Eric Phelps, the Jesuits and the Freemasons

I quoted this text from Eric Phelps' vatican assassins web site in another thread and thought it might be interesting to bring it over here to see what those who frequent this board may have to say on it.

“In 1932 the fascist and secret Freemason Benito Mussolini, advised by Jesuit Pietro Tacchi-Venturi (who was the Secretary of the Society of Jesus), gave military and financial aid to Ibn Saud, the first King of Saudi Arabia. (Indeed, the Order finances what it controls.) In 1937 Mussolini, the man who restored the Temporal Power of the Pope in 1929, was presented the Sword of Islam and hailed as the Defender of Islam by Libya. Later, America’s domestic oil wells would be shut down forcing trillions of our dollars to be spent overseas thereby consolidating massive wealth in Islamic Saudi Arabia while creating a dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This massive wealth in the hands of fanatical, Wahhabi Moslems would provide the basis for Saudi Arabia’s financing of the Black Pope’s International Masonic/Islamic Terrorist Network presently headed by Freemason Osama bin Laden and financed by Saudi Arabia’s Masonic House of Saud. This Masonic/Roman Catholic fascist connection to Masonic/Islam is imperative to understand if we are to come to grips with our present danger under the pro-Patriot Act I and II, Supreme Court appointed and darling of the Jesuit Order’s fascist Fox News Network mogul and Papal Knight of Malta, Rupert Murdock, anti-Bible and slave of Freemason Pope John Paul II, Skull and Bones initiate and Freemason, George W. Bush.” (emphasis mine)

Source www.vaticanassassins.org...

As I am sure many of you know, especially those of you who are freemasons, Phelps makes some pretty sweeping statements regarding the connections between the Masons and the Jesuits. Some of these allegations we know have some credence, the Clermont connection for one. I personally consider the Jesuits to be fifth columnists, but am yet to be convinced that this is an entirely bad thing. The Jesuits have had a some highly positive influences on all our societies and I would be very interested to hear whether you consider the influence they have had on Freemasonry as a positive or negative or indeed whether it can be distinguished at all. I would also be interested in any thoughts you have on Phelps' allegations in general.


[b[Mod edit to add external quotes

[edit on 1/14/2008 by benevolent tyrant]

I would be extremely suspicious of anyone who proposes such theories. In this case, because he is proclaiming people to be masons who are simply not as a matter of fact. The pope is not, never has been, and never will be a mason unless he would like to excommunicate himself. The Catholic church has historically been against the fraternity. Mussolini was active in the prosecution of masons - why would he be one? And we know as a matter of record that George Bush (senior and junior) are not masons.

Why would the rest of his theory have any basis in reality when he can't even get right who is a mason and who is not a mason? And trust me, I as a mason would be proud to have any pope or US president as a mason. The fraternity is very proud of its historic members who have been in positions of power - why would we "hide" a pope or another president as a member?

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


What a horrible butchering a history ...

Mussolini was not a Mason.

Neither is the Pope.

Neither are the Jesuits.

Neither is President Bush.

And I doubt Jesuits control the Media. Its like in place of anti-semitism.. we get Anti-Catholicism.

A quote to show how wrong this guy (not the OP, the guy who wrote this false "history") is...

"Masonry is distinctly a survival of the unfit and has no decent pretext to continue living. My principle is to do all the good we can to our friends and inflict all of the harm on our enemies - in this case the Masons."
- Benito Mussolini in his address to Parliament, May, 1925

So much for Mussolini being a mason. Next!


[edit on 13-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I would be extremely suspicious of anyone who proposes such theories.

I think that may be you misunderstood my position. Eric Phelps is IMHO a hate mongerer - end of story. I know that those he states as freemasons are in fact not. However, Phelps power over his audience, lies in the fact that he bases his theories on truth and I am therefore wishing to discuss what masonry percieves the influence of the Jesuits has been.

