Wow!

[Strangelove]

Mainstream encyclopedias, scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles by secular historians, scholarly post-doctorate Protestant historians, and the Catholic Church assert that the Jesuits were not formed to combat Protestantism but quickly and vigorously fell into that role.

You disagree. Please bring all your evidence and sources so we may examine them to see if they refute the mainstream encyclopedias, scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles by secular historians, those scholarly post-doctorate Protestant historians, and the Catholic Church that assert otherwise.

I look forward to qualifying your sources to see:

1. If they are truly world-class scholarly sources with impeccable credentials... or something less.
2. If they really can refute most the world's best historians and scholars that assert otherwise by bringing forth objective historical emperical proof that soundly proves the Jesuits were created, from their inception, to combat Protestantism.

Thank you for your prompt and diligent cooperation in this matter.

You've brought forth the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA so far in your effort to combat the reality that the Jesuits mission was to combat protestantism.

I have wikipedia, which at least claims to be non-biased.

In fulfilling the mission of the Formula of the Institute of the Society, the first Jesuits concentrated on a few key activities. First, they founded schools throughout Europe. Jesuit teachers were rigorously trained in both classical studies and theology, and their schools reflected this. Second, they sent out missionaries across the globe to evangelize those peoples who had not yet heard the Gospel, founding missions in widely diverse regions, such as modern-day Paraguay, Japan, Ontario, and Ethiopia. Finally, they aimed to stop Protestantism from spreading and to preserve communion with Rome and the successor of Peter.

LINK: Society of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats next?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Not necessarily. It could just be an honest mistake. Everyone makes them including the best of people. So your statement fails logically.

It could also be that they made a true assertion based on a body of compelling available evidence and the person didn't like it and responded with an illogical statement.

Asserting that others have made false assertions without evidence is evidence of a flawed character.

 

[dscherck]

OK MAN!

Or it could be that you went from the truth and got brainswashed by a temple cult and now think you have the truth when you have actually believed a lie, and you accepted a lie....and eventually found yourself further and further away from God.

Yeah, but that would defy logic and reason. Not to mention the Scriptures.

The simplest and most logical explanation is that the Catholic Church is what she says she is. IE, the Church founded by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

 

[dscherck]

You've brought forth the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA so far in your effort to combat the reality that the Jesuits mission was to combat protestantism.

I have wikipedia, which at least claims to be non-biased.

In fulfilling the mission of the Formula of the Institute of the Society, the first Jesuits concentrated on a few key activities. First, they founded schools throughout Europe. Jesuit teachers were rigorously trained in both classical studies and theology, and their schools reflected this. Second, they sent out missionaries across the globe to evangelize those peoples who had not yet heard the Gospel, founding missions in widely diverse regions, such as modern-day Paraguay, Japan, Ontario, and Ethiopia. Finally, they aimed to stop Protestantism from spreading and to preserve communion with Rome and the successor of Peter.

LINK: Society of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whats next?

So... let me guess, the fact that the Jesuits were started to help educate people on the Christian faith, and prevent them from falling away is a bad thing?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Wikipedia can be altered by anyone at anytime and then floated as a source which is why using it as an initial search tool when developing your argument rather than as some sort of an arbitrator for scholarly disagreement (as you just did when asked for your sources) is the acceptable method of employing it.

I would have expected you to at least have verified the content from the citation and then use that as your reference rather than Wikipedia. That's really how it's supposed to be done. But in any event, you have refuted nothing but merely reiterated what I already stated. It is established that the Jesuits quickly fell into vigorously opposing Protestantism after their formation. However, they were not formed for that purpose. That is the point of disagreement between us and you have failed to show otherwise.

The Roman Catholic Church explicitely asserts that the Jesuits were not initially formed to combat Protestantism as I showed with a scholarly reference reiterated below for your perusal:

Pollen, J.H. (1912). The Society of Jesus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 24, 2011 from New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Jesuits (The Society of Jesus)

Here's another one. Dr. Barry Collett is an Oxford (Oxford is ranked as the top university in the UK and is not a Catholic University) professional historian of Renaissance Europe and states:

"In 1540 the Jesuits were formed, not to combat Protestantism but to give scholarly depth to Catholic piety, and Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, and other established orders reformed themselves. The relative freedom of this early Counter-Reformation allowed Teofilo Folengo and Juan de Valdés (d.1541) to mingle elements of Protestant and Catholic spirituality in their works."

Reference: Counter-Reformation - Consilium de emendanda ecclesia Beneficio di Cristo Gerusalemme liberata , Istoria del concilio tridentino - Catholic, Protestant, Theological, Reforms, Piety, and Trent Counter-Reformation - Consilium de emendanda ecclesia Beneficio di Cristo Gerusalemme liberata , Istoria del concilio tridentino - Catholic, Protestant, Theological, Reforms, Piety, and Trent

I have wikipedia, which at least claims to be non-biased.

 

[Strangelove]

Not necessarily. It could just be an honest mistake. Everyone makes them including the best of people. So your statement fails logically.

