Just hours after Pope Francis removed Bishop Joseph Strickland as the head of the Diocese of Tyler, the Texas prelate went public to share his side of the story — filling in some blanks in the gripping saga that has put the now-former ordinary of the small northeastern Texas diocese into the global spotlight, but also leaving other critical questions unanswered.
Strickland revealed, in an exclusive Nov. 11 interview with LifeSiteNews, conducted shortly after the Vatican announced Pope Francis had relieved him from the “pastoral governance” of Tyler, why he thinks he was removed from office.
“I really can’t look to any reason except I’ve threatened some of the powers that be with the truth of the Gospel,” said Strickland, a controversial prelate who regularly speaks out against what he sees as attacks on the teachings of the Catholic Church to his sizable social media following.
During the interview, Strickland also underscored that Pope Francis has the authority to remove him from diocesan governance, and frequently encouraged those upset or confused by the development to pray for the pope and not to leave the Church.
But the 30-minute media appearance did not answer several key unknowns in the Strickland saga, such as what the Vatican’s stated reasons — if any were given — were for the dramatic step, and also, concretely, what comes next for the now diocese-less bishop. Here’s what Strickland had to say, and what remains unanswered.
Why was he removed?
Strickland shared that he had been asked to resign on Nov. 9, but that he “couldn’t, of my will, abandon the flock that I’d been given.”
That version of events checks out with a Nov. 11 statement from Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, who as head of the Archdiocese Galveston-Houston is the metropolitan of the ecclesiastical province that includes the Diocese of Tyler.
In his statement, DiNardo said that following a June apostolic visitation by two retired American bishops at the behest of the Vatican that included “an exhaustive inquiry into all aspects of the governance and leadership” of Tyler under Strickland, a recommendation was made to Pope Francis that “the continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.”
After months of deliberation, the Texas bishop was presented with a request to resign, and “the Holy Father removed Bishop Strickland from the Office of Bishop of Tyler” when the prelate declined the request, Cardinal DiNardo wrote.
The findings of the apostolic visitation have not been published, nor has the Vatican disclosed why Strickland was removed from office.
When asked what was behind Pope Francis’ decision, Strickland said, “The only answer I have to that is because forces in the Church right now don’t want the truth of the Gospel.” He added, “They want it changed. They want it ignored.”
Strickland did not accuse Pope Francis of being part of this push to undermine Church teaching, but he did say that “many forces are working at him and influencing him to make these kinds of decisions.” For those “forces,” the bishop said, “I’m a problem,” and so they pushed for the “removal of a bishop for standing with the Gospel.”
Strickland didn’t get specific about what “standing with the Gospel” entails, but he was likely alluding to his outspokenness and provocative statements on social media platforms and public speaking events.
For instance, Strickland tweeted on May 12 that he rejected what he called Pope Francis’ “program of undermining the Deposit of Faith” — a provocation, according to media reports, Vatican figures said “crossed the line,” prompting the apostolic visitation.
He has also repeatedly criticized the pope for a “dangerous” lack of clarity in his statements, especially related to sexuality, and has been a vocal critic of Pope Francis’ Synod on Synodality.
“Regrettably, it may be that some will label as schismatics those who disagree with the changes being proposed,” Strickland wrote in a public letter in August. “Instead, those who would propose changes to that which cannot be changed seek to commandeer Christ’s Church, and they are indeed the true schismatics.”
Did diocesan governance concerns factor in?
But according to multiple media reports on both the June apostolic visitation and ensuing discussions within the Vatican’s Dicastery of Bishops, Church officials were also seriously concerned about major issues with Strickland’s governance of the Tyler diocese. These concerns reportedly centered on concerns over large-scale diocesan staff turnover, hiring a controversial former religious sister as a high school employee, and support of a controversial planned Catholic community.
Strickland seemed to address these concerns obliquely in his LSN interview.
“No place is perfect, no family is perfect,” he said. “But the diocese is in good shape.”
