News broke this weekend that Episcopal-turned-Catholic priest Al Kimel, who used to run the blog Pontifications, was to be received into the Orthodox Church on Pentecost Sunday. Fr. Kimel gained blogging fame a few years ago when he detailed his journey into the Catholic Church after 25 years as an Episcopal priest. Now he has left the Catholic Church to become Orthodox. In some ways this parallels the path of well-known blogger Rod Dreher, who converted to Catholicism in the 1990’s, then became Orthodox a few years ago.

Whenever someone converts to Catholicism after seriously practicing his previous faith, there is among Catholics a great rejoicing. We are happy that the convert has accepted the fullness of the Christian Faith and become mystically united with us in the Eucharist. We are confirmed in our own beliefs because usually these converts only come into the Church after much soul-searching, intellectual study and deep prayer.

However, how should we react when the same convert – who clearly knows and loves the Christian Faith – later leaves the Catholic Church? How do we handle the “double-convert”? This is a much more awkward time, and often one does not know how to react to it. Here are a few reactions one will encounter, each of which I would consider deficient:

1) Disparage the intellect or the emotional make-up of the double-convert.
This is the most common reaction in the blogosphere. People will call the double-convert’s reasons “worthless” or “intellectually bankrupt” or claim that the person is emotionally unstable. Unfortunately, this works both ways – if the person is emotionally unstable now, who is to say he wasn’t unstable when he converted to Catholicism? If his reasons are worthless for becoming Orthodox, why were they not so when he became Catholic? People convert for a wide variety of reasons, and no one can ever know ALL the factors that go into a conversion. The fact remains that some emotionally stable, intellectually capable people leave the Catholic Church. We may not like that fact, but it is dishonest to deny it.

2) Strongly imply (or explicitly state) that the double-convert is going to hell.
You’ll sometimes see Catholics in this situation quote a Church document that states that one who leaves the Catholic Church is doomed to damnation and leave it at that. Yes, it is true that one who knowingly and with full consent leaves the communion of the Catholic Church cannot be saved (Lumen Gentium 14). However, simply quoting  Lumen Gentium or Pope Boniface VIII does nothing to help bring reconciliation. We can (and should) acknowledge the seriousness of leaving the Church, but we cannot make a judgement on the soul of another person. We do not know their understanding of the Faith, nor the state of their heart when they decided to leave the Catholic Church – only God can judge them. Catholic moral teaching as always stated that one must give full consent of the will and have full understanding of one’s actions in order to commit mortal sin – and only God can know when this occurs. We are obliged to acknowledge the grave seriousness of leaving the Catholic Church, but must do so without declaring the certain damnation of those who do leave.

3) Act like leaving is no big deal.
On the opposite end of the spectrum of those who damn the double-convert to hell are those who minimize the importance of leaving the Catholic Church. “Well, he is following his heart”. Or, “I understand why he left and God will surely be with him in his new church”. The problem of minimizing someone leaving the visible bounds of the Catholic Church is that it leads to a false irenicism which considers the Catholic Church just one of many legitimate Christian denominations. But as Catholics we must acknowledge the uniqueness of the Catholic Church: even though the Orthodox Churches and many Protestants are united in some (deficient) way with the Catholic Church, it is only in the Catholic Church that Christ’s Church subsists. We do not want anyone to leave the Catholic Church for any reason, for we know the Catholic Church, although made up of sinful human beings, is the best and fullest way to follow our Lord Jesus Christ.

So how should we react whenever someone leaves the Catholic Church? In these situations Catholics should be filled with humility. First, because we must acknowledge that the sins of Catholics – including our own – help drive people away from Catholicism. We must strive every day for holiness so that we are never even a remote cause of another person leaving the Catholic fold. Second, because we realize that it is only by the grace of God that we are Catholics ourselves. Whether we were baptized Catholic as an infant, or converted later in life, it is a gift of God that allows us to be Catholic – it is not in any way a merit of our own doing. And it is with this humility that we approach the double-convert: praying for his soul and encouraging him to join us in drawing closer every day to our Lord.

A fascinating interview, by an Evangelical Protestant, with one of the most fascinating Christians alive today:

From Russia, with Love
Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion offers evangelicals more than an olive branch.

