UNIA: The Face and the Disguise

By Protopresbyter Fr. George D. Metallinos (??+2019)

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 in 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

the 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
the 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, the 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 the
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 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).
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 - Romany).
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 Ethnarchs 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-Romany.
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
(9thcentury), 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
(11thcentury), 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 the 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” of all these peoples to Papism 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), already 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 was also
endowed 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 the 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 Papal 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 the 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 the 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). The 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 the Papacy. It is a veritable part of the 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 Papism.” Unia identifies with Papism. In fact, Uniates support the Papal
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 the 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 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”. It was precisely these operations of
the Papacy in the East through Unia that 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 (Addendum
1), 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 (Addendum 2), 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.
* https://www.assumption.us/about-us/virtual-library/47-virtual-library/497-the-
assumptionists-by-richard-richards-aa
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 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 the 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 the Papacy.
Whereas with the illusory peace in the relations between the 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 the 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 Papists, 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 the Papacy – the most serious
estrangement from Christianity of all time (Protestantism had emanated later on
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 the Papacy as an awarding of absolutism
and totalitarianism. It must furthermore be noted that the awarding of
totalitarianism by the 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 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
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 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 the 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 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 the Papacy as the authentic Church
which we all supposedly 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, that is,
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, albeit 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 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
the Papacy and its relations to the East are able to understand how, above and
beyond whichever economic benefits, that which weighs more for Papism is the
recognition of the Pope's primacy of power by the Orthodox. Uniates fulfill this
demand, and at the same time they support the 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 the 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. Mitropoulos:

Given that a picture can say far more than an entire article, the above sketch by
K. Mitropoulos 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 the 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. The Papacy 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 the Papist 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 Papist-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, the 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.
. “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 the 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

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 to 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 the 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 thus 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 ground in the Holy Bible and in 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 in regard to 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 addition 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 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,
when most of the East had been corrupted by the heresy and yet, Old Rome had been
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 expediencies 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).
APPENDIX 1
Encyclical of the Constantinople Synod
(1722)
addressed to the Antiochian Orthodox
(Excerpts)

