Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, TX holds a mass on the US/Mexico border on 11/5/2022 to commemorate those who died trying to illegally enter the United States. He wants you to forget that it is the Roman Catholic Church’s policy of encouraging the dangerous practice of illegal immigration that is the cause of the deaths of the people whom he pretends to commemorate.
It should come as no surprise that the Roman Church-State, the system of Antichrist, is the master of deception. We have it on the authority of the Lord Jesus that when Satan lies, he speaks from his own resources. In like fashion, so too does his representative organization here on earth, the Roman Catholic Church-State.
This is a general principle one can apply to all of Rome’s decrees. But for my purposes today, I’ll apply it to Rome’s statements about immigration. Even more specifically, I’ll apply it to Rome’s oft-repeated claim that it “recognizes a country’s right and responsibility to manage its borders in accordance with the common good.”[1]
I call Rome’s claim that it “recognizes a country’s right and responsibility to manage its border in accordance with the common good” an extraordinary lie for the simple reason that I have never once seen any official of the Roman Church-State even agree with any government policy that restricts massive welfare migration in any way. Even the smallest measure taken by a government to keep its people from being overrun by the migrant hordes Rome unleashes on its people is met with strident objections from prelates of the Church-State such as Mark J. Seitz, Bishop of El Paso, TX, and U.S. Bishops’ Migration Chairman.
Pope Francis stands on an altar facing the U.S. before celebrating Mass during a February 2016 trip to Juarez. The papal visit was one of the El Paso Times’ top stories of 2016. Robin Zielinski/Las Cruces Sun-News
In his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania, John Robbins quoted Roman Catholic historian Brian Tierney’s comment on Rome’s doctrine of the of the two swords. This doctrine, which asserts that God had delegated both spiritual and temporal power to the bishop of Rome, is based on Luke 22:38 “And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” Wrote Tierney, “A whole inverted pyramid of political fantasy was erected on the basis of this one verse.”[1]
In much the same way as with the doctrine of the two swords, Rome likewise has erected a whole inverted pyramid of immigration fantasy on the basis of three verses in the second chapter of Matthew that record the flight into Egypt.
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son” (Matthew 2:13-15).
This flight, according to Pope Pius XII’s[2] 1952 Apostolic Constitution Exsul Familia Nazarethana,[3]the Émigré Family of Nazareth, hereafter EFN, is the “archetype of every refugee family.” In the words of Pius XII,
The émigré Holy Family of Nazareth, fleeing into Egypt, is the archetype of every refugee family. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, living in exile in Egypt to escape the fury of an evil king, are, for all times and all places, the models and protectors of every migrant, alien and refugee of whatever kind who, whether compelled by fear of persecution or by want, is forced to leave his native land, his beloved parents and relatives, his close friends, and to seek a foreign soil.[4]
Clearly, Joseph and his family were refugees under any reasonable definition of the term. Had they remained in Bethlehem, it is certain that Jesus would have been executed by King Herod, who “sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men” (Matthew 2:16) in his attempt to kill the newborn King of the Jews. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives the definition of refugee as, “one who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution.” According to the 1951 UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the term refugee applies to “any person who…owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” [5] The definition of “refugee” in US law is essentially the same as that of the 1951 UN Convention.
Members of a US-bound migrant caravan stand on a road after federal police briefly blocked their way outside the town of Arriaga, Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018. Hundreds of Mexican federal officers carrying plastic shields had blocked the caravan from advancing toward the United States, after several thousand of the migrants turned down the chance to apply for refugee status and obtain a Mexican offer of benefits.
In last week’s post, I detailed how a few GOP lawmakers have pointed the finger at Rome for its extraordinary role in promoting the extraordinary immigration treason carried out on a daily basis by the Biden Regime all along our Southwestern border.
Unsurprisingly, prelates of the Roman Catholic Church-State in good cry bully fashion have come out whining about all the supposedly unfair criticism of Holy Mother Church.
As a case in point, let’s look at a recent article by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, retired bishop of the Dioceses of Brooklyn. His piece titled “Fix the immigration system but don’t scapegoat the Church.” In the bishop’s opinion, the problem is not the millions of illegal aliens pouring across our southern border and imposing their costs on the American people. The problem is that there are not enough legal immigration channels. In his words, “the real issue the nation is confronting” is “a lack of legal channels for migration under our present immigration laws.”
Put another way, the ongoing immivasion of the United States and all its attendant evils is the fault of stingy American immigration laws and the selfish American people and the selfish politicians they elect. By no means is it the fault of the welfare migrants violating our immigration laws, and certainly it isn’t the fault of the Catholic Church or its eminent representatives such as, say, Bishop DiMarzio.