Hilarion Alfeyev, the Metropolitan of Volokolamsk, located 80 miles northwest of Moscow, has a very big job. As head of external relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, Hilarion is responsible for talking to global Christianity on behalf of the 150 million people in Russian Orthodoxy worldwide.

Given his gift for languages, Hilarion arose as an easy pick for the job by Russian Patriarch Kirill. This year, the Russian-American Institute, a faith-based educational and support organization (formerly the Russian-American Christian University), helped Hilarion interact with a cross-section of evangelicals around the United States for the first time. Christianity Today deputy managing editor Timothy C. Morgan interviewed Hilarion while he was in Washington, D.C….

Do you want vigorous grassroots engagement between Orthodox and evangelicals?

Yes, on problems, for example, like the destruction of the family. Many marriages are split. Many families have either one child or no child.

There are many incomplete families, not to speak of various homosexual unions, which are equated with the family. This completely changes the whole picture of human relationships. It directly affects the future of many nations. The sign of a spiritually healthy nation is that it expands—it grows. If it shrinks, it is a very clear sign of unhealthiness.

There is a perception that religious freedom is declining in Russia. Is the perception true?

‘Secularism is dangerous because it destroys human life. It destroys essential notions related to human life, such as the family.’— Metropolitan Hilarion

It’s a completely wrong perception. We have to ask what we mean by religious freedom. If it’s a freedom for the sects, including dangerous sects, to buy time on television and to propagate their ideas, then I think we no longer have the freedom that existed in the beginning of the 1990s. But I think freedom was sometimes not used in a proper way. For example, I remember how every morning Shoka Asahara would preach on Russian television. He was later condemned to death in Japan for organizing a terrorist attack in the Tokyo underground.

With regards to traditional churches and religions: They have complete freedom of action. There is the law on the freedom of conscience, which makes a subtle distinction between traditional churches and religions that never existed in Russia. Religious communities are given a 15-year probationary period precisely for the reasons I described. They can act freely during this period. They can organize services. They can publish literature. They can do missionary activities. But they are not registered with the juridical status. After 15 years, they can be registered.

Continue reading…

Bryan Kemper, a long-time pro-life leader who founded both Rock for Life and Stand True Ministries, recently announced on his website that he has decided to join the Catholic Church:

My Journey Home To The Catholic Church – Why I Am Converting To Catholicism

Dear friends,

I know this may come as a shock to many of you; I am in shock in a way my self. I have spent the past 23 years living my life for Christ always wanting to serve Him and know His truth.

I have been a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for almost 10 years as I was so inspired by the liturgy and reverence I found there. I have also been in a constant journey for God’s truth, studying His Word as well as church history. After many, many years of resisting a calling that I tried to suppress I have finally felt the peace of God with my decision to join the Catholic Church.

I know that many of you will be confused, even concerned for me. I know that you will have many questions and even be tempted to try and dissuade me from this decision. While I will most certainly talk to you about what God is doing here, I will not be entering into any debates about this right now.

I want to let you know this is not made lightly; I fought against this for years. There are several things that led me to search and finally choose to go back to the Church. I will share a few things in brief here and would love to sit down in person some time with you if you want to peacefully discuss them in more detail.

Continue reading…

As a fellow pro-life Protestant Christian who came home to Rome, I can’t be happier for Bryan. Welcome home!

The speakers for one of my favorite conferences, Orientale Lumen, have been announced:

• Metropolitan Jonah (Orthodox)
  Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, Washington, DC
  
• Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia (Orthodox)
  Professor Emeritus of Oxford University, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
  
• Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ (Greek Catholic)
  Professor Emeritus of the Pontifical Oriental Institute, The Vatican
  
• Msgr. Michael Magee (Roman Catholic)
  Chairman and Professor of Systematic Theology, St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, Philadelphia, PA
  
• Father Ron Roberson, CSP (Roman Catholic)
  Associate Director for Ecumenical Affairs, USCCB, Washington, DC
  
• Sr. Dr. Vassa Larin (Orthodox)
  Lecturer, University of Vienna, Austria, Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
  
• Dr. Adam DeVille (Greek Catholic)
  Assistant Professor, University of Saint Francis, Ft. Wayne, IN and Editor, LOGOS

This is quite an impressive, and ecumenical, line-up. Further details about the conference can be found here.

