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.
37 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.
It is difficult to accept the description 'Cult': rather an ecclesial group albeit global. But a group of whom about a third reject the present Archbishop of Canterbury along with a substantial proportion of the ministers of the Church of England who do the same. Did she come to Our Holy Father for validation ? Or Acceptance who knows. But she came and she went: the Holy Father treated her with courtesy - even if others with flatery!
Had Pope Leo XIV been "used" yesterday.
I agree with Father McDonald in the following manner:
Yes, in that it had been inevitable that Pope Leo XIV's charitable treatment of Archbishop Mullally would have been twisted by pro-ordination of women folks.
But I find it difficult to believe that His Holiness had been unaware of that, if you will, danger.
Rorate Caeli noted yesterday:
"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."
I agree that various Catholics have had that...perception. Perception. That said folks have interpreted things that way. Whether our Popes have treated "the leaders of Anglican churches as equals" is a different matter.
But yes, certain Catholics, approvingly, as well as opposed, have spun our past few Popes as having treated "the leaders of Anglican churches as equals."
But that is the price that Popes have paid as they have "cancelled" the Church's previous practice of "ecumenism of return."
Pope Pius XI had practiced, if you will, "safe" ecumenism. In regard to non-Catholics, Pope Pius XI had declared:
"This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ."
For Pope Pius XI, the message was clear to non-Catholics: Embrace Catholicism. Plain and simple.
Certain Catholics had criticized Pope Saint John XIII in regard to his perceived "softer" approach to the Ecumenical Movement. Nevertheless, Pope Saint John XXIII had declared clearly:
"We address Ourselves now to all of you who are separated from this Apostolic See.
"May this wonderful Spectacle of unity, by which the Catholic Church is set apart and distinguished...stir your hearts and awaken you to what is really in your best interest."
"May We hope with a father's love for your return?"
Pope Leo XIV has "cancelled" the approaches outlined above to ecumenism as had been practiced by Popes Pius XI, as well as Saint John XIII.
Pope Leo XIV's approach to ecumenism as yesterday revealed, may be more "dangerous"...open to greater misperceptions...than the manners in which ecumenism had been practiced by Popes Pius XI, as well as Saint John XIII.
But Pope Leo XIV may not believe that his way in question is "dangerous." Or, he may realize the "dangers" in question, but will accept the consequences.
Regardless, his way will prevail for now, or to the conclusion of his reign.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."He’s not naive and knew the risks."
That which is certain is that in regard to his red carpet treatment of Archbishop Mullally:
He has received verbal beatings for his have been perceived as having legitimized her as an Archbishop.
Additional folks have twisted his words and actions yesterday to promote the concept of priestesses.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
By the way, you should use your AI to look at early controversies in the Church about ordinations, etc. If you do, you will find that situations pretty much mirrors exactly what happens in the Orthodox Church. Spoiler alert: There's no history of anyone simply asking the Bishop of Rome's opinion, blindly following that, and calling it "unity."
Doctrine on Ecumenism ? People, see, among other authoritative documents, the encyclical Ut Unum Sint. "While not usually considered infallible ex cathedra definitions, they carry high "ordinary magisterium" authority, requiring Catholics to accord them religious submission of mind and will."
Yes, the fullness of the Catholic Church has grown and developed and has had ecumenical councils, since only the pope can call one, that’s why the Orthodox are stuck in the past as it concerns the councils since your Great Schism. Long before the fundamentalists came up with their doctrine of “Left Behind” the Orthodox were and thus the Orthodox haven’t had the benefit of the Holy Spirit’s guidance through the Petrine Ministry and the Councils the Holy Spirit as called after your schism. By the way, the Orthodox Church in the 1920’s in Constantinople and Alexandria certainly acknowledged the Orders of Anglicans—they made a mistake then or did they when they backtracked? Who decided?
The pope didn't call any of the ecumenical councils during the first millennium; the emperor did.
The pope wasn't present at any of the ecumenical councils.
And the Second Ecumenical Council, which adopted the Cappadocian principles as the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, was held out of communion with the pope due to the Meletian Schism.
