UNIA: The Face and the Disguise

 By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos

Professor Emeritus of the Athens University School of Theology

 Published by " Apostoliki Diakonia " (Apostolic Ministry)

An organization of the Church of Greece

1. God: the Lord of History

 The collapse of “existent socialism” – that is, the State’s realization of Marxist Communism – had caused some to speak of “the end of History”, of the end of ideological rivalry. And yet, with the rise of nationalist and religious fanaticisms, ideological confrontations have merely changed their content and their orientation. What is worse, with the rearrangements that have taken place in Eastern Europe, certain old conflicts have surfaced once again. Conflicts that the naivety of amateurism has labelled as “things of the past” which have gone, never to return!

 This was precisely the predominant feeling in the sphere of inter-Christian relations also. A groundless and therefore unjustified euphoria had already come to prevail among a group of “pacifist” … pro-unionists, who seemed to believe that with the “Theological Dialogue” we have finally arrived at a new era of true union and genuine inter-Christian Love.  Especially in our relations with the “Roman Catholic Church”, such a clime of optimism had prevailed – expressed with suitable terminology (for example, “sister” or Latin “Church”, and the Pope as “elder brother”), that false impressions were implanted in many, while those aware of the reality have in vain been recommending self-restraint and have been accused as remnants of the medieval age and enemies of love and peace. However, it is God Who is the Lord of History! The God of our Fathers. He is the God, not only of Love, nor even of loveless Love mongers; He is also the God of Truth - the God Who for the sake of our repentance and salvation reveals the deliberations of our hearts (Luke 2:35) and sheds light on the tragic state we drag around our existence.  The developments in Eastern Europe that followed the “Perestroika” also revealed the Vatican’s role in our time.  In other words, they not only revealed its true face and its fixed views on matters of essence, but also its intentions and its objectives. Furthermore, its intervention in the Balkans – in fact to the point of undermining and

blatantly denying us our national rights – have not unjustifiably infuriated the Hellenic people, who were inadvertently reminded of the past, anti-Hellenic policies of the Papist State and have made them realize that the Theological Dialogue with the Vatican not only did not alter its stance, but as it turned out, is actually working in favour of the Vatican’s interests. The Vatican’s involvement in Eastern European and Balkan affairs and its expansionist plans veiled under a religious mantle have been elucidated in every detail by the international Press as well as by other Mass Media, leaving no margin for doubt whatsoever. However, in this otherwise unbefitting activity that claims to be of an ecclesiastic character, there prevails a certain term, which has provoked the curiosity of the ignorant and the wrath of those who have a clear knowledge of the Vatican’s essence and its methods. It is the name UNIA. It was no small number of people in our Country who were unaware - not only of its activity, but even of the name itself; the reason being, that in our Country, it is a fact that Unia was not given the opportunity to develop any activities analogous to those being developed in countries of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It is the essence of Unia (and chiefly the Vatican’s activity), that we shall attempt to elucidate further down. We will not focus as much on the itemizing of events or the analysis thereof; instead, we shall venture a diagnosis from within the events themselves – not only in their contemporaneousness, but also in their presence over Time.  Of course it is necessary to stress that during the period 1920-1940 Unia had preoccupied both public opinion and Justice in Greece. The reader can refer to the relevant bibliography, at the end of this book. However, the present-day resurgence of Unia, front-stage, which happens to coincide with the timing of our Theological Dialogue with the “Roman Catholic Church”, opens up a very interesting prospect, whereby that very Dialogue as well as its expedience can be duly re-evaluated.

2. “Unia”

 When we say “Unia” we mean a religious-political formation that was fabricated by Papacy for the Westernizing of the non-Latin East; its spiritual-political subjugation to the authority of the Pope. In other words, it is directly related to Papacy’s expansionist policy; it is the most consistent expression of European feudalism which continues to our day, through the State of the Vatican. Of course one needs to make a certain distinction between the various phases that the question of “Unia” presents historically. Because, precedent to the specific historical method was the idea and the plan involving the subjugation of the East – and indeed of the Orthodox – to the Pope; a permanent tendency of the Latin “Church” following its differentiation and its secession from the Orthodox East. Wherever Latinization proves difficult to impose directly, Papacy implements the method of Unia, proving this to be a shrewd fabrication inasmuch as subjugation can be achieved, on the pretext of continuance and freedom. This expansionist move by the Papal throne known as UNIA owes its name to the Latin word UNIO (=union), however it was only in 1596 in Poland that it officially obtained the name of UNIA (UNIJA in Slavic). The term was used at the time, not only to denote the move for unification with the Pope, but also the specific corpus (community) of the Orthodox who had synodically decided on their accession to Papacy: not a full accession, but only in their recognition of the Pope as their spiritual head, otherwise preserving their worship rites and remaining customs so that “externally” they would give the impression of continuing and remaining in their national cadre. The Uniates’ retention of the “eastern” or “Byzantine” “rite” explains the various titles such as “Byzantine-rite”, “Hellenic-rite”, “Hellenic-Catholic” e.a., with which they are usually characterized (in Greece).  But the name that best corresponds to the facts is “Catholics of the East”, given that Uniates are in essence Papists, who have accepted the Papist teaching overall (and in fact, the very dogmas that radically differentiate Papacy from Orthodoxy) and who only externally and superficially - with the attire of their clergymen and their eastern customs (“rites”) – give the false impression that they have remained Orthodox. This is also why they have correctly been named “United Roman Catholics” and “Unionates” (in Latin: UNITI/Uniates).

3. The historical framework

 The idea of developing an expansionist policy in the Orthodox East by the Papal Throne of Rome must be linked to the Frankish subjugation of the Orthodox (Roman) West and its permanent imposition on the peoples that remained faithful to the Empire of New Rome-Constantinople and its Orthodox Patriarchates (of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). After the breaking away of the Patriarchate of the West (Old Rome) from the Patriarchates of the East on account of its conquest by the Frankish powers, the latter have striven to maintain the antithesis between the two and to use the Papal Throne against the Empire of New Rome (Romania). However, from the 7th to the 11th century, the gradual subjugation of Western Romania (the western section of the Empire of New Rome) to the Frankish-Germanic tribes took place.  The Empire of New Rome in the West was subjugated to the Franks and Germans, while in the East it was overcome by the Arabs (7th century) and the Ottomans (14th century onwards). Conquest in the West was facilitated by the gradual substitution of Roman bishops with Franks. Thus, while in the East the Bishops had undertaken the role of ethnarch in the territories being conquered, protecting the people and preserving their identity and their unity, in the West, bishops became the instruments of the conquerors and an integral part of the Frankish feudal system and hated by the people, as proved during later centuries (1789) by the French Revolution, which began not only as an anti-feudal revolution but also as an anti-Papist one. Nowadays, Western historiography is being subjected to the Franks’ catalytic influence, just as differentiated Western Christianity was. As of the 7 th century the seeds of schism appeared among the Goths (Germans), who were initially Arian and eventually became Orthodox, but only in name. Among the Visigoths of Spain, the insertion of the “Filioque” in the Sacred Creed was effected. It was also the Visigoths of Spain who were the first to replace the Roman Bishops with Goths, and it was there that in 654 the Roman (‘Byzantine’) Empire was abolished. This example was to be followed a century later by the Franks, until they succeeded in taking over the very throne of Rome (between 1009 and 1046). The subjugated Romans (“Byzantines”) resisted with continuous revolutions, in order to salvage their connection to Constantinople. They even joined forces with the Arabs against the Franks and Visigoths, choosing the lesser of the two perils. However, the alliance between Romans (“Byzantines”) and Arabs was quashed by Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, at Poitiers (732) and in Province (739). But the tales that our (Greek) school History lessons teach have remained in place; that is, that Europe was saved from the Arabs during these wars. What actually happened was that the Franks had subjugated the Romans of Constantinople-New Rome. The Franks had prevailed, and had thereafter spread throughout Western Romania.

