Brannon: Hello, I’m Brannon Howse, and welcome to the Worldview Weekend Hour. This is our second program in a series on the “Counter-Reformation of the Jesuit Order.” Chris Pinto and I have both been doing research on the Jesuit order for some time, and we are coming together to present this information to you. He’s bringing his research, I’m bringing mine, and then we’re presenting it and discussing it. And this is our second interview in this series on, again, the “Counter-Reformation of the Jesuit Order.” Chris, welcome back to our second program together.
Chris: Well, Brannon, it’s good to be back as always.
Brannon: In our first program, I made reference to this paper put out by a doctor, a Ph.D. His bio on the website said he did his Ph.D. at Stanford. And this is Dr. David Plaisted. It’s titled “Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later.” This is a rather lengthy paper. I found this not too long ago and sent it over to you. I posted it on my website; you posted it on yours.
Brannon: This is a very credible guy. Again, according to his own bio, he did his Ph.D. work at Stanford, and he now teaches at the University of North Carolina. So, people who maybe were to say, “Well, where did you get this figure of 50 million killed during the 605-year –” or over 600 years, some say 605-year, “– Inquisition?” This Ph.D. has done a lot of work right here. This is a very credible report, isn’t it?
Chris: Yeah, absolutely. In fact, the reason for that report, I think, at least one of the reasons is because, through the 20th century, and in the late 19th century before that, the Roman Catholic Church began to deny that they had killed millions of people through the slaughters and things like the Saint Bartholomew Day’s Massacre, the Massacre of the Waldenses in the Piedmont in 1655, and the other great massacres that were known that the papal armies were guilty of.
And what happened was, after the Revolutionary era, that was no longer fashionable. It wasn’t the politically correct thing to be guilty of. So, the Catholic historians and the Jesuits in particular began to rewrite history. And what’s interesting is that prior to the 19th century, they had always boasted about the Inquisition. They were always very proud of it, and now they began to deny it and to diminish the numbers of those who had been killed and so on.
And in fact, in England, a group came together called the Protestant Truth Society, and I’ve got one of their books here. The Protestant Truth Society was formed specifically to counter or to refute the modern claims that Rome has been making, trying to rewrite history basically. And the Protestant Truth Society came together to restate the Protestant view of history “Yes, these massacres did happen. Yes, 50 million Christians were killed for believing the Bible and preaching the Gospel to others.”
So, it is definitely – if you go to do your own research, you’ll find a lot of conflicting evidence. But I think Dr. Plaisted’s essay there is invaluable.
Brannon: And so, you’ll find it online. Just put it into a search engine, David A. Plaisted – P-L-A-I-S-T-E-D, “Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later.” Put into a search engine, it’ll pop right up as a PDF. You can read it online or print it out. Tons of documentation to make that case.
Listen, before we get into eight areas that – I have found eight areas that the Jesuit order focuses on, I want to go through those eight in the next few programs. And you’ve brought – I’ve sent you my PowerPoint presentation on this in advance. You went through it, and then you brought information supporting these eight, and we’ll get into that, as well as some other information that you’ve brought, over the next few programs.
Let’s talk real quick, though about we hear – we hear oftentimes critics of Christianity talk about the Crusades. “Well, you Christians, you brought on the Crusades, and look at the horrible things you did in the name of Christ in the Crusades.” We even hear Muslims talking about the Christians in the Crusades. Let’s make it very clear. Who was it that was carrying out the Crusades?
Chris: Well, it was the Church of Rome; there’s no question about that. And it used to be, prior to the 20th century, there was a clear line of demarcation that was drawn between Bible-based Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism. And it was understood by all of the Reformers, by Martin Luther, by John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Wycliffe – all of these Christian men understood that it was the papacy that was out persecuting people. And in fact, as we show in my film A Lamp in the Dark, the Inquisition and that whole era began because of Bible believers, because people were reading the Bible, and they were disagreeing with the pope. And that’s what led to the great Inquisition in the 13th century.
But even with the Crusades and so on, which were really about the pope’s desire to claim the Temple Mount, which they did through the Knights Templar – that’s why they’re called the Templars – and they had –
Brannon: The Temple Mount in –
Chris: In Jerusalem.
Brannon: – Jerusalem.
Chris: In Jerusalem. And their desire was to ultimately rebuild the temple in Jerusalem so the pope, it is said, could rule the world from Solomon’s rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and that that’s really what the Crusades are said to be about. And, of course, you can read a bunch of histories about that.
Brannon: All right, let’s differentiate between the Crusades, which started around 1100, and the Inquisition. When did the Inquisition start?
Chris: The Inquisition begins – that period begins about 1209 A.D., and that begins with what was called the Albigensian Crusade. And the Albigensans, according to the Reformers, and the reform view of history, the Albigensans were Bible believers, and they preferred the Bible rather than the authority of the pope. And so, they had a series of debates with a Catholic priest named Dominic Guzman. And Dominic could not persuade them to convert to Catholicism, so he got angry, and he said he was going to go raise up an army, come back and then persecute them, which he did. And he goes back to Rome. He meets with Pope Innocent III. Simon de Montfort raises up an army, and then they come back, and they launch what’s called the Albigensian Crusade. But that was really the beginning of the Great Inquisition. And then the pope begins to outlaw the Bible and forbid people from reading it. And he says the Bible inspires heresy, largely because of what happened with the Albigensians.
Brannon: So, we have to differentiate between the Crusades that start around 1100, that were largely against the Muslims, and then the Crusades or Inquisition that are against the Protestants that started in 1209.