Fr. Brian Harrison wrote:
The “Subsists In” Controversy
In June 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith released a statement, Commentary on the Document: Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, which sought to clarify some of the Second Vatican Council’s teachings on authentic ecumenism. The CDF statement was met with some controversy because it stated that non-Catholic Christian “ecclesial communities” (with the exception of Orthodox traditions) could not be termed true “churches.” In saying this, however, the CDF was merely reiterating what Unitatis Redintegratio had already established:
Catholic ecumenism might seem, at first sight, somewhat paradoxical. The Second Vatican Council used the phrase ” subsistit in ” in order to try to harmonize two doctrinal affirmations: on the one hand, that despite all the divisions between Christians the Church of Christ continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand that numerous elements of sanctification and truth do exist without the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church whether in the particular churches or in the ecclesial communities that are not fully in communion with the Catholic Church. For this reason, the same Decree of Vatican II on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio introduced the term fullness ( unitatis/catholicitatis) specifically to help better understand this somewhat paradoxical situation. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of the means of salvation, nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from effecting the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her children who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. The fullness of the Catholic Church, therefore, already exists, but still has to grow in the brethren who are not yet in full communion with it and also in its own members who are sinners until it happily arrives at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem. This progress in fullness is rooted in the ongoing process of dynamic union with Christ: Union with Christ is also union with all those to whom he gives himself. I cannot possess Christ just for myself; I can belong to him only in union with all those who have become, or will become, his own. Communion draws me out of myself towards him, and thus also towards unity with all Christians. ( Commentary on the Document: Responses to Some Questions)
Yes, thank you for confirming that the Orthodox have been “LEFT BEHIND” when it comes to how the Holy Spirit as guided and refined the true Church headed visibly by the Vicar of Christ. But don’t get depressed, although you aren’t in full communion with the True Church, you have partial communion and thanks be to God many Orthodox Bishops are in good ecumenical relations with the True Church headed visibly by the Pope. That should bring you comfort that even your Church is making theological progress despite your bishops having made the mistake of recognizing Anglican Orders only later to have to renege of that.
The church has always discussed the status of ordinations conducted by heretics --- that was the case in the first millennium too. What happened is that various bishops made decisions; sometimes those decisions stuck, and sometimes they didn't. Same thing now. Since no one thought that there was a universal bishop in the first millennium, having a bishop of Rome didn't resolve the issues.
I think our bishop is coming to town this weekend, so I'll have a chance to see the Successor of Peter, the head of the Catholic Church, here in my town. Pretty exciting! And I don't even have to ignore 1,000+ years of history to do.
And this thorny issue of the Orthodox:
AI Overview
Eastern Orthodox churches are members of the World Council of Churches (WCC) to engage in ecumenical dialogue, viewing it as a platform for witnessing their faith, while the Catholic Church is not a member due to its unique ecclesiology (self-understanding as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church) and potential constraints on papal primacy, opting instead for official observer/partner status.
www.reddit.com
www.reddit.com
+3
Eastern Orthodox Participation (WCC Member)
Mission and Dialogue: Orthodox Churches participate to bring their tradition into the modern ecumenical movement and witness their faith, not necessarily accepting the "equality of confessions".
Structural Understanding: They participate on the condition of the 1950 Toronto Statement, which allows them to participate without accepting the idea that all member churches are equal branches of a single, invisible church.
Non-Ecclesiological Participation: They view the WCC as a platform for cooperation rather than a "super-church" or an institution that defines doctrine.
www.goarch.org
www.goarch.org
+1
Catholic Church Non-Membership (Observer Status)
Ecclesiology: The Catholic Church considers itself the one Church of Christ, making full membership—which would place it alongside many Protestant denominations on equal footing—theologically difficult.
Authority Structure: The Catholic Church’s doctrine on the Pope’s supreme authority could potentially be undermined or constrained by the structural framework of the WCC.
Size and Influence: The Catholic Church’s size and structure might overwhelm the organization.
Active Engagement: Despite not being a member, the Vatican participates actively through the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and has official observer status.
www.reddit.com
www.reddit.com
+4
Essentially, the Orthodox participate as independent local churches seeking to represent their tradition, while the Catholic Church prefers to engage as a singular entity, avoiding membership that implies it is merely one "church" among many.
"They participate on the condition of the 1950 Toronto Statement, which allows them to participate without accepting the idea that all member churches are equal branches of a single, invisible church."
What's wrong with having discussions with other people? Discussions are not the issue with ecumenism. The issue that you have is a doctrine that holds that people can be baptized outside your church... That is an ecumenist doctrine.
Well, since you are only in partial communion with the True Church, there’s nothing wrong with it, just as there is nothing wrong with all the Protestants you have joined in this organization. But please note that the true Church, the fullness of the true Church isn’t playing that game and rightfully so! Thanks be to God.
By your logic, we have the sacraments, which is Christ working on earth. If we have Christ, what is lacking for salvation?
That’s the way Protestants and Orthodox think. They have Christ, thus saved. What is lacking and so unnecessarily is you are not in full communion with the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith. That’s hell!
