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.
20 comments:
Speaking of the SSPX:
=======
In regard to the Archbishop of Canterbury's visit to Rome:
I wonder whether Father David Father Pagliarani, SSPX Superior General,
will utilize Pope Leo XIV's actions and address as his (Father Pagliarani's) Assisi I.
That is, Archbishop Lefebvre/SSPX employed Assisi I as "proof" that Rome had lost its head...that it was obvious supposedly that "Modernist Rome" had fallen into such a deep crisis that the SSPX had every right and reason to consecrate bishops against Rome's will.
It may be that the above is unnecessary as Father Pagliarani has insisted that under Pope Leo XIV's leadership, the "crisis" within the Church is as pronounced as ever.
Father Pagliarani has portrayed Pope Leo XIV as a ruinous Pope...Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) 2.0.
Father Pagliarani:
"With the legacy left to us by Pope Francis, the fundamental reasons that justified the consecrations of 1988 still exist and, in many respects, impel us with renewed urgency.
"The Second Vatican Council remains more than ever the compass guiding today’s churchmen, and they are unlikely to change course in the near future.
"Furthermore, the major orientations already taking shape in this new pontificate...only confirm this.
"An explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church is discernible."
=======
Nevertheless, just for good measure, Father Pagliarani may utilize Pope Leo XIV's red carpet treatment yesterday of Archbishop Mullally as his Assisi I...to bolster his argument that it's imperative that the SSPX consecrate bishops even without Papal mandate.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Absolutely! Just as Martin Luther did, the Eastern Orthodox do and the Anglican Communion does, all with their own brand of gripes with the pope. The FSSPX should be treated no differently than the popes treat the older schismatics, the historic ones. We agree! Wow! đŸ¤¯
With Father McDonald's permission...to add to my prior comment:
The SSPX's had viewed as appalling Pope Leo XIV's greeting last month to Archbishop Mullany.
Therefore, the SSPX must be livid beyond belief in regard to Pope Leo XIV's red carpet treatment yesterday of Archbishop Mullany.
=======
https://fsspx.news/en/news/leo-xiv-and-anglican-communion-58218
Excerpts:
-- Leo XIV and the Anglican Communion
"On March 20, 2026, Pope Leo XIV addressed a message to the "Most Reverend and Most Honorable Dame Sarah Mullally, Archbishop of Canterbury," on the occasion of her enthronement.
"This missive is not without raising serious questions, at various levels, which should not be left unanswered.
"We thus find ourselves in the grotesque situation of a woman placed at the head of the Anglican Diocese of Canterbury, rejected by a majority of Anglicans – who see in this election a betrayal of the reformative ideal – but supported and encouraged by the reigning pope.
"There is also a plan for the latter to receive Dame Mullally at the Vatican at the end of April on the occasion of her visit to Rome.
"In these circumstances, the absurdity of ecumenism manifests itself with a very special acuity, which should cause reflection in all those who are not yet anesthetized by ambient modernism.
"It is, in any case, a new manifestation of the state of necessity in the Holy Church."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I expect a Vatican bishop to cross himself when being blessed publicly by a newly-consecrated SSPX bishop, who is visiting Rome for a lovely papal reception and celebrates liturgies in Roman basilicas on invitation. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander (which is particularly appropriate, given the respective sex of the goose and of the gander).
Nick
One of the hallmarks of the post-Vatican II “Conciliar Period” has been the obsession of popes in welcoming the leaders of Anglican churches as equals. The situation has always been untenable — since they are not bishops at all — but it has recently reached the level of ridiculous, following the election of Mrs. Sarah Mullally, a (by all appearances) lovely lady from Surrey, as “archbishop” of the defunct See of Canterbury.
It was bad enough to pretend that lay preachers such as the late Mr Runcie were successors of Saint Augustine of Canterbury and Saint Thomas Becket, but at least one could pretend in such cases that he might one day be validly ordained if he joined the Catholic Church. No such pretense is possible with the kind nurse Mrs. Mullally. The whole charade deceives the honored guest and mocks the dignity of the Apostolic Succession and the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
I'm not sure I'd term the relationship between Catholics and Orthodox as cozy. Respectful, perhaps. The Orthodox tend to eschew ecumenical as a false prophet, leading to pan-heresy. Compromise on fundamentals originating with the Apostles, Deposit of Faith, Church Fathers and the first 7 ecumenical Councils is a non-negotiable. Say what you will, hopefully to not dredge up closed debates, I do respect their honesty.
