#Login Register
The Vigilant Citizen Forums

  • 1
  • 2

03-24-2016, 03:02 PM #1
Status: Offline Posts:583 Likes Received:521
Post anything to do with Jesuits.
This post was last modified: 03-24-2016, 03:02 PM by seekinheart.
The following 1 user Likes seekinheart's post:
  • peacebeuponall

03-24-2016, 03:04 PM #2
Status: Offline Posts:3,544 Likes Received:1988
Pope Francis is a Jesuit.

But as for me, I shall sing of Your strength; Yes, I shall joyfully sing of Your lovingkindness in the morning, For You have been my stronghold And a refuge in the day of my distress. O my strength, I will sing praises to You; For God is my stronghold, the God who shows me lovingkindness. Psalms 59:16-17 
The following 2 users Like Lisa's post:
  • Lotte, Vytas

03-24-2016, 03:11 PM #3
Artful Revealer
Status: Online Posts:1,960 Likes Received:2507
Augustin Barruel, Jesuit priest, published in 1798 a book on the Bavarian Illuminati and the antichristian conspiracy.

Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism.
This post was last modified: 03-24-2016, 03:14 PM by Artful Revealer.

Faith receives, love gives. No one will be able to receive without faith. No one will be able to give without love. Because of this, in order that we may indeed receive, we believe, and in order that we may love, we give, since if one gives without love, he has no profit from what he has given. He who has received something other than the Lord is still a Hebrew. - Gospel of Philip
The following 7 users Like Artful Revealer's post:
  • Lotte, Serendipity, Kung Fu, Scimitar, damien50, Serveto, Axiom

03-24-2016, 03:17 PM #4
Grand Commander
Status: Offline Posts:5,735 Likes Received:11586
A Letter on Alberto Rivera: Fraud or Failure to act as a Christian?

(Editor's note: Alberto Rivera claimed to be a Jesuit Priest, his story is being published by Chick publications, but the real story about him is written in this letter by a person who actually knew him personally and worked in his ministry. One final note, Alberto Rivera has passed away some years ago, also more insight about his life contained in another letter can be found at;

Quote:Alberto Rivera:

This letter is to address the person of Alberto Rivera and more directly, why I as one that worked with him know that he was not only not a Christian but also not a Catholic Priest, Jesuit or any other kind within the Roman Catholic System.

My permission is granted to forward this email to anyone that is interesting in knowing whether Rivera was really a Christian leader or a fraud posing as a converted Jesuit Priest.

I shall be very direct and blunt in this letter as it is time to stop with endless discussion of side issues that are ignoring the fact that Rivera was a wolf in sheep's clothing, that appeared as an minister of righteousness and deceived many that had left Romanism or were trying to witness to Roman Catholics. It would be easy for me to write many pages of things regarding Rivera but I shall limit this a 10 major points. Most of the people that receive this email have request and received my documentation on Rivera, so they are aware of Rivera's actions while professing to be converted and his conduct as an Elder/Pastor of a congregation. Just for the record, neither Eric or anyone else that ordered the material has kept their word and paid for the cost of copying all the documentation and for cost of postage. Now to move on to the subject of the person of Alberto Rivera.

#1. No one defending Rivera has addressed the fact that Rivera didn't know Latin. He was unable to read or write Latin and only knew certain phases. In previous emails I stated how while I was under Rivera at AIC, at his direction I tried to get Robert Champaign (a former priest whose testimony is in print) to join AIC so he could do Latin translation for the books that were being sent to AIC from around the world. Rivera not knowing Latin isn't something that can just be dismissed. I was troubled by this fact and actually asked him about this at one time and because I wanted to believe in him, I blindly accepted his excuse of problems with Latin being caused by brain trauma from all the tormenting done to him by the Jesuits, and from when he was in the Iron Long.

