JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

You are doing just fine, but permit me to snicker every little while.

Not only were they mining, but they were actively involved in a plot to take North America away from the Spain with the help of the Dutch.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Oroblanco]

Cactusjumper wrote

Surely you can see what a stretch this is in trying to make your point. Jesuits were often the first to explore a region. Their reports of finding precious metals were common. To extrapolate that into their opening and working a mine(s) is unwarranted by the facts.

In all of the above, you have built an extremely weak case for your argument. It is all conjecture and supposition. The Jesuits were not accused nor expelled from the New World for mining or hoarding treasures. They were expelled for amassing too much power and interfering with the desires of the miners and settlers. They, in turn, were filing complaints that reached all the way to the king. It was pure politics that brought the Jesuits down.

If a young woman says: "Sex is a wonderful act between two people, the results of which can end up in her becoming pregnant. Both people can experience intense pleasure and satisfaction". Is it possible that she has never had sex, but can still be knowledgeable about it? Is it possible that the Jesuits can be aware of gold and silver ore/mines, without being involved in the mining?

Knowledge does not always equal participation.

I respectfully disagree with several of your statements here Joe, and what I am posting is not to convince our readers that the Jesuits were massively involved in mining, but that they WERE involved in mining, which is quite different. We have people who repeatedly post all kinds of denials that any Jesuits were ever involved in mining, never used any slaves, were always poverty stricken and so forth. I thought you might notice that mention of the silver in the altar of the San Xavier del Bac mission being worth $40,000 in the 1860's, since you pointed out the gold leaf used in the Brazilian mission - which by the way is not a cheap method of covering anything. The Bac mission was supposed to be one of the poorest in Pimeria Alta too.

And no, I don't see this as a "stretch" when trying to prove that the Jesuits were NOT utterly innocent of all mining activities; the fact that Fr Gravier was sent out to find silver mines and whether the reported discovery of iron was true, shows that they were at least viewed as knowledgeable about minerals and mines, knowledgeable enough to entrust with such a mission. Your example would be quite reasonable, except that in the case of our Jesuits, we have MODERN denials of any and all involvement in mining, when history shows otherwise. There is a reason why we have "legends" of secret Jesuit mines in Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Arizona and even here in the Black Hills - for they were quite knowledgeable about minerals and mining, they had schools on mining, and were doing some surreptitious mining of their own, usually in the wild Indian areas where the Indios were put to work by them and these "frontier" missions HAD to make a profit. As Hoskold wrote, it is obvious they intended to return at some point in the future,as obviously some did <Juan Leita and Juan Echavarria>.

I don't know how some folks so readily dismiss and-or ignore the sources already posted, Hoskold for example but also Report on the internal commerce of the United States By United States. Bureau of statistics (Treasury dept.), Thomas E. Farish, Sylvester Mowry or even the words of Father Nentvig SJ himself, in those rather incriminating passages he included which clearly show the missionaries were trying to wrest the secret locations of mines from Indians. So,
Is it possible that the Jesuits can be aware of gold and silver ore/mines, without being involved in the mining?
Yes that is POSSIBLE, just as possible as saying that the Spaniards never did any mining, but were just really interested in it.

Now as my amigo Joe so thoughtfully pointed out that the gold in the photo of the Brazilian Jesuit church was gold LEAF, perhaps it would be appropriate to show another Jesuit church, this one in Quito (Ecuador), known as "La Compania" and has SEVEN TONS OF GOLD in this display.

Hmm, sort of gives those old "legends" a somewhat different hue now doesn't it? More to follow....
Oroblanco

 

[gollum]

Joe,

You are one to talk about preconceived notions. Maybe you should reread my previous post. The part where Father Och SJ just happens to be carrying around a flask of quicksilver (mercury), and uses it at a peasant's home when he saw gold scale in his plates, and wanted to make sure it was really gold, so he used some of his mercury on the plate and saw that the gold amalgamated into the mercury.

I ASK YOU JOE- Since Lamar nor ANY Jesuit apologist has EVER been able to make an (intelligent) argument as to why Father Och SJ just happened to be carrying around a flask of mercury, and just happened to know how to use it to amalgamate gold from a dinner plate: TELL ME WHY (something other than mining knowledge)?

Best-Mike

 

[Oroblanco]

Gollum wrote

Father Och SJ just happens to be carrying around a flask of quicksilver (mercury), and uses it at a peasant's home when he saw gold scale in his plates, and wanted to make sure it was really gold, so he used some of his mercury on the plate and saw that the gold amalgamated into the mercury.

