Lux Lucet

Thomas Aquinas, official philosopher of the Roman Church-State and conduit for  the unbiblical notion of the universal destination of goods, an idea central, not just to the Social Teaching of the Church, but to Rome’s destructive doctrine of migration.  A doctrine that the Church-State is using to destroy the remnants of the Protestant West.

The popes have expressed their hatred, not only of Protestantism…but also for the political and economic expression of Christianity: capitalism..such statements…are part of a system of thought that is one of the most impressive systems yet devised by men.

    – John W. Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, p.24

One of the many problems with Protestantism in its dilapidated, early 21st century manifestation is the refusal of both its leading thinkers and church members to think systematically. One of the hallmarks of the Reformation was the rejection of logical contradiction by Luther, Calvin and others. But today, the heirs of the Reformation think rejecting logical thought to be the very height of piety.

In the decadent early 21st century, many of those who lay claim to the mantel of Luther and Calvin seem to long for a sort of theological medieval magical mystery tour where logic is curbed and paradox rules the day. To the extent that they reject logic in favor of intuition, paradox mystery, these men unfit themselves not only to proclaim the Gospel of Justification by Belief Alone, but also to deal with the massive and ongoing assault by the Roman Church-State on the remnants of Western Civilization, a civilization born out of the preaching of the Gospel in 16th century Europe.

As this author has discussed throughout this series, the mass migration of Mexicans and people from other Latin American nations into the United States though our southern border with Mexico is the practice of the migration theory of the Roman Church State. Further, the migration theory of the Roman Church-State is itself derived from a larger body of Romanist thought know as the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Not only does Rome teach heresy, but it teaches organized, systematic heresy.

Were its teaching on immigration, migration and refugee resettlement merely ad hoc doctrines, they would be dangerous enough. But because Rome has integrated its teachings in these areas into “one of the most impressive systems [of thought] yet devised by men” to borrow John Robbins’ turn of phrase, its teachings on migration have become a category five hurricane that threatens to blow away the tottering structure of what remains of Western Civilization.

This, of course, is the intent of Rome. For strong, independent nations are a bulwark against Rome’s globalist dreams of one world government. If Rome is successful in flooding the zone with migrants – whether they are Muslims or Mexicans, it matters not – it can make the countries of the West ungovernable and thus easy prey for its globalist ambitions.

But back to the idea of theory for a moment. All practice – including the practice of destroying nations through mass migration – is the practice of some prior theory. Since theory, not practice is primary, in order for Protestants to have any chance of preserving their civilization, it is absolutely essential for them to focus on refuting Rome’s false theory of migration. If Protestants can refute Rome’s theory of migration from the Scriptures, they can dispose of its evil practice as well.

Unfortunately, due to Protestants’ eschewing of systematic thought, most of them are unable to see the necessity of defeating Rome’s migration theory from the Bible. This is the main reason why Rome continues to win the migration argument, and Protestants continue to lose it.

It is my intention over the next few weeks to demonstrate from the Scriptures the foolishness of Rome’s teaching on migration. I shall do this by showing from the Word of God that the foundational idea of all of Rome’s ungodly and destructive migration policies, an idea called the universal destination of goods, is utterly false.

The relationship between theory and practice is like that of foundation to house. If the foundation is solid, so too is the house built upon it. If the foundation is weak and crumbling, if the foundation is destroyed, however beautiful and impressive the house built upon it is, that house will fall.

Refute the universal destination of goods, defeat Antichrist’s mass migration plot. Our nation and our civilization is at stake. So let’s get out our jackhammers and get to work.

The Universal Destination of Goods, What is it?

In last week’s installment, I explained the universal destination of goods using John Robbins’ brilliant book Ecclesiastical Megalomania. That being the case, I will not go over it again in full today. But in short, the universal destination of goods is the belief in original communism. That is to say, it is the idea that when God created the world he gave it to all mankind collectively.

That’s the theory. What this means from a practical standpoint is that, while the Church-State recognizes up to a point the right of individuals to own private property, that right is not absolute. According to Rome, the only moral title to property is need.

This false doctrine can be traced back to pagan Greek and Roman philosophers, through the theologians of the early church right up to the official teacher of the Roman Church-State, Thomas Aquinas. More recent Roman Catholic theologians have used the universal destination of goods as a cornerstone upon which to build the Social Teaching of the Church.

In The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, we read in paragraph 171 that “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone.” This, of course, is refuted by numerous passages in the Bible that demonstrate that God does, in fact, favor some persons above others and gives to one more than he gives another. God, as the ultimate owner of all things, dispossessed the Canaanites and gave the land to Israel as an inheritance. Or think about the conclusion of the parable of the talents, where, not only is the one talent taken from the evil and lazy servant, but it is given to the good and faithful servant who already had ten.

But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.

