Alberto Rivera claims he used to be a Jesuit priest, and was trained to work with others in subterfuge to twist the arms of Protestant schools and churches to join the Roman Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement.

1. Ellen White

We probably better start with Ellen White:



So now, if Ellen White says Jesuits:

1. Are powerful.
2. Since their conception, to this day, have been working for nothing more than to extend their power and influence.
3. Are fanatical.
4. Have all the weapons of deception.
5. Practice the most base deceptions.
6. Assume the most difficult disguises.
7. Are devoted to the overthrow of Protestantism.
8. Are devoted to re-establish the supremacy of the Papacy.
9. While doing good deeds, conceal the most criminal and deadly purposes.
10. Lie, steal, commit perjury, assassinate.
11. Assume various disguises to climb up to high positions to even shape the policies of nations.
12. Establish colleges where the children of Princes and Nobles are drawn into the observance of popish rites.

To say otherwise, you must reject Ellen White.



2. The Jesuit Oath

Then there's the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Unction, which leaked out around 1907, or some time around then.



That certainly matches up with what Ellen White said.



3. Left Behind

I have heard Doug Bachelor, Lyle Albrecht, Steve Wohlberg, and possibly others, publicly teaching about how the "Left Behind" doctrine came from the Jesuits. It is an adaptation of the Futurism interpretation invented in 1500s by Jesuit [Francisco] Ribera. He was commissioned to come up with an alternative interpretation of Bible prophecy that did not teach that the Pope was the Antichrist, which is what all Protestant denominations back then where teaching.

Notice they where inventing doctrines to introduce to the Protestants to destroy Protestantism. This has been most successful. Now there are very few Protestant denominations that still teach that the Pope is antichrist. Most of them teach "Left Behind" or some other odd thing, as a result of the determined, fanatical, and untiring efforts of the Jesuits.

Yet people laugh.

Wait.

We still haven't gotten to Alberto Rivera.



4. Alberto Rivera

-







Read the whole comic.

Our testimonies are still matching up pretty good. With just the evidence so far, I would almost laugh historically at people who imagine that we do NOT have Jesuit spies among us trying to destroy our church and take over. But I don't because it is a serious matter, and I am not a scoffer.



5. Jim Arrabito

Here's Alberto Rivera in an interview, with others who have discovered Jesuits in disguise, in their own denomination, trying to usurp the high, influential positions. One woman was married to a Jesuit priest, and when she found out, the guy just left. Another dean discovered one of his teachers was a Jesuit.



Alberto Rivera was murdered by his old Jesuit friend, who said he was also coming out, but then poisoned his food and left. Jim Arrabito died in a mysterious "accident", after receiving a direct threat by a Jesuit priest, which you can see in that video.

He made many other videos, which I will post as soon as I get time.



6. Phoenix

These guys have been kicked out of countries so many times, because they are always starting civil wars. They manipulate Protestants to fight and kill each other. Then the Roman Catholic church comes in to clean up the mess, and becomes the hero, saving the day.

They will have one guy plant porn on your web site, and their guy will come and have it removed, saving the day, and winning everyone's trust.

And they do many such schemes to make their own guy look like the great hero, so he's the one that gets promoted and gets everyone's admiration.

I heard a story about this great SDA leader who gave a gift to the Pope. He was in the World Council of Churches and some SDA kids tied a banner to some balloons and let it go there. No information on what it said, but I guess it was bad. Then the guy went up and apologized to the audience and explained how the SDA people really want to join this Council but we just have some tradition, you see. We are really not so bad. (Or he said something like that...). So this guy gets a magazine article in Adventist Review, with his picture on the front page, about what a great hero he is.

That looks like a typical Jesuit set up to me. Tear 'em down, and build 'em up. I think that whole thing was a scam.

I've noticed alot of these guys pushing these doctrines are always very witty and jovial and that just lightens up everything and makes them look like they have nothing to hide and the people sympathize with them. This same behavior can be observed in Catholic clergy. Like this guy:





Conclusion

There's quite a bit more information, but I have to cut it short, for now.

Am I saying we should be paranoid and suspicious of everyone? Should we start up our own Inquisition?

No.

We have the weapons of truth. That should be enough. We must not let these devils shake us in our faith with their strange new doctrines. We must not give into these new ideals. Even if they seem to have everyone on their side and they teach "love love love love love", and they make you look like you're against the very concept of "love". It's going to take some strong faith to see through these delusions. Let them defame us, revile us, even torture us and kill us, and our families, and let us not give into their temptations.

