THE MAGNANIMOUS RECEPTION GIVEN TO A SCHISMATIC WHO SIMULATES HOLY ORDERS, ALL THREE LEVELS, DEACON, PRIEST AND BISHOP

Pope Leo XIV and Archbishop of Canterbury Sarah Mullally pray the Liturgy of the Hours together in the Urban VIII Chapel of the Apostolic Palace on April 27, 2026. | Credit: Vatican Media

There are those in the Episcopate who will instrumentalize women in ministry in non-Catholic sects to soften the ground for the ordination of women in the Catholic Church.

I think that’s exactly what we saw with the Archbishopess of the Vacant See of Canterbury. Catholic prelates, who blessed themselves when she gave a priestly blessing were softening the ground to make women’s ordination in our new synodal Church a reality—the so-called developed of doctrine that has done absolute wonders for liberal Protestantism.

Was Pope Leo XIV used? Yes, you betcha. 

But let me make this clear. He is not promoting female ordination but Christian charity toward non-Catholics, in particular those who are validly baptized. Her Grace is validly baptized but not validly confirmed unless she received Confirmation from a validly ordained priest or bishop. She is a Christian by virtue of her baptism. 

While she dresses as a bishop in her Christian sect, that is only a simulation of Holy Orders or cross-dressing from the Catholic point of view and dogma of the Ordinary Magisterium of the true Church.

Keep in mind, that the very day that Her Grace was installed as the Archishopess of the Vacant See of Canterbury, which was on a Wednesday, Pope Leo’s Wednesday catechesis was on Holy Orders and that only men can receive this Sacrament in whatever level it is offered.

There are a significant number of heterodox Catholics, bishops, lower clergy, religious and laity, who want women ordained and hope one day to have a woman pope, or even transgendered individuals, who refer to themselves as they, them, we and us, and not in the royal usage!

Her grace is the perfect foil to promote their cause. I feel bad that Pope Leo was used by the Anglican Communion and the heterodox in our Church to promote such nonsense. 

IT DOES BEG THE QUESTION: VALID BUT ILLICIT…

The head of the Anglican Communion, what they call their Archbishop of Canterbury, although that see is vacant from the Catholic point of view or canons, is in no way a deacon, priest or bishop—she simulates being so.

Since Anglicanism separated from Catholicism by decree of a secular king who then declared himself the head of the Church of England, that Church, her deacons, priests, bishops, religious and laity became schismatic and I presume excommunicated—please correct me if I am wrong.

Yet, because of ecumenical sensitivities, Pope Leo and all popes since Paul VI and including him have met with schismatics, prayed with them and allowed them to use Catholic Churches and basilicas for their liturgies. 

My former parish of Saint Anne in Richmond Hill, Georgia in the 1980’s allowed an Episcopal parish, Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, to rent their original church for their Eucharist and use the Catholic altar in that church. Their pastor was a female “priestess”. 

I am not opposed to ecumenism and have been quite ecumenically friendly in my priestly ministry. I think it is a necessity in the Bible Belt. 

But the cozy relationship popes and the Catholic Churches have with schismatics, like the Orthodox, the Protestants and the Anglican Communion allowing them to even bless Catholic bishops, makes me wonder why there is such concern about the FSSPX and their upcoming schismatic act of ordaining new bishops, validly but illicitly. These schismatic bishops are more Roman Catholic than any Eastern Orthodox Bishops. They are validly, though illicitly ordained unlike the Anglican Community where their orders are not just illicit but invalid.

Why not embrace the newly ordained FSSPX bishops with the same love and admiration and privileges as the Archbishop of Canterbury whoever that might be, male, female, trans or whatever???????

That’s the question I would like to pose and hear an answer. Thank you. 

HYACINTH’S “KEEPING UP APPEARANCES” “THE LADY ARCHBISHOPESS OF THE HOUSE SPEAKING…”

 ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE LEO XIV

ON THE OCCASION OF THE
VISIT OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

Monday, 27 April 2026

[Multimedia]

________________________

Your Grace,

Peace be with you!