The bishop cited the Diocese of Tyler’s high number of seminarians — 21 for a diocese with under 120,000 Catholics — and also noted that the diocese is in a position of financial strength due to “tremendous generosity from the people.”
“I’m so proud of the priests and the diocese,” said Strickland, adding that given what he sees as the success of the diocese under his leadership, he couldn’t identify any other reason for his removal other than the threat he poses to those trying to change Church teaching.
Was Bishop Strickland told why he was removed?
Earlier that day, however, Strickland seemed to indicate that there may have been more concrete reasons given for the action taken against him.
“I stand by all the things that were listed as complaints against me,” he told LSN in a brief article that was published before his 30-minute interview. “I know I didn’t implement Traditiones Custodes” — the pope’s 2021 restriction of the Traditional Latin Mass — “because I can’t starve out part of my flock.”
Taken together, the bishop’s answers make it unclear not only why, exactly, Pope Francis ultimately decided to remove him, but also whether Strickland himself was informed of the rationale for the decision.
What will he do now?
Bishop Strickland acknowledged that he will need to “honestly unpack” what it means to no longer be the bishop of Tyler, and to “sort of regroup” in terms of what his role as a “successor of the Apostles without a local diocese to care for” will look like going forward.
“I don’t have the answers right now,” Strickland said when asked what the future holds for him. “Lots of questions, lots of empty calendars that will be, I’m sure, filled in different ways.”
One possibility is an increase in engagement well beyond Texas — something the bishop was already doing well before he was removed from the leadership of Tyler, which helped earn him the title “America’s bishop” among his devotees.
For instance, Bishop Strickland has over 162,000 followers on the social media platform X, (formerly known as Twitter) — a figure 40,000 people higher than the total number of Catholics in his former diocese. He removed any reference to the Diocese of Tyler on the account on Nov. 11 and could maintain access to it despite being without a diocese.
Bishop Strickland also accepted invitations to many speaking engagements outside of the Diocese of Tyler For instance, he traveled to California this past summer to participate in a rally responding to the Los Angeles Dodgers honoring an anti-Catholic drag organization. The Archdiocese of Los Angeles had condemned the Dodgers’ actions, but also underscored that the event Strickland participated in did not have archdiocesan “backing or approval.”
It is also unclear where the former bishop of Tyler will live, and how he will receive financial support.
Will he be at the USCCB meeting?
One question that did not come up during his LSN interview, but is on the mind of at least some Church-watchers: Will Strickland, now without a diocese, attend the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops fall meeting, which starts on Nov. 14?
While Bishop Strickland has been known to make noteworthy public interventions from the floor of previous USCCB assemblies, his presence at a meeting only days after his removal from office would be a dominant storyline — and potentially a major distraction.
A lot is uncertain about Bishop Strickland’s future. But, at least based on his comments to LSN, prayer will be a big part of it.
“I encourage myself and others to go more deeply than ever into prayer, to pray for Pope Francis, to pray for the Church, and to pray for our world.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
If some CWR readers might wish to conclude that the Jesuits are targeting non-Jesuits, we might be reminded of how they turned on even one of their own….
In the 1970s, yours truly found a way to withhold personal judgment against Cardinal Danielou, SJ, because it was still possible that the real story possibly was not yet known. The truth finally came out forty years later! Here’s a letter-to-the-editor, published in “Inside the Vatican,” August/Sept. 2012. It’s taped inside the cover of my copy of Danielou’s “Prayer as a Political Problem” (1965), a short piece well worth re-reading today:
_______________
THE LETTER: “The eminent Italian Vaticanist, Sandro Magister, wrote a disturbing article in your June-July issue on the evil machinations of the Jesuit Order against their confrere, Cardinal Jean Danielou (“The Quarantine Has Ended”). For years I and millions of Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide were convinced this brilliant Jesuit theologian had had a heart attack and died in the house of a prostitute whom he was supposedly frequenting. Instead, now–after 40 years–we finally know the truth the Jesuits have known for 40 years and never told the world: He was on an errand of mercy.