We also must realize that not everyone teaching doctrines that came from the Jesuits, are themselves Jesuits. If their efforts have been as effective as in the "Futurism" campaign, then they have seduced many and have created many unwitting disciples.

But they are fighting against God. Good luck to them.

Just don't give in. Don't join them. Don't betray your true brethren whom you know, whom you see in Revelation:

Rev. 14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile:

I believe he was real.

None of your arguments address the question you raise as to whether this man was telling the truth or making up a story.

Please check out the investigations that were made into Rivera's past, including Cornerstone Magazine.

Welcome, Bill!

Please check out the investigations that were made into Rivera's past, including Cornerstone Magazine.

Thank you for that link. I'll read that, as soon as I get time.

But is there an independent, un-bias investigation?

No one is surprised they would drum up a bunch of fake information. But I have seen the Catholic church publish so many bold lies, that's it's just ridiculous. Who do you trust? Who has any credibility? If anyone on earth does, it's not the Roman Catholic Church.

They said John Huss claimed to be the 4th person of the Godhead. They said the children of the Waldensees where born with four rows of black teeth. They make up all kinds of things. They will say they have a letter from God Himself that just appeared on their alter. They will say you can buy an indulgence which gives you a free pass to sin, and can get people out of purgatory.

They say that Mary is praying for us, and can even let down her rosary to pull people out of purgatory.

All these are lies. No credibility at all.

That's just from what I can think of on the spot. We could write whole libraries full of books just about the lies of the Roman Catholic Church.

But there is plenty of real, factual data that proves Alberto Rivera's legitimacy.

Was Alberto Really Who He Claimed To Be?

Do you know of any lies they have told lately? I mean, that was back in the Dark Ages.

It's always easier to separate truth from lies, after the fact, in retrospect.

Anyway. I found this pretty good presentation by Jim Arrabito on the history of the Jesuits.

Part 1. A
Part 1. B
Part 2
Part 3

You can also read this one online:

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome
By CHARLES CHINIQUY
The life story of Charles Chiniquy, who was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church for 25 years.

There are a few pretty good books I've heard quoted alot.

Some you can find here:

http://www.chick.com/catalog/catholicism.asp

The Secret History of the Jesuits -by- Edmond Paris
The Two Babylons -by- Alexander Hislop
The Fiery Jesuits -by- some German guy, I think.

I haven't found those online yet. If you do, let me know. Thanks.

Actually, I'm not that interested in the subject of the Jesuits. But all the lies you mentioned as being told by the Catholic Church were from the Dark Ages. Do you know of any lies the Church has told, on record, within the last 100 years or so? I just don't think it's a very solid case to use evidence from 500 years ago.

Yes, the Pope said evolution was a viable explanation of origins.

They still say they had the right to change the sabbath (and their evolution posit is no doubt aimed at weakening Sabbath).

They still claim to speak ex-cathedra (for God).

They recently said they were sorry for killing those nasty "heretics." They are sorry that they got caught in our modern world of political correctness.


and others,


OG

The Alberto Rivera story has all the elements of every classic conspiracy story. It's a self-sealed system, since any inconsistencies can be explained away as part of the Jesuit plot. That makes it completely unassailable to any kind of evidence.

Remind you of any other discussions........

D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, a highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor, wrote:

"'Ah but,' you say, ‘has not the Roman Catholic Church changed? You are simply looking back, you are speaking as if you lived in the 16th century-- don't you realize you are living in the 20th century?' My answer is quite simple. The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic Church is this, that she never changes, Semper eadem. How can she change? If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the past -- but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake. If she says that she is capable of change she is denying her central claim! She does not say that she is changing, and she never will. The Church of Rome remains the same. If anything, she is even worse. She has 'added' things to what she taught in the 16th century, such as Papal infallibility, etc. No, there is no change in the Church of Rome. And if there ever is one great world Church it will be because the Church of Rome has absorbed all the rest and swallowed them in their ignorance!"

That's all opinion - can't be proved either way as a lie or not.

Yes, I'm familiar with that quote, although I can never remember who said it. Still, it sounds like an opinion - no examples of any lies they have told in recent history.

Are you saying that there are Catholics out there who still say Protestants have 4 rows of teeth, or whatever? I mean, if the Church never changes, wouldn't that have to be the case?

Have they said anything in recent history that can be proved to be a lie?

I side with OG or this. All that stuff is common knowledge.

Being common knowledge doesn't make them lies. I'm talking about things that can be proven as lies - not just opinions we disagree with.

Examples: Saying Protestants have 4 rows of teeth is a lie that can be easily disproven. Saying evolution is a viable explanation of origins is an opinion that cannot be disproven.

