Mexico, Mass Migration, and the Example of Moses Part VII: Rome and the Enormous Lies of Exsul Familia
"As much as I respect Cardinal (Timothy) Dolan and the bishops on doctrine, this is not doctrine. This is not doctrine at all. I totally respect the Pope and I totally respect the Catholic bishops and cardinals on doctrine. This is not about doctrine. This is about the sovereignty of a nation."
These are the words spoken by former Trump administration Chief Strategist Steve Bannon in a 60 Minutes interview from September 2017.
Bannon continued, adding "And in that regard [concerning immigration]they're [the bishops, cardinals and pope] just another guy with an opinion.
From his comments, we can gather that Steve Bannon makes a sharp distinction between the authority of the Roman Church-State on matters of doctrine, on the one hand, and its authority when it comes to immigration, on the other hand. According to Bannon, bishops, cardinals and popes speak with authority on doctrine. But in political matters, at least as far as immigration is concerned, they are confined to merely giving their opinion, which carries no more weight than that of any other Tom, Dick or Harry.
This is a fairly common opinion among Americanized Roman Catholics, particularly ones who favor limited government and free markets, but at the same time wish to be seen as remaining loyal to a Church that despises both.
But is it true that the pronouncements of the Roman Church-State on matters of immigration, migration and refugee resettlement are merely the opinions of private men?
Better yet, let's put the question another way. Let us ask, In the eyes of the bishops, cardinals and popes of the Roman Church-State, are their pronouncements on immigration merely their private opinions, as Steve Bannon says, or are they official teachings of the Church which are binding on all?
So far in this series, we have looked at two enormous lies promulgated by Rome in the 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia. In Part 5, we looked at how Rome's doctrine of the universal destination of goods - the universal destination of good is Rome's false teaching that God gave the world to men collectively; in other words, Rome teaches that communism, not private property, was the original economic order of creation - and how Rome used that false teaching to justify not only its push for the mass migration of individuals from poor nations into rich nations, but its assertion that the taxpayers of the rich receiving nations have an obligation to absorb the costs associated with this mass migration.
In Part 6, we looked at another implication of the universal destination of goods, the destruction of national sovereignty. In Exsul Familia, Pope Pius XII claims that although the sovereignty of the state must be respected, "[it] cannot be exaggerated to the point" where migrants are denied access to land within its territory. Left unstated but implied is the idea that migrants also have a claim on the host nations' social welfare system.
This means, in effect, that no matter how much the citizens, legal residents and taxpayers of the host nation may complain to their government officials about the financial and social hardships created by mass migration, government officials have an obligation to ignore them and proceed full speed ahead with the migration program.
Who decides when enough is enough? Who is it that has the final say in whether a nation is exaggerating its sovereignty or not? The pope, of course. After all he's the father of kings, the governor of the world and the vicar of Christ.
Today, we shall consider a third enormous lie of Exsul Familia, the megalomaniacal claim of the popes to have the right to impose their unscriptural economic and political ideas on the nations of the world.
Papal Megalomania, The Pope In His Own Words
It's probably safe to say that very few protestants have ever read through a papal document. This is unfortunate, for there is no better way for Christians to grasp the breathtaking arrogance of the papacy than to listen to the popes in their own words.
In the case of Exsul Familia, the closing paragraphs of the apostolic constitution show the little horn of Daniel at his finest, speaking pompous words. Writes the pope,
We now decree that what we hereby establish shall not be subject to attack for any reason whatsoever, even though it be enacted without the consent of those who have or claim to have the right to express their opinion on this matter, or even if they were not consulted or their opinion was not accepted. Furthermore, we declare that what we, hereby, have stated shall possess and retain its force, its validity, and its effectiveness until such time as it shall have obtained its full results. Finally, we publicly state that all those who are expected or will be expected to benefit by it should do so by careful observance.
