The average Catholic – as well as the average non-Catholic – believes that the Catholic Church is one monolithic church, with one way of celebrating Mass and a single hierarchy which rules that church. However, the truth is much more complex, so much so that I’m reminded of the saying, “I don’t believe in organized religion, I’m Catholic.”

In reality the Catholic Church is made up of over 20 sui juris churches. What does sui juris mean? That each of these churches is under its “own laws”. In other words, each church can have its own canon law, its own liturgy, and its own governing hierarchy. Some of these churches are headed by a Patriarch, some by a major archbishop, some by a Metropolitan, and some simply by a bishop. Each of these churches, however, it in communion with the bishop of Rome, and, according to Vatican I, he has universal jurisdiction over all the churches.

There are currently 23 sui juris churches that make up the Catholic Church. They include:

1. Latin Catholic church
2. Coptic Catholic church
3. Ethiopian Catholic church
4. Maronite church
5. Syriac (Syrian) Catholic church
6. Syro-Malankara Catholic church
7. Armenian Catholic church
8. Chaldean Catholic church
9. Syro-Malabar church
10. Albanian Greek Catholic church
11. Belarusian Greek Catholic church
12. Bulgarian Greek Catholic church
13. Byzantine church of the Eparchy of Krizevci
14. Greek Byzantine Catholic church
15. Hungarian Greek Catholic church
16. Italo-Albanian Catholic church
17. Macedonian Greek Catholic church
18. Melkite Greek Catholic church
19. Romanian church United with Rome
20. Russian Catholic church
21. Ruthenian Catholic church
22. Slovak Greek Catholic Church
23. Ukrainian Greek Catholic church

As you can see, 22 of these 23 churches are Eastern churches; only the Latin church is Western. But the primary reason most people don’t know about all these Eastern churches is that the Latin Catholic church makes up 98% of all Catholics worldwide. So, if you meet a Catholic on the street, there is a very good chance that he is of the Latin church.

Another thing that people often confuse is the difference between a “rite” and a “church”. The churches above are NOT rites; instead they each practice a rite. A rite is a liturgical patrimony: it is the way in which a church worships. There are primarily six different rites within the Catholic church (with many variations within the different churches). They are:

1. Alexandrian
2. Antiochian
3. Armenian
4. Byzantine
5. Chaldean
6. Latin

So one might ask themselves: why all the diversity? How did it happen that the Catholic Church has so many churches and rites? Why isn’t there just one church and one rite for all Catholics? Because historically, as the Christian Faith spread throughout the Roman Empire, and even beyond, Christians appointed leaders for their local church and developed different forms of worship and church law. These churches were all united in “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” yet they expressed this faith in varying ways. Over time, these differences were formalized into the various churches and rites. I recently found a very helpful graphic which shows this development (click to enlarge):

Source.

The diversity of the Catholic Church is a wonderful thing. We finite humans cannot ever contain the many ways to worship our infinite God. Praise God for all the churches of the Catholic Church!

The new Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church is proposing the year 2013 – the 1700-year anniversary of the Edict of Milan – for a major meeting between the Pope and Eastern Orthodox leaders:

Patriarch Irinej said that a 2013 anniversary important to Christians would be a “good opportunity … to meet and talk.”

He added that “with God’s help this (dialogue) would continue to overcome what had happened in history and take a new, Christian road.”

The year 2013 marks 1700 years since Roman emperor Constantine the Great signed the Edict of Milan to establish religious tolerance for Christians.

Serbia’s patriarch has suggested that the ceremony to mark the anniversary could be held in the Serbian city of Nis, emperor Constantine’s birthplace, and include Pope Benedict XVI as well as key Orthodox Christian leaders.

That would be the first ever visit by a pope to Serbia, a rare European country not visited by the Roman Catholic Pope.

This is doubly significant because the Serbian Church is known as a “hard-line” Church when it comes to ecumenical relations. But Irinej, the new Patriarch, seems to be charting a new direction for his Church.

Not surprisingly, the Vatican is enthusiastic about the possibility:

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office,…told the Belgrade paper Blic that this is a suggestion “we welcome with great joy.”

Referring to the predecessor of Patriarch Irinej, Father Lombardi added: “This is a sign that the dialogue that began at the time of Patriarch Pavle will be continued with the new patriarch.

“It would be nice if he would make a step further in order that we meet and see the possibilities for cooperation.”

It is amazing how quickly things have progressed in East-West relations in the past few years. We still have a long way to go, but the signs have been very encouraging lately.

St. Peter and St. Sava, pray for us!

