Tuesday, November 11, 2025

“Catholics Have a Pope Problem”?

You can watch the referenced video here:
👉 Catholics Have a Pope Problem – Justin Peters

“Catholics Have a Pope Problem”? Reflections on Truth, Misunderstanding, and the Papacy

By Christopher M. Forte

Introduction

A recent video by Protestant apologist Justin Peters titled “Catholics Have a Pope Problem” has reignited a familiar debate over the papacy—its origins, authority, and supposed contradictions. The charge is not new: that Catholics vest too much in one man, that popes have contradicted themselves, that the entire system is unbiblical, and that the scandals and sins of individual popes undermine the Church’s claim to divine protection.

Yet these accusations often rest on a misunderstanding of what Catholics actually believe. The papacy is not a cult of personality. It is a divinely instituted office of service, grounded in Scripture and history, whose authority is carefully defined and limited. The Church does not claim that the pope is always right, or that he never sins, or that every word he utters is doctrine. What it teaches—what it has always taught—is that Christ established a visible center of unity for His Church, and that the successor of Peter bears that responsibility until the end of time.

The Nature of the Papal Office

At its heart, the papacy is an office of unity and continuity. The First Vatican Council (1870) defined the pope as the “perpetual and visible source and foundation of unity of both the bishops and the whole company of the faithful.” That definition, reaffirmed and nuanced by the Second Vatican Council, portrays the papacy not as a rival to the bishops but as their guarantor of communion.

This primacy is rooted in Christ’s words to Peter: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church… I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 16:18–19). From the earliest centuries, the Church at Rome held a unique role in preserving orthodoxy and maintaining unity among local churches. By the second century, St. Irenaeus of Lyon could write that “every Church must agree with [Rome], on account of its more excellent origin.” That statement predates the rise of medieval papal politics by nearly a thousand years.

The pope, therefore, is not the master of the Church but its servant—servus servorum Dei, the “servant of the servants of God.” His authority exists for the sake of the flock, not for self-exaltation. The Catholic vision of leadership is cruciform: to lead is to serve.

Infallibility: What It Is—and Is Not

Few doctrines are more misunderstood than papal infallibility. Defined solemnly at Vatican I, the term does not mean the pope is incapable of sin or error in everyday matters. It applies only in very limited circumstances—when the pope, acting as universal shepherd, defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church (ex cathedra).

This protection of truth is not about the pope’s personal intellect or sanctity; it is about Christ’s promise that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against His Church. Infallibility ensures that the Church will never formally teach error as truth. It is, in effect, a negative safeguard: not a guarantee of brilliance, but a guarantee of preservation.

In most other instances, papal teaching is authoritative but not infallible. Catholics owe it “religious submission of intellect and will,” meaning a respectful openness and presumption of trust—but not the absolute assent reserved for infallible pronouncements. The Church even acknowledges that theologians may wrestle with difficulties, as outlined in the Vatican document Donum Veritatis, which encourages honest inquiry conducted within faith and communion.

Historical Challenges and “Bad Popes”

History, of course, records popes who have failed in virtue and judgment. Some were negligent; a few were scandalous. The case most frequently cited is that of Pope Honorius I (7th century), condemned after his death for failing to suppress the Monothelite heresy. Yet Honorius never issued a formal definition of doctrine. His fault was one of omission, not of teaching heresy ex cathedra.

This distinction—between personal failure and official teaching—lies at the core of the Church’s understanding. The charism of infallibility protects the office, not the man; the divine promise extends to the papal magisterium when exercised under its defined conditions, not to every private opinion or political decision.

If anything, the existence of corrupt or weak popes throughout history underscores the Church’s divine preservation. No merely human institution, sustained for two millennia by sinners, could have maintained doctrinal coherence without the quiet assistance of grace.

Development and Continuity

Another common charge is that popes “contradict” each other. In truth, Catholic theology distinguishes between doctrine (truths revealed by God) and discipline (practices subject to change). The Church’s understanding of truth develops organically, deepening over time without altering its essence—much as an oak tree unfolds from an acorn.

This is the insight of St. John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Apparent shifts—whether in liturgy, prudential judgment, or emphasis—reflect the Church’s engagement with new contexts, not reversals of belief. To the Catholic mind, faith and reason move together through history, guided by the same Spirit who breathed life into the Church at Pentecost.