Being initiated into the Church and receiving the Eucharist is communion. By your church's teaching, we have those things. What is this "full communion"? If one is receiving Christ, one is in communion with Christ... What is lacking here?
Renouncing your errors concerning the True Church headed by the Vicar of Christ. You are thinking like a Protestant and that makes sense as birds of a feather stay together, in this case The World Council of Churches that you Orthodox have equal membership with Protestants and Anglicans.
If one is in communion with Christ, as evidenced by receiving the Eucharist from a validly ordained priest, what do these supposed errors have to do with anything?
I have seen some exceptionally nasty comments made by Catholics who I will in all charity accuse of ignorance regarding the Church's teaching - her authoritative teaching - on matters ecumenical.
Referring to the Archbishop of Canterbury as "Archbishopess of the Vacant See of Canterbury" is among the milder expressions of this ignorance.
Some, it seems, will continue to believe that ecumenism is pronounced
"You-Come-In-Ism" and will stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the genuine progress that has been made in ecumenical relations over the last 150 years. That approach is one of arrogance and stands in direct opposition to the teaching of St. JP2 in Ut Unum Sint: "Catholic theologians engaged in ecumenical dialogue, while standing fast by the teaching of the Church and searching together with separated brothers and sisters into the divine mysteries, should act with love for truth, with charity, and with humility".
And, "Finally, dialogue puts before the participants real and genuine disagreements in matters of faith. Above all, these disagreements should be faced in a sincere spirit of fraternal charity, of respect for the demands of one's own conscience and of the conscience of the other party, with profound humility and love for the truth."
Hello Father,
Why are schismatics being treated this way while the SSPX are kicked on the floor?
Have fun with this one:
https://advaticanum.com/article/bishop-of-the-diocese-of-charlotte-refuses-communion-to-family-at-altar-rail/
Respectfully,
-Dean Stubbs
I find ecumenism to be a rather pathetic management dog and pony show done only to make management look good. You look at the comments in this thread, alone, and you have Roman Catholics squabbling with Orthodox, priests inside the Roman Church disagreeing on doctrine/practice, and then outside this thread in the world, you have the same fight for control inside the Vatican, amongst Orthodox churches with them falling out of communion with each other over powergrabs and direction, major splits in the Anglican unCommunion, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists/Pentecostals/etc bashing everybody but themselves, all splintered groups continuing to fission while smugly secure in having THE answer.
And then yet in Rome another photo-op showing that one day we'll all be one big happy.
Just pathetic.
The quotation from your concluding paragraph is hard to disagree with.
While I tend to personally prefer stating positions with clarity, I see nothing wrong with discussions. Hence, my participation here. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with my Church's hierarchs having discussions with other religious leaders.
A basic problem with ecumenism, at least from my Church's perspective, is that there's not a lot to discuss -- there is no "search" going on. We have all the doctrines that cannot change; people can choose to believe them or not. So, there's a baked-in "you-come-in-ism" that is unavoidable. We simply do not have the doctrinal flexibility that Protestants and Roman Catholics have. As a result, I see the joint declarations as mostly pointless, except when they're used to educate people or to find common ground that might not be immediately apparent. A good example of this is the on-going dialogue between the Orthodox and the so-called Oriental Orthodox, which appears to have a lot of headway... yet, it is hard to heal a schism that has persisted since the 5th century.
Anglican Orders are like a Christmas tree. It has to be plugged in to light up. Anglicans have the decorations, but no charge...
Michael: you are very perceptive , on this point, and you have quite rightly pointed out something very important. Our Holy Father receiving the 'Head' of an 'Ecclesial Community' in 'fraternal charity'. This was the level of the intended encounter, nothing more and nothing less.
David - Given the history of Anglicanism and the Catholic Church, given the fact that some of the first ecumenical dialogues took place between Anglicans and Catholics (the Malines Conversations), given the work that has been done by the Anglican Roman Catholic International Conference Committee (ARCICC) and dozens of local, regional, and national conference committees, and given the existence of the Anglican ordinariate, the meeting between the Holy Father and the Archbishop of Canterbury was more than a mere "encounter" or a meeting of collegial charity.
Robert H - If you don't look forward to and pray for the day when we'll all be one, big, happy family gathered in full, visible unity at the altar of sacrifice, the table of the Lord's banquet, then you're missing the boat. (That boat, btw, is the Barque of Peter and that full, visible unity is it's desired port of call.)
K, this is for you. Maybe you and Pope Leo can look into this and be outraged!! Persecution of Catholics and other Christians by the Biden Administration. Interesting that President Trump isn't doing this!
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2026/04/united-states-department-of-justice.html#more
Post a Comment