A Link to the Jesuit Oath

[Frogman]

A General History of the Jesuits, not told by a lying Baptist

Brethren,
Above is a link to a general history of the Jesuits, the writing of which, as the above, I had nothing to do with.

Note the following paragraph if time permits.

The Society was not founded with the avowed intention of opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor the Constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the service of the Church, he had probably not even heard of the names of the Protestant Reformers. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniard. The name "Societas Jesu" had been born by a military order approved and recommended by Pius II in 1450, the purpose of which was to fight against the Turks and aid in spreading the Christian faith. The early Jesuits were sent by Ignatius first to pagan lands or to Catholic countries; to Protestant countries only at the special request of the pope and to Germany, the cradle-land of the Reformation, at the urgent solicitation of the imperial ambassador. From the very beginning the missionary labours of the Jesuits among the pagans of India, Japan, China, Canada, Central and South America were as important as their activity in Christian countries. As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of Protestantism. They became the main instruments of the Counter-Reformation; the re-conquest of southern and western Germany and Austria for the Church, and the preservation of the Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to their exertions.

INSTITUTES, CONSTITUTIONS, LEGISLATION

The official publication which constitutes all the regulations of the Society, its codex legum, is entitled "Institutum Societas Jesu" of which the latest edition was issued at Rome and Florence 1869-91 (for full biography see Sommervogel, V, 75-115; IX, 609-611; for commentators see X, 705-710). The Institute contains:

The special Bulls and other pontifical documents approving the Society and canonically determining or regulating its various works, and its ecclesiastical standing and relations. -- Besides those already mentioned, other important Bulls are those of: Paul III, "Injunctum nobis", 14 March, 1543; Julius III, "Exposcit debitum", 21 July, 1550; Pius V, "Æquum reputamus", 17 January, 1565; Pius VII, "Solicitudo omnium ecclesiarum", 7 August, 1814, Leo XIII, "Dolemus inter alia", 13 July, 1880.
The Examen Generale and Constitutions. The Examen contains subjects to be explained to postulants and points on which they are to be examined. The Constitutions are divided into ten parts:
admission;
dismissal;
novitiate;
scholastic training;
profession and other grades of membership;
religious vows and other obligations as observed by the Society;
missions and other ministries;
congregations, local and general assemblies as a means of union and uniformity;
the general and chief superiors;
the preservation of the spirit of the Society.
Thus far in the Institute all is by Saint Ignatius, who has also added "Declarations" of various obscure parts. Then come:
Decrees of General Congregations, which have equal authority with the Constitutions;
Rules, general and particular, etc.;
Formulae or order of business for the congregations;
Ordinations of generals, which have the same authority as rules;
Instructions, some for superiors, others for those engaged in the missions or other works of the Society;
Industriae, or special counsels for superiors;
The Book of the Spiritual Exercises; and
the Ratio Studiorum, which have directive force only.
The Constitutions as drafted by Ignatius and adopted finally by the first congregation of the Society, 1558, have never been altered. Ill-informed writers have stated that Lainez, the second general, made considerable changes in the saint's conception of the order; but Ignatius' own later recension of the Constitutions, lately reproduced in facsimile (Rome, 1908), exactly agree with the text of the Constitutions now in force, and contains no word by Lainez, not even in the declarations, or glosses added to the text, which are all the work of Ignatius. The text in use in the Society is a Latin version prepared under the direction of the third congregation, and subjected to a minute comparison with the Spanish original preserved in the Society's archives, during the fourth congregation (1581).

Still, a stand against a false witness.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

[mioque]

Frogman
So it's acceptable for you to lie about a group as long as they do something wrong in your eyes.

That's ummm... interesting.

 

[D28guy]

Regarding this oath that the original poster shared, if it is an accurate documentation, it wouldnt suprise me in the least, knowing what we know about the Catholic Church.

This is a church with a long, 1700 year history of forgery, murderous and scandalous popes, the blood of the saints of God on her hands from the inquisitions, the "Papal" blessing of Hitler, Mussulini, and the gangsters of the 20's and 30's, the current situation regarding priests molesting children and the "look the other way" attitude of Christs supposed "hiearchy", and the current pope joining in prayer and spiritual "unity" with Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, and African Voodoo practitioners, whom he referred to as his "brothers".

