Sunday's Thoughts
by Alice-Alexandra-Sofia



The Church Militants



The Inquisition

The Jesuit Order

Some Details of the Life in the Papal Units

Events from the Life of Jesuits

Conclusive Remarks





…Beware of the false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are plundering wolves…

{Matthew 7:15}

…some will depart from the faith adhering to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons,

in hypocrisy of liars having being seared in their own conscience,

forbidding to marry, saying to sustain from food, which God created for partaking with thanksgiving…

{1 Timothy 4:1–3}






The “hierarchical church” is a political establishment intended to achieve the absolute secular and spiritual power*1*. The hierarchical church (the papal Church of Rome) differs from the Christian Church by worldly aspirations for the secular power and for the “absolute power” over souls, minds, and bodies of the faithful. Another difference is in the foundation:

– the Christian Church is based on the Christian teachings given by Lord God Jesus Christ and on the Apostolic traditions; the Christian Church lives by God

– the foundation of the papal establishment (“hierarchical church”) includes the Aristotle–Aquinas political doctrine, heathen philosophy, misinterpretations of the Gospels, and a set of heretical doctrines; the papal establishment lives by imagination of men*2*.

The controlling center of the hierarchical church, or the papal office, contains the political, social, ideological, and other structures (e.g., the Magisterium, the Holy Office – successor of the Inquisition). The center is run by papal executives – recruits from the Jesuit and other papal orders armed with imperial policies, methods, and values, which were elaborated during centuries of the struggle for the world domination. Apparently, contemporary papal army has only small military unit – the Swiss Guard (founded in 1506) – the protectors of the pope; however, in the time of maximal influence, the papacy arranged special protective and oppressing structures–units–departments, which still are functioning; they bear the titles of papal office’s departments, religious orders, etc.

After vassalization of the European rulers, the papal Church of Rome became a conglomerate, which absorbed the Holy Roman Empire and the adjacent West European states. In addition to the spiritual power, the Roman pope reached the unprecedented secular might: he crowned and excommunicated the emperors and kings, convoked the councils, appointed cardinals and bishops, and promulgated the laws. The matters of faith and the matter of state – politics – became intertwined, and eventually, all of them came under jurisdiction of the papal office. In modification of Aristotle’s political design with the Romans’ additions (religion as the business of the state), the state became the business of religion. The social stability depended on the matter of faith more than on actions of the civil authorities: any discord in the matters of faith and any disobedience, which could threaten the “divine” authority of the pope or to decrease the number of the faithful who composed the hierarchical church’s foundation and provided the means for its existence, has to be either prevented or terminated without delay.

The inner stability and order not only secure survival of any evolving establishment (state, empire); they also allow focusing on improvement, development, expansion, and uninterrupted and non–complicated work for achievement of the main purpose. In the papal case, the main purpose is the global dominion through conversion of the entire world population into the papal faith – Catholicism (that is into the Aquinas’ political theology) and exercising of the absolute power over the papal subjects. The papal “absolute” power over a human being includes the total control over the conscience, thinking, and behavior (that is heart–mind–body), and ability to make a human being unreservedly obedient slave at the service of the master–superior–head of the hierarchical establishment, which usurped the place of God.

It means that, in the contemporary terms, the establishment needs easily re–programmable unreservedly obedient parts–property–slaves who would

a/ evaluate everything according to the papal instructions (for instance, see the white as the black, the black as the white, and the mortal sin as the virtue if the superior wishes so)

b/ commit any crime against humanity and consider the crime as the act of virtue

c/ firmly believe that the pope is the earthly substitute of God, that he stands on the place of God, and that the papal laws are the divine laws.

                        Therefore, the papacy needs the special structures, which would assemble the program, impose it on the re–programmable mind of the papal subject, monitor the execution of the program, and either correct deviations or terminate those who refuse to be corrected.

The Magisterium (the spiritual offspring of Thomas Aquinas*3*) performs the tasks of compilation, modification, and propagation of the articles of papal faiths, moral and other guidelines and policies, which define the work of the mind of the papal subjects and define the models of behavior for different levels of the papal hierarchy and laity, which the subjects are expected to follow.

The papacy also arranged two special structures – the Inquisition and the Society/Company/Order of Jesuits, with which it attempted to accomplish three tasks:

1/ to protect stability and order that are necessary for development and expansion of the papal establishment

2/ to expand influence and authority of the papal office within the world, the states, nations, and the governing, controlling, and educational institutions of the states and nations

3/ to facilitate achievement of the global dominion.

These structures, which both might be classified as the units of the “church militants,” attract the special attention; they became the subject of the following consideration, because their actions most vividly illustrate the true essence of the papal hierarchical establishment – the papal Church of Rome – and its incompatibility with the Christian Church.



The Inquisition


The main purpose of any establishment is survival. The hierarchical church would survive only if it keeps firm grip on the power over thinking, conscience, and behavior of its subjects. The roots of this power are in the mind of the papal subjects, in their acceptance and following the articles of the papal faith.

Therefore, protection of the papal faith would secure survival of the papacy. Consequently, the papacy’s first task is eradication of the beliefs inconsistent with the needs of the papacy – so–called heresies, which threaten or intervene with papal political interests: each different–minded person has to be either reconciled with the papal church or precluded from any influence onto the others (exiled, imprisoned, or exterminated).  

The Inquisition came into existence as the result of many efforts of the papacy; the starting period of its activity lasted about fifty years, and the period of the maximal power and influence continued from the thirteenth through the sixteenth century. The following events illustrate the process of establishment of the Inquisition (1 through 10).

1) In 1139, the Second Lateral Council inspired by Augustine’s Compelle Intrare*4* decided that the condemned heretics must “be constrained by the secular powers.” Still, it also prohibited clergy to pronounce sentences involving “the shedding of blood,” to execute such punishment, or even to be present when it is carried out [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 202, 244].

2) In 1184, the pope Lucius III and Frederick Barbarossa the Emperor of Holy Roman Empire (1152–1190) issued Ad Abolendam with a description of the heretical sects, condemnation of those who assist heretics; the civil authorities were put under the obligation to cooperate with the church in its struggle with the heresies.

3) In 1199, Vergentis In Senium of the pope Innocent III equated heresy to the state treason as it was in the heathen Roman Empire; the meaning of treason in this case was modification or contradiction of the religious beliefs and articles of faith acknowledged as the papal dogma; so, the next logical step would be institution of death penalty for heretics, as it was in the pagan Roman Empire, which punished the state treason by death.

4) In 1207, by Cum Ex Officii Nostri, the pope Innocent III promulgated the “perpetual law”*5*  that the property of heretics should be sold and divided:

–– one part to him who delivered a heretic to the authorities

–– one part to the court, which convicted the heretic

–– one part to the civil authorities for building prisons or for maintenance of the city walls; a house of the heretic had to be destroyed and never rebuilt [Innocent III ref. and qtd. in: Peters 47–49; Lea 1:324].

Later, the confiscated property of condemned heretics went to the state; sometimes, a part was allotted to the Church of Rome and a part given to the informers [Durant 782].

5) In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 233–234, 245] assembled the theoretical foundation of the Inquisition.

In fact, the Council created the first version of the protective structure, which would protect the papal establishment:


1/ expounded the main articles of the papal faith, which have to be accepted
as the absolute truth of the papal Church of Rome
– with this act, the Council defined the meaning of the main purpose of the Inquisition:
the absolute truth of the papal establishment eligible for protection

2/ excommunicated all those who raise up against the papal faith
– with this act, the Council defined the subjects and the opponents/enemies (the targets),
which the Inquisition would have to exclude from the papal establishment

3/ warned that if a “temporal lord” neglects to cleanse his land of the heretics,
he must be excommunicated for one year, and the pope may absolve his vassals
from their duties and to transfer his land to the faithful Catholic
– with this act, the Council established the authority of the Inquisition
and placed it above the secular leaders

4/ commanded to hand over the condemned heretics
to the civil authorities “for due punishment”
– with this act, the Council determined the range of the Inquisition’s responsibilities,
which since, would be extermination of those who threaten the stability of the papal establishment
through heresies – challenging, alteration, or replacing the articles of the papal faiths
defined as the absolute truth

5/ affirmed that the Catholics who assumed the duty of expulsion of heretics
would receive the same privileges as the Crusaders
– with this act, the Council set up the positive stimuli:
the Crusaders were attributed with the special status and granted with special privileges

6/ declared that those who help a heretic would suffer the same fate as the heretic
– with this act, the Council set up the negative stimuli–

7/ commanded that those who had different habits and manner of living had to be reported to the bishop
– with this act, the Council set up the foundation for total surveillance

8/ decreed that all faithful must confess their sins at least once per year to their permanent priest
– with this act, the Council set up the initial surveillance techniques,
which later secured the significant source of information for the Inquisition.


In summary, the Council determined the purposes of the Inquisition (1), the parameters of its actions (2, 3), the meaning of its actions (4), and the conditions for the efficient accomplishment of the actions (3, 5, 6, 7, 8), for which the Inquisition has been arranged.

Since the Old Testament’s time, sin is considered as a disease of the soul, which wastes soundness of body. For instance, only after man acknowledged his sins before God, he received forgiveness; then, he was cured {Psalm 31(32):3–7}. In the spirit of Christian love, which unifies God and a human being, and following the promise of God to be with those who are gathered in His name, St. James the Apostle advises, “Acknowledge your transgressions before your friends and pray for one another to be cured.” The Apostle reminds that the prayer of faith heals the sick, and the prayer of the righteous is powerful {Matthew 18:19–20; James 5:13–20}. There is no one word in the Gospels concerning mandatory confessions; only free acknowledgement of own sins (finding the point of violation of the commandments of God, which led to perversion/disease of soul and body) and the prayer of the brethren were recommended as the beginning of healing.

In his study of origin of confession (1815), Catholic theologian Johann Sebastian von Drey (Germany) proclaimed that neither Christ nor any of His Apostles instituted confession (which, nevertheless, became the necessary part of the penitential discipline because it provided the means to exercise the authority over the papal subjects). Such an inference contradicted the interests of the papal hierarchy; perhaps it was the reason for rejection of the von Drey’s candidacy for the Bishop of Rottenburg [in: Himes xii–xiii].

In the best Origen–Augustine traditions of frivolous interpretation, in fact, falsification, of the Holy Scriptures, the Apostle’s advice was interpreted as the right of “the hierarchical church” to control thinking and behavior of its subjects. With this false, the papal clergy inserted itself between God and His creations and transformed the ancient tradition of communication with God and healing prayer into the means of the total control over the conscience and thinking of the papal subjects. The papal faithful began to undergo the mandatory spiritual striptease regularly, and, historically, it was the dangerous business: the confession with self–incrimination was a sufficient cause for conviction by the Inquisition [e.g., conviction of Magdalena de la Cruz ref. in: Medwick 38]*6*.

6) In 1231, the pope Gregory IX issued Excommunicamus, which expanded and re–iterated the legislation for the persecution of heretics [ref. in: Burman 33, 44–51]. The very idea to promulgate the law by the papal edicts was borrowed from the heathen Roman Empire at the time of Augustus (31 B.C. – 14 A.D.), when the emperor’s edict was the only source of law [Peters 15]. In addition to the Decree of the Fourth Lateran Council, the papal edict provided the instructions concerning the punishment, which the civil authorities should impose on the condemned by the Church heretics:

–– the accused were deprived of legal defense

–– the convicted had no right to appeal, their homes had to be demolished and never rebuilt

–– the bodies of unpunished deceased heretics had to be exhumed and burned

–– two generations of the heretic’s descendents were not allowed to serve the church.

–– the heretics had to be “released” (transferred/handed over) to the civil authorities for imprisonment or execution, usually, burning at stake.  

The “release”/transfer of heretics from the inquisitors to the civil authorities formally allowed the papal church to maintain that it is not guilty in murder or imprisonment of the Inquisition’s victims. In fact, the papacy repeated the actions of Sanhedrin, when the council condemned Lord God Jesus Christ and “released” Him to the Roman authorities for execution {Matthew 26:59–66; Mark 14:55–64; 15:1; John 18:28–31, 35}.

Another example: the Prophet informed David the king that he – the king – is guilty in the Uriah’s death, yet he did not even touch his subject: the king only ordered to put Uriah in a dangerous place where he surely would be killed in a battle {2 Kings 11:14–16; 12:7–10}. Obviously, in a case of “release” of the condemned to the civil authorities, all legal tricks and loud words are not able to wash out the blood of the executed heretics and other victims of the Inquisition, as well as the blood of all the victims of the Crusades, religious wars, persecutions, and other atrocities, from the hands of the Roman pope–Prefect of the Inquisition and his subjects. Besides, the papal subjects themselves did not have any doubts concerning the actions of the Inquisition. For example, when Ignatius of Loyola discussed with his companion the investigation of the Exercises, he, as well as his counterpart, expressed confidence that if the inquisitors find heresy in him, they would burn him [Ignatius of Loyola Reminiscences §59 in: Personal Writings 41]. 

In summary, the initial arrangement of the Inquisition included the definitions of heresy, enemies of the faith, responsibilities of the papal and the civil authorities, rewards and punishments, and total surveillance over the papal subjects including the members of the papal hierarchy (monks, nuns, clergy). In the thirteenth century, the bulls and decrees of the Roman popes and the decisions of the Councils of the papal Church of Rome prepared the starting ground for systematic detection and extermination of heretics.

7) At the next stage of development, the Inquisition began to build own exclusive status and expand its power. Already in the first half of the thirteenth century, the Inquisition amended those decisions of the papal Church, which did not provide it with the desirable freedom of actions.

For example, the Fourth Lateral Council (1215) decreed that priest should not betray a sinner, and if any priest reveals a sin disclosed during confession, he must be deposed from the priesthood and send to a strict monastery for the “perpetual penance” [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 245]. Yet, on the authority of the Directory  written by Raymond of Penãfort (canonized papal saint) for the inquisitors of Barcelona in 1242, priests had to search for heretics through confessions, write down the confession of the alleged heretic, and sent it to the local Bishop [ref. in: Burman 44, 48].

Thus, in 1242, the Inquisition already usurped the right to revise the decision of the papal Council. However, it is the dogma: the Holy Spirit guides the Church Councils, and those who attempt to misinterpret or to amend the Councils’ decisions had to be expelled from the Christian Church because they rebel against God. Therefore, when papal saint and inquisitor Raymond of Penãfort modified the decision of the Fourth Lateral Council, he

a/ either committed a crime against the Holy Spirit and, according to the statute of the Inquisition, had to be condemned as a heretic


b/ knew that the Councils of the papal church are not guided by the Holy Spirit.

As soon as Raymond of Penãfort was not convicted in heresy (for his service to the papacy he was canonized), it means that either the papacy admits that the councils of the papal church are not guided by the Holy Spirit or it places own rules above of the decisions of the Councils guided by God.

Eventually, the papacy openly bestowed the Inquisition with the comprehensive power: the Inquisition obeyed only one superior – the Roman pope who accepted the title of the Prefect or the Universal Inquisitor. The inquisitors did not have to follow the usual judicial practices; their victims had no right to appeal, and advocates had to abandon the accused as soon as their heresy was proved [Directory of Eymeric of 1578, ref. in: Rule 6, 46, 54–55].

8) In 1252, the pope Innocent IV issued edict Ad Extirpanda, which was integrated into the civil law. This edict became the “charter” of the Inquisition. In particular, the edict

a/ permitted anybody to arrest a heretic and to confiscate his property

b/ authorized the torture as the method of inquiry

c/ obligated the civil authorities to apply torture to those who did not confess their heresies.

The edict also was the first formal recognition of the death penalty for heretics referred indirectly in previous decrees and edicts [Durant 779, 781; Maycock 103–104; Rule 57; Willett 32].  

9) The pope Alexander IV in 1260 and the pope Urban IV in 1262 permitted the inquisitors “to assist at the questionings under torture” and to grant “dispensation” to one another from “the irregularity” in the chamber of torture.

In elaboration of the Augustine’s wise judge concept, the main papal theologian defined irregularity as the sinless act of taking human life, e.g., “in the case of a judge who justly condemns a man to death” [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II-II Q.64 a7 ro3]. According to William H. Rule, the term “irregularity” designates death of the accused, which is the result of torture, applied by the inquisitors themselves. It means that the inquisitors began to torture their victims themselves under the assertion that when secular judges put heretics to torture, it produces unwanted publicity or even complaints of the civil authorities concerning inhumane severity of torture used by the inquisitors [Durant 782; Rule 57].

Thus, for the members of the papal hierarchy, the very fact of inflicting death by torturing the alleged heretics was neither sin nor crime: it was just the “irregularity.”  However, initially, according to the decision of the Second Lateral Council (1139), the inquisitors should not be present during the torture of the accused: the acts of popes Alexander IV and Urban IV violated the Council’s decision.

The work of inquisitors was conducted in deep secrecy, with the mandatory oath of silence taken by all assistants. Each detail of the trial was diligently recorded, all records were filed in particular order, and kept indefinitely [Maycock 159, 122–123], probably, because the mandatory penalty for relapsed heretics was death justified by Thomas Aquinas. According to Aquinas, heretics turn back to the Church in order to save their temporal goods (life and property). If they relapse due to their inconsistency in faith, their existence would “infect others,” and the others would feel free to lapse into heresy; therefore, the relapsed heretics must be put to death in order to save the community from heresy [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica II–II Q.11 a4 a].

One more detail discloses the essence of the Inquisition: it gathered confessions, testimonies of witnesses and informers, and did not examine reliability of the gathered “evidences”: it judged opinions and choices of knowledge. The inquisitors did not disclose the name of accuser to the victim and everybody could be informer: children testified against parents, husbands against wives, and wives against husbands. In general, the Inquisition borrowed from Plato–Aristotle’s political design the methods of work with the informers (the Roman Empire also followed those practices). The essence of the rules of behavior, which the Inquisition established for the papal subjects, did not differ from Plato’s dictum: “Everyone must have the same gods, friends, and enemies as the state” [Plato Laws 910c; 914a; 955b].

The canon law of the pope Gregory IX Liber Extra (1234), compiled by the papal saint and inquisitor Raymond of Penãfort describes a heretic as the person who has different understanding of the articles of faith and “thinks ill” about the Church’s sacraments. From six ways to identify a heretic, four ways consider opinion, interpretation, doubts, and only two mention actions: separation from the believers and separation from the papal church [in: Beinart 214–215; Peters 63, 92].

If people betrayed by informers denied accusations, they were tortured.

The potential informers or targeted persons were compelled to confess or provide information by other means. For instance, according to Haim Beinart, the Spanish Inquisition required the Rabbis “to threaten with a ban Jews” who intentionally did not inform the Inquisition against those Conversos who continued to observe the Jewish rituals [Beinart 215].

“Conversos” were the Jews who under the threat of deprivation of property and expulsion from country converted into Catholicism. The fact that in the end of fifteenth century about 1/3 of Spanish Jewry (half a million) were “Conversos” [Beinart 211] illustrates, at least partially, the scale of the Inquisition’s operations.

Another example: the Knights Templar in France had been accused because of their own confessions made under the inhumane torture [La Due 142–143].

Thus, the Inquisition collected “evidences”

a/ through control of conscience and thought – confessions; however, confessions, in fact, are self–accusations, which could be just a fruit of fear, mental disorder, or sick imagination

b/ through testimonies of the informers who interpreted behavior of victims as the indication of the concealed “ill” thoughts; however, any interpretation could be just a reflection of a self–image or assumptions of the informer, therefore to be far from the reality.

Such methods lead to the conclusion that the Inquisition controlled conformity of the personal imaginary/dream worlds of the papal subjects with the mandatory imaginary/dream world of Aristotle–Aquinas political theology: the circulation of phantasms within the closed circle “victim–informer–inquisitor” served as the basis for reality of persecution, torture, and the penalty of death. That is how the inheritance of heathen games of imagination became the weapon of destruction for the society, which accepted heathen philosophy and methods of creation of the interactive theology as the means to produce its religion.

In pursuit of the papal purposes, the Inquisition assumed functions and methods of the inhumane suppressive structure “revealing ferocity unknown in any beast”: it handled problems of the papacy by coercion, repression, and by fear of torture and disgraceful death. For those who in spite of torture and coercion “in the name of love” were not able to give up their beliefs and convictions, the Inquisition employed the Plato’s idea about more than one death for atheists and obstinate heretics. The method of execution by burning at stake, as many other things, the papacy borrowed from the heathen Roman Empire: in 297, the Manicheans of Egypt had been burned at stake for the attempt to intervene with the imperial cult [Chidester 127; Durant 776, 784, (qtd.) 784; Plato Laws 908–909].  