________________

[Prologue]
Even though the formidable and age-old evil serpent and common adversary of the
human race, Satan, has not ceased to war against the holy Church of Christ from
time to time and to willingly study the extermination of pious and Orthodox
Christians by utilizing (as instruments befitting this malice of his) certain
malevolent powers, albeit on the contrary, the Grace and the Providence of the most
benevolent God are not absent (given that He at times sends bold and willing
opponents within His holy Church who fight bravely against all satanic influences
and designs of the common enemy of our generation), the devil, by recognizing as
the primary boast and unspoiled treasure of the soul and a necessary weapon for
salvation and an amulet the healthy and proper and blameless faith of us pious
Christians as well as the unalterable and unadulterated element found in our sacred
dogmas which has been preserved unfalsified and unadulterated (especially in this
part) as most important and necessary, strives to conspire against our generation,
hence the sprouting anew of so many different heresies and blasphemies and from the
beginning within Christ's Church regarding our orthodox respectfulness, hastening
to cast the more simple people into the pit of spiritual downfall, after the
providential wisdom of the most merciful God through the Church's sacred Fathers
had overthrown them and had introduced piety.
However even during our present times, we hear in these places - that is, in the
provinces and the cities of Orthodox Christians that are under the jurisdiction of
the most sacred patriarchal and apostolic throne of Antioch - that there are
nestled and secretly sown in the souls and the minds of Christians the Latin
cacodoxy and dogmas of perfidy (or, rather, of innovations and beliefs that are
erroneous and rejected by the true faith), the leaders and teachers of which Latin
dogmas - having found in those same places some easily fooled Christians (on
account of their ignorance of the proper dogmas of the Church) and having deceived
them by means of various sophistries, machinations and bad workmanship, did
convince them to both apostatize from the Eastern Church of Christ and the proper
dogmas and patristic traditions, as well as to believe in and accept the
innovations of the Latin deceit as truths.
Thus, having received the ecclesiastic office from God and elected to this
patriarchal throne, the Most Holy Patriarch of Antioch, beloved in the Holy Spirit
brother of ours and co-officiator, His Beatitude Athanasius, feeling the pain and
the suffering for such a spiritual loss of those Christians subject to him, and
coming here in person to the regnant of all cities and joining us as a brother
along with the Most Holy Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Chrysanthus who is
already preoccupied in the regnant city, and having tragically narrated and
stressed to us and to our brethren hierarchs this misfortune and spiritual harm to
the said Christians, also provoked in us a more than slight sorrow and sympathy, in
order to jointly and synodically with His Beatitude deliberate and decide about the
evil in question and about the cure thereof, making provision to write and to
reveal to all the local Christians not to be fooled deceitfully, neither to open
their ears to the vacant voices of the Latins, nor to accept their innovations and
everything that through false deceit and disastrous dogmas through arguments of
sophistry they are hastening to spread in your souls; instead, by being equipped
with the upright dogmas and meanings of piety, fend off the falsehood and remain in
your true and paternally-delivered tradition of the Faith.
As for the chief reason that forces the Latins to make such innovations and
novelties, it is none other than to introduce the monarchy of the Pope and to prove
that only the Pope - as they claim - is the universal head of the universal Church
and the vicar of Christ and the only lord and bishop of the entire world, and above
all the other Patriarchs and all the other High Priests, and that he can never sin
and fall into any heresy, and that he is above the Synods - both ecumenical and
local - and all else that the providence of a tyrannical authority assigns to it -
which we shall elaborate on, further down; they also hasten to show that the Pope
is capable of everything, and that everything he legislates and teaches is true and
certain and not to be examined by anyone, and that it is imperative that all the
pious do obeisance to him and accept these things without examination, and also
base upon this weird and conceited authority of the Pope's all of their innovations
and novelties and deceive the simple-minded folk, drawing them away from the pious
dogmas of Christ's Church and dragging them wretchedly into the pit of perdition.
[Epilogue]
But, as we have said, that the all-innovating Latins not only overthrew and
corrupted the dogmas of the pious faith, but also the traditions and the order of
the Church, opposing themselves even to the Gospel teaching and the Apostolic
Canons and the sacred Synods, and - said quite simply - to the Fathers of the
Church and to the traditions of the Church that have been guarded from the
beginning by all of us pious; also, that they have wittingly sinned maliciously
against and opposed the truth (as they have made it abundantly evident to this
