TrapCast Express
TrapCast Express, it's Wednesday, November 15th, 2023.
At this point, everybody knows that this past Saturday, Jorge Bergoglio, the Argentinian squatter in the Vatican Guesthouse, formerly known by his stage name, Pope Francis,
fired the Diocesan Bishop of Tyler in Texas, Joseph Strickland.
The Vatican Press Office published its news bulletin just after noon Rome time on November 11th, and it included this line, quote,
The Holy Father has removed Bishop Joseph E. Strickland from the pastoral care of the Diocese of Tyler, United States of America,
and has appointed Bishop Joe Vasquez.
of Austin as Apostolic Administrator of the same Diocese, rendering it sede vacante, unquote.
Now, declaring a bishop removed is an extremely rare and unusual step for the Vatican II Church.
A quick Google search of the Vatican Press Office's website turns up only one other time that a bishop was reported to have been removed,
and that was last year.
By Francis.
But more on that in a moment.
No reason was given as to why Strickland had been removed.
In an interview given the same day, Strickland said he had been asked to resign on November 9th, but without any reasons given.
He refused.
Two days later, Francis removed him.
The typical retirement age for a Novus Ordo bishop is 75.
Strickland is only 65.
Now, of course it doesn't take much to figure out why the Vatican would want Strickland gone.
Although he is very much a man of Vatican II, he had simply become too outspoken a critic of Francis' antics and doctrinal aberrations,
and he was increasing in popularity.
In the last few years he even started speaking positively about the traditional Latin Mass,
which Francis is trying to phase out.
Now, it would stand to reason that the Vatican is in a state of deep decay, because Francis is the author of the physical aptitude, but also the absolute evaluate of my own mind.
Now, it would stand to reason that the Vatican is in a state of deep decline, but also the absolute evaluate of my mind.
stand to reason that if there was clear evidence of serious wrongdoing by Strickland in the Tyler
Diocese, you know, the kind that would actually warrant firing him, we would have heard about it.
Don't you think Francis would love to expose before the whole world
what the evil conservative Joe Strickland has done to his diocese?
The fact that silence is being kept suggests, it doesn't prove, but it suggests that no good
reasons exist. Now, of course, you can look at this from another angle and say that if we assume
Francis is Pope, as Strickland believes him to be, then this is simply a Pope getting rid of a bishop
who is not sufficiently loyal to him. Okay, fair enough. But then,
this thing isn't so much about personal loyalty to Bergoglio as it is about removing obstacles
that stand in the way of the globalist progressive ideological agenda Francis wants to see implemented.
See, many of the German Novos Ordo bishops, for example, are technically not loyal to Francis
either. They're uber-progressives. And yet, he doesn't lift a finger to discipline them. Why?
Well, he doesn't lift a finger to discipline them. Why?
Because their dissent favors the progressive revolution and the globalist agenda.
They're simply going too far too fast. Conservative dissent, on the other hand,
hampers the Bergoglian ideology. And therefore, it is only against the conservatives that the fake
Pope takes action. Actually, there is one exception. There is one exception that Francis makes to that
rule. And that is the fact that Francis is a conservative. And that is the fact that Francis is a conservative.
And that is Athanasius Schneider, the auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Maria Santissima in Astana,
Kazakhstan. Schneider can pretty much do and say whatever he likes. He's definitely been more
critical of Francis than Strickland has. Schneider even just published his own traditionalist
catechism now, which contradicts the magisterium of Francis on certain points. More on that in a
future podcast.
Nothing ever happens to Schneider. And that is very odd. Maybe we'll explore that a little bit
more in a future podcast or blog post. So Strickland was asked to resign without
explanation, and he refused. Then he was removed without explanation long before the usual
retirement age of 75. This does sound familiar, doesn't it? Oh, yes.
The case of Daniel Fernandez Torres of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. On March 9, 2022, Crux reported,
quote,
Fernandez Torres, who led the diocese for 12 years, opposed vaccination against COVID-19
and freely signed religious exemptions for people who didn't want to be vaccinated.