Christ, Not the Pope, Is the Head of the Church

Another frequent misunderstanding is that Catholics “replace Christ with the pope.” In reality, the pope is the Vicar of Christ, not His substitute. Christ remains the true Head of the Church; the pope serves as His visible representative in time. The distinction is crucial. The pope guards the faith; he does not create it. His authority is ministerial, not absolute.

The Church’s constitution is, by design, both human and divine—visible yet spiritual, earthly yet guided by the Holy Spirit. The papacy, with all its human frailty and supernatural resilience, embodies that mystery.

Conscience, Obedience, and Faith

Catholics are not called to surrender their conscience. The Church upholds the primacy of conscience rightly formed—conscience that listens to truth, not one that invents it. When Catholics struggle with certain teachings, they are invited to seek understanding within the Church, not apart from it. Authentic faith is not blind compliance but faithful reasoning, animated by trust in God’s guidance.

My Perspective

I write not as a theologian but as a believer—a Catholic who loves his faith and refuses to let media caricatures or superficial polemics distort its meaning.

The mainstream and Protestant critics alike often attack a straw man: a cartoon version of Catholicism in which the pope is portrayed as a mini-deity or dictator. But Catholics believe something far more nuanced and beautiful: that Christ gave Peter a unique mission to strengthen his brethren, and that this mission continues through his successors—not because they are perfect, but because God is faithful.

Why It Matters

The papacy remains one of the most visible and misunderstood aspects of Christianity. Its endurance through empires, wars, schisms, and scandals is itself a kind of miracle. It stands as a paradox: an office borne by frail men yet upheld by divine promise.

If critics wish to challenge Catholicism, let them do so on its real claims, not on distorted assumptions. Let them read Pastor Aeternus, Lumen Gentium, and the Catechism. Let them study history with honesty and charity. For truth does not fear scrutiny—it only suffers from misrepresentation.

Conclusion

The pope is not the problem. Misunderstanding is. The Church’s claim is bold but simple: that Christ did not leave His people orphaned. He established a visible shepherd to preserve unity and faith until His return. That claim is not about politics, personality, or perfection. It is about fidelity—to Christ, to Scripture, and to history.

In an age of noise and confusion, this truth still whispers: the gates of hell shall not prevail.

🔍 FAQ — Addressing common objections

Q: “But many popes have acted badly—doesn’t that show the system fails?”
A: Moral failure is regrettable and real—but the charism of the office (primacy/infallibility) is distinct from the personal holiness of each pope. The system’s reliability relies on the official conditions being respected, not on flawless individuals.

Q: “Isn’t the idea of the pope infallible just medieval?”
A: No. Catholic teaching claims biblical roots (Mt 16:18–19; Jn 21), busy in the early Church (e.g., Irenaeus 180 AD), and formally defined only after thorough argumentation at Vatican I. The fact of Rome’s primacy isn’t medieval invention—it was recognized from early on.

Q: “Why do Catholics call the pope ‘Holy Father’ or ‘Vicar of Christ’ if that sounds like worship?”
A: Titles can mislead. Catholics distinguish adoration (to God alone) from honour (to humans). The pope functions as visible unity-figure. The titles express office, not divinity. Christ remains Head of the Church.

Q: “What happens when a pope makes a non-infallible statement I disagree with?”
A: Catholics must obey teachings insofar as they are authentic magisterium, but non-infallible teachings may invite respectful dissent, ongoing study, and theological dialogue—not automatic rejection.

Monday, November 10, 2025

The Genocide of Christians in Nigeria — and the Media’s Deafening Silence

For decades now, Christians in Nigeria have been slaughtered, burned out of their villages, driven from their homes, and silenced in their own country. Entire communities—men, women, children—have been massacred by jihadist militias like Boko Haram, ISWAP, and extremist Fulani militias. Churches have been torched, priests kidnapped, and Christian farmers hunted down in what many advocacy groups rightly call a genocide.

Yet the mainstream press continues to downplay it. If they mention it at all, they frame it as just another “social conflict” or “ethnic tension”—never as the systematic extermination of Christians that so many eyewitnesses and human-rights observers have been documenting for years.

