UNIA: The Face and the Disguise PART 2 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. 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.