They came for the TLM, then Bishop Strickland. They'll come for you.

Amici,

To borrow from Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

• They've come for the TLM. Then they've come for Bishop Strickland. So, when they come for you, what are you going to do?

Well, "Pope" Francis has removed, fired, given the push (or the boot) etc. to Bishop Joseph Strickland. I humbly offer a number of considerations to reflect upon.

First

The nature of information.

We have to understand this information. Information has become "siloed", with everyone a specialist in their narrow area, but not comprehending the whole. It's a means of control. As such, it worked perfectly to subject doctors and scientists to the Covid fraud. If you read regularly The Conservative Treehouse, you get "the big picture" of what's happening to the U.S. Federal government, with extensive notes and cross-references. It is a "real eye-opener". A revelation. But as "Sundance" the author of that blog says, even the most important Conservative politicians in D.C. do NOT know what the average TCT reader knows, and this is because their information is "siloed", i.e. segregated into a hundred "silos" of information, so that none of them knows, and few can see, the "big picture". How it is all connected. It's also called "situational awareness."

The same situational awareness need is true for Catholics and what is happening in the Church. For example, Bishop Strickland talks here to John Henry Weston at Lifesitenews. It's a great interview, but here again, the good bishop's information is siloed. He does not see the over-all picture or he would fight like the salvation of millions of souls depend on it, because they do. 

• For example, he insists Bergoglio is pope, and that he prays and asks we all pray for "the pope". 
• But the truth is, Bergoglio is Leon Trotsky. He's Joe Stalin. He's Mao. Bergoglio shows this by all his actions, half-actions, two-steps into a new Church then his back-steps into saying he supports the old. Bergoglio has demonstrated by his actions that he hates the Church and wants to replace it. He's the last candidate for a "death bed conversion". 
• Information kept in silos. It's all a game, a "fog of war" designed to mislead, obfuscate, confuse, and CONQUER the Church; i.e. you.

Second

The Facts of the case

Texas Bishop Strickland was known as "America's Bishop" because he stood up for Traditional Catholic moral belief and Catholic identity. The Texan traveled the country, such as to the protest outside Dodgers' Stadium in the alien planet of Los Angeles. Los Angeles' own bishops and archbishop would not stand with the protesters, who were deploring the Dodgers' management bestowing an award on obscene carnal deviants whose satanist shtick is mocking Catholic women religious. Los Angeles' own bishops and archbishops would not stand with the protesters, remember. (Feckless, feckless "silo cowards".) Bishop Strickland stood by the laity protesting that day. Even Jews helped to protest, and Protestants. Not the Catholic hierarchy. 

Bishop Strickland went to Rome last month to stand with Traditionalist Catholics and "Conservative" Catholics trying to counter-balance Bergoglio's "Ape of the Church", his "Synodal Church". AND Bishop Strickland, consecrated as a bishop by Pope Benedict XVI, has been steadily arguing against Bergoglio and his creeping "French Revolution in the Church"*.

• *As an example of "breaking the silo", this phrase Cardinal Suenens first uttered during Vatican II, 60 some years ago! The quote is: "Vatican II was 1789 in the Church". And this quote mirrors another by another Council insider and "mover and player" Fr. Yves Congar: i.e. that in the Vatican II council, "the Church had its October Revolution", or of Cardinal Ratzinger, also at the Council, later known as Benedict XVI and "pope emeritus" "Fr. Benedict", who confessed that "Vatican II was an anti-Syllabus". Please, everyone remember, the French Revolution (and the October Revolution in its time) was a hellish, blood-soaked (Catholic blood-soaked; see the Vendée) abomination, and it took one of history's greatest generals to kill it. Simply put, the Progressive movers and shakers at Vatican II were full-scale Trotskys and Stalins. Not confused, well-intentioned, or just "misunderstood" churchmen.

Also, Bishop Strickland refused to implement Bergoglio's repugnant Traditionis custodes ("Guardians" – or equally "Jailers – of Tradition"), although Fr. Ripperger says he has heard "through the grapevine" that such wasn't the cause of Strickland's removal. Bishop Strickland also opposed the unfettered, nation-destroying uncontrolled immigration into the U.S.A. – something his lackey, brown-nosing replacement is in favor of and which actually funds the feckless American traitor bishops via the Federal government, an unholy alliance if ever there was one! – and Strickland opposed the Gay Mafia's comprehensive Church-takeover agenda (which will literally destroy and dishonor and putrefy the Church, and which has already cost it 100s of millions of dollars) while Strickland disputed Bergoglio and the dying Vatican II Church's worship of the infamous, deadly anti-human "vaccine" and the pharmaceutical culture's doctrine of human frailty and our dependence of "Big Pharma" just to reside on this planet. (A notion that makes a mockery of both Biblical Creation and Darwinian Evolution. That's quite a feat!)

So, all of this justified Bergoglio, whom I call the Ogre, the Wild Boar, Leon Trotsky, to jettison Strickland. (No, I'm not very nice to Tio Jorge.)