 The irremovable objective of the Franks eventually became the splitting of the unity between the Romans of the East and the West. To achieve this, they used the Church and Her theology. Through their feudal system (which was based on racism), their scholastic theology (which discredited Patristic theology) and most of all through the Papal Throne, they succeeded in thoroughly subjugating the conquered Romans of the West. By condemning the 7th Ecumenical Council (Frankfurt, 794) and dogmatizing the “Filioque” (that the Holy Spirit not only proceeds from the Father according to John 15:26, but ALSO FROM THE SON), in 809 in Aachen they managed to condemn the eastern Romans as heretics. Thereafter, they ceased to refer to the Orthodox East as Romania and its citizens as Romans, because these terms now signified the Orthodox and their Country. For this reason, they coined the name “Graecia” and “Graeci” (Greeks) for its citizens - terms that were linked to the notion of “heretic”. It was within these developments – and chiefly through scholastic theology – that the differentiation of the Christian West was accomplished; in other words, the removal of ecclesiastic spirituality as well as the prerequisites of ecclesiastic theology (catharsis-enlightenment-theosis). The altering of the monastic lifestyle also led to this alienation. Monasteries were turned into military battalions, siding either with the Pope or the Emperor. The theory regarding the Pope, as developed in the 11 th century (Gregory VII: the Pope: “absolute leader of the universal Church”, “master of the world”) is what founded European totalitarianism, simultaneously altering the very Church Herself in the West.  Now alienated from the Tradition of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers, the Papal Throne embarked on an unrelenting struggle to claim temporal power (from the end of the 11 th to the end of the 14th

centuries), to be finally transformed into a secular power–State (the Papal State), with all the obvious consequences.  Secularization was thus legislated ecclesiastically – in other words, dogmatized – having now taken on a soteriological character. All actions of the Papal Throne thereafter took on a purely political character, only hidden beneath a religious disguise. The Pope was now to be political Leader, and in pursuit of expanding his political authority. It was precisely for this reason that the recognition of the Pope by the Orthodox had taken on the significance of not only an ecclesiastic subjugation, but a political one also. The idea of Unia as a method and a means of subjugation is linked to the expansionist will of (Frank-run) Old Rome, which aspired to the spreading and the imposition of the Papal primacy of power. That is also why it is not unusual that Unia, as an idea, was developed in parallel to the “Holy Inquisition”.  Holy Inquisition and Unia proved to be the sibling fruits of the Papal-Frankish spirit. While the Holy Inquisition undertook to impose Papal-Frankish authority within the boundaries of the Frank-occupied West, Unia shouldered the task of expanding the religious-political Papal authority into the East.  The Holy Inquisition aspired to eliminate those who were insubordinate to Papal-Frankish authority; Unia aspired to the Latinizing of the Easterners who denied the supremacy of Old Rome. That is why in the East,

subordination to the Pope – whether through simple Latinization or through the method of Unia – was expressed with the term “he has become a Frank”. Unia will historically walk hand-in-hand with the Holy Inquisition, as the one sheds light on the other’s role.

4. The genesis of the Holy Inquisition

The ever-increasing power of the Pope and the peaking of the theocratic, Papal-Caesarian system (9th – 12th centuries) led to the despicable intolerance of the Latin “Church” and the exhaustive persecution of dissidents, who were characterized en masse as “heretics”. This precise endeavour to weaken and exterminate them was what gave birth to the terrible Tribunal of the Holy Inquisition (from the verb inquirere, which implies the specific search for culprits). The beginnings of the Holy Inquisition are located in the time of Charlemagne and his successors (9th century), but its actual operation was left in the hands of the “Church”. Those opposed to Papal-Frankish authority were slaughtered without any hesitation, as “enemies of the State”. Of course it has not been fully clarified if the “Church” had participated in these crimes from the very beginning; however, as far as their continuation is concerned, there is no need to ask such a question. The involvement of the Latin “Church” in the execution of sentences must have started very early, because with the conquest of the episcopal throne of Old Rome by the Franks (11 th

century), the Frankish Popes and Bishops – all of them military men (as were the Priors of the Monasteries as a rule) and all of them members of the Frankish feudal hierarchy – had aligned their missions with the defending of the interests of the Frankish State.

The Papist inquisitional bureau was named “Sanctum Officium”. In this way, the Holy Inquisition came into the hands of Papacy and in charge of it were placed bishops or special Delegates; soon after, special Inquisitors were appointed (either Franciscan or Dominican monks).  It has furthermore been ascertained that the Holy Inquisition was the forerunner of the terrorism in the French (1789) and the Bolshevik (1917) Revolutions, as well as the Crimes of Fascism and Nazism.

The Conciliar, that is to say, the “ecclesiastic”, recognition of the Holy Inquisition – its solidification into an institution – came about gradually, during the time of Innocent III (1198-1216), in the years 1205, 1206, 1212 and mainly during the 4th Lateran Synod (1215), and was finalized in 1233 during the time of Pope Gregory IX. It was during the time of Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) that the implementation of torture became an institution (recognized ecclesiastically). The operations of the Holy Inquisition spread to Italy-Southern France-Spain (where the Romaic element was more robust) and somewhat less in England and Germany.  Jews, Muslims, “heretics” (i.e. Christian-Romans) and later Protestants were systematically persecuted. The “return” to Papacy of all these peoples was likewise handled by the Holy Inquisition.

5. The genesis of Unia

The view that the genesis of the idea of Unia took place in the 13th century has nowadays become fully accepted. This view is based on the very accurate observation that a distinction must be made between the conception of the idea and its gradual realization, up until the point in time that the name “Unia” came to denote a specific community of Eastern Christians with an affiliation to Rome. According to a mostly improbable view, the first Uniates were the “Unionists” of Byzantium/Romania following the Schism, otherwise referred to as the “Latin-minded”.

But if Uniate communities appeared in the 16th century as the fruits of specific proselytizing actions by Rome, this does not mean that it is correct to say that the Uniate idea was just as recent. According to M. Gideon, the idea of Unia had appeared before 1204; a Uniate community however had appeared in the time of Michael Palaiologos (after 1204). But it is a fact that the Crusaders of the 4th Crusade had, pursuant to the Sack of Constantinople (1204), alraedy promoted the idea of Unia and had in fact proceeded to put it into practice.

According to the ever-memorable historian, Archmandrite Basil Stefanides, the concept of "Unia" is observed for the first time in the 4 th Lateran Synod (1215). Pope Innocent III – a dynamic, but also secularly oriented figure – was the spiritual father of Unia but also of the Holy Inquisition, since he had endowed both with an “ecclesiastic” recognition. It was only a few years before, (1204) that Constantinople had been sacked and destroyed by the hordes of Frankish crusaders, with the blessings and the support of that same Pope. Whatever the power of weapons and forced Latinization had not achieved, the method of Unia had undertaken to achieve, acting as a mechanism of deception and a “Trojan Horse” among the Christians of the East.

The text of the relative canon is as follows:  “If in a certain territory there live various nations with various languages and ecclesiastic rites, the bishop should elect worthy men, who will perform the divine service for each single nationality, in its own language and rite.”  According to the ever-memorable professor John Karmiris, it was along the same spirit that the Bull of Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254) was drafted in 1254, which again accepted the Easterners’ customs (with the prospect of gradually abolishing them), followed by the complete Latinization of the people thereafter.

The first true Uniates were the unionists of Byzantium, who had signed and accepted the pseudo-synod of Florence (1439), under the illusion that they had retained their continuance and their orthodox tradition. It should be noted here that Unia does not only serve the interests of Papacy (inasmuch as it facilitates its infiltration); it also provides an alibi to our own, “westernizing” unionists, so that they can avoid being branded as traitors of local traditions.

Under the pretext of having preserved external forms, they are actually masking the betrayal of their traditions and nationality.

During its historical implementation Unia linked itself to a dogmatic minimalism; that is, to Rome’s demand that they accept the Papist dogmas (primacy and infallibility). This meant an acceptance of the Papal institution, which constitutes the absolute basis of the Papist edifice. That alone is evidence enough of how far away Papacy is from being called a Church. Of course, as already mentioned, Uniates have in the long run consented to all the dogmas of the Latin “Church”, and have remained only formally-externally linked to Orthodox tradition. To Papacy, salvation essentially involves the recognition of the Pope – yet another example of his anti-ecclesiastic mien. In fact, the expedience that permeates the case of the Uniates is made apparent by the fact that while the Latin clergy observes compulsory celibacy, the Uniate clergymen are permitted to marry – obviously in order to facilitate “Uniatizing”. To conclude, therefore:

The Holy Inquisition is linked to the principle of an unerring leadership (the Pope’s infallibility), which was “dogmatically” instituted by the leading scholastic of the Medieval era, Thomas Aquinas († 1274). The element underlying Papal infallibility was the Frankish interpretation and usage of Augustine’s teaching on predestination, in a secular-political context. Unia springs from the demand to impose another basic Papal dogma: the primacy of authority within the entire Christian world. This was elaborated and implemented in the 16th century, because that was when an event of tremendous significance took place: the genesis of Protestantism (1517).  Papacy now turned to the East seeking support, in the hope of balancing out its contestation in the West.