This is pretty cool: someone has gone through the entire Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and noted all the biblical references in it. A small example:

Choir: Through the prayers of the Theotokos (Mother of God), Savior, save us.

Bible References:  Galatians 3:24, Saint Luke 1: 46 – 55, Saint Luke 1:42

Deacon: Again and again in peace let us again pray to the Lord.

Bible References:  1 Thessalonians 5:17

Choir: Kyrie, eleison.

Translation:  Lord, have mercy.

Bible References:  Psalms 51:1

Deacon: Help us, save us, have mercy upon us, and protect us, O God, by Your grace.

Bible References:  Psalms 123:3, Psalms 106:47, Saint Mark 9:22

Choir: Amen.

Deacon: Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another, and our whole life to Christ our God.

Bible References:  Saint Luke 1:42

Choir: To You, O Lord.

Bible References:  Acts 20:32

Priest: For Thine is the majesty, and Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory:  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages.

Bible References:  Revelation 8:12, 1 Chronicles 29:11, Saint Matthew 6:13, Daniel 4:34

Oftentimes Protestant Christians will accuse liturgical Christians such as Catholics or Orthodox of not engaging in “biblical worship”. This page shows that nothing could be further from the truth.

In the days leading up to the March for Life, I kept meaning to blog my appreciation for Metropolitan Jonah’s strong encourgement to his fellow Orthodox to take a public stand for Life. The Orthodox Church has always stood strong in condemning abortion, but they have unfortunately been mostly silent in this country in fighting legalized abortion (with Frederica Matthews-Green being a very notable exception). But this year Metropolitan Jonah urged all Orthodox – from bishops to the lowliest layman – to attend the March and to work against legalized abortion. I thank him for that effort.

But what reminded me was seeing this photo over at Byzantine, TX:

(Metropolitan Jonah is in the center in white).

What struck me about the photo was seeing my former classmate Jeff Fortenberry (second from left). Jeff was in the Masters of Theology program with me at Franciscan back in the mid-90′s and we worked together in the campus computer lab during that time. Jeff is now a congressman from Nebraska (quite a step up from assisting students and faculty in using MS Word!).

Anyone who even slightly follows Catholic-Orthodox relations knows that the Petrine ministry is at the forefront of the divisions between West and East. Both Catholics and Orthodox accept a primacy for the bishop of Rome, but the biggest conflict is in interpreting what that primacy means in practice. Does the Pope have full universal jurisdiction over the Church as well as the ability declare a doctrine infallible, or does he have only a primacy which is mostly one of honor as the “first among equals”? This is the seemingly intractable problem which faces a potential reunion between the two Churches.

Much of the debate surrounds how the office of the papacy was practiced during the first millennium, when the two Churches were in full communion. This is the topic that a high-level Catholic-Orthodox commission has been discussing in recent years. Most interesting for those of us who have been following this commission over the years is that the Italian blog Chiesa has leaked a document that was written by the commission over a year ago:

The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium

Take the time to read this document in full; it is fascinating reading.

One insight which the commission has emphasized, and which I have always found striking, is that East and West didn’t agree on the role of the Pope even in the first millennium, yet remained (mostly) in full communion during that time. In other words, their variant views on how the pope exercised his primacy wasn’t a communion-breaking issue. I think this tells us something important.

Of course, even if the two Churches came to agreement on how the pope exercised his primacy in the first millennium, we still have the second millennium to deal with, when the two views diverged much more widely, culminating in the Vatican I pronouncements of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. But still, an agreement on first millennium practice would be a huge step forward.

Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us!

Probably no man has done more to introduce the spiritual patrimony of the East to Western Christians than Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Like many others, my first introduction to the Orthodox Church was his “The Orthodox Church” which along with “The Orthodox Way” are classics on Eastern Christianity.

I was therefore very excited to find out that Metropolitan Kallistos will be in the United States next month, and not only that, but in my backyard:

• Tuesday, February 9
  “An Insider’s View: Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue Today”
  Caldwell Auditorium, The Catholic University of America
  400 Michigan Avenue, NE, Washington, DC
  4:30 pm – Prayer Service
  5:30 pm – Reception
  6:30 pm – Lecture

• Wednesday, Feb 10
  “Athens and Jerusalem: Hellenic Paideia and the Greek Fathers”
  Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church
  30 Malvern Avenue, Richmond, VA
  6:30 pm – Refreshments
  7:00 pm – Lecture

• Thursday, Feb 11
  “Lent: Our Personal Journey”
  Epiphany of Our Lord Byzantine Catholic Church
  3410 Woodburn Road, Annandale, VA
  6:30 pm – Reception
  7:30 pm – Lecture