It could also be that they made a true assertion based on a body of compelling available evidence and the person didn't like it and responded with an illogical statement.

Shall we just stop this now?

 

[Strangelove]

Yeah, but that would defy logic and reason. Not to mention the Scriptures.

The simplest and most logical explanation is that the Catholic Church is what she says she is. IE, the Church founded by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

and me not wanting the truth also defies logic and reason so we're back to square one.

 

[Strangelove]

So... let me guess, the fact that the Jesuits were started to help educate people on the Christian faith, and prevent them from falling away is a bad thing?

It is when "educate people on the Christian faith" means burning anyone who doesnt agree with the pope.

 

[Strangelove]

Wikipedia can be altered by anyone at anytime and then floated as a source which is why using it as an initial search tool when developing your argument rather than as some sort of an arbitrator for scholarly disagreement (as you just did when asked for your sources) is the acceptable method of employing it.

I would have expected you to at least have verified the content from the citation and then use that as your reference rather than Wikipedia. That's really how it's supposed to be done. But in any event, you have refuted nothing but merely reiterated what I already stated. It is established that the Jesuits quickly fell into vigorously opposing Protestantism after their formation. However, they were not formed for that purpose. That is the point of disagreement between us and you have failed to show otherwise.

The Roman Catholic Church explicitely asserts that the Jesuits were not initially formed to combat Protestantism as I showed with a scholarly reference reiterated below for your perusal:

Pollen, J.H. (1912). The Society of Jesus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 24, 2011 from New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Jesuits (The Society of Jesus)

Here's another one. Dr. Barry Collett is an Oxford (Oxford is ranked as the top university in the UK and is not a Catholic University) professional historian of Renaissance Europe and states:

"In 1540 the Jesuits were formed, not to combat Protestantism but to give scholarly depth to Catholic piety, and Benedictines, Dominicans, Franciscans, and other established orders reformed themselves. The relative freedom of this early Counter-Reformation allowed Teofilo Folengo and Juan de Valdés (d.1541) to mingle elements of Protestant and Catholic spirituality in their works."

Reference: Counter-Reformation - Consilium de emendanda ecclesia Beneficio di Cristo Gerusalemme liberata , Istoria del concilio tridentino - Catholic, Protestant, Theological, Reforms, Piety, and Trent Counter-Reformation - Consilium de emendanda ecclesia Beneficio di Cristo Gerusalemme liberata , Istoria del concilio tridentino - Catholic, Protestant, Theological, Reforms, Piety, and Trent

So you've got the roman catholic church, the catholic encylopedia (again) and some guy in oxford.

wow.

Still doesnt change the fact that Jeusits mission was to stop protestantism.

 

[dscherck]

and me not wanting the truth also defies logic and reason so we're back to square one.

So it's logical to assert that some random guy who claims (without evidence) to have been a priest for 30 years is telling the truth, but it's not logical to believe that the official websites of the Jesuits is telling the truth?

 

[Strangelove]

So it's logical to assert that some random guy who claims (without evidence) to have been a priest for 30 years is telling the truth, but it's not logical to believe that the official websites of the Jesuits is telling the truth?

(without evidence)

Sure bud.

Sure.

 

[dscherck]

(without evidence)

Sure bud.

Sure.

Yes, without evidence.

 

[Strangelove]

Yes, without evidence.

What evidence would satisfy you that Alberto Rivera was an ex Jesuit priest?

An official nod from the catholic church?

LOLZ!

 

[dscherck]

What evidence would satisfy you that Alberto Rivera was an ex Jesuit priest?

An official nod from the catholic church?

LOLZ!

You are making the assertation he is an ex priest. Provide proof he is a validly ordained Catholic priest who left.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[SantoSubito]

What evidence would satisfy you that Alberto Rivera was an ex Jesuit priest?

An official nod from the catholic church?

LOLZ!

His ordination certificate. Which if he was a validly ordained Catholic priest would have a copy of. Or perhaps pictures of him with parishioners.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The "wow" really should be self-directed since while I've shared two important scholarly citations to date in the development of this discussion (which you refused to discuss but immediately and improperly dismissed), I've asserted that the consensus amongst the world's best scholars is exactly the opposite of your position (a point you ignored).

This is in comparison to some Wikipedia content (that doesn't refute the Catholic position) you forgot to cite and some charlatan you discovered which was unmasked by Protestants the source then you immediately attacked.

Simply saying that the Jesuits were formed explicitly to stop Protestantism doesn't make it true especially when it is not true and the concensus of the the world's scholars, based on the available emperical evidence, is that it is not true.

More is needed I'm afraid if you are to make any headway here. You'll need emperical evidence (e.g. irrefutable facts). We've asked you for them but only gotten a quick Wikipedia paste job instead which left us very disappointed Strangelove.