Chris: Right, really against –
Brannon: So, really, the Church of Rome has been waging war against a lot of people. So, when our listeners hear – people say, “Oh, you Christians and your Crusades,” we have to be sure to differentiate between Bible-believing Protestant Christians, who were not involved in the Crusades, which that was instigated and carried out by the Church of Rome. But Christians get lumped in there with that.
Brannon: That’s the point to be made.
Brannon: So, don’t take on the – don’t let people say, “Oh, you Christians, you were involved in the Crusades,” ’cause it wasn’t Protestant Bible-believing Christians that were doing that; it was the Church of Rome.
Chris: And what I think is important about that, Brannon, is that the men and the women who founded our country, the Puritans and the Pilgrims, they came here with that very clear understanding, which is why they forbade the involvement of Roman Catholics in the early colonial government of America. I mean Catholics could not be involved in the government. They could not vote. They couldn’t hold office and things like that. And it was because of the Jesuits and the Counter-Reformation and all of their attempts to overthrow the authority of Protestant countries. And so, that’s the reason why they had laws limiting the activities of Catholics in the early colonies. But all of that changed as a result of the American Revolution.
Brannon: And, of course, that could be some of the concern that you and I would have with the Revolutionaries who, with their – what sounds so noble, the freedom of religion, then all of a sudden you got Free Masons and people that were holding to views counter to biblical Christianity allowed now to run for office and be in public office, whereas in the colonies, that was not allowed.
Chris: Right, it was not allowed. And that’s the real issue, because I think Protestant governments, Christian governments generally would tolerate alternative views from other people, but they would not give them equal authority in government. They wouldn’t allow them to hold office. It’s kind of like if you went to Rome today, the pope is Catholic; he’s the chief executive over Vatican City proper. He has a Catholic government. You and I could go visit there as Protestants, and Buddhists and Muslims and other people could go visit, and we could go on vacation or whatever, but they’re not going to let us run the country with them. It was the same principle in early America.
Brannon: You would have civil rights. You have liberty and freedom. You just – they don’t want you involved in their government.
Chris: Right, and making laws and turning – and that’s the whole problem that we’re facing right now, 200 years after the Revolution. Right now it’s why we have abortion and gay marriage issues and all this other kind of stuff, because there’s not a clear understanding of exactly what belief system is charge of the United States.
Brannon: And so, that’s why you and I believe we have a Christian heritage that starts with the colonies, but why we’re very suspect of some of the Revolutionaries who brought in their ecumenicalism, which then just opened the floodgates to what we have today, which is, again, going back to the colonies, said, “No, we’re not going to allow the Jesuits and the priests to come in here, because we know about the Crusades, and we know what they’ve been up to, and how they like to get involved and overturn governments. So, we have the Crusades starting around 1100, dealing with the Church of Rome going against the Muslims. And then we have around 1209, the beginning of the Crusades against the Protestants. That’s where we left off.
Chris: Right, right, although I should say, at that point in history, they weren’t really called Protestants. They’re generally viewed as Bible-believers. And they were acknowledged by everybody, even somebody like Voltaire. I found an interesting quote from Voltaire, who is not especially a friend of Christianity, but even he acknowledged that the reason that the Albigensans were persecuted was because they wanted to live their life according to the Bible only, and that that’s what they were known for. And, of course, the Reformers picked that up, and that became the Reformation cry Sola Scriptura – only the Scriptures. And they had learned it from these earlier groups: the Albigensans and the Waldenses as well.
Brannon: And so, 1540 is when Ignatius Loyola forms officially the Jesuit order. So, from1209 to 1540, the inquisitions had been well underway, almost halfway through.
Chris: Right. And the Dominicans were the ones who ran the order. In fact, if you go – they ran the Inquisition. If you see old paintings of the Inquisition, you’ll see the black-robed priests, and they would have a white undergarment. And that’s how you know – that’s what the Dominicans wore, and that’s what they were known for historically. But then what happened is when the Jesuits came along, they took over the Inquisition, and they basically recreated it and got it underway again. And it said that within the first hundred years, more than 900,000 Bible-believing Christians ultimately died as a result.
Brannon: And again, if you’re doubting our numbers, just go online and get a copy of the book “Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and Later” by David A. Plaisted. And again, his bio on the website reads that he did his Ph.D. work at Stanford. Very highly-footnoted documentation.
All right, now, with that as our foundation, looking again at the Jesuit order, let’s talk about eight areas that I’ve come up with in my research of where I think the Jesuits like to focus. And then you’ve brought some research to help actually confirm some of my findings as well. So, the first one is ecumenicalism. For those who maybe don’t know, what is ecumenicalism?
Chris: Well, there’s two types of ecumenicalism, and when you talk to people in the evangelical community, there’s ecumenicalism between Christians, different Christian groups and denominations, and some people think that ecumenism is just about dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans and Methodists and Baptists and this kind of thing. That that’s ecumenism.
Then you have the global ecumenical movement, which is between not just those who are calling themselves Christians –
Brannon: And it doesn’t mean that that first group is all Christian.
Chris: No, no, no, not at all, not at all. But some people think that that’s what it is, and so they’ll argue, they’ll say, “Well, the Catholic Church is not that bad. They’re just trying to get along with other groups that profess Christ.” That’s what they think. And then they don’t realize that it’s not confined to that, that what they’re doing is they’re also going to Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims and American Indian shamans, and witchdoctors, and fire worshipers and so on, and trying to gather all of them together, as the pope did in Assisi, back in 1986, and to join hands and say, “We’re all praying to the same God.” And that’s what they don’t realize.
