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.
11 comments:
In a comment on the previous post, you suggested that Rome’s ecumenist teaching “is a pastoral theology, not a defined doctrine.” Yet, in this post you say, “She is a Christian by virtue of her baptism.” This understanding is the basis for the ecumenist position: it is the belief that sacraments happen outside the Body of Christ, the Church. And as I mentioned in my comment on the last post, it is from this erroneous ecclesiology that all the issues you’re talking about flow.
This whole reception was bad on so many levels but Leo can't help himself because he is vested in this "look". The Holy Father is continuing a tradition of sowing confusion and doubt among the faithful and will do so for years to come. I was so hopeful there would be a change for the better with the passing of Francis but this is not going to happen. Leo talks a good game but talk is cheap and so far, I'm not buying it.
Turns out that you Eastern Orthodox Churches have a longer and far more developed doctrine of ecumenism that the fullness of the True Church headed by the visible Vicar of Christ. Orthodoxy not only has belonged to the World Council of Churches since it inception but has far more developed relationships with the Anglican Communion. Certainly your doctrines of ecumenism, developed way, way, way after your Great Schism, are much more far reaching than the pope’s and Vatican II’s pastoral theology on the same. We have no ecumenical doctrines like you do:
From AI:
The relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is characterized by long-term, friendly theological dialogue aimed at unity, officially active for over 50 years through the International Commission for Anglican–Orthodox Theological Dialogue (ICAOTD). While sharing common ground in tradition, sacraments, and creeds, progress towards full intercommunion is often hindered by differing views on Anglican theological shifts and authority.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
+3
Key Aspects of the Relationship
Dialogue and Official Relations: Formal discussions started in the 1930s and were formalized in 1973. These dialogues cover theological topics such as Scripture, Tradition, and the Trinity.
Apostolic Succession: Some Orthodox churches (e.g., Constantinople, Alexandria) have previously recognized the validity of Anglican orders.
Shared Beliefs: Both hold a high regard for early Church tradition, the sacraments (specifically Baptism and Eucharist), and a liturgical, episcopal structure.
Challenges: The Orthodox often see the Anglican Communion as increasingly influenced by "liberal" Protestant theology, creating barriers to full communion.
Areas of Conflict: Differing views on the ordination of women and other social issues have caused tension in recent decades.
anglicanprovince.org
anglicanprovince.org
+5
Usage Examples & Historical Contact
Historic Visits: The Archbishop of Canterbury has historically visited the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to foster relations.
Theological Conferences: Joint commissions regularly produce agreed statements, such as the Moscow Statement (1976) and Dublin Statement (1984).
Support for Refugees: In the early 20th century, Anglicans provided aid to Orthodox refugees in Eastern Europe, strengthening personal ties.
anglicanhistory.org
anglicanhistory.org
+3
What you’re citing are not ecumenist doctrines, though. They are academic discussions.
We do not hold, as you do, that there are degrees of communion with the Church or sacraments outside the Body of the Church.
Not true Marc, as you have no pope and thus no unity within the vast umbrella of Orthodoxy, two major branches of Orthodoxy have accepted, Constantinople (where your great schism originated, and Alexandria have accepted the validity of Anglican Orders, which implies you accept their baptisms and Confirmations and Holy Eucharist. But they are not in full communion yet with you, but are in your beliefs of the validity of Holy Orders and Apostolic Sucession. You have a far more detailed and developed doctrine of full and partial communion than us orthodox Catholics.
No Orthodox Church currently accepts the "validity" of Anglican orders. There was a time around 100 years ago where there was an idea that Anglicans had maintained Apostolic Succession and, therefore, had valid orders. At that time, Orthodoxy was really interacting with Anglicanism for the first time and so didn't have an understanding of it.
Once Anglicanism was better understood, it was clear that their orders were not "valid," and that is the current situation, as it has been for a long time.
You should rely less on AI...
Marc:
https://livingchurch.org/history/archives-anglican-orders-recognized-by-constantinople-1922/
Also Marc, when I was in Augusta, I received into the full communion of the Catholic Church a former Episcopal priest. He had planned to apply to the Diocese of Savannah to be ordained a Catholic priest under St. Pope John Paul II’s special permission and circumstances, but then decided not to do so. But he had told me that he and many other Episcopal priests had sought out Eastern Orthodox bishops to ordain them so that they would have valid orders. And there were many Orthodox bishops quite willing to do so. So, technically, because one of your bishops were so willing to ordain him a priest, his orders are valid. You Orthodox are all over the place, no real unity under any pope, just your local bishop who thinks he’s the pope, at least of his diocese.
In regard to the notion that Pope Leo XIV had been used:
How could His Holiness, a brilliant man...a man of long experience within the Church...have not understood the manner in which certain Catholics would react to his red carpet treatment of the Archbishop of Canterbury — not just a priestess, but a Protestant, regardless of one's sex, who "poses" as an Archbishop?
His charitable letter to her last month was viewed by various Catholics as having been over-the-top...controversial, inappropriate. Then there were Catholics who twisted the letter in question to promote their pro-ordination of women to the priesthood agenda.
In light of the above, Pope Leo XIV was unaware that his supposed "legitimization" yesterday of a priestess would not only outrage certain Catholics, but would be employed/twisted by certain Catholics to promote the ordination of women to the priesthood?
Again, I find it difficult to believe that Pope Leo XIV had been unaware that certain Catholics would express outrage...and additional Catholics would twist his words and actions to fit their pro-priestess agenda.
If Pope Leo XIV had been unaware of the "dangers" associated with his determination to have rolled out the red carpet not just for a Protestant who has claimed the title "Archbishop..."
...but a priestess as well...then Pope Leo XIV is naive (which is difficult to believe).
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Who said the Holy Father is naive? He fully knew he would be used. Why else would he have emphasized that only men can be ordained on the very day that that the first woman became the Anglican’s version of the Archbishop of Canterbury? He’s not naive and knew the risks. He also knows that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church just as Pope Paul acknowledged.
Actually, if your story is accurate, the fact that an Orthodox bishop would have ordained the man indicates that he was not already recognized as having valid orders...
There's no Orthodox Church in the world that would hold Anglican orders as being "valid." Just as there's no Orthodox Church in the world that holds there are any sacraments found outside the Church.
Post a Comment