In the joy of this Paschal season, as we continue to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead, I am pleased to welcome you and your Delegation to the Vatican.

Your visit brings to mind the memorable encounter between Saint Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey sixty years ago, the anniversary of which you marked with Cardinal Koch in Canterbury Cathedral on the morning after your installation.  Since then, Archbishops of Canterbury and Bishops of Rome have continued to meet and pray together, and I am glad that we are continuing this tradition today.  I am likewise grateful for the ministry of the Anglican Centre in Rome, also established sixty years ago, and I greet in a special way the Centre’s Director, Bishop Anthony Ball, whom you will commission this evening as your Representative to the Holy See.

Throughout these days of Eastertide, the first words spoken by the risen Christ resound throughout the Church: “Peace be with you” (Jn 20:19).  This greeting invites us not only to accept the Lord’s gift of peace, but also to be messengers of his peace.  I have often mentioned that the peace of the risen Jesus is “unarmed.”  This is because he always responded to violence and aggression in an unarmed way, inviting us to do likewise.  Moreover, I believe that Christians must bear prophetic and humble witness to this profound reality together (cf. Message for the LIX World Day of Peace, 1 January 2026).

While our suffering world greatly needs the peace of Christ, the divisions among Christians weakens our capacity to be effective bearers of that peace.  If the world is to take our preaching to heart, we must, therefore, be constant in our prayers and efforts to remove any stumbling blocks that hinder the proclamation of the Gospel. This focus on the need for unity for the sake of a more fruitful evangelization has been a theme throughout my own ministry; indeed it is reflected in the motto I chose when I became a bishop: In Illo uno unum, “In the One — that is Christ — we are one” (Saint Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., 127, 3).

In this regard, when Archbishop Michael Ramsey and Saint Paul VI announced the first theological dialogue between Anglicans and Catholics, they spoke of seeking the “restoration of complete communion in faith and sacramental life” (Common Declaration, 24 March 1966). Certainly this ecumenical journey has been complex.  While much progress has been made on some historically divisive issues, new problems have arisen in recent decades, rendering the pathway to full communion more difficult to discern.  I know that the Anglican Communion is also facing many of these same questions at this time.  Nevertheless, we must not allow these continuing challenges to prevent us from using every possible opportunity to proclaim Christ to the world together.  As my beloved predecessor, Pope Francis, said to the Primates of the Anglican Communion in 2024, “it would be a scandal if, due to our divisions, we did not fulfil our common vocation to make Christ known” (Address to Primates of the Anglican Communion, 2 May 2024).  For my part, I add that it would also be a scandal if we did not continue to work towards overcoming our differences, no matter how intractable they may appear.

As we continue to journey together in friendship and dialogue, then, let us pray that the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord breathed on the disciples on the evening after his resurrection, will guide our steps as we prayerfully and humbly seek the unity which is the Lord’s will for all his disciples.

Your Grace, in thanking you for your visit today, I pray that the same Holy Spirit will remain with you always, making you fruitful in the service to which you have been called.

May God bless you and your family.

WITH ALL THE TINKERING THAT PRIESTS DO WITH THE BUGNINI MASS, LET ME ADD A NEW TINKER!

A priest commenter on my blog wrote a comment that no one really likes the Bugnini Mass as it is presented in the modern Roman Missal. Everyone makes changes, from blabbing people to death during the Introductory Rite before introducing the Penitential Act, to manipulating words and gestures to suit what the priest thinks is better.

That’s the Bugnini Mass for you, everyone, from the left, right and middle,  tries to improve it as no one seems to like a straightforward by the book Bugnini Mass. 

So let me play that game too as it concerns the “Gathering Rite”, uhm, the “Introductory Act”.

First, no blabbing prior to the Penitential Act! Please, no blabbing, no secular greetings after the religious one, no blabbing please, no secular greetings. Say exactly what is in the Roman Missal to “introduce” the Penitential Act, no matter the option that will be chosen for it.

