Jesuits

Sup Forums
What are your thoughts on Jesuits?

I studied in a Jesuit School

Other urls found in this thread:

mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN19702V
youtube.com/channel/UCr6rRSjxpuMzTq5IaL12PAg/videos
youtu.be/YFrWIDvNMWk
lifesitenews.com/news/jesuit-chief-claims-satan-only-a-symbol-created-by-man
thoughtco.com/jewish-view-of-satan-2076775
keepthefaithignatius.info/files/SKMBT_C36017042815150.pdf
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF170B126002E7CB0
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8C6E641820DB83B3
spex.ignatianspirituality.com/SpiritualExercises/Puhl
youtube.com/watch?v=pSzJQN4-iM4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The current Pope is Jesuit

They've been taken over by homosexual Marxists.

My surname is basically Jesuit in croatian. Heard that the nazis hated them so go on Sup Forums, hit me with your best shot.

Jesuits are the most intelligent Catholics. A Jesuit education is comparable to any Ivy League school education. Most Jesuit educated people speak multiple languages, including Latin and are the most successful Catholics.

This was taken today at the Congressional Baseball game

Sworn enemies of Protestants, and determined wreckers of Protestant nations.
It's arguable who is worse: Marxists or Jesuits.

Jesuit are the most "progessive" in Church.
They are usually smart, but they experiment, maybe, too much.

>What are your thoughts on Jesuits?
>I studied in a Jesuit School

Wonderful academics and a great force for good in the world..

This. They have been the elite for centuries. Jesuit Schools are the best.

I literally do not think about them

I went to a Jesuit high school. Even as a teenager I could tell Jesuits were pozzed trash.

and more than half of the Vatican doesn't like him.

They should be dismantled again

I agree. I received a complete Jesuit education, including university. It's the first thing employers note when they see my CV. It's a difficult education but is worth the work.

It doesn't give a fuck. He's the pope. God spokesperson on earth. And infallible. He can piss on Hitler Youth boomers

And no I didn't shop 666 into that photo

mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN19702V

Georgetown is obviously a base for pedos

I'm not Catholic but anyone spreading the Lord's word is alright by me.

SUBHUMAN ASSASSINATING VERMINOUS SCUM.

I HOPE EVERY JESUIT KIKE WORSHIPPING FREEMASON MURDEROUS GEMATRIA RITUALIST GETS FUCKING TORTURED FOR MONTHS AND BURNED ALIVE IN OIL THEN TRANSPLANT THEIR BRAIN INTO A NEW BODY AND TORTURED AGAIN REPEAT AD INFINITUM.

DIE.

WATCH THESE VIDEOS EVERYONE:

youtube.com/channel/UCr6rRSjxpuMzTq5IaL12PAg/videos

reminder

youtu.be/YFrWIDvNMWk

shit,forgot to translate:
>Even before the right to emigrate, it is to be reaffirmed the right not to emigrate, that is to be able to remain in its own land

Georgetown LARP as Jesuits and has almost no Catholics.

Jesuits, initially, were good, fine, application of a militant mind-set to spirituality, to be soldiers for Christ. Great. St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Francis Xavier were great missionaries who sought to destroy Islam and Buddhism and bring the light of Christ to those dark corners of the world. Many Jesuits put themselves through horrible tortures trying to convert savage indians, japanese, etc.

"Jesuits" at some point became an abomination, infiltrated by Jews, Masons, etc.

Now you have the General of the Jesuits literally DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF SATAN.

They are nothing now, nothing but heretical apostates.

Hobbes stole all of his work from the Jesuits, especially form Francisco Suarez. Also Francisco de Vitoria was the founder of international law. 16th century jesuits were based as fuck.

Based as fuck

>They are nothing now, nothing but heretical apostates.
The most faithful interpretation of Christianity and Catholicism is taught and practiced by Jesuits, including the pope.
Qui non pertinent ad civitas Dei, pertinent ad civitas diaboli.