10) The manuals for the inquisitors issued in the thirteenth–fifteenth centuries provide some details concerning the doctrines and procedures of the search for heretics (e.g., through the confessions), posthumous condemnation of those who died before the Inquisition convicted them, process of interrogation, etc. The source of the inquisitorial literature included theological works (with the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare, and especially Aquinas’ writings), laws, and experience of the local inquisitors. The papal theologians and lawyers provided the Inquisition with the systematized theological excerpts, definitions, and explanations of the laws and canons; they also justified any method and any action necessary to terminate the heresy:

–– the first book of canon of law issued in 1234 provided detailed definition of heresy and heretics

–– the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare – doctrine of “righteous persecution in the name of love,” as the perverted interpretation of the all–forgiving Christian love and God's commandments, was the first logical step for the Inquisition to have free hands for extermination of heretics

–– Aquinas elaborated the Augustine’s doctrine into justification of the capital punishment of the heretics

–– the inquisitor handbooks contained the relevant citations from the writings of Aquinas and other papal theologians [Peters 62]

–– theologians Henry of Susa (1271) and Jean d’Andre (1348) both asserted that the execution by burning at stake was sanctioned by “the law of Christ” when He told the disciples about withered branches gathered, thrown into fire, and burned {in: John 15:6} [Vacandard 128].                   

The papal theologians not only portray God as “the author of the criminal code of the Inquisition” [Vacandard 128]; their assertions disclose the depth of decay of mind reached by the “Doctors of the Church”– apologists for the Inquisition, who defend its crimes against God and humanity by falsifying and misinterpreting the word of God and by transforming the Christian teachings into the ideology of imperial repressive structure.

In fact, the discovered by Henry of Susa and Jean d’Andre “law” is based upon Aquinas’ statement that uprooting of the heretics by death “is not contrary to Our Lord command” [Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica  II–II Q.11 a3 ro3], in which he interprets the parable about weeds (Aquinas’ “the cockle”) and wheat {in: Matthew 13:24–30}. Aquinas should just read the text of the Gospel in full – or at least twelve verses more. Then, he would learn the explanation, which God gave His disciples: the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels of God, and the main Law is love, which exceeds all sins of men. Wheat and weeds have to be left together until the harvest time, because in gathering the weeds, the servants might root up the wheat {Matthew 13:36–43}.

It means that extermination of sinners and their destiny is not the men’s business. The usurpation by the Inquisition of the role of the angels of God to gather “the weed” (that is to exterminate heretics and the papal opponents) is consistent with Aquinas’ particular interest in angels and numerous insinuations concerning the similarity between the papal hierarchy and the “angelic hierarchy.”

Many centuries ago, the Hebrew Prophet wrote about the priests and false prophets who committed lawless deeds, led people astray, and walked in lies strengthening those who commit evil {Jeremiah 23:11–14}. To confirm the death penalty by burning living breathing human beings at stake, which their “loving mother”– papal church of Rome imposed on some of her children for the sake of “common good” of the papal establishment, the papal theologians should use another passages from the Scriptures, not the Gospels and especially not The Gospel According to John; they should refer to the texts about idol–worshippers who “burn their sons in the fire” as the offering to the idol that is abomination before God and pollution of the earth {Psalm 105(106):37–39; Jeremiah 19:3–5}.

The medieval theologians employed the same pattern of creation of their gods as the heathen philosophers and Origen does: they projected their surrounding onto their fantasies and made their gods embodiments of the worst fears and worst realities of their world. Yet, the medieval theologians excelled Origen: they transformed the Origen’s god (who only punished and tortured his creation) into the god who has the special law to burn his creations alive. In particular,

–– at the time of Origen (second–third centuries), martyrdom of Christians was the reality of every day: Origen’s god tortures men

–– at the time of Henry of Susa and Jean d’Andre (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), execution by burning at stake was everyday reality; consequently, their god has the special law to burn his creations alive.

Evidently, in comparison with the heathenism, the medieval fantasies concerning the image of God reflect the further degradation of humanity; they illustrate the anti-evolution at work:

a/ ultimately, as the result of development of human philosophical thought, the heathen gods absorbed the ideals of humanity, e.g., transformation of Apollo from the killer into the benefactor of arts and sciences

b/ ultimately, as the result of the substitution of Aquinas’ political theology for Christianity and subsequent substitution of the terror of the Inquisition for the Christian ideals of love and mercy, the god of medieval theologians became the likeness of Baal whose cult demands sacrifice by burning living human beings.

The members of the papal hierarchy (including bishops, priests, and theologians), laymen, and civil authorities were under the unconditional obligation to provide any assistance the inquisitors would demand. To enforce the unrestricted cooperation of the civil authorities, the papacy granted the inquisitors the right of free use of excommunication. The state structures also were at the service of the Inquisition; however, the state rulers did not hesitate to use the Inquisition for extermination of own political enemies [e.g., Lea 1:322, 326] and for other needs.

In general, the Inquisition is just one particular weapon from the arsenal of weapons of self–annihilation, with which human beings exterminate themselves within inhumane heathen establishments. This kind of weapon accomplishes the tasks to standardize the manifest behavior, elicit performance of the external rituals of worship, and secure the total submission; historically, it was effective only until human beings learned to dissociate the external patterns of behavior and their inner beliefs.

The following examples (1 through 4) illustrate the connections between the inhumane practices in all times, all countries, and all oppressive structures: indeed, all evils have one root, and the same essence; only appearances might be slightly changed because of the different historical settings.

1) In Spain, in 1412, the Jews had to put the yellow marks on their garments. Then, the papal Council of Basel–Ferrara–Florence–Rome in 1431–1445 decreed that the Jews must “be compelled, under severe penalties,” to wear the garments, which distinguish them from the Christians [Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 483] – that in fact, from the Catholics, because in this time, the papal Church of Rome already ceased to be the Christian Church. As Franciscus Willett notices, the Nazis revived the same practice in Germany in the twentieth century; indeed, Adolf Hitler proclaimed that his actions regarding the Jews repeat the actions practiced by the Roman Catholic (papal) Church [Willett 83–84; Adolf Hitler ref. in: Chidester 496].

2) Some researchers connect the persecutions of the Jews and the Moors by the Inquisition in Spain in the fourteenth century with the idea of “racial purity” and eagerness of Spanish nobility to access the property of wealthy Jewish and Moorish families. The Nazis also acted in the name of their “racial supremacy” and confiscated property of the Jews whom they sent into the concentration camps for extermination.

3) The methods, which the Inquisition used to detect the Jews who after the forceful conversion strived to keep their own manner of life, resemble the methods used by the heathens in fourth–third centuries B.C., when king Antiochus decided to forcefully convert the Israelites into the heathenism {e.g., 1 Maccabees 1:41–64; 2 Maccabees 6:1–11; 7}. The pagan ruler and the Inquisition both searched for their victims through monitoring of the manner of life and food habits.

4) The Inquisition in Spain introduced the innovation, which also was implemented (along with the idea of “racial purity”) by the Nazis in the twentieth century: it established comprehensive control over the books. It began in 1319, with the Hebrew books, which the Inquisition confiscated when it searched houses of the Jews in Toulouse. In Granada, Cardinal Ximenez, who forced conversion of the Moors, had burned over a million volumes [Rule 39; Burman 197]. Then, prohibition of the “heretical” literature became the official practice: for the possession or attempt to import “heretical” books, the book–lovers received the penalty of death. For instance, in 1229, the Inquisition in Toulouse announced prohibition of the Bible: the Bible became the forbidden book for the laity (seven centuries later, the bolshevist/communist party repeated the Inquisition’s decision: in post–1917 Russia, the Bible also became the forbidden book). In 1536, William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translation of the Bible into English (published in 1526) [Preface iii; Trager 174, 179; Baybrook 603].

Since 1540, the Inquisition systematically publishes the Index of the prohibited books, which are forbidden for the Catholics.

In 1542, the pope Paul III instituted the Universal Inquisition for suppression of the Reformation, and the Jesuits began to play active role in Counter–Reformation. The Universal Inquisition also did not permit legal assistance for the accused [Trager 182]. Although it employed all experience of persecution and extermination of the heretics acquired by the predecessors – the inquisitors of the thirteenth–fifteenth centuries, and although it exercised the same authority, it was not able to stop expansion of the Reformation and to prevent further degradation of the papal power.

In the twentieth century, the Inquisition received new name: in 1965, it was “The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith” (“the Holy Office” is the alternative title since the sixteenth century). According to Alan L. Maycock, the contemporary Inquisition with “wise and generous use of its authority” still performs its duty without any “breach of continuity” or “change in the teaching of the Church” [Maycock 263–264]. Perhaps it means that the purposes, principles, and functions are the same; only the appearance and methods have been changed, because the stake and torture disappeared (at least apparently) from the contemporary legal practices within the European countries. Its contemporary activities, as much as it is open to the public, are concentrated on the censorship and prohibition the books, which can cause detriment to the papacy.

According to Cardinal Merry del Val, Secretary of the Supreme Holy Congregation of the Holy Office (in 1929), the Inquisition continues the censorship as “the duty and consequently the sacrosanct right to prevent error and corruption.” Simultaneously, the papal Cardinal advises that the prohibition of books must not be called a “violation of liberty” [Cardinal Merry del Val ref. qtd. in: Burman 209–212].

However, the prohibition to read a book is the most widely applied restriction of the access to the information and knowledge and simultaneously one of the main methods of social stabilization employed by totalitarian states (especially, Communist, Nazi, and Fascist states), cults, the clandestine groups at the service of the oppressive regimes, etc. If the deprivation of the freedom of information (freedom of information is the basic right of any thinking human being) is not the violation of liberty, which abyss of slavery can be identified as the violation of liberty for the papal hierarchy?

Some researchers stress the efficiency and effectiveness of design and work of the Inquisition as the “great system of anti–heretical machinery,” the “permanent part of the machinery of the Church,” and the most efficiently organized system of persecution [Burman 222; Lea 1:335; Maycock 104]. Such evaluation prompts the same old question that hunts many historians and researchers: in which temporal scale and with which outcome it is proper to speak about efficiency? Perhaps, the way to find the answer would be an analysis of the ultimate results: had the considered system achieved the purposes of its existence or not. The official purpose of the Inquisition was preservation of the papal authority, which was expressed as the faith or particular body of knowledge – political theology or the theological doctrine of the papal church of Rome, from wrong interpretation, amendment, or manifest disbelief. Although the Inquisition persecuted the heretics, the societies and organized groups capable of mobilizing their members against the papacy, at the same time, the heretical doctrines, originated with adaptation of the concepts of Plato, Mani, Aristotle, Averroës (ibn Rushd), and the others freely corrupted the minds of papal theologians [e.g., Maycock 258].

For instance, according to Henry C. Lea, the wide acceptance of the Manichean/Albigensian heresy in the thirteenth century became possible because of corruption of the papal clergy. The corruption of clergy and the controversial modification of the Eucharist (when the papal subjects – laity – was deprived of the communion with both elements according to the most sacred tradition of the Christian Church*7*) caused revolt of the Hussites in Bohemia in the fifteenth century [Lea 2:506].

Yet, instead of correction of the papal practices and behavior of the papal clergy, the papacy evoked the doctrine of absolute obedience of its subjects and employed the Inquisition for extermination of those who acknowledged corruption of members of the papal hierarchy and did not accept the heretical innovations of the papacy. In particular, when in the fourteenth–fifteenth century, the papal church of Rome withdrew the Cup of Eucharist from laity but kept it for the clergy, it triggered the revolt of the faithful Christians in Bohemia, under the leadership of Jun Hus. Initially, the papal subjects, who wished to remain the Christians, attempted to appeal to the papal authorities. Yet, Capistrano the Inquisitor ruled that the “Church” must not consider arguments of the Bohemians (who justified their “heresy” with “the ancient Scriptures and observances”), because a servant is not superior to a master: disobedience is heresy [Lea 2:473–474].

Only slaves have the duty of unreserved obedience to their master and only slaves do not have the right to speak to their master without the master’s permission. Yet, slavery within the Christian Church cannot exist because slavery – the evil establishment of men – is abomination to God and, as any evil, is not able to exist in His presence: where is slavery of the spirit, there is no God. Any establishment, which practices any form of slavery, contradicts to the Law of God, therefore, is not compatible with Christianity: Capistrano the Inquisitor with his own words portrays the papal church as a heretical non–Christian establishment.

The historical facts lead to the conclusion that the main objective of the Inquisition was not preservation of the Christian faith established by God and the Apostles: the very existence of the Inquisition is the evidence, which confirms absence of the Christian Faith and existence of the heathen political establishment.

The main objective was protection of the papal political authority over the European states through preservation of the unconditional obedience of laity, kings, and other subjects to the Roman pope. Only the pope could change the unified body of knowledge, beliefs, and practices, which expected to secure the social stability and worldwide expansion of the papal authority. The Inquisition fought the mortal combat for survival of the papal establishment; however, what were the means to secure survival, and what were the results.

The Inquisition was designed as the closed mostly secret establishment, which would be capable of conducting the complete cycle of eradication of the heresies and maintaining the social stability of the papal hierarchy. At the beginning, the Inquisition’s cycle of activities included: search, detection, investigation, judgment, and execution of the heretics (executions were conducted through the civil authorities). Initially, the practices of the Inquisition resembled the judicial procedures of the heathen Roman Empire [in: Peters 15–17]. These practices were modified and improved to accommodate the increased scale of operations. Few insignificant restrictions were imposed by the necessity at least apparently to maintain resemblance of the church; for instance, officially, the civil authorities themselves, not the papal clergy, burned at stake the heretics after they were “released” by the papal Inquisition.

Contrary to the papal expectations, the Inquisition became the core of destruction, perhaps, even one of the main reasons of an inability of the papacy to keep the unity of the faith and sustain the papal authority over the European states indefinitely. The Inquisition violated the main laws of survival – inviolability of human life and freedom of choice granted by God, and discarded the main conditions of life established by God Himself. Through the Inquisition, the papacy

1/ violated the God’s commandment “you shall not kill” {Exodus 20:15}

2/ fostered the slavery–based society with such meaning of the common good, which justified murder, greed, betrayal, perjury, lawlessness, – the society, where the main conditions of survival were violations of the main commandments of God

3/ established the unconditional slavish obedience and the informer mentality as the role models and as the main criteria of compliance with the expectations of the ruling hierarchy

4/ substituted the terror of evil for two rules of interrelations when disagreements arise within the Christian communality: the only way of treatment of wrongdoers, mentioned by Lord God Jesus Christ and His Apostle, is brotherly persuasion and consequent separation (excommunication) if the wrongdoers refused to listen; in the Christian Church, the evil must be mastered/overcome/conquered with the good {Matthew 18:14–17; Romans 12:17–21}

5/ discarded the axiom that judgment belongs to God {Matthew 7:1–2; 13:24–30; John 3:16–18; 12:48; 15:6}; instead, the papacy sacrilegiously applied to justification of own actions the warnings of God about His last judgment

6/ fully implemented and diligently protected Aquinas’ political theology based on misinterpretations of the Scriptures and heathen philosophical speculations, which for the papacy, supplanted the Law and the words of God.

The Aquinas’ assertions that scientia divina controls the sciences along with ignorance and illiteracy of the inquisitors activated the movement for separation of the theory of knowledge and sciences from their natural basis – theology and philosophy. The ignorance and inhumanity of the Inquisition triggered off separation of sciences from theology and philosophy. Through this separation, one of the most dangerous concepts was re–introduced into the life of the society: the Aristotle’s assertion that sciences must not speak about the good and virtues; their starting point should be “appropriate to the matters in hand” [Aristotle Magna Moralia I.i.14–26]. This assertion and separation from theology and philosophy originated the concept of moral neutrality of sciences: the accumulation of data and its interpretation according to the imaginary dream worlds and fantasies of researchers became the substitute for the good of man.  

The idea of inflicting the evil for the sake of the good, or securing the good by any means, the evil included, became the justification for committed by the Inquisition crimes against humanity; consequently, this idea became the rationale for other oppressive (social and political) structures. The states accepted the inhumane judicial techniques, brutal methods of interrogation, and violation of human freedom as the normal procedures, because the papal church sanctioned them for its own department – the Inquisition. The papal encroachment on freedom revived the worst times of the pagan Antiquity – it was the unambiguous relapse into the heathenism, because in the A.D. second century, Christian thinkers, philosophers, and theologians already recognized freedom as the fundamental human right [e.g., the works of Tertullian].

The design and pattern of actions of the Inquisition (especially, use of informers) became the blueprint for the protective and oppressive structures and organizations of many states (e.g., Gestapo in Nazi Germany and KGB in Communist Russia). In return, those who tasted the methods of the oppressive structures also accepted the idea to fight the evil with the evil and under the name of revolution applied this idea to the destruction of their governments and societies.

For example, the French revolution (the eighteenth–nineteenth centuries) in the deadly chain of coups d'état has established the ideals of liberty, equality, and brotherhood by physical extermination and mass executions, at first, those who ruled before, then, those who executed the previous rulers, and subsequently, the executioners of the executioners. In the twentieth century, this idea grew up into the unprecedented by their scales persecutions and executions in countries under the Communist and Nazi regimes, which widely applied the experience of predecessors.  In particular, post–1917 Russia repeated the French pattern accurately: 

–– in 1917–1929 – mass exterminations of pre–1917 Russia’s rulers, aristocracy, priests, researchers, military elite, wealthy merchants, the different–minded, and  the followers of all religions

–– in 1930s – during the “purges” – termination of executors, executioners, and survived fellow terrorists–comrades who realized the bolshevist revolution and destroyed the Russian Empire in 1917–1920.

Therefore, to speak about efficiency of the Inquisition means to speak about efficiency of extermination of human beings for their beliefs. Indeed, the Inquisition works efficiently with respect to a particular human being who is burned at the stake, because it terminates his physical presence at the earth and blocks him from dissemination of his ideas, for example, as it happened with Jun Hus, Savonarola, and many others. However, the knowledge of truth created by the executed thinkers continues to live in the minds of people: the Inquisition is unable to terminate the knowledge along with its creator, while the knowledge always is the main threat to the papal and other similar establishments.

The Inquisition had three centuries to flourish and achieve its purposes, and it failed: its power over the human life was terminated within the societies, which accepted the Reformation (in fact, the Reformation became the main evidence of the failure to achieve the papal purposes by the means of the Inquisition) and discarded the papal claims on the absolute power along with the papacy itself.

The opinion of researchers concerning the Inquisition depends on their religious beliefs: the pro–Catholic authors appeal to understanding and forgiveness, or attempt to justify the Inquisition’s deeds; other authors consider it as the criminal institution. The following list (1 through 7) illustrates the range of opinions.

1) The Inquisition must be understood as inevitability in the historical setting, because with such understanding, it can be forgiven and placed behind with the consequent advancement “in the march of civilization.” Consequently, the Inquisition must be seen as an inevitable episode in the history of struggle with heresies: “it was not the horror it is usually imagined to be,” and the Inquisition’s reputation is distorted and falsified. Besides, its “cruel violence” has no foundation in the doctrine of the Church of Rome [Willett 7, 23, 91, 93].

If to consider the Church of Rome in its original condition during first centuries of existence of Christianity, when she kept the apostolic traditions and, as the establishment of St. Apostles Peter and Paul, remained the substantial authority in the matters of the Christian faith – the part of this claim is true: Christianity does not coexist with “cruel violence.” If to apply this assertion to the papal establishment built upon the Church of Rome – this claim contradicts to the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas and his followers who justified the Inquisition, torture, death penalty, maiming, and robbery of men with the falsification of the word of God.

2) The Inquisition is a protector of the papacy; as such the Inquisition is the institution

–– striving for the social order and for the progress of civilization against “the heretical forces of disruption and decay,” because during the Dark Ages, the papacy represented the unity of the Church and society and was the center of European part of the Christendom

–– driven by “public opinion of the medieval Europe,” with the inquisitor as a priest and “an official of the spiritual power” whose the only concern was salvation of the souls [Maycock 104–105, 122, 256–257].

3) The Inquisition was not an arbitrary devised organization; it was the “natural... inevitable – evolution” and the political necessity (for example, condemnation and execution of Joan d’Arc); it was the weapon of the “political aggrandizement,” which also “prostituted the name of religion to the vilest temporal ends” [Lea 1:iii; 3:371, 650].

4) The Inquisition is a permanent and vital institution of the Church of Rome under the papacy, because the spirit of the Inquisition is the spirit of “the Church itself” [Rule 5–6].

5) The Inquisition was “a powerful agency of terrorism” [Barnes 364].

6) Christianity is the ideology of “ecclesiastico–politico–financial organization,” which established the Inquisition for own defense; however “was Christianity worth preserving?” [Burman 223].

7) Adolf Hitler blames “Christianity” (in fact, the papal faith/Catholicism/Aquinas’ political theology), for “the first spiritual terror” brought into the “free” heathen world, and Rosenberg propagates his own mythical cult of the Nordic blood on the presumption of the “Christian” terror [Hitler 676; Note in: Hitler 676].

The referred above opinions connect the Inquisition with religion, Christianity with the terror of Inquisition, and the papal establishment with the Christian Church. The question about worthiness of Christianity signifies that in the minds of some people the Inquisition with all its crimes became the natural part (perhaps even the embodiment) of the papal Church of Rome. The papacy constantly declares own superiority, asserts own dominion over all the Christendom, and claims that the Roman pope is “the successor of the prince of Apostles,” “the Vicar of Christ at the Earth,” and the universal infallible teacher/shepherd of all Christians.

