Tema: Socialist politician says Spanish bishop should be 'muzzled'.

Finally, this politician has rectified his words publicly.

The problem with the spanish bishops is that they form part of the juancarlirst political system. So, they don´t really make a serious opposition against the politicians of the "single" party (PP and PSOE, more or less are the same as the Republic and Democrat party in America) of the regimen which are tyrannizing us currently. This is like an "anglican church" at the service of the political regimen.

It is all pure theater and this, unfortunately, is a consequence of the control of the spanish Church by the revolucionarian demoliberal system (currently incarnated in the illegimitate Juan Carlos) since the Concordat of 1851 (in which the Vatican pacted with the revolutionary regimen that took the political power in The Spains since 1833).

This control of the Church by the revolutionary regimen has been higher and worse since the horrible Council Vatican II (there was an absolute change of the spanish bishops with other liberal-moral bishops supported from the Vatican in the ´60 and ´70 decades) and the coming of the current agnostic political system in 1975, when Juan Carlos inherited the political power from Franco.

Iniciado por Martin Ant

Finally, this politician has rectified his words publicly.

The problem with the spanish bishops is that they form part of the juancarlirst political system. So, they don´t really make a serious opposition against the politicians of the "single" party (PP and PSOE, more or less are the same as the Republic and Democrat party in America) of the regimen which are tyrannizing us currently. This is like an "anglican church" at the service of the political regimen.

It is all pure theater and this, unfortunately, is a consequence of the control of the spanish Church by the revolucionarian demoliberal system (currently incarnated in the illegimitate Juan Carlos) since the Concordat of 1851 (in which the Vatican pacted with the revolutionary regimen that took the political power in The Spains since 1833).

This control of the Church by the revolutionary regimen has been higher and worse since the horrible Council Vatican II (there was an absolute change of the spanish bishops with other liberal-moral bishops supported from the Vatican in the ´60 and ´70 decades) and the coming of the current agnostic political system in 1975, when Juan Carlos inherited the political power from Franco.

So you think that the bishop's moral outrage is simply a a bit of false piety? If the bishop is a political tool then I can see how this might be true- this is largely how much of the clergy in the US tends to operate: in cooperation with the Democrat-Republican political machine.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

So you think that the bishop's moral outrage is simply a a bit of false piety? If the bishop is a political tool then I can see how this might be true- this is largely how much of the clergy in the US tends to operate: in cooperation with the Democrat-Republican political machine.

I think he actually refers to the fact that the bishop has not received an unanimous and total defence by their own prelate brethen, who sometimes appear to be silenced and tied-handed in an intriguing and sad way.

So you think that the bishop's moral outrage is simply a a bit of false piety?

No.no. Surely, the bishop is honest when he denounce the anticatholic laws that the political machine expend every day. What I mean is that this same bishop will never denounce the actual cause of this anticatholic legislation: the anticatholic constitucional system (with Juan Carlos at its top) which we suffer the spaniards.

The bishops will denounce this or that single law o act of that or this single Goverment or political party, but they will never denounce the constitutional law nor the illegitimacy of Juan Carlos as King, because these are political "dogmas" untouchables but wich are, at the same time, the actual cause of the anticatholic legislation, administration and judicature which we are suffering.

It is in this way that the bishops are submitted to the political power, in order to calm the spanish people which is yet catholic mainly and, in this way, preventing to change the current atheistic political regimen with a constitutional catholic regimen.

Iniciado por Christabel

I think he actually refers to the fact that the bishop has not received an unanimous and total defence by their own prelate brethen, who sometimes appear to be silenced and tied-handed in an intriguing and sad way.

Ah! I suppose that's true as well- and it's a better explanation than to simply assume that the bishop is being used as a political tool or is speaking one thing while believing another thing. And yes it's sad that the clergy has its hands tied- I see this in the US from time-to-time where members of the clergy will speak out and... No one notices.

Iniciado por Martin Ant

No.no. Surely, the bishop is honest when he denounce the anticatholic laws that the political machine expend every day. What I mean is that this same bishop will never denounce the actual cause of this anticatholic legislation: the anticatholic constitucional system (with Juan Carlos at its top) which we suffer the spaniards.