6. Unia and the Christian East

Unia is not, nor can it be perceived as, an “intermediary body” between Orthodoxy and Papacy. It is a veritable part of Papacy, comprised only of geographically “Eastern” Christians who are fully incorporated in the Latin “Church”.  The term “the West of the East” has quite aptly been used in their case, as it had for Protestantism. The only thing they have in common with Orthodoxy is their “rite”, although it is so alien a clime to them that one can tell from the performing of the Eucharist just how foreign Orthodox liturgical practice is. Uniates, not being a genuine item, simply mimic the Orthodox.  Unia continues to be – according to the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1838 – “a secret method and an infernal instrument, by which they seduce the gullible and the easily deceivable towards Papacy.”  Unia identifies with Papacy. In fact, Uniates support the Papist institution with a fanaticism far greater than that of the Roman Catholics. Among the latter, there are some who manage to disengage themselves from the “papist mysticism” that is artfully cultivated, especially among the lower, popular classes, and who exercise a degree of criticism of the Pope (for example in Latin America). But Uniates hinge their very existence on the Papist institution, which is why they become the staunchest supporters of the Pope. That is also why, although Rome gladly accepted – or even assisted - the assimilation of Uniates in older times, nowadays it discourages their assimilation and instead prefers to maintain them as they are. This is because it uses their loyalty in order to restore the Pope’s wavering prestige in the West. Uniates today are forced to maintain the religious customs of their individual homelands: Greeks, the Greek customs; Syrians, the Syrian customs, etc., the pretext being the “universality of the Church” – that is, of Papacy – which thus appears as a universal “power”.

The complete excision of Uniates from the Orthodox corpus was a common conscience among the orthodox faithful in older times, when spiritual reflexes were still functioning properly. This is why the people and literate theologians up until the 19th century did not refer to them as “Roman Catholics”, but as “Papists” and “Catolicans” (taken from the Italian term “Catolico”). With regard to their essence, Saint Mark of Ephesus († 1444) called them “Greco-Latins” and “half-beast humans”. The expansion of Ecumenism also brought about confusion in the terminology used, so that today, we need to re-define matters once more.

Historically, Unia was engaged at the most suitable moment in the service of the Papist State’s political designs (up until 1929) and thereafter of the Vatican’s (as a geographically truncated Papist state), but also of the Roman Catholic Leaders and Governments dependent on Rome or collaborating with it. That is why Uniates do not get themselves directly involved in political intrigues, as their existence alone facilitates the expansionist political plans of Papacy and its allies. Thus, the term “battering ram” with reference to Unia is not at all far from the truth.

From the very first moment of implementation of the idea of Unia and the formation of Uniate communities, the supervision and the steering of this movement was assigned to the Order of Jesuits – the most reliably dedicated servants of Papal authority; if the expression may be permitted, they were Papacy’s “commandos”. The Jesuit Order was founded in Paris in 1540, where the “Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei” came to belong, and to which Unia was appended. The “Congregatio pro Ecclesia Orientale” was then founded, as a “branch office” of the above Congregatio; as of 1917, this became a self-inclusive organization designed for the promotion of Papist propaganda in the regions of the East. It was here that Unia was finally appended from that time on, and has remained in that relationship to this day.  Unia’s dependence on the Jesuit Order rendered it Jesuitism's “dragnet” for the promotion of Rome’s interests.  A glorious victim of Jesuitism and Unia was the martyred Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril I Loukaris († 1638), who had opposed the plans of both; he of course was not the only victim in the Hellenic East.

In 1577 in Rome, Pope Gregory XIII founded the Greek College of Saint Athanasius, a School of theology for the preparation of Uniate staff members who were to undertake the necessary activities in the Hellenic-speaking regions of the Ottoman Empire as well as the Venetian-occupied territories.  The graduates of this College would sign a Bull of subservience to the Pope upon their graduation, and eventually became the fanatic supporters and preachers of the subjugation of the Orthodox to Rome. Their activity was catalytic for Orthodoxy. Being the first to utilize the colloquial language in their printed material gave them immense potential to access the commoners. It was for this reason that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, faithful to its ethnarchic role, immediately adopted the same measure, so that its flock might be duly informed.

But Unia’s activity did not limit itself to spiritual means only. Wherever local state government was pro-Papist, raw violence was also resorted to, in order to subjugate the Orthodox. This happened in Poland, towards the end of the 16th century. The king of Poland, Sigismund III (1587-1632) became the instrument of the Jesuits Possevin and Skarga, as well as of the Uniates. Being a Papist himself, the king chose the Pope’s friendship for the promoting of his own political relations with Europe.  Sigismund imposed Unia on the Orthodox of Poland, as well as Lithuania and Ukraine, in a violent manner, following the Uniate synod of Brest-Litovsk (1596). Every opposition was confronted violently by the Latins and the Uniate clergy, and a mass of crimes was committed. In the above synod, almost all of the bishops signed the union and millions of Orthodox were forcefully made Uniates. The remaining Orthodox were subjected to unprecedented persecutions. Unia spread in parallel into Trans-Carpathian Ruthenia (sub-Carpathian Russia) in the 17th

century (1646), into Slovakia (1649), into Transylvania (1698/99) and generally, wherever there was an Orthodox corpus of faithful (Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ecumenical Patriarchate, Greece). The military conflict between Poland and Russia in the 17th century took on the character of a purely religious confrontation, given that the objective of Papacy-Uniatism was

to strike the “protector” of the Orthodox – the Tsar – and to impede the expansion of Protestantism.

However, Papacy also infiltrated the Middle East through Unia, by taking advantage of the local squabbles arising between ecclesiastic groups from time to time, or the ignorance of the local Clergy, or the adventures of the population and the voids that were created.  “Protection” was also provided through Unia to the potentates of Europe, along with comprehensive poemantic, educational and financial organization. In fact, in countries with which the Vatican has contracted diplomatic relations or concordats over the last decades, Unia’s position is automatically upgraded and empowered, and its activities greatly facilitated. As a method of expansion or strengthening, Unia (like all heresies and propagandas) utilizes “philanthropy”, because it is the easiest way to deceive... and not only the simpler people.

During the last four centuries Unia has also been active in the “anti-Chalcedonian” Churches of the East (Ethiopian, Armenian, Coptic, Malabar, Syro-Jacobite). It has furthermore infiltrated the Assyrian Nestorian Church, which resulted in the creation of the Chaldean-Catholic Church of the Middle East, with faithful in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, France and the U.S.A.. In Syria in 1724, the Uniate Melchite-Catholic Patriarchate among the Melchites; that is, the old Orthodox, who are faithful to the Byzantine emperor (Melchites, from the word “malkā” = king). Its jurisdiction, beyond the Middle East, extends nowadays as far as Europe, America and Australia.

Recent reclassifications in the region of Eastern Europe, especially in the former Soviet Union, provided the Vatican with the opportunity to hasten to fill the voids that were created, using Unia. In fact, Unia’s move and its promotion was accompanied by the artfully spread Papist propaganda that the Uniates had been victims of Communist brutality, and that with their resistance, they had contributed towards the fall of existent socialism.  Although it is a fact that the Papists or Uniates, like the Orthodox and other Christians, also had victims of their own between 1917 and up until the Perestroika, what is being artfully concealed is the collaboration of Papists and Uniates with the Nazi powers and the betrayal of their homeland during World War II – something that provoked Stalin’s fury and induced his actions against them. It was the Orthodox who had shouldered the immense burden of defending the Soviet Union from the Nazi hordes, whom, thanks to Pope Pius XI’s concord with Hitler (1933), the Papists and Uniates of the Soviet Union and other eastern European Countries had accepted as friends and allies.

