Usury in Christendom

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
June 23, 2019 Anno Domini
Book Review

Michael Hoffman’s Usury in Christendom is a thought-provoking and challenging elucidation on the gradual acceptance of the mortal sin of usury in the Catholic Church contrasted with the supposed stern stand against usury by early Puritans—the supposed inheritors of medieval Catholicism.

The first couple hundred pages are fairly straight forward and illustrate the Biblical and Early Church teaching on usury, which appears uncompromising (no amount of interest is permitted under the sin of usury, according to traditional Church teaching). Hoffman starts with Medici Pope Leo X as the beginning of the Church leadership’s slide into apostasy (the love of money being the root of all evil). It was Leo X who, as Hoffman contends, created the loophole for moderate rates of interest with the institution of the monte di pieta, a Florentine bank supposedly designed to offer relief to the poor from the excessive interest rates of Jewish and gentile loansharks thriving in the region. Hoffman argues that the loophole of Leo X and those of Popes thereafter has absolutely no moral justification and is a contravention of Biblical teaching. A fair point by Hoffman that’s difficult to counter, especially considering that Leo X threatened excommunication to anyone publicly expressing doubts over his 1515 Bull. However, on page 226, Hoffman seems to inadvertently provide his own loophole when he writes, “Few churches today exhort against interest on loans beyond the rate of inflation….” How is Hoffman’s exception of inflation any more permissible than the monte di pieta’s exception of circumventing Jewish loansharking by way of low-rate fees required to keep the bank in operation? Hoffman then shows that the loopholes eventually led to mass acceptance of differing forms of usury, persecution of anti-usury dissidents (within the Church and outside of it), and the Catholic Church’s lending of its own money at interest. He claims encyclicals of post-Renaissance popes, like Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum of 1891, were merely rhetoric to placate the masses while Church-sanctioned usury continued unabated.

The latter half of Usury in Christendom ramps up the book’s overall polemical tone and uplifts the early Puritans—unlike the supposedly wayward later Puritans—as the harbingers of anti-usury, anti-capitalist Biblical economic practices. And even when he does discuss those wayward Protestants, like crypto-Jew John Calvin, he can’t help but blame their permittance of usury on the influence of “Roman Catholic nominalists”. Catholics are somehow solely responsible for all usury in the modern world, it seems. Hoffman clearly suggests that the apostate Roman Catholic leadership is primarily responsible for modern usurious capitalism, not Jews or Protestants. The latter have been unfairly scapegoated, although they are involved, Hoffman insists. The Catholics must also be responsible for the early Puritan’s usurist loophole, with which Hoffman seems to have no problem, of permitting usury on commercial investment.

“The early Puritans were capitalism’s worst nightmare; how they came to be made synonymous with its ‘spirit’ is an act of legerdemain by way of a malignant prejudice.”

John Cotton is one such early Puritan to whom Hoffman frequently refers.

Hoffman seems to feel that he must—in the name of historical truth, I suppose—correct Catholic “ignoramuses” in their prejudicial views on the early Puritans and, to a lesser degree, anti-usurist Calvinists. After all, it seems according to Hoffman, Catholics ought to look to Protestant reformers (heretics) to correct Catholic apostasy. A rather absurd conclusion, if in fact, it is his. Hoffman’s championing of the early Puritans is set up early on in his book as he leaves them out of his list of the guilty parties involved in usury. “Modern Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, and Mennonites are all guilty of this grotesque disobedience to God.” He seems to suggest, as he does with the early Puritans, that early Protestants were obedient to Biblical teaching on usury. It was only modern Protestants that got it wrong. While Hoffman be be correct that many Catholics throughout the ages have levelled unfair and/or exaggerated charges against early Protestants of usury and Shylockian economic practices, he comes across as quite angry and reactionary—the same way he does with his critics in public discussions (online comments, etc.).

