Entertaining a Parody and Cosplayer: The Scandalous Visit of the "Archbishop" of Canterbury

The Scandalous Visit of the "Archbishop" of Canterbury: When the Vatican Entertains a Laywoman in Clergy Cosplay

In late April 2026, the eyes of the Christian world turned toward Rome as Ms. Sarah Mullally, the first female "archbishop" of Canterbury, made her inaugural foreign visit as primate of the Anglican Communion. She met with Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican. This encounter, framed by some as a "pilgrimage" and a step toward ecumenical dialogue, raises profound questions for faithful Catholics. It is not merely unusual; it is odd, scandalous, and deeply problematic. By receiving Ms. Mullally with the honors due to a successor of the Apostles, the Vatican appears to legitimize and validate a "female cleric" in a role the Catholic Church has always taught is reserved exclusively for men.

This is no mere courtesy call. It is a public optics disaster that undermines the Church's clear teaching on holy orders, the male priesthood, and the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.  This visit is contradictory for Pope Leo XIV, who, on March 25, 2026, for his audience in St. Peter's Square, stated that the apostles "had on their ministry to men who, until Christ's return, continue to sanctify, guide and instruct the Church through their successors in pastoral office." See:  https://www.sacerdotus.com/2026/03/pope-leo-xiv-priesthood-is-for-males.html. Let us examine why this visit should trouble every Catholic who holds fast to Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

The Ancient See of St. Augustine

The Archbishopric of Canterbury traces its roots to St. Augustine of Canterbury, the monk sent by Pope St. Gregory the Great in 597 AD to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons. Augustine landed in Kent, established his see in Canterbury, and became the first Archbishop. He built churches, consecrated bishops, and laid the foundation for Christianity in England under papal authority. Canterbury was a Roman Catholic see, directly linked to the successor of St. Peter.

For centuries, the Archbishops of Canterbury were Catholic bishops in communion with Rome. The English Reformation under Henry VIII shattered that unity. The Church of England broke away, and subsequent changes to ordination rites rendered Anglican orders invalid. Pope Leo XIII's landmark 1896 apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae declared Anglican ordinations "absolutely null and utterly void." The bull cited defects in form and intention: the Edwardine Ordinal of 1552 deliberately altered the rite to exclude the sacrificial priesthood instituted by Christ. Leo XIII stated unequivocally that Anglican orders lack the power to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders.

This judgment remains the Church's official position. No subsequent pope has overturned it. Anglicans, including women "ordained" under their rites, are laypeople in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Ms. Mullally is not a bishop, not a priestess, not a cleric. She is a laywoman—intelligent, accomplished, and sincere in her Anglican faith, but without valid orders.

The Optics of Legitimizing a "Female Cleric"

The scandal lies in the optics. Here is a woman dressed in episcopal regalia—rochet, chimere, pectoral cross—addressed with titles reserved for successors of the Apostles, received in audience by the Pope, and potentially engaging in joint prayer or blessings. Catholic media and observers describe it as "historic" and a "milestone," especially given the Catholic Church's unwavering male-only priesthood.

This appearance of validation confuses the faithful. It suggests that the Vatican now winks at female "ordination," despite repeated condemnations. Pope St. John Paul II's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) declared definitively that the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith confirmed this as a teaching to be held definitively. Pope Francis has reiterated the same.

Why, then, entertain this parody? Ms. Mullally's presence in clerical attire at the Vatican is clergy cosplay—sincere, perhaps, but a theatrical imitation of what the Church teaches cannot exist: a female bishop. It does nothing substantive for dialogue. True ecumenism requires clarity, not ambiguity that blurs the lines between valid orders and invalid ones.

Scripture Forbids Women Priests

The Bible is unambiguous. In the Old Testament, the priesthood was male: Aaron and his sons (Exodus 28-29). Women served in other roles but never as priests. In the New Testament, Jesus—countercultural in many ways—chose only men as His twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:1-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16). He had many devoted female followers, including His mother and Mary Magdalene, yet ordained none of them.

St. Paul reinforces this: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Timothy 2:12). In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says." These are not cultural accommodations but reflections of the created order (1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:22-33).

The priesthood is not about power but about representing Christ the Bridegroom to the Church His Bride. A female priest cannot image this spousal relationship sacramentally. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1577) states, "Only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination." This is rooted in Christ's choice and the apostolic Tradition.

The Church Fathers Speak Clearly

The early Church Fathers unanimously rejected women priests. St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD) condemned Gnostic heretics who allowed women to preside at Eucharistic celebrations. Tertullian (c. 200 AD) wrote: "It is not permitted for a woman to speak in church, nor yet to teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer [the Eucharist], nor to claim for herself any manly function, least of all sacerdotal."