The bishops will denounce this or that single law o act of that or this single Goverment or political party, but they will never denounce the constitutional law nor the illegitimacy of Juan Carlos as King, because these are political "dogmas" untouchables but wich are, at the same time, the actual cause of the anticatholic legislation, administration and judicature which we are suffering.

It is in this way that the bishops are submitted to the political power, in order to calm the spanish people which is yet catholic mainly and, in this way, preventing to change the current atheistic political regimen with a constitutional catholic regimen.

Understood! An analogy would be the failure of the bishops and cardinals of the US to speak out against the increasing outrages of the Obama administration, i.e. foisting all kinds of things upon the country (gay marriage for example). It's a common assumption that the Catholic clergy in the US is often complicit in such matters because of the but it could very well be what you say in the case of Spain: an inability or unwillingness to address the root cause of the abominations itself.

an inability or unwillingness to address the root cause of the abominations itself

Exactly! I would say better: "an inability and unwillingness to address the root cause of the abominations itself"

At any rate, as I said before, the mean reason of this lack of denounce of the root causes by the bishops is that the Vatican has given explicit orders in this way of no criticizing and submitting to the current atheistic political regimen. It is tragic and sad, but these are the lamentable true facts.

Iniciado por Martin Ant

Exactly! I would say better: "an inability and unwillingness to address the root cause of the abominations itself"

At any rate, as I said before, the mean reason of this lack of denounce of the root causes by the bishops is that the Vatican has given explicit orders in this way of no criticizing and submitting to the current atheistic political regimen. It is tragic and sad, but these are the lamentable true facts.

Does the Vatican have something to fear which is so obvious in Spanish (and American and...) society? I'm trying to wonder why the Church, at least at some of the higher levels of the prelature, seems unable and unwilling to state the obvious. In the US for a bishop, archbishop, cardinal, etc. to make a public statement is unusual- and it's usually on a singular issue (i.e. such as the attempt of the Obama administration to force contraception on Catholic-sponsored employers) rather than on the overall problem itself (i.e. the antichrist nature of the American political regime). Parish priests and members of the laity are often far more outspoken in this way.

You can show your support to the Bishop of Cordoba by signing this letter. I opened a post in Spanish about it including the bishop's letter here Carta del Sr. obispo de Córdoba sobre la destructiva ideología de género

I don't totally agree with Martin Ant. I don't think that this is what the revolutionaries of the 19th or even 20th century -as bad as they indeed were- thought of freedom. None of these revolutionaries, 19th century liberals or even commies, thought they were fighting for fags, dykes or IVF. However, I agree that this is what we got as a consequence of implementing this "freedom above everything" constitutional mentality, that allowed bringing in the ideas of the neo-Marxist school of Frankfurt and the "hippy" movement of Western Europe and North America since the 60s.

I think Spain can't be compared to the US in this matter. Up to the present day, there are still some priests, either carlist or francoist, that don't agree with this "democracy". Of course they are a small minority, but some can still be found. I wonder if there is a single priest in the US thinking this way, since the US was born as a constitutional liberal State and the so called freedom of religion, which the traditional Church always stood against (except for freedom to the true religion) is a dogma of the US since the beginning. I wonder how the US priests of the SSPX think politically. It would also be interesting to see where the influences came from for Vatican II changes to take place. Perhaps they originally came from catholic clergy men from non-catholic countries. That would explain something...

Iniciado por Rodrigo

I think Spain can't be compared to the US in this matter. Up to the present day, there are still some priests, either carlist or francoist, that don't agree with this "democracy". Of course they are a small minority, but some can still be found. I wonder if there is a single priest in the US thinking this way, since the US was born as a constitutional liberal State and the so called freedom of religion, which the traditional Church always stood against (except for freedom to the true religion) is a dogma of the US since the beginning. I wonder how the US priests of the SSPX think politically. It would also be interesting to see where the influences came from for Vatican II changes to take place. Perhaps they originally came from catholic clergy men from non-catholic countries. That would explain something...

Signed the letter before replying.

For what it's worth, as I approach official conversion to Catholicism I think that having been raised in Protestantism served as a basic but incomplete introduction to Christianity. However further instruction is required in my case to become fully Christian. The US was founded with a noble idea in mind but the end result has become a bit of a sociopolitical horror and the leading power of the world degeneracy as it's the direct inheritor of the British Empire. Now the Obama gang is ruling here- the end result of decades of progressive scheming.