Third

The bottom line with Bergoglio and any and every Catholic – whether Liberal, Progressive, Middle-of-the-road, Conservative, or Traditionalist (the latter itself having a number of shades and permutations) – is that we each must decide for ourselves, were we to have garnered a PhD in theology or not, whether this Church Destroyer (what else is he? Misunderstood?) is actual pope or not. In short, I'm asking you to leave "the silo" you're in.

• This is primary, and a fortiori. See the whole vista. Answer that he is pope, and watch him burn the Church down, because he's going to do it. Answer that he isn't, then join the real Catholic Church – you know, the one already half in the Catacombs.

I would argue Bergoglio is not the pope, and so therefore anyone, including poor Bishop Strickland, an eminently good guy, is deeply misled for believing that Bergoglio is the pope. Strickland has honored his executioner. He's validated his episcopal murderer. 

To me, it is self-evident that this Argentine Disaster and, let's say it plainly, creep (only a creep tolerates carnal deviancy), is not a pope. For simpletons like myself standing outside of any silo, Bergoglio doesn't act like a pope, govern like a pope, remotely embody what popes are supposed to do – which remember, consists primarily in defending the Deposit of Faith (which as Archbishop Lefebvre wrote WAS Tradition (a document even more relevant today than when written). Bergoglio does NONE of those things. Slowly, and now faster since "Fr. Benedict" died last year, Bergoglio is spreading confusion, heresy, a "fog of war" as well as defending deviants – amongst a host of examples, see all things related to the nun-rapist and demon-eye artist Marko Rupnik, whom Bergoglio has "rehabilitated".

Fourth

Information from outside the usual silos

Bergoglio has an agenda, in other words, and it isn't Catholic. As Fr Ripperger said (link further below): 

"...But that I think that they would have removed (Strickland) anyway for the other statements that he made that have [38:32] nothing to do with the Traditional Latin Mass or it just has to do with the fact that they don't want to adhere to the tradition themselves; I mean, and that their agenda is to make this into a new Church. I mean (Cardinal) Roche himself said it this is a new Church. I just want to know okay well if this is a new [38:50} church, is this the same as the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – because if it's not then we have a problem."

Wow. Yeah. We do, indeed, Father R.

For technical arguments on why Bergoglio isn't pope, you can go to Ann Barnhardt's site, or read Archbishop Viganò here. A synopsis: "...given the role the Saint Gallen mafia played in the 2013 conclave, Pope Francis does not have and never did have the intention of serving as the head of the Catholic Church. Rather he hid his intentions from electors with the end goal of using the authority of the papacy to undermine the Church and to make it the 'handmaid' of the New World Order." And over at AKA Catholic, Louie Verrecchio, who is a classic sedevacantist, has a great column wherein he explains about heresy, especially material heretic vs formal heretics, and how formal heretics (Bergoglio) cannot be pope. And if Verrecchio doesn't satisfy, here's an interview with a proper Catholic philosopher, John Gravino, who explains how Bergoglio is a formal heretic.

As I insist, all this is self-evident. But you have to leave the silos to see it.

Fifth

Two Good Men in silos

As an example of seeing only what's in your silo, here is an intellectual and deeply historical discussion by Fr. Ripperger and Catholic classics publisher Ryan Grant: Magisterial Authority: What are the Limits? (and thankfully it has a transcript available). Both esteemed men obviously believe Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the actual pope. But notice the endless knotting and weaving necessary to maintain that fiction as evidence mounts. I'll make a couple of observations.

1. Fr. Ripperger says that a pope has the authority to remove a bishop for any cause, and apparently no cause at all (Bergoglio is not given a reason for firing Strickland as of yet). Ripperger argues that a pope has the legal right to do this, but why would a true pope do something so evil? In the past, various secular rulers got popes to do so, and even (King Philip the Fair of France) deposed popes! But popes on their own casting down good men? And doing it regularly? (They're also the only sort Bergoglo removes.) Anyway, consider the logic. I take Fr. Ripperger's comment to mean a pope has the legal right to do an immoral, or certainly – as Fr. Ripperger himself affirms – an unjust thing, such as the removal of Strickland. Contrary to this, however, I myself would argue that sure, in civil law, such is not only possible but massively frequent. Everyone knows civil law has little to do with actual justice. In any legal situation relating to a God and the Church, however, with Church rulers being God's vicars and who derive ALL their authority from Him, a legal right can become illegal because Church canon law and a pope's personal rule – popes make canon law – are not based on the decisions of a parliament or congress. Remember the old saying, "If you love both (secular) law and sausages, you don't want to see how either is made."
   
2. Because He is Justice itself, in His Being, God stands profoundly insulted and disrespected by any immoral or unjust legal ruling in ALL cases, but much more directly when the Church is involved. So, therefore, Bergoglio has NO right to sack Strickland, even were Bergoglio pope, which he isn't. 