#2. This following comment is for those that profess to hold the doctrines of grace. Just how corrupt in one's personal life should one be, and just how many false doctrines can a man preach before you see by their fruit they are still in their sins and in darkness? For anyone to know of Rivera's conduct of abusing his followers over many years and his false doctrines (either of these in themselves reveal his true state) and yet still view him as a Christian shows a lack of sound judgment and reveals a pre-conceived bias that prevents them from seeing Rivera in his true light. I know that people loved the way Rivera spoke against Romanism but his false doctrines and corrupt life can't be overlooked or dismissed as just personal failings.

#3. The burden of proof is on the one making claims that they have special training or education. The burden is not on those that reject his claims to prove a negative. If those who defend Rivera and put the bar so high before accepting information showing that Rivera was lying about his testimony would require even 50% of this same standard from those supporting Rivera, they would never accept him. Eric, you are wrong to say the burden is on Derek or myself to prove Rivera was a fraud. Those that support him should be willing to prove he is for real and be able to clearly show that the claims against him are false based on facts, not with personal attacks. Over and over, defenders of Rivera say that his accusers are attacking the man but not his message, therefore Rivera is real.

In reality, many of those that have sought to expose Rivera, including myself agree with much of what Rivera preached about Romanism, but we know the man to be a fraud.

How do the defenders of Rivera normally react. The do what they accuse those exposing Rivera of doing, they attack the people exposing Rivera (some time those exposing Rivera with fact are in themselves unsound in doctrine) and they ignore the evidence they bring forth. I know this first hand and while at AIC I found it easy to dismiss evidence against Rivera because I didn't like the source that provided it. Sadly, I found out that many false professors in the ecumenical movement had done good research into Rivera's life story but I dismissed it because they were not Christians. This continues to be the path of Rivera's supporters to this day. To defend Rivera, it should be done with real evidence, not by attacking those that are presenting the facts.

One can't sight Rivera's efforts in exposing Romanism as proof that he was for real. You must cite things regarding the man himself, his life, things he did, where he got his training, official documents that stand up to examination, etc, etc. Jack Chick has a history of publishing sensational stories that proved to be false testimonies, such as John Todd and the Closet Witches (Rebecca Brown and Elaine). This should be an alarm bell in itself. Chick should have been required to provide significant proof Rivera is for real. Based on the fact that Chick has printed fraudulent testimonies in the past, it is very risky to accept Chick's response the he knows Rivera was for real because he prayed about it.

#4. Roy Livesey is not the issue and who Roy is or isn't hasn't anything to do with whether Rivera is for real or not. He did an excellent job of investigating Rivera's life and hopefully some day his work is made widely available. Once again, Eric you have a tendency to make rash accusations which later prove to be false. Just as you were quick to make rash comments about Shaun Willcock that you had to retract once you found out that he had written books exposing the Jesuits' efforts in the ANC take-over of South Africa, you have written to others and said that those that sued Rivera should have used their money to fund the publishing of Roy's book instead of paying a lawyer. To begin with, Roy didn't have a draft manuscript about Rivera done back in May 1990 at the time of the trial date. Additional reasons your judgments were faulty in this opinion:

#1. I would never have paid one cent to sue Rivera because I knew I would never collect when I won a judgment (which is what happened).

#2. The sister-in-law of the other person in the lawsuit handled the case for us for free.

#3. It didn't take much legal work to prove Rivera to be a fraud and a liar.

#4. I only joined in on the lawsuit so that Rivera's actions as a liar and a deceiver would be on public record. He always challenged people to take him to court and pointed at the lack of convictions of proof that he was telling the truth and that others were the liars. It wasn't just a few people deceived or left unpaid as Eric seems to imply in one of his emails. To dismiss it as simple a matter of not paying off a few loans doesn't reflect what took place. We are talking more than just not paying bills, lying, taking money under false pretenses, and not paying loans which means he took advantage of people that trusted him and believed he was a man called of God. The medical doctor, the former Deacon in Rivera's congregation whom you told someone should have been able to finance Roy's book, had 'given' and 'donated', so much to Rivera and went in debt to borrow money (against his house and on his credit cards) at Rivera's request that he put himself and his family in extreme debt that took him years after leaving AIC to recover.

