Copyright 2012 © Orthodox Faith. All rights reserved.
UNIA: The Face and the Disguise PART 1 1. God: the Lord of History The   collapse   of   “existent   socialism”   –   that   is,   the   State’s   realization   of   Marxist   Communism   –   had   caused   some   to   speak   of   “the   end   of   History”,   of   the   end   of   ideological   rivalry. And   yet, with   the   rise   of   nationalist   and   religious   fanaticisms,   ideological   confrontations   have   merely   changed   their   content   and   their   orientation.   What   is   worse,   with   the   rearrangements   that   have taken   place   in   Eastern   Europe,   certain   old   conflicts   have   surfaced   once   again.   Conflicts   that   the   naivety   of   amateurism   has   labelled   as   “things   of   the   past”   which   have   gone,   never   to return! This   was   precisely   the   predominant   feeling   in   the   sphere   of   inter-Christian   relations   also. A   groundless   and   therefore   unjustified   euphoria   had   already   come   to   prevail   among   a   group   of “pacifist”   …   pro-unionists,   who   seemed   to   believe   that   with   the   “Theological   Dialogue”   we   have   finally   arrived   at   a   new   era   of   true   union   and   genuine   inter-Christian   Love.      Especially   in our   relations   with   the   “Roman   Catholic   Church”,   such   a   clime   of   optimism   had   prevailed   –   expressed   with   suitable   terminology   (for   example,   “sister”   or   Latin   “Church”,   and   the   Pope   as “elder   brother”),   that   false   impressions   were   implanted   in   many,   while   those   aware   of   the   reality   have   in   vain   been   recommending   self-restraint   and   have   been   accused   as   remnants   of   the medieval age and enemies of love and peace. However,   it   is   God   Who   is   the   Lord   of   History! The   God   of   our   Fathers.   He   is   the   God,   not   only   of   Love,   nor   even   of   loveless   Love-mongers;   He   is   also   the   God   of Truth   -   the   God   Who   for the   sake   of   our   repentance   and   salvation   reveals   the   deliberations   of   our   hearts   (Luke   2:35)   and   sheds   light   on   the   tragic   state   we   drag   around   in   our   existence.      The   developments   in Eastern   Europe   that   followed   the   “Perestroika”   also   revealed   the   Vatican’s   role   in   our   time.      In   other   words,   they   not   only   revealed   its   true   face   and   its   fixed   views   on   matters   of   essence, but   also   its   intentions   and   its   objectives.   Furthermore,   its   intervention   in   the   Balkans   –   in   fact   to   the   point   of   undermining   and   blatantly   denying   us   our   national   rights   –   have   not unjustifiably   infuriated   the   Hellenic   people,   who   were   inadvertently   reminded   of   the   past,   anti-Hellenic   policies   of   the   Papist   State   and   have   made   them   realize   that   the   Theological Dialogue with the Vatican not only did not alter its stance, but as it turned out, is actually working in favour of the Vatican’s interests. The   Vatican’s   involvement   in   Eastern   European   and   Balkan   affairs   and   its   expansionist   plans   veiled   under   a   religious   mantle   have   been   elucidated   in   every   detail   by   the   international Press   as   well   as   by   other   Mass   Media,   leaving   no   margin   for   doubt   whatsoever.   However,   in   this   otherwise   unbefitting   activity   that   claims   to   be   of   an   ecclesiastic   character,   there   prevails a   certain   term,   which   has   provoked   the   curiosity   of   the   ignorant   and   the   wrath   of   those   who   have   a   clear   knowledge   of   the   Vatican’s   essence   and   its   methods.   It   is   the   name   UNIA.   It   was no   small   number   of   people   in   our   Country   who   were   unaware   -   not   only   of   its   activity,   but   even   of   the   name   itself;   the   reason   being,   that   in   our   Country,   it   is   a   fact   that   Unia   was   not   given the opportunity to develop any activities analogous to those being developed in countries of Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It   is   the   essence   of   Unia   (and   chiefly   the   Vatican’s   activity),   that   we   shall   attempt   to   elucidate   further   down.   We   will   not   focus   as   much   on   the   itemizing   of   events   or   the   analysis   thereof; instead,   we   shall   venture   a   diagnosis   from   within   the   events   themselves   –   not   only   in   their   contemporaneousness,   but   also   in   their   presence   over Time.      Of   course   it   is   necessary   to   stress that   during   the   period   1920-1940   Unia   had   preoccupied   both   public   opinion   and   Justice   in   Greece.   The   reader   can   refer   to   the   relevant   bibliography,   at   the   end   of   this   book.   However,   the present-day   resurgence   of   Unia,   front-stage,   which   happens   to   coincide   with   the   timing   of   our   Theological   Dialogue   with   the   “Roman   Catholic   Church”,   opens   up   a   very   interesting prospect, whereby that very Dialogue as well as its expedience can be duly re-evaluated. 2. “Unia” When   we   say   “Unia”   we   mean   a   religious-political   formation   that   was   fabricated   by   the   Papacy   for   the   Westernizing   of   the   non-Latin   East;   its   spiritual-political   subjugation   to   the   authority of   the   Pope.   