Hoffman’s yearning for an Amish-like economic system may be ideal for the Church, but it is completely impractical in a time when Satanic communism co-opts any legitimate anti-capitalist movements. It may be even more impractical now because of the no-return-like state of the world economy (it seems the banksters have created a system by which only further usury and quantitative easing can keep it going). At times, Hoffman seems to embrace Soviet critiques of Western “colonialism”, particularly in the following mocking tone:

“Was it Puritan Conquistadors who, in an orgy of greed unprecedented in the annals of the western hemisphere, contracted a gold fever that burned so hot it plundered and enslaved the helpless indigenous nations at their mercy?”

Regardless, Hoffman does correctly point out that capitalism and communism are two dialectical forces that both serve the purpose of the money power. They are both based in materialism.

He also equates the “social justice” in Fr. Charles E. Coughlin’s The National Union for Social Justice with the same kind of modern “social justice” against which pundits like Glen Beck rail. Hoffman may be correct that Beck is a hopeless predatory capitalist, but I doubt very much that Coughlin’s social justice is the same as that expressed by the radical Left today.

Critics of Hoffman have pointed out his inconsistent reasoning when accepting mainstream media narratives in one instance and rejecting them as “cryptocracy” propaganda in the next instance. The following Hoffman polemic illustrates this:

“Are these fables about the first Puritans seeded by the Cryptocracy to keep us from studying the radical Protestant roots of resistance to the authority of money? With the virtual collapse of the credibility of popery in the 21st century—with its melange of institutionalized child molestation and ‘infallible’ canonization of ‘Blessed’ John Paul II, patron saint of Voodoo in Benin and Koran-kissing in Rome—an alternative to papalolatry is intensely to be desired.”

Hoffman’s refusal to publicly acknowledge to which Church authority he subscribes only further provides ammunition for his critics. But perhaps we can glean something from a small footnote on page 259. Is he Protestant? Catholic? Schismatic?

“In our protest of the idolization of mere human beings (Romans 3:10; Matt. 20:25-28), we meant to take nothing away from the esteem due to faithful and saintly pre-Renaissance pontiffs who upheld the integrity and authority of the Word of God.”

Completely left out of Usury in Christendom’s equation, oddly, is the history of usury and capitalism—for or against—in Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly as it pertains to the great and prosperous Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Orthodox position is the same anti-usury teaching of the traditional Roman Catholic Church). Was this an historiographical blunder or does Hoffman think it irrelevant? Apparently he feels that the relatively short Puritan period warrants more attention than 1,000 years of Byzantium—through which to learn lessons on usury.

On a minor note, the book has no index, which is unusual and inconvenient.

Putting aside Hoffman’s frequent Puritan apologetics, his book makes solid points about the apostasy of Catholic leadership since the Middle Ages when it comes to usury. His logic and standards are sometimes inconsistent, but his points on usury in the Catholic Church are valid and important. His theory on loopholes is plausible and should not be ignored, despite his biases.

“Contraception, abortion, and homosexuality are, in part, derived from the corruption of a society that has legalized the crime of usury.”

Fallacies of the Jesuit conspiracy theory

Untitled-1

 Part I

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
February 3, 2015 Anno Domini

While agents of the Jewish-Masonic cryptocracy work around the clock spreading lies and disinformation, many sincere people are getting sucked into their traps. One of the fastest spreading fallacies of these agents is the conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church—through the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), the Pope, and/or the supposedly still-existing Knights Templars—are running the New World Order conspiracy.

“It’s not the Jews!” these agents and their naïve dupes claim. “We have been fooled for the last 400 years into thinking the Jews are leading the NWO when it’s really the Jesuits, the Vatican, and the Black Pope!”

The game of these agenturs is very simple. Everything that has been typically attributed to Jews for hundreds of years, for example, the creation of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, the drafting of the Satanic Babylonian Talmud, and even Zionism itself, are all the work of the Jesuits. It’s a rewriting of history. Take every historical book from the last 2,000 years that names “Jews,” cross it out, and replace it with “Catholics” or some euphemistic term that indicts the Church and you have the Jesuit conspiracy meme summed up.

