Many have been prompted to speak out on my behalf. I appreciate the support but I want the focus always to be on Christ alone, not me. I’m not asking for or supporting any press conferences or demonstrations like one being held today in DC, I just want people to follow Christ.

— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) September 14, 2023

PabloSerna said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Is it all about him after all? Pope is right then.

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

---

You think there are other Bishops who disagree with Pope Francis, but don't air it out on social media?

---

You think it's about him or is it about Him? You think what Bishop Strickland does is about Bishop Strickland or is it about our Blessed Lord?

---

Bishop Strickland is media savvy, let's just state the obvious.

Exhibit A: His retweets of affirmed anti-Francis talking heads. Stir the pot!
Exhibit B: His own tweets calling out Pope Francis who is the Vicar of Christ. Stir the pot some more!
Exhibit C: His appeal after apostolic visit. Why?
Exhibit D: His follow up tweet. Why again?

How many Bishops in the Church (USA)? Looks like 290 give or take. No doubt a number of them have the same issues as Bishop Strickland, yet it would seem a select few have the social media following he works up into a frenzy.

I have a teenage daughter that is obsessed with social media. We literally have to take her phone away from time to time.

ETA: If he is serious about not having the focus on himself, then stop tweeting or x-ing..whatever.

---

I think the better question is how many bishops have the courage and backbone that Bishop Strickland does? I know that my bishop fails in this area.

PabloSerna said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Is it all about him after all? Pope is right then.

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

---

You think there are other Bishops who disagree with Pope Francis, but don't air it out on social media?

---

You think it's about him or is it about Him? You think what Bishop Strickland does is about Bishop Strickland or is it about our Blessed Lord?

---

Bishop Strickland is media savvy, let's just state the obvious.

Exhibit A: His retweets of affirmed anti-Francis talking heads. Stir the pot!
Exhibit B: His own tweets calling out Pope Francis who is the Vicar of Christ. Stir the pot some more!
Exhibit C: His appeal after apostolic visit. Why?
Exhibit D: His follow up tweet. Why again?

How many Bishops in the Church (USA)? Looks like 290 give or take. No doubt a number of them have the same issues as Bishop Strickland, yet it would seem a select few have the social media following he works up into a frenzy.

I have a teenage daughter that is obsessed with social media. We literally have to take her phone away from time to time.

ETA: If he is serious about not having the focus on himself, then stop tweeting or x-ing..whatever.

---

1. This is incredibly judgemental. You are well within your rights to suggest someone is being unwise. You instead have chosen to assign motive to Bishop Strickland. I'd urge caution.

2. A bishops job is to tend to his flock. If his flock is confused, angry, etc. it is his DUTY to teach. Teaching can take on many forms. This is one of his methods.

Unless you feel that all priests running catholic podcasts should also shut their mouths and that father Martin should be quiet out of fear they're drawing too much attention to themselves, I would say you are holding an extreme double standard

RAB91 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Is it all about him after all? Pope is right then.

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

---

You think there are other Bishops who disagree with Pope Francis, but don't air it out on social media?

---

You think it's about him or is it about Him? You think what Bishop Strickland does is about Bishop Strickland or is it about our Blessed Lord?

---

Bishop Strickland is media savvy, let's just state the obvious.

Exhibit A: His retweets of affirmed anti-Francis talking heads. Stir the pot!
Exhibit B: His own tweets calling out Pope Francis who is the Vicar of Christ. Stir the pot some more!
Exhibit C: His appeal after apostolic visit. Why?
Exhibit D: His follow up tweet. Why again?

How many Bishops in the Church (USA)? Looks like 290 give or take. No doubt a number of them have the same issues as Bishop Strickland, yet it would seem a select few have the social media following he works up into a frenzy.

I have a teenage daughter that is obsessed with social media. We literally have to take her phone away from time to time.

ETA: If he is serious about not having the focus on himself, then stop tweeting or x-ing..whatever.