In   other   words,   it   is   directly   related   to   the   Papacy’s   expansionist   policy;   it   is   the   most   consistent   expression   of   European   feudalism   which   continues   to   our   day,   through   the State   of   the   Vatican.   Of   course   one   needs   to   make   a   certain   distinction   between   the   various   phases   that   the   question   of   “Unia”   presents   historically.   Because,   precedent   to   the   specific historical   method   was   the   idea   and   the   plan   involving   the   subjugation   of   the   East   –   and   indeed   of   the   Orthodox   –   to   the   Pope;   a   permanent   tendency   of   the   Latin   “Church”   following   its differentiation   and   its   secession   from   the   Orthodox   East.   Wherever   Latinization   proves   difficult   to   impose   directly,   the   Papacy   implements   the   method   of   Unia,   proving   this   to   be   a   shrewd fabrication inasmuch as subjugation can be achieved, on the pretext of continuance and freedom. This   expansionist   move   by   the   Papal   throne   known   as   UNIA   owes   its   name   to   the   Latin   word   UNIO   (=union),   however   it   was   only   in   1596   in   Poland   that   it   officially   obtained   the   name   of UNIA   (UNIJA   in   Slavic).   The   term   was   used   at   the   time,   not   only   to   denote   the   move   for   unification   with   the   Pope,   but   also   the   specific   corpus   (community)   of   the   Orthodox   who   had synodically   decided   on   their   accession   to   the   Papacy:   not   a   full   accession,   but   only   in   their   recognition   of   the   Pope   as   their   spiritual   head,   otherwise   preserving   their   worship   rites   and remaining customs so that “externally” they would give the impression of continuing and remaining in their national cadre. The   Uniates’   retention   of   the   “eastern”   or   “Byzantine”   “rite”   explains   the   various   titles   such   as   “Byzantine-rite”,   “Hellenic-rite”,   “Hellenic-Catholic”   e.a.,   with   which   they   are   usually characterized   (in   Greece).      But   the   name   that   best   corresponds   to   the   facts   is   “Catholics   of   the   East”,   given   that   Uniates   are   in   essence   Papists,   who   have   accepted   the   Papist   teaching overall   (and   in   fact,   the   very   dogmas   that   radically   differentiate   Papism   from   Orthodoxy)   and   who   only   externally   and   superficially   -   with   the   attire   of   their   clergymen   and   their   eastern customs   (“rites”)   –   give   the   false   impression   that   they   have   remained   Orthodox.   This   is   also   why   they   have   correctly   been   named   “United   Roman   Catholics”   and   “Unionates”   (in   Latin: UNITI/Uniates). 3. The historical framework The   idea   of   developing   an   expansionist   policy   in   the   Orthodox   East   by   the   Papal   Throne   of   Rome   must   be   linked   to   the   Frankish   subjugation   of   the   Orthodox   (Roman)   West   and   its permanent   imposition   on   the   peoples   that   remained   faithful   to   the   Empire   of   New   Rome-Constantinople   and   its   Orthodox   Patriarchates   (of   Constantinople,   Alexandria,   Antioch   and Jerusalem).   After   the   breaking   away   of   the   Patriarchate   of   the   West   (Old   Rome)   from   the   Patriarchates   of   the   East   on   account   of   its   conquest   by   the   Frankish   powers,   the   latter   have striven to maintain the antithesis between the two and to use the Papal Throne against the Empire of New Rome (Romania - Romany). However,   from   the   7th   to   the   11th   century,   the   gradual   subjugation   of   Western   Romania   (the   western   section   of   the   Empire   of   New   Rome)   to   the   Frankish-Germanic   tribes   took   place.     The   Empire   of   New   Rome   in   the   West   was   subjugated   to   the   Franks   and   Germans,   while   in   the   East   it   was   overcome   by   the   Arabs   (7th   century)   and   the   Ottomans   (14th   century onwards).   Conquest   in   the   West   was   facilitated   by   the   gradual   substitution   of   Roman   bishops   with   Franks. Thus,   while   in   the   East   the   Bishops   had   undertaken   the   role   of   Ethnarchs   in   the territories   being   conquered,   protecting   the   people   and   preserving   their   identity   and   their   unity,   in   the   West,   bishops   became   the   instruments   of   the   conquerors   and   an   integral   part   of   the Frankish   feudal   system   and   hated   by   the   people,   as   proved   during   later   centuries   (1789)   by   the   French   Revolution,   which   began   not   only   as   an   anti-feudal   revolution   but   also   as   an   anti- Papist one. Nowadays,   Western   historiography   is   being   subjected   to   the   Franks’   catalytic   influence,   just   as   differentiated   Western   Christianity   was.   As   of   the   7th   century   the   seeds   of   schism appeared   among   the   Goths   (Germans),   who   were   initially   Arian   and   eventually   became   Orthodox,   but   only   in   name.   Among   the   Visigoths   of   Spain,   the   insertion   of   the   “Filioque”   in   the Sacred   Creed   was   effected.   