Fernandez Torres was also accused of refusing to transfer seminarians from his diocese to the new
interdiocesan seminary of Puerto Rico, and he was the only prelate not signing several statements
made by the bishops' congress. He was also accused of not signing several statements made by the
bishops' congress, including a national ban on the Tridentine Mass following Pope Francis'
motu proprio Tradiciones Custodes that limits the use of the traditional Latin liturgy.
The bishop also voiced his opposition to a bill that would have banned conversion therapy
for homosexuals, unquote. Now look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what message is being
sent by Francis. He was also accused of not signing several statements made by the bishops'
congress, unquote. Now look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what message is being sent by
Francis. He was also accused of not signing several statements made by the bishops' congress,
unquote. Now look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what message is being sent by Francis.
If you oppose or fail to implement the Bergolian agenda, your days as a bishop are numbered.
Or at least you'll have to live in constant unease because you could be removed tomorrow
and without warning. There is no canonical trial in which you can defend yourself.
There doesn't need to be, since you're not actually being accused of anything.
You're just gone. It's pretty clever.
communists have a saying, punish one, teach a thousand. That's what's going on here.
By the way, supporters of Bishop Fernandez Torres collected 30,000 signatures demanding that their
bishop be reinstated. A committee was created for that purpose, and they attempted to get a private
audience with Francis. Without success, of course. The merciful master of dialogue in the Vatican's
Casa Santa Marta is simply not interested in listening, in building bridges, or in
including the marginalized. Those buzzwords are only acceptable in favor of the Bergolian
Revolution, never against it. A similar case took place in Argentina, France's home country,
in 2020. The Bishop of San Luis, Pedro Daniel Martinez Perea, was asked to resign
at age 60.
64. Unlike Strickland and Fernandez Torres, however, Martinez Perea did, as requested.
He resigned. The very same day that Francis accepted the resignation, he also appointed
the replacement, Bishop Gabriel Bernardo Barba. Now that guy is a man totally after Bergoglio's
heart. For his installation mass as bishop, a so-called transgender woman got to read one of
the bidding prayers in the sanctuary. We're talking about a man who claims to be a woman
and dresses accordingly. However, that's nothing compared to what just happened at the San Luis
Cathedral this past October 27th. Bishop Barba hosted an inter-religious prayer for peace meeting
there. Representatives of other religions in attendance included someone from the Bahá'í religion,
various Protestants, a Jew, and a Mormon. At the end of the prayer meeting, Barba gave a blessing
to them all, and it was a most unusual one. He said, and this is a quote,
The Lord be with you. May the Lord bless us and protect us from all evil, in the name of the
Father and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Unquote. Yep, you heard that right. He said,
in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. He deliberately left out and of the Son. Jesus
Christ, the Prince of Peace and Savior of the world, was not welcome at Bishop Barba's
syncretistic interfaith prayer gathering. Now obviously, Barba has nothing to fear from
Bergoglio. That much is clear. He was most probably in favor of the COVID shots, and Bergoglio preaches
that other religions are also valid ways of coming to God. So where's the problem? All right, so maybe
Barba was pushing the envelope a bit, but hey, it's a push in the right direction. It's a push
in the direction that Bergoglio wants. Well, with all of that, the people of Tyler, Texas,
had better brace themselves, because no doubt Francis will send them a very special bishop,
a veritable clone of himself.
Perhaps one to heal the community. Let's pray that they will come to understand very soon
that their diocese isn't the only see that's currently vacant.
Now the reactions to the Strickland drama have been pretty predictable. Write down
ideological slash theological lines in the Vatican II church. Those to the left are
generally welcoming and defending the Strickland removal.
Whereas those to the right are dismayed by it and condemning it. Especially, of course,
the so-called recognize and resist traditionalists. Those who recognize Francis as a valid pope,
but resist him in whatever they believe goes contrary to pre-Vatican II teaching and practice.