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 377 AD) declared: "Never was a woman called to these [orders]... If women were to be charged by God with entering the priesthood or with assuming ecclesiastical office, then in the New Covenant it would have devolved upon no one more than Mary." Yet Christ did not ordain His mother. St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and others echo this. The Fathers saw female ordination as a pagan practice, incompatible with Christian faith.

This Tradition continued unbroken. No ecumenical council, no pope, no Father ever suggested women could be priests. The male priesthood is de fide—of the faith.

Encyclicals and Magisterial Teaching

Beyond Apostolicae Curae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, popes have consistently taught this. Pope Paul VI's Inter Insigniores (1976) explored the question exhaustively and concluded the Church cannot ordain women. John Paul II made it definitive. Attempts to ordain women are not only invalid but gravely illicit. They wound the unity of the Church and confuse the laity.

Ms. Mullally's "ordination" and "consecration" fall under this condemnation. Anglican orders were already null; introducing women compounded the break from apostolic Tradition.  The Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women, see: https://www.sacerdotus.com/2024/03/why-catholic-church-cannot-ordain-women.html.

A Laywoman Blessing Catholic Bishops?

Particular concern arises from reports or possibilities of joint blessings or Ms. Mullally interacting with Catholic bishops. Catholic bishops are true successors of the Apostles, ordained in valid lines tracing to the Apostles. A laywoman "blessing" them—or being received as a peer—reverses the order. She is not their equal in holy orders. She cannot confer what she does not possess.

This is humiliating to the episcopate and scandalous to the faithful. Imagine the optics: a woman in mock episcopal garb laying hands or offering prayers as if in apostolic succession. It mocks the sacrament. The Vatican should not facilitate such confusion. Ms. Mullally is a respected Anglican leader, but in Catholic terms, a laywoman playing at being a bishop.

No Path to Unity Through Compromise

Proponents claim this fosters dialogue and eventual reunion. History proves otherwise. The Anglican Communion has drifted further from Catholic doctrine on sexuality, marriage, and orders precisely by embracing innovations like female ordination. How can they return to Rome while maintaining a "female priesthood"? It is impossible. Full communion requires acceptance of the male-only priesthood, valid orders, and Petrine primacy. Entertaining this cosplay achieves the opposite: it signals tolerance for error.

True ecumenism, as St. John Paul II taught in Ut Unum Sint, involves conversion of heart and fidelity to truth—not relativism. Dialogue must be honest about differences. Pretending Ms. Mullally is an "archbishop" in the Catholic sense hinders, not helps, reunion.

Defying Logic, Theology, Christology, and Common Sense

A female priesthood defies logic. Priesthood images Christ the eternal High Priest (Hebrews 5-7), who is male. Theology demands fidelity to revelation. Christology reveals the Incarnation in the male sex for a reason: the spousal mystery of Christ and Church (Ephesians 5). The Bible, Fathers, and Magisterium align against it. Church teaching in general upholds complementarity of the sexes, not interchangeability in orders.

Women have vital roles: as mothers, religious, theologians, saints like St. Teresa of Avila or St. Catherine of Siena (Doctor of the Church). The Church exalts the Blessed Virgin Mary above all. But the ministerial priesthood is male by divine will.

This visit risks scandalizing the weak in faith, encouraging dissenters who push for female priests in the Catholic Church, and eroding trust in the hierarchy. Catholics deserve clarity from Rome, not ambiguity.

A Call for Fidelity

As this event unfolds, faithful Catholics must pray for Pope Leo XIV, for Ms. Mullally, and for the Anglican Communion. May truth prevail. The Church cannot compromise on what Christ instituted. Women cannot be priests. Anglican orders remain null. Ms. Mullally remains a laywoman, however titled in her communion.

Let this visit serve as a reminder: ecumenism without truth is mere diplomacy. The see of St. Augustine was Catholic; may it one day return fully through genuine conversion, not pretense. The male priesthood stands as a bulwark of apostolic fidelity. We must defend it unapologetically.

Pope Leo XIV has been doing well until now with this travesty at the Vatican.  

Pope Leo XIV's Comments at the Closing of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity: A Call to Visible Unity Rooted in Shared Faith

Pope Leo XIV's Comments at the Closing of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity: A Call to Visible Unity Rooted in Shared Faith

In an era marked by division—not only in the world but sadly among Christians—Pope Leo XIV's address at the conclusion of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity on January 25, 2026, at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls stands as a profound reaffirmation of the Catholic Church's commitment to ecumenism. Delivered on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, the Pope's homily emphasized the reality of Christian oneness, drawing directly from Scripture and the Church's longstanding teaching. He declared that Christians "share the same faith" and boldly stated, "We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!"