Consequently, it is understandable that the papal Inquisition does represent the practical embodiment of Christianity for the non–Christians and deters them even from a desire to learn about the Gospels of Lord God Jesus Christ. Such perception is the worst inheritance of the Inquisition, because what in the universe could be farther from the Christian Church that the establishment in which, with the blessing of its head – Prefect–superior–pope, the Inquisition unleashed spiritual and physical terror and blasphemously covered own crimes with the name of Christian God? Such perception itself is the consequence of political theology and the unforgivable crime, which the papacy has committed against God, against all Christians, against the Christian Church, and against all those unknown people who did not become Christians because they connected the Christian teachings with the deeds of the papacy.

 The very existence of the Inquisition is incompatible with Christianity, and the “ecclesiastico–politico–financial organization” – the papal Church of Rome, which had demonstrated its destructive potential with the sacrilege and destruction of the Christian temples of Constantinople, killing of “the Greeks” – the Byzantine Christians, and with the crimes of the Inquisition, is not the Christian Church.

Christianity is the religion of freedom and love. The Apostles, their apprentices, the Desert Fathers for whom the word of Lord God Jesus Christ was the direct experience or the precious inheritance of the previous generation, and all the Christians, always regarded the life and freedom of each human being as the most sacred gift and embodiment of the will of God.

In particular,

–– Tertullian (160–220) wrote that the freedom of worship is “a fundamental human right,” and religion must not be compelled: “It must be embraced freely, and not forced.” Lactantius in his Divinae Institutiones (308) also considered religion as the matter of personal free choice; he wrote that if people defend religion by “bloodshed, by tortures and crime,” they do not defend the religion; they “pollute and profane it” [Tertullian and Lactantius qtd. in: Vacandard 2–4]

–– St. John Chrysostom (345–407) expresses the collective opinion of the Church elders, which the Christian Church accepted at the beginning of her existence as her official position concerning heretics: “To put a heretic to death would be to introduce upon the earth an inexpiable crime” [St. John Chrysostom qtd. in: Willett 21]. Only excommunication is permitted according to the New Testament {Matthew 18:14–17; Titus 3:9–10}.

For the Christian Church, excommunication means avoidance of communications with a heretic who is not allowed to participate in the life of the Church until he, by his own free will, reconciles his disagreement or misunderstanding in the matters of faith. Even after excommunication, the Christian Church considers his life and freedom as the sacred gifts of God, the gifts, which belong to any human being by the will of God, therefore, must not be taken away by the God’s creations: neither a human being nor a human institution has the rights to murder a heretic, to deprive him of his freedom and property, to forcefully change his life, or to inflict on him any harm.

The victims of the Inquisition, as well as those who created this institution, already appeared before God. Today, neither forgiveness nor condemnation is able to change the Past or the Present, yet, the comprehension of the essence and inheritance of the Inquisition can influence the Future. From such a point of view, it must never be forgotten that

1/ the Inquisition violates the fundamental human rights of the freedom of thinking and the freedom of conscience; the very existence of the Inquisition contradicts the Christian teaching

2/ the Inquisition, as the oppressive structure of the papal establishment, is the logical consequence of the Plato’s blueprint of an oppressive institution – the Nocturnal Council. The very idea of Inquisition and its actions are the direct violation of the Law of God: as any political oppressive organization using the power of coercion and designed to restrict the freedom of human being, the Inquisition employed the criminal methods incompatible with the Christian faith and morality. Therefore, at the very moment of origin, the Inquisition already had not a chance to achieve its purposes, and indeed, it failed as any political criminal institution does

3/ the papal establishment/church of Rome/Vatican, which devised, used, and still harbors the Inquisition, has no right to speak or act on behalf of Christianity: it is not a Christian institution

4/ the papal establishment/church of Rome/Vatican, which still harbors the Inquisition, must be barred from any opportunity to conduct any activities directed against freedom and well–being of any human being whichever religion, beliefs, and opinions the human being has

5/ Christianity should not be associated with and blamed for the deeds of the papacy, which had created the Inquisition and justified its crimes, especially for the heretical misinterpretation and falsification of the word of God and their consequences – inhumane political theology, which made the establishment and activity of the Inquisition possible.

In conclusion, the Inquisition is the triumph of the heathenism; it indicates that the oppressive political establishment, which was designed and managed after the Plato–Aristotle’s social and political utopias, ultimately took the place of the Christian Church. In any context, in any time, within any historical setting, and for any independent sound mind, the Inquisition cannot be associated with Christianity: its existence is the fruit of the worst heresies, which the papal hierarchy has produced with the falsification and misrepresentation of the words of God, with the heathen philosophical concepts, and on the basis of the heathen political and social utopias.

Despite the terror caused by the persecutions, tortures, and executions of heretics, the Inquisition had not achieved its purposes: its actions influenced division and facilitated the split of the papal faith – Catholicism, fostered the Reformation, made the papacy guilty of murder and suffering of countless human beings, revealed the inhumane essence of the papal establishment, and discredited the teaching of the infallible “supreme teacher and “universal shepherd” – the Roman pope. The institution officially established for the protection of the papal faith, in fact, inflicted on the papacy as much detriment and disgrace as only the worst enemy has.

With time and deterioration of the papal authority in secular as well as in the spiritual matters, the Inquisition lost the foundation on which it was able to exercise its unrestricted before power to persecute, torture, and put to death a human body. The main struggle of the papacy began to shift into the spiritual realm; so the new generation of the papal army – the “Church militants” – came to existence.



The Jesuit Order


In 1539, Ignatius of Loyola (Spain, 1491–1556, canonized in 1622) established the Jesuit order, or the “Society/Company of Jesus,” sometimes referred to as the “Church militants.” In September 1540, the Society received the canonical life through the pope Paul III’s bill Regimini Militantis Ecclesiae. It was decreed that Spiritual Exercises originated “the character and charisma” of the order of Jesuits, which accepted the mission to serve the papal faith and promote papal justice [in: The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms I.2 §1, 4 §1–2 59, 61]. In April 1541, Ignatius of Loyola was elected the Superior General of the “Society/Company of Jesus.”

According to the pope Paul III and Julius III’s “apostolic” letters of 1540 and 1550, the society of Jesuits had been established for defense and propagation of the faith and the progress of the souls. This goal must be achieved and formation of the society’s novices must be accomplished through the Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises referred as “the chief and fundamental” experiment (and by some other means, e.g., confessions): exactly in the “apostolic” atmosphere” of the Spiritual Exercises, the novices should achieve “familiarity with God” [in: The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus... 3, 4, 61, 113, etc.].

As soon as Ignatius of Loyola became the Catholic saint, it might be concluded that his training prepares valuable servants of the papacy; indeed, for awhile, the Jesuits were acknowledged as the guardians of the papal faith and justice, and today, the order still possesses his full military strength.

The most noticeable is the Jesuit schooling invented by Ignatius of Loyola; his book Spiritual Exercises reveals the elaborated system of the training with pain and imagination*8*, which absorbed techniques of the heathen diviners.

The Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises include the complete set of meditations, with which his followers “seek and find the divine will,” overcome own personality, and unreservedly submit own life to the “hierarchical church” [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §§1, 21, 353; Personal Writings 283, 287, 356].

In the Exercises, imagination is used as the own matrix–maker. The Exercises cultivate the minds, which produce only specified phantasms intended to make the reliable servants of the “hierarchical church.” Imagination works in two directions: as the method to train the subjects of the papacy, and as the source of revelations concerning the “divine will” consistent with the purposes of the papacy. As Jacob Burckhardt remarks, all who were trained with Exercises think as Ignatius of Loyola does [Burckhardt 142].

Similarly to the practices of the heathen diviners, self–inflicted pain, which is the mandatory basis of Exercises, is intended to enhance and sharpen sensory perception and to stimulate imagination; the notion of self–punishment for the previous sins conceals the true purpose of pain and sustains due reverence to the superior who has the authority to regulate intensity and timing of the training.

The heathenism offers many methods of self–destruction; among the most advanced are the practices of those diviners who through self–inflicted pain and with the perverted imagination gradually achieve insanity, yet, believe that they serve their gods. Self–mutilation of Origen [in: Greer 3] and self–torture of Ignatius of Loyola signify the destructive processes, which befall those who trigger off own destruction because they had left God, created own images of deity, serve idols instead of God, therefore, perverted own nature. The Loyola’s training also implements the concepts of imaginary theology developed by the papal theologians: John Duns Scotus (1266/1274?–1308), William of Ockham, and other Catholic philosophizing theologians and mystics.

Stimulation by pain accompanies meditation sessions grouped around particular subjects; during the sessions, an apprentice learns to impose particular matrixes onto own imagination, arrange thinking by the system of symbols correlated with the pattern of apparent actions, therefore, to transform own mind into the image–making programmable device whose behavior might be managed through self–stimulation and self–produced phantasms. The sessions are organized by weeks, yet the training week might be less or more than seven days (because of different individual features of the apprentices). 

Ignatius of Loyola recommends three ways of stimulation, to which he refers to as “exterior penance”: hunger, sleep deprivation, and physical pain (self–flagellation, wearing of iron chain, haircloth, and “other sorts of austerities”). Loyola insists: the exercises of the first week must be given to everyone and in “the exact order in which they are set down.” The “exact order” of the first week includes mandatory bodily self–torture, mandatory blasphemies against God, mandatory deprivation of the word of God (the Bible’s reading is explicitly forbidden), and mandatory disengagement from social activities. He demands that those who had “not being stirred by various spirits” as the result of the Exercises  should be investigated concerning time and completeness of all procedures, because the Exercises must be “carefully followed” [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §§6, 20, 82–85; Personal Writings 284, 286, 299, 301; On Dealing with Others in: Counsels for Jesuits 11].

It looks like Ignatius of Loyola considers the influence of “various spirits” to be a necessary result of training with his Exercises. However, the normal mind neither communicates with the “various spirits” nor perceives their presence or influence: obviously, the described by Loyola results indicate the developed mental disorder, or – if to apply the theological terminology – “possession with unclean spirits.” Therefore, the expected result of Exercises’ first week is disintegration of the natural wholeness of the mind that has God as the Absolute Good–Truth–Ideal and development of the first stage of mental disorder, which leads to “possession by unclean spirit” described in the Holy Scriptures. Ultimately, the Exercises of the first week rearrange the reality of mind: it enters the first circle of the imaginary dream world populated with a particular set of initial phantasms. The initial phantasms assemble the framework, which then, would accommodate all future works of imagination.

The Loyola’s request that his followers must be “stirred by various spirits” prompts an instant question: which kind of “spirit” awaits those who diligently and faithfully perform the Loyola’s Exercises or which kind of imaginary idol governs the spiritual life of the Loyola’s followers? For any Christian who analyzes the Loyola’s writings, the cause of vagueness becomes perfectly clear because Ignatius of Loyola recommends to hear with own ears the cries of the sinners and “blasphemies against Christ Our Lord,” to smell the smells of hell, “to taste with the sense of taste” tears and paroxysm of the conscience, to feel the fire of hell licking one’s body; then, to smell and taste sensually the properties of “the divinity,” etc. [Spiritual Exercises §§65–70, 91, 106, 122, 124, 136–146, 151 in: Personal Writings 298–299, 303, 305, 307, 308, 310–312, 328].

The breath of God creates a living soul, and each being that breathes naturally praises God. St. Paul the Apostle explained that no one who speaks by the Spirit of God ever curses Lord God Jesus Christ. However, breath of existence might be given to the beast to utter blasphemies against God and even to the evil and images of the beast to test, deceive, and ruin men {Genesis 2:7; 3:2, 15; Psalm 150:6; Job 32:8; Daniel 7:1–7, 11–12; Luke 10:18–20; 1 Corinthians 12:3; Revelation 5:13; 13:1–8, 11–16}; it means that those who according to the Loyola’s instructions imagine “blasphemies against Christ Our Lord” make themselves enemies of God – the living dead*9* who are able to deceive and ruin the others.

In the Christian tradition, blasphemy is considered as “a frightful passion” originated by “the unclean spirit”; the Christians are advised to guard the senses and the mind; with the prayer and praise to God they would be able to discard any improper thought [e.g., Nikitas Stithatos (11th century) §59 in: The Philokalia 4:94]. This particular Loyola’s instruction to hear “blasphemies against Christ Our Lord” reveals that the Ignatius of Loyola’s training is not compatible with the Christian teachings, because

–– the Christians purify the mind from “all the evil,” including blasphemy, which – according to explanation of Lord God Jesus Christ – comes from the heart and defiles man {Mark 7:18–23}

–– Ignatius of Loyola demands from his followers to hear (that is to imagine/put into the heart/mind) blasphemies against God, while blasphemy is the greatest evil from those with which man defiles himself.

The prescribed mandatory manner of Exercises  allow conclusion that the purpose of Loyola’s training is deprivation of the soul of its natural center – God; the Exercises create the void, which would be then filled with the phantasms, intended to control the mind and conscience. Deprivation of God transforms the living soul into the living dead because a human being without God and free conscience is not human, thus, the ultimate purpose of the first week is assassination of the soul. This conclusion is based on the following arguments (1 through 3).

1) Nobody who loves God would imagine the blasphemies (that is to apply images of evil) against good and perfect God. Even the “unclean spirits,” which Lord God Jesus Christ cast out of sick men, addressed to Him as to “Son of God” or the “Holy One of God” {in: Matthew 8:28–29; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:33–34}, because blasphemy is not possible at the presence of God. Therefore, those who fill own mind with blasphemies against God do not speak by the Spirit of God {1 Corinthians 12:3}: only the mind, which had lost its Creator and perverted own nature (therefore, became the house forsaken and desolate), is capable of blasphemies.

2) The ability to hear/imagine the blasphemies against God not only discloses the evil desires and impurity, which according to St. Paul the Apostle are idolatry; it signifies the mind that

–– rebels against God

–– does not speak by the Spirit of God

–– has become the enemy of God. 

Any mind that intentionally or unintentionally arises against God and consciously or unconsciously misinterprets and falsifies the word of God violates the Law of God; therefore, it activates own destruction, and becomes able to destroy everything it can reach or influence.

3) Lord God Jesus Christ explained that He does not judge His creations: His word shall judge the people. The image of God is the essence of man, and the Word–God defines, sanctifies, and maintains the human nature {Genesis 1:26–27; John 1:1–5; 12:48; James 1:17–18, 23–25; Ephesians 2:13–22; Isaiah 11:1–4}.  Therefore, when man arises against God and falsifies or misinterprets the words of God, he perverts own nature, thus, activates own annihilation. The very moment, in which man rebels against God, becomes the starting point of destruction of the perverted being, or the moment in which the self–judgment is made and the human mind transforms itself from own judge into own executioner.

There is an additional problem: the force of self–destruction often turns against the world where falsification of the word of God became possible. In such cases, man might persuade or coerce the others to commit themselves to the same evil, and before he completes own annihilation, he destroys many other beings.

Ignatius of Loyola suggests the direct correlation between perception of the material things and an ability of apprehension of the truth and the false [Letter 23 (1549) in: Personal Writings 217]. For him, the images of the material things produced during the altered state of the mind become the legitimate source of “knowledge” and “visions” of God. Consequently, when Ignatius of Loyola instructs to “smell and taste” divinity and hell and to hear blasphemies against God and the saints, evidently, with the purposes to find the divine will and determine how to serve “the hierarchical church”  [Spiritual Exercises §§65–70,121–125 298–299, 307–308], he

a/ expects his followers to accept their illusions as the truth, in accordance with the concepts, which the papal theologians inherited from Aristotle, elaborated, and made the common beliefs and articles of the papal faith

b/ compels his followers to enter the singularity of evil in which the imagined blasphemies against God are accepted as the truth because they are imagined as the perceived by senses, therefore, they fit to Aristotle’s definition of value and truth

c/ attempts to link God with the evil created by imagination of men.

The horror of such degeneration of “theological” thought and the consequences might be comprehended if to recall that the papal Creed includes Filioque  with the assertion that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as He proceeds from the Father” [Constitutions; The Fourth Lateral Council 1215; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 232; Rushdoony 16]. It means that for any Catholic, the “blasphemies against Christ Our Lord” are also blasphemies against the Holy Spirit. Would the life–giving Holy Spirit of God suggest His servant the blasphemies against Himself, thus, would He coerce His servant to commit the only unforgivable sin {Matthew 12:31–32}, which leads to the eternal condemnation of the sinner? The positive answer on this question is not possible because it would be equal to assertion that God intentionally kills His own creations, and such assertion would indicate the conversion into the heathen cult of death (e.g. such as the cult of Dionysus – ancient Greek deity of death, destruction, and insanity).

The Loyola’s experiments of tasting “the divinity” and seeing oneself in the presence of God cannot be accomplished without violations of the commandments of God. God is the Spirit Who has no analogue in the world; only through Lord Jesus Christ the Christian is able to know God {Exodus 33:20; Deuteronomy 4:12, 15–16; 5:6–9, 24–29; 6:4–5; John 4:24; 14:6–11}. People themselves, with senses and imagination, are able neither see God and live nor create any true image of God. As soon as Ignatius of Loyola was still alive after tasting “the divinity,” visions of God, and “standing in the presence of God,” it means that either he was already the exceptionally holy being from the kingdom of God {without holiness the one will not see God – in: Hebrew 12:14} or he had seen only figments of own imagination – idols. However, would a saint with Christian love to God and to the others produce within own mind the “blasphemies against Christ Our Lord” (that is – as it follows from the Catholic Creed – the blasphemies against the Holy Spirit), which result in the eternal condemnation? Would the saint force the others to commit the same mortal and unforgivable sin as he committed and to push them into the same inferno where he dwells?

Furthermore, Ignatius of Loyola recommends

a/  “to see with the eyes of imagination” places, temples, persons, the Holy Trinity, “Christ our Commander–in–Chief,” and His archenemy with “innumerable demons,” etc., and to see oneself “standing in the presence of God and His Saints”

b/ to employ “advantages of the light and the pleasures of the seasons,” breathing techniques, fixation of eyes, and imitate God “in the use of the senses” during the prayer.

To the contrary, Christian theologians wrote

a/ in the fourth century: the monk must close the senses, which are the gate of a soul; sensual pleasure in a soul of a monk reveals that his soul is still “full of darkness” and cannot worship God in purity [St. Isaiah the Solitary On Guarding the Intellect §7,13 in: The Philokalia 1:23–24]

b/ in the fifth century: sensual pleasure denotes materiality of the intellect [St. Mark the Ascetic On Those Who Think that They are Made Righteous by Works: Two Hundred and Twenty–Six Texts §113 in: The Philokalia 1:134].

Thus, when Ignatius of Loyola practices enhancement of sensual perception and activation of feelings with imagination, he contradicts the general pre–Schism tradition (the fourth–fifth centuries), which determines the necessary conditions of the prayer and worship to God; therefore, the Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises are not compatible with the very foundation and the traditions of the Christian Church. Their true foundation is the Aristotle’s concept of sensual perception as the means to confirm the work of the intellect, and connection of virtues with pain and pleasure*10*, therefore, heathenism.

God is the Spirit Who cannot be perceived or cognized with the senses, imagined with the inflamed and sick imagination, or imitated with the use of senses, because there is neither ground nor food for the senses. The mind filled with the pain and distress of a self–torturing body convulsively produces images and phantasms and, then, enters the state of delusion, because it struggles to survive, therefore, has to escape the destructive consequences of the excruciating conditions of existence. Gradually, the mind becomes addicted to the easiness of substitution of the imaginary paradise for the inferno of its real life. Simultaneously, the escape into the world of imagination ruins the reality of the mind, erases the boundaries between the actuality and illusion, and subsequently, deprives the mind of the faculty of deliberation. The loss of the common sense (that is firstly, the ability to discriminate the good and the evil) makes impossible understanding that man is incapable to see or cognize God Who has no form or analogy within the material world. After the mind lost the ability to discriminate the good and the evil, it becomes ready for the unreserved submission to those who can fill the void and who have the power to influence the intensity of pain and the meaning of imaginary – dream – worlds. In general, the Loyola’s training focuses the mind on the mandatory set of symbols–phantasms with which the mind might be easily programmed and re–programmed.

Although the expressed purpose of the Spiritual Exercises is preparation of the soul to “seek and find the divine will,” the instructions for the first week do not contain any suggestions concerning the readings from the Scriptures: Ignatius of Loyola insists on the strict observation of his own recommendations. Besides, the “week” of Exercises is not measured by seven days; in each case, it might be different time necessary to mold different persons [in: Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises Annotations §4; First Week §§1, 6, 21–90; Personal Writings 284, 289–302; Fleming 101]. It means that during the time of the deadly threat when the mind is forced to commit the mortal sin of blasphemy, it is intentionally deprived of the protective power of the words of God.