It   was   also   the   Visigoths   of   Spain   who   were   the   first   to   replace   the   Roman   Bishops   with   Goths,   and   it   was   there   that   in   654   the   Roman   (‘Byzantine’)   Empire was abolished. This example was to be followed a century later by the Franks, until they succeeded in taking over the very throne of Rome (between 1009 and 1046). The   subjugated   Romans   (“Byzantines”)   resisted   with   continuous   revolutions,   in   order   to   salvage   their   connection   to   Constantinople.   They   even   joined   forces   with   the   Arabs   against   the Franks   and   Visigoths,   choosing   the   lesser   of   the   two   perils.   However,   the   alliance   between   Romans   (“Byzantines”)   and   Arabs   was   quashed   by   Charles   Martel,   grandfather   of Charlemagne,   at   Poitiers   (732)   and   in   Province   (739).   But   the   tales   that   our   (Greek)   school   History   lessons   teach   have   remained   in   place;   that   is,   that   Europe   was   saved   from   the Arabs during   these   wars.   What   actually   happened   was   that   the   Franks   had   subjugated   the   Romans   of   Constantinople-New   Rome.   The   Franks   had   prevailed,   and   had   thereafter   spread throughout Western Romania-Romany. The   irremovable   objective   of   the   Franks   eventually   became   the   splitting   of   the   unity   between   the   Romans   of   the   East   and   the   West.   To   achieve   this,   they   used   the   Church   and   Her theology.   Through   their   feudal   system   (which   was   based   on   racism),   their   scholastic   theology   (which   discredited   Patristic   theology)   and   most   of   all   through   the   Papal   Throne,   they succeeded   in   thoroughly   subjugating   the   conquered   Romans   of   the   West.   By   condemning   the   7th   Ecumenical   Council   (Frankfurt,   794)   and   dogmatizing   the   “Filioque”   (that   the   Holy   Spirit not   only   proceeds   from   the   Father   according   to   John   15:26,   but ALSO   FROM   THE   SON),   in   809   in Aachen   they   managed   to   condemn   the   eastern   Romans   as   heretics.   Thereafter,   they ceased   to   refer   to   the   Orthodox   East   as   Romania   and   its   citizens   as   Romans,   because   these   terms   now   signified   the   Orthodox   and   their   Country.   For   this   reason,   they   coined   the   name “Graecia” and “Graeci” (Greeks) for its citizens - terms that were linked to the notion of “heretic”. It   was   within   these   developments   –   and   chiefly   through   scholastic   theology   –   that   the   differentiation   of   the   Christian   West   was   accomplished;   in   other   words,   the   removal   of   ecclesiastic spirituality   as   well   as   the   prerequisites   of   ecclesiastic   theology   (catharsis-enlightenment-theosis).   The   altering   of   the   monastic   lifestyle   also   led   to   this   alienation.   Monasteries   were   turned into military battalions, siding either with the Pope or the Emperor. The   theory   regarding   the   Pope,   as   developed   in   the   11th   century   (Gregory   VII:   the   Pope:   “absolute   leader   of   the   universal   Church”,   “master   of   the   world”)   is   what   founded   European totalitarianism,   simultaneously   altering   the   very   Church   Herself   in   the   West.      Now   alienated   from   the   Tradition   of   the   Prophets, Apostles   and   Fathers,   the   Papal   Throne   embarked   on   an unrelenting   struggle   to   claim   temporal   power   (from   the   end   of   the   11th   to   the   end   of   the   14th   centuries),   to   be   finally   transformed   into   a   secular   power–State   (the   Papal   State),   with   all   the obvious   consequences.      Secularization   was   thus   legislated   ecclesiastically   –   in   other   words,   dogmatized   –   having   now   taken   on   a   soteriological   character. All   actions   of   the   Papal   Throne thereafter   took   on   a   purely   political   character,   only   hidden   beneath   a   religious   disguise.   The   Pope   was   now   to   be   political   Leader,   and   in   pursuit   of   expanding   his   political   authority.   It   was precisely for this reason that the recognition of the Pope by the Orthodox had taken on the significance of not only an ecclesiastic subjugation, but a political one also. The   idea   of   Unia   as   a   method   and   a   means   of   subjugation   is   linked   to   the   expansionist   will   of   (Frank-run)   Old   Rome,   which   aspired   to   the   spreading   and   the   imposition   of   the   Papal primacy   of   power. That   is   also   why   it   is   not   unusual   that   Unia,   as   an   idea,   was   developed   in   parallel   to   the   “Holy   Inquisition”.      Holy   Inquisition   and   Unia   proved   to   be   the   sibling   fruits   of   the Papal-Frankish   spirit.   While   the   Holy   Inquisition   undertook   to   impose   Papal-Frankish   authority   within   the   boundaries   of   the   Frank-occupied   West,   Unia   shouldered   the   task   of   expanding the   religious-political   Papal   authority   into   the   East.      The   Holy   Inquisition   aspired   to   eliminate   those   who   were   insubordinate   to   Papal-Frankish   authority;   Unia   aspired   to   the   Latinizing   of the   Easterners   who   denied   the   supremacy   of   Old   Rome.   