dignity. Neither is it simony to give any thing to obtain another man s friendship, by which means a benefice would be subsequently procured . . . Nor to give a benefice, not principally, but secondarily, for a Temporal advantage . . .”


        “It is not a mortal sin to swear that you will not do that which it is better to do; nor if you swear a false oath as to words, but a true oath in reference to the meaning of the enquirer: as if in the time of the plague you should swear that you were not come from such a place, understanding, that in which the plague prevailed, as he supposes; or, that you had not spoken to such a man, meaning, upon the subject which your enquirer may suspect . . . And lastly, since you are not bound to swear according to the meaning of the enquirer, you may according to your own; which some deny, affirming, that words which are absolutely false are not excused by such an under standing of intention. There are learned men in favor of either opinion, who maintain it on either side with probability.”


        “It is not a mortal sin to take secretly from him who would give if he were asked, although he may be unwilling that it should be taken secretly; and it is not necessary to restore. It is not theft to take a small thing secretly from a husband or a father: but if it be considerable it must be restored. If you have taken any thing which you doubt to have been your own, some say that you ought to restore it, others deny it; because, in the doubt, the condition of the possessor is the better. He who has caused no loss in taking any thing which belonged to another, because the proprietor made no use of it, is not bound to restore it if it will not be of any future use to its owner. He who from any urgent necessity, or without causing much loss, takes wood from another man’s pile, is not obliged to restore it. He who has stolen small things from any one at different times, is obliged to make restitution when they amount together to a considerable sum, although some persons deny it with probability.”


        “The rebellion of an Ecclesiastic against a King is not a crime of high treason, because he is not subject to the King. He who tyrannically governs an empire which he has justly obtained, cannot be deprived of it without a public trial: but when sentence has been passed, every man may become an executor of it; and he may be deposed by the people, even although perpetual obedience were sworn to him, if after admonition given he will not be corrected.”

        “The Pope can kill by a single word; for having received the right of making pasture for the sheep, has he not received the right of cutting the throats of wolves?”

        “The tyrant is illegitimate; and any man whatever of the people has the right to kill him.”

Francis Coster, S.J. 1Francis Coster, S.J. (1531–1619; Flemish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Writer, Jesuit Provincial of Belgium & Rhine, & Author of Handbook of Controversies About Religion During Our Present Time)


         “A Priest sins, if he commits fornication; but he sins more if he marries.”

Petrus Mascarena, S.J.Petrus Mascarena, S.J. pseudonym Masarrennas (1532–1581; German Jesuit, Confessor of the King of the Roman Catholic Kingdom of Larantuka, Writer, & Author of Historical Dictionary of the Society of Jesus)


         “I have been taught by the blessed Mary . . . that in looking upon a woman with unchaste desires, we fulfill the obligation of hearing mass, even if we had not intended to fulfil it.”

John Gibbons, S.J.John Gibbons, S.J. pseudonym Dr. John Bridgewater (1532–1596; English Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Professor & Rector of the Jesuit University of Trier, Rector of the Jesuit Lincoln College at Oxford, Clerical Historian of the Catholic Confessors of Queen Elizabeth I of England, & Author of The Battle of the Catholic Faith in England Under Queen Elizabeth)


        “All kings who have submitted themselves and their scepters to the mild yoke of Christ, are thereby engaged, equally with the rest of the flock, to yield to the authority of the church and her Pastors. Zonaras writes, that the Patriarch of Constantinople freely and openly said to Isaac Comnenus, that as he had received the empire from his hands, so would he also lose it by his authority, unless he governed with dignity and wisdom . . . On these conditions alone, therefore, are kings received into the communion of the Church by the Bishops upon divine authority; on these conditions are they anointed and crowned. If they should themselves be the first to break the bonds of their solemn league and oath, and violate the faith which they have pledged to God and to the people of God; the people are not only permitted, but they are required and their duty demands, that at the mandate of the Vicar of Christ, who is the Sovereign Pastor over all the Nations of the earth, the faith which they had previously made with such Princes should not be kept.”

cardinal francisco de toledo, s.j.Cardinal Francisco de Toledo, S.J. (1532–1596; Spanish Jesuit, First Jesuit Cardinal, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Professor at the Jesuit Pontifical Gregorian University, & Author of Seven Mortal Sins)


        “When one cannot sell his wine at the price he considers it to be worth, because it is considered to be too dear, he can give smaller measure and mix with it a small quantity of water, in such a way, of course, that everyone believes he has the full measure, and that the wine is pure and unadulterated.”


        “A man cannot sell his wine at a fair price, either on account of the injustice of the Judge, or through fraud of the purchasers who have agreed among themselves to be few in number in order to lower the price: then he may diminish his measure, or mix a little water with his wine, and sell it for pure wine of full measure, demanding the full price, provided only that he does not tell a lie: which if he does, it will neither be a dangerous nor a mortal sin, neither will it oblige him to make restitution.”


        “Cajetan observes, that in the case in which an election would be very injurious to the Church., money might be given to prevent such election; but not to insure that any particular election should be made. And he proposes this example: if the Cardinals should wish to elect a Pope, who would be very injurious to the interests of the church, money might be given them to prevent their choosing him. Sotus adds . . . that it would also be lawful to give it for the election itself, if there should be only one worthy Pope, and all the others likely to be injurious. For then it would be the same thing to give it for the non-election and for the election. But when there are many persons worthy of being chosen, it is not lawful to purchase the election of one of them, although he may be the most worthy. Sotus rests his opinion upon this ground, that he thinks simony not to be so far forbidden by the divine and natural law, but that, in a case of emergency, and extreme spiritual necessity, it is lawful to give money for a spiritual purpose: and this opinion appears to me to be probable, although such a case is extremely rare. A doubt arises in the case in which a man should promise to give money for a benefice, not with an intention of really giving it, but feignedly; and, if he should thus take the benefice, whether there would be simony. Sotus and Cajetan say that there would not, because the outward act partakes of the inward intention: wherefore, though the feigned promise were confirmed by a bond, there would be no simony; although, in a Court of Law, it would be reckoned simony, because that Court does not regard the inward intention. Thus I think, although Navarre inclines to a different opinion; but this is the better.”


        “There is still another point to be considered in reference to an accused person: when he is not lawfully examined, in what words he should reply when he has really committed the crime . . . The whole and only difficulty is, whether, when he is pressed, he may reply, I have not done it. Now, in the first place, it is certain that he is not permitted to tell a lie: for he would be perjured, and, in any case, would sin mortally: but it is lawful for him to use equivocation. Sotus maintains, that it is not lawful for him in any way to say, I have not done it; because in this reply there would be no equivocation, but a lie. Yet Adrian asserts, that such an accused person may say, I have not done it. Cajetan affirms that he might answer, that he had no accomplices, although he had. And I think this to be the more probable. Yet the accused should be careful to use such expressions according to his meaning in a true sense, as if he intended to say, I have not done it, meaning, since he had been in prison; and, I have had no accomplices, understanding, in other crimes, or some such meaning: otherwise it would be a lie; but not in this manner; because in such a case his words are not to be considered according to the meaning of the Judge, but of the accused himself.”


        “Since the Spiritual power, for the better and more effectual fulfillment of its office, has thought fit to separate certain classes of persons from the secular power, it is indeed rightly done; and the language of St. Paul is not opposed to it, who means that all men should be subject to the higher powers, but not to the secular powers: for he does not deny to spiritual ministers the power of exempting all, as many as they shall choose, from the secular power, whenever they may deem it expedient.”


        “When opinions are divided, it may be maintained by some that a contract is legal, and by others that it is illegal. If it should happen that a Confessor is of the opinion of those who maintain that it is illegal, and the Penitent believes it to be legal, then the Penitent may oblige the Confessor to absolve him according to his own (the Penitents) opinion; and the Confessor ought to do so, provided that the two opinions are probable, otherwise he ought not; and this often happens in many contracts upon which contrary Probable Opinions exist; either of which the Confessor may follow with a safe conscience, although he may himself approve but of one of them.”


          ‘Probability’ is a Jesuit doctrine, according to which, in the concurrence of two opinions, of which the one is more probable and in conformity with the Torah of YAHUAH, the other less probable, but favoring the transgression of the Torah: sin, it is lawful to follow the latter in practice.

         The authoritative illustrations of this fundamental Torahlessness and Satanic dogma of Jesuitical Casuistry are subjoined, and have been taken out of their chronological order, to bring the Society’s definitions of its doctrine into one point of view. Remember this from here on out.

Antonio Possevino, S.J.Antonio Possevino, S.J. (1533–1611, Italian Jesuit, Antagonist of Counter Reformation as a Papal Diplomat, Controversialist, Encyclopedist. Bibliographer, Papal Legate of Russia, Jesuit Vicar-General of Sweden, Denmark, Muscovy, Livonia, Rus, Hungary, Pomerania, & Saxony, & Author of The History of the Very Nature of Studies in the Selected Library in Discipline in the Safety of All and to be Had From)


          “Saint Ignatius saw the souls of his fellows arising to Heaven and stopping to converse with him. They foretold to him that every Christian [Catholic] wearing the Jesuitical Habit should have the privilege to go straight to Heaven.”


          “The Reverend Father Jesuit Cotton, confessor of Louis XIV, King of France, asked the Devil, in exorcising a pretended possessed, whether or not he had nails before the seduction of Eve.”

luis-de-molina-s-jLuis de Molina, S.J. (1535–1600; Spanish Jesuit, Scholastic, Creator of the Gnostic Polytheism of Trans-World Damnation & Once Saved Always Saved Eschatological Theology Known as Molinism, & Author of Justice as Virtue in an Economic Context & Of Free Will with Rewards of Grace from Divine Foreknowledge and Predestination for the Rejection of Individuality)


        “The Spiritual Power of the Sovereign Pontiff, applied to a spiritual purpose, possesses as it were by necessary consequence, supreme and ample jurisdiction over all Princes and others who are within the church, precisely to as great an extent as the spiritual object may require for which the Spiritual Power is ordained. Therefore if the spiritual end require it, the sovereign Pontiff can depose kings and deprive them of their Kingdoms. He may also judge between them in Temporal things, invalidate their laws, and accomplish all things among Christian [Catholic] which may be considered necessary for a spiritual purpose and for the common salvation, not by every kind of means, but simply as it should seem expedient in the judgment of a learned man: he may do it, not only by compulsory censures, but also by outward penalties and by force of arms, in the same manner as any other secular Prince. Yet it may generally be expedient that the Sovereign Pontiff should accomplish it, not of himself, but by means of secular Princes.”


        “The spiritual power of the Pope for supernatural purposes, comprehends, dependent on those causes, the most ample and extensive powers of temporal jurisdiction over all Princes, and over all the faithful in the church, precisely as often as this requisite for the supernatural purposes, for which the spiritual power is established; for this reason, if the supernatural object requires it, the Pope may depose kings and deprive them of their kingdoms . . . And it is not only by censures, that he may oblige compliance with his commands; but by pains and penalties, and by force of arms, like secular Princes; though in general it is found more suitable, that the Pope should not make war himself; but that he should use outward force by means of secular Princes. For these reasons the Pope, is recognized as the possessor of two swords—one spiritual, and the other temporal. Most certainly Jesus Christ would not have sufficiently provided for the maintenance of His church, if He had not made all Christian [Catholic] secular Princes subject to the Pope, and given the Sovereign Pontiff ample power to oblige and constrain them to do whatever, he deemed necessary, for supernatural objects. The Pope may depose kings if the preservation of the faith of the Church, or the spiritual good of the public requires it,’ etc. ‘If a Prince should become a heretic or a schismatic, ‘the Pope may use the temporal sword against him;’ and furthermore, ‘he may depose him, and drive him from his kingdom . . .’”

Juan Azor, S.J.Juan Azor, S.J. pseudonym Navarro (1535–1600; Spanish Jesuit, Polyglot, Writer, Philosopher, Professor of Jesuit Philosophy & Theology, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Member of the First Committee Appointed by Jesuit Superior General Claudio Acquaviva, S.J. to Draw Up the Infamous Jesuit Ratio Studiorum, & Author of A Morale Conscience)


         “(Q.) May a bridegroom and his bride copulate before their marriage? (A.) Yes.”

enrique henríquezEnrique Henriquez, S.J. (1536–1608; Portuguese Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Highest Moral Theology)


        “If an Ecclesiastic caught in adultery by the husband of a woman with whom he has a love affair, kills the man in order to defend his own life and honor, he is not only quite justified in doing so, but he is, on that account, not incapacitated from continuing the exercise of his Ecclesiastical functions.”


        “If an adulterer, even although he should be an Ecclesiastic, reflecting upon the danger, has entered the house of an adulteress, and being attacked by her husband, kills his aggressor in the necessary defense of his life or limbs, he is not considered irregular.”


        “A scrupulous man continues safe, if he prefers, against his scruples, that which he considers probable, although he may think that another opinion is more probable. And the Confessor should con form himself, against his own opinion, to that of the Penitent, by which he is excused from sin before God.”


         “Men and women will enjoy in the Paradise masquerades and ballets . . . The angels will dress themselves as the women—will appear to the Saints with rich female ornaments, curled hair, with petticoats, and fardingales, and muslin shirts . . . Each blessed will have in heaven a particular residence. Jesus Christ will dwell in a splendid palace. There will be wide streets and large public squares, castles and citadels . . . The supreme pleasure will be to kiss and embrace the bodies of the female blessed. They will bathe in springs destined for the purpose, and will sing like the nightingales . . . Women will have beautiful and long hair. They will adorn themselves with ribbons; their dress and head-dresses will be the same fashion as here below.”

El_padre_Juan_de_Mariana_(Museo_del_Prado)Juan de Mariana, S.J. (1536–1624; Spanish Jesuit, Scholastic, Historian, Member of the Monarchomachs, & Author of On the King and the Royal Institution)


        “It is necessary to consider attentively what course should be pursued in deposing a Prince, lest sin be added unto sin, and crime be punished by the commission of crime. This is the shortest and the safest way: if a public meeting can be held, to deliberate upon what may be determined by the common consent; and to consider as firmly settled and established whatever may be resolved by the general opinion. In which case the following course would be pursued. First of all, the Prince must be admonished and brought back to his senses. If he should comply, if he should satisfy the state and correct the errors of his past life, I am of opinion that it will be necessary to stop, and to desist from harsher measures. But if he refuse the remedy, and there remains no hope of cure, it will be lawful for the state, after sentence has been pronounced, in the first place to refuse to acknowledge his empire; and since war will of necessity be raised, to unfold the plans of defense, to take up arms, and to levy contributions upon the people to meet the expenses of the war; and if circumstances will permit, and the state cannot be otherwise preserved, by the same just right of defense, by a more forcible and peculiar power, to destroy with the sword the Prince who is declared to be a public enemy. And let the same power be vested in any private individual, who, renouncing the hope of impunity, and disregarding his safety, would exert an effort in the service of the state. But you will ask, what is to be done if a public meeting cannot be held? which may very commonly happen. In my opinion, a similar judgment must be formed; for when the state is oppressed by the tyranny of the Prince, and the people are deprived of the power of assembling, the will to abolish the tyranny is not wanting, or to avenge the manifest and intolerable crimes of the Prince, and to restrain his mischievous efforts: as, if he should overthrow the religion of the country, and introduce a public enemy within the state. I shall never consider that man to have done wrong, who, favoring the public wishes, would attempt to kill him . . . Thus the question of fact which is contested is this, Who may deservedly be considered as a tyrant? The question of right, Whether it is lawful to kill a tyrant? is sufficiently evident . . . Most men are deterred by a love of self-preservation, which is very frequently opposed to deeds of enterprise. It is for this reason that among the number of tyrants who lived in ancient times, there were so few who perished by the swords of their subjects . . . Still it is useful that Princes should be made to know, that if they oppress the state, and become intolerable by their vices and their pollution, they hold their lives upon this tenure, that to put them to death is not only lawful, but a laudable and a glorious action. The life of a tyrant is evidently wretched which is held upon the tenure, that lie who should kill him would be highly esteemed, both in favor and in praise. It is a glorious thing to exterminate this pestilent and mischievous race from the community of men. For putrescent members are cut off lest they infect the rest of the body. So should the cruelty of that beast in the form of man, be removed from the state, as from a body, and be severed from it with the sword. There is a doubt whether it is lawful to kill a tyrant and public enemy the same decision will apply to both with poison and deadly herbs . . . for we know that it is frequently done . . . In my own opinion, deleterious drugs should not be given to an enemy, neither should a deadly poison be mixed with his food or in his cup, with a view to cause his death . . . Yet it will indeed be lawful to use this method in the case in question; not to constrain the person who is to be killed, to take of himself the poison which, inwardly received, would deprive him of life, but to cause it to be outwardly applied by another without his intervention: as, when there is so much strength in the poison, that if spread upon a seat or on the it would be sufficiently powerful to cause death.”


        “Jacques Clement suffered joyfully blows and mortal wounds, because by the loss of life he gave liberty to his country and the nation. Murder was expiated by murder, and the manes of the Duc de Guise, unjustly killed, were avenged by the effusion of royal blood. Jacques Clement did a really noble, admirable, memorable action . . . by which he taught earthly Princes that their impious enterprises never remain unpunished. Every individual has the same power that of declaring the sovereign a public enemy, and consequently of killing him by the sword, if he has the courage, to undertake to assist the Republic at the risk of his own life without hope of escaping from capital punishment. It would be very advantageous for men if many men would be found, who by the sacrifice of their own lives, would undertake so courageous an action for the liberty of their country; but most men are deterred by a disordered care for their own preservation, which renders him incapable of great enterprises; thence it is so few of the tyrants we read of in former ages, have suffered violent deaths by the hands of their subjects. Nevertheless, it is well that Princes should know, that, if they oppress their people, and render themselves unsupportable by their vices and misdoings, they live on the condition, that not only they may be killed righteously and justly, but that it is a praiseworthy and glorious action to kill them. No one doubts that a tyrant may be killed overtly by force of arms, either by attacking him in his palace, in giving battle to him, or even by deceit and ambush. It is true, it is more magnanimous and generous to declare your hatred, and to assail the enemy of the state openly; but it is no less laudable to seize some favorable occasion, and to use deceit and ambuscades in order to perform the act without occasioning much agitation, and with less peril, both to the public and to individuals . . . I have said that the constitutions of the Jesuits are founded on two principles; the absolute power of the Pope, and his communication of an absolute power to the Society. You will see, that the system of the Society and its Government, both interior and exterior, and the particular regulations of the Constitutions, flow naturally from those two principles, that the Pope has absolute power, and that he has communicated it to the Society . . . The second fundamental principle of the Constitution of the Jesuits is, that the Pope, as the rightful sovereign over all things, both spiritual and temporal, has communicated his absolute power to the Society of Jesuits in the person of their General, for the preservation and propagation of the spiritual and temporal good of the Society . . . I have proved that regicide is the ancient and received doctrine of the Society, and how dangerous it is to states to leave sovereign and independent power in the hands of any single man.”

0007Arthur Dent (–1609; Scottish Presbyterian Puritan, Preacher, & Author of The Ruin of Rome: Or, An Exposition upon the Whole Revelation)

        “The Jesuits came out of the very mouth, the very heart and the very bowels of the Pope, and of the devil . . . They will have the religion of Mohamed established to poison and plague all the East parts of the world in their souls; and they will have the most huge, cruel, and savage armies of the Turks raised up, to murder and massacre millions of men in their bodies, in the West part of the world.”

James Gordon, S.J.James Gordon Huntly, S.J. (1541–1620; Scottish Jesuit, Professor of Jesuit Philosophy, Theology, Sacred Scripture, & Hebrew in the Jesuit Colleges of Pont-a-Mousson, Paris, & Bordeaux, Brainwashed & Converted King James VI of Scotland & the Kingdom of Scotland Over to Roman Catholicism, Incognito Rosicrucian, Writer, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Epitome of Disputes)


       “Having established the obligation of the love of God, we must next inquire when it is binding . . . I think that the time in which this precept is binding, cannot easily be defined. It is a sure thing, indeed, that it is binding; but at what precise time is sufficiently uncertain.”


        “Of what value the thing stolen ought to be, in order to render the theft a mortal sin compelling restitution. Some think that the value cannot be accurately defined, but that it must rest upon the opinion of a prudent man depending upon the circumstances of time and place, and on the manner in which the theft has been committed, the injury which has resulted from it, and the quality of the persons, whether they are Princes, rich men, persons in the middle rank of life, or poor. A son is sometimes, and even often, to be accounted free from deadly sin and from the necessity of restitution, when he robs his father: and sometimes he is reckoned to sin grievously. A son is not accounted to sin mortally, when he has a probable reason for believing, that if his father were asked, he would grant him what he steals without reluctance; for then the owner is not averse to the matter, but to the manner of the transaction. If the amount is not thought considerable in respect to his condition. If he steals with the intent to give alms to one who is in great need; for then his parent is not reasonably averse to it. If he robs his father to procure an innocent diversion suited to his rank . . .”


        “A girl of pleasure is justified in receiving payment, only she must not make the price too high. The same holds good in the case of every young maid who pursues her calling secretly. A married woman, however, has not the same right to receive payment, seeing that the gain from prostitution has not been previously stipulated for in the marriage contract.”

Juan Osorio, S.J.Juan Osorio, S.J. (1542–1594; Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Summary of Consciousness)


        “The power of the keys is delivered to Peter and to his successors, in which power many things are included. First, to rule the Universal Church and to appoint Bishops in different places; to preach the gospel throughout the world; to give, to resume, or to moderate all power; to establish kings, and to deprive them of their kingdoms again if they abandon or oppose the preaching of the faith. When it is expedient for the spiritual welfare, the Pope can remove rulers, kings, and emperors, and can take away their dominions from wicked and disobedient kings, who impede the promulgation of the gospel.”

Robert Bellarmine, S.J.Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, S.J. (1542–1621; Italian Jesuit, Cardinal, Doctor of the Church, One of the Most Important Figures of the Counter-Reformation, Created & Controlled the Council of Trent with Jesuit Superior Generals Diego Laynez, S.J. & Ignatius de Loyola, S.J., Invented Ultramontanism aka National-Socialist Fascism, Co-Author of the Counter-Reformation Eschatological Military Theological Delusions Known as Preterism & Futurism Along with Jesuits Francisco Ribera, S.J. & Manuel Lacunza, S.J. to Legomincize Biblical Prophecy, & Author of Controversial Discussions About the Christian Faith in the Face of Temporal Heretics)


        “The church, says Luther, has never burned a heretic. . . . I reply that this argument proves not the opinion, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther. Since almost infinite numbers were either burned or otherwise killed, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant, or if he was not ignorant, he is convicted of impudence and falsehoodfor that heretics were often burned by the Church may be proved from many examples.”


        “Experience teaches that there is no other remedy for the evil, but to put heretics to death; for the church proceeded gradually and tried every remedy: at first she merely Excommunicated them; afterwards she added a fine; then she banished them; and finally she was constrained to put them to death.”


        “If the kings be the first to break their solemn league and oath, and violate the lay which they have pledged to God, the people are not only permitted, but they are required, and their duty demands, that, at the mandate of the Vicar of Christ, who is the Sovereign Pastor of all the Nations of the earth, the fidelity which they previously owed or promised to such Princes should not be kept.”


        “The Spiritual power does not blend itself with Temporal affairs, but it suffers all things to proceed as they did before they were united, provided they are not opposed to any spiritual object, or are not necessary to obtain it. But if any such thing should occur, the Spiritual power may and must restrain the Temporal power, by every mean and expedient which may be considered necessary . . . It may change kingdoms, and take them from one to transfer them to another, as a spiritual Prince, if it should be necessary for the salvation of souls. Christians [Catholics] may not tolerate an infidel or heretic King, if he endeavors to draw his subjects to his heresy or infidelity. But it is the Province of the Sovereign Pontiff, to whom the care of religion has been entrusted, to decide whether the King draws them to heresy or not. It is therefore for the Pontiff to determine, whether the King must be deposed or not . . .”


        “It is not for Monks or other Ecclesiastics to take away life . . . much less may they destroy Kings by treachery. Neither has it been usual for the Sovereign Pontiffs to restrain Princes by such means. It is their custom first to reprove them with paternal correction, afterwards to deprive them of a participation of the Sacraments by an Ecclesiastical censure, and finally to absolve their subjects from the oath of allegiance, and to divest them of their royal dignity and authority, if the case require it. The execution belongs to others.”


        “Political power emanates from God. Government was introduced by divine law, but the divine law has given this power to no particular man.”


        “All the names which are attributed to Christ in Scripture, implying His supremacy over the church, are also attributed to the Pope.”


        “We maintain that the Pope for the sake of spiritual good, has a sovereign power to dispose of Temporal good to all Christians [Catholics] . . . The Pope may then change empires, take the crown from one to give it to another, as being the sovereign spiritual Prince, if he judges that necessary for the salvation of souls, ‘When the temporal obedience, which you pay to a King, endangers your eternal salvation, then I am completely superior to your King, even in temporal things; you are the sheep of my flock, and your kings are its leaders; and as your kings remain sheep I permit them to govern you and lead you; but if they become wolves instead of sheep, am I to allow my Master’s flock to be ruled by wolves?’ You must not acknowledge as kings, those who lead you away from the path of life, either by menaces or caresses, or any other means—those, whom I have condemned to be banished from the Company of just men, and to be deprived of their Sovereignty . . .”

05 Claudio AquavivaClaudio Acquaviva, S.J. (15431615; Italian Jesuit, Member of the Rex Deus Saxony Dynasty, 9th Duke of Aragon, the Rosicrucian Order‘s Invisible Superior, Polymath, Polyglot, Papal Chamberlain, 5th Superior General of the Society of Jesus 1581-1615, Mastermind Behind the Spanish Armada, the English Armada, the Anglo-Spanish War, the Dutch Revolt Eighty YearsWar, & the Jesuit Created ‘LutheranOrder of the Rosicrucians Using Incognito Forth-Vow Jesuits Tobie Mathew, S.J., Robert Fludd, S.J., Daniel Cramer, S.J., Adam Haslmayr, S.J., Louis Richeome, S.J., Zimpertus Wehe, S.J., Jean Roberti, S.J., John Floyd, S.J., Benito Pereira, S.J., Johann Isaac Hollandus, S.J., Levinus Lemnius, S.J., Hippolytus Guarinonius, S.J., & Jacobus Sinapius, S.J. the Confessor of the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II, Responsible for the Loss of 450,000 Lives, & Ghost-Author of the Monita Secreta Societatis Iesu: the Secret Instructions of the Soceity of Jesus)

         The ‘Monita Secreta Societatis Iesu’ (the ‘Secret Instructions of the Society of Jesus’) first appeared in print at Krakow, in 1612, after they had already been circulated in manuscript form. The editor and publisher was ex-fourth-vow Jesuit Jerome Zahorowski, S.J., and its content were entirely written solely by none other than the Jesuit Superior General, Claudio Acquaviva, S.J., in Rome. Almost innumerable editions and reprints in all civilized tongues followed one another. The latest edition was published at Bamberg in 1904.

         The importance of the publication follows from the fact that, directly after its appearance, the Jesuit Superior General, Mutio Vitelleschi, S.J., twice (in 1616 and 1617) instructed the German Jesuit, Jacob Gretser, S.J., a prominent Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian of the Order, to refute it, and that up to most recent times Jesuit after Jesuit has come forward to repudiate it. Only sound proof can turn the scale against the genuineness of the Monita. And such proofs have never been produced up to now by the Jesuits.

         The genuineness rely essentially on the fact that the manuscript copies of the Monita, upon which the printed edition is based, were to be found in many numerous Jesuit Colleges. The discovery of such copies in the Jesuit Colleges of Prague, Paris, Roermond, Munich, and Paderborn is beyond question. The copy in the Jesuit House of Paderborn was found by Protestant military leader Christian the Younger of Brunswick, during the Jesuit created genocidal First Thirty Years’ War Roman Crusade, in a desk drawer of the Jesuit College Rector’s room. The manuscript copy at Munich, belonging to the contents of the library of the Jesuit College of there (which was suppressed by the Jesuits in 1773,) was only found in 1870 in a secret recess behind the altar of the old Jesuit Church of St. Michael, at Munich.

         It is certain, however, that the discovery in Prague was so disagreeable to the Jesuit Order that the chief champion of the spuriousness of the Monita, the prominent Jesuit and Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian Laurenz Forer S.J., considered it advisable to pass it over in silence in his famous work of repudiation, ‘Anatomia Anatomiae Societatis Iesu.’ On the other hand, he zealously demonstrated—what no one disputed—that the copy at Paderborn was only brought to light after the first edition had been published. Forer’s silence is the more remarkable, as a manuscript note, intended for his book, treats the Prague discovery as a fact. The saying that those who keep silence when they could and should speak seem to give consent, comes to my mind in the case of this ominous silence.

        “The Superiors must carefully preserve these private instructions and keep them in their own possession, and communicate them only to a few of the Professed, and they may teach some of them to the non-Professed when they may without doubt be used with great advantage to the Society, and that only under the seal of silence, not indeed as written by another, but as deduced from the experience of him who tells it; and since many of the Professed are aware of these secrets, therefore the Society from its beginning has been careful that no one who is aware of them should be able to join any other religious Order . . . The greatest possible care must be taken that these Instructions do not fall into the hands of strangers, because being envious of us they may interpret them with a sinister purpose; but if this should happen (which God forbid), let it be denied that these are the principles of the Society, and let such denial be confirmed by those of our members, whom we are sure know nothing of them, and let them set in contrast to these, our general instructions and ordinances, printed or written. Also let the Superiors carefully and cautiously inquire whether these instructions have been made known to any stranger, and let no one transcribe them, either for himself or for another, or allow to be transcribed, unless with the consent of the General or Provincial, and if there be any doubt concerning any one as to his preserving so great secrets of the Society, let the contrary be told him and let him be dismissed.”

        “Let the greatest sums be always extorted from widows, by frequent remonstrances of our extreme necessities.”

        “In every Province, let none but the principal be fully apprised of the real value of our revenues; and let what is contained in the treasury of Rome be always kept as an inviolable secret.”

        “Princes and persons of distinction everywhere, must by all means be so managed that we may have their ear, and that will easily secure their hearts: by which way of proceeding, all persons will become our creatures, and no one will dare to give the Society the least disquiet or opposition . . . Finally, the Society must endeavor to effect this at least, that having gotten the favor and authority of Princes, those who do not love them at least fear them.”

        “Finally,—Let all with such artfulness gain the ascendant over Princes, Noblemen, and the magistrates of every place, that they may be ready at our beck, even to sacrifice their nearest relations and most intimate friends, when we say it is for our interest and advantage.”

        “Let the members of our Society direct Princes and great men in such a manner that they may seem to have nothing else in view but the promotion of God’s glory; and advise them to no other austerity of conscience but what they themselves are willing to comply with; for their aim must not, immediately, but by degrees and insensibly, be directed towards political and secular dominion.”

        “Immediately upon the death of any person of post, let them take timely care to get some friend of our Society preferred in his room; but this must be cloaked with such cunning and management as to avoid giving the least suspicion of our intending to usurp the prince’s authority; for this reason we ourselves must not appear in it, but make a handle of the artifice of some faithful friends for effecting our designs, whose power may screen them from the envy which might otherwise fall heavier upon the Society.”

        “The Society may also advantageously traffic under the borrowed names of some rich merchants, our friends; but never without a prospect of certain and abundant gain; and this may be done even to the Indies, which hitherto, by the bountiful favor of God, have furnished us not only with souls, but also plenteously supplied our coffers with wealth.”

        “Nor let such members of the Order by any means be retained as either openly oppose their Superiors, or, in public or private, make complaints against them to their fellow-members, but especially to strangers, or such as condemn, to their associates, or strangers, the conduct of the Society in the amassing or management of temporal goods, or any other of our methods of proceeding; as for instance, our suppressing, and keeping under all either disaffected to, or expelled from our Order, etc., or that admit in conversation, or defend the Venetians, French, or others, who by hindering us from getting a footing among them, have done the Society intolerable damages.”

        “Let our members chiefly endeavor at this, always to act with humanity, even in things of trifling moment; or at least to have the outward appearance of doing so; for by this means, whatever confusions may arise in the world, the Society of necessity will always increase and maintain its ground.”

        “Let kings and Princes be kept up in this principle, that the Catholic faith, as matters now stand, cannot subsist without the civil power, which however must be managed with the greatest discretion. By this means our members will work themselves into the favor of persons in the highest post of Government, and consequently be admitted into their most secret councils.”

        “Nor will it contribute a little to our advantage, if, with caution and secrecy, we foment and heighten the animosities that arise among Princes and great men, even to such a degree that they may weaken each other. But if there appear any likelihood of reconciliation, then as soon as possible let us endeavor to be the mediators, lest others prevent us.”

        “The Nobility and populace must, by all methods, be persuaded into a belief that the Society was instituted by the particular direction of divine providence, according to the prophecies of the Abbot Jachim, that by this means the Church, though depressed by the attempts of heretics, may be raised again to its primitive luster.”

        “The favor of the Nobility and superior Clergy, once got, our next aim must be to draw all cures and Canon-ships into our possession, for the more complete Reformation of the Clergy, who heretofore lived under certain regulation of their Bishops, and made considerable advances towards perfection. And lastly, let us aspire to Abbacies and Bishoprics, and obtaining which, when vacancies happen, will very easily be effected, considering the supineness and stupidity of the Monks; for it would entirely tend to the benefit of the Church, that all Bishoprics, and even the Apostolic See, should be hooked into our hands, especially should his holiness ever become a temporal Prince over all. Wherefore, let no methods be untried, with cunning and privacy, by degrees, to increase the worldly interests of the Society, and then, no doubt, a Golden Age will go hand in hand with an universal and lasting peace, and divine blessing of consequence attend the Catholic Church.”

        “But if our hopes in this should be blasted, and since offenses of necessity will come, our political schemes must be cunningly varied, according to the different posture of the times; and Princes, our intimates, whom we can influence to follow our councils, must be pushed on to embroil themselves in vigorous wars one with another, to the end, our Society as promoters of the universal good of the world, may on all hands be solicited to contribute its assistance, and always employed in being mediators of public dissensions: by this means the chief benefices and preferment in the church will, of course, be given to us by way of compensation for our services.”