> what is good
> what is evil

And he also is maoist... Really made me go hmmm

>Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, the Jesuit’s Superior General, said in a May 31 interview with the Spanish paper El Mundo that Satan is a “symbolic figure” who doesn’t really exist.

>“We have created symbolic figures, such as the devil, in order to express [the reality of] evil,” said Abascal when asked if he believes evil is a process of human psychology or comes from a higher being.

lifesitenews.com/news/jesuit-chief-claims-satan-only-a-symbol-created-by-man

That's the "most faithful" interpretation of Christianity then?

The pope is almost always wrong

Infallibility of the pope my ass

Tools of the Jews. However I respect them cataloging other people's faiths and histories before converting them.

I used to believe this, too. It's a meme now.

PEDO KIKE NWO PSYCHOPATS

>That's the "most faithful" interpretation of Christianity then?
Yes. The interpretation you cited is the correct one. Satan is a representation of evil, not an actual being. We're Catholics, but we're not fantasists. We understand the difference between allegory and reality.

So you don't even believe that Satan tempted Jesus in the desert. You literally don't believe that is a thing that happened in history.

What Freemasons are to Protestants, Jesuits are the Catholics. Their dangerousness can not be overstated.

THIS
H
I
S

>So you don't even believe that Satan tempted Jesus in the desert
I do believe that Jesus was tempted and tested. We are tempted by evil every day, but we don't think it's an actual person or being, it's an abstract concept. You're confusing us with fundamentalist Christians.

If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and in the Holy trinity then you have to believe into Satan. There's no other way around.

You are not a Catholic, you are not a Christian, you are a faithless apostate.

The ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council infallibly defined that "The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing." That is an infallible definition, an eternal truth from heaven. THE DEVIL WAS CREATED BY GOD. PERIOD. Not to mention that scripture mentions and describes satan, and historically catalogues Jesus's interaction with satan.

>[Jesus] said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.” -Luke 10:18

>And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world - he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. -Revelation 12:7-9

>When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. - Jude 1:9

I am afraid that you and the Jesuit General have no faith. You lack fundamental faith in the truths of Christ, and are not christians, not catholics, are nothing but abominable apostates.

The real, literal, actual existence of spiritual entities, angels and demons, is fundamental to ANY AND ALL Christians. To deny the devil is to deny Hell, to deny scripture, to deny dogma, to deny the TRUTH OF CHRIST, and ultimately to deny Christ Himself.

You are confusing yourself with being an actual Christian, but in charity I must tell you that you are a faithless apostate and on the road to hell.

>The ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council
Are you aware that there have been 21 Councils and that the one to which you refer occurred in the 13th century? You don't sound like a Catholic, and you certainly didn't receive a Catholic education. And if you did, you weren't paying attention.

I'll tell you what my priest said to us when we went to cathechism: "if you don't believe in the Devil, he won your soul." It happened 20 years ago.

Again, do you believe in God and In the Holy Trinity?

Do you have any understanding of dogma and how it works? Have you even read Vatican 1?

Any ecumenical council, regardless of the century, whatever it has declared on morals and dogma, has perpetual retention, it is simply elucidating an eternal truth fallen from heaven.

>Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding. -Vatican 1, Chapter 2 on Revelation

Dogmas are to be perpetually retained, ONCE DECLARED.

Do you understand?

When the First Council of Nicea declared that Christ was of the same substance as the Father, that is not something that can change. That is an elucidation of an eternal truth, something that always was true, but being clarified because of needs of the time (ie. Arian heresy). Just because it's 2017 doesn't allow somebody like you to say "no actually we're smarter and more philosophical now, Christ is not REALLY of the same substance of the Father, that's more of an allegorical thing."

The same applies to the Fourth Lateran Council and the declaration on Satan and demons being creations of God. That is an eternal truth. That cannot change.

Do you understand, apostate?

