Is Cardinal Müller the Mastermind behind Trad Inc.'s reversal?

Dr. Anthony Stine recently made an explosive revelation on his Return to Tradition YouTube channel: that Cardinal Müller had been the ringmaster behind the “zip-it” sock puppets among Trad Inc. and Catholic Inc. influencers. That is my interpretation of Dr. Stine’s remarks, but you can watch the clip and judge for yourself below (see approximately the 37–38 minute mark of the video).

Stephen Kokx posted about this on his X account while TLM Ryan of Pre-conciliar radio picked up the story and did a one hour livestream yesterday (which you can find on YouTube), where he talked about Dr. Stine’s revelation.

In my previous post I reviewed Marshall’s now-deleted video where he derided Prevost as a contender, followed by his dramatic & sycophantic U-turn a few days later where he pledging fidelity to—and fully submitting himself to—Prevost as Pope.

After Prevost was elected, Taylor Marshall in response to my comment on X replied stating that he had “always been a papal devotee”. Let that sink in. This came from the same man who during the Francis pontificate took a flamethrower to the Vatican in the form of his book entitled “Infiltration” (extended title: “The plot to destroy the Church from within”).

My comments to him and a few other Catholic influencers were not exactly polite. I was genuinely peeved by what I was witnessing—the apparent 180-degree turn of certain influencers toward an almost unquestioning admiration of Leo’s aura and vestments.

I subsequently began expressing my views on Substack about figures such as Taylor Marshall and Michael Matt (The Remnant), who, during the pontificate of Pope Francis, had emerged as some of his most prominent critics, only to become what I viewed as his vehement defenders after the election of Leo XIV. You can find my previous posts on Marshall and Matt below.

In my subsequent interactions with other Catholics who shared my concerns, it soon became apparent that there were, in my view, only two plausible explanations for the swift and seemingly mercurial shift in the posture of Taylor Marshall and several other prominent influencers.

The first was a straightforward economic one: that a Leonine papacy presented lucrative opportunities for content creators whose audiences had grown weary of the Francis pontificate. Many on social media—including myself—therefore described such influencers as “grifters,” suggesting that financial incentives had begun to outweigh firmly held convictions.

The second explanation, which I considered more plausible despite the absence of direct evidence, was that a senior cardinal or bishop had exercised considerable influence behind the scenes, effectively keeping prominent figures within Trad Inc. and Catholic Inc. on a short leash. This theory was shared by a few others in the Tradosphere, although, at the time, it remained entirely speculative and unsupported by conclusive evidence.

Indeed, in my post of 15 July 2026, I alluded to this very possibility when I wrote:

“Was Marshall acting on behest of instructions from leading prelates or clerics within the hierarchy?”

In December of 2025 as well, when Marshall posted a video lambasting Cardinal Tucho Fernandez, he let the cat out of the bag that he had spoken with an “eminent Cardinal” in Rome during the summer (presumably after the conclave), who assured Marshall that Fernandez would be removed from his post by the end of that year (see “Taylor Marshall does it again!” above).

My theory or hypothesis, though speculative, thus veered towards Cardinal Burke (who I mention by first name “Raymond” as a hint) in the above-mentioned post.

There were several reasons for being sceptical of Cardinal Burke, and I place my views here to provide perspective that while Cardinal Müller may have indeed been the man calling for the meeting to silence the influencers after the election of Prevost, the fact is that there is no way to rule out a co-ordinated effort by a larger group; Bear in mind that Archbishop Vigano recently referred to the trio of Cardinals Burke, Sarah and Müller as “Controlled Opposition”, and thus if that is true, unless more evidence emerges, it is impossible to rule out a co-ordinated silencing involving other Cardinals. I will list below the reasons for the theory — call it an educated guess, involving Burke.

• In 2014, Pope Francis after his election commenced a Synod on the Family. This Synod, had a two fold result. The first was the encyclical titled Amoris Laetitia (see the next point) and the second was a clash between Cardinal Burke and Francis’ blue-eyed ‘boy’ at the time, who also was his supporter within the Sankt Gallen mafia that elected him — Cardinal Walter Kasper. The politics is detailed in journalist Edward Pentin’s 2015 book “The Rigging of a (2014) Vatican Synod?: An Investigation of Alleged Manipulation at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family”.

• The fallout to that synod was the encyclical titled Amoris Laetitia in 2016 by Francis & co, which allowed through a reclusive footnote, communion to divorce and remarried Catholics — a watershed moment for the doctrinal direction of the Church.

