Ecumenical Farce in the Vatican: ‘Pope’ Leo XIV Receives Archlaywoman of Canterbury

Costume party in the Apostolic Palace?

Ecumenical Farce in the Vatican:
‘Pope’ Leo XIV Receives Archlaywoman of Canterbury

Did Halloween come early? Bob Prevost as ‘Pope Leo XIV’ and Sarah Mullally as ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’…
(image: Vatican Media/Romano Siciliani/KNA)

As it was scheduled, so it happened: Today, on Apr. 27, 2026, ‘Pope’ Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) received in private audience ‘the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dame’ Sarah Mullally, the woman who in the Anglican religion is the current lawful occupant of the office of ‘Archbishop of Canterbury’. In that role she is to Anglicans what a Pope is to Catholics, more or less.

Both Vatican Media and the office of Canterbury reported on the meeting:

• Pope: Anglicans and Catholics must continue working to overcome differences (Vatican News)
• Archbishop of Canterbury meets and prays with Pope Leo XIV (Archbishop of Canterbury)

‘Archbishop’ Mullally brought along her entourage, and she gifted Leo a jar of Lambeth Palace honey (see here). Sweet!

Each of the two gave a speech, as is customary. They exchanged the usual vapid words about walking together, giving a common witness, persevering in the quest for unity despite unfortunate setbacks, and so on:

• Address of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV on the Occasion of the Visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Vatican.va)
• The Archbishop of Canterbury’s address to Pope Leo XIV (Archbishop of Canterbury)

In her address to ‘Pope’ Leo, the would-be bishopess of Canterbury noted: “Before ordination, I was a nurse, and that experience continues to shape my ministry. God continues to call me to a ministry of being alongside others in their suffering and sadness, and in their healing and joy.” If only she’d remained a nurse!

For his part, Leo XIV, quite ironically, warned against giving scandal, which he located in all the wrong places:

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.

Let’s get this straight: The Neo-Modernist Bob Prevost, who believes that God wills a diversity of religions, meets with a woman who is the head of a false religion and pretends to be an archbishop with a mission from Christ. He receives her honorably as an equal (see last photo in this post, below), prays with her, and declares that he is “grateful for the ministry of the Anglican Centre in Rome”, which spreads heretical Protestant ideas. Leo acts as if Mullally and the Anglican religion had a charge from Christ to proclaim the Gospel, and he pretends that their deviation from the Deposit of Faith — their heresies — were merely a matter of secondary “differences” between them that still needed to be “overcome” somehow. We are to believe that this man is worried about giving scandal?! What is this absurd meeting if not one gigantic occasion of giving scandal, to the immense harm of countless souls?

But no, for Leo the scandal is found in not “fulfil[ling] our common vocation to make Christ known” — as if heretics had a vocation to make their false image of Jesus Christ known to the world! Making Christ known to the world is not, and cannot be, divorced from making His doctrine known, and so Prevost is claiming, in effect, that Mullally’s Anglicanism is the true doctrine of Christ. Talk about scandal!

Furthermore, it is likewise scandalous to act as if Anglicans and Catholics had to ‘overcome their differences’ rather than making clear that Anglicans must convert to the Roman Catholic religion. As Pope Pius XII stated in 1949:

Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained [to Protestants]: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ. It should be made clear to them that, in returning to the Church, they will lose nothing of that good which by the grace of God has hitherto been implanted in them, but that it will rather be supplemented and completed by their return. However, one should not speak of this in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained.

(Pope Pius XII, Holy Office Instruction Ecclesia Catholica; underlining added.)

So, who’s right? Antipope Leo XIV or Pope Pius XII? (That’s a rhetorical question.) The point is, they can’t both be right.

Speaking of scandal, Prevost doubles down:

As we continue to journey together in friendship and dialogue, 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.

Even though he claims to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, Leo XIV says he is still seeking “the unity which is the Lord’s will for all his disciples”.

News flash: The unity willed by Christ for all His followers exists in the Roman Catholic Church, and in her alone. It is the duty, therefore, of all who are outside this Church to enter her, being the only Ark of Salvation. Does anyone in today’s Vatican believe that still? Fat chance! They worship the almighty council.

Notice that Leo does not give the slightest indication that he hopes and prays that Sally will renounce her heresies and become a Catholic. That’s because he doesn’t believe she needs to. But, as Pope Pius XI taught, “it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it” (Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 10).

Addressing Mullally as “Your Grace”, which is the proper form of address for Catholic archbishops, Prevost puts the proverbial icing on his cake of scandal. His prayer that the Holy Ghost might make her farcical, heretical, and altogether illegitimate ministry “fruitful”, only adds the crime of blasphemy to all the heresy.