I hate to keep harping at this, but I think accusing a group of telling lies - and then having no examples of it since the 1500s - is a pretty lame accusation.

>>D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, a highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor, wrote:

The proudest boast of the Roman Catholic Church is this, that she never changes, Semper eadem. How can she change? If she changes she will be admitting that she was wrong in the past -- but she was saying then that she was infallible, and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and that he cannot make a mistake.<<

I think the following rather puts some perspective on the above-noted “highly regarded protestant theologian and pastor”. I suppose it is not for nuthin’ that he is noted as ‘protesting’.

I remember, not too many years past, that Pope John Paul II admitted-to and apologized for ‘errors’ of the Universal Church.

“On no fewer than 94 occasions, according to a the Italian journalist Luigi Accattoli, Pope John Paul II has publicly admitted that the Catholic Church was guilty of errors in the past. Now, in what Religion News Service calls "a move unprecedented in two millenniums of Roman Catholic history," John Paul has issued a summation of all these apologies. He read the document, "Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Mistakes of the Past," at a "solemn ceremony" on March 12, (year 2000) the first Sunday of Lent. A preparatory document, outlining the conditions and limits of the forthcoming apology, was also issued by the Vatican.

Among the Church's errors for which John Paul apologized are divisions within Christianity, forced conversions, ecclesiastical use (and approval) of violence, and anti-Jewish prejudice. The document also says that past errors by Catholics lie at the root of such "evils of today" as the spread of atheism and ethical relativism.”

[...]

Furthermore, John Paul's apology puts him in the position of condemning such institutions as the Inquisition and the Crusades, ... [ed.jasd]

>>I hate to keep harping at this, but I think accusing a group of telling lies...<<

Using the above as segue, I note:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

'bear' in the above commandment is also translated as 'hear'- as in

"Thou shalt not hear false witness..."

Seems to me that should a .Org find it impossible to adhere to the one commandment, then, it is moot for that .Org to pontificate upon any other commandment.

IMHO

That said, yes, I believe that the interests of the Jesuits and the interests of this .org or that .Org - do not coincide.
That said,

I smile to find that an almost [internationally] unnoticed .Org should indulge in the frisson of a constant fear of sheltering within its ranks an 'embedded' Jesuit

Um, so, if I reject that these are current practices, I am rejecting EGW?

I dont think so...



©1984-2008 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Some portions of www.chick.com are copyrighted by others and reproduced by permission, as indicated by copyright notices on individual pages.

Doesn't this say everything?

Creation scientists are disproving evolution all the time. There voices in this matter are drowned out by the overwhelming number of pro-evolution scientists who are obsessively biased against the idea of God, or that God created everything.

DB

It's still a matter of opinion and how one interprets the evidence.

(Adventist Review article on evolutioin)

C O V E R S T O R Y
BY JONATHAN GALLAGHER

Sitting in his study with Baltimore neurosurgeon Ben Carson,* I engage him in conversation, and the discussion turns to the subject of evolution and origins. As we face each other between the erudite tomes on the bookcase and the modern technological equipment on the desk, it feels appropriate to think about who we are and where we came from.

Carson: Like this computer: If you came into this room and saw the computer, you wouldn't think it had just happened. It didn't come about by random events.

JG: So why do so many people prefer to believe in the random formation of the universe--and of life itself? Or to put it another way, Why is the matter of evolution so important?
BC: It comes down to a matter of ownership. Who owns the universe, who owns the earth, who owns your life? Those who believe in evolution, and in a naturalistic explanation of the universe, ultimately see themselves as end-owners--as the creator and ultimate source of authority. In this way they answer to nothing and nobody, for there is nothing higher than themselves.

How does this happen? What are the consequences of accepting evolutionary views of human origins? How does this affect society and the way we see ourselves?
By believing we are the product of random acts, we eliminate morality and the basis of ethical behavior. For if there is no such thing as moral authority, you can do anything you want. You make everything relative, and there's no reason for any of our higher values.

If we are all the product of chance, the random assortment of atoms, living in a deterministic universe that is simply the consequence of physical interactions, doesn't it all seem so futile?
Yes, in my education I had to learn evolutionary theories, and as a God-fearing Christian I wondered how to make God and evolution mesh. The truth is that you can't make them mesh--you have to choose one or the other.

Too many Christians have given up too much to "science," conceding not just the observed data but the anti-God interpretations. Are you often questioned about being both a logical scientist and a Christian?
Yes, my answer is that the more you understand science, the less you can believe all this is an accident! Just look at the brain, with its billions and billions of neurons, and 100 billions of connections, and how it remembers everything it has ever seen and heard . . .