These words have sparked criticism from some traditionalist quarters, who accuse the Pope of downplaying doctrinal differences or promoting a false irenicism that ignores real divisions between Catholics and other Christian communities. Such criticisms, however, misrepresent both the Pope's intent and the authoritative teaching of the Church. Far from undermining Catholic doctrine, Pope Leo XIV's remarks echo the very foundations of Scripture, the Second Vatican Council, and prior papal magisterium. They call for a recognition of existing unity in essentials while urging fuller visible communion—a goal that has been the Church's ecumenical priority since Vatican II.

This post explores the context of the Pope's comments, explains their theological meaning, contrasts his approach with that of his predecessor Pope Francis (particularly in liturgical style and symbolic choices like the reintroduction of the morse), and demonstrates why the criticisms from traditionalists are unfounded or exaggerated. Grounded in Scripture, Church documents, and the Pope's own words, we see that his message is one of fidelity to Christ’s prayer for unity, not compromise.

 The Context: The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity 2026

The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, observed annually from January 18 to 25, culminates on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. In 2026, the theme was drawn from Ephesians 4:4: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling.” This passage, part of St. Paul's exhortation to unity in the Church, was chosen collaboratively by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and representatives from other Christian traditions—in this case, prominently featuring contributions from the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Pope Leo XIV presided over Second Vespers at St. Paul Outside the Walls, joined by Cardinal Kurt Koch (Prefect of the Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity), ecumenical delegations, and pilgrims. His homily reflected on Ephesians 4, noting the repeated use of "one": one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph 4:4-6). He highlighted how these affirmations point to a real, existing unity among baptized Christians, even amid visible divisions.

The Pope recalled his participation in an ecumenical prayer service in Iznik, Türkiye, in November 2025, commemorating the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea. There, with Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and other leaders, he recited the Nicene Creed together—the same creed professed by Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestants. This act was a "profound and unforgettable testimony to our unity in Christ," he said, urging the Holy Spirit to make minds docile so that Christians might proclaim the faith "with one voice."

He also quoted his own Apostolic Letter In Unitate Fidei (November 23, 2025): “We share the same faith in the one and only God, the Father of all people; we confess together the one Lord and true Son of God, Jesus Christ, and the one Holy Spirit, who inspires us and impels us towards full unity and the common witness to the Gospel.” Concluding with the emphatic declaration: "We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!"

These words are not novel inventions but a restatement of Catholic ecumenical doctrine.

 What Pope Leo XIV Meant: Unity in Faith Already Exists, Full Communion Is the Goal

Pope Leo XIV's assertion that "we are one" and "we have the same faith" refers to the fundamental unity bestowed by baptism and shared core beliefs, particularly in the Triune God, the divinity of Christ, and salvation through Him. This is not a denial of differences—such as papal primacy, the Filioque clause, or sacramental theology—but an acknowledgment that divisions do not erase the bond created by Christ.

Scripture supports this clearly. In John 17:20-23, Jesus prays: “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” This prayer is for visible unity, but it presupposes an existing spiritual bond among believers.

St. Paul reinforces this in Ephesians 4:4-6, the very text central to the 2026 Week: one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Baptism incorporates into Christ, creating real unity. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches: “Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church” (CCC 1271).

The Second Vatican Council’s decree Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) affirms this explicitly: “Men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect” (UR 3). The document speaks of “a certain though imperfect communion” and recognizes that other Christians “have by right a place in the Catholic Church” through baptism.

Pope Leo XIV’s words align perfectly with this. He does not claim full doctrinal agreement or sacramental sharing but recognizes the "one faith" in essentials confessed in the Nicene Creed. His call to "make it visible" echoes Vatican II’s insistence that ecumenism seeks “full visible communion,” not a superficial merger.

In Ut Unum Sint (1995), St. John Paul II wrote: “The ‘universal brotherhood’ of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction” (UUS 42), and he stressed shared faith as the basis for dialogue. Pope Benedict XVI, in Ut Unum Sint’s continuation, emphasized that unity is a gift already given, to be lived more fully.

Pope Leo XIV builds on this tradition, especially his motto “In Illo uno unum” (“In the One, we are one”), reflecting unity in Christ. His comments are a call to joyfully acknowledge what already binds Christians, spurring efforts toward fuller communion through prayer, dialogue, and witness.

 Why Traditionalist Criticisms Are Misplaced or Exaggerated

Some traditionalist voices claim Pope Leo XIV’s words promote indifferentism or suggest all Christian denominations are equally valid, ignoring differences in doctrine or sacraments. Such accusations are unfounded.