For a Christian, the words of God create the framework for any activity, and the words of God are the only criterion of judgment of any activity. The absence of references to the words of God indicates that during the first week, the Spiritual Exercises introduce another – non–Christian – framework. As soon as precisely during the first week the mind of Loyola’s follower has to produce the blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ [in: Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §65; Personal Writings 298], it is obvious that the process of separation from God must be completed during the first week. Then, truth of the Scriptures would become inaccessible for understanding, because “another master” {in: 2 Corinthians 4:3–4} has gained possession of the mind, which had produced blasphemies against God. Ultimately, at the end of the first Loyola’s week, the mind is deprived of God: it became empty, and it is ready to be fed with the figments of imagination instead of the knowledge of God.

In summary, the Loyola’s Exercises of the first week with their mandatory blasphemies should result in the spiritual death. The Loyola’s training corrupts the mind, separates it from God, and transforms it into the dwelling of the spirit of blasphemy: the mind becomes the enemy of God controlled by self–manufactured phantasms. When the Spirit of God leaves the soul, it becomes the living dead*9*. Such mind is unable to create anything consistent with the will and the Law of God, and it loses the power of discernment the good and the evil. At this stage, the mind is prepared to perceive the evil as the good, and it becomes capable of any crime against God and His creations. However, it would be also logical to ask the simple question: is it rational to put a human being to spiritual death with the Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and, then, to assume that the living dead would be able to serve good and truth or to protect the Christian faith – as the official slogan of the Loyola’s society proclaims?

The second week of Exercises [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §91–98; Personal Writings 303–304] begins with visualizing of the “human king” with the absolute power, to whom all “Christian rulers” of the world and their subjects must serve and obey. The first action of this “human king” (that is of the embodiment of the Roman pope) is declaration of his will “to conquer all the land of infidels.” Then, Loyola applies to God the example of the submission to the will of the “king”–pope. In fact, with the apparent devotion, Loyola sacrilegiously likens God to His creation. The apparent approval of such a link psychologically prepares an apprentice (who undergoes the Exercises and during the first week already “tasted” blasphemies against God)

– at first, to draw the parallel between God and the pope

– at second, to accept the will of the pope as the will of God.

With these new sacrileges, the overthrow of God is completed, and the emptied mind receives the new center–core–god – the “human king”/pope.

Consequently, §352 introduces the Rules, which a “Church militant” must maintain. The Rules begin with the order to put aside “all our own judgments” and to obey in everything to “the hierarchical Church” (embodied in the image of the human king/pope). They include approval and praise of the decrees and conduct of the papal authorities; they connect ability to “maintain a right mind in all things” with such obedience that a “Church militant” should see the white as the black if “the hierarchical Church so stipulates” [Spiritual Exercises §352–365; Personal Writings 356–358].

These Loyola’s rules depict the logical completion of the process of separation from God. Where the Spirit of God is, there is freedom {2 Corinthians 3:17}; where the Loyola’s “human king” is, there is the slavery of unreserved obedience (including seeing of the white as the black). Thus, the human heart–mind, which has lost the Spirit of God, loses own freedom along with the power to discriminate the good and the evil. Only the enslaved mind is able to see the white as the black if another person or establishment so commands.

To the contrary, another Catholic theologian Pierre Charron (France, 1541–1603) writes about the perfect freedom of human spirit, which he sees as the ability to judge everything, do not be committed to anything, and “to be universal” [Charron 235], and his words convey understanding of the advice of St. Paul the Apostle:

–– to test everything, to hold fast the good, to keep back from any kind of evil {1 Thessalonians 5:21–22

–– to keep the precious freedom of the being that belongs only to God: “you have been bought with the precious price (the Blood of Lord God Jesus Christ); do not make from yourself the slaves of men” {1 Corinthians 7:21–23}.

The comparison of the Charron’s vision of the free human spirit with the Loyola’s rules confirms that

a/ Ignatius of Loyola indeed pursues the purpose to enslave man

b/ the Loyola’s rules contradict the Apostle’s directives.

The Ignatius of Loyola’s description of his own emotional and physical condition illustrates the consequences of the misuse of the over–stimulated imagination. In particular,  Ignatius of Loyola has abundant tears accompanied by “warmth and interior relish,” violent sobs, weeping, devotion, feeling of fire, “many impulses,” perception of “each vein and part of... body... a pressure in... lungs” from “great exaltation”; sometimes he loses the power of speech. During such states, he has visions of the Holy Trinity, Jesus as the Sun, and “the very Being or Essence of God.” He asserts that he “felt and saw Jesus,” then that he “saw, not by natural power, the Blessed Trinity.” Jesus “was representing” him and acted as the mediator between him and the Trinity. Then, he “felt angry with the Blessed Trinity.” Then, he felt and saw “very many intuitions about the Blessed Trinity,” which he would not learn during his whole life … and so on and so forth [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Diary in: Personal Writings 73, 78–87; 92–95].

It should be taken into consideration that the background for all described in the Spiritual Diary events includes self–inflicted tortures and austerities, Spiritual Exercises, and “producing the Constitutions” of the Jesuit Society. In addition, the more the Loyola’s health improved the “greater penances” he undertook [Ignatius of Loyola Reminiscences in: Personal Writings 49].

The Loyola’s “visions” are hallucinations, which his mind experienced because of the sacrilegious exercises and stimulation of the sensual perception with self–tortures similar to those of the heathen diviners. Tears, violent sobs, and anxiety cover pride and self–aggrandizement: the assertion that “Jesus” was his representative elevates Loyola in the position of the super–being who has his god at his service because only the being higher than God might be represented by God and to feel angry with God. In summary, the Loyola’s self–description

1/ conveys the image of anything but a normal condition of a normal man

2/ reveals the connection between self–inflicted physical pain and mental disorder

3/ illustrates the destructive work of the imagination over–stimulated with pain.

As soon as Ignatius of Loyola was a priest, his suitability to serve God might be evaluated with the pre–Schism – thus, theoretically valid for the papal Church of Rome – requirements to a Christian priest. For instance, only the disordered mind produces anger; anger directed toward God is not compatible with the Christian faith. At the same time, the dispassionate intellect, which has obtained the visionary power by the grace of God, rises above feelings; it is “temperate in all things.” Then, according to St. Theognostos (3rd century) and other Christian theologians, if the priest’s imagination is not passion–free, his intellect still has the “sickness of passion.” Such a priest should be considered as the sick with the leprosy of spirit: he must be rejected [in: Ilias the Presbyter §52; Nikitas Stithatos § 92; St. Theognostos §17, 68 in: The Philokalia 2:362, 375; 3:39; 4:104].

Lord God Jesus Christ touched the lepers and healed physical leprosy; there is nothing shameful or condemned by the Church in this lethal disease of a body. Evidently, St. Theognostos refers to such disease of the spirit as deliberate devotion to the passions. The Apostle’s description of the fruits of the Spirit of God and of the works of flesh {the fruits of the Spirit are peace, joy, and self–control; the works of flesh are anger, impurity, etc.  – in: Galatians 5:19–26} allows understanding that the Ignatius of Loyola’s condition has nothing in common with the fruits of the Spirit of God: Loyola, in fact, describes the symptoms of self–inflicted mental disorder.

Another fact to consider is the meaning of paternal/fraternal care for the subjects of the papal hierarchy. Ignatius of Loyola and his contemporary follower Jesuit David L. Fleming both stipulate the necessary condition: penance must not lead to bodily wounds or diseases.  For instance, although Ignatius of Loyola does not hesitate to assassinate the soul of the “Church militant” with blasphemies against God, he refers to preservation of the health and strength of the Jesuit’s body as to “praiseworthy”: a body of the “Church militant” must be in order. The training perverts the mind and imprints in it the distinctive mark of the Society: the perfect “holy obedience” and readiness of the “Church militant” to consider the will of the superior as the will of God and, consequently, to realize any order of the superior [in: Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §85–86; Personal Writings 301; On Perfect Obedience in: Counsels for Jesuits 72–73, 76; The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms III. §269, 292 120, 125].

Contemporary Jesuit David L. Fleming attempts to link the heathen diviner’s practices used by Ignatius of Loyola with Christian love; obviously, he attempts to make the Loyola’s training acceptable even for those contemporary papal subjects who are not afraid to read the Bible; he explains that the bodily penance is intended to cause “willingly sought–out pain or discomfort” because of motivation by “love” [Fleming 43].

For the comprehensive understanding of the meaning and consequences of the Fleming’s recommendations, it should be noticed that they convey the perverted interpretation of the Christian love and imply the possibility of co–existence of the love of God with masochist perversion of men (this sacrilegious tradition started with the Origen’s obsession with an image of the punishing and torturing god and Origen’s self–mutilation*11*). Therefore, even those who read the Bible, yet, follow the Jesuit David L. Fleming’s directions, would not comprehend the meaning and deeds of the perfect love of God, in which there is no fear and suffering {1 John 4:8–19} and would remain under the spell of the Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises.

However, the methods of training with self–inflicted pain and discomfort might be the matter of taste, and not everyone believes

a/ in a possibility to assassinate the soul with intentionally imagined blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ

b/ in a possibility to assassinate the soul with perversion of imagination

c/ that the mental disorders might result from the Loyola’s Exercises

d/ that the mental disorders, which result from the Loyola’s Exercises, cause dangerous consequences for the overall mental health and well–being of those who follow Catholic saint Ignatius of Loyola, practice self–torture, and pervert own imagination and own nature after the Loyola’s model.

Still, intentional corruption and perversion of human beings might cause pain and suffering to their families and become a considerable threat to the health and development of the society.

St. Paul the Apostle warned against the recommendations, which have “an appearance of wisdom,” yet, which are without value because of the self–deceiving rigor of earthly devotion and pointless severity to the body {Colossians 2:20–23}.

Anyone who believes in the doctrine of Incarnation should realize that Lord God Jesus Christ made the human body sacred. Consequently, any torture (especially, self–inflicted), suicide, corporal punishment, humiliation, assassination, murder, execution, and capital punishment, which intend to humiliate, inflict harm and suffering, or murder a human being are sacrilegious, because God had created man in His image and after His likeness and made him a temple where the Holy Spirit of God dwells. Murderers and hangmen with their superiors who sanction execution, murder, or torture of any human being commit the crime against God Himself: they attempt to humiliate or kill God along with His creation. Consequently, according to the promise of God, they will be held accountable for the blood they shed and for each murder they committed. If God promised to send away from Him those who were simply indifferent to the suffering of the others and explained that everything that man had done to the others he had done it to God {in: Genesis 9:5–6; Matthew 25:31–45}, the degree of separation from God and the deepness of perversion of those who are capable of inflicting evil to the others are overwhelming.

Furthermore, those who kill defy the main law of Christianity – the main commandment of Lord God Jesus Christ: love each other; in them the Spirit of God does not dwell: according to the texts of the Holy Scriptures and the Apostles, a murderer does not have the eternal life {John 13:34; 15:12–13; 1 John 3:14–16; 1 Corinthians 3:16–17; Revelation 21:8}.

The referred texts of the Holy Bible reveal that those superiors of the papal hierarchical church who order to kill, to practice self–torture, to torture the others, or to harm any human being in any possible way and those who execute the papal sentences are the living dead – the beasts of pray without the Spirit of God and without life within. This inference is universally confirmed with the deeds of the papal hierarchical church:

–– deprivation of the Catholic laity of the communion with both elements – the life–giving Cup of Eucharist according to the most sacred tradition of the Christian Church

–– perversion of the nature and re–programming the conscience of those papal subjects who are forced/compelled to forgo the natural way of life {established by God – Genesis 1:27–28; 9:7}, because of the necessity to focus on the service to the papacy and to execute the papal sentences

–– the atrocities of the Crusades and the Inquisition

–– religious wars and persecutions

–– cooperation with Fascism and Nazism.

Some pro–Catholic theologians refer to Ignatius of Loyola as “the genius of Catholicism and the reassertion of the principle of authority in religion” [Brierley 1]. The key words for understanding of the reason for such a flattering reference are “the reassertion of the principle of authority.” For instance, the declaration of Jesuit prelate Cardinal Bellarmine illustrates the consequences and significance of the Loyola’s training for the papal hierarchy:  the church must accept “whatever doctrine it pleases the pope to describe.” The papal church must “blindly renounce all judgment of her own.” Even if the pope had erred, ordered to commit sins, and forbade virtues, the Church must consider sins as the good and virtues as the evil in accordance with the order of the pope [Bellarmine ref. and qtd. in: Baybrook 277].

To the contrary, according to St. Paul the Apostle, the Church obeys God Who made her holy and without vice {Ephesians 5:24–27}. Therefore, if the Church, contrary to the commandment of God, considers sin as the virtue because of the commandment of man, she disregards the Law of God and rejects her Head – Lord God Jesus Christ, thus, she ceases to exist as the Church of God.

In the papal church, the Roman pope substitutes own rules for the commandments of God; for instance,

a/ Aquinas’ dictum*3* “the pope is the vicar of Christ standing at the place of God” and the pope’s voice must be recognized as the voice of God for the commandment of God “you shall have no other gods before Me”

b/ Aquinas’ dictum “the heretics and schismatics must be put to death” for the commandment of God “you shall not kill.”

Accordingly, the papal church must abolish the word of God and slavishly obey the word of man. For example, if the Roman pope proclaims an innocent man to be a criminal and orders to execute him, and a “Church militant” knows that the accused is innocent, the “Church militant,” nevertheless, must assassinate the innocent man.

The Jesuit Bellarmine’s declaration confirms that the papal “hierarchical church” is centered not on God; its center, lord, and master are the pope. However, such deification/focusing/fixation on the mortal man leaves no doubt concerning incompatibility of the papal “hierarchical church” with Christianity. This declaration also substantiates significance of the Loyola’s training as the very affordable (inexpensive) system of preparation of the blindly obedient and self–sufficient subjects whose reward is in the specially trained imagination and for whom the law of man – the pope – overthrows the commandments of God.

According to the commandment of Lord God Jesus Christ, St. Paul the Apostle defines the Christian love as the main criterion for evaluation of a Christian: whatever gifts, knowledge, and abilities man has, he is nothing if he has no love. For St. John the Apostle, God is love – the Perfect Love without fear and suffering, and those, who love brothers, love God and abide in God {John 13:34–35; 15:12; 1 John 4:8, 16, 18; 1 Thessalonians 5:21–22; 1 Corinthians 13:1–8; 14:1}.

To the contrary, among all Loyola’s references to self–torture, descriptions of suffering, and eighteen rules, which determine the “true attitude of mind” and describe the ideal behavior toward authorities, confessions, decorations and statues, cults of the saints, “exterior penance”/self–torturing, scholastic theology, etc., there is no mention about the Christian love to a neighbor–brother. Similarly, among all contemplations and recommendations concerning the work of imagination there is no meditation on the love to one’s neighbor. Love itself is described from the practical point of view, as “mutual communication” with sharing knowledge, honor, and wealth [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §230, 352–370; Personal Writings 329, 356–358]. Yet, if a person gives away all the possession, and even delivers own body to be burned – it does not mean that this person has the Christian love, which makes a person the Christian {John 13:34–35; 15:12; 1 Corinthians 13:1–3}.

In fact, with all apparent “righteousness” and slogans, such absence of references to love is logical: there is no any possibility to admit existence of any love to the people in the person who compels them to commit the mortal sin of blasphemy against God.

Ignatius of Loyola also has particular difficulties with the commandment to love God with all his soul, mind, and understanding. For instance, he expresses doubts in an ability of the constant concentration of the mind on God when he refers to the report of a monk concerning “the continual presence of God” as “fantastic and false,” which “is not to be believed”; he confirms that the superior acts according to the will of God when he places limitations on those who spend too much time in prayer [Ignatius of Loyola On Prophecies and Revelations §40, 47 in: Personal Writings 224, 226; italic in the original].

To the contrary, St. Paul the Apostle writes: “Unceasingly pray” and “Praying at every time in the Spirit”; then, there is the mention about a centurion Cornelius (Roman soldier–supervisor) who prayed constantly {Acts 10:1–2; 1 Thessalonians 5:17; Ephesians 6:18}. Consequently, the Christian tradition holds that the unceasing prayer is possible for everyone and in all situations of ordinary daily life [e.g., St. Peter of Damascus in: The Philokalia 3:83, 173, 193–194].

The Loyola’s opinion reveals that in his world, the superior indeed takes the place of God in such a degree that he even determines how long his subject may speak to his God and Creator. An additional inference is that Loyola does not believe in the ability of the others to experience presence of God. The Loyola’s doubts confirm that he reserves the communications with God only for himself, in particular, he uses the following wordings: “what the Lord says to me,” “what I feel in the Lord,” to put the question “before God,” etc. [in: Ignatius of Loyola Steps in Discernment, 1536, §4; Reminiscences §70; Personal Writings 130, 47]. Such pride indicates that the Loyola’s visions are hallucinations resulted from the mental disorder, that the source of Loyola’s visions is his own imagination, therefore, the “knowledge,” which he offers as the knowledge of God although it contradicts the Holy Scriptures, is the false and deceit. 

Any human being has the right to use own imagination, create own dream worlds and misconceptions, to err, to live and to die as he or she wishes – unless his/her misconceptions, errors, and fruits of imagination become clear and present danger for other beings. There is no doubt that the source of the Loyola’s knowledge is his own imagination, that his Exercises, Rules, etc. contradict the Christian teachings, and his training (Exercises) leads to spiritual death and mental disorder, thus, is dangerous for the well–being of the others. In addition, Ignatius of Loyola is a part of the papal hierarchy; his works and efforts are recognized and rewarded with canonization; his society/order was accepted and still is used by the papacy. All these consequences prompt the question concerning the essence, the purposes, and results of existence of the papal “hierarchical church,” which has placed Ignatius of Loyola at such a prominent position, and continues to support and to use his followers.

In particular, the following two examples might facilitate comprehension of the actual essence, actual purposes of the Loyola’s training, as well as the essence of the establishment that has canonized Ignatius of Loyola and still uses his Spiritual Exercises to train its subjects in unreserved obedience.

1) Obedience is the distinctive feature of the Jesuits; it must be prompt and complete even when the superior orders the things “difficult and repugnant to sensitive nature.” Any Jesuit has to achieve complete abnegation of own will and judgments; he must obey “blindly, without inquiry of any kind” to the superior who – for the Loyola and his followers – holds the place of God or the place of Jesus Christ, has “His authority,” and is “obeyed in the place of Christ.” The subjects must realize the will of superior as the will of God, and the superior’s wish must become own wish of the subject: when the superior gives orders, his voice must be recognized as the voice of God or as the voice of Christ. For any Jesuit, to “maintain a right mind in all things” means to put aside all own judgments. Such obedience is justified with “the whole natural order, the hierarchies of angels, and well–ordered human institutions” [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §365; To Rector and Students of the College in Coimbra, 1548, §3–4,7; To Fathers and Brothers in Portugal, 1553, §2–3; On Prophecies and Revelations, 1549, §35, 47; The Final Word on Obedience §2 in: Personal Writings 358; 200, 202; 222, 226, 252; On Perfect Obedience in: Counsels for Jesuits 76, 78, 81; The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms III.284; IX.765 §20 123, 365].

The knowledge of “the whole natural order” is borrowed from Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology. Information concerning “the hierarchies of angels” could have the same source of origin, perhaps also in Cabbala and in the Loyola’s own acquaintance with the “Commander–in–Chief” and other phantasms, which he created during his Spiritual Exercises. The reference to “well–ordered human institutions” discloses complete ignorance of the word of God: “My kingdom is not of this world” {John 18:36}. If the kingdom of God does not belong to this world, the human institutions also have nothing to do with the Christian Church – the Church of God.

It is noteworthy that Ignatius of Loyola does not supplement his requests concerning suppression of conscience and blind obedience to the will of man with the references to the Scriptures: the Scriptures do not mention such perversion as the possibility to obey man as to God. To the contrary, the examples of Daniel the prophet (Daniel was cast into the lion den for his disobedience to king who forbade his subjects to pray God) and the Son of Man – Lord God Jesus Christ teach the Christians to obey God even to the death {Daniel 6:3–17; Mark 14:35–36; Luke 22:41–44}. Yet, Ignatius of Loyola–founder of the Jesuit order/society cultivates in his followers comprehensive and blind obedience to man in the matter of conscience; in his interpretation, obedience must be absolute and complete until such a degree that the sin and vice must be considered as the good and the virtue must be considered the evil if the “hierarchical church” so demands. Therefore, Catholic saint Ignatius of Loyola contradicts the word of God and elevates the orders of men and the papal “hierarchical church” over the commandments of God.

The Christian Church is the body of God because each man is the temple, where the Spirit of God dwells: the kingdom of God is within each human being {Luke 17:20–21}. Each human being is the unique irreplaceable member of the God’s Body where the cohesive or wholeness–creating power is the love of God to each of His creations and love of each of His creation to God and to one another: two pillars support the Church of God – the Faith and Love. Accordingly, within the Church, there can be neither coercion nor leader in the worldly meaning of these words: God does not give the gift of His Spirit by measure {John 3:34–36}, and the same Spirit of God dwells within each human being. None of the qualitative properties of the matter (abundance of flesh, physical power, social status, possession with wealth, weapons, buildings, gold, garments, etc.) could distinguish or exalt one human being over another, to suppress conscience, or to deprive any human being of the spiritual freedom, which accompanies the Spirit of God. Thus,

1/ the very meaning of the “hierarchical church,” whose head is referred as the “human king” with the absolute power and who conquers the lands of the infidel, is the indication of the worldly establishment with the purposes, which contradict the commandments of God

2/ any assertion that any man can take the place and authority of God, in fact, is sacrilegious and indicates idolization of a mortal man. 

