UNIA: The Face and the

Disguise


By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos
Professor Emeritus of the Athens University School of
Theology

Published by "Apostoliki Diakonia" (Apostolic Ministry)
An organization of the Church of Greece


1. God: the Lord of History

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

This was precisely the predominant feeling in the sphere of inter-Christian
relations also. A groundless and therefore unjustified euphoria had already
come to prevail among a group of pacifist pro-unionists, who seemed to
believe that with the Theological Dialogue we have finally arrived at a new
era of true union and genuine inter-Christian Love. Especially in our relations
with the Roman Catholic Church, such a clime of optimism had prevailed
expressed with suitable terminology (for example, sister or Latin Church,
and the Pope as elder brother), that false impressions were implanted in
many, while those aware of the reality have in vain been recommending self-
restraint and have been accused as remnants of the medieval age and
enemies of love and peace.

However, it is God Who is the Lord of History! The God of our Fathers. He is
the God, not only of Love, nor even of loveless Love mongers; He is also the
God of Truth - the God Who for the sake of our repentance and salvation
reveals the deliberations of our hearts (Luke 2:35) and sheds light on the
tragic state we drag around our existence. The developments in Eastern
Europe that followed the Perestroika also revealed the Vaticans 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 Vaticans interests.

The Vaticans 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 Vaticans 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 Vaticans activity), that we shall
attempt to elucidate further down. We will not focus as much on the itemizing
of events or the analysis thereof; instead, we shall venture a diagnosis from
within the events themselves not only in their contemporaneousness, but
also in their presence over Time. Of course it is necessary to stress that
during the period 1920-1940 Unia had preoccupied both public opinion and
Justice in Greece. The reader can refer to the relevant bibliography, at the
end of this book. However, the present-day resurgence of Unia, front-stage,
which happens to coincide with the timing of our Theological Dialogue with the
Roman Catholic Church, opens up a very interesting prospect, whereby that
very Dialogue as well as its expedience can be duly re-evaluated.

2. Unia

When we say Unia we mean a religious-political formation that was
fabricated by Papacy for the Westernizing of the non-Latin East; its spiritual-
political subjugation to the authority of the Pope. In other words, it is directly
related to Papacys expansionist policy; it is the most consistent expression of
European feudalism which continues to our day, through the State of the
Vatican. Of course one needs to make a certain distinction between the
various phases that the question of Unia presents historically. Because,
precedent to the specific historical method was the idea and the plan involving
the subjugation of the East and indeed of the Orthodox to the Pope; a
permanent tendency of the Latin Church following its differentiation and its
secession from the Orthodox East. Wherever Latinization proves difficult to
impose directly, Papacy implements the method of Unia, proving this to be a
shrewd fabrication inasmuch as subjugation can be achieved, on the pretext
of continuance and freedom.

This expansionist move by the Papal throne known as UNIA owes its name to
the Latin word UNIO (=union), however it was only in 1596 in Poland that it
officially obtained the name of UNIA (UNIJA in Slavic). The term was used at
the time, not only to denote the move for unification with the Pope, but also
the specific corpus (community) of the Orthodox who had synodically decided
on their accession to Papacy: not a full accession, but only in their recognition
of the Pope as their spiritual head, otherwise preserving their worship rites
and remaining customs so that externally they would give the impression of
continuing and remaining in their national cadre.

The Uniates retention of the eastern or Byzantine rite explains the
various titles such as Byzantine-rite, Hellenic-rite, Hellenic-Catholic e.a.,
with which they are usually characterized (in Greece). But the name that best
corresponds to the facts is Catholics of the East, given that Uniates are in
essence Papists, who have accepted the Papist teaching overall (and in fact,
the very dogmas that radically differentiate Papacy from Orthodoxy) and who
only externally and superficially - with the attire of their clergymen and their
eastern customs (rites) give the false impression that they have remained
Orthodox. This is also why they have correctly been named United Roman
Catholics and Unionates (in Latin: UNITI/Uniates).

3. The historical framework

The idea of developing an expansionist policy in the Orthodox East by the
Papal Throne of Rome must be linked to the Frankish subjugation of the
Orthodox (Roman) West and its permanent imposition on the peoples that
remained faithful to the Empire of New Rome-Constantinople and its Orthodox
Patriarchates (of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). After
the breaking away of the Patriarchate of the West (Old Rome) from the
Patriarchates of the East on account of its conquest by the Frankish powers,
the latter have striven to maintain the antithesis between the two and to use
the Papal Throne against the Empire of New Rome (Romania).

However, from the 7
th
to the 11
th
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 (7
th
century) and the Ottomans (14
th
century onwards). Conquest in
the West was facilitated by the gradual substitution of Roman bishops with
Franks. Thus, while in the East the Bishops had undertaken the role of
ethnarch in the territories being conquered, protecting the people and
preserving their identity and their unity, in the West, bishops became the
instruments of the conquerors and an integral part of the Frankish feudal
system and hated by the people, as proved during later centuries (1789) by
the French Revolution, which began not only as an anti-feudal revolution but
also as an anti-Papist one.

Nowadays, Western historiography is being subjected to the Franks catalytic
influence, just as differentiated Western Christianity was. As of the 7
th
century
the seeds of schism appeared among the Goths (Germans), who were initially
Arian and eventually became Orthodox, but only in name. Among the
Visigoths of Spain, the insertion of the Filioque in the Sacred Creed was
effected. It was also the Visigoths of Spain who were the first to replace the
Roman Bishops with Goths, and it was there that in 654 the Roman
(Byzantine) Empire was abolished. This example was to be followed a
century later by the Franks, until they succeeded in taking over the very
throne of Rome (between 1009 and 1046).

The subjugated Romans (Byzantines) resisted with continuous revolutions,
in order to salvage their connection to Constantinople. They even joined
forces with the Arabs against the Franks and Visigoths, choosing the lesser of
the two perils. However, the alliance between Romans (Byzantines) and
Arabs was quashed by Charles Martel, grandfather of Charlemagne, at
Poitiers (732) and in Province (739). But the tales that our (Greek) school
History lessons teach have remained in place; that is, that Europe was saved
from the Arabs during these wars. What actually happened was that the
Franks had subjugated the Romans of Constantinople-New Rome. The
Franks had prevailed, and had thereafter spread throughout Western
Romania.