#5. Roy Livesey: As to Roy financial state which Eric as talked about at length based on his assumptions, it isn't something I know first hand other than my experiences with him. But whatever his state is these days doesn't matter. Roy has many blind spots, but to those that are so quick to throw out charges against Roy as if he was some secret agent of Rome and to those that are quick to believe these claims should find it odd that he provided a copy of his draft book to Alberto Rivera, Jack Chick, and Jonas Shepherd. Roy has not found a publisher for his book on Rivera.

I'm very surprised that some of you find this so far fetched. Jack Chick sure wasn't going to print it and admit that he has published a false testimony for years. He has never retracted the other false testimonies in his comics and continues to sell them. Ecumenical places are not going to print it because the book isn't ecumenical. Those that do publish books exposing Romanism don't want to touch it as they seem to fear it is contrary to their purpose of exposing Catholicism. So, just who would be in their interests to publish it give it wide distribution to get protestants fighting among themselves. If Roy was a agent of Rome, why would he not be able to have the book published by a Catholic publisher or have it published by one the secular publishers that the Jesuits control? But again, Roy is not the issue here and blasting attacks on him only diverts from the evidence provided by Rivera himself that shows him to be unsound and unconverted.

I wanted to make Roy's book available in photocopy form but Roy preferred a professional job and as the author, that is his right. I also can't blame him for not wanting any thing to do Eric or this email court after how quickly he saw members blast away at people without any proof and the false assumptions made over and over about other people's actions. Personally, I wouldn't have help to fund any effort to publish Roy's book because I felt that if a person couldn't see through Rivera based on his conduct and abuse of Christians along with his false doctrine on things not related to Romanism, then they wouldn't be swayed by the details of Rivera's life story.

If they dismissed his actions as a professed converted Jesuit as just personal failings, then they would just assume any negative story published about his life was just slander and the work of Jesuits to discredit him. I think the reaction of some reading this email proves my thinking is correct. Jonas Shepherd himself is the one that made me see that those that oppose Romanism and want to profit from the use of Chick's comics would take this course of actions. Harry and Tina Barrett were very kind whose company I enjoyed and they are lovely people but they were willing to overlook Rivera's conduct when they came to AIC in Los Angeles back in the late 80s because they believe Rivera was a man called of God to expose the Pope.

#6. If you listen to the tape I sent out entitled "Is Alberto Rivera for Real", you will hear his rantings for yourself and some heretical statements, not to mention his arrogance and lack of humility.

#7. You can't biblical judge whether a man is saved or not based on his position regarding Alberto Rivera. One cannot show that Rivera's life revealed the marks of grace and he is not a prophet or apostle from the scriptures but many seem to hold him in such high esteem. Charles Chiniquy's books were of great value to me, especially "50 years in the Church of Rome", because it spoke to me as a former Roman Catholic as he struggled with what the scriptures taught and what he held as a Catholic. Now, to Eric and others that blast away so quickly in making charges at men that don't agree with them, I don't see them holding Chiniquy to the same standard. In his book "40 years in the Church of Christ", he details a close relationship with members of Masonic Lodges. He was defended by them and preached at their temples. In my opinion, while it saddens me greatly that Chiniquy had any involvement with Freemasons, I believe in his ignorance he looked to the American Mason as the Protestant equivalent of the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus.

#8. There is much I know about Rivera that I have not discussed but I didn't see a need to continue on and on over every detail. There should be enough in the documentation I've sent out and in both my tape, "Is Alberto Rivera for Real", and Shaun Willcock's tape, "Alberto Rivera - A False Brother", to make the brethren aware that Rivera was not what he professed to be. He was not a Christian man and all other judgments about Rivera should begin with that fact.

#9. I remain open to questions about the material I've provided or my experiences with Rivera and those who were involved with AIC during those years. Rivera did my Baptism after I left Romanism and he is in all my wedding pictures and video. I idolized him and felt very privilege and probably even a sinful amount of pride that I was the right hand man for a time for whom I thought was God's greatest servant since the Reformation in exposing Romanism. The heartache and pain I went though after realizing that I had been deceived and blinded by him was a time of great trial and weeping before the Lord. It was very humbling, but the Lord delivered me and I learned an important lesson about 'balance' and 'preaching the whole council of God'.

