Questions about Orthodoxy

[Kmon23]

Catholics think that the Orthodox are almost Catholic and look forward to what they see as inevitable re-unification under the Pope. Orthodox view Catholics as heretics whose very baptisms are invalid.

And btw, if you aren’t Russian or Greek, etc, you will ALWAYS be an outsider.

The love flows one way, I’m afraid.

It is true that the love flows one way, with Catholicism making many gestures to give a hand to Orthodoxy, while Orthodoxy remains largely divided about this (some say ecumenism is the greatest heresy while those such as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware are very ecumenical).

And whether the baptisms are invalid (and sacraments are invalid), I would not say this is any indication on the Orthodox view of Catholicism. Orthodox theology on the sacraments is different than Catholicism, and unlike Catholicism that says Orthodox have valid sacraments from valid apostolic succession/intent/form/etc., Orthodox theology holds to a view closer to the idea that sacraments only have grace within the Church. So for those outside the church, we just don’t know with certainty.

So with the view that baptisms are invalid for Catholicism, this has nothing to do with any antagonistic feelings towards Catholicism, but just the result of Orthodox theology regarding the sacraments.

Also I will wholeheartedly disagree with your comment that you will always be an outsider unless you are Greek or Russian. I am South Korean, and the only Asian in my parish. I think I stand as an example in opposition to what you are claiming, so there is that.

 

[Kmon23]

1. In terms of atonement, there is no “official” and “only” view of atonement regarding either church’s theology. There are many different theories of atonement, but Orthodoxy does not have the strict “doctrine 1, 2, 3 etc.” that results in a single correct view of atonement. I’m wondering if it was Metropolitan Kallistos Ware? but I believe he said that Orthodoxy does not believe in the Penal Substitutionary Atonement put forth by the reformed tradition, but neither is it useless and completely lacking truth, that many theories put forth all contribute some aspect of what Christ did for us. In the same way, Catholic theology does not have a single correct view of atonement.

Regardless, the general view of atonement is pretty different in both but I’d rather say this is a matter of perspective than difference in substance as neither have a ‘single’ accepted view of atonement. However Catholic theology is more judicial in it’s theology compared to Orthodoxy, while Christ “defeating death by death” is a general view/approach to eastern theology regarding atonement.

1. Toll Houses are the idea that when we die, we go through toll houses (one by one) where we pass tests put forth by demons. In some cases I think it was explained as to whether we had the coins to pay the demon to go to the next toll house (hence called a toll house). If you do not pass the test, or are unable to pay, then you are sent to hell. However, many Orthodox do not believe this. Similar to how Catholics may believe the Theotokos is the Mediatrix of all Grace, it is not doctrine. Similarly, toll houses are not official teaching of the Orthodox Church, and most Orthodox to my knowledge reject this belief.

Regarding Purgatory though, many Orthodox reject the view. However, many Catholics will put forth that they do believe in it. Orthodox believe that prayers for the dead can help people’s souls be released from hell into heaven. Catholics say this is purgatory, except that we call those in that portion of “hell” “purgatory” (and although Catholic theology says purgatory is NOT hell, they would say this is just difference in terminology of what is called hell). In an initial glance (me included) this perspective of how purgatory fits with Eastern theology seems to mesh perfectly, that I for a while kept believing purgatory and “being released from hell” in the east were describing the same things. HOWEVER Orthodox theologians continue to say that they still reject the teaching of purgatory. I assume the reason for rejection largely has to do with the theological details of purgatory, and I remember an Orthodox speaker talking about how they do not accept the purgatorial aspect of ‘merits’ and ‘indulgences’ and ‘temporal punishment’ in regards to the doctrine of purgatory, hence why it is (on part) rejected. Furthermore, Orthodox theology believes that Theosis (deification) is an eternal process, not one of “purification” and then “entering bliss/beatific vision.” So to say that you must be “purified” before entering heaven is an alien concept as we are purified for all eternity in Eastern Theology.
Another issue is that everyone is thrust into God’s presence, and it is this eternal fire of God’s energies that purify us, and to say there is some other “separate” fire or purifying source in purgatory is also alien to the Eastern view. However, if I remember correctly, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI made a theological work mentioning purgatory in a way that really seems to incorporate the Eastern aspect of God’s single eternal fire (basically a much more acceptable version of purgatory for Eastern Christians). This seems to be the main substance of the issue, the small tiny details of purgatory. What is most curious is that Eastern Catholics believe in Theosis yet also accept purgatory, but instead calling this “final theosis.” The website east2west.org has a tract mentioning how the Western and Eastern view of purgatory works with theosis, yet at the same time makes a note at the bottom that “final theosis” in no way is meant to put borders on the original meaning of theosis, which is meant to go on forever. To be honest, I’m still confused on what Eastern Catholics really believe in regarding purgatory + theosis + final theosis, as they seem to believe in final theosis but that they still believe in the eternal process of theosis.