From attributing the creation of Zionism to an excommunicated Jesuit named Franciso Ribera to blaming the rise of Hitler and Nazism on the Church, there is no place the Jesuit memers won’t go. It borders on clownish with absurd claims that the Jesuits sunk the Titanic, created Islam, and assassinated John F. Kennedy. Of course, the grand proof they present of this alleged Jesuit conspiracy is Jewish Adam Weishaupt’s (founder of the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati) education under the Jesuits—something these Jesuit memers almost always bring up. Hypocrisy runs deep among these anti-Catholics, as they say in one breath that it is wrong to blame one group of people (especially Jews) and in the next breath they blame all the world’s problems on the Church. These clowns must have low regard for their audience for them to believe their blatant double standard goes unnoticed.

One hand tied behind the back
Before I go on here, I want to point out that this is not to absolve the Catholic Church of clerical abuses and legitimate corruption within it. And, of course, there is the heretical Second Vatican Council that has been foisted upon Catholics, which further maligns the legitimate faith and demonizes (at least in Protestant eyes) Catholics in general. This council is the handcuff that has one hand of the Church behind its back—done so that She would not be able to defend herself against the Judeo-Masonic onslaught going on. With the Church on the ropes, so to speak, the Jesuit meme is a sucker punch.

*a note on semantics

Meme
I would define a meme as the mindless replication or imitation of a concept or idea, especially a false one. Much of the popularity of the Jesuit meme is due to dupes, especially in conspiracy circles, who mindlessly accept, without verifying, the Jesuit meme and then replicate it.

53a5fd185b71aProponents of the Jesuit conspiracy meme
Based on their worldview, the Jesuit conspiracy meme is a convenient scapegoat and tool of self-deception for several groups, including but not limited to:

  • Jewish groups, Zionists (Jewish and Protestant)
  • Seventh Day Adventists
  • COINTELPRO
  • New or naïve conspiracy researchers
  • New Agers
  • Evangelicals, fundamentalist Protestants, Calvinists
  • Freemasons, Enlightenment thinkers
  • Catholic haters

The idea that Jews are running the NWO is rather inconvenient for them and exposes them for what they are. You would be hard pressed to find a Jesuit memer who is the slightest bit anti-Zionist. Many of them also happen to endorse other irregular conspiracy theories, like that of “reptilians” and “death fakers”. Then there are some who pretend to be anti-Zionist but with the appendage that the Vatican is really behind the Zionists. The fact of the matter is, the idea that there exists a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy has been a cultural belief for hundreds of years; whereas the Jesuit conspiracy is the counter-culture belief, in other words, the revolutionary belief. Furthermore, the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory has a huge amount of evidence behind it while the Jesuit theory has next to none. Jesuit theorists count on memetic replication, because if one actually checks their claims against recorded history, they theorists will be revealed as frauds.

Eric Jon Phelps Cointelpro Zionist 2

Key individuals promoting the Jesuit conspiracy meme

  • Alexander Hislop (rabid anti-Catholic Protestant)
  • Malachi Martin (Vatican infiltrator paid by the American Jewish Committee)
  • Eric Jon Phelps (Israeli diamond merchant)
  • Lyndon LaRouche (Quaker)
  • Edward Hendrie (Calvinist)
  • Seventh Day Adventists (masonic)
  • Walter J. Veith
  • Jordan Maxwell (scam artist and crypto Jew)
  • Christian J. Pinto
  • Thomas Richards
  • Craig Oxley (internet personality, disinfo agent)
  • Greg Szymanski
  • Dan Brown (fiction writer, not even an historian)
  • Tupper Saussy (bitter Protestant)
  • David Wilcock
  • Felix Pantaleon, aka Caliberhitter (COINTELPRO)
  • Sherman Skolnick
  • Pete Santilli (FBI informant)

The list of Internet personalities replicating the Jesuit meme seems to be growing by the day.