The US was founded with the idea of freedom of the Christian religion in mind since there were many here who thought of themselves as Christians- including Catholics. The founders of the US were men who were of English descent, a country which had been outside of communion with the Church since the schism of King Henry VIII. However prior to this, for about a millenium, England had been a Catholic country for a millenium.

Sorry, digressing into history here. I know that my country isn't seen in the best light here but it's the only country I've ever had- and if I can do my individual part to make it more aware of Catholicism I will do what I can.

Iniciado por Annuit Coeptis

The US was founded with the idea of freedom of the Christian religion in mind since there were many here who thought of themselves as Christians- including Catholics. The founders of the US were men who were of English descent, a country which had been outside of communion with the Church since the schism of King Henry VIII. However prior to this, for about a millenium, England had been a Catholic country for a millenium.

Sorry, digressing into history here. I know that my country isn't seen in the best light here but it's the only country I've ever had- and if I can do my individual part to make it more aware of Catholicism I will do what I can.

I have nothing against American people, sorry if I sound harsh sometimes. I must really congratulate you for your conversion!! I also think your approach to Catholic Tradition considering your European and Anglosaxon heritage, which was once part of what we called the Christendom, when Christians were united in One Church, is the correct one. Of course you can be a US citizen and a good Catholic! I wouldn't dare to say the contrary. I was just saying that I don't think there are any Catholic priests or lay people in your country that would advocate, say real Monarchy, or any other system that would undermine the current western party system. However, there is a really good Catholic activism in the US and many conversions to Catholicism, while in our Catholic Hispanic countries the conversions go sadly the other way around to Evangelicalism or other cults...


By the way, if you're interested in Monarchism, politically or historically, you might be interested in Jacobitism. Even though it's already probably a dead movement, it had many similarities with Carlism. They were both Catholic Monarchist movements based on legitimate succession. While Carlism's stronholds were Navarre, the Basque Provinces and other rural areas in northern Spain, Jacobitism's stronghold was the Scottish Highlands but was supported by Catholics in Ireland and England, as well. I don't know if there was any Jacobite activity in the English Colonies.

I agree that this is what we got as a consequence of implementing this "freedom above everything" constitutional mentality

Well, Rodrigo, that is what I wanted to say.

Of course the revolutionaries of 19th century and the first midd of 20th century didn´t want homosexual laws, but implicitly the revolutionary mentality is in the root cause of the natural consequence of this anthicatolic current laws.

So, the fact that the spanish bishops denounce this or that anticatholic law is good, and they make good doing that. But the problem is that the Vatican, since 1851, told the spanish bishops to accept the revolutionary constitutional-political regime (with the illegitimate liberal anti-kings at its top), which is the root or actual cause of all of these anticatholic laws.

The carlist never accepted that (remember what they ansewered to Leo XIII when this Pope told them to accept Maria Cristiana and her constitutional regime).

Iniciado por Rodrigo

I have nothing against American people, sorry if I sound harsh sometimes. I must really congratulate you for your conversion!! I also think your approach to Catholic Tradition considering your European and Anglosaxon heritage, which was once part of what we called the Christendom, when Christians were united in One Church, is the correct one. Of course you can be a US citizen and a good Catholic! I wouldn't dare to say the contrary. I was just saying that I don't think there are any Catholic priests or lay people in your country that would advocate, say real Monarchy, or any other system that would undermine the current western party system. However, there is a really good Catholic activism in the US and many conversions to Catholicism, while in our Catholic Hispanic countries the conversions go sadly the other way around to Evangelicalism or other cults...

The feeling that I have is that a Protestant background sort of served to prepare me for eventual conversion to Catholicism. It's kind of like I was enticed to learn more about the Church (or motivated by the Holy Spirit more accurately). My interest in Catholicism started in my teenage years, so you can imagine it took about 20 years to finally arrive at this point.

The division of Christendom thanks to the period of "Renaissance, Reformation, and Revolution" more or less left tens of millions of Protestants deluded and out-of-touch with the history and heritage of Christianity. It's as if Christianity suddenly began with Luther's 95 theses with the previous 11 or 12 centuries being completely irrelevant. People of European-Protestant descent in the US are pretty much looking at Christianity in a way that can only be called.. misinformed.
Lost sheep indeed.