It is also a fact that with the synod of Lvov (March 1946) Stalin had taken his revenge on the Uniates, by forcing them in Ukraine to unite with the Orthodox Church of Russia. Within that turbulent atmosphere and the surprise advent of the Perestroika, the Uniates of Ukraine surfaced once again provocatively, under the guidance of the Vatican, not only projecting their demands in an intense manner, creating unbearable situations for the Orthodox, but with their obvious vindictiveness and vengefulness, they resorted to violence and vandalisms (with human victims). Thus, the Uniates’ hatred towards the Orthodox (and the fact that their role is motivated by foreigners) became

evident one more time. This was obviously not an impulsive explosion which had no presuppositions; it was the instructions of the Vatican that had encouraged the Uniates and their provocativeness, thus precipitating the ensuing political developments. By general admission, the strings were pulled by the Pope and the Curia from Rome. The Vatican continues in this manner to enforce its age-old policy against insubordinate Orthodoxy, by again electing to turn the most audacious and effective weapon against it: fanatic Unia. Also more than obvious today is the Vatican’s involvement in the Balkan crisis (Croatia, “Macedonia”, Albania) and its implementation there of the same tactics. The Papist element and Unia undertake the execution of the Pope’s commands, who has ready Uniate solutions for these regions - and indeed for the case of pseudo-“Macedonia” - by acting in an underhanded and treacherous manner against Hellenism, by undermining its rights.  It has in fact become known that the Pope is working towards “Uniatizing” the Hierarchy of Skopje, having even given his promise to “upgrade” the “Church” of Skopje to the status of Patriarchate. This scheduled upgrading of the “Church” of Skopje will be an immediate challenge and an attack on the Churches of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia; Skopje will surely hasten to take advantage of this upgrading in order to achieve its political goals – to the detriment mainly of our Homeland, which they seek to shrink in size. The “unionists” of Byzantium and all the present-day concordant minds are once again disproved. The Vatican does not desire to become a true friend of Greece and Orthodoxy! That is what the facts show.

7. Unia in Greece

When speaking of Greece, we imply the Hellenic State (from 1830 onwards), because even as early as the ages of slavery (Turkish occupation, Venetian occupation), the Uniates had already developed a significant deal of activity within the historical Hellenic region, moving within the boundaries of both the Ottoman Empire as well as the Venetian-occupied territories. As underlined above, the graduates of the College of Saint Athanasius had developed an intense Uniate (unifying) movement among the peoples with the same nationality and language as them. The Jesuits, who were supporters of this Uniate move, also appeared in Constantinople from 1583, and with the means they had at their disposal (money, publications, political backing), they became the “evil demon” of the Romaic Ethnarchy, which bore the responsibility for the entire Romaic populace – the Romans (Orthodox) – of the Balkans and Asia Minor.  

The actions taken from time to time by the Ecclesiastic Leaders, and indeed by Patriarchs, against the operations of Unia, are the direct confirmation of the deteriorative presence of Unia in the “East”. These precise operations of Papacy in the East through Unia were the reason for the convening of the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1722 in Constantinople, in which the Patriarchs Jeremiah III of Constantinople, Athanasius III of Antioch and Chrysanthus of Jerusalem had participated. In a related encyclical addressed to the Orthodox faithful, the Synod condemned Unia and pointed out the dangers that its activities in the East contained. An analogous action was taken by the Ecumenical Patriarch, Gregory VI in 1838, thus revealing the continuing Uniate menace. The Patriarchal Encyclical referred to them as “wolves in the guise of sheep, insidious and impostors”, castigating their dark operations in Syria, Egypt and Palestine mainly. After the Crimean war, Uniate activity began in Bulgaria – an eparchy of the Romaic Ethnarchy – an action which, in conjunction with other factors (pan-Slavism), led to the Bulgarian schism of 1870 and the Bulgarian Exarchate (1872). But even in 1887, the Ecumenical Patriarchate again castigated the illegal Uniate activities, in one of its Encyclicals.  As of 1897, the action of the French Assumptionist* monks began in the East; these were the envoys of Pope Leo XIII.  Their leaders were the renowned scientists L. Petit and J. Pargoire, who had tainted their reputations with their propagandist role. The Assumptionists had undertaken to support the Uniates of Bulgaria and were also propagandizing Unia in Constantinople and Thrace. Furthermore, on the instruction of Pope Benedict XIII, Latin clergymen had officiated wearing Orthodox vestments in the Papist schools of Constantinople, naturally for propagandist reasons. Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was compelled to issue a new (24.3.1907) Encyclical against Uniates and Papist propaganda. 

With the guidance and the support of the Assumptionists, who purposely circulated wearing Orthodox vestments, the first Greek Uniates appeared in 1907, organized into a specific community. A student of the propagandist

Hyacinthus Marangos – a Dominican monk  - was the clergyman Isaiah Papadopoulos, who operated as a proselytizer in Constantinople and was later ordained bishop of Gratianoupolis. Already by 1877 he had become a Papist. Assistant to Isaiah Papadopoulos was George Halavatzis, born on Syros Island to Papist parents. He studied at the Uniate college of Rome and in 1907 was ordained deacon and presbyter by a Papist bishop. He was however sent to Constantinople, where he commenced Uniate action which was so greatly appreciated by Pope Benedict, that in 1920 he was promoted to a titulary bishop of Theodoroupolis.  His operation, like his other accomplices, was especially focused on Greek youth, through education.  Hundreds of Greek youngsters were nurtured with the poison of Papist Unia. They had even founded a women’s monastic order of “sister Hellenes” with the name “Theotokos Pammakaristos”, and were attired with Orthodox vestments so that they would not raise any suspicions and could thus operate more easily. 

In Greece proper (the Hellenic State) the Holy Synod under the Metropolitan (Archbishop) of Athens, Theocletus I, issued an Encyclical in 1903 pointing out the danger behind the appearance of Unia’s agents in the Hellenic territory. Up until 1922, Uniate propaganda was unable to organize itself in Greece. In August of 1922 however, after the disaster of Asia Minor, George Halavatzis transferred his operations headquarters from Constantinople to the Athens suburb of Heraclion, and the Order of their nuns to Naxos Island. In Athens, they continued their “philanthropic” activity, also developing tremendous mobility within the social sphere for the purpose of projecting themselves – and especially among the refugees of Asia Minor – to the point that George Halavatzis was decorated by the Hellenic State!  This not only solidified the Uniates’ presence in Greece; it also enhanced their self-awareness, making them underline that their opus had been developing “with the propitious consent of the Authorities”. Similar things had been written by Protestant missionaries to their own Societies in the 19th century, likewise motivated at the time under the protection of the Hellenic Authorities… It was chiefly “ladies young and old of the aristocracy (sic)” who propagandized the Uniates’ educational activities; in other words, their operations took place among the Westernized civilians of Hellenic society. 

The Church of Greece did not remain inert, nor did She leave the Orthodox fold uninformed. The first official reaction was through a document of the Holy Synod addressed to the Ministry of Ecclesiastic and Public Education in 1924, at the time of the Archbishop Chrysostom I (Papadopoulos). The Holy Synod’s charges were accompanied by its objection to the State’s indifference, and its request to close all other Uniate institutions because they were facilitating Latin propaganda in our Homeland.  The anti-Hellenic stance of Rome and the Pope during the disaster of Asia Minor, as well as during the previous World War I was very familiar. 

On April 7th 1925, an Encyclical was issued by the Archbishop of Athens Chrysostom against the Uniates, which provoked the intense reaction of George Halavatzis. Correspondence between the two men ensued (1926 onwards), in which Chrysostom of Athens – University professor and Historian

– analyzed in a powerful and outspoken manner the Uniate problem in Greece and the danger – both spiritual and political – to the Greek people. Unfortunately however, he left untouched the problem of the essence of Papacy; that is, its ecclesiastic status quo.  

The Uniate problem had also reached the Greek House of Parliament (1929), but no solution was given. The continuous remonstrations of the Hellenic Clergy resulted in two Court decisions. They were the orders of the Athens Court of Appeals (1930) and of the Athens Supreme Court of Appeals (1931), which imposed on the Uniates the prohibition to wear the external attire of the Orthodox clergy of the Land, in order to prevent the confusion with the Orthodox clergy that was deliberately created by the Uniates.  But the Uniates never respected those decisions consistently. On the contrary, Uniatism spread among the Hellenes as well as the remaining Orthodox abroad (Europe, America), exerting its influence on endo-Hellenic reality - in favour of Papacy and its plans - even from within the Diaspora.