What should a reasoning person conclude here? That Father Och SJ just "happened" to have a flask of mercury on him, as a good luck charm? I don't get it - the Jesuits were well educated men (generally speaking) and in colonial times were widely recognized for their mining knowledge. It was not pure coincidence that the French sent Father Gravier SJ to find silver mines and check out the report of an iron mine - they knew he as a Jesuit would be able to find the silver and identify iron ores.

Why do we have so MANY legends of secret Jesuit mines, in so MANY places? Some people would have us believe that is a result of some massive anti-Catholic conspiracy. Seven TONS of gold used in La Compania Jesuit church amigos, I suppose that even here we are supposed to believe that was just a "gift" from some generous benefactor. The Spanish and Portuguese ships hauled untold fortunes in gold, silver and gems out of the Americas, and most of it certainly did not belong to the Jesuits or the Church, but a fair percentage DID.

From my own personal research, only about one tenth of all the mines of the Spanish colonial period in what is today Arizona are traceable to Jesuits, nine-tenths of them were simply Spanish or even Amerindian owned. Some treasure hunters seem to think that all or most of the old mines were Jesuit, when most are or were not. Some are not even lost, such as the Salero mine mentioned earlier, or those in Argentina for example. We are not talking about a large number of mines, nor even large mines in general.

What I do not get is the modern attempt to ERASE all record of Jesuit mining activities. Some folks seem to react as if it is a crime, that would be punishable today - as far as I know, the statute of limitations has pretty well expired.
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

HOLA amigos,

More on the wealth and yes MINES of the Jesuits;

Most Holy Father, I found almost all the wealth all immovables and all treasures of this Province of America in the hands of the Jesuits who still possess them. Two of their colleges have 30,000 sheep without counting the small flocks and whilst almost all the cathedral churches and all the Orders together have hardly three sugar refineries the Society alone has six of the largest. One of these refineries is valued at more than half a million thalers and this single Province of the Jesuits which however only consists of ten colleges possesses as I have just said six of these refineries each one of which brings in 100,000 thalers yearly. Besides this they have various corn fields of enormous size . Also they have silver mines and if they continue to increase their power and wealth as excessively as they have done up to now the secular clergy will become their sacristans and the laymen their stewards whilst the other Orders will be forced to collect alms at their doors. All this property and all these considerable revenues which might make a sovereign powerful serve no other purpose than to maintain ten colleges To this may be added the extraordinary skill with which they make use of and increase their superabundant wealth They maintain public warehouses cattle fairs butchers stalls and shops They send a part of their goods by way of the Philippine Islands to China They lend out their money for usury and thus cause the greatest loss and injury to others

<Don Juan Palafox Briefe an Papst Innozenz X Frankfort and Leipzig 1773 pp 7-9, letter of May 25th 1647 from John Palafox Bishop of Los Angeles wrote to Pope Innocent X >published in Fourteen years a Jesuit: a record of personal experience by Paul Hoensbroech (Graf von) pp 87, 1911

Now will you believe a Catholic Bishop when he says that the Jesuits had silver mines in America, in 1647? Do we suppose that over 100 years later, that our Jesuits had not made any further mineral discoveries, being often the very first Europeans to enter "hostile" Amerindian lands? Sadly in some cases, I doubt that even this evidence will change a mind, for as the old saying goes, 'there is none so blind as he who will not see."

We have heard how when the Jesuits were expelled, practically no wealth was discovered. This is partially true, and partially UN-true. For in some instances, very considerable fortunes were found.

When the Austrian State officially estimated wealth of the Order directly after its suppression amounted to 15,415,220 guldens for Bohemia Silesia and the remaining German Austrian lands But this does not seem to have been nearly all. For the President of the Imperial Exchequer reports, under date of August 16th 1782 that more than 120,000 guldens of Jesuit gold had been discovered at and more than eighteen millions were supposed to lodged in the Order's name in Holland four millions which belonged to Austria The President even the names of the banks at Frankfort which had the payment of the interest But the further levy by the Bethmannf firm led to no results
The following facts from the same period throw Jesuit wealth into bold relief; The Bohemian and Austrian Chancery Court under date of April 28th 1781 that of the claims of the Jesuits on private individuals 3,214,000 guldens have already been collected 2,674,939 were converted into ready money and in addition to 381,654 guldens earnest money would be collected

<ibid>

If you convert these amounts into modern currencies, the values are (almost) astounding!
Oroblanco




.