By the way, if you're interested in Monarchism, politically or historically, you might be interested in Jacobitism. Even though it's already probably a dead movement, it had many similarities with Carlism. They were both Catholic Monarchist movements based on legitimate succession. While Carlism's stronholds were Navarre, the Basque Provinces and other rural areas in northern Spain, Jacobitism's stronghold was the Scottish Highlands but was supported by Catholics in Ireland and England, as well. I don't know if there was any Jacobite activity in the English Colonies.

I found this website about the Jacobites:

The Jacobite Heritage

"Jacobites deny the validity of the usurpation of the throne first by the Prince and Princess of Orange (1688/9), next by the Princess Anne of Denmark (1701/2), and finally by the Elector Georg I of Hannover (1714) and his heirs to this day.

For Jacobites, King James II and VII continued to reign until his death in 1701. He was succeeded by his son, James III and VIII, who in turn was succeeded by his sons, Charles III and Henry IX and I. By the death of the latter in 1807 the legitimate male line of the Royal House of Stuart became extinct. The succession to the throne then passed to the senior heir of King Charles I, descended from his youngest daughter Henrietta Anne; this prince was none other than Charles Emanuel IV of Savoy. The succession to the throne has continued until today when it is represented by Duke Francis of Bavaria.

Jacobitism is, however, more than merely a belief that a different person has the best right to the throne. It is also a radically different understanding of the place which the monarch and the monarchy have within society. Jacobites reject the idea that the king has his authority delegated to him by Parliament. Many hold that the king's authority comes directly from Almighty God."

Interesting! I actually have considered monarchism to some extent, thinking of the Catholic kings of England (and France to some extent- some of my ancestors were from there) of the past (the House of Wessex, the House of Plantagenet, and so on). The idea that the king's authority is directly given by God (with the consent of the people perhaps?) is an anachronism- but it's entirely biblical and was the foundation of Christian civilization for over 1,000 years. The current royal family in the UK isn't worthy of respect and personal fealty as far as I'm concerned. I'll have to take a look at the Jacobites a bit more- and there seem to be Jacobites of various kinds here and there around the world.

I found another website regarding the Jacobites:

Royal Stuart Society
We are a monarchist and traditionalist organisation whose basis is defined in our objectives which are:

• to be open to all who have an interest in the members of the Royal House of Stuart, their descendants and supporters
• to promote research in and further knowledge of Stuart history
• to uphold rightful Monarchy and oppose republicanism
• to arrange such commemorations, lectures and other activities as shall advance these objects.

Ah-ha. The House of Stuart- which I'm somewhat familiar with. Catherine of Braganza, who has a thread here in the English section, was married to Charles II.

It's good to see that there's still some jacobite activity. There's an interesting documentary about the history of Scotland which dedicates an episode to the jacobite uprisings:



I also posted it here History of Jacobitism on the BBC

I doubt that the typical American citizen, steeped in hostility to the idea of monarchism, could put up with the idea of a king- especially a Catholic king. The supposed superiority of the American system creates a sort-of arrogance in the minds of many here- as if US "democracy" (a form of government that the nation's founders disliked as much as monarchy). A secular government based on republicanism was set up here and, while it lasted, it worked very well since the first couple of generation of US leaders were men of high character of mixed Christian belief. The only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence was Charles Carroll:

Charles Carroll of Carrollton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The influence of Catholicism in Colonial America and the early US isn't well-known.

The Jacobite Rebellions seem to be a complex topic; they were (and are) a mixture of Catholic and Protestant and it seems that not all of them recognize the currently-accepted heir, Franz, Duke of Bavaria:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria

Any monarchist in America would have to, say, choose between the House of Windsor or some other alternative (i.e. the House of Stuart and its heirs). Monarchism is opposed to democracy and republicanism; democracy more or less destroys itself with factionalism and a republic can only function when there are persons of morality in power and the idea of checks and balances in government are respected. I think that the American experiment has proven how incompatible democracy and republicanism are with the traditional notions of Christian kingship.

The idea of a Christian king ruling in absolutism like Louis XIV isn't a given- Theodoric as King of Italy kept the Senate in operation as an advisory body and the Byzantine Emperors were also advised by a Senate in the old form. In both cases it was still clear who the monarch was however.