JESUIT TREASURES - ARE THEY REAL?

[cactusjumper]

Mike,

You really need to go back and reread my last two posts to you. What you call "crap" is documented history about Jesuit wealth and how they attained it.
What your argument usually consists of these days is your....."theory".

I have no problem with that kind of debate, but when you start using a secular church in Central Mexico to show Jesuit wealth in Northern Mexico/Sonora, it gets a little tough to swallow.

As I see it, there is more circumstantial written "evidence" for leprechauns having pots of gold than Jesuit coadjutor's being involved/working in Jesuit mines in Mexico, or is it your position now that they may have been working for themselves?

I think that is a much fairer statement than suggesting you may be smoking dope or having someone like Lamar writing your posts for you. For the record, there is no one here that has more knowledge of the Catholic Church and it's documented history than Lamar. It's when he strays out of his comfort zone that troubles arise.....same as most everyone else.

Your credibility suffers, for me, when you write something that is demonstrably false, and then ignore the smell that is produced......It wasn't me! Still waiting for you to admit that it was you who dropped a load of crap into this topic. Bad sign of a weak personality flaw. I thought you were a better man than that.

When I get to that state, I hope someone will convince me I am too old and demented to continue posting on a public forum.

Hope you have a very Merry Christmas Mike.

Take care,

Joe

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[gollum]

Joe,

By "spewing crap" I mean:

It seems those who believe, such as yourself, that the Jesuit wealth was derived from rich mines in Sonora, never want to acknowledge the popularity of the Jesuits with their wealthy patrons.

That is why I reposted what I did.

You have attributed quotes to me that I never made, and cast aspersions on people I know to be honest.

The ONLY place that I may be wrong about is the Church at Puebla de Los Angeles. The only reason I haven't pleaded Mea Culpa is because I haven't had the time to research your information. Please forgive me if I don't take your word for it's correctness (after the whole Bishop of Durango thing, which by the way, I am still waiting for just which Report from 1645 you were referring).

Even if that is wrong, you STILL have several other quotes to contend with (Bishop of Durango, Father Polzer SJ, Father Nentvig SJ, Saint Ignatius Loyola SJ, etc). Even if the ONE thing is wrong, you don't have close to a preponderance of the evidence.

I may even be wrong about the whole Coadjutor thing as well, but until I am PROVEN wrong, I will stay with what I have.

Maybe you can explain these two newspaper articles:

 

[FEMF]

WOW JOE!

Have you actually EVER read ANY of my posts?

Let's recap some:

I have never doubted that much of the Church's Wealth came from Tithes and Wills. I just say they had wealth. Nobody but you, Lamar, and SWR seem to disagree with that.

As you know, I agree with you on Jesuit Priests' direct involvement in mining. Their days were far too busy ministering to the needs of the Indians to be running any mines.

It has (for quite a while now) been my contention that the Jesuit Priests themselves never did any of the actual mining. Seems you should be well aware of that by now.

I have said it before, I don't believe the Mission Priests themselves had much to do with any mining. If you know all the things they were required to do normally, it doesn't leave much time for mining.

Material wealth went straight to the Colegios, while some was spent at the Mission Level for Church Adornments.

I have seen no absolute proof as to whether or not mining was carried out by orders from "ON HIGH", but as I have stated, that since it took no less than 18 YEARS for a man to take his final vows as a Jesuit, I doubt seriously that he would take the risk of committing a SIN by breaking the Jesuits' most important Vow of Obedience.

See Joe, for some time now (since I began cultivating my Coadjutor Theory), I have bent over backwards to give the Jesuit Priests the benefit of the doubt when it came to breaking their vow of obedience.

You can spew all the crap you want, but anyone that can read knows it's just that.

Best-Mike

Hello Mike
What you have been developing on your own is Say's economic Law, that also can be applied to our endeavors! If "A" implies B,C,D, etc. and "A" is a known truth,(or a new established truth from research) then B,C,D, etc. are also truths. You have established more origanal fact in a shorter time than most have in a life time of labor, Mike I believe your Theory is closer than anyones so far on who, what , and when.
Thanks
FEMF

 

[cactusjumper]

It's a funny thing.

As I have said before, I like to go to the horse's mouth so to speak as often as possible. I have been corresponding with two Professors of History, who's specialties are Jesuits in Mexico (one teaches modern history and one teaches late 1500s and early 1600s). Neither one of them seems to have a problem with Jesuit involvement in mining, although they both agree with my theory about them doing it through Coadjutors (Lay Brothers).