A Crisis Long Ignored

Groups like Genocide Watch, the International Committee on Nigeria, and Open Doors USA have tracked this violence for more than two decades. Some estimates say over 60,000 Christians have been killed since 2000. I’ve followed these numbers for years, and every new report hits like a gut punch—more names, more villages, more families erased. And yet… no headlines.

For years, Christian activists and even secular human-rights advocates begged the international community to acknowledge this as genocide. They held press conferences, issued reports, and even testified before Congress. But their words rarely broke through. The Western media yawned. The U.N. said little. The Nigerian government denied there was any religious motive.

Now Trump Speaks—And Suddenly the Media Cares (But Not How You’d Expect)

Fast-forward to November 2025. President Donald Trump speaks out about Nigeria, calling it what it is—a genocide—and even warning that the U.S. might use “air strikes or troops on the ground” if the killings continue. His remarks made international headlines overnight.

Finally, I thought, maybe this will push the issue into the spotlight. Maybe the global media will start connecting the dots.

Instead, what happened? The same outlets that ignored the story for years suddenly rushed to downplay it—mocking Trump’s statement, framing it as political theater, or spinning it as “an overreaction.”

You can almost set your watch by it: if Trump says the world is round, they’ll swear it’s flat. If he says the sky is blue, they’ll insist it’s red. So now that Trump has finally recognized what Christians in Nigeria have been enduring for decades, the media—true to its partisan, contrarian nature—has to relativize it or ignore it altogether.

The Pattern of Media Contrarianism

Let’s be honest. Much of the mainstream press today is not about truth—it’s about tribal loyalty. Their opposition to Trump runs so deep that if he highlights a genuine humanitarian crisis, they feel compelled to contradict him, even at the expense of the victims themselves.

It’s the same pattern we’ve seen on countless issues: the facts don’t matter as much as who is saying them. And that’s what makes this particular case so tragic. Real people—real Christians—are dying. Villages are burning. Churches are reduced to ash. But because Trump is the one talking about it, the story becomes radioactive to the very media that should be amplifying it.

The Facts on the Ground

This isn’t about partisanship or politics. It’s about human lives.

Boko Haram continues to target Christians, bombing churches and killing villagers in northern Nigeria.
Fulani militants raid Christian farming communities, destroying crops and homes.
Tens of thousands have fled to neighboring countries or internal camps.
Satellite images show widespread destruction in predominantly Christian areas like Benue, Plateau, and Kaduna states.

Even if you set aside the question of whether it meets the U.N.’s strict legal definition of “genocide,” the pattern is unmistakable: Christians are being singled out because of their faith.

The Nigerian Government’s Denial

To its credit, Nigeria’s government admits there’s violence—but it refuses to call it religious. Officials keep saying it’s just a farmer–herder conflict or a “security problem.” But if this were just about grazing land, why are churches being targeted? Why are priests and seminarians being kidnapped and executed? Why are Christian villages disproportionately burned to the ground?

These are not isolated crimes. They are coordinated campaigns of terror.

The Responsibility of the World

When a leader finally uses the word “genocide,” the world should pause. It should spark investigation, outrage, and action. But instead, it sparks political spin and editorial silence. The truth gets buried under partisan reflex.

It shouldn’t matter whether the messenger is Trump, Biden, or anyone else—what matters is the message. Christians in Nigeria are dying, and the world is looking away.

We owe it to them—and to our own conscience—to break that silence.

What Needs to Happen Next

Global Acknowledgment. The U.S., the U.N., and the African Union must call this what it is: an organized campaign of extermination targeting a faith community.
Independent Investigation. International human-rights monitors must gather hard data—names, dates, perpetrators—before the evidence disappears.
Pressure on Nigeria. Sanctions, aid conditions, and diplomatic pressure should demand that the Nigerian government protect all its citizens, regardless of faith.
Media Accountability. Journalists must rediscover courage and cover uncomfortable truths even when it doesn’t fit their political script.
Public Awareness. Those of us who care must speak up, share these stories, and refuse to let the victims be forgotten.

My Perspective: Why I’m Writing This

I’m not Nigerian. I’m a registered Republican and a Trump supporter, but this isn’t about partisanship or politics. It’s about truth, human life, and faith. I’m a Christian—and I believe silence in the face of persecution is complicity.

For years, I watched Western media bend over backwards to cover every controversy that fit their narrative while ignoring this one. And now that someone like Trump has dared to shine a light on it, they’re scrambling to put the lid back on.

