His hatred of the Jesuits had more to do with his hatred of Catholicism and his thought that the Jesuits were obstructing Republicanism and the ideals of the enlightenment.
The Jesuits were always a bit more "liberal" than the other more established monastic orders, but their descent off the deep end we see today where you have Jesuits openly supporting homosexuality and other stuff, didn't start until the 1960s. I doubt any Jesuit of the 16th/17th century would even recognize the order of today as being the same.
Yeah, I know. The real question when, if any sect of the order is going to get tired of being dragged under by the papacy and just declare their own pope.
It is who defines "manifest heretics" as such that needs to be looked into.
It's all performance, but the message - that which the part that brings us all in - is real :)
Merry Christmas!
What is a manifest heretic? I do not know. I am not a Canon Law expert.
Merry Christmas!
history tells us, it is usually defined by the local cannon law expert.
This guy was a Jesuit, so I am guessing he would not consider the current and previous pope to be a heretic.
Jesuits weren't always the way they are today.
John Adams seemed to think that they were, at least in his time.
His hatred of the Jesuits had more to do with his hatred of Catholicism and his thought that the Jesuits were obstructing Republicanism and the ideals of the enlightenment.
The Jesuits were always a bit more "liberal" than the other more established monastic orders, but their descent off the deep end we see today where you have Jesuits openly supporting homosexuality and other stuff, didn't start until the 1960s. I doubt any Jesuit of the 16th/17th century would even recognize the order of today as being the same.
Yeah, I know. The real question when, if any sect of the order is going to get tired of being dragged under by the papacy and just declare their own pope.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi9CwjJXWio