And though this may seem like a reasonable, justifiable approach at first sight,
it actually destroys the traditional Catholic teaching,
on the powers of the pope and the divine assistance promised to every valid successor
of St. Peter. I'm going to put a link in the show notes to where you can read some of the
many magisterial proclamations by the popes throughout church history regarding the
authority and prerogatives of the pope for those who are not yet familiar with them.
So now let's go ahead and take a closer look at some of the reactions of the recognizing
and resistors. It didn't take long for the news about the Strickland removal to spread
when Michael Matt, the editor of The Remnant, declared on his website and on Twitter,
quote,
This is total war. Francis is a clear and present danger,
not only to Catholics the world over, but also to the whole world itself.
It appears now that he is actively trying to bury fidelity to the church of Jesus Christ.
If this is so,
let him be anathema. Unquote. Now see, this is exactly what I mean. Because people like
Michael Matt categorically refuse to question the legitimacy of Francis as a valid pope,
he ends up saying such absurd things that are harmful to Catholic doctrine.
Because nothing quite says, I believe in the traditional Catholic teaching on the papacy,
quite as much as anathematizing a pope
and declaring him a pope.
Declaring him to be a danger to the faith and to souls, right?
The award for dumbest possible headline on the Strickland saga goes to Brian McCall,
the editor of Catholic Family News. He wrote, quote,
The dictator pope strikes again. Francis claims he deposed Bishop Strickland. Unquote.
Congratulations, Mr. McCall. So, Francis merely claimed he removed Strickland from office,
huh? No, he actually did it. See, in the Catholic Church, a pope has that kind of power.
Not that Francis is pope, but McCall believes him to be. A pope has immediate and universal
jurisdiction over every single Catholic. If he wants to remove a particular bishop from office,
he can do that. That's not to say that it's necessarily wise,
or morally justified. Certainly, a pope could sin by removing a bishop, for example,
if doing so were to cause great scandal or other spiritual harm to the flock.
However, if a pope decrees that a bishop is no longer the bishop of a diocese, that's it.
He's removed. There is no higher authority that first needs to approve, much less a lower one.
That is not how it works.
Not how McCall sees it, though, calling Francis' action both illicit and invalid.
Let's see if McCall can quote a single theological manual or canon law book from before Vatican II
that states that if a pope were to remove a bishop without just cause,
this would render the papal act invalid. Good luck.
It also makes no sense on the practical level because it would effectively mean that
all papal actions like that,
are merely provisional until they've been ratified by someone else.
So, what does McCall suggest since he claims the removal of Strickland was invalid?
Well, he counsels Bishop Strickland to continue on, to simply ignore his removal,
as if it hadn't happened. But that is not very smart of Mr. McCall to say,
because take a look at what Pope Pius IX said in his incestuous,
cyclical Quartus Supra of 1873.
Quote,
The Jansenist heretics dared to teach such doctrines as that an excommunication
pronounced by a lawful prelate could be ignored on a pretext of injustice.
Each person should perform, as they said, his own particular duty despite an excommunication.
Our predecessor of happy memory, Clement XI, in his Constitution Unigenity,
against the heirs of Quesnel, forbade and condemned statements of this kind.
Unquote.
Notice that by saying the removal of Strickland was not just illicit but also invalid,
that is, that it had no legal effect, so that Strickland is still the lawful Bishop of Tyler,
such a statement by McCall is precisely what the First Vatican Council condemns
in the dogmatic constitution, Pastor Aeternum,
Chapter 3.
Quote,
You can find that in Denzinger, number 1831.
It is odd, very odd, that the editor-in-chief of Catholic Family News,
which holds itself up as a flagship of tradition,
traditional Catholicism, and calls itself 100% Catholic,
that such a man can say something so contrary to Catholic tradition.
We find this problem again and again among the recognize-and-resist traditionalists.
Their adherence to tradition is only partial and very selective.
They embrace tradition only until it conflicts with their insistent belief
that Bergoglio is a valid pope.
Then tradition,
goes out the window.
