The article from EWTN News English reports that “Pope Leo XIV” is scheduled to meet with Sarah Mullally, the first female “archbishop of Canterbury,” following her installation on March 25, 2026. The piece frames the event as a positive step in ecumenical dialogue, quoting Mullally’s request for prayers for “unity among Christians” and the “pope’s” emphasis on advancing toward Christian unity. This narrative, however, represents a stark and damning manifestation of the post-conciliar apostasy, a complete abandonment of the integral Catholic faith in favor of a naturalistic, indifferentist humanism that the pre-1958 Magisterium unequivocally condemned.
Theological and Sacramental Invalidity of the Participants
The very premise of the meeting is built upon two foundational errors, each a complete negation of Catholic doctrine. First, the participant from the “Anglican” Communion is not a valid archbishop. The Catholic Church has always taught that the ordained ministry is reserved to men. The attempted ordination of a woman, as occurred in the Anglican Communion, is not merely a disciplinary irregularity but an intrinsically invalid act. The sacrament of Holy Orders requires the proper matter, form, and ministerial intention, all of which are lacking in a ceremony that attempts to confer a character the Church has no power to confer upon a woman. Therefore, Sarah Mullally possesses no sacred orders, no valid jurisdiction, and no authority whatsoever in the eyes of God or the true Church. She is a layperson occupying a role that, within her own communion, is a sacrilegious mockery of the episcopacy.
Second, the “pope” in question, “Leo XIV,” is, from the perspective of integral Catholic faith, not the Supreme Pontiff. The theological arguments presented in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, rooted in the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine and canonical law, demonstrate that a manifest heretic loses the pontificate ipso facto. The post-conciliar “papacy,” beginning with the “pastoral” innovation of John XXIII and culminating in the open heresies of “Paul VI,” “John Paul II,” “Benedict XVI,” and “Francis,” and now “Leo XIV,” has consistently promoted the errors of Modernism, religious liberty, and ecumenism—all solemnly condemned by Pius IX and St. Pius X. The Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code, cited in the source file, states that an office becomes vacant by the mere fact of public defection from the faith. The “popes” of the Vatican II sect have publicly defected by embracing the very errors listed in the Syllabus of Errors (e.g., #77, #80) and the condemned propositions of Lamentabili sane exitu. Therefore, the See of Rome is vacant, and the individual occupying it is a manifest heretic, incapable of holding the Petrine office. The meeting is thus a dialogue between a laywoman and an antipope, a perfect symbol of the “neo-church’s” rejection of the supernatural order.
Indifferentism and the Rejection of Christ’s Exclusive Kingship
The article’s central theme—ecumenical progress—is the very “plague” that Pius XI identified in Quas Primas as the cause of societal collapse. The encyclical, promulgated in 1925, declares that the hope of lasting peace will not shine upon nations as long as they “renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior.” It states unequivocally: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians.” This is a reign of submission to the one true God and His one true Church, not a vague “dialogue” among equals.
The meeting with a female “archbishop” is the logical endpoint of the error condemned in the Syllabus:
Error #18: Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
By treating the Anglican Communion—a communion that rejects the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Papacy, and most sacraments—as a legitimate partner for “unity,” “Leo XIV” and Mullally are propagating the condemned notion that all religions are paths to God. This is the “indifferentism” of Errors #15-17 of the Syllabus, which Pius IX called a “pest.” The article’s language of “advancing toward Christian unity” is a deliberate obscuration of the Catholic truth: there is no unity outside the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. Any “unity” that does not require the conversion of non-Catholics to the Catholic faith is a satanic counterfeit.
The Omission of Supernatural Realities and the Cult of Man
The article is a masterclass in the modernist technique of reducing the supernatural to the natural. The entire narrative is framed in terms of “dialogue,” “closeness,” “prayers,” and “charity.” There is not a single mention of the absolute necessity of the Catholic faith for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus). There is no mention of the invalidity of Anglican orders, the sin of schism, or the duty of the “archbishop of Canterbury” to abjure her errors and submit to the Roman Pontiff. The focus is entirely on human relationships and institutional cooperation, mirroring the Modernist error condemned in Lamentabili:
Proposition 20: Revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God.
This is the “cult of man” that St. Pius X identified as the synthesis of all errors. The article’s tone is one of optimistic progress, celebrating the “first woman” in a role that, in Catholic theology, cannot exist. This is the “democratization of the Church” and the “theology of the people” run amok. The true Catholic perspective, as articulated in Quas Primas, is that Christ’s reign demands that all human societies, including religious communities, be ordered according to His law. The Anglican Communion’s rejection of that law—in matters of the Eucharist, the papacy, and the male priesthood—places it in a state of formal schism and heresy. To dialogue with such a body as an equal is to deny Christ’s exclusive right to rule His Church.
Symptomatic of the Conciliar Revolution’s Apostasy
This event is not an anomaly but the inevitable fruit of the “conciliar sect’s” foundational principles. The “pope’s” message speaks of “a challenging moment in the Anglican family” and the “need to continue advancing toward Christian unity.” This language is lifted directly from the Modernist playbook: it acknowledges problems but frames them as opportunities for “dialogue” rather than as crises requiring dogmatic correction. It is the same spirit that gave us Dignitatis Humanae (religious freedom) and Nostra Aetate (indifferentism toward non-Christian religions).
The article also notes the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) rejecting communion with Canterbury. This intra-Anglican schism is a direct consequence of the same modernist relativism that now animates the Vatican. The “neo-church” and the liberal wing of Anglicanism are two branches of the same tree: the rejection of objective, revealed truth in favor of subjective experience and institutional pragmatism. The meeting between “Leo XIV” and Mullally is a pact between two apostate structures, each having abandoned the faith once delivered to the saints. It is a public spectacle of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place—the conciliar “papacy” honoring a false bishopess, thereby profaning the episcopacy and the very idea of sacramental authority.
Contrast with the True Catholic Social Kingship
What is omitted from the article is the entire Catholic doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Quas Primas is unambiguous:
…the entire government of public schools… may and ought to appertain to the civil power… and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere. (Syllabus, Error #45)
This is the doctrine of the State’s duty to recognize and protect the Catholic Church as the sole true religion. The article’s ecumenism is the diametric opposite: it is the State (in the form of the “Vatican” and “Lambeth Palace”) cooperating in the destruction of that very principle. The true Catholic ruler, as taught by Pius XI, would not host a false “archbishop” but would, like the Catholic kings of old, work to restore the rights of Christ the King by suppressing heresy and schism. The article’s world is one where the “Church” has no public rights and must “dialogue” as one sect among many—a world condemned in its entirety by the Syllabus (Errors #19-55).
In conclusion, the reported meeting is a sacrilegious farce, a public affirmation of apostasy by the leaders of the conciliar sect and a major Anglican province. It demonstrates the complete theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the post-1958 “Church,” which has exchanged the immutable dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for the indifferentist slogan of “unity in diversity.” It exposes the radical discontinuity with the Catholic faith: a “pope” who honors a woman pretending to episcopal office is a manifest sign of the “great apostasy” foretold by St. Paul (2 Thess 2:3). The only legitimate response of a Catholic is to reject this entire spectacle with abhorrence, to cling to the immutable faith of the pre-1958 Church, and to pray for the conversion of those involved—or, if they persist in their errors, for their removal from the positions they fraudulently occupy. The true Church, the “Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), cannot and will not engage in such dialogues. She must, as St. Pius X commanded in Pascendi Dominici gregis, “fight against the errors of Modernism” and “preserve the faith uncorrupted.”
Source:
Pope Leo XIV set to meet with first female archbishop of Canterbury (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 27.03.2026