Papa Leone appoints a woman to a post impossible for her to hold

Honeymoon is over, Papa Leone.

It is an ontological impossibility for a woman to hold ecclesiastical office. Because the power of governance and jurisdiction flows through Holy Orders: Can. 129 §1. “Those who have received sacred orders are qualified, according to the norm of the prescripts of the law, for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution and is also called the power of jurisdiction.”

Since both Prevost and Sister Tiz have degrees in Canon Law, there is no question they know this. This is about inversion of reality. And the matter at hand is not just Canon Law, it is Divine Law, which no one can touch. It is unchangeable Dogma that Christ instituted the Church as a hierarchy, ruled through its Prelates, the successors of the Apostles.

It was widely speculated mere days ago that Prevost might remove the woman Prefect named by Bergoglio. Nope. He doubled down. So now priests are ruled by two um, chicks.

I am late to this and short on time, so please check out Chris Jackson’s excellent new substack. He has been posting daily, and hitting it out of the park: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/leos-feminized-vatican-where-nuns

47 thoughts on “Papa Leone appoints a woman to a post impossible for her to hold”

  3. Time for clergy to dirty their hands again and refuse because she has no jurisdiction.

  4. Inversion everywhere. Everytime I click on news I see a woman head of something. Isaiah 3:12 “women rule over them”- doesn’t sound joyful.

  5. Off topic, I apologize. Has anyone heard from Archbishop Vigano on Pope Leo XIV?

    1. I’m told he is letting his pre-Conclave statement speak for itself.

  6. This is a scourge. “And I will give children to be their princes, and the effeminate will rule over them”. Isa 3:4

  7. Also off topic: Has anyone heard from Tucho Fernandez lately (since the Prevost innauguraton)?

    He’s been suspicously absent or missing in recent weeks . . .

  12. But why have this woman in the same dicastery rather than a different one? I wouldn’t be surprised if he does in fact take out the woman prefect and then leave the woman secretary..perhaps he’s being strategic.

  14. Mr. Prevost is not your friend.

    Mr. Prevost is your enemy, dressed as your friend.

    I think his ‘reign’ will be short.

    This article, quoting numerous Catholic (i.e. pre-conciliar) theologians, shows categorically why no pope can be a heretic. There is a little thing called ‘secondary’ infallibility and it dictates that the only possible explanation of these wretched post-conciliar past is, simply, that Roncalli et al. were not valid popes. Theological semantics & gymnastics purporting otherwise are vain cognitive dissonance:

    http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2025/05/can-true-pope-teach-heresy.html?m=0

    1. If they were not popes, where are the living bishops appointed by a pope?

      Secondly, can you explain what Pius XI really meant in plain English when he said that non-Catholics of goodwill can be saved? Specifically can a non-Catholic be in a state off grace if he isn’t a member of the body of the Church?

      1. There are no living bishops appointed by a pope anymore, not for decades (look at the state of the world).

        There are, however, valid bishops: the Traditional bishops. Different canonical laws apply when the Church is in a state of Sedevacante.

        You don’t need a pope to make a bishop, you need a bishop to make a bishop. The bishops validly ordained post 1958 are valid bishops. They do not enjoy any Ordinary jurisdictions (these must come from a pope), though they are nevertheless true successors of the Apostles.

        Cardinals, on the other hand, must be appointed by a pontiff and are extraneous to the fundamental workings or ‘organic constitution’ of the Church. There are no Cardinals. I think Siri was the last one made.

        I’m not familiar with the particular remarks of Pius XI that you reference, though on the face of it he must have been referring to either or both Baptism by Desire or Invincible Ignorance, which are validly held. St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with the former in some detail and I think, perhaps, the latter is given some consideration on the very link I provided.

        If this is does not answer your concerns, take them to the website that I linked to and ask the question yourself in a polite manner and you will be given a full answer and pre-VII references in support of such. The author, ‘Introibo’, is a NY attorney and the ‘lay protege’ of Fr. Gomar Depauw (the Grandfather of Traditionalism who set the path for ABp. Lefebvre).

