Leo XIV Prays for ‘Fruitful Service’ of Female Archbishop of Canterbury

‘Pope’ sends greetings to Sarah Mullally, new leader of Anglican Church…

Leo XIV Prays for ‘Fruitful Service’ of Female Archbishop of Canterbury

Both fake: Chicago Bob as ‘Pope Leo XIV’ and Canterbury Sally as ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’
(images: ZUMA Press/Kevin Bennett via Alamy)

On Jan. 28, 2026, Dame Sarah Elisabeth Mullally (b. 1962) was elected to succeed Justin Welby as the 106th Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury.

‘Her Grace’ was officially installed in Canterbury Cathedral on Mar. 25, 2026. It was an installation/enthronement only because her ‘ordination’, which made her a bishop according to Anglican theology, had already taken place on July 22, 2015, for her first post as ‘Bishop’ of Crediton.

The so-called ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’ is the spiritual leader of the schismatico-heretical sect known as the Church of England, originally established by King Henry VIII in 1534, and of the wider conglomerate of Protestant sects and pseudo-churches known as the Anglican Communion, including the Episcopal Church in the United States. Technically, the British monarch is the supreme head of the Church of England, but his role is mostly ceremonial. The spiritual leadership over the Anglican Communion is exercised by the see of Canterbury.

In his 1896 Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae, Pope Leo XIII definitively declared Anglican orders (ordinations) to be invalid, that is, “absolutely null and utterly void” (n. 36) because of the substantial changes they had made to the ordination rites. For that reason, we have often referred to the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury as the ‘Archlayman‘ of Canterbury.

Until this year, every spiritual head of the Anglican Church was male and therefore in principle able to receive the sacrament of holy orders. With Sarah Mullally, that has now changed. As a woman, she is intrinsically unable to be ordained. We will refer to her henceforth as ‘Achlaywoman‘, therefore, and also occasionally utilize the moniker ‘Canterbury Sally’ as a more suitable description of her true status (‘Sally’ being a nickname for Sarah).

Leo XIV Sends ‘Prayerful Greetings’ and Good Wishes

With this quasi-‘transgender’ evolution in Anglicanism, conservative Novus Ordos might expect that the Vatican would, if not condemn, at least loudly ignore the installation of the new ‘Archbishop’ of Canterbury. But any such pious expectation has proven to be in vain.

On Mar. 20, 2026, Robert Prevost of Chicago (‘Pope Leo XIV’) sent a formal message to Mullally “on the occasion of your installation of the Archbishop of Canterbury”. The Vatican published the text on Mar. 25, the day of the installation ceremony.

Let’s examine it.

Leo XIV begins his missive to Mullally thus:

With this assurance of God’s abiding presence, I send prayerful greetings to Your Grace on the occasion of your Installation as Archbishop of Canterbury.

I know that the office for which you have been chosen is a weighty one, with responsibilities not only in the Diocese of Canterbury, but throughout the Church of England as well as the Anglican Communion as a whole. Moreover, you are commencing these duties at a challenging moment in the history of the Anglican family. In asking the Lord to strengthen you with the gift of wisdom, I pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit in serving your communities, and draw inspiration from the example of Mary, the Mother of God.

(Antipope Leo XIV, Message on the Occasion of the Installation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Vatican.va, Mar. 20, 2026)

To a sedevacantist, what Leo writes here is not surprising. However, anyone who acknowledges Leo XIV as the Pope of the Catholic Church should be shocked and outraged that he would refer to Canterbury Sally as “Your Grace” and dignify the farce that just took place in England with a serious and formal message sending “prayerful greetings.” The fact that he asks the Holy Ghost to help her “in serving your communities” and even suggests that “the example of Mary, the Mother of God” could in any way provide “inspiration” to Mullally’s exercise of this usurped office she is intrinsically unable to hold, is an audacity only matched by its blasphemy.

Undaunted, Prevost continues:

Sixty years ago, during their historic encounter in Rome, our predecessors of happy memory, Saint Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey, committed Catholics and Anglicans to “a new stage in the development of fraternal relations, based upon Christian charity” (Joint Declaration, 24 March 1966).  That fresh chapter of respectful openness has borne much fruit over the past six decades and continues to this day.

There is no doubt that “much fruit” has been borne since 1966, but it is bad fruit. In fact, the stinking rotten fruit of ecumenical dialogue since 1966 is quite visible in both the Anglican and ‘Catholic’ churches, never more than in the present day.

But there’s more from Leo:

On that same occasion, Pope Paul and Archbishop Ramsey also agreed to initiate a theological dialogue. Indeed, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) has contributed enormously to a growth in mutual understanding since its creation. The rewards of this valuable work have set us free to witness together more effectively (cf. International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, Growing Together in Unity and Mission, 93).  This is especially vital given the manifold challenges facing our human family today. I am grateful, therefore, that this important dialogue continues.

Notice how the false pope tells the false bishop that both the ‘Catholic’ and the Anglican churches have been set free “to witness together more effectively”. What colossal grotesquery! As if it were a good thing for the Church of England to draw people to itself more credibly and effectively! Furthermore, it is absurd to hold that the Catholic Church is more credible and effective in her evangelization of the world if she has fewer disagreements with heretical sects!

Next, Leo gets a little less cheerful:

At the same time, we also know that the ecumenical journey has not always been smooth.  Despite much progress, our immediate predecessors, Pope Francis and Archbishop Justin Welby, acknowledged frankly that “new circumstances have presented new disagreements among us.”  Nevertheless, we have continued to walk together, because differences “cannot prevent us from recognizing one another as brothers and sisters in Christ by reason of our common baptism” (Joint Declaration, 5 October 2016). For my part, I firmly believe that we need to continue to dialogue in truth and love, for it is only in truth and love that we come to know together the grace, mercy and peace of God (cf. 2 Jn 1:3), and thus can offer these precious gifts to the world.