Also note that by ‘hell’ and ‘heaven’ from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, I do not mean the beatific vision or the absolute Gehenna that Catholics use by this term but instead a “foretaste” of heaven and hell. For Orthodox theology, the final heaven and hell do not come until after the second judgement. Although this is not the crux of the purgatory issue, and is just a small detail. Just to clarify.

 

[Kmon23]

(continued from last post)

1. I can’t speak for all Orthodox, but I’m sure there are some Orthodox who feel resentment towards Catholicism due to what happened in the past (such as the sacking of Constantinople during the crusades, although as far as I know, this is not the Vatican’s fault per say). Some Orthodox also mention how the Western Church has suppressed Eastern Christianity, but not sure on the details of what they mean. Regardless, it’s been Eastern Christianity that has suffered a significant amount from heresies (Pelagianism, Arianism, and the rest of the ‘-isms’), and the fact that Hagia Sophia has been long gone from Orthodox ownership for a while. Also, the fact that there have been Orthodox relics and artifacts taken by Western Christianity during the Crusades. However, as a gesture of kindness Pope John Paull II (may he rest in peace) has returned some of the relics that were taken during the Crusades, such as the relics of Saint John Chrysostom in 2004. So any resentment would be the result of the crusades, pillaging of relics/artifacts, heresies and suppression in general in Orthodoxy’s long history (Turks, Ottoman Empire, Communism). All together, it might lead to a feeling of resentment in general towards anything that has been a source of suppression (albeit in the past).
   I do not share the history as my Orthodox brethren (I’m a South Korean catechumen), but I understand where the resentment may come from.

However at the same time, this is something that many Orthodox probably don’t even think about anymore, so it’s probably not that pervasive. And whether they would rather you stay a Protestant than become Catholic, I would wholeheartedly choose Catholicism as they are much closer in theology to Orthodoxy than Protestantism. After all, there is a shared heritage between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (we used to be one church after all!!!). However, I am only speaking for myself here. Generally, I do not think there is this pervasive thought against Catholicism.

1. And yes, I think many Orthodox will say Catholicism under-emphasizes the differences (such as purgatory). Many Catholics will insist that we all believe in the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc. while many Orthodox will shake their heads and say that they reject them.

 

[Kmon23]

I wouldn’t call Orthodoxy’s attitude towards Catholicism as “Little Brother Syndrome.” The grievances go back a long time, as the communal memory of Orthodoxy is a very long one. Probably the biggest contention right now is Catholic missionary activity in predominantly Orthodox countries. I personally do not mind it, but others very much dislike it. They either perceive Western culture in any form as bad, or it seems reminiscent of the beginnings of subjugation, which Catholic rulers have done in the past. Being in “second place” in terms of world wide membership is something Orthodox care very little about. The Orthodox have a very poor impression from the Crusades.

And technically speaking, Orthodox and Catholics do view each other as heretics. We have different dogmatic beliefs. It’s just that we generally don’t call each other that out of respect.

Just wanted to say Rohzek seems to have the most accurate response for question 4.

