What is it with fundies and hating Catholics?

[myotch]

I don't know what to think of Jesuit or Dominican conspiracy theories. They all have that tin-foil-hat kind of feel. I thought that even before I became Catholic.

(I feel the same way about Masons - their reputation and legend is much grander than their reality).

[DaisyDeadhead]

Jack Chick, call your office.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  I presented a balanced view of the Jesuits.

Balanced? Accusing them of MURDERS? BALANCED???? You sound exactly like Jack Chick. Do you really believe that stuff?

You have made a number of very inflammatory, unproven and thoroughly libelous statements; good thing they are not a litigious outfit.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Whether you like it or not, the term Jesuitical has become a dictionary word.

I know that... and having argued with a number of them, I certainly understand WHY, too.

What does this have to do with accusing them of assassinations?

I asked for links and historic facts and you have given none. NOTHING.

So you fully admit you have no proof for your accusations of Jesuits committing assassinations and infiltrating governments? Those are some heavy charges, and you can prove NONE of it? I call that pretty damn outrageous.

Since you have no proof for these accusations, they are simply damaging, evil gossip, so please stop repeating them.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Yes, I'm sure that it is in there from Protestant bigotry, but there it is.

There it is? There WHAT is? Where? Invisible ink?

Did I miss the links? (looks around)

PLEASE PROVE YOUR RIDICULOUS NONSENSE. LINKS PLEASE. DATES, TIMES, PLACES, EXACTITUDE. Who did they assassinate?

I've always considered myself something of an expert on the Jesuits, so I am pretty amazed by this. And you have no proof?

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  I've read historical works on the Jesuits that border on the Jack Chick-ish,

Nah, go on.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  but I've also read Malachi Martin, as well. Malachi Martin is the most prominent of the writers to speak out on the actions of the Jesuits in pushing Liberation Theology and Marxist revolution in South America, but others have corroborated what he said.

And when did Father Martin accuse them of being assassins?

I mean, you do know he was a Jesuit himself?

(I think I was probably reading Father Martin when you were in diapers, depending on your age.)

Liberation Theology is great. Marxist revolution is even better. Jesus would be a Marxist if he was here. You say all of this like its a bad thing, when its actually a compliment, of course.

Are you saying holding certain leftist/Red politics instantly turns you into an assassin? Because I hold all of those opinions and I don't even believe in killing (or eating) cows and chickens.

Further, I have read all of Father Martin's books (including his book about the Jesuits) and he has never said any Jesuits were murderers or assassins. This is simply a lie.

And for the record, Father Martin is NOT the "most prominent" of the writers on the Jesuits. The fact that you think so, shows your resounding ignorance.

Do you want a reading list? You might want to start with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  You can call revolution and murder wacko Illuminati theories, but they happened.

What exactly happened? Which Jesuits started a revolution? Are you talking about Sandinistas taking refuge in some Catholic church? Is that IT? Which Jesuits killed whom? Dates and names please? Any links at ALL?

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  For you to act like the Jesuits are merely ambitious Catholics loyal to the Mother Church and that there aren't thousands of questions and accusations that surround them borders on the insane, especially for one who is no longer a supporter of the organization.

Could you elaborate? What questions? What accusations?

The worst thing I can say about the Jesuits is they do not ordain women. (I wanted to be a Jesuit myself, which is why I know so much about them; I studied them closely for years.) They do not even have a "women's auxiliary" (i.e. nuns) as other religious orders do.

A bunch of "accusations" from hysterical Protestants who got all of their education from Jack Chick comics, does not automatically mean there was any logical basis or factual evidence for those accusations... as you are so ably proving here with your utter lack of evidence.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  As it relates to the original post, being bulldogs of the counter-Reformation is enough to paint them in negative light by fundies, for their original banner was that of service to the Pope and to bring all Christians under the influence of Rome, the very institution which had benighted the Christian world.

So? That has to do with assassinations, how?

This makes them murderers and infiltrators by fiat? Is this what you are claiming?

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  The true church is the "body of Christ", Daisy. It doesn't necessarily have a name.

Then why did you keep interrogating me about "Rome"? You are the one obsessed with names.

Not with facts, though.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  It is not an organization.

Of course it is. An "organization" is simply defined as "an organized unit". Are you claiming the Vatican isn't organized?

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  You say primacy wasn't primacy until the split, but you cling to the seat of St. Peter in Rome theory,

This is not a theory, it is a "fact" recorded in the Bible you claim is history. If you don't believe your Bible, then I guess it isn't true for you. But YOUR Bible says that. I am just going by the book that you claim to believe in.

If you don't truly believe "thou art Peter and upon this rock I build my church" ever really happened, that is your prerogative. But I thought you did?

I was simply quoting the "facts" as presented in a book I thought you believed was real.

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  so, by definition you subscribe to the primacy argument for the foundation of the Church.

If you don't believe your own Bible, what are you arguing with me about, exactly?

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  I say departure from the faith for a number of reasons, but there just isn't any reference to the ecclesiastical importance of the descendants of Peter anywhere in the first hundreds of years of Christian writings.

And this proves the Jesuits assassinated people how?

What are you talking about?

(07-29-2012 07:07 AM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  It is much like the IFB argument for tithing of your income through means of pleading. You can plead for it to be there, but it just isn't.

Not pleading, simply asserting the facts as your Bible lists them. If you don't really believe your Bible, thats fine with me. Doesn't bother me one way or the other.

I have no idea what perspective you are coming from. I doubt you do either.