        “I make profession, and promise Almighty God, before His Virgin Mother, and before all the heavenly host, and before all bystanders, and you. Reverend Fr., General of the Society of Jesus, holding the place of God, and your successors; or you. Reverend Fr., Vice-General of the Society of Jesus and of his successors, holding the place of God, perpetual poverty, chastity and obedience, and therein, peculiar care in the education of boys, according to the form of living contained in the Apostolic Letters of the Society of Jesus, and in its constitutions.”

        “Finally, the Society must endeavor to effect this at last, that having got the favor and authority of Princes, those who do not love them at least fear them.”

        “The commands, upon which the poor redskins work as slaves, are an abomination in the sight of God, and a complete extermination of the population must follow if the present system continue.”


        “Why are there not regions beyond the stars, that one might be able to conquer other worlds than that pertaining to earth?”

Valère Regnault, S.J.Valere Regnault, S.J. (1545–1623; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Rosicrucian, & Author The Practice of Penitent Confession of Repentance)


        “That opinion is considered probable which is supported by high authority, or by an argument of considerable weight. By a high authority . . . we are to understand the authority of those Doctors, who, in their other opinions upon moral things, are often found to reach the truth, and seldom to err from it.”


        “In an action for and against which there are Probable Opinions, but the one opinion more probable than the other . . . it is not necessary to follow the safer part, provided the other be safe. We are not forbidden to adhere to that which we verily believe to be probable and safe, because the contrary may appear to be more probable and more safe. He who, for strong reasons, verily persuades himself that a thing is lawful, contrary to the common opinion, may give his advice to an enquirer according to that common opinion, although he may consider the contrary opinion to be the more probable, and should think that the arguments which favor the common opinion may be completely refuted. A Confessor may absolve a Penitent, who, of two Probable Opinions, chooses to maintain that which the Confessor himself thinks the less probable, and will not acquiesce in the opposite and safer decision.”


        “If a man whose mind is occupied with some practical doubt, dwells upon it with delight, but does not reflect that it is not lawful to delight in it, while his will is entirely abhorrent from it, and he is resolved, as far as possible, to refuse the delight if the sinfulness of it should ever occur to him; he is evidently excused from sin, although he should think upon it with delight for a whole day. The reason is, that as long as the understanding does not reflect upon the wickedness of that which is offered to the will . . . the consent of the will is not a sin, because the sinfulness of it was not known; unless the inadvertence should have arisen from gross negligence, or in a depraved inclination to sin.”


        “Simony is not committed, when any spiritual thing is bought or sold in Probable Ignorance; nor when a promise is made to give a Temporal for a Spiritual benefit . . . if there be not the will to perform the promise . . . And in that case, as the will to perform the promise is wanting, so, in fact, the will to purchase is also wanting, and there only remains the will to commit a fraud.”


        “If there is a lawful cause for using equivocation or artifice in swearing, even although he to whom the oath is sworn should understand it in a sense different from that in which it is understood by him who swears it, and would thus be deceived, a mortal sin is not committed; and sometimes it does not even amount to one which is venial. Whether it is lawful to conceal the truth by speaking ambiguously? . . . It is lawful. And the ambiguity by which the truth may be concealed without a falsehood is such, that what a man utters shall be true according to his own meaning, although it may be false according to the sense of his hearer, and the common acceptation. The equivocation which is here spoken of, is not only that which arises from the different significations of words . . . but that which also happens when words are pronounced which are indeed false when uttered aside and taken separately, but are true with certain additions which are understood by the speaker.”


        “Servants may not take the property of their masters secretly and by way of compensation, in pretense that their wages are not equitable; unless it should in reality appear to be the case in the opinion of an experienced man. Servants are excused both from sin and restitution if they only take in equitable compensation that is, when they are not furnished with such things necessary for food and clothing as are usual in other houses, and which ought to be provided for similar servants, they only take so much of their masters property as will compensate for such an injustice, and no more . . . Among the conditions of a lawful compensation this is the chief, that the debt cannot be obtained by any other means.”


        “If you are preparing to give false evidence against me, by which I should receive sentence of death, and I have no other means of escape, it is lawful for me to kill you, since I should otherwise be killed myself: for it would be immaterial in such a case whether you killed me with your own or by another man s sword; as, for instance, by that of the executioner.”


        “Only one must take the exact compensation, and not steal anything more than that for which one has a claim.”


          The Satanic Jesuit doctrine of ‘Philosophical Sin’ also known as ‘Invincible Ignorance’ is that which teaches, that an action the most criminal in itself, offends against reason, but does not displease ‘God,’ nor deserves eternal damnation, if the Agent who commits it knows not ‘God,’ or does not actually think of him, or does not reflect that he offends him, or in other words: Divination. Remember this from here on out.

Robert Persons, S.J.Robert Persons, S.J. (1546–1610; English Jesuit, Prolific Author, Major Figure in Establishing the English Counter-Reformation, Conspired in the High Treason & Regicide of Queen Elizabeth I, of England, Involved in the Jesuit Created & Controlled Anglo-Spanish War & the Dutch Revolt Eighty Years’ War, & Author of The Jesuit’s Memorial, for the Death & Destruction of the Church of England)


        “Hence the whole school of Theologians and Ecclesiastical Lawyers maintain and it is a thing both certain and matter of faith, that every Christian [Catholic] Prince, if he has manifestly departed from the Catholic religion and has washed to turn others from it, is immediately divested of all power and dignity, whether of divine or human right, and that, too, even before the sentence pronounced against him by the Supreme Pastor and Judge; and that all his subjects are free from every obligation of the oath of allegiance which they had sworn to him as their lawful Prince; and that they may and must if they have the power drive such a man from the sovereignty of Christian [Catholic] men, as an apostate, a heretic, and a deserter of Christ the Lord, and as an alien and an enemy to his country, lest he corrupt others, and turn them from the faith by his example or his command. This true, determined, and undoubted opinion of very learned men, is perfectly conformed and agreeable to the apostolic doctrine.”

jean guignard, s.j. 2Jean Guignardd, S.J. (16th Century French Jesuit, Librarian at the Jesuit College de Clermont, Author of Various Notes on the Most important and Difficult Things of the Sacred Scriptures)


         “Neither Henry III nor Henry IV, nor the Elector of Saxony Frederick III, nor Queen Elizabeth, are true kings. That Jacques Clement has done a heroic action in killing Henry III; if it were possible to make war with the Bernese and bring them to the point; and if it was impossible, then to assassinate . . . it is a meritorious action with God to kill a heretic King.”

Francisco Suárez, S.J.Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548–1617; Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Rosicrucian, & Author of A Defense of the Catholic Faith)

        “Jewish descent is an impurity of such indelible character that it is sufficient to prevent admission into the Order.”


        “When one can only find a worthy excuse in concealing the truth. For instance, dissimulation might be necessary, in order not to pronounce sentence of death against one’s self, where instant destruction is in question; thus canst thou deny the truth and take refuge in dissimulation in such a case without being guilty of the least transgression. It is, indeed, allowable in such instances to take an oath of equivocation, as every man has a right to preserve his life by any means in his power . . . To this view of mine our most learned Theologians agree . . . And for this I refer to the works of Navarra, Tolet, Myself, Valencia, and Lessius.”


        “It is not intrinsically wrong to use equivocation, even in making oath: whence it is not always perjury. This is the sure and common opinion . . . For, to speak with such equivocation is not always a lie, neither is it therefore intrinsically wrong: and therefore to confirm it by an oath is neither perjury, nor intrinsically a sin . . . The reason is, that a lie is a declaration contrary to the sense of the speaker; for it is he who is bound to adapt his words to his own meaning, and he is not always bound to adapt them to the understanding of his hearer. But he who uses ambiguous words in a sense which is agreeable to his own meaning, cannot be said to speak against his meaning: therefore he does not lie, he does not utter a lie: therefore, thus to speak is not intrinsically wrong; for there can only be such wickedness in consequence of the lie. Whence it is inferred, that to confirm such an expression with an oath is not perjury; because by that oath God is not called to witness a lie, since that is not a lie.”


       “Augustine reckons Nero among those tyrants who are some times permitted by God to reign: thus interpreting the passage ‘By me Kings reign and Princes decree justice: by me Princes rule and Nobles, even all the Judges of the earth.’ (Proverbs 8:15-16). And every Prince in Christendom must be reckoned among the number, who leads his subjects to heresy, or to any other kind of apostasy or public schism. After a King has been lawfully deposed, he is no longer King or lawful Prince . . . and if such a King should persevere in his obstinacy after legitimate deposition, and retain his Kingdom by violence, he begins to bear the title of tyrant. After sentence has been pronounced, he is entirely deprived of his kingdom, so that he can not hold it by any just title. He may therefore from that time be treated in all respects as a tyrant, and he may consequently be killed by any individual. Thus said James, King of England, as in derision of Bellarmine a new and excellent sense has been attached to these words of Christ, ‘Feed my sheep,’ as if they had conveyed this meaning, ‘Destroy, proscribe, and depose Christian [Catholic] fangs and Princes’ . . . Bellarmine, therefore, and we all who in this cause are as one, do not immediately and directly prove from these passages the primacy of Peter in civil or Temporal matters . . . Let not the King of England say that the words, ‘Feed my sheep,’ are explained by us as if they meant, ‘Destroy, proscribe, and depose Christian [Catholic] Princes:’ for no Catholic has said this. But if he desires to know what is true and faithfully attested, we say that among many other things which are comprised in these words and in the power which they convey, this also is included, ‘Destroy, proscribe, depose heretic Kings who will not be corrected, and who are injurious to their subjects in things which concern the Catholic faith.’”


        “It is of faith that the Pope has the right of deposing heretical and rebel kings. Monarchs so deposed by the Pope are converted into notorious tyrants, and may be killed by the first who can reach them. If the public cause cannot meet with its defense in the death of a tyrant, it is lawful for the first who arrives, to assassinate him.”


        “The Pope has a power co-active and coercive over kings, even to the extent of depriving them of their thrones, if there is cause for it. We have shown in the third book, Chap. 23rd, No. 10, that the power of the Pope may extend itself to coerce kings, even by temporal penalties and the privation of their kingdoms, if it is necessary. This power is more essentially necessary in the Church with respect to kings, in order to govern them, than in respect to subjects. A shepherd has not only the power to punish his erring flock, to recall them to the fold; but to drive away the wolves, and defend his fold lest his sheep should be forced out of it and killed. Then the Pope, as sovereign shepherd, may deprive any Prince of his dominions, and banish him for fear that he should injure his subjects. He may release their subjects from their oath of fidelity, or declare that they need not take such oath; for this condition is always supposed in such oaths. For that purpose he may make use of the swords of other Princes; thus the secular sword, that they may assist each other to protect and defend the Church. It is permitted to an individual to kill a tyrant in virtue of the right of self defense; for though the community does not command it, it is always to be understood, that it wishes to be defended by every one of its citizens individually, and even by a stranger. Then if no defense can be found excepting the death of the tyrant, it is permitted to every man to kill him. Whenever a King has been legitimately deposed, he ceases to be a King or a legitimate Prince, and that can no longer be affirmed of him, which may be said for a legitimate King: he thenceforth should be called a tyrant. Thus, after he has been declared to be deprived of his Kingdom, it becomes legal to treat him as a real tyrant; and consequently any man has a right to kill him.”

Gabriel Vazquez, S.J.Gabriel Vasquez, S.J. (15491604; Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Notes and Disputations on St. Thomas Aquinas)


        “If all the members of the royal family are heretics, a new election to the throne devolves on the state. For all his (the King’s) successors could be justly deprived of the kingdom by the Pope; because the preservation of the faith, which is of greater importance, requires that it should be so. But if the kingdom were thus polluted, the Pope, as Supreme Judge in the matters of the faith, might appoint a Catholic King for the good of the whole realm, and might place him over it by force of arms if it were necessary. For, the good of the faith and of religion, requires that the supreme head of the Church should provide a King for the state.”


        “We must inquire whether a Confessor not only may, but even must, absolve a Penitent against his own (the Confessor’s) opinion, on account of the Probable Opinion of the Penitent . . . we mean to speak of those cases in which the opinion of the Penitent, although probable, is still the less safe. If the Confessor be the parish Priest, or ordinary Confessor of the Penitent, he ought to absolve the Penitent whom he perceives to follow a Probable Opinion, whether it be in the refusal of restitution, or in doing any other thing which should seem, in the opinion of the Confessor, to be sinful, but which the Penitent himself thinks lawful. John Medina . . . adds this distinction. Although the opinion of the Penitent should be prejudicial to another person, his ordinary Confessor may and must, against his own opinion, grant absolution to the Penitent who persists in his own Probable Opinion. He afterwards asserts, that a deputed Confessor cannot, against his own opinion, absolve a Penitent who persists in an opinion which is injurious to another. I firmly believe the aforesaid distinction to be frivolous. I highly approve the opinion of Angelus, Navarre, and Sotus, who absolutely declare, without distinction, that any Confessor, whether ordinary or delegated, may absolve a Penitent, contrary to his own opinion, whom he knows to follow a probable, but less safe opinion; whether it be to the injury of another, or not . . . And Sotus still adds, that the ordinary Confessor not only may, but must, absolve such a Penitent: which I consider to be so true, that I think the Confessor not only may not refuse absolution to his Penitent when he has heard his confession, but that if the Penitent choose, he must hear his confession, and grant him absolution . . . Indeed, I think the deputed Confessor guilty of sin, if, after having once heard the confession of a Penitent whom he perceives to be of a contrary opinion, he refuses him absolution, when, on every other account, he might properly absolve him . . . Although a Doctor, who is consulted by an unlearned man, may tell him that the more common opinion is opposed to that which he follows himself, and which he proposes to him to follow; still the unlearned man may follow, in practice, the opinion of the Doctor whom he has consulted.”


        “The obligation of hearing mass is fulfilled though we do not intend to hear it.”


        “The more true opinion is, that all inanimate and irrational things may be legitimately worshiped. If the doctrine which we have established be rightly understood, not only may a painted image, and every holy thing set forth by public authority for the worship of God, be properly adored with God as the image of him self; but also any other thing of this world, whether it be inanimate and irrational, or in its nature rational, and devoid of danger. Why may we not adore and worship with God, apart from danger, anything whatsoever of this world; for God is in it according to his essence, and preserves it continually by his power; and when we bow down ourselves before it and impress it with a kiss, we present ourselves before God, the Author of it, with the whole soul, as unto the prototype of the image? Neither is it in one manner only that the creature may be lawfully worshiped, by uniting it in thought with God or a saint . . . The first is by representation; as in an image. The second is by actual, but past contact; as the things which touched Christ or a saint, the cross, the nails, the venture, and other things. A third is, when the thing which is worshiped appertained to the saint; such as relics of his body. For every one may thus represent to himself, in the inanimate thing which he adores in an image, a venture, or a bone the presence and union of the rational thing itself (as Christ or a saint). To these instances we may add a fourth. Since every thing of this world is the work of God, and God is always abiding and working in it, we may more readily conceive him to be in it, than a saint in the venture which belonged to him. And, therefore, without regarding in any way the dignity of the thing created, to direct our thoughts to God alone, while we give to the creature the sign and mark of submission by a kiss or prostration, is neither vain nor superstitious, but an act of the purest religion.”

         . . . of Legominism, Astrology, Alchemy, Kundalini, Polytheism, Homosexuality, Pedophilia, Cannibalism, Human Sacrifice, and Necromancy, i.e. the Mystery Schools, that is to say Roman Catholicism.

Pietro Alagona, S.J.Pietro Alagona, S.J. (1549–1624; Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Rosicrucian, Physicist Professor, Rector of the Jesuit College of Trapani, & Author of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Highest Theological Compendium)


        “By the command of God it is lawful to kill an innocent person, to steal, or to commit fornication; because he is the Lord of life and death and all things: and it is due to him thus to fulfill his command.”


        “Does a Prince, by reason of his apostasy, lose his sovereignty over his subjects, so that they are no longer bound to obey him? No; because sovereignty and infidelity are not incompatible, and may subsist together; but the church can deprive him of his sovereignty by a decree. Wherefore, as soon as he is declared Excommunicate on account of his apostasy from the faith, his subjects are absolved from the oath of allegiance.”

Gregorio de Valencia, S.J.Gregorio de Valencia, S.J. (1550–1603; Spanish Jesuit, Humanist, Scholar, Professor at the Jesuit University of Ingolstadt, & Author of Theological Commentaries)


       “Without respect of persons, may a Judge, in order to favor his friend, decide according to any Probable Opinion, while the question of right remains undecided? If the Judge should think each opinion equally probable, for the sake of his friend he may lawfully pronounce sentence according to the opinion which is more favorable to the interest of that friend. He may, moreover, with the intent to serve his friend, at one time judge according to one opinion, and at another time according to the contrary opinion, provided only that no scandal result from the decision.”

Thomas Sanchez, S.J.Tomas Sanchez, S.J. (1550–1610; Spanish Jesuit, Famous Casuist, & Author of Work on the Moral Precepts)


        “Although a man should find a particular difficulty to arise against an opposite opinion, which he cannot himself resolve, and which may appear to him to be incapable of solution, he ought not, on that account, to consider the opposite opinion of others to be so improbable that he cannot follow it. If a learned man may sometimes be excused because he follows his own peculiar opinion in opposition to that which is more commonly received; much more should a similar decision be made in favor of an unlearned man. An unbeliever, who is persuaded that his Sect is probable, although the opposite Sect may be more probable, would certainly be obliged, at the point of death, to embrace the true faith which he thinks to be the more probable . . . But except under such circumstances he would not . . . Add to this, that the mysteries of faith are so sublime, and the Christian [Catholic] morals so repugnant to the laws of flesh and blood, that no greater probability whatever may be accounted sufficient to enforce the obligation of believing.”


       “I am of opinion that there is no deadly sin in the consent of the will, unless some thought or express consideration have preceded it . . . Therefore, for a man to sin mortally, he ought to consider either that the action itself is evil, or that there is danger of sin, or he should have some doubt upon it, or at least a scruple. But if none of these have preceded it, his ignorance, inadvertence, or forgetfulness, are accounted perfectly natural and invincible.”


        “He who may conceal goods which he requires for the sustenance of life, lest they should be seized by his creditors and himself reduced thereby to beggary, may swear, when he is examined by the Judge, that he has no concealed goods. And they who are privy to it may swear the same thing, provided they are persuaded that he has lawfully concealed them for that purpose, understanding within themselves, that he does not retain any things concealed which he is bound to discover to the Judge. When a man who has truly or feignedly promised marriage, is, for some reason, free from the obligation of fulfilling his promise, he may swear, when required by the Judge, that he did not promise, understanding, in such a manner that he is bound to fulfill his engagement. Which applies . . . not only when there is manifest cause for not fulfilling the promise, but also when it is probable in the opinion of learned persons that he is not bound to fulfill it. Because, by adopting a Probable Opinion, he may think that he is not bound, with a safe conscience If a sworn promise to pay any sum of money be unjustly extorted, it is lawful for the person who swears to use this equivocation: I swear to you that I will pay the money, understanding, that the case of the pronoun, to you, is governed by the verb to swear: so that the meaning may be, I swear to you, that I will hereafter pay the money, either to yourself, or to some one else . . . If, moreover, in the language in which the oath is sworn the name of God has different significations, it would be lawful to swear by God, by using that word in another sense. A man who is urged to take a woman for his wife whom he is not compelled to marry, may swear that he will take her, by understanding within himself, If I am obliged, or, If she should afterwards please me. He would not sin mortally who, without deception, but influenced by his reverence for an oath, and from scruple, should feign to swear, so that the bystanders and the notary might think that lie did swear.”

250px-Duplessis-MornayPhilippe de La Canaye (1551–1610; French Calvinist, Jurist, Diplomat, Councilor for King Henry III of France, & Ambassador for King Henry IV to England, Switzerland, Germany, & Venice)

        “The Jesuits made use of confession in order to gain information as to the capacity, disposition, and mode of life of the Penitents, and the chief affairs of the towns in which they live; and that they have such an exact acquaintance with all these details that they know the strength, means, and circumstances of every state and every family.”

0008Paolo Sarpi (1552–1623; Venetian Patriot, Scholar, Scientist, & Church Reformer)

        “The secret of the Court of Rome, and of all secrets the greatest . . . They are a public plague, and the plague of the world . . . From the Jesuit Colleges there never is sent a pupil obedient to his father, devoted to his country, loyal to his Prince . . . Every species of vice finds its patronage in them. There is no Perjury, nor sacrilege, nor Parricide, nor incest, nor rapine, nor fraud, nor treason which cannot be masked as meritorious beneath the mantle of their dispensation.”

Edward_cokeSir Edward Coke, S.L. (1552–1634; English Barrister, Judge, Politician, Knight of the Jesuit Controlled Magna Charta Freemason Society of the Inner Temple, & Led the Prosecution Against the Jesuit Gunpowder Plot Conspirators)

        “Treason was the Jesuits proprietary thing. Since they set foot in this land there never passed four years without a most pestilent and pernicious treason tending to the subversion of the whole state.”

Juan de Salas, S.J.Juan de Salas, S.J. (15531612; Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of First Understood by St. Thomas)


        “The true opinion is, that it is not only lawful to follow the more probable, but less safe opinion; . . . but also that the less safe may be followed when there is an equality of probability. I agree in the opinion of Henriquez, Vasquez, and Perez, who maintain that it is sufficient for an inexperienced and unlearned man to follow the opinion which he thinks to be probable, because it is maintained by good men, who are versed in the art; although that opinion may be neither the more safe, nor the more common, nor the more probable. Sotus thinks that it would be very trouble some to a Penitent, if the priest, after having heard his confession, should send him back with out absolution, to confess himself again to another priest, if he could absolve him with a safe conscience, against his own (the priest’s) opinion: especially when another priest might not, perhaps, be readily found, who would believe the opinion of the Penitent to be probable. It may be asked, whether a Confessor may give advice to a Penitent, in opposition to his own opinion; as, if he should think, in any case, that restitution ought to be made, whether he may advise that the opinion of others may be followed, who maintain that it need not be made? I answer, that he lawfully may . . . because he may follow the opinion of another in his own practice; and, therefore, he may advise another person to follow it. Still it is better, in giving advice, always to follow the more Probable Opinion to which a man is ever accustomed to adhere: especially when the advice is given in writing, lest contradiction be discovered. It is also sometimes expedient to send the consulting person to another Doctor or Confessor, who is known to hold an opinion favorable to the enquirer, provided it be probable.”


        “Invincible Ignorance, is the ignorance of the man who does all he can and all he ought in order to surmount it. But it is vincible when he omits voluntarily, and therefore with advertence, any of those things which he is able and bound to do . . . In like manner, if, after all the care which he has been able and obliged to exert, he has not succeeded in extricating himself from his ignorance, but still continues in it, either negatively or even positively, for some reason which he may think probable; his Ignorance is morally Invincible, and, in the latter case, it is called probable. But improbable ignorance is that which is only supported by slight reasons: and it is also called gross and supine, as is the negative ignorance of the man who scarcely makes any attempt to discover the truth.”


         “An entire love of God is not due to him through justice, nor is even any due; though all love is due through a certain kind of decency and credit; because God is of himself worthy of love, and a measure of it is due to him either through charity or some other virtue.”


        “Since God alone is the Lord of life and death, the state cannot, upon its own authority, invest Princes with the power of legislation and Government, in which the power of executing male factors is included; but God alone can do so. Yet this last assertion is frivolous; for, as you affirm that this power is imparted unto kings by God, I will affirm that it is imparted by God, as the Author of nature, to the state; and that the state may grant the power unto kings, as it also possesses from its very nature the right of deposing a tyrant from the sovereignty, and even, if it cannot otherwise expel him, of putting him to death . . .”

Henri-PourbusKing Henry IV (1553–1610; French Member of the Rex Deus Bourbon, Capetian, & Medici Dynasties, King of Navarre, King of France, Advised & Controlled by Jesuit Confessor Pierre Coton, S.J., & Assassinated by the Jesuits)

        “It is a strange thing to see men who have made a profession of religion, and to whom no evil or good has been done by anyone, to daily attempt against my existence! . . . Is it necessary that the great Jesuits convince me by my mouth . . . There have been many proposed attempts against my life that have been miserably made and confounded, and I am always in fear of being assassinated; but these people have delegates and correspondents everywhere, and an amount of cunning to prepare their minds at their pleasure . . . Of necessity I must now do one of two things: admit the Jesuits purely and simply, relieve them from the defamation and insults with which they have been blasted, and put to the proof all their fine sentiments and excellent promises, or use against them all severity that can be imaged to keep them from ever coming near me and my dominions. In which latter case, there is no doubt it would be enough to reduce them to utter despair and to thoughts of attempting my life; which would render me miserable or listless, living constantly in suspicion of being poisoned or assassinated, for these gentry have communications and correspondence everywhere, and great dexterity in disposing men’s minds as it seems good to them it were better for me to be dead, being in therein of Caesar’s opinion that the pleasantest death is that which is least foreseen and apprehended . . . If God grants me longer life, I will see that no peasant in my kingdom will lack the means to have chicken in the pot every Sunday.”

Benedetto Giustiniani, S.J.Cardinal Benedetto Giustiniani, S.J. (1554–1621; Italian Jesuit, Cardinal, Bishop of the Sabina, & Author of Explanations of the Letters of St. Paul the Apostle)


        “Except the Ecclesiastical power, there is no other power among men which has received its strength and authority directly from God, and which can affirm with truth that it may lawfully act by divine authority.”

Leonardus Lessius, S.J.Leonardus Lessius, S.J. (1554–1623; Flemish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of On the Providence of the Deity, and the Immortality of the Soul, Against Atheists and Politicians)


        “If a Judge examines concerning an action which has been committed without sin, at least without mortal sin, the witness and the accused are not obliged to answer according to the meaning of the Judge. For instance, you have killed your assailant Peter, having observed a reasonable forbearance, or refrained from any considerable excess. You are not bound to acknowledge that you have killed him, although the report of your having done so has been spread; neither is the witness bound to give evidence of it. For the Judge tries you for murder: and if you should confess it and could not prove that you had done it in necessary self-defense, he would condemn you of homicide upon a false presumption. Hence it follows, that there is no compulsion to swear according to the meaning of the Judge, but that equivocation and mental restriction may be used. A Priest should not oblige his Penitent to confess the truth, while there is a hope of escaping . . . But when there is no hope of escape as if the criminal should perceive that his crime may be readily and fully proved, then he is bound to confess the truth, because there is no longer reason for concealing it.”


        “The Sovereign Pontiff, as the Vicar of Christ and the Superior of Christendom, can directly annul and remit every obligation contracted with another upon the faith of an oath, when there is sufficient cause for it; which remission is as valid as if the person, in whose behalf the oath had been sworn, himself had made it. The punishment of a guilty person, and the precaution which is necessary against dangers to be apprehended from him, are very often a sufficient cause for annulling the oath which had been law fully made and exacted. In this manner the oath is annulled by which subjects are bound to their Prince or other Superior, when the Prince, on account of some crime, is lawfully deprived by the Sovereign Pontiff or his Superior, of the dignity or office in virtue of which the oath had been sworn to him, or when he is restrained from the exercise of his official functions.”


        “Has anyone made an attack on your honor, you may then at once make use of retaliation, and you have thereby nothing else to observe than to keep up a comparison as much as possible.


        “Absolution must be bestowed, though an ignorant Penitent does not know or believe expressly the Mysteries of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation.

Nicolaus Serarius, S.J.Nicolaus Serarius, S.J. (1555–1609; French Jesuit, Exegete, Ecclesiastical Historian, & Author of Commentary on the Sacred Books of the Holy Bible)


        “Was it lawful for Ehud to kill the tyrant Eglon? . . . Some maintain that it was lawful for him to do so for this reason only, because he was preternaturally moved to it by God . . . Others assent to the opinion that Ehud acted rightly, because he was moved to it by God; yet not for that reason only, but also because it is according to the course of the common law thus to act against tyrants . . . If I wished to inquire which of these two opinions is the more true, it would be necessary that I should discuss the question ‘Is it lawful to kill a tyrant?’ But the sovereign tyrant? . . . Time, the destroyer of all things, forbids me to touch upon the subject.”

Jacques Sirmond, S.J.Jacques Sirmond, S.J. (1559–1651; French Jesuit, Scholar, Prolific Writer, Professor of Rhetoric at the Jesuit University of Paris, Secretary to Jesuit Superior General Claudio Acquaviva, S.J., Confessor to King Louis XIII of France, Publisher of Counter-Reformative Latin & Byzantine Chroniclers of the Middle Ages, & Author of Defense of Virtue)


          “We are bidden rather, not to hate God, than to love him.”

         “We may act by fear and hope.”

         “We are not bound by feeling to love God.”

         “Rabbi, which is the great commandment in the Torah? YAHUSHA said unto him, You shall love אתeth YAHUAH ELOHAYKA with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. (Devariym 6:5) This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Torah and the prophets.” —Mattithyahu (Matthew) 22:36-40

Jean de Lorin, S.J.Jean de Lorin, S.J. (1559–1634; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Commentary on the Book of Psalms)


        “We ought to be assured that it is not lawful for an individual to attack a tyrant, except in the case in which any man may be attacked by another, namely, in the necessary defense of person and life, (Psalm 105:30). Since Peter had more zeal than the rest of the apostles . . . when he struck the servant of the high priest, it is for this reason among others, we may conceive, that the sovereign priesthood was committed to him by Christ. And, if the comparison be admissible, we may affirm that Ignatius was chosen to be the General of our Order, because he would kill a Moor who had blasphemed.”

1 Sir Francis BaconSir Tobie Matthew, S.J. alter-ego Sir Lord Francis Bacon pseudonym, Johan Valentin Andrea, & Christian Rosenkreuz (1560–1655; English-German Jesuit, Baron Verulam, 1st Viscount St. Alban, Founder of Rosicrucianism, Co-Founder of the Invisible College/Royal Society, 17th Grand Master of the Priory of Sion After Being Absorbed by the Jesuits from 1617-19, Theosophist, Ariosophist, Statesman, Jurist, Orator, Attorney General & Lord Chancellor of Freemason King James I of England, Director of the Jesuit Created Virginia Company, Ghost-Author of the Infamous La Nova Atlantis, Mythologiae Christianae, & the Legendary Jesuit Counter-Reformation Learning-Against-Learning Rosicrucian Manifestos of Fama Fraternitatis, Confessio Fraternitatis, & Chymische Hochzeit Christiani Rosencreutz)

        “And let it be noted, that howsoever the condition of life of pedants has been scorned upon theaters, as the ape of tyranny; and that the modern looseness or negligence has taken no due regard to the choice of schoolmasters and tutors; yet the ancient wisdom of the best times did always make a just complaint, that states were too busy with their laws and too negligent in point of education: which excellent part of ancient discipline hath been in some sort revived of late times by the Colleges of the Jesuits; of whom, although in regard of their superstition I may say, ‘What for better and worse’; yet in regard of this, and some other points concerning human learning and moral matters, I may say, as Agesilaus said to his enemy Pharnabazus. ‘So when you wish to be ours.’ And thus much touching the discredits drawn from the fortunes of learned men.”

Mythologiae Christianae
The Rosicrucian Order’s Founder: Johan Valentin Andrea (Pseudonym of Francis Bacon) Published a Book; ‘Mytholgiae Christianae,’ (1619) with the Jesuit Monogram on the Front Cover, Because Francis Bacon (Johan Valentin Andrea) Was the Alter-Ego of Jesuit Tobie Matthew, S.J.

         “We see before our eyes, that in the age of ourselves and our fathers, when it pleased God to call the Church of Rome to account for their degenerate manners and ceremonies, and sundry doctrines obnoxious and framed to uphold the same abuses; at one and the same time it was ordained by the Divine Providence that there should attend withal a renovation and new spring of all other knowledge. And on the other side we see the Jesuits, who partly in themselves, and partly by the emulation and provocation of their example, have much quickened and strengthened the state of learning, we see, I say, what notable service and reparation they have done to the Roman see.”

        “As for the pedagogical part, the shortest rule would be, consult the schools of the Jesuits; for nothing better has been put in practice.”

          If you’ve been unknowingly Counter-Reformed by certain Jesuit Coadjutors to look to the bloodline behind the creation’ of the so-called ‘Sovereign Order of the Elder Brethren Rose Cross,’ (allegedly the original Rosicrucians) during the early 14th century, it would be none other than the non-ancient, non-Papal, non-Black Nobility Bohemian Rosenberg family created around 1250, established by Vitkovci clan. Their Coat of Arms and emblem was represented by a red five-petaled rose on a silver field, which is still often seen in a considerable part of southern Bohemia.

          But the Rosenberg family did not use the Rose symbol for their family until 1322, when the legendary ancient Papal Rex Deus Black Nobility Orsini dynasty, who are descended from the Edomite Julio-Claudian dynasty of ancient Rome, absorbed the Rosenberg family, and created the small Orsini-Rosenberg branch.

          The Orsini carried on a political feud with the Papal Rex Deus Black Nobility Colonna dynasty (the ancient Roman Dukes of Tusculum) for centuries in Rome, until it was stopped by Papal Bull in 1511. In 1571, the heads of both families married nieces of Pope Sixtus V (. . . who was assassinated by the Jesuits, under the order of Jesuit Superior General Claudio Acquaviva, S.J. . .).

         The name ‘Orsini’ comes from the root word ‘Ursa’ which they then later created two constellations after their own name, that being the ‘Ursa’ Major and Minor. The symbol of Ursa Major is the Bear, because the logo of the Orsini family is a Bear. However, the Orsini go back even further to before the founding of Rome. The root word ‘Ursa’ for ‘Orsini,’ comes from the root word ‘Arsu,’ referring to the Babylonian androgynous fallen angel Arsu (behold the Nephiliym connection) which was (is still) attributed to the morning/evening star worshiped in the Aether 3500 years ago and to this day.

          Now, the original Orsini Coat of Arms going all the way back to Orso Bobone in the 11th century, has the 5 pointed, dragon face, vaginal Rose (Rose-line) on it, all before the Rosenberg family used it, before the Templars used it, and before the Rose Cross (Rosicrucians) used it.