 

[lamar]

Dear oroblanco;
You wrote:
Now will you believe a Catholic Bishop when he says that the Jesuits had silver mines in America, in 1647?
Actually, Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza was an interim Archbishop at the time, and to answer your question, NO, I won't believe ANYTHING that Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza wrote against the Jesuits, considering that he was excommunicated, not once but TWICE by those very same Jesuits! He wrote two letters against the Jesuits, in 1647AD and again in 1649 AD and this is what caused the Jesuits to have Him excommunicated. Ven. Juan de Palafox was associated with the Dominicans and was openly hostile to everything the Jesuits represented and He considered the Jesuits as a threat to the conventional Mendicant Orders within the Roman Catholic Church.

Ven. Juan de Palafox wrote to Pope Innocent X that the Vatican formally censure the Jesuit Order, however all Pope Innocent X would do was to issue a brief which ordered the Jesuits to respect the temporal and episcopal jurisdiction of Juan de Palafox. On May 22, 1653 AD, Juan de Palafox and the Jesuits of the New World colonies signed a formal written accord, yet the problems between them continued unabated and Ven. Juan de Palafox remained firmly seated under the threat of further excommunication. In that same year, the Jesuits succeeded in having Juan de Palafox y Mendoza transferred from the New World back to Spain, to the tiny backwater See of Osma, where He remained until His passing in 1659 AD, which was no mean feat, considering that Ven. Juan de Palafox was an appointee directly from both the Vatican and Spain.

In 1694 AD, King Charles II of Spain petitioned Rome for the canonization of Juan de Palafox and it went through all of the preliminary stages unchecked and secured the title of Venerable, yet once more the Jesuits interceded successfully and blocked His ultimate canonization under Pope Pius VI. Ven. Juan de Palafox was beatified much later, finally attaining beatification on 12 September, 1767, which of course was following the suppression of the Jesuits. Owing to the vast amount of problems which Ven. Juan de Palafox had with the Jesuits, He has yet to be canonized a Saint by the Roman Catholic Church and even the most recent efforts at His canonization by the Dominicans have been successfully debated by the Jesuits and all efforts thus far have been blocked. It seems there are those with long memories in and around Rome, my friend.

Of course, upon reciept of Ven. Juan de Palafox's disturbing and highly accusatory letter to the Pope, an all-out investigation was levied against the Jesuits, with the two most heinous crimes, those being usury and the illicit ownership of mines, investigated the most heavily, and all charges were found to be completely without merit. It was then surmised by the investigating Papal Commission that Ven. Juan de Palafox had no first hand knowledge of the alledged crimes of the Jesuits, rather He merely was repeating the same accusations which others had told to Him regarding the Jesuits. When the commission questioned Ven. Juan de Palafox about His sources, It was surmised that He may have considered those sources of information to have been valid and unimpeachable. He was obviously wrong in that regard if this is what He did.

Considering the office which Ven. Juan de Palafox held in the New World, that the Jesuits had the brass cajones to excommunicate Him on two different occasions speaks highly of the power they held and their belief structure. The Jesuits were masters of theology and every word uttered by Ven. Juan de Palafox was scrutinized with the utmost care and consideration and when the Jesuits found His teachings to have been against the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, they successfully had Him excommunicated. Not once but TWICE!

Once more, looking at the BIG PICTURE, we can plainly see that the Jesuits, who were accused of crimes which normally would have invoked automatic excommunication and certain inprisonment, successfully defended themselves against all blasphemies and then they had the temerity to excommunicate their accuser on two different occasions speaks of the power struggles which were being waged throughout Europe and the colonies during that particular period.

Had it not have been for Ven. Juan de Palafox's unfounded and untrue accusations which He levied against the Jesuits, He would have very likely been canonized as a Saint in the Roman Catholic Church, yet because the Jesuits were able to prove conclusively that the accusations were false, they have thus far sucessfully blocked all attempts at His canonization and it seems highly unlikely that Ven. Juan de Palafox will ever attain the role of Sainthood.

And yet again, I would like to gently remind you to please consider the source before you hit the POST button, my friend, however it was a nice try and I do invite you to continue with your valiant and heroic efforts in attempting to prove something which did not happen.
Your friend;
LAMAR

P.S. The Ven. Juan de Palafox also accused the Franciscans and the Dominicans of the exact same crimes as He did the Jesuits, yet they are not at issue here, so we will not debate their involvement at this time, yet we may plainly see that Ven. Juan de Palafox, who had a long pedigree, and was the natural (ie. born out of wedlock) son of Jaime de Mendoza. It is plainly obvious whom Ven. Juan de Palafox recieved his orders from, and those orders were being issued from the mouth of King Philip IV of Spain and NOT the Vatican.