That   is   why   in   the   East,   subordination   to   the   Pope   –   whether   through   simple   Latinization   or   through   the   method   of   Unia   –   was expressed with the term “he has become a Frank”. Unia will historically walk hand-in-hand with the Holy Inquisition, as the one sheds light on the other’s role. 4. The genesis of the Holy Inquisition The   ever-increasing   power   of   the   Pope   and   the   peaking   of   the   theocratic,   Papal-Caesarian   system   (9th   –   12th   centuries)   led   to   the   despicable   intolerance   of   the   Latin   “Church”   and   the exhaustive   persecution   of   dissidents,   who   were   characterized   en   masse   as   “heretics”.   This   precise   endeavour   to   weaken   and   exterminate   them   was   what   gave   birth   to   the   terrible Tribunal   of   the   Holy   Inquisition   (from   the   verb   inquirere,   which   implies   the   specific   search   for   culprits).   The   beginnings   of   the   Holy   Inquisition   are   located   in   the   time   of   Charlemagne   and his   successors   (9thcentury),   but   its   actual   operation   was   left   in   the   hands   of   the   “Church”.   Those   opposed   to   Papal-Frankish   authority   were   slaughtered   without   any   hesitation,   as “enemies   of   the   State”.   Of   course   it   has   not   been   fully   clarified   if   the   “Church”   had   participated   in   these   crimes   from   the   very   beginning;   however,   as   far   as   their   continuation   is   concerned, there   is   no   need   to   ask   such   a   question.   The   involvement   of   the   Latin   “Church”   in   the   execution   of   sentences   must   have   started   very   early,   because   with   the   conquest   of   the   episcopal throne   of   Old   Rome   by   the   Franks   (11thcentury),   the   Frankish   Popes   and   Bishops   –   all   of   them   military   men   (as   were   the   Priors   of   the   Monasteries   as   a   rule)   and   all   of   them   members   of the Frankish feudal hierarchy – had aligned their missions with the defending of the interests of the Frankish State. The   Papist   inquisitional   bureau   was   named   “Sanctum   Officium”.   In   this   way,   the   Holy   Inquisition   came   into   the   hands   of   the   Papacy   and   in   charge   of   it   were   placed   bishops   or   special Delegates;   Soon   after,   special   Inquisitors   were   appointed   (either   Franciscan   or   Dominican   monks).      It   has   furthermore   been   ascertained   that   the   Holy   Inquisition   was   the   forerunner   of   the terrorism in the French (1789) and the Bolshevik (1917) Revolutions, as well as the Crimes of Fascism and Nazism. The   Conciliar,   that   is   to   say,   the   “ecclesiastic”,   recognition   of   the   Holy   Inquisition   –   its   solidification   into   an   institution   –   came   about   gradually,   during   the   time   of   Innocent   III   (1198-1216),   in the   years   1205,   1206,   1212   and   mainly   during   the   4th   Lateran   Synod   (1215),   and   was   finalized   in   1233   during   the   time   of   Pope   Gregory   IX.   It   was   during   the   time   of   Pope   Innocent   IV (1243-1254)   that   the   implementation   of   torture   became   an   institution   (recognized   ecclesiastically). The   operations   of   the   Holy   Inquisition   spread   to   Italy-Southern   France-Spain   (where   the Romaic   element   was   more   robust)   and   somewhat   less   in   England   and   Germany.      Jews,   Muslims,   “heretics”   (i.e.   Christian-Romans)   and   later   Protestants   were   systematically   persecuted. The “return” of all these peoples to Papism was likewise handled by the Holy Inquisition. 5. The genesis of Unia The   view   that   the   genesis   of   the   idea   of   Unia   took   place   in   the   13th   century   has   nowadays   become   fully   accepted.   This   view   is   based   on   the   very   accurate   observation   that   a   distinction must   be   made   between   the   conception   of   the   idea   and   its   gradual   realization,   up   until   the   point   in   time   that   the   name   “Unia”   came   to   denote   a   specific   community   of   Eastern   Christians with   an   affiliation   to   Rome. According   to   a   mostly   improbable   view,   the   first   Uniates   were   the   “Unionists”   of   Byzantium/Romania   following   the   Schism,   otherwise   referred   to   as   the   “Latin- minded”. But   if   Uniate   communities   appeared   in   the   16th   century   as   the   fruits   of   specific   proselytizing   actions   by   Rome,   this   does   not   mean   that   it   is   correct   to   say   that   the   Uniate   idea   was   just   as recent.   According   to   M.   Gideon,   the   idea   of   Unia   had   appeared   before   1204;   a   Uniate   community   however   had   appeared   in   the   time   of   Michael   Palaiologos   (after   1204).   But   it   is   a   fact that the Crusaders of the 4th Crusade had, pursuant to the Sack of Constantinople (1204), already promoted the idea of Unia and had in fact proceeded to put it into practice. According   to   the   ever-memorable   historian,   Archmandrite   Basil   Stefanides,   the   concept   of   "Unia"   is   observed   for   the   first   time   in   the   4th   Lateran   Synod   (1215).   Pope   Innocent   III   –   a dynamic,   but   also   secularly   oriented   figure   –   was   the   spiritual   father   of   Unia   but   also   of   the   Holy   Inquisition,   since   he   was   also   endowed   with   an   “ecclesiastic”   recognition.   It   was   only   a   few years   before,   (1204)   that   Constantinople   had   been   sacked   and   destroyed   by   the   hordes   of   Frankish   crusaders,   with   the   blessings   and   the   support   of   that   same   Pope.   