In 'The Jesuits: their constitution and teaching ; an historical sketch' By William Cornwallis Cartwright (an influential Protestant highly accomplished in ancient and medieval art and literature), Cartwright asserts they were not formed to stop Protestantism initially but rather to repel the Muslims stating that the Jesuit founding members were on their way to the Holy Land to oppose the Muslims but due to "circumstances, arising out of the hostillities then being waged between the Venetians and the Turks" prevented them so they proceeded to Rome and presented themselves before Pope Paul III and were awarded their society which initally was restricted to only sixty members. As they proceeded forth to fulfill their constitution (a constitution in which no mention of opposing Protestants is given) that they ran up against the Protestants and began to vigorously oppose them.

I've got a 100 more scholarly works here that all assert the same thing. Most all are written by Protestants. Which would you like to visit next?

So you've got the roman catholic church, the catholic encylopedia (again) and some guy in oxford.

wow.

Still doesnt change the fact that Jeusits mission was to stop protestantism.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I find it truly amazing that someone presenting themself as an intellectual would disregard, out-of-hand, a respected world-class post-doctoral scholar from Oxford yet glom onto this guy as a credible source (e.g. Alberto Rivera).

Nelson's Illustrated Guide to Religions By James A. Beverley:

"Chick Publications circulate the works of Alberto Rivera, who claimed to be a Jesuit priest and biship in the Catholic Church... Rivera's life story was the subject of devastating criticism by Gary Metz in a 1981 Cornerstone magazine [e.g. Protestant magazine] report. Rivera's former colleagues (not priests as he was not one himself) provided Metz with clear evidence of Rivera's lies and delusions about his claims of espionage for the pope."

"Rivera had a 'history of legal entanglements' including fraud, credit card theft, and writing bad checks. Warrants had been issued for his arrest in New Jersey and Florida, and he was wanted by the Spanish police for 'swindles and cheats'; while in the USA in 1967, he claimed to be collecting money for a Spanish college, which never received this money. The details of his claims changed: In 1964 he said he had left the Catholic Church in July 1952, but he later put the date at March 20, 1967; despite this, he was still promoting Catholicism in a newspaper interview of August that same year. Although supposedly placed in the sanitorium in 1965 and held there for three months, he gave the date of his release as September 1967, leaving a period of over a year unaccounted.

The document exhibited by Rivera to prove his status as a Catholic priest was fraudulently obtained and the Catholic Church denies his claims of having been a Jesuit priest or a bishop. He had only one sister in London; she was not called Maria, was not a nun, and did not live in a convent. In an employment form dated 1963 he claimed marriage to Carmen Lydia Torres, and the couple had two children in the USA when his own account had him a celibate priest in Spain.

Cornerstone also questioned Rivera's claim to various degrees, including three doctorates (Th.D., D.D., and Ph.D.), reporting that his known chronology did not allow enough time for him to have completed these degrees and that he had admitted to receiving them from a Colorado diploma mill."

Metz, Gary (1981). "The Alberto Story". Cornerstone 9 (53): 29–31. Archived from the original on 2005-12-02. Cornerstone Magazine :: Alberto Rivera, Jack Chick, and a False Story

 

[Strangelove]

You are making the assertation he is an ex priest. Provide proof he is a validly ordained Catholic priest who left.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

what proof would satisfy you?

 

[Strangelove]

His ordination certificate. Which if he was a validly ordained Catholic priest would have a copy of. Or perhaps pictures of him with parishioners.

and what would stop you from saying his certificate and photos were faked?

 

[Strangelove]

The "wow" really should be self-directed since while I've shared two important scholarly citations to date in the development of this discussion (which you refused to discuss but immediately and improperly dismissed), I've asserted that the consensus amongst the world's best scholars is exactly the opposite of your position (a point you ignored).

This is in comparison to some Wikipedia content (that doesn't refute the Catholic position) you forgot to cite and some charlatan you discovered which was unmasked by Protestants the source then you immediately attacked.

Simply saying that the Jesuits were formed explicitly to stop Protestantism doesn't make it true especially when it is not true and the concensus of the the world's scholars, based on the available emperical evidence, is that it is not true.

More is needed I'm afraid if you are to make any headway here. You'll need emperical evidence (e.g. irrefutable facts). We've asked you for them but only gotten a quick Wikipedia paste job instead which left us very disappointed Strangelove.

In 'The Jesuits: their constitution and teaching ; an historical sketch' By William Cornwallis Cartwright (an influential Protestant highly accomplished in ancient and medieval art and literature), Cartwright asserts they were not formed to stop Protestantism initially but rather to repel the Muslims stating that the Jesuit founding members were on their way to the Holy Land to oppose the Muslims but due to "circumstances, arising out of the hostillities then being waged between the Venetians and the Turks" prevented them so they proceeded to Rome and presented themselves before Pope Paul III and were awarded their society which initally was restricted to only sixty members. As they proceeded forth to fulfill their constitution (a constitution in which no mention of opposing Protestants is given) that they ran up against the Protestants and began to vigorously oppose them.

I've got a 100 more scholarly works here that all assert the same thing. Most all are written by Protestants. Which would you like to visit next?

I really dont care what reports you've got.

The Jesuits mission was to counter the reformation. Reality proves this.