If a bishop may accept her blessing would he also be correct to accept communion from her? Or are neither of them more spiritually effective than offering a biscuit and compliments at tea? Is there an obligation for his eminence to explain the difference?
Pope Leo XIV received today and yesterday verbal beatings...and not just from trads/radtrads. His supposed legitimization yesterday of Archbishop Mullany has enraged various folks...again, not just trads/radtrads.
Prior to yesterday, various folks had viewed Pope Leo XVI as another supposed Vatican II Era Vatican II/Novus Ordo/Ecumenical Movement modernist Pope.
Said folks today are convinced that they had pegged Pope Leo XIV correctly.
But as I had noted yesterday, "Pope Leo XIV made clear today his unrelenting commitment to the Ecumenical Movement."
His Holiness had declared: "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”.
"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."
=======
Supposed "destructive" Ecumenical Movement moments such as yesterday will continue with Pope Leo XIV's approval.
His commitment to such Ecumenical Movement practices is beyond doubt.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I can somewhat justify blessings from an Orthodox bishop since, at least, they have valid Holy Orders. Dame Sarah is basically a lovely English lady dressing up as a bishop. She should, however, be received by the Pope, with respect and dignity. She is head of the Anglican Church and has millions of followers.
The Vatican should not let her act, on their property, as if she is a true bishop giving episcopal blessing.
Thank you MT. I am glad you endorse Pope Leo allowing the soon-to-be ordained bishops of the FSSPX the same respect in the Vatican accorded to Dame Sarah as a part of confirming by Pope Leo, Pope Francis’ ecumenical outreach.
Bottom line: Scandalous! But then, Pachamama is alive and well too.
The ecumenist movement is supported -- and made more complicated -- by a false ecclesiology that fails to recognize the reality that the Church is the Body of Christ, which entails a belief that one is either within the Body or outside the Body, a mostly objectively observable categorization. Ecumenism attacks the Body of the Church by not accepting the boundaries of the Church.
So, we end up with situations where those within the Body pretend as if those outside the Body have some legitimate claim to being part of the Church somehow.
In Roman Catholicism, this is enshrined in your "degrees of communion" ecclesiology post-Vatican II. From that error, all sorts of problems arise that would be easier to resolve if proper order was observed. One of the problems that you have is how or why to distinguish between an Anglican lady pretending to be a bishop and an SSPX vagante bishop pretending to adhere to Rome's authority. They're simply both aspects of failed ecclesiology manifesting itself as a tangible, real world problem.
I suspect Rome treats the Anglican with respect rather than the SSPX bishop because the SSPX bishop pretends to be part of your Church; whereas, the Anglican lady doesn't seem to care.
There are still millions of adherents to the Anglican Communion? Wow.
Nick
Orthodox Churches belong to The World Council of Churches, non?
Unfortunately, yes, most of them do. The difference is that Orthodox people, like myself, can disagree with the ecumenist agenda because it’s not part of our Church’s teaching. Whereas Roman Catholics are required to believe the modern ecumenist nonsense from Rome as its official doctrine.
Marc, it is a pastoral theology, not a defined doctrine. There’s a difference.
Whatever helps you sleep at night! Ha!
Fr. AJM. I appreciate your point, however, from an Eastern perspective, I also understand Marc's concern. So, how do you reconcile the two? Is it simply "for the benefit of souls"? That's laudable, but you run the risk of compromising on rock solid truths, no? Where is the responsibility of the other side to recognize and correct their errors? The Church wasn't founded the way it's been broken apart for questionable and point in time reasons.
I think the TLM is not the problem, but bishops like this are:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/04/schism-incoming-bishop-of-antwerp.html#more
A leftwing loon bishop in Antwerp announcing he will ordain married men. Time to put up or shut up, Leo!
On the basis of a pastoral emergency. Sound familiar? It should.
Let me guess--he won't be immediately threatened with excommunication. What a joke.
Nick
Post a Comment