The irremovable objective of the Franks eventually became the splitting of the
unity between the Romans of the East and the West. To achieve this, they
used the Church and Her theology. Through their feudal system (which was
based on racism), their scholastic theology (which discredited Patristic
theology) and most of all through the Papal Throne, they succeeded in
thoroughly subjugating the conquered Romans of the West. By condemning
the 7
th
Ecumenical Council (Frankfurt, 794) and dogmatizing the Filioque
(that the Holy Spirit not only proceeds from the Father according to John
15:26, but ALSO FROM THE SON), in 809 in Aachen they managed to
condemn the eastern Romans as heretics. Thereafter, they ceased to refer to
the Orthodox East as Romania and its citizens as Romans, because these
terms now signified the Orthodox and their Country. For this reason, they
coined the name Graecia and Graeci (Greeks) for its citizens - terms that
were linked to the notion of heretic.

It was within these developments and chiefly through scholastic theology
that the differentiation of the Christian West was accomplished; in other
words, the removal of ecclesiastic spirituality as well as the prerequisites of
ecclesiastic theology (catharsis-enlightenment-theosis). The altering of the
monastic lifestyle also led to this alienation. Monasteries were turned into
military battalions, siding either with the Pope or the Emperor.

The theory regarding the Pope, as developed in the 11
th
century (Gregory VII:
the Pope: absolute leader of the universal Church, master of the world) is
what founded European totalitarianism, simultaneously altering the very
Church Herself in the West. Now alienated from the Tradition of the Prophets,
Apostles and Fathers, the Papal Throne embarked on an unrelenting struggle
to claim temporal power (from the end of the 11
th
to the end of the 14
th

centuries), to be finally transformed into a secular powerState (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 others role.



4. The genesis of the Holy Inquisition

The ever-increasing power of the Pope and the peaking of the theocratic,
Papal-Caesarian system (9
th
12
th
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 (9
th
century), but its actual operation was
left in the hands of the Church. Those opposed to Papal-Frankish authority
were slaughtered without any hesitation, as enemies of the State. Of course
it has not been fully clarified if the Church had participated in these crimes
from the very beginning; however, as far as their continuation is concerned,
there is no need to ask such a question. The involvement of the Latin
Church in the execution of sentences must have started very early, because
with the conquest of the episcopal throne of Old Rome by the Franks (11
th

century), the Frankish Popes and Bishops all of them military men (as were
the Priors of the Monasteries as a rule) and all of them members of the
Frankish feudal hierarchy had aligned their missions with the defending of
the interests of the Frankish State.
The Papist inquisitional bureau was named Sanctum Officium. In this way,
the Holy Inquisition came into the hands of Papacy and in charge of it were
placed bishops or special Delegates; soon after, special Inquisitors were
appointed (either Franciscan or Dominican monks). It has furthermore been
ascertained that the Holy Inquisition was the forerunner of the terrorism in the
French (1789) and the Bolshevik (1917) Revolutions, as well as the Crimes of
Fascism and Nazism.
The Conciliar, that is to say, the ecclesiastic, recognition of the Holy
Inquisition its solidification into an institution came about gradually, during
the time of Innocent III (1198-1216), in the years 1205, 1206, 1212 and mainly
during the 4
th
Lateran Synod (1215), and was finalized in 1233 during the time
of Pope Gregory IX. It was during the time of Pope Innocent IV (1243-1254)
that the implementation of torture became an institution (recognized
ecclesiastically). The operations of the Holy Inquisition spread to Italy-
Southern France-Spain (where the Romaic element was more robust) and
somewhat less in England and Germany. Jews, Muslims, heretics (i.e.
Christian-Romans) and later Protestants were systematically persecuted. The
return to Papacy of all these peoples was likewise handled by the Holy
Inquisition.

5. The genesis of Unia

The view that the genesis of the idea of Unia took place in the 13
th
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 16
th
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 4
th
Crusade had, pursuant to the Sack of Constantinople (1204), alraedy
promoted the idea of Unia and had in fact proceeded to put it into practice.
According to the ever-memorable historian, Archmandrite Basil Stefanides,
the concept of "Unia" is observed for the first time in the 4
th
Lateran Synod
(1215). Pope Innocent III a dynamic, but also secularly oriented figure was
the spiritual father of Unia but also of the Holy Inquisition, since he had
endowed both with an ecclesiastic recognition. It was only a few years
before, (1204) that Constantinople had been sacked and destroyed by the
hordes of Frankish crusaders, with the blessings and the support of that same
Pope. Whatever the power of weapons and forced Latinization had not
achieved, the method of Unia had undertaken to achieve, acting as a
mechanism of deception and a Trojan Horse among the Christians of the
East.
The text of the relative canon is as follows: If in a certain territory there live
various nations with various languages and ecclesiastic rites, the bishop
should elect worthy men, who will perform the divine service for each single
nationality, in its own language and rite. According to the ever-memorable
professor John Karmiris, it was along the same spirit that the Bull of Pope
Innocent IV (1243-1254) was drafted in 1254, which again accepted the
Easterners customs (with the prospect of gradually abolishing them), followed
by the complete Latinization of the people thereafter.
The first true Uniates were the unionists of Byzantium, who had signed and
accepted the pseudo-synod of Florence (1439), under the illusion that they
had retained their continuance and their orthodox tradition. It should be noted
here that Unia does not only serve the interests of Papacy (inasmuch as it
facilitates its infiltration); it also provides an alibi to our own, westernizing
unionists, so that they can avoid being branded as traitors of local traditions.
Under the pretext of having preserved external forms, they are actually
masking the betrayal of their traditions and nationality.
During its historical implementation Unia linked itself to a dogmatic
minimalism; that is, to Romes demand that they accept the Papist dogmas
(primacy and infallibility). This meant an acceptance of the Papal institution,
which constitutes the absolute basis of the Papist edifice. That alone is
evidence enough of how far away Papacy is from being called a Church. Of
course, as already mentioned, Uniates have in the long run consented to all
the dogmas of the Latin Church, and have remained only formally-externally
linked to Orthodox tradition. To Papacy, salvation essentially involves the
recognition of the Pope yet another example of his anti-ecclesiastic mien. In
fact, the expedience that permeates the case of the Uniates is made apparent
by the fact that while the Latin clergy observes compulsory celibacy, the
Uniate clergymen are permitted to marry obviously in order to facilitate
Uniatizing. To conclude, therefore:
The Holy Inquisition is linked to the principle of an unerring leadership (the
Popes 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
Augustines 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 16
th
century, because that was when an event of
tremendous significance took place: the genesis of Protestantism
(1517). Papacy now turned to the East seeking support, in the hope of
balancing out its contestation in the West.

