Boy, If Only Leo Knew, Huh?, part two

Some elements of the “resist while recognize” movement have geared up to commence their “respectful” criticism of the man they believe to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV.

Although the preliminaries, shall we say, began last month when Prevost/Leo appointed an anti-life zealot, Renzo Pegoraro, to serve as the president of the “Pontifical Academy for Life” (see Boy, If Only Leo Knew, Huh?, none other than “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, who was removed as the conciliar ordinary of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, on November 11, 2023, is now criticizing Leo’s appointment of Shane Mackinlay as the conciliar “archbishop” of Brisbane, Australia, who supports the ordination of women to the conciliar diaconate.

Readers will recall that Strickland’s removal as the “bishop” of Tyler, Texas, came after a sham
“visitation” conducted by pedophile friendly “bishop-visitators,” Gerald Kicanas and Dennis Sullivan, who were appointed by then prefect of the conciliar “dicastery of bishops,” “Archbishop” Robert Francis Prevost, who himself had been recommended for the position to the late and completely unlamented demon of a human being named Jorge Mario Bergoglio for that position by none other than Blase Cupich. Here is a reminder of that fact:

On Saturday, November 11, Bishop Joseph Strickland was formally removed from the pastoral governance of the diocese of Tyler, Texas. The lawless process employed to remove him from office resembled a script from a gangster film.

The Players

The story began with an apostolic visitation ordered by the new prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, Archbishop Robert Prevost. Prevost, a Chicago native, served as a missionary in Peru. On September 26, 2015, Pope Francis appointed him bishop of Chiclayo (Northern Peru.) On November 21, 2020, Francis appointed Prevost as a member of the Congregation for the Bishops upon the recommendation of Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago.

The visitation was conducted by Bishop Dennis Sullivan of Camden and Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson in June of this year.

Bishop Sullivan gained national attention in 2014 when his diocese purchased a The New Jersey diocese purchased a 7,000 square foot mansion with eight bedrooms and six bathrooms. In 2020, Sullivan’s diocese filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of sexual abuse claims and later agreed to an $87 million payout in 2022.

Bishop Kicanas of Tuscon was formerly an appointed an auxiliary bishop in Chicago under Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Kicanas was head of Catholic Relief Services in 2012 when they were funding pro-abortion pro-abortion groups. In 2010, Kicanas lost his bid to become president of the USCCB due to his radical position on several issues.

US Papal Nuncio Archbishops Christophe Pierre and Robert Prevost,head of the Dicastery for Bishops, met with Pope Francis in September to discuss the removal of Bishop Strickland. Both men were promoted to be cardinals later that month by Pope Francis.

Christophe Pierre is a French prelate who was named as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States in 2016. Pierre reportedly threatened Bishop Strickland at the USCCB fall meeting in 2021, “wagged his finger” at Strickland while saying “Bishop Strickland, we’re watching you — stop talking about the deposit of faith.” Pierre has also recently come under fire for disparaging comments regarding cassocks and the Traditional Latin Mass.

Pope Francis dropped the hammer on Bishop Strickland on Saturday, November 11, issuing a terse statement on the Vatican’s website announcing Strickland’s removal and the appointment of an apostolic administrator. The Vatican announcement did not provide a reason for the bishop’s removal. Strickland reportedly was not inform of his removal until he read the statement on Saturday morning.

Galveston-Houston Archbishop Cardinal Daniel DiNardo issued a statement later the same day stating that “continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.” DiNardo serves as the metropolitan bishop responsible for dealing with governance matters in several Texas dioceses, including Tyler. (Strickland’s Take-Down Looks Like Something Out of a Gangster Movie.)

It is important to recall these details as “Pope Leo XIV” was “made” as a mover and shaker within the conciliar sect by Blase Cupich, who, along with Joseph “Nighty-night, baby” Tobin played a major role in the conclave that elected Prevost to be the seventh in the current line of antipopes. Prevost was not simply an innocent bystander in the Strickland matter. He was an active participant in it as he cooked the books with the appointments of Kicanas and Sullivan to conduct their “sham” visitation. No with an ounce of intellectual honesty can claim that the then “Archbishop” Robert Francis Prevost was “misled” as shared the concerns of his brother revolutionaries about Stricklands criticism of “Pope Francis” and of the latter’s embrace of the practicing sodomites, lesbians, mutants, and others who based their human self-identity on the proclivity to the commission of perverse sins against nature.

Thus, despite “Bishop” Joseph Strickland may want to believe, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, knows exactly what he is doing in making his appointments. He had been installed as the prefect of the conciliar “dicastery” of “bishops” on April 12, 2023, meaning he had been on the job in Rome for over two years when Bergoglio died on April 21, 2025. Prevost had plenty of time to get to know the lay of the conciliar Vatican landscape in that amount of time, rendering Strickland’s open letter yet another case study in how those in the resist while recognize movement misrepresent, distort, and deconstruct the respect and reverence owed to a man they claim is a legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Here is Joseph Strickland’s “open letter”:

With deep concern for the faithful of the Church, I feel compelled to address the recent appointment of Bishop Shane Mackinlay as Archbishop of Brisbane by His Holiness Pope Leo XIV.