Many thanks though for replying and I hope that the above helps to clarify my motives in broaching the subject.

reply to post by Rockpuck


These arguments are raised all the time on boards other than SS and they may not be read by the Freemasons so often go unchallenged - that is why I thought it may be useful/interesting to bring it here.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I see your point, but I would still maintain that he has nothing which is based in fact. He is literally claiming everyone is a Jesuit and a Freemason and then using that as a launching pad to accuse the two organizations of..well...everything. The only thing that has any basis in truth that I have seen in that quote is that Freemasons exist and Jesuits exist. The rest of it is just wrong.

He is indeed trying to rile up hatred, but I would argue it is not effective because it has any basis in facts. Indeed, the best type of hate mongering is most effective when it is completely made up, because it allows the people who make it up to literally draw theories that have entire organizations being "innately evil." It is much harder to do this with facts, as very few people and especially very few entire organizations are 100% evil and up to no good. Reality is not so black and white, so in order to inspire hatred people must start making up their own reality.

There is no institutional connection with masonry and the jesuits. This is because the Roman Catholic Church has since masonry's inception been extremely hostile and discouraging of any interaction between the church and the fraternity, and especially dislikes its members becoming masons. Why would it then cooperate with the fraternity?

reply to post by LightinDarkness


I understand what you mean but when I say "based on fact" what I mean is that he uses history as a structural argument. I don't mean that there is a factual connection. He makes connections that do not exist for sure, but to the impressionable reader this does not matter. Many actually believe what Phelps has to say. Phelps is not appealing to the educated reader, he is appealing to those who perhaps have not studied history beyond secondary (high) school. His readers therefore have an 'over view' of history not an indepth knowledge (what I call the lowest common denominator), his argument can, in this case, make perfect sense.

I would hazard a guess that many of those who make baseless allegations against the Masons on this board, ie the anti-masons, have had some exposure to Phelps' work.

I agree. He uses historical names and places to make up facts that have the air of authenticity for those who have no higher education or choose to not delve into the real facts. Out of curiosity, can you link me to these other threads where people are taking this sort of thing as fact? I did do some searching as those would be interesting reads, but I really have never seen any freemason/jesuit topics outside of this board. It would be interesting to see where the discussion ends up when there are no masons or people who are "knowledgeable" about masonry (ie, know that such theories are not true) are not around to contribute.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


This is a current one - which I don't think goes too much into the Freemasons, although it is mentioned.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am a bit pushed for time right now but I will try and dig some more out for you later.

Thanks I appreciate it. I'll go read that one.

I hope the anti-masons will someday see that this isn't all one big masonic conspiracy. But maybe I'm getting my hopes up? I'm sure in a few days a anti-mason will show up here and claim that YOU are part of the masonic conspiracy

reply to post by LightinDarkness


Belated, but as promised

Vatican Assassins links

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Discussion relating to Freemasonry in the General Conspiracy Forum (you may find this one of particular interest)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Jesuits and some Phelps

www.abovetopsecret.com...

All the best

This links to some of the comments that Phelps makes on Freemasonry (Luciferian Freemasonry I think he calls it), I would hazard that some of you will find them almost completely verbatim to some of the posts that have been made here. It is a PDF document, so unfortunately I can't cut and paste excerpts but if you scan through it is the texts in purple that should be of most interest.

www.vaticanassassins.org...

I have found that almost consistently, the allegation made against freemasonry originate from members of the evangical protestant faiths. That while the RCC may discourage membership, I can find very, very little from them in the way of criticism.

Could it be that the protestants are actually right, is there a Jesuit connection?

Did the introduction of the Clermont degrees actually neutralise RCC objections to the Freemasons?

Any comments?

Ahem.

Low level ordinary Masons denying the existence of a higher order.

I've already created a thread and gotten the exact same results.

It's always the same Masons on ATS doing the same anti-conspiracy malarky.