• Friday, Feb 12
  “Salvation in Christ: the Meaning of the Cross”
  St. Katherine’s Greek Orthodox Church
  3149 Glen Carlyn Road, Falls Church, VA
  6:00 pm – Reception
  7:00 pm – Lecture

• Saturday, Feb 13
  “Our Transfiguration in Christ: The Message of the Philokalia”
  St. Mark’s Orthodox
  7124 River Road, Bethesda, MD
  12:30 pm – Lecture 1
  1:30 pm – Lecture 2
  2:30 pm – Lecture 3
  5:30 pm – Great Vespers

• Sunday, Feb 14
  Divine Liturgy and Homily
  St. Mark’s Orthodox
  7124 River Road, Bethesda, MD
  9:30 am – Divine Liturgy

• Monday, Feb 15
  “Lent: Our Personal Journey”
  St. Barbara Greek Orthodox Church
  2200 Church Road, Toms River, NJ
  6:00 pm – Great Compline
  7:30 pm – Refreshments and Lecture

• Wednesday, Feb 17
  “The Trinity: Heart of Our Life”
  St. George’s Greek, 7701 Bradley Blvd, Bethesda, MD
  6:00 pm – Presanctified Liturgy
  7:00 pm – Refreshments
  8:00 pm – Lecture

I plan on attending at least one of his talks, and if you are in the area, try to make an effort to attend.

At least a few times a year I attend an Eastern Catholic liturgy, and many times I will try to encourage friends to attend with me to that they can experience this beautiful liturgy of the Church. The first time someone attends I usually try to prepare them by explaining some of the aspects of the Eastern Liturgy that differ from the Western Mass. I usually am sure to mention the following:

1. Everything is sung.
2. There is no kneeling, and you stand for almost the entire liturgy.
3. There is a lot, I mean a lot, of incense used.
4. There are many, many icons.
5. The priest faces the same direction as the people during the Eucharistic prayers.
6. Communion is received on the tongue.
7. The bread used for communion is leavened, not unleavened.
8. Baptized infants can receive communion.

It is that last one that usually gives people pause. After all, the other practices are clearly outward signs and are not fundamental to our faith. But infants receiving communion? Don’t you have to reach the “age of reason” to be able to received our Lord in the Eucharist? Isn’t this somehow disrespectful of this great Sacrament?

The reality is that infant communion (also called “paedocommunion”) has always been the practice of the Church in the East, and was also the practice of the Church in the West until the 1200′s.  Fellow blogger Orthocath gives a useful overview of the practice in this post, quoting Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. (one of the foremost scholars on Eastern Christianity in the world today):

“The practice [of communing infants] began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the “age of reason” (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the “age of reason” (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.

“Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious — realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants….So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants. Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation. In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the ‘age of reason’ theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the “age of reason” requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation.” (Emphasis added) (Text from here.)

I admit that I am supportive of the idea of returning the practice of infant communion to the Western Church, although I do think there can be solid pastoral reasons for refraining until the age of reason is reached. The grace that is received from the sacrament – grace that is not due to our ability to understand it (for who can really understand it?) and therefore unrelated to our use of reason – is needed from the earliest ages. I personally would love it if my own 6-month-old daughter was allowed to participate at the Lord’s Table with the rest of the baptized.

If you asked someone, “how many churches make up the Catholic Church?”, more than likely you would get a blank stare or a confused look. The answer, however, is 23: there are actually almost two dozen particular churches that are united in the Catholic Church. Twenty-two of those twenty-three churches are Eastern churches; in other words, they have their origin in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. Even though they make up almost all the churches of the Catholic Church, their members are only 2% of the total membership of the Church: Latin, or Roman, Catholics make up the other 98%.

These churches have been mostly unknown in the West for centuries, but fortunately that has started to change over the past few decades. With the rise of ecumenism as well as the technological means of greater communications, the barriers between East and West have begun to crumble. This has especially accelerated since Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Orientale Lumen, or “Light of the East”, which extolled the beauty of the Eastern tradition and called on Western Christians to understand and appreciate it better.

A great example of following this call is this video produced by Salt and Light TV which focuses on the Eastern Catholic churches:

It is well worth the investment in time to watch the whole thing.

A common lament in many churches today is the lack of young people. It seems that many youth today can’t leave faith of their parents fast enough once they are on their own. This is true in Catholic churches and it is especially true in evangelical churches, at least according to this interesting article in the Broken Arrow Ledger entitled “Where have the Young People Gone?” Some excerpts (emphasis added):

“Nationwide polls and denominational reports are showing that the next generation is calling it quits on the traditional church. And it’s not just happening on the nominal fringe; it’s happening at the core of the faith.”