That’s not journalism. That’s propaganda.

If you really care about human rights—if you care about truth—you can’t selectively report injustice based on who points it out.

It’s time to break the silence. It’s time to call this what it is: a genocide. And it’s time for the world to stand with our Christian brothers and sisters in Nigeria before more of them are wiped from the earth.

“Silence in the face of evil,” Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote, “is itself evil.”
That silence must end.

🔗 Hyperlink List (for blog insertion)

Sunday, November 9, 2025

The Pope's Comments on Immigration, Abortion, & the Death Penalty in the United States

Faith, Borders, and Conscience:

A Catholic Reflection on Pope Leo XIV’s Recent Comments

By Chris M. Forte

When Pope Leo XIV speaks, the world listens. His recent remarks on immigration enforcement, abortion, and the death penalty in the United States have stirred praise, discomfort, and debate — even among devout Catholics.

He’s challenged American Catholics to consider whether one can truly be “pro-life” while supporting strict immigration policies, questioned the moral consistency of certain political ideologies, and reiterated the Church’s evolving opposition to capital punishment.

As a lifelong Catholic, I take the Holy Father’s words seriously. But as a thinking Catholic, I also believe in discernment — in prayerfully engaging Church teaching, Scripture, and reason.

1. What Pope Leo Actually Said

In October 2025, Pope Leo spoke about U.S. immigration enforcement, calling the mistreatment of migrants “a grave crime” and reminding the faithful that he himself is “the descendant of immigrants.”

“Where there is love, there is no room for borders of hatred, no room for security zones that separate us from our neighbors.” — Pope Leo XIV (Reuters, Oct 23 2025)

In another interview, he warned that political movements emphasizing exclusion “cannot call themselves pro-life” if they disregard the suffering of migrants.

“Someone who says, ‘I am against abortion but I am in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants’ — I don’t know if that’s pro-life.” — Pope Leo XIV (The Guardian, Oct 2025)

The Holy Father’s words were pastoral, not partisan. Yet for many faithful Catholics — myself included — they raised serious questions about moral equivalence, law, and prudence.

2. Immigration: Dignity and Law

I agree wholeheartedly that migrants and refugees must be treated with dignity as children of God. The Catechism affirms this:

“The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of security and livelihood.” — CCC §2241

But the same paragraph adds an often-overlooked clause:

“Political authorities, for the sake of the common good… may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the person’s duties toward their country of adoption.” — CCC §2241

In other words, the Church calls for mercy and order.
Welcoming the stranger and enforcing immigration law are not opposites; they’re moral complements.

I believe we should continue to welcome immigrants — but lawfully, with due process, background checks, and respect for national borders. Compassion without structure becomes chaos; structure without compassion becomes cruelty. True Christian charity lives in the tension between both.

3. Abortion and Immigration: Not Moral Equivalents

Here I must respectfully disagree with the Holy Father’s comparison between abortion and immigration enforcement.

Abortion directly and intentionally takes an innocent human life. Deportation, while sometimes tragic, sends a person back to their homeland — it does not end a human life.

“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion… abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.” — CCC §2271–72

To equate these actions risks confusing their moral gravity. One involves unjust killing; the other involves governance and law.

That distinction matters. It’s possible to be pro-life and still believe in enforcing immigration laws.
Defending the unborn and defending national sovereignty are not mutually exclusive.

So when the Pope says, “I don’t know if that’s pro-life,” I answer respectfully: Yes, it can be — if one defends life from conception to natural death while also defending lawful order.

4. The Death Penalty: Where I Find Agreement

Here, I actually find myself in closer alignment with Pope Leo XIV.

I believe the death penalty should remain theoretically permissible for the most heinous crimes — but in practice, I agree with the Church’s modern caution. Until our justice system can guarantee that no innocent person is executed and that justice is applied without bias, the death penalty should remain off the table except in the rarest cases.

“The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” — CCC §2267

The dignity of human life — even of the guilty — must be upheld. Justice without mercy ceases to be just.

5. How Catholics Should Respond When We Disagree

Disagreement with the Pope can be delicate, but it is not rebellion. The Church distinguishes between doctrinal authority (on faith and morals) and prudential judgment (on social or political applications).