However, I would add that Catholicism does not view Orthodoxy has heretics. They would view us as schismatics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 838 speaks of how there is very little to attain communion. Even if someone were to say that this is just Catholicism being “ecumenical,” many Catholics say that it’s schism, not heresy that is the issue. From my time on Catholic Answers (tracts, radios, forums) I’ve never seen heresy being the dividing factor from Catholicism’s point of view, and that it is only schism that separates the churches.

But yes, Orthodox view Catholics as heterodox (heretics at worst).

And one clarification regarding baptism. Some may believe sacraments are invalid outside the church, but in practice they don’t define definitively if it is valid or invalid and just chrismate converts (and say that the chrismation will make up for whatever was lacking for the original baptism).

However some jurisdictions also rebaptize as a means of rebirth in the Orthodox Church, and sometimes as a means of… well getting baptized.

Although Chrismation is the general practice if the person was already baptized.

 

[slh3016]

Just wanted to say Rohzek seems to have the most accurate response for question 4.

However, I would add that Catholicism does not view Orthodoxy has heretics. They would view us as schismatics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church Paragraph 838 speaks of how there is very little to attain communion. Even if someone were to say that this is just Catholicism being “ecumenical,” many Catholics say that it’s schism, not heresy that is the issue. From my time on Catholic Answers (tracts, radios, forums) I’ve never seen heresy being the dividing factor from Catholicism’s point of view, and that it is only schism that separates the churches.

But yes, Orthodox view Catholics as heterodox (heretics at worst).

And one clarification regarding baptism. Some may believe sacraments are invalid outside the church, but in practice they don’t define definitively if it is valid or invalid and just chrismate converts (and say that the chrismation will make up for whatever was lacking for the original baptism).

However some jurisdictions also rebaptize as a means of rebirth in the Orthodox Church, and sometimes as a means of… well getting baptized.

Although Chrismation is the general practice if the person was already baptized.

Thank you for your detailed reply. I appreciate your effort in explaining the issues.

 

[icamhif]

if you aren’t Russian or Greek, etc, you will ALWAYS be an outsider.

I am Asian, and I feel very welcomed at a Greek Orthodox parish.

 

[prodromos]

I am Asian, and I feel very welcomed at a Greek Orthodox parish.

I’m a mixed Swedish, Scottish anglo mutt and I also feel very welcome at my Greek Orthodox parish.

 

[howirenic]

Unfortunately, the two types of people who will most likely tell you that they identify as Orthodox in America are:

a) ethnic cradles with at times unhealthy levels of national pride.

and

b) zealous Protestant converts who had an axe to grind with the Roman Catholic Church far before they converted.

The former will mostly likely have very limited exposure to other Christian faiths and will most likely see their faith as one of privilege and prestige. This is not to say that all or even the majority of cradles are overly prideful of their Orthodoxy. I merely mean to say that the ones who aren’t might not advertise their faith to you.

I for one have never met a cradle who showed any signs of such pride, but I think our parishes are all very good about educating people about the true purpose of Orthodoxy in America.

The latter was most likely raised in a Protestant home and is probably still very excited about finding a real breathing Christian faith (which is not to suggest that Protestantism is a dead faith, I only mean that this is how they feel about their journey). They most likely were raised with strong anti-Catholic biases, and having to navigate through the various apostolic churches probably only heightened those biases.

In short, they see Catholicism as a great Evil that caused the Church to schism into many denominations due to its unsound doctrines. Perhaps they were trying to discern between Catholicism and Orthodoxy and read several anti-Catholic apologetics that pushed them into Orthodoxy. Regardless of what they were exposed to, they feel the need to justify their decision to everyone, especially Catholics who “fall just short” of the fullness of the faith with their unsound doctrines.

I’ve only met one or two zealous converts in my life. The typical Orthodox, whether a convert or a cradle, loves his or her faith and does not focus on the faiths of others. You’ve heard it said before: “We know where the church is. We don’t know where it isn’t.”