Some people think that Rome and the popes and so on are in the process of trying to repent and agree with Protestant Christianity. Some people think that’s what they’re doing. And so, it’s very important to point out to them, “No, that’s not what they’re doing at all. They’re just shifting their tactics. They’re trying to become all things to all men and to say things that they think evangelicals want to hear so they can say, “Well, we believe the same as you do. We really are not that different supposedly.” But then as you go and examine their doctrines, and then look at what the popes and the Holy See are doing, you realize they’re dramatically different.
Brannon: The eight areas that we’re going to look at, these eight areas: ecumenicalism, social justice, liberation theology – we’ll define all these as we go – dominion theology, politics, community organizing and revolution, education, the press, the pulpit and denominations is Number 7, and Number 8 is mysticism. We’re starting out now with Number 1, ecumenicalism. You did a great job defining that. Now, here’s what TIME magazine said, April 23, 1973, when they did their big piece on the Jesuit order that we talked about in our first program. TIME magazine said – quote – “Contemporary Jesuits theologians, for instance, helped shape the second Vatican Council.” Here’s a picture of the second Vatican Council, which was held from ’62 to ’65. And this is a picture, I believe, from the opening of the second session of Vatican II in ’63.
I had a conversation this week, on my radio program, with a man who was a Catholic priest for 22 years. You know him as well; you’ve interviewed him for some of your productions, Richard Bennett. He was at and took part in, as a Catholic, in the Vatican Council II. He is now, of course, a believer. He became a believer when he was about 48 years of age; he’s now 74 years old, if I remember correctly. He told me this week, on the radio program, he remembers standing there, looking down at some 3,000 participants of the Catholic order that were going to take place in this – these series of conventions, conferences on ecumenicalism, bringing the world’s religions together.
He said, “As a Catholic priest, looking down,” he must have been standing up on some stairs, maybe even as we see in that picture there, as he looked down at these 3,000 Catholic priests and cardinals participation, he said, “it was a sea of scarlet and purple – purple and scarlet.” And even as a Catholic priest, he thought, “Where have I read about this in Revelation?”
Brannon: It is important to understand because the second Vatican Council, ’62 to ’65, was really instrumental. But to really understand the second Council, you have to understand the first Vatican Council, do you not?
Chris: Oh, I think it’s very important because it forms the pattern that the Catholic Church has followed up into modern times. Vatican Council I, which concluded in 1870, officially declared that the pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of doctrine, and that he cannot err. That he’s the equivalent of an Apostle in that regard so that whatever he declares doctrinally is infallibly and perfectly true equal to the Scripture, and really even above the Scripture so that the pope has the power and authority to correct the Scripture if he feels the need to.
Brannon: And to get new revelation.
Chris: Right, exactly. Which you can even read some of the modern writings of Pope Benedict, when he’s commenting on certain portions of the Gospels, and he’s actually contradicting what they say and correcting the writers of the Gospels, which is incredible.
But Vatican Council I establishes the pope’s authority, his absolute authority. Then Vatican Council II opens the doors of opportunity to all the religions of the world. And basically, through Vatican II, the Jesuits found a way to invite Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and even Protestant evangelicals into the fold, if you will, but all under the authority of the pope.
And we saw this with Pope John Paul II, because whenever he would go, and he would take the mark of Shiva on his forehead, or he would kiss the Koran, or he would go have an ecumenical meeting with these different pagan religious groups and so on, then Cardinal Ratzinger, who was the Grand Inquisitor, would come out afterwards and issue a statement that there’s no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and everybody has to be under the authority of the pope. So, he would clarify, because people would begin to think, “Okay, wow, they’re being really liberal; they’re being open-minded,” and this kind of thing, and then Cardinal Ratzinger would come in, and he would follow up, and he would say, “Yes, whatever, but it’s all under the authority of the pope.” That’s the key.
Brannon: And Ratzinger became –
Chris: Pope Benedict XVI.
Brannon: The pope currently, as we’re sitting here being –
Brannon: – broadcasting today.
Brannon: So, to understand Vatican II, you have to understand Vatican I, the infallibility of the pope. What role did the Jesuits play in creating this idea of the infallibility of the pope?
Chris: Well, the infallibility of the pope, as I study it, through history, is something that was talked about and discussed by various priests and theologians of the Catholic Church for hundreds of years. But it was nothing that was ever officially agreed upon, and there was a lot of debate and contention about it, and you had a lot of leaders in the Catholic Church who did not agree.
In fact, in his book A Woman Rides the Beast, Dave Hunt talks about Vatican I and the declaration of infallibility. And the history, that he gives, gives you the impression that even the priests and the bishops who were there, many of them didn’t agree with this idea, but they were being pressured and forced to go along with it not matter what.
Brannon: By who?
Chris: Well, I believe it’s by the Jesuits, because they were behind this whole thing. They were the ones who wanted this. Because for them, they believe authority is everything. As Napoleon said of them, he said, “The aim of the Jesuit order is power – power in its most despotic exercise.” Absolute power. They don’t like the idea of dissent or disagreement from their seat of authority. So, I believe they were the ones –
Brannon: And you’re not the only one that believes that. There’s other people who have written this as well, that there seems to be strong evidence that the Jesuit order was behind the idea of pushing, at the Vatican Council I, this idea of the infallibility of the pope.