Today is the feast of St. Andrew, the brother of St. Peter and the patron of Constantinople and thus the Christian East. Often the union of East and West is represented by the icon of the two brother-apostles – who represent Rome and Constantinople – embracing:

In the spirit of today’s feast, here are two Eastern-related news items:

Patriarch’s meeting with Pope getting nearer – Metropolitan Hilarion

Moscow, November 26, Interfax – The meeting between the Moscow Patriarch and the Pope is getting nearer each day, the Russian Orthodox Church said.

“Each day brings us closer to this meeting between the Pope and Patriarch,” head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, told journalists in Moscow.

“Right now we are not prepared to make known the date, nor are we engaged in any concrete preparations for the meeting, but we are certainly getting closer to it. It is a calendar and astronomical fact,” he said.

The work carried out by the Russian Church with the Catholic Church is aimed “improving the general climate and achieving a higher level of mutual understanding,” he added.

This is great news. We have seen rumors for years that this meeting would take place, but now it looks like it might really happen. Let us pray for unity!

Also, many Catholics who frequent blogs do not know any good Eastern Christian blogs – but now there is a solution to that problem: the Eastern Christian New Media Awards! They have just announced their 2010 winners, so I recommend going there to find the best in the Eastern Christian blogosphere.

St. Andrew, pray for us!

At the recently-concluded synod of Middle Eastern bishops, there was a call for a “unified Easter”. One of the more unfortunate practical results of the split between East and West is that the two lungs of the Church do not celebrate Easter on the same day each year (although there are rare cases when the two dates coincide). There have been various efforts over the past few decades to have a unified Easter, but so far they have been fruitless.

It seems to me that competing Easters is the saddest consequence of the East-West split. It is not the most important or most controversial division between us, but it is extremely sad because there is no underlying theological or doctrinal reason behind it. At least with the issues of papal primacy or the filioque or purgatory there are real theological and doctrinal issues to be debated; in those cases, it is understandable that each side is firm in their resolve not to compromise what they believe is the true Faith. But with the date of Easter we have no such fundamental doctrine involved. Heck, the date of Easter could be the last Sunday of month after the fifth full moon on even-numbered years and the sixth full moon of odd-number years and it doesn’t affect our faith in any real way (although it would be a pedagogically poor decision). There is no important reason for the East and the West to stay divided on this issue.

But this is a prime example of what happens when two sides become entrenched in their divisions. You see this sometimes in families: two siblings have a falling-out, often over some important reason, but then over time their estrangement becomes solidified and they no longer talk and no longer trust the other on any issue. Sometimes one sibling will take one side on a debate specifically because it opposes the estranged sibling. When love fails, only discord and division can follow.

The date of Easter is a symptom of the larger issue of over 1,000 years of distrust between East and West. Let us pray that a unified date for Easter can be found and that it will be one small step towards a total reconciliation.

This is an interesting find: a document has been uncovered in which Pope St. Pius X tolerated communicatio in sacris (i.e. shared communion) with the Orthodox.

Translation:

Most Blessed Father!
Andrew Szeptycki, Metropolitan of Halycz, Metropolitan of Kiev and Administrator of all Russia at the foot of His Holiness most humbly asks that faculties may be conceded to himself and also to confessors in communion (capable of being communicated) for dispensing secular faithful from the law which forbids communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox as many times as they will judge it in conscience to be opportune.

Our Most Holy Father Pope Pius X deigned to sign with his own hand this document written by me with the words “May be tolerated”.

A number of years ago I wrote a paper on pre-Vatican II ecumenism in the Catholic Church. Many people are under the (false) impression that Vatican II “started” ecumenism in the Catholic Church, but my research showed me that while Vatican II was a giant leap for the Church in regards to ecumenism, it was the result of many years of ecumenical work within the Church.

Note: the purpose of this post is not to endorse a wider practice of communicatio in sacris with the Orthodox, but to emphasize that the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church did not consider the Orthodox to be simply schismatics outside the Church – which is the impression you get in some quarters.