When the Pope speaks about immigration or economic policy, he teaches moral principles — not necessarily binding policy prescriptions. We owe him religious respect and serious consideration, but we are not bound to agree on every prudential conclusion.

What we must do:

Listen carefully. Understand his words in context.
Study the Catechism. Know what is doctrine and what is prudence.
Pray for the Pope. Always.
Speak with charity. Disagreement must never become disrespect.
Stay in communion. A Catholic remains Catholic even when conscience requires nuance.

As St. Catherine of Siena — a laywoman who once admonished popes — said:

“Be who God meant you to be, and you will set the world on fire.”

We can follow conscience within obedience, not outside it.

6. My Perspective in a Sentence

I believe we can — and must — be both pro-life and pro-law.
We can love the unborn and the immigrant, while recognizing that the two issues are morally distinct.
We can uphold mercy without sacrificing order, and justice without surrendering compassion.

As I often tell friends:

“I don’t have a Bible-based Church. I have a Church-based Bible.”

And that Church teaches both mercy and moral law — both welcome the stranger and render to Caesar.

7. Final Thoughts

Pope Leo XIV’s heart is in the right place: he calls the world to see Christ in every person, including migrants, prisoners, and the condemned. His vision challenges our comfort zones — and that’s what a pope should do.

But as a Catholic layman trying to live faith in the real world, I also see the need for balance. Law and order are not the enemies of charity; they’re its framework.

So yes — let’s welcome the stranger. Let’s protect the unborn. Let’s guard against injustice in capital punishment.
But let’s also enforce just laws, defend borders, and uphold national sovereignty — always with compassion, but also with clarity.

Because as Catholics, we are called not just to feel love, but to order it rightly.

“Truth without love is cruelty. Love without truth is sentimentality. But love ordered by truth is divine.”

That’s the kind of love I believe Christ calls us to — and the kind I believe Pope Leo, deep down, calls us to as well.

Sources & References

Catechism of the Catholic Church, §§2241, 2267, 2271–72.
Dei Verbum (1965).
Gaudium et Spes (1965).
Pope Leo XIV, interviews reported by Reuters (Oct 23 2025), The Guardian (Oct 1 2025), and Politico (Oct 8 2025).
USCCB: Catholic Teaching on Immigration and the Movement of Peoples (usccb.org).
Catherine of Siena, Letters.

Saturday, November 8, 2025

Is Mary a "Co-Redeemer" and a "Co-Mediatrix"? Is she equal to Christ?

Mary and the Meaning of Redemption

Reflections on Pope Leo XIV’s Decision to Drop the Titles Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix

By Chris M. Forte

When the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith released its new doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis (“Mother of the Faithful People of God”) on November 4, 2025, I breathed a quiet sigh of relief. For years I had loved Mary deeply, prayed the Rosary daily, and defended her honor — yet something about the popular titles Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix always made me uneasy.

I understood the good intentions behind them: Catholics wanted to emphasize Mary’s unique cooperation in salvation, her “yes” at the Annunciation that allowed the Word to take flesh. But the words themselves — co-redeemer, co-mediator — seemed to blur a vital line, one the Church has always guarded with vigilance: Christ alone redeems; Christ alone mediates.

1. What the Church Actually Taught

The Vatican’s new note, approved by Pope Leo XIV, makes that distinction crystal clear. It affirms everything Catholics truly believe about Mary — her immaculate grace, her maternal intercession, her intimate participation in Christ’s redemptive work — while decisively rejecting language that confuses her role with His.

“Christ alone is the sole Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.” — Mater Populi Fidelis, §22
“Mary’s maternal mediation… derives entirely from the mediation of Christ and depends wholly upon it.” — ibid., §23

The document stresses that using the word co- (from Latin cum, “with”) can easily be misunderstood in English to mean equal to — a problem already noted by theologians as far back as the 16th century.

As the Catechism itself says:

“Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power.” — CCC §970

That’s the balance — honor without confusion.

2. A Question of Words — and Witness

For me, the issue was never devotion but clarity. When Protestants hear Co-Redemptrix, they often assume Catholics are saying Mary “saved the world with Jesus.” I’ve heard the charge countless times: “You people worship Mary.”

Even C.S. Lewis, an Anglican sympathetic to Marian honor, warned that “exaggerations and unauthorized devotions may drive good men further from Rome than her doctrines themselves.” (Letters to Malcolm, 1964)

So when Pope Leo XIV said these titles “risk obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation,” I couldn’t help nodding. The Church is not downgrading Mary; she is defending Christ.