Chris: Right, absolutely.
Brannon: This is held by many historians.
Brannon: Okay. And this ecumenicalism now, of course, shows up today in modern-day evangelicalism. Here, look at this. This is a picture of the cover of this book Indivisible. Indivisible is written by, by the way, James Robison and Jay Richards. Now, what’s interesting about this is that James Robison, many of you know who James Robison is; he’s on television; we’ve talked about him before. We’ve gotten video clips of him. In fact, let’s go to a quick audio clip of him talking to a Catholic priest, Father Jonathan Morris. Oftentimes you see Jonathan Morris on Fox News Channel.
Brannon: Here is an audio clip of Robison and Jonathan Morris, on Robison’s TV show, talking about how – Robison is – how God wants the Church and everybody, the Protestants and Catholics, to come together as one. Let’s roll this audio clip.
Betty Robison: But I believe God is happy when He sees His children fellowshipping together and getting along together.
James Robison: Absolutely.
Jonathan Morris: Gosh, rejoicing in Heaven, right?
Betty Robison: Yeah, amen.
James Robison: He does. I believe angels rejoice. I believe the Father rejoices. I know Jesus, who’s daily making intercession for us, I believe He’s turned to His Father and said, “Father, My prayers are getting answered. We’re getting together.” Don’t you like what you’re seeing? Don’t you know God likes us to come together? [Applause] Let me – let me just ask you a serious something that I think is really remarkable because this just shows that religion isn’t the answer, a relationship with the Jesus you talked about right up front –
Brannon: All right, so that’s James Robison interviewing, on his TV show, Father – he calls him Father, they call him – I don’t call him Father – Father Jonathan Morris. Okay, now, with that as the background, Robison has now written a book with a Catholic guy, Jay Richards. I mean this is clearly ecumenicalism. The funny thing is, many of these evangelicals want to deny that that’s what this is, but what else is it? What’s sad is, I have the audio clip form James Robison appearing at a church in San Diego, with a Pastor Jim Garlow moderating James Robison, this Catholic Jay Richards he wrote the book with, and Mormon Glenn Beck. And James Robison is saying, “If you want to see what no compromise looks like, zoom in right here,” talking to the camera. “This is what no compromise looks like. I’m not going to compromise on the Word of God.” In fact, I’ve got an audio clip of that. Let’s roll it.
If we’re going to get it together, we’re going to have to come together and find common ground to address our common concerns. I’m sitting here with a Catholic and a Mormon. If you know me, I’m an evangelical, gun-slinging, right-wing, Protestant evangelist. If you want to see what no compromise looks like, just zero in real close. I refuse to compromise one word in the Living Word of God. I refuse to compromise with anybody, and I will not compromise the command of my Lord and Savior to love everybody, including people who are perceived to be enemies. And I am going to love people who may differ.
Brannon: Okay, that’s just a couple of sound bites. Here these guys think they’re not compromising, but clearly I believe, from the Word of God, Romans 16:17, “Mark those who cause division by doctrine and avoid them.” 2 John 1:9-11, “Anyone comes to you bringing something other than doctrines of Christ,” the essential Christian doctrines – through grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone – that’s the essential Christian doctrines: the deity of Christ, inclusivity of Jesus Christ, the inspiration of Scripture, the inerrancy of Scripture. Well, if the pope is above the Scripture, then we don’t have the inspiration of Scripture; we don’t have the inerrancy of Scripture; Scripture’s not the authority. So, they are denying, the Church of Rome, the essential Christian doctrines. And 2 John 1:9-11 says, “Any comes to you bringing something other than the doctrines of Christ, don’t greet them, don’t invite them into your home, lest you partake in their evil deeds.”
We also see Ephesians 5:11 to, “– have nothing to do with unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose it.” These guys actually think they’re not compromising while they compromise. And here’s he’s written this book, James Robison, with this Catholic, Jay Richards, Indivisible, and do you know how many – quote – evangelical – end quote pro-family leaders, evangelical leaders, have had them on their national radio and TV show to plug this book?
And I mean what’s interesting – this is why we’re discussing it – look at who wrote the forward. This is what you and I discovered in our research, that this forward of this book, the Catholic version, was written, the forward, by a Father Joseph Fessio, and behind his name is S.J. And if you go to the website, you can clearly see that he is a Jesuit priest, by his own admission, his own bio, and he’s the president and founder of Ignatius Press, which comes from Ignatius Loyola. Here we have the Jesuits involved in this book, at least a Jesuit writing the forward. There’s a Catholic version of this book, while James Robison, who wants to call himself an evangelical, works with a Catholic, Jay Richards, goes on to evangelical – quote – TV shows and radio shows.
And yet, when we point this out, you and I are the ones that are maligned and marginalized as being judgmental, harsh, over the top. But yet, this is clearly what it is. We’ve documented it for what it is. You’ve heard the audio clips for yourself what they’re saying.
Chris: What I think is strange about James Robison is that prior to all of this, he openly acknowledged the problems theologically and doctrinally with Rome. He spent years – I mean he was a Baptist minister. And he even talks about that in this interview with the Catholic priest, how he used to preach – he would oppose Billy Graham because of his –
Chris: – ecumenicalism with Rome and the Vatican and so on. So, he understands the theological problems that are involved. So, it’s – I don’t know, it’s very strange to hear him say he’s not going to compromise and this kind of thing, when he knows that there’s no way that you can justify the doctrines of the papacy even today. Because the pope, while the Catholic Church will often engage in this ecumenical dialogue with evangelicals, then what happens is, as Pope Benedict did, he came out and he openly stated that Protestants are not proper Christians. And the reason why? Because they’re not joined to the Catholic Church.