Fr. Gabriel Bunge – Benedictine monk, well-respected patristic scholar, and author of the book Earthen Vessels: The Practice of Personal Prayer According to the Patristic Tradition – was recently received into the Orthodox Church:

[Metropolitan] Hilarion also heartily welcomed hieromonk Gabriel (Bunge), who, for more than 30 years has lived a hermetical life in the mountains of Switzerland. “You were a Catholic, but in soul you were Orthodox” – Metropolitan Hilarion said to him – “Today, before the all-night vigil, you converted to Orthodoxy, which was a natural conclusion of a long spiritual journey. ”

Metropolitan Hilarion warmly congratulated Father Gabriel on his reception into holy Orthodoxy, and gave him an icon of the Heavenly Queen, “Joy of All Who Sorrow” in memory of the fact that he was united to the Orthodox Church in this church, consecrated in honor of this icon.

One of the most influential books in East-West relations is “After Nine Hundred Years,” written by Yves Congar in the 1950’s – nine hundred years after the mutual excommunications of 1054. In this book, Congar posits that the Catholic and Orthodox churches are not really in a state of schism, but of “estrangement.” By this he means that there was no formal act of schism by either side (the 1054 excommunications were not considered by anyone contemporary to them to be such an act), but instead the two churches simply grew apart over time until they finally acknowledged that they were no longer in communion with each other. Such an outlook has profound implications for how one views our current lack of communion.

I had heard about this book for years but never could get my hands on it because it is long out of print. I finally found it at a used book store about two years ago. But now, thanks to the wonders of the internet and expiring copyrights, it is available for free online. I highly recommend it.

This week I attended the 14th annual Orientale Lumen conference, held at the John Paul II cultural center in Washington, D.C. This was my third year attending, and it was quite enjoyable and informative this year. I am a very enthusiastic supporter of these conferences, as I believe that they foster, on a grass-roots level, the effort to have the Church breathe with both lungs, East and West. The path to unity is two-fold: official dialogue at the highest levels of the Church, and growing appreciation and acceptance of each other’s traditions in the pews. The OL conference works to make the second of these two objectives happen.

The theme of this year’s conference was “the councils of the church” and each of the speakers reflected on the work of the councils in the life of the Church from different perspectives.

The first plenary speaker was Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, D.C. He began by commenting on Christ’s question to the apostles, “Who do you say that I am?” and then noted that the first four ecumenical councils (Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) were the Church’s dogmatic answer to that question. One of the key events in Church history, according to Archbishop Wuerl, was Nicea’s decision that truths about Jesus could be expressed in non-biblical language. Today, we take this for granted, but this was a momentous decision at the time.

The next plenary speaker was Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America. I heard His Beatitude at last year’s OL conference, and he is my favorite hierarch today. As someone said to me, he is “charming and disarming.” His talk was a paper on the relationship between conciliarity and hierarchy in the Church. While his talk was interesting, the Metropolitan really shines during question and answer. He never avoids a question and can be quite blunt in his answers. In all his answers, one thing comes out: he is devoted to following Jesus Christ and making him the focus of all his activities. He returns to this focus on Christ constantly no matter the topic, and I found it quite refreshing.

On Wednesday morning, Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. gave the third plenary talk. His presentation was a paper on the development of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and how the councils affected that development. Those who are familiar with Fr. Taft know that he is not shy about giving his opinions and he didn’t disappoint in this regard at the conference. He was actively engaged in all the panels and shared many useful bits of information on a wide variety of topics. However, I will say that I found some of his denigrating comments about what he called “right-wing conservative wackos” (i.e. traditional Roman Catholics) to be uncharitable and stereotypical. One can disagree with other viewpoints without demeaning those who hold them and unity will only come about when we charitably engage all elements in the Church. But Fr. Taft has done a tremendous amount of good in the Church in regards to East-West relations, and we should all be thankful for his work over the years.

The Wednesday afternoon plenary was my favorite. Given by Fr. Peter Galadza, it had the provocative title “How Many Ecumenical Councils? A Test Case for Eastern Catholic Theology.” In his talk, Fr. Galadza contended at the “ecumenical” councils after Nicea II (the 7th ecumenical council) should be considered “general” councils of the West and therefore not on the same level as the first seven councils. This might sound crazy, maybe even heretical, to the ears of many Roman Catholics, but for those who know the history of the councils, he is not as far out on a limb as may initially appear. In fact, the council of Constance in the 15th century (considered ecumenical by Roman Catholics) distinguished between the first eight councils, which they called “ecumenical,” and the next six councils, which they called “general.” Fr. Galadza gave a very balanced presentation, noting reasons why councils such as Lateran I-IV or Constance should not be ecumenical but stressing that they are still authoritative and useful in many respects.

