It would actually be an interesting question for your priest. Up until very recently, all of our exorcists were on a sort of blanket rule to not out themselves as the local exorcist. It may be something similar for Orthodox. Idk.

I know this isn't an end-all be-all but fact checking myself:

1. Is it a "Hugely Roman Catholic Fascination"?

You are spot on here. In global popular culture and Hollywood, exorcisms are almost exclusively depicted through a Roman Catholic lens (think Latin rites, crucifixes, and holy water). This is because the Catholic Church has a highly structured, centralized legal and ritual framework for it (the Rituale Romanum) and officially appoints diocesan exorcists.
However, while Catholicism gets the Hollywood spotlight, the concept and practice are highly prevalent in Pentecostal and Charismatic Protestantism (often referred to as "deliverance ministries"), though they lack the formal liturgical structure of Rome.

2. Fact-Checking the Eastern Orthodox Claim

The last commenter in the image is incorrect regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Rituals Exist: The Orthodox Church has deeply rooted, formal prayers of exorcism explicitly written by heavyweights of early church history, namely St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom.
Baptismal Exorcisms: In Eastern Orthodoxy, a series of minor exorcisms is actually a standard, mandatory part of the Baptismal rite for everyone entering the faith, where the priest blows on the catechumen and commands Satan to depart.
While they don't have corporate-style "exorcism departments," any canonical Orthodox priest has the authority to read these prayers when deemed spiritually necessary, though they do heavily emphasize standard sacraments (like Confession and the Eucharist) as the primary shields against evil.

3. Your "Different Epoch" Mentality

Your thought that we might be in a different "epoch" where these occurrences are less frequent or less apparent aligns perfectly with an established theological framework.
In theology, this touches on the spectrum between Cessationism and Continuationism. Cessationism is the belief that supernatural signs, wonders, and intense demonic confrontations were highly concentrated during the apostolic era specifically to prove Christ's divinity and establish the early Church, and that they radically decreased or ceased afterward. Even among those who believe these spiritual realities continue today, many theologians agree that the advance of modern medicine and psychological understanding has correctly reclassified many conditions that historical eras automatically attributed to possession.

The Banned said:

---

It would actually be an interesting question for your priest. Up until very recently, all of our exorcists were on a sort of blanket rule to not out themselves as the local exorcist. It may be something similar for Orthodox. Idk.

---

I have had this conversation a few times with a few different Priests.

Like I posted above, I think it's just done differently. We certainly don't have an "exorcist".

The vibe I get from it is definitely micro exorcisms and prayers rather than full-blown, send in the big dog with all the crucifixes and holy water and elaborative rituals.

As an obviously very personal belief, I strongly believe in never seeking out or challenging or invoking these types of things. I think that has served me well compared to some people that I know.

Is there possibly anything to the Catholic Church putting such an emphasis on this demonic, spiritual head-to-head battle that potentially provokes it?

I think this is how I basically see it.

Quick Query:

The Theological Warning: "Don't Look Behind Every Bush"

Across many Christian traditionsincluding Eastern Orthodoxy and mainstream Protestantismthere is a strong warning against hyper-fixating on the demonic. The baseline belief is that focusing too heavily on the enemy elevates their status and distracts from the ultimate focus, which is supposed to be God.
By treating spiritual warfare as a cinematic, dramatic duel, you risk falling into a subtle form of pride or curiosity.
Many spiritual directors warn that actively "seeking a fight" or obsessing over demonic power can act as an open invitation, giving the concept more real estate in your mind and spiritual life than it ever deserved. Your personal policy of "never seeking out or challenging" these things is exactly what traditional spiritual wisdom advises.

Even Rome Agrees (In Theory)

Ironically, official Roman Catholic training for exorcists strongly cautions against the very "Hollywood" environment the public associates with them. The Rituale Romanum and modern Catholic demonologists explicitly warn priests to rule out every possible medical, psychological, and natural explanation first. They openly state that an unhealthy obsession with the devil or a desire for dramatic spiritual warfare is a sign of spiritual sickness, not health.
The quiet, daily, rhythmic focus on standard prayers, regular worship, and personal humilitythe "micro" approach you mentionedis widely considered the safest and most stable path. It keeps the focus where it belongs, rather than turning the spiritual life into a horror movie set.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

It would actually be an interesting question for your priest. Up until very recently, all of our exorcists were on a sort of blanket rule to not out themselves as the local exorcist. It may be something similar for Orthodox. Idk.