Whatever   the   power of   weapons   and   forced   Latinization   had   not   achieved,   the   method   of   Unia   had   undertaken   to   achieve,   acting   as   a   mechanism   of   deception   and   a   “Trojan   Horse”   among   the   Christians   of the East. The   text   of   the   relative   canon   is   as   follows:      “If   in   a   certain   territory   there   live   various   nations   with   various   languages   and   ecclesiastic   rites,   the   bishop   should   elect   worthy   men,   who   will perform   the   divine   service   for   each   single   nationality,   in   its   own   language   and   rite.”     According   to   the   ever-memorable   professor   John   Karmiris,   it   was   along   the   same   spirit   that   the   Bull   of Pope   Innocent   IV   (1243-1254)   was   drafted   in   1254,   which   again   accepted   the   Easterners’   customs   (with   the   prospect   of   gradually   abolishing   them),   followed   by   the   complete   Latinization of the people thereafter. The   first   true   Uniates   were   the   unionists   of   Byzantium,   who   had   signed   and   accepted   the   pseudo-synod   of   Florence   (1439),   under   the   illusion   that   they   had   retained   their   continuance   and their   orthodox   tradition.   It   should   be   noted   here   that   Unia   does   not   only   serve   the   interests   of   the   Papacy   (inasmuch   as   it   facilitates   its   infiltration);   it   also   provides   an   alibi   to   our   own, “westernizing”   unionists,   so   that   they   can   avoid   being   branded   as   traitors   of   local   traditions.   Under   the   pretext   of   having   preserved   external   forms,   they   are   actually   masking   the   betrayal   of their traditions and nationality. During   its   historical   implementation   Unia   linked   itself   to   a   dogmatic   minimalism;   that   is,   to   Rome’s   demand   that   they   accept   the   Papal   dogmas   (primacy   and   infallibility).   This   meant   an acceptance   of   the   Papal   institution,   which   constitutes   the   absolute   basis   of   the   Papist   edifice.   That   alone   is   evidence   enough   of   how   far   away   the   Papacy   is   from   being   called   a   Church. Of   course,   as   already   mentioned,   Uniates   have   in   the   long   run   consented   to   all   the   dogmas   of   the   Latin   “Church”,   and   have   remained   only   formally-externally   linked   to   Orthodox   tradition. To   the   Papacy,   salvation   essentially   involves   the   recognition   of   the   Pope   –   yet   another   example   of   his   anti-ecclesiastic   mien.   In   fact,   the   expedience   that   permeates   the   case   of   the Uniates   is   made   apparent   by   the   fact   that   while   the   Latin   clergy   observes   compulsory   celibacy,   the   Uniate   clergymen   are   permitted   to   marry   –   obviously   in   order   to   facilitate   “Uniatizing”. To conclude, therefore: The   Holy   Inquisition   is   linked   to   the   principle   of   an   unerring   leadership   (the   Pope’s   infallibility),   which   was   “dogmatically”   instituted   by   the   leading   scholastic   of   the   Medieval   era,   Thomas Aquinas   (†   1274).   The   element   underlying   Papal   infallibility   was   the   Frankish   interpretation   and   usage   of   Augustine’s   teaching   on   predestination,   in   a   secular-political   context.   Unia springs   from   the   demand   to   impose   another   basic   Papal   dogma:   the   primacy   of   authority   within   the   entire   Christian   world.   This   was   elaborated   and   implemented   in   the   16th   century, because   that   was   when   an   event   of   tremendous   significance   took   place:   the   genesis   of   Protestantism   (1517).      The   Papacy   now   turned   to   the   East   seeking   support,   in   the   hope   of balancing out its contestation in the West. 6. Unia and the Christian East Unia   is   not,   nor   can   it   be   perceived   as,   an   “intermediary   body”   between   Orthodoxy   and   the   Papacy.   It   is   a   veritable   part   of   the   Papacy,   comprised   only   of   geographically   “Eastern” Christians   who   are   fully   incorporated   in   the   Latin   “Church”.     The   term   “the   West   of   the   East”   has   quite   aptly   been   used   in   their   case,   as   it   had   for   Protestantism. The   only   thing   they   have   in common   with   Orthodoxy   is   their   “rite”,   although   it   is   so   alien   a   clime   to   them   that   one   can   tell   from   the   performing   of   the   Eucharist   just   how   foreign   Orthodox   liturgical   practice   is.   Uniates, not   being   a   genuine   item,   simply   mimic   the   Orthodox.      Unia   continues   to   be   –   according   to   the   Patriarchal   Encyclical   of   1838   –   “a   secret   method   and   an   infernal   instrument   by   which   they seduce   the   gullible   and   the   easily   deceivable   towards   Papism.”      Unia   identifies   with   Papism.   In   fact,   Uniates   support   the   Papal   institution   with   a   fanaticism   far   greater   than   that   of   the Roman   Catholics.   Among   the   latter,   there   are   some   who   manage   to   disengage   themselves   from   the   “papist   mysticism”   that   is   artfully   cultivated,   especially   among   the   lower,   popular classes,   and   who   exercise   a   degree   of   criticism   of   the   Pope   (for   example   in   Latin America).   But   Uniates   hinge   their   very   existence   on   the   Papist   institution,   which   is   why   they   become   the staunchest   supporters   of   the   Pope.   