>if you don't believe in the Devil
But we do believe that evil exists, it's just not as simple as a being. It's an abstract concept taught in an allegorical form.
>Again, do you believe in God and In the Holy Trinity?
Of course, I'm a Roman Catholic.

Do you have any understanding of dogma and how it works?
Yes, but it seems you don't. Councils have made revisions, the most notable being the re-interpretation of the dogma, "salus extra ecclesiam non est" which used to mean that outside of the Catholic Church, there was no salvation. "Church" was redefined to mean the body, of which Christ is the head. You sound like a fundamentalist Christian.

Then why is it so hard for you to believe into a being that its ultimate purpouse is to make you a Sinner?

>on't believe in the Devil
But we do believe that evil exists, it's just not as simple as a being. It's an abstract concept taught in an

By the same logic Jesus and God are simple allegories.

So you're saying that Vatican 1 has been literally contradicted.

Also Vatican 2 and it's status as a legitimate valid council is not the topic at hand.

Focus on the citations I'm giving you and understanding those words.

Understand: once declared, perpetually retained

Also, ignoring for a second these words, but operating under the notion that Vatican 2 has legitimacy and operating under your logic (that dogma can be revised): can you find me the DOGMATIC revision of the literal existence of satan and his devils? I know Vatican 2 was rife with heresy, but they were not so bold as to deny satan in those documents. I assure you you will not find one citation in Vatican 2 or modern official papal letters/etc that contains a revision of the literal existence of satan and demons.

Sure, there are many individuals who deny it, but they are not the purported authority on these truths, so their opinions hold no weight; so simply operating under your logic, find a citation that has that official solemn revision and redaction of satan's existence, the same kind as you feel exists for No Salvation Outside the Church.

>Then why is it so hard for you to believe into a being that its ultimate purpouse is to make you a Sinner?
Because we're not fantasists. Catechism, as taught to children, is taught the way you describe, it makes it easier to understand. The Christian philosophy that is learned at a higher level, such as St. Augustine's, "Civitas Dei", expounds on these principles. There is no fundamental difference in the teachings at either level, just the understanding of the allegory. It makes no difference if Satan is corporal or exists as a concept, the message is the same.

So if the current Pope makes heretical statements that directly contradict previous Popes and dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church, who is wrong?

The heretic, since heretics are not members of the Church and are automatically excommunicated and deposed of any office.

If there is a "pope" that believed in a heresy, let alone preached and professed it, the very moment he believed it he immediately lost membership in the church, since having the true faith is a basic requirement of membership.

The thing is, for me, that if we deny the existence of Satan then we do not have basis for the existence of God. Evil exist. Satan make us more incline to fell into evil. That's how I think it is. Anyway , could you recommend me the book you're talking about?

>So you're saying that Vatican 1 has been literally contradicted.
I already cited a revision, user. Salus extra ecclesiam non est, the cornerstone of Catholic dogma, was completely revised.

jews of christianity

I already told you that Vatican 2's legitimacy is not the topic at hand. Citing that vatican 2 revised the Salvation dogma is not proof that it is safe for you to have disbelief in satan and demons.

For you to safely believe that the devil doesn't exist, that there are no evil spiritual beings that come from hell and reign over the flesh and world, you must find another, new, dogmatic revision that contradicts it.

Find me a citation from V2 or an official modern papal letter that denies the dogma once declared by the Fouth Lateran Council.

>The thing is, for me, that if we deny the existence of Satan
But your not denying it if you accept the concept of evil. There's absolutely no difference between Satan and evil with respect to Catholic teachings.
It's not one book, it's 2000 years of Catholic philosophy, Origen, St. Augustine and many many others. The specific book I referred to is Civitas Dei, which we had to read in Latin. It explores the idea of evil and sin.