 

[lamar]

Dear oroblanco;
And now, in defense of Ven. Juan de Palafox, the second letter, in which the Jesuits were accused of usury and illicit mine ownership is most likely a forgery by enemies of the Jesuits. In defense of His actions , Ven. Juan de Palafox disavowed any knowledge of certain portions of that letter in a later letter which He wrote to King Philip IV in 1652 AD. He did acknowledge that certain portions of His second letter were true , especially the ones highlighting the special exemptions and priviledges enjoyed by the Jesuits and other Orders in the colonies of New Spain and which he was highly critical of, yet He also stated to Philip IV that clearly He did not accuse of the Jesuits of usury and illicit mine ownership. It has been surmised that original letter was apprehended, then a forgery produced which added those crimes in. All in all, it was pretty slick and it shows the level of hatred which the colonists held against the Jesuits and the other Catholic missionary Orders.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear group;
To answer the question:
Jesuit Lay Brothers are members of the Society of Jesus whom have not risen to the full rank of priest. I am sure that our amigo Lamar could explain this status fully. Much of the general, non-religious work of the missions was done and/or supervised by Lay Brothers, and I have often wondered just how Amerindians were supposed to recognize any difference.

If you are asking what is meant by "Aragoneses" it refers to their country of origin, Aragon, these two intrepid prospector-explorers whom were Jesuit Lay Brothers hailed from.

A lay Brother is simply a monk who is not an ordained clergyman and will most likely never become ordained. In other words, they are the male counterparts to the same class of female monks which we call nuns. As non-ordained Romans Catholics, we are all part of the Roman Catholic laity and if a male Catholic were to join a monastic Order, then he would be a lay Brother and his honorary title would be Brother, or Fra, which has the same meaning as Brother, yet is only used when the brother is part of one of the following Orders:
The Franciscans
The Domincans
The Carmelites
The Augustinians
The Trinitarians
The Mercedarians
The Servites
The Minims
The Capuchins
And the Order of Penance

Lay Brothers of all other Roman Catholic Orders are customarily titled as Brothers, yet throughout the centuries the titles Brother and Fra have been used interchangeably without regard and, realizing the confusion that separate titles cause, most lay monks do not take offense at being called either one.

Paragraphs 30 thru 38 of the most recent Roman Catholic dogmatic constitution titled Lumen Gentium (the light of nations) outlines the laity within the Holy Church and paragraph 31 specifically defines the laity as:

The term laity is here understood to mean all the faithful except those in holy orders and those in the state of religious life specially approved by the Church. These faithful are by baptism made one body with Christ and are constituted among the People of God; they are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetical, and kingly functions of Christ; and they carry out for their own part the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world.

In the preceeding paragraph, we see the words "holy orders" and this may confuse many readers that the article is referring to our religious Orders, yet this is not so. The words "Holy Orders" refers to those who have been ordained as deacons, priests or Bishops, which are the three levels of ordination within the Holy Church. Except for these three classes of ordained clergy, all others are considered to be the laity.

Therefore, if our associate Oroblanco were to suddenly become filled with piety and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and he decided to live a monastic life and joined a monastic Order as an non-ordained member, he would be a lay brother and his title would be Brother Oroblanco, or whatever his Christian name is, unless of course he joined one of the aforementioned mendicant Orders, he would then be a lay brother with the title Fra Oroblanco.
Your friend;
LAMAR
P.S. Becoming a priest is not a *rank* per se, rather it's a particular vow. One does not rise from being a lay brother to becoming a priest. To the best of my knowledge, seminarians are simply called by their first names, or Christian name, as applicable and they do not receive the title of Brother or Fra. Also, tradition dictates that seminarians in their final year of theological study take their first vows and become deacons.

There are also deacons within the Roman Catholic Church who have no aspirations of becoming ordained priests and they will remain as deacons until their passing, unless otherwise determined by either themselves or the attending Bishop. This class of deacon is known as the permanent diaconate and their duties include the Proclamation of the Gospel. In fact, whenever there is a deacon present, the serving priest or bishop or even the Pope Himself should never proclaim the Gospel if there is a deacon present. The deacon may also preach the Homily unless the attending priest chooses to reserve that right for himself.

Deacons are never addressed as "Brother" within the Holy Church and their official title is Deacon, which is abbreviated to Dcn. in written correspondence. Deacons may also wear the Roman tabs if the attending Bishop approves of it.

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

Dear oroblanco;
You wrote:
Now will you believe a Catholic Bishop when he says that the Jesuits had silver mines in America, in 1647?
Actually, Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza was an interim Archbishop at the time, and to answer your question, NO, I won't believe ANYTHING that Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza wrote against the Jesuits, <snip>
yet we may plainly see that Ven. Juan de Palafox, who had a long pedigree, and was the natural (ie. born out of wedlock) son of Jaime de Mendoza.

