St. Ignatius of Loyola & the Jesuits

Crypto-Jewish infiltrators and secret Illuminati subverters?


If so he wasn't very good at it…

     The point of this article is to clear the air on the claims of St. Ignatius of Loyola somehow being a crypto-Jewish converso: one who was intent on creating the Jesuit Order to infiltrate Christianity and install Illuminism/Jewish Kabbalism as the “universal religion” under Rome; this being the pre-cursor of Occult Freemasonry which was loosed into Christendom in the late 18th century.

     Usually this is promoted by polemical Protestants, who boast of being “true Christians,” while the “Counter-Reformation” Church is actually a secret Babylonian/Pagan cult designed to devour your soul in the belly of its “beast” system; of which the Woman (Mother Church, Isis under a mask of Mary) rides as the whore of Babylon drunk on the blood of Protestant saints. There’s many variations of this, and they invert the reasons why the Church is this “beast/harlot.” Occultists like Madame Blavatsky are probably the best example of the opposite side of this dialectical coin of anti-Catholicism; for she makes the same claims against the Church for entirely different reasons as the Protestants do. She even uses Protestant propaganda in Isis Unveiled Theology, Chapter 8, in order to lay siege against the Jesuit’s and their alleged “ends justify the means” doctrines. This axiom was actually part of the Bavarian Illuminati's methods, who hated the Jesuits, yet at the same time they blamed the Jesuits for "ends justify the means" practices. Noticing a pattern? It is the Scapegoat-ritual at its best. These Illuminati were also operating in fear of the Jesuits finding out their plots, and told its own members to "avoid them like the plague" ; but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms, and you can see the P2BP Podcast Episodes 21 & 22 for more on these affairs.

     Provided below are some resources to refute the Loyola / Jesuits crypto-Judaism aspect of these claims. We’ll mostly use the scholar Robert Aleksander Mayrks’ writings to do so, along with some peripheral academic sources.  A few notes on Mr. Maryks before we proceed further: There appears to be an attempt by him to polemicize the anti-converso lobby in his book, while propping up Jesuits, such as the Memorialistas, who reacted against it. Despite this, he does an excellent job of presenting the facts, differing views and arguments with an even keel, and clearly deliberates the complexities of the situation; i.e. – on the whole – I sincerely appreciate his work and scholarship despite any disagreements on interpreting certain aspects of the data in terms of the narrative.  My sentiments reflect similar feelings for the author Daniel Jütte in his Age of Secrecy book that we discussed in P2BP episode 28.


    You can also find Maryks defending against the exaggerated polemics opposing traditional Catholicism; ones, supposedly holding them responsible for Fascism akin to Mussolini, or Anti-Semitism akin to Hitler and the Nazis.  His review on David Kertzner's work is an example of this.  Setting that aside, there also appears to be a general attempt to co-opt this into portraying an original "progressive" intent of the Jesuits, akin to those hoping to find a more "tolerant" Christian tradition before the "Dark Ages" Church took over and hijacked it for intolerance, ignorance, superstition and bigotry.  The modern heralding of Gnosticism comes to mind as an example of the latter.  Conveniently, those are all Enlightenment and Masonic 'buzz' terms used to attack the Church and Catholic regimes, while deceptively subverting and 'transmuting' Christ into an 'equal' wth Pagan deities and religions. We'll let you decide what that all means for yourself.



     Oddly enough, Maryks work is often used to try and prove that Loyola (and the Jesuits) were crypto-Jews all along; that is either because they didn’t read the fine print, or didn’t comprehend it. There’s also the third option that they did indeed read and comprehend it, but are intentionally misleading folks as to what the book says.  But we’ll assume it’s one of the former – not the latter – to give them the benefit of the doubt.  

     We don’t want to harshly judge those who might have just been confused, and it’s certainly dense reading that requires careful study of each passage; i.e. it's understandable.  I have conflated these things in the past myself, but mostly due to only being aware of modernist Jesuit influence of the past 50-60 years, and because I was accepting that, for something so fundamental and extensively promoted in the "truther" world, well… it must be true right?  Despite this, when presented with the arguments, I often found them lacking or even puzzling (i.e. adding more confusion to the situation––perhaps the intent).  Upon further investigation, it became quickly apparent that there's a number of fundamental flaws and straw-man points that fall apart rather quickly with just a few hours of research.  However knowing which sources to investigate is the trick, and it's easy to get lost in hundreds of hours of reading that contains poor sourcing and reasoning reading on this particular issue, despite those same authors often having valid points and research in others.