day), no-one who has a mind can doubt it.
Nevertheless, if the evil had remained in their words only, we would not have cared
in the least to judge them and condemn them, inasmuch as it would not have been of
any benefit to them, who, out of stubbornness and illogical passion had excised
themselves from the whole Church and had concocted so many innovations and
novelties in the dogmas and the traditions of the pious faith.
But, because we can also see that they hasten to impart their evil and the poison
of their cacodoxy like pernicious serpents to even the simplest of the Christians
of our generation - that is, to the Eastern Church of Christ - and with deceitful
means corrupt them and drag them wretchedly to the precipice and the pit of
perdition, it is for this reason that we sorrow, and in caring for our own
Christians, we have written and revealed in brief in this present (text) those
things that the Eastern Church of Christ believes and glorifies - as well as Her
healthy and upright dogmas - and have likewise revealed the innovations and the
deceits of the Latin cacodoxy, so that pious people might be supported in their
piety and not be fooled by the Latin prattlings.
Therefore do we paternally and spiritually advise all Christians who are under the
patriarchal throne of Antioch, both young and old, and of any and all ranks and
situations, to pay good attention and guard your paternally-delivered faith, and
remain steadfastly within the boundaries of the Eastern Church of Christ, which has
preserved and continues to preserve - unshakably and unadulterated - everything
that was delivered and taught to Her from on high and from the beginning by Jesus
Christ and the holy Apostles, holy Synods and holy Fathers, and all the traditions
of Christ's holy Church, both in writing and unwritten, and to stay far away from
the innovations and the novelties of the Latins who have left no Dogma and Mystery
and Tradition of the Church that they have not corrupted and adulterated; and,
having done thus, and persevering in your paternally-delivered piety, you shall
have multiple wages from God and eternal life and salvation of your soul, and from
all the Fathers of the Church and by us, spiritual wishes and blessings.
But, whosoever of you dares to violate the Dogmas of the Eastern Church of Christ
and stir any of them and accept any innovation and deceit and falsehood of the
Latin cacodoxy, let it be known with certainty by that person that he is sinning
mortally, both for departing from the boundaries of piety and also for becoming
accused of and responsible for eternal damnation, and shall be considered an
irreverent and a heretic by God, receiving the curses of Christ and the Apostles
and the Synods and all of the Saints of the Church, as a transgressor and a
despiser of their teaching and tradition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Identical to what is equal to the Patriarchal signatures and those of the other
hierarchs:
† Jeremiah, by the mercy of God archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and
Ecumenical Patriarch, do opine and confess that this is the glory and the
confession of the Holy Eastern Church of Christ regarding the problems reported
herein.
† Athanasius, by the mercy of God Patriarch of the great city of God, Antioch, do
co-opine and confess this to be the glory and the confession of the Holy Eastern
Church of Christ regarding the problems reported herein.
† Chrysanthus, by the mercy of God Patriarch of the city of Jerusalem and all
Palestine, do opine that this is the glory and the confession of the Holy Eastern
Church of Christ regarding the problems reported herein.
† I, Kallinikos, having been proposed and accepted as representative of Heracleia
and Redestos, hereby co-believe and co-speak with the most holy Patriarchs, and
thus confess and glorify, with heart and mouth, that which the holy, catholic and
apostolic church of Christ preaches.
† Auxentius of Kyzikos, in acceptance of the aforementioned, do hereby co-believe
and co-speak with the most holy Patriarchs, and thus confess and glorify, with
heart and mouth, that which the holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ
preaches.
† Paisios of Nicomedia, in acceptance of the aforementioned, do hereby co-believe
and co-speak with the most holy Patriarchs, and thus confess until my dying breath
† Gerasimus of Nicaea, regarding those things that are included herein, am entirely
of the same belief as the most holy Patriarchs.
† Parthenius of Chalcedon, in acceptance of the aforementioned, do hereby co-
believe and co-speak with the most holy Patriarchs, and thus confess and glorify,
with heart and mouth, that which the holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ
preaches.
† Gregorius of Ganou and Chora, in acceptance of the aforementioned, do hereby co-
believe and co-speak with the most holy Patriarchs, and thus confess and glorify,
with heart and mouth, that which the holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ
preaches.
† Anastasios of Sofia, in acceptance of the aforementioned, do hereby co-believe
and co-speak with the most holy Patriarchs, and thus confess and glorify, with
heart and mouth, that which the holy, catholic and apostolic church of Christ
preaches.
APPENDIX 2
Encyclical of the Constantinople Synod (1838) against the Latin innovations
(Excerpts)
________________