Nothing would surprise me regarding this God forsaken organisation.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[trying2understand]

Likewise, given the bigoted antiCatholic hatred that exists among some, no slanderous lie against the Church would surprise me either.

That such a lie would also be gleefully swallowed and proglumated by others without the least interest in the validity of it would not come as a surprise either.

So what's your point, other than to signal your affiliation with a certain mindset?

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14096a.htm

Both Kings and Popes opposed the Jesuits

We look forward a generation, and we see that every one of the thrones, the pope's not excluded, which had been active in the Suppression is overwhelmed

The last step was taken inconsequence of a plot against the chamberlain Texeiras, but suspected to have been aimed at the king, and of this the Jesuits were supposed to have approved. But the grounds of suspicion were never clearly stated, much less proved. The height of Pombal's persecution was reached with the burning (1761) of the saintly Father Malagrida (q.v.), ostensibly for heresy; while the other Fathers, who had been crowded into prisons, were left to perish by the score. Intercourse between the Church of Portugal and Rome was broken off till 1770.

The attack on the Jesuits, as such, was opened by the Janseistic Abbé Chauvelin, 17 April, 1762, who denounced the Constitution of the Jesuits as the cause of the alleged defalcations of the order. This was followed by the compte-rendu on the Constitutions, 3-7 July, 1762, full of misconceptions, but not yet extravagent in hostility. Next day Chauvelin descended to a vulgar but efficacious means of exciting odium by denouncing the Jesuits' teaching and morals, especially on the matter of tyrannicide.

In the Parlement, the Jesuits' case was now desperate. After a long conflict with the crown in which the indolent minister-ridden sovereign failed to assert his will to any purpose, the Parlement issued its well-known "Extraits des assertions", a blue-book, as we might say, containing a congeries of passages from Jesuit theologians and canonists, in which they were alleged to teach every sort of immortality and error, from tyrannicide, magic, and Arianism, to treason, Socinianism, and Lutheranism. On 6 August, 1762, the final arrêt was issued condeming the Society to extinction, but the king's intervention brought eight month's delay

...

In spite of the dangers of refusal the Jesuits would not consent; and upon consulting the pope, he (not Ricci) used the famous phrase Sint ut sunt, aut non sint (de Ravignan, "Clement XIII", I, 105, the words are attributed to Ricci also). Louis's intervention hindered the execution of the arrêt against the Jesuits until 1 April, 1763. The colleges were then closed, and by a further arrêt of 9 March, 1764, the Jesuits were required to renounce their vows under pain of banishment.

At last, on 6 September, Moñino gave in a paper suggesting a line for the pope to follow, which he did in part adopt, in drawing up the brief of Suppression. By November the end was coming in sight, and in December Clement put Moñino into communication with a secretary; and they drafted the instrument together, the minute being ready by 4 January, 1773. By 6 February, Moñino had got it back from the pope in a form to be conveyed to the Bourbon courts, and by 8 June, their modifications having been taken account of, the minute was thrown into its final form and signed. Still the pope delayed until Monino constrained him to get copies printed; and as these were dated, no delay was possible beyond that date, which was 16 August, 1773. A second brief was issued which determined the manner in which the Suppression was to be carried out. To secure secrecy, one regulation was introduced which led, in foreign countries, to some unexpected results. The Brief was not to be published, Urbi et Orbi, but only to each college or place by the local bishop. At Rome, the father-general was confined first, at the English College, then in Castel S. Angelo, with his assistants. The papers of the Society were handed over to a special commission, together with its title deeds and store of money, 40,000 scudi (about $50,000), which belonged almost entirely to definite charities. An investigation of the papers was begun, but never brought to any issue.