     As far as this subterfuge goes, we could type pages and pages on the myriad of mutated forms of this Jesuit-conspiracy (the Nazis are a great example of having their own Vatican-Jesuit-conspiracy theories), but we’ll spare you the details. You probably know most of them fairly well already.  There’s probably even some I’m not familiar with, since there are so many to choose from. It should also be said that this is not to defend the bulk of modern Jesuits (the Chardin’s, James Martin’s, John Courtney Murray’s, Pope Francis’ or liberal/liberation theologians of the world). These usually sound more like Theosophists than any of the Old World Jesuits that made up the majority of their history; from roughly their inception up to the mid-20th century. There’s certainly some modern Jesuits that have stayed true to the tradition, Fr. John Hardon being a great example. Aside from them, infiltration is the name of the game, and Maryks’ timeline on the Jesuits – outlined in his introduction – have them on the look-out for converso lineage. Ironically (or not), this timeline makes a direct parallel to these modernist infiltrations, as the Jesuits were on the lookout for Jewish lineage as a potential 'red flag' for subversion from roughly 1600 through 1950 (that's 350 years folks).

Link to Maryks Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews book and PDF download:

One of the few Brill books that is free! This will save you a cool $100+ depending.

†  Loyola Supports and Distributes "Anti-Semitic" Policies of the Pope 

Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 63

     Here Maryks further demonstrates his loyalty to the Papacy and its most "anti-semitic" policies:


     "Loyola’s open-mindedness towards Jewish converts must be contrasted with his support of the anti-Jewish papal legislation during the pontificate of the feared and disliked (by the first Jesuits) Pope Paul IV. Indeed, Loyola had many copies of Carafa’s most discriminatory bull, Cum nimis absurdum (1555), shipped to Jesuit houses, and he ordered that it be observed. Among the many economic and religious restrictions for Jews in the Papal States, the pope’s document established the  first Roman ghetto and forced Jews to wear a distinctive yellow hat (males) or kerchief (females), for “it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt—all of their own doing—has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us."

     "Loyola, despite his reservations, obeyed the Vicar of Christ unconditionally, but the logical consequence of his acceptance of Jewish converts into the Catholic Church was his non-discrimination policy towards candidates of Jewish origin who desired to join the Jesuit Order. It seems that Loyola’s firm refusal to incorporate the Iberian purity-of-blood concept into the Jesuit Constitutions was the result of a long discernment."

     As you can see, he distributed the Papal decrees to all the Jesuits to ensure economy restrictions for Jews in the Papal States and putting them in the ghettos wearing their patches and hats; also part of the decree calling them still the "genocide people" of God as they were deemed "slaves" to their false doctrines and utter rejection of Christ.  While this language is rather harsh to our modern ears (I certainly wouldn't have put it that way), and I personally don't endorse everything Catholicism did in regards to Jewish policies, it's often forgotten that Judaism back then was a lot more 'hardcore' than most synagogues are today – especially post-Enlightenment – and people in general were much more direct and did not mince words.  Regardless, the fundamental point remains: this is certainly not very productive behavior from Loyola if he were indeed a secret Jew trying to emancipate them from the "shackles" of Roman Catholicism.

†  Loyola’s Converso Lineage & Jewish Lineage Dreams ? 

Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 50-52

     The only claim [as far as I have found––setting aside wild speculations with no evidence better than that found in Maryks book] of Loyola having potential Jewish blood is based on the historian Kevin Ingram who speculates on this: simply because one of his grandfathers fit the prototype of a converso-Jew because he was a merchant and aristocrat at the court. That's it. Hardly an ironclad open and shut case of his Judaism. Maryks makes this quite clear in his writings that this claim is purely speculation.  It's based on a stereotype of one particular grandparent. If you go to the source claim of Ingram below, you'll find it's barely relevant even if the claim was true.