An even funnier thing is that they are both Jesuit Priests. One is at Loyola Marymount and the other is at Georgetown University. When I asked them if they knew of any reason the Order would want to deny mining activity in the 1600s today, this was my reply:

Dear Mike....I can't think of any reason they would deny it
later...unless it was part and parcel of a larger picture, viz., to deny
any "commercial" activity, as defense against enemies who used that
against them.

HHMMMMM. Two Jesuit Priests. Both of them PhDs. Both of them teaching in two of the most prestigious Jesuit Universities, and neither of them have a problem with Jesuit involvement in mining activities.

Guess with that, I might just go up the ladder another rung.

Best-Mike

Mike,

Did you misspeak/write in the above quote?

Thanks for removing that insulting post about drugs and Lamar. I appreciate the change in heart.

Take care,

Joe

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Morning FEMF: You posted -->If "A" implies B,C,D, etc. and "A" is a known truth,(or a new established truth from research) then B,C,D, etc. are also truths.
*****************

Wanna argue, err discuss this a bit? (I am kinda bored this morning, nothing else productive to do at the moment, so am just picky picky)

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to Live, not live to exist".

 

[cactusjumper]

Don Jose,

I fear that FEMF is on shaky ground in your debate......assuming he decides to participate. An inference is not a statement of fact, but a suggestion. Suggestions of truth can be assumed to be true, or false. Other factors and prejudices will determine which side of the suggestion/inference you come down on.

In this particular debate, I would need to know what is the known truth of A and how does it relate to B, C, and D?

Take care and have a Merry Christmas!

Joe

 

[gollum]

It's a funny thing.

As I have said before, I like to go to the horse's mouth so to speak as often as possible. I have been corresponding with two Professors of History, who's specialties are Jesuits in Mexico (one teaches modern history and one teaches late 1500s and early 1600s). Neither one of them seems to have a problem with Jesuit involvement in mining, although they both agree with my theory about them doing it through Coadjutors (Lay Brothers).

An even funnier thing is that they are both Jesuit Priests. One is at Loyola Marymount and the other is at Georgetown University. When I asked them if they knew of any reason the Order would want to deny mining activity in the 1600s today, this was my reply:

Dear Mike....I can't think of any reason they would deny it
later...unless it was part and parcel of a larger picture, viz., to deny
any "commercial" activity, as defense against enemies who used that
against them.

HHMMMMM. Two Jesuit Priests. Both of them PhDs. Both of them teaching in two of the most prestigious Jesuit Universities, and neither of them have a problem with Jesuit involvement in mining activities.

Guess with that, I might just go up the ladder another rung.

Best-Mike

Mike,

Did you misspeak/write in the above quote?

Thanks for removing that insulting post about drugs and Lamar. I appreciate the change in heart.

Take care,

Joe

Which part?

What about those two newspaper articles? Also, that same story appears in the Canadian Law Review Journal of 1892 (just in case you think that two different papers are BS'ing).

Best-Mike

 

[FEMF]

Morning FEMF: You posted -->If "A" implies B,C,D, etc. and "A" is a known truth,(or a new established truth from research) then B,C,D, etc. are also truths.
*****************

Wanna argue, err discuss this a bit? (I am kinda bored this morning, nothing else productive to do at the moment, so am just picky picky)

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to Live, not live to exist".

Hello Don Jose
From my prospective it's selfevident! But for the argument, I'd say that if A is established as a truth and it implies B,C,D, etc. Then I except B,C,D, Etc! as truths too, unless A or B is proved not truly to imply , C, Etc. Then of course I'd reject it, and have.
Joe
Sorry, but Mike is much better at sharing his research with others than I am, but he never tells you everything. All of us, keep back some of our hard won information, some of us are treasurer hunters and some of us are after truths, but none of us give away the X, do we? Come on Joe, you have been doing this a very long time yourself, you know!
Take Care!
FEMF

 

[cactusjumper]

It's a funny thing.

As I have said before, I like to go to the horse's mouth so to speak as often as possible. I have been corresponding with two Professors of History, who's specialties are Jesuits in Mexico (one teaches modern history and one teaches late 1500s and early 1600s). Neither one of them seems to have a problem with Jesuit involvement in mining, although they both agree with my theory about them doing it through Coadjutors (Lay Brothers).

An even funnier thing is that they are both Jesuit Priests. One is at Loyola Marymount and the other is at Georgetown University. When I asked them if they knew of any reason the Order would want to deny mining activity in the 1600s today, this was my reply:

Dear Mike....I can't think of any reason they would deny it
later...unless it was part and parcel of a larger picture, viz., to deny
any "commercial" activity, as defense against enemies who used that
against them.

HHMMMMM. Two Jesuit Priests. Both of them PhDs. Both of them teaching in two of the most prestigious Jesuit Universities, and neither of them have a problem with Jesuit involvement in mining activities.