The Compendium continues,

The universal right to use the goods of the earth is based on the principle of the universal destination of goods. Each person must [n.b. the possession is a requirement, not an option] have access to the level of well-being necessary for his full development. The right to the common use of goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order” and “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine.” For this reason the Church feels bound in duty to specify the nature and characteristics of this principle. It is first of all a natural right, inscribed in human nature and not merely a positive right connected with changing historical circumstances; moreover it is an “inherent” right. It is innate in individual persons, in every person, and has priority with regard to any human intervention concerning goods, to any legal system concerning the same, to any economic or social system or method: “All other rights, whatever they are, including property rights and the right of free trade must [n.b. in the Church’s eyes, the Magisterium’s teaching on the universal destination of goods is a requirement, not an option] be subordinated to this norm [the universal destination of goods]; they must [n.b. the must] not hinder it, but must [n.b. once again we have a must] rather expedite its application. It must [n.b. another must] be a serious and urgent social obligation to refer these rights to their original purpose” (Compendium, 172).

Note well Antichrist’s assertion that “All other rights, whatever they are [this includes the right of nations to determine their immigration policy] must be subordinated” to the norm of the universal destination of goods.

To put this in stark terms, if someone from Honduras feels the need to migrate to the United States, he has a right to do so, and Americans have an obligation to accommodate him, the cost of such obligations notwithstanding. This is the case because the perceived need of the migrant trumps the right of American taxpayers to retain title to the property.

Now the Compendium is not a treatise on immigration theory. It’s a summary of the Church’s Social Teaching which has been systematized in a number of papal documents over the past 120 plus years, beginning with the publication of Rerum Novarum in 1891. The reason I cite the Compendium here is for the purpose of establishing the fact that the universal destination of goods is integral to Rome’s larger Social Teaching and is not something specific to its teaching on immigration.

Rome’s immigration policy is, as I noted at the top of this post, not some isolated notion quite apart from the rest of Rome’s teaching. Rather, it is nested within the Church-State’s larger framework of Social Teaching. This is important for at least two reasons. First, Rome’s teaching on migration issues is part of its system of doctrine. If you were to pick up a twig, you could snap it easily. But if you take than same twig and bundle it with many other twigs, it would be much harder to break. In like fashion, ideas that are part of a system of doctrine are harder to refute than isolated ideas by themselves.

Second, the close connection between Rome’s Social Teaching and its migration theory makes it harder, impossible really, for Roman Catholics to, on the one hand, assert that they are opposed to Rome’s teaching on migration and, on the other hand, claim that they are nevertheless loyal sons of Rome. A quote from John Robbins is appropriate here. Writing about the many statements by Rome hostile to constitutional capitalism, the political-economic expression of Christianity, Robbins notes,

They [Rome’s many declarations inimical to constitutional capitalism] 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 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).

In light of the logical connection between Rome’s theology and its economical and political pronouncements, it should come as no surprise that one of the most adamant opponents of Donald Trump’s proposed border wall is none other than our current Roman Catholic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. When she recently referred to the wall as “immoral,” she was not speaking from her own resources, but rather was echoing the ungodly Social Teaching of Antichrist.

Summary and a Look Forward

The big take aways from this week’s post are first that Roman Catholic doctrine, including the Church-State’s Social teaching, is systematic. This presents a problem for Protestants, who, at this low point in the Reformation, largely refuse to think systematically.

Second, being systematic, Rome’s doctrine of migration is part of this larger family of ideas called the Social Teaching of the Church.

A third important concept is that, by being part of a system, the Church-State’s false teaching on migration is a far more formidable force than if it were some isolated fringe idea.

Fourth, Rome’s teaching on migration is based squarely on the foundational principle of the universal destination of goods, a doctrine that the popes themselves have called “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order” and “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine” to which all other rights, whatever they are “must be subordinated.”

Fifth, the central position occupied by the universal destination of goods in Roman Catholic Social Teaching makes it impossible, without pain of contradiction, for a Roman Catholic to, on the one hand, deny the doctrine and, on the other hand, remain a loyal Roman Catholic. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that our current Roman Catholic Speaker of the House is advancing the pope’s teaching on migration in a very public way.

Sixth, Protestants should not lose heart. These five take aways may make it sound as if this author despairs of there being any chance for Protestants to defeat Rome’s attempt to overthrow their civilization through mass migration. Far from it. For while Rome’s false teaching on migration gains strength by being part of a larger system of false doctrine, this strength is also its weakness. Why do I say this? In the words of the Church-State itself, the universal destination of goods occupies a central position in its system of thought. It is the lynchpin of Roman Catholic Social Teaching. It is the foundation of their system.

But what happens if their foundation is destroyed?

The obvious answer is that their whole system of Social Teaching implodes, including their evil teachings on mass migration, which the popes have weaponized for the purpose of overthrowing the Protestant nations of the West.

Refute the universal destination of goods, Rome’s entire program of migration lies in ruins. It’s that simple.

By God’s grace, this is exactly what I intend to do over the next few weeks.

But before getting on with the business of refuting Rome’s doctrine of the universal destination of goods, now that this doctrine’s centrality to the Social Teaching of the Church has been established, I’d like to spend one more week showing specifically how the universal destination of goods has been invoked by Rome as the basis for its doctrine of migration.

(To be continued…)