Oops. My apologies. I like what you said here.
Along these lines, a few of questions:
1.) Maybe 'missionary' isn't the word that I should be using? Maybe a hybrid Missionary-reconciliation movement?
2.) Do you think that in the case of the Ukraine and Macedonia, that politics has played a role in those schisms? i.e. Ukrainians and Macedonians did not feel "in communion" whilst being "in communion"? If so, does the mother Church have an obligation to work a little harder to heal the schism?
1) I'd prefer reconciliation, but it hinges on mutual forgiveness and wanting to be a united Church. So, for the sake of argument, the Church and a schismatic group reconciles, forgives one another, etc. What next? Immediate concelebration? Maybe not. Perhaps this part would be more missionizing. I think this part would be to fix any anomalies in praxis that may have occurred or to correct any false teaching that may have crept in. Even something like recognizing enthronement of bishops or ordinations of priests could take time.
2) In these instances, yes, I believe politics played a role. Unfortunately, when hasn't politics played a role in the history of the Church? There's alo the issue of ethnocentric/nationalistic pride that is so hard to stamp out; just pick any ethnicity/tribe/race/country in the world, there's a bit of pride. The Mother Church does have a duty to heal such schism, but in the end people will be people. The Church can go to then ends of the world or meet such a group's demands in its entirety and people may still want to stay in schism.