Prayer is central to our lives of faith. There are many types of established prayers, such as the Hail Mary and Glory Be. Then there are prayers we make up on the spot when in more casual conversation with God, like this one: Jesus, help me keep my cool with this irritating person.

Some of us pray for a few minutes each day, while others devote hours to it.

This might make you wonder if certain prayers are better — more meritorious — than others. After all, you probably would shy away from claiming that your conversations with God are on the level of, say, St. Teresa of Avila.

Here are some things to keep in mind.

We are all precious to God.
God loves each of us with the self-same act of love. In other words, God is supremely simple. He is not composed of parts, as material beings are. He is identical to His love, and so when He loves us, He gives Himself to us.

He loves us as a Father. As children, we turn to Him with hope, love, and the expectation that He wants to give us good things. Our prayers are precious to Him not because He needs them but because He delights in receiving them.

While the Eastern Orthodox Church gives a certain honor to the Roman Catholic pope, they don’t see him as having ultimate authority over the Church. However, there was a time in early Church history when many of the Eastern Orthodox’s spiritual forbearers did accept papal primacy: through the 6th-century Formula of Pope St. Hormisdas.

After the Council of Chalcedon concluded in 451, a schism arose in the Eastern Church. Some bishops — including those from Constantinople — strayed from the council’s teachings.

For them to be reconciled to the Catholic Church, they had to sign Pope Hormisdas’ formula, wherein he taught papal supremacy. Many Eastern bishops of the 6th century did so, signaling their agreement. (Modern Eastern Orthodox members reject this belief.)

The formula states:

“The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.

To many non-Catholics, the Crusades were a violent attempt by popes and European monarchs to destroy peaceful, flourishing Muslim kingdoms in the Middle East and reestablish the reign of Christianity. Many Catholics also buy into this narrative, blushing whenever the Crusades are brought up in conversation.

On the other hand, some Catholics see the Crusades as fully justified attempts to defend Christianity in the Holy Land against invading Muslim armies.

Both versions contain some elements of truth. The Crusades are too complex to be considered fully good or bad. There were Crusaders who were driven by just and unjust motives and each Crusade was different, so they all must be evaluated on their own merits.

Let’s begin with this: Many modern narratives of these expeditions leave out or belittle the reality of Islamic aggression in the early Middle Ages. Since the death of Mohammed in the 7th century, Islam spread rapidly by the sword. Palestine, North Africa, Syria, and many other formerly Christian and Jewish lands quickly fell to the new regime of the Prophet.

Also, while there were periods when conquering Muslim leaders exercised tolerance toward their Jewish and Christian subjects, there were also many periods of persecution. Christians were sometimes enslaved, raped, or subject to higher taxes than their Muslim neighbors. They were pressured to convert to Islam and killed if they refused.