The fifth plenary talk was a bit different, as it was given by a layman, Orthodox iconographer Elias Damianakis. I liked the change, as it gave a different perspective to the issue of the councils. Damianakis concentrated his remarks on how the councils have personally affected him in his faith life, as well as focusing on some lesser-known individuals associated with the councils.

The speaker for the final plenary could not make it, so instead a video from the OL conference held at Seton Hall a few weeks ago was shown. Fr. John Behr, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, gave a great talk about the differences between “universal ecclesiology” and “eucharistic ecclesiology,” and how the two can be reconciled. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I thought Fr. Behr was incredibly insightful in his analysis. I only wish he were there to take questions. Fr. Behr also noted the fact that the Pope was absent at all the universally-recognized ecumenical councils. While this may have started as a historical accident, Fr. Behr thinks it might have more meaning than that. By not attending, the Pope remained “above the fray” and was therefore able to remain a court of appeal, even to a council. Fr. Behr then gave a great quote: “Perhaps we Orthodox have not called an ecumenical council in over 1200 years not because we don’t have an emperor to call it, but because we don’t have a pope who won’t be there.”

All in all, the talks were all fascinating and informative. But the OL conference is not just about the talks, it also consists of liturgical services and fellowship. And on this count, this year’s conference was exceptional as usual. The liturgical services (Matins, Vespers and an Akathist) were beautiful and prayerful, and the opportunity to talk with other participants and speakers is always a highlight of the conference. I was actually one of the few Roman Catholics there, so it was great to speak to many Eastern Catholics and Orthodox about their perspectives on East-West relations. I especially enjoyed an afternoon discussion with Elias Damianakis over a range of topics. You should make an effort to visit his website, www.orthodoxiconography.com.

Next year’s conference is the 15th annual, and director Jack Figel has big plans for it. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware already has committed to it, and Jack is working to get some (very) big other figures in East-West relations to come as well. Make an effort to attend next year!

I just returned from the Orientale Lumen conference and I’ll give a report in the next few days. But I wanted to post some pictures from the conference (click on any picture to enlarge)

Archbishop Donald Wuerl

Metropolitan Jonah (OCA)

Vespers at St. Mark's Orthodox Church

Archbishop Wuerl and Metropolitan Jonah discussing a topic

Fr. Robert Taft, S.J.

Fr. Peter Galadza (Ukrainian Catholic)

Orthodox iconographer Elias Damianakis

Panel discussion

Orientale Lumen Director Jack Figel

The Orientale Lumen conference here in DC begins in earnest today, and I am attending. The theme of the conference is the Councils of the Church, and there are some great speakers. Today promises to be especially interesting, as the Washington bishop of both the Roman Catholic Church (Archbishop Donald Wuerl) and the Orthodox Church in America (Metropolitan Jonah) will be speaking.

I hope to have some commentary and pictures up later this week. Pray for all those involved!

One of the great developments in theology in the 20th century, both in Catholic and Orthodox circles, was the rise of “eucharistic ecclesiology.” This is the recognition of the central place of the Eucharist in the life of the Church. Or, in the words of Henri de Lubac, “the Eucharist makes the Church.” Without the Eucharist, there would be no Church (and likewise, without the Church there would be no Eucharist). The Church is not just a gathering of like-minded people for a common cause, it is the mystical Body of Christ, and the Eucharist is the means in which this Body stays united.

But what happens when a Christian body proclaiming itself to be a “church” does not celebrate a valid Eucharist? Is it really a Church? Not according to the Catholic Church. In the language of the Church, it is an “ecclesial communion,” which basically means it is a group of Christians who are united in some fashion and its members – individually – are also connected to the Church in an imperfect way through their baptism. But the organization itself is not a church, per se, because it does not have the unifying element of the Eucharist, nor does the organization itself have a true connection to the Church. This is an important distinction that should not be glossed over, and it has far-ranging implications, especially in the area of ecumenism.

The goal of the Catholic Church in ecumenical talks is that each Christian is in communion with the bishop of Rome. In the case of the Orthodox churches – which are true churches because they have a valid Eucharist – this is pursued on a corporate level. The goal is to unite those Eastern churches – as churches – to the bishop of Rome. But in the case of Protestants, this is not the case. It is impossible to unite their corporate bodies to Rome as churches since they do not celebrate a valid Eucharist. Thus, the ideal is simply to allow these groups to join en masse to the Catholic Church, not as churches, but instead as a large group of individuals.