I'll have you know that St. Augustine most certainly believed in the literal existence of Satan and demons.

now the Jesuits are just a branch of Catholicism, with all the good and bad of the rest of the catholic Church, as they existed in the past they were really friggin evil, believing that you could do evil that good may come of it (which is a central tenant of Marxism, BTW)

>devil doesn't exist
user, I'm trying to take you seriously, but you are making it difficult. There is no difference between Satan and evil. You are arguing about an distinction that doesn't exist in Catholic dogma. Satan isn't a personification of evil, it's evil itself. It's an abstract concept described through allegory.

I was searching for something to read on the subject to be honest. Too bad I don't know Latin. Anyway, how did they explained the Original Sin?

it wasn't revised, what are you talking about? This has to be bait

user, I can't take you seriously. I already proved you wrong with my earlier example of the revision to dogma. I respect that you have interest in Catholicism, but you shouldn't question other's faith. And you are certainly in no position to call them apostates, you sound foolish.

They serve the synagogue of Satan no doubt, many have said that the Jesuits are above the Jews, but I strongly disagree. Although, they hold lots of power, and if you take a look, you will find that many of those in power/secret societies are tied in with the Jesuits.

>it wasn't revised
Yes, it was. The cornerstone of Catholic dogma was "salus extra ecclesiam non est", which meant, " there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church". It was revised to, "there is no salvation outside of Christ, the head, of which the church is the body".

I'm sorry, but are you stupid? Do I need to rephrase so that it's clearer?

Let me space things out and write as simply as possible so you follow.

The FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL (an infallible ecumenical council) solemnly declared that "The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing."

The dogma, as it stands (as you would put it), is that the devil and demons are CREATIONS of God, just like you and I are creations of God.

You are attempting to claim that to NOT BELIEVE THIS is the MOST FAITHFUL interpretation of Christianity.

To NOT believe that the devil and his angels are literal, actual beings created by God, and to instead believe that the devil is an allegorical symbol that represents "evil" as an abstract concept, is what you believe is "faithful."

I am trying to prove to you that it is, in fact, not faithful, most particularly because it contradicts the dogmatic declaration of the 4th lateran council, along with so many parts of scripture.


------------------
RIGHT NOW I AM GOING TO IGNORE THE IDEA THAT VATICAN 2 IS NOT A COUNCIL, AND THAT DOGMATIC EVOLUTIONISM IS A CONDEMNED HERESY
__________

You argue, that since "No Salvation Outside the Church" was revised, dogmatically, that so too could the dogma on satan being a created being.

I ARGUE, that for you to "validly" and to "safely" believe that under your own conception of faith, you would need TO ACTUALLY FIND THE SPECIFIC DOGMATIC REVISION ON SATAN BEING A CREATED BEING. Within Vatican 2, or some other "solemn" modern document.

DO

YOU

UNDERSTAND?

>I'm sorry, but are you stupid?
Sorry, user, but I already proved you wrong, and now you're resorting to insults. Good luck on your journey, and may God bless you.

Satan is an Angel that was created by God, but through sin became evil, a demon. The identification of Satan with abstract evil is a Jewish novelty.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
>The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."
Meanwhile...
thoughtco.com/jewish-view-of-satan-2076775
Don't bother, he doesn't have a clue on what he's saying. Don't cast pearls before swine, etc, etc.

SJW cucks of Catholicism, its no coincidence the worst pope we've had is the first Jesuit one.

>the worst we had
not even close, read some history of the popes.

I have to ask because you simply don't even have the charity to respond to basic questions and arguments. I wonder if it's truly your evil will and deceitful interior, or if you are just of such poor mind that you truly do not understand the words I am typing.

What I think of when I speak to you is the words of Christ "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

I give you perfectly simple, perfectly stated dogmatic declarations, and you literally spit on them and ignore them as if they were so much trash instead of what they are, some of the most important things in existence, the eternal TRUTHS OF CHRIST.