Prevost repeats the damnable lie that heresy and schism don’t sever one from Christ, that somehow a baptism once validly received makes one forever part of the Mystical Body. Against this nonsense, solemnly proclaimed at the so-called Second Vatican Council, Pope Pius XII taught that “not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23).

Although not every single Protestant may be subjectively (before God) guilty of the sin of heresy, nevertheless by being adult members of a heretical sect — in Mullally’s case, the spiritual head of the sect! — they are by that very fact heretics in the external forum, and thus cut off from Christ, objectively speaking:

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, which, from the days of our Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles has never ceased to exercise, by its lawful pastors, and still continues to exercise, the divine power committed to it by this same Lord; cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity. For, whereas such societies are destitute of that living authority established by God, which especially teaches men what is of Faith, and what the rule of morals, and directs and guides them in all those things which pertain to eternal salvation, so they have continually varied in their doctrines, and this change and variation is ceaselessly going on among them.

Every one must perfectly understand, and clearly and evidently see, that such a state of things is directly opposed to the nature of the Church instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ; for in that Church truth must always continue firm and ever inaccessible to all change, as a deposit given to that Church to be guarded in its integrity, for the guardianship of which the presence and aid of the Holy Ghost have been promised to the Church for ever.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes)

Prevost continues his ecumenical blather directed at Mullally:

What is more, the unity which Christians seek is never an end in itself, but is directed towards the proclamation of Christ, in order that, as the Lord Jesus himself prayed, “the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). In addressing the Primates of the Anglican Communion in 2024, Pope Francis declared that “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).  Dear sister, I willingly make these words my own, for it is through the witness of a reconciled, fraternal and united Christian community that the proclamation of the Gospel will resound most clearly (cf. Message for the 2026 World Mission Day, 2).

This idea of a ‘common witness’ given by both Catholics and heretics is absurd and thoroughly injurious to the nature of the Gospel, which does not consist in bits and pieces of truth that can be scattered among errors, but is one great organic deposit of divinely-revealed truth: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected” (Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24).

Under the headship of St. Peter, the Roman Catholic Church alone was entrusted with this deposit by Christ the Lord, and to her alone was promised the assistance of the Holy Ghost: “And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you” (Jn 14:16-17). That is why St. Paul speaks of “the church of the living God” as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

The argument that only a ‘common witness’ by all ‘Christians’ will be accepted by the unbelieving world, was roundly rejected in 1928 by Pope Pius XI, who warned that “some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians”, and continued:

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be “one” [John 17:21]. And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another” [John 13:35]? All Christians, they add, should be as “one”: for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength.

These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom.

But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, nn. 3-4; underlining added.)

There the whole ecumenical project of Vatican II is exposed and refuted! The only kind of religious unity that is acceptable with the parameters of Catholic doctrine is Catholic unity, meaning that all people are called to become Catholics and unite under the Roman Pontiff, the Pope: “…and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (Jn 10:16; cf. Ez 37:24).

Next, Prevost wraps it up, but not without more blasphemy:

With these fraternal sentiments, I invoke upon you the blessings of Almighty God as you take up your high responsibilities. May the Holy Spirit come down upon you and make you fruitful in the Lord’s service.

So Leo XIV prays that the Holy Ghost will make Canterbury Sally “fruitful in the Lord’s service”. Considering that he is saying this in the context of her acceding to the position of head of the Anglican Communion, that is a very frightful idea!

In fact, as stated, Leo’s words make absolutely no sense to a Catholic. But they do, of course, make sense if one adopts Vatican II theology, because according to the New Religion of Vatican II, one can serve the Lord by leading the so-called Church of England! What a mockery this makes of the martyrs who gave their very lives rather than betray the holy Catholic Faith!

What’s Next?

It remains to be seen if Leo XIV will do as his predecessor did with Justin Welby and allow the Archlaywoman of Canterbury to use a Roman basilica for offering a ‘Eucharistic celebration’ there. In terms of invalidity, it really wouldn’t make a difference.

By the way, here’s some amusing trivia: It turns out that while Mullally was installed in her new role on Mar. 25 in Canterbury Cathedral, English singer, musician, and professional sodomite ‘Elton John’ (Reginald Dwight) was celebrating his 79th birthday. This coincidence is only fitting, considering the Anglican religion has completely abandoned any semblance of Christian morality. The fact that Dame Mullally looks very much like Elton John, to boot, adds a comical irony to the whole farce.

But there is another thing the Archlady has in common with the flamboyant celebrity: He’s not a bishop either.

The other ‘Queen’ of England: Elton John in 2001
(image: Alamy/Tim Graham)

The Society of St. Pius X, whose unauthorized episcopal consecrations scheduled for July 1 will draw a decree of excommunication from the Vatican, will have a field day with all this. How credible is Leo XIV if at one and the same time he refuses to give permission for the consecration of a handful of bishops who reject many of the magisterial novelties of the last six decades, yet prays for “fruitful[ness] in the Lord’s service” for a woman pseudo-bishop who rejects not only Vatican II but also Vatican I, Trent, Florence, and who knows how many other ecumenical councils?

The Vatican II Church is a madhouse!

What remains to be said? Perhaps what St. Paul wrote to St. Timothy: “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve” (1 Tim 2:11-13).