“Cardinal Danielou had gone to bring her money to pay for a lawyer capable of getting her husband out of prison. ‘The Jesuits conducted exhaustive investigations to discover the truth,’ Magister writes. ‘They ascertained his innocence. But they also shrouded the case in a silence that did not dispel the suspicions [!] [….]
“Shame on the Jesuits for their hostility to this holy man, this cardinal of Holy Mother Church, this brother who had the John-the-Baptist courage to tell his brothers the truth about themselves. I hope that some day the Church will canonize this holy man who spoke truth to power [!]” (Rev. Gino Dalpiaz, C.S., Chicago, Illinois, USA; RIP 2019).
_______________
So, why are Danielou and his book still valuable?
Partly because he counsels those intent on saving their souls that we also/therefore have a responsibility to get into the thick of things worldly and to leaven such affairs. A problematic message (Gaudium et Spes!), and, one motive behind today’s Church consultations (sic “synods”). IF they can rise above being exploited by “forwardist” ideologies external/internal to the perennial Catholic Church. The general challenge is summarized nicely in an adage long valued by those coming from long careers in private, public-private, and public agency trench warfare: “HOW TO COMMIT TRUTH, and GET AWAY WITH IT!”
Perhaps Synod 2024 can likewise become biblically “sly as foxes AND innocent as doves”?
Both always together,,,that is, to not exclude the so-called “backwardists” from outside “the bubble.” Such a reset could be a respected legacy for true consultation and open dialogue; for a distinct and accountable “Synod (of Bishops)” together with the one papacy; and for the faithful, everywhere, under the “universal call to holiness”—even including exiles in the mold of Cardinal Danielou.
If I may speculate, Bishop Strickland was removed because he stood for orthodoxy.
St. Athanasius, pray for us.
Bishop Strickland was removed for his fearless pro-life leadership, especially in private. His authentic, outspoken witness for the vulnerable unborn and sick was a constant irritation and embarrassment.
Only God judges the heart, but we have witnessed his peers curry favor with Death.
We don’t really know that yet. Only speculation.
Yes we do. Even the claim that Strickland has crossed some “line” in describing Francis as undermining the Deposit of Faith is preposterous. Francis has not only undermined the Deposit of Raith, he has boasted that he has. Francis has crossed this line continuously. Francis has smashed this line and led loud marching bands to accompany him and his acolytes in heresies while crossing this line of attacks on the Deposit of Faith.
It’s disgraceful that a faithful Bishop gets removed for mean tweets while the likes of Cupich, McElroy and Tucho Fernandez openly flirt with heresy (not to mention the even worse German Bishops) and not only are they not fired, but even get promoted.
Please God, let this trainwreck of a Pontificate come to an end.
#1. Bishop Strickland is still a bishop and possesses all the teaching authority that comes with being consecrated a bishop. For that reason he should attend the meetings of the USCCB.
#2. Bishop Strickland’s teaching authority in the future is likely to be an even more authoritative voice to many.
#3. With the internet at his disposal, it makes no difference where Bishop Strickland lives. Even if the Pope sends him to live in Ulan Bator, he still has a voice.
#4. A lesson to all bishops:in your meetings with other bishops, especially those sent by the Pope to do “visitations” or with meeting with the Pope himself or his Vatican Curia, make sure you’re wired. God knows how inclined people are to lie about what was discussed or not discussed in private. (Remember how Francis lied when he said that Vigano never told him about McCarrick?)
#5 Say what you will about the Bergolian Papacy – he’s legitimate, he’s apostate, he’s a heretic, the See of Peter is empty – there’s one thing that’s indisputably true i.e. he’s a force of disunity in the Church. He’s created division among Cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, and laity. The very office of the Pope require that he teach clearly the Magisterium, maintain safely the Deposit of Faith and that he is an influence for unity in the Church. On these, this Pope is and will be judged.