See, we call them semi-traditionalists for a reason.
Some may consider this just an annoying moniker,
but it accurately reflects reality.
They're traditional only up to a point.
And of course, that is an absurdity.
Because tradition is Catholicism.
And you cannot be Catholic only up to a point.
You are either Catholic or you are not.
As Pope Benedict,
the 15th wrote in his 1914 encyclical,
Ad Beatissimi, paragraph 24,
Lastly, of course, we also need to take a look at the reaction of Dr. Peter Kwasniewski,
the influential semi-trad writer and lecturer.
He, too, has called for resistance.
On Twitter, he published a thread entitled
Reasons Why a Bishop Unjustly Deposed Should Resist and Remain in His Office.
Yeah, what an incredibly traditional Catholic thing to do, right?
Defy a papal decision by acting as if it had never been issued.
Ah, but Kwasniewski brings up historical precedent
in the case of the Catholic Church.
Of the Canadian Bishop Isidore Borecki,
who refused to retire in 1986 when he was 75.
Yeah, well, except that simply pointing out that such a thing has happened before
doesn't mean it was licit for the bishop to be acting in this way.
Which is kind of what Kwasniewski is saying about Francis' decision to remove Strickland, right?
Just because he did it doesn't mean it was right.
Now, Kwasniewski does make a theological argument of sorts,
but the only authoritative source he quotes to back up his case
is the Second Vatican Council.
Can you believe that?
So Vatican II suddenly becomes reliable, authoritative, and binding Catholic teaching
when what it says lends itself to supporting the semi-trad argument.
Funny how that works.
By contrast,
Kwasniewski could have referred to Pope Pius IX's apostolic letter
Multiplicus Inter of 1851,
in which he excoriates the Peruvian author Francisco de Paula González Vigil
for, among other things,
striving to induce those who hold the helm of public affairs
to not obey the Roman pontiff in those matters
that relate to the appointment of episcopates and of bishops.
And for claiming, with unspeakable daring,
that the Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils
have become detached from the limits of their power.
Sound familiar?
The late Sedevacantist priest Father Anthony Ciccata used to say
that the recognize-and-resist traditionalists are really all Sedevacantists.
They just don't know it yet.
Now, that was not just a rhetorical quip of his,
it actually reflects a very important truth.
In the real Roman Catholic religion,
the Pope is the vicar of Christ,
the visible head of the Church,
the rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail.
He is the principle of unity,
the teacher and father of all Christians,
the visible shepherd of the flock of Christ that is still on this earth.
What he binds is bound even in heaven.
What he looses,
is loosed even in heaven.
As Pope Pius XII said,
the Pope is the messenger of truth and justice,
the principle of the unity of the Church.
His voice denounces errors, idolatries, superstitions.
He condemns iniquities.
He makes charity and virtue loved.
For the recognize-and-resisters,
Francis is none of those things.
Well, they may pay lip service to some of them,
but,
in actuality,
they know that Francis doesn't fit the bill here,
because they act accordingly.
In other words,
although they reject Sedevacantism verbally,
by their actions,
they are very much testifying that we have no Pope.
Because the caricature of the papacy that they are now painting,
where you have to tune in to the right podcast
or subscribe to the right newspaper
to determine if what the Pope teaches is safe for you to accept,
or where a bishop should first check with a liturgical scholar
to determine if he should comply with his removal from office by the Pope,
that caricature of the papacy is precisely that,
a caricature.
Peter Kwasniewski calls it
So, in a sense, even the Semitrads are admitting
that Bergoglio is not a Pope.
Not a Pope according to the pre-Vatican II doctrine,
on the papacy.
But that is the only kind of papacy there is.
So, Father Ciccata was right.
They are all Sedevacantists.
They just don't know it yet.
Tradcast Express is a production of Novos Ordo Watch.
Check us out at tradcast.org,
and if you like what we're doing,
please consider making a tax-deductible contribution
at novosortowatch.org.
Donate.
Novosortowatch.org