With this statement in mind, let us now refer back to the question we asked earlier, In the eyes of the bishops, cardinals and popes of the Roman Church-State, are their pronouncements on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement merely their private opinions, as Steve Bannon says, or are they official teachings of the Church which are binding on all?
The answer is obvious, is it not? The popes make no distinction between their authority on matters of doctrine, however one defines doctrine, and their authority on matters of politics and economics. Indeed, it's fair to say that in the eyes of the pope, his pronouncements on politics and economics are as much doctrine as are the Church's pronouncements on the real presence of Christ in the mass, papal infallibility, and the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the meaning of the words, "We now decree that what we hereby establish shall not be subject to attack for any reason whatsoever." When the father of kings, the governor of the world and the vicar of Christ speaks, not only do people listen, they are required to listen.
Pope Pius XII continues,
We reject as null and void every contrary measure, regardless of who impudently proposes to do so, whether knowingly or through ignorance, and irrespective of what his authority may be.
Last week we looked at the fulminations of Pope Innocent X as he raged against the Treaty of Westphalia, the articles of which removed entire nations from Rome's domination. Innocent X wrote in his papal bull Zelo Domus Dei that the treaty was, "null, void, invalid, iniquitous, unjust, damnable, reprobate, inane, empty of meaning and effect for all time."
Note well how the language of Innocent X is echoed in what Pope Pius XII wrote in Exsul Familia, where he states, "We reject as null and void every contrary measure." By implication, this means that if you as a citizen object to having your country overrun by tax eating migrants and appeal to your elected representatives to put a stop to it, the pope and the Roman Church-State reject you actions as "null and void." Likewise, if your elected representatives take action to end mass, taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement, their contrary actions also are rejected by the pope and by the Roman Church-States as "null and void."
This rejection is unqualified, which is the meaning of the words, "regardless of who impudently proposes to do so." The pope does not limit his authority to Catholics only, but believes it applies to all men regardless of who they are or whether they even acknowledge papal authority. To paraphrase Leon Trotsky, You may not be interested in the pope, but the pope is interested in you.
And not only are all actions by all men who oppose Rome's migration program "null and void," those who take such actions are considered "impudent" in the eyes of the pope. It is against this background that one must understand Pope Francis' interference in the internal affairs of the nations of Europe and the United States concerning their immigration laws. The pope sees himself as brining to heel "impudent" heads of state who resist his program of mass migration.
Pius XII further states,
This Constitution shall remain valid, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, including any other Apostolic Constitution or dispositions of the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, as mentioned above or other Acts, however worthy of special mention or calling for canonical derogation.
While Pope Innocent X described the Treaty of Westphalia - the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years' War and is credited with establishing the modern system of nation states know as the Westphalian World Order, what Henry Kissinger described as, "a system of independent states refraining from interference in each other's domestic affairs and checking each other's ambitions through a general equilibrium of power;" the Westphalian World Order is biblical geopolitics - as "invalid," Pope Pius XII says that his Apostolic Constitution, "shall remain valid," and do so, "notwithstanding anything to the contrary." Nothing may overturn the pope's decrees on migration. No state law, no act of Congress, no Executive Order, no Constitutional Amendment can render invalid the commands of the pope in Exsul Familia.
Nothing can prevail against the words of the pope in Exsul Familia, not even the words of another pope. This is what, "including any other Apostolic Constitutions [remember, an Apostolic Constitution is the highest order papal document] or disposition of the Roman Pontiffs," means. Semper eadem (always the same) is the boast of Rome. Not only is Rome's teaching on migration profoundly unbiblical, it is, by Rome's own admission, also irreformable.
Pope Pius concludes Exsul Familia with these words,
No one, therefore, shall modify this text which expresses what we, hereby, establish, ordain, reject, direct, unite, admonish, forbid, command, and desire, nor shall anyone rashly oppose it. But if someone presume to do so, he should know that he will incur the wrath of the omnipotent God, and of His apostles Peter and Paul.