I suggest that Bishop Strickland go on exile and join Auxiliary Bishop Schneider in his diocese of Astana, Kazakhstan (in Central Asia in the former Soviet Union) to consolidate their leadership of the anti-Pope Francis forces.
I imagine Bishop Strickland will have many opportunities to do good work in his own nation. But like Bishop Schneider, he might do a little traveling also. Bishop Schneider gets around.
🙂
Is it me or does it seem that Bishop Schneider is everywhere but his home diocese?
#4 might be a good idea for priests too.
However, an issue arises if there are things recorded that would imperil legitimate privacy concerns if revealed.
For example, presumable Bishop Strickland could release the Vatican’s list of things he did wrong rather than talking abstractly about powers at work (since he claimed TC was on it). But not if some items on the list are bound up with some third party’s private affairs.
Bishop Strickland left Pope Francis with no choice. That is why. The bishop whose celebrity status has obviously gone into his head by continuously attacking the Pope through the means of social media tweets to attract the world’s attention (in contrast to the more prudent Cardinals, Bishops, and presbyters who confine their critiques of the Pope’s teaching in the form of formal and discreet writings, talks, or dubias) has actually ceased functioning to be a true bishop a long time ago. In the theological principle called collegiality, bishops truly function only in a collegial manner with and under the Pope “cum et sub Petro” (Catechism and of the Catholic Church 883 to 885). In Strickland’s pride, he not only cut himself off from the College of Bishops under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, but even positioned himself above the Pope by erroneously judging and slandering him with ever growing imflammatory rhetoric: “a heretic,” “an illegitimate Pope,” “satanic clown of a Pope,” “a usurper of the papal throne.” With these unhinged declarations Strickland has openly revealed his heretical sedevacantist views. His fellow bishops who conducted that June visitation (investigation) of him suggested that he resign. Preferring to come out the martyr of the sedevacantist anti-Pope Francis forces, Strickland resisted and declined. Pope Francis was left with no choice but to fire him.
Slander
Your quotes are not of Bisop Strickland, but of various other persons he quoted or shared. Given he has specifically, repeatedly, and continuously stated that Pope Francis is the Pope, and has the authority to remove him, and consistantly calls him Pope Francis, you can’t exactly claim he’s a sedevacantist without an explainer. You might say his statements are suspicious. So are the Pope’s. But they can be reasonably and charitably interpreted to be schism-free.
You ought to read the CCC more carefully, and include the rest of the chapter. “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power” which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.” Vatican 2 (Lumen Gentium) has a bit about bishops receiving their authority from Christ, rather than being extensions of the Pope. So Bishop Strickland still has the teaching authority of the Apostles and the faculties for all of the Sacraments. He doesn’t have a diocese, but effectively, neither do many cardinals.
That Strickland crossed the line into sedevacantism can best be proven from a
sampling of relevant lines in his October 31, 2023 speech at the Rome Life Forum. Sedevacantism is the belief held by those who identify as Catholics yet claim that the office of the Pope is currently vacant and has been vacant since a certain point in history. In other words, the papal seat is vacant, from the Latin “sede vacante,” the seat being vacant. The Code of Canon Law 751 places sedevacantism alongside schism as the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Here below are Strickland’s open sedevacantist declaration of the papacy as presently vacant because for him Pope Francis is only a usurper of the papal throne and not the true pope:
“Would you now allow this one (Pope Francis) who has pushed aside the true Pope and has attempted to sit on a chair that is not his define what the Church is to be.”
“This usurper of Peter’s chair has counted life as nought, for he has endangered souls by proclaiming that they are justified before God as they are, with no need of repentance.”
The full address (video and transcript) is here linked below:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-strickland-catholics-alive-during-this-crisis-must-remember-they-were-born-for-this/
Your repeated lies about Bishop Strickland are typical of those who support and endorse the agenda of Pope Francis. It is little wonder that you hide your identity behind such a sycophantic acronym.