Secondly,

1. Father Ripperger returns to one of his favorite themes that for most Catholics, we should not pay too much attention to what the pope or hierarchy involve themselves with, but rather focus on living the best Christian life we can. Medieval peasants mostly didn't even know who the pope was at a given time, he argues, or at least it is unlikely that they did. Fr. Ripperger said:
   [50:44] "...Your average peasant in medieval Europe didn't know probably in some cases even the name of the Pope and if they did know the name of the Pope because they probably heard it in the cannon, they may not even know what he was up to and what he was actually doing and except in so far as is maybe they might have heard stories or stuff here and there – but the fact that we know when
   the pope is sneezing today is a huge problem because what's happening is people just hyper-focused on the guy rather than ... leading their Catholic life. Look, unless the pope speaks infallibly or unless he speaks in a matter that the theological note is such that you're bound to take a look at this thing and read it the better thing to do is just ignore that all everything's necessary salvation has already been revealed. Just live your Catholic life and stop tuning into all that. I think that's one of the principal ways I think that people can [51:34] kind of start calming down..."

• "The better thing to do is just ignore" it? Can the people of the Tyler diocese ignore it? Of course the problem with this attitude is glaringly obvious. Indeed, impossible to miss. How can you lead a Catholic life when you're told that life includes the gay carnal acts for which Sodom was obliterated, or cohabitating outside of marriage "Catholics", and now in general embracing the lecherous and immoral? Or the Church support of Moloch-worshiping fiends who attain high political or cultural office? (Strickland was removed in part for calling Bergoglio out on that very thing.)
  
• Or imagine being the best private, corporal, sergeant you can be; then imagine your general is selling your unit out to the enemy and your colonel is an utter incompetent, and your major is too busy cross-dressing to know what's going on.
  
• What good does being a great enlisted man or "mere Catholic" do you when your leaders are evil and gone rogue?
• Or imagine you're a passenger on the Titanic. The ship stops. You tell yourself, well, I'm just a passenger. Not my business to run the ship. Maybe so, but you had better force yourself into some situational awareness or you're going to be a passenger only to Davy Jones' Locker.
  

Bottom Line

We cannot ignore what's going on in either our governments or our Church. Not. Possible. Not. Wise. God would tell us we're the Church of Laodicea. (He knows all about that sort of Church.) And Fr. Ripperger acknowledges this by arguing that we need to know as much about the Faith as we can, and he suggests a book he's written to that effect. But then again, you see the problem. You buy Fr. Ripperger's book and study hard, yet then your priest, pressured by the bishop, pressured by Bergoglio's evil crew, tells you to burn the book!

• I for one would love to ask Fr. Ripperger, "They've come for the TLM, they've come for Bishop Strickland. When they come for you, what are you going to do?"
  

Conclusion

Strickland's fall was evil, part of a 60-year-old plan, and we need to take the blinders off

We Catholics (and Orthodox) have priests for one reason: in order to confect the sacraments, by our participation in which we are saved. And then to receive the sacraments, of course, the clergy need to teach us and themselves exemplify the strictest morality because that is what God has ALWAYS demanded. From Adam and Eve to Noah to Moses to King David to Our Lord, Who said "Be perfect...". (St. Matthew 5:48) The Ten Commandents are not ten suggestions (Bergoglio has indeed taught the latter). 

The Lord God set this system up in the Old Testament with Five Covenants He made with Patriarchs after the very First One He made with Creation (Genesis 2, first verses). Baptism anyone can do, many say, but they have to say the words right while pouring the water correctly; Confession and Last Rites need a priest. Confirmation and Holy Orders need bishops. But the paramount sacrament is the Seventh, the New Covenant, the New Testament, which is the Most Holy Eucharist (see St. John's Gospel, chapter 6 and St. Paul, 1 Cor 11, v 17ff, and in general the whole "You are a new creation in Christ" comments thick in both St. John and St. Paul). Protestants formally deny Our Lord Christ's Real Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist, which is of course insane. That's the whole point of the operation, the whole point of the religion, to transform us in Christ. Otherwise, Christianity is a Trinitarian form of Islam.

But then what are we Catholics to say of a Church that has verbally continued to teach the Real Presence yet officially detaught or slighted the doctrine via its now very dated "new" 1960s Mass and Liturgical prayers? It is an example of pure cognitive dissonance. One cannot separate Lex orandi from Lex credendi and Lex vivendi. Prayer and belief are inseparable. But for 60 years now we've suffered from a Church of which God can say "This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men." (St Matthew 15:8-9) Can a more perfect critique be made of the Bugnini/Paul VI committee-created Novus Ordo Mass, as opposed to the millennia old, Holy Ghost directed Vetus Ordo? I.e. the TLM? Actually the oldest Christian rite of all?

Crunch time has now come. We simply cannot win this 60-year-long "French/October Revolution" in the Church as long as we remain trapped in the many individual silos the complicated story forces us into. We cannot maintain the ontological fiction that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is pope and allow him to decimate our episcopacy of saintly men like Joseph Strickland. (Bergi is paralleling what Henry VIII did to St. John Fisher.) And waiting for God to "fix it" is the sin of presumption. Why? Because we made this mess – God allows evil but is not its cause; so, He will want US to fix it. Pigheadedly insisting that the Ogre is pope shall make us all cognitively dissonant. Spiritually and mentally cross-eyed. Mad as hatters. Or sealed-up alive in very small silos.

And how can mad hatters be good Christians? 

This is what sacking Bishop Strickland is all about, my friends.

It's about him, and us, and very much, you.

   An Préachán