---

I think the better question is how many bishops have the courage and backbone that Bishop Strickland does? I know that my bishop fails in this area.

---

Anti-Francis? Strickland? Correcting error is no longer charity? Last I checked, admonishing the sinner is a Spiritual Work of Mercy. Moreover, the fact that this synod is full of heterodox people to the exclusion of orthodox people is indicative of error. That Rome continues to entertain questions and points of view that have been settled for a long time is indicative of error. We've had awful popes in the past. Why is it beyond the pale that we might be enduring that once again?

PabloSerna said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Liberals make the best Tyrants.

This is just a warning for any good bishops who will want to speak up after the Synod tries alter the age old teachings of the church.

---

Which commandment is this again?

---

You should be more familiar than anyone, you are his biggest cheerleader. Especially when it comes to the whole rainbow agenda.

---

What is this agenda you speak of?

---

The open embrace of sodomy and the pushing of moral and social norms to a degenerate levels. Not to mention the brazen attempt to make what is profane acceptable or even holy.

PabloSerna said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

747Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Is it all about him after all? Pope is right then.

---

What a bizarre thing to say.

---

You think there are other Bishops who disagree with Pope Francis, but don't air it out on social media?

---

I can't help but think your goal is to create a church where those who actually believe and follow what the church traditionally taught are unwelcome, and those who embrace this new radical sort of "pastoral" (read: all who are on the progressive far left) movement are welcomed.

I will refrain from saying anything negative publicly about the Holy Father as it is not my place; but I am putting in overtime trying to discern some of the moves taking place

---

Create a church? Now that is bizarre.

WE are church need I remind you. Stop thinking about this like a club and more like a mission. The universal call to holiness is for all- straight out of Lumen Gentium (c.1964). To that end, we must expand the tent and move forward. That has many implications, least of which is liturgical.

In case you didn't know it, many young people (even my kids), don't know God like we do. We are having a high-level discussion and can argue the finer points. All that is lost on the people thirsting for truth. The truth about them, about their place in the world, and what the good news is in their lives. I get that some people are hyper focused on the placement of the tabernacle in the center of the church or the presence of young girls as altar servers.

Meanwhile in Africa, it is a crime punishable by death to be gay! Our Pope makes a statement ahead of his trip to Africa that it is "not a crime" to be gay and somehow he is progressive? Read his statement in its entirety before casting those stones y'all.

---

Did the church begin in 1964 for you? All I hear is Lumen Gentium and Lumen Gentium from certain sectors of Catholicism. I'm not calling into question Vatican II, although I will call into question many of the things that have been put in place using V2 for cover.

I also need to ask what gay people in Africa have in common with the issues facing Bishop Strickland, the American church at large, and traditional leaning Catholics.

PabloSerna said:

---

So we will delve into the finer points of liturgical reform after all? You go ahead, but to me that is missing the point and I suspect is exactly where the devil wants us wasting time.

I know you know, but for the others - Vatican II did not change dogma. It did make changes to the liturgy and allowed the mass to be said in the vernacular, even expanded it into what we now call Novus Ordo. Why? Read those pesky documents, here is a link right to the Holy See.

I find it amazing that well meaning, good Catholics, are so under-read (is that a word?) when it comes to the expectation the magisterium has for each of us. I include myself in this callout. Without a doubt, the church took a remarkable step forward, away from a cleric-centric view of religion and pivoted towards this baptismal calling - "universal call to holiness." That we are Priest, Prophet, and King (what does that mean?).

In a nutshell, we (RCC) have been struggling to move forward from the dark ages. That to me is where some say, oh Pablo, you're too progressive or worse, we just like it in Latin. The smells! The bells!!... come on, we have a mission to do, put your big boy pants on and let's go! Our focus needs to be on mission and not changes in the liturgy. IMO

---

The smells and Bells line is a straw man. No body is arguing for the TLM because of the smells and bells. They are advocating for Eucharistic reverence. The Eucharist is the Mission. Christ is our mission.