Clearly, her audience with Leo XIV was the crowning highlight of Canterbury Sally’s visit to Rome, which officially ends tomorrow. A few days before, she was already present in the Eternal City, visiting the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul, respectively. The following photo of her giving a ‘blessing’ in the Clementine Chapel near the tomb of St. Peter was published on her official Twitter/X account on Apr. 25:

The Novus Ordo cleric on the right receiving the invalid blessing is ‘Abp.’ Flavio Pace, secretary of the Vatican’s so-called Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity. Given that ‘Pope’ Francis accepted a ‘blessing’ from the Archlayman of Canterbury Justin Welby in 2014, it will only be a matter of time before Leo XIV receives one from Sally.

By the way: The ecumenical meeting between the ‘Pope’ and the Archlaywoman of Canterbury comes nine days after ‘Bp.’ Joseph Brennan, the local ordinary of Fresno, California, participated in the ordination of a bishop for the Episcopal Church, a Protestant sect of the Anglican Communion. Don’t expect him to get in any kind of trouble with Leo:

.
Meanwhile, the Vatican is taking a very hard line against the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (FSSPX), founded in 1970 by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre. The current superior general, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, has attempted to get an audience with Leo XIV in vain. In February, he announced that the Fraternity’s remaining two bishops will proceed with episcopal consecrations on July 1 of this year, even without a mandate from Leo XIV, resulting in automatic excommunication.

Two non-Catholic pseudo-bishops engaging in common prayer: Dame Mullally and Rev. Prevost
(image: Vatican Media/Romano Siciliani/KNA)

In an interview published a few days ago, the head of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, the Swiss ‘Cardinal’ Kurt Koch, expressed a fairly relaxed view regarding Anglican women clergy:

Cardinal Koch attended an ecumenical morning prayer service in Canterbury Cathedral with the newly enthroned archbishop, and afterwards they prayed together at the site of the martyrdom of St Thomas Becket in the Cathedral quire. He approached the divisions within Anglicanism cautiously: “That is first of all an internal question for the Anglican Communion, and I do not wish to interfere.” He restated the Catholic Church’s long-standing position: “The Catholic Church cannot recognise Anglican ordinations, as decided by Pope Leo XIII. This applies ­regardless of whether the person ordained is a man or a woman. The question becomes more ­difficult with the ordination of women, but fundamentally [that] is an internal Anglican matter.”

(Daniel Beurthe, “Cardinal Kurt Koch and the long view of Christian unity”, The Tablet, Apr. 23, 2026)

While it is true, of course, that Anglican ordinations are invalid either way, as authoritatively determined and explained in the 1896 Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae of Pope Leo XIII, the difference between a male would-be bishop and a female would-be bishop is nevertheless enormous. The reason is that the invalidity of the male’s orders are incidental, but the female’s orders are invalid per se. That is, whereas the man could in principle be a bishop, the woman could not. All it would take for the man to be a bishop is for a valid bishop to consecrate (ordain) him using valid matter, form, and intention. The same action would not, however, make the woman into a bishop.

In this regard the issue is similar to the truth regarding holy matrimony. Whereas a man and a woman who are not married could theoretically marry each other, a man could not marry another man, nor could a woman marry another woman. The reason for that lies in the nature of holy matrimony. In the same way, the reason a woman cannot be ordained lies in the nature of holy orders. Thus we are talking about a difference of kind, not merely of degree.

To dismiss women clergy as an “internal Anglican matter” is gravely to misunderstand the facts, therefore.

Certain Novus Ordo apologists might celebrate Koch’s comments as being a clear reaffirmation of the invalidity of Anglican orders, and they are. However, that is not the whole story, for his remarks suggest a certain equivalence in the invalidity of male and female Anglican bishops. Although he acknowledges that the female question is “more difficult”, he does not elaborate, failing to draw the crucial distinction between holy orders that are invalid by circumstance and holy orders that are invalid in principle.

Considering that the Vatican, despite paying occasional lip service to the bull of Pope Leo XIII, has in practice been treating invalid Anglican bishops as though they were valid, we can only imagine what Koch’s attitude will mean for Canterbury Sally in the practical order.

If Leo is like his predecessor, we can expect an Anglican ‘Eucharist’ in one of the Roman basilicas before long, presided over by none other than ‘Her Grace’, the ‘Most Reverend and Right Honourable Dame’ Sarah Mullally, Archlaywoman of Canterbury.