UNIA: The Face and the Disguise

By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos

former Dean of the Athens University School of Theology

Published by "Apostoliki Diakonia" (Apostolic Ministry)

An organization of the Church of Greece

Contents

1. God: the Lord of History

2. “Unia”
3. The historical framework
4. The genesis of the Holy Inquisition
5. The genesis of Unia
6. Unia and the Christian East
7. Unia in Greece
8. What is the real danger?
9. The Vatican’s eloquent silence
10. How is the Pope’s persistence explained?
11. “NO” to disorientation!
12. Conclusion
13. Bibliography (selective)

APPENDIX OF TEXTS

1. Encyclical of the Constantinople Synod (1722) addressed to the Antiochian Orthodox

2. Encyclical of the Constantinople Synod (1838) against the Latin innovations

3. Message of the Primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches (Excerpts)

4. Resolution of the Athens University Theological School’s Department of Theology

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 Papism 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 Papism’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, Papism 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 Papism: 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 Papism 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).

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 7th 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 11th 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 11th 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 (11th 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 Papism 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 Papism 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 4th 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 Papism (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 Papism 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 Papism, 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). Papism 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
Papism. It is a veritable part of Papism, 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 Papism.” Unia identifies with
Papism. 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 Papism – 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
Papism 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 Papism’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 Papism-Uniatism was to strike the “protector” of the
Orthodox – the Tsar – and to impede the expansion of Protestantism.

However, Papism 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 Papism 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.

* http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Assumpionist-Fathers

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 Papism; 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 Papism 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 Papism. Whereas with the illusory peace in the relations between
Papism 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 Papism’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 Papism,
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 Papism – the most serious estrangement from Christianity of all time
(Protestantism had emanated later from Papism, as did all other socio-political developments
in the West). When the ever-memorable fr. Justin Popovic linked the historical Fall of the
Pope (Papism) to the Falls of Adam and of Judas, that was precisely the truth that he intended
to stress: the complete de-Christianization by Papism as an awarding of absolutism and
totalitarianism. It must furthermore be noted that the awarding of totalitarianism by Papism
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 Papism 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 Papism 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 Papism 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 Papism - 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 Papism? 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 Papism 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 Papism, 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 Papism 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 Papism and its relations to the East are able to understand how,
above whichever economic benefits, that which weighs more for Papism is the recognition of
the Pope's primacy of power by the Orthodox. Uniates fulfil this demand, and at the same
time they support Papism 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 Papism 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. Papism has, after all, been using the Slavs for entire centuries against Byzantium. One
example is sufficient to express this continuity in Papism 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 Papism'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 Papism and Communism in Poland as a victory of
Christianity, oblivious to the fact that the conflict aspired to the prevalence and the victory of
Papism, 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 Papism.

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 Papism-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, Papism 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 Papism. Is Papism 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 Papism 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 Papism in the category of "modern European Arianism". The wise, 18th century
Archbishop Eugenios Bulgaris (†1806) admits that Papism lost its ecclesiastic prerequisites
and has no genuine Saints (Epistle to Claercion). As also admitted by contemporary major
theologians, Papism 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-Papism 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 Papism, 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 Papism, 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 Papism, 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 Papism, 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).