In the Brief of Suppression, the most striking feature is the long list of allegations against the Society, with no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand the charges are recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have been proved. The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the Society must be suppressed. A full explanation of these and other anomalous features cannot yet be given with certainty. The chief reason for them no doubt was that the Suppression was an administrative measure, not a judicial sentence based on judicial inquiry. We see that the course chosen avoided many difficulties, especially the open contradiction of preceding popes, who had so often praised or confirmed the Society. Again, such statements were less liable to be controverted; there were different ways of interpreting the Brief which commended themselves to Zelanti and Bourbonici respectively. The last word on the subject is doubtless that of Alphonsus di Ligouri: "Poor pope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we much keep silence, respect the secret judgment of God, and hold ourselves in peace".

What is amazing is that the Catholic Church itself tried to eliminate the Jesuits and not just in one nation but in several. And the charges made against the Jesuits are similar to what we see today being made against the order.

This report is by a pro-Jesuit source - and yet "still" we see a "pattern" in the charges.

Yet all you read on this thread is "they pray a lot". Odd how the RCC did not choose to eliminate all orders "because they pray a lot" just this one.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So is it a slanderous lie that the Jesuits were found to be acting wickedly or is it a slanderous lie that the Catholic popes and kings accused them of that and tried to end the order?

Which facts of history to deny -- so many and so little time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[JFS]

In the Brief of Suppression, the most striking feature is the long list of allegations against the Society, with no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand the charges are recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have been proved. The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the Society must be suppressed. A full explanation of these and other anomalous features cannot yet be given with certainty. The chief reason for them no doubt was that the Suppression was an administrative measure, not a judicial sentence based on judicial inquiry. We see that the course chosen avoided many difficulties, especially the open contradiction of preceding popes, who had so often praised or confirmed the Society. Again, such statements were less liable to be controverted; there were different ways of interpreting the Brief which commended themselves to Zelanti and Bourbonici respectively. The last word on the subject is doubtless that of Alphonsus di Ligouri: "Poor pope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we much keep silence, respect the secret judgment of God, and hold ourselves in peace".

Sorry Bob but I read through the whole article and what I got from it is that people were enviouse of the Jesuits success. There supression is just a continuation of the Protestant refermation. The whole object of it is how can we get the vast wealth of the Churches and Monastatries in our hands. The Jesuits had to much influence on the general population with regards to their schools and colledges. They threatend power of the political elite of the time. This had to stop according to the said political elite. So a long campaign was launched to get rid of them.

The Suppression is the most difficult part of the history of the Society. Having enjoyed very high favor among Catholic peoples, kings, prelates, and popes for two centuries and a half centuries, it suddenly becomes an object of frenzied hostility, is overwhelmed with obloquy, and overthrown with dramatic rapidity. Every work of the Jesuits -- their vast missions, their noble colleges, their churches -- all is taken from them or destroyed. They are banished, and their order suppressed, with harsh and denunciatory words even from the pope.

Another example of what was happening to Convents and Monastaries from the following site:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/9781/overview.html

Many monks and nuns also left the Catholic church. Partially this was because they thought the protestants were correct in their thinking, but others were forced from the monastaries and convents by violent reformers. Luther opposed these actions, but he had little control over the Lutherans by this time. Some of the former monks became ministers, and others were just absorbed into the normal life of Germany. This social upheaval also left problems like education and caring for the poor on the hands of the towns themselves, since those had been traditionally handled by the monastaries and convents.

And yes we had people in the Church itself that hated the Jesuits and wanted to them go. We have always had people in the Church that where out for their own gain. Popes included.

The Jesuits are for God and Church. This is what they taught in their schools and colledges. This line of thinking was and still is a threat to the political elite. They where not for separation of church and state. They had to go.

The Jesuits are not a secret society. They are not the Popes Assasins. They where and are for God and to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all. You may not agree with there methods or even with what they taught but they where and are honest and open with their intentions.

God Bless You

John

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry Bob but I read through the whole article and what I got from it is that people were enviouse of the Jesuits success. There supression is just a continuation of the Protestant refermation. The whole object of it is how can we get the vast wealth of the Churches and Monastatries in our hands. The Jesuits had to much influence on the general population with regards to their schools and colledges. They threatend power of the political elite of the time. This had to stop according to the said political elite. So a long campaign was launched to get rid of them.

So the Popes that promoted the suppression and the papal Kings (Catholic puppets) that did the same - were "wrong"?

You are saying that all the charges they made against the Jesuits were "fabricated"?