The Pope never denied differences or suggested full communion exists now. He explicitly speaks of “full unity” as the goal, distinguishing it from the current state. His phrasing—"we are one! We already are!"—mirrors Vatican II’s language of existing yet imperfect communion. Critics who portray this as heretical overlook the nuance: spiritual/doctrinal oneness in essentials does not equate to canonical or sacramental fullness.

Traditionalists sometimes cite Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos (1928), which warned against indifferentism in ecumenism. Yet that encyclical targeted assemblies that treated all religions as equal paths; modern Catholic ecumenism, as defined by Vatican II, avoids this by affirming the unique role of the Catholic Church while recognizing elements of sanctification outside her visible boundaries (LG 8; UR 3).

Pope Leo XIV upholds this balance, as seen in his joint declaration with Patriarch Bartholomew emphasizing unity as a divine gift, not mere human agreement. His pontificate shows continuity, not rupture.

 Differences from Pope Francis: Liturgical Style and the Morse

While sharing ecumenical zeal, Pope Leo XIV differs in style from Pope Francis. Francis often emphasized collegiality and simplicity, sometimes inviting other Christian leaders to join in blessings or prayers in ways highlighting shared witness.

In contrast, at events like his inaugural blessing, Pope Leo XIV offered it alone, in Latin "urbi et orbi," wearing traditional vestments including the red mozzetta and stole—signaling continuity with pre-Vatican II papal style. Reports note his use of the morse (a clasp for the cope) at the Week of Prayer Vespers, reviving a more solemn, traditional liturgical aesthetic. This choice underscores reverence for tradition while pursuing unity.

Francis sometimes reversed rituals for humility (e.g., asking crowds to bless him first). Leo XIV’s solo blessing and vestment choices affirm the Petrine office’s distinct role without diminishing ecumenical outreach. His approach complements Francis’s by blending tradition with dialogue.

 Conclusion: A Papacy of Unity in Truth

Pope Leo XIV’s closing remarks for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity are a faithful, Scripture-rooted call to recognize and live the unity Christ wills. By affirming "we are one" and "the same faith," he echoes Ephesians 4, Vatican II, and prior popes—urging visible expression without compromising doctrine.  Criticisms from traditionalists often stem from misreading nuance as compromise. In reality, the Pope invites all Christians to deeper conversion, prayer, and witness, so the world may believe (Jn 17:21). As divisions persist, may we heed his words: recognize what binds us in Christ, work for fuller communion, and proclaim the Gospel together.

Sources:

- Vatican News: "Pope at Ecumenical Vespers: We are one, let's make it visible" (January 25, 2026) – https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-01/pope-leo-xiv-vespers-prayer-for-christian-unity-week-st-paul.html

- Vatican.va: Solemnity of the Conversion of Saint Paul - Celebration of Second Vespers (January 25, 2026) – https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/homilies/2026/documents/20260125-vespri-unita-cristiani.html

- Unitatis Redintegratio (Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism, 1964)

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 817-822, 1271

- Ut Unum Sint (St. John Paul II, 1995)

- Various reports on Pope Leo XIV’s election and pontificate (e.g., Wikipedia entry on Pope Leo XIV; Vatican News on his election as Robert Francis Prevost, May 8, 2025)

- Comparative analyses of papal styles (e.g., University of Dayton article on leadership signals, 2025)

Alex 'Voice of Reason' Jurado Attends Protestant Sect

Concern grows in the Catholic community over reports that Alex Jurado ("Voice of Reason"), a Byzantine Catholic apologist, attended a Protestant congregation's service after being invited by Brandon Davila, a Protestant podcaster.

Jurado faced serious allegations in 2025 of sexual misconduct, including inappropriate messaging with adult women (which he admitted) and grooming a minor (which he denied). His bishop restricted him from public ministry events pending investigation, and major Catholic platforms distanced themselves.

Despite this, Jurado reportedly resumed public activity, including behind a Patreon paywall, without public clearance from his bishop. He now appears at a Protestant service, raising questions about his commitment to Catholic teaching.

 Bad Optics and Implications

This creates poor optics for several reasons:

- A public figure caught in grave public sin (lust and scandal) should step back for repentance and restoration, ideally under ecclesiastical guidance. Returning quickly, especially without episcopal statement, downplays the gravity of sins that damaged his credibility as an apologist and catechist.

- Attending Protestant services, particularly when invited by a podcaster like Davila, suggests Jurado may be softening on core Catholic doctrines (e.g., the Eucharist, papal authority, Marian dogmas) that he once defended vigorously.

- It appears Davila exploits the scandal for content views, potentially drawing a vulnerable Jurado away from the Catholic Church during his crisis. This risks portraying Catholicism as interchangeable with Protestantism, confusing followers and undermining ecumenism's goal of unity in truth.