Pope John Paul II did the same thing. There’s a – I think it was an article in the LA Times, back when John Paul II was alive, where he said that, “Both Protestants and a growing number of Catholics,” he said, “were under the misunderstanding that they can go directly to God for the forgiveness of their sins.” And he says, “No, you can’t do that. You have to go through the Catholic priesthood.” So, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, all of the popes have reconfirmed the heretical doctrines of the Church of Rome that go all the way back to the Council of Trent, which has some hundred anathemas against Bible-believing Christians like you and I.
Brannon: And, of course, the Jesuit order must be laughing with enthusiasm as – quote – evangelicals – end quote embrace them, embrace this ecumenicalism. And even you have, again, the forward written by a Jesuit priest of the Catholic version of the book Indivisible by James Robison and Jay Richards. And again, these two men have been interviewed on numerous – quote – evangelical – end quote TV and radio programs and spoken with Glenn Beck and moderated by Jim Garlow there at the church in San Diego – his church in San Diego. There you have Robison and Richards. They’re making headway.
Chris: And then you’ve got Glenn Beck, bringing him into the picture, Beck leading this sort of “Take Back America” crusade, and then he goes to have meetings at the Vatican. He’s had several meetings at the Vatican.
Brannon: Yes. In early part of 2012, he goes over there and has numerous meetings with them, but that was not – but what we have to remember is a couple of years before this, he’s on his radio show talking about how he went to the Vatican to visit, and the Vatican, to his surprise, knew who he was and talked about how important he was to their movement. And Glenn Beck talks about this on his radio show. And then a couple of years later, he’s going back over now for what seems to be official meetings, and they have all these pictures of him meeting with high-ranking people in the Vatican, to formulate their global spiritual plan. And in fact, let’s play the audio clip of Glenn Beck from a few years ago, talking about how he went to the Vatican, and he was shocked to find out the Vatican knew who he was when he got there. Let’s roll the audio clip of Glenn Beck.
Also, I was gone on – what was it? – Thursday and Friday. And what I didn’t tell you is why or where I was going. One, I went to the Vatican, and I spent about two days at the Vatican, meeting with high-ranking church officials and others, talking to them about what was happening here in America, finding out where they stand on what’s happening here in America.
Also to be there for now Cardinal Dolan, who I spoke to, I’ve lost track of days, Saturday, to get a feel and to pledge at least my support – as I did with those in the Jewish community – pledge my support to help the Catholic Church face the coming onslaught. I have much to say about what I learned from the Vatican and what is going on, and we’ll do that also today.
Brannon: Okay, so now Beck goes to the Vatican in early 2012 and has actual formal meetings on creating some kind of spiritual plan to maintain liberty and puts out – Glenn Beck does – this campaign that we’re all Catholics now because Barack Obama’s administration is forcing the morning-after pill or contraceptive pills onto Catholic organizations, health providers and such. Correct?
Chris: Yes, correct, but here’s something I want to point out on Beck. When Beck when to the Vatican, he says he went there to help facilitate with the Catholic Church, a movement for an international Tea Party.
Brannon: Yes, that’s right.
Chris: Now, you have – on the one hand, you have – this is where we find the Hegelian dialectic again – on the one hand, you have the Tea Party, which is very much a right-wing, Conservative movement.
Chris: Then you have the Occupy Wall Street movement, that’s a very left-wing liberal movement.
Brannon: That’s your Hegelian dialectic.
Chris: Yeah, and so you’ve got Pope Benedict and the Jesuit, Father Tom Reece, promoting the Occupy Wall Street movement, and then you’ve got Beck at the Vatican promoting the international Tea Party movement.
Brannon: That’s right.
Chris: So, they’re playing both sides, one against another.
Brannon: Well, and that’s, again, the Hegelian dialect that we’ve talked about, for those who maybe are new, where you take opposites and pit them against each other, and then have them synthesize together. Because in the end, I think where the Vatican is going is not just straight Socialism, not straight Capitalism, but a mixture of Socialism with Capitalism for what’s called Communitarianism, also known as the Third Way. One way is Socialism – one way is Communism or Socialism, those are at one, two – now we’ll go to the Third Way, which will be a mixture of both, Communitarianism, Communism Lite. And the phrase that’s represented by this is, “We need to do what’s in the common good.” Common good.
Well, here we have a paper that came out by the Vatican in October of 2011, and I went through this paper and counted every time that – this paper came out, dated 2011/10/24, so October 24, 2011, “The International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority,” a paper put out by the Vatican. The word common good is used 21-22 times. That is the buzzword for Communitarianism, a mixture of socialism with capitalism.
So, why would you have the Glenn Beck going and starting an international Tea Party movement with his meetings at the Vatican? And as you said, on the other side we have the Vatican embracing Occupy Wall Street. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party are the exact opposites. You have your thesis and your antithesis, and they’re backing both sides. Remember the article, out of TIME magazine of April 23, 1973, quoting the Catholic journalist who said, “There’s a Jebbie on every side. No matter where you stand, there’s a Jebbie.” That’s the Hegelian dialectic process.
So, then you have Francis Carney being quoted by Malachi Martin in his best-selling book in ’87, The Jesuits, saying that the future of the Church of Rome is the dialectic. So, here you have the dialectic. They back the Tea Party; they back Occupy Wall Street. In the end, we get a mixture of both for common good or Communitarianism.