There is none so blind as he who will not see. What a vicious attack on Bishop Palafox! Your response calls to mind a passage I found in the same source, quote

It is natural that the Jesuits themselves should deny the genuineness IN A FLOOD OF REFUTATIONS.

Your attempt to distort my words about Lay Brothers only serve to show your bias Lamar. You have avoided my question posted to you in another thread - but I will repeat it in case it was an oversight on your part.

If your version of Jesuit history is correct, then there are no secret Jesuit mines or treasures and they never existed, right? If that were the case, what possible harm can there be for a small minority of the general population, namely treasure hunters, of whom only a small percentage ever make major discoveries, were to search for these mines and/or treasures? If they never existed, there is nothing to find right? It would be like making huge arguments to stop someone from searching for the pot of gold reputedly at the end of the rainbow!

Lamar you have said that Bishop Palafox's complaints about the Jesuits were investigated and unfounded, do you care to post the actual report from those investigations? You have vigorously denied that Palafox was the author of the letter which mentioned the silver mines, yet added that this allegation was ALSO investigated. What need would there have been of such investigation, if the letter were some forgery made up by "enemies of the Jesuits"? Ask yourself this amigo - why do you suppose this allegedly "forged" letter from Palafox includes the mention of Jesuit silver mines? Do you deny that the Jesuits owned the sugar refining mills, or that they owned respectably large cattle herds? Do you deny that they were involved in banking, though I see you do deny that they charged usury?

I realize that you are an admirer of the Jesuits, Lamar, and this admiration colors your views and responses. You are welcome to your opinions, but you cannot expect that everyone will agree with you. Now back to our subject matter.

The Jesuits were also accused of smuggling their gold. Here is one such report

When a fleet from India was unloading at Cadiz eight large cases came to hand labelled Chocolate for the Most Venerable Father General of the Society of Jesus The cases were so exceedingly heavy as to cause curiosity as to their contents They proved to be large balls of chocolate the weight of which aroused suspicion A ball was broken open and gold was found concealed inside covered by a layer of chocolate of the thickness of a finger The Jesuits were informed of the circumstance but these cunning politicians were very careful not to claim this valuable chocolate They preferred losing it to confessing

<Memoirs of Saint-Simon, pp 433-434>

More to come....
Oroblanco

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Lamar,


Palafox WAS voted to be cannonized - he got 26 out of 41 votes. It only didn't happen because Pius VI put it on hold (suspended the final decree).

Second of all, you are incorrect - Palafox's assertions were NOT found to be untrue. They were found to be true, the second part of that being that Pope Innocent X asked them to be more forgiving and kind. There was a 2nd one, which may be suspect, but certainly not the first, and you are missing the part about the 3rd issue, which is that, on the 27th of May, 1653, Pope Innocent X, reaffirmed his previous decision IN FAVOR of Palafox, and issued another brief.

B

 

[lamar]

Lamar wrote

Dear oroblanco;
You wrote:
Now will you believe a Catholic Bishop when he says that the Jesuits had silver mines in America, in 1647?
Actually, Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza was an interim Archbishop at the time, and to answer your question, NO, I won't believe ANYTHING that Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza wrote against the Jesuits, <snip>
yet we may plainly see that Ven. Juan de Palafox, who had a long pedigree, and was the natural (ie. born out of wedlock) son of Jaime de Mendoza.

There is none so blind as he who will not see. What a vicious attack on Bishop Palafox! Your response calls to mind a passage I found in the same source, quote

It is natural that the Jesuits themselves should deny the genuineness IN A FLOOD OF REFUTATIONS.

Your attempt to distort my words about Lay Brothers only serve to show your bias Lamar. You have avoided my question posted to you in another thread - but I will repeat it in case it was an oversight on your part.

If your version of Jesuit history is correct, then there are no secret Jesuit mines or treasures and they never existed, right? If that were the case, what possible harm can there be for a small minority of the general population, namely treasure hunters, of whom only a small percentage ever make major discoveries, were to search for these mines and/or treasures? If they never existed, there is nothing to find right? It would be like making huge arguments to stop someone from searching for the pot of gold reputedly at the end of the rainbow!

Lamar you have said that Bishop Palafox's complaints about the Jesuits were investigated and unfounded, do you care to post the actual report from those investigations? You have vigorously denied that Palafox was the author of the letter which mentioned the silver mines, yet added that this allegation was ALSO investigated. What need would there have been of such investigation, if the letter were some forgery made up by "enemies of the Jesuits"? Ask yourself this amigo - why do you suppose this allegedly "forged" letter from Palafox includes the mention of Jesuit silver mines? Do you deny that the Jesuits owned the sugar refining mills, or that they owned respectably large cattle herds? Do you deny that they were involved in banking, though I see you do deny that they charged usury?