"We don't think there is a secret society, and being Masons, we know for sure."

Nope. I have already proved in my thread that most of them don't grasp the concept of compartmentalization and secret societies.

I don't mean to veer the thread off-topic, but lower level Masons have no business stating who or who is not a Mason when the idea of a secret society negates them from knowing altogether.

This is a simple logic that I've failed to impart on the ATS Masons *shrug* But I still think open discussion is a must no matter how often a Mason throws up his arms in protests "you're just an anti-mason" etc. etc.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by NewWorldOver]

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Sure, we can hypothesise the existence of anything so long as we don't have to cross the rubicon of providing proof of any kind. I could hypothesise that the Papal lineage is actually secretly controlled by aliens that take the form of house cats and it would have as much validity. This is where your 'theory' starts falling flat. You just don't delve into how it is that a non-Mason is supposed to be better versed in Masonic workings than so-called "Low level ordinary Masons". It's counterintuitive.

reply to post by NewWorldOver


Ahem.

A non-mason absolutely refusing to acknowledge that there is no evidence of a higher order.

I've already created a thread and gotten the exact same results.

It's always the same Anti-Masons on ATS doing the same conspiracy malarky.



"We know there is a secret society, and not being masons, and having no proof, we somehow know for sure."

Nope. I have already proved in your thread that most of them don't grasp the concept of having to provide evidence, logic, or reason instead of suggesting theories without proof.

I don't mean to veer the thread off-topic, but Anti-Masons have no business stating who is or is not a Mason when the fact that they are not even a member of the fraternity negates them from knowing altogether.

This is a simple logic that I've failed to impart on the ATS Anti-Masons *shrug* But I still think open discussion is a must no matter how often a Anti-Mason throws up his arms and protests "you're just a low level mason and don't know anything" etc. etc.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


If you really wanted an answer about Phelps work you would either email Phelps personally or you would read his book.

You have set yourself up as some sort of authority on Phelps work, yet you admit that you haven't even read his updated book. You admit that your opinions have been formed by an article you read in a New York newspaper

Phelps has done alot of indepth research, and if you contact him you will find him very open to discussion. Phelps always attempts to prove his points and if he feels he has been shown to be in error he is always ready to accept that position, I have found he is very open to new information and accepts challenges to his work.

You should read his book before preaching about his work. Phelps explains the reasons for positions he has taken on certain issues.

And you will find that Phelps is only one suich person who has highlighted the connection between the Jesuits/Vatican and Freemasonry (and don't forget the Templars served the Pope before their suppression)

reply to post by iezuit


There is no connection between the Vatican and freemasonry. Except that the Vatican has historically been AGAINST its members becoming masons.

reply to post by LightinDarkness


The Vatican is "Openly" against freemasonry. We all know the Vatican has lied about a great many things, lying about Freemasonry being one of the least of their crimes.

The Origins of Freemasonry lie with the Knights Templars who served the Pope.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by iezuit]

Originally posted by iezuit
reply to post by KilgoreTrout

 

If you really wanted an answer about Phelps work you would either email Phelps personally or you would read his book.

I was not interested in Phelps' work, what I was interested in, was the opinions of Freemasons on Phelps work. Is that a difference too subtle for you?

Originally posted by iezuit
You have set yourself up as some sort of authority on Phelps work, yet you admit that you haven't even read his updated book. You admit that your opinions have been formed by an article you read in a New York newspaper

And you obviously have difficulty in comprehending the english language. Read the post again. What I link to is an article in the New York Times discussing one of Phelps SOURCES.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by iezuit
The 13 books you are refering to aren't widely available and can really only be bought on the internet, and the internet is only a recent invention, so I think he can rightly claim those books have been surpressed.

A rare, out of print book does not equal suppression. Hundreds of books are published every year, only a few of those will be remembered or go to a second printing. Just because no one wants to promote it, due to the specialist nature of its subject matter does not mean it is suppressed. The majority of his sources are recognised, in some cases famous, items of anti-catholic propaganda from a period when such works were rife.