6. Unia and the Christian East

Unia is not, nor can it be perceived as, an intermediary body between
Orthodoxy and Papacy. It is a veritable part of Papacy, comprised only of
geographically Eastern Christians who are fully incorporated in the Latin
Church. The term the West of the East has quite aptly been used in their
case, as it had for Protestantism. The only thing they have in common with
Orthodoxy is their rite, although it is so alien a clime to them that one can tell
from the performing of the Eucharist just how foreign Orthodox liturgical
practice is. Uniates, not being a genuine item, simply mimic the
Orthodox. Unia continues to be according to the Patriarchal Encyclical of
1838 a secret method and an infernal instrument, by which they seduce the
gullible and the easily deceivable towards Papacy. Unia identifies with
Papacy. In fact, Uniates support the Papist institution with a fanaticism far
greater than that of the Roman Catholics. Among the latter, there are some
who manage to disengage themselves from the papist mysticism that is
artfully cultivated, especially among the lower, popular classes, and who
exercise a degree of criticism of the Pope (for example in Latin America). But
Uniates hinge their very existence on the Papist institution, which is why they
become the staunchest supporters of the Pope. That is also why, although
Rome gladly accepted or even assisted - the assimilation of Uniates in older
times, nowadays it discourages their assimilation and instead prefers to
maintain them as they are. This is because it uses their loyalty in order to
restore the Popes 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 19
th
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 States political designs (up until 1929) and thereafter of the
Vaticans (as a geographically truncated Papist state), but also of the Roman
Catholic Leaders and Governments dependent on Rome or collaborating with
it. That is why Uniates do not get themselves directly involved in political
intrigues, as their existence alone facilitates the expansionist political plans of
Papacy and its allies. Thus, the term battering ram with reference to Unia is
not at all far from the truth.
From the very first moment of implementation of the idea of Unia and the
formation of Uniate communities, the supervision and the steering of this
movement was assigned to the Order of Jesuits the most reliably dedicated
servants of Papal authority; if the expression may be permitted, they were
Papacys 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. Unias dependence on the Jesuit Order rendered it Jesuitism's dragnet
for the promotion of Romes 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 Unias 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
16
th
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 Popes 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 17
th

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 17
th
century took on the character of a
purely religious confrontation, given that the objective of Papacy-Uniatism was
to strike the protector of the Orthodox the Tsar and to impede the
expansion of Protestantism.
However, Papacy also infiltrated the Middle East through Unia, by taking
advantage of the local squabbles arising between ecclesiastic groups from
time to time, or the ignorance of the local Clergy, or the adventures of the
population and the voids that were created. Protection was also provided
through Unia to the potentates of Europe, along with comprehensive
poemantic, educational and financial organization. In fact, in countries with
which the Vatican has contracted diplomatic relations or concordats over the
last decades, Unias 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 malk = 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, Unias 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 Stalins 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 XIs 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 Vaticans 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
Popes commands, who has ready Uniate solutions for these regions - and
indeed for the case of pseudo-Macedonia - by acting in an underhanded and
treacherous manner against Hellenism, by undermining its rights. It has in
fact become known that the Pope is working towards Uniatizing the
Hierarchy of Skopje, having even given his promise to upgrade the Church
of Skopje to the status of Patriarchate. This scheduled upgrading of the
Church of Skopje will be an immediate challenge and an attack on the
Churches of Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia; Skopje will surely hasten to take
advantage of this upgrading in order to achieve its political goals to the
detriment mainly of our Homeland, which they seek to shrink in size. The
unionists of Byzantium and all the present-day concordant minds are once
again disproved. The Vatican does not desire to become a true friend of
Greece and Orthodoxy! That is what the facts show.

