This oath was sent me by way of Glenside, PA. I asked Rev. Herman Otten if he was
familiar with any of the oaths taken by Catholic Priests. If any of reader is familiar
with this oath or oaths taken by Catholic Priests, please respond.
I would like to verify its source of origin and authenticity.
In view of the recent agreement between Catholics and Lutherans on the Doctrine of
Justification, one must wonder how much infiltration into the Lutheran ranks has taken
place? The Catholic Church has long been involved in political intrigue, as accounts of
the subversion and infiltration during the Inquisition certainly verify.
If we were to assume Catholic Priests or any particular order of Priests in the
Catholic Church take these oaths, how would we defend ourselves against them? The pastors
of the LCMS take no secret oaths and promise allegiance to no one but Christ, His word,
and the Lutheran Confessions in their ordination vows.
The accumulation for more than 5 billion dollars in the Synod's fund accounts, outside
the authority of the IRS, is certainly more than enough attraction for subversive activity
from any source, let alone the Catholic Church.
The only possible defense for the LCMS or any church body against subversion can't
include counter espionage or polygraphs. The only sure defense is absolute adherence to
the Word of God and doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions. There must also be precise and
public adherence to all regulations and resolutions adopted in our Constitution. We know
that the resolutions are a matter of choice for the congregations and pastors, but refusal
to follow the Constitution of the LCMS is clear grounds for expulsion from the Synod. Any
toleration of deviation from our historic doctrine must be firmly and speedily confronted
and corrected or all will be lost: the Word, doctrine, church, ministry, and practice. The
issue can never be personalities, just doctrine and practice.
I also have a copy of "The Jesuit Oath" at the level of "The Extreme
Oath of the Jesuits." It is about five times longer than the Oath published in this
release and is more insidious than anything put out by the Masonic Lodge. It claims to be
and excerpt from "Subterranean Rome," pp. 349-351, by Carlos Didier and was sent
to me from the same source in Pennsylvania. It is so outrageous, I hesitate to put it out
unless I can confirm its authenticity. The "Jesuit Oath of Induction" is also
recorded in The Congressional Record of the U.S.A. (House Bill 1523, Contested
election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb.15, 1913, pp.
3215-3216)
"I do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that the Pope is Christ's
vicar-general and is the true and only head of the Universal Church throughout the world,
and that by virtue of the Keys of binding and losing, given to his Holiness by Jesus
Christ, he has power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and
governments, all being illegal without his sacred Confirmation, and that they may safely
be destroyed.
"Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I will defend this doctrine and his
Holiness, rights and customs against all usurpers of the Protestant authority whatsoever,
especially against the now pretended authority of the Church of England and all adherents,
in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the Sacred Mother, the Church
of Rome.
"I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any Protestant king, prince, or
state, or obedience to any of their inferior officers. I do further declare the doctrine
of the Church of England, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and other Protestants, to be
damnable and those to be damned who will not forsake the same.
"I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise, all or any of his
Holiness' agents, in any place wherever I shall be, and to do my utmost to extirpate the
Protestant doctrine and to destroy all their pretended power, regal or otherwise. I do
further promise and declare that, notwithstanding, I may be permitted by dispensation to
assume any heretical religion for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest, to keep
secret and private all her agents' counsels as they entrust to me, and not to divulge,
directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstances whatsoever, but to execute all
which shall he proposed given in charge, discovered unto me by you my most Reverend Lord
and Bishop."
Responses
to this Article
Marcel LeRoy stated over the phone that a Dr. Brown
has verified the oath is authentic. It appears the oath is for the first initiation of the
Jesuits. If LeRoy is correct, the longer more severe oath is for a higher level in the
Jesuit ranks.
Br. Jack,
This oath sounds like one that would be taken by Jesuits sent to England after Bloody
Mary's reign.
Br. Chopp
Jack,
The "secret oath" isn't secret. It also isn't used, since 1974.
There has been a total reversal of the Jesuits' relationship to the Vatican since 1967.