8. What is the real danger?

When observing the relatively small number of Uniates in Greece (a total of a mere few thousand), one is given the impression that the Nation is not exactly in any serious danger by Unia, which is the very same argument used by the Greek Uniates themselves and their supporters. However, events in countries of Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Rumania) have proven how immense a threat the presence alone of Unia is, and to what extents it can go. Events have proven that in our Country also, the danger from Unia is inversely proportional to the number of its members. 

In researching Unia’s activity in the Orthodox East over time, we feel compelled to justify the Patriarchal Synod which in 1838 referred to the Uniates as “onerous wolves, corruptive, pernicious, in the form of sheep, devouring unsparingly and destroying those for whom Christ had died.”  It is a fact that –unfortunately– many unpleasant things have been committed, both visibly and secretly by the Uniate element – both to the detriment of Hellenism (also), but in general to Orthodoxy – on account of their blind obedience to and their collaboration with Papacy.  Whereas with the illusory peace in the relations between Papacy and Orthodoxy during recent years many have come to believe that all the aforementioned events were simply an “unfortunate past”, the new Uniate crimes in Eastern Europe - as well as the anti-Hellenic stance of the Vatican in the so-called “Macedonian” issue – have proven that NOTHING has changed in Papacy’s intentions towards the Orthodox East and Hellenism. The Vatican’s medieval mentality continues to prevail, even today, simply because it has never changed. The Vatican functions as a secular power-State. Expansionism, as the incrementing of its influence, constitutes its permanent and immovable objective and to this end, insists on using Unia as its most obedient instrument. 

The potential peril that Unia also presents in our land, becomes apparent in various directions: 

(a) Uniatism breeds a spirit and conscience of  “janissarism”; in every generation it creates janissaries, who become the most formidable enemies of their fellow countrymen and capable of everything. During the prolonged enslavement of our Nation, it was not only the converts to Islam who were janissaries – that is, those who had aligned themselves with the conqueror from the East (the Turks) – but also the “Latinizers” – that is, those who had aligned themselves with a far more dangerous enemy of the Nation: the Pope (the Franks).  Saint Kosmas of Aetolia had codified the relative teaching of our Saints (Photios the Great, Gregory Palamas, Mark of Ephesus and many others), by also interpreting the (historically justified) stance of the “anti-unionists”, who had preferred the lesser of the two evils, i.e., the Ottoman domination. Being in the likeness of janissaries of the Franks, the Uniates are in an extremely difficult position and as such, are truly tragic existences! This is because they feel like ones who have no hearth or home, since they

essentially do not belong anywhere as they are being utilized as pitiful instruments in the service and the reinforcement of the ruthless enemies of their own race. This is precisely what a Greek Uniate had tearfully admitted to me recently. Nevertheless, it is their janissary mentality that renders them a danger to their race, because at any given moment, they are willing (maybe even forced) to collaborate in every conspiracy against Greece. Regardless whether they claim that they feel they are Greeks. That is what the “Latin-minded” and the “janissaries” of the Turks also used to claim, and we are well aware today if they were telling the truth. 

The Papist element, with which the Greeks have so unreservedly aligned themselves nowadays, has never been friendly towards Hellenism, nor has it ever supported the rightful Hellenic national interests. It has always sided with the will of its “headquarters” – the Vatican or Rome – and has always collaborated in favour of the miscarriage of Hellenic pursuits. In both the Venetian-occupied regions and Turkish-occupied Greece, the Papists had maintained the same, adamant stance. Not only were they opposed to the Hellenic Revolution of Independence of 1821; they in fact fought against it, by supporting the interests of the Turks. They did the same in 1920-1922, during the Asia Minor war.  Afraid of a revival and strengthening of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Vatican had incited the French to assist the Turks. The Vatican had declared that it preferred “to have atop the dome of Haghia Sophia the crescent rather than the Greek Cross” and “the Muslim indifference rather than the Orthodox fanaticism”. With their silence, the “Greek” Uniates were essentially approving this anti-Hellenic campaign. 

Papists and Uniates had (and continue to have) the impression that they too are a “State within a State”, and even more so, after the initiation of Greece’s diplomatic relations with the Vatican (1979).  This is why, both during the “inter-confessional” era and their protection by the French, as well as later on, they have never ceased to be on call, and ready to act as “fifth columnists”: a direct threat to Greek national interests. That is why one can feel only sorrow and pity for those Greek Papists, and more so for Greek Uniates. When the files pertaining to the Cyprus issue (1974) are eventually opened, the continuing anti-Hellenic stance of the Papist element will emerge, albeit the existing data has already shed ample light on the matter. 

I truly and sincerely desire that these views of mine regarding the “Hellenic” conscience of the Papists and the Uniates of our Country will be proven unrealistic, and attributable to mistaken evaluations. And I will be willing to recant every historically-based note that I have made, if the Papists (and Uniates) of Greece reply directly to the following questions:  

1)      Do the Greek Uniates possess the Greek bravery to demand from the Vatican to assimilate them immediately into the “Roman Catholic Church”, thus putting an end to their hermaphrodite role? Let Greece make the first move for the elimination of Unia, in order to truly pave the way to a new era in the relations between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. 

2)      If the Vatican should reject such a proposal, would they be prepared to return to Orthodoxy through the proper procedure (libel, chrism, etc.)? 

3)      Bearing in mind the irregular situation in the Balkans and the Vatican’s involvement in favour of the Papist forces (e.g. Croatia), are they willing, in case that –God forbid– the war is extended further, to fight at the side of Greece against the Papist forces? 

(b) An equally great danger lies in the permanent corruption that the Orthodox flock is exposed to, with the presence of Unia, because a specific model of union is being permanently projected, which in fact facilitates this movement immensely, and that model is Unia.  The Vatican has every reason for Unia to continue to exist, both because it is able to use it for its political-economic objectives – as it is doing in the Countries of Eastern Europe – but mainly because there is a clearly visible model of union between Orthodox and Papacy, which creates the impression that the union is taking place without the abandonment of Orthodoxy. This was proclaimed as early as the 1970’s by Pope Paul VI, when projecting the model of the Ukraine and pronouncing as Cardinal its Uniate archbishop, Josyf Slipyj. At any rate, it has already been made clear how the Vatican envisages the union:  The Vatican does not desire union “in the truth” of the Prophetic-Apostolic-Patristic tradition, but a “mutual recognition”. By acting as a State, it has lost every trace of sensitivity in matters of the Faith, in spite of the promulgations to the contrary by its theologians. 

(c)  There is yet another aspect – the most important – which however becomes obvious, only wherever the Orthodox conscience is healthy and robust. It is the spiritual-soteriological aspect. Unia exists, for the purpose of leading to the direct or indirect recognition and acceptance of Papacy – the most serious estrangement from Christianity of all time (Protestantism had emanated later from Papacy, as did all other socio-political developments in the West).  When the ever-memorable fr. Justin Popovic linked the historical Fall of the Pope (Papacy) to the Falls of Adam and of Judas, that was precisely the truth that he intended to stress: the complete de-Christianization by Papacy as an awarding of absolutism and totalitarianism. It must furthermore be noted that the awarding of totalitarianism by Papacy is diametrically different to related phenomena, which are observed from time to time in Orthodox environments. These perversions, which are incarnated through the Papist dogmas, will for us Orthodox forever remain blatant deviations from the salvatory Truth and as such are rejected and condemned as Falls and sins. In Papacy however, they have been rendered dogmas of faith; ones that are necessary for salvation (can a Latin Church exist without a Pope?). In the long run, this means that the incarnation of God the Logos took place in order for Papacy to be instated in the world, and totalitarianism (with all its consequences) be sanctified. Could there be a bigger blasphemy than this? 

The recognition of Papacy constitutes an abandonment of the in-Christ Truth, a denial of the in-Holy Spirit living (spirituality) and a reversal of Christianity into a secular ideology that is being drowned in everything endocosmic and in

the thirst for power. Christianity however – as preserved in the persons of our Saints – comprises Man’s therapy through the catharsis/cleansing of the heart from passions and of the ‘nous’ (mind) from reflections, so that he might  attain the “visitation” (enlightenment) of the Holy Spirit and thus reach theosis (deification) – the “glorification” of his entire being within the uncreated, Holy Trinitarian Grace (the ‘Kingdom’). Wherever this prospect is lost, and this objective is altered, Christianity-Orthodoxy does not exist! Because Man’s course towards theosis simultaneously transforms Man’s environment and it creates the potential to realize selfless love – which is the foundation of the authentic Christian society. And History teaches us that the slackening, or even the loss of this tradition, even in a section of us Orthodox, was reinforced or even provoked by the influence of that estranged Western Christianity in our lives during the previous centuries. The effect of the decadence in the West's civilization has, after all, always been catalytic among Orthodox peoples. 