According to DiMarzio,
A review of the social ministry teaching of the Church will help dispel the doubts that have been placed in the public forum by some uninformed public officials. First, let me be clear: The Church does not advocate for open borders. In fact, the teaching is clear that a sovereign nation has the right to admit those whom it chooses, but it must be based on the common good — not only of the receiving nation but also of the migrants.
This is an extraordinary lie. The Roman Church-State by all means advocates for open borders and has zero respect for national sovereignty. In fact, there are few things in all the world that Rome hates more than sovereign nations making their own decisions without consulting the Antichrist popes of Rome.
“What freedom could the Pope be talking about,” I wondered. Freedom not to have my nation overrun by welfare migrants? Freedom not to be forced to pay for the housing, medical care, schooling, food, and a thousand other things for foreigners and illegal aliens? Freedom not to have children born in my country to illegal aliens declared instant American citizens with all the benefits thereof? Freedom not to have a replacement migration scheme run on the American people? Freedom not to be lectured by His Holiness (sic) and his lackeys about how I’m a bad person because I oppose having my land, as Isaiah put it, devoured by strangers?
No. Very obviously, the Papal Antichrist meant none of those things. The job of Antichrist is the to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. That’s how he rolls and he cannot do otherwise.
What Pope Francis meant by freedom is that migrants should be “free to choose whether to migrate or to stay.”
Those of us who are a bit older may remember a series on PBS some 40-odd years ago called “Free to Choose.” It was a series put out by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Freidman in defense of capitalism.
But Pope Francis, good socialist that he is, does not much care for capitalism, the system of free enterprise and private property found in the Bible. By “free to choose,” the Pope means that migrants are free to barge into your country and force you to pay to support them. And in Rome’s twisted way of thinking, it is your bounden duty to support them. Your “obligation” as various Roman Catholic prelates like to put it.
This supposed obligation to support migrants is a lie promoted by Rome to subvert independent nation-states and to further its own interests, chief among them the promotion of New World Order globalism. Although it may surprise some people to hear this, the Vatican, not the World Economic Forum, not the Bilderbergers, and not Bill Gates, is the beating heart of globalism. The Vatican has long used migration as a battering ram to undermine the relatively free and prosperous societies of the West – the relative freedom and prosperity of the West is the remnant of the 16th century Christian Reformation – and to bring them back under its sway, sway that was lost at the time of the Reformation and the ensuing Thirty Years’ War.
According to the article, “Pope Francis pointed out that the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt was not a free decision. This is the case with many migrants.”
Over the past few years, it’s been common to hear defenders of social media censorship retort to those who complain about, “Twitter is a private company, and they can ban whom they want. If you don’t like it, go start your own Twitter!”
One interesting aspect of this argument is that those who made it generally were individuals who were not known to respect laissez-faire capitalism or private property. In fact, they tended to be socialists of one stripe or another.
Those who complained about the censorship, generally those people who tended to favor political and economic liberty, then were wrongfooted. Either they felt they had to call for government regulation of social media, which contradicted their free market principles or to make charges that the government was behind the censorship, at which point they’d be called “conspiracy theorists.”
“Conspiracy theorist” is one of those terms that seemingly everyone wants to avoid. “I’m by no means a conspiracy theorist,” is a common turn of phrase people will use when they’re about to introduce an idea that sounds like a conspiracy theory. It’s as if to believe in conspiracies is the very height of ignorance, and that one must deny conspiracies exist if he wants to remain a member of society in good standing.
But conspiracies do exist and are even recognized in criminal law. In many Western nations, one can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. In the Bible, we find many conspiracies. When Absalom sought to overthrow David, his plot was rightly described in the King James Bible as a conspiracy. Twice, the Apostle Paul found himself the object of conspiracies to kill him. The arrest and crucifixion of Christ was the culmination of a three-year-long conspiracy by the Jewish religious leaders to get rid of the man they perceived, rightly, as a threat to their power. Doubtless, other examples of conspiracies can be found in the Bible, but these should be sufficient to make the point that conspiracies are not a figment of the imagination, but a documented historical reality.
If he has done nothing else, Elon Musk has exposed for all the world to see that the “conspiracy theorists” were right. As the Twitter Files have revealed, the government was deeply involved in the social media censorship business. Not that there was any lack of evidence of this previously. For example, the New York Post ran a headline on July 15, 2021, that read, “White House ‘flagging’ posts for Facebook to censor over COVID ‘misinformation.’” The Independent ran a piece on February 3, 2022, with the headline, “White House urges Spotify to take further action on Joe Rogan: “More can be done.’” Why did the White House want Spotify to censor Joe Rogan? It was due to the popular podcaster’s explosive interview with Dr. Robert Malone, who among other things, called the hysteria over Covid an example of “mass formation psychosis.”