Mission isn't just the act of serving others, or enticing music and great homilies.

Our mission is to worship God. Serving others is a fruit of that Love. Not the goal. The Goal is communion with God, the goal is to lead others to Christ. You mentioned Priest, Prophet King. Absolutely, but please don't be reductive to others because of how they worship and revere Christ as it is not productive.

Eta: I am not a TLM attendee, I've only been twice. Brought in thru the NO, and find great reverence and worship in the NO, but I do not fault nor shun my brothers and sister in CHRIST who prefer the NO. There is plenty of room in the tent for us all.

PabloSerna said:

---

So we will delve into the finer points of liturgical reform after all? You go ahead, but to me that is missing the point and I suspect is exactly where the devil wants us wasting time.

I know you know, but for the others - Vatican II did not change dogma. It did make changes to the liturgy and allowed the mass to be said in the vernacular, even expanded it into what we now call Novus Ordo. Why? Read those pesky documents, here is a link right to the Holy See.

I find it amazing that well meaning, good Catholics, are so under-read (is that a word?) when it comes to the expectation the magisterium has for each of us. I include myself in this callout. Without a doubt, the church took a remarkable step forward, away from a cleric-centric view of religion and pivoted towards this baptismal calling - "universal call to holiness." That we are Priest, Prophet, and King (what does that mean?).

In a nutshell, we (RCC) have been struggling to move forward from the dark ages. That to me is where some say, oh Pablo, you're too progressive or worse, we just like it in Latin. The smells! The bells!!... come on, we have a mission to do, put your big boy pants on and let's go! Our focus needs to be on mission and not changes in the liturgy. IMO

---

Bro... it's not the smells and bells that we're after. It's the Faith. Yes, we know the Second Vatican Council made no change to doctrine, yet its spirit is infamously invoked in favor of deviations from the Fairh... see the bishop who gave the Blessed Sacrament to a Muslim cleric.

We gravitate to parishes where the authentic Faith is preached, and it's often but not exclusively Latin Mass parishes. We want the Faith yet this is a time where so many modernists in the hierarchy try to change it.

In a world where it's obvious so many people do not know Jesus Christ, we have an emphasis on the second greatest commandment all but pushing the first aside. Corporal works of mercy are great. Spiritual works of mercy, not so much. People being shamed for bringing others to the one true faith.

We want to worship our Blessed Lord in a dignified manner. Reverence. But we can't introduce reverence because it's either rigid or pre-VII. I mean, the older missal is more in line with Sacrosanctum Consilium than what you see in the typical parish. And if the hierarchy cared about basic reverent practices, our current liturgy wars would be much less prevalent than what you see out there.

Defend the Faith. Guard the Tradition which you received.

PabloSerna said:

---

So we will delve into the finer points of liturgical reform after all? You go ahead, but to me that is missing the point and I suspect is exactly where the devil wants us wasting time.

I know you know, but for the others - Vatican II did not change dogma. It did make changes to the liturgy and allowed the mass to be said in the vernacular, even expanded it into what we now call Novus Ordo. Why? Read those pesky documents, here is a link right to the Holy See.

I find it amazing that well meaning, good Catholics, are so under-read (is that a word?) when it comes to the expectation the magisterium has for each of us. I include myself in this callout. Without a doubt, the church took a remarkable step forward, away from a cleric-centric view of religion and pivoted towards this baptismal calling - "universal call to holiness." That we are Priest, Prophet, and King (what does that mean?).

In a nutshell, we (RCC) have been struggling to move forward from the dark ages. That to me is where some say, oh Pablo, you're too progressive or worse, we just like it in Latin. The smells! The bells!!... come on, we have a mission to do, put your big boy pants on and let's go! Our focus needs to be on mission and not changes in the liturgy. IMO

---

Like many others on here, I go to a Novus Ordo parish. I have attended TLM on occasion with my friends but I would guess during a year I go to 80 or so NO masses, and probably 4 TLM.