Your apostasy makes me physically sick, and interacting with you fills me with immense grief. I am tortured by the fact that some aspect of evil grips you and prevents you from even seeing basic truth and simple words. You are a wolf in sheeps clothing, or maybe just lead by ravenous wolves in said clothing. They have poisoned your mind, but your own sins and evil clearly blind you from the truth and keep you bound in the darkness of such disgusting heresy.

You do not need luck, and God does not bless those like you. However, I pray that you will, above all things, pray the rosary, and pray for FAITH and to know the TRUTH, so that you may be freed from the devil's slavery, and come out of the path to damnation.

>I was searching for something to read on the subject
St. Augustine is a good start, especially for the concept of original sin. You don't need to know Latin, everything I mentioned has English translations. Check the Fordham online library.

keepthefaithignatius.info/files/SKMBT_C36017042815150.pdf

Jesuits are Marxist scum

I'll check it out

what's a good order?

Good luck. Try to get instruction from your parish priest if you have questions, and God bless you.

Malta or Dominicans.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF170B126002E7CB0
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8C6E641820DB83B3

Catholics who've done any research into them should hate, them, people who still know about them and like them are fucked.

(Matthew 7:21-23) Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

I can't speak for what the Jesuits used to be like, but the current Jesuits are basically trash. Sanctimonious bootlickers who kiss the asses of the rich for fundraising and latch on to popular left wing causes in an effort to exert more influence. It never works. They have spent the last decade and a half destroying whatever scholarly merits they once possessed. They invented the term "Social Justice" and were quite proud of that when I was in a Jesuit High School a decade ago. I have no idea if they have begun to feel regret over that.

They didn't cause the West's current problems (they don't have nearly enough influence to pull something like that off) but they certainly were cheerleaders to the rot and decadence that is slowly destroying us.

I studied in an Jesuit School.
Was top notch among the whole region.

>Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9 - 9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

>Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9 - The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

>Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9 - As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true... can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is "that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived" (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. "Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all" (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them" (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19)

I see, it's that you just cannot respond, because you cannot refute it. Yet, you lack the humility to concede, or the charity to even attempt to display in a post a real response to any post of mine, even if it fails to refute.

Prideful, just like the devil, who's primary vice was pride.

Please, at least pray for faith, at least pray for truth, at least pray the rosary. Even though you are an evil, putrid, faithless abomination, you can seek the truth of Christ and receive His mercy.

These replies are retarded and are most definitely anecdotal, or self-praising. I'm a senior at a Jesuit university that lies just north of another Jesuit university, my younger brother attends a different Jesuit university in another state, and my two godbrotbers attend yet another Jesuit university in a different state to my brother and I. They are the most cucked, pseudointellectual shitpiles that attempt to equate duty to "social justice" as the true calling of the Christian faith. Open your eyes, Catholicucks, you've lost the last shred of intellectualism you could lay claim to--and descended into Marxism. Disgraceful.

>attempt to equate duty to "social justice" as the true calling of the Christian faith
You may not like it, but it's what our religion teaches, and it's not specific to Jesuits.

Dignity of the Human Person.
Call to Family, Community and Participation.
Rights and Responsibilities.
Preferential Option for and with People who are Poor.
Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers.
Solidarity.
Care for God's Creation.

“And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:24

Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.

The other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him in attaining the end for which he is created.

Hence, man is to make use of them in as far as they help him in the attainment of his end, and he must rid himself of them in as far as they prove a hindrance to him.

Therefore, we must make ourselves indifferent to all created things, as far as we are allowed free choice and are not under any prohibition. Consequently, as far as we are concerned, we should not prefer health to spickness, riches to poverty, honor to dishonor, a long life to a short life. The same holds for all other things.

Our one desire and choice should be what is more conducive to the end for which we are created.
spex.ignatianspirituality.com/SpiritualExercises/Puhl

Yes, I understand that in the truest sense (social justice) of the phrase our faith directs us to service to our community through charitable acts and responsibility towards our fellow man as Christ embodied throughout his life.