I realize that you are an admirer of the Jesuits, Lamar, and this admiration colors your views and responses. You are welcome to your opinions, but you cannot expect that everyone will agree with you. Now back to our subject matter.

The Jesuits were also accused of smuggling their gold. Here is one such report

When a fleet from India was unloading at Cadiz eight large cases came to hand labelled Chocolate for the Most Venerable Father General of the Society of Jesus The cases were so exceedingly heavy as to cause curiosity as to their contents They proved to be large balls of chocolate the weight of which aroused suspicion A ball was broken open and gold was found concealed inside covered by a layer of chocolate of the thickness of a finger The Jesuits were informed of the circumstance but these cunning politicians were very careful not to claim this valuable chocolate They preferred losing it to confessing

<Memoirs of Saint-Simon, pp 433-434>

More to come....
Oroblanco

Dear Oroblanco;
My friend, what I have posted are merely the facts in the matter. Everything that I've written is both true and factual in every regard. That Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza later denied, in WRITING, to the King of Spain no less, of having accused the Jesuits of illict mining or mine ownership and of usury is a historically DOCUMENTED fact and as such, there are only two ways we can take this matter into consideration.
1) He actually did not accuse the Jesuits of such activities and the letter was in fact apprehended after Ven. Juan de Palafox dictated it.
2) He actually accuse the Jesuits of the aforementioned activities and is thus guilty of both perjury and lying. I personally feel that the Ven. Juan de Mendoza did not do this, owing to the fact that he must have realized how critically important it was for him to be honest and forthright in all things, at all times, especially considering the political climate of that particular period.

Ven. Juan de Palafox y Mendoza actually DENIED having authored the accusations and there is virtually no way on God's green Earth that we are able to ignore, downplay, or twist this particular fact! Period! Stop being so narrow-focused and start to concentrate on the big picture, my friend.

Next, I did NOT viciously attack Ven. Juan de Palafox, not in the slightest! He is a venerated person and as such he deserves the respect of this lofty station. What I did do was to present the FACTS of the matter. I mentioned that Ven. Juan de Palafox was born out of wedlock to a certain Jaime Mendoza in case anyone wishes to research Ven. Juan de Palafox's bloodline. I did this without malice or rancor and in truth, that he was born out of wedlock is no fault of his and he deserves no less respect for this fact.

Next, you asked:
you care to post the actual report from those investigations?
If I am not mistaken, those documents may be located in the Vatican Secret Archives. Be sure and call ahead for reservations! OK, that was a bad joke. If I recall correctly, the entire works of Ven, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza were published sometime after death, most probably to keep his name in front of the public's eye in order to better his chances at sainthood. Also, if I am not mistaken, his original collected works remain in Spain, in the village of Burgos, unless they have been relocated elsewhere.

The documents outlining the investigator's reports were viewed by myself at the Vatican Film Library in St. Louis, Mo. again, if memory serves me correctly. Of course, al of those documents are in latin and as far as I know have never been translated into another language.

Strictly as an aside, it Ven. Juan de Palafox who had all of the Aztec statues and idols destroyed and melted down in Mexico City. Before this, the statues, idols and Aztec treasures were kept as trophies of the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs. Oddly enough, the disposal of the gold and silver from that destruction is currently unknown. It seems to have vanished into thin air, as it were.

Also, you posted a rather unusual paragraph and one which confounds me somewhat. Is the reference Memoirs of Saint-Simon PP 433-434 that you refer to were written by Louis de Rouvroy, The Duke of Saint-Simon?
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Dear mrs.oroblanco;
Sorry, no cigar today! Read 'em and weep:
A second letter to Pope Innocent X, dated 8 January, 1649, more acrimonious than the first, is often attributed to Palafox, but was probably forged by enemies of the Jesuits, as it is disavowed by Palafox in a defense of his actions which he addressed to Philip IV of Spain in 1652.
That particular passage may be located here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11414a.htm
which so happens to be the online version of the official Catholic Enclyclopedia and you may argue with them if you wish, however I do not think you will get very far. I honestly have NO idea why you continously attempt to iceskate uphill, when I have provided a reference to the letter in which Ven. Palafox disavows the 2nd letter and this is confirmed by the New Advent organization. I have apathy for your accuracy but admiration for your tenacity.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

Stop being so narrow-focused and start to concentrate on the big picture, my friend.

I might well give you the same advice, but you would not take it.

Lamar also wrote

Next, I did NOT viciously attack Ven. Juan de Palafox, not in the slightest!

So you think it is an HONOR to post that Bishop Palafox was a b-stard? What sort of honor is that?