Everything? This does not seem to be a correct portrayal of my brain at least! I'm forgetting things all the time.
Put a probe on the hippocampus of an 80-year-old man, and he can tell you verbatim the words of a book he read 60 years ago. This is a highly complex and sophisticated organ. Not a likely result of chance processes.

Not even by slow degrees?
Even if you allow the formation of a single cell. And a single-celled organism is also amazingly complex--the cell membranes, the nucleus, the nucleolus, the mitochondria. . . . Plus, we give evolutionists too much if we start with a single cell. Try starting with inert substances!

But just supposing you did have that first cell?
Even if you accept evolutionary theory--developing a more sophisticated organism in this theoretically "logical" fashion, then there should be a continuum of organisms. And why did evolution divert in so many directions--birds, fish, elephants, apes, humans--if there is some force evolving to the maximum? Why isn't everything a human--a superior human? Darwin specifically stated that his theory hung on the discovery of intermediate forms, and was sure that we would find them. More than a hundred years later we still haven't found them. Even the earliest fossils don't show such intermediates.

Take the simple case of ape to human. It should be easy to find abundant fossil remains since, according to evolutionary theory, this is the most recent transition. If we can find so many fossils of dinosaurs, which are further back in the evolutionary scheme, we should have plenty of evidence of intermediates between apes and humans. But we don't have them. We have very few supposed intermediates--like "Lucy," based on fanciful reconstruction with a lot of filling in. Today we have people with significant congenital abnormalities whose skeletal remains would seem like a missing link. So "Lucy" does not make the case, and there should be multiple "Lucys" if the transition from ape to human were true.

Also, there's the whole subject of irreducibly complex organisms--the idea that everything has to be there all at once for it to work. How could all the complex items evolve simultaneously--as in the eye, for example?

Would so many scientists who disagree with your views be a concern to you? After all, 99 percent may say you're wrong!
Before Darwin most scientists were Christian. Even Darwin was brought up a Christian, but he became embittered. He set out to prove another explanation to life. I have to give the man credit--he was a powerful observer. On the Galápagos Islands he found thick-billed finches whose bills were capable of breaking apart hard seeds. He also discovered iguanas and tortoises with different adaptations. Therefore, he concluded that these organisms were evolving, and he was right in terms of microevolution--adaptation to the environment. Imagine if you only got fed if you could dunk a basketball . . .

(Now I was really wondering where he was going with this one! Evolving basketball players? But then he made a telling point.)
Only tall people would be fed and would survive. They would pass on their tall genes to their offspring. Is this evolution or adaptation? Obviously it's the latter. But evolution means one organism eventually changing into another quite different, and there's no evidence for such change. God allowed for adaptation, which speaks of a wonderful Creator who gave His creatures a genetic structure flexible enough to adapt. But that's not evolution.

(Then we turned the conversation heavenward.)
Look at the complexity of the universe, too. The Hubble telescope has revealed much more to us. But our galaxy is just a tiny dot in the great scheme of the universe, and there's much more beyond what we know. Even in our own solar system--we orbit 93 million miles from the sun. If it were 92 million miles, we'd be incinerated; 94 million miles, and we'd be a frozen iceball. There's so much--it's all so extraordinarily organized with such complexity. How does that happen?

Then take the ideas of the origins of the universe. The scientists speak about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that everything tends toward a state of disorganization . . .

(Maybe he has seen my desk, a stray thought occurs to me as it streaks across my brain!)
So how could our incredibly organized universe come about as the result of a big bang? This flies in the face of the second law, which says it would be less organized as a result, not more! Scientists have to be consistent.

A few closing thoughts?
Ultimately, if you accept the evolutionary theory, you dismiss ethics, you don't have to abide by a set of moral codes, you determine your own conscience based on your own desires. You have no reason for things such as selfless love, when a father dives in to save his son from drowning. You can trash the Bible as irrelevant, just silly fables, since you believe that it does not conform to scientific thought. You can be like Lucifer, who said, "I will make myself like the Most High."

Can you prove evolution? No. Can you prove creation? No. Can you use the intellect God has given you to decide whether something is logical or illogical? Yes, absolutely. It all comes down to "faith"--and I don't have enough to believe in evolution. I'm too logical!

_________________________
*Ben Carson is the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.

_________________________
Jonathan Gallagher is the United Nations liaison for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland.