That the Jesuits were really just honest praying Christian priests - but the Popes and Catholic Civil authorities lied about them? Made up false charges about them? Made laws against them? Took away all that they had and tried to get rid of good Christian Jesuits?

You are saying that false charges and misreprentation - character assassination was practiced by Popes and Catholic authorities against these good Christian Jesuits -- as in the following?

In the Parlement, the Jesuits' case was now desperate. After a long conflict with the crown in which the indolent minister-ridden sovereign failed to assert his will to any purpose, the Parlement issued its well-known "Extraits des assertions", a blue-book, as we might say, containing a congeries of passages from Jesuit theologians and canonists, in which they were alleged to teach every sort of immortality and error, from tyrannicide, magic, and Arianism, to treason, Socinianism, and Lutheranism. On 6 August, 1762, the final arrêt was issued condeming the Society to extinction, but the king's intervention brought eight month's delay

hmmm. How a-typical of the RCC in history to do such a thing to Christians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gina B]

The attitudes and comments in this thread aren't very appealing.
Clean it up so the thread can continue, if not it'll have to close.
Gina

 

[BobRyan]

The quotes here are from the Catholic encyclopedia as it promotes the Jesuit order. The Catholic documents show that both Popes and Papal kings were trying to eliminate the Jesuits in the 18th century.

The point of the response is that this place Catholic apologists in the position of "either" defending the Jesuits as good honest Christians being persecuted by the Popes and the Papal civil authorities OR it means that the charges made against the Jesuits by the Catholic church itself in the 18th century were correct.

In the case of the former tactic - that means we have "grounds" to suspect that doing this to such nice people as the Jesuits are now said to be - means that they could easily have done "The same" to "dissenting Catholics" like Lutherans, Protestants, Reformers, Huss, Jerome etc.

But if you take the other approach and defend the church agains the Jesuits - then it means that the "blue book" of charges that the Catholic Church published against the Jesuits - "is valid" and is seen to be in perfect agreement with some of the modern charges that we see applied to the Jesuits.

It is truly a "rock and a hard place".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

Jerome left the Catholic Church?


News to me.

 

[JFS]

In the case of the former tactic - that means we have "grounds" to suspect that doing this to such nice people as the Jesuits are now said to be - means that they could easily have done "The same" to "dissenting Catholics" like Lutherans, Protestants, Reformers, Huss, Jerome etc.

You seem to want to make this position about faith and doctrine. It is not. It all has to do with politics. The Protestant Reformation was about both faith and politics. But mostly politics.

If the French Jesuits would stand apart from the order, under a French vicar, with French customs, the Crown would still protect them. In spite of the dangers of refusal the Jesuits would not consent; and upon consulting the pope, he (not Ricci) used the famous phrase Sint ut sunt, aut non sint (de Ravignan, "Clement XIII", I, 105, the words are attributed to Ricci also). Louis's intervention hindered the execution of the arrêt against the Jesuits until 1 April, 1763. The colleges were then closed, and by a further arrêt of 9 March, 1764, the Jesuits were required to renounce their vows under pain of banishment. Only three priests and a few scholastics accepted the conditions. At the end of November, 1764, the king unwillingly signed an edict dissolving the Society throughout his dominions, for they were still protected by some provincial parlements, as Franche-Comté, Alsace, and Artois. But in the draft of the edict, he canceled numerous clauses, which implied that the Society was guilty; and writing to Choiseul, he concluded with the weak but significant words: "If I adopt the advice of others for the peace of my realm, you must make the changes I propose, or I will do nothing. I say no more, lest I should say too much."

This paragraph demonstrates quite well the charges where fabricated and leveled against the Jesuits for the sole purpose to discredit them, expel them from the country and expropriate their land. This was going on all over the world. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and all of South America. Your Protestant Reformation was so effective for the same reason. It was primarily set up to discredit the Catholic Church. In this way the lands and riches of the church could be expropriated by the princes and they would finally be ride of the yoke called the Catholic Church.

But Bob this doesn’t sit right with you. Does it? You would much rather believe the people in the Catholic Church are sinister in their motives and are bent on the destruction of souls. Sorry Bob it just ain’t so.