Common fallacious arguments of the Jesuit conspiracy meme

  • The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) created Freemasonry (through the Knights Templars] and is implicitly masonic itself
  • Excommunicated Jesuit Francisco Ribera created Zionism/premillennial dispensationalism
  • The Jesuits/Vatican control the monetary system
  • The Jesuits control Hollywood
  • The RCC created the religion of Islam (yes, they really claim this)
  • The RCC created the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati through Jesuit-trained (actually a converso) Adam Weishaupt
  • The RCC published (created?) the Babylonian Talmud
  • The RCC created the Nazis and is responsible for all anti-Semitism
  • The Jesuits are behind the CIA, Federal Reserve, and communism
  • The Jesuits ignited the French and Russian revolutions

Basics of the Jesuit meme: The Black Pope
The Jesuit theorists claim that the head of the Jesuits, the Superior General, is the “Black Pope”—one whose power supersedes that of the Pope and, subsequently, the Holy Church. This Black Pope and his Jesuits are said to be leading the New World Order conspiracy; although, none of the Jesuit memers can give a clear explanation as to what the Jesuits’ supposed goal of world domination is and why they seek this. In contrast, with the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, the goal is quite clearly the overthrow of Christianity and Western Civilization. With the New World Order, regardless of who one think is leading it, it’s clear to anyone that the NWO conspiracy is attempting to dismantle all religions, especially Christianity. So, why would the supposed leaders of that conspiracy, the Jesuits, be working to destroy their own Christian-based institution? If one says the Jesuits are not Christian in the first place and this is why they are leading the NWO to destroy religion and Christianity, then one has to admit that either a). the Catholic Church also is not a Christian institution (which would require a whole new set of evidence and proof), or b). the Jesuits are saboteurs of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. If one answers with “a”, then the root of the problem is not the Jesuits but the Catholic Church itself, since the Catholic Church predates the Jesuits. But the Jesuit memers don’t focus on this. The focus is all on the Jesuits. This is the clearest evidence that they have other motives for propagating this theory. Now, if the answer is “b”, then we can speculate as to who is really behind the Jesuits, since it couldn’t be the Catholic Church itself. Seeing as the first Jesuits were overrepresented with Jews and a Jew, one Ignatius Loyola, founded the Jesuits, it’s plausible that a Jesuit conspiracy against the Catholic Church and society were being orchestrated by Jews. Add to this the fact that Jews were closely involved with the Protestant Reformation, around the time the Jesuits were formed, and the plausibility becomes stronger. Further evidence that the Jesuits, if they are acting on behalf of the Church’s interests, are a failed world conspirator is in the fact that world trends are going in the opposite direction of everything Catholic, be it the Church’s pro-life stance, anti-modernism, traditional marriage, etc. Add to that the world’s slide towards nihilism and the Jesuit conspiracy theory loses even more credibility.

The “Black Pope’s” alleged fronts: Knights of Malta, Catholic universities

“Jesuit Trained” – Jesuit conspiracy theorists claim that the Black Pope works to subvert society by positioning Jesuits in high positions of power throughout the world via the Knights of Malta and Jesuit training centres (Jesuit-founded universities). Since Jesuit universities are open to the public and do not require students to be Catholics, much less Jesuits, it’s a little ridiculous for the Jesuit theorists to claim that so and so is a Jesuit agent or “Jesuit trained” merely because they went to a Jesuit-founded university. But that’s exactly what they do. Due to the spread of the disease of modernism, Jesuit universities are now more or less secular and hostile to the Catholic Church. For example, many Jesuit-founded universities advocate—not just accept—homosexual rights, abortion, women’s liberation, LGBT rights, etc. Historian E. Michael Jones, a well respected traditional Catholic, was fired by one of these supposed Catholic universities because he simply stood for traditional Catholicism. Whether a result of the Jesuits or Second Vatican Council proscriptions, these Jesuit universities cannot be considered Catholic other than by having Catholic roots. The claim of someone being “Jesuit-trained” is vague and meaningless in the context in which these Jesuit theorists give. They have to provide more than just someone’s mere attendance at a Jesuit-founded university. And with their claim that many Jesuits are secret members, they think they can disregard the burden of proof further more.