Guess with that, I might just go up the ladder another rung.

Best-Mike

Mike,

Did you misspeak/write in the above quote?

Thanks for removing that insulting post about drugs and Lamar. I appreciate the change in heart.

Take care,

Joe

Which part?

What about those two newspaper articles? Also, that same story appears in the Canadian Law Review Journal of 1892 (just in case you think that two different papers are BS'ing).

Best-Mike

Sorry Mike,

Since I emphasized in bold and underlined part of your message, I assumed you would pick up on the portion of the quote that I was referring to. My bad!

" who's specialties are Jesuits in Mexico"

That comment does not include Father O'Malley, as he has not done research into the Jesuit's of Mexico, or Mexico itself. You seem to have read a positive response into his statement that it's possible. That and five bucks will get you an average cup of coffee.......maybe.

Anything is possible, including coadjutors working the mines for the Jesuits. It's also possible that they hired someone else to do the work. It's also possible it only took place on very rare occasions.

What we are looking for is some kind of documentation that they received any meaningful income from a mine(s) in Northern Mexico. The reason it needs to be meaningful, is because the legends all say those mines were very important to the missions of Sonora and that they produced a vast treasure.

Quoting a newspaper account about a huge Jesuit connected treasure in South America, with not a peep of follow-up, won't win your case in Sonora, Mexico.

All just my opinion, but it's based on the written history of the Jesuits and Mexico.......not theory.

Take care and Merry Christmas.

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Morning FEMF: You posted -->If "A" implies B,C,D, etc. and "A" is a known truth,(or a new established truth from research) then B,C,D, etc. are also truths.
*****************

Wanna argue, err discuss this a bit? (I am kinda bored this morning, nothing else productive to do at the moment, so am just picky picky)

Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to Live, not live to exist".

Hello Don Jose
From my prospective it's selfevident! But for the argument, I'd say that if A is established as a truth and it implies B,C,D, etc. Then I except B,C,D, Etc! as truths too, unless A or B is proved not truly to imply , C, Etc. Then of course I'd reject it, and have.
Joe
Sorry, but Mike is much better at sharing his research with others than I am, but he never tells you everything. All of us, keep back some of our hard won information, some of us are treasurer hunters and some of us are after truths, but none of us give away the X, do we? Come on Joe, you have been doing this a very long time yourself, you know!
Take Care!
FEMF

FEMF,

I don't understand how you equate my conversation with Mike as asking him to reveal some secret truth. If you make a claim on a public forum that doesn't conform with accepted history, you should expect folks to ask for some kind of evidence to back up your claims.

Mike's claims are, basically, just theories based on folklore and legend. As with all of these kinds of "facts/evidence", nothing is ever available for examination by people who make their living authenticating artifacts......and facts. We are not talking sometimes, seldom, on occasion once in awhile, but.......NEVER!

It's always stories. I knew someone or someone who knew someone, pictures of claimed originals......etc., etc., etc.

To be fair, I used to believe every word of it. I managed to educate myself out of that blind belief, but have no problem admitting some of it is quite possible. Possible is not a statement of fact. I don't get upset with Mike because he believes in Jesuit treasure and mining. You will never see me calling him names or wondering about his habits.

It's not personal, It's opinion. Thanks for yours.

Merry Christmas,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[cactusjumper]

Just wondering......Has anyone ever tried to find out if there even was a "Castle of San Antonio in Rio..."?

Just wondering.....

Joe

 

[Cubfan64]

Volume 26 of "The Law Journal - A Weekly Publication of Notes of Cases and Legal News" - 1891 - page 528 has almost the same statement as that from the newspapers above - for whatever that's worth

http://books.google.com/books?id=6e...d=0CC0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=San Antonio&f=false

 

[somehiker]

Other news from 1767.

The Scots magazine/James Boswell - 1767

http://books.google.ca/books?id=11w...s-qDgbR8zNLf28eMWj5hQ&ci=0,31,914,1636&edge=0

Regards:Somehiker

 

[Cubfan64]

More info. from another paper...

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/l...23/ed-1/seq-9/;words=Rio+Desarte+1891+Janeiro

And as far as the castle/fort is concerned, my guess is they are talking about Convento Santo de Antonio in Rio which from what I could see was built by the Jesuits in the 17th century.

 

[somehiker]

Just wondering......Has anyone ever tried to find out if there even was a "Castle of San Antonio in Rio..."?

Just wondering.....

Joe

Could be that "Castle of San Antonio" was a misnomer.
"Morro do Castelo" could be the correct name for the complex,which had a convent nearby as well.

Worth looking into,anyways.

Regards:Somehiker.

 

[cactusjumper]

Thanks guys, but I have already been down those roads......some time ago.