3. Scripture’s Balance

Scripture itself draws that same boundary with beauty and precision.

1 Timothy 2:5 — “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
Luke 1:38 — “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word.”
John 19:26-27 — From the Cross, Christ gives Mary to John, and through him to all believers: “Behold your mother.”

Mary’s greatness lies not in competing with Christ but in perfectly cooperating with Him — the humble “handmaid,” not the co-equal redeemer.

The early Fathers saw it that way too. St Irenaeus (2nd century) wrote,

“The knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary.” (Against Heresies 3.22.4)

That line inspired centuries of Marian theology, yet even Irenaeus never calls Mary a redeemer — she is the instrument of obedience through whom the Redeemer comes.

4. The Fathers and the Councils

The Council of Ephesus (431 AD) called Mary Theotokos — “God-bearer,” not “Co-God.” It was never about rivalry with Christ but about defending His divinity.

As St Ambrose said,

“Mary’s life is a rule for all… she bore the Lord of heaven, not as His equal but as His servant.” (De Virginibus 2.2.6)

Even the medieval theologians who most exalted Mary, such as St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Bonaventure, were careful:

“Let her be praised, but let the praise not obscure the Redeemer’s glory.” (Sermon on the Twelve Stars)

This is the same caution we hear now from Pope Leo XIV and the DDF: love Mary, but don’t confuse the reflection for the sun.

5. How We Got Here

Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, devotion to Mary flourished. Many saints — including St Maximilian Kolbe — used the term Co-Redemptrix in private writings to express her deep cooperation with Christ. But these were poetic expressions, not dogmatic definitions.

By the late 20th century, movements arose urging the Vatican to proclaim Co-Redemptrix as a fifth Marian dogma. Popes John Paul II and Francis both declined. John Paul used the title poetically in a few homilies but explicitly stated in Redemptoris Mater (1987) that Mary’s role “does not obscure but rather emphasizes the unique mediation of Christ.” Francis later warned that calling her Co-Redemptrix “diminishes the dignity of Christ’s work.” (Homily, Dec 12 2019)

Now Pope Leo XIV has closed the question definitively: the term should not be used theologically.

6. The Historical and Ecumenical Context

Modern theologians of every tradition have wrestled with this language.

Hans Urs von Balthasar, a Catholic theologian, called Co-Redemptrix “theologically correct in intent but pastorally dangerous.”
Jaroslav Pelikan, the Lutheran historian of doctrine, noted that “the Orthodox and Catholic traditions honor Mary as the first and greatest disciple, not as a partner in redemption.” (Mary Through the Centuries, 1996)
Even Protestant scholars like N.T. Wright have conceded that “honoring Mary as the obedient servant of the Incarnation is thoroughly biblical,” but warn that conflating her role with Christ’s “blurs the radical uniqueness of the Cross.”

The Church’s clarification thus helps not only Catholics but the whole Christian world by removing a stumbling block that caused scandal and misunderstanding for centuries.

7. My Reflection

I’ll be honest: when I first heard the word Co-Redemptrix, it made me uncomfortable. Not because I doubted Mary’s holiness — but because I knew how easily those words could be twisted.

I’ve heard Protestants mock Catholics for “making Mary another savior.” I’ve seen memes and pamphlets claiming Catholics “deify” her. And while those accusations were rooted in ignorance or prejudice, I had to admit that the titles themselves didn’t help. They sounded like theological landmines waiting to go off.

So yes — I’m happy about this decision. Not because I want less Marian devotion, but because I want truer Marian devotion. I want the world to see what we really believe: that Mary magnifies the Lord — she doesn’t compete with Him.

The Church’s wisdom here preserves both love and truth. Mary’s power and beauty lie in her humility. She is the mirror of grace, not its source; the gate of heaven, not its foundation.

And that makes her more glorious, not less.

8. Mary’s True Greatness

The title the Vatican now recommends — Mater Populi Fidelis, “Mother of the Faithful” — strikes exactly the right note. It echoes the ancient titles:

Theotokos (Mother of God)
Mater Ecclesiae (Mother of the Church)
Queen of Heaven
Advocate of Grace

Each one proclaims what Mary is without pretending she is what she’s not.