• Those who have followed events over the past several years would know that this was the ‘turning point’ for several Trad influencers as revealed by them. From Taylor Marshall to Peter Kwasniewski, Trads started to train their guns on the Francis pontificate. Several journalists, mainstream media outlets such as EWTN and their affable hosts such as Raymond Arroyo, etc. all jumped on the Francis-bashing bandwagon. Many of these Trads were known loyalists to the trio of Burke, Müller, & Sarah (especially to Burke, him being the American among them). Was it mere coincidence that most pope-friendly Trad influencers simultaneously threw caution to the wind after 2016 & went into papal attack mode, almost Luther-like?

• In 2019 Taylor Marshall released his afore-mentioned book “Infiltration…” wherein he provided several details involving the conclave that elected Francis in 2013, in conjunction with the suspicious elements surrounding Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation. Such inputs could only come from senior prelates (or a single prelate) who was likely to have been present at the conclave in 2013 and/or who was significantly in the know of happenings.

The precursor to the resistance against Francis seemed to thus have had its origins in the politics since the 2014 Synod on the family; In my less than humble opinion, it thus seemed highly likely (to me at least) that the influencers in 2016 were egged on by the American Cardinal Burke. There was more to support this.

In July 2025, after Leo was elected, Diane Montagna provided a stunning exposé based on documents that could only have been leaked by an internal source within the Vatican, where it became clear that Francis’ decision to ban the Latin Mass through Traditionis Custodes in 2021 was thoroughly biased and against the poll conducted by himself. We have to thus ask ourselves, “who was the most credible source within the Vatican who could be well connected, to have access to such documents, who wanted Trads to have the Latin Mass, and who also was outspoken against Francis?”

All my questions seemed to point to Burke (the American Cardinal) as the answer. Can the revelation by Dr. Stine rule out Burke, and point only to Müller as the person responsible for ‘Zip-it gate’? I answer in the negative.

The latest exposé by Dr. Stine should be certainly kept in mind as credible; more information on Müller’s role in calling off the Trad-hounds likely forthcoming. The scope cannot be limited to Müller alone; the problem is larger. There are several questions if Dr. Stine & his source are correct, such as:

• Who instructed Müller to silence influencers?

• What was the rationale for such instructions?

• Why did Müller agree to silence criticism against Prevost when he was supportive of criticism during the Francis pontificate?

• What prompted the change in such internal dynamics?

• Why did the Trad influencers agree to Müller’s demands?

• Were any quid pro quo deals made at this meeting between the influencers and Müller, if at all?

• Who was responsible for the leak of the Traditionis Custodes working documents to Diane Montagna?

• Was Müller’s name being dropped into the fray to protect Burke (among others)?

• Is, therefore, the “Müller” revelation a strategic name thrown to the barking hounds to further distract and silence them?

This is not to say that Dr. Stine is resorting to biased reporting. I believe he has been honest in his reporting while avoiding excessive theorizing sans evidence or in the absence of more information than what his source(s) has revealed. But I hope he and others, including readers of this post, will bear the above points in mind, in considering the unlikeliness of Müller acting alone and without instructions. This may not follow simply because Müller’s motive is unclear.

In addition, the influence of who initiated the instructions to Müller (if any) is crucial; Were those instructions part of the discussions held by Prevost in the initial few days of the election? Recall that Cardinal Prevost met Burke on the eve of his election as reported by AP.

The strongest support for a theory (involving a larger coalition, rather than Müller singularly & unilaterally initiating such actions) comes from the inside perspective of Abp. Vigano, who had a ‘box seat’ view of all that transpired within the Vatican during the pontificate of Benedict XVI and Francis, and which I find worth repeating at this point here:

“Müller, Sarah, and Burke effectively constitute a controlled opposition. Their role is to contain the [haemorrhage] of Catholics caused by the conciliar revolution, deluding the faithful into thinking that it is possible for two opposing entities to coexist within the same institution and under the same Hierarchy: the Catholic Church and the conciliar-synodal Church,”

My view, even on the back of Dr. Stine’s well founded claim, remains that the instructions that percolated to the Trad Inc. & Catholic Inc. influencers were initiated by the modernists (including Prevost), but was handled by their more trusted lieutenants (trusted by the Trads, that is) — the controlled opposition coalition, led by Burke, and executed by Müller, based on some future considerations (quid pro quo) likely towards the TLM, among such other considerations.

How much of this ‘theory’ holds up to evidence and future scrutiny remains to be seen.

Ave Maria