The Scottish and York rites of freemasonry and their degrees—the names of some which were hijacked from the Catholic Church.

The Scottish and York rites of freemasonry and their degrees—the names of some which were hijacked from the Catholic Church.

Knights of Malta – Jesuit theorists, where they can’t malign someone based on their university attendance, malign them by their membership with the Knights of Malta or even if someone displays a logo or symbol[i] bearing the remotest resemblance to the symbols of the Knights of Malta or the Jesuits. If those canards fail, they outright deceive their audience by falsely associating the Catholic Knights of Malta—officially called Sovereign Military Order of Malta—with Freemasonry. Speculative freemasonry’s York Rite has a degree titled Order of Knights of Malta (click on the image to the right to see a larger view of the masonic structure of degrees). The Vatican has issued a clarification stating that it does not recognize any other group using the Malta name but its own.

“…the Holy See recognises and supports only the Sovereign Military Order of Malta – also known as the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta – and the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem. The Holy See foresees no additions or innovations in this regard.

All other orders, whether of recent origin or mediaeval foundation, are not recognised by the Holy See. Furthermore, the Holy See does not guarantee their historical or juridical legitimacy, their ends or organisational structures.

To avoid any possible doubts, even owing to illicit issuing of documents or the inappropriate use of sacred places, and to prevent the continuation of abuses which may result in harm to people of good faith, the Holy See confirms that it attributes absolutely no value whatsoever to certificates of membership or insignia issued by these groups, and it considers inappropriate the use of churches or chapels for their so-called “ceremonies of investiture”.[ii]

 

The Jesuit theorists must not have foreseen this embarrassing repudiation of their claims that the Jesuits and the Catholic Church are somehow masonic because of the Malta link. Perhaps had they done some actual research, they would have seen this coming and abandoned the lie. Furthermore, Freemasonry uses Jewish and Protestant names for its degrees as well. Using their reasoning, we could argue that Jews and Protestants are masonic because of this also.

The Knights Templar – Some Jesuit theorists will go so far as to say that the RCC founded freemasonry through the Knights Templar, a military order established by the Church at the beginning of the Middle Ages (the Templars eventually became corrupt and apparently compromised with gnosticism, and the Church disbanded them accordingly). Because the freemasons (an occult group established long after the Catholic Templars had been abolished) have a masonic title called “Order of Knights Templar Commandery”, part of the York Rite initiation, some confuse the two different Templar groups. Of course, the Jesuit theorists capitalize on this confusion and try to say that the two are one and the same. They elaborate on how the Medieval Templars supposedly evolved into what is now called freemasonry (they completely ignore the fact that the Catholic Church abolished the Templar order). The apparent gnostic influence on the Catholic Templars, before they were disbanded, was likely due to the spread of Kabbalism, so the Kabbalah is the root of what eventually became freemasonry, not “Templarism”. Consider that the written Kabbalah came into prominence in the 12th and 13th centuries, the same time the Templars were rising in power.

“The Jewish connection with modern Freemasonry is an established fact everywhere manifested in its history. The Jewish formulas employed by Freemasonry, the Jewish traditions which run through its ceremonial, point to a Jewish origin, or to the work of Jewish contrivers . . . . Who knows but behind the Atheism and desire of gain which impels them to urge on Christians to persecute the Church and destroy it, there lies a hidden hope to reconstruct their Temple, and in the darkest depths of secret society plotting there lurks a deeper society still which looks to a return to the land of Judah and to the re- building of the Temple of Jerusalem?”[iii]

Today, there is no organization called the Knights Templar, yet Jesuit conspiracy sites are full of references to them as if they still exist and run the world. Columnist Atila Sinke Guimarães explains in detail the history of the Knights of Malta and the Templars in contrast with their masonic imitators.[iv]