Lamar also wrote

Next, you asked:
you care to post the actual report from those investigations?
If I am not mistaken, those documents may be located in the Vatican Secret Archives.

Ah yes, how convenient! Safely tucked away where some iggernant treasure-hunter will never be able to access them! I thought YOU had said that YOU have access to all the Jesuit archives amigo? Are you saying now that you don't have such access? Hmm...

Lamar also wrote

Also, you posted a rather unusual paragraph and one which confounds me somewhat. Is the reference Memoirs of Saint-Simon PP 433-434 that you refer to were written by Louis de Rouvroy, The Duke of Saint-Simon?

I will give you the same courtesy of response you gave me when I asked you a question earlier.

To return to our subject matter, concerning the $40,000 solid silver in the San Xavier del Bac mission mentioned earlier, it is confirmed in another non-Jesuit source

San Xavier del Bac is still in existence It is a mission church of great size and beauty magnificently ornamented within $40,000 in solid silver served to adorn the altar.

<Journal of the American Geographical Society of New York, Volume 1 By American Geographical Society of New York, 1859>

Lamar if I were to re-post the many erroneous statements you have made in the last couple of years, which have been proven erroneous, your own record of accuracy would be viewed quite poorly. Do you desire that we re-visit the numerous statements you have posted, which have been PROVEN false and erroneous? That is not the subject matter of our thread here amigo, it would be derailing our topic. Besides to do so, would be simply inflammatory and again NOT our topic here.

Yep there is still more to follow....
Oroblanco

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

A second letter to Pope Innocent X, dated 8 January, 1649, more acrimonious than the first, is often attributed to Palafox, but was probably forged by enemies of the Jesuits, as it is disavowed by Palafox in a defense of his actions which he addressed to Philip IV of Spain in 1652.

"Probably forged"? .What sort of evidence is that? If someone were to say that the Jesuits PROBABLY were mining silver in Sonora, you would refuse to accept it without further evidence Lamar, so now for us to even consider the possibility that the Palafox letter was in fact a forgery, we need proof amigo!

I suggest again Lamar, ask yourself this - why were the Jesuit silver mines mentioned in that letter, if there was no grounds for it? If you were ever to examine this matter of Jesuit mining activities with both eyes open, your views might well change.

Let me clarify here - no one is proposing that there were massive Jesuit mining activities, nor massive Jesuit mines - very far from it. Rather there were some Jesuits who were mining surreptitiously, in a number of places, but in (nearly) every case the mines were quite small affairs, secondary in importance to the Jesuits ranching, farming and banking activities.
More to follow.....
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
I wrote:
If I am not mistaken, those documents may be located in the Vatican Secret Archives. Be sure and call ahead for reservations! OK, that was a bad joke

I am currently in South America and as such, I no longer have access to thestudy materials that I once did. Also, I've never needed to retain a libraryful of books because once I read a document, it's committed to memory and I have no further need to retain copies of every manuscript which I've ever read. The investigations concerning the Jesuits were driven by the Vatican therefore the photocopies of those manuscripts should be on file at the Vatican Film Library in St. Louis Mo, and no, I do not happen to have copies of those documents in my back pocket, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[lamar]

Lamar wrote

A second letter to Pope Innocent X, dated 8 January, 1649, more acrimonious than the first, is often attributed to Palafox, but was probably forged by enemies of the Jesuits, as it is disavowed by Palafox in a defense of his actions which he addressed to Philip IV of Spain in 1652.

"Probably forged"? .What sort of evidence is that? If someone were to say that the Jesuits PROBABLY were mining silver in Sonora, you would refuse to accept it without further evidence Lamar, so now for us to even consider the possibility that the Palafox letter was in fact a forgery, we need proof amigo!

I suggest again Lamar, ask yourself this - why were the Jesuit silver mines mentioned in that letter, if there was no grounds for it? If you were ever to examine this matter of Jesuit mining activities with both eyes open, your views might well change.

Let me clarify here - no one is proposing that there were massive Jesuit mining activities, nor massive Jesuit mines - very far from it. Rather there were some Jesuits who were mining surreptitiously, in a number of places, but in (nearly) every case the mines were quite small affairs, secondary in importance to the Jesuits ranching, farming and banking activities.
More to follow.....
Oroblanco

I am giving the man the benefit because He is venerated and He has never been proven to be lying. We know two things for certain.
1) That He, or someone else, wrote a letter accusing the Jesuits of illicit mining and usury
2) That He later denied ever having written those accusations in a letter to the King of Spain.