Each earthly hierarchy exists only because some men submit themselves to the will of other men. Obedience is the foundation for any hierarchy; historically, obedience always is the main virtue and the pledge of the social stability, prosperity, and survival of every hierarchical establishment.

God explained the meaning of obedience for His servants: for the Gentiles, the lords are great and rule over them; for the Christians those who desire to be great must serve all, and the first must be servant of all {Mark 10:42–45; John 13:12–17}. Then, the Apostles clarified social responsibilities of the Christians {the Epistles}.

Obedience in the civil matters does not mean unreserved obedience in the matters of the faith and the conscience: no man has the rights to put himself between God and other men, to substitute own rules for the word of God, and to coerce the others to violate commandments of God. Anyone who asserts himself as “standing at the place of God,” in fact, perverts the Gospel, thus, according to the Apostle, must be anathematized {Galatians 1:6–9} – accursed and separated from the Church.

When Ignatius of Loyola introduces his ideal of the blind obedience to the “hierarchical church” and especially to the Roman pope, whom he imagines at the place of God, he extends the meaning of obedience to the conscience: he demands that the conscience, which should live only be the Law of God, must be subdued to the will of the mortal self–deified men.

To the contrary, the Christian theologian refers to the conscience as “a true teacher” [St. Thalassios the Libyan 1:71 in: The Philokalia 2:311]: the Apostolic tradition comprehends the conscience as the voice of God within the soul. Therefore, when Ignatius of Loyola demands his followers to suppress their judgment and to accept the will of their superior as the will of God, he attempts to silence God and substitute the mortal man/idol for God.

The consequences of the Loyola’s “holy obedience” include disassociation of the religion with morality, suppression of the freedom of conscience, and deprivation of the freedom of thinking; in summary, the Loyola’s “holy obedience” substitutes the spiritual death for the life of the human spirit. However, such deprivation and substitution are the true purpose of all Loyola’s training because only the spiritual death – deprivation of the Spirit of God (that is the result of the first week of the Spiritual Exercises) – and the completely suppressed conscience might transform man into an unreserved slave of the superior. Indeed, some authors describe the spiritual life of the Jesuit society with such wordings as “the police and informer mentality”; they perceive the overall message of the Jesuits’ writings as “the death of freedom” [Jules Michelet ref. and qtd. in: Lacouture 366; italic in the original].

2) Jesuit prelate Cardinal Bellarmine proclaims that the papal church must “blindly renounce all judgment of her own” even if the pope errs, and “consider sins good and virtues evil” if the pope so commands [Bellarmine ref. and qtd. in: Baybrook 277].

The deeds of the “hierarchical church” illustrate the consequences–fruits of the Ignatius of Loyola’s instructions. Loyola suppresses conscience of the papal subjects with his dictums to obey “blindly, without inquiry of any kind,” and put aside all own judgments. Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine expands the efforts to destroy the conscience: he transforms the Church into the re–programmable appendage of the mortal man–pope who usurps the place and authority of God. The destruction of a human soul is the first step to the destruction of the Church, and God is the ultimate target.

Only the Holy Spirit grants the power to discriminate the good and the evil: the contradiction to the Scriptures is not possible for those in whom the Spirit of God dwells. Therefore, loss of the power to discriminate the good and the evil and the ability to contradict the word of God reveal the absence of the Spirit of God. Where the Spirit of God dwells, there is freedom {2 Corinthians 3:17}: God is free and He created man in His image and likeness – free and with free will. Any human being in whom the Spirit of God dwells is free; freemen are not able to enslave the others. Therefore, any intention and ability to deprive men of the freedom of judgment and coercion in the matters of discernment of good and evil reveal the absence of the Spirit of God.

The mandatory unreserved and blind obedience to the superior made the Jesuits the ideal executors of the strategic decisions concerning civil and spiritual authority of the Roman pope and struggle for the world–wide domination. The overall structure of the Loyola’s society and the training of its members could serve as a blueprint for any establishment concerned with the achievement of the absolute worldly power. However, the absolute worldly power is not a purpose or a subject of interest for the Christian Church: the Christian Church lives within the eternity, where all mighty empires created by men are – if to employ the terms of the material world – just tiny particles of dust dissipating before the throne of God.

From another angle of consideration, even the ultimate weapon – unreservedly obedient being ready to execute any order of the superior – might be ineffective if it serves the irrational structure, which contradicts the word of God. Indeed, the historical facts are that

–– in the eighteenth–nineteenth centuries, the Jesuits were expelled from Brazil, Portugal, France, Spain, Parma, Russia, Switzerland, and Germany

–– in the nineteenth century, the Roman popes lost the last remnants of their secular power [Lacouture 272, 354, 503, 505, 506; Trager 360; New Catholic Encyclopedia 10:965].

The Christian Church has only one highest authority – God. The mandatory blind obedience, service to the superior’s wishes, and unreserved acceptance of the erroneous judgment of man disclose the worldly aspirations and intention to enslave the subjects and make them the tools necessary for the papal struggle for civil power and domination. If the leader of the papal church – the pope – “takes the place of God,” pretends to be a head of the Universal Church, contradicts the Scriptures, substitutes the evil for the good, and has dogmatic errors, it means that such a leader has lost the ability to discriminate the good and the evil. Such a leader, as well as his actions (e.g., transformation of free men into slaves, death sentence to heretics and schismatics, sale of the indulgence–forgiveness of sins for money) cannot have place within the Christian Church. Therefore, the Loyola’s “hierarchical church” is the worldly establishment, whose leader – the pope – covers up own imperial aspirations with the claims on possession by the authority of Christian God.

Ignatius of Loyola believed that the Society of Jesuits would stop the spread of Protestantism. His suggestions disclose the attitude toward theology, Catholic clergy, and Catholic laity, as well as the actual foundation of the claims on the right to teach the others:

1)  philosophy is the foundation of “sound theology”

2)  “the common people... incapable of subtleties,” as well as children and those who have no talent, must be taught the short summary of theology – “abridged theology” *12*, because the weak minds do not have the proper foundation and can collapse; even so, the “abridged theology” would make them “useful workers for the common good”

3)  the lessons of “abridged theology” must be given free of charge and by the best students who would be able by own example to disprove “the strongest argument of the heretics” against the Catholicism: greed, “bad life,” and ignorance of the Catholics, especially the clergy [Ignatius of Loyola On the Society’s Duty to Oppose Heresy, 1554; Counsels for Jesuits 97–99].

The Loyola’s plan is based on assumption that philosophy, special training in “abridged theology,” and cosmetic improvement of the overall image of the Catholics would be enough to erase the memory of burned alive and massacred Huguenots and other “heretics,” to reconcile the laity with deprivation of the Cup of the Eucharist, to annihilate vices and crimes of the papal hierarchy, to conceal the uninterrupted struggle of the papacy for absolute power over bodies, minds, and wealth of people, and, as the result, suppress the Reformation and to finish the Western Schism.

As it follows from the Loyola’s own words, his attitude toward laity and theology does not differ from the heresy of Origen who referred to a Christian as “small and undeveloped” soul that instead of the word of God must be fed with the images created by the guardians – “doctors of the church” [Origen Spirit III.638 240].

The overall attitude, with which Ignatius of Loyola arranges his suggestions, reveals his

–– contempt to the Catholic laity and clergy

––  intention to put the textbooks and lectures, which would fashion “the weak minds” into the useful servants of the papal “common good” (e.g., such as the Catholic assassins of the Huguenots/Protestants during St. Bartholomew Night’s massacre), at the place of the Bible forbidden by the Inquisition in the 1229

––  acknowledgment of philosophy as the foundation for theology – Loyola follows Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle, and other heathen philosophers who compiled their “theology” with philosophical speculations and figments of imagination

–– expectations to correct “bad life” and ignorance of the Catholic clergy and to stop Protestantism with the “sound theology” founded on philosophy, although one of the main reasons of the “bad life” and ignorance of the Catholic clergy, as well as of the Western Schism, was exactly the official papal doctrine – Aquinas’ political theology founded on heathen philosophy.

Contempt to other people signifies pride and absence of humility, while humility is the inseparable feature of each mind that possesses the true knowledge of God. It is profanity to assume that the human writings might take the place of the word of God. Besides, it is not possible to interpret the Sermon on the Mount {Matthew 5; 6; 7} with the Aristotle’s physical–philosophical speculations concerning the “prime motor.”

In general, the Loyola’s strategic plan to liquidate the Protestantism is designed upon false assumptions and with insufficient understanding of the actuality. The contents and arrangements of the plan suggests the inference that the Loyola’s mind is not able to find the proper solution: it operates with the apparent consequences and leaves the roots of the problems untouched. Indeed, it is illogical to expect that the mind that has gone through the Spiritual Exercises with their mandatory blasphemies against God would possess the power of intelligence and wisdom, which are the gifts of God.

In addition, acknowledgement of ignorance and “bad life” of the Catholics betrays the failure of the papal hierarchy, which is headed with the pope (who – according to the official doctrine of the papal church – is the “supreme shepherd” and “universal teacher” of all Christians), to educate and enlighten own subjects. Nevertheless, the papacy continues its struggle for expansion of its authority over the entire Christendom and to mold all Christians with the ideals of “the holy obedience” to the papal “hierarchical church.”



Some Details of the Life in the Papal Units


In his instructions concerning convents of nuns, Ignatius of Loyola set the rules for reformation of the life in women monasteries. Loyola has the specific attitude concerning women:

a/ there is no other beast on the earth so ferocious as the enemy of the human nature is (for the Catholics, “the enemy of the human nature” is the euphemism for the arch–evil that opposes and contradicts God and intends to ruin mankind), and the behavior of this beast “resembles that of woman” when her “rage, vengeance and ferocity” do not have limits [Ignatius of Loyola Spiritual Exercises §325 350]

b/ the Loyola’s messenger must prevent all visits from the outside world and persuade the nuns to stay in seclusion, where they must examine their conscience and perform the Spiritual Exercises, especially the exercises of the first week (with the mandatory “blasphemies against Christ Our Lord” and self–torture). Afterward, they should have confession each week and continue to practice Spiritual Exercises

c/ the messenger must not undertake “any coercive means” toward the nuns without “fresh advice from us here at Rome” [Ignatius of Loyola Norms for Reforming Convents of Nuns, 1555; Counsels for Jesuits 106–107].

The Ignatius of Loyola’s letter confirms that the papal hierarchy did not hesitate to apply “coercive means” to separate women from the world, keep them under complete control of confessor–clergyman, pervert their nature, and corrupt their mind through the Spiritual Exercises with the compulsory self–torture and demonic fantasies sacrilegiously focused on God.

The following details of life of a Spanish nun illustrate the influence of the Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises and rules of monastic life.

The family of Jewish converts forcefully confined their child Sor María de Agreda (Spain, 1602–1665) in a Catholic monastery, where she grew up as a nun under authority of the confessor whom she describes as “the one who governs my soul.” She imposed on herself such “painful and inappropriate forms of penitence” that she frequently lost consciousness and experienced “comforting ‘exterioridades’ ” – trances and visions. Intensive penance/self–torturing, fasting, sleep deprivation, suffering from “diabolic temptations, including some very persistent sexual ones,” inflamed imagination, and practicing of “Christian cabala” (Cabbala) resulted in such a mental condition that she claimed

–– that God addressed her as “My wife and turtledove”; in return, she named God “my love” and identified mankind with “the worm”

–– that God wanted her to know the purposes of His works; consequently, God and the angels had shown her all of the Universe – “mystical knowledge of all things,” and even explained how the elements serve punishment of the sinners; consequently, she drown the parallel between herself and the biblical Prophets, pretended to possess the supernatural power, and “used her own visionary power” to convey king Felipe IV (Spain) messages of consolation from his dead son

–– to have six guardian angels and to communicate with the angels of God, who call her “dear soul,” and the “dearest wife of the Most High”

–– to have bilocation during trances: while an angel (that accepted her image) stayed at her place in a monastery, she traveled with other angels, visited American Southwest, and confronted “a high–ranking demon... representative of the anti–Christ” [Colahan 11, 15, 39, 93, 130–131, 134, 155; Sor María de Agreda in: Colahan 48, 49, 59, 67, 71, 73, 85, 86, 110, 140].

The Sor María de Agreda’s condition illustrates not only the influence of the Loyola’ training on the woman psyche; it also discloses completeness of the perversion of the Christian dogma by the nun that has gone through the Spiritual Exercises and lives according to the Loyola’s rules under authority of clergyman–confessor. Concerning some of her assertions, it should be noticed (1 through 3):

1) Moses condemned the abominable practice of “communication” with the deceased, because a medium defiles the people of God. The mediums and sorcerers had to be cast off from the Promised Land and even put to death. They were likened to the idol–worshippers and considered unclean. The source of their “revelations” was their own imagination; they deceived and misled those who asked their assistance, therefore, they attempted to intervene with the purposes of God. St. John the Apostle warned against all liars who during their life practiced falsehood: by their own sins against God and men they are condemned {Leviticus 19:31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10–12; Revelation 21:8; 22:15}. For the Christian, “communication” with the diseased is the service to the evil and work of corrupted imagination, which produces the false knowledge; it is abomination to God, therefore, it must be avoided

2) Cabbala (kabbalah or kabala) is the mystical and occult doctrine, which combines Pythagorean, Platonic, Gnostic, and Philo of Alexandria’s concepts, especially those concerning magic, angelology, and cosmology, with elements of Egyptian beliefs and other “sacred” knowledge of the ancient heathens. Cabbala is the assemblage of symbols, allegories, mystical and magical rituals. For instance, it ascribes to letters of the Hebrew alphabet the power to contain the definiteness (emanations) of God, which is needed to create the matter. Therefore, the letters of Hebrew alphabet are seen as the tools of creation, the embodiments of actual forces and energies at the metaphysical level, before their physical manifestations/embodiments; such a belief connects Cabbala with Plato’s forms/ideas. Those who practice Cabbala believe that they cognize the secret attributes of God and the heavenly forces. Perception of the matter as the evil connects Cabbala with Persian dualism. The Spanish Inquisition forcefully converted the Jews into the Catholicism, yet, the mass of the Jewish conversos influenced the Spanish Catholicism in such a degree that it absorbed mystical traditions of Cabbala and hallucinatory visions of hidden Cabbalists as the revelations of Christian God [Baybrook 289–291; Colahan 34–38,155; Beloff 6; Feldman 33–35, etc.].  

 This particular example reveals the deadly danger, which any coercion in the questions of faith carries for the beliefs of those who use the force to convert the others while they themselves are easily re–programmable. In such cases, the evil applied for the eradication of other beliefs inevitably returns to its initiators and ruins their own spiritual foundation. For instance, those who share “revelations” concerning the attributes and nature of God and the heavenly forces and their hierarchies might have Cabbala as the source of their “knowledge.”

In general, the belief in a possibility of forceful conversion of the others and own re–programmability are inseparable and constitute one of the main features of the addicts to imaginary dream worlds.

3) The claim to be the “dearest wife of the Most High” indicates that Sor María de Agreda knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” {Matthew 22:29–30}. Even if to consider her marital aspirations in the allegorical or “mystical” sense, there are other words in human language to express the meaning of the union with God. Her wordings disclose suppressed sexuality, perverted imagination, and pride (for instance, although mankind is the “worm,” she is the “dearest wife” and “turtledove” that travels escorted by a special unit of angels, and she is “the dearest” thus, the best of all the others).

The reliability of the Sor María de Agreda’s “mystical knowledge of all things,” which she has seen “in God” or “in divine mind” or received from angels, might be inferred from her own words [Sor María de Agreda in: Colahan 53, 61, 64, 74, 87, 90, 110]:

a/ Africa is populated with Satyrs, who have horns because they intentionally struck themselves, and with Cynocephalians who have dog–like faces; people with long ears, disproportionate skinny giants, Cyclops, and savages with reversed feet live in Asia

b/ the Earth is “naturally cold and dry” and that is why it is located in the middle of the Universe

c/ ten heavens surround the Earth; the eighth heaven contains all stars, which are visible from the Earth; the body of stars is “like polished silver”; the tenth heaven is “the prime mover.”

Therefore, all the Sor María de Agreda’s “mystical knowledge of all and everything” is the product of delusional imagination: no one who has the true knowledge of the material world, which accompanies the true knowledge of God {Wisdom 7:17–21}, would assert the Aristotelian physical–philosophical nonsense and myths of the ancient Greeks as the revelations of Christian God. She uses the popular common misconceptions (held to be truth at her time) as the convincing background for her own pretense, for instance, such as a possession with the supernatural power, communications with angels, special relations with God, and other lies, with which she comforts herself, satisfies her pride, and at least temporarily escapes the inferno of her existence.

The following facts confirm Sor María de Agreda’s compliance with the highest standards of the virtues for the subjects of the papal hierarchy:

1/ in spite of very persistent sexual “diabolic temptations” and, at the same time, the sacrilegious pretense on the marital relations with God, she earned the title of “the Venerable”

2/ in spite of her “communication” with the dead son of the king of Spain and practicing of “Christian cabala,” her writings were ascribed to “authentic supernatural aspiration” and accepted as “free of theological errors”

3/ during the period from seventeenth until twentieth century, the “diverse” Catholic rulers supported the efforts to canonize Sor María de Agreda, for instance, Francisco Franco, dictator (1939–1947) and then, regent of the kingdom of Spain (1947–1975) [Colahan 1, 2, 28, 31].

It means that the Catholic nun might be the heathen diviner with the unclean imagination, sacrilegious fantasies directed toward God and pretense to communicate with the deceased, and at the same time might receive the recognition as “the Venerable” and become the candidate for canonization.

The Sor María de Agreda’s revelations disclose at least three things:

1/ the essence of the pervert into which the papal “hierarchical church” molds a normal human being

2/ the mythical essence of the papal theology – the images with which the papal theologian feed the souls of the papal subjects, and which are much closer to the Arabian Nights than to the Holy Scriptures

3/ illiteracy of the papal subjects in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures – the true knowledge of God.  

For instance, if even in the twentieth century, after all fantasies of the ancient Greeks received their proper name – “myths,” still were the people who believed in the Sor María de Agreda’s “visionary power” and accepted as the truth her fantasies stimulated by the inferno, where she lived and died, it means that their understanding of holiness differs from the traditional meaning determined by the Christian teachings.

The Sor María de Agreda’s example is not exceptional; for instance, Teresa of Avila (Spain, 1515–1582) claimed to have “elaborated wedding” with God and presented herself as a God’s mother and wife (evidently, in addition to being a papal saint, Teresa also is some kind of forerunner of Freud with his “Oedipus” complex*13*). Canonization of Teresa of Avila made her a role model for Hispanic nuns [Colahan 13].

Teresa of Avila left descriptions of obviously hallucinatory experience, similar to those of Sor María de Agreda and Ignatius of Loyola, yet, at the more advanced stage, which includes severe bodily sensations. For example, she wrote that after “angel... in bodily form” pierced her body with a golden spear and drew it out along with her “very entrails,” she was left on “fire with a great love of God” and experienced great spiritual and physical pain. This pain has the sweetness, which for her was “a caressing of love... between the soul and God” [Teresa of Avila ref. and qtd. in: Marsh 137 and Medwick ix–x].

It is impossible to find any rationale behind the papal pretense on association with Christianity, while the papal establishment encourages and approves such hallucinations by canonizing the woman who discloses masochistic fantasies sacrilegiously directed to God. Freudian psychoanalysis would explain the basis for Teresa of Avila’s phantasms as suppressed sexuality correlated with the instinct of death, desire of self–destruction, masochism, hysteria, etc. For a historian, the referred visions could remind the tortures, which the Inquisition and civil authorities at the service of the papal hierarchy applied to heretics and the methods by which the Catholics assassinated the Huguenots; in particular, Admiral de Coligny, during the St. Bartholomew Night’s massacre (1572), [in: Trager 197]. Indeed, it is illogical to expect any mercy from ordinary Catholic laymen–participants of the Crusades and massacres if their saint dreams about losing her own “very entrails” and great physical pain as the sign of love between her god and her soul.

The Teresa of Avila’s case also unveils the danger of human additions to the commandments of God. In particular, although the first and the greatest commandment requires a human being to love God with all heart, with all soul, and with all understanding {Matthew 22:37–38}, it does not include imagination and sexual fantasies.

The papal saint Teresa of Avila left repeated descriptions of her hallucinations; she wrote of an arrow dipped in poisonous herbs and golden spear with the fire, with which this something that she calls “angel” or “god” penetrates into her leaving the “excruciating pain,” other “visions” and “experiences” she had during her “raptures” and “prayers.” The Catholic researcher refers to Teresa of Avila as to “the missing link between female sexuality and spirituality,” a “daughter of her church,” “the patron saint of hysteria” [in: Medwick xv, xvi, xvii, 49, 51, 54–55, 204, 213–215].