God Bless You

John

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
Jerome left the Catholic Church?


News to me.

As are most things in history.

Huss and Jerome (Jerome of Prague) were contemporaries. Returning from England Jerome carried with him the writings of Wycliff.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

This paragraph demonstrates quite well the charges where fabricated and leveled against the Jesuits for the sole purpose to discredit them, expel them from the country and expropriate their land. This was going on all over the world. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and all of South America. Your Protestant Reformation was so effective for the same reason. It was primarily set up to discredit the Catholic Church. In this way the lands and riches of the church could be expropriated by the princes and they would finally be ride of the yoke called the Catholic Church.

According to the Catholic text from which this is taken - it is the POPES and the Papal KINGS that are seeking to rid themeselves of the Jesuits. It is not protestant Popes and their kings.

Focus.

This means that the torment of the Jesuits by those "mean old catholics" as you seem to want to picture it -- only "makes a better case " for what those catholic authorities were willing to do to less-catholic groups than "jesuits" in the history of the dark ages.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

"(Jerome of Prague)"
I feared you tried to claim Jerome the translator of the Vulgate, had joined the other team.

And yes, I've never heard of Jerome of Prague before.

 

[frozencell]

[According to the Catholic text from which this is taken - it is the POPES and the Papal KINGS that are seeking to rid themeselves of the Jesuits. It is not protestant Popes and their kings.

As you may already know, there is no such thing as a Protestant pope. And you are correct, it was Catholics out for their own gain that attacked the Jesuits.

This means that the torment of the Jesuits by those "mean old catholics" as you seem to want to picture it -- only "makes a better case " for what those catholic authorities were willing to do to less-catholic groups than "jesuits" in the history of the dark ages.

Okay, your case is made already. No one here is denying that some Catholics in power did bad things to those newly "reformed" Protestants. it is, though, the Protestants who have clung to their Reformation persecution like a security blanket. For the most part, Catholics have been gracious enough to let well enough alone and move past the actions of Protestants who sought to attack the Catholic Church in such ways. Much in the same vein as blacks with racism and slavery, Protestants need to realize that no one alive today had anything to do with the actions of these people and haven't personally burned a bunch of Protestants at the stake. And, after realizing this, move on with the pertinent things that concern and effect us directly today.

On a side note, I think you have gotten a little out of hand with your use of quotation marks. The overuse makes it hard to read your posts. Just a little constructive criticism.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
"(Jerome of Prague)"
I feared you tried to claim Jerome the translator of the Vulgate, had joined the other team.

And yes, I've never heard of Jerome of Prague before.

Huss and Jerome are probably better known to protestants than Catholics.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[According to the Catholic text from which this is taken - it is the POPES and the Papal KINGS that are seeking to rid themeselves of the Jesuits. It is not protestant Popes and their kings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you may already know, there is no such thing as a Protestant pope. And you are correct, it was Catholics out for their own gain that attacked the Jesuits.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means that the torment of the Jesuits by those "mean old catholics" as you seem to want to picture it -- only "makes a better case " for what those catholic authorities were willing to do to less-catholic groups than "jesuits" in the history of the dark ages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frozencell said --

Okay, your case is made already. No one here is denying that some Catholics in power did bad things to those newly "reformed" Protestants

If you observe every thread started on this message board addressing that historic fact - you will find "rebuttal" of the historic Facts that you seem to want to claim is a "yawningly boring bit of old news".

It is refreshing to see a Catholic that will not villanize their own RC historians that mention that "old news".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[mioque]

"Huss and Jerome are probably better known to protestants than Catholics."
Again with the insinuations Bob?

Anyhow I do know who Huss was.
But after some quick searching, I can't escape the conclusion that Jerome of Prague (or more properly, Hieronymus Pragensis/ Jeronym Prazsky) is a somewhat obscure figure outside of the English speaking world where he is mostly famous because he can be produced as proof that Wycliffe's Bible translation was an event of international importance.

 

[BobRyan]

Begging a thousand pardons for "knowing" non-Catholic pro-Protestants Christians well informed about Huss and Jerome and their connection to Wycliff.