While we owe filial respect and obedience to the Holy Father in matters properly within his authority, this appointment raises serious pastoral and doctrinal questions.

Bishop Mackinlay has publicly expressed support for the possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate – a position that not only introduces grave confusion but directly challenges the consistent teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church. As Pope St. John Paul II stated unequivocally in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women,” and this principle extends, by logical and theological coherence, to the sacramental diaconate, which is a part of Holy Orders.

The push to redefine the diaconate to include women is not a matter of minor discipline or pastoral adaptation – it is a rupture with the unbroken tradition of the Church and a step toward undermining the very nature of the sacramental priesthood. While women have always held an exalted place in the Church – as martyrs, mystics, and saints – their dignity is not advanced by imitating male roles, but by fully living out the unique vocation given to them by God.

Appointing a bishop who holds such views to shepherd a major archdiocese is a source of scandal and division. The faithful deserve clarity, not ambiguity; fidelity, not experimentation.

In this time of confusion, I encourage all Catholics to remain steadfast in the truth handed down from the Apostles. Christ is the Head of the Church, and His design for the sacraments cannot be altered by pressure from the world or misguided attempts at modernization.

Let us pray for Archbishop Mackinlay, that he may reaffirm his commitment to the unchanging teaching of the Church. And let us pray for Pope Leo XIV, that he may be guided by the Holy Spirit to appoint shepherds who uphold the fullness of Catholic truth without compromise.

In the Sacred Heart of Jesus,
Bishop Joseph E. Strickland  (Bishop Strickland: Statement on the appointment of Bp. Shane Mackinlay as Archbishop of Brisbane.)

Well, it is evidently the case that “Bishop” Joseph Strickland is among the 99.999999999% of the people alive today who do not know that it is never appropriate for anyone, layman or putative clergyman, to criticize a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. Once again, Pope Saint Pius X made this abundantly clear in an allocution to Italian priests on November 18, 1912, the Feast of the Dedication of the Churches of Peter and Paul:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.

This means that those who dissent from “Pope Leo” in the belief that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are not holy, or that “Pope Leo” is no pope at all as it would never be necessary to oppose him and to dissent from his false teachings and “bad” appointments.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy, and a true pope is a monarch who has plenipotentiary power to govern as he sees fit, including to make appointments of his choice to fill vacant diocesan sees or positions in the Vatican.

“Bishop” Strickland seems impervious to the meaning of Pope Saint Pius X’s very clear statements in his allocution to the Apostolic Union, and he is equally impervious to Pope Leo XIII’s letters forbidding all public criticism of a Sovereign Pontiff:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government.On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

As far as I am aware, no one in the “resist while recognize” movement has of yet “recognized” that Epistola Tua and Est Sane Molestum even exist, no less that each condemns the false assertion that one can openly criticize a true pope on matters of Faith and Morals. Both of these apostolic letters were entered into Pope Leo XIII’s Acta Apostolicae Sedis and are thus binding upon the consciences of every single Catholic around the world without any reservations, exceptions or qualifications whatsoever.  

Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV knows exactly what he is doing by appointing Shane Mackinlay as the conciliar “archbishop” of Brisbane, Australia, and this means that he, Prevost/Leo, is as open to women “deacons” as, say, oh, I don’t know, Christoph Schonborn, Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin, Robert McElroy, and Shane Mackinlay (see What Bishops Are Saying - Discerning Deacons).

Boy, if only Leo knew, huh?

Relax, folks, Leo knows. Leo knows. He is just another conciliar revolutionary but without his predecessor’s uncouth mannerisms and the vulgarity of his speech. No matter what the differences in style and appearance between the last and current conciliar antipope, though. Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV is as open to where the “spirit” is taking what he thinks is the Catholic Church as was the wretched old Argentine Apostate himself.

Let us take our recourse today within the Octave of the Solemnity of Corpus Christi to spending time, if at all possible, before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament (or, if one does not live near an area where Our Lord is present, to dispatch one’s Guardian Angel to the nearest tabernacle where Our Lord truly awaits for adorers) to beg Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament to make reparation for our own sins and to pray for the restoration of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

The following prayer to Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament is thus very appropriate to pray today in addition, of course, to praying her Most Holy Rosary with renewed fervor and meditative recollection:

O Virgin Mary, our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament, thou glory of the Christian people, joy of the universal Church, salvation of the whole world, pray for us, and awaken in all believers a lively devotion toward the Most Holy Eucharist, that so they maybe made to worthy to partake of the same daily. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957. Number 418, p. 320. Pope Saint Pius X, Audience, December 9, 1906; S.C. Ind., January 23, 1907; S.P. Ap. December 12, 1933. An indulgence of 500 days.)

Our Lady of the Most Blessed Sacrament, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us. 

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us. 

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us. 

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us. 

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us. 

Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us.