Chris: You know, we talked earlier about the – you read quotes from the Jesuit oath.
Chris: And I wanted to read this – just a couple of lines – from the Jesuit oath, just to show how deep this thing goes. And it’s the Jesuit Superior saying to the initiate, he’s swearing this oath, and he says that his job is to:
– incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, to create revolutions and civil wars...to take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected, only that the [Catholic] Church might be the gainer in the end.
Chris: So, they’re admitting, even in this oath that’s hundreds of years old, that they take both sides of an issue, and that they have, quite often, their members arguing one against another so they can control the ultimate outcome.
Brannon: Absolutely. Okay. And we’re going to get into more of the Church of Rome backing Communism, and using Communism to their ends a little bit later, in another program.
So, all right, let’s move on then to some other ideas of ecumenicalism. Let’s move on to an audio clip by Ian Paisley on ecumenicalism. But first, set up for us who Ian Paisley is, because I’m sure a lot of our listeners, our viewers, have never heard of Ian Paisley. But, boy, is he a fiery guy. If they just put his name into a search engine, they can pull up audio and video clips of him, and we’ve got some we’re going to play. But tell us who he is, because this gentleman is a solid, Bible-believing Christian.
Chris: Right, and he openly declare – I mean he is the former First Minister of Northern Ireland, and he has been fighting against the influence of Rome and the Jesuits, who he believes are behind the IRA, the Irish Republican Army, that have conducted all of these terrorist bombings and that kind of thing in Northern Ireland.
And Paisley has preached against Rome, and the pope, and the Vatican’s influence, and their desire for ecumenism and world control for decades now. But he’s also a Protestant preacher, and he considers himself a successor of historic Protestant belief. And so, he’s zealously opposed to Rome.
He believes that the Roman Catholic system is an antichristian system. And he speaks very vehemently against the ecumenical movement, which he recognizes the Jesuits’ involvement in. He believes the Jesuits are behind ecumenism. But in this clip, he talks about an ecumenical gathering that happened some years ago over in Europe, and how it was involving all of these traditional Protestant denominations with the Catholic Church. And so, he talks about how they came back from this ecumenical gathering, and they all had shells. And he talks about the significance and the symbolism of the shell.
Brannon: Let’s play that. Here is Ian Paisley. This is a solid, Bible-believing gentleman that’s been waging this war for the faith for a long time, “contending earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints,” as we read in the book of Jude. And he’s an older gentleman now.
Chris: Oh, he’s in his 80s now. But you know, not only is he involved, opposing Rome politically, but here’s a man who’s out street witnessing on the street. He goes and he gives sermons and speeches and so on to congregations great and small. He’s dedicated to preaching the Gospel. In fact, I saw an interview with him not long ago, after he had retired from the government there, and this young reporter asked him, “Mr. Paisley, what would you say was your greatest accomplishment in life?”
And he said, “Well, without question, being able to lead the souls of men to salvation through the Gospel.” That was the first thing he said, didn’t have any hesitation about it whatsoever, didn’t mention any earthly accolades, or credentials, or anything like that. It was, for him – for Paisley, it’s really about the Gospel.
Brannon: So, he was both a politician and a preacher.
Chris: Right. And he never compromised the Gospel in his preaching. And I’ve always said I think Paisley’s a great example –
Brannon: And he never compromised his – the Gospel in his being an elected official.
Chris: Right, right, as far as I know; I mean from everything that I’ve ever studied about him. But I think he’s a great example for us here in America, because he didn’t. Because it just seems like so many Christians in America, when they get involved in politics, sooner or later they throw the Gospel under the bus so they can pursue political ambition.
Brannon: And that’s what we have going on with this whole ecumenical thing, where people say, “Oh, well, we have to work with many people of many theologies to reclaim the culture,” and they’ll unite with New Age Mormon Glenn Beck, and they’ll unite up with this Church of Rome guy, and this Catholic guy, and then pretty soon, the Gospel’s completely diluted. But they think that, by doing this, they’re going to reclaim the culture. And what we’re saying is, the Scriptures tell us not to do that. Again, Romans 16:17, 2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14.
And in fact, in 2 Corinthians 6:17, it says that if you will not unite with unbelievers and spiritual enterprises, 2 Corinthians 6:17 says, “I will welcome you,” or, “I will bless you,” “I will have favor on you.” So, actually, the way to have favor returned to a nation is not through ecumenical enterprises, as these guys are doing and think this is how they’re going to reclaim America; it’s actually the way to bring God’s judgment and not have God’s favor.
So, I believe that many in the pro-family movement are not going to reclaim America. Actually, what they’re doing is only hastening God’s further judgment on our nation and turning us over, as we see in Romans 1. Let’s go to this audio clip of Ian Paisley on the Jesuit order, because the key thing here is, this isn’t that he’s anti-Catholic; what it really is, is he’s pro-Gospel. He’s pro-biblical Gospel.
Brannon: And so, he wants the Catholics to come to Christ through faith alone, grace alone, and Christ alone. So, he’s not anti-Catholic in the sense that he has animosity and hatred towards the Church of Rome or to Catholics, but he certainly has a problem and a hatred for their false teaching, their heresy, their false Jesus, their false gospel. So, in the end, this isn’t about some political agenda or personal agenda; this is about him trying to defend the Gospel, correct?