No facts at all for your incendiary accusations? I thought not. Thanks for playing.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(07-29-2012 01:45 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  Yes, elf, I've read much of the early writings of Christianity. There is no doubt that there are strong elements of what would evolve into what we know as Catholicism in just about all of the extant writings. You could even go earlier than Iraeneus for support for the Catholic church and its structure in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and his extolling the authority of the Bishops. But then, we notice that he extols the authority of the local Bishop, not the authority of a single Bishop in particular. In this sense, yes, Clement writing with authority as the Bishop of Rome would lend credence to his words in other areas, but the authority is not in the preeminence of the Roman bishop, but in the preeminence of the Bishop's office itself. You can see similar wording in all of the writings on Communion, in which the authors affirm that they are partaking of the body and blood of Christ but without the clear overtones of transubstantiation which would later be attached to their words.

The writings of the early fathers tend to sow the seed of what would become Catholicism, but they do not spell out what we now accept as Catholicism. That is to say, there is enough there for the Catholics to use to justify what they practice, but the writings do not say exactly what the Catholics claim they say. Ultimately, we should be like the Bereans and compare what we hear to the scriptures now that we have them and can compare everyone's actions to the light expressed in them. That, at the least, was the rallying point of Wycliffe and Tyndale and the like, men whose example was condemned by the Catholic Church in their day (and after their day!). We can certainly see from the Old Testament that it was the expectation of God for all men to know His words and to be accountable for what they did with them. I see no reason whatsoever why those handling the words of the New Testament should be held to any different standard.

Have you read all of the Deuterocanonical books and the Didache? The Golden Legend? Other books not included in Luther's Bible? The Desert Fathers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Fathers

[Ricardo]

(07-29-2012 01:45 PM)ThatsWhatItSays Wrote:  We can certainly see from the Old Testament that it was the expectation of God for all men to know His words and to be accountable for what they did with them.
I see no reason whatsoever why those handling the words of the New Testament should be held to any different standard.

Proverbs 30:6 "Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.”

Was the NT added BEFORE Proverbs? What different standard are you using?

Daisy, of course the Illuminati and the Jesuits are in cahoots. I read it in Dan Brown's books!!!

[That'sWhatItSays]

I mentioned the Jesuits in relation to why fundies "hate" Catholics. I wasn't presenting myself as an authority on the Jesuit order. It's not very hard to find documented involvement of Jesuits in assassination and murder plots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Jesuits
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babington_Plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Clement_XIV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozef_Tiso
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Cardenal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Revolution

[That'sWhatItSays]

I've read the Didache, yes. It tells you what days you should fast as opposed to which days the "hypocrites" fast. It's a strange kind of legalistic writing. Interesting from an historical perspective, but not even close to scripture.

The interesting thing about the keys that Jesus gave Peter is that later on Paul would become "the apostle to the Gentiles". Protestants take their marching orders from the epistles of Paul rather than Peter, so even if the Vatican can claim an apostolic succession, they chose the wrong apostle to succeed from!

And what does Luther's Bible have to do with it? Didn't Wycliffe precede him by 150 years? Why don't you attack him and the Lollards, too?

[Ricardo]

" It's not very hard to find documented involvement of Jesuits in assassination and murder plots."

Actually it is hard. NONE of the cases you mentioned show a conspiracy by the Jesuit order or the Catholic church.

You can't really use Ernesto Cardenal as proof as conspiracy by the Jesuits. First, he is not and never was a Jesuit. Second, he never has followed orders from the Vatican. He has always been a loose canon.

You can't use the Guy Faulkes conspiracy as proof of anything related to the Catholic church.

If you want to use the Nicaraguan Revolution as proof of anything, you would have to include President Carter in the conspiracy. And the Coca Cola corporation. and the Costa Rican Government. And the vast majority of the Nicaraguan population who had suffered 43 years of brutal dictatorship by the Somoza family. take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catholi...Revolution

"Liberation theology did not push Christians into a Marxist ideology. Instead, it became an alternative to those who could have been tempted to become Marxist." We could discuss Nicaragua and the catholic church for ages, and never really find a Jesuit conspiracy at all. Yes, there was a large Liberation Theology movement. BUT, they were completely decentralized, in conflict with each other, and making it up as they went. The LT priests NEVER represented the vatican or anyone else but themselves.

In the "suppression of the Jesuits" caper, the Jesuits were clearly on the receiving end of the conspiracy.

You are going to have to dig deeper.

[That'sWhatItSays]

Yes, I am aware that the Jesuits and the Catholic Church have never been involved in any of these things. I mentioned them in relation to Stuff Fundies Hate. You have all of this smoke, yet they are never involved. I understand. You have Chiniquy, Avro Manhattan, R.W. Thompson, Burke McCarthy, Edmond Paris, and W.C. Brownlee as some of the ones who have covered the deeper accusations against the Jesuits. You have Malachi Martin and numerous others revealing that the Black Pope really runs the Vatican, but behind the scenes. You have Malachi Martin stating that there is a conspiracy of Luciferian Cardinals aiming to gain control of the Vatican, but you can't look that stuff up on the internet and verify it. I have no idea all that the Jesuits have had their hand in, I just know there is a lot of smoke around them.

[Ricardo]

I checked your Chiniquy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Chiniquy

"Chiniquy claimed that he was falsely accused by his superiors (and that Abraham Lincoln had come to his rescue), that the American Civil War was a plot against the United States of America by the Vatican, and that the Vatican was behind the Confederate cause, the death of President Lincoln and that Lincoln's assassins were faithful Roman Catholics ultimately serving Pope Pius IX."

Those are HUGE accusations. Based on NOTHING. Maybe we should re-check Lincoln's birth certificate...

[myotch]

Tin foil hats are a jesuit conspiracy...Really, can you think of a better antennae receptor for the brain than a big sheet of tin foil cupped around the head?