---

There’s no “little brother” syndrome in Orthodoxy. Nothing in our Faith is about comparing ourselves to others.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I have not personal experience with this since there aren’t many Orthodox where I live. However, this is a common experience according to many posters in this forum.

I call it the Little Brother Syndrome. Many Orthodox are VERY conscious of the size and prestige of the Catholic Church and this creates great resentment.

And btw, if you aren’t Russian or Greek, etc, you will ALWAYS be an outsider.

The love flows one way, I’m afraid.

What a offensive bunch of statements. It is good that you point out the ungroundedness of your testimony since none of it stems from real life experience. If my only experience with Roman Catholicism were with people online, I would think very nasty and untrue things of Roman Catholics as well.

By the way, do you know what the mother of the Antiochian Patriarch said, when she was told that her son, Paul, the brother of the Patriarch and Metropolitan of Aleppo had been abducted by Islamic militants? She thanked God that He had honored her son by submitting him to trial and potential martyrdom. Perhaps you would like to tell her that Orthodoxy is “unfriendly,” “ethnic,” “little brothers,” or whatever offensive apologetic drivel you find clever these days. When people are getting their heads cut off for their Orthodox faith in Syria, it really does all seem rather petty, doesn’t it? How much would you be willing to bet that Orthodox Christians who willingly submit themselves to death at the hands of Islamists do so out of hatred for Rome?

Perhaps you would like to edit the hagiographies of our new martyrs to include offensive lines like, “and with his last breath, the holy martyr cursed the pope of Rome,” or, “as he died, he lamented the size and prestige of the churches in submission to the papacy.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

(continued from last post)

1. I can’t speak for all Orthodox, but I’m sure there are some Orthodox who feel resentment towards Catholicism due to what happened in the past (such as the sacking of Constantinople during the crusades, although as far as I know, this is not the Vatican’s fault per say). Some Orthodox also mention how the Western Church has suppressed Eastern Christianity, but not sure on the details of what they mean. Regardless, it’s been Eastern Christianity that has suffered a significant amount from heresies (Pelagianism, Arianism, and the rest of the ‘-isms’), and the fact that Hagia Sophia has been long gone from Orthodox ownership for a while. Also, the fact that there have been Orthodox relics and artifacts taken by Western Christianity during the Crusades. However, as a gesture of kindness Pope John Paull II (may he rest in peace) has returned some of the relics that were taken during the Crusades, such as the relics of Saint John Chrysostom in 2004. So any resentment would be the result of the crusades, pillaging of relics/artifacts, heresies and suppression in general in Orthodoxy’s long history (Turks, Ottoman Empire, Communism). All together, it might lead to a feeling of resentment in general towards anything that has been a source of suppression (albeit in the past).
   I do not share the history as my Orthodox brethren (I’m a South Korean catechumen), but I understand where the resentment may come from.

There is a whole bunch of history from the Ottoman period that doesn’t ever see the light of day. For example, the Jesuits in the Ottoman Empire took advantage of the situation when the Greek hierarchs asked them to help educate their flock. To their credit, they did give them an education, before promptly beginning to engage in sheep-stealing. But not the normal kind where you try to convert people and have them formally declare their defection—they converted them in secret, and told them to continue living in public as if they had not defected at all.

From this very successful campaign, the Melkite Church in submission to the papacy was born (I say submission because submission to Rome is precisely what the Jesuits encouraged Orthodox clergy and laymen to do—they would defect in secret by sending a letter of submission to Rome), when after a significant portion of clergy and laymen had submitted to Rome in secret, they broke away to enter into union with Rome formally, after the disputed election of one of their partisans, Seraphim (Cyril IV) Tanas, to the patriarchal throne. Cyril IV even attempted to repeat this victory in Alexandria, sending a priest to masquerade as the legitimate patriarch of Alexandria. The partisans of the pro-papal party even went so far as to attempt to appeal to the Ottoman authorities to suppress the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria. This time they failed, partially because the Ottoman authorities refused to suppress the patriarch of Alexandria, but also because of the efforts of certain figures like Eustratius Argenti (this is all explained rather well in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s study of Eustratius Argenti).