From the above, I believe one can understand just where the acceptance of Unia – as a method of unification with Papacy - can lead. Every independence and freedom is lost for the Orthodox and consequently, so is the possibility to help Western Christianity through a Dialogue, in order for it to re-discover its forgotten Orthodox prerequisites and its Orthodox past. This alone can be the only purpose for a theological Dialogue from an Orthodox point of view, and never a “mutual recognition”. Besides, what kind of recognition does Orthodoxy need to receive, from anti-Christian Papacy? It would be like Christ asking for recognition from Belial! (2 Cor. 6:15)  On the contrary, Unia contributes towards the preservation of Papist estrangement and the promotion of Papacy as the authentic Church which we all need to be joined to, for our salvation. Thus, it becomes doubly harmful: firstly to non-Latin Christianity, because it leads it to a spiritual impasse; and secondly to Latin Christianity itself, because it impedes it from becoming aware of its downfall and thereafter from seeking –like the prodigal son– to return to the Truth.

9. The Vatican's eloquent silence

That which is especially provocative however is the Vatican's silence in its response, not only to the demand of the Orthodox but also to the demand of many within its own bosom, to abolish Unia.  I personally believe that the recent televised statement of the Greek Uniates' representative is a sincere one, ie., their desire is that they be abolished.

From as early as the time of the 2nd Vatican Synod (1962-65), many reactions had been recorded on the matter of the continuing existence of Unia and in fact, at a time of an inter-Christian Dialogue and a special Dialogue with the Latin "Church", but also after the many concessions that the Orthodox side had repeatedly made in favour of the Dialogue, as a gesture of good will. Furthermore, the request to abolish Unia had been a pan-Orthodox one, in view of the fact that it was detrimental to the Dialogue and to relations between the two sides. It was in fact stressed that the existence of Unia and the perpetuation of its pitiful role generated reactions that could threaten that very European unity, for which the Pope claims to be so supportive of.

    Renowned Roman Catholic theologians had also joined their voices with the Orthodox side; theologians who had preserved their sincerity and honesty and who appeared to have also preserved their freedom of opinion.  The acclaimed French university theologian Yves Congar for example had referred to Unia as a "caricature and a clear contradiction to the union", while the excellent researcher of monastic tradition Louis Boyer had referred to Unia as a "mischievousness", adding that: "We cannot look into the function of Byzantium without taking into account the entirety of Byzantine Christianity", probably implying Orthodoxy. An analogous stance was taken by others as well (G.Wunderle, P.Wenger etc.).  More especially, and as a top priority, the Church of Greece had pointed out the danger behind Unia and had repeatedly asked for its abolition; and yet, the Vatican turned a deaf ear!

    The 2nd Vatican Synod, characterized as "unifying" because its chief objective was the approximation of East and West, not only did NOT proceed to disband Unia, but contrary to the "Decree regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches", it reinforced Unia and even contributed towards its restructuring, so that it may continue its role within Orthodox and Eastern Christian communities.  In fact, with its prompting towards a sacramental union of Uniates and "dissenters" with Rome itself, it created yet another, greater threat for Orthodoxy. Furthermore, its proclamation of the prelates of Ukraine and Rumania as Uniate Cardinals was intentionally designed, precisely so that the role of Unia would be upgraded in the more critical areas of Europe.

    This is why it was a huge error on the part of the Orthodox to agree to the presence of Uniates in the Theological Dialogue with the "Roman Catholic Church",  albeit this fact was suppressed by means of various announcements. The Orthodox should have remained adamant in this detail,

having noticed the audacity of our fellow-speakers. The Vatican's insistence on the presence of Uniates in the Dialogue only proved its true intentions and its unchanging tactics. Unfortunately, the reactions that were voiced were not hearkened to, and we were left with illusions. However, what had not become evident at the time God now revealed, with the un-Orthodox and anti-Hellenic actions of the Vatican: our sovereign rights as a Nation had to be compromised, for us to begin to become aware of the immense corruption that the Vatican had caused to Orthodox nationalities!

    But, even belatedly, the Orthodox side had hastened to correct its first mistake when, at the time of the Perestroika the Vatican broke open its medieval arsenal to the detriment of Orthodoxy. Thus, the Sub-committee for the Dialogue between Orthodoxy-Roman Catholicism had issued a decision in Vienna (January 1990), that rejected Unia as a "unifying model" and also condemned its proselytism and its other activities and re-submitting its petition to disband Unia.  In June of 1990, all the Orthodox, in mutual agreement, postponed the theological Dialogue with the Vatican until the issue of Unia be solved.  In December of 1991, the Metropolitan of Italy Spyridon spoke on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the Synod of European Bishops in Rome, in the presence of the Pope, and had condemned the "rebirth" and the activities of the Uniates in Eastern Europe.  Even the new Patriarch Bartholomew in his address to the Papist envoys during the enthronement ceremony on the day of Commemoration of Saint Andrew (30 Nov. 1991) had outspokenly expressed the danger involved, not only in the postponement but also the aborting of the Theological Dialogue, if the activities of Unia were to continue.

    After all the above, one would expect the Pope and the Vatican to respond with some sort of gesture of reassurance. But that did not happen. And the question remains: WHY? Why does the Vatican insist on supporting the existence and the activities of Unia in its campaigns throughout Eastern Europe? Why did the Pope ask - through his ambassador (Nuncio) - the Government of Russia to recognize the equivalence of Unia to Orthodoxy, offering in exchange its intermediation to the Governments of Europe, for financial aid to destitute Russia?  Why does the Pope persist in blatantly disregarding the Orthodox, and with such arrogance at that?

    Apart from the familiar self-importance that is flaunted by Papacy, could there be another, more specific reason? The answer is affirmative.

10.  How is the Pope’s persistence explained?

 

    According to the renowned Papist author Raymond Janin, Unia is "the easiest and most effective method" for subjugating someone to the Pope; it is "the best method for drawing schismatics towards the Pope".  Uniates have proven themselves to be the most fanatic propagandists of Papacy and the most reliable securers of the Vatican's interests. Therefore, the Pope nowadays needs Unia more than ever, at a time when his socio-economic pursuits are again at a peak. The existence of Uniates reinforces the Pope's prestige, because the Uniates are the ones who render the Christian East's subjugation to the Pope more perceptible and who give the illusion of a catholicity (oneness) and universality. Those who are aware of the history of Papacy and its relations to the East are able to understand how, above whichever economic benefits, that which weighs more for Papacy is the recognition of the Pope's primacy of power by the Orthodox. Uniates fulfil this demand, and at the same time they support Papacy far more than the "Pope-worship" that is especially cultivated in the West as a kind of papal mysticism ("the Pope loves us", "he has us in his heart", "there is no church without a Pope" and other similar displays that one encounters in the pro-Papist circles of the West).

    It is therefore our belief that the observation of political commentators and international law experts is absolutely valid, in that the Pope is using Eastern Europe as a springboard for strengthening and solidifying his prestige in the West - and especially in the European Union.  We have been given many an opportunity in Europe to ascertain that the Pope is indeed counting very seriously on the recognition of his person by Orthodoxy; well, Unia has been providing such an illusion to the Westerners.  But this has only been reinforcing the - despite the impressions to the contrary - teetering prestige of Papacy in Europe.

    This pursuit by the Vatican has been pointed out by -among others- the Financial Times of 24 Dec. 1991: "The Pope hopes to benefit from the fall of Communism", because his objective is to be recognized as "the leading religious power in the New Europe". This can also explain the Vatican's demand that Europe's common currency bear the image of the Pope on it!  I believe that the most eloquent presentation of the Pope's objective is portrayed in the caricature below, by the top-ranking Greek cartoonist, K. Metropoulos:

Given that a picture can say far more than an entire article, the above sketch by K. Metropoulos is enough to express the Pope's hegemonic inclinations, and at a pan-European level, no less.  The Vatican has returned to the Medieval era and the issue "regarding vestments". Or, rather, it is proving that it has not moved away from the Medieval age at all, thus preserving itself as sorriest remnant of medieval feudalism.