This is a good essay on one example;

www.english.upenn.edu...

A New York Times article discussing another;

query.nytimes.com...

The article I think dates from the 1920s or there abouts I don't think Phelps had published by then????!!!!

I have read, quite thoroughly, Phelps web site, it was to an extent a waste of my time, but excruciatingly necessary because of people like you who believe in his pseudo brand of history. I, unlike you, prefer to investigate before I criticise.

Originally posted by iezuit
Phelps has done alot of indepth research, and if you contact him you will find him very open to discussion. Phelps always attempts to prove his points and if he feels he has been shown to be in error he is always ready to accept that position, I have found he is very open to new information and accepts challenges to his work.

I find it hard that such a devoted subject would offer much challenge.

While Phelps may have spent umpteen hours researching his books, his time has sadly resulted in a work without merit, for he only found what he was looking for. Vatican Assassins presents a biased and wholly interpretational view of history. The only sources that he gives credence to are propaganda from a period in which the Catholics and Jesuits were at their most hated. Most of those sources were propagated and disseminated by the Enlightened Despots that drove the Jesuits out of practically every city in Europe. While I in no way claim that the Jesuits are blameless, I reject a portrayal of history that not only is one sided but spews such venom and hate.

Originally posted by iezuit
You should read his book before preaching about his work. Phelps explains the reasons for positions he has taken on certain issues.

Had I infinite funds perhaps. Why does he have any need to assume any position? A study of history requires not positions but a premise backed up by supporting evidence. It takes years sometimes to track down an important reference or document, something that may have laid undiscovered for centuries, a book that may have been out of print for a decade or more. Real history requires real research and real discovery of information, certainly not positions - unless of course it is the Karma Sutra one is researching

Originally posted by iezuit
And you will find that Phelps is only one suich person who has highlighted the connection between the Jesuits/Vatican and Freemasonry (and don't forget the Templars served the Pope before their suppression)

Perhaps you would care to list all those that have highlighted that connection. If you were to broaden your own reading of history and the Jesuits in particular you will find that numerous historians and authors have included the Jesuits in context. There is no secret here, the Jesuits are and have been enormously influential. If you examine the history in detail you will also find that a mutual distrust existed between the two groups. That it was dues to indirect pressure from the Freemasons that the Enlightened Despots caused the suppression of the Society of Jesus by Pope Clement XIV.

Much of the accusations of infiltration of the Freemasons by the Vatican and specifically the Jesuits were a results of "Jesuit Terror". According to the Secret and Power of the Jesuits by Rene Fulop-Miller (1930), when Michael Ramsey introduced the "Higher Degrees" in 1737 to Freemasonry, rumours soon spread that they were the result of "Jesuit intrigue". As late as 1902 J G Findel wrote that the "Jesuits had succeeded in all parts of the globe in creating strife and confusion amongst Freemasons by tampering with the rituals and by the introduction of higher degrees."

Ignaz Aurelius Fessler, considered to be a reformer of Freemasonry, dismisses this period of "smelling out Jesuits" and states that their influence "can neither be proved nor is it probable".

What did though occur was an alliance between the Enlightened Despots and the Freemasons which as I have stated previously led to the suppression of the Jesuits. Why would the Despots choose such an alliance? Largely the passage in the Exercises which refers to Tyrannicide. So yes the Jesuits did allude to assassination, but only in a response to tyranny. The Jesuits were one of the greatest proponents of education, welfare and health care to the lower classes, in many ways they were socialists. Their motives may not have been entirely pure but either way this work often brought them into conflict with tyrants.

As to the Templars, again, yes they were prior to their suppression servants and bankers to the Vatican. The Vatican betrayed them and caused the death of many of its members. You don't forget that sort of thing easily.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by KilgoreTrout]