7. Unia in Greece

When speaking of Greece, we imply the Hellenic State (from 1830 onwards),
because even as early as the ages of slavery (Turkish occupation, Venetian
occupation), the Uniates had already developed a significant deal of activity
within the historical Hellenic region, moving within the boundaries of both the
Ottoman Empire as well as the Venetian-occupied territories. As underlined
above, the graduates of the College of Saint Athanasius had developed an
intense Uniate (unifying) movement among the peoples with the same
nationality and language as them. The Jesuits, who were supporters of this
Uniate move, also appeared in Constantinople from 1583, and with the means
they had at their disposal (money, publications, political backing), they
became the evil demon of the Romaic Ethnarchy, which bore the
responsibility for the entire Romaic populace the Romans (Orthodox) of
the Balkans and Asia Minor.
The actions taken from time to time by the Ecclesiastic Leaders, and indeed
by Patriarchs, against the operations of Unia, are the direct confirmation of the
deteriorative presence of Unia in the East. These precise operations of
Papacy in the East through Unia were the reason for the convening of the
Pan-Orthodox Synod of 1722 in Constantinople, in which the Patriarchs
Jeremiah III of Constantinople, Athanasius III of Antioch and Chrysanthus of
Jerusalem had participated. In a related encyclical addressed to the Orthodox
faithful, the Synod condemned Unia and pointed out the dangers that its
activities in the East contained. An analogous action was taken by the
Ecumenical Patriarch, Gregory VI in 1838, thus revealing the continuing
Uniate menace. The Patriarchal Encyclical referred to them as wolves in the
guise of sheep, insidious and impostors, castigating their dark operations in
Syria, Egypt and Palestine mainly. After the Crimean war, Uniate activity
began in Bulgaria an eparchy of the Romaic Ethnarchy an action which, in
conjunction with other factors (pan-Slavism), led to the Bulgarian schism of
1870 and the Bulgarian Exarchate (1872). But even in 1887, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate again castigated the illegal Uniate activities, in one of its
Encyclicals. As of 1897, the action of the French Assumptionist* monks
began in the East; these were the envoys of Pope Leo XIII. Their leaders
were the renowned scientists L. Petit and J. Pargoire, who had tainted their
reputations with their propagandist role. The Assumptionists had undertaken
to support the Uniates of Bulgaria and were also propagandizing Unia in
Constantinople and Thrace. Furthermore, on the instruction of Pope Benedict
XIII, Latin clergymen had officiated wearing Orthodox vestments in the Papist
schools of Constantinople, naturally for propagandist reasons. Thus, the
Ecumenical Patriarch Joachim III was compelled to issue a new (24.3.1907)
Encyclical against Uniates and Papist propaganda.
With the guidance and the support of the Assumptionists, who purposely
circulated wearing Orthodox vestments, the first Greek Uniates appeared in
1907, organized into a specific community. A student of the propagandist
Hyacinthus Marangos a Dominican monk - was the clergyman Isaiah
Papadopoulos, who operated as a proselytizer in Constantinople and was
later ordained bishop of Gratianoupolis. Already by 1877 he had become a
Papist. Assistant to Isaiah Papadopoulos was George Halavatzis, born on
Syros Island to Papist parents. He studied at the Uniate college of Rome and
in 1907 was ordained deacon and presbyter by a Papist bishop. He was
however sent to Constantinople, where he commenced Uniate action which
was so greatly appreciated by Pope Benedict, that in 1920 he was promoted
to a titulary bishop of Theodoroupolis. His operation, like his other
accomplices, was especially focused on Greek youth, through
education. Hundreds of Greek youngsters were nurtured with the poison of
Papist Unia. They had even founded a womens 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 Unias 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
Synods charges were accompanied by its objection to the States
indifference, and its request to close all other Uniate institutions because they
were facilitating Latin propaganda in our Homeland. The anti-Hellenic stance
of Rome and the Pope during the disaster of Asia Minor, as well as during the
previous World War I was very familiar.
On April 7th 1925, an Encyclical was issued by the Archbishop of Athens
Chrysostom against the Uniates, which provoked the intense reaction of
George Halavatzis. Correspondence between the two men ensued (1926
onwards), in which Chrysostom of Athens University professor and Historian
analyzed in a powerful and outspoken manner the Uniate problem in
Greece and the danger both spiritual and political to the Greek people.
Unfortunately however, he left untouched the problem of the essence of
Papacy; that is, its ecclesiastic status quo.
The Uniate problem had also reached the Greek House of Parliament (1929),
but no solution was given. The continuous remonstrations of the Hellenic
Clergy resulted in two Court decisions. They were the orders of the Athens
Court of Appeals (1930) and of the Athens Supreme Court of Appeals (1931),
which imposed on the Uniates the prohibition to wear the external attire of the
Orthodox clergy of the Land, in order to prevent the confusion with the
Orthodox clergy that was deliberately created by the Uniates. But the Uniates
never respected those decisions consistently. On the contrary, Uniatism
spread among the Hellenes as well as the remaining Orthodox abroad
(Europe, America), exerting its influence on endo-Hellenic reality - in favour of
Papacy and its plans - even from within the Diaspora.

8. What is the real danger?

When observing the relatively small number of Uniates in Greece (a total of a
mere few thousand), one is given the impression that the Nation is not exactly
in any serious danger by Unia, which is the very same argument used by the
Greek Uniates themselves and their supporters. However, events in countries
of Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Rumania) have proven how
immense a threat the presence alone of Unia is, and to what extents it can go.
Events have proven that in our Country also, the danger from Unia is
inversely proportional to the number of its members.
In researching Unias activity in the Orthodox East over time, we feel
compelled to justify the Patriarchal Synod which in 1838 referred to the
Uniates as onerous wolves, corruptive, pernicious, in the form of sheep,
devouring unsparingly and destroying those for whom Christ had died. It is a
fact that unfortunately many unpleasant things have been committed, both
visibly and secretly by the Uniate element both to the detriment of Hellenism
(also), but in general to Orthodoxy on account of their blind obedience to
and their collaboration with Papacy. Whereas with the illusory peace in the
relations between Papacy and Orthodoxy during recent years many have
come to believe that all the aforementioned events were simply an
unfortunate past, the new Uniate crimes in Eastern Europe - as well as the
anti-Hellenic stance of the Vatican in the so-called Macedonian issue have
proven that NOTHING has changed in Papacys intentions towards the
Orthodox East and Hellenism. The Vaticans 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 Greeces
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 Vaticans
involvement in favour of the Papist forces (e.g. Croatia), are they willing, in
case that God forbid the war is extended further, to fight at the side of
Greece against the Papist forces?
(b) An equally great danger lies in the permanent corruption that the Orthodox
flock is exposed to, with the presence of Unia, because a specific model of
union is being permanently projected, which in fact facilitates this movement
immensely, and that model is Unia. The Vatican has every reason for Unia to
continue to exist, both because it is able to use it for its political-economic
objectives as it is doing in the Countries of Eastern Europe but mainly
because there is a clearly visible model of union between Orthodox and
Papacy, which creates the impression that the union is taking place without
the abandonment of Orthodoxy. This was proclaimed as early as the 1970s
by Pope Paul VI, when projecting the model of the Ukraine and pronouncing
as Cardinal its Uniate archbishop, Josyf Slipyj. At any rate, it has already
been made clear how the Vatican envisages the union: The Vatican does not
desire union in the truth of the Prophetic-Apostolic-Patristic tradition, but a
mutual recognition. By acting as a State, it has lost every trace of sensitivity
in matters of the Faith, in spite of the promulgations to the contrary by its
theologians.
(c) There is yet another aspect the most important which however
becomes obvious, only wherever the Orthodox conscience is healthy and
robust. It is the spiritual-soteriological aspect. Unia exists, for the purpose of
leading to the direct or indirect recognition and acceptance of Papacy the
most serious estrangement from Christianity of all time (Protestantism had
emanated later from Papacy, as did all other socio-political developments in
the West). When the ever-memorable fr. Justin Popovic linked the historical
Fall of the Pope (Papacy) to the Falls of Adam and of Judas, that was
precisely the truth that he intended to stress: the complete de-Christianization
by Papacy as an awarding of absolutism and totalitarianism. It must
furthermore be noted that the awarding of totalitarianism by Papacy is
diametrically different to related phenomena, which are observed from time to
time in Orthodox environments. These perversions, which are incarnated
through the Papist dogmas, will for us Orthodox forever remain blatant
deviations from the salvatory Truth and as such are rejected and condemned
as Falls and sins. In Papacy however, they have been rendered dogmas of
faith; ones that are necessary for salvation (can a Latin Church exist without a
Pope?). In the long run, this means that the incarnation of God the Logos took
place in order for Papacy to be instated in the world, and totalitarianism (with
all its consequences) be sanctified. Could there be a bigger blasphemy than
this?
The recognition of Papacy constitutes an abandonment of the in-Christ Truth,
a denial of the in-Holy Spirit living (spirituality) and a reversal of Christianity
into a secular ideology that is being drowned in everything endocosmic and in
the thirst for power. Christianity however as preserved in the persons of our
Saints comprises Mans 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 Mans course towards theosis simultaneously transforms Mans
environment and it creates the potential to realize selfless love which is the
foundation of the authentic Christian society. And History teaches us that the
slackening, or even the loss of this tradition, even in a section of us Orthodox,
was reinforced or even provoked by the influence of that estranged Western
Christianity in our lives during the previous centuries. The effect of the
decadence in the West's civilization has, after all, always been catalytic
among Orthodox peoples.
From the above, I believe one can understand just where the acceptance of
Unia as a method of unification with Papacy - can lead. Every independence
and freedom is lost for the Orthodox and consequently, so is the possibility to
help Western Christianity through a Dialogue, in order for it to re-discover its
forgotten Orthodox prerequisites and its Orthodox past. This alone can be the
only purpose for a theological Dialogue from an Orthodox point of view, and
never a mutual recognition. Besides, what kind of recognition does
Orthodoxy need to receive, from anti-Christian Papacy? It would be like Christ
asking for recognition from Belial! (2 Cor. 6:15) On the contrary, Unia
contributes towards the preservation of Papist estrangement and the
promotion of Papacy as the authentic Church which we all need to be joined
to, for our salvation. Thus, it becomes doubly harmful: firstly to non-Latin
Christianity, because it leads it to a spiritual impasse; and secondly to Latin
Christianity itself, because it impedes it from becoming aware of its downfall
and thereafter from seeking like the prodigal son to return to the Truth.