The case of the Anglicans might appear to be an exception, but it is sadly not. In Pope Benedict’s initiative to bring traditional Anglicans into the Church, he has allowed the set-up of personal ordinariates which would be the corporate structure for convert Anglicans to enter the Church. But it is important to note that their existing ecclesial structure would not be incorporated into the Church, but would instead simply cease to exist. If a large body of traditional Anglicans were to enter the Church, they would formally be entering as individuals, not as a body.

The most important part of what makes us a Church is not the fact that we have the same beliefs or a common goal in life. It is that we celebrate the Eucharist, which is the Body of Christ. Let us pray that all Christians will one day be able to celebrate this great mystery at one altar.

Living in the post-Vatican II ecumenical world we Catholics can sometimes get a bit ahead of ourselves when it comes to the potential for unity between Christian churches. This is especially true for our relations with the Orthodox Churches, whose beliefs and practices appear so close to ours (and in many ways are very close to ours). When I mentioned last week that it might take 500 years for Catholic-Orthodox unity to occur, I had a number of people scoff at such pessimism. But the fact remains that unity cannot occur without grassroots support for it, and in many parts of the Eastern Christian world, such support is limited and even nonexistent.

The latest example of this occurred this week as Pope Benedict travels to Cyprus, a majority-Orthodox country. The head of the Orthodox Church in Cyprus had to threaten a number of his fellow bishops with sanctions in order to keep them from boycotting a welcoming ceremony for Pope Benedict. These bishops have labeled the Pope a “heretic,” and their views are not uncommon in Cyprus, where last year protests greeted a Catholic-Orthodox ecumenical gathering.

None of this should discourage us from pursuing reunion with our Orthodox brothers and sisters, however. In fact, it should remind us that reunion will only be an action of the Holy Spirit, because if left in our hands, we will only have a continuation of the division of Babel. We should therefore work and pray (and pray some more!) that all parties might be docile to the Holy Spirit and allow Him to reunite us into one Body in Christ.

I am not one to think that the reunion of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are right around the corner. As I see it, relations between East and West have generally fallen into four approximately 500-year-long historical eras:

1) Complete union (0-500 A.D.) – from the time of Christ to Emperor Justinian

2) Weakening union (500-1000 A.D.) – from Justinian to the mutual excommunications

3) Deepening separation (1000-1500 A.D.) – from the mutual excommunications to the Council of Florence

4) Complete separation (1500-2000 A.D.) – from the Council of Florence to Vatican II

Now we are (hopefully) in the era of “deepening union,” which, if the past is any indication, could last 500 years before we could return to a “complete union” again. But every 500 years has to start somewhere, and it does appear that we are living at the beginning of a new era in Catholic-Orthodox relations.

Evidence of this deepening union abound. For example, there have been a number of articles recently on the “alliance” between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church. Relations between these two churches are vitally important for the overall cause of Christian unity, as they are the two largest and most influential Christian churches in the world. Historically, the Russian Orthodox Church has had little interest in ecumenical relations, but recently there seems to be a thaw in their attitude towards the outside world. Specifically, they appear to realize that the restoration of a Christian Europe is only possible by working together with the Catholic Church.

Last week, there was a wonderful cultural exchange when a concert was held in Rome featuring both Russian and Italian music. It was attended by Pope Benedict and Metropolitan Hilarion, the chairman of the Department of External Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate. Both Benedict and Hilarion are accomplished musicians and have worked together in the past – before Benedict became pope.

The destruction of the Christian Faith in Europe has been a terrible thing to behold and has had untold negative consequences. But as usual, God works good out of man’s evil, and one good from the de-Christianization of Europe is the rediscovery of the common beliefs of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In many ways, I compare it to the “accidental” ecumenical benefits of the pro-life movement here in the United States, as Catholics and Evangelical Protestants worked towards a common goal and realized along the way that they have more in common than just opposition to abortion. Hopefully the common cause of Catholics and Orthodox against the secularization of Europe will have a similar result.

Those of us who are living in this new era are responsible for it truly being an era of “deepening union” and not a continuation of complete separation. Let us all fervently pray that East and West might again be united as one Body in Christ. We may not see that day ourselves, but our prayers can help make it happen one day.