Kevin Ingram Converso Non-Conformism in Early Modern Spain pp. 41-42 :

     "Loyola’s sympathetic attitude toward conversos should raise the question: was he himself from a Jewish background? The saint’s biographers have, however, avoided this line of inquiry, preferring to focus on his paternal family’s noble Basque roots for clues to his spiritual character. The Loyolas, it is true, were of an old Guipúzcoan family whose hidalgo lineage possibly stretched back to the thirteenth century. Ignatius’ maternal family, on the other hand, were well-heeled parvenus, who had become wealthy through trade before turning their attention toward improving their social status. Ignatius’ maternal grandfather, Doctor Martín García de Licona (his name was taken from the Basque port town), was both a trader and a letrado (bureaucrat), who had risen through the royal court’s administrative ranks to become auditor for the Court of Appeal at Valladolid and advisor to the Catholic Monarchs."

     "Were Ignatius of Loyola’s maternal family conversos? The fact that Martín García de Licona was both a merchant and a letrado is certainly suggestive. However, even if the Liconas had Jewish roots, it is unlikely that Loyola would have been aware of this while growing up in the Basque country, where everyone maintained the conceit of an Old Christian hidalgo ancestry. It would thus have had no impact on his own attitude to New Christians. Did he, however, suspect something later as he established contact with a converso community in Castile, many of whose members had a similar profile to that of his maternal family? Loyola’s early biographer, and fellow Jesuit, Pedro Ribadeneira, noted that on a number of occasions the Jesuit General had stated that he wished he were Jewish because Jesus Christ was a Jew."

     So basically, even if he were a converso, it wouldn't have even mattered, despite this author's speculation of what is apparently "suggestive."  Again, this is the only claim I've found suggesting Loyola had Jewish lineage, other than Protestant and Occult conspiracy theorists on YouTube who disdain both the Jews and Jesuits as part of the conspiracy. They of course don’t provide any further proof other than Loyola being questioned by the Inquisition a few times of which he was acquitted, or some associations with alumbrados / conversos; which are true and real, but interpreted without the context that really matters.  Usually this is accompanied by dark, ominous music.  


     Loyola himself was even denounced to the Inquisition by a converso who had previously defended his own converso brother – attempting to enter the Franciscan Order – against the Inquisition. This is rather suspect that a converso was looking to demonize Loyola to the Inquisition, while at the same time defending against the Inquisition's charges against his converso brother.  This is story of the Ortiz brothers, and is illustrated on pp. 51-52.  After Loyola is acquitted, this brother befriended him; one might ask if he changed his tactic if he were indeed a "Judaizing" converso, or if Loyola did as Christ suggested and befriended his accuser [Matthew 5:25] and it was a misconception or prejudice that was healed; we shall hope it was the latter.

     Also consider this alleged "wished he were Jewish" quote that came from – surprise surprise – a converso who, it would seem, made these claims post-mortem (thus Loyola could not say anything to the contrary since he's dead). Oddly enough, the biographer conversos making these claims had a history of attempting to hide their converso lineage. This is illustrated in another of Maryks Jesuit books:

Robert Aleksander Maryks A Companion to Ignatius of Loyola (Brill) pp. 84-86 :

     Maryks explains how Loyola's biographer, a closet-converso, who uses the testimony from another closet-converso, "may have had an agenda in spreading this information and concealing other information,"  as he was caught masking his own origins, as well as the origins of this biographer of Loyola.  Thus, if these converted Jews were actually causing shenanigans, it's interesting that they were also in control of one of Loyola's biographies as well as his alleged quote of wanting to be born "of the same blood of Jesus and Mary."  Even if he said the quote, it doesn't even matter, just as much as if he had any legit converso lineage.  He could have been trying to convert Jews and being more kind to them than some of the Old Christians, whom – despite any legit reasons for prejudices - could also be very biased and Pharisaic about their Christianity, as some Old Christians undoubtedly were.  These controversies are aligned to the blood-purity laws, which, if taken at face-value – which seems debatable – are akin to Nazism in terms of racial profiling ––not genocide.

     As far as I've found, most of the controversial quotes allegedly from Loyola that are overly philo-semetic are from converso-Jew testimonies, some of which – as shown here – had a history of concealing their identity.  It was even argued, as Maryks states on pp. xxxi in his Synagogue of Jews book, that in the 1990's there were controversies as to if racial prejudice, as we know it today, was even involved at all; for "contrary to Anglo-Saxon scholarship" (i.e. Whig propaganda)…anti-converso sentiments in the sixteenth century had only socio-religious, not racial, origins."  This argument was put forth by the Spanish Jesuit Francisco de Borja Medina.

    In contrast, there are also some quotes to support Ignatius claiming Old Christian lineage and pride – never overtly boastful or racially prejudiced themselves – which are also provided as a balancing point to any overly philo-semetic ones provided by conversos.  Simply put, you can't project some sort of crypto-Judaism on Loyola and call it truth; it's purely speculation at best.