9. The Vatican's eloquent silence

That which is especially provocative however is the Vatican's silence in its
response, not only to the demand of the Orthodox but also to the demand of
many within its own bosom, to abolish Unia. I personally believe that the
recent televised statement of the Greek Uniates' representative is a sincere
one, ie., their desire is that they be abolished.
From as early as the time of the 2nd Vatican Synod (1962-65), many
reactions had been recorded on the matter of the continuing existence of Unia
and in fact, at a time of an inter-Christian Dialogue and a special Dialogue
with the Latin "Church", but also after the many concessions that the
Orthodox side had repeatedly made in favour of the Dialogue, as a gesture of
good will. Furthermore, the request to abolish Unia had been a pan-Orthodox
one, in view of the fact that it was detrimental to the Dialogue and to relations
between the two sides. It was in fact stressed that the existence of Unia and
the perpetuation of its pitiful role generated reactions that could threaten that
very European unity, for which the Pope claims to be so supportive of.
Renowned Roman Catholic theologians had also joined their voices with
the Orthodox side; theologians who had preserved their sincerity and honesty
and who appeared to have also preserved their freedom of opinion. The
acclaimed French university theologian Yves Congar for example had referred
to Unia as a "caricature and a clear contradiction to the union", while the
excellent researcher of monastic tradition Louis Boyer had referred to Unia as
a "mischievousness", adding that: "We cannot look into the function of
Byzantium without taking into account the entirety of Byzantine Christianity",
probably implying Orthodoxy. An analogous stance was taken by others as
well (G.Wunderle, P.Wenger etc.). More especially, and as a top priority, the
Church of Greece had pointed out the danger behind Unia and had repeatedly
asked for its abolition; and yet, the Vatican turned a deaf ear!
The 2nd Vatican Synod, characterized as "unifying" because its chief
objective was the approximation of East and West, not only did NOT proceed
to disband Unia, but contrary to the "Decree regarding the Eastern Catholic
Churches", it reinforced Unia and even contributed towards its restructuring,
so that it may continue its role within Orthodox and Eastern Christian
communities. In fact, with its prompting towards a sacramental union of
Uniates and "dissenters" with Rome itself, it created yet another, greater
threat for Orthodoxy. Furthermore, its proclamation of the prelates of Ukraine
and Rumania as Uniate Cardinals was intentionally designed, precisely so
that the role of Unia would be upgraded in the more critical areas of Europe.
This is why it was a huge error on the part of the Orthodox to agree to the
presence of Uniates in the Theological Dialogue with the "Roman Catholic
Church", albeit this fact was suppressed by means of various
announcements. The Orthodox should have remained adamant in this detail,
having noticed the audacity of our fellow-speakers. The Vatican's insistence
on the presence of Uniates in the Dialogue only proved its true intentions and
its unchanging tactics. Unfortunately, the reactions that were voiced were not
hearkened to, and we were left with illusions. However, what had not become
evident at the time God now revealed, with the un-Orthodox and anti-Hellenic
actions of the Vatican: our sovereign rights as a Nation had to be
compromised, for us to begin to become aware of the immense corruption
that the Vatican had caused to Orthodox nationalities!
But, even belatedly, the Orthodox side had hastened to correct its first
mistake when, at the time of the Perestroika the Vatican broke open its
medieval arsenal to the detriment of Orthodoxy. Thus, the Sub-committee for
the Dialogue between Orthodoxy-Roman Catholicism had issued a decision in
Vienna (January 1990), that rejected Unia as a "unifying model" and also
condemned its proselytism and its other activities and re-submitting its petition
to disband Unia. In June of 1990, all the Orthodox, in mutual agreement,
postponed the theological Dialogue with the Vatican until the issue of Unia be
solved. In December of 1991, the Metropolitan of Italy Spyridon spoke on
behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the Synod of European Bishops
in Rome, in the presence of the Pope, and had condemned the "rebirth" and
the activities of the Uniates in Eastern Europe. Even the new Patriarch
Bartholomew in his address to the Papist envoys during the enthronement
ceremony on the day of Commemoration of Saint Andrew (30 Nov. 1991) had
outspokenly expressed the danger involved, not only in the postponement but
also the aborting of the Theological Dialogue, if the activities of Unia were to
continue.
After all the above, one would expect the Pope and the Vatican to respond
with some sort of gesture of reassurance. But that did not happen. And the
question remains: WHY? Why does the Vatican insist on supporting the
existence and the activities of Unia in its campaigns throughout Eastern
Europe? Why did the Pope ask - through his ambassador (Nuncio) - the
Government of Russia to recognize the equivalence of Unia to Orthodoxy,
offering in exchange its intermediation to the Governments of Europe, for
financial aid to destitute Russia? Why does the Pope persist in blatantly
disregarding the Orthodox, and with such arrogance at that?
Apart from the familiar self-importance that is flaunted by Papacy, could
there be another, more specific reason? The answer is affirmative.