Thankfully, the Latins today have turned all friendly and sweet, but is it really that incomprehensible that Greeks and Arabs in particular should feel some degree of suspicion after essentially being subjected to several centuries of abuse at the hands of Jesuits? Yet according to some, we’re the hateful ones with little brother syndrome.

 

[Vanez]

I am Asian, and I feel very welcomed at a Greek Orthodox parish.

I am part Chinese, Indonesian, Portuguese and Dutch, and I too feel very welcomed at my Russian Orthodox parish Our priest is Dutch, the language spoken during liturgy is Dutch, with some English, Russian and Greek words.

I wanted to quote Randy, but i had to go back to the previous pages

 

[slh3016]

Unfortunately, the two types of people who will most likely tell you that they identify as Orthodox in America are:

a) ethnic cradles with at times unhealthy levels of national pride.

and

b) zealous Protestant converts who had an axe to grind with the Roman Catholic Church far before they converted.

I have a suspicion that our friends Orthodox parish is likely a lot of the (b) that you describe. I have just recently learned the history of it and it’s quite interesting. Apparently, the pastor of a Southern Baptist congregation in the 1980’s decided to study the early church and through his study, came to see the erroneous teachings of Protestantism. After some time, his entire congregation converted to Orthodoxy and I believe, but not 100% sure, he remained the leader of the church.

As I ponder this, it seems to me that several issues could’ve played into this decision such as priestly celibacy (the pastor was married) and divorce (divorce and remarriage is definitely common in the SBC). So, maybe that the was the draw of Orthodoxy versus Catholicism

I for one have never met a cradle who showed any signs of such pride, but I think our parishes are all very good about educating people about the true purpose of Orthodoxy in America.

I’d hope that the true purpose of any church would be to make Christ known. But, I don’t see a lot of Orthodox evangelism efforts. Catholicism isn’t necessarily great at this in recent years, either, but Pope Francis is calling the Church to do more of this.

The latter was most likely raised in a Protestant home and is probably still very excited about finding a real breathing Christian faith (which is not to suggest that Protestantism is a dead faith, I only mean that this is how they feel about their journey). They most likely were raised with strong anti-Catholic biases, and having to navigate through the various apostolic churches probably only heightened those biases.

In short, they see Catholicism as a great Evil that caused the Church to schism into many denominations due to its unsound doctrines. Perhaps they were trying to discern between Catholicism and Orthodoxy and read several anti-Catholic apologetics that pushed them into Orthodoxy. Regardless of what they were exposed to, they feel the need to justify their decision to everyone, especially Catholics who “fall just short” of the fullness of the faith with their unsound doctrines.

I’d say you hit the nail on the head with this.

You’ve heard it said before: “We know where the church is. We don’t know where it isn’t.”

I’m still confused on this. Some seem to say that Orthodoxy is ecumenical but others seem to imply that it’s not and that it views anyone outside of Orthodoxy as “outside the church”

 

[Novocastrian]

As I ponder this, it seems to me that several issues could’ve played into this decision such as priestly celibacy (the pastor was married) and divorce (divorce and remarriage is definitely common in the SBC). So, maybe that the was the draw of Orthodoxy versus Catholicism

I don’t mean to be rude, but I think we have as Christians a duty to interpret our brothers’ and sisters’ actions as charitably as possible. Sure, such issues may have played a part in the move to Orthodoxy, but in the absence of any evidence we shouldn’t speculate as to such motives, and should assume that they were motivated by faith and study unless shown otherwise. We ought, of course, to do the same with regard to Orthodox becoming Catholic, etc.

 

[slh3016]

What a offensive bunch of statements. It is good that you point out the ungroundedness of your testimony since none of it stems from real life experience. If my only experience with Roman Catholicism were with people online, I would think very nasty and untrue things of Roman Catholics as well.