Actually, the relationship between the Papacy and the Jesuits has been checkered
throughout the last 350 years, but since Vatican II the Jesuits have become a force in
opposition to both the Papacy and the so-called "traditionalists" position in
the RCC. When founded by Ignatius of Loyala, it was the driving force behind the RCC
"Counter-Reformation," and the oath you cite was fully operational and enforced.
Now, the Jesuits constitute the most powerful force for liberalism in the RCC.
Two books are helpful in understanding this transformation over the centuries. The
first is written by a French historian, with no particular ax to grind: Jean Lacounture,
*Jesuits: A Multibiography* (Washington: Counterpoint, 1995). The second is written by an
ex-Jesuit and vocal defender of RC traditionalism, Malachi Martin, *The Jesuits: The
Society of Jesus and the Betrayl of the Roman Catholic Church* (NY: Touchstone Books,
1987).
Bob. [Schaibley]
P.S. If you're looking for a source of pro-papal subversiveness inside (and perhaps
also outside) the RCC, look to the organization called "Opus Dei." They
comprise, today, what the Jesuits were about in the Counter-Reformation.
If Schaibley is correct there are a number of
these guys still operating under their oaths prior to 1974. In other words, Jesuits in
their fifties cannot be trusted. There is also the possibility that they just said they
did away with the oath. Any lie is justified in the cause of over throwing the
Reformation. How do we know that there are not some of these guys in the ELCA? The only
defense is zero tolerance for false doctrine.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001
Dear Rev. Cascione,
I recently "surfed" across your "Reclaiming Walther"
website, and have enjoyed it greatly. One item I noticed was your article,
"Observations on the Oath of a Catholic Priest," in which you mention
a "Jesuit Oath" that is said to be recorded in the Congressional
Record for Feb. 15, 1913. You asked for information from your readers concerning
that oath.
A while back, I ran across a discussion of that same oath on another website.
Since my office is near the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, I
stopped by their library and looked up the cite to the Congressional Record.
Here's what I wrote back then about what I found - I hope you'll find it
interesting, as I did.
In the 1912 elections, the two candidates for Congress from the Seventh
Congressional District in Pennsylvania were Eugene C. Bonniwell, a Democrat, and
Thomas S. Butler, a Republican. Mr. Bonniwell, the unsuccessful candidate, filed
an objection with the Speaker of the House, asking that Mr. Butler not be seated
to represent the district. His objections were investigated by a House Committee
on Elections, which prepared a report (House Report 1523). That report was
submitted to the House on February 15, 1913, and, upon request of a Congressman
Olmsted, was included in the Congressional Record.
The House Report reproduced, in its entirety, Mr. Bonniwell's written
statement of objections. Among other items, Mr. Bonniwell's objection included
the following discussion of religious slanders perpetrated by supporters of Mr.
Butler:
The West Chester Village Record is a local newspaper largely owned and
controlled by T. L. Eyre, Republican boss of Chester County, and personal
representative of Thomas S. Butler.
The Chester Republican is a local paper largely owned and controlled by
Senator William C. Sproul, a Republican boss, and personal representative of
Thomas S. Butler in Delaware County. On August 15, 1912, the West Chester
Village Record published the following editorial:
"The Hon. Thomas S. Butler, the Republican nominee for Congress, was
born and reared in the Society of Friends, and is proud of his Quaker ancestry.
His opponent, Eugene C. Bonniwell, is a Roman Catholic."
On August 28, 1912, the Chester Republican reprinted this editorial.
Coincident with the two said editorials messengers in the employ of supporters
of Thomas S. Butler traversed the district, having in their possession and
circulating a blasphemous and infamous libel, a copy of which is hereto
attached, pretended to be an oath of the Knights of Columbus, of which body the
contestant [Bonniwell] is a member. So revolting are the terms of this document
and so nauseating its pledges that the injury it did not merely to the
contestant but also to the Knights of Columbus and to Catholics in general can
hardly be measured in terms.
I charge that the circulation of this oath and the publication of the two
editorials herein referred to were part of a conspiracy . . . for the purpose of
arousing religious rancor and of defeating the Democratic nominee. The
Constitution of the United States prohibits any religious test for office. The
organization supporting Thomas S. Butler created such a test, blazed bigotry in
the hearts and minds of the ignorant, and slandered and vilified a great body of
honorable men.