10. How is the Popes persistence explained?

According to the renowned Papist author Raymond Janin, Unia is "the
easiest and most effective method" for subjugating someone to the Pope; it is
"the best method for drawing schismatics towards the Pope". Uniates have
proven themselves to be the most fanatic propagandists of Papacy and the
most reliable securers of the Vatican's interests. Therefore, the Pope
nowadays needs Unia more than ever, at a time when his socio-economic
pursuits are again at a peak. The existence of Uniates reinforces the Pope's
prestige, because the Uniates are the ones who render the Christian East's
subjugation to the Pope more perceptible and who give the illusion of a
catholicity (oneness) and universality. Those who are aware of the history of
Papacy and its relations to the East are able to understand how, above
whichever economic benefits, that which weighs more for Papacy is the
recognition of the Pope's primacy of power by the Orthodox. Uniates fulfil this
demand, and at the same time they support Papacy far more than the "Pope-
worship" that is especially cultivated in the West as a kind of papal mysticism
("the Pope loves us", "he has us in his heart", "there is no church without a
Pope" and other similar displays that one encounters in the pro-Papist circles
of the West).
It is therefore our belief that the observation of political commentators and
international law experts is absolutely valid, in that the Pope is using Eastern
Europe as a springboard for strengthening and solidifying his prestige in the
West - and especially in the European Union. We have been given many an
opportunity in Europe to ascertain that the Pope is indeed counting very
seriously on the recognition of his person by Orthodoxy; well, Unia has been
providing such an illusion to the Westerners. But this has only been
reinforcing the - despite the impressions to the contrary - teetering prestige of
Papacy in Europe.
This pursuit by the Vatican has been pointed out by -among others- the
Financial Times of 24 Dec. 1991: "The Pope hopes to benefit from the fall of
Communism", because his objective is to be recognized as "the leading
religious power in the New Europe". This can also explain the Vatican's
demand that Europe's common currency bear the image of the Pope on it! I
believe that the most eloquent presentation of the Pope's objective is
portrayed in the caricature below, by the top-ranking Greek cartoonist, K.
Metropoulos:

Given that a picture can say far more than an entire article, the above sketch
by K. Metropoulos is enough to express the Pope's hegemonic inclinations,
and at a pan-European level, no less. The Vatican has returned to the
Medieval era and the issue "regarding vestments". Or, rather, it is proving that
it has not moved away from the Medieval age at all, thus preserving itself as
sorriest remnant of medieval feudalism.
The current rebirth of Unia is, for the Vatican, a kind of religious
colonialism. The Unia of Central Europe or the middle East, compact and
organized as it is - and for this reason an overwhelming power in the
presence of a native element - can secure that potential for expansionist
designs; these plans by the Pope, along with his secret agreements with the
USA for the "co-exploitation" of the peoples of the former "existent socialism",
are now known facts, thanks to the exposures by the Press. The Vatican is
once again hastening to fill the gaps, by exploiting all the negative elements of
the Orthodox peoples in every region. That is why it has given even greater
authority to the Uniate leaders. The Uniate Primates of Ukraine and Rumania
have already been made Cardinals, and furthermore, the number of Papist or
Uniate bishops throughout Eastern Europe is ever increasing - bishops with
either a minimal flock or without any flock at all.
It is easy to surmise from the above developments what the underlying
threat to Hellenism is. Papacy has, after all, been using the Slavs for entire
centuries against Byzantium. One example is sufficient to express this
continuity in Papacy with regard to Unia: In the 17th century, there lived a
great persecutor of the Orthodox - Jehosaphat Krncevic. In 1623 he had
ordered the remains of the Orthodox to be exhumed and thrown to the dogs.
Krncevic himself had participated in terrorist activities against the Orthodox, in
one of which he was murdered by an Orthodox. Pope Pius IX proclaimed him
a saint in 1867. Pope Pius XI in 1923 had referred to him as a "man of virtue".
Pope Paul VI in 1923 had transferred his remains into a crypt of Saint Peter's
cathedral in Rome, and the present Pope referred to him as an "apostle
of...unity" and a "noble personality".
In the Balkans, the Vatican is afraid of the collaboration and the unity
between the Orthodox and in view of this, has aligned itself with other powers
that have invested their own interests in the region and have designated
spheres of influence there. Two axles of collaboration have been developed
by countries of the West (among them are the Vatican and Turkey) for their
economic domination in Eastern Europe and the Balkans; that is why the
argument of a Roman Catholic official of our Country is at least a ridiculous
one, i.e., that the Uniates love the Pope and that he cannot turn them away!
Ridiculous, because no-one is asking for them to be turned away! They are
free to love the Pope and to belong to him, within the boundaries of Christian
and democratic freedom. However, they are not free to collaborate with the
Pope against their fellow-nationals - which is what they are doing, by
remaining Uniates. If they love the Pope, let them become Roman Catholics.
We Orthodox are willing to consent to any honest dialogue whatsoever with
the Roman Catholics, but never with Uniates. Just as our Fathers during our
enslavement could never enter any dialogue with the "Latin-minded" or the
"janissaries", because such a dialogue would have been by definition
impossible.
But one might (naively) ask: "Doesn't the Pope desire the Dialogue with
Orthodoxy?" Our reply: The Pope (and this is Papacy's method) uses the
Dialogue with Orthodoxy as he did in the past, to his own benefit. That is why
"mutual recognition" is constantly being projected, and not the union "in the
Truth". That is why the Vatican constantly demands a Dialogue "on unifying
matters" and not "on dividing matters", whereas the Church's fixed praxis is
that Orthodoxy's "Dialogue" with heresies be focused on the differences, the
deviations from the salvific Faith; those that negate salvation-theosis. This is
the uniform practice of the Ecumenical Councils. The Church, as Orthodoxy,
never perceives the Faith as a negotiable ideology (compare this against the
contemporary "historic compromise" within the sphere of political ideologies),
but as a medical-therapeutic method which alone is able to heal Man and
save him.
The Vatican up until 1989 had been using not only Unia but also the
Orthodox in the Eastern countries, in order to promote itself as well as its anti-
Communist politics in the East, even though the Orthodox of countries like
Poland and Czechoslovakia were put under pressure -as they themselves had
admitted- both by the Papist and the Uniate element, to the point that they
instinctively turned towards the Soviet Union, in spite of their anti-communist
trend. We were the only ones who had naively and from an outsider's
viewpoint regarded the confrontation between Papacy and Communism in
Poland as a victory of Christianity, oblivious to the fact that the conflict aspired
to the prevalence and the victory of Papacy, and not of Christianity.
As of 1989, the Vatican no longer needs Orthodoxy (as long as it remains
Orthodoxy), given that the benefits sought after can easily be acquired
through a direct agreement with the Perestroika people (e.g. Gorbachev's visit
to the Vatican in 1989) and through diplomatic relations can succeed in
increasing its influence, and in fact to the detriment of Orthodoxy. It is
precisely in this plan that the Vatican is using Unia - the very same plan that it
has perpetually been implementing against Orthodoxy. When Orthodoxy
seems weak, it pretends to be offering it assistance with a view to subjugating
it; but when Orthodoxy is strong, it does everything possible to destroy it, as
Orthodoxy is the debunking of Papacy.
In its anti-Orthodox campaign, the Vatican relies on the underlying
oppositions among the Orthodox (ethnicities); on the corrosion of people's
conscience (attributed to the hyper-enthusiasm of the pro-unionists of our time
and their usage of Papacy-related terminology such as "sister Church"); on
the internal problems of Orthodox peoples on account of political changes,
etc. It also relies on the openly declared or the covert "pro-unionists", who are
in essence "Uniatizing". Besides, Papacy has always relied on the "Latin-
minded" - "pro-unionists" for success in whichever plans it had in the
East. Intellectuals have also proven to be par excellence "pro-unionists" and
even more so Politicians, who would usually expect Papist help during the
Nation's difficult moments. And they are still waiting for that help.... Finally,
the Vatican is benefiting from our mistakes and our divisions and - even more
- from the numbing of our self-awareness, to the extent that we are no longer
able to place the problem of Unia in the proper context.

