UNIA: The Face and the Disguise

By Protopresbyter George D. Metallinos,
Former Dean of the Athens University School of Theology
Original Greek Edition (1992) published by "Apostoliki Diakonia"

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).

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.

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

With the guidance and the support of the Assumptionists,
who purposely circulated wearing Orthodox vestments, the first
Greek Uniates appeared in 1907, organized into a specific
community. A student of the propagandist Hyacinthus Marangos
– a Dominican monk - was the clergyman Isaiah Papadopoulos,
who operated as a proselytizer in Constantinople and was later
ordained bishop of Gratianoupolis. Already by 1877 he had
become a Papist. Assistant to Isaiah Papadopoulos was George
Halavatzis, born on Syros Island to Papist parents. He studied at
the Uniate college of Rome and in 1907 was ordained deacon and
presbyter by a Papist bishop. He was however sent to
Constantinople, where he commenced Uniate action which was
so greatly appreciated by Pope Benedict, that in 1920 he was
promoted to 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.

11. “NO” to disorientation!

It is imperative for one to understand that our problem is not Unia per
se. Unia is nothing more than a tragic puppet in the hands of a puppet-
master, the Vatican. It is the Vatican that is pulling its strings. The
problem has to be traced back to the nature of Papism. Is 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.

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.

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 andfrom 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

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).