Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Once and for all....

There is no "Jesuit Oath", thanks to youtube, we can prove it. Here a video of a Jesuit taking his final vows in Rome:



Notice, there is no blood oath, no dagger, no theatrics.

Also from http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit

Quote:
[The following is the text of the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction as recorded in the Journals 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),
False, the "oath" recorded in the congressional record is the equally false Knights of Columbus "oath". Paisley does not mention that it is also called "false and libelous" on page 3221. (see here)
Quote:
from which it was subsequently torn out.
FALSE, it can be read in any copy of the congressional record, there is not just one, and people have looked it up (see here) This is Lie #2

Quote:
The Oath is also quoted by Charles Didier in his book Subterranean Rome (New York, 1843), translated from the French original.
I hunted and could find no record of this book or author, only the crediting of this quote in many places. Given that his first two statements are lies, it is highly unlikely this is true either.

Quote:
Dr. Alberto Rivera, 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. – A. N.]
Lie #4, Alberto was never a Jesuit, nor a Priest. Despite years of requests, he was never able to offer even one shred of proof for his claims.

The Oath is the work of English forger Robert Ware, it was first printed in his book ""Foxes and Firebrands" in 1682. NO Catholic has ever taken such and oath, and no Catholic ever would.

Now, can we put this to rest once and for all?

4 comments:

Thomas said...

Nice try. It's obvious you are trying to confuse something simple. Typical. The new superior general isnt taking his 4th vow but is simply being sworn in as Superior general.

Also, do you think everything is out in the open? Why don't you learn about the obvious secrecy of the Vatican. Like recently when they wouldnt open up their WWII archives. Or how others have supposedly died keeping secrets like St John of Nepomuk? There is a statue on the shore of Bohemian Grove in S.F. Cal of Nepomuk with his two fingers over his lips as a symbol of secrecy the attendees there have partaken in over the years?

Next, you'll say there was no inquisitions, crusades, pedophilia. Yeah, your "church" is the TRUE church of God. You wish. It's more like the Whore of revelation.

Thomas said...

I see I initially misread what the video stated. This is some public ceremony. Which you couldnt hear what was said. but as far as Alberto Rivera is concerned there sure was lots of proof he was a priest. He had his ID and several other pictures of him dressed as a priest well before he came out publically against the Jesuit Order. Here is all the documentation on Alberto.
http://www.spirituallysmart.com/alberto.html

Further more. The "church" has denied others were priests who became whistle blowers against the church. Like Bernard Fresenborg. Read his book: Thirty Years In Hell by Bernard Fresenborg.

kmerian said...

Thomas, a true Christian is interested in the truth.

St. John of Nepomuk is a Martyr of the confessional. He is often portrayed as keeping silent because he was martyred for refusing to divulge what the Queen of Bohemia told him during her confessions.

I would point out that both the US and Britain also have not opened their complete WWII archives.

The fact is, this video is just another refutation of what Alberto said. Your "proof" on Alberto is laughable, three pictures and a id card of him in a priests collar. So what? the Card does not id him as a priest, so he could have told the authorities he just liked the shirt. The fact is, he could not speak latin, even he admitted this. All pre-Vatican II priests (especially those who worked in the Vatican) had to be fluent. So this proves he could not have been a priest and could have never read documents in the Vatican archives (since they are all in Latin).

I have read Mr. Fresenborg's book. I am also aware that the church has never denied he was a priest, it is a lie to say they have. His book is clearly someone with a vendetta against the church.

MaryC said...

Thomas: predictably you claim that what we see in the video is only for public consumption while the 'real' oath is taken in secret. You are the one making the claim; the onus for proof is on you, not kmerian.