Gregory, by God's mercy archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical

Patriarch.
The poemantic concern and catering for the Orthodox everywhere is dependent
necessarily on Christ's one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, inasmuch as
remaining untiringly vigilant and diligently leading Christ's logical sheep to
pastures of salvation, in a grassy place and by waters of respite, which is the
unadulterated and unfalsified, upright and healthy teaching of our pious faith from
above, by the Apostles, by the speakers present, and by the seven Ecumenical
Councils, and also the intact and unadulterated status of the divine dogmas,
customs and teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the preservation and
safeguarding thereof, for whom the good shepherd is obliged to give even his life
in due course - according to the evangelical and God-spoken word[1] - and to be
watchful in every direction, in case grievous wolves come upon the fold from
outside, corruptive and destructive, in the guise of sheep, profusely devouring and
spiritually destroying those for whose sake Christ died, and whose blood the Lord
will demand from his (the shepherd's) hands on that terrible and impartial day,
should he be negligent in his spiritual obligations and not struggle with all his
might to both expel those soul-corrupting wolves far away from Christ's logical
fold, and to lead the fold along the straight path, and with works - along with
words - support the Orthodox peoples in general, in their paternally-delivered and
divinely-taught teaching of our sacred faith.
Being therefore also aware of these sacred obligations amongst ourselves, we,
strengthened by God's power, have not ceased to care, as much as we can, about the
salvific conducting of Christ's logical sheep towards the salvific pastures, and
have also issued a printed circular epistle, thus safeguarding well in advance the
Orthodox peoples - the genuine and true children of the Orthodox Church - from the
torrential, soul-destroying onslaught brought on by the Lutheran-Calvinists with
their rabid opposition to piety and their various scheming to uproot Orthodoxy,
and in every manner (we have been) struggling so that by divine power we may
support those who have an unfeigned piety and are sincerely and genuinely aligned
with the Saviour Christ; and those who have been deceived or bribed and howsoever
brought to their knees regarding the faith we shall lift up and invite back into
Christ’s fold and reinstate them. As for the manic and rabid wolves, we shall stave
them off and send them away to the abysses of Hades, while simultaneously restoring
the in-Christ peace to all the orthodox and Christ-named peoples.
But now, once again with an excessive sorrow of our soul upon hearing of the
intrigues in Syria, Egypt and Palestine, and the schemings against Orthodoxy by the
followers of the fallacy of Papism, and not tolerating to observe such a soul-
destroying onslaught being disseminated and extending among the Orthodox, but
desiring to halt the flow of this imposture and satanic fallacy so that it will not
– as it progresses with time - infest all of the Orthodox pleroma, we have not
remained idle, so that with personal epistles of ours we might communicate to their
beatitudes and most reverend Patriarchs, both of the great city of Alexandria,
Hierotheos, and of the God-city of Antioch, Methodios (these our in-Christ beloved
brethren and co-officiators) this intention of ours. In this intention we have
found them not only having a fervent zeal and wholeheartedly accepting thereof, but
have also received their written opinion and consent, which is also in compliance
with the resident Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Athanasios, our in Christ
the Lord beloved brother and co-offiator, and have acknowledged the duty…
[…]
…of raising the voice of the Church, and with this present patriarchal and
conciliar encyclical of ours – like another trumpet – call out to all the Orthodox
in the world and more so to those in Syria, Egypt and Palestine, and publicly decry
what sort these seemingly sheep-like wolves are: these insidious and deceiving
wolves, who have recently appeared from the mountain of Lebanon like other dark
lucifers and have also overshadowed like a black and onerous and suffocating cloud
all the parts of Syria, Egypt and Palestine, uttering blasphemous things against
the evangelical truth and sophistically teaching against our orthodox faith; and
thus (with the Circular) protect the truly pious from this luciferian fallacy of
theirs, and the genuine children of the Eastern Church from the blasphemies of the
Papacy.
For, the unquenchable rabidity of the Papacy - which contrives in every way to
deceive and proselytize – has cunningly left loose and in every manner free, all
those who have embraced Papism, making allowance for them to unvaryingly perform
all of the customs and mysteries of their former Church, and has considered these
two things alone as enough: that is, the commemoration of the Pope’s name, and the
acceptance of the Pope’s infallibility and sinlessness.
[…]
It is on this alone, that allowance has been made for the catolics, not to believe,
but only to recite the sacred Symbol, either properly, without the addition (of the
