The history of the Greek Church under Ottoman rule is relatively little known. During that period, the Hellenism survived by relying on the Church, as the Greeks constantly hoped and made plans for the day they would regain their freedom. One cannot entirely blame the Turks if such aspirations led them to act as inhumane rulers. However, there were Turks, like Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent, whom his people called the Lawgiver, or the Grand Viziers of the Koprulu family, who consistently treated the Greeks with fairness and friendliness. Even Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, after his wild desire for conquests was satisfied (and he was no more savage than many of his contemporaries in Renaissance Europe), proudly called himself the Emperor of the Greeks, as well as the Turks. At the level of the lower social classes, the relations between the two nations were often genuinely friendly. If we reject the Greeks as dishonest and the Turks as savage, we fall into a void. Similarly, we must not allow our feelings for or against the Roman Catholic Church to influence our objectivity. Historians have their personal preferences and sympathies, but erudition does not result in understanding the subject unless it is handled with tolerance and without prejudice.

Greeks tend to not engage with the history of their ancestors who lived under Turkish rule. They are mistaken, because it bears witness to the courage and indomitable vitality of Hellenism, as well as the spiritual power of the Holy Orthodox Church, even though it contains many elements that would cause them melancholy if they were to recall them. History also has universal interest, as it shows what can happen to men and women who are forced to become second-class citizens. In our time, there are still countries in which large segments of the population are second-class citizens, so this is rather interesting.