Lex orandi, Lex Crendi, we are not gnostics who divide themself into beings of flesh and beings of spirit, but we are a singular being of spirit and flesh. Our worship influences our belief. Why do we cross ourselves, why do we pour water over the head at baptism, why do we genuflect, why do we pound ourselves on the chest during the confiteor, or kneel during the sacrament of reconciliation? Because as both spirit and flesh our physical nature impacts our spirituality.

The Catholic Church is the bride and Body of Christ, the approved vehicle instituted by Christ for getting souls to heaven. It is not the Red Cross or the Rotary Club, you cannot skip the Sunday obligation to go feed the homeless, or visit the imprisoned or anything else.

PabloSerna said:

---

"Guardians of Tradition" - Are you referring to Pope Francis recent apostolic letter, "Traditionis Custodes"? Because you may want to read that more closely. The magisterium is the guardian not the people. Here it is straight from Rome:

Guardians of the tradition, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome constitute the visible principle and foundation of the unity of their particular Churches. [1] Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through the proclamation of the Gospel and by means of the celebration of the Eucharist, they govern the particular Churches entrusted to them. [2]

---

No, it was not a reference to the motu proprio (which could be translated as Jailers of Tradition), but rather a general reference to the episcopacy's charge to protect, safeguard, and hand on that which they have received from our spiritual forefathers. Currently, we see many that desire to discard parts of it. We see some that wish to glom on some new and novel things that aren't Catholic... such as the notion that we can deviate from the natural law in pelvic issues or merely be ambivalent about them. Or that there is a specific doctrine of the current pontiff, which seems to exclude previous pontiffs or even something separate from the perennial teachings of Holy Church.

PabloSerna said:

---

Can y'all stop calling one parish "Novus Ordo" and another "TLM" - there is no such thing! Different rites are offered depending on which priest is authorized and has NOTHING to do with the parish as a whole.

---

Novus Ordo is Paul VI's terminology.

We have parishes that exclusively offer one Rite.

We have parishes, like mine, that are bi-ritual.

We have Ordinarate parishes.

They're all Catholic.

It is a thing, and it is the common parlance to make distinctions.

Klaus Schwab said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Klaus Schwab said:

---

File5 said:

---

I don't follow - when the President fires somebody we don't ask if he was correct. It just happens. Same thing with the Pope. He has the power.

---

I'm not asking about power, I'm asking how Catholics determine if the Pope's decision on removing Strickland is correct? The article showed a tweet from Strickland that stated he believes Francis is the Pope but he rejects his teachings and to follow Jesus. How does a Bishop come that conclusion and how do Catholics determine who is correct?

---

We have a 2000 year body of work to reference, and we've had plenty of bad popes to reference their authority. As pope, he's 100% correct in his ability to remove Strickland. As pope, he needs to use his papal authority to say that Strickland is a heretic or some such if he wants us to believe Strickland has incorrect theology. That won't happen, because Strickland is in line with church history and teaching. So a layman can easily conclude that Strickland is correct in his teaching and the pope is being petty because he doesn't like Strickland being so vocal.

---

Just an outsider perspective but what good is a Pope (Roman Catholic definition) if he's only functioning as the Pope when he's right? I think all of you need to take Pablo's comments more seriously, specifically about the magisterium. Papal authority isn't just about the power to remove someone, it's about correct teaching from the Vicor of Christ.

Vatican II on the Magisterium-

The Second Vatican Council, dwelling on the authentic magisterium, states: "In matters of faith and morals the bishops speak in the name of Christ, and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent of soul. This religious submission of will and of mind must be shown in a special way to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra" (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, ch. 3, n. 25).