---

I have had this conversation a few times with a few different Priests.

Like I posted above, I think it's just done differently. We certainly don't have an "exorcist".

The vibe I get from it is definitely micro exorcisms and prayers rather than full-blown, send in the big dog with all the crucifixes and holy water and elaborative rituals.

As an obviously very personal belief, I strongly believe in never seeking out or challenging or invoking these types of things. I think that has served me well compared to some people that I know.

Is there possibly anything to the Catholic Church putting such an emphasis on this demonic, spiritual head-to-head battle that potentially provokes it?

---

Again, I think you believe the Church is putting this huge emphasis on it because you view it as a Hollywood scene. There are only 2 or 3 exorcists that have been granted permission by their bishop to go public. If you listen to their interviews, they are very methodical in their work, admit that a very small % of people that seek their help actually have a demonic issue (rather than a mental health issues), and they also state the the ritual itself is not some grand scene or display. It's a private setting with 1-3 family members/friends in the room. Yes, some of the cases do include the demon doing some crazy display, but the priests say it's the demon who wants the side show. Their job is to keep the process moving regardless of the nonsense the demons try.

This is likely another area of almost 100% overlap with the EO practice, but what your thinking of in your head makes it seem like it's worlds apart. Rome doesn't "agree in theory". Both sides are doing the same thing we've been doing for thousands of years. Ours has a little more structure because we have so many more priests and parishioners. It's simpler to train one priest for a job he'll do a handful of times per year, rather than training every single priest for a task they'll almost never do in their local parish

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

It would actually be an interesting question for your priest. Up until very recently, all of our exorcists were on a sort of blanket rule to not out themselves as the local exorcist. It may be something similar for Orthodox. Idk.

---

I have had this conversation a few times with a few different Priests.

Like I posted above, I think it's just done differently. We certainly don't have an "exorcist".

The vibe I get from it is definitely micro exorcisms and prayers rather than full-blown, send in the big dog with all the crucifixes and holy water and elaborative rituals.

As an obviously very personal belief, I strongly believe in never seeking out or challenging or invoking these types of things. I think that has served me well compared to some people that I know.

Is there possibly anything to the Catholic Church putting such an emphasis on this demonic, spiritual head-to-head battle that potentially provokes it?

---

Again, I think you believe the Church is putting this huge emphasis on it because you view it as a Hollywood scene. There are only 2 or 3 exorcists that have been granted permission by their bishop to go public. If you listen to their interviews, they are very methodical in their work, admit that a very small % of people that seek their help actually have a demonic issue (rather than a mental health issues), and they also state the the ritual itself is not some grand scene or display. It's a private setting with 1-3 family members/friends in the room. Yes, some of the cases do include the demon doing some crazy display, but the priests say it's the demon who wants the side show. Their job is to keep the process moving regardless of the nonsense the demons try.

This is likely another area of almost 100% overlap with the EO practice, but what your thinking of in your head makes it seem like it's worlds apart. Rome doesn't agree in theory. Both sides are doing the same thing we've been doing for thousands of years. Ours has a little more structure because we have so many more priests and parishioners. It's simpler to train one priest for a job he'll do a handful of times per year, rather than training every single priest for a task they'll almost never do in their local parish

---

This is another conversation entirely, but I believe that we have 70% overlap and Church structure in life Ecclesiastically.

So far as psychology, I believe that we are 99% on the same page.

I don't believe your obsession on structure has to do with the number of priest you have but rather to do with the very legalistic mindset that the West has versus a very spiritual mystical mindset that the East has. We don't feel the need to define everything and we tend to define almost nothing that we don't have to. Rome must have a definition and structure for everything. Basic Scholasticism versus Mystery..

Take the immaculate conception and birth for example.

Rome:

How exactly did the Holy Spirit interact with Mary's biology?

Did Christ take genetic material from Mary, or was it entirely a new creation?

How did Jesus pass through the womb without breaking her hymen?

The RCC obsessed over this need to define these types of things.

Orthodox:

We don't try to parse out the biology or the exact cellular mechanics of the Incarnation. For us attempting to logically define the mechanics of the Virgin Birth isn't necessary.

Trying to define God and how he works is like trying to catch wind in a net.

That's not an argument that's just sort of a known difference between the two Church Communities.

That's one reason I say we're 70% the same in daily and Church life and 99.9% the same on the things that matter most. I can't accept your premise that "we are basically 100% the same" as we have huge differences.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

This is another conversation entirely, but I believe that we have 70% overlap and Church structure in life Ecclesiastically.