Please check out the link provided and watch the video or read the transcript of the Bishop’s speech. See whether your belief of what you perceive as lies about Strickland’s sedevacantism match with the fact and truth of the evidence given here.
Dear Pope Francis the Greater!
About Bishop Strickland’s Twitter commentary: is it sedevantist, or only ambivalent, or ambiguous, or only clear, or only speaking hyperbolically? If the last, then, yes, not the best way to “commit truth and get away with it.”
But, LIKEWISE, Pope Francis and his own informalities, pattern of appointees, photo ops, etc.… Is he an anti-pope as some falsely imagine, or only ambivalent, or deliberately ambiguous and unclear—or possibly only hyperbolic as when he places Pachamama in a niche under the same roof as the Real Presence, or at the Synod on Youth replaces his crozier with a Wiccan stang, or because Christianity and Islam are possibly co-existent religions (the proposed “fraternity” among the member of different religions), seems to propose a flattened “pluralism” of equivalent faiths, per se?
What’ the point of here repeating such polyglot and competing incoherences, contradistinction and apparent contradictions?
Cardinal Danielou (book mentioned above) speaks of an elementary and pagan-like Christian mentality, not yet fully purified and transfigured into the Faith. Cultural Catholics. This also alongside the world’s natural religions yet to be purified and transformed by genuine inculturation. All of these paganisms as a field of evangelization, not syncretism, in a world more radically threatened by atheism.
DANIELOU writes (1965):
“In a world threatened with atheism, the first care must be to defend awareness of sacred things wherever that may be found. That men are not content to dissociate themselves from God in the central acts of their lives shows that there is in them a religious ground [fraternity, but not pluralism?] in which the faith can grow. We have also to remember that Christianity demands personal commitment. Religion is connatural to the mass of mankind; and in a Christian country it is to be expected that many should know Christianity as a religion before they discover it as Revelation” (Prayer as a Political Problem).
The unresolved PROBLEM—let’s call it the urgent consultative/synodal problem—is to still clearly distinguish pre-Christian or natural religions from what in the West has actually become anti-Christian? In season and out of season. Not as in the 4th-century Arian redefinition of the Trinity, but the 21st-century redefinition of both the Church and Man himself (think Synodal Weg & camp followers).
In our moment of mutual cognitive dissonance and worse, in multiple settings, is there really a need for circular Russian roulette between the synod’s “aggregated, compiled and synthesized” forwardists, and the so-called “backwardists” quarantined to a new “periphery”?
Where’s the dialogue? If it’s broke, don’t leave it unfixed.
Clicked your link and read the transcript of Bishop Strickland’s talk. The quotes you attribute to the Bishop are in fact from a letter the Bishop was reading, from a friend of his. Bishop S made no derogatory or inflammatory remarks about Pope Francis in this talk.
Reading that friend’s letter as part of his speech, the mothballed bishop did not distance or disown its sedevacantist thought which clearly means he agreed with it and made it his own. This sedevacantist ranting of Strickland was a sort of exclamation point to a long sentence of boiling and developing mean imprudent attacks against Pope Francis that started when he endorsed Archbishop Vigano’s call for the Pope to resign back in 2018. The speech’s context also is important. This was a forum of kindred anti-Pope Francis crusaders which included celebrities who are known to often express sedevacantist ideas either explicitly or implicitly. These included John-Henry Westen, Michael Matt, Terry Barber, Scott Hahn, Deacon Keith Fournier, and Astana, Kazakhstan Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
Strickland did not use inflammatory speech…I don.t know where you read that..it is a lie…he can disagree with the pope as lots of bishops have…ie Germany and Belgium with no recourse…the truth will come out even if it is 40 years in the future
Sadly, I must agree with you. A once good Bishop has let others influence him and he has gone off the rails as have many other well meaning men of the cloth. The Pope does not seem to be a nice man, but he is the Pope.