A group of migrants from Venezuela planned their next steps at the Downtown El Paso Greyhound station after they were released to the streets as part of an effort by the Border Patrol to control the population at its El Paso Central Processing Center. The men gave their consent to be photographed. (Cindy Ramirez/El Paso Matters)
In his book Ecclesiastical Megalomania: the Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church, John Robbins argued that the Thomistic principle of the universal destination of all goods is so important in Catholic thought that all rights are subject to it. (Robbins, 1999)
This principle, the universal destination of all goods, is the idea that when God created the world, he gave it to man collectively. Robbins calls the universal destination of goods “original communism.”
One of the implications of the doctrine of the universal destination of all goods is that property rights are not absolute but can be overridden by other concerns. In Rome’s social teaching, need is the ultimate factor in determining rightful ownership. John Robbins explains it this way, according to Rome, “Whoever needs property ought to possess it. Need makes another’s goods one’s own. Need is the ultimate and only moral title to property.” (Robbins, 1999)
The Roman Church-State is fine with private property up to a point, but when things get serious, need is all that matters. If your neighbor needs something, and you have a surplus of what he needs, he can take it, and it’s neither a sin nor a crime for him to do so.
Robbins quotes Pope Paul VI writing in his encyclical On the Progress of Peoples:
…each man has therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council [Vatican II] reminded us of this: “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a reasonable basis.” All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle. (Robbins, 1999)
Vatican City, though small in size, has a worldwide footprint.
It’s been a while since I wrote an installment of Rome Watch, a series of posts designed to highlight the anti-Christian political beliefs and activities of the Roman Catholic Church-State.
I titled this one “Grab Bag” due to it being a collection of short pieces all with the central theme of Rome’s ongoing attack on political and economic liberty throughout the world.
Let The Eat Bugs!
Marie Antoinette is famously quoted as saying “Let them eat cake!” This saying is often held up as a model of aristocratic arrogance directed against the poor. But while Marie Antoinette is long gone, her spirit marches on. The 21st century variant on her famous saying seems to be “Let them eat bugs.” And it should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention that Pope Francis has joined in on the chorus of voices calling for all of us to “reimagine” our eating habits.
And while Pope Francis didn’t come right out and tell his audience at the EU Youth Conference to eat bugs, he did lecture them to eat less meat.
But the Pope’s message was right in line with the World Economic Forum (WEF) that famously put out a video a few years ago saying that by 2030 “You’ll own nothing and be happy.” While I’m entirely sure the Bond villain types that made up the WEF certainly would like it if ordinary people owned nothing by 2030, I’m not sure they’re going to get there. And if they do, of a truth none of us will be happy.
But what’s often overlooked in that same video is at the 0:34 mark we are told by our “betters” that we’ll eat much less meat. Further, we are lectured, it meat will be “an occasional treat,” kind of like when you give your dog a bone. This will be “for the good of the environment and our health.”
Interesting that the Pope, in his letter to the attendees of the EU Youth Forum, made this same argument. He wrote, “it would be appropriate to consume less meat: this too can help save the environment.”
So, what’s the connection to eating bugs? It’s this. This WEF has long pushed eating bugs as a solution to what it sees as an environmental problem caused by too many people. To solve this “problem,” the WEF believes we all must eat less meat and more bugs. Just take a look at the 2021 WEF video titled “Insects could soon be appearing on restaurant menus in Europe.”
Klaus Schwab really, really wants you to eat the bugs to save the planet. So does the Pope, but he’s not honest enough to come out and say so.
[W]here the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty
– 2 Corinthians 3:17
“Pope Francis: Climate Change Has Become An ‘Emergency’” ran the Breitbart headline from last Thursday, July 14. The occasion for this story was, “Pope Francis instruct[ing] the Holy See to sign onto the 2015 Paris Climate Accord.”
The Paris Climate Accord, a globalist power grab designed to strip citizens of their political and economic liberties in the name of stopping climate change, is one of many hoaxes used by globalists, including the Antichrist papacy, to destroy what remains of the Protestant Westphalian World Order (WWO) and to promote socialism and global government.
Not wanting Jorge Bergoglio (aka Francis I) to have all the fun, the very next day Joe Biden, America’s second Roman Catholic president, declared that he will move forward with his own initiatives to combat climate change and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
According to this article from CNBC, Biden made his remarks, “a day after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., told Democratic leadership that he won’t support the climate provisions in the reconciliation bill.”
Note that CNBC said nothing about Biden’s remarks following the Pope’s. No, that would let the cat out of the bag. Biden’s remarks were following Joe Manchin’s refusal to support “climate provisions.”
Just as the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century freed men from the spiritual tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church-State, so did it liberate them from Rome’s political and economic tyranny.
But the past 131 years have seen a steady decrease in political and economic liberty and a concomitant rise in Roman Catholic authoritarianism.
Lux Lucet 