Anonymous internet forums don’t bring out the best of any of it, unfortunately

By the way, do you know what the mother of the Antiochian Patriarch said, when she was told that her son, Paul, the brother of the Patriarch and Metropolitan of Aleppo had been abducted by Islamic militants? She thanked God that He had honored her son by submitting him to trial and potential martyrdom. Perhaps you would like to tell her that Orthodoxy is “unfriendly,” “ethnic,” “little brothers,” or whatever offensive apologetic drivel you find clever these days. When people are getting their heads cut off for their Orthodox faith in Syria, it really does all seem rather petty, doesn’t it? How much would you be willing to bet that Orthodox Christians who willingly submit themselves to death at the hands of Islamists do so out of hatred for Rome?

This makes me wonder……

I, certainly, and I know that 99.9% of a Catholics and the vast majority of Protestants would view those Syrian Orthodox as a martyrs for the Christian faith.

Would Orthodoxy view a Protestant or Catholic in the same situation as a martyr for the faith? Or would they just be another unfortunate brutality, but not for the true, Christian faith?

Perhaps you would like to edit the hagiographies of our new martyrs to include offensive lines like, “and with his last breath, the holy martyr cursed the pope of Rome,” or, “as he died, he lamented the size and prestige of the churches in submission to the papacy.”

That is uncalled for and I am certain NOT what Randy meant. There’s a lot of resentment in that statement that I am sure was not totally induced by Randy……

which begs the question, to where did it come from?

 

[Novocastrian]

That is uncalled for and I am certain NOT what Randy meant. There’s a lot of resentment in that statement that I am sure was not totally induced by Randy……

which begs the question, to where did it come from?

It comes from long debates between Randy and the Orthodox, in which both sides (as Christians are wont to do) sometimes lose their tempers. Cavaradossi is being a little harsh here, but it’s understandable given the long-term derision heaped upon Orthodox disagreements with Rome; the usual line being that disagreements are inconsequential and that the Orthodox are petulant, rebellious children (“little brother syndrome”).

 

[slh3016]

I don’t mean to be rude, but I think we have as Christians a duty to interpret our brothers’ and sisters’ actions as charitably as possible. Sure, such issues may have played a part in the move to Orthodoxy, but in the absence of any evidence we shouldn’t speculate as to such motives, and should assume that they were motivated by faith and study unless shown otherwise. We ought, of course, to do the same with regard to Orthodox becoming Catholic, etc.

Yes, I would agree if we were talking about individual converts, but certainly, if an ENTIRE congregation makes a move to one or the other, there had to be some internal politics beneath the surface for the entire group to stay together. Again, I’m not saying there was with 100% certainly, but I’m not naive enough to believe that there wasn’t, either consciously or subconsciously.

 

[slh3016]

It comes from long debates between Randy and the Orthodox, in which both sides (as Christians are wont to do) sometimes lose their tempers. Cavaradossi is being a little harsh here, but it’s understandable given the long-term derision heaped upon Orthodox disagreements with Rome; the usual line being that disagreements are inconsequential and that the Orthodox are petulant, rebellious children (“little brother syndrome”).

Thanks for that clarification

I certainly didn’t want this thread to spiral off into intended insults

 

[slh3016]

There is a whole bunch of history from the Ottoman period that doesn’t ever see the light of day. For example, the Jesuits in the Ottoman Empire took advantage of the situation when the Greek hierarchs asked them to help educate their flock. To their credit, they did give them an education, before promptly beginning to engage in sheep-stealing. But not the normal kind where you try to convert people and have them formally declare their defection—they converted them in secret, and told them to continue living in public as if they had not defected at all.

While I certainly wouldn’t condone this type of behavior, if true, the terminology you used there bothers me. The word “defected” means to “abandon one’s country or cause in favor of an opposing one.”

So, in your words, Orthodoxy OPPOSES Catholicism? They are opposites? Really?