I stand with Bishop Strickland.
Very confusing, news reporting agencies should provide why this happened from someone. He gave good answers on john henry, but why no one knows? Who was the group he was with at baseball game, were they ultra subversives? Were are the lawyer groups out their, they should be investigating and defending him, this doesn’t seem to be an isolated case..What does Bishop Barron say? Bishop Strickland please dont GI near Mel Gibson, he’s good at making movies,but has a twisted mind on the Catholic church.. God Bless you Bishop, and I love that you kept quoting John the Baptist during inter- view with John Henry, the greatest born of woman and born without original sin, and was murdered for defending marriage,
Poor Mel Gibson. I’d recommend staying away from some Catholic blogs that incentivize outrage also. Whatever causes division in the Body of Christ doesn’t come from God.
The Church & the Family are the last two things that stand in the way of an all powerful secular state. There are interests that want to destroy the moral authority of the Catholic Church & undermine the morale of the faithful. Let’s not make their job any easier.
Strickland can join Vigano in the camp of mothballed bishops. Like Vigano, in a few months or even earlier Strickland will find himself generally forgotten and irrelevant. To keep themselves in the media spotlight, they’ll just have to continue spewing out unhinged conspiracy theory-driven provocative attacks against Pope Francis in revenge for having fired them.
S. Aldrin,
Conspiracy theories & uncharitable comments can have something in common.
Yes, I totally agree with you, the disgraced bishop mixed both conspiracy theories and uncharitable comments in his attacks against Pope Francis.
I was thinking rather that truth may be in shorter supply when we comment uncharitably. There’s an incentive both in calumny & in conspiracies.
Yes, I totally agree with you again. The truth suffered and was indeed in short supply in Bishop Strickland’s relentless uncharitable and mean comments, or more appropriately called attacks, of Pope Francis.
Then lets drop “theories” and deal with some truths and FACTS. The Pope has made it much harder for faithful Catholics to attend a Latin Mass. In an era when few attend church, what exactly is the payoff for a move like that?? The Pope has also given a general seal of approval to public figures who not only tolerate but publicly CHAMPION the most radical position on abortion: here I mean, Biden, Pelosi, Whoopie Goldberg. Tells them they are wonderful, tells Biden to continue to go to Communion!! Not “theories”. FACT. That he would be mugging for the cameras with such people is a disgrace and gives scandal. He allows McCarrick to hang on for years when his disgusting inclinations were well known. He is “firing” Bishops and priests who have an absolute obligation to lead their flocks honestly in the beliefs of the church. Believe it or not, being Pope does NOT mean you are perfect, or always right. He is clearly unhappy with personal criticism and in this case might have struck back simply because he can. That is not a behavior for any Catholic to emulate, especially when the criticism is valid. I read today that the church now has given an OK to Trans people participating in weddings and Baptisms. No one is suggesting trans people should be arrested and jailed. Likewise it doesnt seem prudent to hold them up as examples to be emulated in religious matters. What will happen with the radical Synods can already be seen in the unorthodox stuff being pandered by the Bishops of Germany ( like blessing gay relationships) , NONE of whom have been halted or corrected by Francis.
The only answer you need – “I didn’t implement Traditionis Custodes because I can’t starve out part of my flock,” that’s it – and just be honest that this is an apostate pope and saying it out loud doesn’t make you schismatic. Quit being so mealy mouthed when you write about Bergoglio he wants to fundamentally remake the Church and destroy the faith…just say it.
Starve part of his flock?! Last time I checked the hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Mass become the true Body and Blood of Our Lord. I support the TLM but this is the type of hyperbole that does not help and may have contributed to his ouster.
So sad, it is true however that this “make a mess” papacy is certainly doing that…
Join the ranks of “white martyrdom” bishop…there are plenty of “wrongly accused priests” who have no “home.”