That’s the opening paragraph in a press release promoting a new book, “Already Gone,” by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer, with Todd Hillard…

Two-thirds of young adults who have grown up in evangelical churches are leaving, according to Ham and Beemer.

Nancy Mabry, youth director at St. Stephen’s United Methodist Church, agrees that evangelical churches are losing twenty-somethings, but she credits a reluctance to make any sort of commitment as the underlying cause.

If young people can’t commit to a skating party on Sunday evening until Sunday morning, they’re going to have difficulty making long-term commitments to anything else, Mabry said.

When she was in her 20s, she said “If you didn’t have a fever, you went to church. Some people say they don’t come to church because Sunday is the only day they have to spend with family. Why don’t they spend it with their family in church? Now, church is an option,” Mabry said.

What is the solution? There is a hint of it found later in the article:

There is an exception, however, according to Mabry. Traditional churches that are liturgical churches and smaller evangelical churches seem to be retaining their twenty-something members in greater numbers than larger and mega-churches.

The Rev. John Wilke, senior pastor of Immanuel Lutheran Church, has read the book and said he found it to be a fascinating study.

He cited one of Luther’s writings as something for church leaders to consider: “A faith that costs nothing and demands nothing is worth nothing.”

“I think that is where the church is today. I get too many things in the mail from churches that say, ‘Come just the way you are, you don’t have to change,’” Wilke said.

“While God loves you where you are, he expects you to change. We don’t put the fear of God in our churches, we don’t have that respect. We’ve made Jesus our homeboy. He’s not our homeboy, he’s our Saviour.”

Wilke said the only church he knows of that is experiencing growth in the 20-to-29-year old age group is the Greek Orthodox Church.

“The Greek Orthodox Church is a liturgical church. Kids want to return to something different from what they get from the world. If we want to reach these kids again, we are going to have to return to what the early church was doing. We need to raise the bar,” he said.

Read that last part again: a demanding, liturgical Church is actually attracting youth!

Over the past forty years, the goal of many Catholic parishes has been to make it as easy as possible to be a Catholic so that everyone, but especially the youth, would be willing to come. There has been very little preaching about sin and repentance or about the demands the Faith puts upon you. Furthermore, the underlying assumption for many has been to make the celebration of the Mass more “relevant” to the younger generations, so that they will be more attracted to coming. However, this study shows the exact opposite has occurred: kids have rejected the easy way and instead favor churches that are more demanding and more traditionally liturgical.

Youth want to be inspired; they want to be called to something above themselves. A demanding, liturgical church naturally does this and as a result attracts youth without even explicitly trying.

Orthodox Church in America Archbishop Job of Chicago and the Midwest has passed away. Pray for the repose of his soul.

There are many traditions surrounding what the apostles did after the ascension of Christ – where they evangelized, who they converted, and how they died. However, many of these traditions were not written down until centuries later and after they had accrued many mythical – and even contradictory – details.

However, we have a very strong and reliable tradition when it comes to the activities of St. Thomas. Every account has him traveling to India to evangelize and our best proof of the veracity of that tradition is the fact that there has been an uninterrupted community of Christians in that predominantly Hindu land which has always considered itself founded by St. Thomas. Unfortunately, they have not been able to avoid the divisions of the larger Church and today there are Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches which come from that original Thomistic foundation.

Happily, it has just been announced that these churches have come to an agreement which will unite them more closely:

The bishops of Kerala– the home of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church– have reached an agreement with Syrian Jacobite and Syrian Orthodox leaders to share churches outside Kerala for Sunday Mass and to consider sharing cemeteries and the use of priests at funerals. All four churches trace their origin to the evangelization of St. Thomas the Apostle.

Underscoring the agreement’s ramifications beyond India, the Catholic delegation was led by Bishop Brian Farrell, LC, the secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity since 2002.

Although the sacred liturgy in both the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church is celebrated in Malayalam, the former uses the Chaldean rite, while the latter uses the Antiochan rite. The Syrian Jacobite Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church are not among the Eastern Orthodox churches that ceased communion with the Holy See in 1054; rather, they are among the Oriental Orthodox churches that ceased communion with the Holy See following the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Pray for these Christians that they might be an example to us all of how we can live in a more united Church.

You know a topic is complex when a “very basic introduction” to it runs over 8,000 words. But when the topic is the filioque, it is difficult to reduce the subject to sound bites.