In this final paragraph, Antichrist has the temerity to apply the same language to his sinful, error filled teaching as the Scriptures apply to themselves. Consider the real apostolic warning from a real apostle at the end of Revelation and note the similarity. "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).
By writing as he does, Antichrist is blasphemously equating his words with the Word of God. In fact, he even claims a higher authority for his words that Scripture claims for itself. After all, Revelation "merely" invokes the wrath of God on those who contradict the words written in the book. But the pope? He brings in the Apostles Peter and Paul too, who, apparently, stand ready to give a good old fashioned apostolic beat down to anyone presumptuous enough to "modify" or "rashly oppose" the Pontiff's words in Exsul Familia.
The arrogance, the megalomania, the blasphemy of Pope Pius is breathtaking. And Pius is not alone in using this sort of language. Quoted above are the words of Pope Innocent X who spoke in similar tones. These two examples are just the tip of the iceberg. They are not an isolated instances. They are typical the way the popes of Rome, not to mention other officials of the Roman Church-State, talk.
This is the voice of the popes.
This is the voice of the Roman Church-State.
This is the voice of Antichrist.
The popes of Rome do not, as Steve Bannon suggests, make a distinction between their pronouncements on doctrine (theology) and their pronouncements on economics and politics. The popes don't think of their authority as limited to governing the church.
If the popes actually had the power the Vatican claims they do - according to the Vatican, the Papal Tiara symbolizes, "the triple power of the Pope: father of kings, governor of the world and Vicar of Christ" - it would be completely unreasonable for them to limit their authority to the matters of theology only. When you're governor of the world and the father of kings, no one is in a position to question you on matters of politics and economics.
The popes of Rome - and the bishops and cardinals too - most certainly don't think of themselves as "just another guy with an opinion" on immigration. In their eyes, they speak for God himself. And when they say jump, you don't argue. The only proper response is to ask, "How high?"
John Robbins summarized this idea very well when he wrote,
It might be expected that an institution such as the Roman Church-State...would not favor constitutional capitalism. But how deep-seated its hostility to freedom and free enterprise is was a surprise even to this author. The popes have expressed their hatred, not only for Protestantism...but also for the political and economic expression of Christianity: capitalism. In the pages that follow, the reader will find scores of such statements from the Magisterium of the Roman Church-State. They are part of a system of thought that is one of the most impressive systems yet devised by men. They are not disjointed statements, but the logical conclusions of premises accepted in Roman theology. They are offered to the world by the Roman Magisterium as part of a package deal, and we are not at liberty, as some American Catholics [e.g. Steve Bannon] would prefer to do, to accept the Church-State's theology and reject its economic and political philosophy. That flies in the face, not only of the claims of the Church-State itself, but of reason as well (Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 24, emphasis added).
This concludes my examination of Exsul Familia. It is my prayer, in the first place, that it has helped you to see the philosophical underpinnings of Rome's aggressive push for immigration. As John Robbins noted above, the thinking of the Roman Church-State is a system. It's not isolated, random ideas thrown together in a word salad. Rather, Rome's teaching on immigration is just one facet of a larger set of principles known as the Social Doctrine of the Church. And the Social Doctrine of the Church is itself part of the larger system of Thomistic, Roman Catholic thought covering all disciplines of theology and philosophy.
If we Protestants are to have any chance of defeating Rome's shrill demands for ever more taxpayer subsidized immigration, migration and refugee resettlement, if we as Protestants don't want to lose our countries, indeed, if we don't want to lose our entire civilization, it is incumbent upon us to take the true political and economic teachings of Scripture at least as seriously as Rome takes its false ideas found in Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Church tradition.
Coming up next week, a look at another document of the Roman Church-State, Strangers No Longer Together on the Journey of Hope. This 2003 document issued jointly by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and their counterparts in Mexico is a window on how Rome applies the teachings of Exsul Familia to the specific case of migration from Mexico to the United States.