          The current head of the Orsini dynasty is Prince Domenico Napoleone Orsini, who is a Knight of Malta. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta was given over to the Jesuit Order in 1540 secretly, then publicly in 1818, whose current Grand Master is Jesuit Giacomo dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto, S.M.O.M., S.J. who takes orders from his Superior General Arturo Sosa, S.J., first and foremost. All of the heads of the Papal Black Nobility families go to Rome and bow their head to the White Pope and kiss his hand, and the White Pope, as I have simply proven, is in fact a slave of the Superior General of the Jesuits.

         The entire Rosicrucian Order sums up to be one either two things at most, that being: (1.) they were once very powerful, up until the 16th century, but were conquered from within when the MILITARY Order of the Jesuits had been created, and where ultimately absorbed and/or infiltrated by them; (2.) this entire ‘Sovereign Order of the Elder Brethren Rose Cross’ (claiming to be the original Rosicrucians) is a completely made up hoax, based on Freemasonic documents (from Jesuit created Freemasonry may I remind you) from the 18th century that ‘Philippe L. De Coster’ claims but does not verify—were authored by the Rosicrucians, and thus proving this Order’s existence (when in reality its has been proven by confessing Counter-Reformed Jesuit coadjutor Masonic IHStorians showcased throughout this website, that most if not all of the documents claimed to be from and by this Order’s are actually documents that have already been published by Jesuit created and controlled Freemason Lodges from the 18th Century, and are nothing new. If this alleged original creators of the 16th century Rosicrucian Order from Germany were actually in control of everything, they wouldn’t be hiding, unlike the Jesuit Order who has been a public Order since they were created in 1370, hidden in plain site.

          Furthermore, study the Statues and Articles contained in this Philippe L. De Coster’s book on the ‘Sovereign Order of the Elder Brethren Rose Cross,’ then recall the ‘Constitution of the Society of Jesus,’ the ‘Secret Instructions of the Jesuits,’ and the ‘The Official Plan for Jesuit Education’—and simply discern with an honest heart how these two Orders are complete inverse, upside-down, backwards opposites in every single way.

         There is no possible way this so-called ‘Sovereign Order of the Elder Brethren Rose Cross,’ claiming to be the original creators of the Rosicrucians and therefore secretly created and controls the Jesuit Order and ultimately Rome, as well as the rest of the world ever did, have, nor ever will—the same Jesuit Order which we have just proven created, controlled, and suppressed (a Jesuit dialectic stratagem) THE Rosicrucians. . .

         For we have diligently scoured through over dozens of Counter-Reformed Jesuit coadjutor Masonic IHStorians’ works (published on this website) translating some from even Latin, French, and German, and have documented that it is Jesuit created Masonic tradition and IHStory to promulgate the fact that the Rosicrucians could not have been infiltrated by the Jesuits, as well as the idea that the Jesuits hated the Rosicrucians. The only thing is, the Jesuits had never denounced the Rosicrucian Order, only Masonic IHSstorians 3-200 years later kept alive the tradition that the Rosicrucians were the ones who denounced the Jesuits, just as Jesuit created Freemasonry was when it was created, and just the Jesuit created Bavarian Illuminati did when it was created (a linear Jesuit pattern). There are no other manuscripts dated from before 1616 that suggest it, fairly meaning that the Rosicrucian Order could have only been invented from 1614-16, at most. The only manuscripts literally have available, that suggests the 16th century Rosicrucian Order was originally founded in the 1300s are the 3 Rosicrucian Manuscripts (published pseudonymously) in 1616 by the Rosicrucian Order itself, which in them denounce the Jesuit Order, I wonder why. . .

         It is interesting to note that, the 3 Rosicrucian Manuscripts published in 1616 were intentionally released in a specific area. . . What area would that be? The same exact area where the birth of Protestant Reformation happened (the exact reason the Jesuit Order was solely officiated by the Roman Catholic Church to destroy), the hot-bed Jesuit intrigue, and coincidentally 1616 1 year after Mutio Vitelleschi, S.J. (1562–1645)—the Italian, Polymath, Polyglot, 6th Superior General of the Society of Jesus 1615-45—launched his Jesuit Counter-Reformation First Thirty Years’ War (1614-44), overseeing the Jesuit Inquisition crusade responsible for the loss of 8 million lives in Germany . . .

Do the math, not mental Jesuit gymnastics.

charles scribani, s.j.Charles Scribani, S.J. (1561–1629; Flemish-Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Writer, & Author of Amphitheatre of Honour)


         “Rome, see this cart driver that governs France, this cannibal, this monster that is bathed in blood? . . . Can we not find one that will take up arms against the ferocious beast? . . . Have we not a Pope that will employ an axe in the salvation of France? Calm yourself, young Jesuit, if we fail of the Papal axe, we have the dagger of Ravaillac.”

Jacob Gretser, S.J.Jacob Gretser, S.J. (1562–1625; German Jesuit, Celebrated Writer, & Author of The Defense of the Society of Jesus)


        “It is not from obscure descriptions that an opinion of the doctrine of the Jesuits can be formed, but from their books, which (by the blessing of God) are already very numerous . . . It is from the books of our Theologians that the reader will easily judge whether our doctrine is conformed to the doctrine of Jesus Christ . . . There are many theological works written by the Doctors of the Society. We profess the same doctrine in a vast number of places, both privately, and publicly in the schools . . . If at any time the milder opinion be preferred, it is with such excellent reason and authority, that it may be safely followed, as well in theory as in practice.”


        “The first proposition is, that secular Princes have no power over the Clergy who dwell in their dominions, either by divine or human right. This proposition, says Marsilius, is found in the answer of Bellarmine to the eight propositions. Capellus objects, that the following deduction is not good: It was foretold that the house of Eli should lose the priesthood; therefore Solomon deposed Abiathar, as a prophet. Yet this is not the reasoning of Bellarmine, neither can it be supported by Bellarmine s words: but this conclusion may rather be deduced from them, if any one would examine them fairly: Solomon deposed Abiathar the priest; he did it not therefore as a King, but as a prophet . . . for he could not remove him as a King, since he was not subject to him . . . We deny that any example can be produced from the Old Testament, which proves that the Levites were subject to Laymen. The Clergy ought indeed to be subject to the higher powers; but to their own, and to those which are suited to their state, that is, to the Ecclesiastical powers. The Clergy should also be obedient to the laws of Princes, which they enact with the assent and concurrence of the Ecclesiastical Magistrate. All men who are under the jurisdiction of the King, should know that they will be punished by the King, if they commit a punishable offense. But the Clergy do not belong to the king’s jurisdiction. Therefore the exhortation of the synod has no reference to them. What the Apostle says of the payment of tribute relates to those who are subject to the secular power, not to those who are not subject to it . . . Thus the Clergy ought not to pay it, because they are not subject to the civil magistrate . . . Let him, therefore, pay tribute from whom tribute is due . . . If nothing is due, he is not obliged to pay. It will not be found in any Catholic author that a Pope can be deposed by an Emperor; but that emperors may be deposed by the Pope, will be found in many.”


        “It is a question in the schools, Whether it is lawful to kill an innocent person? Whether, etc. . . What harm, I pray you, is there in these questions? Or what do they contain contrary to the public peace and tranquility? Certainly if the question, ‘Is it lawful to kill a tyrant?’ be seditious, the question, ‘Is it lawful to kill an innocent person?’ will be much more seditious. A question is neither an affirmative nor a negative, but simply an inquiry. And to put a question has nothing to do with sedition . . . The preacher adds that the Jesuits, hi this question, incline to the affirmative rather than to the negative, their writings sufficiently shew. We do not only incline, but most willingly adhere to the part which has been chosen by St. Thomas and others, who reply to this question by a distinction. In conformity with their doctrine, a Jesuit of great celebrity has thus written . . . ‘A Prince is either a tyrant, not because he has unjustly usurped his power, but because lie makes a bad use of his otherwise legitimate authority in the administration of his Government; or else he is a tyrant through the power which he has forcibly usurped . . . If he were a tyrant of the latter kind, any man might kill him.’ . . . Thus far this writer. You may perceive from his words, what has been condemned by the Council of Constance. A King is not a tyrant, especially if we use the appellation of tyrant in the latter sense, and a tyrant is not a King . . . Lest you should be anxious about the death of John Guignard, know that it must be ascribed to the times, and not to his guilt. You will never be hanged if you continue as innocent as he was. But if the Pontiff were to expel a Prince from the kingdom, lest he should pervert his subjects with his heresy, then I freely confess that we unite our judgment to that of the Pope, and we conceive it better that the Catholic religion should be preserved sound and entire, than that it should be destroyed . . . And it was for this reason, and no other, that our Society, and a vast number of persons of every rank and condition in France, opposed themselves to Henry IV, when as yet he had not become reconciled to the church by renouncing his heresy . . . We are not so timid and faint-hearted, that we fear to affirm openly that the Roman Pontiff can, if occasion require, absolve Catholic subjects from their oath of allegiance, if the Prince should use them tyrannically and destroy the true religion; and we add moreover, that if it be done discreetly and circumspectly by the Pontiff, it is a meritorious work. Mariana argues concerning tyrants, of whom there are two kinds; the former, consisting of those who forcibly seize and retain the territories of others, against all law and justice . . . the latter, of those who indeed are lawful Princes, but who afterwards convert their legitimate power into tyranny . . . Of the tyrant of the former kind there is no difficulty in speaking. It is chiefly concerning the tyrant of the latter that there is much discussion . . . Say then, scribbler, Is every Prince who refuses to obey the Roman Pontiff, a tyrant of the former or of the latter kind? Do the Jesuits determine this? Has every such Prince been declared, by a judicial sentence, an enemy and oppressor of his country, and, as a violator of all justice and equity, has he been delivered over unto death, to suffer it at the hand of every man, even of a private individual? This is what Mariana requires, that a tyrant of the latter kind may be killed by a private person; or at least, that if such a judicial sentence cannot be pronounced, the common voice of the people may, with the consent and approval of learned men, proclaim this or that Prince to be a tyrant Heissius observes, that the latter part of this opinion is peculiar to Mariana. The more common opinion is, that it is never lawful to attack a Prince who has become a tyrant of the second kind, before a public and judicial sentence has been pronounced, by which he may be solemnly declared an enemy to the State, and therefore before he can be deprived of the power which lie possessed by those who have the right of taking it away.”

06 Muzio VitelleschiMutio Vitelleschi, S.J. (1562–1645; Italian Jesuit, Polymath, Polyglot, the Rosicrucian Order‘s Invisible Superior, 6th Superior General of the Society of Jesus 1615-1645, Mastermind Behind the Creation & Control of the Jesuit Counter-Reformation’s First Thirty Years’ War, Oversaw the Jesuit Inquisition Responsible for the Loss of 8,000,000 Lives, & Author of The Image of the First Century of the Society of Jesus)

        “When Sovereigns require a Jesuit’s opinion on any subject, the Jesuit in question is to report the matter to his Superior, who is to lay it before several Jesuits for discussion. The resolution formed after this consultation is supplied to the Jesuit who has been consulted by the Sovereign.”


        “The members of the Society are dispersed in every corner of the world, and divided into as many nations and kingdoms as the earth has limits: division, however, marked only by the distance of places, not of sentiments; by the difference of languages, not of affections; by the dissemblance of faces, not of manners. In that family the Latin thinks as the Greek, the Portuguese as the Brazilian, the Hibernian as the Sumatran, the Spaniard as the French, the English as the Flemish; and among so many different geniuses, no contrary, no contention; nothing which gives you a hint to perceive that they are more than ONE . . . Their birthplace offers them no motive of personal interest . . . Same aim, same conduct, same vow, which like a conjugal knot, has tied them together . . . At the least sign, one man turns and returns the entire Society, and shapes the revolution of so large a body. It is easy to move but difficult to shake.”

Somme_des_péchez_qui_se_[...]Bauny_Étienne_bpt6k9606442vEtienne Bauny, S.J. (1564–1649; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of From the Sum of Peculate)


        “The Penitent must be asked whether he has committed these offences of the tongue; whether he has cursed and done despite to his Maker . . . If he should say that passion has hurried him to the expression of these offensive words, it may be determined, that in uttering them he has only sinned venally, inasmuch as they are only evil materially, because anger has deprived the Penitent of the means of considering what is formally significant.”


        “Whether from many small thefts one can result which would be a mortal sin? For instance, a penny has been taken from one or more persons at different times; it is asked whether these trifling and inconsiderable sums, taken together, constitute a sin which is mortal? and under what circumstances? The common opinion is, that the last act of theft, which is necessary to complete the sum which constitutes the mortal sin, may deprive a man of the friendship of God, and that therefore it must be ranked among the number of mortal sins. Thus reason Salas, Filliucius, etc. . . . Yet with their permission I will venture to say, that the last theft, which is supposed to be as inconsiderable as those which have preceded it, is only venial . . . For the action takes its nature from the object, and the theft from the injury which is committed, reasoning upon this ground is, that it is very probable that he who steals from another through some transactions, when we come to a notable amount, is not obliged under pain of eternal damnation, to restore any thing . . . And these trifling thefts, committed on different days and at different opportunities, against one man or against many, however great may be the amount which has been stolen, will never become mortal sins.”


        “It is allowable to all descriptions of persons to haunt the brothels to convert the prostitutes, though we will likely be exposed to sin with them. We are allowed it, even when we have already sinned with them, having been seduced by their eyes and courting. If a virgin consents to the fornication we may not endow her, and with greater reason not marry her, this, however, is no stuprum, but merely fornication, as a stuprum infers force; fornication, on the other hand, depends on mutual consent, and thereby no injury takes place, because in corrupting her we have not injured her.”


         “To sin and incur guilt before God—it is necessary to know that this thing which we wish to do is of no value, or at least to suspect this; to fear, or rather judge, that God takes no pleasure in the action we are contemplating, that he forbids it, and, notwithstanding to do it, to take the leap and go beyond, is of no value.”

Vincenzo Filliucci, S.J.Vincenzo Filliucci, S.J. (1566–1622; Italian Jesuit Writer, Moralist, & Author of Moral Dimensions of Christian Commitment to the Cause of Conscience)


        “The authority of one good and learned Doctor renders an opinion probable; because his authority is not a slight foundation.”


        “It is lawful to follow the more Probable Opinion, rejecting the less probable, although it may be the more safe. An instance of this may be adduced in the man who doubts his right to retain with honesty any thing which he holds in his possession: the more Probable Opinion is, that he is not bound to restore it; yet it is more safe if he does restore it . . . It is lawful to follow the less Probable Opinion, although it may be the less safe . . . It is sufficient for unlearned men to act rightly, that they follow the opinion of a learned man . . . Learned men may follow the less probable and less safe opinion, rejecting the more probable and more safe. The reason is, that a man acts prudently in believing in those who are experienced in the art, submitting himself to the judgment of the wise. Neither is it necessary to be certain of acting rightly; for then it would not be lawful to follow the more probable, but less safe opinion.”


        “It is a sin to act against conscience, although it should, in reality, be wrong. This is the commonly received opinion after Vasquez, Azor, etc. . . . An action which is contrary to the natural and divine law, will not be imputed unto us for sin, except in as far as we know it to be sinful. Probable ignorance, which originates in a willful fault or voluntary cause, excuses from sin, provided its effects, which arise from ignorance, were not foreseen. We may instance the case of him who, of his own will, has become drunk or frantic, and, in his drunkenness, kills a man, or commits fornication.”


        “If a sacred thing be given as a price of venereal acts, but not by way of gratitude and benevolence only, then it would be simony and sacrilege; as, if a man were to confer a benefice, election, or presentation upon another, like the price of venereal acts committed with his sister. I have said, not by way of gratitude, because then there would be neither sacrilege nor simony; but only at most a certain irreverence in recompensing a shameful and profane act, with a thing which is sacred and dedicated to God.”


        “I ask, whether it is wrong to use equivocation in swearing? It must be premised, that equivocation is nothing more than this, that the swearer understands the words in a sense different from that in which another person receives them. I answer, that it is not in itself a sin to use equivocation in swearing . . . This is the common doctrine after Suarez. That it may often be a sin to use equivocation, as, when it is done without a reasonable cause, or in order to deceive: in which sense some holy Fr.s are to be under stood. Is it perjury or sin to equivocate in a just cause? It is not perjury: as, for instance, in the case of a man who has outwardly made a promise without the intention of promising: if he is asked whether he has promised, he may deny it, meaning, that the has not promised with a binding promise; and thus he may swear: otherwise he might be compelled to pay a debt which he did not owe. If the equivocation be only mental, is the oath lawful? I answer, that it is a Probable Opinion that it is not lawful to swear in such a case . . . I answer, that it is more probable that it is lawful. With what precaution is equivocation to be used? When we begin, for instance, to say, I swear, we must insert in a subdued tone the mental restriction, that to-day, and then continue aloud, I have not eaten such a thing; or, I swear, then insert, I say, then conclude in the same loud voice, that I have not done this or that thing: for thus the whole speech is very true.”


         “A man and woman who undress themselves (and are even without a shirt) to kiss each other, do not sin. This action is an indifferent one.”

Andreas Eudaemon-Joannis, S.J.Andreas Eudaemon-Joannis, S.J. (1566–1625; Greek Jesuit, Natural Philosopher, Controversialist, & Author of Apology for Henry Garnet)


        “The Jesuit Hamond is accused of having absolved all the conspirators in the house of Robert Winter, on the Thursday after the conspiracy? When the rebels had already taken arms in their defense. Since he does not sin who thinks with probability that what he does is lawful, the Confessor has not any just cause for refusing absolution to him who follows a Probable Opinion, although it may differ from his own opinion and judgment . . . It is very certain moreover that the conspirators who would otherwise have had a clear conscience, had for a long time meditated upon their purpose; they had weighed every reason by which they might persuade themselves that there was nothing in their design contrary to the commands of God; and, as they possessed ability, they found many arguments by which to justify themselves and their design . . . Be it then entirely as Coke would have it that Hamond did absolve the conspirators after they had taken up arms in their defense. I answer, that Hamond believed those reasons to be probable which they produced in favor of their design, and that he could not therefore in justice refuse them absolution, although he might not approve their purpose. What fault will Coke find with this? As to what the Earl of Salisbury alleged, that when Garnet prayed for the failure of the plot he added this reservation ” unless it should greatly promote the cause of the Catholics” I do not see what it proves. For he might abhor the cruelty of the crime; and still, because he was ignorant whether by these means God would choose to consult the good of England, might use that reservation. When Christ, in the agony of his bloody sweat, prayed that the cup might pass from him, he did not dissemble, although he chose that his Father’s will should be done in preference to his own. Why then should not Garnet, although he might have abhorred such a carnage in the state, conceive himself bound to endure it, if it were ultimately to prove extremely beneficial to the church?”

Cornelius a Lapide, S.J.Cornelius a Lapide, S.J. (1567–1637; Flemish Jesuit, Exegete, & Author of Commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles and the Canonical Epistles)


        “The Priestly Kingdom of the Church is apparent, first, in Bishops and in Episcopacy . . . But chiefly is it apparent in Papacy and in the Sovereign Pontiff, a vast and ample power extending itself over the whole world, by which he commands Kings whence suppliant Princes prostrate them selves before him, and place their scepters at his feet, and can deprive of their dominions Kings who have rebelled against the Church, as he often has deprived them.”

René Ayrault, S.J.Rene Ayrault, S.J. (1567–1644, French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Professor at the Jesuit College of Clermont, Kidnapped by the Jesuits Against His Father’s Will to Steal His Wealth & Land, Erased from History, & Author of The Fifth Principle of the Ten Commandments)


        “If you endeavor to ruin my reputation by false impeachment before a Prince, a Judge, or men of distinguished rank, and I cannot by any means avert this injury of character, unless I kill you secretly; may I lawfully do it? Bannez asserts that I may . . . The right of defense extends itself to every thing which is necessary for insuring protection from every injury. Still the calumniator should first be warned that he desist from his slander; and if he will not, lie should be killed, not openly, on account of the scandal, but secretly?”


        “In order to cut short calumny most quickly, one may cause the death of the calumniator, but as secretly as possible to avoid observation.”


        “If anyone, by a false accusation, should calumniate me to a Prince, Judge, or other man of honor, and I can maintain my good name in no other way than by assassinating him secretly, I should be justified in doing so. Moreover, I should be also justified had the crime of which I was accused been actually committed by me, though concealed under the veil of secrecy in such a way that it would not be easy to discover it through a judicial investigation.”


        “One asks whether a woman may make use of means to obtain abortion. I answer, Yes, if quickening has not taken place, and the pregnancy is not dangerous. But even if there has been quickening already, it may be effected as soon as a conviction is arrived at that she must die by the birth. Under all circumstances, however, a young person who has been led astray may do so, as her honor must be to her more precious than the life of the child.”

        “It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the Watchers, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves women from the progeny of men, and let us beget children . . . Then they took women, each choosing for himself; whom they began to approach, and with whom they cohabited; teaching them sorcery, incantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. And the women conceiving brought forth giants, and they bore to them three races first, the great giants. The giants brought forth the Nephiliym, and the Nephiliym brought forth the Elioud. And they existed, increasing in power according to their greatness. Whose stature was each three hundred cubits. These devoured all the labour of men; until it became impossible to feed them; When they turned themselves against men, in order to devour them; And began to injure birds, beasts, reptiles, and fishes, to eat one another’s flesh and to drink their blood. Then the earth reproved the unrighteous.” —Chanok (Enoch) 7:1-2, 10-15

         “Moreover Aza’zel taught men to make swords, knives, breastplates, the fabrication of mirrors, and the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, stones of every valuable and select kind, and all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered. Impiety increased; fornication multiplied; and they transgressed and corrupted all their ways. Amazarak taught all the sorcerers and dividers of roots: Armers the solution of sorcery; Barka’al the observers of the stars, Akiybe’el signs; Tamiy’el taught astronomy; And Asarad’el taught the motion of the moon. And men, being destroyed cried; and their voice reached to heaven.” —Chanok (Enoch) 8

        “Behold the names of those angels. These are their names. The first of them is Shemiy’aza; the second, Arstikapha; the third, Armen; the fourth, Kakaba’el; the fifth, Tur’el; the sixth, Rumy’el; the seventh, Dany’al; the eighth, Ka’el; the ninth, Barak’el; the tenth, Aza’zel; the eleventh, Armers; the twelfth, Batary’al; the thirteenth, Basasa’el; the fourteenth, Anan’el; the fifteenth, Tury’el; the sixteenth, Simapise’el; the seventeenth, Yetar’el; the eighteenth, Tuma’el; the nineteenth, Tar’el; the twentieth, Rum’el; the twenty-first; Aza’zel. These are their chiefs of their angels, and the names of the leaders of their hundreds, and the leaders of their fifties, and the leaders of their tens. The name of the first is Yekun (the rebel): it was he who seduced all of the sons of the holy angels; and causing them to descend on earth, led astray the offspring of men. The name of the second is Kesab’el, who pointed out evil counsel to the sons of the holy angels, and induced them to corrupt their bodies by generating mankind. The name of the third is Gadre’el: he discovered every stroke of death to the children of men. He seduced Chuah (Eve); and discovered to the children of men, the shield, and the sword for slaughter; every instrument of death to the children of men. From his hand were derived to them the sword to them who dwell upon earth, from that period forever. The name of the fourth is Penemue: he discovered to the children of men bitterness and sweetness; 10 And pointed out to them every secret of their wisdom. He taught men to understand writing, and ink, and paper. Therefore numerous have been those who have gone astray from every period of the world even to this day. For men were not created, except that, like the angels, they might remain righteous and pure. Nor would death, which destroys everything, have effected them; But by this knowledge they perish, and by this also power consumes. The name of the fifth is Kasyade: he discovered to the children of men every wicked stroke of the ruachoth (spirits) and of devils: The stroke to the embryo in the womb, to diminish; the stroke to the ruach (spirit) by the bite of the serpent, and the midday stroke of the offspring of the serpent, the name of which is Tabaet.” —Chanok (Enoch) 69:2-18

Jacob Keller, S.J.Jacob Keller, S.J. (1568–1631; German Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Exegete, & Theosophical Instructor, & Author of Slaying of the Tyrant)


        “The Theologians generally inquire, whether it is lawful for a private person to kill a tyrant. Lest we involve ourselves in obscurity, we will distinguish two kinds of tyrants. There are some who invade foreign kingdoms with hostile forces, who ravage and destroy with the fire and the sword, against all equity and justice, who plunder peaceful citizens, and violate all laws, both human and divine. According to the opinion of many and most excellent Theologians, these tyrants may certainly be put to death by any one who has the courage and inclination to kill them. Tyrants of the other kind, who obtain their kingdom or empire either by succession or election, or by any other right, who are legitimate rulers, and are accounted to be so, may never be killed by any man, whether citizen or foreigner. But you will ask, what relief can be afforded to a wretched country oppressed by insufferable cruelty, and what remedy can be applied to the removal of this excessive destruction? They who carefully consider these things reply, that a tyrant of this kind either fears a superior power, or feels the superiority of his own. If there is another to which he is inferior, recourse must be had to the superior Government, and succor must be implored; with a good Government there will be the inclination, and with a powerful, the force, to restrain such a man . . . But if the tyrant cannot be summoned to a higher tribunal, the Thomists advise, that in such an extreme state of things, he should be deposed . . . If you ask whether a tyrant, as soon as he is deprived of his dignity, may be put to death by any man? know, that according to the opinion of approved authors, his situation is precisely the same as that of other criminals, and he must be similarly tried, that the course of justice may not be transgressed. Therefore he must himself be heard, unless the atrocity of his actions should have previously proclaimed his guilt, so that no one can doubt that he has exceeded in wickedness, and that it only remains for him to suffer punishment. The Jesuits, you will say, should have remembered the apostolic rule, not to do evil that good may come. What do I hear of the word of God? Where does it entirely forbid all killing? In the fifth commandment, you will say. Well! But what if I should tell you on the other hand, that the fifth commandment is so encompassed with formidable difficulties, that no one can keep it: what would become of him who should violate it? You would not inflict any punishment upon him? If you did, you would become a tyrant, and would punish a fault which an unfortunate could not avoid.”

Tommaso Campanella, O.P.Tommaso Campanella, O.P. (1568–1639; Italian Dominican, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Unknowing Jesuit Spiritual Coadjutor, & Author of The Instruction to the Principles of the Manner in Which the Jesuit Fathers Are Governed)

        “Their Fr. General resides in Rome, all the others yield him absolute submission. He has selected some Fr.s who are called Assistants because they continually aid him. There is at least one of these for each nation, by whose name he is called, one being styled the Assistant of France, another of Spain, a third of Italy, a fourth of England, a fifth of Austria, and so on for all the other Provinces and Kingdoms. Each of them has for office to acquaint the Fr. General as to all events of state which take place in the Province or Kingdom, for which he is Assistant; and this he does by means of his correspondents who reside in the Provincial towns of the said Kingdom. Now these correspondents inform themselves with scrupulous care as to the character, inclinations, and intentions of the sovereigns, and by each courier they acquaint the Assistant with whatever facts have recently occurred or been brought to light. These are immediately communicated by the Assistant to the Fr. General, who thereupon assembling his council, they proceed together to perform an anatomy of the world, and scrutinize the interests or the projects of all Christian [Catholic] Princes. After having weighed all the documents, they agree among themselves to favor the interests of one Prince and thwart those of another making everything turn to their own advantage. Now as the lookers-on more easily detect the sleights-of hand committed than those who are playing the game, so these Fr.s having under their eyes the interests of all Princes, can very accurately appreciate the exigencies of times and places, and put in operation the most decisive means in order to favor a Prince whom they are sure they can make use of for the realization of their own interested views . . . Secrecy is necessary in State affairs: a state is undone when its secrets are divulged. But the Jesuit Fr.s, that is to say the Fr. General and his Assistants . . . are exactly and minutely informed of all the decisions come to in the most private Councils; and they know the forces, revenues, and expenditure of sovereigns, better in a manner than the sovereigns themselves . . . Being thus profoundly acquainted with the interests of all Sovereigns, is it not in their power to weaken the credit of any one of them with the rest, to ruin any sovereign they please in the estimation of his people, to make the latter his enemies, and to instill the leaven of revolt into the State—and all this the more easily, since by means of Confessions and consultations they penetrate into the most secret thoughts of the subjects? They have . . . various classes of Jesuits, Laymen and Priests, and their auxiliaries in sundry Occult functions . . . in every Kingdom, Province and Court.”

         “That the Jesuits in England had succeeded in appointing an Arch-Priest, who was a Jesuit by vow, and who had persecuted the Priests outside the Jesuit Order like a ravening wolf, brought them to extreme distress, and been so successful that almost all the Priests in England were Jesuits by vow.”

António Fernandes, S.J.Antonio Fernandes, S.J. (1569–1642; Portuguese Jesuit, Crusader, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Commentary on the Visions of the Old Testament)


        “It is said in the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Proverbs: ‘In the multitude of people is the king’s honour:’ for no one is called a King for any quality inherent in himself, but on account of the preference wherewith the people have chosen him; which must be entirely referred to the popular good-will . . . And certainly the king’s body is neither planted, nor fixed, nor rooted in the earth. For they have not the royal dignity vested in themselves, but in another, namely, in the opinion and good pleasure of the multitude, as has been said before . . . It is for this reason that Daniel beheld the kingdoms in a vision; because Monarchies are nothing more than ridiculous exhibitions, having no value in them beyond a fictitious pomp.”

Antonio Santarelli, S.J.Antonio Santarelli, S.J. (1569–1649; Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Treaty on the Heresy, Schism, Apostasy, Solicitation in the Sacrament of Penance, the Crimes in This, and from the Power of the Roman Pontiff to Be Punished)


        “As the power of punishing such persons with Temporal punishment, even with death, was granted unto Peter for the correction and example of others; so must it also be believed, that the power of punishing with Temporal penalties those who are transgressors of the divine and human laws, has been conceded to the Church and her Sovereign Pastor . . . It was said to Peter and to his successors, ‘Feed my sheep.’ Now it is the province of shepherds to punish their sheep with that punishment with which just reason may determine that they ought to be punished: if, therefore, for the general good of the Church, prudence and right reason require that disobedient and incorrigible Princes be punished with Temporal penalties and deprived of their Kingdom, the Sovereign Pastor of the Church may impose those penalties upon them; for Princes are not without the fold of the Church.”


        “The Pope must admonish Kings and punish them with death.”

Sebastian Heissius, S.J.Sebastian Heissius, S.J. (1571–1614; German Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Exegete, & Controversialist, & Author of Truth to the Teachings of the Jesuits and Other Papists)


        “This I hold to be the better and more commonly received opinion, that no private person, without the necessity of defending himself or his relations, may attack a legitimate Prince before a public sentence has been judicially pronounced by which he is declared a tyrant and an enemy of the State, and is thus deprived of the power which he possessed by those who may lawfully divest him of it. Cajetan and Sotus confirm this doctrine, and of the Theologians of our Society, Gregory of Valentia, Leonard Lessius, Louis Richeome, James Gretser, and others; while they deny that a Prince who has the right of reigning maybe lawfully killed by a private person, although he should tyrannically oppress the State. Our Emmanuel Sa has well and concisely expressed the same thing in his Aphorismi Confessariorum at the word Tyrannus, governs a justly acquired Empire, cannot be deprived of it of his dominion, and much less of his life without a public sentence; Here you have the common opinion of the Jesuits; and therefore Princes are threatened with no danger when they are accounted tyrants in the opinion of the whole people, if the people follow the advice of Doctors and celebrated men as Mariana requires, and they Jesuits, as you have already heard. I am unwilling to omit Alphonso Salmeron, one of the blessed decad of Fr.s who were the first-fruits of our Society, who enlarges upon this argument in his disputations upon the 13th Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. He thinks that even tyrants who have unjustly oppressed the state, if they are in quiet possession of it, cannot be killed by a private person, without divine authority. Others rightly add, or by command of the public authority, or at least by tacit consent, as we have already set forth. But the opinion of Alphonso more fully shews how inimical the Jesuits are against Princes.”

Giles de Coninck, S.J.Giles de Coninck, S.J. (15711633; Flemish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Commentary and Discussion on All Doctrine)


        “An opinion may be the more probable or the more safe. For that opinion is always the more safe in practice, in which, whether it be true or false, sin cannot be perceived, although the opposite opinion may be by far the more probable. When the opinions of the Doctors are divided upon any point, we may follow either opinion, even the less safe, and the less probable provided it be truly probable. In a question of justice, when it is to be decided to whom any property belongs, in the doubt, the condition of the possessor is always the better. Some persons maintain that this principle only applies to a question of justice. But Sanchez and others think that it also extends to other virtues, and their opinion is the better . . . I doubt, for instance, whether I should have made a vow. I am, as yet, in possession of my liberty; God is, as it were, the creditor, demanding the debt, and I am the debtor. In the doubt, mine is the better condition, and I must be considered free; neither am I bound to deprive myself of my liberty, until it appear that I have rightly lost it through the obligation of my vow. A man is in doubt whether he may lawfully make a certain contract; and having read various authors for and against the permission, and fully considered their arguments, he still continues doubtful, or even rather inclines to the negative opinion. But if, from the reasons by which it is supported, or upon the authority of the Doctors, he should determine the affirmative to be truly probable, he may certainly persuade him self that the contract in question is lawful in practice; because he may lawfully follow a Probable Opinion, although it should be the less safe.”

adam tanner, s.j.Adam Tanner, S.J. (1572–1632; Austrian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Professor at the Jesuit Universities of Ingolstadt & Vienna, & Counter-Reformative Propagandist of the Jesuit Created First Thirty Years’ War Crusade)


         “For what object have we given to us money, soldiers, sabers, and cannon, but to use them against the enemy? Why do we hesitate, then, in commencing to eradicate and root out heresy, root and branch, and especially this Calvinistic abomination? Kill them, then, the hounds, strike them down, and hurl them to the ground, give them their finishing stroke, burn their houses over their heads, and overwhelm them with everything of the worst description that can be invented, so that the hateful brood may finally disappear from off the face of the earth.”