So far as psychology, I believe that we are 99% on the same page.

I don't believe your obsession on structure has to do with the number of priest you have but rather to do with the very legalistic mindset that the West has versus a very spiritual mystical mindset that the East has. We don't feel the need to define everything and we tend to define almost nothing that we don't have to. Rome must have a definition and structure for everything. Basic Scholasticism versus Mystery..

Take the immaculate conception and birth for example.

Rome:

How exactly did the Holy Spirit interact with Mary's biology?

Did Christ take genetic material from Mary, or was it entirely a new creation?

How did Jesus pass through the womb without breaking her hymen?

The RCC obsessed over this need to define these types of things.

Orthodox:

We don't try to parse out the biology or the exact cellular mechanics of the Incarnation. For us attempting to logically define the mechanics of the Virgin Birth isn't necessary.

Trying to define God and how he works is like trying to catch wind in a net.

That's not an argument that's just sort of a known difference between the two Church Communities.

That's one reason I say we're 70% the same in daily and Church life and 99.9% the same on the things that matter most. I can't accept your premise that "we are basically 100% the same" as we have huge differences.

---

1. I said this is an area in which we share close to 100% overlap. I was not generalizing

2. The details of the theology come from defending the theology from attacks. No one is sitting around thinking about this stuff. The Church gives it's decrees. People attack the decree. The Church clarifies why the dissenters are incorrect. If everyone would just get on board and stop attacking Church teachings, there would be no further need to clarify. The obsession is the dissenters' issue, not the other way around.

3. The Immaculate conception is a licit theological belief in Eastern Orthodoxy.

4. The reason we have this structure you seem to abhor is because the Church was blessed to grow across the entire globe, with over a billion more people that are in the Eastern Churches. Since we weren't overthrown and suppressed by Muslims, we actually had the chance.to work through these issues when Protestant after Protestant challenged them.

5. The essence/energies distinction alone proves that the East used to have no problem with taking a scholastic approach. Plenty of other examples. If that has changed, it's primarily because of #4 and it's consequences.

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

This is another conversation entirely, but I believe that we have 70% overlap and Church structure in life Ecclesiastically.

So far as psychology, I believe that we are 99% on the same page.

I don't believe your obsession on structure has to do with the number of priest you have but rather to do with the very legalistic mindset that the West has versus a very spiritual mystical mindset that the East has. We don't feel the need to define everything and we tend to define almost nothing that we don't have to. Rome must have a definition and structure for everything. Basic Scholasticism versus Mystery..

Take the immaculate conception and birth for example.

Rome:

How exactly did the Holy Spirit interact with Mary's biology?

Did Christ take genetic material from Mary, or was it entirely a new creation?

How did Jesus pass through the womb without breaking her hymen?

The RCC obsessed over this need to define these types of things.

Orthodox:

We don't try to parse out the biology or the exact cellular mechanics of the Incarnation. For us attempting to logically define the mechanics of the Virgin Birth isn't necessary.

Trying to define God and how he works is like trying to catch wind in a net.

That's not an argument that's just sort of a known difference between the two Church Communities.

That's one reason I say we're 70% the same in daily and Church life and 99.9% the same on the things that matter most. I can't accept your premise that "we are basically 100% the same" as we have huge differences.

---

1. I said this is an area in which we share close to 100% overlap. I was not generalizing

2. The details of the theology come from defending the theology from attacks. No one is sitting around thinking about this stuff. The Church gives it's decrees. People attack the decree. The Church clarifies why the dissenters are incorrect. If everyone would just get on board and stop attacking Church teachings, there would be no further need to clarify. The obsession is the dissenters' issue, not the other way around.

3. The Immaculate conception is a licit theological belief in Eastern Orthodoxy.

4. The reason we have this structure you seem to abhor is because the Church was blessed to grow across the entire globe, with over a billion more people that are in the Eastern Churches. Since we weren't overthrown and suppressed by Muslims, we actually had the chance.to work through these issues when Protestant after Protestant challenged them.

---

1: your implication when you said "another" was to imply that there's just consistently overlapping structures and Church practices when there isn't

2: You guys sat around and endlessly internally debate things and you must define them and categorize them, etc.
This is a well-known fact of Roman Catholicism and if you are unaware of that, I'm not gonna argue with you. It's just a fact that you do it. You guys know you do it if you don't then that's a you thing.