That   is   also   why,   although   Rome   gladly   accepted   –   or   even   assisted   -   the   assimilation   of   Uniates   in   older   times,   nowadays   it   discourages   their assimilation   and   instead   prefers   to   maintain   them   as   they   are. This   is   because   it   uses   their   loyalty   in   order   to   restore   the   Pope’s   wavering   prestige   in   the   West.   Uniates   today   are   forced   to maintain   the   religious   customs   of   their   individual   homelands:   Greeks,   the   Greek   customs;   Syrians,   the   Syrian   customs,   etc.,   the   pretext   being   the   “universality   of   the   Church”   –   that   is,   of Papacy – which thus appears as a universal “power”. The   complete   excision   of   Uniates   from   the   Orthodox   corpus   was   a   common   conscience   among   the   orthodox   faithful   in   older   times,   when   spiritual   reflexes   were   still   functioning   properly. This   is   why   the   people   and   literate   theologians   up   until   the   19th   century   did   not   refer   to   them   as   “Roman   Catholics”,   but   as   “Papists”   and   “Catolicans”   (taken   from   the   Italian   term “Catolico”).   With   regard   to   their   essence,   Saint   Mark   of   Ephesus   (†   1444)   called   them   “Greco-Latins”   and   “half-beast   humans”.   The   expansion   of   Ecumenism   also   brought   about confusion in the terminology used, so that today, we need to re-define matters once more. Historically,   Unia   was   engaged   at   the   most   suitable   moment   in   the   service   of   the   Papist   State’s   political   designs   (up   until   1929)   and   thereafter   of   the   Vatican’s   (as   a   geographically truncated   Papist   state),   but   also   of   the   Roman   Catholic   Leaders   and   Governments   dependent   on   Rome   or   collaborating   with   it.   That   is   why   Uniates   do   not   get   themselves   directly involved   in   political   intrigues,   as   their   existence   alone   facilitates   the   expansionist   political   plans   of   the   Papacy   and   its   allies.   Thus,   the   term   “battering   ram”   with   reference   to   Unia   is   not   at all far from the truth. From   the   very   first   moment   of   implementation   of   the   idea   of   Unia   and   the   formation   of   Uniate   communities,   the   supervision   and   the   steering   of   this   movement   was   assigned   to   the   Order of   Jesuits   –   the   most   reliably   dedicated   servants   of   Papal   authority;   if   the   expression   may   be   permitted,   they   were   Papacy’s   “commandos”. The   Jesuit   Order   was   founded   in   Paris   in   1540, where   the   “Sacra   Congregatio   de   Propaganda   Fidei”   came   to   belong,   and   to   which   Unia   was   appended.   The   “Congregatio   pro   Ecclesia   Orientale”   was   then   founded,   as   a   “branch   office” of   the   above   Congregatio;   as   of   1917,   this   became   a   self-inclusive   organization   designed   for   the   promotion   of   Papist   propaganda   in   the   regions   of   the   East.   It   was   here   that   Unia   was finally   appended   from   that   time   on,   and   has   remained   in   that   relationship   to   this   day.      Unia’s   dependence   on   the   Jesuit   Order   rendered   it   Jesuitism's   “dragnet”   for   the   promotion   of   Rome’s interests.      A   glorious   victim   of   Jesuitism   and   Unia   was   the   martyred   Ecumenical   Patriarch   Cyril   I   Loukaris   (†   1638),   who   had   opposed   the   plans   of   both;   he   of   course   was   not   the   only victim in the Hellenic East. In   1577   in   Rome,   Pope   Gregory   XIII   founded   the   Greek   College   of   Saint   Athanasius,   a   School   of   theology   for   the   preparation   of   Uniate   staff   members   who   were   to   undertake   the necessary   activities   in   the   Hellenic-speaking   regions   of   the   Ottoman   Empire   as   well   as   the   Venetian-occupied   territories.      The   graduates   of   this   College   would   sign   a   Bull   of   subservience to   the   Pope   upon   their   graduation,   and   eventually   became   the   fanatic   supporters   and   preachers   of   the   subjugation   of   the   Orthodox   to   Rome.   Their   activity   was   catalytic   for   Orthodoxy. Being   the   first   to   utilize   the   colloquial   language   in   their   printed   material   gave   them   immense   potential   to   access   the   commoners.   It   was   for   this   reason   that   the   Ecumenical   Patriarchate, faithful to its ethnarchic role, immediately adopted the same measure, so that its flock might be duly informed. But   Unia’s   activity   did   not   limit   itself   to   spiritual   means   only.   Wherever   local   state   government   was   pro-Papist,   raw   violence   was   also   resorted   to,   in   order   to   subjugate   the   Orthodox.   This happened   in   Poland,   towards   the   end   of   the   16th   century.   The   king   of   Poland,   Sigismund   III   (1587-1632)   became   the   instrument   of   the   Jesuits   Possevin   and   Skarga,   as   well   as   of   the Uniates.   Being   a   Papist   himself,   the   king   chose   the   Pope’s   friendship   for   the   promoting   of   his   own   political   relations   with   Europe.      Sigismund   imposed   Unia   on   the   Orthodox   of   Poland,   as well   as   Lithuania   and   Ukraine,   in   a   violent   manner,   following   the   Uniate   synod   of   Brest-Litovsk   (1596).   