Nicolai Baldelli, S.J.Nicolai Baldelli, S.J. (1573–1655; Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Discussion on the fruit of Moral Theology)


        “He does not sin who follows a Probable Opinion, rejecting the more probable, whether the latter be the opinion of others, or of the agent himself, and whether the less Probable Opinion which he follows be the safer or the less safe. A Confessor may lawfully follow the Probable Opinion of his Penitent, and reject his own. And this is true, although the Probable Opinion which the Penitent follows should be injurious to another, as, in withholding restitution. For although Adrian asserts, that a Confessor is bound to advise his Penitent to abandon his opinion, when it is prejudicial to another, yet it seems not to be said with reason; since the Confessor, in the act of confession, is not bound to consider thee advantage of a third person; and the Penitent will not sin in following the Probable Opinion, even in withholding restitution.”

Paul Laymann Theologia MoralisPaul Laymann, S.J. (1574–1635; Austrian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Procedures on How to Brutally Torture, Dismember, & Sacrifice Witches in Bearing on the Legal Process Against the Sagas, & Advocating Use of Witchcraft in The Moral Theology)


        “Of two contradictory Probable Opinions, touching the legality or illegality of any human action, every one may follow in practice, or in action, that which he should prefer; although it may appear to the agent himself less probable in theory. Of two probable sides of such a question, it is also lawful to follow that which is the less safe; that is, the opinion which seems less remote from every kind of sin than the other which is opposed to it. A Doctor may give advice to a person who consults him, not only according to his own opinion, but even after the opposite Probable Opinion of others, if the latter should be preferable or more favorable to the enquirer . . . although the same Doctor should be certainly persuaded that the opinion were false in theory, so that he could not follow it himself in practice . . . And hence it appears that a learned man may give contrary advice to different persons, according to contrary Probable Opinions; whilst he still preserves discretion and prudence.”


        “Suarez, Sanchez, and Vasquez are right, who maintain, that for an action to be imputed unto man for sin, which is sinful and forbidden by some law, it is necessary that the agent reflect, or should have reflected, upon the sinfulness of the action, or on the danger of the sin. I have said above, that a man never sins unless he actually reflects upon the moral wickedness of the action or omission . . . As, if the mind in a violent transport of anger or grief, is so absorbed in the thought of what may be convenient or useful, that it either reflects not at all, or very slightly, upon the sinfulness and discredit of the action: in which case it will either be no sin, or only an imperfect and venial sin; which I think sometimes happens with those who are so completely absorbed in the excess of their sorrow, that they commit suicide.”


        “It is not simony to bestow gratuitously upon any one who grants a spiritual office, a temporal gift, which may be valued at a price . . . Neither does it matter whether the gift be offered after, or at the time, or before the spiritual office is conferred; and that, too, with the intention that the patron may be induced, from a motive of gratitude, to give the spiritual benefice.”


        “Although the doctrine of St. Augustine may be true, that it is not in any case lawful for a man to kill himself, unless God so command it; yet still it is not so plainly evident, that learned men may not fail to perceive it . . . For the Stoics have maintained, that self-destruction in our country’s cause is honourable. It is for this reason that the action of Cato has been often commended, who killed himself at Utica lest he should be compelled to look upon Caesar the tyrant and conqueror.”


        “As the body is subordinate to the soul . . . and things Temporal to things eternal, so should the civil power be subordinate to the Ecclesiastical power . . . Whence Boniface VIII concludes, in Extrav Unam Sanctum . . . It is necessary that the sword should be subject to the sword, and the temporal authority to the Spiritual power; since the apostle says, ‘There is no power but of God’; yet the things which proceed from God must be regulated with order; but they would not be regulated with order unless the sword were subject to the sword, and were reduced as an inferior to the highest power. The church does not receive, but reproves, those laws of secular Princes, which affect, by command or prohibition, the possessions, and particularly the persons of Ecclesiastics, although they should seem to conduce to the interest or protection of the Church . . . The reason is, that in such laws the direct jurisdiction of Lay-Princes overrules the Ecclesiastical, for to legislate is an act of jurisdiction: but such an usurpation of power is opposed to the Ecclesiastical immunity, and therefore an injury rather than a benefit is brought upon the Church . . . The Clergy do not incur the penalty awarded by the civil laws, neither can they be punished by the civil Magistrate; but when the complaint is brought before their own Ecclesiastical Judge, the Clergy who offend against the civil law should be punished by him with deserved punishment, either with the same penalty which has been awarded by the civil law to Lay-men, or with another and a milder judgment, as Rodriguez, Vasquez, and Suarez have well maintained Corollary. The civil laws which invalidate a contract or will, or which render persons incapable of making a contract or a will, in punishment of some crime committed by themselves or their ancestors, do not extend to the Clergy, as Navarre and Suarez remark after the common opinion. The reason is evident. For such a law is penal, and comprises a co-active force; which cannot extend to Ecclesiastical persons. After what has been said, it will be easy to answer the following question, ‘Whether the obligation of the Clergy to observe the civil laws, which are the common laws of citizens, and are not opposed to the sacred canons and to the Ecclesiastical Government, proceeds directly, or only indirectly, from the civil legislative power?’ Victoria, Sotus, Medina Sal as, and many others, contend that the obligation is direct . . . Yet the contrary opinion, which is that of Azor and Suarez, of Bellarmine in his Apology against the King of England, and of Adam Tanner, is much more easy and more probable; that the Clergy are not directly and specially bound by the civil laws, either by virtue of the laws them selves, or of the civil legislative power; for they are entirely exempt from such authority by every kind of right.”


        “If a Magician, Soothsayer, or Diviner, has employed his art in favor of any person and received reward for it, although he may have sinned in making the agreement, yet Rodriguez and Sanchez maintain that he is not bound, in for consequential, to restore the reward. But Sanchez adds with probability, that a Magician is not bound to restore although the matter required of him should not have come to pass; provided that he be skilled in the Magic art and have used his diligence and means, which may be valued at a price. But if a man or a beast be tormented with an enchantment, the Doctors are not agreed whether it is lawful to bring a Magician to dissolve it. In order to understand this, it is necessary to suppose, with Martin Delrio, Lessius, and Sanchez . . . that the enchantment may be dissolved in two ways; first, by destroying the signs on which it depends by compact with the Devil; secondly, by employing new signs, by which, through the compact entered into with the Devil, the enchantment may be destroyed. On which supposition, I answer in the first place, that he who certainly or probably persuades himself that the enchantment may be destroyed by a Magician in the former manner, may cause him to be brought, even although he should suspect that he had been taught the art by the Devil. For he may use a good art properly, which he has improperly learned. Add to this, that although it should be suspected that the Magician would not use the lawful method which he might employ for the destruction of the enchantment, but another and an illegal method, by means of a new sign and Magic compact; still he may be brought, and required (to use his art), as Lessius, Suarez, and Sanchez teach. Yet the Doctors rightly advise, that if there is a hope that the magician will consent, by express demand or agreement, to use a legal rather than an illegal method, then every one is bound by the law of charity to exhort the Magician to do so: for by these means he may, without much trouble, prevent his neighbor from committing a great sin . . . The same writers observe, that it may readily be presumed of the author of an enchantment, that he has the power of destroying the signs which he has himself placed, and of averting their moral effect; which he is in justice bound to do, and may therefore be compelled to it even by threats and blows.”

R.P. Stephani Fagundez, S.J.Stephani Fagundez, S.J. (1577–1645; Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Commandments)


        “It would be an insupportable burden to the consciences of men, and liable to many doubts, if we were compelled to follow and examine the more Probable Opinions; and therefore learned men and discreet Confessors, rejecting their own more Probable Opinion, may guide the consciences of their Penitents according to the opinion of the latter, which they consider probable. The secular Judge, not only in a criminal, but also in a civil cause, rejecting his own more Probable Opinion, may follow the opposite opinion, which he still thinks probable.”


        “An useful doubt arises in the case of a son who transacts at a distance his father s business, or always remains with him in the house to sell the goods of his father who is a merchant, whether he may take secretly as much of his father s property in return for his labor and industry, as his father would have given to a hired servant for the same labor and occupation; and that, too, in addition to his father’s expense in maintaining him? The reply must be made in the affirmative. Servants are also bound to restore to their master whatever they have taken beyond their wages and proper food, provided that their masters have not compelled them to fulfill duties over and above those for which they agreed; for then they may fake something more provided it be just for the duty and service which they are compelled to discharge beyond their agreement.”


        “Christian [Catholic] sons may accuse their fathers of the crime of heresy if they wish to turn them from the faith, although they may know that their parents will be burned with fire, and put to death for it, as Tolet teaches . . . And not only may they refuse them food, if they attempt to turn them from the Catholic faith, but they may also justly kill them, observing the moderation of a blameless defense, if they forcibly compel their children to abandon the faith. It is lawful for us to kill a man, when, if we kill him not, another will kill us. If we speak of the case and circumstances in which it is lawful for us to defend our neighbor, by killing the man who attacks him unjustly, it seems evidently certain that we may also entrust the same defense and homicide to another. If a Judge had been unjust, and had proceeded in trial without adhering to the course of the law, then certainly the accused might defend himself by assaulting, and even by killing the Judge; because . . . in that case he cannot be called a Judge, but an unjust aggressor and a tyrant.”


          “Rape is not a circumstance grave enough in order that we must aver it when we Confess; we suppose that the girl has assented to it.”

Francesco Amico, S.J Cursus theologici tomus sextusFrancesco Amico, S.J. (1578–1651, Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Legominist, Prefect General at the Jesuit University of Vienna, Professor & Chancellor at the Jesuit University of Graz, & Author of Theological Course on the Mystery of Incarnation)


        “As the WORD was able to assume a nature which was irrational and incapable of all knowledge; so might he also have taken a reasonable nature, destitute of all knowledge. The WORD was able to assume the stupidity of the ass’s nature; and therefore, also, he might have assumed the imperfection of the human nature. It is not more repugnant to suppose the WORD to err and to lie materially, through the nature which he assumed, than in the same assumed nature to suffer and to die: therefore, if he was able to suffer and to die in his assumed nature, he could in the same nature have erred and have lied materially . . . Madness has not in itself any moral, or formal, or radical, or material, or objective opposition to the intellectual nature: therefore, there is no reason why it could not have existed in the nature which was assumed by the WORD . . . Therefore, there is no reason for conceiving it repugnant to suppose that the WORD assumed an insane nature, or to admit that madness was in the nature which he had already assumed.”


        “He who has stolen to a considerable amount, is not obliged under pain of mortal sin to restore the whole; but it is sufficient if he restore as much as will secure his neighbor from considerable loss: so that if the amount of the theft be one florin, the thief is not bound, under pain of mortal sin, to restore the whole florin, but it will be sufficient to restore four or five grotes, by which the material loss occasioned by the theft is removed.”


        “An adulterer, taken in the flagrant sin, might defend himself against the husband and father of the adulteress; since they are not considered to attack the adulterer by the public authority . . . It will be lawful for an Ecclesiastic, or one of a religious Order, to kill a calumniator who threatens to spread atrocious accusations against himself or his religion, when other means of defense are wanting . . .”

Jacobus Tirinus Commentarius in Sacram ScripturamJacobus Tirinus, S.J. (1580–1636; Belgian Jesuit, Biblical Text Critic, & Author of Commentary on the Scriptures)


        “‘If,’ says Susanna, ‘I yield to the wishes of these old men, thus my honor is lost; if, however, I offer resistance, then is my life at stake. I will not, then, consent to this disgraceful transaction, but I will tolerate it, and say nothing about it, in order to retain at the same time both honor and life.’ The chaste Susanna was compelled to yield to the elders, nevertheless without mental consent, and nothing obliged her, to make known her shame by crying out, seeing that her good reputation and life of outward integrity were at stake.”

Francis de Lugo, S.J.Francisco de Lugo, S.J. (1580–1652, Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Older Brother of Jesuit Jesuit Cardinal Juan de Lugo, S.J., & Author of Discussion on the Seven Sacraments of the Church)


        “By what land of communion is this precept fulfilled? The question is, when the holy sacrament is voluntarily, but unworthily received. The law which commands an act, commands the substance, but not the manner of it; unless the manner be essential to the act, as attention is said to be essential to prayer, and formal integrity to confession. Therefore the Ecclesiastical law which enjoins communion, is only compulsory to the substance of the act, which is sufficiently fulfilled even by a profane communion. Thus he who hears mass with an evil intent, he who receives baptism in a state of sin, or the priest who administers it in a state of sin, all fulfill the command, although by criminal acts. The divine, positive precept which enjoins communion, ordains that it be received in a state of grace: this I deny. For this precept is fulfilled by an unworthy communion, as I have said, and as Cardinal de Lugo teaches.”

Fernando Castro Palao, S.J.Fernando Castro Palao, S.J. (1581–1633; Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Need for Moral Virtues and Vice Versa)


        “You may not only lawfully act, according to the Probable Opinion of others, rejecting your own, which is more probable; but, in a case of great necessity, you are bound to conform to the opinion of others, which, under other circumstances, would be less probable. For, by reason of that extreme necessity and danger, the opinion, which would otherwise have little or no probability, is rendered very probable and very safe. You believe that a Judge examines you lawfully, upon the crime of some great and honor able man of high importance to the state: still you are not fully assured of it, but you have some scruple and some doubt. Then you may keep silence, and not answer him according to his meaning, deciding it to be probable in such a case that you may refrain from speaking . . . For, in instances of this kind, a great necessity renders an opinion probable, which otherwise would not have been probable . . . Doctors or rectors are not compelled to inculcate the opinions which seem to them to be the more probable . . . For those opinions are often the less generally received and approved, and might occasion scandal: and an irksome task would be imposed upon the masters, if they were compelled to read those things which should appear to them the more probable . . . For, in consequence of such compulsion, they would have to examine thoroughly every argument on either side of a question; and frequently, the opinion which yesterday seemed to them to be the more probable, will to-day appear the less probable; and they would be obliged to change their opinion daily in their writings. For which reason it is sufficient if they teach the things which appear to them to be probable There is no compulsion to follow the safer and more Probable Opinion . . . it is enough to follow one which is safe and probable: for even in that which should seem the more probable and more safe, it is possible that error may occur . . . When the probability of right is grounded upon the probability of an action, then, I say, that from the probability of the action, the probability of right may be inferred. To illustrate this by an example. I think it probable that the cloak which I possess is my own; yet I think it more probable that it belongs to you: I am not bound to give it up to you, but I may safely retain it . . . It is probable to an unbeliever that he holds the true religion, although the contrary may be the more probable: there does not seem to be any obligation that he should renounce his error. But since, at the point of death, there remains no longer time to examine the question, he is not on that account obliged to relinquish a safe way to follow one which is more safe; but only to examine the question with greater care, as far as the time will allow.”


        “When a domestic sees himself compelled, on account of his livelihood, to serve a dissolute Master, he is allowed to look for and bring home concubines, to lead him to brothels; and if his Master wishes to scale a window to a lascivious woman; it is allowable for him to render assistance to the latter in the most grievous transgressions.”

pier luigi carafaCardinal Pier Luigi Carafa (1581–1655; Italian Cardinal, Member of the Roman Curia, Apostolic Nuncio of Germany to Cardinal Francesco Barberini)

        “It is certain that the Jesuits, through the favor of the Emperor, which cannot be overestimated, have attained to overwhelming power . . . They have the upper hand in everything, even over the most prominent minister of state, and domineer over them, if they do not carry out their will . . . Their influence has always been considerable, but it has reached its zenith since Jesuit Father Lamormaini has been Confessor to the Emperor.”

Nicolas Caussin, S.J.Nicolas Caussin, S.J. (1583–1651; French Jesuit, Legominist of the Roman Catholic Passions, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Answer to the Moral Theology of the Jesuits)


        “There are many points on which the Doctors are divided in opinion; and if a Confessor were permitted to believe only according to his own peculiar views and notions, and only to absolve according to his own doctrine, it would often happen that a Penitent might be rejected by all the Priests of a Diocese, and be compelled to recount his sins as often as he might confess himself to different Priests, until he should chance to meet with one who preserves a reasonable moderation in his advice.”


        “The unicorn is a fitting symbol for the God of the Old Testament, because in his wrath he reduced the world to confusion like an angry rhinoceros (unicorn), until, overcome by the love of a pure virgin, he was changed in her lap into a God of love.”

Juan_de_LugoCardinal Juan de Lugo, S.J. (1583–1660; Spanish Jesuit, Cardinal, Eminent Renaissance Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Incarnation)


        “In the words of God to Adam—‘In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die’ ‘if thou shalt eat it knowingly’ must be understood; for if he had eaten it without reflecting upon the offence to God, he had not sinned . . . As Christ said to Peter, ‘If I wash thee not thou hast no part with me’ so Paul said to the Corinthians, ‘If ye are adulterers, ye shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ But as Peter would not have incurred that punishment if he had not adverted to the command of Christ, so neither would the Corinthians, if they had not adverted to the divine offence; without which, although it would have been a Philosophical adultery if I may so express myself, yet it would not have amounted to a Theological adultery, of which Paul was speaking, since he spoke of it in terms of a mortal sin.”


        “Christ is a sovereign Prince who sends forth preachers. His Ambassadors may therefore restrain those who impede their preaching, by virtue of the power contained in the commission which is entrusted to them. For every state, especially when it possesses supreme authority, as the Church, may defend its rights against those who unjustly attempt to oppose and violate them. When, therefore, an infidel Prince opposes the preaching of the Gospel in his dominions, he wrongs his subjects . . . and the Church may undertake their defense and repel the injury which is done them, by constraining the infidel Prince in every possible manner to permit the preaching of the faith . . . Every Sovereign State possesses the right of sending Ambassadors of peace to other Princes; and if they are ill-treated or abused, they may be defended by their own Prince or the state, and revenge may be taken proportioned to the injury which has been done to them. The Church may therefore exercise the same right . . . a Prince who opposes Preachers, is, in that respect, a tyrant; and he may therefore be compelled by the Church to desist from the practice . . . Secular Princes do not possess the right of compelling infidels to suffer preaching, and of punishing those who resist; for this right is vested in the cChurch . . . The Sovereign Pontiff exercises this power when he commits the charge to faithful Pprinces, and deputes them, as it were, to protect the preachers of the faith in the Provinces of infidels, and to restrain those who oppose them . . . It was thus that Alexander VI divided the Indian Provinces between the Kings of Castille and Portugal, by allotting to them the right and care of defending the Preachers of the faith, and of restraining those who unjustly resisted them, that they might respectively exercise this power in the Provinces and districts which were assigned to them. Hurtado assents to this doctrine. He adds moreover that the Pope, because he is at the same time a Temporal King, may carry on war against infidels in those cases in which other Christian [Catholic] Princes might do so upon his authority: wherefore also he might raise an army and direct it by his command . . . Although the ministers of the Gospel ought not strictly to defend them selves with force, by attacking and killing their adversaries, yet it may sometimes be expedient to do so for the greater advantage of the faith. For what if a petty King should oppose the conversion of a vast Kingdom or empire, by imprisoning and persecuting the preachers who have been sent for that purpose? They might not only escape by flight, but they might also overpower their guards, or they might liberate themselves and continue the work which they had begun, provided the sovereign Pontiff did not withhold his permission.”


        “A man may steal from his debtor, when he has reason to believe that he will not be paid by the same.”

john pymJohn Pym (1584–1643; English Puritan, Jurist, Parliamentarian, Leader of the Long Parliament, Prominent Critic of Both Freemason & Rosicrucian King James I & Jesuit Charles I of England, Attempted Arrest by Jesuit Controlled Charles I Sparking the English Civil War, Accused Charles I’s Lay-Jesuit Adviser William Laud, S.J. of Trying to Convert England Back to Catholicism, & Author of The Grand Remonstrance)

         “The duty which we owe to your Majesty and our country, cannot but make us very sensible and apprehensive, that the multiplicity, sharpness and malignity of those evils under which we have now many years suffered, are fomented and cherished by a corrupt and ill-affected party, who among other mischievous devices for the alteration of religion and Government, have sought by many false scandals and imputations, cunningly insinuated and dispersed among the people, to blemish and disgrace our proceedings in this Parliament, and to get themselves a party and faction among your subjects, for the better strengthening themselves in their wicked courses, and hindering those provisions and remedies which might, by the wisdom of your Majesty and counsel of your Parliament, be opposed against help . . . And because we have reason to believe that those malignant parties, whose proceedings evidently appear to be mainly for the advantage and increase of Popery, is composed, set up, and acted by the subtle practice of the Jesuits and other engineers and factors for Rome, and to the great danger of this kingdom, and most grievous affliction of your loyal subjects, have so far prevailed to corrupt divers of your Bishops and others in prime places of the Church, and also to bring divers of these instruments to be of your Privy Council, and other employments of trust and nearness about your Majesty, Prince Charles II, and the rest of your royal children . . . For the preventing of those miserable effects which such malicious endeavors may produce, we have thought good to declare the root and the growth of these mischievous designs . . . The root of all this mischief we find to be a malignant and pernicious design of subverting the fundamental laws and principles of Government, upon the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly established. The actors and promoters hereof have been: The Jesuitized Papists, who hate the laws, as the obstacles of that change and subversion of religion which they so much long for . . . 191. For the perfecting of the work begun, and removing all future impediments, we conceive these courses will be very effectual, seeing the religion of the Papists hath such principles as do certainly tend to the destruction and extirpation of all Protestants, when they shall have opportunity to effect it.”

Juan de Dicastillo, S.J.Juan de Dicastillo, S.J. (1584–1653; Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Professor, & Author of On the Other Cardinal Virtues of Justice and Rights)


        “Theft may be venial through want of deliberation. For although, as Lessius says, it may seem difficult that theft should become venial, by reason of imperfect deliberation, yet it may sometimes happen. For some persons are so addicted to it through habit, and, as it were, determined to thieve, that they bear away the thing stolen before they fully reflect upon what they are doing. The same thing may happen through the violence of temptation, especially when it is committed with so much precipitancy, that there remains not time for deliberation.”


        “It may be asked, whether a son is permitted to kill his father who is banished? Many authors affirm that he is, among whom are Bartholomew Gomez and others . . . Yet what Clarus teaches is more probable, that he is not permitted. For a son does not on that account cease to be a son, neither is he released from the bond of natural obligation towards his father. Yet, were I to pronounce a decision, if a father were obnoxious to the state and to society at large, and there were no other means of averting such an injury, then I should approve the opinion of the aforesaid authors.”


        “That the Clergy are exempt from Lay-Power even in Temporal things, is thus proved: no man is directly subject unto one who has not any jurisdiction over him . . . but the Lay-Prince has no jurisdiction over the Clergy or Ecclesiastics . . . It is proved, secondly, in this manner: he to whom another is subject, can punish him when his authority seems useless without the exercise of restraint . . . But a secular Prince cannot punish Ecclesiastics . . . therefore Ecclesiastics are not subject to Lay-Princes. The Clergy are exempt from Lay-Power, not only by human, civil, and Canonical Law, but also by the divine law.”

Jean Martinon, S.J.Jean Martinon, S.J. (1586–1662; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Theological Discussions)


        “If a Penitent should err only in the opinion of his Confessor, and err perhaps unquestionably, but still pursue an opinion which is truly probable; his Confessor is not obliged to reprove him: neither can he deprive him of the right which he possesses of following a Probable Opinion: and he should be judged according to it by the Confessor, if lie choose to persevere in it . . . After he has once heard him, he is obliged by his duty to absolve him, if properly disposed for it, provided there be no reasonable cause for delaying absolution, the resolution of adhering to a truly Probable Opinion, although the contrary opinion may be more probable, or more safe, or more remote from sin, not being in itself a sufficiently valid reason for deferring it.”

Antonio Escobar y Mendoza, S.J.Antonio Escobar y Mendoza, S.J. (1589–1669; Spanish Jesuit, Ethicist, Famous Preacher, Prodigious Writer, & Author of The Compendium of Moral Theology)


        “Our Fr. General, as all know, governs Rome itself and the Popedom; we make war at our pleasure betwixt one Prince and another, between a Prince and his subjects, usurp dominion over cities and countries, fearing no discovery of our actions; since our commerce is chiefly with Great men, we know every public secret, and can in a singular way dispatch heretics and enemies of the Roman Court.”


        “What a married woman gains by adultery she may look upon as well earned property, only she must allow her husband to participate in her gains.”


        “Therefore when you find a thief who has the intention to rob a needy person, you must restrain him from doing so, and point out to him another rich person whom he may plunder instead of the needy one.”


        “That it is absolutely allowable to kill a man whenever the general welfare or proper security demands it.”


        “We may follow a Probable Opinion without sin, rejecting that which is more probable and more safe. I advise that permission should not be given to use a Probable Opinion, when any great danger might result from it, as the injury of our neighbor, or the dishonor of God, if it could be avoided by following a more Probable Opinion. Any one who is questioned may answer according to the Probable Opinion of others, suppressing his own more probable or more safe opinion. Among many Probable Opinions, can there be one more safe than another; that is to say, can there be a greater danger of committing sin, in adhering to one opinion rather than to another? I answer in the negative: for since every Probable Opinion renders the conscience safe in acting, the agent will not be less safe in following one opinion rather than another. Indeed, whilst I perceive so many different opinions maintained upon points connected with morality, I think that the Divine Providence is apparent; for in diversity of opinions the yoke of Christ is pleasantly borne. It is either lawful or unlawful to form the design of going to several different Doctors, until one is found to return an answer in accordance with our wishes. If I have an honest intention of finding a Probable Opinion which favors me, while I am firmly resolved not to act in opposition to a probable conscience, I may lawfully do so. Subjects are either excused, or are not excused, from paying tribute, in consequence of an opposite Probable Opinion. Certainly they are excused; for as the Prince rightly levies tribute, in the opinion that it is probably just; so may the subject also rightly refuse the tribute, in the opinion that it is probably unjust. Thus Sanchez, Lessius, etc. I approve this opinion . . .”


        “A Confessor perceives that his Penitent is in Invincible Ignorance, or at least in Innocent Ignorance; and he does not hope that any benefit will be derived from his advice, but rather anxiety of mind, strife, or scandal. Should he dissemble? Suarez affirms that he ought; because, since his admonition will be fruitless, ignorance will excuse his Penitent from sin.”


        “It is either lawful, or unlawful, to use dissimulation in the administration of the sacraments. The censure of my very dear friend Fr. Ferdinand de Castro-Palao, seems to me to be too severe, when he calls the former opinion bold and rash. A great fear either dispenses, or does not dispense, with the divine command of receiving baptism or penitence. It does certainly dispense with it; because that divine command is not binding in itself, when it exposes us to some great danger; and the care which we should have for our eternal salvation, does not oblige us to seek the safer means while we incur the danger. I formerly thought that it did not dispense with it, that while the divine command obliged us on the one hand, to receive baptism or penitence, and a tyrant on the other, prohibited their reception on pain of death, we were still bound to receive them, in order as far as possible to insure our eternal salvation. But now I adhere to the former opinion; since I perceive, that after having received the sacrament, all danger of damnation does not cease: for it may not be absolutely certain that the sacrament has been rightly received or administered. A man of a religious Order, who for a short time lays aside his Habit for a sinful purpose, is free from heinous sin, and does not incur the penalty of Excommunication . . . I am of this opinion, and I extend that short time to the space of one hour. A man of a religious Order therefore, who puts off his Habit for this assigned space of time, does not incur the penalty of Excommunication, although he should lay it aside, not only for a sinful purpose, as to commit fornication, or to thieve, but even that he may enter unknown into a brothel? The sins of blasphemy, perjury, and unfaithfulness, committed in a state of drunkenness, either are not or are to be imputed unto sin. I think it sufficient to follow the former opinion which is probable . . . to utter such things in the time of drunkenness, is not sin, but the effect of sin.”


        “The obligation of hearing mass is fulfilled, even while beholding women with concupiscence.


        “A Monk casting off his dress, does not fall under Excommunication, though it might be for a shameful action; for instance, to commit fornication, to steal, or to go more secretly to brothels.”


         “Yet assuming he is frequently guilty of this sin, it is lawful that a Priest caught committing the sin of bestiality, does not receive punishment.”


         “Assuming he commits this sin only once or twice, it lawful that a Priest involved into subjection of the sin of Sodomy, does not receive punishment.”


        “A son either is obliged, or is not obliged, to support an infidel father who is in extreme necessity, if he endeavors to turn him from the faith . . . I conceive that the latter opinion must be certainly maintained: for Catholic sons may accuse their parents of the crime of heresy . . . although they may know that their parents would be committed for it to the flames, as Tolet teaches . . . They might also refuse them sustenance, although they should perish for want of food. Fagundez adds . . . that they might even kill them, with the moderation of a blameless defence, as enemies who violate the rights of human nature, if they forcibly compel their children to desert the faith; but still that they are not to force them into imprisonment, so that they may die of hunger. Since by the civil law a father and husband is permitted to kill his daughter or his wife taken in adultery, the death either may, or may not, be intrusted to others with impunity. The husband and father certainly may intrust it to their children or their servants. I conceive this to be the common opinion in the present day. Many even affirm that fathers and husbands may not only intrust such kinds of homicide with impunity to their children and their servants, but also to any strangers.”


        “What is sedition? The disagreement of citizens: a special offence against charity. If the state is drawn away from its obedience to the Prince, it is a crime of high treason. If it extends but to the deposition of magistracy, it is only sedition. But when it is in opposition to a tyrant, it is not a sin, neither is it properly sedition; because a tyrannical Government is not directed to the general good.”


        “It is lawful . . . to make use of the science acquired through the assistance of the Devil, provided the preservation and use of that knowledge do not depend upon the Devil: for the knowledge is good in itself, and the sin by which it was acquired is gone by. Astrologers and Soothsayers are either bound, or are not bound, to restore the reward of their Divination, if the event does not come to pass. I own that the former opinion does not at all please me; because, when the astrologer or diviner has exerted all the diligence in the diabolic art which is essential to his purpose, he has fulfilled his duty, whatever may be the result. As the Physician, when he has made use of medicines according to the principles of his professional knowledge, is not bound to restore the fee which he has received if his patient should die; so neither is the Astrologer bound to restore his charge and costs to the person who has consulted him, except when he has used no effort, or was ignorant of his diabolic art; because, when he has used his endeavors, he has not deceived.”

         “When you are come into the land which YAHUAH ELOHAYKA gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that uses divination, or one that practices sorcery, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto YAHUAH: and because of these abominations YAHUAH ELOHAYKA drives them out from before you. You shall be perfect with YAHUAH ELOHAYKA. For these nations, which you shall possess, hearkened unto scorcerers, and unto diviners: but as for you, YAHUAH ELOHAYKA has not suffered you so to do. YAHUAH ELOHAYKA will raise up unto you a Prophet (YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH) from the midst of you, of your brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;” Devariym (Deuteronomy) 18:9-15

         “Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened אתeth-their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in YAHUAH ELOHAYHEM. And they rejected אתeth-his statutes, and אתeth-his covenant that he cut with אתeth-their fathers, and אתeth his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that were round about them, concerning whom YAHUAH had charged them, that they should not do like them. And they left אתeth-all the commandments of YAHUAH ELOHAYHEM, and made them molten images, even two calves, and made an Asherah pole, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served אתeth-Ba’al. And they caused אתeth-their sons and אתeth-their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of YAHUAH, to provoke him to anger.” Melekiym Sheniy (2 Kings) 17:14-17

Francois Annat, S.J.Francois Annat, S.J. (1590–1670; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Writer, One of the Foremost Opponents of Jansenism, Professor of Jesuit Philosophy, & Theology, & Rector at the Jesuit College of Toulouse, Jesuit Provincial of France, Regional Assistant to the Jesuit Superior General, Confessor of Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta King Louis XIV of France, & Author of The Fourfold Discourse of Liberal Freedom from the Doctrine of St. Thomas and St. Augustine)


         “He who has no thought of God, nor of his sins, nor any apprehension, any knowledge of the obligation to do acts of love to God, or of contrition, has no actual grace to do those acts; but it is also true that he does not sin in omitting them, and that if he is damned, it will not be in punishment of this omission. Some lines farther down: And we may say the same thing of a culpable omission.”

Alexander RossAlexander Ross (1591–1654; English Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Poet, & Philosopher, Historian, Prolific Writer, Freemason, Theosophist, Chaplain of King Charles I of England, Preacher at the Jesuit Controlled Church of St. Mary the Great, Jesuit Controlled Anglican Vicar of Carisbrooke Isle of Wight, & Author of the The Black Box of Rome: The Blasphemous Treacheries and Conjurations of the Wicked Jesuits to Murder a King and Overthrow a Kingdom)

         “The Jesuits’ blasphemous rituals to encourage their Proselytes to King-killing treacheries.—Such is the most bloody, and most blasphemous impudence of these Romish incendiaries, that when they put on a Satanic and desperate resolution, to murder any Emperor, King, or Prince whom they have once pronounced to be a heretic, Excommunicating them, whereupon intending to murder him by some Ravaillac, whom they choose for the execution of the treason. After an unfortunate and wretched Proselyte is once allured, and entered into their place of consultation or chamber of philosophical prayers, for truth as they call them. These infernal firebrands all kneel down, each whom in their prayers observe their every action, place before the intended traitor, a knife folded up in a scarf, that is enclosed in a small chest covered with a Liturgy, written with black letters containing perfumes and odorous characters. When taking the knife out themselves, they cast and sprinkle drops of holy water upon it, then they gather around the knife, and sing five or six different hymns which are blessed by them. Who blasphemously they give the Proselyte to understand and make him believe that, however many blows will be given by him with the knife, is how many souls shall be released out of Purgatory. Afterwards, putting the knife into the intended murderer’s hand, they pronounce these words saying:—‘Go now like Jephthah, with the sword of Samson in your hand, the sword with which David did cut off Goliath’s head, the Sword of Gideon, thus the sword with which Judith did cut off Holofernes’ head, the sword of the valiant Maccabees, and the same with which St. Peter did cut off Malchus’ ear, truly I say, the sword of Pope Julius II, with the which breaking the forces of opposing Princes, he took out of their hands with great effusion of blood, the cities of Seca, Imola, Fayance, Bologna, and many other cities. Therefore, I say, go you magnanimous champion of the Chair of Rome, and be valiant, for God strengthens you arm for the great work now entrusted by you.’ After which, this infernal kennel of Romish blood-hounds all kneel down, and the most wretchedly renowned and cursedly qualified amongst them with a cauterized conscience and marbleized heart, pronounce the bloody incantation, impiously and impudently saying as follow:—‘Come Cherubim, come Seraphim, and highest Thrones that rule, come blessed Angels, truly blessed Angels of Charity, come and fill this holy vessel with glory and eternity, and bring him presently the crown of the Virgin Mary, of the Patriarchs, and of the Martyrs, for he belongs no longer to us, but to you. And you, oh dreadful and terrible God, who has revealed to him these, in our prayers and meditations, that he ought to murder a tyrant, and confound a heretic, and to give the crown to a Catholic King. And being by us disposed to this meritorious murder, vouchsafe to fortify his senses, and increase his forces, to the end that he may accomplish this your great will, and vouchsafe to arm and furnish him with the harness of your powerful providence, that he may valiantly perform the worthy work he has piously undertaken, to happily escape from those who would apprehend him. Give him eagles wings, that the spite and malice of those Barbarians whom he goes against, may not once touch his sanctified members. Extend also the beam of your joy and celestial felicity upon his sacred soul, to the end that by the blessed influence thereof, the parts and members of his body also, may be encouraged and enabled to this great work, that it may carefully dispose it self to this holy combat without fear or shrinking pusillanimity.’ This accursed invocation being now audaciously and gracelessly uttered, they carry on the now enchanted bloody regicide, and set him before an altar, where they show him a picture wherein the Angels are shown to have lifted up and elevated James Clement, a bloody Jacobin Fryer, representing him, before the throne of God, saying:—‘Lord behold your pupil, behold your well instructed champion, and the achiever of you justice. Whereupon all the Saints rise out of their seats to make him room, and give him place among them.’ And when all these things are now done and finished, there are no more but four Jesuits only left with him, who approaching near to him with diabolical impudence and flattering lies say unto him, that they seem to perceive that there is some Deity infused into him, and that they are so astonished with the radiant light-shining and glistering in him. They then hold it their honor to kiss his hands and feet, and make him madly to believe that they account him not a mere man any longer, but that they esteem themselves, as it were. Hasting unworthy of the happiness and glory which he has already obtained by his Catholic resolution, and sighting deeply before him, they say unto him:—‘We would that God had chosen us and called us to your estate, since we should be truly assured that we should go truly and directly into Paradise without going to Purgatory.’ Now finally having intoxicated and bewitched the miserable wretch, they now leave him to his intended bloody design.”