I file no complaint because of adverse election returns. The Democracy of
Pennsylvania is inured to adversity. Nor is this complaint registered because of
defeat resultant upon faith or race. In these things I own a just pride and do
not protest if, because of either, political honors are to be denied men. But
when a calumnious, viperish attack upon either faith or race is launched,
injecting religious bigotry into the political affairs of this Nation, then this
protest is made in the certain confidence that all patriotic men, mindful of the
religious as well as the political liberty that the forefathers designed should
be our heritage, will rise and strike down the beneficiary of such a treacherous
and dastardly movement.
For myself I make no appeal to your honorable body that I may be seated. . .
. This I do maintain, that this man, receiving his election under these
circumstances, adding the felonies of forged papers, perjured acknowledgements,
and violated grand jury to the more wicked crime of religious slander, ought not
to be tolerated in the House of Representatives.
To this, Mr. Bonniwell attached (and the House Report and Congressional
Record dutifully reprinted) a copy of the purported "Knights of Columbus
Oath" that had been circulated during the campaign. At all times, it is
referred to as a purported "Knights of Columbus" oath - the Jesuits
are never mentioned.
Also included in the House Report (and reprinted in the Congressional Record)
is the response submitted by Mr. Butler. He admitted that the activities alleged
by Mr. Bonniwell had, in fact, occurred, but denied any knowledge of or
connection to those activities. A portion of his response follows:
You state in this paragraph of your objection that an editorial publication
was made in these papers as follows:
"The Hon. Thomas S. Butler, the Republican nominee for Congress, was
born and reared in the Society of Friends, and is proud of his Quaker ancestry.
His opponent, Eugene C. Bonniwell, is a Roman Catholic." . . .
While I never saw or heard of it until I read the paragraph of your
objection, I admit the truthfulness of it with pleasure so far as it relates to
me. I did not in any manner inspire it. Since your notice served on me, Mr. Eyre
informs me that he had not seen or heard of the article of which you complain,
although it appeared in his own newspaper. I have no knowledge of "any man,
set of men, political organization, or its representative, employing or
procuring messengers to traverse this congressional district and to circulate on
my account or on any account the publication which you characterize as a
blasphemous and infamous libel, known as Knights of Columbus oath." That
this paper was circulated through this congressional district during this
campaign I both admit and regret. I deny that I had anything whatever to do,
directly or indirectly, with either its publication or its circulation. It came
into this district though the mails, I am informed, and as fast as it appeared
those who took my advice destroyed it. I am advised by those who know, that the
same article was circulated and distributed in other parts of Pennsylvania than
this congressional district during the last campaign, and I am further informed
that this same article has been circulated not only in Pennsylvania, but in
other States during political campaigns for many years. I had no knowledge
whatever of it until it appeared here during the last campaign, and from a
source I know nothing about. Two or three of my political advocates showed me
copies of this paper, which they had received through the mails. I requested
them to ascertain where other copies of it had been received and to have all of
them destroyed. I apprehended with alarm the use of such a document in a
political campaign, or at any other time.
I do not believe in its truthfulness, and so stated my judgment concerning it
on November 4, 1912 (as soon as complaint was made to me of its general
circulation), through the columns of the West Chester Daily Local News . . . .
So what we have in the Congressional Record is a document anonymously
circulated during a heated election campaign, in the hope of stirring up
religious bigotry among the electorate. Both sides disavowed its authenticity.
It was included in a House Report summarizing an investigation of that election,
because it was attached to a document submitted by one of the candidates. The
Report was reprinted in the Congressional Record.
None of this, in my opinion, can be said to constitute any sort of
"authentication" of this document by Congress - in fact, its
authenticity appears to have been denied by all parties concerned. (Plus, as
noted above, the document purported to be a "Knights of Columbus"
oath, rather than a Jesuit one.
The citation for all this (if anyone else is interested enough to look it
up!) is H.R. Rep. No. 62-1523 (1913), reprinted in the Congressional Record for
February 15, 1913, at pp. 3215-3220.
As far at the other oath on your page is concerned, I don't have any
information.
Thanks for putting together such an enjoyable website!
Mark