I would say that the need to endlessly "issue a decree" about everything is part of what drives the division in the western world. We don't think anything of the degrees over here and find them silly, unnecessary and often irreverent.

3: Nobody said that we don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, etc. We just don't feel the need to define how it works, and how it occurred and the breakdown the genetics and biology of it. I was extremely clear in that regard and I'm not going to go in circles.

I assume this was just a failure in reading comprehension.

4: I absolutely do abhor the rigid legalism and scholastic nature of Roman Catholicism. That is not a criticism of me in my opinion. I gladly accept that.

You believe this to be a good thing and you are entitled to your belief.

I believe it probably just causes friction when it wasn't necessary to begin with.

In regards to having to defend yourself from protestant attack after protestant attack I think that would fall under "fruits".

You seem to be very defensive and that is causing you to mischaracterize/read things that I am saying.

My intention was to have a discussion with you, not to have an argument with you.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

This is another conversation entirely, but I believe that we have 70% overlap and Church structure in life Ecclesiastically.

So far as psychology, I believe that we are 99% on the same page.

I don't believe your obsession on structure has to do with the number of priest you have but rather to do with the very legalistic mindset that the West has versus a very spiritual mystical mindset that the East has. We don't feel the need to define everything and we tend to define almost nothing that we don't have to. Rome must have a definition and structure for everything. Basic Scholasticism versus Mystery..

Take the immaculate conception and birth for example.

Rome:

How exactly did the Holy Spirit interact with Mary's biology?

Did Christ take genetic material from Mary, or was it entirely a new creation?

How did Jesus pass through the womb without breaking her hymen?

The RCC obsessed over this need to define these types of things.

Orthodox:

We don't try to parse out the biology or the exact cellular mechanics of the Incarnation. For us attempting to logically define the mechanics of the Virgin Birth isn't necessary.

Trying to define God and how he works is like trying to catch wind in a net.

That's not an argument that's just sort of a known difference between the two Church Communities.

That's one reason I say we're 70% the same in daily and Church life and 99.9% the same on the things that matter most. I can't accept your premise that "we are basically 100% the same" as we have huge differences.

---

1. I said this is an area in which we share close to 100% overlap. I was not generalizing

2. The details of the theology come from defending the theology from attacks. No one is sitting around thinking about this stuff. The Church gives it's decrees. People attack the decree. The Church clarifies why the dissenters are incorrect. If everyone would just get on board and stop attacking Church teachings, there would be no further need to clarify. The obsession is the dissenters' issue, not the other way around.

3. The Immaculate conception is a licit theological belief in Eastern Orthodoxy.

4. The reason we have this structure you seem to abhor is because the Church was blessed to grow across the entire globe, with over a billion more people that are in the Eastern Churches. Since we weren't overthrown and suppressed by Muslims, we actually had the chance.to work through these issues when Protestant after Protestant challenged them.

---

1: your implication when you said "another" was to imply that there's just consistently overlapping structures and Church practices when there isn't

2: You guys sat around and endlessly internally debate things and you must define them and categorize them, etc.
This is a well-known fact of Roman Catholicism and if you are unaware of that, I'm not gonna argue with you. It's just a fact that you do it. You guys know you do it if you don't then that's a you thing.

I would say that the need to endlessly "issue a decree" about everything is part of what drives the division in the western world. We don't think anything of the degrees over here and find them silly, unnecessary and often irreverent.

3: Nobody said that we don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, etc. We just don't feel the need to define how it works, and how it occurred and the breakdown the genetics and biology of it. I was extremely clear in that regard and I'm not going to go in circles.

I assume this was just a failure in reading comprehension.

4: I absolutely do abhor the rigid legalism and scholastic nature of Roman Catholicism. That is not a criticism of me in my opinion. I gladly accept that.

You believe this to be a good thing and you are entitled to your belief.

I believe it probably just causes friction when it wasn't necessary to begin with.

In regards to having to defend yourself from protestant attack after protestant attack I think that would fall under "fruits".

You seem to be very defensive and that is causing you to mischaracterize/read things that I am saying.

My intention was to have a discussion with you, not to have an argument with you.

---

I'm not arguing at all. I mentioned a place where we have common ground and you turned it into a desire to show me just how different we are in all of these other ways that have nothing to do with the issue of exorcism. If you think it's me driving the wedge, I'd invite you to go back and read how this went down. I've said nothing negative about the Eastern Churches at all (despite there being plenty of opportunity to do so). So far we are up to a half dozen different negative claims leveled by you towards the Catholic Church and/or me personally. I guess it's best if we drop it. So much for trying to find common ground with you.