         . . . Of which he was in unknowingly collusion with, oh ye Counter-Reformed hypocrites.

Tommaso Tamburini, S.J.Tommaso Tamburini, S.J. (1591–1675; Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Explanation of the Decalogue)


        “Whether it is lawful at one time to follow one Probable Opinion, and a different Probable Opinion, at another, upon the same subject? It is probable, for instance, that a tax has been unjustly imposed: it is also probable that the same tax has been justly levied. May I, because I am the King s collector of taxes, demand to-day the payment of the tax . . . and to morrow, or even on the same day, may I, because I am a merchant, secretly defraud it? Again, it is probable that pecuniary compensation may be made for defamation; it is also probable that it cannot be made. May I, the defamed, exact today pecuniary compensation from my defamer; and to-morrow, or even on the same day, may I, the defamer of another, refuse to compensate with money for the reputation of which I have deprived him? . . . I affirm that it is lawful to do, at pleasure, sometimes the one, and sometimes the other. Those ignorant Confessors are to be blamed who always think that they do well in obliging their Penitents to make restitution, because it is at all times more safe. A Doctor may instruct in Probable Opinions, even suppressing those which are more probable, provided he does not foresee that any scandal will arise from it: because in so doing he acts prudently, if lie shews to his hearers a probable way of acting rightly. A Confessor may, and even must, follow the Probable Opinion of his Penitent, against his own opinion, whether it be probable or more probable . . . A parish priest ought to absolve his Penitent as often as he may return to him, and conform himself to the Probable Opinion of the Penitent.”


        “Although he who, through inveterate habit, inadvertently swears a falsehood, may seem bound to confess the propensity, yet he is commonly excused. The reason is, that no one commonly reflects upon the obligation by which he is bound to extirpate the habit . . . and, therefore, since he is excused from the sin, he will also be excused from confession. Some maintain that the same must be said of blasphemy, heresy, and of the aforesaid oath . . . and consequently that such things committed inadvertently are neither sins in themselves, nor the cause of sin, and therefore need not necessarily be confessed.”


        “That a number of small thefts may constitute a mortal sin, it is necessary that they should be committed continuously, and that they should not be separated by any considerable intervals of time . . . If four years elapse between the commission of one theft and another, it is accounted by Rebel to be a considerable interval . . . one year by Sanchez . . . six months by some, and fifteen days by others.”


        “May servants requite themselves clandestinely, when their Masters deny them a just remuneration? They certainly may if they refuse them equitable recompense, but only on the conditions described.”

king gustavus adolphus the greatKing Gustavus Adolphus (1594–1632; King of Sweden, Known as One of the Greatest Military Commanders of All Time & Formally Known as the Father of Modern Warfare, Led Sweden to Military Supremacy During the Jesuit Superior General Mutio Vitelleschi, S.J.’s First Thirty Years’ War, Widely Commemorated by Protestants in Europe as the Main Defender of Their Cause During It with Multiple Protestant Churches & Foundations, Specifically Became a Successful Book-raider in Europe of Jesuit Collections, His Domestic Reforms Transformed Backward the Papacy’s Medieval Dark Age Economy & Society)

         “There are three Ls I should like to see hanged: the Pontiff Leo XI, the Jesuit Laymann and the Jesuit Laurentius Forer.”

conor o'mahony, s.j.Conor O’Mahony, S.J. (1594–1656; English Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Evora, & Author of Explanatory Argument Concerning the Authority of the Kingdom of Ireland on Behalf of Irish Catholics Against English Heretics)


         “My dear Irish,—Go on and perfect the work of your liberty and defense, which is so happily begun by you; and kill all the heretics, and all that do assist and defend them. You have in the space of four or five years, that is, between the years 1641 and 1645, wherein I write this, killed 150,000 heretics, as your enemies acknowledge. Neither do I deny it. And for my own part, as I verily believe you have killed more of them, so I would to God you had killed them all—which you must either do, or drive them all out of Ireland, that our Holy Land may be plagued no longer with such a . . . barbarous, ignorant and lawless generation of people.”

jean-bolland-s-jJean Bolland, S.J. (1596–1665; Flemish Jesuit, Famous Hagiographer, Founded the Jesuit Rosicrucian Society of Bollandists Creating the Counter-Reformation Sion-ce of Paleography Using Lay-Jesuit Benedictine Monks Jean Mabillon, O.S.B. & Bernard de Montfaucon, O.S.B. for the Purpose of Creating Forgery Ancient Texts to Rewrite IHStory & Specifically the Forgery of Older and Better Fake Uninspired Gnostic Bible Manuscripts, & the Main Author of Image of the First Century of the Society of Jesus)


“One world is not enough.


        “The Society of Jesus is not of human invention, but it proceeded from him whose name it bears. For Jesus himself described that rule of life which the Society follows, first by his example, and after wards by his words. The Society extended over the whole world, fulfills the prophecy of Malachi—From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles: and in every place shall incense be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.’

Georges de Rhodes, S.J.Georges de Rhodes, S.J. (1597–1661 French Jesuit, Famous Rhetorician, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Rector of the Jesuit College of Lyon, Brother of the Famous Jesuit Crusader Alexandre de Rhodes, S.J., & Author of Scholastic Theology Discussion)


        “It is sufficient to render an opinion probable, that some pious Doctor, of great celebrity, especially among the moderns, maintain it; provided that the other conditions which are necessary to constitute a Probable Opinion, be not wanting . . . That any opinion may become probable, a single good reason is sufficient: but the authority of any one Doctor, of great reputation and piety, is a good reason . . . Therefore the authority of one Doctor may be sufficient for a Probable Opinion . . . That any opinion may be probable, it is sufficient to possess a reason which may seem to be good, or the authority of a good Doctor, which is equivalent to a reason, especially, since he ought also to possess some reason. An argument may be drawn from human transactions, in which men are usually and prudently governed by the advice of one man: one Physician, for instance, is consulted for the preservation of the health; one Lawyer, in defense of the rights of a family; one Architect, in building a house; one Confessor, in the Government of the conscience. Therefore there is proof, that the authority of one good Doctor is a sufficient reason on which to ground the probability of any opinion, so that every one may safely follow it.”


        “The director of consciences will answer, that for some reason it is probable that you are bound to make restitution, and for oilier reasons it is probable that you are not; but you may follow either opinion. And this he will always say to each of his Penitents: whence he will neither contradict himself, nor will the doctrine of a Probable Opinion be mutable and inconstant. For he will never say that you are bound to make restitution, if he should have a Probable Opinion which is opposed to the obligation to restore. But there will never be any danger of corruption, when a man shall follow that which shall appear to him the more convenient, provided that a Probable Opinion teach him that it is not unlawful. Every one is at liberty to abandon the common opinion. For if he be learned, he may have some weighty reason on account of which he may prefer his own opinion to the common opinion . . . But if he be not learned, he may so prudently confide in the learning and morals of some approved man, that he may adhere to his opinion, in opposition to the common opinion. A Doctor may advise an enquirer contrary to his own opinion, according to another which he considers probable. For if he may follow it himself, why may he not also advise others to follow it, as Vasquez, Sanchez, etc. maintain? He might even reply., sometimes according to one opinion, sometimes by following another. But lest he should seem to be changeable and inconsistent, he ought to explain to the enquirer the probability of either opinion. Hence also the question is resolved, whether any one may consult different Doctors, until he find one favourable to his opinion, from whom he may hear that which he most desires. For this, it is evident, is not unlawful in itself; but it may be rendered very criminal by a corrupt intention. But may the Doctor send back his enquirer to another Doctor, whose opinion he may consider to be improbable? I answer that he can not, if he should think the opinion of that Doctor evidently false; for then he is in ignorance: but he may if he does not consider his opinion to be entirely false; for then he may either reply according to that opinion, or refer his enquirer to the Doctor. Thus Vasquez, Salas, etc. A Confessor . . . is bound, under pain of mortal sin, to absolve a Penitent who follows a Probable Opinion, which the Confessor himself considers false.”


        “Wherever there is no knowledge of wickedness, there is also, of necessity, no sin. It is sufficient to have at least a confused knowledge of the heinousness of a sin; without which knowledge there would never be a flagrant crime. For instance, one man kills another, believing it indeed to be wrong, but conceiving it to be nothing more than a trifling fault. Such a man does not greatly sin, because it is know ledge only which points out the wickedness or the grossness of it to the will. Therefore, criminality is only imputed according to the measure of knowledge. If a man commit adultery or homicide, reflecting, indeed, but still very imperfectly and superficially, upon the wickedness and great sinfulness of these crimes; however heinous may be the matter, he still sins but slightly. The reason is, that as a knowledge of the wickedness is necessary to constitute the sin, so is a fully clear knowledge and reflection necessary to constitute a heinous sin. And thus I reason with Vasquez: In order that a man may freely sin, it is necessary to deli berate whether he sins or not. But he fails to deliberate upon the moral wickedness of it, if he does not reflect, at least by doubting, upon it during the act. Therefore he does not sin, unless he reflects upon the wickedness of it. It is also certain that a full knowledge of such wickedness is required to constitute a mortal sin. For it would be unworthy the goodness of God to exclude a man from glory, and to reject him for ever, for a sin on which he had not fully deliberated: but if reflection upon the wickedness of it has only been partial, deliberation has not been complete; and therefore the sin is not a mortal sin.”

Georges Pirot, S.J.Georges Pirot, S.J. (1599–1659; French Jesuit, Controversialist, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Professor of Canon Law at the Jesuit University of Nantes, & Author of Thesis Against the Proposals Borrowed from the Code of Georgelin & Apology for the Casuists, Against the Slanders of the Jansenists)


         “There is no mortal sin in the consent of the will, unless some thought and express consideration of moral wickedness or danger have preceded it, or at least some express doubt or scruple. A personal sin ought to be freely willed: but it cannot be freely willed without some thought of moral wickedness; because such thought is the commencement of deliberation upon the moral wickedness; and the thought of pleasant or useful good, which is inherent in the object which the sinful man pursues, is not sufficient for such deliberation, since temporal advantage or utility are very different from moral good and evil, and are of a perfectly distinct nature. Some consideration or present reflection upon the moral wickedness of it, is required to constitute a sin. As to the ground of the opposite opinion, Meratius and Martinon affirm it to be sufficient to constitute sin, that a man is obliged to reflect upon its moral wickedness, but does not reflect upon it: but they deny that any one is bound to reflect upon the moral wickedness of it, if he does not reflect upon the obligation to reflect upon it. But how shall he think of such an obligation, if there be not, or precede not in his mind, any reflection upon its moral wickedness?”

          These propositions are rash, pernicious, Torahlessness, and calculated to revive the error of Jesuit Philosophical Sin, which has been many times condemned. Although Gabriel Vasquez, S.J., and many others expressly speaks of mortal sin (when they say that there is no mortal sin in the consent of the will, unless some reflection has preceded it), yet the aforesaid reason, by which they prove it, establishes the same thing with respect to venial sin. This proposition, which teaches that there is no sin, not even a venial sin, unless some thought of its moral wickedness which has preceded it, is scandalous, erroneous, Satanic, and devised to fabricate excuses for the transgression of YAHUAH’s Torah—sin.

Juan de Palafox y MendozaJuan de Palafox y Mendoza (1600–1659; Spanish Roman Catholic Clergyman, Politician, Administrator, Vatican Chaplain of Jesuit Mind-Controlled Holy Roman Empress Maria of Austria, Vatican Bishop of Puebla de los Angeles, Vatican Viceregal & Archbishop of the Jesuit Created Province of Mexico, Vatican Viceroy of the Jesuit Created New Spain, Deputy of the Roman Nobility in the Cortes de Monzon, Inquisitor At the Jesuit Created Council of War, Member of the Jesuit Created Council of the Indies, Embroiled in Major Controversy with the Jesuits’ Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Resulting in the Jesuit Order Excommunicating & Recalling Him to Spain by Jesuit Trained & Educated White Pope Innocent X, Prolific Writer, Published Anti-Jesuit Writings About the Jesuit Created Gnostic Roman Catholic Chinese Rites, & Author of The History of the Conquest of China by the Tartars; Censored by the Jesuit Controlled Inquisition Through Jesuit Martino Martini, S.J.)

         In a written letter reporting to Jesuit trained, educated, and controlled Pope Innocent X in 1647, concerning the wealth, power, and secrecy of the Jesuit Order in the Jesuit created and controlled Province of New Spain, which included (to this day) the territory of California:

        “Most Holy Fr.: I found almost all the wealth, all immovables, and all the treasures of this Province of America in the hands of the Jesuits, who still possess them. Two of their Colleges have 300,000 sheep, without counting the small flocks; and whilst almost all the Cathedral Churches and all the Orders together have hardly three sugar refineries, the Society has six of the largest. One of these refineries is valued at more than half a million thalers; and this single Province of the Jesuits, which however only consists of ten Colleges, possesses, as I have just said, six of these refineries, each of which brings in one hundred thousand thalers yearly. Besides this they have cornfields of enormous size. Also they have silver mines, and if they continue to increase their power and wealth as they have done up to now, the secular Clergy will become their sacristans and the Laymen their stewards, while the other Orders will be forced to collect alms at their doors. All this property and all these considerable revenues which might make a Sovereign powerful, serve no other purpose than to maintain ten Colleges . . . To this may be added the extraordinary skill with which they make use of and increase their super-abundant wealth. They maintain public warehouses, cattle-fairs, butchers-stalls, and shops. They send part of their goods by way of the Philippine Islands to China. They lend out their money for usury, and thus cause the greatest loss and injury to others.”

         “What other Order has Constitutions which are not allowed to be seen, privileges which it conceals, and secret rules and everything relating to the arrangement of the Order hidden behind a curtain? The rules of every other Order may be seen by all the world . . . But among the Jesuits there are even some of the Professed who do not know the statutes, privileges, and even the rules of the Society, although they are pledged to observe them. Therefore they are not governed by their Superiors according to the rules of the Church, but according to certain concealed statutes known by the Superiors alone, and according to certain secret and pernicious denunciations, which leads to a large number being driven from the bosom of the Society.”

        “But the Jesuits alone, shroud themselves intentionally in a darkness, which the laity are completely forbidden to penetrate, and the veil is not even uplifted to many of the members. There are among them a large number who have taken merely three vows, but not the fourth, and who are in consequence, not at all, or at any rate, not properly instructed regarding the true principles, institutions and liberties of the Order; this secret, on the other hand, is entrusted, as is known to His Holiness, to only a small number, and whatever is especially important is known only to the Superiors and the General.”

         “The Jesuits have three Houses in Beijing. Each House has, in a usurious trade, the value of fifty or sixty thousand taels. Each tael is worth at least four pounds of our French currency. The interest of money in China is usually thirty per cent. The Jesuits claim that they take only twenty-four, or, what is not better, two per cent a month. The profit calculation is easy to do. The capital of 60,000 taels for each House makes for the three Houses together a total of 720,000 livres and the rent of about 80,000 livres to feed eleven ‘poor religious.’ But this profit is nothing compared to the profit of the commerce of wine, clocks, and other industries, with which these Peres amass immense treasures, which render them much richer in the Indies than the King of Portugal.”

(c) University of St Andrews; Supplied by The Public Catalogue FoundationSamuel Rutherford (1600–1661; Scottish Presbyterian Pastor, Theologian, Prolific Writer, Scottish Commissioner to the Westminster Assembly, & Author of Lex Rex: The Law and the Prince)

         “The good counselors of great statesmen, that parliaments of both kingdoms would take from the king’s majesty, are a faction of perjured Papists, Prelates, Jesuits, Irish cut-throats, Stratfords, and Apostates; subverters of all laws, divine, human, of God, of church, of state.”

paul-gabriel-antoine-s-jHermann Busenbaum, S.J. (16001668; German Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Mentally Moral Theology)


        “In the case of anyone unjustifiably making an attack on your honor, when you cannot otherwise defend yourself than by impeaching the integrity of the person insulting you, it is quite allowable to do so. You must, however, tell the truth, and not carry the thing further than is required for the maintenance of your own reputation, while no greater insult must be inflicted on the person than has befallen yourself, an exact comparison being made between your own worth and that of your insulter.”


        “A man is not drunk whilst he can discriminate somebody from a cart loaded with hay.”


        “A man who has been Excommunicated by the Pope may be killed anywhere, as Fillincius, Escobar, and Deaux teach; because the Pope has at least an indirect jurisdiction over the whole world, even in Temporal things, as far as may be necessary for the administration of spiritual affairs, as all the Catholics maintain, and as Suarez proves against the King of England.


        “That, in order to defend his life, preserve his limbs entire, or save his honor, a son may even murder his father, a Monk his Abbot, and a subject his Prince.”


        “These authors Suarez, Lessius, etc., also add, that the simony is not complete, although a bond may have been given for the payment of the purchase-money; because that bond is not a part of the price: Diana, etc. . . do also remark against Suarez, that if the payment be made in counterfeit money, the simony will not then be complete; because counterfeit coin is not a true payment? It is not simony to give or to receive money for procuring more easy access to the person of the patron. Thus think Suarez and others. Hence there will be no simony, Lessius says, if you give money to the steward of a Bishop, in order to gain admission to his family, intending thereby to win the favor of the Prelate with your services, and thus to obtain from him a benefice. For then you do not give the money for the benefice, but for the opportunity of deserving well of the Bishop, and of receiving from him a benefice gratuitously. By means of the money, indeed, you prepare the way to the benefice, but remotely and indirectly, which is not unlawful. Sanchez concludes that it is not simony to make this bargain: choose me Provincial, and I will choose you Prior; because this agreement and interchange in spiritual things is only for bidden in reference to benefices.”


        “When and how often this precept the love of God is binding, remains uncertain . . . Sotus, Angelus, arid others, say that it is binding on every festival . . . on the other hand, Castro-Palao and others commonly deny it, and with greater probability. Sotus and Valentia say that it is binding when an adult is about to be baptized. But it is objected, that it is not necessary on account of baptism, because for that sacrament attrition is sufficient . . . Sotus, Valentia, and Tolet, say that it is binding when any one has received a benefit from God. To this it is opposed, that in such a case it will be sufficient to return thanks; for thus he satisfies what is due to propriety. Bannez says that it is binding when any one wishes to receive the eucharist. It is objected, that no such command is to be found, and that a state of grace is sufficient for receiving the eucharist. Not knowing, therefore, amidst such a vast variety of opinions, when and how often God must be loved, let us choose the safer part . . . In order that we may be justified, we are obliged to love God. If the sacrament of penitence be not received, I grant it: if it be received, I deny it. And this is the privilege of the new grace which Christ has added, that by virtue of the sacrament, justification may be obtained even without love.”


        “Besides Purgatory known to every body, there is another place which is a beautiful meadow, covered with all sorts of flowers, lighted brilliantly, exhaling a delicious odor, which is a delightful spot where the souls do not suffer the pain of the senses. This spot is the dwelling of the slight sinners, a very mitigated Purgatory, and a kind of sanatorial prison where we may live without dishonor. Then, there we will not be displeased. As to the other Purgatory, not a sinner has spent there more than ten years.”


        “Is a Judge bound to restore the bribe which he has received for pronouncing judgment? If he has received it for a just sentence he is bound to restore it, because it was otherwise due to the pleader, and he has therefore received no benefit for his money. If the Judge has received it for an unjust sentence, he is not bound by natural right to make restitution, as Bannez, Sanchez, etc. teach, be cause he was not obliged to pronounce that unjust sentence. But this action is useful to the pleader, and the unjust Judge exposes himself to great danger by it, especially in his reputation, if he should be convicted of injustice. Now the exposure to such danger in the service of another may be valued at a price.”


        “He does not steal who takes in just compensation, if he cannot obtain what is due to him by any other means. For instance, if a servant can not otherwise obtain his lawful wages, or is unjustly compelled to serve for an unjust remuneration. If any one prudently presumes that his master would be perfectly satisfied, or knew that he would certainly give the thing taken if he were asked, he does not sin greatly in taking it. An extremely poor man may steal what is necessary for the relief of his want . . . And what any one may steal for himself, he may also steal for another whose indigence is extreme. Lessius, Dicastille, and Tamburin add, that he who should prevent another from stealing what he thus required, might be killed by such a poor man; as the thief who steals or forcibly retains valuable, or at least necessary things, might be killed, according to what has been said before.”


        “It is probable that it is never lawful for a private person directly to intend the death of another. Thus St. Thomas, etc. Yet the opposite opinion of many persons, who are quoted and followed by Lessius, Diana and de Lugo, is more common, and sufficiently probable for the reasons already adduced . . . If Caius has impregnated wine with poison, and has placed it before Sempronius with a view to cause his death; but Titius, who is ignorant of the design, takes it, and Caius suffers him to do so lest his crime should be detected; Caius is not really a homicide, neither is he bound to make compensation for the injuries which have been occasioned by the death of Titius; because the death of Titius was not voluntary on the part of Caius, who could not foresee the accident, neither was he bound to prevent it by exposing himself to such great danger.”


        “To strike one of the Clergy, or to bring him before a secular tribunal, is personal profanation. A man who has been banished by the Pope may be killed any where, as Filliucius, Escobar, and Diana teach: because the Pope has at least an indirect jurisdiction over the whole world, even in temporal things, as far as may be necessary for the administration of Spiritual affairs, as all the Catholics maintain, and as Suarez proves against the King of England. The Pope has the power of forbidding Christian [Catholic] Princes to carry on war, when the general good of the faith or of religion demands it: for in these things he is the Vicar of Christ appointed with power, and Princes themselves are also primarily bound to be mindful of this good.”


           “(Q.)—Is not gluttony a mortal sin? (A.)—Yes and no. To eat and drink without necessity to vomit, provided still that health may not be injured, is a venial sin. Even if vomit is previously foreseen, it is but a venial sin.”


           “To him to whom the end is lawful, the means is also lawful.”


        “Palmistry may be considered lawful, if from the lines and divisions of the hands, it can ascertain the disposition of the body, and conjecture with probability the propensities and affections of the soul . . .”

        “Then YAHUAH said unto me, The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spoke unto them: they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart. Therefore thus says YAHUAH concerning the prophets that prophesy in my name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land; By sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed. And the people to whom they prophesy shall be cast out in the streets of Yerushalayim because of the famine and the sword; and they shall have none to bury them, them, their women, nor their sons, nor their daughters: for I will pour אתeth-their wickedness upon them.” Yerimeyahu (Jeremiah) 14:14-16

        “Thus says ADONAI YAHUAH; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own ruach (spirit), and have seen nothing! O Yashar’el, your prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, YAHUAH says: and YAHUAH has not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word. Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, YAHUAH says it; albeit I have not spoken? Therefore thus says ADONAI YAHUAH; Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, says ADONAI YAHUAH. And my hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Yashar’el, neither shall they enter into the land of Yashar’el; and ye shall know that I am ADONAI YAHUAH. To wit, the prophets of Yashar’el which prophesy concerning Yerushalayim, and which see visions of peace for her, and there is no peace, says ADONAI YAHUAH. Likewise, son of A’dam, set your face against the daughters of your people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy against them, Your אתeth-veils also will I tear, and deliver אתeth-my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am YAHUAH. Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life: Therefore ye shall see no more vanity, nor divine divinations: for I will deliver אתeth-my people out of your hand: and ye shall know that I am YAHUAH . . . For the king of Babel stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he made his arrows bright, he consulted with Teraphiym, he looked in the liver. At his right hand was the divination for Yerushalayim, to appoint captains, to open the mouth in the slaughter, to lift up the voice with shouting, to appoint battering rams against the gates, to cast a mount, and to build a fort. And it shall be unto them as a false divination in their sight, to them that have sworn oaths: but he will call to remembrance the iniquity, that they may be taken. Therefore thus says ADONAI YAHUAH; Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are discovered, so that in all your doings your sins do appear; because, I say, that ye are come to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand.” Yechezq’el (Ezekiel) 13:3-4, 6-9, 16-17, 21-23, 21:21-24

Georges Gobat, S.J.George Gobat, S.J. (16001679; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Moral Works)


        “It is speculatively probable, that it is not a deadly sin to refrain from repressing carnal passions which have arisen against the will; or to desist from averting the eyes from looking upon the face of a woman, although the gaze should occasion sinful thoughts. ‘Thy commandment is exceeding broad.’ Psalm 119:96. ‘My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.’ Matthew 11:30. ‘His commandments are not grievous.’ 1 John 5:3. But neither can the yoke of Christ be called easy, nor the commands of God light and broad, if they are indeed binding in that rigid sense in which they are explained by one or more of the Fr.s, Commentators, or Theologians; since there are not wanting those who truly and prudently affirm, that they may be explained more mildly.”


        “Is a man who has unworthily received the Communion at Easter, and has thus become guilty of the body and blood of Christ, compelled to receive it again? It is more probable that he is not compelled. The reason is, that such a man has fulfilled all that the Councils of Lateran and Trent have commanded him. But does not the Council of Lateran expressly decree, that Christ must be reverently received? But what reverence can there exist, when he is received with so much irreverence, that Christ turns his face with abhorrence from the receiver? as our case supposes. I answer, that the synod advises an inward reverence, but does not command it. He who communicates profanely, complies with the ordinance of the Pontiff requiring Communion, according to the opinion of Cardinal de Lugo . . . And Diana thinks, after Bossius, that this doctrine is true even when the Pontiff says, They who shall have reverently and devoutly communicated, etc. . . Either doctrine is probable, on account of the authority of Bossius, and for the reasons which he has adduced.”


        “A merchant who had been given over by his Physicians, desired that a Lutheran priest might be summoned to attend him. But his servants brought a Catholic. He had no sooner arrived than he began to praise some of the excellencies of Luther; for in the very devil himself some natural good qualities are to be found. He secured the attention of the sick man, instructed him in the Catholic religion, heard his confession, administered the Communion, and even to his latest breath exhorted him to acts of contrition. This merchant believed indeed that he was confessing himself to a Lutheran priest for auricular confession, as Luther rightly though contemptuously calls it, still prevails in many towns among the Lutherans: yet, in fact, he was only a Lutheran materially. Hence the deception in regard to the person of the Confessor did not vitiate the confession.”


        “Fr. Fagundez thus expresses himself: ‘It is lawful for a son to rejoice at the murder of his parent committed by himself in a state of drunkenness, on account of the great riches thence acquired by inheritance.’ He deduces this doctrine from a principle which is true, and of which many are persuaded, namely, that when any benefit results to us from an action which is in itself forbidden, but rendered blameless through a deficiency of deliberation, we may lawfully rejoice at it, not only for the benefit, which is in itself clear, but also for the forbidden action; not indeed because it is forbidden, but inasmuch as it is the cause or occasion of a happy event. Vasquez, Tanner, etc. Since, then, it is supposed on the one hand that the parricide was blameless, as well from deficiency of deliberation caused by drunkenness, as through the absence of premeditation; and, on the other, that very great riches would result from this parricide, an effect which is either good, or certainly not bad; it follows that the doctrine of Fr. Fagundez, which may seem a paradox, is true in theory, although it may be dangerous in practice . . . He would be mistaken who should infer from what has been said, that for the sake of such results it would be lawful to desire voluntary drunkenness, or to rejoice in it. He would more rightly infer, that it is sometimes lawful to desire a blameless drunkenness, by which the great benefit would be produced.”

simon le moyne, s.j.Simon Le Moyne, S.J. (1604–1665; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Crusader, Instigated & Co-Persuaded the Huron, Iroquois, & Mohawk Natives Nations in Quebec to War, & Author of Extraordinary Proposals of the Agendas Dictated at the College of Auxerre)


        “Thanks to the Divine Goodness, the spirit which animated the earlier Jesuits still survives among us; and by the same mercy we hope that it will never be lost. It is not a slight testimony in our favor, that in these troubled times not one among us has changed or wavered. Uniformity on this point will always remain the same. If we are not suffered to labor in one place, we will attempt it in another; for we will not continue idle. France is sufficiently extensive to provide employment for us, and it is abundantly supplied with excellent Bishops, who will not despise our services.”


        “A Christian [Catholic] acting deliberately, may act precisely as man, and lay aside the character of the Christian [Catholic] man, in actions which are not properly those of a Christian [Catholic].”

Jacques Platel, S.J.Jacques Platel, S.J. (16081681; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Professor, Rector of the Jesuit College of Douai, & Author of A Discussion of Rigorous Theology)


        “A sin, however grossly repugnant it may be to reason, committed by a man who is Invincibly Ignorant, or who does not reflect that there is a God, or that God is offended by his sins, is not a mortal sin. For since this sin does not comprehend any virtual or implied contempt of God, it may subsist together with perfect charity, and with the friendship of God. Whence it follows that the heinousness of this sin would be a Philosophical heinousness . . .”


        “Since secular Princes, without the privilege or consent of the Sovereign Pontiff, have no power over the persons of the Clergy . . . the latter cannot be punished by them.”

Honore Fabri, S.J.Honore Fabri, S.J. (1608–1688; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Legominist, Polymath, & Author of Moral Apologetic Teachings of the Society)


        “A Probable Opinion is not opposed to a false opinion, since it may itself be false; but it is opposed to an Improbable Opinion. If, therefore, a Probable Opinion be rightly admitted in the doctrine of morals, why should not a false opinion be also admitted, which in reality is probable, but of which the fallacy is nevertheless unknown? Whatsoever is truly probable in the doctrine of morals, must be submitted to the judgment of a learned man; and whosoever acts according to that which he thinks to be truly probable, is accounted to act discreetly. There are two kinds of probable pro positions; the one consisting of those which are certainly probable, the other, of those which are probably probable. The authority of one Doctor, of very considerable celebrity, is of far greater importance than that of many, as I have said, who possess more moderate learning and ability . . . When any one acts prudently, he acts well: if, therefore, any one acts prudently, according to a particular opinion, he acts well, and lawfully uses that opinion; that is, reduces it to practice and experience. But he acts prudently upon a moral opinion, who is certain that it is probable; and this, in my opinion, no one will deny. For if it is certain that it is probable, it is also certain that it is safe; that is, that the use of it is safe, and the practice lawful.”


        “Pithanophilus: That opinion is safe, of which the use, or the choice, as you say, excludes all guilt. Antimus: It should seem so at first sight: yet an opinion may be unsafe, although it exclude sin . . . For instance: a person thinks that he may willfully, and of his own accord, omit a deadly sin in his confession, and he omits it through a truly invincible error. He does not in reality sin . . . That erroneous opinion, therefore, as you perceive, excludes sin, although it cannot be called safe . . . Pithanophilus: Hence I think I may rightly conclude, that two opposite opinions, which are truly and certainly probable, are both equally safe. Antimus: Not any thing can be more plainly proved . . . That opinion is the more probable which authorizes the less probable to be followed . . . To bind men to the more Probable Opinion, of which they are often ignorant, would be an insupportable burden, especially in such a vast variety of opinions. A Judge would often be compelled to change his opinion in the same cause, if the opposite opinion should appear to him the more probable. The same may be said of the Lawyer and the Confessor. Pithanophilus: But what if a Judge should himself think less probable that which may seem to others to be more probable: might he Judge according to the more Probable Opinion of others? Antimus: Some authors have said so. And, indeed, if the Judge should think that they who hold the Probable Opinion which is opposed to his own, are more learned than himself, that they are wise and good, and their reasons probable, I can hardly believe that he would act imprudently if he decided the cause according to their opinion. I come now to the Confessor . . . In the use of Probable Opinions he may lawfully abide by the more or less probable, provided only that they be both truly probable. Pithanophilus: I should wish to know whether the Confessor may adhere to the opinion of his Penitent, which he believes himself to be improbable, although he may know that the same opinion is commonly held by the Doctors to be probable, and that therefore it is certainly probable? Antimus: I have no doubt but that the Confessor ought, in that case, to adhere to the opinion of the Penitent, who certainly ought not to be deprived of the right which belongs to him, of choosing an opinion which is certainly probable. Pithanophilus: But he acts against his conscience who follows a less Probable Opinion. Antimus: Indeed, he acts according to conscience, that is, according to a certain judgment, by which he certainly decides that he does not sin, but that he acts wisely when he follows a less Probable Opinion, provided it be evident that it is surely probable. Pithanophilus: But it is a sinful cause, such as concupiscence, which induces to the choice of the less Probable Opinion. Antimus: He does not act sinfully who acts prudently, and consults his conscience in the use of human things. Pithanophilus: But he who chooses the less Probable Opinion, exposes himself to the danger of sinning. Antimus: This has already been denied a hundred times . . .”