The suspicious trajectory of the Jesuit conspiracy theory
Whether the Jesuits were guilty of the charges laid against them in their early days, it’s highly suspicious that most, if not all, groups supporting theories against them were in league with Jews, be they Protestant reformers (late middle ages), Enlightenment thinkers, masonic/illuminist agents (18th and 19th centuries), and Jewish lobbies (20th and 21st centuries). All of these anti-Catholic groups are themselves accused of organizing and/or leading international conspiracies, so they have the motive to deflect criticism of themselves and provide a scapegoat in the hopes of saving face. Modern Jesuit conspiracy theorists appear to target two audiences: anti-Catholics and conspiracy researchers. The latter targeting functions to manage opposition to the NWO conspiracy and is further evidence that the Jesuit theorist meme is actually advancing the NWO’s revolutionary progress.

Nazi propaganda phamplet condemning the Jesuits.

Nazi propaganda phamphlet condemning the Jesuits.

The Nazi fallacy
So blind to history, the Jesuit theorists assume that because the Catholic Church is anti-Jewish by nature, restricted Jewish influence in society, especially during the Middle Ages, and helped spread anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, it must be that it was also in league with or brought about the rise of Nazi Germany’s racialist policies. Jewish lobbies share in common with Jesuit theorists this malicious libel against the Church. They blame Catholicism for the rise of Hitler and the alleged Holocaust of 6 million Jews. What they won’t tell their audience is that the Nazis propagated Jesuit conspiracy theories themselves—Hubert Hermanns’ The Jesuit: The Obscurantist without a Homeland[v], for exampleand persecuted and murdered Jesuits on account of their membership. But more importantly, Roman Catholic opposition to Judaism has always been on the grounds of the Jew as a “theological construct” created in opposition to Christ, in the words of Catholic historian E. Michael Jones. Papal decrees against Jews throughout the Church’s 2,000-year history maintains that Jewry should be resisted on the grounds of their rebellion against Christ and that Jews should be restricted from positions of influence in society, should they seek to subvert the Catholic theocracy. Papal bull Sicut Judaeis, first issued during the Middle Ages, is emphatic that Jews are not to be harmed. Furthermore, Catholics are forbidden on pain of excommunication to force convert Jews or take their property. Pope Callixtus II states in the original bull:

“[The Jews] ought to suffer no prejudice. We, out of the meekness of Christian piety, and in keeping in the footprints or Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection.”

It’s obvious that because of the Jewish penchant for antagonistic behaviour, the Popes foresaw the potential for resentment of the Jews to evolve into pogroms. It’s absolutely absurd to think that the Catholic Church could in any way have brought about the “Holocaust” of the Jews, especially considering that 18 successive Popes re-affirmed Sicut Judaeis. The Church has not changed its stance in this respect. The Catholic Church never endorsed, either officially or unofficially, the policies of Hitler and the national socialists. Catholic opposition to Judaism then is quite different from Nazi opposition, which was based entirely on the assumption that Jews were racially corrupt.

The Jesuit theorist runs into a major contradiction when he attempts to say that Nazism is a Jesuit creation, because then he must account for his other theory that the Jesuits also supposedly created Zionism—something that runs contrary to Nazism. I won’t elaborate here, but the evidence suggests that Nazism is actually a Jewish creation, using a Cabbalist dialectic of opposites, which paved the way for establishing the illegal state of Israel in 1948 as well as the Holocaust dogma of Judaism[vi], which has undeservedly become iconic in recent history. There is also evidence that Hitler was not legitimate opposition to the Jewish money power, and even evidence that Hitler himself may have been Jewish.[vii]