 Catholic Teaching on Attending Protestant Services

The Catholic Church permits limited attendance at non-Catholic services for reasons like family events or civility, but cautions against actions implying indifference to doctrinal differences or full communion.

- The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (1993, Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) states in n. 118: Catholics may participate in psalms, responses, hymns, and common actions as guests, but must avoid suggesting no real separation exists. It never substitutes for Mass obligation.

- Catholics cannot receive "communion" in Protestant services, as it falsely signals unity where none exists fully (Canon 844, Code of Canon Law).

- Regular or active participation risks scandal, perversion of faith, or indifferentism.

True ecumenism seeks full communion in Catholic truth, not blending worship that obscures differences (Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II).

Jurado even stated publicly that he would go again. This is troublesome and scandalous.  For an apologist who debated Protestants and engaged their content to be attending a Protestant sect service and then saying he will go again, this is validating the sect and its heresies.  

This is the same Jurado who said he would excommunicate Taylor Marshall if he could. While Marshall has some strange views and distorts Catholicism, he would most likely never attend a Protestant service. 

Pray for Jurado's authentic repentance, return to full Catholic practice under his bishop's guidance, and that any outreach remains rooted in the Church's fullness of faith. He may be "testing the waters" and might be lured away.  

Sources:

- Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism (1993): https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/documenti/testo-in-inglese.html

- Code of Canon Law, Canon 844: https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib3-cann833-911_en.html

- Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism): https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

- Reports on Jurado allegations: Catholic News Agency, OSV News, Catholic World Report (2025 articles).

St. Josaphat: The Martyr of Ecumenism

St. Josaphat: The Martyr of Ecumenism

St. Josaphat, born John Kunsevych in 1580 in Volodymyr, Ukraine, is a revered figure in the Catholic Church, known for his unwavering commitment to the unity of the Church and his dedication to the Eastern Catholic faithful. His life was marked by his bold and often dangerous mission to bridge divisions between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, making him one of the most impactful saints of his time.

Early Life and Vocation

John Kunsevych was born into a devout family that belonged to the Eastern Rite Church of Kyiv, which was then separated from Rome. From a young age, he displayed a strong spiritual inclination and was known for his deep sense of prayer and self-discipline. His spiritual path began with an apprenticeship to a merchant in Vilna, Lithuania, where he demonstrated exceptional business acumen. Despite being offered a lucrative partnership and a promising marriage proposal from his master’s family, he turned these down, feeling called to a religious life.

In 1604, John entered the Monastery of the Holy Trinity in Vilna, taking the name "Josaphat" and committing himself to a life of asceticism, prayer, and service. His dedication to his faith and his community was evident from the start, and he quickly became known for his profound preaching and his efforts to educate both clergy and laity on the importance of unity with the Church in Rome.

The Path to Priesthood and Ecumenism

Josaphat was ordained a priest shortly after joining the monastery. He dedicated his efforts to reuniting the Eastern and Western Christian traditions under the Union of Brest, a treaty that sought to bring Eastern Orthodox believers into communion with the Pope while preserving their Byzantine liturgy and customs. His ministry included profound preaching and an intensive campaign to educate clergy and laity alike on the importance of unity with the Church in Rome.

One of Josaphat’s significant achievements was publishing a new catechism designed to clarify Catholic doctrines, particularly focusing on the primacy of the Pope. He was also noted for advocating for strict adherence to ecclesiastical discipline among clergy, particularly in relation to marriage and celibacy. In the Eastern Catholic tradition, married men could become priests but were not allowed to remarry if widowed. Josaphat enforced this discipline, which at times brought him into conflict with local customs and drew resentment.

Bishop of Polotsk and the "Thief of Souls"

In 1617, Josaphat was appointed the Bishop of Polotsk, a region rife with religious division. He became known for his fervent sermons and writings defending unity with Rome and was nicknamed the "Thief of Souls" by those opposed to his mission. His words often inspired a deep reverence and love for Christ and the Church. One of his famous quotes encapsulates his courage and devotion: "I am ready to die for the holy union with Rome and for the supremacy of St. Peter." This line would foreshadow his ultimate martyrdom.

Josaphat’s efforts led to many conversions and a more devoted clergy, yet his success created resentment among some Orthodox believers who felt threatened by his reforms. Despite the opposition, he remained steadfast in his mission, continuing to preach and work towards unity.

Martyrdom and Legacy

Josaphat’s commitment to unity ultimately led to his martyrdom. On November 12, 1623, a mob opposed to his efforts broke into his residence in Vitebsk, Belarus. He was struck with a halberd, then shot, and his body was thrown into the river. His body was later recovered and is now buried in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Josaphat was the first saint of the Eastern Church to be canonized by Rome, a testament to his significant impact on the Church.