Worry not,however,this too shall pass & we’re almost assured that there will never be a Jesuit on the throne of St Peter. Pray God!
Pray for the pope we must!
Pray for a new Catholic pope we can!
Fr j, you are similar to Fr Altman who openly wished to have Pope Francis killed. Unbecoming of a priest who promised obedience to his superiors (declaring one’s obedience is due to Christ alone without the Pope is Protestantic).
Ass-ass-ination??? What an absurdly libelous idea, based on zero evidence! Such comments incite prayer for those lacking reason and charity toward fellow Catholics, toward the ordained. For shame, for shame. Some people truly rather imitate men than Christ.
meiron: Why and how could you unbelievably not know this? Here is a link to the news report of Fr. Altman’s remarks widely spread in the ultra conservative Catholic media calling for the killing of Pope Francis:
https://www.newsweek.com/priest-calls-pope-francis-killed-likens-him-devil-1836438
This subject of this OP is Bishop Strickland. You liken Strickland to Altman. No where has Bishop Strickland alluded or hinted to murder as a solution to the crisis the pope has created. Conflating Bishop Strickland’s words with Fr. Altman’s is unfair and uncharitable since the accusation is libelous. It is unfair and uncharitable rhetoric because it is non-factual.
Then you present information obtained from the MSM. It seems you are not aware that the MSM often holds liberal bias against the Church. Getting news from a Catholic site is more reliable, trustworthy, and verifiable.
I DO BELIEVE that you have tried but failed to be clever. I do believe that your obfuscation alone is clear.
I’m sorry, but did I read a different post from FrJ? I didn’t read that he wanted PF killed. Please be careful and charitable.
SueH: “be careful and charitable” That admonition should have been given to Bishop Strickland when he was criticizing the Pope. Also, read again carefully. There was just a “similarity” not “complete identity or likeness” between the malicious extremism of Fr j’s call to pray for a new Pope and Fr. Altman’s call to kill Pope Francis.
We need good priests and good bishops we don’t need to be cancelling them.
@PF the great. Do you think the German bishops are in communion with the Vicar?
Reason for Strickland’s firing? He chose to become a Catholic bishop behaving like a fundamentalist Protestant in being so dismissive of the idea that there is a church authority that he has to obey. Only Protestants reason out that they can bypass the Pope and profess obedience directly and solely to Christ.
It’s pride. Just like any pride, including gay pride, it is sinful. Bishop Strickland thought of himself as more Catholic than the Pope and that he alone (not the Pope) preaches the truth of the Gospel.
Can you possibly be this dense? So anything that comes from the mouth of Bergoglio is ipso facto a more truthful version of the Gospel than what is preached by anyone else? There is not the slightest justification for this papolatry in the history of the Church.
The Church has weathered terrible and sinful Popes in its 2,000 year existence. It will continue to do so.
It is glaringly obvious and extremely simple: Bishop Strickland is a believing Catholic, a faithful Christian, and Jorge Bergoglio hates all things authentically Catholic and tolerates only a perverted, humanist version of the Gospel.
Being orthodox doesn’t mean being loud, rash and imprudent. One can “tell it like it is” without being unnecessarily provocative or even rude. Pope Benedict always comported himself as a gentleman. Strickland purposefully poked his finger in Francis’ eye. He shouldn’t be surprised that Francis responded. One can’t have a Major stirring up the troops against a General…even if one disagrees with the General. Lots of ways Strickland could have handled things. Sadly he chose the “blaze of glory/self-promotion path”. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour.
The Pope seems to want to sit in the chair to wield the stick and the authority of the church, then slip out of the chair when it comes to supporting eternal truths. I pray he makes the connection – his authority RESTS upon his allegiance TO the eternal Truths. Otherwise, he is really nothing but hot air and popery.