Again, not condoning the actions of those Jesuits, if true, but for Christians to set themselves up as opposites really bothers me. Can Christ be divided?

From this very successful campaign, the Melkite Church in submission to the papacy was born (I say submission because submission to Rome is precisely what the Jesuits encouraged Orthodox clergy and laymen to do—they would **defect **in secret by sending a letter of submission to Rome), when after a significant portion of clergy and laymen had submitted to Rome in secret, they broke away to enter into union with Rome formally, after the disputed election of one of their partisans, Seraphim (Cyril IV) Tanas, to the patriarchal throne. Cyril IV even attempted to repeat this victory in Alexandria, sending a priest to masquerade as the legitimate patriarch of Alexandria. The partisans of the pro-papal party even went so far as to attempt to appeal to the Ottoman authorities to suppress the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria. This time they failed, partially because the Ottoman authorities refused to suppress the patriarch of Alexandria, but also because of the efforts of certain figures like Eustratius Argenti (this is all explained rather well in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s study of Eustratius Argenti).

Interesting view on history. I certainly don’t know enough of it to know if what you assert is true, but I’d love to see a different perspective on the situation.

Thankfully, the Latins today have turned all friendly and sweet, but is it really that incomprehensible that Greeks and Arabs in particular should feel some degree of suspicion after essentially being subjected to several centuries of abuse at the hands of Jesuits? Yet according to some, we’re the hateful ones with little brother syndrome.

But past hurts should not keep a family divided, especially when one side is trying very hard to make amends and show repentance. I cannot speak of the abuses that the Orthdox perceive happened at the hands of some Catholics because I don’t know the history well enough. I need more info from both sides.

 

[Kmon23]

There is a whole bunch of history from the Ottoman period that doesn’t ever see the light of day. For example, the Jesuits in the Ottoman Empire took advantage of the situation when the Greek hierarchs asked them to help educate their flock. To their credit, they did give them an education, before promptly beginning to engage in sheep-stealing. But not the normal kind where you try to convert people and have them formally declare their defection—they converted them in secret, and told them to continue living in public as if they had not defected at all.

From this very successful campaign, the Melkite Church in submission to the papacy was born (I say submission because submission to Rome is precisely what the Jesuits encouraged Orthodox clergy and laymen to do—they would defect in secret by sending a letter of submission to Rome), when after a significant portion of clergy and laymen had submitted to Rome in secret, they broke away to enter into union with Rome formally, after the disputed election of one of their partisans, Seraphim (Cyril IV) Tanas, to the patriarchal throne. Cyril IV even attempted to repeat this victory in Alexandria, sending a priest to masquerade as the legitimate patriarch of Alexandria. The partisans of the pro-papal party even went so far as to attempt to appeal to the Ottoman authorities to suppress the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria. This time they failed, partially because the Ottoman authorities refused to suppress the patriarch of Alexandria, but also because of the efforts of certain figures like Eustratius Argenti (this is all explained rather well in Metropolitan Kallistos Ware’s study of Eustratius Argenti).

Thankfully, the Latins today have turned all friendly and sweet, but is it really that incomprehensible that Greeks and Arabs in particular should feel some degree of suspicion after essentially being subjected to several centuries of abuse at the hands of Jesuits? Yet according to some, we’re the hateful ones with little brother syndrome.

Yes I agree with you on why there may be resentment and suspicion. Should any Catholic say we are little quarrelsome brothers, I disagree.

Thank you for your reply, giving me more context on historical background on Orthodoxy during that time, and the formation of the Melkite Catholic church. Never knew the details on that.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The Orthodox that I have met (personally) have always been pleasant, and never uttered an unkind word about my faith, however, many Orthodox converts that I have encountered on these forums are not like the Orthodox (born into the faith) I’ve interacted with over the course of my life.

I don’t know any converts to Orthodoxy personally. My Greek Orthodox friends are family friends and have been Orthodox for many generations going back to Greece. Are you arguing that converts to Orthodox have are unpleasant and unkind towards Catholics?