The lies that I am most concerned about are the lies about God and about Bible doctrines. The Roman Catholic Church's entire structure rests on false teachings, such as the papal authority, the human priesthood, church tradition over Bible authority, the priest's power to absolve and to create Christ's flesh and blood in the mass, the immortality of the soul, prayers to the saints, auricular confession, penance, the belief that only the teaching authority of the church can interpret the Scripture correctly, etc. Those kinds of lies do more damage because they been such great influences on billions of people. The book of Revelation compares the false doctrines to a wine that makes people spiritually drunk and disoriented.

One of my wife's sisters, for instance, has crawled on bloody knees for miles on a pilgrimage because she was taught in the Catholic Church that this is how she can get God to answer her prayers. Hundreds of thousand do this every year in places like Mexico and South and Central America. Those lies make it very difficult for them to understand the truth of God's Word. They are taught to listen to their priests rather than study the Bible for themselves.

Obviously, I share your concerns. But it doesn't take away from the fact that no one has come up with a lie that the Catholic Church has come up with in the last 100-200 years, or even before that. That's the only point I was trying to make, because the claim was made that they lie, and yet there is no proof of that since the Dark Ages.

Whether the Catholic Church (a) lies or (b) has different doctrines are quite different issues from whether the Catholic Church has Jesuit secret agents in Protestant churches trying to destroy them, and on this forum attacking Adventist doctrines.

Yes, virtually everything is a matter to a large degree of opinion. The spiritual condition of a person's heart and mind do influence how he chooses and what he thinks. Does a person want to do God's will? Is he or she open to the influence of the Holy Spirit? Some people aren't. That's important in determining whether a person will recognize the truth, accept it and obey it.

I think I read that article a while back. It's a great article. Makes a lot of sense to me. And I have a lot of respect for Ben Carson.

But it shows we simply have a difference of beliefs with some people - not that anyone lied.

Of course. No question.

I understand you. I haven't much studied the issue of current lies like the ones referred to, so I can't give an answer. All I know is that we have enough lies in the false doctrines, and those are the ones that the Bible concentrates on because they destroy millions of people spiritually.

On the other hand, if Ellen White's statements in GC are to be believed-- and I believe they are-- then we shouldn't surprised if some of those things are happening.

Have you read of or heard of Malachi Martin's book, The Jesuits? Or: The Keys of This Blood? Malachi Martin was a very highly respected scholar and writer who had been a Jesuit professor in Rome for decades. I'm reading The Keys book right now. Later I plan to read The Jesuits, which I see often at Barnes and Noble.

Yes, you're right. I got off on a tangent. It's hard for me to let those kinds of wild accusations just go by, especially when it is divisive and not necessary to the discussion at hand. I mean, yeah, we know, historically, they told some whoppers that have been easily disproved. But we need to recognize that was 500 years ago, and we need to understand the difference between lies and differences of opinion/doctrine. My feeling is, if a person can't back up their argument better than that, they're on pretty shaky ground. If they stick to what is solid, they're more likely to convince me.

Yes. I have both books. I need to start re reading Keys of this blood. In it the catholic church plainly states that their goal is to set up a one world government with the RCC at the head.
The writer of the book, Malachi Martin, was a vatican insider. His book had the impremator of the RCC.

Yes, The Keys of This Blood is a remarkable book because when he began writing it, we were still in the Cold War, and the USSR was still a superpower. In the book, Keys of This Blood, Malachi Martin tells us of John Paul's plan to take down the USSR, which would then leave only the USA and the Papacy as the major powers in the West.

We know today that it was Reagan and the Pope who got together twice and planned the downfall of the Iron Curtain. That has been written up in Time magazine several times. Even Gorbochav has stated a number of times that it would not have happened without John Paul II. All of this happened AFTER The Keys was published.

The book goes on to discuss the plan of the Papacy to use the USA in order to gain even greater influence in the world. Martin mentions the interest the Papacy has in churches such as the Seventh-day Adventists. We are mentioned at least twice in the book.

By the way, Malachi Martin was a friend of the Vatican and the papacy. He was not writing about these powers as something evil. As you yourself pointed out, Martin was an acknowledged expert on the Vatican and on the Jesuits, having been an insider in both for many years. Therefore it cannot reasonably be said that the book is fanciful and sensationalistic.

The Keys is also a book heavy with political philosophy and discussions about Marxist theory.

>>But is there an independent, un-bias investigation? No one is surprised they would drum up a bunch of fake information. But I have seen the Catholic church publish so many bold lies, that's it's just ridiculous. Who do you trust? Who has any credibility? If anyone on earth does, it's not the Roman Catholic Church.

Cornerstone is not a Catholic publication; it is evangelical. Gary Metz, the