†  Loyola Supportive of Both Roman and Portuguese Inquisitions  

Steven J. McMichael & Susan E. Myers Friars and Jews in the Middle Ages and Renaissance (Brill) pp. 300-301, 309:

     "Ignatius of Loyola, one of the major proponents of conversionary programs at Rome, possibly the very founder of the Roman Casa dei Cathecumeni, and certainly an opponent of the introduction of the norms of limpieza de sangre in his new Society of Jesus, was also one of the ideologues of the Roman Inquisition who took the side of the Portuguese court in its conflict with Rome over the institution of a Spanish-type inquisition in Portugal."

     "That Loyola was wholehearted in his support of the Portuguese Inquisition seems undeniable…And the role of Ignatius and his Jesuit Order in reinforcing the Inquisition is beyond question."

     According to more conspiratorial Catholic writings, such as The Plot Against the Church, a "tell" of crypto-Jewish infiltration within the Church is an attack on the institution of the Inquisition.  Here is another instance where Ignatius, despite having an openness to conversos in the Jesuits (as is consistent with Catholic teaching), is historically in full support of the Inquisitions of Rome and Spain.  Even when he has his reservations about the institution himself, and even having also been examined by it on several occasions; being acquitted of all charges of heresy each time. 

William W. Meissner Ignatius of Loyola: The Psychology of a Saint pp. 214-215 :

     "Equally disturbing was [Ignatius'] support for establishing the Inquisition in Rome and the Papal States.  As Ravier (1987) notes, this by no means implies that Ignatius approved of the practices of the Inquisition without reserve.  After all, he had had his own difficulties with the Inquisition along the way. And when John III of Portugal tried to turn the Portuguese Inquisition over to the Society, Ignatius put off the decision as long as possible and finally accepted the king's proposal with great reservations and regret.  The original purpose had been to thwart the advance of Lutheranism in Italy.  Cardinal Carafa had pressured Paul III to esablish the Roman Inquisition. Ignatius also urged other cardinals to support the project and pursued the Pope to approve it in 1542.  Ignatius was moved by his fear of the spread of heretical doctrines (Dalmases 1985).  One can only say that in this matter, as with his seemingly benign attitudes towards the Jews and his almost incomprehensible attitudes toward the care of the sick, Ignatius was immersed in the prejudices and misapprehensions of the age. Even saints are human."

     Here we have a seemingly modernist Jesuit, who, while taking some 'potshots' at Loyola, admits that he was a supporter of the Inquisition – which he calls "disturbing" – despite Loyola's more benign attitudes toward the Jews.  Even a modern Jesuit, who wants Loyola to be against the Inquisition, cannot find any evidence of this himself.

     Loyola didn't discriminate upon Jewish conversos by blood (like the Nazis), but also supported the Inquisition. We've also seen Loyola supportive of two types of Inquisition, one in dealing more with Protestantism (Lutheranism in Rome), the other dealing with "Judaizing" in Portugal [Protestantism was not much of a threat in the Iberian peninsula, especially during that time––their struggles were against crypto-Judaism & Masonry].  He was obedient to Popes, even when vehemently anti-converso in their attitudes, and despite Loyola being much more open to them than most. His goal was conversion (or at least preventing a "Judaizing" form of it) and his basis of course that there was no difference between Jew or Greek.

     There is nothing un-Catholic about this in terms of basic doctrines of understanding the plight of Judaism, attempting to convert them, and dealing with the issues surrounding it honestly; nor is there anything overtly "philo-semitic."  If he was a crypto-Jew subverting, why would he obey the Pope and support the Inquisitions which were certainly involved in questioning and hunting down heresy (which the Jews were notorious for supporting––even admitted by their own historians) and false-conversions? especially in Portugal for the latter?