This is what is in the modern missal, use it and no other words!:

Priest: Brethren (brothers and sisters), let us acknowledge our sins, that we may prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries. 

But with that said, let me improve the Bugnini Mass’s Introductory Rite by eliminating the “introduction” to the Penitential Act.

After the Entrance Chant is concluded, the one in the Roman Gradual, the priest continues the Mass with the “Sign of the Cross and greeting”:

Priest: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

All: Amen

Priest: The Lord be with you.

All: And with your Spirit

(Then immediately and without any words what so ever, nor any blabbing, the Penitential Act begins by all):

All: I confess to Almighty God….

Priest: May almighty God have mercy…

All: Amen

Then follows the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect.

Or:

Priest: Have mercy on us, O Lord.

All: For we have sinner against you.

Priest: Show us, O Lord, your mercy.

All: And grant us your salvation.

Priest: May Almighty God..

All: Amen.

Then follows the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect

Or, If a trope Kyrie is chosen, the Kyrie is moved to after all three tropes:

Priest/Deacon: Lord Jesus, You are Mighty God and Prince of Peace.

All: Amen.

P/D: Lord Jesus, you are Son of God and Son of Mary.

All: Amen.

P/D: Lord Jesus, you are Word made Flesh and Splendor of the Father.

All: Amen.

Priest: May Almighty God….

Then the Kyrie follows and the Gloria and Collect

I, in my most humble opinion, think this is the best improvement to the Bugnini Penitential Act, a tinkering that outdoes every other tinkering especially Bugnini’s tinkering with the TLM’s Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, no?

FEARING THAT TRADITIONIS CUSTODIS IS COMING FOR FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS, FATHER JAMES MARTIN, SJ SPINS POPE LEO AND IT SHOWS THAT FIDUCIA SUPPLICAN ADMIRERS ARE FEARING, LIKE SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM LOVERS, THE WORST! DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, MY TITLE, THAT IS?

This is what Fr. James Martin, SJ writes on his Facebook page, the second of two posts.You should read the comments. Commenters are inviting LGBTQ++++ Catholics to join the Judgement Free Zone of the Anglican/Episcopal Communion, in other words to go into schism, similar to the Sedevacantists!

Here’s his post (with my most humble, powerfully astute, comments embedded in RED):

To answer questions I've been getting about the Holy Father's comments on blessing same-sex couples today, in a press conference on his way back to Rome:  First, we should trust the discernment of the Holy Father in this, as in all things. In addition to his teaching role as the Vicar of Christ, Pope Leo XIV is a kind, wise, thoughtful and prayerful man. And what he says, even in a press conference, needs to be seen in light of this, and appreciating his knowledge of the needs of the universal church. (Absolutely, but I would caution the pope, any pope, to avoid off-the-cuff remarks on such important subjects and never pose answers with the preface, “I think, I believe, In my opinion—just don’t do it—popes should always speak authoritatively and off-the-cuff remarks are dissected to death—but even the opinionated type language points to the fact that the pope is Catholic and it isn’t his opinion about this, that or the other that counts, but the Deposit of Faith and Morals of the Church and all who are invited into the Church but also repent! Repent! Repent! Conversion must take place even in something as intimate and personal as one’s sexual identity and expressions!)