Every   opposition   was   confronted   violently   by   the   Latins   and   the   Uniate   clergy,   and   a mass   of   crimes   was   committed.   In   the   above   synod,   almost   all   of   the   bishops   signed   the   union   and   millions   of   Orthodox   were   forcefully   made   Uniates.   The   remaining   Orthodox   were subjected   to   unprecedented   persecutions.   Unia   spread   in   parallel   into   Trans-Carpathian   Ruthenia   (sub-Carpathian   Russia)   in   the   17th   century   (1646),   into   Slovakia   (1649),   into Transylvania   (1698/99)   and   generally,   wherever   there   was   an   Orthodox   corpus   of   faithful   (Serbia,   Albania,   Bulgaria,   Georgia,   Ecumenical   Patriarchate,   Greece).   The   military   conflict between   Poland   and   Russia   in   the   17th   century   took   on   the   character   of   a   purely   religious   confrontation,   given   that   the   objective   of   Papism-Uniatism   was   to   strike   the   “protector”   of   the Orthodox – the Tsar – and to impede the expansion of Protestantism. However,   Papism   also   infiltrated   the   Middle   East   through   Unia,   by   taking   advantage   of   the   local   squabbles   arising   between   ecclesiastic   groups   from   time   to   time,   or   the   ignorance   of   the local   Clergy,   or   the   adventures   of   the   population   and   the   voids   that   were   created.      “Protection”   was   also   provided   through   Unia   to   the   potentates   of   Europe,   along   with   comprehensive poemantic,   educational   and   financial   organization.   In   fact,   in   countries   with   which   the   Vatican   has   contracted   diplomatic   relations   or   concordats   over   the   last   decades,   Unia’s   position   is automatically   upgraded   and   empowered,   and   its   activities   greatly   facilitated. As   a   method   of   expansion   or   strengthening,   Unia   (like   all   heresies   and   propagandas)   utilizes   “philanthropy”, because it is the easiest way to deceive... and not only the simpler people. During   the   last   four   centuries   Unia   has   also   been   active   in   the   “anti-Chalcedonian”   Churches   of   the   East   (Ethiopian,   Armenian,   Coptic,   Malabar,   Syro-Jacobite).   It   has   furthermore infiltrated   the   Assyrian   Nestorian   Church,   which   resulted   in   the   creation   of   the   Chaldean-Catholic   Church   of   the   Middle   East,   with   faithful   in   Iraq,   Syria,   Lebanon,   Turkey,   Israel,   Egypt, France   and   the   U.S.A..   In   Syria   in   1724,   the   Uniate   Melchite-Catholic   Patriarchate   among   the   Melchites;   that   is,   the   old   Orthodox,   who   are   faithful   to   the   Byzantine   emperor   (Melchites, from the word “malkā” = king). Its jurisdiction, beyond the Middle East, extends nowadays as far as Europe, America and Australia. Recent   reclassifications   in   the   region   of   Eastern   Europe,   especially   in   the   former   Soviet   Union,   provided   the   Vatican   with   the   opportunity   to   hasten   to   fill   the   voids   that   were   created,   using Unia.   In   fact,   Unia’s   move   and   its   promotion   was   accompanied   by   the   artfully   spread   Papist   propaganda   that   the   Uniates   had   been   victims   of   Communist   brutality,   and   that   with   their resistance,   they   had   contributed   towards   the   fall   of   existent   socialism.     Although   it   is   a   fact   that   the   Papists   or   Uniates,   like   the   Orthodox   and   other   Christians,   also   had   victims   of   their   own between   1917   and   up   until   the   Perestroika,   what   is   being   artfully   concealed   is   the   collaboration   of   Papists   and   Uniates   with   the   Nazi   powers   and   the   betrayal   of   their   homeland   during World   War   II   –   something   that   provoked   Stalin’s   fury   and   induced   his   actions   against   them.   It   was   the   Orthodox   who   had   shouldered   the   immense   burden   of   defending   the   Soviet   Union from   the   Nazi   hordes,   whom,   thanks   to   Pope   Pius   XI’s   concord   with   Hitler   (1933),   the   Papists   and   Uniates   of   the   Soviet   Union   and   other   eastern   European   Countries   had   accepted   as friends and allies. It   is   also   a   fact   that   with   the   synod   of   Lvov   (March   1946)   Stalin   had   taken   his   revenge   on   the   Uniates,   by   forcing   them   in   Ukraine   to   unite   with   the   Orthodox   Church   of   Russia.   Within   that turbulent   atmosphere   and   the   surprise   advent   of   the   Perestroika,   the   Uniates   of   Ukraine   surfaced   once   again   provocatively,   under   the   guidance   of   the   Vatican,   not   only   projecting   their demands   in   an   intense   manner,   creating   unbearable   situations   for   the   Orthodox,   but   with   their   obvious   vindictiveness   and   vengefulness,   they   resorted   to   violence   and   vandalisms   (with human   victims).   Thus,   the   Uniates’   hatred   towards   the   Orthodox   (and   the   fact   that   their   role   is   motivated   by   foreigners)   became   evident   one   more   time.   This   was   obviously   not   an impulsive   explosion   which   had   no   presuppositions;   it   was   the   instructions   of   the   Vatican   that   had   encouraged   the   Uniates   and   their   provocativeness,   thus   precipitating   the   ensuing   political developments.   