†  Memorialistas vs. Rome  †


Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 125-126

     The Memorialistas, as far as the book claims, were not anti-Inquisition in and of itself, but they were looking for their own autonomy – i.e. being able to exempt themselves from it – away from Rome who was alleging "Jewish conspiracies" to infiltrate and subvert.  They appealed to the Holy See, the Spanish Court and Inquisition to gain this autonomy.  These conversos also, when losing out at the Third General Congregation in 1573, acted in defiance rather than obedience. The book admits that the vast majority of these Memorialistas Jesuits were conversos and Humanist types [recall we mentioned the Jesuit Schwickerath's writings in the "Jesuit Education" video in Occult Catholicism on making distinctions as to what “Renaissance humanism” actually was, and the split factions, but it’s probably a fair assumption these were the ‘liberal-progressives’ of their day]. Point being, this would allow themselves to self-govern and avoid the Spanish Inquisition along with Rome's Jesuits who were combating against them which was spearheaded by the Italian Jesuit Claudio Acquaviva––how convenient. Also consider that these Memorialistas were defiant in the face of their Jesuit Superiors, and had a certain "revolutionary spirit" ; Loyola emphasized obedience.

†  Looking for Jewish Lineage in Jesuit Constitutions  †


Robert Aleksander Maryks The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews (Brill) pp. 75-76, 79-80

     I made a mistake on this part in Occult Catholicism, but as it turns out rectifying it, actually, only helps the case against Loyola being a crypto-Jew. When he was drafting the constitutions, he had no questions on the entry form, called the General Exam, on any potential Jewish lineage. During this time he was consulting his converso companions on these Constitutions. However, at the end of his life, just before he died (this is the bit I reversed and got wrong), he added in a question about lineage. It wasn't anything overtly racially discriminating, nor overtly hostile; Maryks calls it "non-discriminatory."  However, if shortly before his dying breath he made sure to have a precautionary question to help identify conversos coming into the order, well, simply put: he's being a pretty bad crypto-Jewish subverter.

     Lastly, on pp. 80, it is revealed that, despite Ignatius' accepting of conversos into the Jesuits, he said that "it seems good…that one ought to be more circumspect with them," implying caution and wariness of these converts.

†  Conclusion  †

     In the final analysis, the evidence supports that he was just a good Catholic. Being a “good Catholic” is called evil by many, but on its own terms that’s what Loyola seems to be, despite any flaws he might have had. It would appear that he was trying to convert "the Jews” (in this case conversos who were “Judaizing”) and sitting with the sinners (Alumbrados, etc.), while defending them when appropriate against racial discrimination (i.e. against Nazism––like the Jesuits fighting the Nazis before and during WWII), but exercising caution and deferring to anti-Jewish Papal policies when asked (i.e. not denying that there is a legitimate “Jewish Question” for them living in a Christian nation or converting).

     It's just frustrating to see a good man slandered, even if just in overzealous research coming from many Alt-Media “truthers.” I don't mean to get overly cranky about it or be overtly disrespectful to those who promote this in ignorance; it's just disheartening to hear these things promoted that when looked into extensively you will find the information is entirely to the contrary of what the supposed Jesuit-conspiracy is deemed to be, with wildly conflicting versions of it promoted by Protestants/Masons/Nazis/Liberals/Occultists, etc. Despite that, the broad strokes do not vary: "the Jesuits were corrupted from the very beginning!" But all these different groups can’t agree on the type of corruption, hence the dialectics formed at the expense of the Catholic Church. 

     The truth is, at least until there is some damn good evidence to suggest otherwise, this most formidable Jesuit Order – until actual infiltration during the mid-20th century – was fighting, more vigorously than all other Christian order, to retain European Christendom against its myriad of enemies. It doesn’t mean they didn’t do anything wrong ever, it doesn't mean there weren't subverters during their 350 year history of precautions against crypto-Judaism, but they certainly did a lot more good than bad in spite of those things; things that they are rarely given due credit for.

     Many of the flaws are either exaggerated or are no worse than the “sins” of their accusers––or entirely fabricated altogether.  Often this is a projection of those very sins are coming from the ones doing the accusing.  Those who are perhaps themselves engaging in a “Scapegoat ritual” ; often using the very same Enlightenment propaganda used to describe the Jesuits and the 350+ years of the Old World Counter-Reform Church in Europe as "darkness" and "ignorance" ; all while propping themselves up as the true "light" of the "natural" Christ, or a "Reformed" definition of what has been historically, East vs. West battles aside, His Church.

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequitiam et insídias diabólica estou præsídium.  Ímperet ílio Déus, súpplices deprecámur: tuque, prínceps militiæ cæléstis, Sátanam aliósque spíritus malígnos, qui ad perditiónem animárum pervagántur in múndo, divína virtúte, in inférnum detrúde.  Ámen.

© 2020 Schism206 - Rockstar Esoterica