If you guys want different bishops and parishioners to uphold the faith then you should convert to Orthodoxy because that's how the Orthodox Church functions as a body. I think you are right to defend Strickland but Pablo appears to be correct about how Rome functions through the magisterium, unless someone can provide specific examples from Vatican II that prove otherwise.

---

This presumes that what they are saying is in accord with the teaching of Holy Church. When ++McElroy defends Holy Communion for those in unrepentant mortal sin, he's not to be obeyed/submitted to on this front, but corrected... which was done to a degree in an article by another bishop. Me, as a layman, can see the error and I will not adopt the error.

EDIT: An analogy... I'm not breaking the 4th commandment if I refuse to drink the methanol my father tells me to drink.

Lost in all this is the fact that Bishop Strickland is in fact a Bishop; he's not just some random guy but is himself a fellow successor to the apostles.

Obviously Tyler, TX is not Rome, but he's not completely powerless in this exchange and is able to issue fraternal correction as conceived by St. Augustine and further developed by St.Thomas Aquinas.

I see a lot of "Who is Bishop Strickland to publicly comment on such things", he's the Shepherd of the Flock of the diocese of Tyler, and he sees something that looks like it might be a wolf, and is sounding the alarm.

Dies Irae said:

---

Lost in all this is the fact that Bishop Strickland is in fact a Bishop; he's not just some random guy but is himself a fellow successor to the apostles.

Obviously Tyler, TX is not Rome, but he's not completely powerless in this exchange and is able to issue fraternal correction as conceived by St. Augustine and further developed by St.Thomas Aquinas.

I see a lot of "Who is Bishop Strickland to publicly comment on such things", he's the Shepherd of the Flock of the diocese of Tyler, and he sees something that looks like it might be a wolf, and is sounding the alarm.

---

St. Paul to St. Peter... Bro, stop it. It's like this.

747Ag said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Lost in all this is the fact that Bishop Strickland is in fact a Bishop; he's not just some random guy but is himself a fellow successor to the apostles.

Obviously Tyler, TX is not Rome, but he's not completely powerless in this exchange and is able to issue fraternal correction as conceived by St. Augustine and further developed by St.Thomas Aquinas.

I see a lot of "Who is Bishop Strickland to publicly comment on such things", he's the Shepherd of the Flock of the diocese of Tyler, and he sees something that looks like it might be a wolf, and is sounding the alarm.

---

St. Paul to St. Peter... Bro, stop it. It's like this.

---

But at the same time, +Strickland's presence on social media, his articles, and his show on Virgin Most Powerful Radio are for the faithful... to confirm us in the Faith.

''I cannot resign,' says Bishop Strickland amid speculation that Pope wants him out'
https://catholicherald.co.uk/i-cannot-resign-says-bishop-strickland-amid-speculation-that-pope-wants-him-out/

Quote:

---

Speaking to the Religion News Service, Bishop Strickland, 64, said that although he had yet to receive any information of the meeting he was not prepared to resign from office.

"As a basic principle I cannot resign the mandate given to me by Pope Benedict XVI," he said.

"Of course that mandate can be rescinded by Pope Francis, but I cannot voluntarily abandon the flock that I have been given charge of as a successor of the apostles."

---

Bishop Schneider to Bishop Strickland: "Future Popes will thank you!"

However, dear Bishop Strickland, you have the happiness, that all the popes of the past, all the courageous confessor-bishops of the past, all the Catholic martyrs, who in the words of St. Theresa of Avila, were "resolved to undergo a thousand deaths for any one article of the creed" (The Life of Teresa of Jesus, 25:12), are supporting and encouraging you. Furthermore, the little ones in the Church pray for you and support you; they are an ever growing, yet small, army of lay faithful in the United States as well as all over the world who were put on the periphery by high ranking churchmen, even in the Vatican, whose main concerns seems to be pleasing the world and promoting their naturalistic agenda and the approval of the sin of homosexual activity under the guise of welcoming and inclusion.