    The current rebirth of Unia is, for the Vatican, a kind of religious colonialism. The Unia of Central Europe or the middle East, compact and organized as it is - and for this reason an overwhelming power in the presence of a native element - can secure that potential for expansionist designs; these plans by the Pope, along with his secret agreements with the USA for the "co-exploitation" of the peoples of the former "existent socialism", are now known facts, thanks to the exposures by the Press. The Vatican is once again hastening to fill the gaps, by exploiting all the negative elements of the Orthodox peoples in every region. That is why it has given even greater authority to the Uniate leaders. The Uniate Primates of Ukraine and Rumania have already been made Cardinals, and furthermore, the number of Papist or Uniate bishops throughout Eastern Europe is ever increasing - bishops with either a minimal flock or without any flock at all.

    It is easy to surmise from the above developments what the underlying threat to Hellenism is.  Papacy has, after all, been using the Slavs for entire centuries against Byzantium. One example is sufficient to express this continuity in Papacy with regard to Unia: In the 17th century, there lived a great persecutor of the Orthodox - Jehosaphat Krncevic. In 1623 he had ordered the remains of the Orthodox to be exhumed and thrown to the dogs. Krncevic himself had participated in terrorist activities against the Orthodox, in one of which he was murdered by an Orthodox. Pope Pius IX proclaimed him a saint in 1867. Pope Pius XI in 1923 had referred to him as a "man of virtue". Pope Paul VI in 1923 had transferred his remains into a crypt of Saint Peter's cathedral in Rome, and the present Pope referred to him as an "apostle of...unity" and a "noble personality".

    In the Balkans, the Vatican is afraid of the collaboration and the unity between the Orthodox and in view of this, has aligned itself with other powers that have invested their own interests in the region and have designated spheres of influence there.  Two axles of collaboration have been developed by countries of the West (among them are the Vatican and Turkey) for their economic domination in Eastern Europe and the Balkans; that is why the argument of a Roman Catholic official of our Country is at least a ridiculous one, i.e., that the Uniates love the Pope and that he cannot turn them away! Ridiculous, because no-one is asking for them to be turned away! They are free to love the Pope and to belong to him, within the boundaries of Christian and democratic freedom. However, they are not free to collaborate with the Pope against their fellow-nationals - which is what they are doing, by remaining Uniates. If they love the Pope, let them become Roman Catholics. We Orthodox are willing to consent to any honest dialogue whatsoever with the Roman Catholics, but never with Uniates. Just as our Fathers during our enslavement could never enter any dialogue with the "Latin-minded" or the "janissaries", because such a dialogue would have been by definition impossible.

    But one might (naively) ask: "Doesn't the Pope desire the Dialogue with Orthodoxy?"  Our reply: The Pope (and this is Papacy's method) uses the Dialogue with Orthodoxy as he did in the past, to his own benefit.  That is why "mutual recognition" is constantly being projected, and not the union "in the Truth".  That is why the Vatican constantly demands a Dialogue "on unifying matters" and not "on dividing matters", whereas the Church's fixed praxis is that Orthodoxy's "Dialogue" with heresies be focused on the differences, the deviations from the salvific Faith; those that negate salvation-theosis. This is the uniform practice of the Ecumenical Councils. The Church, as Orthodoxy, never perceives the Faith as a negotiable ideology (compare this against the contemporary "historic compromise" within the sphere of political ideologies), but as a medical-therapeutic method  which alone is able to heal Man and save him.

    The Vatican up until 1989 had been using not only Unia but also the Orthodox in the Eastern countries, in order to promote itself as well as its anti-Communist politics in the East, even though the Orthodox of countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia were put under pressure -as they themselves had

admitted- both by the Papist and the Uniate element, to the point that they instinctively turned towards the Soviet Union, in spite of their anti-communist trend.  We were the only ones who had naively and from an outsider's viewpoint regarded the confrontation between Papacy and Communism in Poland as a victory of Christianity, oblivious to the fact that the conflict aspired to the prevalence and the victory of Papacy, and not of Christianity.

    As of 1989, the Vatican no longer needs Orthodoxy (as long as it remains Orthodoxy), given that the benefits sought after can easily be acquired through a direct agreement with the Perestroika people (e.g. Gorbachev's visit to the Vatican in 1989) and through diplomatic relations can succeed in increasing its influence, and in fact to the detriment of Orthodoxy. It is precisely in this plan that the Vatican is using Unia - the very same plan that it has perpetually been implementing against Orthodoxy. When Orthodoxy seems weak, it pretends to be offering it assistance with a view to subjugating it; but when Orthodoxy is strong, it does everything possible to destroy it, as Orthodoxy is the debunking of Papacy.

    In its anti-Orthodox campaign, the Vatican relies on the underlying oppositions among the Orthodox (ethnicities); on the corrosion of people's conscience (attributed to the hyper-enthusiasm of the pro-unionists of our time and their usage of Papacy-related terminology such as "sister Church"); on the internal problems of Orthodox peoples on account of political changes, etc. It also relies on the openly declared or the covert "pro-unionists", who are in  essence "Uniatizing". Besides, Papacy has always relied on  the "Latin-minded" - "pro-unionists" for success in whichever plans it had in the East.  Intellectuals have also proven to be par excellence "pro-unionists" and even more so Politicians, who would usually expect Papist help during the Nation's difficult moments. And they are still waiting for that help....  Finally, the Vatican is benefiting from our mistakes and our divisions and - even more - from the numbing of our self-awareness, to the extent that we are no longer able to place the problem of Unia in the proper context.

11.  “NO” to disorientation!

 

    It is imperative for one to understand that our problem is not Unia per se.  Unia is nothing more than a tragic puppet in the hands of a puppet-master, the Vatican.  It is the Vatican that is pulling its strings. The problem has to be traced back to the nature of Papacy.  Is Papacy a "Church"? This was the question that was so astutely posed to the Professors of Theology (with his familiar, blunt outspokenness) by His Beatitude, our Archbishop Seraphim on the occasion of the feast of Photios the Great ( 6th February 1992 ).  What exactly is the Vatican, which constitutes the "other aspect" of the "Roman Catholic Church" that we are conversing with?

    The "Vatican" - or "Holy See" - is a State (Stato della Citta del Vaticano). It covers an area of 0,44 square kilometres and its population is 1000 inhabitants, mainly Italians and Swiss.  It has a flag of its own, with a special coat-of-arms.

                                         

Flag of the Vatican State                                 The Papal Coat of Arms

It is an entirely independent state. In older times of course, the Pope's dominion covered a far greater expanse. Its current borders were determined on the 11th of February 1929, upon an agreement between Pope Pius XI and Mussolini.  Head of the State of Vatican is the head of the "Roman Catholic Church" - in other words, the Pope himself.  This same person is also the bearer of both political and religious authority (theocracy). Thus, the Pope continues to this day to be a political leader-head of state, and this is evidenced by his established (ecclesiastic) titles: 

Bishop of Rome Vicar of Christ Successor of the Prince of the Apostles Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church Primate of Italy Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City

Servant of the Servants of God

Patriarch of the West (dropped 2006) Vicar of the Apostolic See Vicar of Peter Patriarch of the West Sovereign Teacher Legislator Judge Commander in charge

These are the (dogmatically) established and currently in use titles of the Pope.

    The Pope's State has its own garrison (Swiss guards), a prison, currency (lira), courts of law, ministries, diplomats, audio-visual Media, news agency (Fides), newspapers (the main one is the "Osservatore Romano", since 1861), palaces (Belvedere, Lateran), and above all, Banks.