Protestants Rewrite Bible

The Zionist fallacy
It seems the Jesuit theorist rests his entire claim that the Jesuits created Zionism on one obscure Jesuit who postulated a theory that was never established as Catholic dogma. It’s true that Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) did advocate some views that would fall into a “futurist” eschatological point of view; however, it was not millenarianist, or of the premillennial dispensationalist type that lies at the root of the Christian Zionist heresy.[viii] Zionism comes from an arrested rendering of the Old Testament concept of a chosen people. This is why the Jews murdered the Old Testament prophets who tried to correct them on their perverted supremacist vision of what it meant to be God’s chosen people. This is one of the reasons why the Jews also murdered our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for He pointed out the deception and evil in their supremacist yearnings. The whole Ribera claim is inconsistent in that Ribera allegedly concocted his views as counter-reformation teaching. But the Reformation was advocating futurism (specifically millenarianism), so how could he be countering it with more futurism (his supposed futurism was really amillennial)? Jesuit theorists are grasping at straws with this one. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that because the Jews rejected Jesus, they still await at future Messiah (futurism) when he will supposedly rule and reign with the Jews on the present Earth. Futurism, really messianism, is essentially Jewish. Furthermore, Ribera didn’t write his 500-page commentary on the Book of Revelation to start a new idea. He was indeed countering the Reformation propaganda of millenarianism, which held that the Papacy was the anti-Christ, Beast system, and the coming world messiah would destroy it and set up his millennial reign on Earth, headquartered in Jerusalem. Catholic teaching holds that the Church’s reign on this Earth since Christ died and was resurrected is evidence of fulfillment of Christ’s reign on Earth; therefore, a future millennial reign is not necessary.

The freemason fallacy
Equally as absurd and related to the Zionist fallacy is the claim that modern freemasonry is a continuation of the Catholic Knights Templars—Catholicism itself. Forget that Popes have issued decrees condemning freemasonry and its Enlightenment, libertarian offshoots; forget that Catholicism itself is philosophically and ideologically opposed to freemasonry, the Jesuit theorists are most persistent with this fallacy. Instead of providing any evidence that the Catholic Church is behind freemasonry, the Jesuit theorist will simply make the reach by associating the Church with freemasonry through the Knights Templars and Knights of Malta confusion. That’s their evidence—semantics.

Papal pronouncements against freemasonry and its offshoots—specifically “Americanism,” which sprang from the Enlightenment and masonic libertarianism—include but are not limited to the following:

Clement XII, Constitution “In Eminenti”, 28 April, 1738;
Benedict XIV, “Providas”, 18 May, 1751;
Pius VII, “Ecclesiam”, 13 September, 1821;
Leo XII, “Quo graviora”, 13 March, 1825;
Pius VIII, Encyclical “Traditi”, 21 May, 1829;
Gregory XVI, “Mirari”, 15 August, 1832;
Pius IX, Encyclical “Qui pluribus”, 9 November, 1846;
Pius IX, Allocution “Quibus quantisque malis”, 20 April, 1849;
Pius IX, Encyclical “Quanta cura”, 8 December, 1864;
Pius IX, Allocution “Multiplices inter”, 25 September, 1865;
Pius IX, Constitution “Apostolicæ Sedis”, 12 October, 1869;
Pius IX, Encyclical “Etsi multa”, 21 November, 1873;
Leo XIII, Encyclical “Humanum genus”, 20 April, 1884;
Leo XIII, “Præclara”, 20 June, 1894;
Leo XIII, “Annum ingressi”, 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry);
Leo XIII, Encyclical “Etsí nos”, 15 February, 1882;
Leo XIII, “Ab Apostolici”, 15 October, 1890.

To demonstrate the seriousness with which the Church took of the heresy of freemasonry, 12 different Popes issued a total of 23 three papal pronouncements against it. No other heresy has received more attention.

The Judeo-masonic ambition to overthrow throne (monarchy) and altar (Catholic Church), which is well documented, was achieved through a series of subversions[ix] and revolutions—the French Revolution being one of which was most successful, as France was as stronghold of the Catholic theocracy. England, where Catholicism had been overthrown during the 16th-century reign of apostate King Henry VIII, was already under the control of freemasonry (specifically Rosicrucianism) and Enlightenment thought at the time of the French Revolution. Of course, the Jewish-masonic alliance was already well established during the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, so the Reformation was a natural fit for the anti-Catholic revolutionary arsenal of the cryptocracy; in fact, all the evidence suggests that freemasonry is a covert extension of Judaism—a sort of philo-Semitic religion with perhaps more aggressive methods than Judaism in destroying Christ’s influence on Earth. The Jesuit theorist will distort and twist history in all kinds of ways in a desperate attempt to fit their anti-Catholic, pro-Jewish worldview. It then becomes imperative for the reader to understand real history in order to see through the lies.