For those who are unaware, the filioque is Latin for “and the Son” (contrary to my post title) and it refers to the part of the Nicene Creed (which is actually the Creed of the Council of Constantinople) in which Catholics state, “I believe in the Holy Spirit…who proceeds from the Father and the Son” . In the original text, the phrase “and the Son” was not included (technically, the truly original text of the Creed, this whole line wasn’t even included). Many centuries later it was added in the West in response to heretical tendencies which wanted to subordinate the Son to the Father. This addition caused all sorts of problems between the East and the West and became one of the key points of division between the two.

Dr. Peter Gilbert, an Orthodox professor of Church History, gave the above-linked introduction to the filioque recently and I recommend it to anyone interested in East-West relations. Dr. Gilbert mostly focuses on the history of how the filioque came to be inserted into the Creed, noting both why the West came to accept it as theologically valid and why they felt it was legitimate to add it to the Creed.

My only complaint with Dr. Gilbert’s introduction is that it is too short! I think Dr. Gilbert would do a great service to the Church if he were to expand on this introduction and make it a complete book on the subject.

Update: I am currently reading “I Believe In The Holy Spirit” by Yves Congar, and he has an in-depth analysis of the entire filioque issue. I think this passage sums it up nicely:

What we have to aim at and what can, in fact, be reached is a recognition both of the unity of faith on both sides of Catholicity and of the legitimate difference between the two dogmatic expressions of that mystery. Each expression is consistent in itself, and each is impossible in the categories and vocabulary of the other side. In the course of ten centuries of discussion, neither side has succeeded in convincing the other or in persuading it to accept its point of view. There is no chance that this goal will be reached in the future. In fact, we may say quite unambiguously that this is not a goal to be pursued.

Both Eastern and Western Christians are baptized in a common faith. For both, ‘the Spirit is confessed as the third Person-hypostasis of the one divine nature-essence and consubstantial with the Father and the Son’. Both confess the Father as the Principle without principle or beginning of the whole divinity. Both profess the Son as not unrelated to the Father in the production of the Holy Spirit.

The expressions of this faith, however, are different, especially in the matter of the third of these points…

I would conclude…with a statement by Mgr. Damaskinos of Tranoupolis, who is the Director of the Orthodox Centre at Chambesy… ‘It is both possible and necessary to explain, on the one hand, the formulations of the Greek Fathers and, on the other, those of the Latin Fathers, including the Filioque, and while respecting the originality of each, to draw attention to the ways in which they are in agreement. From the fourth century onwards, the Filioque came to form part of the Western tradition, but it was never regarded as an obstacle to union until that union was ended for other reasons.’
I Believe in the Holy Spirit, Volume 3, Yves Congar, pp. 201-202

I have blogged previously that I think a reunion between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church right now would be unwise, because most Orthodox believers (and many Catholics ones as well) would reject the reunion, throw out the bishops responsible, and the division would just become more entrenched.

However, I now see there is another reason we should fear a Catholic-Russian Orthodox reunion: it will lead to the rise of the Beast of Revelation! That’s right, if Christians are united, that sets the stage for the end-times, at least according to a Mr. Bob Thiel, the “Church History & End Prophecy Examiner” at examiner.com. A few choice excerpts:

The Bible clearly warns of a dictator rising up in Europe (Daniel 9:26-27; 11:27-39; Revelation 13), but contrary to the implication of the Orthodox Archbishop Hilarion, this dictator will feign some type of religious background (Daniel 11:36-38). Both Catholic and Orthodox prophecies tell of a time when an ecumenical dictator (sometimes referred to as “the Great Monarch”) will rise up–we are getting closer to that time.

The Bible warns of a coming European Beast power ridden by an ecumenical church (Revelation 17:1-3). Events are lining up on a regular basis for these and other prophecies to be fulfilled.

Russian and other Orthodox should not try to unite with the Vatican and Catholics should not try to unite with the Orthodox as the Bible warns against this upcoming ecumenical religious power.

Furthermore, private prophecies from both Orthodox and Catholic mystics suggest dire consequences as well.

Christian Unity: the devil’s playground. Really, I couldn’t make this stuff up even if I wanted to.

Every religion must address the issue of suffering in this world. Why do we suffer? How should we deal with suffering? Is there a purpose to it? Christianity’s answer to the problem of suffering can be seen on the crucifix – God unites Himself to our suffering and makes it redemptive and the means of our salvation. We all must deal with suffering in our life and it usually is either our path to deeper holiness or estrangement from God.

In the series of videos below, Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) addresses the issue of suffering:

I know that not everyone reads the comments on a blog – I often don’t in other blogs either. However, you really will miss out if you don’t read the comments from my “What would Catholic-Orthodox reunion look like?” post. They really are thoughtful insights into the issue of East-West relations.