#10. The Vatican is the Mother of Harlots, the denominations and other false religions are her daughters, and the Jesuits are her most evil servants, this I know and preach along with the person of Christ and the duty of believers in seeking after holiness. This experience with Rivera taught me that there are many that will unite together against the Pope and his false religion but there are few of them that unite in humbleness before Christ, who hold sound doctrine and walk in the light themselves.

To those that might accuse me of being a secret servant of Rome, or soft on the Jesuit or other type of slander, I would say they are ignorant of my testimony, our ministry, and how I spend my life witnessing to people to come out of the Great Whore and for Christian to separate themselves from her sinful practices. To help educate people on our ministry, I have copied an article that was written for Derek's TCS magazine and pasted it below. A better copy with the proper words bolded and italized can be read by downloading the attached Word document.



Out beyond ideas
of wrong-doing,

and right-doing,

there is a field...

...I'll meet you there.

Jalaluddin Rumi
The following 4 users Like Scimitar's post:
  • Serendipity, Kung Fu, Tarikko, Serveto

03-24-2016, 03:27 PM #5
Status: Offline Posts:333 Likes Received:343

A lecture by Dr. Robert Maryks, author of The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews, an academic title published under Brill.
The following 3 users Like Axiom's post:
  • Lotte, Serveto, Scimitar

03-24-2016, 03:29 PM #6
Status: Offline Posts:1,725 Likes Received:4487
(03-24-2016, 03:02 PM)seekinheart Wrote:  Post anything to do with Jesuits.

I once had a classmate who was named Jason Jesuit. Wonder what happened to him, have not thought about him in years.

"My heart is at ease knowing that what was meant for me will never
miss me and that what misses me was never meant for me"

~Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (ra)

The following 4 users Like Alex's post:
  • Tarikko, Vytas, Serveto, Scimitar

03-24-2016, 03:30 PM #7
Grand Commander
Status: Offline Posts:5,735 Likes Received:11586
Maybe he Jesuit Charlie Hebdo, no? Big Grin


Out beyond ideas
of wrong-doing,

and right-doing,

there is a field...

...I'll meet you there.

Jalaluddin Rumi
The following 1 user Likes Scimitar's post:
  • Tarikko

03-24-2016, 04:00 PM #8
Status: Offline Posts:1,897 Likes Received:4606
Scimi, your post reminded me of some other so called Jesuit Priests that I had learned about in the past who practiced deception.

In the early stages of the reformation in the 16th century, many leaders of the reformation began to question whether the Roman Catholic Church could be the “whore of Babylon” in Revelation chapter 17.  Up until this time the most common view of new testament bible prophecy was a historic view, a view that prophetic events of the bible were being fulfilled throughout the Christian Era.  

The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were obviously not thrilled about this new development.  If the Catholic Church were exposed as a spiritual whore, the priests would loose the stranglehold they had over the common man.  So, in 1591 the Jesuit Priest Ribera presented a new view of prophecy that became know as the “futurist view.”   This new teaching included a future rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the coming of a single end-time Anti-Christ figurehead and the rebuilding of the literal city of Babylon, which are all foundations of the common End-times myth of today.  This teaching deflected the accusation of the Catholic Church being the whore of Babylon, by setting up the smokescreen of a rebuilt, literal city of Babylon.   

In the 1700’s the Jesuit priesthood was expelled from the country of Spain for the great acts of brutality they committed.  One of these Spanish Jesuit Priests named De Lacunza, fleed to Imola, Italy where he took the alias of a Jewish Rabbi Juan Jushafat Ben-Ezra.  Under this alias he wrote a book titled “The coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty”.  This book became the first recorded work to document the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture of the Church.