In terms of his comments, it seems, at least to me, that Pope Leo is not abrogating "Fiducia Supplicans," the Vatican document from 2023 that allows priests, under certain conditions, to bless “same-sex couples.” (That’s the language used.) (Nice try and like Pope Leo, Martin says, “It seems, at least to me, that Pope Leo is not abrogating “Fiducia Supplicans.” That is their fear and they should fear it as Pope Francis initiated canceling one pope’s documents in favor of his own reversal documents. Why should Pope Leo be any different in canceling Fiducia Supplicans? )

One of the many conditions was that these blessings would not be formalized, that is, as a kind of planned liturgy. To that end, the German bishops' proposal would be, as I read it, to formalize these blessings more, a move that flows out of the German bishops' sincere desire to listen to the voices of German Catholics raised during their synodal processes. But the Vatican (and the Holy Father) oppose this move, as the Pope said today. Overall, though, "FS," even though it has proven controversial in some parts of the world (while warmly welcomed in others), still stands. (I think Cardinal Marx should be disciplined similar to what appears will happen to the FSPPX priests who will soon be illicitly ordained bishops. What is good for the goose is good for the gander! Cardinal Marx must be disciplined! No?)

The Holy Father's larger point is that to move beyond "FS" would be to risk unity in the church, and he is correct. One of the things that was hammered home for me in the Synod was how things that can seem tepid in the West ("What's the big deal about blessing same-sex couples?," as I heard often) are white-hot in other parts of the church ("Fiducia Supplicans is blessing sin," as I heard just as often). (Fiducia Supplicans as written does permit the blessing of sin, but Pope Francis, after all the push back he received, moderated that position and said no, individuals are being blessed, not the couple or their relationship—but we know what has transpired and Fr. Martin is being a bit duplicitous here, because almost immediately he blessed a homosexual couple and their relationship and put it on his Facebook page, almost gloating over Pope Francis opening the door to change the anthropology and dogmas of both marriage and Holy Orders—hypocrisy anyone? )

One of Pope Leo's overall desires for the church is for unity, which he restated again today. (Remember that his papal motto is "In the One, we are one.") (Our unity is not in amoral or immoral ideologies or opinions, but in the “Splendor of Truth” which of course is Jesus Christ and His call for conversion from our sins to His Holiness, His Perfections!)

His perhaps even larger point was that the church is for all people, for "tutti, tutti, tutti," as he has said several times now, quoting Pope Francis. A church for everyone, including LGBTQ people. Including everyone.  (By the way I wouldn’t read too much into his calling the Pope’s phrase “infamous,” before saying “famous.” It must have been an exhausting trip and he also said the church values life “from conception to natural birth,” when he clearly meant “natural death.” We shouldn’t parse slips of the tongue, especially after a grueling journey.) (No Father Martin, it was a Freudian slip and not due to fatigue! Tutti, tutti, tutti, without also, conversion, conversion, conversion is not only infamous, but stupid and heretical!)

At least this is how this seemed to me after listening to his wise, careful and thoughtful response today, after an exhausting trip. (So here we see Fr. Martin talking out of both sides of his mouth, praising Pope Leo and blaming his remarks that reverse Pope Francis’ opinions as being too tired and fatigued to think like Pope Francis. What BS! No?)

Let's continue to pray for our Holy Father as he seeks to balance many things in the church we all love. And let's continue to trust Pope Leo in his ongoing discernment about these matters, and in all matters. (Thank you Fr. Martin for being so magnanimous towards Pope Leo with whom you clearly are alarmed at what His Holiness said and you wish Pope Leo was Pope Francis II, but His Holiness isn’t—He’s Pope Leo the Great II!)

FREUDIAN SLIP OR THE TRUTH?

 Pope Leo in his high altitude interview stated that Pope Francis “todas, todas, todas” was “infamous” and then he corrected himself and said famous.

More than likely, his first statement is what he believes because he followed “tutti, tutti, tutti” by saying everyone is called to conversion to Christ and his teachings. The Church is for all, but only the many will be saved, not all. 

POPE LEO’S NUANCED OPINION ON IMMIGRATION AND FAR MORE SOBER THAN POPE FRANCI’S STATEMENTS! AND GREAT CORRECTION ON SAME SEX BLESSINGS!

 Personally, I believe that a State has the right to regulate its borders. I am not saying that everyone must be allowed to enter without order, sometimes creating in destination countries situations more unjust than those they left behind. But that said, I ask myself: what are we doing in richer countries to change the situation in poorer countries? Why can we not try, both through state aid and through the investments of large wealthy companies and multinationals, to change the situation in countries like those we visited on this visit?