The Teresa of Avila’s story reveals:

a/ the seriousness of mental disorder obtained with the asceticism in the Loyola’s style

b/ the absence of knowledge of the Christian teaching in those who assert existence of the connection between the “female sexuality” and “spirituality” within the reality of religion or by any other means re–introduce the heathen concept of connection between the reproductive function of flesh and worship to the deities

c/ the horrifying attitude of admiration toward those who, as the referred above papal saint Teresa of Avila – “daughter of her church,” undergo the gradual mental disintegration and pollute the very name of religion with the figments of sick imagination and perverted bodily desires

d/ the unbridgeable gap between the imaginary world of Catholic ascetics and Christianity.

In particular, the idea of connection between “female sexuality and spirituality” would be proper only for cults of Aphrodite and other idols. Normal woman loves God with her soul, heart, and understanding; sexuality exists only at the level of the matter/human body as the normal property of a normal human body, not at the level of human spirit and it is not addressed to God. Evidently, the prohibition to read the Bible inflicted the still irreparable damage and thrown the subjects of the papal hierarchy into the still unfilled depth of ignorance, otherwise they would read the Gospels and learn that God is the Spirit Whom a human being should worship in spirit and truth, and that there is no marriages in resurrection {Matthew 22:29–30; John 4:24}.

Furthermore, the Apostles refer to wife/bride in connection to God, when they write about God and His Church and about the holy city – new Jerusalem where God will dwell with men {Ephesians 5:22–32; Revelation 21:2–3, 9–11}; they do not mention women as the “wives of God” or “brides of God.” Any reference to any confined in covenant mentally disordered woman with the corrupted imagination and suppressed yet uncontrollable sexual desires (which produce the sacrilegious fantasies directed to phantasm that she calls “god”) as to the “wife/bride of God” is sacrilegious. The harems–covenants, in which the “hierarchical church” keeps “brides/wives of God,” remind the pagan temples, where the idols had been provided with earthly wives – specially trained priestess. Yet, usually pagan priests treated the mistresses of idols with much more compassion than their papal counterparts: even when they sent them to their heavenly husbands (killed as a sacrifice), in many cults, women were granted instant death and did not have to come through many years of physical self–torture and mental degradation.

In general, the improper sexual masochist fantasies sacrilegiously directed toward God might exist only because of perverted unclean imagination of the victims of heathen political theology for whom the image became the substitute for everything they are deprived of, yet, long for with all power of the untrained mind, unrestrained imagination, and body. The cause of this perversion is the old misconception rooted in pragmatism and materialism of Aristotle (that God might be cognized through the objects/images of the material world).

There is no possibility for secular non–Catholic researchers to determine

– how many women followed Teresa of Avila, Sor María de Agreda, and similar “role models,” wasted their lives in seclusion under the mandatory self–tortures, which perverted their nature and evoked mental disorder and insanity, and addressed their sacrilegious fantasies to the created by their imagination idol that in their understanding was God

– how many women – the victims of the papal hierarchical church – had been deprived of God by the Loyola’s mandatory blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ and other Exercises and became sick and insane from confinement, hunger, self–flagellation, sleep deprivation, and other austerities.



Events from the Life of Jesuits


When blind obedience takes the place of freedom of thinking, the first thing that leaves the mind is the power to discern the good and the evil. In other words, to become unreservedly obedient to the others, the mind must lose its foundation, the faith, and loyalty to God: readiness for re–programming is the necessary faculty for the subjects of the papal “hierarchical church.”

For instance, monks have to observe the commandment of God “you shall not kill” in such a degree that they even must not defend own life {in imitation of Lord God Jesus Christ – in: John 18:10–11, 36}. Yet, Dominican monk assassinated king of France Henry III (1589), and Jesuit priest John Ballard conspired to assassinate Queen Elizabeth (1586) [Lacouture 354; Trager 202, 204]. Obviously, the order to kill, which these monks received from their superiors, overrode the commandment of God, and although the Dominicans and the Jesuits differentiate themselves from each other, the hand of their superior, blind obedience, and easiness of re–programming, which might be confirmed with their deeds, – these all are the same.

Sometimes, re–programming can move in the undesirable directions. Ignatius of Loyola obviously did not consider the side effects when he compiled his instructions to the Jesuits, and his lack of foresight triggered off the noticeable consequences. In particular, he instructed the members of his society that in dealing with non–Jesuits they should use the same strategy, which the unclean spirit – “the enemy” – uses to seduce the soul:

a/ to praise and express agreement on commonly acceptable “a certain good point”

b/ leave aside the points of disagreement

c/ please them (non–Jesuits) and use the same manners as they do [Ignatius of Loyola On Dealing with Others, 1541; Counsels for Jesuits 2].

According to the Scriptures, those who use the sword will perish by the sword, and the evil must be overcome only with the good {Matthew 26:52; Romans 12:21}. Although the Loyola’s apparent goal is to achieve good (because he obviously considers conversion into the Catholicism, therefore, expansion of the papal power as the highest good), his advice condemns his followers to failure because the essence of his recommendations is deceit that is evil.

For instance, no one would sincerely praise the targets for conversion – those with whom he has disagreements in the matters of faith, social order, customs, or manner of behavior. Praise and imitation evoke pride and conceit and do not activate the desire for change or self–improvement, which are the necessary conditions for any voluntary conversion. Besides, conversion into another religion is, before all, transformation into a new being with other meanings of truth, good, and evil, which are assumed to be better.

Each potential target for conversion has own logic of reasoning, thus the attempts to become a trusted adviser and influence/manage a target in the atmosphere of trust and confidence might not be successful if intentional deceit is discovered and the target discerns the ill purpose behind the friendliness and flattery of a newly obtained friend.

Indeed, there is no one single event in all known history of mankind when the good was obtained for the price of evil. Even when the evil pretends to be the good, it inevitably begets the greatest evil, because there is no chance to receive good fruits from the bad tree {Matthew 12:33–35}, and the Loyola’s Society is not an exemption from this axiom.

For instance, in 1562, Jesuit, philosopher, and scientist Matteo Ricci arrived in China with a commission to convert the population into the Catholicism. Following the Loyola’s instructions for the Society, he adopted native clothing and manner of behavior, learned Chinese, read all available Taoist books, and became a Confucian scholar. Ultimately, he comprehended Confucianism as a natural religion –“a prefiguration of Judeo-Christianity,” and assimilated Confucius with Plato, Aristotle, and Epictetus. Étiemble writes that for Jesuit Ricci, Confucius would become “a Christian humanist” if to supplement his sentences with the concepts of God, immortal soul, dogmas, and mysteries. Consequently, Ricci attempted to integrate Confucianism and Catholicism and himself underwent conversion to “a hybrid form of Confucianism.” The subsequent unification of the Jesuitism with the Confucians reached such a degree that in 1645, the papal office in Rome warned the Jesuits “against ‘worship’ of Confucius”; in 1742, connections of the Jesuit ministry with Confucianism were officially condemned [Lacouture 189, 199, 201–202, 205, 501–503; Étiemble ref. and qtd. in: Lacouture 203].

The main common feature of both religions, which sustains Matteo Ricci’s “hybrid form of Confucianism,” might be inferred from [Hegel 601; Bellarmine ref. and qtd. in: Baybrook 277; Cooperman]

1/ the opinion of Georg W.F. Hegel who noticed that in Confucianism there is no “Idea of Freedom,” and morality is “a political affair” determined by the government

2/ the referred above declaration of Jesuit prelate Cardinal Bellarmine concerning the mandatory obedience of the Church to the pope: even if the pope erred and decreed to commit sins and forbade virtues, Church must abandon her opinion and “blindly” obey to the pope

3/ the opinion of a contemporary Catholic activist who envisions her religion – Catholicism – as “a fiat.”

Therefore, one of the main common features of both religious doctrines – Confucianism and Catholicism – is the unreserved obedience, even in the matters of morality and the conscience.

The comparison of Confucianism and Catholicism provide an explanation why the Jesuits so willingly began to associate Catholicism with the teaching of Confucius [cf. for Confucianism in: Lacouture 203; Wilson 5; Confucius 8, 9, 44, 89, 94; Thunder in the Sky 27, 124–125; Lao Tzu 3.1–3; 65.2; 80.1–5  3, 62,76; The Six Secret Teachings…87, 89; Birdwhistell 136, 138; cf. for Catholicism in: the works of Ignatius of Loyola, Tomas Aquinas, and other authors referred to this and other postings concerning the papal Church of Rome].  

Both doctrines – Catholicism and Confucianism –

1) denigrate a human being and assume the right to determine the meaning of morality and to deprive their followers and subjects of freedom of the conscience and of freedom of thinking:

–– the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome is Aquinas’ political theology based on the Aristotle’s concept of man as the social animal–part–property–slave/subject of the community/whole

–– for the Confucian authorities, “the people are like cows and horses” [The Six Secret Teachings 89]

2) are centered on the earthly ruler: for the Catholics, the Roman pope stands at “the place of God”; Confucianism is centered on the Emperor who is a god for the ordinary people

3) are focused on the hierarchy, social order, and maintenance of the rule by the elite (the papal “divine office” and the Mandarins)

4) cultivate absolute loyalty and unreserved obedience to the superiors as the cardinal virtues of the subjects: for the Catholics, blind obedience is the highest virtue, the ideal is “holy obedience," and this obedience enjoins to love; the papacy has established the strictly observed rituals of worship; the sin of disobedience to the superior is the sin against love to a neighbor; for the Confucians, main virtues are absolute devotion to the ruler, loyalty, and following the rules; evidence of learning includes absolute devotion to the ruler, and the root of right feelings is in “filial piety and friendly subordination among brothers”

5) accomplish re–programmability of the subjects (e.g., adaptation to changes, fluidity for the Confucians; church reforms and changing of the meanings of the vice and virtue for the Catholics)

6) establish own meaning of truth and create articles of faith, rules, values – “right principles” or images needed to shape the conscience and thinking and to regulate life of the subjects: the Roman pope is the “universal teacher” and “universal shepherd” for the Catholics; for the Confucians, the superior ruler/leader has to lead the formless masses and teach them to the knowledge they must know in the order to maintain social order and continuity of traditions

7) sustain purposes of world–wide/global domination: the Catholics adhere to the idea of the papal world domination and absolute secular and spiritual authority; the Confucians adhere to the imperial idea – only when the ruler's authority envelops the world, the ruler would not lose it

8) keep the subjects/followers in ignorance and isolate them from the alien influence, especially, from the knowledge inconsistent with the officially propagated rules and images:

–– for the Catholics, discussions of articles of faith or the papal orders are forbidden; the Bible is forbidden for the laity whose souls must be fed with the images produced by the papal theologians; unreserved obedience to any command of the superior and an ability to see a sin as a virtue, and a virtue as a sin – if the pope so orders – are the main virtues; the Catholics are not allowed to communicate with the heretics and schismatics; they must not read the books forbidden by the Inquisition; the papal theologians/doctors are responsible for “clarification” of the “obscure truth” of the Scriptures and for creation of the images, by which the papal hierarchy feeds “small and undeveloped” souls of its subjects

–– for the Confucians the imperial government is good when the common people do not discuss public affairs; the Confucian hierarchy holds that to manage people is difficult when they have much knowledge: learned men rarely have the right feelings to the others; the common people must be kept in ignorance, with empty minds, weaken wills, isolated from any alien influence, and in the state of primitive simplicity; even if they have knowledge, they must not be allowed to act in accordance with their knowledge; openness for change and re–programming are cultivated: “The world has no fixed values”; the people might be led in the right direction, “though they may not be put into the way of understanding it”; learning of right principle makes ordinary person manageable

9) justify execution of relapsed violators (heretics or criminals), not clemency: relapsed heretics must be put to death for the common good of the Catholics; for the Confucians, repeated pardons lead to increase of criminals and violate the social order.

Both doctrines – Catholicism and Confucianism – have two main common features: incompatibility with Christianity and deprivation of subjects of freedom of conscience and freedom of thinking. For instance, there is an opinion that the centuries of enforcing the Confucian matrix unto the mass population might be an explanation of longevity of communism and the personality cult in China: communists simply “became the new Mandarins” [Femia 114].

All listed above assumptions of both doctrines are incompatible with Christianity; yet, Jesuit Matteo Ricci recognized the common features of both and linked Confucianism with the Plato–Aristotle’s doctrine and its offspring – Aquinas’ political theology or Catholicism because they both

a/ deprive their subjects/followers of freedom

b/ hold that determination of the meaning of morality is the prerogative of the establishment and morality must be administered by the establishment, which has the right to fashion the conscience of their subjects

c/ use the imposed set of beliefs/religion/philosophy as the foundation for the political power.

Still, Catholicism and Confucianism differ in the concept of God. The Confucians believe in the Heaven and the Master of Heaven, and do not accept the very idea of the crucified God, which still officially exists in Catholicism. However, this difference did not stop the Jesuits from the search for similarities and even conversion of both doctrines in attempt to submit China with all her richness and natural resources under the papal authority.

This historical fact discloses the inner world of the people corrupted by the Loyola’s training: even the steadfastness in the questions of faith becomes irrelevant in the business of expansion of the papal authority. Indeed, the faith dwells in a “steadfast soul” [St. Theognostos §41 in: The Philokalia 2:368], while the Loyola’s training produces the re–programmable easily replaceable subjects/parts/Aristotelian human chattel.

At his time, Aristotle defined slavery as the natural law [Aristotle Politics I.5.1254b; I.6.1255a–b]. The Aquinas’ reference to Politics and correlated arguments [Summa Theologica II–II Q.57 a3 ro2] confirm that Aquinas, and through him, the papal Church, also accepted slavery as the natural order and, as such, the object of justice. By assembling the definitions of divine Providence, eternal law–government of God, human justice as the service to God, natural rights, and slavery into one logical chain, Aquinas not only legalizes slavery; he presents establishment and maintenance of slavery as the service of God, and legalizes slavery and injustice for many (e.g., unreserved obedience and unnatural way of existence for monks transformed into the blind weapon of the papal will) for advancement of interests and achievement of the purposes of few privileged “divine functionaries” (e.g., absolute power for the pope and privileged status for the members of the papal office).

Indeed, the papal hierarchical church never hesitated to own slaves; for instance, an example from the history of slavery in the North America mentioned by Garry Wills: in 1830, the Jesuits of Maryland sold all their slaves into the Deep South [Wills xiii]; the Jesuit society not only owned slaves; facing the developing movement for abolition of slavery, it sold them to prevent economical loss.

The following three events reveal the scale of the services provided by the Jesuits and their consequences for the others.

1/ In 1542, the pope Paul III instituted the Universal Inquisition headed by the Jesuit order for suppression of the Reformation – quite logical continuation of the career for the Loyola’s flagellants trained in blasphemies against Lord God Jesus Christ: they received the possibility to impose own inferno onto the others officially recognized as heretics.

2/ The Italian Il Regime Fascista of August 30, 1938, mentions the Society of Jesuits as the source of education, from which the Fascist societies, states, and nations in Europe, Italy, and Germany “have much to learn” [Il Regime Fascista ref. and qtd. in: Passelecq and Suchecky 131, 294].

3/ The Jesuits’ participation in destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church through the reforms of Peter I, and the subsequent destruction of the Russian Empire provide a glimpse into the destructive potential of the “church militants.”

The Russian tsar Peter I (1672–1725) implemented the reforms (1700–1720), which devastated the Russian Church.

Some researchers assert that Russian tsar Peter I (1672–1725) desired to transform Russia into the civilized and enlightened state and the mighty empire by eliminating her “backwardness,” expanding her boundaries, and gaining the access to the sea ports for development of the international trade and interconnections with the foreign states. His main obstacles were insufficient funds and the Russian Orthodox Church; so, he began transformation of Russia in three directions: the Church, the army, and the state machinery.

In 1700–1720, Peter I implemented the reforms, which devastated the Russian Church, subdued her to the state, and ultimately, made her the state department. The Peter’s eagerness to subdue the Church was fueled by Patriarch Adrian and the clergy that condemned the immorality and western sympathies of the tsar: the Church’s position threatened to impede the traditional loyalty of the deeply religious Russians to their tsar. After death of Patriarch Adrian (1700), Peter I did not sanction appointment of next Patriarch; he established the special state department, which appropriated the Church income for the state and military needs. Since, the Churches, and especially monasteries, received only insignificant part of their own income because of the tsar’s goal to reduce number of monks and clergy freed from military duties and because of his especial hatred toward the monks whom he accused of idleness and parasitism. Then, Peter I issued the special decree – the Ecclesiastical Regulations, by which he officially abolished the Patriarchate (in 1721) and arranged the special state department – the Holy Synod that assumed control over the remnants of the Russian Orthodox Church [Peter the Great 15, 173; Cracraft 90, 117, 302, 306].

Two theologians – Feofan Prokopovich and Semen Yavorski – assisted Peter in his Church reforms. Both were the Uniates: “Uniate” is the term for a convert into Catholicism who believes that it is possible to unify Christianity and the papacy. Both received the Jesuit training and, then, reverted to the Orthodoxy. Feofan Prokopovich was also a monk of the Basilian order. In addition, Peter I filled many key positions within the Russian Orthodox Church with graduates of the Kiev Theological Academy. The arrangement of the Kiev Academy imitated the Jesuit college; its curriculum included Latin theology (Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology) and the Jesuit version of scholasticism; many of its students received education in the Jesuit colleges abroad. In overall, the Kiev Academy spread Latin influence in Russia [Cracraft 48–59, 122–124, 130, 136–137]. The Russian Orthodox clergy considered the graduates of the Kiev Academy (along with the Uniates) as the papal agents.

In 1700, Peter I appointed Semen Yavorski as the temporary chief priest, not the Patriarch, of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Jesuit training of Yavorski determined his “deep antagonism” toward the “enemies” of papal church of Rome that is toward all Russian Orthodox clergy. Yet, Yavorski and Peter I lived within different logical realities. Probably, Yavorski expected appointment of a new patriarch in the papal–Uniate style that would ultimately convert the Russian population into Catholicism and subdue the tsar along with his subjects to the authority of a new patriarch – the Russian version of the “divine functionary.”

However, Peter I intended neither to substitute Catholicism for the Orthodoxy nor to submit himself to the papal authority (even in a new, Russian, version); he desired to transform the Orthodox Church into a handmaid of the state. In 1710, Yavorski resigned from his post. Official reasons for resignation was disagreement with the tsar’s legislation, abolition of the Patriarchate, alienation of the Church’s property, and the “riotous assemblies,” in which Peter mocked the Church and the clergy. The actual reason, probably, was the failure of the Jesuit mission to subdue the Russian tsar to the papal authority: Peter I has own aspirations for the absolute power and world domination. With all their shrewdness and Jesuit training, the Peter’s Jesuits were not able to comprehend Peter’s personality, to decipher his true purposes, and to foresee his actions.

After Feofan Prokopovich apparently reverted to the Orthodoxy, his theological writings became pro–Protestant and political. He almost deified the tsar in his sermons ascribing to Peter I the “supreme judicial and executive power” over ecclesiastical “ranks and authorities.” In general, the Feofan Prokopovich’s role might be described as the tsar’s chief ideologist, or the Russian version of Thomas Aquinas. After Prokopovich prepared the Ecclesiastical Regulations, which abolished the Patriarchate and established the Holy Synod as the state department, Peter appointed him the second vice–president of the Synod. Prokopovich also wrote the text of the oath for the members of the Synod. The oath, which referred to Peter I as “the Supreme Judge” of the Synod, indicates the beginning of Caesaropapism in Russia. After Peter’s death, Prokopovich blocked any attempt to restore the Patriarchate [Cracraft 54–61, 155, 162]*14*.

The reforms of the Russian Orthodox Church were arranged and executed by tsar Peter I (whom Patriarch Adrian condemned for immorality and western outlook) along with the Jesuit trainees and converts from Catholicism. The following historical facts illustrate the results of their efforts:

1/ the Russian Orthodox Church was transformed into the state department

2/ the Synod, which took the place of the Patriarchate, in its oath had recognized the tsar as its “Supreme Judge,” thus, substituted the tsar for God – the only Head of His Church and the only Supreme Judge of His people.

3/ Peter I implemented the experience of papal “hierarchical church,” which was helpful for his purposes; for instance,

– the tsar established the state censorship over publishing of the theological and ecclesiastical works [e.g., in: Cracraft 27, 77–78, 99, 100, 250–251, 301; Medushevskii 40–41]

– the priests had to take the oath of loyalty to the tsar and to administer the same oath for parishioners

– the clergy was forced to become the informers (government agents); the priests had to cooperate in suppression of the opposition and to assist the government to “root out” rebels and fugitive soldiers (the government agents–informers worked for the state secret police. In the Peter’s Russia, each contact with the secret police meant tortures, disgraceful death, and ruin of the families of the victims: the people considered the government agents as the worst – after Peter I – enemies)

4/ the government demanded the priests to violate secrecy of the confession “in interests of the state security”: during the confession, the priest had to read the special list of crimes against the tsar and the state; after the confession, the priest had to inform secret police about those who confessed; the clergy had to register all who performed the confessions in the Books of Confession and inform against those who violated the tsar’s decree concerning the mandatory confessions

5/ in the Churches, the priests had to read to parishioners the tsar’s decree and tax regulations and preach obedience and loyalty to the tsar: the Church was made the tribune of tsar and named the “place where Word of God and the Monarch’s decrees are read.”