The Illuminati fallacy
When Adam Weishaupt founded the Order of the Illuminati in Bavaria in 1776, it seems he intended to prevent the Jesuit order, which had at that point been suppressed by Pope Clement XIV, from regaining their former position in Europe.[x] Weishaupt was not a Jesuit himself; however, Jesuits educated him during his youth. Jesuit theorists focus only on this, while ignoring the more important manoeuvrings that were going on during the formation of Illuminist systems. Additionally, Weishaupt did not invent the concept of Illuminism, which was based on a perversion of the Catholic sacrament of confession.

“It wasn’t the goal of world domination, which, in the popular mind at the time, the Illuminati shared with the Jesuits that the public found as upsetting; it was the means whereby the Illuminati were going to achieve those goals. Weishaupt took the idea of examination of conscience and sacramental confession from the Jesuits and, after purging them of their religious elements, turned them into a system of intelligence gathering, spying, and informing, in which members were trained to spy on each other and inform their superiors.”[xi]

Jewish writer Bernard Lazare, an anti-Catholic, seems to brag about the Jewish orchestration of secret societies and the Illuminati:

“There were Jews around Weishaupt, and Martinez de Pasqualis, a Jew of Portuguese origin, organised numerous groups of Illuminati in France, recruiting many adepts to whom he taught the doctrine of reintegration. The lodges founded by Martinez were mystical, whilst the other orders of Freemasonry were rather rationalist. This permits one to say that the secret societies represented the two sides of the Jewish mind: practical rationalisation and pantheism.”[xii]

Some historians credit Martinez de Pasqualis with creating Illuminism, not Weishaupt.

The Illuminati wasn’t so much an organization as much as it was a concept of blackmail and espionage that was soon adopted by almost all secret societies, and it is still in use today. Talk about the Illuminati’s influence on society is sort of a red herring, especially in the way that it is used today. Modern conspiracy researchers portray the Illuminati as the end all, be all…as a highly organized institution, which it isn’t. It’s a concept or system. The Jesuit theorist obsession with Weishaupt, the Illuminati, and their supposed collaboration with the Jesuits shows their inclination to sensationalism rather than historical accuracy.

Notes

[i] Alex Jones supposedly a “Templar Jesuit” because he uses universal health symbol on his products – http://youtu.be/sm3GD70Tc1w?t=29s

[ii] NOTE OF CLARIFICATION FROM THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE – http://www.news.va/en/news/note-of-clarification-from-the-secretariat-of-stat

[iii] Dillon, Monsignor George F., Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked, Edinburgh (1884), Revised Edition (1950), pg. 10

[iv] Are the Knights of Malta Members of Freemasonry? http://tradcatknight.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-knights-of-malta-members-of_16.html

[v] Hermanns, Hubert, The Jesuit: The Obscurantist without a Homeland, 1933

[vi] Condit Jr., Jim, The Final Solution to Adolph Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSeZoedS83w

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Fitzpatrick, Timothy, The Jewish command to deceive Christians about Bible prophecy, May 29, 2014, The Fitzpatrick Informer – https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-jewish-command-to-mislead-christians-on-bible-prophecy/

[ix] Vennari, John, The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita: A Masonic Blueprint for the Subversion of the Catholic Church, Rockford, Illinois, Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1999

[x] Jones, E. Michael, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control, South Bend, Indiana, St. Augustine’s Press, 2000, pg. 8

[xi] Ibid. p. 13.

[xii] Lazare, Bernard, Anti-Semitism: It’s History and Causes, Paris (1884), pg. 127