By   general   admission,   the   strings   were   pulled   by   the   Pope   and   the   Curia   from   Rome.   The   Vatican   continues   in   this   manner   to   enforce   its   age-old   policy   against insubordinate   Orthodoxy,   by   again   electing   to   turn   the   most   audacious   and   effective   weapon   against   it:   fanatic   Unia.   Also   more   than   obvious   today   is   the   Vatican’s   involvement   in   the Balkan   crisis   (Croatia,   “Macedonia”, Albania)   and   its   implementation   there   of   the   same   tactics.   The   Papist   element   and   Unia   undertake   the   execution   of   the   Pope’s   commands,   who   has ready   Uniate   solutions   for   these   regions   -   and   indeed   for   the   case   of   pseudo-“Macedonia”   -   by   acting   in   an   underhanded   and   treacherous   manner   against   Hellenism   by   undermining   its rights.      It   has   in   fact   become   known   that   the   Pope   is   working   towards   “Uniatizing”   the   hierarchy   of   Skopje,   having   even   given   his   promise   to   “upgrade”   the   “Church”   of   Skopje   to   the   status of   Patriarchate.   This   scheduled   upgrading   of   the   “Church”   of   Skopje   will   be   an   immediate   challenge   and   an   attack   on   the   Churches   of   Greece,   Bulgaria   and   Serbia;   Skopje   will   surely hasten   to   take   advantage   of   this   upgrading   in   order   to   achieve   its   political   goals   –   to   the   detriment   mainly   of   our   Homeland,   which   they   seek   to   shrink   in   size. The   “unionists”   of   Byzantium and all the present-day concordant minds are once again disproved. The Vatican does not desire to become a true friend of Greece and Orthodoxy! That is what the facts show. 7. Unia in Greece When   speaking   of   Greece,   we   imply   the   Hellenic   State   (from   1830   onwards),   because   even   as   early   as   the   ages   of   slavery   (Turkish   occupation,   Venetian   occupation),   the   Uniates   had already   developed   a   significant   deal   of   activity   within   the   historical   Hellenic   region,   moving   within   the   boundaries   of   both   the   Ottoman   Empire   as   well   as   the   Venetian-occupied   territories. As   underlined   above,   the   graduates   of   the   College   of   Saint Athanasius   had   developed   an   intense   Uniate   (unifying)   movement   among   the   peoples   with   the   same   nationality   and   language as   them.   The   Jesuits,   who   were   supporters   of   this   Uniate   move,   also   appeared   in   Constantinople   from   1583,   and   with   the   means   they   had   at   their   disposal   (money,   publications,   political backing), they became the “evil demon” of the Romaic Ethnarchy, which bore the responsibility for the entire Romaic populace – the Romans (Orthodox) – of the Balkans and Asia Minor.  The   actions   taken   from   time   to   time   by   the   Ecclesiastic   Leaders,   and   indeed   by   Patriarchs,   against   the   operations   of   Unia,   are   the   direct   confirmation   of   the   deteriorative   presence   of   Unia in   the   “East”.   It   was   precisely   these   operations   of   the   Papacy   in   the   East   through   Unia   that   were   the   reason   for   the   convening   of   the   Pan-Orthodox   Synod   of   1722   in   Constantinople,   in which   the   Patriarchs   Jeremiah   III   of   Constantinople,   Athanasius   III   of   Antioch   and   Chrysanthus   of   Jerusalem   had   participated.   In   a   related   encyclical   addressed   to   the   Orthodox   faithful (Addendum   1),   the   Synod   condemned   Unia   and   pointed   out   the   dangers   that   its   activities   in   the   East   contained. An   analogous   action   was   taken   by   the   Ecumenical   Patriarch,   Gregory   VI in   1838   (Addendum   2),   thus   revealing   the   continuing   Uniate   menace.   The   Patriarchal   Encyclical   referred   to   them   as   “wolves   in   the   guise   of   sheep,   insidious   and   impostors”,   castigating their   dark   operations   in   Syria,   Egypt   and   Palestine   mainly. After   the   Crimean   war,   Uniate   activity   began   in   Bulgaria   –   an   eparchy   of   the   Romaic   Ethnarchy   –   an   action   which,   in   conjunction with   other   factors   (pan-Slavism),   led   to   the   Bulgarian   schism   of   1870   and   the   Bulgarian   Exarchate   (1872).   But   even   in   1887,   the   Ecumenical   Patriarchate   again   castigated   the   illegal Uniate   activities,   in   one   of   its   Encyclicals.     As   of   1897,   the   action   of   the   French Assumptionist*   monks   began   in   the   East;   these   were   the   envoys   of   Pope   Leo   XIII.      Their   leaders   were   the renowned   scientists   L.   Petit   and   J.   Pargoire,   who   had   tainted   their   reputations   with   their   propagandist   role.   The   Assumptionists   had   undertaken   to   support   the   Uniates   of   Bulgaria   and were   also   propagandizing   Unia   in   Constantinople   and   Thrace.   Furthermore,   on   the   instruction   of   Pope   Benedict   XIII,   Latin   clergymen   had   officiated   wearing   Orthodox   vestments   in   the Papist   schools   of   Constantinople,   naturally   for   propagandist   reasons.   Thus,   the   Ecumenical   Patriarch   Joachim   III   was   compelled   to   issue   a   new   (24.3.1907)   Encyclical   against   Uniates and Papist propaganda. *   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. Continued  :  Part 2