Don't you wonder why they all used the name "Castle of San Antonio"? On the other hand, do you know when "Morro do Castelo" was torn down?

Merry Christmas,

Joe

 

[somehiker]

Thanks guys, but I have already been down those roads......some time ago.

Don't you wonder why they all used the name "Castle of San Antonio"? On the other hand, do you know when "Morro do Castelo" was torn down?

Merry Christmas,

Joe

Joe:
Apparently,"Morro do Castelo" is a hill of some kind.As such,I believe that it has been leveled,rather than torn down.
A number of the original buildings upon the hill may have been demolished prior to removal of the hill itself.

A liitle bit about Rio,from (http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/riodejaneiro/a/Walkingtours.htm)

"The original city was located on hilltops, called morros around the bay. Forts, churches and convents were built on Morro do Castelo, Morro de São Bento, Morro da Conceiçao and Morro de Santo Antonio, giving the residents not only fabulous views, but defensible positions. Over time, some of these hills were leveled to provide more level building areas and landfill to create useable land at water’s edge, including Santos Dumont airport. The city has changed dramatically since it was founded in 1567. Morro de Castelo is gone, but the neighborhood is still called Castelo."

I often wonder though,why so many structures around the world are called "castles" today,when their original owner/builders had no such designation or title in mind.
If the "Convento Santo de Antonio" was located on,or close to "Morro do Castelo",folks may have simply referred to a large building in that area as the "Castle of San Antonio".Maybe something lost or gained in a translation from Portuguese to English?
If I were asked to describe the architectural style of the building on top of the hill in the last of these photos,I would likely call it a "castle".Part of which has fallen downslope in a mudslide.


Regards:Somehiker

 

[cactusjumper]

This is interesting:

http://www.rio-de-janeiro.info/sao-francisco-da-penitencia-church.htm

Once again, those rascally Franciscans have raised their wealthy little heads.

Was Castle Hill Franciscan? Did they take it over from the Jesuits? It would seem, if anyone, it was the Franciscans who had and have the richest church in the world.......Gold wise.

Merry Christmas!

Joe

 

[cactusjumper]

Anyone ever wonder why most serious historians and authors give little or no credence to the Jesuit treasure legends in Mexico? Every facet of life in Colonial Mexico has been scrutinized down to the fine hairs on a frog. That would include sex habits, the eating of human flesh and the body dimensions of the individual tribes. Ales Hrdlicka comes to mind. He traveled in Mexico in 1898 with Carl Lumholtz to study the Native Americans of that country. His research would be considered....of the frog hair variety.

How did they miss the vast treasures that the Jesuits amassed? Perhaps they required evidence with some minimal amount of substance to it. My own exchanges with these people all came up with negative belief in any Jesuit treasure in the mission systems of Northern Sonora......without exception.

People like Susan Deeds, who recently retired from NAU and moved to her home in Mexico City, have told me that the Jesuit missions in Sonora were, mostly, barely getting by. That opinion is the same as Cynthia Radding's. Both of these ladies are considered, by their peers, to be two of the best in their field. Needless to say, they are not Jesuits. The above are not direct quotes,
so there is room for error on my part, even though I don't believe that to be the case.

Father John O'Malley, was used as a source for his Jesuit mining theory by Mike. Father O'Malley will be the first to tell you he has not researched the history of the Jesuits in Mexico. In that respect, only, he is no expert on the Mexican history as it pertains to the Jesuits, as Mike has erroneously suggested:
"I have been corresponding with two Professors of History, who's specialties are Jesuits in Mexico..."

Obviously, I remain unconvinced that enough Jesuit mining took place to create a vast, hidden, treasure. That does leave the door open for small, individual, Jesuit involvement in mining in Mexico. I would love to go back to the belief I had when I was much younger, just need something better than what has been provided by our local experts.

Take care,

Joe

 

[coazon de oro]

Hello CJ, It is sad that you have given up being a dreamer, or treasure hunter. If lost treasures could be found by facts alone, on what is written, there would be no lost treasures in the first place. A treasure hunter has to work with the facts, the probable, and the possible to look for the reasonable, and the logical.

You have to realize that "experts" in every field, make mistakes. Their opinions, while highly regarded, are not always right. Just look at the medical field, how many times have the experts been wrong? Then you have the experts that give an opinion just because it can't be proved otherwise.

Just because something is not written doesn't mean it never happened. Take crime for instance, most criminals, don't write down all the details about the crime they committed. The investigator has to gather the facts, and look for the probable, and possible, using reason, and logic to find the clues and evidence to form a case.

Just as criminals don't want their crime solved, treasure hiders didn't want their treasure found. Jesuit treasures are very real in this dreamers mind. Homar P. Olivarez