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The Banned said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

This is another conversation entirely, but I believe that we have 70% overlap and Church structure in life Ecclesiastically.

So far as psychology, I believe that we are 99% on the same page.

I don't believe your obsession on structure has to do with the number of priest you have but rather to do with the very legalistic mindset that the West has versus a very spiritual mystical mindset that the East has. We don't feel the need to define everything and we tend to define almost nothing that we don't have to. Rome must have a definition and structure for everything. Basic Scholasticism versus Mystery..

Take the immaculate conception and birth for example.

Rome:

How exactly did the Holy Spirit interact with Mary's biology?

Did Christ take genetic material from Mary, or was it entirely a new creation?

How did Jesus pass through the womb without breaking her hymen?

The RCC obsessed over this need to define these types of things.

Orthodox:

We don't try to parse out the biology or the exact cellular mechanics of the Incarnation. For us attempting to logically define the mechanics of the Virgin Birth isn't necessary.

Trying to define God and how he works is like trying to catch wind in a net.

That's not an argument that's just sort of a known difference between the two Church Communities.

That's one reason I say we're 70% the same in daily and Church life and 99.9% the same on the things that matter most. I can't accept your premise that "we are basically 100% the same" as we have huge differences.

---

1. I said this is an area in which we share close to 100% overlap. I was not generalizing

2. The details of the theology come from defending the theology from attacks. No one is sitting around thinking about this stuff. The Church gives it's decrees. People attack the decree. The Church clarifies why the dissenters are incorrect. If everyone would just get on board and stop attacking Church teachings, there would be no further need to clarify. The obsession is the dissenters' issue, not the other way around.

3. The Immaculate conception is a licit theological belief in Eastern Orthodoxy.

4. The reason we have this structure you seem to abhor is because the Church was blessed to grow across the entire globe, with over a billion more people that are in the Eastern Churches. Since we weren't overthrown and suppressed by Muslims, we actually had the chance.to work through these issues when Protestant after Protestant challenged them.

---

1: your implication when you said "another" was to imply that there's just consistently overlapping structures and Church practices when there isn't

2: You guys sat around and endlessly internally debate things and you must define them and categorize them, etc.
This is a well-known fact of Roman Catholicism and if you are unaware of that, I'm not gonna argue with you. It's just a fact that you do it. You guys know you do it if you don't then that's a you thing.

I would say that the need to endlessly "issue a decree" about everything is part of what drives the division in the western world. We don't think anything of the degrees over here and find them silly, unnecessary and often irreverent.

3: Nobody said that we don't believe in the Immaculate Conception, etc. We just don't feel the need to define how it works, and how it occurred and the breakdown the genetics and biology of it. I was extremely clear in that regard and I'm not going to go in circles.

I assume this was just a failure in reading comprehension.

4: I absolutely do abhor the rigid legalism and scholastic nature of Roman Catholicism. That is not a criticism of me in my opinion. I gladly accept that.

You believe this to be a good thing and you are entitled to your belief.

I believe it probably just causes friction when it wasn't necessary to begin with.

In regards to having to defend yourself from protestant attack after protestant attack I think that would fall under "fruits".

You seem to be very defensive and that is causing you to mischaracterize/read things that I am saying.

My intention was to have a discussion with you, not to have an argument with you.

---

I'm not arguing at all. I mentioned a place where we have common ground and you turned it into a desire to show me just how different we are in all of these other ways that have nothing to do with the issue of exorcism. If you think it's me driving the wedge, I'd invite you to go back and read how this went down. I've said nothing negative about the Eastern Churches at all (despite there being plenty of opportunity to do so). So far we are up to a half dozen different negative claims leveled by you towards the Catholic Church and/or me personally. I guess it's best if we drop it. So much for trying to find common ground with you.

---

Don't stress it. Have a good one.

Just for clarification, I did miss speak on the Immaculate Conception because I was thinking of the Incarnation.

Terminology here always throws me as I grew up stating it incorrectly.

The Orthodox Church absolutely rejects the Catholic stance on immaculate conception. This is one of those things you felt like you needed to clarify in 1854 for whatever reason that further drove division. We obviously have a disagreement on Original Sin.

I'm sorry you saw this as an attack, but I felt the statement you were making were not in line with the reality as I understand it.

I possibly misunderstood your intention and took the pathway that was not necessary.

If I did that, I apologize.