        1. Well, did the Church before VII teach that to be a successor of the apostles all you need is valid orders? Or is there something more? Does any trad bishop have any authority to bind laity or is their power limited to persuasion?

          If your church is not apostolic it is not the Catholic Church. So what exactly did the Church before VII mean by the word “apostolic”? Why does the Orthodox church have material succession but. not formal succession?

          Asking these questions should not be offensive unless you refuse to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

  15. Freemasonry: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

    VII: Religious Liberty, Collegial Equality, Ecumenical Fraternity.

    Bergoglio was not the first anti pope since VII. Ratzinger, as you all know, was one of the architects of VII.

    ’22 sedes are one day going to have to reconcile what they apply to Bergoglio and now Prevost to all post conciliar “popes”.

    I hope Ann, Art, Mazza and you too Mark are working on that “round table” discussion on ’58 SVism. And that maybe Ann can cough up an apology for calling sedes Protestants and other such derogatory names.

    2. **’22 sedes are one day going to have to reconcile what they apply to Bergoglio and now Prevost to all post conciliar “popes”.**

      I’ve been trying to do that since it became obvious that Prevost was another false pope. I started with JPII, whose list of public heresies, in both word and deed, I find every bit as impressive as the loathsome Argentinian’s (into the dumpster of history with his name/stage name). I’d really like to hear the case for why JPII wasn’t a false pope from the ’22 side. Because if JPII was invalid, there’s a very strong case that everything since the wretched council must also be invalid (including Montini’s ordination rite).

      I’d love to hear a roundtable podcast on this. Examine one pontificate at a time, maybe have Mario or Louie as guests to make it a real, structured debate, and roll the tape. Don’t worry about the clock, just have it out and get to the bottom of this.

      1. Well, if there has been no pope after the council, it’s not just after Vatican II that’s been false. You would have to reconsider your branch of Christianity. If you’re not willing to do that or have strong evidence of the truth of Catholicism, then you would have to look for holes in what trads say about Vatican II and look on if there really is a hermeneutic of continuity or not, and whether there is a genuine contradiction or if there is a development of doctrine. I suggest slowly reading Pius XI’s encyclical on invincible ignorance and testing trad claims against what the preconcilliar popes have taught. Truth cannot contradict truth.

      2. Yay CJ!

        Maybe instead of hopping right into the ’58 vs ’22 sede positions Ann and company can address the R&R, aka SSPX position. That is what led me to SVism. When Michael Matt tweeted out something about Recognize & Resist that got my attention hard! R&R, imo is the most destructive position a Catholic can hold. It totally destroys the papacy and the Petrine Promise.

        Another thing that hit me hard, because I had such a devotion to Ann, was Mario’s rebuttal of Ann’s Resignation video. When I read Mario’s argument against Ann’s irrational take against sedes I cried. Hard. Because he was right. I repeatedly asked Ann to address it. Crickets.

        If you’re interested, here is Mario’s rebuttal. It’s lengthy, but well worth the read. If you want to skip past the beginning, go to part 3.

        https://novusordowatch.org/2018/11/benedict16-mysterious-resignation-reply-barnhardt/

      3. The 1968 Montini ordination rites are wholly invalid; the N.O. ‘priests’ (including FSSP) are laymen rather than priests.

        I know that is shocking and a very emotionally charged issue however, sadly, it is true.

        The man who oversaw Montini’s wretched rites was Annabel Bugnini and the episcopal formula he likely based (that is, guided towards and moulded upon) is that of the Anglicans, which Leo XIII categorically condemned as void & invalid. They are dressed up like Eastern rites and use their verbiage, however the content, the meat, was so trimmed that they fail – unquestionably – to fulfill the canonical requirements imposed by PXII a mere 20 years earlier.

        Things are so much worse in the Church (and thus the world) than is easily conceived of.