       “The adversaries object, that they are taught by the Casuists, that although money be promised for presentation to a benefice, yet there is no simony if the intention of paying it be wanting. And it is so: the Casuists and Lawyers maintain in common, that the spirit of a contract of sale is not comprised in the words only; and unless the will to be bound be also present, that it is not to be deemed a contract. Since, therefore, simony is a true contract of sale, if the intention of payment be wanting, there is no simony. I acknowledge, indeed, that a fraud of this kind deserves punishment . . . This doctrine is maintained by almost all the Doctors, Lessius, Sotus, Tolet, Valentia, Suarez, Laymann, Filliucius, Castro Palao. In my opinion there is in this no difficulty.”


       “Is a Judge bound to restore that which he has received as a bribe for passing an unjust sentence? Some affirm that he is . . . The reason is, that a Judge cannot receive any thing, either for a just or an unjust sentence. Yet he is bound to restore that which he has received for a just sentence, because the donor is supposed to have given it by compulsion, since he had a right to the just sentence. But it is otherwise with him who has procured an unjust sentence to which he had no right: for then the Judge is not bound to restore, at least until required to do so by a judicial sentence!”

Mateo de Moya, S.J.Mateo de Moya, S.J. pseudonym Oquett (1610–1684; Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of All the Little Details About Moral Theology)


        “Although an opinion may be false, any one may follow it in practice with a safe conscience, on account of the authority of the person teaching it. They are supporters of this opinion who maintain that a Confessor is bound to absolve a Penitent, as often as the opinion of other persons, of acknowledged authority, should be in favor of such absolution, although the Confessor himself should believe it false. It is to be inferred, from all that has been said, that a probable certainty is sufficient in morals to prevent exposure to danger. The kings counselors are not obliged to choose the more Probable Opinion in the imposition of taxes; it is sufficient that they choose one which is probable. And subjects may refuse the payment of just taxes. But do not fail to observe the invaluable conclusion of the very learned Emmanuel Sa, at the word Gabella, where he thus writes: ‘Learned men assert, that to defraud the excise, and to withhold restitution, is not a mortal sin.’ . . . I should not dare to make this affirmation absolutely; but neither would I oblige those who had been thus fraudulent to make restitution. For in such a doubt, the condition of the possessor is the better, on account of the opinion of celebrated Doctors. For there are some who maintain, that scarcely any duty is just . . . and others, that they are almost all doubtful.”


        “An explicit belief in the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity is not a necessary mean of salvation. This is the opinion of Sotus and many others, and of John Lacroix. Whence it is evident, that he thinks with his associates, that a declared belief in the mysteries of the Incarnation is not a necessary mean of salvation . . . And indeed justly: for otherwise, as Serra has well observed with Laymann, salvation would be impossible to those who were born deaf, when once they were corrupted by mortal sin; since the mysteries of the Incarnation could not be explicitly propounded to them. Besides the purgatory in which by faith we believe, there is another place like a flowery field of unclouded brightness, sweetly perfumed and very pleasant, where the spirits by which it is inhabited never suffer any pain of sense. This place will therefore be a very mild purgatory, like an honourable state prison. The opinion which we have just recorded will be a consolation to the miserable, like that which John Lacroix maintains after Sotus . . . where he says, that no one remains in purgatory for ten years.”


          “Mary would prefer to be eternally damned, deprived of seeing her Son, and necessitated to live with the devils, rather than to be bred in original sin.”

antoine arnauldAntoine Arnauld (1612–1694; French Cistercian Monk, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian, Exegete, Mathematician, Famous Jansenist, & Born a Mortal Enemy of Jesuits)

        “Do you wish to excite troubles, to provoke revolution, to produce the total ruin of your country? Call in the Jesuits . . . and build magnificent Colleges for these hot-headed religionists; suffer those audacious Priests, in their dictatorial and dogmatic tone, to decide on affairs of State.”

Juan Cardenas, S.J.Juan de Cardenas, S.J. pseudonym Casnedy (16131684; Spanish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Jesuit Provincial of Spain, & Author of Theological Crisis)


        “There are, indeed, many opinions which are prudently probable, although they may be contrary to Scripture, and to other infallible rides of the Church; provided, that after a diligent investigation of the truth, the Scripture and the afore said rules are Invincibly unknown, and the said opinions are supported by sufficient reason and authority. We are never more free from the violation of the law, than when we persuade ourselves that we are not bound by the law. For he who says that he is bound by the law, rather exposes himself to the danger of committing sin. Perhaps he who has thus persuaded himself, will fall into sin; but he who says that the law is not binding, cannot sin . . . He, therefore, who follows the less rigid and less Probable Opinion, cannot sin.”


        “So far from being false, I hold it to be most true, that a man sins not when he does that which he considers to be right, without any remorse or scruple of conscience. It is a constant doctrine of the Theologians, according to Fr. Moya and St. Thomas, that there is an Invincible Ignorance of some precepts, not only of those which relate to mysteries of faith, but also of the precepts of the Decalogue; as usury, lying, fornication, which are not sins in reference to those who are thus Invincibly Ignorant.”


       “Do what your conscience tells you to be good and commanded: if, through invincible error, you believe lying or blasphemy to be commanded by God, blaspheme. Omit to do what your conscience tells you is forbidden: omit the worship of God, if you Invincibly believe it to be prohibited by God. There is an implied law . . . which is this: Obey an Invincibly erroneous dictate of conscience. As often as you believe Invincibly that a lie is commanded, lie. Let us suppose a Catholic to believe Invincibly, that the worship of images is forbidden: in such a case our Lord Jesus Christ will be obliged to say to him: ‘Depart from me, thou cursed, etc. because thou hast worshiped mine image’ . . . So, neither, is there any absurdity in supposing that Christ may say, Come, thou blessed, etc. because thou hast lied, believing Invincibly that in such a case I commanded to lie.”


        “I may desire my father’s death, either as an evil to my father, which is not lawful . . . or as an advantage to myself; and that in two ways: By rejoicing in the good which I derive from my father’s death, or in the death of my father which is, as it were, the cause of so much good. And by rejoicing simply in the good which I derive from my fathers death, and not in his death by which I procure the good. In the former manner it is not permitted . . . in the latter it is: for then I abstract his death, and do not rejoice in it; but I only rejoice in the good which I derive from it. This doctrine should be made familiar, since it is continually occurring to all those who desire a good which they can only obtain by the death of another; as it commonly happens in every station in peace or in war, in every secular or Ecclesiastical dignity.”


        “When masters deduct something from the pay of their servants, the latter can either appeal to justice, or take the law into their own hands and make use of secret compensation.”


         “We can with difficulty determine when we are, strictly speaking, obliged to love God.”

Matthew Stoz, S.J.Matthaus Stoz, S.J. (16141678; Century German Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of A Tribunal of Penance)


        “It is lawful to follow the less Probable Opinion of another, in opposition to our own more Probable Opinion, which we still retain. It is lawful to change a Probable Opinion which any one has once embraced, in reference to the same object, and to act according to the opposite opinion. A Confessor, or other learned man, may answer those who consult him against his own opinion, according to the Probable Opinion of others; provided only that it be not specially forbidden. Any Confessor, whether ordinary or delegated, may follow, or at least permit his Penitent to follow, a Probable Opinion; although he may himself maintain the contrary opinion, or may even think that the opinion of his Penitent is false; provided, however, that he knows it to be defended as probable by other persons of ability. Even in the administration of the sacraments, it is lawful to follow the less probable things, rejecting the more probable . . . Because the same ministers still act prudently; and as long as they are not certain of the truth of the opposite opinion, they do not expose themselves to a greater culpable danger of rendering the sacrament of, none effect, than if they follow the more probable. Even at the point of death, it is lawful to follow a Probable Opinion, rejecting the more probable.”

Richard Archdekin, S.J. Theologia TripartitaRichard Archdekin, S.J. (1616–1690; Irish-English Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Rosicrucian, Author of Universal Threefold Theology)


         “Simony and Astrology are lawful.”


        “If any one affirms, through conjecture founded upon the influence of the stars and the character, disposition, and manners of a man, that he will be a Soldier, an Ecclesiastic, or a Bishop; this divination may be devoid of all sin: because the stars and the disposition of the man, may have the power of inclining the human will to a certain lot or rank, but not of constraining it.”

       COME down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babel, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Kasdiym: for you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover your locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, your shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet you as a man. As for our Redeemer, YAHUAH TSEVA’OTH is his name, the Holy One of Yashar’el. Sit silent, and get you into darkness, O daughter of the Kasdiym: for you shall no more be called, The lady of kingdoms. I was wroth with my people, I have polluted my inheritance, and given them into your hand: you showed them no mercy; upon the ancient have you very heavily laid your yoke. And you said, I shall be a lady forever: so that you did not lay these things to your heart, neither did remember the latter end of it. Therefore hear now this, you that are given to pleasures, that dwell carelessly, that say in your heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children: But these two things shall come to you in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon you in their perfection for the multitude of your sorceries, and for the great abundance of your enchantments. For you have trusted in your wickedness: you have said, None sees me. Your wisdom and your knowledge, it has perverted you; and you have said in your heart, I am, and none else beside me. Therefore shall evil come upon you; you shall not know from whence it rises: and mischief shall fall upon you; you shall not be able to put it off: and desolation shall come upon you suddenly, which you shall not know. Stand now with your enchantments, and with the multitude of your sorceries, wherein you have laboured from your youth; if so be you shall be able to profit, if so be you may prevail. You are wearied in the multitude of your counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save you from these things that shall come upon you. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver אתeth-themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it. Thus shall they be unto you with whom you have laboured, even your merchants, from your youth: they shall wander everyone to his quarter; none shall save you.” Yesha’yahu (Isaiah) 47

Jean Crasset, S.J.Jean Crasset, S.J. (1618–1692; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Ascetic Writer, Professor at the Jesuit College of Amiens, & Author of Proposals Dictated in the Jesuit College of Amiens)


        “Although one opinion may be more probable and more safe than another, and may seem to you to be more probable and more safe; although you may not abandon your opinion in theory, yet it is lawful for you to abandon it in practice, by following the less Probable Opinion. That part is said to be the safer, in which there is either no possibility of sinning, or in which a less evil is chosen in order to avoid the greater. Doctors may lawfully give advice in opposition to their own opinion, by following the opinion of another. A Confessor may absolve Penitents, according to the Probable Opinion of the Penitent, in opposition to his own; and is even bound to do so.”


        “When the opinions upon a point of law are on either side probable, a Judge may deprive which party he pleases of the suit. A Judge may follow the less Probable Opinion, rejecting that which is more probable.”

John Baptist Taberna, S.J.John Baptist Taberna, S.J. (16221686; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Synopsis of Practical Theology)


        “Is a Judge bound to restore the bribe which he has received for passing sentence? . . . If he has received the bribe for passing an unjust sentence, it is probable that lie may keep it . . . This opinion is maintained and defended by fifty-eight Doctors. May a Judge receive presents? . . . Scripture . . . and justice forbid the reception of presents, except of certain provision for eating and drinking which may be consumed in a few days.


        “Are Ecclesiastics subject to the civil laws? As to the directive power, Ecclesiastics are bound, indirectly at least, by the common laws of the state in which they live, if their substance relates to them and does not contain any thing unsuited to their state, to the sacred canons, or to the immunity of the Church. I have said, as to the directive power; because secular Princes, upon their own authority and with out any privilege or consent ceded by the Sovereign Pontiff, have no compulsive power over the Clergy; but when the latter do any wrong, they ought to be punished by their own Superiors.”


         “If a Magician can remove an enchantment by lawful means, he may be required to do so; he may be bribed with money, and compelled with stripes to remove it: and that, too, even although it should be foreseen that he would do it by a new enchantment: for since he may do it by a lawful method, I have a right to demand it of him; and it will be imputed to his own wickedness if he should do it by unlawful means.

pere françois de la chaise, s.j.Pere Francois de la Chaise, S.J. (1624–1709; French Jesuit, Confessor of King Louis XIV of France, Grandnephew of the Jesuit Confessor of King Henry IV of France Pierre Coton, S.J., Administrator of the Ecclesiastical Patronage of the French Crown, United Roman Catholic Madame de Maintenon to Induce the Louis XIV to Abandon Protestant Madame de Montespan Vastly Increasing His Influence for the Counter-Reformation in France, Responsible for Forcing Louis XIV to Revoke Henry IV’s Edict of Nantes Denying the Freedom of Worship, Influenced Louis XIV’s Hate Against the Jansenists & Saint-Simon, Intimidated Louis XIV to Expelling All Jews from the French Colonies, Had a Homosexual Relationship with Rosicrucian & Archbishop of France Cardinal Francois Fenelon, & a Genocidal Mass Murderer of Protestants)

         In 1598 King Henry IV of France issued the Edict of Nantes granting religious liberty to the Protestants of France. This act infuriated the Jesuits as it opposed their intolerant Council of Trent. The King paid for this act of courage with his life; he was stabbed in the chest by a Jesuit controlled assassin, Francois Ravaillac. Determined to implement their foreign policy—the evil Council of Trent—the Jesuits sought to abolish the Edict of Nantes. The result would be the purging of France of its ‘heretic’ Protestants. Their tool for this heart-breaking injustice was the immoral ‘Sun King,’ (Gnostic allegory for the King from the loins of the Jesuit Order) Louis XIV of France, whose belief in the Pope’s Gnostic doctrine of ‘salvation by works’—works further extending the power of the Papacy—drove him to murder the innocent: he was a spiritual captive at the feet of his Confessor. In understanding the cause of the rewritten IHStory of the infmaous Revocation of the Edict of Nantes we must review the Order’s infamous intercepted letter of 1688, having been on display for decades in the British Museum, now forgotten by the Jesuits’ Simulation of today, i.e. the Counter-Reformation. The letter was written by King Louis XIV’s Jesuit Confessor, Pere La Chaise, S.J., to Jesuit Sir Edward Petre, S.J., the Jesuit Confessor of England’s Jesuit King James II—who ultimately died in the palace of his French cousin, King Louis XIV, after their defeat in 1690 by England’s King William III in Scotland’s Battle of the Boyne. The letter concerns Jesuit La Chaise’s instructions to Jesuit Petre for the ‘extirpation’ of England’s Protestants, citing how he, La Chaise, was successful in his genocidal mass-murder of the Huguenots (French Protestants) throughout France. We read his measured words with shocking unbelief, as they reflect the calculating coldness of the Council of Trent carried out by this, yet another, heartless Son of Loyola under Ignatian Spirtual Exercises, i.e. Rosicrucian self-annihilation of the mind, body, spirit, and soul.

        “‘WORTHY FRIEND,—I received yours on the 20th of June last, and am glad to hear of your good success, and that our party gains ground so fast in England; but, concerning the question you have put to me, ‘What is the best course to be taken to root out all heretics?’—I answer, there are divers ways to do that, but we must consider which is the best to make use of in England. I am sure you are not ignorant of how many thousand heretics we have converted in France, by the power of our dragoons, in the space of one year; having by the doctrine of those booted apostles, turned more in one month than Christ and His apostles could in ten years. This is a most excellent method, and far excels those of the great preachers and teachers that have lived since Christ’s time. But I have spoken with diverse Fr.s of our Society, who think that your King is not strong enough to accomplish his design by such kind of force; so that we cannot expect to have our work done in that manner, for the heretics are too strong in the three kingdoms; and therefore we must seek to convert them by fair means, before we fall upon them with fire, sword, halters, gaols, and other suchlike punishments. Wheedle them by promises of profit and places of honor, till you have made them dip themselves in treasonable actions against the laws established, and then they are bound to serve for fear. When they have done this, turn them out, and serve others so, by putting them in their places; and by this means gain as many as you can. And for the heretics that are in places of profit and honor, turn them out, or suspend them on pretense of misbehavior; by which their places are forfeited, and they are subject to what judgment you please to give upon them. Then you must form a camp, that must consist of none but Catholics; this will dishearten the heretics and cause them to conclude that all means of relief and recovery is gone. And lastly, take the short and the best way, which is, to surprise the heretics on a sudden; and to encourage the zealous Catholics, let them sacrifice them all, and wash their hands in their blood, which will be an acceptable offering to God.This was the method I took in France, which hath well, you see, succeeded; but it cost me many threats and promises before I could bring it thus far; our King being a long time very unwilling. But at last I got him on the hip; for he had lain with his daughter-in-law, for which I would by no means give him absolution till he had given me an instrument under his own hand and seal, to sacrifice all the heretics in one day. Now, as soon as I had my desired commission, I appointed the day when this should be done; and, in the meantime, made ready some thousands of letters, to be sent into all parts of France in one post-night [as did the wicked Haman in the Book of Ecter]. I was never better pleased than at that time, but the King was affected with some compassion for the Huguenots, because they had been a means to bring him to his crown and throne; and the longer he was under it, the more sorrowful he was, often complaining, and desiring me to give him his commission again; but that I would by no persuasion do; advising him to repent of that heinous sin, and also telling him, that the trouble and horror of his spirit did not proceed from anything of evil in those things that were to be done, but from that wickedness that he had done; and that he must resolve to undergo the severe burden of a troubled mind for one of them [the adultery] or the other [the genocide]; and that if he would remain satisfied as it was, his sin being forgiven, there would, in a few days, be a perfect atonement made for it, and he perfectly reconciled to God again. But all this would not pacify him; for the longer it continued the more restless he became; and I therefore ordered him to retire to his closet, and spend his time constantly in prayer, without permitting any one to interrupt him;—this was early in the morning, and on the evening following I was to send away all my letters. I indeed, made the more haste, for fear he should disclose it to any body, although I had given him a strict charge to keep it to himself; and the very things that I most feared, to my great sorrow, came to pass; for just in the nick of time, the devil, who hath at all times his instruments at work, sent the Prince of Conde to the Court, who asked for the King. He was told that he was in his closet, and would speak with no man. He impudently answered, ‘that he must and would speak with him,’ and so went directly to his closet; he being a great peer, no man durst hinder him. And being come to the King, he soon perceived by his countenance that he was under some great trouble of mind, for he looked as if he had been going into the other world immediately [under the Ignatian Spiritual mind control]. ‘Sir,’ said he, ‘what is the matter with you?’ The King at the first refused to tell him, but he pressing harder upon him, the King at last, with a sorrowful complaint, burst out, and said—‘I have given Father La Chaise a commission, under my hand, to murder all the Huguenots in one day; and this evening will the letters be dispatched to all parts, by the post, for the performing it: so that there is but small time left for my Huguenot subjects to live, who have never done me any harm.’ Whereupon this cursed rogue answered, ‘Let him give you your commission again.’ The King said, ‘How shall I get it out of his hand? For if I send to him for it, he will refuse to send it.’ And this devil answered, ‘If your majesty will give me the order, I will quickly make him return it.’ The King was soon persuaded, being willing to give ease to his troubled spirit, and said, ‘Well, go then, and break his neck, if he will not give it you.’ Whereupon this son of the devil went to the post-house, and asked if I had not a great number of letters there? And they said, ‘Yes, more than I had sent in a whole year before.’ ‘Then,’ said the Prince, ‘by order from the King, you must deliver them all to me;’ which they durst not disobey, for they knew well enough who he was. And no sooner was he got into the post-house, and had asked these questions, than I came also in after him, to give order to the post-master to give notice to all those under him, in the several parts of the kingdom, that they should take care to deliver my letters with all speed imaginable. But I had no sooner entered the house than he gave his servants order to secure the door, and said confidently to me, ‘You must, by order from the King, give me the commission which you have forced from him.’ I told him I had it not about me, but would go and fetch it; thinking to get from him, and so go out of town, and send the contents of those letters another time; but he said, ‘You must give it up; and if you have it not about you, send somebody to fetch it or else never expect to go alive out of my hands; for I have an order from the King either to bring it or break your neck, and am resolved either to carry that back to him in my hand, or else your heart’s blood on the point of my sword.’ I would have made my escape, but he set his sword to my breast, and said, ‘You must give it me, or die; therefore deliver it, or else this goes through your body.’ So, when I saw nothing else would do, I put my hand in my pocket and gave it him; which he carried immediately to the King, and gave him that and all my letters, which they burned. And, all being done, the King said, now his heart was at ease. Now, how he should be eased by the devil, or so well satisfied with a false joy, I cannot tell; but this I know, that it was a very wicked and ungodly action, as well in his majesty as in the Prince of Conde, and did not a little increase the burden and danger of his majesty’s sins. I soon gave an account of this affair to several Fr.s of our Society, who promised to do their best to prevent the aforesaid prince’s doing such another act, which was accordingly done; for, within six days after the damned action, he was poisoned, and well he deserved it. The King did also suffer too, but in another fashion, for disclosing the design unto the Prince, and hearkening unto his counsel. And many a time since, when I have had him at confession, I have shook hell about his ears, and made him sigh, fear, and tremble, before I would give him absolution; nay, more than that, I have made him beg for it on his knees, before I would consent to absolve him. By this I saw that he had still an inclination to me, and was willing to be under my Government; so I set the baseness of the action before him, by telling him the whole story, and how wicked it was, and that it could not be forgiven, till he had done some good action to balance that, and expiate the crime. Whereupon, he at last asked me, what he must do? I told him that he must root out all heretics from his kingdom. So, when he saw there was no rest for him, without doing it, he did again give them all into my power and that of our Clergy, under this condition, that we would not murder them [which they did anyway], as he had before given orders, but that we should by fair means, or force, convert them to the Catholic religion. Now, when we had got the commission, we at once put it in force; and what the issue hath been, you very well know. But in England the work cannot be done after this manner, as you may perceive by what I have said to you; so that I cannot give you better counsel, than to take that course in hand wherein we were so unhappily prevented; and I doubt not, but it may have better success with you than with us. I would write to you of many other things, but I fear I have already detained you too long, wherefore I will write no more at present, but that I am Your friend and servant, LA CHAISE.”

         Remember, to the Jesuits the Torah of YAHUAH ELOHIYM is evil and Torahlessness is good. When they say Satan it means YAHUAH, the God of the Bible, when they say God it means Satan of the Bible, etc., etc. Note that, King Louis XIV of France was a Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, as well as being a Jesuit created, controlled, and advised pawn for the genocidal mass murdering of true Followers of YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH, of which is defined by the Bible soley, and not by any man, nor by Jesuit created and/or rewritten IHStory.

Pierre Daniel Huet, S.J.Pierre Daniel Huet, S.J. (1630–1721, French Jesuit, Bishop of Soissons & Avranches, Scholar, Editor of the Delphin Classics, Legominist, Founder of the Academy of Physics at the Jesuit College of Mont Caen, & Author of Thesis of Propaganda from the College of the Society of Jesus at the Celebrated Academy of Caen)


        “The Bible is . . . evidently credible, but not evidently true. It is evidently credible; for it is evident that whoever embraces it is prudent. It is not evidently true; for it either teaches obscurely, or the things which it teaches are obscure. And they who affirm that the Bible is evidently true, are obliged to confess that it is evidently false. Infer from hence—That it is not evident that there is now any true religion in the world. For whence do you know that all flesh has not corrupted his way? That it is not evident that of all religions existing upon the earth, the Bible is the most true: for have you traveled over all the countries of the world, or do you know that others have? . . . That it is not evident that the predictions of the prophets were given by inspiration of God: for what refutation will you bring against me, if I deny that they were true prophecies, or assert that they were only conjectures? That it is not evident that the miracles were real, which are recorded to have been wrought by Christ; although no one can prudently deny them. Neither is an avowed belief in Jesus Christ, necessary to Christians [Catholics]. The only explicit belief which was necessary to the former Jews, and is necessary to the latter Christians [Catholics], is, of a God, and of a rewarding God. We are commanded to confess the faith with the mouth, and not with the understanding only . . . It is not lawful to dissemble in the presence of a Judge who duly examines you; but it is lawful to do so before a private individual. But what if the Judge should examine you privately? It is not lawful in that case to dissemble. But if a private person should examine you publicly? Then you may sometimes dissemble. Under what circumstances? A prudent man will teach you. Naaman the Syrian did not dissemble his faith when he bowed the knee with the King in the house of Rimmon: neither do the Fr.s of the Society of Jesus dissemble, when they adopt the institute and the Habit of the Talapoins of Siam.”

King James IIKing James II (1633–1701; English Jesuit, Member of the Ancient Roman Venetian Rex Deus Sangreal Stuart Contarini* Dynasty, Devout Roman Catholic, King of England, Ireland, & Scotland, Attended the Catholic Mass in Full State, Received the Papal Nuncio to England with Honour at the Court, Released Thousands of Catholics from Prison, Filled Every Office with Catholics, Jesuitized All of the Universities Especially Oxford & Cambridge Including the Most Influential Priests of theJesuit Controlled Anglican Church, Advised By & Postulant of the All Powerful Jesuit Edward Petre, S.J., Was Jesuitically Hegelian Antithetically Deposed in the Jesuit Order’s Orchestrated Blow-Cover-as-Cover ‘Protestant’ Glorious Revolution Producing a Fully Infiltrated Jesuit United Kingdom for the Vatican Again Forevermore, IHStoricized as the ‘Last Roman Catholic Monarch of the United Kingdom,’ Hospitably Received by Knight of Sovereign Military Order of Malta & Jesuit Postulant King Louis XIV of France with the Assistance of the Jesuits Establishing the First 18 Degrees of Jesuit Created Free-Masonry at the Jesuit College of Clermont & the Jesuit Chateau of St. Germain)

        The Jesuit Anti-thesis pawn (during the Order’s blown-cover-as-cover ‘Protestant’ ‘Glorious Revolution’)—Prince William of Orange (later ‘Protestant’ King William III, of England) forwarded to his [Jesuit (Agent Orange)] Agent in London, England, ‘Dykvelt,’ an intercepted letter from the Jesuits of Liege, Belgium, to the members of their Order in Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, in which it was stated that the King of England, James II, the father-in-law of the Prince of Orange, ‘had become an affiliate of the Jesuit Order.’ Even the famous French devout Roman Catholic, Jesuit Seminarian, and Historian—Jacques Cretineau-Joly, did not dare to pronounce the letter apocryphal. Excommunicated German Catholic Priest, Johann Friedrich supplies a valuable confirmation of the affiliation of the English King here reported, in an original letter from the Jesuit Fr. Ruga, S.J. in London, England, on March 13th, 1687, to the Jesuit Fr. Pusterla, S.J. in Milan, Italy, which is to be found amongst the Jesuit papers in the State Library at Munich, Germany. The Jesuit Fr. Ruga, S.J. there says that, at the first audience which he obtained soon after his arrival in England, James II said to him—:

         “I am a son of the Society of Jesus.”

        And the Queen, Mary of Modena, S.J., of England—:

       “I am its daughter.”

        A few days after this the Jesuit Queen repeated to him—:

        “It is my ambition to be a daughter of the Society of Jesus.”

francois martinFrancois Martin (1634–1706; French Roman Catholic, 1st Governor General of Pondicherry, Co-Founded the Capital of French India Pondicherry, Commissioner of the Jesuit Created East India Company, & Author of Memoirs of Francois Martin)

         “It is certain that, next to the Dutch, the Jesuits carry on the greatest and most productive commerce in India. Their trade surpasses even that of the English, as well as that of the Portuguese, who established them in India. There may possibly, indeed, be some Jesuits who go there from pure religious motives; but they are very few, and it is not such as those who know the grand secret of the Company. Some among them are Jesuits secularized, who do not appear to be such, because they never wear the Habit; which is the reason why at Surat, Agra, Goa, and every where else, they are taken for real merchants of the countries whose names they bear: for it is certain that there are some of all nations, even of America and Turkey, and of every other which can be useful and necessary to the Society. These disguised Jesuits are intriguing everywhere. The secret intercourse which is preserved among them instructs them mutually in the merchandise which they ought to buy and sell, and with what nation they can most advantageously trade; so that these masked Jesuits make an immense profit of the Society, to which they are alone responsible, through the medium of those Jesuits who traverse the world in the Habit of St. Ignatius, and enjoy the confidence, know the secrets, and act under the orders of the heads of Europe. These Jesuits, disguised and dispersed over the whole earth, and who know each other by signs, like the Freemasons, invariably act upon one system. They send merchandise to other disguised Jesuits, who, having it thus at first hand, make a considerable profit of it for the Society. This traffic is, however, very injurious to France. I have often written respecting it to the East India Company trading here; and I have received express orders from it (under Louis XIV) to concede and advance to these Fr.s whatever they might require of me. The Jesuit Tachard alone owes that Company, at this moment, above four hundred and fifty thousand livres [approx. $118,386,000 today]. Those Jesuits who, like Tachard, pass and repass between this quarter and Europe, areambulatory directors and receivers of the bank and of the trade.”

14 Michelangelo TamburiniMichelangelo Tamburini, S.J. (1648–1730; Italian Jesuit, Polymath, Polyglot, the Rosicrucian Orders Invisible Superior, 14th Superior General of the Society of Jesus 1706-1730, Mastermind Behind the Jesuit Counter-Reformation Learning-Against-Learning Secret Society of Freemasonry at the Jesuit College of Clermont & the Jesuit Chateau de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Mastermind Behind the Great Northern War, War of the Spanish Succession, War of Polish Succession, & War of Austrian Succession, & Responsible for the Loss of 2,803,000 Lives, & Author of Easy Confession)


        “How dear can a woman sell the pleasure of the enjoyment of her charms? Answer: In order to form a correct judgment one must take into consideration the Nobility, beauty, and deportment of the woman, as a respectable woman is of more value than one who opens her door to the first comer. We must distinguish; it depends upon whether the matter concerns a girl of pleasure or a respectable woman. A damsel of easy virtue cannot demand more from one than she has taken from another. She must have a fixed price, and it is a contract between her and her visitor. The latter gives the money, and she her favors, exactly as the host the wine and the guest the drink-money. But a woman of respectability and condition can demand what she pleases, for in matters of this kind, which have no fixed price in general, the person who sells is mistress of her wares. She has thus the right, like an innocent girl, to sell her honor as dearly as she values the same, and no one can, on that account, accuse her of usury.


         “May be certain that a number of people will soon be found who will swear to the calumny, as, naturally, men have much desire for wickedness, and thus the person insulting always falls into greater disgrace, until at length every one points a finger at him.

          Spoken during a meeting in secret to devout Roman Catholic Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, Philippe II, Duke of Orleans, in Rome, during 1720:

        “See, sir, from this chamber I govern not only to Paris, but to China, not only to China, but to all the world, without any one to know how I do it.”

         If you have not already noted, throughout this ‘Blogpost’rather this Index of Jesuit citations, I do not directly add the sources for the quotes contained here. I wish to have the readers, by themselvesfor themselves, research on their own, where any and all quotes contained here, came and/or come from, as myself was taught to do as well. Nevertheless, it is tricky to find the original source for the infamaous last statement cited above, of which is usually never sourced, or when it rarely is, is incorrect.

          It was originally published by, Sebastien-Joseph du Cambout, O.C. (1634–1690; French Cistercian Monk, Nobel Abbot Commendatory of Three Abbeys in Brittany, Famous Jansenist Priest, Roman Catholic Theologian, born a mortal enemy of the Jesuits); in his famous, ‘La Morale Pratique des Jésuites,’ on page 118, in Amsterdam during 1746, of which was censored by the Jesuit controlled Inquisitions Congregation of the Index.

Gabriel Daniel, S.J.Gabriel Daniel, S.J. (1649–1728; French Jesuit Historian, & Author of Collection of Various Philosophical, Theological, Historical, Apologetic, & Critical Works)


        “A better opinion cannot be formed of the character of a body, especially such as that of the Jesuits, of which the Government is Monarchical, than by consulting the decrees of its rulers, and the laws given by the general assemblies, composed of the Superiors and principal members of the Society . . . The Constitutions ordain three things. The first, that our members do not introduce new opinions. The second, that if, at any time, they should hold an opinion contrary to that which is commonly received, they shall adhere to the decision of the Society. The third, that in controverted questions, in which either opinion is far from being common, they restrict themselves to conformity; that thus we may all hold the same doctrine and the same language, according to the apostle.”


        “To return to the Christians [Catholics] of the earliest ages. In reflecting upon the manner in which they then conducted themselves, it appears to me that men were never more governed by Probable Opinions, and that the maxim was never more followed which teaches, that the opinion of one Doctor reputed for his goodness and wisdom, may direct the conscience. When a Bishop, a Priest, or a Deacon, had gained the esteem of the people, his sentiments and his opinions were oracles which they blindly followed, in matters on which the Scripture and the Councils had not decided . . . How can it be maintained, after this, that there is no vestige of the doctrine of probability in the Scriptures, in the Holy Fr.s, or in the practice of the first ages of the Church?”

louis-schildere-s-jLouis Schildere, S.J. (17th Century French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Principles of the Formation of Conscience)


        “A subject who thinks that the command of his Superior exceeds the limits of his authority, ought not to obey him. If, then, a subject thinks probably that a tax has been unjustly imposed, he is not bound to pay it . . . A defendant who thinks probably that a Judge does not examine him lawfully, is not bound to reply, although the Judge may be of the contrary opinion . . .”

Joannis Marin, S.J.Juan Marin, S.J. (1654–1725; Italian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Speculative Moral Theology)


        “In practice, prudently and probably are synonymous. He, therefore, who forms a probable judgment upon the probability of an opinion, forms a prudent judgment. But we may lawfully act with a prudent judgment. Therefore, if Suarez should say that any opinion was probable; although Vasquez should say that it was not probable, I would not venture to assert that the opinion was not truly probable, as to a lawful use. And he who receives advice, only derives from it an opinion which is probably probable; and if a probably Probable Opinion should induce a doubt, a certainly Probable Opinion would induce it also.”


       “God can speak equivocally for a righteous purpose, and a righteous purpose is often found. It is certain, and in my opinion matter of faith . . . that the humanity of Christ was remotely peccable, or possessed a remote power of sinning: because it is matter of faith that the humanity of Christ was of the same kind as our own.”