As St Augustine put it long ago:

“She is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ than in conceiving the flesh of Christ.” (Sermon 25)

That’s the kind of Marian theology the world needs — one that unites, not divides; one that honors Christ through Mary, not beside her.

9. The Final Word

Pope Leo XIV’s decision doesn’t lessen Mary’s dignity — it protects it. It ensures that devotion remains pure, biblical, and centered on Christ.

It also clears away one of the most persistent obstacles in dialogue with Protestants and Orthodox Christians. By refusing to canonize confusing or rivalrous titles, the Church shows once again what she has always taught: Mary leads to Christ, never away from Him.

“Do whatever He tells you.” — John 2:5

That is Mary’s everlasting command. She doesn’t add to the Cross; she points us toward it.

And that, to me, is the most Marian truth of all.

Selected Sources and Citations

Mater Populi Fidelis, Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2025.
Catechism of the Catholic Church §§963–975, §970.
Lumen Gentium §62, Second Vatican Council.
Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater (1987).
Pope Francis, Homily on Our Lady of Guadalupe (Dec 12 2019).
St Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.22.4.
St Ambrose, De Virginibus 2.2.6.
St Augustine, Sermon 25.
C.S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm (1964).
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama V (1998).
Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries (1996).
N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003).

Thursday, November 6, 2025

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches

The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches:

A Shared Faith Divided by History

By Chris M. Forte

When people hear “Orthodox Church,” they often imagine incense-filled temples, icon-covered walls, and long bearded priests chanting in Greek or Slavonic. Yet behind those images lies something far more profound: a Church that has preserved apostolic succession, valid sacraments, and the faith of the first centuries with an integrity few Protestants can comprehend.

As a Catholic, I don’t see the Orthodox as “separated brethren” in the same sense as Protestants. They are family — estranged perhaps, but still family. And the Catholic Church, in her official teaching, agrees.

1. What the Catholic Church Officially Teaches

The Second Vatican Council spoke clearly on this relationship in Unitatis Redintegratio (1964), the Decree on Ecumenism:

“The Churches of the East possess true sacraments, above all, by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are linked with us in closest intimacy.” — UR §15

That’s extraordinary language. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox Churches as true Churches, not mere “ecclesial communities.” They have:

A valid Eucharist (the real Body and Blood of Christ).
Valid Holy Orders and apostolic succession.
The same seven sacraments instituted by Christ.

The Catechism echoes this teaching:

“These Churches, although separated from us, possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.” — CCC §838

By contrast, most Protestant communities are described as lacking apostolic succession and therefore lacking the full sacramental life of the Church. So, when Catholics speak of “the Orthodox,” we’re not talking about outsiders; we’re talking about brothers and sisters who share our roots but live across a family divide.

Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy

Catholic Mass

2. The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox

It’s important to distinguish between the two major groups commonly called “Orthodox.”

2.1 The Eastern Orthodox Churches

These are the Churches that broke communion with Rome in 1054, the year of the Great Schism — the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, along with their national churches (Greek, Russian, Serbian, Bulgarian, etc.). They all accept the first seven ecumenical councils.

2.2 The Oriental Orthodox Churches

These include the Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, and Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Churches. They separated much earlier, in the 5th century, after the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) due to disagreements over how Christ’s divine and human natures were defined.

While doctrinally distinct, the Catholic Church recognizes both groups as ancient, apostolic, and sacramental. Orientalium Ecclesiarum (1964), the Vatican II decree on Eastern Churches, states:

“These individual Churches, whether of the East or of the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite, maintain a remarkable unity in faith and sacramental life.” — OE §2

In other words: they’re different in expression, not in essence.

3. Why Communion Broke — and Why It Still Matters

The division wasn’t caused by one single event or doctrine. It was a centuries-long process fueled by politics, language, and wounded pride. Issues like papal primacy, the Filioque clause in the Creed, and the authority of councils became flashpoints, but underneath it all lay competing visions of what the Church should look like.

The Catholic vision developed around a universal communion under one bishop — the Bishop of Rome — as visible head and guarantor of unity.
The Orthodox vision preserved the ancient model of conciliarity — local Churches governed by their bishops, with patriarchs acting as first among equals.