Chris: Absolutely. In fact, he’s – people who know him personally – I mean if you go read comments on him, they say that he’s actually very kind and very gracious toward Catholic people, and really toward all people around him; that he loves the catholic people, and he reaches out to them with the Word of God and tries to bring them to salvation.
Brannon: Amen. All right, here’s the clip of Ian Paisley:
And they all came home with little shells in their hand. They were all given shells, because the shell is the badge of the ecumenical group. That’s a good badge for them, isn’t it? For it’s empty. Every shell is empty, and this whole movement is evacuated of anything of Christ, of anything of truth, of anything of the Gospel, of anything of the Bible, which is the Word.
They went on to get a covenant, and they sang the covenant together. Let me read it to you, “We now declare together our readiness to commit ourselves to each other under God.” Various Presbyterian ministers committing themselves under God to Cardinal ____. Think of it. Methodist ministers in Ireland committing themselves under God to Cardinal ____. Church of Ireland clergymen committing themselves; the Salvation Army committing itself under God to truck with popery. The Christian Brethren, the ____ brethren, a section of them, they were there, too, with the Seventh-Day Adventists, all lined up with the See, the YMCA all lined up to commit themselves under God to popery.
This is the great ecumenical delusion. You read about it in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2, “God will send them a strong delusion, that they might believe the lie, that they all might be damned that had pleasure in unrighteousness.” This is unrighteousness. This is dishonesty. This, my friend, is the product of the father of lies, the arch-deceiver, the great purveyor of darkness to the human soul.
Brannon: All right, so the shell was actually considered a badge. It was an empty shell that he talked about, and that was kind of a symbol for them of the ecumenical movement.
Chris: Right. So, I’m not sure what the real – what their symbolism is of the shell, but I like Paisley’s definition, that it was empty because it didn’t have Christ in the center of it.
Brannon: Let’s go to the second clip. You have another audio clip you brought with you.
Chris: Yes. Now, this is one where Dr. Paisley specifically talks about how ecumenism is the instrument of the Jesuit order, and he shows – because the Jesuits have been developing ecumenical dialogue for hundreds of years. They’ve sent missionaries into China, Japan, India, all over the world. And what they would do is to ingratiate themselves with these other religious groups. They would find ways to compromise their own Catholic beliefs and amalgamate them with the beliefs of pagan cultures. That’s really where it comes from.
Brannon: All for the purpose of a Counter-Reformation. In other words, no matter where they went – South America, the Middle East, the mysticism of the Orient – wherever they went, whatever country they were in, they would take on whatever religion was popular in order to convert people back to the Church of Rome. Is that what you’re saying?
Chris: Exactly. In fact, Cardinal Levada – who took over as the Grand Inquisitor for Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict – Cardinal Levada has said that the purpose of ecumenism is union with the Church of Rome. That that’s the whole purpose of ecumenical dialogue is to bring everybody under the authority of Rome.
Brannon: And my friend, the late Dr. Ron Carlson, told me firsthand, as he traveled all over the world, that he saw this again and again, the Church of Rome taking on whatever was the popular religion in that nation, they would take it on to turn people back to Rome. My friend, the late Ron Carlson, testified that to me personally many times.
All right, let’s go to this next clip of Ian Paisley talking about how the Jesuits had this symbol, this emblem, if you will, that dealt with Ignatius Loyola and having a boot on the neck of the Protestants. Here’s Ian Paisley.
On one of the walls of the Church of the Jesuits in Rome, there is a unique plaster cast. It depicts one of the saints of the Roman Catholic Church, Ignatius Loyola himself, with his foot on the neck of Protestantism. This Roman-manufactured saint, Ignatius Loyola, was the founder of the Jesuit order, or the Society of Jesus, as he blasphemously called it. Its purpose is to step on the neck of Protestantism.
It is the Jesuits who control Rome’s ecumenical movement. When the second Pope John XXIII set up the Vatican Secretariat for Unity, he made Cardinal Bea, a German Jesuit, its president. This is deeply significant. Not only being a Jesuit Cardinal, Bea had at his disposal the greatest spy ring in Europe, his own society to leak back to him all of the vital information concerning the leadership and vulnerability of the great Protestant denominations, which he was aiming to subvert to the papacy.
Brannon: All right, a boot – the Jesuits with a boot on the neck of Protestantism.
Chris: Well, that’s their ultimate aim is the overthrow of Protestantism, and to put down Protestantism and, really, anything that questions the authority of the pope. Well, what’s interesting is that in that clip, Paisley is talking about how the Jesuits have this international spy ring – okay? – which is admitted to even – if you watch – there’s a History Channel presentation on the Vatican, and even on the History Channel, they admit that the Vatican has the largest and most-advanced intelligence network anywhere in the world, far better than the CIA, far better than MI6 or the Mossad or any of them, because you’ve got one billion Catholics in the world, in countries all over the planet.
And so, they’ve got a population three times the size of the United States to draw form in terms of having an intelligence network. And so, it is said by – I mean Dave Hunt documents this in A Woman Rides the Beast, John W. Robbins in his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania also talks about it. This book here talks about the Vatican’s intelligence network, but notice Dr. Paisley mentioned how they’re sending out spies into the different Protestant denominations to figure out how to subvert them and bring them to Rome. And this is something that the Jesuits have done for hundreds of years, and it’s documented, going all the way back to the very beginning of the Counter-Reformation.