Isaac de Bruyn, S.J.Isaac de Bruyn, S.J. (1650–1724; Flemish Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Repressing Important Men Contrary to Liberation Theology)


        “The existence of God is demonstrated, and the admirable order of the universe proves it. Yet, as this is not known in itself, nor declared in express terms in reference to us, there may exist, at least for a very short time, an Invincible Ignorance of it, especially among the less instructed. It is not lawful to follow a conscience which is doubtful and Invincibly erroneous: we not only may, but must follow a conscience which is Invincibly erroneous. The school-men commonly call that a Philosophical Sin, which is committed against right reason, and with an Invincible Ignorance of God. It is not denied, at least by ourselves, that God is offended by this sin . . .”

A. Trachala, S.J..A. Trachala, S.J. (1661–1708; Austrian Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Alchemist, & Author of Bathing Consciousness)


        “Lia, the mistress of a family, on certain days after her dinner, leaves for her household deities the fragments of the repast upon the table, wrapped in the tablecloth, for the good fortune of her house. Has she greatly sinned? Lia, in thus reverencing her household gods, has greatly sinned; unless, as it generally happens, her good faith, ignorance, or simplicity, may excuse her from mortal sin: for she does not intend to worship her household gods as so many divinities, or to implore from some evil spirit the prosperity of her house for that would be a proof of great superstition: but following the example of her ancestors, she only intends to observe a custom which is very useful to her household; and in this unmeaning ceremony, she scarcely exceeds the limits of a venial offence. It is an universal rule, that the Confessor should not be very strict in examining ordinary persons concerning the number of their enchantments, benedictions, and vain observances; since, as Busembaum observes, in those cases in which there is a tacit compact, they in general sin but venally, as Sanchez and others maintain: neither should he be very strict about the kind of superstition; for there is no distinction made between them, as Diana, etc. maintain.”

pope benedict xivPope Benedict XIV (1675–1758; White Pope, Polymath, Polyglot, Promoted Universal Jesuit Legominism, Firmly Puppeteerd to Carrying Out the Jesuit Counter-Reformation’s Decrees of the Jesuit Council of Trent & Jesuit Created Theosophy)

         “The Jesuits dare before us, to enslave the Indians of Paraguay, to sell them, or buy them . . . separating mothers from their children, and to despoil them of their goods and property.”

         . . . Of which he was in absolute collusion with.

Paul Gabriel Antoine, S.J.Paul Gabriel Antoine, S.J. (1678–1743; French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Universal Moral Theology)


        “A man may repeat the theft as often and as long as he finds himself in want; also, a person is not at all bound to replace what, from time to time, he has taken, even when the total may amount to a very large sum.

Francis Perrin, S.J.Francois Perrin, S.J. (17th Century French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Manual Theological or Dogmatic Theology and History)


        “It is certain that it is not unlawful to act upon a very probable or the most Probable Opinion; that is, upon that which has the greatest appearance of truth. Alexander VIII condemned this proposition in the year 1690: It is not lawful to follow a Probable Opinion, or the most probable among those which are probable. The reason is, because no one is bound always to follow that which is the more safe; for it would be too severe to suppose such an obligation to exist, from which numberless perplexities would arise. Who can believe that God would restrain men with such severe laws? It is therefore sufficient if we act according to the more Probable Opinion.”

The Jesuit_s CatechismThe Jesuit Catechism (1679–1686; Multiple Jesuit Authors, & Warning to Roman Catholic Jesuit Created & Controlled King Charles II of England)


        “By reason, the Pope is the head, and Kings are but as arms or hands of the same Body; therefore if they do not their duty being careful to preserve the Body, the Head as Lord and Master may cut them off.”


        “There is but one Supreme Authority in the World, and that is the Pope . . . The Pope can do any thing above all Right, against all Right, and without all Right . . . because he is Judge of all and in the stead of God on Earth.”

Francisco de Miranda, S.J.Francisco de Miranda, S.J. (17th Century Spanish Jesuit, Jesuit Provincial of the Jesuit Province of Paraguay, Jesuit Assistant to Jesuit Superior General Franx Retz, S.J.)

        “Until I came here to Rome, where I first obtained accurate information about everything, I did not comprehend what our Society was. Its Government is a special study, which not even the Provincials understand. Only one who fills the office which I now occupy can even begin to understand it.”

Francis Xavier Fegeli, S.J.Francis Xavier Fegeli, S.J. (1690–1748; Swiss Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of Practical Questions About the Role of Confessor)


        “Certainly it will not be lawful for a son to use secret compensation, if the stipend which he asks be denied him; because he has not a certain right to it. Nevertheless, after he has made secret compensation to himself, the Confessor may thenceforward act with him more mildly, on account of the probability of the contrary opinion, and need not oblige him to make restitution immediately, if he has not taken beyond the estimate of his labor.”


         “He who deflowers a girl with her consent, incurs only the penalty of making penitence. The reason of this decision is, that she, being the owner of her body, may grant her favors as she pleases, even against the consent of her parents.”


         “Parents may desire the death of their children, and of any one who disturbs the Catholic Church.”

Marcus Bordelet, S.J.Marcus Bordelet, S.J. (1697–1754, French Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, & Author of The Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans Explained)


        “Romans 15:21; Israel that is, what relates to the Israelites: God thus speaks of them by the same prophet Isaiah at the same place, ‘All the day long have I stretched forth my hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people;’ that is, I have not ceased to invite this rebellious and unbelieving people to repentance. I have been standing every day, as it were with extended hands, calling, and ready to receive and embrace this people as often as they would return. If God did not will that the Jews should come to the faith, and through faith unto salvation, he indeed played his mimic part skillfully and splendidly.”

christophe coudretteChristophe Coudrette (1701–1774; French Protestant, Writer, Jansenist Historian, & Author of General History of the Birth and Progress of the Society of Jesus)

        “In the Antilles, Lavalette, the Jesuit, has half the worth of the property for whose conveyance to France he undertakes. In Portugal the Jesuits had vessels employed exclusively in their service, which facts are established by the process of Cardinal Saldanha. All the accounts of travelers in the East Indies speak in the same way, with astonishment, of the extent of their commerce. In Europe, and even in France, they have banks in the most commercial cities, such as Marseilles, Paris, Genoa, and Rome. In addition to this, they publicly sell drugs in their Houses; and, in order to their sanction in this, they procured from Pope Gregory XIII. The privilege of exercising the art of medicine. Even in Rome, in spite of the opposition of the tradesmen, and the prohibitions of the Pope, they carry on trade in baking, grocery, etc. Let us imagine twenty thousand traders, dispersed over the world, from Japan to Brazil, from the Cape of Good Hope to the north, all correspondents of each other, all blindly subjected to one individual, and working for him alone; conducting two hundred missions, which are so many factories; six hundred and twelve Colleges, and four hundred and twenty-three Houses of Professors, Novitiates, and Residents, which are so many entrepots; and then let us form an idea, if we can, of the produce of so vast an extent.”

Louis-René de Caradeuc de La ChalotaisLouis-Rene de Caradeuc de La Chalotais (1701–1785; French Jurist, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor, 33° Illuminized Freemason, Famous Procureur-General of King Louis XV of France to the Parliement de Bretagne, Significant Role in the Brittany Affair, Knight of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, & Author of the Famous Jesuit Created Memoir Report on the Constitutions of the Jesuits Which Jesuit Hegelian Dialectically Responsible for the Order’s Orchestrated Expulsion of the Society of Jesus from France)

        “The record of the achievements of this remarkable Order is stamped in legible characters on the history of Europe through many generations . . . In a country ruled by a despot who was friendly to them, they maintained ‘the right Divine of Kings to govern wrong.’ In another, the Sovereign of which was opposed to them, they would encourage the people in lifting up against him the standard of revolt, and even asserted that if the assassin should sheathe his knife in his bosom, he would not expose himself to any punishment when standing before the judgment-seat of Christ . . . In fact they are chargeable with the great guilt of publishing a system of morality perfectly compatible with the indulgence of the worst passions of our nature. The analysis of their opinions cannot fail to justify the condemnation passed upon them by the Parliament in Paris in 1762: ‘These doctrines tend to destroy the natural law, that rule of manners which God Himself has imprinted on the hearts of men, and in consequence to sever all the bonds of civil society by the authorization of falsehood, perjury, the most culpable impurity, and in a word each passion and each crime of human weakness; to obliterate all sentiments of humanity by favoring homicide and parricide; and to annihilate the authority of Sovereigns in the State.’”

        “I return to the General of the Jesuits. You have seen, that the Provincials are obliged to reveal to him the condition of their Provinces, of everything that passes in them, not only among the members of the Society, but of everything that is done by their own ministration. You have seen, that the Provincials are to enter into such details, that the General may know as completely the affairs, the persons, and the Provinces, as if he had been present himself. Now, why is it necessary, that the General should have all this knowledge? Why is this report to be renewed every month by thirty-seven Provincials; every three months and every six months by 1,244 Superiors of Colleges, residentiary Houses, Novitiates, Missions, Professed Houses, without including so many Councilors, or Consulters of Provincials and Superiors? The constitutions require, that the Provincials and the Superiors should make their report to the General in cyphers, in unknown and disguised characters. They must have very strong reasons to keep the subject of their correspondence secret and undiscovered. It is inconceivable, that religious objects should need to be carried on in cyphers unintelligible to all, but those who have the key to them. Such precautions are taken against enemies. Is the system of the Jesuits inimical to all Governments? If such were the case, Governments would be protecting and nourishing in the heart of their dominions, a set of men prying into the concerns of their state and of their religion, in order to report them to a stranger, who renders no account to any one. I should like to know, what object can be alleged (I do not say what honorable object, for there is none), but what excusable object can be suggested, for all this manoeuvring, this odious intrigue of espionage and revelation. Why, for instance, is it necessary that the General of the Jesuits residing at Rome, should have an exact account of the number and the qualities of the Congregations at Rennes, or elsewhere? Jesuit General Aquaviva said, that these revelations and reports were necessary for the support and extension of the Society. Is it very difficult to find out, that such means arc needless to do good, but very necessary to do harm; to keep up the spirit of party factions? If there was one powerful family in the kingdom, which made use of only a portion of such means for its own aggrandizement, the Government would soon take offence, and most justly repress it with severity. I have supposed the General to be sincere; but let me now suppose for a moment that he is not so. Such a thing is not impossible, and the supposition cannot injure an imaginary person; it is only necessary to admit, that at some supposed time, among ten persons, who occupy a certain position, one may be a dishonest man; if he is ambitious he will be dishonest; and enthusiasm often merges in party spirit as men grow older. Is there any reasonable man, acquainted with the Constitutions of the Jesuits, their institutions for the young, and the doctrines of the Society, which I have laid before you, who does not feel alarmed at the facilities, which a General of Jesuits possesses to intrigue and cabal, and, let us say freely, to conspire? A man who has twenty thousand subjects devoted to his orders by profession and by religious principle, who ought, according to their constitutions and their vows, to be ready to shed their blood for the Society; whose consciences, whose genius, whose characters, and whose tempers are intimately known to him from their childhood: who are accustomed to the yoke of absolute obedience, and to regard their General as they regard God, or as Jesus Christ; men of whose secrecy is certain; men, who Judge themselves by the direction of other men, their interests and their passions; a despot whose slightest sign is law to them; whose written wish is a decree, an ordinance; who holds in his hands all the treasures of the commerce of the Society and who is informed 177 times a year of the condition of all kingdoms,—what enterprise will such a man not undertake? Let us read the histories of all the conspiracies, which have ever been formed in the world. Consider the qualities, which are necessary for success in such perilous enterprises, in the chiefs, who dare to undertake them; the dangers they have to brave; the treasures they must expend; the pains, the care, they must take to captivate the minds of the people, and to excite them, and the springs they have to set in motion, both public and concealed, to effect their purposes. Consider how these dangerous conspiracies have been formed or failed. You will find not one, the chief of which, after years of care, has been able to organize his forces with as little danger, with as great advantages, as a General of the Jesuits can command within twenty-four hours . . . The kind of despotism that he exercises is to be ascertained by the nature of the obedience which is required. The Constitutions throughout put the General in the place of God and of Jesus Christ. This assumption is so marked in this respect that I think there are in the Constitutions more than 500 places, which expressions are used similar to the following: ‘We must always see Jesus Christ in the General; be obedient to him in all his behests, as if they came directly from God himself. That obedience must be complete in action, in the will, in the understanding; you must feel convinced, that everything which the Superior commands, is the precept and the will of God; you must always see God himself and Jesus Christ in the Superior, whoever he may be.’ . . . He must not only be obeyed immediately, quickly, without answer or remonstrance, but his subject is required to believe inwardly, and to believe firmly, that this Superior, who may be fanciful or capricious or unjust, is entirely right, and that it is Almighty God, who speaks by his mouth; that what he orders is a precept of the Almighty, and his holy will. All the members of the Society are bound to execute everything that the General shall prescribe, with the same full consent and submission, as the dogmas of the Catholic faith. When he orders anything, it is not allowable to consider whether the act prescribed is sinful or not.”

18 Lorenzo RicciLorenzo Ricci, S.J. (1703–?; Italian Jesuit, Professor, Polymath, Polyglot, the Rosicrucians Order’s Invisible Superior, 18th & Last Superior General of the Society of Jesus 1758-1775 Before the Suppression in 1773, Mastermind Behind the Seven YearsWar, the American Revolution & War, & the French & Indian War, Responsible for the Greatest Military Hegelian Dialectic Stratagem Ever Pulled off of Intentionally Abolishing the Society of Jesus Only to Reemerge Seven Times More Powerful Controlling the Roman Empire, Founder of the Fourth-Vow Jesuit Order of the Ninth Circle, Ghost-Founding Father of the United States of America and Secretly Present at the Signing of Declaration of Independence, Mastermind Behind the Creation of the 33 Degrees of Illuminized Freemasonry by the Jesuit Created Bavarian Illuminati, Puppet-Master Behind Jesuit Raised Napoleon Bonaparte & Eventually Through Illuminized Grand-Orient Freemasonry, Older Brother of the Emperor of the China’s Confessor Jesuit Mateo Ricci, S.J., Author of the Infamous Magisterial Privilege, Ghost-Author of the Famous Non-Ancient Textbook The Thirteen Articles Concerning Military Art, aka The Art of War Translated by Jesuit Jean Joseph Marie Amiot, S.J. & Gifted to Napoleon, & Responsible for the Loss of 1,423,000 Lives At-least)

        This is quite lengthy, however, it is very worthy of reading fully.  The Art of War, by Lorenz Ricci, S.J.—the Superior General of the Jesuits . . .

                “1. LAYING PLANS: 1. The art of war is of vital importance to the State. 2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. 3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant factors, to be taken into account in one’s deliberations, when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field. 4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth; (4) The General; (5) Method and discipline. 5,6. The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger. 7. HEAVEN signifies night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons. 8. EARTH comprises distances, great and small; danger and security; open ground and narrow passes; the chances of life and death. 9. The GENERAL stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerity, benevolence, courage and strictness. 10. By METHOD AND DISCIPLINE are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure. 11. These five heads should be familiar to every General: he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them not will fail. 12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking to determine the military conditions, let them be made the basis of a comparison, in this wise: 13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued with the Moral law? (2) Which of the two Generals has most ability? (3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven and Earth? (4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced? (5) Which army is stronger? (6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained? (7) In which army is there the greater constancy both in reward and punishment? 14. By means of these seven considerations I can forecast victory or defeat. 15. The General that hearkens to my counsel and acts upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command! The General that hearkens not to my counsel [Satan: (1.) Yekun; (2.) Kesab’el; (3.) Gadre’el; (4.) Penemue; (5.) Kasyad; (6.) Azaz’el; (7.) Heyl’el; i.e., the 7 Pleiades, the 7—not 10 Kabbalah Sephiroth, the 7 Zoroastrian Kundalini Fire Seraph Shakras, and the 7 Pointed Metatron/Annu/Hermes/Oannes/ThothTesseract] nor acts upon it, will suffer defeat: let such a one be dismissed! 16. While heeding the profit of my counsel, avail yourself also of any helpful circumstances over and beyond the ordinary rules. 17. According as circumstances are favorable, one should modify one’s plans. 18. All warfare is based on deception. 19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. 20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him. 21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. 22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. 23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. 24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. 25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand. 26. Now the General who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The General who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.”

                “2. WAGING WAR: 1. In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand LI, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men. 2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. 3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. 4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. 5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. 6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. 7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on. 8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice. 9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs. 10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished. 11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people’s substance to be drained away. 12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exaction. 13-14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while Government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue. 15. Hence a wise General makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy’s provisions is equivalent to twenty of one’s own, and likewise a single PICUL of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one’s own store. 16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards. 17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept. 18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one’s own strength. 19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. 20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people’s fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

                “3. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM: 1. In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. 2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. 3. Thus the highest form of Generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy’s forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy’s army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. 4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more. 5. The General, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants, with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege. 6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy’s troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. 7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem. 8. It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy’s one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. 9. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him. 10. Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force. 11. Now the General is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak. 12. There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: 13. (1) By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army. 14. (2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier’s minds. 15. (3) By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers. 16. But when the army is restless and distrustful, trouble is sure to come from the other feudal Princes. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away. 17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign. 18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

                “4. TACTICAL DISPOSITIONS: 1. The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy. 2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself. 3. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy. 4. Hence the saying: One may KNOW how to conquer without being able to DO it. 5. Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive. 6. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength. 7. The General who is skilled in defense hides in the most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven. Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves; on the other, a victory that is complete. 8. To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence. 9. Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the whole Empire says, ‘Well done!’ 10. To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear. 11. What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease. 12. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage. 13. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated. 14. Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy. 15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. 16. The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success. 17. In respect of military method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances; fifthly, Victory. 18. Measurement owes its existence to Earth; Estimation of quantity to Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of quantity; Balancing of chances to Calculation; and Victory to Balancing of chances. 19. A victorious army opposed to a routed one, is as a pound’s weight placed in the scale against a single grain. 20. The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting of pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep.”

                “5. ENERGY: 1. The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers. 2. Fighting with a large army under your command is nowise different from fighting with a small one: it is merely a question of instituting signs and signals. 3. To ensure that your whole host may withstand the brunt of the enemy’s attack and remain unshaken—this is effected by maneuvers direct and indirect. 4. That the impact of your army may be like a grindstone dashed against an egg—this is effected by the science of weak points and strong. 5. In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. 6. Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as Heaven and Earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away to return once more. 7. There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard. 8. There are not more than five primary colors (blue, yellow, red, white, and black), yet in combination they produce more hues than can ever been seen. 9. There are not more than five Cardinal tastes (sour, acrid, salt, sweet, bitter), yet combinations of them yield more flavors than can ever be tasted. 10. In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack: the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers. 11. The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle—you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination? 12. The onset of troops is like the rush of a torrent which will even roll stones along in its course. 13. The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy its victim. 14. Therefore the good fighter will be terrible in his onset, and prompt in his decision. 15. Energy may be likened to the bending of a crossbow; decision, to the releasing of a trigger. 16. Amid the turmoil and tumult of battle, there may be seeming disorder and yet no real disorder at all; amid confusion and chaos, your array may be without head or tail, yet it will be proof against defeat. 17. Simulated disorder postulates perfect discipline, simulated fear postulates courage; simulated weakness postulates strength. 18. Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy; masking strength with weakness is to be effected by tactical dispositions. 19. Thus one who is skillful at keeping the enemy on the move maintains deceitful appearances, according to which the enemy will act. He sacrifices something, that the enemy may snatch at it. 20. By holding out baits, he keeps him on the march; then with a body of picked men he lies in wait for him. 21. The clever combatant looks to the effect of combined energy, and does not require too much from individuals. Hence his ability to pick out the right men and utilize combined energy. 22. When he utilizes combined energy, his fighting men become as it were like unto rolling logs or stones. For it is the nature of a log or stone to remain motionless on level ground, and to move when on a slope; if four-cornered, to come to a standstill, but if round-shaped, to go rolling down. 23. Thus the energy developed by good fighting men is as the momentum of a round stone rolled down a mountain thousands of feet in height. So much on the subject of energy.”

                “6. WEAK POINTS AND STRONG: 1. Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted. 2. Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him. 3. By holding out advantages to him, he can cause the enemy to approach of his own accord; or, by inflicting damage, he can make it impossible for the enemy to draw near. 4. If the enemy is taking his ease, he can harass him; if well supplied with food, he can starve him out; if quietly encamped, he can force him to move. 5. Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; march swiftly to places where you are not expected. 6. An army may march great distances without distress, if it marches through country where the enemy is not. 7. You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended. You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked. 8. Hence that General is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack. 9. O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands. 10. You may advance and be absolutely irresistible, if you make for the enemy’s weak points; you may retire and be safe from pursuit if your movements are more rapid than those of the enemy. 11. If we wish to fight, the enemy can be forced to an engagement even though he be sheltered behind a high rampart and a deep ditch. All we need do is attack some other place that he will be obliged to relieve. 12. If we do not wish to fight, we can prevent the enemy from engaging us even though the lines of our encampment be merely traced out on the ground. All we need do is to throw something odd and unaccountable in his way. 13. By discovering the enemy’s dispositions and remaining invisible ourselves, we can keep our forces concentrated, while the enemy’s must be divided. 14. We can form a single united body, while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole, which means that we shall be many to the enemy’s few. 15. And if we are able thus to attack an inferior force with a superior one, our opponents will be in dire straits. 16. The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known; for then the enemy will have to prepare against a possible attack at several different points; and his forces being thus distributed in many directions, the numbers we shall have to face at any given point will be proportionately few. 17. For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak. 18. Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us. 19. Knowing the place and the time of the coming battle, we may concentrate from the greatest distances in order to fight. 20. But if neither time nor place be known, then the left wing will be impotent to succor the right, the right equally impotent to succor the left, the van unable to relieve the rear, or the rear to support the van. How much more so if the furthest portions of the army are anything under a hundred LI apart, and even the nearest are separated by several LI! 21. Though according to my estimate the soldiers of Yueh exceed our own in number, that shall advantage them nothing in the matter of victory. I say then that victory can be achieved. 22. Though the enemy be stronger in numbers, we may prevent him from fighting. Scheme so as to discover his plans and the likelihood of their success. 23. Rouse him, and learn the principle of his activity or inactivity. Force him to reveal himself, so as to find out his vulnerable spots. 24. Carefully compare the opposing army with your own, so that you may know where strength is superabundant and where it is deficient. 25. In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them; conceal your dispositions, and you will be safe from the prying of the subtlest spies, from the machinations of the wisest brains. 26. How victory may be produced for them out of the enemy’s own tactics—that is what the multitude cannot comprehend. 27. All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved. 28. Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances. 29. Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards. 30. So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak. 31. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. 32. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. 33. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain. 34. The five elements (water, fire, wood, metal, earth) are not always equally predominant; the four seasons make way for each other in turn. There are short days and long; the moon has its periods of waning and waxing.”

                “7. MANEUVERING: 1. In war, the General receives his commands from the sovereign. 2. Having collected an army and concentrated his forces, he must blend and harmonize the different elements thereof before pitching his camp. 3. After that, comes tactical maneuvering, than which there is nothing more difficult. The difficulty of tactical maneuvering consists in turning the devious into the direct, and misfortune into gain. 4. Thus, to take a long and circuitous route, after enticing the enemy out of the way, and though starting after him, to contrive to reach the goal before him, shows knowledge of the artifice of DEVIATION. 5. Maneuvering with an army is advantageous; with an undisciplined multitude, most dangerous. 6. If you set a fully equipped army in march in order to snatch an advantage, the chances are that you will be too late. On the other hand, to detach a flying column for the purpose involves the sacrifice of its baggage and stores. 7. Thus, if you order your men to roll up their buff-coats, and make forced marches without halting day or night, covering double the usual distance at a stretch, doing a hundred LI in order to wrest an advantage, the leaders of all your three divisions will fall into the hands of the enemy. 8. The stronger men will be in front, the jaded ones will fall behind, and on this plan only one-tenth of your army will reach its destination. 9. If you march fifty LI in order to outmaneuver the enemy, you will lose the leader of your first division, and only half your force will reach the goal. 10. If you march thirty LI with the same object, two-thirds of your army will arrive. 11. We may take it then that an army without its baggage train is lost; without provisions it is lost; without bases of supply it is lost. 12. We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors. 13. We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country—its mountains and forests, its pitfalls and precipices, its marshes and swamps. 14. We shall be unable to turn natural advantage to account unless we make use of local guides. 15. In war, practice dissimulation, and you will succeed. 16. Whether to concentrate or to divide your troops, must be decided by circumstances. 17. Let your rapidity be that of the wind, your compactness that of the forest. 18. In raiding and plundering be like fire, in immovability like a mountain. 19. Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt. 20. When you plunder a countryside, let the spoil be divided among your men; when you capture new territory, cut it up into allotments for the benefit of the soldiery. 21. Ponder and deliberate before you make a move. 22. He will conquer who has learnt the artifice of deviation. Such is the art of maneuvering. 23. The Book of Army Management says: On the field of battle, the spoken word does not carry far enough: hence the institution of gongs and drums. Nor can ordinary objects be seen clearly enough: hence the institution of banners and flags. 24. Gongs and drums, banners and flags, are means whereby the ears and eyes of the host may be focused on one particular point. 25. The host thus forming a single united body, is it impossible either for the brave to advance alone, or for the cowardly to retreat alone. This is the art of handling large masses of men. 26. In night-fighting, then, make much use of signal-fires and drums, and in fighting by day, of flags and banners, as a means of influencing the ears and eyes of your army. 27. A whole army may be robbed of its spirit; a Commander-In-Chief may be robbed of his presence of mind. 28. Now a soldier’s spirit is keenest in the morning; by noonday it has begun to flag; and in the evening, his mind is bent only on returning to camp. 29. A clever General, therefore, avoids an army when its spirit is keen, but attacks it when it is sluggish and inclined to return. This is the art of studying moods. 30. Disciplined and calm, to await the appearance of disorder and hubbub among the enemy: this is the art of retaining self-possession. 31. To be near the goal while the enemy is still far from it, to wait at ease while the enemy is toiling and struggling, to be well-fed while the enemy is famished: this is the art of husbanding one’s strength. 32. To refrain from intercepting an enemy whose banners are in perfect order, to refrain from attacking an army drawn up in calm and confident array: this is the art of studying circumstances. 33. It is a military axiom not to advance uphill against the enemy, nor to oppose him when he comes downhill. 34. Do not pursue an enemy who simulates flight; do not attack soldiers whose temper is keen. 35. Do not swallow bait offered by the enemy. Do not interfere with an army that is returning home. 36. When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard. 37. Such is the art of warfare.”

                “8. VARIATION IN TACTICS: 1. In war, the General receives his commands from the sovereign, collects his army and concentrates his forces. 2. When in difficult country, do not encamp. In country where high roads intersect, join hands with your allies. Do not linger in dangerously isolated positions. In hemmed-in situations, you must resort to stratagem. In desperate position, you must fight. 3. There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must not be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed. 4. The General who thoroughly understands the advantages that accompany variation of tactics knows how to handle his troops. 5. The General who does not understand these, may be well acquainted with the configuration of the country, yet he will not be able to turn his knowledge to practical account. 6. So, the student of war who is unversed in the art of war of varying his plans, even though he be acquainted with the Five Advantages, will fail to make the best use of his men. 7. Hence in the wise leader’s plans, considerations of advantage and of disadvantage will be blended together. 8. If our expectation of advantage be tempered in this way, we may succeed in accomplishing the essential part of our schemes. 9. If, on the other hand, in the midst of difficulties we are always ready to seize an advantage, we may extricate ourselves from misfortune. 10. Reduce the hostile chiefs by inflicting damage on them; and make trouble for them, and keep them constantly engaged; hold out specious allurements, and make them rush to any given point. 11. The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable. 12. There are five dangerous faults which may affect a General: (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction; (2) cowardice, which leads to capture; (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; (5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble. 13. These are the five besetting sins of a General, ruinous to the conduct of war. 14. When an army is overthrown and its leader slain, the cause will surely be found among these five dangerous faults. Let them be a subject of meditation.”

                “9. THE ARMY ON THE MARCH: 1. We come now to the question of encamping the army, and observing signs of the enemy. Pass quickly over mountains, and keep in the neighborhood of valleys. 2. Camp in high places, facing the sun. Do not climb heights in order to fight. So much for mountain warfare. 3. After crossing a river, you should get far away from it. 4. When an invading force crosses a river in its onward march, do not advance to meet it in mid-stream. It will be best to let half the army get across, and then deliver your attack. 5. If you are anxious to fight, you should not go to meet the invader near a river which he has to cross. 6. Moor your craft higher up than the enemy, and facing the sun. Do not move up-stream to meet the enemy. So much for river warfare. 7. In crossing salt-marshes, your sole concern should be to get over them quickly, without any delay. 8. If forced to fight in a salt-marsh, you should have water and grass near you, and get your back to a clump of trees. So much for operations in salt-marches. 9. In dry, level country, take up an easily accessible position with rising ground to your right and on your rear, so that the danger may be in front, and safety lie behind. So much for campaigning in flat country. 10. These are the four useful branches of military knowledge which enabled the Yellow Emperor to vanquish four several sovereigns. 11. All armies prefer high ground to low. and sunny places to dark. 12. If you are careful of your men, and camp on hard ground, the army will be free from disease of every kind, and this will spell victory. 13. When you come to a hill or a bank, occupy the sunny side, with the slope on your right rear. Thus you will at once act for the benefit of your soldiers and utilize the natural advantages of the ground. 14. When, in consequence of heavy rains up-country, a river which you wish to ford is swollen and flecked with foam, you must wait until it subsides. 15. Country in which there are precipitous cliffs with torrents running between, deep natural hollows, confined places, tangled thickets, quagmires and crevasses, should be left with all possible speed and not approached. 16. While we keep away from such places, we should get the enemy to approach them; while we face them, we should let the enemy have them on his rear. 17. If in the neighborhood of your camp there should be any hilly country, ponds surrounded by aquatic grass, hollow basins filled with reeds, or woods with thick undergrowth, they must be carefully routed out and searched; for these are places where men in ambush or insidious spies are likely to be lurking. 18. When the enemy is close at hand and remains quiet, he is relying on the natural strength of his position. 19. When he keeps aloof and tries to provoke a battle, he is anxious for the other side to advance. 20. If his place of encampment is easy of access, he is tendering a bait. 21. Movement among the trees of a forest shows that the enemy is advancing. The appearance of a number of screens in the midst of thick grass means that the enemy wants to make us suspicious. 22. The rising of birds in their flight is the sign of an ambuscade. Startled beasts indicate that a sudden attack is coming. 23. When there is dust rising in a high column, it is the sign of chariots advancing; when the dust is low, but spread over a wide area, it betokens the approach of infantry. When it branches out in different directions, it shows that parties have been sent to collect firewood. A few clouds of dust moving to and fro signify that the army is encamping. 24. Humble words and increased preparations are signs that the enemy is about to advance. Violent language and driving forward as if to the attack are signs that he will retreat. 25. When the light chariots come out first and take up a position on the wings, it is a sign that the enemy is forming for battle. 26. Peace proposals unaccompanied by a sworn covenant indicate a plot. 27. When there is much running about and the soldiers fall into rank, it means that the critical moment has come. 28. When some are seen advancing and some retreating, it is a lure. 29. When the soldiers stand leaning on their spears, they are faint from want of food. 30. If those who are sent to draw water begin by drinking themselves, the army is suffering from thirst. 31. If the enemy sees an advantage to be gained and makes no effort to secure it, the soldiers are exhausted. 32. If birds gather on any spot, it is unoccupied. Clamor by night betokens nervousness. 33. If there is disturbance in the camp, the General‘s authority is weak. If the banners and flags are shifted about, sedition is afoot. If the officers are angry, it means that the men are weary. 34. When an army feeds its horses with grain and kills its cattle for food, and when the men do not hang their cooking-pots over the camp fires, showing that they will not return to their tents, you may know that they are determined to fight to the death. 35. The sight of men whispering together in small knots or speaking in subdued tones points to disaffection among the rank and file. 36. Too frequent rewards signify that the enemy is at the end of his resources; too many punishments betray a condition of dire distress. 37. To begin by bluster, but afterwards to take fright at the enemy’s numbers, shows a supreme lack of intelligence. 38. When envoys are sent with compliments in their mouths, it is a sign that the enemy wishes for a truce. 39. If the enemy’s troops march up angrily and remain facing ours for a long time without either joining battle or taking themselves off again, the situation is one that demands great vigilance and circumspection. 40. If our troops are no more in number than the enemy, that is amply sufficient; it only means that no direct attack can be made. What we can do is simply to concentrate all our available strength, keep a close watch on the enemy, and obtain reinforcements. 41. He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them. 42. If soldiers are punished before they have grown attached to you, they will not prove submissive; and, unless submissive, then will be practically useless. If, when the soldiers have become attached to you, punishments are not enforced, they will still be useless. 43. Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline. This is a certain road to victory. 44. If in training soldiers commands are habitually enforced, the army will be well-disciplined; if not, its discipline will be bad. 45. If a General shows confidence in his men but always insists on his orders being obeyed, the gain will be mutual.”