Vatican II summarized the Catholic position beautifully:

“The Roman Pontiff, as the successor of Peter, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of unity.” — Lumen Gentium §23

The Orthodox honor the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares (“first among equals”) but reject the claim of universal jurisdiction. Ironically, even their rejection acknowledges a kind of primacy; they just limit it to honor, not authority.

4. My Perspective: Unity with Diversity

Personally, I consider the Orthodox Churches to be just as legitimate as the Catholic Church in apostolic origin, sacramental grace, and fidelity to tradition. When someone tells me they’ve joined the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church, I don’t feel disappointment — I feel relief. At least they’re anchored in apostolic Christianity. That’s infinitely better than drifting into the cafeteria chaos of modern Protestantism.

But I also see what’s missing.

The Orthodox world is profoundly regionalized: Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc. Each Church is deeply tied to its culture, language, and politics. That can be beautiful — but also limiting. The Catholic Church, by contrast, is universal. Its very name means “according to the whole.” Whether you’re in Manila, Madrid, or Mumbai, the Mass is the same sacrifice, the same Church. Catholicism transcends nation and ethnicity; Orthodoxy often doesn’t.

5. Authority Without a Center

This regional structure creates another problem: authority.

In theory, the Orthodox Church governs by council and consensus. In practice, that means each autocephalous Church can excommunicate another, recognize or reject a council, and interpret tradition differently — and there’s no central authority to settle disputes.

Take the recent rift between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople over Ukraine’s autocephaly (2019). One declared the new Ukrainian Church legitimate; the other called it schismatic. Both claim to speak for Orthodoxy.

Without a single arbiter like the Pope, division festers quietly. The Catholic Church isn’t immune to conflict, but at least it has a referee.

Even Pope Benedict XVI once remarked:

“The lack of a single voice in Orthodoxy prevents the world from hearing one unified testimony of the Christian East.” — Address to the Patriarch of Constantinople, 2006

6. The Unspoken Sign of Hope

What I find fascinating is that, even after a thousand years of separation, no Orthodox Church has ever appointed its own “Patriarch of Rome” or “Patriarch of the West.”

They’ve created Patriarchs for Antioch, Alexandria, Moscow, Jerusalem — but not for Rome. Why?

Because deep down, they know Rome isn’t just another diocese. The title “First Among Equals” still carries weight. Even in rejecting papal supremacy, they haven’t replaced the Pope with anyone else. The chair of Peter remains symbolically empty, waiting to be filled again in unity.

That, to me, speaks volumes. It shows that somewhere in the Orthodox heart still beats the memory of that early, undivided Church where East and West shared one faith and one cup.

7. The Catholic Vision of Reunion

The Catholic Church does not demand submission — it invites reunion. Pope John Paul II famously said:

“The Church must breathe with her two lungs — of the East and of the West.” — Ut Unum Sint (1995), §54

Reunion would not mean the Orthodox becoming “Romanized.” The Church has repeatedly affirmed that Eastern rites, liturgies, and traditions are not only valid but treasures to be preserved. Orientalium Ecclesiarum §6 explicitly calls them “equal in dignity.”

What reunion would restore is the one thing Orthodoxy lacks: visible unity under one shepherd, the same unity Christ prayed for in John 17:

“That they may be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You.”

8. Conclusion: Two Halves of a Broken Whole

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are like two siblings who resemble their parents so closely that outsiders can hardly tell them apart — yet they refuse to sit at the same table.

Still, the door is open. The Catholic Church recognizes the Orthodox sacraments, invites their faithful to communion in cases of necessity, and prays daily for reunion. The differences are real, but so is the shared faith.

From my perspective, the Orthodox Churches are the closest thing on earth to Catholicism — and in many ways, still part of it mystically. They carry the ancient fire; we carry the universal light. And one day, I believe, both flames will burn as one again.

“That they all may be one… so that the world may believe.” — John 17:21

Selected References (Chicago Style)

Unitatis Redintegratio, Vatican II, 1964.
Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Vatican II, 1964.
Lumen Gentium, Vatican II, 1964.
Catechism of the Catholic Church §§836-838.
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, 1995.
Benedict XVI, Address to the Ecumenical Patriarch (Nov 30, 2006).
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987).

"In the process of salvation by co-operating with grace through faith in Jesus Christ, as sustained

Pages

Why I Am Catholic:

Tuesday, November 11, 2025