Filioque), or irreverently, with the addition thereof, so that they might be
accommodated for the proselytising of others and for the growth of Papism in
numbers.
[…]
Behold, to which Church’s leader the deluded catolics in Syria, Palestine and Egypt
have religiously shown tolerance to - having abandoned the paternally-delivered and
ancient things - (it is) to such a leader, from whom have originated a while back -
and are also originating in succession, beyond many other things - the
aforementioned ungodly resolutions which have proscribed and abolished many of the
sacred dogmas, canons and formulations, and which (resolutions) have unduly and
innovatively validated legislations filled with ungodly fallacy and deception.
The one who, albeit already seated upon the erstwhile sacred and august seat and
worshipped by the ‘Pope-venerating’ catolics as one (alas!) equal to God and
sinless, and who, cunningly content with only the commemoration of his name and the
acceptance of his supposed sinlessness, has attracted them to him by allowing the
recital of the sacred Symbol either with the addition (of the Filioque) or without
it, as mentioned; by abolishing the necessary fasts delivered by the holy Apostles
and their successors; as well as by absolving and forgiving every sin and crime
whatsoever, thus luring them wretchedly into the same abyss in which both he and
those Popes several years before him have sunken into.
[…]
As for those profane catolics - believing and dogmatizing extensively in whatsoever
the head of those dogmas does, to whom they are blindly subordinate like puppets,
they are not ashamed of saying that they are priests, and that they are similar to
- and like-minded in - everything that we Orthodox are, thus luring and deceiving
the simpler Orthodox with their fake external similarity alone, and recklessly
leading those poor wretches, into the abysses of their heresies and over the soul-
deteriorating precipices of their Papist fallacy.
But we, being Orthodox, do orthodoxically believe and possess intact all that our
Lord Jesus Christ had revealed and the Apostles had delivered and the Ecumenical,
holy seven Councils had validated.
[…]
Behold, we, in fulfilling our poemantic debts, are raising the voice of the Eastern
Orthodox Church – our common mother and nurturer – to you, Her spiritual children,
with the present Patriarchal and Conciliar Circular Epistle, and are exhorting and
counseling you all, to take care and not commune in the fruitless labours of the
darkness of this age, so that you may stand firmly upon the unshakeable rock of the
orthodox faith, per the vow that you gave at the time of your rebirth with the bath
of divine Baptism before almighty God and His attending, immaterial officiators and
divine angels, as well as before people – which (vow) the Lord will be demanding
from you in His Second and fearsome Coming: that you will preserve unadulterated
the dogmas and the mysteries of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church in
which you were born and baptized and increased to the measure of the fullness of
the age of Christ – for fear that, instead of the true Head of the Church, our Lord
Jesus Christ, Saviour and Redeemer, you have been confessing as head of the Church
an earth-born man – the Pope – appearing subtly as deniers of Christ, so that, by
thinking you have found an easy faith, you do not fall into the abysses of
irreverence; for, whosoever deviates from the faith in Christ sinks totally in a
shipwreck of infidelity and heresies.
[…]
Keep, therefore, our beloved children - in integrity, in a directness of opinion,
in an unshapeable heart, in a clear conscience of the soul – your orthodox faith
intact, unforged, inviolable, immovable, incorruptible, unfeigned - and as our Lord
Jesus Christ had revealed to you and the divine Apostles had delivered to you and
the divinely-inspired, seven Ecumenical Councils had validated, without any
addition, without any removal, without any aberration or alteration, so that you
may ensure your in-Christ our Lord salvation.
In addressing those who in whichever way had slipped and had recklessly fallen into
God-abhorred Catolicism, and were deceived by the rabble-rousing, insidious ones,
we advise them to return to their paternally-delivered piety and Orthodoxy, with
remorse for the spiritual danger that they incurred upon themselves by having
distanced themselves from God and the spotless and guileless faith of Jesus Christ,
and, after having mourned for their forsaking of Orthodoxy, once again align
themselves with the Eastern Church with an irreversible mind and an unreturning
heart, so that they might find mercy on the day of judgment by the awesome Judge,
our Lord.
In the Year of our Saviour 1838, during the month of September.
Signed by:
† Gregory of Constantinople, having also the opinions of the blessed Patriarchs,
both of Alexandria Hierotheos and of Antioch Methodios, in Christ the Lord God,
opines.
† Athanasius of Jerusalem in Christ the Lord God co-opines.
† Dionysios of Heracleia.
† Hierotheos of Chalcedon.
† Germanos of Derkoi.
† Meletios of Thessaloniki.
† Athanasiosof Serrai.
† Ioannikios of Ioannina.
† Niceforos of Angyra.
† Daniel of Philadelphia.
† Artemios of Kustendil.
† Hieronymos of Limnos.
† Gabriel of Skopje