His death brought a movement toward Catholicism and unity, but the controversy continued, and the dissidents, too, had their martyr. After the partition of Poland, the Russians forced most Ruthenians to join the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1964, newspaper photos of Pope Paul VI embracing Athenagoras I, the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, marked a significant step toward the healing of a division in Christendom that has spanned more than nine centuries.

Reflection

The life of St. Josaphat is a powerful reminder of the importance of unity and the sacrifices that come with it. His unwavering commitment to his faith and his mission to bridge divisions within the Church serve as an inspiration to all who seek to promote understanding and reconciliation. As we reflect on his life and legacy, we are called to embrace the spirit of ecumenism and work towards greater unity within the Christian community.

St. Josaphat’s feast day is celebrated on November 12, and he is remembered as a martyr for Christian unity. His life and work continue to inspire and guide those who strive for peace and reconciliation within the Church.

Source:

: [Franciscan Media](https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-of-the-day/saint-josaphat/)

: [Aleteia](https://aleteia.org/daily-prayer/sunday-november-12-2)

 

Protestants Did Not Develop The Ordinary Form Mass

Did Protestants develop the Ordinary Form of that Mass from St. Paul VI? 

First, let us address the role of Protestants and Catholics in councils of the Catholic Church.

One of the common misconceptions about the Catholic Church is that it was opposed to any dialogue or engagement with the Protestant reformers. However, this is not true. 

In fact, the Council of Trent, which was convened in response to the Protestant Reformation, invited and welcomed Protestant observers to participate in its sessions as observers. According to some sources found on armchair liturgist websites and social media accounts, these observers had some influence on the discussions and even the documents of the Council. This, of course, is NOT true at all!  The Protestants present were merely observers, nothing more.  They had no say in anything. 

The Council of Trent was not a closed or defensive gathering of Catholic bishops. It was an open and ecumenical effort to address the needs and challenges of the Church in a changing world. It sought to clarify and reaffirm the Catholic doctrines that were challenged by the reformers, but also to reform and renew the Church's practices and disciplines. The Council of Trent was not a rejection of dialogue, but an invitation to it.

The same spirit of openness and ecumenism can be seen in the Second Vatican Council, which also invited and welcomed Protestant observers to its sessions. The Second Vatican Council was not a repudiation of Trent, but a continuation of it. It aimed to complete the unfinished task of Vatican I and to update the Church's teachings (in language, not content) and pastoral approaches in light of the modern world. The Second Vatican Council was not a break with tradition, but a renewal of it.

In light of this, some Catholics falsely claim that Vatican II invited Protestants who designed or developed the Ordinary Form of the Mass. They go to the extent of making up quotes and falsely attributing them to Archbishop Annibale Bugnini. The above meme shows the fake quotes propagated by these ignorant Catholics and what Bugnini actually stated.  As you can see, Bugnini never said the Liturgy needed to be stripped of anything Catholics to appease Protestants. Like in the Council of Trent, Protestants were there simply as observers. They did not speak, they did not ask questions, they did not give advice, input, or anything of the like. 

St. Pope Paul VI made it clear that the Mass is the same. The Mass of Trent and the Roman Missae are the one and same Mass. The only difference is that some redundant parts were removed. The Ordinary Form from Paul VI is a closer reflection of the Mass rite of the early Church. St. Justin Martyr describes in detail how the Mass was celebrated in the early church in his Apologia. While reading it, you will see that his is nearly describing the Ordinary Form of the Mass from Paul VI almost in precise detail. He does not mention Latin, incense, ad orientum, maniples or anything of the like. This was because these things were not part of the Mass until after the fifth century and more strongly at the Council of Trent when the Roman Rite or Latin Rite was formally codified. 

The claim that Protestants designed the Mass of Paul VI is ridiculous, unfounded and offensive to St. Justin Martyr and the early Christians who celebrated Mass in this manner: simple.  There is nothing wrong with the Mass of Trent or the formulas later on. They are again the one and same Mass. The only differences are the man-made elements added to them throughout the centuries which were removed because they were redundant.   

Both councils, Trent and Vatican II, were expressions of the Church's fidelity to its divine founder and its mission to preach the Gospel to all nations. Both councils were guided by the Holy Spirit and affirmed by the successors of Peter. Both councils were opportunities for dialogue and engagement with other Christians and people of goodwill. Both councils were moments of grace and hope for the Church and the world. 