The Vatican's currency (Lira)

    So, is Papacy really a Church? We are already helped by Athanasius the Great in taking an objective stance on the issue. The Arians had everything that the Orthodox did, however, they regarded both the Son (and the Spirit) as creations. Athanasius the Great counsels the Orthodox on this matter, to not be fooled by external appearances (vestments, worship, organization) and regard them as being Christians, but to consider them as "Ario-maniacs" (i.e., maniacal followers of Arius).  The Sacraments are important, not as rituals, but only because they are the conveyers of uncreated Grace.  "Where the Church is, there the Holy Spirit (Grace) is", according to Saint Irenaeus (2nd century). The blessed fr. Justin Popovic places Papacy in the category of "modern European Arianism".  The wise, 18th century Archbishop Eugenios Bulgaris (†1806) admits that Papacy lost its ecclesiastic prerequisites and has no genuine Saints (Epistle to Claercion).  As also admitted by contemporary major theologians, Papacy claims that it accepts the (ancient) ecumenical councils, but it has lost the Scriptural and Patristic prerequisites thereof (spirituality, therapeutic character of the dogmas). Furthermore, with the warping of the Sacred Symbol of Faith (with the Filioque), it has adulterated the conciliar tradition of the Church.  The Papist dogmas cannot find any grounds in the Holy Bible and its continuance - Patristic theology - because they are the fruits of scholasticism.

    More importantly, some people ask: Has Roman Catholicism been condemned by an Ecumenical Council as a heresy?  The answer is affirmative. The Council of Constantinople in 879 during Photios' time is, for Orthodoxy, the 8th Ecumenical Council (I.Karmiris, fr.J. Romanides, e.a.), just as the Hesychast Synods of the 14th century (1341, 1347, 1351) are the 9th Ecumenical Council of Orthodoxy. There cannot be a Major Synod of Orthodoxy that will not proclaim them as Ecumenical.  The Council of 879 had condemned as a heresy the insertion of the Filioque in the Sacred Symbol of Faith, along with the perpetrators.  Thus, there has indeed been an ecumenical condemnation of Franco-Papacy on the heresy of the Filioque - which of course was the culmination of its overall estrangement, given that the presuppositions which had led to the heresy of the Filioque were far more significant than the insertion itself. That is why the removal of the Filioque from the Symbol is not enough, unless the presuppositions of this fallacy are also rejected (that is, the anti-Scriptural and anti-Patristic theologizing; in other words, the Frankish introduction of Metaphysics in ecclesiastic theologizing).

12.  Conclusion

 

    It is consequently imperative to place the problem of Unia on its proper basis.  It is not about a conflict of a jurisdictional nature with the Vatican - the way the problem of relations between Old and New Rome was, during the time of Photios the Great.  The problem therefore is not about the "parishional" actions of the Church of Old Rome within New Rome's boundaries of jurisdiction, as was the case at the time (9th century) in Bulgaria.  After the schism, and more so after it was rendered Frankish, the "Latin Church" had no longer anything in common with the Latin-speaking Christianity prior to the schism and the domination of the Franks.  The pre-schism, Latin-speaking Church of Old Rome was Orthodox, and a sister to the Church of Constantinople (New Rome), despite the occasionally appearing (canonical, not dogmatic) contrasts between the two, especially during the Iconomachy period, where most of the East had been corrupted by the heresy, and yet, Old Rome was saving Orthodoxy.  After the schism and its estrangement, Old Rome is no longer co-religionist and a sister of New Rome. In fact, Old Rome today identifies with the Vatican State.  Church and State are both under the same head, the Pope, who appears simultaneously as a religious and a State (political) Leader.

    Thus, Unia should not be regarded as a jurisdictional  difference and a mere anti-canonical intervention in the Orthodox East by the Vatican. It is the instrument of a secular - political authority, which is focused on expansionism and increasing its influence.  As for today's coincidence, which has united ALL the Orthodox in the confronting of the Papist advance with Unia as its vehicle, it is a true, God-sent opportunity to re-examine the problem of the essence (of the ecclesiasticity, that is) of the "Latin Church"-Vatican, so that the theological Dialogue (if the Vatican continues to desire it) might be evaluated anew.  We furthermore believe that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with its new, enlightened Leadership, just as the other Leaderships of the Orthodox Churches of other places, would never refuse to address the problem of the ecclesiastic character of the "Roman Catholic Church", but also the theological Dialogue with Rome, on the proper basis.  And we should not allow the opportunity to be lost.  Already, there have been reports of secret deliberations in both the ecclesiastic and political wings, for the smoothing out of relations with the Vatican - which is striving to hurdle negative impressions. Unia however continues to exist, and damage has already been wreaked within Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe. Therefore, every retreat on the part of the Orthodox will be tantamount to a crime. 

    Woe betide, if the criteria of the Unionists of Byzantine and post-Byzantine years were to prevail once again.

    Woe betide, if Orthodoxy is - again - left to the expediences of whichever politics and Eternity sacrificed, to endo-cosmic conventionality and utilitarianism.

    Our actions are not just recorded in the annals of History; they will also be judged at the end of History, by the Lord of History, Who is concurrently its Saviour and its Judge.

Bibliography (selected)

 

Vallindras Nicodemus:  Issues of Ecclesiastic Deontology, Athens 1968.

Yannaras Christos:  Truth and Unity of the Church, Athens 1977.

Gregoriou P.:  Relations between Catholics and Orthodox, Athens 1958.

Gregoriou P.:  Course towards the union, Athens 1978.

Diamantopoulou Ad.: The Synod of Florence and the Latin Unia in the East, Athens 1927.

«ΖOE» (Brotherhood):  The nostalgia of Orthodoxy, Athens 1956.

Ifantis Ρ, - Karidis Sp.: Le origini dell' unitismo, Ο Odigos, 10 (1991), pages 2-7.

Kalogirou John:  The 2nd Vatican General oman-Catholic Synod and its Ecumenical endeavour according to the Orthodox view, Thessaloniki 1965.

Kantiotes fr.Augustine: A religious deception - the Uniates. Athens 1965.

Affirmative and Symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church, Athens 1960. Vol. II, Graz 1968

Koltsaras John: Unia, Athens 1966.

Kontoglou Fotis:  What is Orthodoxy and what is Papacy, 2nd edition, Athens 1964.           

Laiou-Thomadaki Angeliki: The conflict between the Popes and the Emperors and the views of the Byzantines, Thesaurus 15 (1978), pages 106-118. 

Bilalis Spyros: Orthodoxy and Papacy, Athens 1969. 

Ninikas Solon:  How the Roman Catholics perceive the union of the "Churches", Athens 1966.         Papadopoulou Chrys.: Nature and character of Unia, Athens 1928 (re-printed from the periodical "Anaplasis").    

Papadopoulou Chrys.: The Primacy of the bishop of Rome, Athens 1930.       

Papadopoulou Chrys.: The fallacies of Papacy, Uniatism and Protestantism, 3rd edition, Athens 1964.

Romanides fr.John: Franks, Romans, Feudalism and doctrine. An interplay between Theology and Society (1981).

Romanides fr.John: Romanity, Romania, Roumeli. Pournaras Publications, Thessaloniki 1975.

Romanides fr.John: Saints Cyril and Methodios, Hellene representatives of Latins to Slavs, against Franks («Gregory Palamas» 1971, pages 273-281).

Romanides fr.John: The Filioque (Anglican Orthodox Joint Doctrinal discussions, St. Albans 1975, Μοscow 1976).

Romanides fr.John: Le Filioque, in the Volume: Saint Augustin, "L' âge d' homme" publications, Paris 1988.

Romanides fr.John: Ecclesiastic Synods, in the magazine «Ecclesia» vol. (1991) p. 603 etc

Stephanidou Vasiliki: Ecclesiastic History, Athens 1958.

Trembelas Panagiotis: Chrysostomos Papadopoulos as Archbishop, (reprint from the magazine "Ecclesia", Athens 1968).

Chalavazis George:  How the unification problem is posed, Athens 1953.

Hieromoine Pierre: L' union de Γ Orient avec Rome, Une controverse récente. Correspondance échangée entre SB. Monseigneur Chrysostome Papadopoulos, Archevêque Orthodoxe d' Athènes et de toute la Grèce, et Monseigneur Georges Calavassy, Evèque Catholique des Grecs de rite byzantin, a Constantinople et en Grèce, Introduction et traduction, Orientalia Christiana, Vol. XVIII 1., Roma 1930.

Metropolitan Christodoulos: Unia, the Trojan Horse of Papacy, Newspaper "TO BEMA", 9.2.1992.

Feidas Vlassios: Ecclesiastic History, II, Athens 1977.

Feidas Vlassios: The perceptions of the blessed Photios regarding the Western "Church" (Magazine "Ecclesia", 1977).