11. NO to disorientation!

It is imperative for one to understand that our problem is not Unia per
se. Unia is nothing more than a tragic puppet in the hands of a puppet-
master, the Vatican. It is the Vatican that is pulling its strings. The problem
has to be traced back to the nature of Papacy. Is Papacy a "Church"? This
was the question that was so astutely posed to the Professors of Theology
(with his familiar, blunt outspokenness) by His Beatitude, our Archbishop
Seraphim on the occasion of the feast of Photios the Great ( 6th February
1992 ). What exactly is the Vatican, which constitutes the "other aspect" of
the "Roman Catholic Church" that we are conversing with?
The "Vatican" - or "Holy See" - is a State (Stato della Citta del Vaticano). It
covers an area of 0,44 square kilometres and its population is 1000
inhabitants, mainly Italians and Swiss. It has a flag of its own, with a special
coat-of-arms.

Flag of the Vatican State The Papal Coat of Arms
It is an entirely independent state. In older times of course, the Pope's
dominion covered a far greater expanse. Its current borders were determined
on the 11th of February 1929, upon an agreement between Pope Pius XI and
Mussolini. Head of the State of Vatican is the head of the "Roman Catholic
Church" - in other words, the Pope himself. This same person is also the
bearer of both political and religious authority (theocracy). Thus, the Pope
continues to this day to be a political leader-head of state, and this is
evidenced by his established (ecclesiastic) titles:
Bishop of Rome
Vicar of Christ
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City
Servant of the Servants of God
Patriarch of the West (dropped 2006)
Vicar of the Apostolic See
Vicar of Peter
Patriarch of the West
Sovereign Teacher
Legislator
Judge
Commander in charge
These are the (dogmatically) established and currently in use titles of the
Pope.
The Pope's State has its own garrison (Swiss guards), a prison, currency
(lira), courts of law, ministries, diplomats, audio-visual Media, news agency
(Fides), newspapers (the main one is the "Osservatore Romano", since
1861), palaces (Belvedere, Lateran), and above all, Banks.

The Vatican's currency (Lira)
So, is Papacy really a Church? We are already helped by Athanasius the
Great in taking an objective stance on the issue. The Arians had everything
that the Orthodox did, however, they regarded both the Son (and the Spirit) as
creations. Athanasius the Great counsels the Orthodox on this matter, to not
be fooled by external appearances (vestments, worship, organization) and
regard them as being Christians, but to consider them as "Ario-maniacs" (i.e.,
maniacal followers of Arius). The Sacraments are important, not as rituals,
but only because they are the conveyers of uncreated Grace. "Where the
Church is, there the Holy Spirit (Grace) is", according to Saint Irenaeus (2nd
century). The blessed fr. Justin Popovic places Papacy in the category of
"modern European Arianism". The wise, 18th century Archbishop Eugenios
Bulgaris (1806) admits that Papacy lost its ecclesiastic prerequisites and has
no genuine Saints (Epistle to Claercion). As also admitted by contemporary
major theologians, Papacy claims that it accepts the (ancient) ecumenical
councils, but it has lost the Scriptural and Patristic prerequisites thereof
(spirituality, therapeutic character of the dogmas). Furthermore, with the
warping of the Sacred Symbol of Faith (with the Filioque), it has adulterated
the conciliar tradition of the Church. The Papist dogmas cannot find any
grounds in the Holy Bible and its continuance - Patristic theology - because
they are the fruits of scholasticism.
More importantly, some people ask: Has Roman Catholicism been
condemned by an Ecumenical Council as a heresy? The answer is
affirmative. The Council of Constantinople in 879 during Photios' time is, for
Orthodoxy, the 8th Ecumenical Council (I.Karmiris, fr.J. Romanides, e.a.), just
as the Hesychast Synods of the 14th century (1341, 1347, 1351) are the 9th
Ecumenical Council of Orthodoxy. There cannot be a Major Synod of
Orthodoxy that will not proclaim them as Ecumenical. The Council of 879 had
condemned as a heresy the insertion of the Filioque in the Sacred Symbol of
Faith, along with the perpetrators. Thus, there has indeed been an
ecumenical condemnation of Franco-Papacy on the heresy of the Filioque -
which of course was the culmination of its overall estrangement, given that the
presuppositions which had led to the heresy of the Filioque were far more
significant than the insertion itself. That is why the removal of the Filioque
from the Symbol is not enough, unless the presuppositions of this fallacy are
also rejected (that is, the anti-Scriptural and anti-Patristic theologizing; in other
words, the Frankish introduction of Metaphysics in ecclesiastic theologizing).