And on the German schismatic way and blessing sin. The pope’s great answer:

Reporter:I would like to know how you assess the decision of Cardinal Reinhardt Marx, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, that he gave permission to the blessing of same-sex couples in his diocese, and in light of different cultural and theological perspectives, especially in Africa, how do you intend to preserve the unity of the global Church on that particular matter?

[Pope Leo XIV, in English:] First of all, I think it’s very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual matters. We tend to think that when the Church is talking about morality, that the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality, I believe there are much greater, more important issues, such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion, that would all take priority before that particular issue. The Holy See has already spoken to the German bishops.

The Holy See has made it clear that we do not agree with the formalized blessing of couples, in this case, homosexual couples, as you asked, or couples in irregular situations, beyond what was specifically, if you will, allowed for by Pope Francis in saying all people receive blessings.

When a priest gives a blessing at the end of Mass, when the Pope gives a blessing at the end of a large celebration like the one we had today, they are blessings for all people. Francis’ well-known expression ‘Tutti, tutti, tutti’ is an expression of the Church’s belief that all are welcome; all are invited; all are invited to follow Jesus, and all are invited to look for conversion in their lives.

To go beyond that today, I think that the topic can cause more disunity than unity, and that we should look for ways to build our unity upon Jesus Christ and what Jesus Christ teaches. So that’s how I would respond to that question.

Watch the Facebook video of the pope’s actual words HERE.

LITURGICAL DIVERSITY BUT UNITY IN THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST—IN THE GATHERED COMMUNITY, IN THE WORD, IN THE PRIEST AND IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT…

• 

I have been watching many of the inculturated Masses of Pope Leo in the various countries of Africa. There is an exuberance in how the congregation participates in the Mass especially the use of the body and various movements or ritual dances. 

The music is exuberant too, but like so much of our folk and contemporary music imposed on the Mass here in the West, I am not sure how to judge or critique the appropriateness of this music even an inculturated African Mass. 

Also, there seems to be a disconnect with an American Pope and His Holiness’ sober style of celebrating the Mass and the other elements of the African way of celebrating Mass. It’s eclectic to say the least. 

But with that said, the Catholic Church, in both the east and the west has had and still has liturgical diversity. Most Latin Rite Catholics are very confused by the Eastern Rite liturgies and I have to say I am too, but these are beautiful. 

And even in the Latin Rite there are various forms of the Mass from city to city in Europe and here in the USA we have the normal Ordinary Form Mass with all of its diversity not only from diocese to diocese but within the same parish. 

And then there is the Anglican Ordinariate Mass with its United Kingdom cultural ethos. 

But the epitome of European, yes, Roman inculturation of the Mass is the Tridentine Mass, often called the TLM or the Extraordinary Form of the one Latin Rite, with its two expressions, ordinary and extraordinary. 

With all the various ways in which the Mass is celebrated in the east and west and especially its diversity in the Latin Rite, why in the Name of God and all that is Holy, is there a problem with the Tridentine Mass and ancillary liturgies?

Why is there a serious religious pathology in this regard? 

ON THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE DEATH OF POPE FRANCIS, RIP, SILERI NON POSSUM OFFERS A FRANK BUT SOBER REQUIEM FOR A POLARIZING POPE…

 PRESS HERE FOR FULL ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

MONEY BYTE:

Mercy was preached, and priests were suspended a divinis even before the substance of the accusations had been verified, simply in order to feed the media with a guilty party to exhibit. Synodality was celebrated, and those who dared to raise legitimate questions about incomprehensible texts such as In Ecclesiarum Communione were dispatched with a one-way ticket. Poverty was preached, and enormous sums were spent on the whims of the new image: wardrobes redone in order to appear more humble, the abandonment of the Apostolic Palace in favour of a Santa Marta refurbished to measure, the Palace of Castel Gandolfo abandoned and then reopened as a museum attraction; and all the while the Dicastery for Communication was allowed to turn the face of the Pontiff into merchandise. The welcome of those who had gone astray and were “far away” was celebrated, and yet those who were “near” were dealt with mercilessly through commissariamenti and suspensions that bore the marks of a harshness that had nothing paternal about it. Clericalism was thundered against, and personal friends such as Marko Ivan Rupnik were protected, while the alleged victims waited for justice. There was talk of “opening up to women”, and behind closed doors it was said that “gossip is women’s stuff”, only then to stigmatise - with a lexical choice that speaks for itself - the “frociaggine” in seminaries. A veritable worm at the heart of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

TO CONCELEBRATE OR NOT TO CONCELEBRATE, THAT IS THE ANSWER OR IS IT THE QUESTION?

Traditionalists don’t like concelebration, not all but some. Non traditionalists don’t like concelebration, not all but some.

Ultra traditionalists think priests should celebrate their own Mass every day, thus if they attend Mass, they dress in choir dress. But apart from that, they participate in the Mass as any lay person would do, but hierarchically seated.

When concelebrating, all the priests doing so seperate themselves from every lay person attending Mass—these priests act as if they are celebrating the Mass differently than the lay person in the pew.

And it is for this reason, that non traditionalists don’t want the priest concelebrating. They want them to act as everyone else does at a Mass, meaning how the laity participates at Mass.

But they don’t want the priest dressed in choir dress and sitting in a hierarchical way, together, to be at Mass. No they want these priests to wear their clerical street dress and to sit in the congregation and not segregated from the laity.

Over the years, I have known priests in this group. They refused to concelebrate and gloried in not wearing choir dress and sitting mingled with the laity in the congregation.

Thus, in a rare agreement concerning clerical Church life, traditionalists and non traditionalists are united in being against concelebration. 

OH FOR THE GOOD OLE DAYS OF TAKING A HAMMER TO THE FAITH OF CATHOLICS…

 

Figurative representations around the birth of Jesus in the form of Christmas cribs still inspire children and adults alike.

There’s artificial intelligence and then there is artificial intelligence intelligence:

Raymond Brown, in his influential study The Birth of the Messiah (1977), did not explicitly use the term "demythologizing" but applied a method similar to it by separating the historical core of the infancy narratives from their theological, symbolic, and poetic elements. He argued that the accounts in Matthew and Luke are primarily "theologized" history rather than modern historical reporting, emphasizing their christological message over strict biographical accuracy. 

Key Aspects of Brown’s Approach:

• Historical Doubt: Brown expressed doubt about the historical character of many aspects of the infancy narratives.
• "Theologizing" over "Demythologizing": While similar to Bultmann’s process of demythologizing, Brown focused on identifying the specific christology (who Jesus is) conveyed by the evangelists.
• The Virginal Conception: Brown examined the virginal conception through a form-critical lens, acknowledging it as a dogma of the Church but questioning the sufficiency of the historical evidence.
• Differences in Narrative: He argued that the differences between Matthew and Luke’s accounts suggest they are not based on the same direct source, which, according to some interpretations, strengthens the argument for a "historical core" at their base.
• Focus on Meaning: Brown emphasized that the purpose of the narratives was to present theological truths about Jesus, such as his identity as the Son of God and Messiah, using OT imagery (e.g., Joseph's dreams, Moses parallels). 

Controversy and Reception:

• Criticism: Brown's approach was controversial and criticized by some traditional Catholic scholars for being overly liberal, potentially placing his findings in tension with traditional Church doctrine on the historical accuracy of Scripture.
• Focus on Intent: Other critics argued that the evangelists did not intend to write non-historical "allegories," but that the theological message was meant to rest on historical fact. 

Brown was a key figure in applying modern, critical biblical scholarship to the infancy narratives, separating the "what happened" from the "what it means."