In conclusion, Vatican II had observers from protestant denominations. They never had a say in anything. Trent invited Protestants as well (session 13, chapter 8). Neither council had any input from Protestants whatsoever.  The meme with Archbishop Bugnini claiming he wanted to strip the Liturgy from anything Catholic to appease Protestants is a fake quote. It shows the extent to which some Catholics maliciously tarnish the faith and malign Bugnini and the Second Vatican Council. Do not be deceived by propagandists of the enemy who wish to harm Holy Mother Church with their lies, spins and conspiracy theories.  

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/secretariat-state/bollettino_en.htm

What do you think? Post your comment below on Disqus.  Be sure to follow the rules so your comment can go through.  

Sources:

: https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/03/22/why-were-non-catholic-observers-helping-write-vatican-iis-documents/

session 13, chapter 8

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council#Observers_(§18)

https://www.sodalitiumpianum.com/did-paul-vi-illegally-promulgate-the-new-mass/

Pope Paul VI’s 1969 Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19650317.html

General Audience of November 19, 1969

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1969/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19691119.html

General Audience of November 26, 1969

https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p6691126.htm

https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1969/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19691126.html

https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/contributors/st-justin-martyr-on-the-eucharist-and-the-ancient-mass/

https://www.goodcatholic.com/catholic-mass-described-by-st-justin-martyr/

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/mass-is-the-same-8968

Anglican Synod

"...they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen" Romans 1:25

The words from Sacred Scripture cannot say it any better. Recently, the "Church" of England has its General Synod where both clergy and lay people participate. Instead of a dignified council like that of Vatican II, it looks more like a meeting at Congress.

Anyhow, this General Synod publicly revealed how back this Protestant denomination has gotten. The Synod approved the consecration of female bishops which Catholic and Eastern Orthodox leaders have described as being a huge block towards Christian unity via ecumenism.  Moreover, they voted to take out the Devil from the Baptismal rite which calls for those being baptized to renounce Satan and all his works and empty promises.  It has also voted to make vestments optional, opening the door to liturgies where celebrants can wear a t shirt and jeans.

This "church" has gone to hell, literally!  It has lost whatever sense of Christianity it had since its foundation by King Henry VIII. The removal of the devil was based on the complaints of Anglican priests who claimed churchgoers were confused about this.  Come again?  How can a churchgoer be confused about Satan and sin?

Has England gotten so bad that its citizens do not know who Satan is?  I think even atheists there know about Satan!  These priests are full of nonsense, for lack of a better term.  One of their clerics, Robert Paterson even stated that the devil is a cartoonish character basically indirectly claiming he does not exist and is just an invention.

The ordination of females as bishop is another big issue. Only men can be priests.  This is how Christ wanted it reflecting the marriage of the bride with the groom mentioned in Revelation. Not allowing women to be ordained is not an attack against women or a statement that women are inferior; rather, it is a reflection of the person of Christ as a male who is the groom of the Church. Have female clergy would basically turn the relationship between a priest and the Church into a Lesbian union.  This is unacceptable and a complete mockery of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, the option use of vestments is a big issue even though it just deals with clothing. While clothing is just clothing, the Church has set aside certain forms of clothing to honor God and show the dignity of prayer and worship. The vestments the clergy use is not meant to show social status or to be a sign of vanity.  They are meant to glorify God. This is Biblical as well. God in the Old Testament was very specific on how He wanted the ancient Hebrew Liturgy to take place. It will jsut be undignified to see a cleric celebrate Mass in shorts, jeans or whatever he happens to wear that morning.  Granted, if a priest is in a poor area or even on a battlefield, then vestments may not be an option and a Mass will still be valid as long as the rubrics are followed; however, the use of vestments is indeed important.

It is said that the Anglican community has succumb to this.  However, it is no surprise.  This faith community was founded out of the need to break God's law.  Henry VIII created his own Christianity in order to give himself a divorce which is not possible in the Catholic Church, the original Christian community founded by Jesus Himself. That being said, hearing of the Anglican community once again defying God and Christianity is not shocking. This "church" was founded upon conforming to the world and sin.  However, many Anglicans have already joined the Catholic Church out of disgust for their Anglican church.  It has sunk further into the cesspool of apostasy and many of its followers left it to join the bark of Peter.  Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI - a genius- formulated a way to bring them home to Rome while at the same time allowing them to keep their Liturgies. I predict many millions more will come home to Rome and the "church" of England will fall faster than London's bridge.    

 

Source:

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/07/15/church-england-kicks-devil-baptism-rite/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28300618

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/2010527/gs%201944a%20-%20pmm%20on%20canon%20b8.pdf

https://www.churchofengland.org/

Cardinal Sean O' NO!!!

Cardinal Sean O' Malley of the Boston Archdiocese is known for his ability to reach out to others, however, he did not think a recent action thoroughly.