The analysis of the rules imposed on the priests lead to the conclusion that Peter I and his nearest advisors indeed had extensive knowledge of methods of the Inquisition.

The main Peter’s “achievement” was the sacrilege against God: he attempted to transform the Christian Russian Orthodox Church into the place of propaganda and the part of the institute of informers intended to detect dissidents, rebels, and other “enemies of the state.” The deeply religious clergy and the people evaluated the Peter’s actions against the Christian Orthodox Church by referring to him as to “the Antichrist” who came from “the heretic West to pervert and to destroy Orthodoxy” [qtd. from Peter the Great 17; also ref. to Peter I as “the Antichrist” in: Cracraft 130].

The part of the Russian Orthodox clergy did not follow the sacrilegious orders of Peter: priests and monks encouraged the people to follow commandments of God; some of them set up the hidden shelters for those who fled from tsar’s persecutions. The Orthodox Faith continued to rule the heart of fearless servants of God: the Church continued to illuminate the path to salvation, and the hidden monasteries and underground Churches kept the Orthodox traditions alive. Many priests and monks shared the destiny of those whom they attempted to save: persecutions and death for the Christian Faith never leave the world that had crucified God. At the time of Peter I, the underground Church was born and learned the first lessons of survival, which prepared her for the communist ordeal in the twentieth century.

However, the actions of the tsar and his establishment – the Synod – convinced a part of the population that the Church voluntarily and fully cooperates with Peter I. The ultimate result of the Peter’s reform was the deep division between the clergy and the people; some of them identified all priests as servants of the oppressive anti–Christian state [Cracraft 251].

The Peter I’s intervention in the life of the Church, devastation of the monasteries and an apparent association of the clergy with the imperial politics activated the processes, which culminated in complete destruction of the Russian Empire in the beginning of twentieth century*15*. The Christian Orthodox faith was the only cohesive power that had made Russia the most powerful state at her time, while the Christian Russian Orthodox Church was the center of spiritual life of the Russian. The monasteries were the self–sufficient estates, which cultivated land, gathered harvest, and accumulated food and other resources that were distributed to the people during the hard times. The monasteries where the foundation for economic and cultural development of the Russian society and the centers of spiritual and cultural life of the population: they educated and enlightened the people, healed the sick, established the ideal patterns of behavior, and propagated the Christian ideals and virtues. At the monasteries, the people learned how to pray, work, live, and die with the Faith and dignity. The Russian Hesychasts cultivated and gathered the harvest of the earth: the monasteries were the gate, through which the grace of God became the visible practical participant in daily life of men. The monasteries sustained the unique net of vital links between the Church and the people and maintained the national unity because the entire nation composed one Church of the Almighty God.

Therefore, Peter I’s accusations of idleness and his hatred toward monks were without merit: Peter I implanted propaganda and intentional deceit into the life of Russia. However, Peter I was right in one assessment: as soon as he decided to demolish the traditional way of Russian life, the devastation of the monasteries had to be the first task, because they were the true foundation of the Russian society.

The following consequences of the Peter I’s reforms prepared basis for the Bolshevist revolution in 1917:

1/ the plundered and devastated Church downgraded at the level of the state department

2/ destruction of the God–centered structure of the pre–Peter Russian society

3/ the loss of confidence and trust to the clergy, which was apparently stained with the role of the government agents  – forcefully imposed by tsar, yet, accepted by the population as the actuality of existence

4/ hatred toward the tsar–reformer and his servants

5/ forced labor, slavery, and impoverishment of the population along with intrusion of the Peter’s state into the religious and private life of the subjects; in fact, Peter I deprived his subjects from any freedom

6/ the corruption of the state apparatus.

Peter I accomplished devastation of the Russian Orthodox Church with assistance of the Jesuit trainees and corruption of the clergy through contacts with Jesuits and education in Jesuit colleges. The devastation of the Church and her transformation into the state department with clergy–informers of the tsarist state became the main condition, which made possible spread of cynicism, prepared the fertile ground for atheism, nihilism, Marxism, Bolshevism, and culminated in the Bolshevist revolution.



Conclusive Remarks


Two events from the actual history of the papal hierarchical church disclose the completeness of the substitution of phantasm of earthly absolute power for the morality and ethics of The Ten Commandments, and substitution of the heathen political theology for Christianity:

1/ the assertion of the Cardinal Bellarmine (Jesuit) that the pope can change the meaning of the good and the evil and make the sin virtue, and virtue – the sin, yet, the Church must blindly accept the pope’s decision even if he errs: “if the pope were to err by prescribing sins and forbidding virtues, the Church would be bound to consider sins good and virtues evil” [Bellarmine ref. and qtd. in: Baybrook 277]

2/ canonization of the inquisitors, diviners, and philosophizing theologians who intentionally misinterpreted and falsified the word of God, violated the commandments of God, and worshiped the pope.

The Ignatius of Loyola’s Exercises refined and made known the methods, with which the papacy implemented its political religion.

Since introduction to the official practice of the papal Church, the Exercises nurtured many generations of the papal subjects and especially the guardians of the papal faith and justice – the Jesuits; they still are in use.

 For instance, according to the published in 1983 recommendations of Jesuit David L. Fleming, those who undergo the modern version of the Loyola’s training, have to perform the same “satisfaction for past sins” or self–inflicted “punishment” in accordance with the advice of “director” (the Fleming’s “director” is the modern term for “the superior”), as it was in the Loyola’s time. The director must be kept informed about all actions of the penitent sinner and work out the personal regime suitable for finding “a particular grace.” The director should establish the days when the sinner must practice penance. The director should overthrow such sinner’s “subterfuges” as “it is medieval,” or “I am not strong enough,” and stop any attempt “to escape from any penance,” which should be performed through “whipping oneself with light cords,” restriction of eating, sleep deprivation, etc. [in: Fleming 40–43].

Therefore, the mandatory self–torture still acts as the persuading reminder for the papal subjects that the director/superior still is the highest actual authority “standing in the place of God,” perhaps, especially persuading because a person must experience self–inflicted pain according to a schedule provided by the superior/director. The methods of self–torture include the same old Loyola’s practices. Evidently, the contemporary Jesuit superiors continue to manufacture “Church militants,” “turtledoves” and “wives of God” in the Ignatius Loyola and Sor María de Agreda’s style.

The contemporary Jesuit Society refers to own subdivisions as to the “Ignatian apostolic” communities. The work (especially offering of Spiritual Exercises) with the laity organized in the “apostolic associations of Ignatian inspiration” and “formation” of the laity in Jesuit “apostolic spirituality” are defined as “the new evangelization” [The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms I.§1; III.46§2, 47§1; VII.306§10, 309§1,3; VIII.324§1 3–4, 113, 312–314, 323]. Thus, the Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises with their mandatory self–flagellation and blasphemies against God became “apostolic,” and fashioning of the Catholic laity after Loyola’s blasphemous “spirituality” is referred to as “the new evangelization.”

So, after the Confucianism, the Jesuits undertook the campaign for conversion into the Ignatianism: indeed, the Catholic laity received with a new “apostle” – Ignatius of Loyola, new teachings – “Ignatian evangel,” and “Ignatian values” for the “Ignatian apostolic” communities (the primary meaning of the word “evangel” includes – and this word usually denotes – the Gospel of Lord God Jesus Christ [Webster’s… 493].  However, there is nothing new under the sun: everything existed already in the times that had passed {Ecclesiastes 1:9–10}.

For instance, some sources [e.g., Apuleius VIII. 27–29; Shipley 168] confirm existence of flagellants who worshipped different idols, including the derivatives of the Minoan goddess with snakes*16*, such as “great goddess” Reya or Cybele, which later became the “magna mater” of the Roman Empire.  

It took four centuries to elevate the “strange teaching” {Hebrews 13:9} of the Spiritual Exercises to the rank of “Ignatian evangel.” At least, in this particular case, the Ignatian disciples do not take the name of God in vain and even do not mention Lord God Jesus Christ in the direct references to their Ignatian “evangel,” values, and communities [cf.: The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms VII.305–310 311–315]: for the Loyola’s followers, the substitution of idol for God is complete. 

However, some questions are due for those who continue associate the papal “hierarchical church” with the Christian Church:

1) which kind of spirit is behind this “Ignatian evangel” with the mandatory “blasphemies against Christ Our Lord” and self–torturing incompatible with the Christian teachings?

2) which progress would make the souls that had gone through the Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises with the mandatory blasphemies against God and entered the “apostolic associations of Ignatian inspiration,” where self–torture serves as the method to cultivate the blind obedience of a body and to silence the voice of God within a soul? Would this progress differ from the experience described by Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, and Sor María de Agreda?

3) the Christian Faith does not exist in the minds corrupted by unclean imagination, perverted with the methods of heathen diviners, and defiled with the images of idols, which took the place of God. Thus, what is the subject of the faith, which the Ignatian society professes through the new “Ignatian evangel”?

If to recall the mandatory blasphemies, with which the Ignatius of Loyola’s training begins, the Christian can come only to the following conclusion: those who diligently perform the Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises put themselves in the risk to become the living dead who

a) are unable to discern the good and the evil

b) substitute the figments of imagination for the faith; only such a substitution makes them able to accept the fantasies of the others as the true knowledge of God

c) lose the freedom of conscience and the freedom of thinking

d) undergo the transformation into the spiritless automata, which at any time convenient for their superiors, might be re–programmed, and whose traditional beliefs and values might be changed so completely that any crime could become a virtue.

It should be concluded that the results of the Ignatius of Loyola’s training provide the keys for understanding of its real purpose and how it works (from 1 through 6).

1) The infernal inescapable conditions of existence initially activate the struggle for survival and coerce the mind to seek the consolation in the only available world – the world of imagination; then, they activate destruction of the protective structures of the mind. The mind loses the power of reasoning and focuses all thinking processes on physical and mental survival. If the mind cannot change the conditions of physical existence and overcome deceit, it also cannot prevent the resulting mental disorder. Consequently, the mind enters the altered states (during which the ancient and contemporary diviners produced their “knowledge of God”); then, it is ready to substitute the images for the reality because the over–stimulated sensual perception facilitates acceptance of the fruits of imagination as the actuality.

2) Apparently, the figments of imagination are intended to confirm the faith {in general, the faith is the substance/assurance of expectations and the evidence of the invisible – Hebrews 11:1}. In fact, they take the place of the faith, deprive the mind of the freedom of thinking, and substitute the deceit, false of unclean imagination, and delusion for the unseen uncognizable reality of God.

3) The Loyola’s training of senses and imagination can lead only to the excessive disproportional development of the ability to create imaginary dream world resulting in perversion of the nature. In brief, his training is the system of self–regulating techniques, which activate specific patterns of mental disorder, e.g., the self–regulating techniques, which evoke the special patterns of psychological response [in: Shapiro 155–157], or – simply speaking – self–evoked altered states of the mind, which might lead to insanity. Elaborated system of self–torturing (hunger←–→sleep deprivation←–→self–inflicted pain) intensifies the sensual perception. Then, over–stimulated sensual perception and uncontrollable corrupted imagination unleash suppressed sexual desires and direct them to the image, which supposed to be God or transcendent being, yet which in fact, is the phantasm, mirage, or idol.

With development of the masochistic attachment to pain and “pleasure of submission,” the Loyola’s training prepares a human being for the unconditional submission to those who can control the intensity of self–torture, e.g., the directors or superiors. It transforms them into the convenient facility for those who need unreservedly obedient slaves – the ultimate weapon with the highest potential of destruction, which might be used in the struggle for absolute power. Obedience to the superior is rewarded with the approval of addiction to the imaginary dream world, which became the only place of comfort and self–aggrandizement desperately needed for survival, and with the promise of a place in the Paradise after death, in the after–life.

4) The Loyola’s Exercises shift all aspirations, which a person was not able to realize within the real world, into the imaginary world. The Loyola–trained mind neither needs real God nor seeks His will; it is quite busy with the work of imagination, which creates a manageable cooperating phantasm/idol. The phantasm/idol becomes an embodiment of two deities: the distant deity and its representative – the immediate deity; the immediate deity is the tamed superior inferior to the dreaming subject, who nevertheless, must diligently experience pain stipulated by this superior. Similarly to the pagan gods of the Greek philosophers, the created phantasm allows to fashion itself according to the desires of its creator. It might become a husband or a son for a woman forcefully confined in a monastery, or a commander–in–chief for a retired soldier who was not able to realize his worldly ambitions in a real war. Sometimes, this phantasm, its “saints,” and its “angels” serve as the audience or background for triumph of the “holiness” of its creator – the desperate being who has no other way to obtain any meaning of existence and justify the inferno of the daily life.

5) The Loyola’s Exercises attack three lines of defense, which naturally preserve life and dignity of man:

–– God in a human body; self–torture is incompatible with dignity of man who had been created in the image and after likeness of God and became the temple of the Spirit of God. The achieved with self–torture and inflamed imagination state of frenzy and insanity reveals perversion of the human nature and processes of decay and disintegration of the mind that has lost its Creator

–– God in the human mind; blasphemies against God deprive the mind of the Spirit of God and make it the spiritless re–programmable automaton, which might be fed by any images, accept any papal vice as the virtue, and forced to serve any idol

–– God in the human conscience; the substitution of the idols for God and figments of imagination for the faith transform man into the ultimate weapon of destruction ready to commit any crime according to the will of the superior.

6) The Loyola’s training prepares the mind to manufacture the singularities of evil. Indeed, if the spirit of blasphemies signifies the absence of God, if the purpose of the training is the transformation of free men into the blindly obedient slaves for whom the word of the pope overcomes the word of God, – so, is it anything left that would guard such mind from inflicting any mental and, then, physical evil on themselves or on the others?

In conclusion, the Ignatius of Loyola’s training deprives human beings of God and faith, of freedom of thinking and conscience; it transforms human beings into the weapon of destruction:

a/ it perverts human nature, corrupts the mind, and ruin the conscience

b/ it produces diviners with the dysfunctional psychological processes

c/ it transforms free human beings into unreservedly obedient slaves  and into the instruments/tools, which act according to the will and wishes of their superiors/masters.

The Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises lead to deprivation of God, degradation and perversion of the human nature; they transform human beings into slaves of the hierarchy and of own corrupted imagination.

In summary, the Ignatius of Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises contradict the commandments of God, Christian teachings, and apostolic traditions of the Christian Church. The practice of “exterior penance,” or simply self–torture, which is a technique borrowed from the heathen diviners, reveals inheritance of the heathen cult. The self–descriptions of mental and physical conditions (developed under self–torture) left by Ignatius of Loyola and other Catholic saints illustrate the destructive influence of the divination on physical and mental health. Yet, according to the pope Paul III and Julius III’s “apostolic” letters of 1540 and 1550, the Society of Jesuits had been established for defense and propagation of the faith and the progress of the souls. That must be achieved and formation of the society’s novices must be accomplished through the Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises referred as “the chief and fundamental” experiment (and by some other means, e.g., confessions). Exactly in the “apostolic” atmosphere” of the Spiritual Exercises, the novices should achieve “familiarity with God” [in: The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus... 3, 4, 61, 113, etc.].

There is nothing but death in the “strange teachings” of Ignatius Loyola, Thomas Aquinas’ political theology, and in other figments of imagination produced by philosophizing theologians and diviners with an intention to sustain the papal struggle for global dominion and the papal pretense to the absolute power over papal subjects.

Only mercy of God Who grants wisdom, love, and knowledge of truth, might defend the Christians from the deceitful words and lies, with which the papal “Church militants” substitute idols for God, evil for good, false for truth, and death for life.

It means that the main purposes of all Christians who lived in the Past, those who live now, and those who will live in the Future, always were, are, and will be the same: strict adherence to the Christian Faith, preservation and protection of the purity of the Christian teachings, observance of the words of God, maintenance of the ability of discrimination between good (that is life) and evil (that is death), protection and preservation of freedom of thinking and freedom of choice between the good and the evil.

The Christians acquire the knowledge of good from the Holy Scriptures, which convey teachings of our God. Man comes to God through the only Way, Truth, and Life – Lord Jesus Christ, the Word–God and the Light of men {John 1:1–5, 9; 14:6}. The Christians have to protect the purity of Christian teachings and to preserve it for the new generations, so they will also enter the Kingdom of God and eternal life. Otherwise, the kingdom of death and absolute slavery will cover the world.






*1*  See The Hierarchical Church, Folder Political Theology, Page_2


*2* See Philosophy: the Beginning, Folder Philosophy, Page_1


*3* See Doctrine of the Thomas Aquinas, Folder Philosophy, Page_7, and Introduction to Political Theology, Folder Political Theology, Page_1.           


*4* See Works of Augustine of Hippo, Folder Philosophy, Page_6.


*5* If according to the definition, the infallible pope Innocent III’s law is “the perpetual law,” it should still be observed today by the faithful Catholics. Consequently, does it mean that at any convenient for the papacy time, the contemporary opponents of the papacy would share the fate of their medieval predecessors? Does it also mean that any society with the significant quantity of the papal subjects carries within the ticking bomb of the possibility of the papal atrocities similar to the atrocities committed by the papal subjects during the Crusades, the St. Bartholomew Night’s massacre, and other known from the history crimes against humanity?


*6*  The following examples disclose the meaning and contents at least some confessional practices:

a/ the Sor María de Agreda’s reference to her confessor as to the one “who governs” her soul and her complains that her confessor (who had “a keen enthusiasm for extravagantly marvelous cases”) communicated to other nuns the results of her self–torture, which evoked “painful publicity” and led to interrogation by the inquisitors [Sor María de Agreda in: Colahan 110; Colahan 94–97]. The communicated by the priest results were hallucinations and other symptoms of mental disorder deciphered as the transcendent abilities of the saint.

b/ the Teresa of Avila’s chase for confessors, because she “was glad as usual to bare her soul to an intelligent man” (she preferred the Jesuits) Medwick 38–55; qtd. 43], her “tightrope walk” between the approved beliefs and heresy, and her forced self–contradiction, which allowed her to avoid condemnation by the Inquisition for her descriptions of the “amazing favors,” which she received from her god [Colahan 97]

d/ Ignatius of Loyola’s directions concerning confessions, especially for nuns confined in convents [e.g., Spiritual Exercises §18, 354 287, 356; On Aspects of the Spiritual Life; Norms for Reforming Convents of Nuns in: Counsels for Jesuits 44, 106–107]. In general, the descriptions of confessional practices in the referred above and other sources disclose the inhumane perversion, which human beings endure within the papal convents and orders:

–– the papal clergyman–confessor cannot physically touch woman–nun, yet, she must undergo the spiritual striptease and humiliation followed by penalties–punishment for the committed “sins”: mandatory self–tortures and physical pain (hunger, sleep–deprivation, self–flagellation, wearing special pain–inflicting garments, belts, etc.), which she has to experience according to the order of the confessor, who sometimes, with “a keen enthusiasm” encourages her self–torture, pushes her to extremities in the attempt to foster development of “the saint,” and then, presents the sick being at the stage of self–annihilation as the role model for her counterparts

–– the imposed by clergyman–confessor penances and self–imposed (because of the feeling of guilt – the necessary component of the spiritual perfection in the papal establishment) austerities are, in fact, the consequences of woman’s physical and mental disorder (e.g., such as hysteria and hallucinations)

–– the physical and mental disorder develops as the result of hunger, sleep deprivation, physical pain, and spiritual suffering, which are the inescapable conditions of woman’s daily life stipulated and fostered by the papal hierarchy

––  the confessor (as well as the nuns and all other members and subjects of the papal hierarchy) has to inform his superior against self–incriminating confessions and statements especially concerning hallucinations, which are not approved by the papal hierarchy (e.g., improper contacts with the evil spirits instead of revelations of the “divine” authority of the pope or wedding with her god) or which result in severe cases of mental and physical disorder that might be interpreted as deviation from the papal faith; the confessor’s report could deliver mentally abnormal/sick woman in the hands of the inquisitors and lead to condemnation and execution.

It means that in the time of the Inquisition, the unreservedly obedient women–nuns (who have submitted themselves – the mind and body – to the papal authority as to the authority of God) were placed under the conditions, which inevitably resulted in physical and mental disorder, corruption of imagination, and suffering. Then, they had to undergo physical and spiritual punishment, or even interrogation and condemnation by the Inquisition because of mental and physical disorder, which they acquired by unreserved obedience to the superior’s authority.

Such treatment of helpless women–nuns is the deliberate perversion of the nature and slow assassination of weak, deceived, and defenseless human beings.