Bergoglio’s move to oust Strickland is so very rich, just following a Synod on Synodality, no less, about which he said “we should not be afraid to listen.” I guess a “synodal” Church is a bit like progressives who preach tolerance and aren’t, like CRT adherents who rail against racism by being racists, like those who hate conservatives but have bumper stickers reading “there is no room for hate.” Oh my, how very rich it all is.
I am 77 years old, literate and a life long Catholic. Before Bishop Strickland, I had never heard of the diocese of Tyler, Texas.
The church faces many challenges: persecutions, threats to religious liberty, loss of young people to the faith (I am amazed at how many people I meet day to day who say they were “raised Catholic.” ) Some simply label themselves as “non-practicing” Catholic. Mass attendance is way down along with vocations to religious life. People struggle to find meaning in their lives or to overcome destructive addictions. Secularism and irreligion are rampant in the West. And on and on.
With all these needs, what is the Vatican doing swatting away at a bishop in a small obscure diocese few people have even heard of? Bishop Strickland was not the primate of an important country or a cardinal archbishop of a major archdiocese. No public scandal is charged (we have not even been told what canonical crime he committed.)
I find myself wondering if there are some very insecure people in the Vatican who cannot stand the slightest criticism. Or, perhaps this is all political – a warning to American bishops to get in line and keep quiet (this from a church which describes itself as a “listening” church.) What is going on at the Vatican?
A Roman pontiff has supreme authority within the Church. And in accord with canon law cannot be opposed. According to Fr Gerald E Murray JCD there is no legal procedure by which he can be removed, for example, by a council of bishops and, or cardinals. Although he can remove himself voluntarily by resignation, or by excommunication Latae Sententiae. That would have to be proven, a difficult task. Nonetheless there’s no procedure to remove him.
What then? He can also be ignored insofar as he teaches error. Again, for error to rise to the level of heresy is a difficult presumption. Francis is meticulous in avoiding formal heresy. Nonetheless if it’s difficult to prove heresy, as in the instance of Pope Francis, it would be similarly difficult to prove disobedience on such a specified issue. A bishop, or a presbyter may remain inviolable to removal if he argues the merits of his position while avoiding the accusation of a person. Although he may request clarification, explanation citing error by discrete means. As did Fr Weinandy, and as Bishop Schneider who face to face directly requested that Pope Francis retract his misleading words of religious equanimity at Abu Dhabi. That made headlines and Schneider wasn’t sanctioned.
My understanding is that Mr. Strickland isn’t a priest. That said, he likely is orthodox. It is orthodoxy that is the threat to wolves in “shepherds” clothing. It is only because he had/has a large following that he was/is a threat.
Another person who likely isn’t a priest, Mr. Altman, has said that Francis is not the pope.
While I don’t agree with Mr. Strickland’s beliefs even a person who is “90% Catholic” is better than someone who is a traitor.
If there is any truth that those can gained from this, it is that those who are “theological experts” (i.e. “bishops”) know enough to gravely doubt the orthodoxy of Francis. Of course, there have been and are sedevancantists who don’t believe that any person who has lived in the Vatican and claimed the papal power since Pope Pius XII has been legitimate. But they are considered fringe.
Given the propensity of opposition from a slew of U.S intractable prelates to some pronouncements and initiatives of Pope Francis, it may be time for them to call for a new pontifical seat and elect from their number a new pontiff of the U.S. RCC which properly could then be called ‘The Traditional Catholic Church of the United States’ complete with a new pontifical seat to which they could name from their number a novel pontiff. He would be the first Ustater, i.e., citizen of the U.S., at the Chair of Peter, thereby, to the intractable prelates in the U.S, the authentic seat of Catholic traditional integrity salvaged for the greater glory of the Catholic Faith.
In brief, liquidated respect toward Rome, U.S. prelates should call it quits, move on, and fashion at home, in the U.S., what they want. True, disaffected U.S priests and prelates could wait for the next opportunity to elect in Rome another pope upon the death or resignation of the present pontiff. But why wait? Do not put off what you can do now. Proceed with due alacrity the ‘American’ way.