        For anyone genuinely interested, look up the analysis by Fr. Anthony Cekada.

        1. Rather, it is Fr. Cekada who is wrong in his two essays on NO Consecration. And there are plenty of 1958 Sedes who agree with me on this. So when you say it is “unquestionable,” you are not being honest.

          1. No, that is an erroneous treatment of the subject. I don’t know how deeply you’ve investigated it, or how honestly – and without any intention to be insulting – though Fr. Cekada is absolutely spot on and it is stupefying that the Society, for one, choose to be disingenuous and dishonest in their reading of it.

            The Montini formula for episcopal consecrations fail: they fulfill perhaps one though certainly not both of the absolute minimum requirements set by PXII; and, the language is ambiguous, failing to specify with certainty & clarity – a pivotal requirement of validity in itself – what or who is being specified by the esoteric term (from memory) “Principum Spiritus” and the translators had to ask what was meant by this invented phrase. I think a dozen possible interpretations were advanced in attempt to identify it precisely.

            By law – law – this invalidates the rite straight away: poof! And it’s gone.

            Bugnini was a high level Mason, as everyone knows, and he was charged with the job of wrecking the Church. His N.O. was one thing, but his invalid rites of validation for holy orders (principally of bishops) has ‘turned off’ the apostolic pipeline; and, with the passage of time, there are now no actual bishops (and very few priests) left in the formal Vatican hierarchy or usurped infrastructure of the institutional Church.

            Eastern rites, I can’t speak for.

            Don’t think I take moment in this. Far from it. I’m ex-FSSP and, living in a remote area and without means of transport, now realise that I have never been formally confirmed in the Church, never validly enrolled in the Scapular, my ‘Epiphany Water’ is just H20 with a sprinkle of salt. Etcetera.

            It is a truly diabolical situation; the institutional Church is nigh dead.

      4. The 1968 Montini ordination rites are wholly invalid; the N.O. ‘priests’ (including FSSP) are laymen rather than priests.

        I know that is shocking and a very emotionally charged issue however, sadly, it is true.

        The man who oversaw Montini’s wretched rites was Annabel Bugnini and the episcopal formula he likely based (that is, guided towards and moulded upon) is that of the Anglicans, which Leo XIII categorically condemned as void & invalid. They are dressed up like Eastern rites and use their verbiage, however the content, the meat, was so trimmed that they fail – unquestionably – to fulfill the canonical requirements imposed by PXII a mere 20 years earlier.

        Things are so much worse in the Church (and thus the world) than is easily conceived of.

        For anyone genuinely interested, look up the analysis by Fr. Anthony Cekada.

    3. This is why the so-called ’58 sede’s are wrong: they fail to distinguish between formal and manifest heresy, one of which separates you from the Church (formal), and one of which does not (material). No pope before Bergoglio manifestly rejected one of the official dogmatic teachings of the Church. And so it’s not that it’s ok to kiss a koran, but rather that doing so, one does not reject the dogma of the Faith and cease to be Catholic. It really is that simple…
      https://canon748.org/on-sedevacantism/

      1. IF kissing that satanic book was all JP did, you’d maybe have a point. But that is not the case. All post conciliar “popes” are heretics, but JPII and onwards have taught and demonstrated the VII heresies of false ecumenism and religious liberty. A true pope cannot lead the faithful astray in regards to faith and morals.

        The NO religion has the same tenets as Freemasonry; liberty, ecumenism, fraternity.

      2. NO NO NO NO NO and No again, sir!

        You could not be more wrong if you applied yourself with sedulous and sustained exertion. You are ‘perfectly’ wrong and the following link, a short read, will be of much utility to you; quoting pre-VII theologians which show categorically that – for pope or prelate – there is no such distinction.

        http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2025/05/can-true-pope-teach-heresy.html?m=0

        I pray you read it. It is very much for your benefit.