And in fact, one of the books that I brought with me is called The Secret History of the Oxford Movement, and this is by a man named Walter Walsh. And he published this back in 1898. And what Walsh is referring to in this book is all of the different, secret Catholic groups that had been organized by the Jesuits in England for the purpose of bringing the Church of England back under Roman Catholicism. And they used secrecy specifically.
And Charles Spurgeon, he would be another resource to read his –
Chris: – warnings in The Sword and the Trowel. That was his publication, and Spurgeon wrote about the different movements that would masquerade themselves as though they were Protestant, and then, one step at a time, they would reveal the underlayers of Catholicism that were waiting to come and get people to go back to the Vatican. So, that happens. And I think that that’s what we see a lot of here in America, in the churches, and why we see these ministers who begin with the strong Protestant evangelical views, and then they shift over, and then suddenly they’re trying to lead everybody back to Rome.
Brannon: Well, isn’t it interesting that, again, chicagomag.com, an article entitled – and again, I just found this in my research a few months ago – “The End of Community Organizing in Chicago.” We’ll make reference to it in another program. But again, the article says that Barack Obama credits for his grassroots organization that quickly allowed him to assemble this grassroots organization, he credits a Jesuit by the name of Gregory Galluzzo. So, you have a Jesuit helping Obama. Obama comes to office. He begins to do all these liberal Neo-Marxist things, and the first thing it does is scares the living daylights out of pro-family leaders and the God and country crowd – and it concerns me as well, but I understand what’s happening in light of the Scripture.
But these people, who are either not Christians, they’re false converts, or they’re so theologically shallow in their faith that Barack Obama, what he does is he scares the church right into the open arms of Glenn Beck, a New Age Mormon – former Catholic, now Mormon – and scares the – quote – church, if you will, the false church, right into the arms of ecumenicalism like Glenn Beck and the Church of Rome.
So, you want to talk about a strategy for saying, “Now, how can we infiltrate? How can we exploit the Church in America,” for instance – and this goes on in other ways throughout the world – bringing Barack Obama to office, letting him do what he’s done with his own admission that there was a Jesuit behind him helping him, getting his grassroots going. Satan is the ultimate schemer behind this. But what an interesting and yet intelligent ploy to use Barack Obama to scare the false church, the weak church, right into the arms of Glenn Beck, ecumenicalism, the Church of the Rome. And who’s leading the way is most of our – quote – evangelical, pro-family leaders. So, that’s that dialectic and how it works to their advantage. Would you agree?
Chris: Yeah, I mean there is certainly all of the indicators that are there. I remember, after Obama was elected, finding his list of national Catholic advisors that was listed on one of the websites there, and the conservative Catholics were speaking against it, because all of the advisors for Obama, these national Catholic Advisory Board, were all Jesuit trained; they were all very liberal; they were pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etcetera and so on, and it represents that whole left wing of the Catholic Church, but it ignited the right wing of the Catholic Church in the same Hegelian dialectic.
I see the same thing with this whole birth control issue. When Obama comes out passing this legislation to force Catholic hospitals to provide birth control, contrary to their doctrine, it seems to fit in with the Jesuits’ philosophy and Saul Alinsky’s philosophy of fomenting agitation against your opponent.
Brannon: Because, “Change come from the conflict,” Saul Alinsky said.
Brannon: And then, all of a sudden, you awaken the Tea Party, you awaken Glenn Beck, you awaken the pro-family leaders, you awaken the ecumenicalism. And now, “We will embrace the ecumenicalism,” pro-family leaders will; evangelical leaders will, “and we’re all Catholics now because we’re all under attack.” Well, the attack was used to get everybody to agree to the ecumenicalism and to say, “Oh, we have to set aside theology and doctrine and work with everybody, or we won’t be able to reclaim the country.”
And people often tell me that what they’re doing is defending liberty for the sake of the Gospel. I remember telling one elderly, pro-family leader, “No, what you’re doing is you’re compromising the Gospel for the sake of liberty. You’re playing right into their hand.”
Chris: Yeah, and isn’t it interesting that what Mike Huckabee said, he didn’t say, “I guess we’re all Christians now,” you can’t say that, but it’s, “We’re all Catholics now.” Everybody’s moving in the direction of being Catholic or a Universalist.
Brannon: He’s saying that, and Glenn Beck is saying that. Numerous articles have been written about that. It is fascinating. So, ecumenicalism is growing, and one way to get the Church, at least in America, to embrace ecumenicalism has been to use the dialectic and bring up the Neo-Marxism policies of the religious liberty freedom issues of this administration that’s in the White House now as we’re filming, May of 2012, Barack Obama. And that has scared the false church right into the arms of ecumenicalism, saying, “We all have to set aside theology and doctrine to work together, or we’re all going to die. We’re all going to lose our liberty and freedom.” And so, ecumenicalism has really advanced by this liberalism that’s been introduced into America. And this is going on in other parts of the world.
Okay, we’ll come back in our next program, and we’ll get a little bit into the evangelicals and Catholics together that was pushed by Bill Bright, Chuck Colson, and others to bring evangelicals and Catholics together to declare, “We’re all Christians.” So, we’re all Christians now. Because we’re all Catholic, now we’re all Christians now. And then we’ll move on into the other of our eight points of the things that the Jesuits concentrate on.
My guest and friend is Chris Pinto. His website is noiseofthunder.com. We appreciate his program and want more access to more programming like that. We look forward to talking to you in our third program, as we continue our series on “The Counter-Reformation of the Jesuit Order.” For all of us here at Worldview Weekend, I’m Brannon Howse, thanks for watching.