[1] John 10:11

APPENDIX 3
Message by the Primates of the Holy Orthodox Churches (Excerpts)
________________

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
1. Having convened in the Holy Spirit in a conference, on this day, the 15th of
March 1992, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, upon the initiative and the invitation of the
Primate among us, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew - following a desire that
was expressed also by other brethren Primates - in Fanarion and under his
chairmanship, we, by the mercy of God Primates of the local, most holy
Patriarchates and Autocephalous and Autonomous Orthodox Churches, as follows:
† Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew,
† Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa Parthenios,
† Patriarch of Antioch and All the East Ignatius,
† Patriarch of the Holy City Jerusalem and All Palestine Diodorus,
† Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexios,
† Patriarch of Belgrade and all Serbia Paul,
† Patriarch of Bucharest and All Rumania Theoktistos,
† Patriarch of Sofia and All Bulgaria Maximus,
† Archbishop of Metchet and Tiflis, General Patriarch of All Georgia Elias
(represented by the Ecumenical Triarch),
† Archbishop of New Justiniana and of Cyprus Chrysostom (represented by His
Beatitude the Patriarch of Alexandria),
† Archbishop of Athens and All Greece Seraphim,
† Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland Basil,
† Metropolitan of Prague and All Czechoslovakia Dorotheos, and
† Archbishop of Karelia and All Finland John,
having deliberated with fraternal love on matters preoccupying our One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church and having co-officiated in the Divine
Eucharist on this Sunday -which for centuries is dedicated to Orthodoxy- in the
Patriarchal Temple of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, do proclaim the following:
After offering from deep inside a glorification to the Triune God, Who made us
worthy of seeing each other face to face and of exchanging the greeting of love and
peace in order to commonly partake of the Chalice of Life and to also savour the
divine gift of pan-orthodox unity; and conscious of the responsibility that the
Lord's Providence placed upon our shoulders as shepherds of the Church and
spiritual leaders, we - in humility and love - extend to every good-willed person,
and moreso to our brothers and co-bishops, as well as to the entire pious pleroma
of the Orthodox Church, a blessing from God, a greeting of peace and a word of
entreaty(Hebr.13:22):
"Rejoice, our brethren, in the Lord always!" (Philip.3:1)
"Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might" (Ephes.6:10).
[…]
4. It was in this spirit of concern for the unity also of all those who believe in
Christ that we have participated in the Ecumenical Movement in our days. This
participation was based on the conviction that we Orthodox are obliged to
contribute as best we can towards the restitution of unity, providing witness of
the one, indivisible Church of the Apostles, the Fathers and the Ecumenical Synods.
We had furthermore the expectation -during the time of immense difficulties- that
the Orthodox Church would have had the right to count on a solidarity on the part
of all those who believe in Christ – a solidarity which was, after all,
continuously being proclaimed as the chief ideal of this Movement. With much
sorrow and an overwhelmed heart we have discovered that certain circles within the
bosom of the Roman-Catholic Church have proceeded with acts that are entirely
contrary to the spirit of the dialogue of love and of the truth.
We have always had clear communication with everyone in the ecumenical meetings and
in the bilateral theological dialogues, and we were expecting - after the collapse
of the atheist, communist regimes under which many Orthodox Churches had been so
severely persecuted and afflicted - a brotherly solidarity, or at least a show of
understanding, as regards the difficult (and mostly tragic, by way of financial and
poemantic prerequisites) situation of the said Orthodox Churches, after 50, even
70, years of relentless persecutions.
Instead, the traditionally Orthodox countries had been regarded as "missionary
sites" and thus, missionary networks are being created therein, and proselytism is
being practiced with all the decades-long, pan-Christianically condemned methods,
to the detriment of the desired course towards Christian unity. We especially
point out and condemn the activities imposed - to the detriment of our Churches -
by the Uniates belonging to the Church of Rome, in Ukraine, Rumania, Eastern
Slovakia, the Middle East and elsewhere.
It was Unia that had created situations entirely unconciliatory towards the spirit
of the dialogue of love and truth, which had been initiated and promoted by the
ever-memorable leaders of Christianity, Pope John XXIII and Ecumenical Patriarch
Athenagoras I and had caused a very grave and incurable injury to it (the
dialogue). The same applies also to certain Fundamentalists and Protestants who are
eager to "preach" in Orthodox lands which had been under Communist regimes. We
consider it unacceptable that these lands have been perceived as "missionary
sites", given that the Gospel had been preached there many centuries ago, while the
faithful in those lands had often sacrificed even their very lives for their faith
in Christ.
With reference to this matter, we would like to remind that by us Orthodox, every
form of proselytism is absolutely condemned, inasmuch as it must be clearly
discerned from evangelism and missionary work. Proselytism that is addressed to
peoples already Christian and in many cases in fact Orthodox - sometimes through
material enticements and sometimes through various kinds of force - poisons
relations between Christians and is detrimental to the course towards their unity.
Missionary work on the other hand - when practiced in non-Christian lands and
peoples - comprises a sacred duty of the Church, worthy of every contribution. An
Orthodox missionary labor such as this is being carried out today in Asia and
Africa, and is worthy of every inter-Orthodox and inter-Christian support.
5. Moving in the spirit of reconciliation, the Orthodox Church has been actively
participating for many decades in the attempt to restore Christian unity, which is
also a clear-cut and inviolable instruction of the Lord (John 17:21). The
participation of the Orthodox Church in whole in the World Council of Churches
aspires chiefly and par excellence to this, which is why She does not approve of
any tendency that perchance downgrades this primary goal for the sake of other
interests and expediencies.
It is for this same reason that the Orthodox stringently disapprove of certain
recent developments within the framework of ecumenism, such as the ordination of
women to priesthood and the use of abridged language in reference to God, which
create serious obstacles in the restitution of unity.
In that same spirit of reconciliation, it is our wish that -upon the withdrawal of
the still existing obstacles- the marked progress in some of the dialogues, as is
the one with the Eastern Orthodox Churches (the non-Chalcedonian), will lead to a
positive result.
[…]
8. Having proclaimed the aforementioned in the love of the Lord on this holy and
great Sunday of Orthodoxy, we call upon all the pious orthodox faithful worldwide
to unite around their canonical shepherds; and for those who believe in Christ, to
reconciliation and solidarity in the face of the dangers that also threaten the
world today.
May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the
communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all (2 Cor.13:13). Amen.
In Fanarion, in the Patriarchates, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the 15th of March
1992.
THE PRIMATES OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHES
APPENDIX 4
Resolution by the Department of Theology of theAthens University School of Theology