        1. Thank you for that article that is so easily rebuked by this example:
          Pope John XXII 700 years ago publicly taught heresy (that Saints didn’t get the beatific vision until after the final judgement) – but we would all agree that he (and the others since) are valid popes. So obviously a valid pope can teach error, can be wrong, and (assuming we agree that it is a matter of material heresy to say we don’t get the beatific vision upon entry into heaven) can be in material heresy.
          We agree that the formal heresy now manifested in the Church shows the anti-papacy of both Bergoglio and Prevost. We agree that much of what is now seen manifestly in the Church is, in fact, what St. Pio called the false church ruled by satan.

          1. No sir, that is correct and, I think, dealt with in the comments section of the self-same and linked article.

            John XXII was not in heretical error because that issue had not been formally pronounced on at that time.

            So, what said was incorrect, though it was as not in contradiction to Church teaching; the same as St. Thomas not supporting the Immaculate Conception, not declared for hundreds of years after his death.

            JXXII was not speaking ex Cathedra, so was not speaking infallibly; however was preserved from heresy by the ‘secondary’ infallibility of the Office.

      3. Bp. Sanborn has a video on YouTube titled, “JPII 25 years of heresy and destruction.”

        Maybe someone can embed it here for easy access.
        I apologize i didn’t embed it myself.
        I’m not tech savvy and my sons who are, are not available to right now.

        The heresies JPII did and allowed are numerous.
        Bp. Sanborn goes through a history of his heresies.
        I’m not entirely sure how a man can be the head of the church and allow all of this to happen on his watch.

        1. Read Windswept House and you’ll understand why JPII allowed all the evil – he thought he was the Pope who would preside over the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary…. he thought it was imminent, apparently due to a vision after he was shot… and so he did what he thought would prepare the world for the same…

          1. Lol …read Windswept House instead of pre-VII popes, saints, doctors of the Church, theologians. Great idea.

        2. This is probably not the video you’re looking for, but I too have difficulties re-finding them. I attend a bishop Sanborn chapel and one of our long time faithful just recently asked H.E. to put their library of videos in some semblance of order…lol.

  17. https://youtu.be/rMdIYOMgu-U?si=XVfQ8n9RJ9lTpPhX

    Thank you, Kono.

    My son helped me out and the video from Bp Sanborn is above.
    The video is from before the equally heretical reign of B16 and Francis.
    Sorry to say to everyone out there who
    calls Francis a heretic but gives B16 and JPII a pass, you are not being honest.
    Listen to the video and decide if they’re not all alike.

    1. Anyone who says Bergoglio and B16 are “equally heretical” is not being honest.

      1. The Argentinian was a mask-off, hair-on-fire heretic.

        There’s a boatload of heretical-sounding stuff with the other council popes that we really need to talk about, but the Argentinian did it in a manner and to a degree that it’s never been done before.

        BXVI was also the much smarter man. I can see the case for his being the more impactful and damaging career… but no way can you compare his papacy with the Heresypalooza we just lived through.

      2. Mark’s right. Fr. Ratzinger, the suit & tie wearing vandal and Modernist ‘pin-up boy’ of the Robber Council was not as heretical as Bergoglio the Terrible.

        That doesn’t validate the legitimacy of his ‘papacy’. By Divine Law, no heretic can or will ever be pope.

      3. Come on Mark. One held heretical position puts one outside the Church, ipso facto. B16 offered poison in a glass of wine, not so easily detected; Bergoglio offered even more poison but in a glass of water; easily detected.

      4. Come on Mark. B16 offered his drops of poison in a glass of wine; less detectible. Bergoglio; in a glass of water, easily detected. The degree or number of heresies is irrelevant.

        I believe the great apostasy officially started at the time of “Pope Saint P6” and his magisterium’s signing of the heretical VII documents. Bergoglio was a mercy from God to wake people the hell up.

    2. Thank you Katie. I’ll give it a listen. BTW, my name is Debbie. I don’t know why it switched to kono …low tech boomer here. 🤣

Comments are closed.