12. Conclusion

It is consequently imperative to place the problem of Unia on its proper
basis. It is not about a conflict of a jurisdictional nature with the Vatican - the
way the problem of relations between Old and New Rome was, during the
time of Photios the Great. The problem therefore is not about the
"parishional" actions of the Church of Old Rome within New Rome's
boundaries of jurisdiction, as was the case at the time (9th century) in
Bulgaria. After the schism, and more so after it was rendered Frankish, the
"Latin Church" had no longer anything in common with the Latin-speaking
Christianity prior to the schism and the domination of the Franks. The pre-
schism, Latin-speaking Church of Old Rome was Orthodox, and a sister to the
Church of Constantinople (New Rome), despite the occasionally appearing
(canonical, not dogmatic) contrasts between the two, especially during the
Iconomachy period, where most of the East had been corrupted by the
heresy, and yet, Old Rome was saving Orthodoxy. After the schism and its
estrangement, Old Rome is no longer co-religionist and a sister of New Rome.
In fact, Old Rome today identifies with the Vatican State. Church and State
are both under the same head, the Pope, who appears simultaneously as a
religious and a State (political) Leader.
Thus, Unia should not be regarded as a jurisdictional difference and a
mere anti-canonical intervention in the Orthodox East by the Vatican. It is the
instrument of a secular - political authority, which is focused on expansionism
and increasing its influence. As for today's coincidence, which has united ALL
the Orthodox in the confronting of the Papist advance with Unia as its vehicle,
it is a true, God-sent opportunity to re-examine the problem of the essence (of
the ecclesiasticity, that is) of the "Latin Church"-Vatican, so that the
theological Dialogue (if the Vatican continues to desire it) might be evaluated
anew. We furthermore believe that the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with its new,
enlightened Leadership, just as the other Leaderships of the Orthodox
Churches of other places, would never refuse to address the problem of the
ecclesiastic character of the "Roman Catholic Church", but also the
theological Dialogue with Rome, on the proper basis. And we should not
allow the opportunity to be lost. Already, there have been reports of secret
deliberations in both the ecclesiastic and political wings, for the smoothing out
of relations with the Vatican - which is striving to hurdle negative impressions.
Unia however continues to exist, and damage has already been wreaked
within Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe. Therefore, every retreat on the part of
the Orthodox will be tantamount to a crime.
Woe betide, if the criteria of the Unionists of Byzantine and post-Byzantine
years were to prevail once again.
Woe betide, if Orthodoxy is - again - left to the expediences of whichever
politics and Eternity sacrificed, to endo-cosmic conventionality and
utilitarianism.
Our actions are not just recorded in the annals of History; they will also be
judged at the end of History, by the Lord of History, Who is concurrently its
Saviour and its Judge.

Bibliography (selected)

Vallindras Nicodemus: Issues of Ecclesiastic Deontology, Athens 1968.
Yannaras Christos: Truth and Unity of the Church, Athens 1977.
Gregoriou P.: Relations between Catholics and Orthodox, Athens 1958.
Gregoriou P.: Course towards the union, Athens 1978.
Diamantopoulou Ad.: The Synod of Florence and the Latin Unia in the
East, Athens 1927.
OE (Brotherhood): The nostalgia of Orthodoxy, Athens 1956.
Ifantis , - Karidis Sp.: Le origini dell' unitismo, Odigos, 10 (1991),
pages 2-7.
Kalogirou John: The 2nd Vatican General oman-Catholic Synod and its
Ecumenical endeavour according to the Orthodox view, Thessaloniki
1965.
Kantiotes fr.Augustine: A religious deception - the Uniates. Athens 1965.
Affirmative and Symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church,
Athens 1960. Vol. II, Graz 1968
Koltsaras John: Unia, Athens 1966.
Kontoglou Fotis: What is Orthodoxy and what is Papacy, 2nd edition,
Athens 1964.
Laiou-Thomadaki Angeliki: The conflict between the Popes and the
Emperors and the views of the Byzantines, Thesaurus 15 (1978), pages
106-118.
Bilalis Spyros: Orthodoxy and Papacy, Athens 1969.
Ninikas Solon: How the Roman Catholics perceive the union of the
"Churches", Athens 1966. Papadopoulou Chrys.: Nature and
character of Unia, Athens 1928 (re-printed from the periodical
"Anaplasis").
Papadopoulou Chrys.: The Primacy of the bishop of Rome, Athens
1930.
Papadopoulou Chrys.: The fallacies of Papacy, Uniatism and
Protestantism, 3rd edition, Athens 1964.
Romanides fr.John: Franks, Romans, Feudalism and doctrine. An
interplay between Theology and Society (1981).
Romanides fr.John: Romanity, Romania, Roumeli. Pournaras
Publications, Thessaloniki 1975.
Romanides fr.John: Saints Cyril and Methodios, Hellene representatives
of Latins to Slavs, against Franks (Gregory Palamas 1971, pages 273-
281).
Romanides fr.John: The Filioque (Anglican Orthodox Joint Doctrinal
discussions, St. Albans 1975, scow 1976).
Romanides fr.John: Le Filioque, in the Volume: Saint Augustin, "L' ge
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 Orient avec Rome, Une controverse
rcente. Correspondance change entre SB. Monseigneur
Chrysostome Papadopoulos, Archevque Orthodoxe d' Athnes et de
toute la Grce, et Monseigneur Georges Calavassy, Evque Catholique
des Grecs de rite byzantin, a Constantinople et en Grce, Introduction et
traduction, Orientalia Christiana, Vol. XVIII 1., Roma 1930.
Metropolitan Christodoulos: Unia, the Trojan Horse of Papacy,
Newspaper "TO BEMA", 9.2.1992.
Feidas Vlassios: Ecclesiastic History, II, Athens 1977.
Feidas Vlassios: The perceptions of the blessed Photios regarding the
Western "Church" (Magazine "Ecclesia", 1977).