________________

The Department of Theology of the School of Theology of the Athens University is

closely following with special concern the scheduled attempts by the Vatican to
reactivate the historical remnants of Unia in the Ukraine, in Moldavia, in
Yugoslavia, in Albania and in Czechoslovakia, to the detriment of the impoverished
Orthodox peoples, in order to impose the domination of the Papacy in Eastern
Europe. The Vatican is taking advantage - as it aught not - of the current
confusion in the western European states in the face of the rapid developments
among the peoples of Eastern Europe, in order to impose oppressive conditions
detrimental to the Orthodox.
The indescribable treachery and violence against the Orthodox in these regions have
brought back memories to the Orthodox Church, of the tragic experiences of the
Papist Crusades' colonialist syndrome in the historical past.
They are force-feeding peoples with an unchecked and inexhaustible explosion of
fanaticism and intolerance, when what they need -now, more than ever before- is
peace and a union of hearts, albeit the Vatican leadership should be aware that
religious intolerance will certainly not end, after just the first round of Uniate
violence.
They (Uniates) merely confirm the familiar hypocritical stance of the Vatican
opposite the Orthodox Church in general, inasmuch as the Papal throne may display
its disapproval -within the Dialogue- of Unia as a path towards Unity,
nevertheless, it continues to govern the Uniates' violent activities in every
specific region.
They scatter the fruits of any positive initiatives taken by the Dialogue of Love
and the official Theological Dialogue between the two churches.
They destroy with their short-sighted and unrealistic ecclesiastic policy the path
for a future continuation of the sincere and unfeigned, common course towards the
Unity, for which so many pains have been taken nowadays by both sides, and finally,
they reveal more clearly the Vatican's extremely profound confusion between the
medieval identity and the contemporary, ecclesiastically utopian and
ecclesiologically unacceptable quests of the papal throne.
The Department of Theology of the School of Theology of the Athens University, in
today's (20.1.1992) convention, unanimously:
· Denounces this policy of the Vatican upon the impoverished Orthodox
peoples;
· Condemns with aversion the use of political influence and blind violence in
the obstruction of even the divine Worship of the Orthodox in the specific regions;
· Deprecates the mobilization of insidious diplomatic means where instead
there should be operating only the primacy of Christian love, and, finally,
· It more specifically points out the unacceptable attempt by the Vatican to
attach itself - through ecclesiastic Hierarchy and with illegitimate means - to the
circumstantially seceded and alienated Orthodox Church of the region of Skopje, by
promoting a post-war, novel and fabricated nationality and language in order to
cast doubt on the 3000-year long, undoubted Hellenicity of Macedonia.
The Vatican is sowing winds, and will be reaping hurricanes.

For the Department of Theology

The Chairman Christos Sp. Voulgaris