                “10. TERRAIN: 1. We may distinguish six kinds of terrain, to wit: (1) Accessible ground; (2) entangling ground; (3) temporizing ground; (4) narrow passes; (5) precipitous heights; (6) positions at a great distance from the enemy. 2. Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called ACCESSIBLE. 3. With regard to ground of this nature, be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots, and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you will be able to fight with advantage. 4. Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called ENTANGLING. 5. From a position of this sort, if the enemy is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him. But if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible, disaster will ensue. 6. When the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move, it is called TEMPORIZING ground. 7. In a position of this sort, even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage. 8. With regard to NARROW PASSES, if you can occupy them first, let them be strongly garrisoned and await the advent of the enemy. 9. Should the army forestall you in occupying a pass, do not go after him if the pass is fully garrisoned, but only if it is weakly garrisoned. 10. With regard to PRECIPITOUS HEIGHTS, if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots, and there wait for him to come up. 11. If the enemy has occupied them before you, do not follow him, but retreat and try to entice him away. 12. If you are situated at a great distance from the enemy, and the strength of the two armies is equal, it is not easy to provoke a battle, and fighting will be to your disadvantage. 13. These six are the principles connected with Earth. The General who has attained a responsible post must be careful to study them. 14. Now an army is exposed to six several calamities, not arising from natural causes, but from faults for which the General is responsible. These are: (1) Flight; (2) insubordination; (3) collapse; (4) ruin; (5) disorganization; (6) rout. 15. Other conditions being equal, if one force is hurled against another ten times its size, the result will be the FLIGHT of the former. 16. When the common soldiers are too strong and their officers too weak, the result is INSUBORDINATION. When the officers are too strong and the common soldiers too weak, the result is COLLAPSE. 17. When the higher officers are angry and insubordinate, and on meeting the enemy give battle on their own account from a feeling of resentment, before the Commander-In-Chief can tell whether or no he is in a position to fight, the result is RUIN. 18. When the General is weak and without authority; when his orders are not clear and distinct; when there are no fixes duties assigned to officers and men, and the ranks are formed in a slovenly haphazard manner, the result is utter DISORGANIZATION. 19. When a General, unable to estimate the enemy’s strength, allows an inferior force to engage a larger one, or hurls a weak detachment against a powerful one, and neglects to place picked soldiers in the front rank, the result must be ROUT. 20. These are six ways of courting defeat, which must be carefully noted by the General who has attained a responsible post. 21. The natural formation of the country is the soldier’s best ally; but a power of estimating the adversary, of controlling the forces of victory, and of shrewdly calculating difficulties, dangers and distances, constitutes the test of a great General. 22. He who knows these things, and in fighting puts his knowledge into practice, will win his battles. He who knows them not, nor practices them, will surely be defeated. 23. If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler’s bidding. 24. The General who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom. 25. Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death. 26. If, however, you are indulgent, but unable to make your authority felt; kind-hearted, but unable to enforce your commands; and incapable, moreover, of quelling disorder: then your soldiers must be likened to spoilt children; they are useless for any practical purpose. 27. If we know that our own men are in a condition to attack, but are unaware that the enemy is not open to attack, we have gone only halfway towards victory. 28. If we know that the enemy is open to attack, but are unaware that our own men are not in a condition to attack, we have gone only halfway towards victory. 29. If we know that the enemy is open to attack, and also know that our men are in a condition to attack, but are unaware that the nature of the ground makes fighting impracticable, we have still gone only halfway towards victory. 30. Hence the experienced soldier, once in motion, is never bewildered; once he has broken camp, he is never at a loss. 31. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt; if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.”

                “11. THE NINE SITUATIONS 1. The art of war recognizes nine varieties of ground: (1) Dispersive ground; (2) facile ground; (3) contentious ground; (4) open ground; (5) ground of intersecting highways; (6) serious ground; (7) difficult ground; (8) hemmed-in ground; (9) desperate ground. 2. When a chieftain is fighting in his own territory, it is dispersive ground. 3. When he has penetrated into hostile territory, but to no great distance, it is facile ground. 4. Ground the possession of which imports great advantage to either side, is contentious ground. 5. Ground on which each side has liberty of movement is open ground. 6. Ground which forms the key to three contiguous states, so that he who occupies it first has most of the Empire at his command, is a ground of intersecting highways. 7. When an army has penetrated into the heart of a hostile country, leaving a number of fortified cities in its rear, it is serious ground. 8. Mountain forests, rugged steeps, marshes and fens—all country that is hard to traverse: this is difficult ground. 9. Ground which is reached through narrow gorges, and from which we can only retire by tortuous paths, so that a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body of our men: this is hemmed in ground. 10. Ground on which we can only be saved from destruction by fighting without delay, is desperate ground. 11. On dispersive ground, therefore, fight not. On facile ground, halt not. On contentious ground, attack not. 12. On open ground, do not try to block the enemy’s way. On the ground of intersecting highways, join hands with your allies. 13. On serious ground, gather in plunder. In difficult ground, keep steadily on the march. 14. On hemmed-in ground, resort to stratagem. On desperate ground, fight. 15. Those who were called skillful leaders of old knew how to drive a wedge between the enemy’s front and rear; to prevent co-operation between his large and small divisions; to hinder the good troops from rescuing the bad, the officers from rallying their men. 16. When the enemy’s men were united, they managed to keep them in disorder. 17. When it was to their advantage, they made a forward move; when otherwise, they stopped still. 18. If asked how to cope with a great host of the enemy in orderly array and on the point of marching to the attack, I should say: ‘Begin by seizing something which your opponent holds dear; then he will be amenable to your will.’ 19. Rapidity is the essence of war: take advantage of the enemy’s unreadiness, make your way by unexpected routes, and attack unguarded spots. 20. The following are the principles to be observed by an invading force: The further you penetrate into a country, the greater will be the solidarity of your troops, and thus the defenders will not prevail against you. 21. Make forays in fertile country in order to supply your army with food. 22. Carefully study the well-being of your men, and do not overtax them. Concentrate your energy and hoard your strength. Keep your army continually on the move, and devise unfathomable plans. 23. Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength. 24. Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard. 25. Thus, without waiting to be marshaled, the soldiers will be constantly on the qui vive; without waiting to be asked, they will do your will; without restrictions, they will be faithful; without giving orders, they can be trusted. 26. Prohibit the taking of omens, and do away with superstitious doubts. Then, until death itself comes, no calamity need be feared. 27. If our soldiers are not overburdened with money, it is not because they have a distaste for riches; if their lives are not unduly long, it is not because they are disinclined to longevity. 28. On the day they are ordered out to battle, your soldiers may weep, those sitting up bedewing their garments, and those lying down letting the tears run down their cheeks. But let them once be brought to bay, and they will display the courage of a Chu or a Kuei. 29. The skillful tactician may be likened to the SHUAI-JAN. Now the SHUAI-JAN is a snake that is found in the Ch’ang mountains. Strike at its head, and you will be attacked by its tail; strike at its tail, and you will be attacked by its head; strike at its middle, and you will be attacked by head and tail both. 30. Asked if an army can be made to imitate the SHUAI-JAN, I should answer, Yes. For the men of Wu and the men of Yueh are enemies; yet if they are crossing a river in the same boat and are caught by a storm, they will come to each other’s assistance just as the left hand helps the right. 31. Hence it is not enough to put one’s trust in the tethering of horses, and the burying of chariot wheels in the ground. 32. The principle on which to manage an army is to set up one standard of courage which all must reach. 33. How to make the best of both strong and weak—that is a question involving the proper use of ground. 34. Thus the skillful General conducts his army just as though he were leading a single man, willy-nilly, by the hand. 35. It is the business of a General to be quiet and thus ensure secrecy; upright and just, and thus maintain order. 36. He must be able to mystify his officers and men by false reports and appearances, and thus keep them in total ignorance. 37. By altering his arrangements and changing his plans, he keeps the enemy without definite knowledge. By shifting his camp and taking circuitous routes, he prevents the enemy from anticipating his purpose. 38. At the critical moment, the leader of an army acts like one who has climbed up a height and then kicks away the ladder behind him. He carries his men deep into hostile territory before he shows his hand. 39. He burns his boats and breaks his cooking-pots; like a shepherd driving a flock of sheep, he drives his men this way and that, and nothing knows whither he is going. 40. To muster his host and bring it into danger: this may be termed the business of the General. 41. The different measures suited to the nine varieties of ground; the expediency of aggressive or defensive tactics; and the fundamental laws of human nature: these are things that must most certainly be studied. 42. When invading hostile territory, the general principle is, that penetrating deeply brings cohesion; penetrating but a short way means dispersion. 43. When you leave your own country behind, and take your army across neighborhood territory, you find yourself on critical ground. When there are means of communication on all four sides, the ground is one of intersecting highways. 44. When you penetrate deeply into a country, it is serious ground. When you penetrate but a little way, it is facile ground. 45. When you have the enemy’s strongholds on your rear, and narrow passes in front, it is hemmed-in ground. When there is no place of refuge at all, it is desperate ground. 46. Therefore, on dispersive ground, I would inspire my men with unity of purpose. On facile ground, I would see that there is close connection between all parts of my army. 47. On contentious ground, I would hurry up my rear. 48. On open ground, I would keep a vigilant eye on my defenses. On ground of intersecting highways, I would consolidate my alliances. 49. On serious ground, I would try to ensure a continuous stream of supplies. On difficult ground, I would keep pushing on along the road. 50. On hemmed-in ground, I would block any way of retreat. On desperate ground, I would proclaim to my soldiers the hopelessness of saving their lives. 51. For it is the soldier’s disposition to offer an obstinate resistance when surrounded, to fight hard when he cannot help himself, and to obey promptly when he has fallen into danger. 52. We cannot enter into alliance with neighboring Princes until we are acquainted with their designs. We are not fit to lead an army on the march unless we are familiar with the face of the country—its mountains and forests, its pitfalls and precipices, its marshes and swamps. We shall be unable to turn natural advantages to account unless we make use of local guides. 53. To be ignored of any one of the following four or five principles does not befit a warlike Prince. 54. When a warlike Prince attacks a powerful state, his Generalship shows itself in preventing the concentration of the enemy’s forces. He overawes his opponents, and their allies are prevented from joining against him. 55. Hence he does not strive to ally himself with all and sundry, nor does he foster the power of other states. He carries out his own secret designs, keeping his antagonists in awe. Thus he is able to capture their cities and overthrow their kingdoms. 56. Bestow rewards without regard to rule, issue orders without regard to previous arrangements; and you will be able to handle a whole army as though you had to do with but a single man. 57. Confront your soldiers with the deed itself; never let them know your design. When the outlook is bright, bring it before their eyes; but tell them nothing when the situation is gloomy. 58. Place your army in deadly peril, and it will survive; plunge it into desperate straits, and it will come off in safety. 59. For it is precisely when a force has fallen into harm’s way that is capable of striking a blow for victory. 60. Success in warfare is gained by carefully accommodating ourselves to the enemy’s purpose. 61. By persistently hanging on the enemy’s flank, we shall succeed in the long run in killing the Commander-In-Chief[allegory for YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACHthe Chief cornerstone whom the builders rejected] 62. This is called ability to accomplish a thing by sheer cunning. 63. On the day that you take up your command, block the frontier passes, destroy the official tallies, and stop the passage of all emissaries. 64. Be stern in the council-chamber, so that you may control the situation. 65. If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in. 66. Forestall your opponent by seizing what he holds dear, and subtly contrive to time his arrival on the ground. 67. Walk in the path defined by rule, and accommodate yourself to the enemy until you can fight a decisive battle. 68. At first, then, exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to oppose you.”

                “12. THE ATTACK BY FIRE: 1. There are five ways of attacking with fire. The first is to burn soldiers in their camp; the second is to burn stores; the third is to burn baggage trains; the fourth is to burn arsenals and magazines; the fifth is to hurl dropping fire among the enemy. 2. In order to carry out an attack, we must have means available. the material for raising fire should always be kept in readiness. 3. There is a proper season for making attacks with fire, and special days for starting a conflagration. 4. The proper season is when the weather is very dry; the special days are those when the moon is in the constellations of the Sieve, the Wall, the Wing or the Cross-bar; for these four are all days of rising wind. 5. In attacking with fire, one should be prepared to meet five possible developments: 6. (1) When fire breaks out inside to enemy’s camp, respond at once with an attack from without. 7. (2) If there is an outbreak of fire, but the enemy’s soldiers remain quiet, bide your time and do not attack. 8. (3) When the force of the flames has reached its height, follow it up with an attack, if that is practicable; if not, stay where you are. 9. (4) If it is possible to make an assault with fire from without, do not wait for it to break out within, but deliver your attack at a favorable moment. 10. (5) When you start a fire, be to windward of it. Do not attack from the leeward. 11. A wind that rises in the daytime lasts long, but a night breeze soon falls. 12. In every army, the five developments connected with fire must be known, the movements of the stars calculated, and a watch kept for the proper days. 13. Hence those who use fire as an aid to the attack show intelligence; those who use water as an aid to the attack gain an accession of strength. 14. By means of water, an enemy may be intercepted, but not robbed of all his belongings. 15. Unhappy is the fate of one who tries to win his battles and succeed in his attacks without cultivating the spirit of enterprise; for the result is waste of time and general stagnation. 16. Hence the saying: The enlightened ruler lays his plans well ahead; the good General cultivates his resources. 17. Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. 18. No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no General should fight a battle simply out of pique. 19. If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are. 20. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. 21. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. 22. Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good General full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.”

                “13. THE USE OF SPIES: 1. Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and marching them great distances entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources of the State. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abroad, and men will drop down exhausted on the highways. As many as seven hundred thousand families will be impeded in their labor. 2. Hostile armies may face each other for years, striving for the victory which is decided in a single day. This being so, to remain in ignorance of the enemy’s condition simply because one grudges the outlay of a hundred ounces of silver in honors and emoluments, is the height of inhumanity. 3. One who acts thus is no leader of men, no present help to his sovereign, no master of victory. 4. Thus, what enables the wise sovereign and the good General to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is FOREKNOWLEDGE. 5. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. 6. Knowledge of the enemy’s dispositions can only be obtained from other men. 7. Hence the use of spies, of whom there are five classes: (1) Local spies; (2) inward spies; (3) converted spies; (4) doomed spies; (5) surviving spies. 8. When these five kinds of spy are all at work, none can discover the secret system. This is called ‘divine manipulation of the threads.’ It is the sovereign’s most precious faculty. 9. Having LOCAL SPIES means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district. 10. Having INWARD SPIES, making use of officials of the enemy. 11. Having CONVERTED SPIES, getting hold of the enemy’s spies and using them for our own purposes. 12. Having DOOMED SPIES, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy. 13. SURVIVING SPIES, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy’s camp. 14. Hence it is that which none in the whole army are more intimate relations to be maintained than with spies. None should be more liberally rewarded. In no other business should greater secrecy be preserved. 15. Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity. 16. They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straightforwardness. 17. Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports. 18. Be subtle! be subtle! and use your spies for every kind of business. 19. If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told. 20. Whether the object be to crush an army, to storm a city, or to assassinate an individual, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the General in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these. 21. The enemy’s spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service. 22. It is through the information brought by the converted spy that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies. 23. It is owing to his information, again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy. 24. Lastly, it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions. 25. The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the converted spy. Hence it is essential that the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality. 26. Of old, the rise of the Yin dynasty was due to I Chih who had served under the Hsia. Likewise, the rise of the Chou dynasty was due to Lu Ya who had served under the Yin. 27. Hence it is only the enlightened ruler and the wise General who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are a most important element in water, because on them depends an army’s ability to move.”

        “All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.”

       “There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must not be attacked, towns which must be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed.”

       “The control of a large force is the same principle as the control of a few men: it is merely a question of dividing up their numbers.”

       “Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is simply a question of subdivision.”

       “He will win who has military capacity and is not interred with by the sovereign.”

       “The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.”

       “Let your plans be dark, and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

        “When you are compelled by force to yield in laying aside the clothing which our holy Fr. Ignatius required to be worn, you can still inwardly, in your hearts, remain steadfastly united to his institution, and await a more propitious time when you can again adopt it openly; only take care to draw the bonds uniting you to one another more closely together, and recollect that no human power can release you from your vows.”

       “Let the Constitutions be as they areor you [Pope Pius shall be not at all.”

Giulio CordaraGiulio Cesare Cordara, S.J. (1704–1785, Italian Jesuit, Historian, Writer, & Author of On the Suppression of the Society of Jesus)

        “Nearly all the Kings and Sovereigns of Europe had only Jesuits as directors of their consciences, so that the whole of Europe appeared to be governed by Jesuits only.

Clement_XIVPope Clement XIV (1705–1774; White Pope, Franciscan Monk, Polymath, Polyglot, Educated by the Jesuits, Selected by Jesuit Superior General Lorenzo Ricci, S.J., Member of the Jesuit Created Order of the Ninth Circle, Best Known for Jesuit Planned Suppression of the Society of Jesus, & Assassinated by the Jesuits)

        Following are Pope Clement XIV’s words, upon issuing on the 21st of July, 1773 the famous Papal Bull (not Brief) Dominus ac Redemptor Noster, whereby the Society of Jesus was said to be forever annulled and extinguished. A Papal Bull is the strongest legal document a Pope can issue, and cannot be broken with other Papal Bulls.

        “Heavens! What an institution is this! Was there ever one so powerful among men! How, in fact, has Jesuitism lived? How has it fallen? Like the Titans, it yielded only to the combined thunderbolts of all the gods of the earthly Olympus. Did the aspect of death damp its courage? Did it yield one step? Let us be what we are, it said, or let us be no longer. This was truly to die standing, like the emperors, and according to the precept of one of the masters of the world.”

        “The Society was everywhere reproached with too much avidity and eagerness for earthly good, which greed exasperated many rulers of nations against it.

       “The suppression is accomplished, I do not repent of it, having only resolved on it after examining and weighing everything, and because I thought it necessary for the church. If it were not done, I would do it now. But this suppression will be my death.”

        Pope Clement XIV knew the Jesuits very well, and expected to die at their hands. He was correct. He was poisoned:

        “. . . a peasant woman was persuaded, by means of a disguise, to procure entrance into the Vatican, and offer to the Pope a fig in which poison was concealed. Clement XIV was exceedingly fond of this fruit, and ate it without hesitation. The same day the first symptoms of severe illness were observed, and to these, rapidly succeeded violent inflammation of the bowels. He soon became convinced that he was poisoned, and remarked: ‘Alas! I knew they would poison me; but I did not expect to die in so slow and cruel a manner.’ His terrible sufferings continued for several months, when he died, ‘the poor victim,’ said Cormenin, ‘of the execrable Jesuits to which the Bishop of Pistoia, Scipio di’ Ricci, the nephew and heir of Jesuit General Ricci, fully agreed.’”

         The Society of Jesus took refuge in non-Catholic nations and particularly in Prussia and Russia, where the Pope’s order was ignored or formally rejected. From the time of the suppression through the next 70 years under the four temporal Vicar Superior Generals of the Jesuits stationed in Pussia and Russia, the entire course of history would change the fate of the world forever . . . And fulfilling the Prophecy given in Revelation 13 by YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH 1,930 years prior.

Antonio Eugenio ViscontiCardinal Antonio Eugenio Visconti (1713–1788; Italian Cardinal, Member of the Rex Deus Conti Dynasty, Archbishop, & Papal Apostolic Nuncio to Austria)

        “The Jesuits have the upper hand over everything, even the most prominent ministers of State, and domineer over them if they do not carry out their will.”

Sir William BlackstoneSir William Blackstone (1723–1780; English Jurist, Judge, Accountant, Barrister, Tory Politician, Educated at the Cistercian Charterhouse School, Fellow of the Jesuit Created & Controlled Freemason All Souls Society & the Middle Temple, Author of the Famous Commentaries on the Laws of England)

        “Whereas the progress of the Papal policy, long actuated by the steady counsels of successive Pontiffs, took deeper root, and was at length in some places with difficulty, in others never yet, extirpated. For this we might call to witness the black intrigues of the Jesuits . . . This plan of Pontifical power was so deeply laid, and so indefatigably pursued by the unwearied politics of the Court of Rome through a long succession of ages . . . it was polished and improved by the unite endeavors of a body of men who engrossed all the learning of Europe for centuries together; it was firmly and resolutely executed by persons the best calculated for establishing tyranny and despotism, being fixed with a bigoted enthusiasm . . . unconnected with their fellow-subjects and totally indifferent to what might befall that posterity to which they bore no endearing relation: yet it vanished into nothing when the eyes of the people were a little enlightened, and they set themselves with vigor to oppose it.”

image.phpBenedict Stattler, S.J. (1728–1797; German Jesuit, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Rosicrucian, & Author of General Catholic-Christian Doctrine of the Silesians)


        “When a needy person, on account of sickness or lack of employment, is not’ in a position to supply his wants by his own work, he has the right to abstract from the rich, by secret or open force, the superfluity of the latter.


        “When, on account of the selfishness and factiousness of the higher authorities, there is no way left open to our obtaining public offices by our own merit and our own worth, it is not only allowable, but, indeed, serviceable, from the motive of the love of God and of our neighbor, to obtain by presents or flattery the favor of those who have it in their power to bestow these offices.


        “It is still more allowable in this case, namely, when one is injured ignominiously, to bring the calumniator to universal notice by a disclosure of his secret transgressions or crimes, by which means people may change their opinion as to his injurious imputations. Also to attribute a false crime to the calumniator is allowable for such an object, if this should be the only sufficient, indispensable, or even serviceable means to deprive him of all belief and credit for his calumniation.


        “A real injury, bringing disgrace on one, as, for instance, a horsewhipping or blow on the face, may be retaliated by the murder of the insulter, if it cannot be remedied in any other manner; still Christian [Catholic] love counsels forbearance from this mode of defense, as long as such conduct does not occasion a heavy misfortune to us and to others connected with us. Other grievous offences, especially calumniations, need not certainly be obviated in general by the murder of the offender, but it is very allowable in the following cases: 1. When there appears to be a certainty of the false calumniator finding credence among men. 2. If he cuts off from us thereby all means of saving our honour. 3. If we can remove, by the murder of the enemy, the danger of our suffering shame.

800px-CharlesThomsonCharles Thomson (1729–1824; Irish-American Puppet Founding Father of the U.S., Philadelphia Patriot Leader During the American Revolution, & Secretary of the Continental Congress, World Renowned Revolutionary Historian, 33° Illuminized Freemason, & Member of the Freemasonic American Antiquarian Society)

        “I ought not, for I should contradict all the histories of the great events of the American Revolution, and shew by my account of men, motives, and measures, that we are wholly indebted to the Jesuit Order for its successful issue. Let the world admire the supposed wisdom and valor of our great men. Perhaps they may adopt the qualities that have been ascribed to them, and thus good may be done. I shall not undeceive future generations.”

0015John Adams (1735–1826; American Lawyer, Diplomat, One of the Puppet Founding Fathers of the U.S., 1st Vice President & 2nd President of the U.S., & 33° Illuminized Freemason)

        In 1816, John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, regarding the restoration of the Society of Jesus:

        “I do not like the late resurrection of the Jesuits. They have a General, now in Russia, in correspondence with the Jesuits in the United States who are more numerous than any body knows. Shall we not have swarms of them here? In as many shapes and disguises as ever a King of the Gypsies, Bampfylde Moore Carew himself, assumed? In the shape of Printers, Editors, Writers, School Masters, etc. I have lately read Pascal’s Letters over again, and four volumes of the ‘History of the Jesuits.’ If ever any Congregation of men could merit, eternal perdition on earth and in hell, according to these Historians though like Pascal true Catholics, it is this Company of Loyola. Our system however of Religious Liberty must afford them an assylum. But if they do not put the purity of our elections to a severe trial, it will be a wonder.”

        In 1816, John Adams wrote to his son John Quincy Adams, regarding him to study the secret IHStory of the Society of Jesus, and forewarning him of the inevitable doom of the then United States of America, now the Black Pope’s Black International New Atlantis Fourteenth Amendment Empire of America under Roman Martial Law.

        “We shall have Jesuits in all shapes in America. We shall have Jesuits, as Federalists and Republicans, in the shape of Monarchists and Democrats. We shall have Jesuits as Calvinists and Armenians, as Unitarians and Athanatians, as Philosophers and men of Letters, as Editors of Newspapers and Printers of Devils.

john robison, f.r.s.John Robison, F.R.S. (1739–1805; British Polymath, 33° Freemason, Rosicrucian, Fellow of the Invisible College/Royal Society, Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, Member of the Freemasonic Edinburgh Philosophical Society, First General Secretary to the Invisible College/Royal Society of Edinburgh, Invented the Siren, Co-Developed the Steam Car, Author of the Infamous Proofs of a Conspiracy)

         “German Masonry appeared a very serious concern, and to be implicated with other subjects with which I had never suspected it to have any connection. I saw it much connected with many occurrences and schisms in the Christian Church; I saw that the Jesuits had several times interfered in it; and that most of the exceptionable innovations and dissensions had arisen about the time that the Order of Loyola was suppressed; so that it should seem, that these intriguing brethren had attempted to maintain their influence by the help of Freemasonry.”

          “I have met with many particular facts, which convince me that this use had been made of the meetings of Masons, and that at this time the Jesuits interfered considerably, insinuating themselves into the Lodges, and contributing to increase that religious mysticism that is to be observed in all the ceremonies of the Order. This Society is well known to have put on every shape, and to have made use of every mean that could promote the power and influence of the Order. And we know that at this time they were by no means without hopes of re-establishing the dominion of the Church of Rome in England. Their services were not scrupled at by the distressed Royalists, even such as were Protestants, while they were highly prized by the Sovereign. We also know that King Charles II, of France was made a Mason, and frequented the Lodges. It is not unlikely, that besides the amusement of a vacant hour, which was always agreeable to him, he had pleasure in the meeting with his loyal friends, and in the occupations of the Lodge, which recalled to his mind their attachment and services . . . At this time also the Jesuits took a more active hand in Free Masonry than ever. They insinuated themselves into the English Lodges, where they were caressed by the Catholics, who panted after the re-establishment of their faith, and tolerated by the Protestant Royalists, who thought no concession too great a compensation for their services. At this time changes were made in some of the Masonic symbols, particularly in the tracing of the Lodge, which bear evident marks of Jesuitical interference . . . It was in the Lodges held at St. Germain’s that the degree of Chevalier Macon Ecoffois was added to the three Symbolical degrees of English Masonry . . . Three new degrees of Novice, Eleve, and Chevalier, were soon added, and the Parfait Macon had now seven receptions to go through, for each of which a handsome contribution was made. Afterwards, when the first beneficent purpose of this contribution ceased to exist, the finery that now glittered in all the Lodges made a still more craving demand for reception-money, and ingenuity was set to work to invent new baits for the Parfait Macon. More degrees of chivalry were added, interspersed with degrees of Philosophe, Pellerin, Clairvoyant, etc., until some Parisian Lodges had forty-five ranks of Masonry, having fifteen Orders of chivalry. For a Knighthood, with a Ribband and a Star, was a bonne bouche, given at every third step. For a long while these degrees of chivalry proceeded on some faint analogies with several Orders of chivalry which had been erected in Europe. All of these degrees had some reference to some mystical doctrines of the Catholic Church, and were, in fact, contrivances of the Church of Rome for securing and extending her influence on the Laymen of rank and fortune, whom she retained in her service by these play-things. The Knights Templars of Jerusalem, and the Knights of the Desert, whose office it was to protect pilgrims, and to defend the holy city, afforded very apt models for Masonic mimicry, because the Temple of Solomon, and the Holy Sepulchre, always shared the same fate. Many contended doctrines of the Theologians had also their Chevaliers to defend them. In all this progressive mummery we see much of the hand of the Jesuits, and it would seem that it was encouraged by the Catholic church.”

         “Freemasonry, professing mysteries, instantly roused all these people, and the Lodges appeared to the adventurers who wanted to profit by the enthusiasm or the avarice of their dupes, the fittest places in the world for the scene of their operations. The Rosicrucians were the first who availed themselves of the opportunity. This was not the Society which had appeared formerly under that name, and was now extinct; but a set of Alchemists, pretenders to the transmutation of metals and the universal medicine, who, the better to inveigle their votaries, had mixed with their own tricks a good deal of the absurd superstitions of that Sect, in order to give a greater air of mystery to the whole, to protract the time of instruction, and to afford more room for evasions, by making so many difficult conditions necessary for perfecting the grand work, that the unfortunate gull, who had thrown away his time and his money, might believe that the failure was owing to his own incapacity or unfitness for being the possessor of the grand secret. These cheats found it convenient to make Masonry one of their conditions, and by a small degree of art, persuaded their pupils that they were the only true Masons. These Rosicrucian Lodges were soon established, and became numerous, because their mysteries were addressed, both to the curiosity, the sensuality, and the avarice of men. They became a very formidable band, adopting the constitution of the Jesuits, dividing the Fraternity into circles, each under the management of its own Superior, known to the president, but unknown to the individuals of the Lodges. These Superiors were connected with each other in a way known only to themselves, and the whole was under one General.”

         “Christoph Friedrich Nicolai, an eminent and learned bookseller in Berlin. He has been for many years the publisher of a periodical work, called the General German Library (Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek) consisting of original dissertations, and reviews of the writings of others . . . He asserts, that the suppression of the Order of Loyola is only apparent. The Brethren still retain their connection, and most part of their property, under the secret patronage of Catholic Princes. They are, therefore, in every corner, in every Habit and character, working with unwearied zeal for the restoration of their empire.”

         “Of the zealous members of the Lodge Theodore the most conspicuous was Dr. Adam Weishaupt, Professor of Canon Law in the University of Ingolstadt. This person had been educated among the Jesuits . . . Weishaupt had long been scheming the establishment of an Association or Order, which, in time, should govern the world. In his first fervor and high expectations, he hinted to several Ex-Jesuits the probability of their recovering, under a new name, the influence which they formerly possessed, and of being again of great service to society, by directing the education of youth of distinction, now emancipated from all civil and religious prejudices.”

         “Weishaupt employs powerful means. In the style of the Jesuits (as he says) he considers the end justifies the means, and he says with great truth, ‘If I cannot bend heaven, I will move Hell.’”

         “Weishaupt might tickle the fancy of his Order with the notion of ruling the world; but I imagine that his darling aim was ruling the Order. The happiness of mankind was, like Weishaupt’s Christianity [Catholicism], a mere tool, a tool which the Regentes made a joke of. But Weishaupt would rule the Regentes; this he could not so easily accomplish. His despotism was insupportable to most of them, and finally brought all to light. When he could not persuade them by his own firmness, and indeed by his superior wisdom and disinterestedness in other respects, and his unwearied activity, he employed Jesuitical tricks, causing them to fall out with each other, setting them as spies on each other, and separating any two that he saw attached to each other, by making the one a Master of the other; and, in short, he left nothing undone that could secure his uncontrolled command.”

         “I have already taken notice of the general perversion of the public mind which co-operated with the schisms of Freemasonry in procuring a listening ear to Weishaupt and his associates. It will not be doubted but that the machinations of the Illuminati increased this, even among those who did not enter into the Order. It was easier to diminish the respect for civil establishments in Germany than in almost any other country. The frivolity of the ranks and Court Offices in the different confederated petty states, made it impossible to combine dignity with the habits of a scanty income. It was still easier to expose to ridicule and reproach those numberless abuses which the folly and the vices of men had introduced into religion. The influence on the public mind which naturally attaches to the venerable office of a moral instructor, was prodigiously diminished by the continual disputes of the Catholics and Protestants, which were carried on with great heat in every little principality. The freedom of inquiry, which was supported by the state in Protestant Germany, was terribly abused (for what will the folly of man not abuse) and degenerated into a wanton licentiousness of thought, and a rage for speculation and skepticism on every subject whatever. The struggle, which was originally between the Catholics and the Protestants, had changed, during the gradual progress of luxury and immorality, into a contest between reason and superstition. And in this contest the denomination of superstition had been gradually extended to every doctrine which professed to be of divine revelation, and reason was declared to be, for certain, the only way in which the Deity can inform the human mind. Some respectable Catholics had published works filled with liberal sentiments. These were represented as villainous machinations to inveigle Protestants. On the other hand, some Protestant divines had proposed to imitate this liberality by making concessions which might enable a good Catholic to live more at ease among the Protestants, and might even accelerate a union of faiths. This was hooted beyond measure, as Jesuitical, and big with danger.”

         “I will not again sicken the reader, by calling his attention to Weishaupt and his associates or successors. But let us candidly contemplate the world around us, and particularly the perpetual advocates of universal philanthropy. What have been the general effects of their continual declamations? Surely very melancholy; nor can it easily be otherwise. An ideal standard is continually referred to. This is made gigantic, by being always seen indistinctly, as through a mist, or rather a fluttering air. In comparison with this, every feeling that we have been accustomed to respect vanishes as in significant; and, adopting the Jesuitical maxim, that ‘the end justifies the means,’ this sum of Cosmo-political good is made to eclipse or cover all the present evils which must be endured for it.

Jacques-Louis_David_018Pope Pius VII (1742–1824; White Pope, Benedictine Monk, Polymath, Polyglot, Gnostic Counter-Reformative Theologian & Exegete, Member of the Jesuit Created Order of the Ninth Circle, & the Pope Who Restored the Society of Jesus)

        Soon after Pope Pius VII was released from Napoleon’s prison in 1814, he quickly restored the Society of Jesus with the Papal Bull, Solicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum (Care of All Churches).

        “. . . if any should again attempt to abolish it (the Society of Jesus) he would incur the indignation of Almighty God and of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.”

0016Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826; American Lawyer, Diplomat, One of the Puppet Founding Father’s of the U.S., 2nd Vice President & 3rd President of the U.S., & 33° Illuminized Freemason)

        Jefferson’s reply to John Adam’s letter indicates (or pretends) that he, too, was unaware that America’s destiny had been shaped by the hands of Rome:

        “Like you, I disapprove of the restoration of the Jesuits, for it means a step backwards from light into darkness, cruelty, perfidy, despotism, and death. I wish we were out of danger of bigotry and Jesuitism.”

         During the next seventy years, Superior Generals John Roothaan (1829-1853) and Pieter Jean Beckx (1853-1883) would pump the Society up to its original greatness, swelling the membership from a few hundred to more than thirteen thousand. In those same seventy years, the Protestants who had fought for America’s independence would vastly diminish in proportion to the influx of fresh Roman Catholic refugees from European tyrannies. There is evidence these tyrannies were Jesuit-fed, for the express purpose of populating America. As America’s public became increasingly Catholic, Generals Roothaan and Beckx were able to signify Washington D.C.’s debt to the Black Papacy with much bolder Jesuit Legominisitc iconographic and architectural symbols.

Honoré-Gabriel_Riqueti,_marquis_de_MirabeauHonore Gabriel Riqueti (1749–1791; French Noble Count of Mirabeau, Parliamentary Statesman, Early Leader of the French Revolution, 33° Illuminized Freemason, & Member of the Bavarian Illuminati)

        “The Jesuit General is the true Pope of the Company of Jesus, and the plan of this institute is to destroy all authority, and all Government, having concentrated all in its Society. This ambitious Company is a nation, a power apart germinating in the loins of all others, changing their substance and surmounting their ruins.”

         . . . Of which he was in absolute collusion with.

Jean-Marie RagonJean-Marie Ragon pseudonym Hortensius Flamel