During the conclusion of an ecumenical worship service at the Methodist church in Sudbury, Massachusetts; Cardinal O'Malley asked a female minister to "reaffirm" his baptism.  This event was meant to commemorate the 50th anniversary when Cardinal Richard Cushing spoke at the same Methodist location.

Cardinal O' Malley dipped his thumb into a bowl of "consecrated" water and made the sign of the cross on the forehead of Anne Robertson, a United Methodist minister.  He then would ask her to reciprocate the same action telling him "Remember your baptism and be thankful" after saying the ritual words.

Robertson later on said she was moved to tears and left speechless by the Cardinal's request. She wrote on her blog:

Ecumenical gatherings are not always warm, fuzzy events for women of the cloth. Most of us have experienced many types of exclusion, even within our own congregations, let alone when we try to join with Christian groups that don't believe women are fit for ordination. And in this group there might well be those who wouldn't have wanted such a blessing from any Protestant, even a male one. I was deep in thought as I received my bowl.
Our exit toward the overflow room took us directly past Cardinal O'Malley. Fortunately, Tom's [a fellow clergy person at the gathering] brain was more engaged in the moment, and he was not about to lose out on the chance to have the man who might well be Pope someday anoint him. Tom stopped in front of the Cardinal and asked for his blessing. I stopped with him and Cardinal O'Malley was gracious enough to anoint me, too.
And then, as the two of us stood there together, Cardinal O'Malley looked me in the eye and asked me to anoint him. I did. The divorced, Scotch Protestant clergywoman anointed the Irish Catholic Cardinal in front of a pew of Catholic clergy and a Catholic Bishop, any one of whom would probably have given their eye teeth to have the honor. I choked back sobs all the way to the overflow room.

-http://www.annerobertson.org/on-rites-and-symbols

This farcical ceremony is sending the wrong message to Catholics and Protestants instead of what the Catholic Church warrants in her promotion of ecumenism.

Robertson is merely a lay women due to the fact that women cannot be ordained. She does not have the authority to bless or formally baptize.  The role of women in the Church is clear in the Scriptures: 1 Timothy 2:11-12.  Cardinal O' Malley was wrong is asking her to "reaffirm" his baptism.  This is already done during Easter or when we cross ourselves with holy water when entering a Catholic church.

By doing this, O' Malley is giving the wrong message that this lady's ministry is equal to the priesthood of Christ which is the only valid ministry in Christianity.  Moreover, Methodists do not have the same theology on Baptism as Catholics.  They do not believe that it removes original sin. (see: http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.5687105/k.77B9/Search_Results_UMCorg.htm?query=original%20sin&more=umc_sites)

Robertson is also the author of "God's Top 10: Blowing the Lid off the Commandments" which is a book that endorses contraception, abortion and gay marriage.  Just think about this for a moment. Here with have a divorced Protestant clergywoman reaffirming the Baptism of an ordained Cardinal/Archbishop of the one and only Church Christ founded, the Catholic Church.  Scary huh?

Terrace C. Donilon, spokesman of the archdiocese of Boston said of the ceremony:

 “It is not a blessing or a sacrament, it is a recalling of the grace of Baptism. Catholics do it every time they enter a church, by dipping their finger into the holy water font and making the sign of the cross.” 

Ecumenism is important, but Catholic leaders participating in ecumenical ceremonies must be careful not to promote false ecumenism or indifferentism.  Here are what Pope Pius IX said on the matter:

“Also perverse is the shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory which is greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.”
 Qui pluribus - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quiplu.htm

Also see:

Singulari Quidem - Pius IX
Unam Sanctam - Boniface VIII
Mirari Vos - Gregory XVI
Mortalium Animos - Pius XI
Unitatis Redintegratio - Vatican II Council


What were you thinking Cardinal O' Malley!?

I think Cardinal O' Malley was trying to send a message of humility and solidarity, but unfortunately we are not of "One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism" 100% (Ephesians 4:5).  His display sent the wrong message that it doesn't matter what religion we belong to and that the Catholic priesthood is not the only valid form Holy Orders.

Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/anne-robertson-cardinal-o-malley_n_4617205.html?ref=topbar

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/17/church-ritual-shared-between-cardinal-sean-malley-and-methodist-minister-stokes-internet-buzz/6qQ1j6Fv4pHLHv0IlaDAwL/story.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/anne-robertson-cardinal-o-malley_n_4617205.html?ir=Religion

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/368615/cardinal-omalley-doing-ecumenism-right-michael-potemra

http://www.patriotledger.com/features/x890778978/To-a-female-Methodist-minister-a-surprise-request-from-Cardinal-O-Malley

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/01/cardinal-omalleys-methodist.html

http://throwthebumsoutin2010.blogspot.com/2014/01/cardinal-omalleys-participation-in.html?showComment=1389885727093