This leaves us with only TWO possibilities, my friend.
1) He was lying
2) He was telling the truth and document was a forgery

Now, we cannot prove conclusively that Ven. Juan de Palafox was lying, therefore we must state that the document in question was PROBABLY a forgery. Is this clear enough for you?

We know that Ven. Juan de Palafox denounced the 2nd letter and this is a verifible fact, therefore your proof is rendered worthless and unreliable, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

no, I do not happen to have copies of those documents in my back pocket, my friend.

Hmm, yet you demand that we post the original documents which incriminate Jesuits every time don't you? Sorry, but my back pocket is not so voluminous either amigo!

Lamar also wrote

Now, we cannot prove conclusively that Ven. Juan de Palafox was lying, therefore we must state that the document in question was PROBABLY a forgery. Is this clear enough for you?

We know that Ven. Juan de Palafox denounced the 2nd letter and this is a verifible fact, therefore your proof is rendered worthless and unreliable, my friend.

Worthless and unreliable, huh? So worthless and unreliable that the Pope investigated correct? If the letter was a forgery, why should ANY investigation have been done? I am sorry amigo, but so far "probably a forgery" is not enough to prove that it is a forgery. The Vatican took it seriously enough to investigate, which points to something other than a forgery! Or are you now saying that the Vatican wastes time investigating forged claims of wrongdoing?

We must view all Jesuit sources with suspicion when we are talking about any "illicit" Jesuit activities, for they would have good reason to deny everything; yet when we have the very words of a Jesuit telling how an Indian would not reveal his secret mine even after the missionary made promises, we are STILL supposed to believe that there never were any Jesuits involved in mining. Some must think us to be quite gullible to accept that proposition!
And yes, more is to follow amigos!
Oroblanco

 

[lamar]

Lamar wrote

no, I do not happen to have copies of those documents in my back pocket, my friend.

Hmm, yet you demand that we post the original documents which incriminate Jesuits every time don't you? Sorry, but my back pocket is not so voluminous either amigo!

Lamar also wrote

Now, we cannot prove conclusively that Ven. Juan de Palafox was lying, therefore we must state that the document in question was PROBABLY a forgery. Is this clear enough for you?

We know that Ven. Juan de Palafox denounced the 2nd letter and this is a verifible fact, therefore your proof is rendered worthless and unreliable, my friend.

Worthless and unreliable, huh? So worthless and unreliable that the Pope investigated correct? If the letter was a forgery, why should ANY investigation have been done? I am sorry amigo, but so far "probably a forgery" is not enough to prove that it is a forgery. The Vatican took it seriously enough to investigate, which points to something other than a forgery! Or are you now saying that the Vatican wastes time investigating forged claims of wrongdoing?

We must view all Jesuit sources with suspicion when we are talking about any "illicit" Jesuit activities, for they would have good reason to deny everything; yet when we have the very words of a Jesuit telling how an Indian would not reveal his secret mine even after the missionary made promises, we are STILL supposed to believe that there never were any Jesuits involved in mining. Some must think us to be quite gullible to accept that proposition!
And yes, more is to follow amigos!
Oroblanco

Dear oroblanco;
It seems that the Bishop did not know that his original letter had been forged until sometime later, therefore he was unaware of any accusations, just as he was unaware of the investigation which followed. His ignorance seemed sincere enough and in fact, his own actions were investigated sometime after his return to Spain, which was not considered to be unusual in those days and of course his skirts were clean as well.

I would very much like the opportunity to research the original passage which you quoted as being from *the memoirs of Saint-Simon*. Can you please provide a bit more information so that I may read the entire pertinent passage, my friend?
Your friend;
LAMAR
Your friend;
LAMAR

 

[Oroblanco]

Lamar wrote

I would very much like the opportunity to research the original passage which you quoted as being from *the memoirs of Saint-Simon*. Can you please provide a bit more information so that I may read the entire pertinent passage, my friend?

And I too, would like to know what harm there could be if some supposedly misguided treasure hunters were to go searching for lost Jesuit mines and treasures, if they never existed? It seems that we both have un-answered questions.

I am surprised that you have not simply dismissed that story of smuggling out of hand Lamar, as it is just a report, no Jesuit stepped forward to claim it and thus PROVE his guilt in smuggling gold from the Indies into Cadiz. I expected that your "innocent til proven guilty" approach would demand that this be tossed out?

Oroblanco

PS dear readers, this is very far from the end of the discussion, or the presentation of evidence - more to follow

 

[lamar]

Dear Oroblanco;
Wow, and I even used the magic word. :-( Oh well, since the reference cannot be verified independently, we will just have to chalk that one up as *highly suspect and extremely doubtful* ad infinitium, my friend.
Your friend;
LAMAR