If you look carefully, I included quotation marks because they hide behind the guise that they are in fact fulfilling this duty to community but fail to recognize that social justice has devolved into virtue signaling towards and oppressed class in order to bolster their hubris without actually performing any measurable good. This is what Jesuits have become, and those who have yet to transform hide behind a similar guise that their fellow Jesuits couldn't possibly be that dense. Quite the contrary.

"Hey hey, ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go" and spouting death threats towards one side of the political isle is NOT service to community--but try convincing them of that fact.

The actual jews

do the jesuits command the jews?

I don't know what Jesuit university you attend but some, like Georgetown, are Jesuit in name only and have few Catholic students. I know it's difficult to deal with people with whom you disagree, especially if you feel they are insincere, but it's something we are always going to encounter. Make good use of your education, you are receiving one of the finest in the world.

...

Harvard and Yale are Ivy League, and have become Nigger-tier SJW indoctrination machines. The Jesuits became coopted by Marxists and spread revolution and death in South America.
The Pope is a prime example of their cancerous influence.

In the grand scheme of the world order, the ruling elite of the Jewish tribe, though powerful in their own right, are essentially neutered with regards to possessing global clout and ultimate authority – they have been widely dealt with throughout history and most cultures around the world dislike and distrust them. In that their interests are largely oriented around maintaining their immediate survival as an ethnic caste in a hostile world, they are essentially isolated, and in being so, they are manageable – such a people require protection and mutual alliances to ensure their continuity, and the Catholic Echelon provides it to them. The Jewish syndicate is essentially a semi-autonomous high-level operator incorporated within the global Catholic system – they are elite sock-puppets who serve as the face of various surface level operations, most prominently in the academic, entertainment, and financial sector. Embedded within these Vatican-run enterprises, the Tribe of Moloch enables the Catholic Echelon, a kind of plausible deniability with regard to their world monopoly, as the Jews absorb the brunt of the public scrutiny and blame.

Cloaking themselves under various indistinguishable layers of false-fronts and operational proxies, the administrative Jesuit commanders of Catholicism, who ultimately oversee and manage these institutions, can remain largely obscured beneath their Jewish front. Jesuit universities are staffed with Jewish professors, Jesuit banks are occupied with Jewish financiers, Jesuit media conglomerates are headed by Jewish moguls, and Jesuit philosophies are propagated by Jewish intellectuals – dependent upon the agency and clout of Catholic power, the Jewish Luciferian elite have found a convenient ally in the fight against God and His people. Projecting false-fronts and operating beneath innumerable disguises Catholic deception is able to obscure its voice and intentions, speaking subtly through many sides of its mouth depending on the audience to which it speaks.

Good in Europe, socialist in South America

The best high schools in this country are jesuit btw

>Jesuit became coopted
...no
the Jesuits seeded these movements, they are Hegelian masterlords

youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8C6E641820DB83B3

youtube.com/watch?v=pSzJQN4-iM4

they were homosexual marxists to begin with.

For two semesters straight my lectures consisted of anti conservative propaganda, and the professors took it upon themselves to take the entire course to preach their political perspective for hours on end--intertwining "correct" sociopolitical beliefs into assignments that didn't call for anything but scientific analysis in many, many cases. This included both my organic chemistry and theology courses, as well as my communication "electives" such as conflict management that are required for the university core.

I don't even consider myself a conservative, and still cannot stand lectures because this drivel is ceaseless. I'm but 25 credits from graduation, and am seriously becoming unable to stomach it. I have learned nothing through my university, and have resorted to self education through Tolstoy, Dastoyevski, Neizche, and other classical thinkers that I unfortunately cannot dedicate time to without sacrificing the GPA I spent 3.5 years building.

I'm sorry, my friend, but the Jesuit programs my family and myself are involved with spanned across the United States have descended into madness. Defining it as "Education" when it is simply a center to beat the integrity out of young intellectuals, and foster groupthink is a joke. If this is among the best our world has to offer (which is isn't) then God help us all.