A radical cult leader in England named Edward Irving translated De Lacunza’s work in English.  Irving was widely recognized as a heretic and the teaching did not catch on in England.  However an Evangelist in Irving’s cult named Robert Norton, heard a young girl named Margaret Macdonald share a vision she had of the church being secretly raptured.  This young girl was known to be involved in the Occult and even had a documented “levitation”.  John Norton began preaching De Lacunza’s work and sharing the vision of Margaret Macdonald.  

John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethen, attended some of these Evangelistic meetings and became quite enamored with the teachings.  Darby began studying the prophecies of Daniel in light of this new teaching and expounded on it and created the 2000-year gap theory between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel’s prophecies.  Darby extended Daniel’s 70th week to the end times and incorporated the tribulation and rapture theories into it.  

Darby did not have too many followers in England but in a trip to America he meet C.I. Scofield and shared his new teaching with him.  Scofield incorporated Darby’s teaching into his reference Bible.  Scofield’s reference Bible became the most popular English Bible of the early 19th century and was the key instrument in spreading the tribulation/rapture teaching across the world.  Many American ministers of the 19th century credited Darby and Scofield with the original revelation never knowing the truth of the Ribera, De-Lecunza, and Irving origins.  

For 1600 years there was no record of history showing the acceptance of the 7-year tribulation and rapture of the Church teachings.  It is an almost unbelievable element of Satan’s great conspiracy that the greatest Myth in the Church today is based on the false teachings of a Jesuit priest defending the un-biblical acts of the Catholic Church, an outlawed Jesuit priest writing under the alias of a Jewish Rabbi and a cult leader influenced by the vision of young girl involved in the Occult.

Then shall the king say to those on his right hand, Come ye, the blessed of my Father, inherit the reign that hath been prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

And the king answering, shall say to them, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did to one of these my brethren -- the least -- to me ye did
The following 2 users Like Todd's post:
  • Tarikko, Scimitar

03-24-2016, 04:18 PM #9
Status: Offline Posts:834 Likes Received:2223
Todd Wrote:... So, in 1591 the Jesuit Priest Ribera presented a new view of prophecy that became know as the “futurist view.”   This new teaching included a future rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the coming of a single end-time Anti-Christ figurehead ...

Please excuse the elipses.  I wanted to high-light just this portion of your statement.  It might be worth noting that, in the 3rd Century, St. Hippolytus of Rome, in his tractate, On Christ and Antichrist {click here}, through his reading of scripture, including Prophet Daniel, envisaged a future rebuilding of the Temple and other things of this nature.  To my view, the "futurist view," then, might not be quite so new after all?

At any rate, it is something to consider.

The following 3 users Like Serveto's post:
  • Tarikko, Todd, Scimitar

03-24-2016, 04:26 PM #10
Status: Offline Posts:834 Likes Received:2223

More specifically, regarding Hippolytus, start at paragraph 52 and continue from there ...

Hippolytus Wrote:52. In those times, then, he shall arise and meet them. And when he has overmastered three horns out of the ten in the array of war, and has rooted these out, viz., Egypt, and Libya, and Ethiopia, and has got their spoils and trappings, and has brought the remaining horns which suffer into subjection, he will begin to be lifted up in heart, and to exalt himself against God as master of the whole world. And his first expedition will be against Tyre and Berytus [Beirut!], and the circumjacent territory. For by storming these cities first he will strike terror into the others, as Isaiah says, Be ashamed, O Sidon; the sea has spoken, even the strength of the sea has spoken, saying, I travailed not, nor brought forth children; neither did I nurse up young men, nor bring up virgins. But when the report comes to Egypt, pain shall seize them for Tyre.

53. These things, then, shall be in the future, beloved; and when the three horns are cut off, he will begin to show himself as God, as Ezekiel has said aforetime: Because your heart has been lifted up, and you have said, I am God. And to the like effect Isaiah says: For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will be like the Most High. Yet now you shall be brought down to hell (Hades), to the foundations of the earth. In like manner also Ezekiel: Will you yet say to those who slay you, I am God? But you (shall be) a man, and no God ...
This post was last modified: 03-24-2016, 04:28 PM by Serveto.
The following 1 user Likes Serveto's post:
  • Artful Revealer

  • 1
  • 2