*7* See Heresy, Folder Archive, Page_2_2008.


*8* The Loyola’s training is intended to evoke the altered state of the mind with self–tortures similar to those of the pagan diviners (see Philosophy: the Beginning, Folder Philosophy, Page_2, and Divination, Folder Archive, Page September_2010). With self–inflicted pain, narcotic substances, hunger, sleep deprivation, specific mental and physical exercises, and other means heathen diviners entered the altered states of mind (the term “altered state” is the definition for the specific activity of the mind, when it fervently creates imaginary dream world–substitute for the actuality) and described achieved insanity as the “possession by gods.” Some candidates in Catholic prophets and saints adopted the practices of heathen diviners; with self–inflicted pain and other activities, they expected to facilitate submission of the body to the spirit and to achieve the highest levels of spiritual development with an ability to see God or His angels and saints, etc. Yet, such efforts only facilitated an entrance into the state of frenzy and resulted in dangerous psychosomatic disorders.

The Pythagorean and Platonic philosophical schools provide the philosophical foundation for mortification of flesh; they envision man as the immortal intelligence imprisoned within the mortal body, which contaminates the intelligence and likens men to animals. The Orphic and Pythagorean ascetic practices, the Socrates’ definition of the decent manner of life, and the Seneca’s stoicism illustrate different versions of the contempt to man and to the material word [e.g., Plato Phaedo 69c, 81b, 82c; Seneca Epistles CXX, CXXIII, CXXIV 3:393, 425, 437, 449; Bryant 124]. The Gnostic and Manichean concepts of the “evil matter” contribute additional support to the destructive practices inherited from the heathen philosophers and diviners.

For instance, the Manicheans (known in the Middle Ages as the Albigensians/Cathari) incorporated into their teachings the Persian doctrine of dualism. They professed the following beliefs:

–– the good and the evil are two primeval independent forces

–– the matter is evil and the visible world is the creation of evil: human flesh is the manifestation of evil, which had to be suppressed

–– only the ‘Perfected’ might achieve personal salvation by own efforts, through repentance, mystical knowledge, and severe suppression of the human nature.

For the ‘Perfected,’ marriage is forbidden; men and women have to live in separate communities: to conceive a child for the Perfected is “the height of immorality.” The very life is a sin because it sustains existence of the matter. Consequently, voluntary or suggested by the superior suicide (‘endura’) through self–imposed starvation and other austerities became the method of “perfection and salvation” [in: Baybrook 182–184, 310–311; Pilkington Note 1 64; Vacandard 8, 72–73 (qtd.)].

The Platonist theologians, who had employed heathen philosophy for interpretation of the Scriptures, digested the idea of maximal suppression of the flesh as the road to the transcendent knowledge. They did not admit the possibility of the harmonious life of a human being as the unity of soul and body – the perfect wholeness created by God. Consequently, contempt to a human body inherited from heathen philosophy and the teachings of Mani became the basis for the training intended to obtain prophetic abilities – the property of the spirit, through suppression of the matter that is mortification of a flesh–body. Physical discomfort and physical pain became the key element, with which the Catholic mystics–diviners expected to suppress the flesh–body and to strengthen the spirit–soul.

Normally, physical pain serves survival of a normal human being: it communicates the threat of disease to the mind and indicates the destructive processes, which the mind is expected to prevent or to stop. Intensity of pain specifies significance of the danger. There is a threshold of pain–tolerance: under excessive pain, the brain activates the program of body’s self–destruction (death).

Until pain reaches the threshold of pain–tolerance and becomes life–threatening, the mind employs different tactics of survival. The natural reaction of a normal human being is to avoid pain; when to avoid pain is not possible, the mind attempts to suppress sensory perception. If suppression of sensory perception is not possible, the mind enters the cycle of disintegration; at the beginning stages of this cycle, it creates own imaginary world where pain becomes pleasure and escapes the reality where pain is torment. Such delusion conceals the irreversible destructive processes of the intellect and might be likened to the specific pain–killing chemicals with which the brain regulates perception of the intensive destructive processes and alleviates otherwise unbearable pain during the irreversible phases of death.

The very ability of self–torturing signifies perversion of the human nature and specific mental disorders, which, in fact, are the symptoms of psychological destruction. Self–inflicted uncontrolled pain not only triggers the mind’s destruction; it makes the decomposing consciousness capable of producing the singularities of evil and ruins the system of values, which prevents a human being from committing a crime against the others.

With self–inflicted pain, heathen diviners evoked the altered states of mind and described achieved insanity as the “possession by gods.” Some candidates in prophets and saints adopted these practices; with self–inflicted pain, they expected to facilitate submission of the body to the spirit and to achieve the highest levels of spiritual development with an ability to see God or His angels and saints, etc. They developed specific mental disorders, which have the following symptoms:

–– finding the ground for own superiority in an ability of self–torturing and taking pride and pleasure in inappropriate physical and mental activities; for instance, suffering and pain are perceived as “the little bundles of myrrh” for the soul [Sor María de Agreda in: Colahan 139]

–– belief in a possibility to purify soul and earn forgiveness of sins through penitence with self–imposed immense physical suffering (that is continuation of Manichaean and Gnostic doctrines, which assumed ability of man to earn salvation by own deeds)

–– obsession with the desire to impress, influence, or simply deceive the others

–– finding consolation in self–deceit and pride, presumption of own prophetic abilities, and expectations to be recognized as a prophet whose words and regulations should be recognized as the divine revelations  [e.g., Apuleius VIII.27–29; Colahan 93; Ignatius of Loyola Personal Writings 217, 219, 228–229].

Although the practice of mortification of flesh through self–inflicted pain and suffering is intended to assure the spiritual growth, in actuality, it deepens sensory perception and unleashes wild imagination. The combination of unrestrained imagination with the sensory perception sharpened with pain makes the imaginary world more verisimilar and convincing; it also creates the inseparable link (the escape way) between the reality and the world of imagination. Through this link, the mind of a desperate being who in fact, is insane from sleep deprivation, hunger, and self–inflicted pain escapes from the infernal reality. Such martyrs cultivate own versions of the Paradise, were they can be saints, apostles, warriors, wives or mothers of God: everybody chooses something that is close to the suppressed personal features or desires. Gradually, the mind develops an addiction to the fruits of imagination and escapism; the addiction results in two things: the indifference to everything that is not connected with the imaginary world or its projection on the real environment and blind obedience to those who through the control of daily life might influence creation of the imaginary worlds.

Another justification used by the Catholic theologians for the self–torture is the doctrine of penitence and self–punishment for the committed sins. Many theologians propagated the doctrine of self–punishment through physical and mental suffering as the essence of the Christian asceticism; in fact, this doctrine is rejection of salvation already granted through Lord God Jesus Christ, therefore, it is heresy incompatible with the Christian dogma. The Gnostic and Manichean doctrines, which presume the possibility of salvation through own efforts of men, propagate the necessity of self–punishment for the committed sins; along with other heresies these doctrines have penetrated the dreams of the philosophizing papal theologians. The roots of the doctrine of self–punishment for the committed sins by pain and suffering are in the Aristotle’s

a/ ethics, which replaces the virtues with physical pain or pleasure

b/ recommendations concerning treatment of slaves who have to be made obedient through corporal punishment and fear

c/‘master––slave’ pattern, which Aristotle asserted as the essence of ‘deity––man’ relation and as the universal order, which determines relations among men at any level of social and political establishments.

For the Christians, these doctrines, as well as all theological concepts borrowed from or developed with the heathen philosophy, are heresy, and the practices of papal mystics–diviners–saints are the perversion of mind and body.


*9* The phenomenon of “living dead” has confirmation in the Scriptures; the most revealing event is the God’s order to His disciple: “leave the dead to bury their own dead.” However, these “living dead” also might be resurrected by the word and mercy of God: “preach... the Kingdom of Heaven... raise the dead” {Matthew 8:22; 10:7–8}. Consequently, the Christians consider sins and corruption by the passions as the death of the intellect; only the word of God resurrects the dead; it brings to life the intellect “that has been slain by the passions,” restores righteousness in conscience and sound understanding in the mind [Nikitas Stithatos (11th century) §98–99 in: The Philokalia 4:136–137].


*10* See Philosophy: Aristotle, Folder Philosophy, Page_3.


*11* See Works of Origen, Folder Philosophy, Page_5.


*12* The Loyola’s “abridged theology” is a mixture of the images and slogans produced by the papal theologians with intention to substitute the doctrine of obedience, pope/idol–worship, and other concepts of political theology for the Holy Scriptures. “Abridged theology” of the “hierarchical church” is, in fact, ideology, which is not different from ideology of any totalitarian establishment.


*13* See Works of Philo of Alexandria, Folder Philosophy, Page_4, esp. Note 5


*14* The Peter I’s successors – Russian tsars, which were recruited mostly from the German Lutherans or married their German relatives, continued the Peter’s policies, especially concerning the Russian Orthodox Church. For instance, the nephew and heir of the Russian empress Elizabeth (Peter I’s daughter, ruled Russia in 1741-1761) Karl Peter Ulrich von Holstein-Gottorp, who became Peter III (ruled in 1762), forced on the Orthodox Church the Lutheran practices. Peter III’s German–born wife Sophie Friederike Auguste von Anhalt-Zerbst, who became the Russian empress Catherine II (1762–1796) after Peter III was murdered by her lovers, completed the process of confiscation of the Church lands and with her lechery corrupted the morality of the Russians. Alix von Hesse-Darmstadt, who became Alexandra – the wife and consort of the last Russian tsar Nicholas II (1894–1917), contaminated the Russian royal house with the worst superstitions and demonic obsession with illiterate peasant Grigory Novykh whose nick name Rasputin (“the corrupted one") was earned in orgies and debauchery. Yet, the Rasputin’s influence on Alix/Alexandra went so far as nomination of the Church officials and tsar’s ministers. No one of the following Peter I Russian rulers restored the independent status of the Church; the Russian Patriarchate was restored only in 1917, during the very short period between two regimes, while Bolsheviks were busy with securing their power over the decapitated Russian empire.


*15* Peter I considered and treated the Russians as the property of the state and, in fact, made them slaves of the state. First time in the history of Russia, her ruler expressly exercised the supremacy of the state over life, happiness, and well–being of the people: the Peter’s state encroached upon the people’s life, freedom of conscience, extracted their wealth, sold them to private entrepreneurs who manufactured weapons and construction materials, and through the secret police persecuted them for any sign of disobedience. The Peter’s police and courts applied inhumane tortures, punishments, and executions, which were consistent neither with Christianity nor with traditional Russian kindheartedness.

Peter I (and many historians after him) evaluated his reforms as the Russia’s rise at the rank of civilized European nations. In 1721, Peter proclaimed himself emperor, and the Russian state was elevated to the rank of empire. However, the Peter’s empire became the next version of the Aristotle’s Polis: it was the master over persons, their property, their labor, and the very life. Peter I had not lifted Russia in a position of the enlightened civilized nation and the great empire; he transformed Russia into the archaic slave–owning state, which then, collapsed into the totalitarian state. After the Peter’s sacrilege against the Christian Church, it took only two centuries (from the Church reforms, which Peter began in 1700, until the communist revolution in 1917) to annihilate the Peter’s establishment along with the tsarism itself.

From a particular point of view, the Peter I’s establishment was the pre–cursor or rehearsal of the totalitarian states of the twentieth century. It differentiated from the twentieth century’s versions only in some technical matters, for instance, such as use of religion. In particular,

– Peter I modified the existing Church to have more opportunities to use the established religion according to his needs

– the totalitarian states produced own cult–ideology, elevated it to the rank of the state religion, allotted its propagation and surveillance to the special oppressive structures (e.g., secret police) and attempted to  substituted own cult for all traditional religions.


*16* See The Minoan Legacy, in Philosophy: the Beginning, Folder Philosophy, Page_1.






Apuleius.  The Golden Ass of Metamorphoses. Trans. with an Introduction and Notes by E.J. Kenney. London:  Penguin Books, 1998.                                                                                    

Aristotle. "The Magna Moralia." The Metaphysics. v.2. With an English Translation by G. Cyril Armstrong. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1935. 425–685. 2 vols.

Aristotle. Politics. Trans. Ernest Baker. Revised with an Introduction and Notes by R.F. Stalley. Oxford, England:  Oxford University Press, 1995.

Barnes, Harry Elmer. A Survey of Western Civilization. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1947.

Baybrook, Gar.  Heresies of the Christian Church.  Payson, Arizona:  Leaves of Autumn Books, 1998.

Beinart, Haim. "The Records of the Inquisition – A Source of Jewish and Converso History." Proceeds of The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. v.2, № 11. Jerusalem:  The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1968.  211–227.

Beloff, John. Parapsychology: A Concise History. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.

Birdwhistell, Anne D. Li Yong (1627–1705) and Epistemological Dimensions of Confucian Philosophy. Stanford, California: Stanford UP, 1996.

Brierley, Jonathan. From Philistia:  Essays on Church and World. London:  James Clarke, 1893.

Bryant, Joseph M. Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: a Sociology of Greek Ethics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics. SUNY series in The Sociology of Culture. Albany, New York:  State University of New York Press, 1996.

Burckhardt, Jacob.  Judgments on History and Historians. Trans. Harry Zohn, with a Foreword by Alberto R. Coll. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999.

Burman, Edward. The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, England:  Aquarian Press, 1984.

Charron, Pierre.  "Concerning Wisdom."  Renaissance Philosophy. Volume II: The Transalpine Thinkers.  Ed., trans.,  and  introduced by  Herman Shapiro  and  Arturo B. Fallico.  New York:  Random House,  1969.  214–248.

Chidester, David. Christianity:  A Global History. New York:  HarperCollins, 2000.

Colahan, Clark Andrew. The Visions of Sor María de Agreda: Writing Knowledge and Power. Tucson & London:  The University of Arizona Press, 1994.

Confucius. The Wisdom of Confucius. Trans. William Jennings. With critical and biographical sketches by Epiphanius Wilson. 1982. New York:  Wing Books, 1995.

The Constitutions of The Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms:  A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Text. Saint Louis, Montana:  The Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1996.

Cracraft, James. The Church Reform of Peter the Great. London: Macmillan, 1971.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Ed. Norman P. Tanner. London and Washington, DC:  Sheed & Ward, Georgetown UP, 1990.

Durant, Will.  The Story of Civilization. The Age of Faith. (A.D. 325–1300).  New York:  Simon and Schuster, 1950.

Feldman, Ron H. Fundamentals of Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah. Freedom, California: Crossing Press, 1999.

Femia, Joseph V. "Marxism and Communism." Contemporary Political Ideologies. Eds. Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright. Boulder, Colorado:  Westview Press, 1993. 100–126.

Fleming, David L. Modern Spiritual Exercises:  A Contemporary Reading of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. Garden City, New York:  Image Books, 1983.

Greer, Rowan A. "Introduction." An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected Works by Origen. New York:  Paulist Press, 1979.  1–37.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. "Introduction to the Philosophy of History. Logic. Supplementary Passages." The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche. Ed. Monroe C. Beardsley. New York: The Modern Library, 1992. 537–608. 609–632. 633–644.       

Himes, Michael J. "Introduction." Brief Introduction to the Study of Theology: With Reference to the Scientific Standpoint and the Catholic System by Johann Sebastian von Drey. Trans. with an Introduction and Annotation by Michael J. Himes. Notre Dame, Indiana:  University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. ix–xxvi.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Editorial Sponsors:  John Chamberlain, et al. New York:  Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940.

Ignatius of Loyola, Saint. Counsels for Jesuits:  Selected Letters and Instructions of Saint Ignatius Loyola. Ed. Joseph N. Tylenda. Chicago, Illinois:  Loyola UP, 1985.

Ignatius of Loyola, Saint. Personal Writings:  Reminiscences, Spiritual Diary, Select Letters, including text of The Spiritual Exercises. Trans. with Introduction and Notes by Joseph A. Muniti and Philip Endean. London:  Penguin Books, 1996.

Lacouture, Jean. Jesuits:  A Multibiography.  Trans. Jeremy Leggatt. Washington, D.C.:  Counterpoint, 1995.

La Due, William J.  The Chair of Saint Peter:  A History of the Papacy.   Maryknoll,   New York:   Orbis  Books,  1999.

Lao Tzu. Tao Te Ching. Trans. James Legge. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford UP, 1891. Dover Thrift Editions. Mineola, N.Y.:  Dover, 1997.

Lea, Henry Charles. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages. New York:  Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square, 1887. 3 vols.

Marsh, Caryl. "A Framework for Describing Subjective States of Consciousness." Alternate States of Consciousness. Ed. Norman E. Zinberg. New York: Free Press, 1977. 121–144.

Maycock, Alan L.  The Inquisition from Its Establishment to the Great Schism:  An Introductory Study. With an Introduction by Ronald Knox. New York and Evanston:  Harper & Row, 1969.

Medushevskii, A.N. Reformy Petra I i Sydby Rossii. Rossiiskaya Akademia Hayk. Moskva, 1994. (Russian) (Medushevskiy, A.N. The Reforms of Peter I and the Destiny of Russia. Analytical Report. Russian Academy of Science, Moscow, 1994.)

Medwick, Cathleen. Teresa of Avila: the Progress of a Soul. New York: Alfred A. Knopp, 1999.

New Catholic Encyclopedia. Washington, DC:  The Catholic University of America, 1967.  17 vols.

Origen. Origen, Spirit and Fire. A Thematic Anthology of his Writings by Hans Urs von Balthasar. Trans. Rober J. Daly, S.J. Washington, D.C.:  Catholic University  of America Press, 1984.

Passelecq, Georges, and Bernard Suchecky. The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI. Trans. Steven Randall. With an Introduction by Garry Wills. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997.

Peter the Great. Ed. Lawrence Jay Oliva. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970.

Peters, Edward.  Inquisition.  New York:  Free Press, 1988.

The Philokalia: The Complete Text Compiled by St. Nikodimus of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth. Trans. and ed. G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, with the assistance of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline) Constantine Cavarnos, Dana Miller, Basil Osborne, Norman Russel. London:  Faber & Faber, 1979–1995.  4 vols.

Pilkington, J.G. "Notes" to The Confessions by St. Augustine. A Select Library of the Nicene and Past–Nicene Fathers. v. 1.  Buffalo:  Christian Literature, 1892.  27–207.  14 vols.

Plato. Complete Works. Edited with Introduction and Notes by John M. Cooper.  Associated Editor D.S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis, Indiana:  Hackett Publishing, 1997.

“Preface.” The Bible. New York: American Bible Society, 1980. iii–viii.

Rule, William H. The Brand of Dominic, or Inquisition at Rome “Supreme and Universal.”  New York:  Carlton & Phillips, 1853.

Rushdoony, Rousas John.  The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in The Creeds and Councils in the Early Church.  Nutley, New Jersey:  Presbyterian and Reforming Publishing, 1968.

Seneca. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. With an English translation by Richard M. Gummere. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1967. 3 vols.

Shapiro, David. "A Biofeedback Strategy in the Study of Consciousness." Alternate States of Consciousness. Ed. Norman E. Zinberg. New York:  Free Press, 1977. 145–157.

Shipley, Graham.  The Greek World after Alexander:  323–30 BC.  London and New York:  Routledge, 2000.

The Six Secret Teachings on the Way of Strategy. Trans. Ralph D. Sawyer with the collaboration of Mei–chün Lee Sawyer. Boston and London:  Shambhala, 1997.

Thomas Aquinas (Saint). Summa Theologica. First Complete American Edition in 3 volumes literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York, Boston, Cincinnati, Chicago, San Francisco: Benziger Brothers, 1947. 3 vols.

Thunder in the Sky: on the Acquisition and Exercise of Power. Trans. Thomas Cleary. Boston and London:  Shambhala, 1993.

Trager, James. The People’s Chronology:  A Year–by–Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present. Rev. ed. A Henry Holt Reference Book. New York:  Henry Holt, 1992.

Vacandard, Elphege. The Inquisition: A Critical and Historical Study of the Coercive Power of the Church. 1915.  Trans. from the 2nd edition Bertrand L. Conway. Merrick, New York:  Richwood Publishing, 1977.

Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language. New York and Avenel:  Gramercy Books, 1994.

Willett, Franciscus.  Understanding the Inquisition.  N. Easton, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Press, 1968.

Wills, Garry. "Introduction: Fumbling toward Justice." The Hidden Encyclical of Pius XI by Georges Passelecq and Bernard Suchecky. Trans. Steven Randall. With an Introduction by Garry Wills. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997. ix-xxiv.

Wilson, Epiphanius. "Introduction." The Wisdom of Confucius by Confucius. Trans. William Jennings. With critical and biographical sketches by Epiphanius Wilson. 1982. New York:  Wing Books, 1995. 3–7.


Newspapers: The Washington Post


Cooperman, Alan. "Out of ‘Zero Tolerance,’ New Support for Priests: Conservative Groups Fight for Priests, Status Quo." October 13, 2002.  A1, A23.




Posted September 2, 2011

Original Post December 7, 2008




Copyright (c)2010 Sunday's Thoughts &